COP24: Day 11

[vc_row type=”in_container” scene_position=”center” text_color=”dark” text_align=”left” overlay_strength=”0.3″][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_position=”all” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ width=”2/3″][vc_text_separator title=”DAY 11: KEY UPDATES” title_align=”separator_align_left”][vc_column_text]We have new texts in all issues being discussed, and here we highlight what we think are some important points!

FINANCE
Under the new text, developed countries have to communicate every 2 years the finance that they will give to developing countries. If a developing country is also a donor, can communicate that information voluntarily, but it is not compulsory.

These communications will start in 2020 and now have a clear structure: there will be a compilation by 2023, which will be brought and discussed into a workshop and a high-level event. The input will serve the global stocktake and COP.

It includes providing qualitative and quantitative information, but there is no mention of support for Loss and Damage. Countries have to indicate how funds are “new and additional” and have to aim on a balance between mitigation and adaptation.

GLOBAL STOCKTAKE
Lots of concerns were heard about this specific issue, which is very crucial for the future of the climate negotiations.

The text explains the 3 different parts of the stocktake: information collection, technical assessment and consideration of outputs.

A technical dialogue will support the assessment in 3 thematic areas: mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation and support. As footnotes of the text, we can see how response measures is linked to mitigation and loss and damage to adaptation.

The participation of non-state actors becomes more limited with this text, because they will not be able to access the inputs collected for the review, therefore making it more complicated to do its own assessment.

The text considers that each country can define equity as they want (in a party-driven manner), so seems that there was no consensus reached on how to operationalise that concept.

TRANSPARENCY

According to iiSD, there is now a sense of “consensus on Loss and Damage within the Transparency negotiations, but not in the global stocktake. ”

ADAPTATION FUND:

Kimmo Tiilikainen (Finland) reported that the bilateral meetings on Adaptation went well, and that he has collaborated with the Finance negotiators as well. As a result, he is calling his Adaptation Fund text an “almost clean text”.

COMPILED TEXT

At 3am today a draft of the final text (compiling all the other ones) was released.

It has very vague references to the IPCC report on 1.5 degrees, “inviting” parties to use the information, and still leaves open how to link its science for next year.

The compiled text also “takes note” of the outcome of the Talanoa dialogue and “invites” parties to consider its outcome – not making any string or compulsory to increase ambition.

Also “notes” the Just Transition declaration, which we are not sure unions will be very happy about[/vc_column_text][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”30″][vc_text_separator title=”OTHER NEGOTIATION UPDATES” title_align=”separator_align_left”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”30″][vc_column_text]From last week, we had a nice summary of the progress in SBSTA (the technical guidance part of the UN climate talks). As you might remember, we got a nice Indigenous people’s platform, but didn’t finalise discussions on bunker fuels (shipping and aviation) and 1.5 – they will all be discussed next June.

In the SBI – there was a confident beginning to the review of the Paris Committee on Capacity-building (PCCB); review of the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN); and REDD+ institutional arrangements.

New text: The text was introduced to Ministers in a “Sejmik” style – in honor of the 550th anniversary of the first meeting of the Polish parliament. Lets hope we’re not debating it for the next 550 years.[/vc_column_text][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”30″][vc_text_separator title=”OTHER UPDATES AT COP24″ title_align=”separator_align_left”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”30″][vc_column_text]

[/vc_column_text][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”30″][vc_text_separator title=”FROM OUR FELLOWS” title_align=”separator_align_left”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”30″][vc_column_text]For any Arabic speakers, Meriam (TAP Tunisia) has done an extensive breakdown of Arab country positions that you almost never see – both where they align, and where they diverge.

India and Pakistan don’t see eye-to-eye too often. In an extensive analysis, Manka (Times of India) highlights the incredible climate collaboration that is bringing these two star-crossed rivals together.
If you care about 1.5 you need to care about deforestation. Putting it simply, there are no emissions scenarios that work if we keep cutting down forests. Hans (Mongabay) has looked into research by Rainforest Action Norway to highlight that the world’s key rainforests are all still being cut down. And only Indonesia really plans on stopping this.

Poland has won the “Colossal Fossil” for this year, but its unlikely this gets much local media. Our Polish Tracker,Gabriella (Wyborcza) has been publishing pieces everyday on its lack of ambition though. Here’s her latest piece calling out Poland’s silence.[/vc_column_text][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”30″][vc_text_separator title=”WIDER NEWS” title_align=”separator_align_left”][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”30″][vc_column_text]Australia to miss its Paris Targets – by the odd 1.1billion tonnes. That’s thanks to new data previously unreleased by the Australian Government which shows that emissions have risen to record levels.

Canada is also struggling, and many countries are looking for them to support NZ in pushing for more emissions reduction cuts.

The NYT has investigated the role of oil companies to push back on emissions standards in the US, and how they have won big with his recent emissions cut-backs.

Should we call it global “heating” instead of warming?According to Professor Richard Betts at the UK Met. office we should that’s because it more accurately describes the global energy imbalance. “Global warming doesn’t capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate,” he said.[/vc_column_text][divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][vc_column_text]Photo: Kiara Worth, ENB

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive these daily updates by email.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_position=”all” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ width=”1/3″][/vc_column][/vc_row]