*[Enwl-eng] [can-eecca] ECO - Friday December 7
ENWLine
12 years left: What have you done to respond to the SR1.5?
There are good surprises and there are bad surprises. The end of the technical phase of the Talanoa Dialogue had a good surprise with some delicious cake to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the IPCC. The latest Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) text had a bad, down-right horrible surprise. Notwithstanding the fact that we only have 12 years left to avert the climate crisis, all Parties could muster was to ‘note’ the SR1.5! ECO was quite perplexed as Parties have welcomed the last two assessment reports (review 5/CP.13 and 12/CP.20 if you have forgotten). So, how could it be that for a report that has put in stark contrast the difference half a degree makes and the need to act now, all Parties could do was to ‘note’ it!?!
And why are we not moving forward on the Indigenous People’s Platform? Indigenous Peoples’ struggles and the causes of the climate crisis have a long, intertwined history. Governments and fossil fuel corporations have collaborated to abuse indigenous rights and increased emissions pollution. Protecting and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples is the most effective and ethical way of mitigating climate change and adapting to its impacts. It is the low emissions pathway Parties have been looking for.
The process of developing and operationalizing the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples’ Platform has been delayed multiple times. Political agendas have hijacked the process, shifting it from a space created to uplift Indigenous Peoples towards one which reveals Parties’ lack of ambition.
But why are indigenous rights important to limiting warming to 1.5? Moderate climate actions will neither keep us below this mark nor protect Indigenous Peoples. Protecting and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples is the most effective and ethical way of mitigating climate change and adapting to its impacts. It is the low emissions pathway Parties have been looking for. We have the knowledge and the tools already available. All we need is resources and space to be at the table.
ECO would like Parties to take note: the atmosphere does not negotiate. The SR1.5 is not just another report stressing the urgency to act, and the Indigenous People’s Platform is a powerful tool that is being pushed to the side. With 12 years left there is no longer time to “take note” and delay. We need action now.
----
Technology stumbling backwards, not leaping forwards
The transfer of innovative climate technologies should help developing countries leapfrog straight to growing in a clean and resilient manner, while addressing issues of sustainable development. The Technology Mechanism has had a head start implementing the Paris Agreement and ECO was happy to see the achievements so far at the Mechanism’s side event as well as events on the work of the Climate Technology Centre of Network (CTCN) and Technology Needs Assessments.
Yet, in the negotiations of the Period Assessment of the Technology Mechanism here at COP24, ECO has seen Parties taking a jump backwards; trying to shirk their responsibilities under Article 10 of the Paris Agreement, in which paragraph 6 clearly states that “support, including financial support, shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article”.
How can Parties expect developing countries to respond to the stark warnings from the IPCC 1.5 SR , to both rapidly cut GHG emissions in the next 12 years and adapt to the serious impacts of global warming, if they actively deny developing countries the fair opportunities and support to utilise the most appropriate and transformative technologies to leapfrog to inclusive and green growth?
ECO implores Parties to rekindle their cooperative spirit, and finalise negotiations under Article 10 here in Katowice; ensuring adequate support for gender-sensitive collaborative technology development to enable developing countries to leap towards resilience and prosperity, rather than being drowned by our rising seas.
----
Voices >From the Front Lines
Inuit intuition: Impacting our Inuit Identity
Inuit experiences need to start being taken into consideration for the world’s future. When it comes to climate change, seeking our guidance on how to live sustainably will shape what happens to the Arctic. It’s time to listen to Inuit and Indigenous peoples of Canada who have already experienced life-threatening emergencies and are at the front lines of the disaster that is climate change.
Inuit have provided
life-saving guidance to early European visitors who were unfamiliar with the
severe conditions of this land we call home. The whole planet benefits from our
frozen Arctic. Inuit still have much to teach to the world about how vital the
Arctic is, not only to Inuit culture but to the rest of the planet.
Temperatures in the Arctic are rising faster than anywhere in the
world, and Inuit are guides as to how everyone can live more sustainably. As
Inuit youth, climate change is affecting the foundation of who we are. Our
identity, our food, our language, our culture are all at risk. In Greenland,
glaciers are melting and the risks of tsunamis from landslides is growing. It is
becoming more dangerous, and the elders’ wisdom is being challenged by this
changing climate and unpredictable weather. Elders’ traditional knowledge is not
being heard, and researchers are being respected more than our Indigenous
Knowledge. There is more in the Arctic than just polar bears. The Inuit are
working hard to strengthen our values in this changing society, but the land
that we base the teaching from is changing. This all impacts that which makes us
Inuit.
By Mary Binky Anderson, Ruth Kaviok and Sarah Jancke from the National Inuit Youth Council
----
Operationalization of the Indigenous Peoples’
Platform
Globally, Indigenous solutions have set a precedent for successful action on climate change. In the Paris Agreement, we see recognition of this fact through the establishment of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform. This platform has three functions: knowledge exchange and sharing of best practices; capacity for engagement; and climate change policies and actions.
At COP23, the platform landed a momentous decision to adopt four principles put forth by the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change: i) full and effective participation of indigenous peoples; ii) equal status of indigenous peoples and Parties, including in leadership roles; iii) self-selection of indigenous peoples representatives in accordance with indigenous peoples’ own procedures; and iv) adequate funding.
Here in Katowice, we are seeking to operationalize this in the Facilitative Working Group, which includes the governance structure of the platform, the Facilitative Working Group (FWG), as well as the modalities for the development of a work plan.
These conversations have not been easy; as one negotiator put it: reaching “painful consensus”. Two key challenges include how to define “Local Communities” and whether to include the language “safeguarding the territorial integrity and political sovereignty of states”. Parties and Indigenous Peoples have spent many hours debating these two challenges. After a breakthrough on the concept of Local Communities fueled by an informal Tinku(meeting) held in Bolivia, the debate has settled on one single issue: Should language referring to safeguarding the territorial integrity and political sovereignty of States be included? And if so, how? Great… Nice to see that indigenous peoples still have to justify their own space within the world.
But, alas! On Wednesday afternoon after the room reached a potential deadlock, new proposals were raised in an attempt to find common ground. The COP23 decision regarding the platform refers to “balanced representation” with respect to the structure of the FWG and this was emphasized by the Indigenous Peoples Caucus during negotiations. Many voices around the table expressed a desire for the platform to be operationalized. Many parties also voiced a willingness to be flexible in the face of a lack of consensus. Last night an agreement was reached on some of the significant concerns of the negotiations. This leaves hope that negotiations will remain on track for a Friday deadline.
The voices of Indigenous Peoples must be centered in our global approach, as oftentimes we are the first to be affected by the impacts of climate change. An ideal outcome on the platform provides one vehicle for this to happen.
----
Proxy questions for the multilateral assessment speakers’ list.
ECO is looking forward to observing the second set of facilitative sharing of views and the multilateral assessment workshops today. Since ECO can’t ask questions during these workshops, we figured we’d share our questions with you anyway.
ECO is eagerly awaiting news from Germany’s coal commission, while noting the discrepancy between scientific results (SR1.5) and Germany’s declared intentions at international conferences and its domestic climate policy. What measures is Germany planning in the energy sector to achieve its national climate protection targets by 2020? How many gigawatts of coal-fired power plants will have to be shut down to achieve that target? What is Germany doing to create the necessary framework conditions to reduce its transport emissions by 40 to 42 percent by 2030, as indicated in its NDC?
While Czechia is projected to meet its 2020 target, the planned extension of the Bílina open-cast lignite mine calls into question its ability to continue to achieve emission reductions and raises the possibility of future stranded assets. Phasing-out coal energy by 2030 at the latest will be critical for Europe and the OECD in responding to the SR1.5. When will Czechia announce such a phase-out and introduce measures to deliver it?
Andorra, Lebanon, Namibia and Tunisia have all submitted two BURs. According to the GEF, Namibia is on track to submit its third BUR by the end of this year. ECO would like to know what the secret is to this regular and timely reporting?
Should Parties want to hear more from ECO, be sure to allow for observer questions in the Enhanced Transparency Framework as part of the Paris Rulebook.
----
Losing time over timeframes
Sitting in the common timeframes (CTFs) discussion yesterday, ECO is disappointed by the lack of progress and backsliding of the discussion. Noting that countries have already started to discuss the timeframes for NDCs before Paris, ECO couldn't help but wonder - are we really going to take 5 years (or even longer) to agree on 5-year common timeframes?
Hearing many countries strongly supporting the 5-year option, and a very limited number of countries going for the 10-year option, ECO can't understand why a substantive decision can't be adopted at this session. Can the ones that really prefer 10-years stand up and say that? By the way, EU, South Africa was wondering why you spoke extremely little. In ECO's view, CTFs is not just a rulebook issue, but vital to the ambition of the Paris regime. The ones that support 5-year are supporters of ambition.
Finally, ECO is very concerned about the reference in the text to CTFs being applied from 2041 onward. If it remains in the text, it would be significant backsliding for both the rulebook and ambition.
----
Wolf
in the Sheep’s Clothing
Walking around the COP, have you already met the ‘wolf in the sheep's clothing’? The people who dress in green and call themselves ‘climate heroes’, asking everyone to sign their petition? Read the small text. They are promoting another extractive industry, which, just like coal, burns a fuel. In addition to this, it destroys the land for thousands of years. Indeed, these are the uranium lobbyists. Today is Indigenous Peoples’ Day. According to the World Information Service Energy (WISE), almost 80% of the uranium supplying the world’s nuclear power plants is mined on indigenous territories with terrible human rights violations. But the good news is that today a new scientific research report is being presented at COP24 at a press conference this morning. The main point of this report is that nuclear has a much longer climate shadow than what nuclear lobbyists have claimed. It is time for that ‘emperor’ nuclear to be shown as it is: a nude, false pathway. In particular, public money is being used for subsidizing the entire industry, as well as the pronuclear UN consultancy, which hides under the name of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We continue to pay them taxes to promote their private business interests with billions of dollars. Money is lost for the urgently needed fast energy transition to 100% renewables. Instead the UN should be protecting the human rights of the most vulnerable: Indigenous Peoples, people of color and with low income who are those targeted by uranium mining and nuclear waste. Clearly, the IAEA is not fulfilling its role of protection. Stop the fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies.
----
Who Will Hold the Leadership Umbrella for the Group?
Ever been in a small crowded room when people put up an umbrella? Awkward, right? That’s how it's feeling here in Katowice.
The Umbrella group is an interesting bunch, and, in many ways, they don’t have all that much in common. Canada is today’s crown jewel – a little ECO-round of applause for their plans to raise their emissions targets by 2020 - we look forward to hearing more when Minister McKenna is in Katowice next week. And at the G20, Australia, Canada, Russia and Japan all showed their unflinching commitment to Paris, whereas the US played the awkward child asking for its own special paragraph. And the likes of Iceland, Israel and Norway go back and forth but are always keen to embrace the latest clean tech. We are still waiting to see if New Zealand will step up and become a champion in climate leadership or simply waste all its potential.
This diverse bunch might be limping on but if they really want to remain true to the Paris Agreement that means doubling down on a strong transparency regime. We thought these guys were all about being at the cutting edge — building on the present — modernising for the future And yes, here we’re talking about doing MORE, NOT LESS on transparency at home and in supporting countries internationally.
These guys need international cooperation to help them trade and develop. This means that if they want to make multilateralism work here in Katowice, they need to make it work for all countries. This means keeping the funds and mechanisms in place to build the capacity and capability for countries to deliver on ambition and finance everywhere.
ECO is watching and be warned: backsliding is not cool.
----
Three years after Paris - An Indigenous Guide to Progress on the Paris Rulebook
At COP24, many of us recall the vision of the Paris Agreement – that of rights based climate action. In the next 48 hours Parties need to stand up for rights based climate action so that the Rulebook affirms this vision.
• In the guidance for NDCs: Parties should be requested (or invited) to provide information regarding how stakeholders have been consulted in the planning of the NDC as well as their integrated issues related but not identical to human rights. These include Indigenous Peoples rights, the rights of persons with disabilities, just transition, gender equality, food security, ecosystems integrity and protection of biodiversity, and intergenerational equity.
Although it is by no means adequate, this could be one of the only avenues for human rights language in the rulebook, and so it is critical that it is retained!
The latest negotiating text contains brackets around this language and also misses the latter three elements which would need to be added.
• In the guidance on Adaptation Communication – Parties should be requested to provide information regarding how their actions are gender responsive, participatory and based on and guided by knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems – as explicitly mandated in Article 7.5 of the Paris Agreement.
• In the Transparency Framework and the Global Stocktake – The transparency framework contains only a few references to participation and access to information and to the role of gender/Indigenous People knowledge and participation in adaptation action. These options must be retained. The Transparency Framework also contains an option that would enable NGOs to participate actively in the final stages of the transparency process, and Parties must support this option.
In relation to the Global Stocktake the most important reference for now is to secure the active participation of observers at all stages of the GST. Supporting this language would guarantee that a broad range of themes can be discussed as well as ensuring that civil society and Indigenous Peoples perspectives can be heard through the GST.
----
If not now, when?
Up until now, climate finance has always been determined by developed countries - they decided what to provide, when, and for what. It’s been a Wild West, and a recipe for mistrust. Now that it is part of an international agreement, very close to adopting this COP24 Rulebook package, we have reached a crucial opportunity for developing countries to have their say in what climate finance should look like. By helping shape the rules, emerging economies will steer climate finance to where it is most needed.
We all know climate finance was a crucial element in the deal that was struck in Paris. Developing countries, many of which have contributed very little to the causes of climate change, have taken their share of responsibility in helping to stabilise the climate. But in order to achieve this, they were offered substantial financial support. Paris also recognised that developing countries are often on the frontline of impacts of climate change, while lacking the resources to respond – another good reason to support them financially.
Not less than $100 billion was offered in Copenhagen. Parties have agreed many times, for example in Lima, that developed countries would provide new, additional, adequate and predictable funding to developing countries. When you think about it, the Copenhagen commitment was made close to a decade ago, and we are still in the dark regarding what the $100 billion stood for. The Paris Agreement sets a whole range of priorities and criteria for this climate finance, in article 9.4. There needs to be a balance between adaptation and mitigation; it must be informed by country-driven strategies, priorities and needs; it must prioritize the countries hardest hit and with most limited capacities, particularly least developed countries and small island developing states. Furthermore, it refers to the need for public and grant-based resources particularly for adaptation.
Yet, close to the year when this should all materialise, official reports from the OECD and the SCF paint a very different picture of climate finance. We see that more and more of it is serving mitigation rather than adaptation and taking the form of loans rather than grants. Far from being prioritised, LDCs are having great difficulties accessing climate finance. ECO is particularly surprised about the loans. Aren’t economists warning about an emerging debt crisis in many countries?
ECO understands and supports the likes of Ecuador and Malawi who, in the contact group, asked for the calculation of the real grant equivalent value of loans and other risk instruments that increasingly make up climate finance. They’ve made a very reasonable point, and we don’t understand why, particularly the European Union, is not making a move to support these countries on this issue. They already calculate the grant equivalent value of their ODA in the OECD database, can they not report the same for climate finance?
ECO is wondering how many of the people who are taking hits on the frontlines of climate change are seeing any impact of these funds. The accounting rules that now seem to be negotiated until the late hours of every day are essential for making sure that the support provided actually serves its purpose.
---
We Need To Talk About Climate Displacement
UNFCCC negotiators immediately understand the terms “Loss and Damage,” “Mitigation,” “Adaptation,” and “Capacity Building.” But these are all words that mean nothing when you stand to lose everything. When you’ve lost everything after a super typhoon hits your home, you understand the definition of “climate refugee”; but apparently UNFCCC negotiators cannot.
To put the problem of climate migration into context, a potential 1 metre rise in sea level, which we could see by 2050, could displace up to 20 million people in Bangladesh. For those who are at risk of being displaced due to man-made disasters, there is no choice. We all have a right to a safe and secure home. A home, which protects us from irreversible climate change. A home, which keeps us dry, warm and healthy.
Yet we still lack international protection for those forced to find a new place to call home. Migrants forced to cross international borders do not qualify as refugees, because climate change does not fall under the definition of persecution. Those choosing to move to different areas in their own countries, in anticipation of oncoming disasters, droughts and floods, are classified as economic migrants not deserving of protection. Protection is fragmented and inconsistent. Climate change is not always recognized as a primary migration driver.
To ensure we are addressing this and preparing to protect global citizens, we need the willpower to accept a common definition for what constitutes a ‘climate refugee’.
To mitigate any further crises of human displacement, we need willpower from you, ECO readers. Let’s make sure it gets onto the agenda! There is no time to waste; humanity needs action now!
----
Climate Action Network-International (CAN)
Skype: samaparodia
tsh...@climatenetwork.org
https://www.facebook.com/tatiana.shauro.3
www.climatenetwork.org
www.facebook.com/CANInternational
Twitter: @CANIntl
Subscribe to the ECO newsletter: http://climatenetwork.org/eco-newsletters
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service
Russian: ENWL (North West), ENWL-inf (FSU), ENWL-misc (any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
Send information to en...@lew.spb.org, enwl...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org
Subscription, Moderator: vf...@lew.spb.org or en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
Additionally: http://www.enwl.net.ru/
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------