*[Enwl-eng] [can-eecca] ECO - Friday, June 21

[ENWL]

Game of Baselines


We’re back for another session of Article 6 negotiations. ECO knows that 
when it comes to the game of baselines, it’s time for Parties to take heed 
of lessons learned from the KP and other mechanisms. Otherwise, winter is 
coming…


Strong environmental integrity principles are critical for the Article 6.4 
rules so that parties are prevented from gaming their baselines, and instead 
adopt accurate and conservative baselines. Baselines should reflect a 
conservative emission pathway to avoid hot air and non-additional credits in 
the 6.4 mechanism.


Baselines should be proposed by host countries, and approved by the 
Supervisory Body only if they are conservative, dynamic, and standardized. 
Ideally, they should be set at BAU or the level of policies incorporated 
into a host’s NDC, whichever is lowest. Under no circumstances should 
baselines be set above BAU, which would lead to the issuance of hot air 
credits.


In practice, ECO knows that quantifying policies in an NDC — first at the 
scale of sectors, and then projects — is challenging, and will require 
technical support and capacity building.  However, it is key to the 
principle of additionality that baselines be set at a level which takes a 
conservative approach to the calculation of “what would have happened 
otherwise,” and that they be re-set through a dynamic updating process.


The world needs ambition, and ambition means adoption of the best available 
technology, taking into account relevant national circumstances such as 
demonstrated economic barriers to adoption. Crediting replacements for the 
same old dirty fleet of cars or power plants isn’t just gaming, and bad for 
the atmosphere. ECO is also curious how Parties will apply conservative 
baselines if they proceed with removing brackets and start to allow removals 
of emissions into Article 6. There’s no “best technology” for ecosystems, 
and ECO has long warned Parties that BAU isn’t good enough when it comes to 
ensuring additionality for ecosystems.


It’s high time for Parties to stop the games and get real about baselines.




----




Gender Action Plan, let’s pump-it-up!




Still don’t grasp what the GAP is all about? What if we tell you that 
advancing gender mandates will give a real boost to your climate action?




Parties have just spent the last 4 days reviewing what has been achieved 
under the Gender Action Plan (GAP) so far and guess what? Implementing the 
GAP is not so scary after all. The gender workshop organized by the UNFCCC 
Secretariat Gender Team under its mandate, engaged all participants in a 
positive spirit thanks to fruitful experience sharing. Successful stories 
were presented by Finland, Tonga, and Bolivia. For instance, did you know 
that Chile engaged in a national gender-diagnostic and a targeted capacity 
building process in the energy, agriculture and fishing sectors to adopt a 
gender approach in its mitigation actions?




We also listened to the Adaptation Committee, CTCN, IPCC, PCCB, GCF, and WIM 
ExCom as they gave us the latest update on how they integrate gender 
equality in their actions. It’s clear, gender is relevant in all articles of 
the Paris Agreement: UNFCCC constituted bodies have done their homework; now 
Parties, it’s up to you!




We want a comprehensive, targeted and resourced GAP, as part of a renewed, 
long-term Lima Work Programme (LWP): this is critical to strengthen 
gender-responsive and human rights-based climate policy. Advancing gender 
equality belongs to the adaptation mandate, so why not engage with local 
communities and provide safe, intentional, and welcoming spaces for women to 
share their knowledge on climate resilience?




The GAP is a key mechanism to achieving the 1.5°C goal, not a “nice to do” 
element, but a must do. The time to move towards a second phase of planning 
has come. It’s time for commitment to progressive targets on women’s 
meaningful participation. Let’s put money where our mouths are: in 
activities that enhance the capacity of Parties and stakeholders to develop 
gender-responsive policies, plans and programmes on adaptation, mitigation, 
capacity-building, technology and finance! The Gender Just Climate Solutions 
has actively showcased some of the best practice examples of 
gender-responsive climate action. These provide key learnings and encourage 
the upscaling of effective small-scale solutions.




We see fierce female youth leaders leading the student strikes weekly, and 
they can count on our full solidarity — Can they count on yours?




----




Less is more on the New York scene this fall

Are you also a Head of State stressing out about what to pack for the 
climate summit in September? Fear not. ECO has everything you need to know 
on this year’s most important trends. As you know Secretary General António 
Guterres has asked Heads of State not to bring speeches but to bring action 
plans in line with 1.5 ºC. But ECO realises that some countries might not 
remember what ambitious action looks like. So, as a special service for 
those countries and for the viewing pleasure of the rest of you, ECO has 
today decided to bring the following picture as our centrefold:




This very fetching curve is bound to become a hit in New York this autumn. 
What you’re looking at is a depiction of the brand-new 70% reduction target 
that the incoming Danish government announced last night. Notice the clean 
lines, plummeting curves and great timing, just beautiful.

First to catch ECO’ eyes is how the 70% target in 2030 signifies a clear 
progression from previous efforts, especially the last few years. Secondly, 
extend the curve. Extend it all the way to where it will touch the x-axis. 
Notice that the intersection point will be in ca 2040. Notice how this makes 
it a beautiful match with the IPCC 1.5°C report, which for sure will be the 
talk of the town this fall in New York.

ECO also notices that at the StepUP2020 Booth, right here at the venue, many 
developing countries have been announcing their intention to enhance their 
NDCs by 2020.  But hey - what happened to the other developed countries? - 
what plans will you bring to New York? Don’t be shy - pass by the booth and 
flash your newest style!




----




Move out of the way CIFs — Let the New Kid on the Block Shine




It is tough to be the new kid on the block, especially when you are trying 
to do things differently than those who have been around the block a couple 
of times. Especially when those other guys still want to stick around — even 
though they were invited to the block party only for a little while — and 
are playing by a different set of rules.




ECO has been reminded of this during the past few weeks with the Green 
Climate Fund (GCF) seeking its first formal replenishment this year, while 
the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) are pondering recapitalization at the 
same time. The CIFs were set up 10 years ago to be temporary players in the 
block party of multilateral climate finance, with the expectation that they 
would eventually gracefully move out of the way (aka “sunset”). This was 
supposed to happen once the GCF had shown that it is ready to fulfill its 
birthright -- namely to be the main kid on the block for helping developing 
countries implement climate actions and raise their ambition under the Paris 
Agreement. Some 102 approved projects and programs worth USD 5 billion 
later, there can be no doubt that the GCF is ready to do just that. So, 
there is no need for the CIFs to stick around any longer.




Making matters worse, the CIFs are playing under very different kinds of 
rules than the GCF. CIFs are not governed under the Climate Convention and 
its principles, and don’t receive or follow COP guidance. In contrast to the 
CIFs’ governance structure, the GCF has a “country-driven approach.” It is 
accountable to the institutions and people in developing countries, and has 
placed a premium on providing readiness support to developing country 
entities, becoming in the process the largest multilateral funder of such 
support. Additionally, most CIF funding, some 86 percent in fact, was 
earmarked to be allocated to mitigation. In view of the real climate 
emergency affecting the poorest people and vulnerable countries, even 
threatening their survival, multilateral funds can and must do better. The 
GCF has not only committed to an even split between adaptation and 
mitigation finance, it also safeguards half of all adaptation spending for 
SIDS, LDCs and African states.




While the GCF is working hard to invite many to its climate finance party as 
partners (it has now 84 of them, with 48 coming from developing countries 
which can access GCF funds directly), the CIFs only allows a handful of 
multilateral development banks (MDBs) to its finance pots.  Extending the 
life of the CIFs would allow just a few privileged players (some might even 
call them block bullies) to get more than their fair share of public climate 
finance as implementers. In effect, with the MDBs having exclusive access to 
CIF funds, and also receiving funding for implementation from the GEF 
(including the LDCF and SCCF), the AF, and, yes, the GCF, it’s clear to ECO 
that they have overstayed their welcome. Have the MDBs never heard that it 
is impolite to double- (or even triple-) dip from the public climate finance 
dish?




The GCF in many ways is the new and improved kid on the climate finance 
block, as it applies lessons learnt from other funds, including the CIFs, 
and pushes itself to improve further. It commits to a gender-responsive 
approach to its funding – the first climate fund to do so from the outset of 
its activities. While the MDBs still have issues with committing outright to 
upholding human rights, the GCF has strong human rights-based principles 
enshrined in its environmental and social policies, as well as a separate 
Indigenous Peoples Policy. And let’s talk a bit more about accountability to 
people and communities, and transparency of actions. The GCF’s independent 
redress mechanism, which enables people and communities to raise complaints, 
has the most forward-looking features of any comparable mechanism and is 
setting new international best practice. The GCF is also more transparent 
than the CIFs, including by making recordings of Board meetings publicly 
available to watch at any time.




So let’s move out of the way, CIFs, for good, by sticking to your own 
(sunset) rules, and moving the MDBs out of fossil fuel financing for good. 
Funds directed to the CIFs should instead go to the GCF —ECO thinks that 
would be the better contribution to the implementation of the Paris 
Agreement. It would give the GCF the room that it needs to become the 
biggest kid on the climate finance block, to signal to developing countries 
that support is there for them to raise their ambition next year, and to 
raise confidence that the developed countries’ commitment to mobilize USD 
100 billion annually by 2020 can be reached. Don’t crash the GCF 
replenishment party.




----




Finance Smoothie



Did you know ECO was here before the smoothie bar?

Smoothie machines are great. You get a blender and insert let’s say apples 
and oranges and you could try to get a smoothie… wait... what?? Would you 
really drink a smoothie made of apples and oranges? We all know that does 
not make a good mix. If you think about it, apples and oranges are normally 
placed in separated baskets when you go to a store. And at the end of the 
day, just like you can’t compare loans and grants, you don’t mix apples and 
oranges.


ECO has been actively observing the discussions on transparency of support, 
particularly those linked to the adoption of the common tabular format of 
the Enhanced Transparency Framework agreed in Katowice (CTF). This CTF aims 
to enhance trust and make room for the new types of information that 
countries agreed on — support provided, mobilized (for contributor 
countries), received and needed (for developing countries).



ECO listened carefully and wonders if this warm weather and the accumulated 
number of smoothies negotiators have had lately to quench their thirst has 
inspired them to come to the room with very interesting and creative 
proposals to make the best out of this CTF. ECO wants to weigh in:



  a.. ECO agrees that the already existing CTF constitutes a good basis for 
negotiation. However, as many Parties mentioned in the room, this is an 
enhanced CTF we’re looking at, meaning that Parties should provide better 
quantitative and qualitative information. And by the way, this would also be 
an opportunity to make sure the data reported under the UNFCCC finally 
matches the one reported under the OECD DAC.

  b.. In Katowice, countries agreed on very important principles to be 
reflected (some “as available”, some “as applicable”) as part of the new 
reporting: climate specificity and grant equivalents. Well, it’s time to 
incorporate this in the new CTF, and the best way to do it would be to 
include them in specific and separate columns, next to the overall amount of 
the reported activity. Remember, apples in one basket, oranges in another.

  c.. Furthermore, ECO advises parties to make sure that there is 
comparability between the tables for the support provided (or mobilized), 
and the support received and needed. To make this happen, both contributors 
and recipients should agree on the amounts to report so they match in the 
corresponding tables. So if one claims to have given an apple the person who 
received it should be able confirm it was indeed an apple.

  d.. Finally, ECO would strongly encourage you to report support at the 
activity level, and not only aggregate figures. Just like if you want to 
report the apples, the are reported one after the other, this is as simple 
as that.













-- CAN-talk Listserv | CAN-talk at listi.jpberlin.de | 
https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/can-talk | Emails received 
through CAN-talk are confidential and should not be circulated beyond CAN 
members unless otherwise stated. -- Subscribe to CAN's ECO Newsletter @ 
http://climatenetwork.org/eco-newsletters --





-- 

Best regards,
Tatiana Shauro
I support #FridaysForFuture. Lets Unite behind the science.



Communications Department
Regional Campaigns Communications Officer EECCA
(Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia)
Climate Action Network-International (CAN)
Skype: samaparodia
tshauro at 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


From: Tatiana Shauro
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 1:40 PM
Subject: [can-eecca] ECO - Friday, June 21

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.enwl.net.ru/pipermail/enwl-eng/attachments/20190622/26458692/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2019-06-20 at 7.50.58 PM.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 84089 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.enwl.net.ru/pipermail/enwl-eng/attachments/20190622/26458692/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ECO 21_06_2019.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 446161 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.enwl.net.ru/pipermail/enwl-eng/attachments/20190622/26458692/attachment-0001.pdf>