Sunday, September 27, 2015

Life is a journey that often takes you back to where you belong!

I spent my entire youth visiting villages - both close to the city and remote ones - to mobilize people around protection of natural resources.  The books in my Sociology Master Degree classes had not satisfied my urge to learn the society. My real learning started in these villages, when I discovered wonderful traditional knowledge systems to manage water resources, forests and agriculture.  I never stopped and with meager resources kept motivating more and more people to revive their traditional systems of rain water harvesting that had been decaying owing to lack of support and encouragement. 

People had lost hopes in their own sustainable systems.  But when they got a single ray of hope they regrouped and got energized again.  We succeeded in reviving hundreds of ponds, tanks and structures of other sizes, relevant to the local ecological setups, with complete people's participation.  Even we succeeded in bringing back renewed life to some rivulets. They owned the process and we achieved what some outsiders had then said was an impossible task.  We almost drought proofed several perennially drought prone villages.  The financial support that we had raised from various sources were limited.  But we were able to retain people at their villages and work on their own fields; and benefit out of the farming that were now more diverse and natural than before. 

I kept on working silently and as a crazy passionate fellow in villages for long and it is only in the year 2006-07 that people started to know my works from a release in which we claimed 'Odisha to turn a desert in 150 years.'  Before that also I had raised some very vital issues and, as I always claim, was perhaps the first man in the state to have brought ‘climate change’ to the mainstream of discussion.  When I talked about drought in the forests, early flowering of various forests and horticultural plants, changed behaviour of various species and most importantly the coastal erosion in Bay of Bengal way back in early 90s, people had not taken me so seriously back then.

The note on Odisha’s desertification also fell into deaf ears of the government but by then the media had started to know me.  I must say, it is due to support from the friends in media this issue caught attention of many.  At that time, even though internet was just peaking up, thousands of internet news sites all across the globe carried our study.  The local and national media took it up very seriously and as a result people from across the globe started to know me.  Back home, some in the government and some even in the civil society (mostly the ones based out of Bhubaneswar) termed me a ‘crazy’ fellow, yet again.

Thankfully, I got more support than opposition on the ‘desertification’ issue. It was a cautionary note to the government and public based on research done out of government's own statistics.  Then a number of television pogrammes covered our interventions.  The ETV profiled me as 'Jala Purusha' and devoted two episodes on our efforts in a special programme.  The NDTV profiled me as 'Water Man of Odisha' and 'Climate Crusader' and eventually in 2010 conferred me with the first 'Green Hero' award that was given away by the then President of India.  The Hindustan Times profiled me as “Odisha’s Conservation Master.”

Later, Universities and Civil Societies from abroad started inviting me to speak on ‘climate change, water harvesting and related issues’ and the journey has been busy yet interesting.  In the mean while I have received several awards and recognition and have also refused many more because of some 'conflict of interest' and 'ethical' issues. 

Then came a phase in life where the recognition of my efforts at the grassroots led people at various corner to expect a larger role from me.  I too thought it was time to be a 'watch dog' and sometimes a 'barking dog' to defend our precious and fast extincting water resources including Rivers and Water Bodies.  This has led me to be involved more in research and advocacy efforts.  This also means I have got less time to go back to villages.  I have however tried not to miss even a single opportunity of going back to villages to encourage them in their efforts as well as learn from them.  And each time I go to the villages, I have something new to learn from them. 

Wonderful are our villagers.  They already practice a 'low carbon lifestyle' to achieve which countries are spending billions in debates and negotiations.  Climate change impacts are real and our villagers have the solutions.  However, we have decided not to learn from them.

Today, when I got a chance to revisit Kharamal village in the foothills of Gandhamardan ranges, I was so happy to see a happy Sitaram Majhi, a man from the Gond tribe.  He has grown from where we had stopped our intervention and now is a successful water harvester and champion farmer.  We worked with him from 2005 to 2009 and then some govt. programmes too helped him to continue and expand.  Before 2005, he used to migrate out to other states to work in brick kilns.  Now he earns 1500 to 2000 rupees each week from selling vegetables alone in the local market.  From one water harvesting structure, he has now grown to own two. 

I am so happy and deciding to go back to my grassroots works again, even while continuing my current networking, research and advocacy efforts. Hope to get more companions this time. Back in the early 90s, when I started these efforts, I had more challenges then company. I always have had the blessing of having very good friends in life who have helped me all along. My family members have also cooperated a lot. I am ever indebted and obliged to all of you who have been part of this journey and have always encouraged and supported me. Hope our journey will see more support now as more people know me and the benefits of our actions are visible.

Hope is my only asset, water my destination. Are you with me?

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Urban India and Wastewater Management Issues: My Article in Infrastructure Today Magazine!


Ranjan K Panda


Urban India is bracing for a unique and difficult challenge of shortage of freshwater as well as managing increased wastewater.

Urban India is experiencing an exponential growth. With about 377 million people, which means a third of Indians living in about eight thousand towns and cities, the urban Indian story is of both aspirations and challenges. More and more people are heading towards urban areas, dreaming of amenities and opportunities. Urbanisation has its own challenges because urban India seems grossly underprepared to house this highly ambitious immigration. Around 200 million people may be added to India´s urban landscape in about just the next two decades. And the challenges are not just limited to growth of population, but also the problems associated with that. In this article, we will talk mostly about the wastewater scenario in Indian cities, which is in a disastrous state at the moment. Estimates suggest that the more urban we become, the more water-guzzling our lifestyle. Experience and statistics both suggest that an average urban Indian uses at least three to five times more water than an average rural Indian. What´s more, the wastage of water in urban areas, with about 70 to 80 per cent of water supplied for domestic use, is also alarming.

Estimates of the Central Pollution Control Board put the total wastewater generation from only the Class I and Class II cities and towns at around 35,558 and 2,696 million litres per day (MLD) respectively, while the installed sewage treatment capacities are for 11,553 and 233 MLD only. However, the actual treatment is far too less. It is projected that by the year 2050, about 132 billion litres per day of waste water will be generated from Indian cities that is equivalent to 48.2 BCM. Further, experts also feel that the gap between wastewater generated and treatment capacity created will further widen. It, therefore, means urban India is bracing for a unique and difficult challenge of a shortage of freshwater as well as managing increased wastewater.

Polluted Water Bodies

A major threat of the untreated sewage and wastewater is to rivers and other water bodies. As per Census 2011, India has sewer systems linked to 32.7 per cent of urban households. The rest depend on onsite sanitation systems like septic tanks or public toilets. There is still a major section of the population in urban areas who defecate in the open. This is more in the slums that now comprise almost fifty per cent of the urban areas. Scant facilities of sewage treatment clubbed with unscientific disposal of septage pose a major challenge to the water systems and public health.

In fact, under various river action plans, the country has about 234 Sewage Water Treatment Plants (STPs). In class-I cities, oxidation pond or activated sludge process is the most commonly employed technology, covering 59.5 per cent of total installed capacity. This is followed by Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket technology, covering 26 per cent of the total installed capacity. Series of Waste Stabilisation Ponds technology is also employed in 28 per cent of the plants, though its combined capacity is only 5.6 per cent. But, the actual treatment has always been a grey area. In a recent event in Delhi, Union Environment Minister Prakash Javedkar said, ¨The actual treatment being done by all these plants would be somewhere between 15 to 17 per cent only. Delhi that boasts of the maximum coverage by sewer network, has only about 33 per cent of its habitations covered. The story is not so encouraging and the very vastness of the centralised treatment plants make them more difficult to cover in Indian cities, which face several physical and financial hurdles.¨

The problem is not domestic sewage alone. Some 12,368 MLD of wastewater is generated by industries. About 60 per cent of it is treated, but the ground reality is different because affluent treatments have so far been a very costly affair and many industries complain about their affordability. Small industries have been linked to Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) set up in clusters. Such plants adopt methods like dissolved air floatation, dual media filter, activated carbon filter, sand filtration and tank stabilisation, flash mixer, clariflocculator, secondary clarifiers and sludge drying beds, etc, to treat industrial effluents. The primary treatments remove coarse material and settable solids by screening, grit removal and sedimentation. Then the treated water is released into rivers. All these methods, however, have not properly worked, if one believes the river pollution statistics recently disclosed by the CPCB.
The CPCB has just come out with a report of pollution of India´s rivers. It points out the number of polluted rivers in India has doubled in just five years from 121 in 2009 to 275. Polluted stretches have also doubled from 150 to 302 in the same period. The report then reveals that the sewage generated from 650 cities and towns situated along the polluted stretches, has also increased from 38,000 MLD in 2009 to 62,000 MLD today. For instance, in Mahanadi River basin, the wastewater, including sewage load from major cities, has increased by almost 300 per cent in just two decades.

The planning in India is now undergoing a drastic change with the Prime Minister´s launch of three mega flagship schemes aimed at transforming urban India. It includes the scheme to build 100 Smart Cities, AMRUT (replacing JnNURM) in 500 cities, and ´Housing For All´. At least Rs 3 lakh crore is to be invested in these schemes in the coming five years. The JnNURM experience has not been that encouraging. India has spent USD 20 billion in 65 select cities between 2005-14 under the urban renewal mission. Despite that, the pollution of the rivers doubled. Six years after the National Urban Sanitation Policy 2008, only 13 states have initiated the mandatory state sanitation strategies, and only six of them have prepared complete sanitation strategies. Even the urban areas have lagged behind in forming the City Sanitation Plans (CSPs) that would have taken care of the wastewater treatment challenges along with other problems. About 200 CSPs have been prepared. Out of that only five have been finalised as per NSUP framework. All this calls for urgent attention.

Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems

Given the constraints involved in centralised systems, it is wiser to popularise and promote the Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS) approach. DEWATS has been hailed as a cost-effective and more successful approach that promotes people-centric waste to resource activities. As compared to centralised systems that are high on economic costs and require skilled manpower, decentralised systems can be promoted by involving local people and with low cost. It is important to note the system operates in a natural system, considering local conditions.

There are success stories of DEWATS approach dotting various cities in the country, with participation of several institutions. For instance, Kuchhpura in Agra is known for its location by the side of a large drain that takes wastewater from about five slums to Yamuna. A host of institutionsû starting from local to internationalû established a collaboration to design and construct a DEWATS using organic and natural water treatment processes. The objective was to treat and bring down the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) levels for reused water and recycling the processed wastewater for irrigation and safe disposal of compliant effluent. The system has developed a community management plan and as reports suggest it has helped the Kachhpura environment to improve drastically. This particular one was designed for treating 50 kL of wastewater.

Now that a lot of push is being seen for urban development, a mission mode is needed to promote decentralised wastewater treatment systems, such as the above, in massive scales. Of course, this alone cannot solve all the wastewater crisis. But this can solve a host of the problems. A lot of investments have to pitch in for promoting such systems. There is a need for strong regulations for industrial and municipal bodies. Technology has also to play a role in ensuring the implementation of regulations towards reducing pollu¡tion of the rivers, water bodies, and environment.


It uses a natural-three-step bio-remediation process. The first three chambers, which include the Screen Chamber (1.0 molecular weight (mw) + 1.1 millilitre (ml) + 1 metric ton (mt.) Deep), Pre-process filter Chamber (2.0 mw + 2.5 ml + 2.5 mt Deep), Baffled Septic Tank (2.0 mw + 7.5 ml + 3.0 mt Deep), are used for the sedimentation of the sludge, preparing the wastewater for filtration. The next chamber is Baffled Filter Reactor Chamber (2.0 mw + 22.0 ml + 2.5 mt Deep) that is filled with stone. This chamber accomplishes the filtration of the water. The last chamber is the Root Zone Treatment Chamber (2.0 mw + 22.0 ml + 2. 0 mt Deep), which is planted with Canna- the root of these plants treat the waste water.

This article has been authored by Ranjan K Panda. The author is the climate change researcher. He convenes a national online network ´Combat Climate Change Network, India.´ He can be contacted at


Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Fishermen of Odisha advised not to venture into sea!

Weather Forecast and Warnings for Odisha by Met at 12.30 PM 15th September 2015

Forecast:  Rain or thundershower may occur at most places over Odisha.

Heavy Rainfall Warning:  Heavy to very Heavy rainfall would occur at one or two places over Interior Odisha and heavy rainfall would occur at one or two places over coastal Odisha.

Advice for hoisting Storm Warning Signals:  NIL

Likely impacts and actions:  Gusty surface wind speed from 40 to 45 KMPH gusting to 50 KMPH from Easterly direction would prevail along and off Odisha Coast.

Fishermen Warning  :-   Fishermen are advised not to venture into sea.

Ranjan Panda
Convenor, Water Initiatives Odisha
Convenor, Combat Climate Change Network, India
Mahanadi River Waterkeeper (Member, Global Waterkeeper Alliance)

Mob: +91-9437050103

Monday, September 14, 2015

Govt. of India's relief plans for farmers affected by deficit monsoon!

Dear Friends/Co-sailors,

Forwarding below a just released information from the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India detailing all steps they have taken to provide relief to farmers in view of the Deficit Monsoon this year.  

Please pass on this information to all possible people/institutions who you think can reach out to affected farmers so that they can avail the benefits.

Thanks and regards,

Ranjan Panda
Convenor, Water Initiatives Odisha
Convenor, Combat Climate Change Network, India
Mahanadi River Waterkeeper (Member, Global Waterkeeper Alliance)

Mob: +91-94370-50103

Steps Taken by The Central Government for Relief to Farmers in view of Deficit Monsoon

To provide immediate relief to the farmers, in view of the deficit monsoon during kharif 2015,  the Government of India has taken a  number of decisions. Orders on these measures have already been issued to all State Governments, which will implement them on the basis of assessed need.

1.      Allocation of additional days of work under MGNREGA to households in drought affected areas: The Government has decided to provide an additional 50 days of unskilled manual work in the financial year over and above the 100 days assured to job card holders in such rural areas where drought or natural calamities has been notified. This will enable States to provide additional wage employment to rural poor in drought affected areas. The poorest rural households will benefit from this, as it will help in immediate absorption of rural seasonal unemployment, and reduce rural distress.

2.      Diesel Subsidy Scheme for farmers in affected areas : It has been decided to provide diesel subsidy to the farmers to enable them to provide life saving irrigation through diesel pump sets in the drought and deficit rainfall areas to protect the standing crops (allocation of Rs.100 cr). The farmers in the affected regions will  be covered during the current South-West monsoon period till 30th September, 2015.  The scheme on Diesel Subsidy will be implemented with the participation of the State Governments/UT Administration, with a view to offset the cost of diesel used for pumping water for providing supplementary irrigation/protective irrigation. The scheme will be applicable to such districts/talukas/areas where the rainfall deficit is more than 50% as on 15th July, 2015, (as reported by India Meteorological Department); to such districts/talukas/areas, which have been declared as drought affected area by the respective State Govt./ UT Administration; areas with prolonged dry spell continuously for 15 days, i.e. scanty rainfall (deficit of 60% or more of normal) for any continuous 15 days period, after the onset date of Monsoon as per reports of IMD. It is proposed to provide 50% subsidy on the cost of diesel (Rs 2000 per hectare) to the affected farmers, limited to a maximum of two hectares per farmer. The cost of assistance provided shall be shared between the Government of India and the State Government/UT Administration concerned on 50:50 basis.

3.      Enhancement of ceiling on Seed subsidy. In order to  compensate the farmers in the drought affected districts for the additional expenditure incurred in the sowing and /or purchasing appropriate varieties of drought resistant seeds it has been decided to raise the extant ceiling on seed subsidy by 50%  over existing levels for distribution in drought notified districts. The enhancement is valid till 31.12.2015.

4.      Interventions for saving perennial horticulture crops: Appropriate input support measures will be provided to rejuvenate water stressed horticulture crops, with an additional allocation of Rs.150 crore. The scheme is to be implemented in all drought affected districts / blocks in the country which are covered under Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH), being implemented by Dept. of Agriculture, Cooperation& Farmers Welfare. Farmers in the drought affected districts/ blocks will be provided assistance @ Rs.6000/- per hectare as per cost norms for a maximum area of two ha per beneficiary for taking up appropriate combination of interventions. Assistance so provided through subsidy shall be shared between the Government of India and the State Government/UT Administration concerned on 50:50 basis.

5.      Implementation of additional fodder development programme: Assistance will be provided for additional interventions for production of fodder for mitigating adverse impact of drought on livestock (allocation of Rs.50 crore) . Farmers in the drought affected districts/ blocks will be provided assistance @ Rs.3200/- per hectare as per cost norms for a maximum area of two ha per beneficiary for taking up additional production of fodder in these districts/blocks. Assistance so provided through subsidy shall be shared between the Government of India and the State Government/UT Administration concerned on 50:50 basis.

6.      Flexible allocation under RKVY and other centrally sponsored schemes: States have   been advised to keep aside about 5 to 10% of fund allocated under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) for undertaking appropriate interventions, if the situation so warrants, to minimize the advance impact of an aberrant monsoon on the agriculture sector. 10% of the allocation under Centrally Sponsored Scheme may be utilized in flexible manner by the States to meet contingent requirement arising out of deficient rains.

7.      Crop contingency plan : Ministry of Agriculture, through ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad has prepared detailed crop Contingency Plans for 600 districts. States have been advised to prepare/ update/ fine-tune Contingency Plans for each district in consultation with CRIDA-ICAR and the State Agriculture Universities and to prepare location specific remedial measures based on these contingency plans in the event of late arrival of Monsoon/long dry spells/scanty rainfall/drought conditions e.g. tying up availability of seeds and other inputs for implementing the Contingency Plans. As seen from the experience of last year, these are highly useful in case of a deviant monsoon.  These plans are available at the website of Dept. of Agriculture & Cooperation, Min. of Agriculture as well as Central Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad.

8.      Advisories to the states: State Governments have already been advised to initiate advance remedial action e.g.  constructing water harvesting structures under MGNREGA  and other such schemes, promoting agronomic practices for moisture conservation, promoting cultivation  of less water consuming crops and restoring irrigation infrastructure by desilting canals, energizing tube-wells, replacing/repairing faulty pumps. States have also been requested to carry out periodic assessment of preparation for kharif crops, particularly contingency crops and also investment made in water conservation structure under various schemes like Integrated Watershed Management Programme(IWWP) to verify their utility in harvesting the rainfall.

9.      Availability of seeds and other inputs for kharif, 2015 : Availability of seeds and other inputs is being monitored / reviewed on a continuous basis in the weekly Crop Weather Watch Group (CWWG) Meetings being held in the Department of Agriculture. Weekly video conference with States is also being held to get first-hand information about State’s preparedness and to advise States appropriately whenever needed.

10.  SMS Advisory: The Ministry, through the m-kisan portal sends SMS advisories to registered farmers. These advisories include weather based SMS advisories, advisories to suggest measures to minimize adverse impact of extreme weather event. Ministry through various operators sent about 700 crores SMS in last one year. These SMS are sent by ICAR/SAU, KVK, AMFU etc and district level state govt officials.

11.  Crisis management plan for drought for the year 2015: A Crisis Management Plan (CMP) for Drought has been in place and is available at the website of Dept. of Agriculture & Cooperation, Min. of Agriculture. The plan has also been updated recently in consultation with Stakeholder Ministries/Departments. Agriculture Minister has also requested all Chief Ministers, vide his letter dated 12.05.2015, to direct the officers concerned to expedite preparation of State level Management Plans on Drought.

12.  SDRF/NDRF funds - First Instalment of SDRF released : The State Government is primarily responsible for providing  necessary relief in the wake of natural calamities. Government of India supplements the efforts of state Governments with financial assistance. For undertaking relief measures, funds are available with the State Governments in the form of State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). Additional financial assistance, over and above SDRF, is considered from National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) for natural calamities of severe nature and is approved on the basis of Memorandum  received from State Government in accordance with established procedure, keeping in view items and norms in vogue for assistance. The 1st instalment of SDRF has already been released to State Governments.The SDRF funds, besides others, can also be used for emergency supply of drinking water in rural and urban areas, as per the approved guidelines.

Source: PIB Release 14-September-2015 19:11 IST

Sunday, September 13, 2015

बरसने को मैं भी तरसू! A Hindi Poem in response to Monsoon Deficit...

बरसने को मैं भी तरसू

एक दिन मैने आसमाँ से कहा,
मुझे ज़रूरत है भूरी भूरी बारिश के बूंदो की
मुझे उम्मीद है हरे भरे खेत ख़लियानो की
है उम्मीद मुझे हरे भरे लहराते पेड़ पौधों की
पर खैर मुझे ये हरे घाँस की चादर ना दिखी !!

अब तेरे इस ढोंग से परेशान हु मैं
क्योंकि हरे रंग से दिल नहीं भरता मेरा
देना है तो बारिश ही दे दे ऐ आसमाँ
हर एक बूँद के लिए हरियाली है तरसती !!

बरसा दे बूंदे इस कदर की,
दिल मेरा भी भरे और धरती भी खिल उठे…

सुन कर मेरी यह शिकायत
आसमाँ फिर बोल उठा,

बरसने को मैं भी तरसू
गरजने को बादल भी हैं उतावले
उड़के काश मैं आ जाउ तेरे पास
जब चहुँ तब बरसू ऐ पगले !!

पंख मेरे तूने ही काट डाले
उन पहाड़ियों और वादियों को उजाड़ डाला
पेड़ पौधे तो अब तेरे साथी ना रहे
तूने तो अपनी जड़ को ही उखाड़ डाला !!

मेरी पेह्चान तुझसे नही
तेरा वजूद है मुझपे निर्भर
अब भी वक्त है थोड़ा सुधर जाने को
अब तो थोड़ा डर और रहम कर
प्यार गर तू अपने आप से करे 
मेरी और यह धरती के प्यार को न खत्म कर !!

- रंजन पांडा

(My poem in response to one of the worst deficit rainfall years that we are facing now)

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Sambalpur’s flood risk all set to increase, thanks to a vision-less planning!

A recent assessment of India’s 10 riskiest cities shows that flood is one of the major risks for almost 8 of them.  However, our city planners don’t learn the lesson.  The cities are increasingly blocking the passage of rainwater/flood water through construction of embankments, encroachment of water ways and flood plains.  As a result flash floods and water logging problems are increasing by the years.  

I was happy to listen to two Ministers of Odisha government, in a recent workshop on climate change, when they said embankments are actually not helping in flood control.  I thought what we have been advocating for years is finally starting to influence the policy makers.  However, this learning does not seem to have percolated down to the implementers of the state’s programmes.  

The decision of extending Ring Road/Flood Embankment along Mahanadi in Sambalpur is testimony to this.  The existing embankments have already proven that they make flood woes worse for the cities.  Now, they are not only being widened but the length of the embankments is being expanded.  And what more, funds are being sought from NABARD which is supposed to be there for rural development programmes.  Our planners are more comfortable counting the crores spent in projects than envisioning truly beneficial programmes.  


Ranjan Panda
Mahanadi River Waterkeeper (Member, Global Waterkeeper Alliance)

Mob: +91-9437050103

Tweet @ranjanpanda
Tweet @MahanadiRiver

Friday, September 4, 2015

ECO Updates from UNFCCC ADP 2.10 – 2nd, 3rd and 4th September

Dear Friends/Co-sailors,

Sharing below the ECO update from Days Three, Four and Five of the UNFCCC ADP 2.10 
negotiations in Bonn, Germany.

This has been shared with us by Linh over email.

Hope you find it useful.

Thanks and best regards,

Ranjan Panda
Convenor, Combat Climate Change Network, India

Mob: +91-9437050103
4th sept – Day 5

Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger

As Wednesday's stocktaking made clear, all Parties agree we need to do quite a bit of work to get the ambitious, equitable and comprehensive climate deal the world needs. As one French group (no, not the incoming Presidency) puts it; we need to work harder, better, faster, stronger.

Progress is needed today to develop constructive bridging proposals on concepts and text. The challenge is no mean feat; it is an international agreement we’re trying to get, after all. So the ADP co-chairs, co-facilitators, and all Parties need to work harder, better and faster to craft a concise, well-organised text. We'll need a text that is stronger, with options for a truly ambitious outcome that lets us start real negotiations when we next meet in Bonn in October.

Over the next six weeks, there are a series of important political discussions that can inject political momentum into October's negotiations. These include this coming week's ministerial consultations in Paris, the September 27th leaders’ climate luncheon in New York, and the early October finance ministers meeting in Lima.

ECO reminds Parties that we must leave the last ADP meeting before Paris with a manageable set of textual options on the political issues ministers will have to resolve

We have full confidence that the Peruvian and French presidencies will continue building trust and understanding among ministers, identifying possible resolutions for key issues well before crunch time in Paris.

If we follow this roadmap, and Parties work intensively in a spirit of compromise, we can achieve the deal we need in Paris – a hopeful outcome with avenues to ramp up ambition while safeguarding vulnerable communities around the world. But there is no more time to lose… and hence the need for harder, better, faster stronger efforts.

Let’s be clear

Being clear helps better direct policy and allocate resources appropriately. So ECO also wants to be clear. Paris needs to improve transparency and accountability on many different fronts: mitigation and adaptation actions and means of implementation. And to be even clearer, it does not mean additional burden.  And importantly, improved transparency and accountability will build trust.

Let’s start with guiding principles and rules to count emissions and preserve environmental integrity of commitments. We also need to assess the quality of information and scale of countries’ actions, as well as a credible process to support compliance and effective implementation.

Of course, we're not starting from scratch. Let's build on the MRV experience of mitigation: measurement (collection of information domestically), reporting (provision of this information internationally), and verification (checking by independent experts).

It is critical to track whether the collective effort is enough to keep emission levels below the 1.5°C warming trajectory that we need to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.  Sharing information on current or planned domestic laws, standards, or other enforceable provisions also helps identify where international cooperation, support, or capacity building might be most helpful.

Without transparency, we cannot understand country pledges, avoid double-counting of efforts, or facilitate compliance.  Unless stakeholders perceive transparency provisions as fair, with continuous improvement of support, broader negotiations will stall.

The transparency system must be evolving, flexible and recognise that Parties are starting from different points and have varying levels of responsibility and capability.  Flexibility can be framed in terms of scope, level and type of actions, methodological tiers, and frequency of reporting – all leading to continuous improvement.  It is clear that Parties’ MRV obligations should not be less stringent than in the past or present.

Ahead of Paris, Parties can agree on the objective, scope and guiding principles, laying the foundation of an enhanced MRV regime that allows for improvement of data quality, and informs how actions and support can be scaled up over time.  Middle ground options can then be made clear and detailed work programs enabled in COP decisions for elaborating and reviewing  rules and guidelines. That way, we can leave Bonn with a clear direction on where we are going.

Transport Needs to Get Moving

Delegates, are you also hoping that soon you'll be able to come to Bonn in super-efficient aircraft, helping to solve the problem of emissions from international aviation? ECO is guessing that the answer is a resounding: “Yes!”

Unless we take action now, that scenario is looking less and less likely. A report this week from the International Council on Clean Transportation has found that fuel-burn efficiency improvements for new aircraft have fallen to 1.1% per year, against the industry target of 2% per year. With passenger numbers increasing every year, aviation emissions are expected to grow by up to 300% by 2050. Yes, you read that right. This would be a huge blow to our efforts to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) needs to step up its climate efforts. Parties to ICAO must adopt a meaningful CO2 standard for new aircraft—incredibly, none currently exist—and agree to a market-based mechanism to close the remaining gap between aircraft efficiency and passenger growth.

The situation is also dire with international shipping. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is refusing to set an emissions target at all.

The transport sector needs to get moving on mitigation. The wording in Part III of the co-chairs’ tool on ICAO and IMO taking action to reduce emissions needs to be firmly placed in the agreement. Otherwise these sectors risk undermining other efforts to reduce emissions.

Enabling Clarity on “Enabling Environments”

All week, the expression “enabling environments” kept coming back into use during the finance sessions. Several Parties raised questions about what it actually means. ECO has a few worries of its own. Since this week has been about gathering feedback and building convergence, a bit more clarity on this term needs to be enabled.

Will developing countries need to establish some sort of “appropriate conditions” in order to attract greater flows of private finance? And what would those conditions be? Surely countries would not be required to relax their environmental or labour regulations just to allow the private sector to extract extra profit. Right?

And would the expansion of “enabling environments” reduce developed countries’ obligations to provide adequate levels of public climate finance to support extra action in vulnerable developing countries. Surely not.

These are just some of the questions that strike ECO upon hearing the echoes of “enabling environments”. It would be both a shame and slightly ironic if these concerns rang true, making the overall environments even less enabled to address the needs of affected people, ecosystems(?) and communities.

ECO totally supports the shift of overall financial flows and investments away from high-carbon to low-carbon and climate resilient activity. But that should happen alongside continued provisions of public finance, part of which is crucial to support ambitious policies and targets, strong and effective country institutions, and informed and empowered policymakers and civil society.

Maybe “enabling environments” will turn out to be more than a buzzword, but this can only happen if negotiators enable an environment for discussions and clarity on the type of policies, targets and institutions it should include.

Caring for Land, Securing our Food

Does anyone really question whether land is central to what we're all trying to do here in the UNFCCC? No, didn’t think so. Not only is the land sector critical to our mitigation efforts, but one of the key reasons we so urgently need to stop climate change is to still be able to use it to grow food and, um, eat, in a few decades' time.

It's obvious that to help us stay below 1.5°C temperature rise, some types of land must act as sinks and carbon stores. We need to do everything we can to protect, maintain and restore critical ecosystems such as natural forests, grasslands and degraded peatlands. Our survival, and most of the living species we share our planet with, depend on it. In fact, we need the work on land to come on top of everything else we can do to reduce our emissions from other sectors, particularly industry and energy. So let’s be honest; land cannot be used to lower ambition elsewhere.

At the same time, let’s not get carried away in our enthusiasm for mitigation in the land sector. Countries need to avoid any perverse incentives that conflict with food production, destroy natural ecosystems, threaten indigenous peoples' rights, drive land grabs, increase hunger, harm animal welfare, or make life even tougher for vulnerable communities. ECO suggests a rather elegant solution: Parties should be as clear as possible in the text about the kinds of lands and mitigation actions that should be prioritised, and that peoples’ rights must be protected.

With this in mind, ECO hopes that there will be resounding support for the Parties that have introduced text to ensure food security and social and environmental protections into the General Objective of the new agreement.

Addressing land properly in the new agreement presents an exciting opportunity to fix the gaps in the old regime, step up ambition, and protect our future food security.  We’re all hungry for change.
Let’s Get Ethical

FYI: ECO is highly principled, and believes that a key role of the Paris agreement will be to enshrine durable principles. Specifically for carbon markets, the following principles should be inscribed:
Real: unless the emissions reductions have actually occurred, and are not an accountancy trick, what’s the point of a market?

Supplemental: a failure of carbon markets has been the result of inadequate levels of ambition to drive the market. Only countries with targets that represent their fair share of effort towards the 1.5oC goal should be allowed to trade, and then only for levels of ambition above that fair share.

Additional: any credits that are traded need to represent emissions reductions achieved above a credible baseline.

Internationally verifiable: for those participating in the market, confidence in the quality of the credits is paramount. Alas, only through transparency will this confidence be achieved.

Permanent emissions reductions: having the emissions reappear at a later date makes the credits a mere accountancy trick.

Avoid double counting: despite getting a Fossil on this, Brazil still does not understand that this is an issue. Counting a single credit twice as contributing towards action misses the whole point.

Deliver sustainable development co-benefits: there are many other environmental, developmental and human rights issues that at worst credits and markets should not undermine, and at best should actively contribute to improving.

3rd Sept – Day 4

5-year Commitment Periods: Not Just a Teenage Crush

Rumours are circulating that certain Parties have been shopping a less-than-precise interpretation of EU positions in Bonn. Apparently, one of the main messages has been that the EU’s proposal for 10-year commitment periods has developed into quite an obsession, with little chance of recovery. ECO begs to differ.

There is no legislation in place that would hinder the EU’s adoption of a 5-year commitment period. Even if there is political resistance from certain corners. ECO has reliable intelligence that several EU member states actually see the merit in shorter commitment periods, which capture technological and economic progress, protect against low ambition, and react more quickly to the increasingly severe consequences of the changing climate.

The EU’s decision on the length of commitment periods will be made from purely political motives. Everyone knows that political winds shift as fast as teenage crushes do, though. Champions of 5-year commitment periods should ramp up the pressure on the EU—the window of opportunity still stands. Upcoming legislation will make this shift more difficult, so now is the time to act with swift determination. ECO will be here cheering you on every step of the way!

Hot Air

With all the puffery at these talks, you’d think a little more hot air might not be noticed. The problem is, it’s not just a little bit of hot air, the result is sweltering.

The lack of integrity of the market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, combined with weak targets, have created an 11 gigatonne CO2e hot air loophole. That’s right, 11 big ones -- clearing up that loophole would go a long way to closing the gigatonne gap. One important way would be to agree the KP hot air credits must be ineligible for compliance in the Paris agreement.

To ensure that we learn from the KP experience, the Paris treaty should define principles for the eligibility of use of international markets to achieve a country’s Nationally Determined Commitment. This should include how markets should reach standards that deliver real, supplemental, additional, verifiable, permanent emissions reductions, avoid double counting of effort, result in a net atmospheric benefit, and deliver sustainable development co-benefits. These principles will need to be defined in the COP decisions. Unless the core agreement specifically refers to these well-established standards, the transparency and environmental integrity of many Parties’ NDCs that depend on the use of markets cannot be assured.

To be effective, only countries with NDCs expressed as multi-year carbon budgets should be allowed to use markets for compliance. Such countries should also only be able to use market mechanisms if they have an ambitious 2025 mitigation target in line with their fair share 1.5°C target. Confidence in the carbon markets post 2020 requires rigorous MRV and accounting of emissions.

As Winston Churchill put it: "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." Will we learn from the KP experience? The agreements you come to, dear delegates, will test whether you indeed have learned.

Remember the Science: 2°C is Not Safe

When working at a microscopic level, we know there is a danger of delegates losing perspective. In June, the presentation of the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) results saw intensive exchanges on new science, the impacts of climate change and how to keep warming at 1.5/2°C. But the end saw Saudi Arabia and others sideline an agreement to inform the ADP on their work and conclusions.
The SED found that the ‘guardrail’ concept, in which up to 2°C of warming is considered as relatively safe, is in fact inadequate due to the severe risks and potential irreversible impacts. Instead, the long-term goal should be defined as a ‘defence line’ and efforts should be made to put the line as low as possible. It’s important to note that more than 100 Parties already support limiting warming to 1.5oC, a group only likely to gain members in the run-up to Paris.

From the 10 key SED messages, ECO wants to reiterate three:

1) Warming of 2°C would lead to catastrophic impacts, slow down economic growth and hinder poverty reduction efforts considerably.

2) The world is not on track for a path towards a 1.5/2°C scenario. Past and recent global GHG emissions have accelerated, the emissions gap is growing, and the current Cancun pledges are more consistent with pathways limiting global warming to 3-4°C.

3) Keeping warming at 1.5/2°C is still achievable. Deep emission cuts are needed to keep warming at 1.5°C and below 2°C levels. This would require full decarbonisation of energy systems. Achieving this would not significantly affect global gross domestic product growth.

“If, and this is the case here, there is a high risk of dangerous climate change with severe and life-threatening consequences for man and the environment, the State has the obligation to protect its citizens from it by taking appropriate and effective measures.”

The Hague District Court, 24 June 2015

You can’t have missed it: the Dutch NGO Urgenda, alongside over 900 citizens, recently won a historic climate lawsuit against the Dutch state. The Court in The Hague confirmed what scientists, the public and civil society have long known: developed countries must take more climate action, now. And if they don't, they face being held legally liable for impacts of their inaction.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the Dutch government to reduce its emissions by a minimum of 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, deeming the current target of 17% wholly inadequate.

And rightly so: for a likely chance of avoiding dangerous climate change, developed countries must make much bigger cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions. In mandating a 25% target, the Court expressly provides a great deal of leeway for the Dutch state, noting that, "a reduction target of this magnitude is the absolute minimum“.

However, what might have been an opportunity for Dutch leadership and an ‘orange is the new green’ attitude has instead become a fossil-worthy fiasco. Earlier this week, the Netherlands announced its intention to appeal the case—despite numerous protests all pleading “#ganietinberoep!” (don’t appeal!).

There are strong signals that the government’s main rationale for the appeal is that it hopes to continue its dirty ways, with less than 5% of the country powered by renewables and annual fossil fuel subsidies approaching $10 billion.

With its future adaptation costs estimated in the billions, this low-lying country should really know better. The Netherlands is just the first in a long line of countries that could eventually be held legally accountable for climate inaction and delinquency towards their citizens.

All developed countries must cut their emissions by at least 40% by 2020 from 1990 levels in order to help bridge the emissions gap. The Urgenda case is an indictment of all who put the priorities of powerful vested interests above those of their citizens, and a clarion call to the need for quick and powerful action on climate change.

Towards a Global Goal On Adaptation

With severe climate impacts already harming vulnerable people and ecosystems, Parties' attention to a global adaptation goal is essential—and long overdue.

To be strategic, visionary, and durable, a global adaptation goal should complement an ambitious long-term mitigation goal that limits global warming to 1.5°C. A global goal should advance adaptation to increase resiliency to the impacts of climate change. This should be underpinned by principles, building on those agreed in the Cancun Adaptation Framework. The pathway to achieve the goal must be dynamic, taking into account increasing warming, and scaling up disaster risk reduction to minimise residual impacts and loss and damage.

It must also be underpinned by key mechanisms. First, gradually and regularly advance an understanding of how countries are managing current and expected climate risks, and the sufficiency of those efforts. Countries will need to prepare for the expected level of warming—more than 3°C due to inadequate INDCs.

Second, regularly assessing needs in terms of support, in particular financial support based on CBDR+RC. ECO imagines that National Adaptation Plans, adaptation components of the INDCs, or those included in National Communications could inform this assessment.

Third, establishing a process for meeting public finance targets for adaptation by developed countries and others that significantly reduces the gap between needs and the support provided.

These pillars will require further technical work before the Paris agreement’s entry into force, in order to develop real value in addressing adaptation.

An Inconvenient Gap

ECO would like to draw Parties' attention to new analysis out today: even though only two-thirds of the world's emissions are covered by currently submitted INDCs, there is a substantial gap in mitigation ambition as we speed toward Paris. Submissions for 2025 put us on a dangerous track to warming of well over 1.5°C, and the 2030 goals are simply not good enough. And the 2030 commitments submitted thus far would make 2°C "essentially infeasible", and 1.5°C "beyond reach".

Then there's the pesky problem of actually meeting the commitments put forward so far, let alone any new ones. Only the EU and China have realistic pathways to meet their 2025 targets. Everyone else needs to step up their game to ensure stabilisation of the climate.

It's time for countries to take a hard look at global goals and play their part. ECO has three prescriptions: increased ambition for 2025 targets, 5-year cycles to ensure an opportunity for course correction, and strong encouragement to increase ambition back home to pass policies in line with stated commitments.

2nd September - Day 3

Innovative Public Finance: Fruit Ripe For Picking

Many delegates have spent years, inside and outside of this process, on the seemingly enticing topic of innovative finance. ECO understands if some of you are getting tired of this work–so now is the time to harvest the fruits of your labour and lock in new, predictable and significant sources of finance that aren’t at the whim of treasuries!

The ground has been prepared by studies, such as those of the High-Level Advisory Group on Finance, the Leading Group on Innovative Finance, and others who have scoped the landscape.

Trial plantings have been made with a share of proceeds of the CDM that initially provided funds for the Adaptation Fund. Unfortunately, this fruit has withered on the vine.

Early seedlings in ICAO and IMO have so far come to nought–it seems they need UNFCCC fertiliser to grow. And if there’s one thing the UNFCCC can produce, it’s fertiliser.

Now that the ground has been prepared, and the Paris agreement is well placed to ensure that, within a year, we are harvesting the fruits of innovative public finance. 

We need only one more ingredient: a process to agree on new innovative sources of public finance. Paragraph 82 in Part II is a good start, but should be spliced with the detailed options found in paragraph 54 and paragraph 64, Part III.

We need to be sure that predictable finance flows into adaptation, loss and damage, and no-net-incidence are considered, as well as targeting the drivers of climate change where possible. And then, with some gardening work in 2016, we will be in a position to enjoy the fruits of our labour.

It’s the Scale, Stupid

In the endless repetition of long-standing positions that passes for climate finance negotiation these days, one message comes through loud and clear: the Paris agreement–yes, the core legal agreement, currently largely in Part 1 of the co-chairs’ tool–must address the scale of finance to be provided post-2020.

Failure to do this will undermine trust, contribute to a lowest-common denominator deal (or even no deal), and bring us closer to the 3 or 4°C-warmer future we all dread.

ECO is well aware of the difficulties: post-2020 is beyond national budgeting cycles, finance ministries and political leaders must be engaged, etc., etc.

But let’s move into solutions mode. ECO concedes that firm numbers will not be in the core agreement. But let’s think about what can go there. Here is a start:

The US$100 billion-by-2020 commitment will be a floor for post-2020 finance.

Financial support will be scaled up over the post-2020 period until climate goals are met, and (to pick up on what the EU said yesterday) the most capable countries will contribute such financial support.

Ex-ante financial targets (aggregate and/or individual countries) will be agreed on a rolling basis, on a 2- to 5-year cycle.

Mechanisms, provisions or processes to enable developing countries to identify their needs to enhance action.

Recognition of the catalytic and central role of public finance, with at least 50% going to adaptation.

Scaled-up finance from multiple sources can be targeted to enable climate action in a variety of ways, through:

Traditional channels of financial flows,

New financing arrangements for activities with high mitigation potential identified through Workstream 2 and an ongoing technical examination and prioritisation process, and

Matching of finance with conditional activities that have been identified in developing countries’ INDCs.

ECO is convinced that if all the big brains around the finance table really tried, they could find ways to incorporate these ideas. This includes finding even better ideas that can provide certainty that financial resources will be available.

Such certainty is the requisite to unlock the maximum mitigation and resilience potential in developing countries, by complementing their own domestic efforts to shift public and private financial flows.

Productive Differentiation Times

ECO has spent years calling for serious discussion on differentiation, and was pleasantly surprised when, yesterday, one materialised. Even better, the “spin off” meeting unfolded as a probing exercise that cast some real and useful light. 

The fundamental question – what is the purpose of differentiation? – saw lots of good answers. One, offered by Mali, was that a proper differentiation system would ensure that all countries, whatever their level of development, could make their “best efforts”. ECO wants to add that in an economically stratified world like ours, a differentiated regime is key to equity, trust, solidarity, and action. 

If the level of effort is nationally determined, one crucial point – repeatedly noted – is that we must not lose focus on the need for developed countries to take the lead. Self-differentiation, the theme of yesterday’s discussion, is what we have to work with. And clearly, we have to make it work.

The EU said that it never wanted self-differentiation, but rather a “spectrum of commitments” that takes the complexity of the modern world into account. Can we reach that same goal by a path other than self-differentiation? It won’t be easy, but that’s because the only spectrum currently open is one of nationally determined actions.

Such happy outcomes are possible, but not without principle-based ex-ante assessment. ECO was a bit taken aback when China went out of its way to insist that such assessment, and even “common indicators,” were doomed to lead to “name and shame.” 

ECO wonders if naming and shaming is always a bad thing though. After all, there really are leaders and laggards among us when it comes to climate action. China helpfully added some perspective to this view yesterday when it argued that the existing “categories” had not, in fact, dissuaded the developing countries from voluntarily, and substantively, increasing their ambition.

On this point, ECO is happy to agree. But this seems to support the need for a principle-based assessment, one capable of identifying such ambition where it exists and constructively highlighting where more work needs to be done.

Bold Words and Empty Promises

The Arctic is one of the regions hit hardest by the climate change, and on Monday, the US convened the GLACIER summit – Global Leadership in the Arctic: Cooperation, Innovation, Engagement, and Resilience – to muster ambition among Arctic Council nations ahead of Paris.

With reluctance from Canada and Russia, a joint statement on climate change and the Arctic was signed. Notably, it did not commit to any concrete actions. “We take seriously warnings by scientists,” they said, but only recommended fossil fuel companies voluntarily join an Arctic methane mitigation program.

President Obama stressed that not enough was being done. “This year in Paris has to be the year that the world reaches an agreement. None of the nations represented here are moving fast enough.” He also added that: “any so-called leader who does not take this issue seriously or treats it like a joke — is not fit to lead.”

ECO would like to remind GLACIER countries, now that you have affirmed your commitment to climate action, it’s time to walk your talk in Bonn.

Loss and Damage FAQ

ECO is pleased that Parties have started substantive discussions on the important issue of loss and damage. Equally, ECO is glad to have been helpful to Parties with our debunking mechanism–as was mentioned in today’s loss and damage facilitated discussion, which dove into the hard questions. Key amongst them were:

If we’re creating a durable agreement at Paris, in the context of available science, how could we justify not including loss and damage in this durable agreement?

The answer for this question was given in the moving intervention from Dominica about the devastating impact of Hurricane Erika, supported by the many references by others to the need for finance for the impacts of climate change. Zambia also pointed out that the circumstances of vulnerable countries are likely to be very different in 20 or 50 years–some of these countries will face existential crises in that time frame. As the Marshall Islands, the US and others noted, this is an existential question for low lying countries–and not an end-of-century problem. It is real and urgent , and it is not going away. Vulnerable countries need certainty and they need permanence that we will deal with the threats to their existence.

Will developed countries accept loss and damage in the Agreement?

An argument that Parties would accept loss and damage within the Decision but not the Agreement only serves to reinforce concerns that developed countries are not treating loss and damage with the seriousness it deserves. If placing it in the Decision indicates you’re committed to it, then go all the way and put it in the Agreement. Demonstrate that it is part of our long-term commitment to dealing with climate change.

Why include loss and damage in the Agreement, when we have the Warsaw Mechanism?

The mandate for the Warsaw Mechanism is narrow and contested. Let's remember that developed countries have argued against including finance for loss and damage in the work plan, despite it being included in the WIM. Any agreement needs to reflect the latest science and reality on the ground, requiring a broader and deeper mandate, including a comprehensive approach to managing risk and comprehensively addressing climate displacement.

How would the Warsaw Mechanism interact with the Paris agreement?

The WIM can do important work between now and the implementation of the Paris agreement, and this should answer some of the questions that Parties now have. It could also have a role to play in implementing the functions outlined in the Agreement, while remaining open to be changed if needed.

And, delegates, remember that ECO is always ready to help if there are more questions!

WS2: How To Do Better

Constructive proposals have pleasingly been coming out of the Workstream 2 discussions. Crucial emissions gap language, missing since June, has been reintroduced. This includes discussions around a forum to move WS2 towards implementation, improved Technical Experts Meetings, appointment of champions for actionable initiatives, and a Technical Examination Process on adaptation, among others.

Efficient systems and processes need to be put in place to close the ambition gap. It is important that WS2 be enhanced, as it could be a pilot for future efforts to close the emissions gap left by inadequate INDCs. ECO appreciates that many Parties recognise the potential of non-state actors in these processes, too.

However, while this—collaborative actions and actions by non-state actors—are critical components of closing the emissions gap, they cannot account for the full 8-10 Gt CO2e gap that is still expected for 2020. Governments will have to play their part, especially developed countries. ECO is concerned that some interventions by developed countries, though constructive in part, consistently avoid the fact that developed countries should set an example through enhanced domestic action. 

Unexplored mitigation potential, as South Africa put it, in developing countries exists due to lack of access to technology, capacity or finance. If developed countries are calling for all countries to close the gap, they must recognise that this will firstly require them to deliver additional support to unlock the dormant potential.

Agenda 2030 — Share the Love in Paris

ECO is truly enthusiastic about the global sustainable development agenda: “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” which received a standing ovation when adopted last month in New York.

ECO strongly urges negotiators to support the proposal currently captured in preambular paragraph 33 of section III, which references the post-2015 agenda, to ensure alignment of the climate and development processes.

Here is why: Agenda 2030 includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals. One specifically urges action on climate change and its impacts when fighting global poverty, inequality and injustice. But, fret not about your role in the bigger picture, Agenda 2030 also says that the UNFCCC is the primary intergovernmental forum for negotiating a global response to climate change.

Although these two processes have different starting points, they both recognise the need to eradicate poverty. Agenda 2030 is the first UN document of its kind that tells us to look at development and climate together. It reminds us that the choices we make today when tackling hunger, improving energy access or building infrastructure will affect mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

Agenda 2030 calls for these goals to be achieved while keeping the global average temperature increase below 1.5°C or 2°C. It asks all UN member states to work collectively through the UNFCCC towards an ambitious legal outcome, applicable to all Parties and following the CBDR principle.

Both processes must deliver in a coordinated and coherent manner. The Paris agreement should welcome Agenda 2030’s mitigation and adaptation targets, and acknowledge the important role that Agenda 2030 will play in climate outcomes. Turkey already supported the idea on Monday; ECO hopes that others will follow suit.