Category Archives: SB60

Interventions, SB60

INTERVENTION BY GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO DEMAND CLIMATE JUSTICE ON SeS JOINT WORK ON CLIMATE ACTION ON FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Thank you co-facilitator. I am Pang Delgra speaking on behalf of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice. 

While we welcome the sense of urgency to move forward, we warn about using external multistakeholder initiatives as a coordination mechanism for this Joint work. These initiatives threaten the democratic spirit that the Convention embodies, are influenced by corporate interests, and lack adequate representation of civil society and marginalized communities. They enable false solutions —- such as carbon offsets, ‘carbon farming’,  and ‘carbon capture’— that are heavily promoted by the agribusiness sector to keep business as usual in place of food sovereignty and agroecology as a real solution.

We call for a revision of the definition of “sustainable agriculture” in Annex 3, par. 2, and urge you to closely examine and avoid references to Climate Smart Agriculture, Nature-Based Solutions, Sustainable Intensification’, Regenerative agriculture, and other approaches that are not properly defined and have proven to be harmful or ineffective. Keeping this in the text would set an absolutely terrible precedent and unscrutinized definition of “sustainable approaches in agriculture” into UN language. 

We welcome workshops on Systemic and holistic approaches to climate action and would like to see these workshops open to observers. We also hope that to make up for the time lost they would be done earlier than indicated in the text, and start at COP29 and to hold more sessions.

Reminded by the recent floods, fires, and heat waves affecting every region worldwide, we urge you to respond to the urgent need to build resilient food systems.

Interventions, SB60

INTERVENTION BY GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO DEMAND CLIMATE JUSTICE ON GST ANNUAL DIALOGUE AT ROUNDTABLE 3 ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

Thank you co-facilitators.

I am Victor Menotti of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice speaking on behalf of Environmental NGOs.

ENGOs were asked to address the topic of international cooperation, an idea in the Paris Agreement‘s Article 14, which says, “in the light of equity and the best available science…the global stocktake SHALL inform Parties in…enhancing international cooperation“, thus making it integral for action going forward.

One main principle for effective cooperation is everyone doing their fair share, which is consistent with equity, in any collective effort. If major players shirk their responsibilities, then trust deteriorates, cooperation collapses and we fail to meet our common goal.

Economists call violators of this principle “free riders“ because they benefit from doing disproportionately little, while letting others bear the burden of caring for common goods. Even President Biden pushes for all Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.

Yet at yesterday’s NDC Roundtable, we saw considerable comment, and some confusion, not on aligning actions with 1.5C, but on how countries can do it equitably.

While NDCs might be, by definition, decided domestically, they must also be informed by international realities. If not, we will fail.

Since the Paris Agreement, civil society has used a climate equity calculator that shows, according to each country’s historical responsibilities and respective capabilities, its equitable contribution to the global effort of – not dividing a blown carbon budget – but actually achieving 1.5C equitably.  It includes the level of international cooperation required, because it is integral to getting to our goal equitably. 

Several Parties have also developed methodologies to quantify equitable contributions, beginning with Brazil from 25 years ago, as well as Switzerland, India, China, and who knows how many others. That‘s why ENGOs are urging Parties to use the GST Dialogue to discuss these methodologies, to debate their merits, and to urge countries to use them in developing their NDCs.  It’s not too late, so we again ask Parties to take up this discussion, formally or informally, but before you determine your contribution, and urgently.

GST outcomes also need cooperation to advance COP28‘s headline outcome of “transitioning from fossil fuels,“ since 60% of today‘s developed reserves must remain in the ground to stay within 1.5C. But doing this equitably, orderly and responsibly means cooperating on a level that is still unimaginable for many people today, yet the survival of our planet and its peoples depend on it; not in the future, but now. 

Cooperation on fossil fuels, to be fair, requires the largest historical polluters who are still major producers to be the first and fastest to phase out. For example, the US “pause“ on new LNG export permits must be made permanent, and put into its NDC. And its record oil output rapidly reduced so it stops undercutting stable prices that other oil-producing countries need to finance their own transitions.

Cooperation on finance means not only agreeing at COP29 on a quantum, its quality, etc., but delivering on that deal through updated NDCs with non-mitigation elements of finance and technology.  For the largest historical polluters to cut their emissions by merely the global average is one form of free riding, but then failing to provide the finance and technology they committed to provide further degrades trust and deepens the crisis.

Cooperation can also advance non-market approaches for forests and land to mobilize Means of Implementation for GST‘s goal of reversing deforestation by 2030, recognizing that carbon finance is not climate finance.

As ES SImon Steill noted at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, NCQG outcomes also depend  on what happens outside UNFCCC, from reforming MDBs to mobilizing private finance. That’s why NDCs could also incorporate actions resulting from other arenas of international cooperation, including:

– Debt reduction in ongoing restructuring talks;

– Tax justice through a new UN Tax Convention;

– Relaxing monopoly patents for intellectual property rights

– Reforming discriminatory world trade rules against developing countries

– Shifting fossil fuel subsidies toward energy sufficiency, efficiency, and renewables

– Redirecting military budgets toward climate finance while reducing military emissions.

All of these areas will provide more fiscal space to developing country budgets and significantly lower the overall bill for NCQG.

International cooperation must take many forms to fit the purpose of protecting our planet and its peoples, so see this as just a beginner’s list to get us going on what must become a new era of diplomacy that delivers climate justice.

Interventions, SB60

INTERVENTION BY GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO DEMAND CLIMATE JUSTICE ON ARTICLE 6.4 STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE

Thank you for the opportunity to take the floor. I am Dr. Tamra Gilbertson with the Indigenous Environmental Network and I am speaking on behalf of Demand Climate Justice and Climate Action Network International that constitute the environmental NGO constituency group. This is our overall general statement but we may come back on the other two groups of questions in more detail. 

While we welcome the initiative to hold this engagement session and would encourage more sessions in the future, we are disappointed in the limited opportunity for participation provided for non-Party rightsholders, given that only one slot has been provided to all constituencies and to ENGOs (which is comprised of two constituencies). This is unfortunately reflective of how the Supervisory Body has implemented consultations and engagement with stakeholders, where consultations and submission timelines are far too short and engagement with stakeholders is often late in the meetings leaving little opportunity to engage prior to when decisions are made.

Given the limited time, numerous questions that were circulated, and that I am representing many groups, my remarks will focus on general cross-cutting issues.

Overall, we remain concerned about the ongoing process of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body to revise its draft recommendations on removal activities and methodological requirements, while concurrently developing numerous related operational tools given the limited time of Supervisory Body members to adequately consider ongoing concerns about permanence and related issues in submissions by multiple observer organizations. Activity Participants and the acquiring Parties must address reversal risk. Those who will be “benefitting” from projects by buying and using the credits to offset their emissions rather than taking direct action should ensure that there are no reversals. This should include monitoring well beyond the crediting period as reversals could occur later in time. 

Numerous NGOs, CSOs, and groups representing Indigenous Peoples from a range of countries have continually voiced serious concerns about the environmental, social and human risks that carbon markets can pose, which the past work of the Supervisory Body has not appropriately addressed. The SD Tool will not be sufficient. We continue to share these concerns and are not convinced that the Supervisory Body will be able to adequately resolve these outstanding issues in the limited time remaining before COP29, where there is considerable pressure on Parties to agree on the Supervisory Body’s recommendations on removals and methodological principles.

Regarding question 3, we do not believe that REDD+ activities should feature in the Article 6.4 mechanism at the project-level or jurisdictional-level. First, to be clear, REDD+ under the Warsaw Framework is not meant to generate carbon credits and was not designed for this purpose. Second, regarding REDD+ on the voluntary carbon markets, numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown that REDD+ used has led to unchecked over-issuance of credits. While many in these halls continue to hail REDD+ as a successful program, there are several documented cases of REDD+ projects leading to serious violations to the rights of Indigenous Peoples.  REDD+ has a history of ignoring Free Prior and Informed Consent, increasing conflict within communities, and giving rise to  human rights violations. These are serious concerns that continue to go unchecked and what seems to be purposely ignored. 

Further, we would like to note that the appeal and grievance process was rushed and now lacks appropriate human rights language and the rights of Indigenous Peoples under UNDRIP. 

Regarding question 4, carbon markets and offsets are NOT climate finance and should not be regarded as such or substituted for the much needed direct and non-debt causing finance for mitigation, adaptation, and loss & damage that is the responsibility of developed countries.  It is beyond the mandate of this SB. 

We strongly urge the SB to urge Parties to understand that there is no room in the global carbon budget for offsetting if we are to limit temperature rise to 1.5* and to prohibit the use of REDD+ as a carbon offsets in Article 6.4. Carbon markets are not climate finance. This would be a remarkably dangerous precedent to set. Parties agreed to a Fossil Fuel Phase Out at COP28, and should progress with [scaled up climate finance, ambitious NDCs, and] long-term strategies to accomplish this phase-out of fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions.

For the sake of time, I will conclude my remarks here.

Interventions, SB60

INTERVENTION BY GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO DEMAND CLIMATE JUSTICE AT SB60 OPENING PLENARY SESSION

My name is Thomas Joseph  from The Hoopa Valley Tribe of IPs. 

I’m with Indigenous Environmental Network, delivering this statement on behalf of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice, or DCJ.  

Despite the Dubai decision to “transition from fossil fuels,” climate catastrophes are occurring more frequently and with greater degrees of severity. 

That means we need more clarity on how Global Stocktake outputs apply to make more ambitious and EQUITABLE Nationally Determined Contributions. 

The GST recognized historical emissions, and how developed countries have used up most of the carbon budget.

Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius EQUITABLY requires countries who got rich first by burning fossil fuels must be the first and fastest to phase them out. The world needs them to end their expansion now, and center these efforts in their NDCs.

Dubai’s GST also made clear the failures of developed countries to deliver on their commitments to provide climate finance, and that Baku’s big decision will be agreeing on a New Collective Quantified Goal.

That means developed countries must mobilize the money by redirecting military budgets, shifting fossil fuel subsidies towards real solutions and not towards dangerous distractions, reforming world trade rules, waiving patents on climate technologies, canceling debts, and taxing wealthy polluters, among many other areas where we know the world’s wealth exists.

Carbon finance is NOT climate finance, and selling it as such serves only polluters. 

We need reparations, and we need them to go towards real solutions – those developed by peoples who are at the frontlines and suffer the disproportionate impacts of the climate crisis.

Lastly, we cannot ignore that rich countries are mobilizing more money towards war like in Palestine than for climate action. We reiterate that the struggle for human rights and the fight for climate justice are inextricably linked. Both are driven by the need to challenge systems of oppression and exploitation that prioritize profit and power over people and the planet. The colonial extractive systems that underpin the current climate crisis are the same systems that fuel conflict and human rights abuses.

We call on governments and civil society to join us in challenging the systems of oppression and exploitation that threaten our planet and our future. There is no climate justice without human rights. 

#CeasefireNow

#PayUp