African Civil Society says the draft outcome of COP21 is unacceptable

By Isaiah Esipisu

The much-awaited draft text on the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP21) is out, but members of the civil society from Africa feel that it is unacceptable.

“We need to articulate our objection to our respective parties as chances of accessing the plenary are slim,” said Mithika Mwenda, the Secretary General for the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) – an umbrella organization that brings together over 1000 nongovernmental organisations from Africa.

“The most disturbing thing is that there is no mention of ‘climate justice’ in addition to other demands from civil society,” he said.

Below is PACJA's analysis:

1. The mention of Africa in acknowledgement of its vulnerability has been replaced by LDC's and SIDs. See article 4 (6). This was earlier considered a redline for AGN. Could you push this to be revisited?

2. Article 6 Finance, DA 2
          a)  Reference to target for adaption finance is missing

            b) Reference to Alternative sources in the agreement is missing

            c) Reference to alternative sources in COP decision is missing
the time-frame

          d)  Reference to phasing out fossil fuels is weakened and moved
to decision
          e) Reference to gender-sensitive approach is missing

          f)  Recognition that Adaptation Fund could become part of
Financial
Mechanism is in decision

          f) No mention of role of Standing Committee of Finance in
stocktaking
exercise (“global stocktake”

ANALYSIS
        In para. 1 – push for retaining all the language currently bracketed,
including in particular reference to “scaled up” because the only other
time it is mentioned in para. 5 is in a less significant/strong context

  In para. 2 – please note that the language is a dilution of the
Convention’s obligation under Art 4.3.  “should” is weaker than “shall”; “take
the lead” implies that developing countries also have to take mobilization
efforts, further reinforced with the new insertion of “ as part of ashared effort
of all parties”

In para. 3 – implies a conditionality for the provision of finance for
mitigation action (but is consistent with prior language used in the
Copenhagen Accord and at COP 16)

Also a reference for role of SCF in global stocktake is missing

In para. 5 – it is not quite clear, when the starting point is for
scaled up efforts and the attempt to balance between mitigation and
adaptation;

Please push for insertion of new language: “and taking a gender-sensitive
approach” at the end of the para. NOTE: this expression is already
established and
COP-approved language in the GCF Governing Instrument

FINANCE  in the decision, paras. 53- 73

in para. 57 – specific reference to year from when the process will
start is missing

in para. 60 – please note the mention of “results-based payments” for
REDD+

in para. 61 – note the introduction of the concept of “ enhanced
results-based payments” – needs clarification

para. 62 --  would be better placed in the agreement  than in the
decision text

  para. 63 – please note, reference to “decision 3/CP.19” has been dropped
(reference to long-term finance from Warsaw where “information on
quantitative and
qualitative elements of a pathway” were mentioned

  para. 65 – a reference to the appropriate instruments for public
interventions to be accounted for, namely grants and concessional loans, is
missing; this would allow accounting for example for public loans close to
market
rates

subpoint 65 (d) -- the way it is currently drafted, the inclusion of export
credits in the accounting would not be ruled out

On Article 2
        We suggest adding in Article 2 para.1.:
"The purpose of this agreement is to further implement ........... and
efforts to
eradicate poverty, on the basis of respect for human rights and gender
equality,so
as to:" ....
Alternatively in Article 2. para 2

"This agreement ......, in light of different national circumstances and
on the
basis of respect for human rights and gender equality.