COP25 KEY OUTCOMES BRIEFS

MADRID COP25 KEY OUTCOMES BRIEFS

COP25 Convention, Madrid

COP25 in Madrid, this year’s annual United Nations conference, set a record as the longest one. It was initially scheduled to conclude on Friday of its second week but concluded on Sunday after lunch.

It has been estimated that nearly 27,000 delegates came to Madrid whose aim was to finalize the Paris Agreement’s “rule book” for carbon markets and other forms of international cooperation.

One of the most contentious items was on “Article 6” of the Agreement. Negotiators were unable to reach a consensus in various areas to the disappointment of many delegates and observers throughout the world.

The considerable gap between current progress in climate actions (and talks) and global goals to limit warming is being felt and experienced by many developing nations and island states. This huge gap and disconnect were highlighted through protest march and gatherings in public in Madrid during the COP25 events.

The COP25 venue IFEMA has conspicuously posted a catchy slogan “TimeForAction,” which was pushed by Chile to be clear that this should be an “ambition COP” to close the gap between pledges and current progress needed to achieve the 1.5 degrees goal.

Below, I will outline the major issues under negotiations and some decisions made during the two-week climate conference.

THE CONTENTIOUS “ARTICLE 6” ISSUES

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was the main target of COP25 as it involves carbon markets and other forms of international collaborations, including among countries and relevant entities. However, as the negotiations ended, “Article 6 had become one of the highest-profile casualties of the negotiations,” according to www.carbonbrief.org.

COUNTING PROGRESS

The talks on Article 6 was at a ‘painfully’ slow pace throughout the two-week summit. On Saturday, even the requirement for parties to “respect, promote… human rights” texts were removed, which rightfully angered indigenous groups, NGOs, and many parties of the talks. Instead of the deleted texts, the agreed rules only refer to addressing the “negative social and environmental impacts” of climate projects.

It is highly likely that the major blocks of agreements during this talks–Kyoto transition and double-counting–will be taken up in June 2020 discussions, which was agreed by the parties.

ACCOUNTING RULES TO AVOID DOUBLE-COUNTING

The technical terms and diverse nature of each countries’ NDCs were the major challenges. The NDCs cover different time periods, which may or may not include all sectors and GHGs per country. To avoid the potential issue, the near-final draft established measures on how to make “corresponding adjustments” to avoid double-counting.

CARRYOVER OF KYOTO CARBON ‘UNITS’

The issue of Kyoto carbon offset “units” was another contentious item during the negotiations. These units were implemented under the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) through which the developing countries created the certified emissions reductions (CERs).

The main problem was that China, India, and Brazil, who got the significant shares of CERs, pushed CERS to be eligible under Article 6 (6.4). Of course, this push was firmly prevented by the EU and the vulnerable countries. A country cannot use the emissions reductions that have already occurred/achieved in the past! If allowed, it could lead to additional warming.

USING ‘SHARE OF PROCEEDS’ TO FUND ADAPTATION

The ‘share of proceeds’ was another politically contentious issues dealt with in COP25. The questions were about the share of carbon offsets to be set aside for adaptation and whether to set aside a share of proceeds under Article 6.2 & 4.

The African Group, G77+ China negotiators, tried to ensure this adaptation support via Article 6, however many developed countries and the EU were against it. To bridge this issue, a proposal was made saying that providing adaptation funding indirectly but not under Article 6.2 is “strongly encouraged” to parties who are using the mechanism.

‘OMGE’ FOR NET CLIMATE BENEFITS

The overall mitigation in global emissions (or “OMGE”) is the final major point of the argument contained in Article 6 among negotiators. The near-final draft text (UNFCCF website) of Article 6 says that parties are “strongly encouraged” to cancel a portion of traded offsets to support the OMGE efforts. The exact figure will be decided later, but at least 2% of traded offsets will be set aside for the OMGE mentioned in the draft.

COP25 in Madrid

LOSS AND DAMAGE

Loss and damage is another big question and highly-debated issue at the COPs over the years. Whenever climate finance matter is discussed, it usually ends with adaptation and mitigation support topics. Therefore, the loss and damage issues, which profoundly affected the world’s poorest and vulnerable nations irreversibly, are not adequately dealt with in the past negotiations.

During the COP25, negotiators were tasked to review the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) that was designed in 2013 to deal with issues like “loss and damage.” Instead of just being used for scientific studies on the subject, developing countries want new and additional finance as well as technology and capacity-building supports.

During the second week, parties have agreed to create an expert panel to support for loss and damage and a “Santiago Network” that would facilitate technical support. By Friday of the second week, a new text mentioned which merely “urges” developed countries to “scale up” finance support instead of contributing “new and additional” money, which is the vital component demand from developing and vulnerable countries.

Another idea was to authorize WIM to find new ways for financing loss and damage for future meetings. Ideas floating around this possible funding include levies on the fossil-fuel industry.

The Paris Agreement, elsewhere, mentions that the developing countries could not claim any compensation from developed countries for loss and damage. At COP25, the United States attempted to extend this waiver to the extent of applying to the non-parties in the Paris Agreement. Observers commented that this is the signal that the US wants to avoid such responsibility.

The near-final text even lost the call for developed countries to increase their support. The final text note that the GCF already supports activities relating to “loss and damage” and suggested that other funds can also do the same. 

Politicians Discussing-Climate Art

DISAGREEMENTS ON COMMON TIMEFRAMES

One more critical issue for climate pledges that was pushed into next year was agreeing on “common timeframes.” Just like at Katowice’s COP24, a common timeframe for all NDCs at COP25 was not agreed upon.

The EU has a 10-year NDC while Russia and Japan seemed to agree to a 10-year timeframe. However, many vulnerable countries, including Brazil, argued for shorter timeframes to get updated on the gap between collective climate goals and ambition.

Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, the DRC negotiator, emphasized that NDC cycles of 5-years are better because 10-cycles mean weaker ambition (www.carbonbrief.org).

TI-S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COP25 

Climate crisis is very much linked with corruption in various forms. Therefore, TI strongly recommends that negotiations like the COP and other relevant climate-environment activities must include efforts to promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity.

Ensure Article 6 guarantees environmental integrity in carbon markets
TI movement recommends double counting of emissions reductions should be prevented; and that all concerned institutions should establish social and environmental safeguards and grievance mechanisms.

Protect civic space & environmental defenders
Relevant institutions/agencies should ensure a formalized space for public participation. Also, mechanisms to report corruption and protections for whistleblowers should be legally established. Above all, climate activists and environmental defenders should be protected by national laws.

Ending undue influence from industries lobbyists to raise COP ambition
Many fossil fuel industries are influencing policy-making in various places (InfluenceMap Report, 2019). “Parties, therefore, must combat undue influence and state capture as a priority… through regulatory frameworks to level the playing field in campaign finance and lobbying–including codes of conduct”. (by Brice Boehmer, TI-S Climate Team Lead)

 

****************

Prepared by: Abe Sumalinog