ECO 8, SB64

16 June 2026

Fair Shares is what delivers the 1.5C commitment

ECO was under the impression that the science on climate change was settled. Sure, the scientific process is iterative, information always evolves and knowledge grows, but the central hypothesis that climate change is real, that a warming of 1.5C marks a point that poses an existential threat to peoples around the world, has long since become a known fact. Nowhere is this truer than in the Global South. Nowhere are the alarm bells louder than in island states and least developed countries. And nobody feels this more sharply than those peoples and communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. The cruelty of the world is manifest in the truth that none of these peoples are responsible for the climate crisis, and yet are in the unimaginable position of bearing its full force.

So imagine our surprise when we heard in negotiation room after negotiation room that there was an attack on science. ECO wondered if we had somehow stepped into a wormhole and emerged 20 years ago.

Let’s be clear, the science on the implications of 1.5C warming is not on the negotiation table – it is already evident as people reel from disaster after disaster, forced to pick up the pieces of their lives again and again. This space, which is supposed to provide reprieve from this unfolding crisis, has failed entirely in doing so. So beyond all the posturing on science, ECO is forced to ask why this is the case.

You barely have to scratch the surface for the truth to emerge, and it is one that does not look good for some of the loudest “champions” of science. While waxing lyrical and gesturing grandly about the absoluteness of science, be reminded that words mean nothing when not backed by action. Many of the countries that are now championing science, are the same ones that are shamelessly expanding fossil fuels, pushing war and militarisation, and pouring trillions of dollars into the black hole of energy-guzzling, emissions-intensive data centres. And while they continue wrecking the planet and putting 1.5C out of reach, they invest in dangerous geo-engineering to continue their emissions expansion. So please spare us the indignation and performative moral outrage. If you are reading this and identify as one of these countries, and are looking for how you can actually respect science, ECO has you covered. In fact, we have been telling you this for years. Don’t worry, we don’t mind repeating ourselves.

Let’s remind ourselves of what 1.5C represents – it is a boundary condition under which differentiation of responsibilities must be given shape. If it was not clear already, the ICJ Advisory Opinion on states’ obligations towards addressing climate change is unequivocal in its assertion on the binding nature of the commitment to limit warming to 1.5C. It is just as unequivocal that the binding nature of this commitment must be informed by equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

The answer therefore is in FAIR SHARES. Deliver your fair shares of emissions reductions domestically and provide the finance to developing countries that you are obliged to, in pursuit of limiting warming to 1.5C, and rooted firmly in science and law. It’s that simple, and then you can really boast about your scientific and moral heft. Unless you do this, the moral plank on which some tend to rest so conveniently, gets weaker year after year. Soon nothing will remain but a strawman.

So, Parties, pull up your socks, deliver your fair shares. Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s get behind the REAL science.

***

Just Transition Text Out. BAM is within reach.

***

State of Loss and Damage report must expose the funding gap

ECO knows you can’t adequately address a problem until you understand the scale and nature of it. We’ve seen the power of the UNEP Adaptation Gap Report in catalysing understanding and action on adaptation and illuminating the massive adaptation finance gap. Now it’s time for the loss and damage gap report, it deserves this focus. 

At COP30, countries decided that the Santiago Network’s Advisory Board would organise the writing of a regular report on the state of Loss and Damage. Today negotiators will meet behind closed doors to discuss the terms of reference for the development of this report. 

ECO understands that drafting terms of reference can be complicated work. But when building the blueprint for the world’s first regular report on Loss and Damage, it would be wise to invite more than a select few architects into the room.

Negotiators often remind us that evidence matters. ECO agrees. But evidence comes in many forms: statistics, science, Indigenous Knowledge, People of African descent Knowledge, community experience, oral histories, and lived realities. If the first Loss and Damage report is going to measure what matters, it must first listen to those who know the harms and costs firsthand.

ECO has high hopes for the first gap report on the State of Loss and Damage. But to be a great success, it requires the following elements.

Firstly, the report must expose the scale of loss and damage experienced by ALL developing countries from climate disasters and from slow moving changes such as ocean acidification, drought, sea level rise and more. It must include economic and non-economic harms, such as on health, education, culture, and land rights. 

Secondly,  it must identify the gap in funding, which ECO knows is more aptly described as a grand canyon in funding shortfalls, as well as gaps in other types of support. 

ECO insists that the report must speak directly to developed countries and other institutions that need to #PayUp4LossAndDamage. It should articulate how much they need to pay up in line with their obligations as affirmed by the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on climate change. 

Thirdly, unlike today’s consultation, the report must gather local knowledge, People of African descent and Indigenous knowledge, the lived experiences of people affected by loss and damage, civil society, and experts. A call for input should be launched at SNAB 7 in September 2026, there is no need to wait!

Finally, ECO expects the report to be ready well ahead of COP32 so that it can inform GST 2. With loss and damage being the third pillar of climate action, naturally the report must have the same status as UNEP gap reports. 

In a world facing climate disaster, upon disaster, year upon year, ECO hopes this report will provide the political and technical evidence, and the real life stories needed to ensure Loss and Damage takes its rightful place in the UNFCCC.

***

PLAY THE ACE CARD

Delegates often speak about implementation.

♠ More ambition. 

♥ More finance.

 ♦ More implementation.

 ♣ More cooperation.

But when the conversation turns to people…

ACE remains stuck in the deck.

ACE, Action for Climate Empowerment, is sometimes treated as the “nice-to-have” agenda item of the UNFCCC. It is not. Without education, people cannot engage. Without access to information, people cannot act. Without participation, policies lack legitimacy. Without training, implementation stalls. Without cooperation, progress fragments.

This week the forgotten child is back again, parties are deciding how to strengthen implementation of the Glasgow Work Programme and ensure that participation reaches all members of society, especially those too often left out of decision-making.

ECO would like to remind parties that climate participation is not meaningful if those facing the greatest barriers disappear from the text and negotiations. You cannot empower “everyone” while failing to name those who are too often excluded.

♠ Indigenous Peoples ♥ People of African Descent  ♦ Local communities ♣ Children and youth ♠ Persons with disabilities ♥ Environmental and human rights defenders ♦ Migrants and displaced persons ♠ Women and girls in all their diversities 

Because climate action is not something that happens to people. It succeeds when it happens with people.

ACE is not a side issue.

It is how we build public support, social trust, accountability, and lasting climate action. So as negotiations continue, ECO has a simple suggestion:

Don’t leave the ACE card in the deck. Play it.

***

Where is the finance for adaptation? Put tripling in the text now!

The latest text released yesterday made no explicit mention of tripling, only a weak reference to a decision paragraph from COP30!

ECO is deeply concerned and would like to remind GGA negotiators once again: the Global Goal on Adaptation is not a technical exercise. It is our lifeline. And it can only become real with the actual provision of finance. Tripling adaptation finance cannot remain just an idea.