ECO 3, COP29

Are leaders serious? Putting the COP29 cart before the horse. 

The World Leaders Summit began at COP29 yesterday with flowery words to tackle the Climate Crisis that are supposed to inspire progress and action. But let’s take a moment and reflect on the disconnect between these powerful, poetic and completely incoherent proclamations and the reality in the corridors and meeting rooms where progress is all too often slow, uninspired, unjust and often plain insipid. 

We need an ambitious climate finance goal from COP29 in the range of trillions of dollars for the Global South to cope with climate change. Until a few years ago, we were able to hold world leaders’ feet to the fire when their summits followed on the heels of negotiations. But post-Glasgow, it is now the other way round – they are putting the cart before the horse.

There are two possible reasons for this incoherence: either our leaders are completely insincere in their stated intentions, or they are totally clueless about what their delegations are up to. If they can’t even keep tabs on – or guide – their own teams, how can they possibly be in touch with realities on the ground?

Neither possibility inspires confidence in our leaders’ ability to confront an existential crisis. How long can they continue to speak out of both sides of their mouths? It’s imperative they resolve this incoherence and bring their delegations in line with their stated intent. As much as the world and humanity is threatened by the climate crisis, it’s this disingenuousness – or outright ignorance of their own positions – that’s pouring fuel on the inferno threatening to engulf us all.

DO’S AND DON’T’S FOR THE NCQG

Negotiations on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance got off to an exciting start. Yesterday morning’s monotony was broken by the news that the G77 had rejected the framework for draft negotiating text that was issued a month ago. ECO must confess that it wasn’t impressed by the framework, which was unbalanced and contained many problematic options. The fact that the G77 collectively called it out, to make it more aligned with the mandate and the scope of the new goal, is a good opportunity to take out the garbage. 

ECO is happy to give a little shortlist for co-chairs and Parties to look at:

DOs: 

• Make the structure right: Ensure a public provision core scaled up grants and grants based finance from developed countries.
• Make sure Loss & Damage are in: “In” means “in a subgoal”. It is essential that the NCQG answers to developing Parties’ needs and priorities, and this, like it or not, includes sizable amounts of finance for addressing loss and damage. 
• Guarantee access: This is not about wishful thinking but rather about making it operational – you know, actions not words for delivery of money to communities and people.
• Exclude bad finance from the goal: ECO is a bit tired of hearing that in 2024 we could still be counting loans at market rates, export credit, and finance for fossil fuels (yes, you read correctly) as climate finance…time to get a bit serious, isn’t it?
• Tax justice for more money: If you heard about the argument mainstreamed by developed countries that “there is not enough public finance”, what about starting to look for the finance where it is at? This isn’t the first time ECO has told you about taxing rich polluters, big industries and redirecting harmful subsidies as excellent ways to raise some funds. ECO would really like to see this being clear in the new text.

Don’t’s:

• Do not include an expansion of the contributor base: Developed countries cannot hide behind it as a condition to fulfil their long overdue obligations. And by the way where is the quantum of finance they are willing to put on the table?
• Do not prioritise private sector-first solutions (or do not include an investment layer): This is a shallow excuse from developed countries to not fulfil their obligations, shift the burden of climate finance, and force decisions based on profits and not needs.

• Don’t run away from the UNFCCC to other landscapes like MDBs: While they continue to focus on loans, drive de-risking, guarantees, and impose conditionalities  and austerity measures, they cannot play a bigger role on climate finance. Plain and simple. 
• Do not include debt inducing mechanisms or other false solutions like debt swaps

The Hague gave Shell an emission lifeline, Baku its fossil free afterlife? 

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled in the landmark climate case of Milieudefensie against Shell. The court made it crystal clear: Shell has a human rights duty to reduce its climate pollution in line with the Paris Agreement.

However, ECO is absolutely disappointed that the Court allowed Shell’s appeal against the earlier order to cut the company’s climate pollution by 45% by 2030 – in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assessment of emissions reductions needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. This is a lifeline for a desperate industry.

The ruling did simultaneously warn ALL fossil fuel companies. As far as ECO knows, this is the first case where a court has acknowledged that new investments in oil and gas are incompatible with international climate goals and may violate human rights obligations.

By 2025, countries must set national pathways for a just and equitable phase out of fossil fuels. Non-state actors must also reduce their scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions in their new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)– starting with no new expansion of fossil fuels.

If countries do not give this certainty in their NDCs, then citizens will take them to the Courts. This is already happening. There is a rising tide of litigation against big oil and gas. Yesterday, Shell was on trial in the UK too, where people are challenging its plans to start drilling in the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields. 

So negotiators have a choice: let courts decide, or step in and bring NDCs that offer certainty with fossil fuel phase out plans. ECO hopes for the latter.

700% increase in the number of people impacted by climate disasters in the Pacific

When two category 5 tropical cyclones slammed into the island nation of Vanuatu in the span of one week in 2023, it caused loss and damage equivalent to 43% of its GDP. Vanuatu received less than half that amount in support from the international community and went on to be hit by a third cyclone later that year.

The research ECO read that was published by Oxfam Australia this past Monday shows this is not an anomaly. Across the Pacific, the number of people impacted by climate disasters has increased 700% in the last decade. In a region numbering 14 million, extreme weather and climate events have affected 6.9 million people in the Pacific over the past 20 years. Total costs from climate disasters have also increased eightfold in the last decade. Losses were on average 14.3% of total Pacific GDP per year over the past decade.

These new findings are a somber reminder why it is essential that governments agree on a strong, climate finance goal, with sub-goals for loss and damage and adaptation to ensure these nations receive the funding they need. At the risk of ECO becoming a broken record, governments could raise these funds by taxing the fossil fuel industry, finally making them pay for the climate damage they are causing. 

The COP29 Gender Decision: It’s Not Flashy, But It’s Fierce!

As delegates flock to Baku for COP29, all eyes are on the glitzy topics of finance and emissions reduction. But there’s another, less flashy, yet fiercely important issue on the agenda: the renewal of the Lima Work Program on Gender. Sure, it might not be grabbing headlines, but this decision has the potential to change the game for women and gender equality in climate policy over the next decade. And if there’s one thing we know about game-changers, it’s that they often work quietly, behind the scenes—until they make a splash.

Let’s face it: if the climate crisis were a festival, women, girls and gender diverse people would have the very worst seats (if any at all) in the house. They’re among the most affected by climate impacts and, as we all know, the impacts of climate change aren’t getting any easier to handle. With the new decade for the LWPG looming large, this is our chance to push for a decision that addresses the real, lived experiences of women, girls and gender-diverse people worldwide, who are feeling the burn of climate change every day.

Now, before you let your mind wander to the next flashy agenda item, consider this: the renewal of the Lima Work Program is about ensuring that climate action actually means something to the millions of women, girls and gender diverse people who shoulder an oversized share of the climate burden. We need parties to take this seriously—to roll up their sleeves and get into the nitty-gritty of how to  make climate policies work for everyone. That means tackling some big questions around finance and implementation. It’s about time we move from the warm and fuzzy words to the cold, hard cash needed to put these policies in place.

And let’s talk inclusivity. A strong program doesn’t just wave around words like “intersectional” and “comprehensive” for brownie points. It actually delivers on them! This means making room for everyone: women, girls, LGBTQIA+ folks, indigenous groups, and others who bear the brunt of climate impacts. And because we’re serious about accountability, this renewed program needs clear indicators and a timeline to keep us on track—and maybe even a little checklist to make sure we’re all doing our homework.

As members of the Women and Gender Constituency, we’re here to say: don’t let this moment slip away. We urge parties to make this COP29 decision one that future generations will thank us for. Gender justice isn’t just a nice add-on; it’s the backbone of effective climate action. So let’s make sure this Lima Work Program renewal has the muscle to create real change, and let’s put “intersectional” to work in a way that leaves no one behind.

This COP29 might not have a Hollywood blockbuster vibe, but who needs blockbusters when you’re building a better world? Let’s do this, Baku!

––
Download file: http://ECO-13-11-2024-.pdf