Notes from 9 July Call

NOTES FROM CLARA Small-Group CALL

S.R. on Land release  9 July

 

action points underlined

 

Release date of Special report  -- 8 July, hasn’t changed.  Just weird timing.

 

What kind of media or messaging is appropriate and needed prior to the release? Are we reporting on/focussing on the big power politics that we might expect at plenary level? Journalists will be sensitised to the push-back happening...

 

Doreen:   1.5degree report massively controversial because dealt with remaining carbon budgets.  Economic reasons for US and Saudis to not have the message on carbon budgets emphasised. This Land report on the other hand includes lots on impacts, so we have a different political conversation. Saudis in support of desertification chapter ahead of land degradation. Think about this differently to 1.5.

 

Linda: Land report won't be as controversial as 1.5. Hard to say about geoengineering...technologies negotiated all at once. The Saudis are mostly interested in the SRM side. Unsure to how they will respond to CDR and BECCS. Comms: we can be active and visible as CLARA online during the meeting - we are here, following negotiations, expectations etc. Call on govs and other orgs/actors that we want to connect with about our expectations. Useful to draft an embargoed PR when in Geneva, and have list of journalists to share this with. And give MP another push.

 

Group decision:  to be active and visible as CLARA, linking much of what we do back to ‘Missing Pathways’.  It’s a much smaller space than a COP, and advocacy looks very different (see Peg Putt’s emailed comments on this topic). 

 

Timings. We need to wait for the release to be able to comment on what made it into the SPM. There might be a new SPM just before the meeting.

Doreen: SPM author said it had changed a lot Jan-April, but that it won't change significantly before August. Also, govs don't seem very interested, compared to the 1.5 report, according to that author. We now have access to all the underlying chapters, so a lot of material to work with.

 

Is there any 'spin' to call out in the SPM? Doreen: A lot of the problem has been removed from the agricultural perspective.

 

Sara: It's not a problem to comment on earlier drafts of the chapters during the meeting (within advocacy work). French team expect new SPM 48 hours before the meeting. Agree with Doreen that the politics could be different this time. French: could eventually align with Saudis due to opposing BECCS. Unsure how much the French media will take up the report. Making link with FAO numbers on food security coming out on July 15th - useful for journalists.

 

Hannah: would be helpful to get feedback on new SPM within the CLARA list. Fern has meeting planned with EU negotiating team/ DG CLIMA on July 30th.

 

Doreen: If registered for the meeting, can see all the chapters. 

 

Who plans to be in Geneva? Sara, Linda, Doreen, Peg, Dil, Christoph

 

Should we open the CLARA Twitter account to someone who will be there? If not tweeting for own organisation, could you contribute to the Twitter? Doreen would be interested; Peter and others can support from afar. (those at the meeting won't have time to Tweet much).

 

On land and climate, CLARA should be the go-to; build reputation beforehand.

 

Linda: CLARA should prepare advocacy document before the session. Use the HBF document that has already been worked on - if the latest version of the SPM is not too different. The more specific, the better. Sara, Kelly, Peter, Peg, Virginia, Souparna and Doreen can help with this.

 

Peter: Agree with Souparna that SPM is most ignored and least changed and worth advocacy attention... Also geoengineering, food and agriculture. We should provide comments to each other. Reactions on SPM by July 19th. Week of 22nd put together advocacy document. Final deadline July 29th/30th.

If the SPM changes, that becomes its own story.

 

Souparna: 1.5 report response from Southern countries: Absence of Southern literature and a knowledge gap here due to 1.5 being based on the northern literature. How can we turn this around in the case of the Land report? Reforestation, restoration, agroecology... Take this perspective and insert into the GFC case studies, the pre-release text and the advocacy document.

 

Peter: Science of the 6th assessment is v different to 5th assessment - positive over all. We need to describe the evolution of the science. Moving in a direction indicated by Missing Pathways.

 

Me: The more we say that trends/opinions/research are turning in a certain direction, the more people get on board in a kind of crowd mentality/wanting to be part of a growing movement 'on the right side of history' - whether general public or policy-makers.

 

Wendy LandryComment