Daily Archives: December 8, 2019

Blue COP: A ray of opportunity after a wave of emotional events

Despite more than 70 side events scheduled on the topic of oceans at the Blue COP, the ocean is still on the sidelines. However, with leadership from the small islands and other ocean-minded states, there is a movement afoot to chart a new course for the integration of the ocean-climate nexus into formal international climate negotiations going forward.

COP25 week 1 negotiations culminated in OCEANS DAY less than 24 hours after a sobering session by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding their findings on the state of the ocean and cryosophere (SROCC Report).

A few major takeaways from the 700+ page report include that (1) the ocean has been absorbing a significant amount of the world’s emissions and heat – and it is feeling the effects (2) the frozen regions of the Earth are warming, resulting in losing snow and ice at rates faster than the rest of the world (3) scientists predict that things are expected to get a lot worse and (4) adaption is available, however only to a certain point. IMG_1886The authors left us with the simple, yet profound message that our ocean and cryosphere sustain us, are under pressure and are changing, and affect all our lives. Thus, we must act now.

Despite this call to action, the negotiations seem to be moving at a pace slower than the rate glaciers are melting. Regardless of the pace, oceans are still not part of the actual negotiations at the Blue COP.

Despite being on the sidelines we saw a ray of hope when Dr. Lisa Levin was called to the front stage during the IPCC session on the SROCC report. Earlier this year, we learned about the role of scientists in international negotiations by speaking with Dr. Lisa Levin from Scripps Oceanography. We got to see her in action this week when she was called on stage because of her scientific contributions to the SROCC report.

Despite being on the sidelines we saw a ray of hope when Dr. Lisa Levin was called to the front stage during the IPCC session on the SROCC report. Earlier this year, we learned about the role of scientists in international negotiations by speaking with Dr. Lisa Levin from Scripps Oceanography. We got to see her in action this week when she was called on stage because of her scientific contributions to the SROCC report.

The ocean science reflected in the SROCC report sits on the sidelines of decisionmaking, in particular, because there are no formal negotiations pertaining to the ocean-climate nexus.

So while the youth use their voice to express concern over the loss of a world with vibrant coral reefs and Arctic wildlife like polar bears, the main issue—the global ocean— still does not have a seat at the formal negotiating table. For the past two years, ocean-minded nations have been working together to remedy this issue. The Ocean Pathway, co-chaired by Fiji and Sweden, works to create an “ocean inclusive” UNFCCC process.

H.E. Ms. Helen Agren, Ambassador for the Ocean, Sweden, speaks during an Ocean Day event

H.E. Ms. Helen Agren, Ambassador for the Ocean, Sweden, speaks during an Ocean Day event while Mr. Taholo Kami, Special Representative for the Ocean Pathway, Fiji, looks on

Visionary leadership has emerged over the past week as ocean champions take action. No stranger to voyaging out ahead in uncharted waters, ocean-minded states are leading the effort to include oceans in the formal climate negotiations going forward. Indonesia, Fiji, Costa Rica, Seychelles, Panama, and Palau introduced a joint proposal to integrate issues relating the connection between oceans and climate change into the formal work of the UNFCCC. The proposal aims to highlight the ocean climate nexus and promote as well as ensure that ocean related issues are addressed in international climate negotiations.

An ocean "lady in waiting" at IFEMA. There are over 80 sculptures of Las Meninas placed in iconic spots around Madrid

An ocean “lady in waiting” at IFEMA. There are over 80 sculptures of Las Meninas placed in iconic spots around Madrid

It identifies three deadlines for action. First, it asks the Chair of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to create a dialogue during the fifty-second session (June 2020) centered around the climate-ocean nexus and the most efficient arrangements for addressing these issues under the UNFCCC framework. Second, the proposal invites both parties and non-party stakeholders, and representatives from other international processes, to submit comments on this issue by March 21, 2020. Finally, the proposal asks for recommendations from SBSTA body for consideration during COP26 next year in Glasgow (November 2020).

Sun sets on week one of the COP25 negotiations in Madrid

Sun sets on week one of the COP25 negotiations in Madrid

As we welcome next week’s student delegation, we are delighted at the prospect of having a tangible way to contribute to the future of international climate negotiations, by using the power of our Vermont Law voice towards integrating oceans into the UNFCCC process. Negotiations are far from over, but the way ahead, and our role in contributing to international climate negotiations, is becoming more clear.

 

Should COP25 Re-brand? A “Show Me the Money!” Mentality

Center stage, COP25 seems to be all about money. The negotiations regarding climate finance and adaptation have made little progress this past week because of an ongoing conflict that has dominated negotiations since before the Kyoto Protocol: developed versus developing nations, and their associated financial responsibilities. Existing international legal instruments do not lend themselves to proper management of this ongoing conflict between developed and developing nations, and so it is now manifesting within the COP25 negotiations on the issues of climate finance and loss and damage.

Members of the G-77/China huddle during negotiations. Photo credit: https://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop25/enb/

Members of the G-77/China huddle during negotiations. Photo credit: https://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop25/enb/

It is well established that the developed countries are to blame for the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that is contributing to climate change. However, these developed countries are not the ones who will suffer the most from the perils of extreme flooding and drought. Developed countries for the last century grew their economy by burning fossil fuels and continue to burn a disproportional amount compared to developing countries. Although wealthier countries pledged to donate significant amounts of money to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation under the Paris Agreement, the climate-specific assistance given is far less than what was promised.

The issue of lack of adequate finance is most prevalent in the Climate Finance negotiations. Although the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was recently replenished in October 2019, raising $9.7 billion, these are merely pledges, and the fund will not be operational until these pledges turn into commitments, or money in the bank. Additionally, at COP16, as part of the Cancun Agreement, developed countries committed to a goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.

COP and CMA contact group on guidance to the Green Climate Fund. Photo credit: https://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop25/enb/4dec.html

COP and CMA contact group on guidance to the Green Climate Fund. Photo credit: https://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop25/enb/4dec.html

Nearly a decade later, several developing countries now seek an update on the status of this commitment, especially in the sessions dedicated to long-term climate finance. Developing countries see sessions on Long Term Finance, in particular, to discuss climate finance from a strategic perspective. AOSIS is very active in these discussions and has proposed a draft text. Developing countries suggest that they continue to face barriers in accessing climate finance and would benefit from access to simpler modalities of climate funds (such as streamlined access to GCF funding), favorable regulatory and policy environments, and provision of capacity-building and technical support.

There seems to be a disconnect between the stalling negotiations surrounding the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), and the galvanized international community calling for a financial response to the climate emergency. According to the United Nations, climate disasters are increasing in both frequency (one per week) and cost ($300 billion per year).  In advance of COP25, in an open letter to Carolina Schmidt, Chile’s Environmental Minister and COP25 President, over 150 civil societies (e.g., Oxfam, 350.org), called for an end to the stalemate in the negotiations on WIM, and endorsed a funding facility for vulnerable countries. Yet, negotiators cannot seem to move beyond the question of who will provide the support to address loss and damage. Developing countries expect that developed countries will facilitate the mobilization of both technical and financial support to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts. Earlier this week, like-minded developing countries called for a new financial mechanism and are trying to establish a Loss and Damage Finance Facility under WIM.

The SBI/SBSTA informal consultations on the WIM continue at full capacity. Photo credit: https://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop25/enb/

The SBI/SBSTA informal consultations on the WIM continue at full capacity. Photo credit: https://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop25/enb/

Developed countries are worried that such a financial facility makes the UNFCCC a humanitarian agency and establishes liability for the irreversible impact of climate change. But as parties negotiate the mechanics of finance, one thing they can all agree upon is the need for, and role of, money in driving action to address the climate emergency. As we head into the second week of negotiations, it remains to be seen whether the negotiations can move forward with a “Show Me the Money!” mentality.