Why is the 2021 CVF Pacific Regional Communiqué important to recall ahead of MEPC 79 & 80?

Over the next 12 months, GHG emissions reduction negotiations at IMO will determine whether this major emitting sector will finally set 1.5 agenda compatible targets and agree an immediate ambitious price on all GHG emissions. As importantly, we will learn whether the inevitable transition to a decarbonised industry will seek to enable an equitable transition path for all.  

The acid test for this will be the decisions reached on whether the GHG price will be extracted under the Principe of Polluter Pays, i.e. the originator of the environmental damage is responsible for making adequate compensation for their actions, and if so, how the considerable revenues that accrue are dispersed.  What will be spent in-sector, what out-of-sector? What goes to powering a successful sectorial transition and what goes to ensuring no state is really left behind?  How much for subsidizing a high polluting private sector to stop polluting by changing their behavior and how much to the victims of the pollution – in this case the smallest, most remote and climate most vulnerable states who have contributed least to the problem?

In preparing for MPEC80 in July 2023, where IMO must adopt its long-awaited Revised Strategy for Reducing GHG Emissions from International Shipping, the Climate Vulnerable Forum Regional Dialogue, co-hosted by Bangladesh and the Marshall Islands, approved the 2021 CVF Pacific Regional Communiqué ahead of the Glasgow COP[1]. As the Pacific delegations now prepare their submissions to the various negotiations round over the next 12 months, it is worth recalling key paragraphs in that communiqué. As the leading and most determined voice of both highest possible ambition and the climate most vulnerable states at IMO, some Pacific high ambition positioning has already been confirmed. 

2.         Greater Ambition from Major Emitters: The social, environmental, and economic security of the Pacific requires safeguarding of the 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5°C) Paris Agreement goal to limit warming. Even 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.5ºC) of warming poses catastrophic risks for the region. Action is especially needed by major emitters given that the most recently upgraded Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) concern only around half of all GHG emissions.

3.         Imperative of New and Additional Financing: According to the Global Commission on Adaptation, financing needs for adaptation and resilience are $1.8 trillion this decade. As least developed, small islands and vulnerable middle-income nations with limited fiscal space, facing high costs of finance support will be insufficient, with best national efforts, to mobilize the necessary finance for climate action. Furthermore, additional financing is needed to avert, minimize, and address loss and damage in the context of the adverse impacts of climate change, including displacement.

4.         Carbon Markets: Furthermore, at COP26 we need to finalize robust carbon markets and a rulebook that ensures environmental integrity consistent with 1.5ºC to unlock new finance streams while the carbon markets regime should raise at least 5% proceeds to support the adaptation actions of developing countries particularly vulnerable to climate change

5.         Loss & Damage: In addition to the need for financing of loss and damage, COP26 needs to place a higher level of prioritization on loss and damage and the work of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM).

7.         Adaptation: The recent IPCC report further reinforced the alarming reality facing our Small Island States with the real possibility of some vanishing from existence within this century and we therefore call for urgent adaptation actions now. We call for real action in the form of increased financing for adaptation, removal of barriers to technology transfers, and investment in capacity developments in-line with Article 7 of the Paris Agreement and setting a Global Goal on Adaptation. Development partners should ensure that adaptation initiatives become part and parcel of resilience development both in terms of physical infrastructures, environmental protection, and integrity, ensuring resilient and adaptable economies that are in line with regional and national adaptation priorities, thus reducing the impacts of climate change on our societies.

8.         Maritime GHG Emissions: We recognize the critical importance of shipping to our states and to prioritize and support all efforts to advocate for this sector to commit to an equitable transition to zero emission by at least 2050 that leaves none behind. We support fully the current submissions to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) MEPC77 calling for IMO to adopt this as an overarching sectoral target and endorse urgent and close consideration by IMO of the mandatory GHG levy on international shipping proposed by RMI and Solomon Islands. We note that, in addition to being the only measure proposed that can drive a market transition to non-emitting fuels and technologies at the speed and scale needed for a 1.5°C agenda, the proposed entry price in 2025 of $100/ton CO2e may raise revenues in the order of $90 billion p.a.. We support the sponsors’ argument that the majority of this should be used for the priority mitigation and adaptation needs of the climate vulnerable states. To ensure that the climate vulnerable are not left behind in this transition, we urge members to consider adopting the ambitious targets set by Fiji and RMI in their updated 2020 NDC of 40% reduction in domestic maritime emissions by 2030 and 100% by 2050. We note and endorse the need for urgent blended finance investment at scale to meet the domestic shipping transition needs of the climate vulnerable via ambitious initiatives such as the Pacific Blue Shipping Partnership.

There is a lot in the balance at IMO in the coming year.  The full Communique text can be accessed here: https://disasterdisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CVF-Pacific-Regional-Communique-2021_Final.docx.pdf

---

[1] The 8 participating governments from the Pacific included: Fiji, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu

Author: Peter Nuttall, is the Scientific and Technical Advisor to MCST