8/4/2019 ECO 3 - 3rd October

1/2

CLIMATENEGOTIATIONSPANAMAOCTOBER11NGONEWSLETTER

ECOhasbeenpublishedbyNon-GovernmentalEnvironmentalGroupsatmajorinterna:onalconferencessincetheStockholmEnvironment

Conferencein1972.ECOisproducedco-opera:velybytheClimateAc:onNetworkattheUNFCCCmee:ngsinPanama,October2011.

ECOemailadministra:on@climatenetwork.orgECOwebsitehp//climatenetwork.org/eco-newsleersEditorial/Produc:onJoshuaDarrach

3October

TheMandate

Issue

ISSUENO3VOLUMECXXIXFREEOFCHARGE

The MandateYesterday, ECO noted that there are

three groups of countries in the legal formnegotiations that each need to bringproposals to the table at Durban: the KPdeveloped countries, the non-KP Annex IParties and the developing countries.

All the developed countries that haveratified their Annex B targets for the firstcommitment period should have their

targets ready to plug and play for CP2.The non-KP Annex I Party[s] need toincrease their ambition, be part of acommon accounting system and MRV tobring forward the established KP systems -how else would the Bali Action Plansagreed comparability be achieved?

Many are suggesting that we arefacing a transitional period, where thesecond commitment period of the KyotoProtocol keeps alive an architecture that,through Article 3.1 and other elements,keeps a science-based approach at the coreof the global response to the climate

threat. Through this post-2012 period, theelements of a new comprehensive legally-binding agreement[s] needs to bedeveloped. In ECOs view, this agreementneeds to be in the form of a Protocol[s], orother such appropriate legal instrument,that respects the principle of common butdifferentiated responsibil i t ies andrespective capabilities.

However, we will not attainc o m p r e h e n s i v e l e g a l l y - b i n d i n g

agreement[s] equal to the challenge weface unless Parties find common cause thatsuch an agreement is needed. In ECOs

view, in addition to KP Parties agreeing asecond commitment period in Durban, allParties must agree on a mandate tonegotiate a legally binding instrumentcovering all Bali building blocks under theLCA. The necessary, vital and essential

complement to agreeing the KP secondcommitment period in Durban will beParties agreeing a mandate for ac o m p r e h e n s i v e l e g a l l y b i n d i n g agreement[s]. This mandate needs, at aminimum, to agree:

- what the result of the negotiations willbe, specifying that Parties are workingtowards a legally binding instrument withlegally binding commitments- the end date (ECO would suggest 2015would allow time for institution buildingand for experience of MRV to beenhanced)

- the scope- the process, including forum- principles to guide the negotiations

Without a mandate for the thirdperiod of the climate regime, we will againface a gap between commitments, butalso in ambition, and the resulting sense ofthe world moving forward together toavoid the worst that an human-alteredatmosphere can throw at us.

Reassessing

Priorities on Long-

Term Finance

Back in Bonn, ECO complained ththe finance negotiations seemed moconcerned with designing finaninstitutions than deciding where the lonterm finance to fund them should comfrom. The result could be a Green ClimaFund that is an empty shell, and Standing Committee that is left to stanstill.

Paying a quick visit to yesterdayfinance informal, ECO was pleased to sa number of parties stress the need readdress this balance. When Durbdraws to a close, the worlds citizens wfind it extraordinary if the African COdoes not deliver the resources that poand vulnerable people in Africa anelsewhere need to adapt to climate chanand shift to a low-carbon developmepath.

A meaningful decision on long-terfinance in Durban should cover at leathree elements. First, a roadmap is need

for scaling-up climate finance from 2013 2020 to at least meet the $100 billion p

year commitment by 2020. This shouinclude a commitment from developcountries that there will be no gap after thend of the Fast Start Finance period. Troadmap should recognise that $100 billiis needed from public finance mobilisfirst and foremost through assess

- Continued on Page 2, Column 2

http://climatenetwork.org/eco-newslettershttp://climatenetwork.org/eco-newslettersmailto:administration@climatenetwork.orgmailto:administration@climatenetwork.org

8/4/2019 ECO 3 - 3rd October

2/2

CLIMATENEGOTIATIONSPANAMAOCTOBER11NGONEWSLETTER

ISSUENO3VOLUMECXXIXFREEOFCHARGE

budgetary contributions of developedcountries, and through supplementarysources of public finance, such as carbonpricing of international transport orfinancial transaction taxes.

Finally the roadmap should include adetailed workplan to drive towards thefurther decisions needed at COP-18,including technical workshops andsubmissions from parties, experts andobservers.

But negotiators should not besatisfied with agreeing a roadmap alone.They must also get the finance car on theroad and start driving down it.

The second key area to address inDurban is the initial capitalization of theGreen Climate Fund. ECO wants to beclear that an initial capitalization shouldnot merely cover the running costs of the

Secretariat and Board of the new fundover the next year, but must extendcommitment to a substantial first trancheof funding to enable the disbursement ofclimate finance to developing countriesfrom 2013.

Finally, there should be a decision inDurban to move ahead with the mostpromising supplementary sources ofpublic finance. ECO notes that the

International Maritime Organization ready to get to work on designing ainstrument to apply a universal carboprice to international shipping, whicwould both control high and risinemissions from the sector, and raisubstantial new revenues. But the IMprocess is waiting for guidance from thUNFCCC COP on how to do so whirespecting CBDR.

There is no reason to delay givinthat guidance to ensure the IMO gedown to work from March next year. Durban decision should establish thprinciple that CBDR can be addressed bdirecting revenues as compensation developing countries and to the GreeClimate Fund. Further work will still bneeded on the details of implementatiobut better to start those discussions ne

year than wait another 12 months.With progress on these elements Panama, ECO is confident that Durbacan yet deliver an balanced outcome ofinance which helps both to operationalithe new finance institutions needed, and mobilize the long-term revenues. Thpeople watching the African COP wexpect nothing less.

- Continued from Page 1, Column 3

Handing out

Medals in the

LULU-lympics

Looking at the new reports beingposted on the UNFCCC website, ECOfeels some empathy for the reviewerstasked with judging the forestmanagement reference levels.

Since there was no agreement on therules for reference levels, each Party hashad to do its own thing. And the resultslook as disjointed as a talent show. Somesang, while others danced. Some liftedimpressive weights, while others performedmagic tricks. Maybe some have shown realtalent, but how can we judge the quality oftheir performance when we have no basisfor comparison?

Perhaps Parties should take note ofanother multilateral, global process theOlympic Games. In those Games, therules are clear in advance, and thus the

judges are able to score each performanceon a set of common criteria and thosewho dont play by the jointly agreed rulesare disqualified.

It would have made the judges theexpert reviewers job easier if Parties hadagreed to a single method for settingreference levels back in Cancun. And ofcourse, if that method had environmentalintegrity, the climate would be the ultimate

victor. That didnt happen in Cancun,and now Panama may be the last chancefor Parties to recognize that such globalreference levels are in the interest of all ofour national circumstances. ECO says:Go for the gold!

ECO appreciates the critical role ofthe IPCC, which provides scientific inputto the UNFCCC process and led to theConvention itself and its Kyoto Protocol.But how will this link continue in future?

Yesterdays technical briefing by theIPCC was meant to explore how this linkwill continue in the future and how the 5thAssessment Report (AR5) will serve as akey input into the 2013-2015 Review.

E C O a p p l a u d s t h e u s e o f

communication technology (Skype) at thistechnical briefing to cut down onemissions from air travel and foster lower-carbon meetings. The IPCC ChairPachauri promised improved policyrelevance of AR5 compared to anyprevious report, strengthening linksbetween the IPCC Working Groups especially on adaptation and mitigation- toaddress cross-cutting issues. So far, sogood. But how about the actual input for

the Review process? AOSIS (Granadasked this key question at the very end the briefing: How will we merge the IPCtimeline with the Reviews requirementWill the IPCC Synthesis Report bpublished at least a month before thconcluding COP20, al lowing fopreparation of a decision at COP2Apparently, IPCC will ask this question its next meeting in Uganda this NovembeFor ECO theres only one possible answe

it must.But ECO wonders if the Parties a

clear on how the IPCC will input into th2013-2015 Review. To ECO it seems thmore opportunities for Parties to discuthe review with the IPCC are critical help answer the many questions thremain unasked and unanswered on thkey element of hope for our collectifuture.

Scientific Integrity in the

UNFCCC