ECO 5, COP29

WHO’S MISSING FROM COP AND WHY THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE

Brace yourselves – this is not going to be an easy read, but ECO couldn’t find a way to lighten the mood.  

Take a look around and see who’s not here. It might look crowded, but many of the people walking through these halls are not those who are fighting on the frontlines for climate justice (on the contrary, ECO has intel that an interesting analysis about that might come out soon).  The voices of these missing environmental human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples, trade unionists, activists, journalists, and local communities are essential to achieving effective climate action. However, shrinking civic space keeps many from the table through intimidation, surveillance, malicious litigation, imprisonment and sometimes physical attacks and murder in countries in all regions, hindering their ability to participate freely and meaningfully.

The repression of environmental human rights defenders is a global issue and it is worsening with each passing year. In Azerbaijan, where COP29 is being hosted, UN experts have raised concerns about politically motivated detentions of climate and anti-corruption advocates ahead of the conference.  High level speeches questioning the independence of civil society only contribute to the chilling effect that such repression causes:  it affects not only those directly targeted but also discourages others from speaking up, mobilizing, and pushing for transformative climate action and justice. ECO stands in solidarity with all those arbitrarily detained. They must be released immediately and unconditionally.

To fulfill its mission, the UNFCCC and global leaders must ensure that COP29, and every UNFCCC meeting in the future, is a safe space for everyone. For true progress, the conference must hear from those in this country and beyond who bring the lived experiences and local knowledge essential for effective climate solutions. Let us work to create a world where defending our planet does not mean risking one’s freedom, or worse, one’s life. An inclusive space for civil society and Indigenous Peoples is non-negotiable if we are to build a just and resilient future. There is no climate justice without human rights.

The climate finance game show quiz !

Which country is the second biggest exporter of fossil fuel emissions in the world and continues to approve new coal and gas projects? Ding! Australia. That is correct. 

Which country is bidding to host COP31 in partnership with the Pacific, and yet whose Prime Minister has no plan to attend COP29? Ding! Gold star, Australia.

Which country hasn’t advocated for loss and damage to be included in the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance, and instead has presented many positions that are contrary to their Pacific partners? Ding! Ding! Ding! Australia. Correct! 

Now for the trillion dollar question. Will Chris Bowen, Australian Climate Change Minister and Ministerial Chair of the climate finance negotiations, actually lean in and try to drive and land a just agreement on the new climate finance goal. One that meets the needs of its Pacific partners and all developing countries??

Wait, don’t answer now. Let’s wait and see! 

Science Alert: Carbon Markets Still Don’t Work
Negotiation texts are not the only documents that ECO has been reading. Yesterday, a fresh, peer-reviewed paper was published in Nature Communications. This meta-analysis of carbon credit quality found that the impact of carbon credits was, on average, 6 times lower than claimed. The sample covered 2,346 carbon market projects that make up roughly a fifth of all issued carbon credits – almost 1 billion credits.
Imagine the car (or bike!) you drive, the laptop you use, the planes you step into, the food you eat had over an 80% probability of malfunctioning or causing you harm. You probably would not put much trust in those products.

Yet every time we step into the COP bubble, delegates herald carbon credits as magic that will deliver climate action, finance, sustainable development, health benefits, community engagement, … happiness, good food, toddlers that don’t cry too much, people who smile during their morning commute, and much more. Oh, and of course the “potential” savings of 250 billion US dollars! (ECO almost forgot – thanks to the International Emissions Trading Association for this “realistic” estimate of the “potential” benefits of Article 6!)
ECO is left with just one question: when will the evidence become simply too overwhelming to ignore? ECO has hoped for years that delegates would wake up to reality and again sincerely hopes that day has come. Parties, the decision to heed this warning rather than hiding your head in the sand is up to you.

The systemic issues in accurately quantifying emission reductions, now confirmed once more, must be central in ongoing negotiations surrounding market mechanisms at COP. The gap between where we are and where we need to be is too wide for marginal improvements and incremental changes to make a meaningful difference. People and the climate can’t afford false solutions.

We can’t keep repeating mistakes of the past, which you all recognized in Paris when you agreed to incorporate lessons learned into Article 6. So perhaps you shouldn’t just look at the latest iteration of the text, but also the study: “Systematic assessment of the achieved emission reductions of carbon crediting projects”.

Putting the climate vulnerable into debt
We have known for a long time that there is a vicious cycle connecting climate impacts to debt distress.

When climate vulnerable countries have high levels of debt, they have to spend more on repayments and less on climate adaptation.
This makes them more vulnerable to climate disasters and other long term climate impacts, which can cause economic damage as well as social and environmental loss.

The economic impacts of climate change then reduce the country’s income and GDP, making it harder to pay off the existing debt. Often there is a need to borrow more to repair the damage that has occurred.
They have less and less capacity for climate adaptation making them more vulnerable to future climate and economic crises.

The new report from Caritas Oceania, Caritas Australia and Jubilee Australia, Weathering the Storm: debt and climate vulnerability in the Pacific, takes a close look at current and predicted levels of debt across seven Pacific Island countries. It also evaluates forecasts for climate impacts and climate finance needs.

While it finds that some Pacific countries have low levels of debt, others, including Fiji, Samoa and Tonga are worryingly high, with Vanuatu projected to worsen in the future.

Additionally there is a major discrepancy in the amount of climate finance being delivered and the estimates of what is needed. Estimates of total finance needs for Pacific nations (mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage) are around USD$1.5 billion per year, although this is likely to be an underestimate. Current financing going to the Pacific is estimated at USD$0.2-0.6 billion, far short of what is needed.

Accordingly, solutions include an immediate increase of climate finance to the Pacific to ensure that mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage are adequately funded. This finance should be additional to official aid, consistent with UNFCCC goals, and have enough proportionately set aside for adaptation and loss and damage.

Second, this finance should be in the form of grants not loans and it should be from country contributions to a simplified public financial vehicle under the UN rather than the multilateral development banks

Third, steps must be taken to improve the global community’s capacity to address and respond to sovereign debt crises. Not doing so will result lead to further harm.

Privatising climate finance?

ECO sat through the high-level sales pitch from the multilateral development banks (MDBs) who are bidding to play a central role in delivering climate finance, and to get a special mention in the NCQG text. What was the big offer they were selling? To take our precious climate finance, dress it up as climate action and hand it to their big private sector buddies. They say our billions will leverage the private trillions. But ECO asks what these trillions will be for, other than profits and adding to shareholder value? The MDBs are looking increasingly like investment bankers, not climate bankers. And ECO knows what they are hiding in these halls, that most of them continue to bankroll and promote fossil gas interests across the world. Have the MDBs forgotten their mandate as development banks to eliminate poverty and boost shared prosperity, plus their commitment to align with the Paris Agreement 1.5C goal? 

For any institution wanting endorsement in the NCQG, ECO needs to hear less about ‘green’ bonds, equity finance and carbon markets (say it again with us, carbon markets are not climate finance). Instead, hopeful institutions need to be accountable to the farmers struggling to water their crops, the families whose homes have been destroyed by floods, workers who put their wellbeing on the line labouring in extreme temperatures, and women who have to walk several miles to get water for their families. These people are the primary stakeholders for climate action, not big business. 

ECO has observed at the developing country pavilions that the WBG has been instrumental in helping countries prepare their climate finance strategies, which predominantly emphasize the role of the private sector. However, there has been a noticeable lack of consultations with the civil society, citizens and the relevant stakeholders during the formulation of these strategies. This absence of broader engagement raises significant concerns as participation is a human right. Moreover, it was surprising that the strategy was presented by the Bank representative rather than the country officials at the launch event. It raises major red flags  on the ownership and the legitimacy of these strategies.

The Emission Gap Report and the Adaptation Gap Report are looking for their third musketeer

Imagine ECO’s excitement when it heard many countries calling for a loss and damage gap report as negotiations on the 2024 review of the WIM kicked off. Of course it is mainly developing countries making these calls, as they are disproportionately facing climate impacts. Mitigation and Adaptation already have gap reports; it is now time for their third musketeer, Loss and Damage, to have one as well.

The loss and damage framework is coming into its own and is almost ready to join the team after bringing together a policy (WIM ExCom), a technical (SNLD) and a financial arm (FRLD). The only things still missing are money, knowledge on the extent of the harm that frontline communities are facing and how to remedy those harms. That means: clarity on financial and non-financial needs and how these will evolve over time with rising temperatures, and evaluating existing solutions. And now that there is finally recognition for the need to scale up finance for loss and damage and a Fund to put it in, we urgently need to assess if that is really happening and from where money will come. 

To bridge the knowledge and finance gaps, an annual Loss and Damage Gap Report is essential. By mandating such a report, the WIM review can contribute to ensure better and targeted support for frontline communities, and to enhance action and support. A Loss and Damage Gap Report is not just necessary; it’s overdue. Let’s close all the gaps to fight the climate crisis!

Climate Finance Realities vs. High-Level Expert Fantasies

ECO has insisted on the need for the NCQG to be in the trillions, to reflect the increasing needs of developing countries for adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage. We need trillions in public provision and mobilisation, to reflect the difficult intersecting realities of climate impacts, development needs, growing debt issues and shrinking fiscal space in developing countries, particularly those most vulnerable. 

The so-called International High Level Expert Group (IHLEG) on climate finance seems to have found some some highly creative ways to find the trillions, mostly by making developed countries pay for a crisis they didn’t cause with money they do not have and by expecting them to put whatever resources they have left after facing the worst of the climate crisis in making themselves attractive to the private sector. This proposal that developed country parties are all too keen to point is not only unjustly shifting the burden and responsibility for dealing with the climate crisis on developing countries and private actors, but it also simply doesn’t add up. 

First, it relies on unfair and unrealistic expectations for the potential levels of domestic resources that the Global South can mobilise. If the IHLEG and developed countries want to rely on this, they should at least include proposals that push Western countries to agree to change our neocolonial tax, debt, and trade rules, which have for the longest time extracted wealth from the Global South and shifted it to the Global North.  A start would be for the 8 developed countries opposing the establishment of the UN Tax Convention that would unlock a fairer system needed to make this possible to endorse such an effort. 

Relatively less egregious is the reliance on unrealistic and undesirable levels of private sector finance, which according to the IHLEG would increase at a meteoric rate if only developing countries did more to make themselves attractive, by putting profit over the wellbeing and resilience of their citizens. This, accompanied by a growing MDB role, which will continue to push loans on already highly indebted developing countries, is sold to us as the key to unlock the trillions.

Somewhere over there, almost as a footnote to all this, is the public finance that developed countries have the obligation to provide, but that seems to never be enough to meet the pressing  needs of developing countries, because this finance is needed elsewhere, to fuel wars, continue subsidising polluters and fill the pockets of the rich and super-rich.

ECO would like to remind Parties that the private sector didn’t sign the Paris Agreement, governments did. We have no way to hold the private sector accountable, and so when the private money fails to materialize, they will blame the governments of the Global South for this failure. 

We have enough public money, as proven by the trillions spent on all sort of harmful activities every year and we expect those trillions to be reallocated to save, instead of harm, the people of the Global South.

––
Download file: http://ECO-15-11-2024-.pdf