Glasgow Cover Decision – Presidency Consultations
Glasgow Cover Decision–Presidency Consultations1/CP.26, 1/CMP.16 and 1/CMA.3
Intervention by Minister Flavien Joubert, Minister for Agriculture, Climate Change and Energy of the Seychelles, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)
Thank you, Mr. President,
I speak on behalf of the 39 members of the Alliance of Small Islands States,AOSIS.We again express our appreciation for this cover decision text: Cover decisions are really important and can produce landmark outcomes, and our intention here should be to achieve just that.
I will begin with general comments that apply to both texts, and then cover a few specific comments.
General comments that apply to both the CMA and CP text
- Nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches are a part of the solution in addressing climate change and increasing resilience, but the limits of these solutions must be acknowledgedLimits in their contribution to mitigation, given that 86% of GHG emissions over the last 10 years were a result of fossil fuel combustion
o Limits to adaptation of ecosystem-based solutions, especially when on a 2.7-degree trajectory
- On Adaptation Finance, in both decisions, before we reference private sector finance for adaptation for developing countries, we should emphasise that adaptation finance should mainly be from public grant-based sources.
- In both decisions, we should acknowledge the vulnerability of developing countries to the adverse impacts of climate change, in particular SIDS and LDCs. In our group, I represent members that face an existential threat due to climate change.
- We support the mirroring of the wording on Loss and Damage in both the CMA and COP text, as called for by both the LDCs and SIDS.
- AOSIS submitted a proposal on loss and damage financing to the COP Presidency, which I will read out here:
- Dedicated financing for loss and damage on a cooperative and facilitative basis is an urgent priority and must start with the operationalisation of a standalone facility on loss and damage under the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, that would consider innovative means to provide finance and support to address economic and non-economic losses related to the adverse effects of climate change including, but not limited to, risk transfer insurance mechanisms.
- Launch a process at COP26 to:
a) Establish a Committee to undertake this work to adopt terms of reference for the work to progress the Loss and Damage facility.
b) Call for submissions, meetings of the committee, workshops, multi-stakeholder dialogues.
c) Committee to provide a proposal on the operationalisation of the Loss and Damage facility, including risk transfer insurance and innovative means to provide finance and support to address economic and non-economic losses, to be considered and adopted in COP27.
- After 20 years, it is time we set out on a one-year journey to pull together all that we have done on this, over many workshops and reports, to operationalise financing for loss and damage.
- AOSIS feels we can increase the impact of paragraph 30 of the COP and paragraph 46 of the CMA and would like to revert to the COP presidency with a proposal.
- Building on the focus of non-state actors in the “Collaboration” section, we call for a small grant facilities under the UNFCCC’s Financial Mechanism with a floor of USD 1 billion per year, with a further disaggregated target for SIDS, to help manage the social and economic risks of the transition to this demographic, and to empower climate action at this level.
- Para 10: Replace developing with formulating NAPs. This is the standard language
- Para 11: include “regional” as well as global and local
- The IPCC Working Group III needs to be referenced as the Working Group II reporting in the adaptation section
- (Para 11) add after “urgently” the following: “and significantly”oAdd a paragraph on “adequacy, predictability, and sustainability” of adaptation finance
- (Para 27): Explicitly call on all climate finance providers to simplify and harmonise application procedures, and to report on progress at COP27. > Capacity building and harmonised processes are two sides of the same coin; less capacity is needed if processes are more straightforward.
- (Para 31): the NDC Synthesis Report should mirror para 36, in its call “for consideration by the CMA” –so we avoid the same embarrassing situation of a critical report being presented off-site at an inappropriate venue.
- (Para 37): while welcoming the fossil fuel subsidies reference, this is quite weak. There is no timeline or urgency to the sentence. The important point here is to frame it in the context of the trillions of dollars in subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industry since the Paris Agreement’s adoption, which outstrips by far the climate finance provided and mobilised. We are flexible where this is reflected.
- In general, this section does not reflect the urgency of the mitigation challenges by solely urging parties to submit if they have not yet done so, and urging parties to revisit their NDCs, rather than requesting.
In closing, I note that there are some critical elements for my group that are with “placeholders”, for example sub-targets for adaptation, mitigation, loss and damage and just transition, among others, in the new collective quantified goal. We will comment on these points when we see them reflected in the final document
I thank you and undertake to send the full set of proposals to you the after this session.