I got kicked out of negotiations at COP23

by admin | Jan 29, 2018 | MYD2017, UNFCCC

Santiago de Chile-  a room that will be forever remembered as the room I got kicked out of.

From the beginning of COP23, I followed the negotiations on global stocktake. I went to every session I could – G77 coordination meetings, working groups, and most importantly, informal consultations between the co-facilitators and the parties. By the afternoon of the 14th of November, the negotiations on GST had come to a conclusion. The parties had agreed on the rough building blocks and after one iteration, they agreed on an informal note produced by the co-facilitators as well. So that was it. It felt like my road at COP23 had come to a premature end. I felt directionless and lost now that there were no more meetings for GST. So, I just decided to stumble into a meeting on climate finance – something Thomas had been following since week 1 of COP23.

As Thomas will admit, the first time you step into a climate finance session, you’ll feel more lost than navigating the streets of KL without Waze. As I got sucked into the multiple agenda items that were being discussed, one issue in particular stood out and slowly I recognized how much of a problem it would be over the next few days. The discussion over Article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement was a contentious one that dragged out across the two weeks, leading to a delay in the closing of the COP. In a nutshell, Article 9.5 states that developed countries should communicate their financial contributions on a biennial basis. At the COP23 negotiations, this portion of the Paris Agreement was faced push back by developed nations as they feared the implied financial commitments that the article carries.

On Friday, 17th November, I attended an open-ended consultation on the Article 9.5 issue early in the day. Conclusions and consensus could not be achieved, so the session was adjourned by the presidency, represented by Fiji Chief Negotiator, Ambassador Nazhat Shameem Khan. She called for a meeting between the heads of delegation later in the day. Thomas and I made it a point to be early.

We arrived at Santiago de Chile about 15 minutes before the heads of delegation session was scheduled to start. The room at the time was relatively empty. Half an hour goes by and the room slowly fills with people, from parties and from CSOs, until the room is at capacity. Thomas and I proceed to give up our seats and go to sit on the floor in the back of the room. This was a high-level meeting and we wanted to keep a low profile in case anyone deemed us undeserving of being in the room. In the end, us sitting on the floor made no difference, as a lady from the UNFCCC secretariat came over to us to kick us out of the room. We had every right to be there, but unfortunately the room was just way too full for people who were not part of a delegation to be in the room.

With our heads hung low, and feeling absolutely dejected, we left the room, along with a few other people. We stood outside the room for a solid 10 to 15 minutes, hoping there was a way for us to get back in. As we saw more people come to the session only to be turned away by the security guards, the hope started to fade. The guards were so firm that they even prevented the lead negotiator from Egypt from entering. At that point, Thomas and I decided to call it a night and head to a closing dinner with the rest of our MYD teammates. We felt like we were ending our COP23 experience on a low and felt quite disappointed for the rest of the night. Thankfully for us, our COP23 journey didn’t end there and little did we know, it was only the beginning of a long night ahead for us.

Written by Mike

Edited by Varun

Linking Science and the Global Stocktake

by admin | Jan 29, 2018 | MYD2017, UNFCCC

On the 8th November 2017, the German Pavilion had a session on Global Stocktake: Information from the science.The session comprised of leading and influential figures from both the government and scientific fields. It was chaired by Ms. Eliza Norton of the World Resources institute, and the esteemed panelists were:

• Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

• H.E. Janine Felson, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Belize to the United Nations
• Dr. Kiyoto Tanabe, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
• Nicole Wilke, German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

From the left towards right: Eliza, Nicole, Prof. Ottmar, Janine, Dr. Kiyoto

The session kicked off with a welcoming remark by Eliza, followed by an introduction of speakers. She then proceeded to moderate the session, with an opening question, “What does the global stocktake need to deliver? And how does science complements?”

Nicole was first to answer the question by pointing out that in order to stay below 2C or 1.5C, we need to take additional action. She said that we are still far from where we have to be, thus we need to take the opportunity, latching on the gap report that is coming out. There are two crucial questions that science have to deliver, which are;

1. Where are we?
2. Where do the opportunities lie?

The ‘Where are we?’ question reflects on how big of a gap we have to fill, in terms of mitigation, adaptation and resilience, as well as finance. For the second question, which is ‘Where do opportunities lie?’ refers to the need to mention non-state actors and CSOs, in order to get the momentum going.

Janine added that the global stocktake is a monumental task. She urged for policy makers to step out of the negotiating mindset, and instead looking at it as a catalyser. In order for a significant transformation to occur, we need to be progressive and aggressive. For example, start researching and looking into options of what countries have done in terms of adaptation, mitigation and finance, then proceed to see where we should start investing. She strongly stated that we need to start switching the gears of finance into a low carbon emission pathway. The science that we have need to be useful, especially to the policymakers. She conveyed that a successful global stocktake is one that information could be easily communicated across various sectors and interest groups.

Eliza then agreed with Janine, on her point that it is important to truly have that cooperation on a catalytic approach. Thus, there is a need to have design and modality to provide a space to carry out that conversation.

Moving on, the following question that Eliza put forward was regarding the relationship of science and the global stocktake, and how can science be the guiding principle for the global stocktake.

Prof. Ottmar gave a refreshing view on this. He said as former co-chair of IPCC, if one would like to reference science, there is a need to reform IPCC. He continued on by saying that some governments hate to talk about the past. In the case of emissions development, some governments even deleted graphs in policy papers. He is convinced that science need to deliver a coherent assessment and evidence based on policy analysis. However, we are currently in a situation where maturity of social science and economic research cat be delivered yet. There is a need for a new kind of funding in the research part. Referring back to the IPCC mandate, it was only a policy element with policy prescriptive. With this said, the content of IPCC can be fulfilled in terms of climate physics, but there is a problem when it comes to IPCC having to evaluate government policies.

Speaking from a current IPCC panel perspective, Dr. Kiyoto pointed out that the IPCC is currently putting together the 6th Assessment Report (AR6) and the SBSTA encourages IPCC to pay extra attention to GST. Hence, in the AR6, there is a specific mention of GST that can be found in the framing of Chapter 1. Dr. Kiyoto highlighted that a key area that is under the IPCC, which is the methodology report for national inventories. The Agenda Item 13 of the Paris Agreement, which is transparency framework for action and support, requires countries to submit report including national greenhouse gas emissions and the GST. All reports will be made available by 2023. He asked whether is there a need to align the assessment cycle with GST cycle, then suggested that perhaps IPCC establish a task force for the issue.

Before continuing on to the questions and answers session, Eliza asked on the gaps and considerations of the IPCC.

Nicole voiced out that there were multiple information and assessment on where we are as it has been developed quite a lot in past IPCC reports. However, in terms of GST, there are a lot to update. She called for the IPCC to continuously provide input. This was because when it came to cooperation, there is a gap on how to implement it. She mentioned that social science played a crucial role, especially in terms on working with instruments. An example given was on the NDC partnership that was launched by Germany and Morocco in COP22. More support is clearly needed, particularly in terms of ideas on how to better implement it.

Prof. Ottmar reiterated that he have no intention to have IPCC to change. Ideally, IPCC should carry out policy evaluation, however the function of IPCC cannot be replicated quite easily. He emphasised that we are now in a different phase. There is a need to prove that climate change is man made. We are now moving into a phase on “how” to do it, not “why” anymore. There is a need to merge scientific body evidence together with the science and policy interface, thus resulting in evidence based policy.

Janine continued on, saying that there are already own scoping exercise being carried out by colleagues on the ground in terms of science, policy and evaluation. With this process, it ensures that IPCC have strong legitimacy. She added that there is value in bringing information on other inputs.

Touching on the topic of GST, Dr. Kiyoto addressed that GST is not to evaluate each countries NDC. However, there is a need to carry it out in a manner that is facilitative. With that being said, we need to take into account each countries policy decision process. He also expressed that AR6 cycle needs to do something new.

Following on Dr. Kiyoto’s point on GST and NDC, Prof. Ottmar said that GST required careful analysis of different NDC. Metaphorically, he said that there is a need to have a common denominator for a central currency. He also further elaborated that we have to avoid using the stocktake as a blaming and shaming exercise.

Putting her perspective into words, Nicole shared that GST is an exercise, but not on an individual country level. It is obviously in the interest for each government if the policy delivers. In order for a collective analysis to be carried out, there is a huge need for science to develop tools for the multilateral process.

To conclude, Janine eloquently said that if we want an output, then we need to negotiate on an output. On the technical phase, we need to put it on papers. There is also a need to crunch data to make it easily communicated to those involved. It is more important to look at the outcome more than output.

The session then proceeded with Q&A session from the floor, before ending.

Graphic recording by Björn Pertoft, Visual Facilitator

Written by Jasmin

Edited by Varun

Let’s talk about Talanoa

by admin | Jan 29, 2018 | MYD2017, UNFCCC

“Where are we?

Where do we want to go?

How do we get there?”

Those three lines had been my much uttered mantra at COP23.

There were extensives talk about the Talanoa Dialogue – a term that I was first being introduced to at the Climate Action Network (CAN) Pre-COP Session on the 5th November 2017. Although the term was newly coined in light of the Fijian Presidency, the concept was not all that new.

From the COP decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 20, it was mentioned to “convene a facilitative dialogue among Parties in 2018 to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties in relation to progress towards the long-term goal referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Agreement and to inform the preparation of nationally determined contributions pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Agreement”. Basically the Talanoa Dialogue is the much discussed Facilitative Dialogue. The informal note on the 1st November 2017 evidently stated that the 2018 Facilitative Dialogue would hereinafter referred to as the Talanoa Dialogue – a dialogue that incorporated the spirit of the Pacific Tradition of the Talanoa, which essentially means the traditional approach used in Fiji and the Pacific to engage in an inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue.

The big question is – how do we follow the discussion?

Guidance by CAN suggested two things:

1. Talanoa Dialogue does not have an agenda item, thus discussion is done via consultation
2. Through tracking the negotiations on Global Stocktake, APA Agenda Item 6

The preparatory phase has been clearly outlined in the informal note, setting a foundation for the political phase.

Although the structure has been clearly outlined, CSOs expressed that there is an absence of vision and dissatisfaction in the process. It was pointed out that the informal note does not mention the revision of NDCs. It was also a concern that the Fijians are consulting with every bilateral and blocks on the design of the Talanoa Dialogue, however they are not having an open discussion nor a  line by line negotiation. Even more so, CSOs have not seen any negotiating process for recognition of the dialogue.

Meanwhile on the negotiating end, the discussion revolves around the building blocks of the global stocktake, with equity being the centre of discussion. Among the prominent discussion that was being brought up was on how the global stocktake could possibly enhance the NDC, although it was not mentioned that the outcome of the global stocktake would affect NDC, nor GST being an instrument that would require NDC to ramp up ambitions. The technicalities regarding global stocktake was further discussed in APA Informals Agenda Item 6.

There is an apparent gap in discussions in regards with the Talanoa Dialogue, as it is a topic of utmost importance to the CSOs, however not heavily discussed by the negotiators. Regardless of how wide the divide is, the CSOs are adamant in capturing the consultations as COP decision. This would definitely carry more weight in moving forward past the preparatory phase, and into the political phase.

The political phase is planned to take place at COP24 in Poland, with the participation of Ministers. It will be implemented in the form of parallel roundtables, and the moderators will provide the Presidencies a summary of discussion from every roundtables. This is carried out in hopes to put together summary of key messages from the discussion, to put together in reports and summaries.

Even though we have frequently heard and ingrained in our minds the three questions mantra, it is  definitely not the end of it. The May 2018 Intersessionals will further explore the three topics with input from the IPCC 1.5C Special Report, policy inputs from Parties, stakeholders and expert institutions, as well as the guidance from the Presidencies.

Till then,

“Where are we?

Where do we want to go?

How do we get there?”

Written by Jasmin

Edited by Varun