|
||
|
TWN
Bonn Climate News Update No. 11 Foundation laid for tough fights at COP29 June 17, Bonn (Radhika Chatterjee and Meena Raman): The closing plenary of the 60th meeting of the UNFCCC’s subsidiary bodies (SB60) which took place in Bonn, Germany, began late evening of 13 June, and concluded early morning of 14 June, setting the stage for very tough negotiations which will take place in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November later this year, mainly over issues on finance and mitigation. Although the intersessional meetings advanced work on some agenda items with conclusions adopted, several of these had draft texts containing very divergent views reflecting a lack of consensus among Parties, which will be negotiated further, where decisions are expected be taken at COP 29 and CMA 6 (the 6th session of the Conference of Parties to the Paris Agreement). On some agenda items such as the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP), Parties could not agree on how to advance further work, leading to this matter for further consideration at Baku. (See further details below). The Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA,) Harry Vreuls (Netherlands), and Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), Nabeel Munir (Pakistan), conducted the session jointly, that led to various conclusions under the respective bodies being adopted, and this was followed by closing statements from groups of Parties, sharing their reflections on the work done in Bonn. On matters relating to the ‘UAE dialogue on implementing the global stocktake (GST) outcomes’, referred to in para 97 of decision 1/CMA.5 (SBI agenda item 5), the SBI “took note of the informal note prepared by the co-facilitators…”, noting “that the informal note does not represent consensus among Parties, and agreed to continue consideration of this matter, taking into account the informal note, at SBI 61” (to be held in Nov. 2024) with a view to the CMA6 concluding consideration of the matter. (Parties are divided over the interpretation of para 97, as to whether it relates to only a dialogue on matters related to the finance outcomes of the GST or of all the GST outcomes, with developed countries insisting on the latter, and many developing countries taking the position on the former). On matters relating to the ‘Global Goal on Adaptation’ (GGA), Parties agreed to request the Chairs and the secretariat to prepare “a compilation and mapping of existing indicators relevant to measuring progress towards the (GGA’s) targets” in paras 9-10 of decision 2/CMA.5, “including information on areas potentially not covered by existing indicators”. The SB Chairs were requested “to convene technical experts to assist in the technical work…, including [in] reviewing and refining the compilation and mapping of existing indicators…and, as needed, developing new indicators for measuring progress achieved towards the targets”. On the ‘Just Transition Work Programme’ (JTWP), Parties agreed to advance work through the organisation of its second dialogue as mandated in para 5 of decision 3/CMA.5. Towards this end, it provided for the submission of topics and views ahead of the second dialogue from Parties and others. On the ‘Sharm-el-Sheikh joint work on implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security’, (an agenda item which did not see any progress in the past 15 months), Parties were able to move forward by deciding on the workshop topics to be held, and also requested the secretariat to operationalize and develop the online portal for this work. For those agenda items in which Parties could not achieve consensus, matters were transmitted for consideration to SB61 (to be held in Nov.), under Rule 16 of the UNFCCC’s draft Rules of Procedure, which provides that “Any item of the agenda of an ordinary session, consideration of which has not been completed at the session, shall be included automatically in the agenda of the next ordinary session,…”. Among these items included the ‘Sharm-el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation programme’ (MWP), and matters relating to the Adaptation Fund. On the SBI agenda item on ‘Reporting from and review of Parties included in Annex I to the Convention’, Parties were only able to adopt procedural conclusions where they decided to continue further consideration of the matters at the next SB session. The second meeting under the Ad Hoc Work Programme (AHWP) of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on finance was also convened in Bonn, in conjunction with the SBs and saw discussions on an input paper prepared by the Co-Chairs of the programme to enable a framework for a draft negotiating text. Divergences between developing and developed countries continued to be pronounced on key political issues that have dominated the negotiations, the most prominent being the push by developed countries on who would contribute to the goal (expanding the donor base), and who would receive the finance (limiting the recipients of finance). There have also been strong calls by developing countries to establish an ambitious quantum, with developed countries unwilling to indicate any number in this regard. Highlights of closing plenary statements Uganda, speaking for the Group of 77 (G-77) and China stressed that “the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), in light of different national circumstances, are central and should be upheld, as they are the basis for our collective ambition to combat climate change.” It said that “the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the core of the Paris Agreement (PA), and that it expects that Parties will present ambitious commitments in the new NDC cycle, in light of their different national circumstances.” It said the NCQG is of “maximum priority for G77 and China” which “must be delivered in Baku”, adding that “We cannot go beyond COP29 without defining the NCQG,” adding that it “must be in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention and the PA” which “means the goal must be delivered by developed countries to developing countries based on the principles of equity and CBDR.” It is “to assist developing countries to implement their NDCs and national adaptation plans (NAPs)” and that it “must be delivered via the provision of public finance in a grants-based or concessional manner to address macroeconomic constraints of developing countries.” On the quantum, Uganda said “it is one of the most consequential elements of the Goal and it must be based on developing countries’ priorities and evolving needs, including (for) loss and damage responses.” Uganda also welcomed the conclusions on GGA, NAP and other adaptation items, “adding that “under the GGA”, the Group “recognizes the need to implement the UAE Resilience Framework and the ensuring of the UAE-Belem work programme on indicators.” On the enhanced transparency framework (ETF) and “the deployment of tools designed to enhance transparency”, it said the Group had a “unified position on the need for more support for developing countries. Developed countries, however, have been resisting to provide proper financial and technical support. The conclusions reached…on the tools have been subjected to the availability of resources, which shows the low commitment of Annex 1 countries in fulfilling their obligations” On the JTWP, Uganda said “a broad understanding of just transitions… covers all three pillars of sustainable development (social, economic, and environmental) in a balanced and integrated manner, in both its international and national dimensions,” and was encouraged to leave the negotiations with a process to enhance and strengthen future dialogues and conclusions.” It also welcomed the decisions and conclusions adopted on various agenda items, including: the Terms of Reference for the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for Loss and Damage, Sharm el-Sheikh joint work on implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security, matters relating to the implementation of technology mechanism, matters relating to ‘Local communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform’, matters relating to Article 6 of the PA, capacity building, and gender and climate change. Kenya, for the African Group, said that “our engagements on (the) GGA are driven by reality… the work on indicators on GGA are central to a balanced implementation of the PA, where we have clear dimensions against which to measure collective progress towards the goal” adding that “this however is not possible without the further articulation of finance indicators for each dimensions in accordance of paras 9 and 10 of the UAE Framework”. Referring to the UAE dialogue of the GST outcome document of COP28, it said attempts were being made to interpret the item beyond matters of finance. It also expressed concerns regarding the direction of the talks in NCQG, saying that, “our partners” are trying to “rid themselves” from their obligations of providing finance under the Convention and the PA. “The focus seems to be on distractions such as “broadening the contributor base and narrowing the recipient base. We wish to emphasize the main outcome should address quantum of finance, instruments, timeframe and transparency. The linkages between expected ambition for developing countries and the level of ambition in the new goal is central,” stressed Kenya further. Highlighting the special circumstances of African countries, it said problems of the “cost of finance, debt burden, stranded assets, (and the) constrained fiscal space” should be taken into account and reiterated the “importance of tackling the issue of debt and to consider debt sustainability measures as crucial aspects of finance discussions.” On the MWP, it said “we see a pursuit of goals and target setting for developing countries, while this is a facilitative process that is non-punitive and representative of national determinations. As such the MWP should not pronounce targets and goals”. It also stressed the need for ensuring energy security and access to clean cooking energy as areas that should be top priorities of the MWP. On Just transitions, it said, “our work clearly has to address the fairness of transitions associated with Article 2 pathways among countries, and cannot be limited to national aspects of the transition.” Highlighting the findings of the 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it said the report “clearly states that transition in Africa is in pursuit of human development index of at least 0.5 whilst maintaining emissions below 5 tonnes per capita, despite having some emission headroom.” It expressed disappointment about “the move to change the mandate of ‘Response Measures’ into a place of showcasing best practises and a-health co-benefits forum instead of a cooperation to address the negative impacts of the measures on developing countries. This multilateral platform is not only for learning from each other but is primarily for addressing the negative impacts”. Further it reiterated the “need for addressing impacts of mitigation policies on developing countries in this work programme.” Bolivia for the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) said that on some agenda items, (the processes) have been co-facilitators-driven (rather than Party-driven); non-transparent and not inclusive. “We struggled with making progress on these issues,” reiterating “that the process must be driven by Parties” and be “transparent and inclusive”. It urged the COP29 Presidency to “choose facilitators who meaningfully facilitate the process and ensure balance, rather than drive Parties further apart.” Expressing concern about “the lack of balance” in the process, it said “we have spent hours and hours on some issues, while on others this has not been the case. We are worried that our partners were trying to advance informal notes that did not faithfully capture all Parties’ views” and asked “how can such imbalanced texts be the basis for any negotiations in the future? Such issues must be avoided at all costs.” It also highlighted concerns about developed countries attempts to block “proposals on MOI issues and references to equity and CBDR-RC.” Bolivia said that it failed to understand this resistance to referring to the bedrock principles of climate action and that “this does not send a signal of progress nor of negotiating in good faith.” It also stated that “efficiency (in the process) is at stake because: Our partners do not respect the mandates that they have also signed on to; …(and) are constantly trying to change mandates and not honouring their legal obligations; …are squarely focused on mitigation and ignoring that developing countries need the means to implement climate action; and are trying to open issues that are already agreed to.” The LMDC also stressed that “there is no conversation to be had on expanding the donor base or limiting the recipient base. We had this discussion when we were negotiating the PA. The matter is settled. It is nothing but a waste of time to repeatedly raise issues that have already been agreed to.” It said further that “on the one hand, we have heard that we should be in a continuous process of assessing progress, even though the first GST has concluded and we need to ensure that all GST related activities also conclude this year. On the other hand, we have seen our partners try to bury reports that project that Annex I Parties’ emissions will increase in 2030 compared to 2020.” Bolivia emphasized that this “is shocking in fact, especially since we hear them champion (the need to limit temperature rise to) 1.5°C. Developed countries should be reducing their emissions urgently and ambitiously, not increase emissions. They have overused the carbon space and cannot continue to, anymore. This hypocrisy must end. We in the LMDC value real action and not empty words,” added Bolivia. Calling COP29 a “finance COP”, it said developed countries must talk about the quantum of the NCQG. Brazil, for itself, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) expressed concerns “at the lack of progress on the debates of the NCQG, including the lack of concrete proposals for the quantum of the goal. It’s shocking that developed countries have reported under the Convention only USD 6.8 billion disbursed, …of the 100 billion they were legally expected to deliver annually. These are official figures from their 5th Biennial Reports,” adding that “what we have seen instead is an attempt to dilute their climate finance legal obligations under international law through suggestions of broadening the contributor base.” Said Brazil further, “fulfilling gaps around definition of climate finance is key for transparency and accountability of support provided by developed countries. The NCQG must be delivered at COP29 on a solid and effective basis. It must contemplate a necessary quantum based on provision of public finance to developing countries in a grants-based or concessional manner, incorporating qualitative elements on improved access and fiscal sustainability.” It said that “it is critical that COP29 approves a decision that advances in concrete results and enhances the UAE JTWP in a more balanced manner, with a focus on sustainable development and eradication of poverty.” On Article 6 of the PA (on cooperative approaches including markets and non-markets), Brazil said, “we have been able to finally confirm that emissions avoidance will not be eligible for the purposes of Article 6,” adding that “we are confident that, with the adequate political will, the remaining obstacles can be overcome, and we will be able to take a decisive step towards cooperative approaches that are transparent, consistent and effectively contribute to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly in developing countries.” On the GGA, it said, “we were able to begin the technical work related to the UAE-Belém Work Programme on indicators, to be finalized by COP30, in Brazil. Adaptation is not an option for developing countries; it is a necessity.” On the MWP, it expressed disappointment that some Parties attempted to re-open the mandate, and urged “Parties to build a safe environment based on trust to make progress in this agenda item” and that it “would welcome signals by developed countries on how they intend to anticipate their climate neutrality targets at least by 2040,” and also asked for explanation “on how recent unilateral measures against developing countries sustainable development may in any way benefit fighting climate change.” It also expressed concerns “at repeated attempts by some developed countries during this session to imply new interpretations of the PA and to undermine the Convention” adding that “Equity and the principle of CBDR-RC, in the light of different national circumstances, are the foundations of the international climate regime. Malawi, for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) said that the full implementation of the GST outcomes, with regular follow-ups on progress, will be critical, following the historic decisions made in Dubai and looked forward to the UAE dialogue on implementing the GST outcomes across the thematic areas. On climate finance and NCQG, it was concerned with the little progress made and called for continued “work on setting an ambitious finance goal, based on the needs of developing countries and evidence from science.” On GGA, it said the results achieved in Bonn “provide a clear path forward for the development of indicators. However, we must address the significant challenges we face in accessing finance resources and dealing with long timelines in order to address urgent adaptation needs.” Samoa, for the Alliance of Small Island States (SIDs) said that finance is “the high profile issue for the year” that it cuts across all of the thematic areas, whether it is technology, just transition, transparency, GST, mitigation, adaptation or loss and damage. It said further that “accessing finance remains a challenge and our capacity constraints must be recognized” adding that “the NCQG must not leave any Party or group of Parties behind.” It also called for “a robust follow-up mechanism within the GST outcome” to ensure that the outcomes are effectively implemented, adding that the UAE Dialogue provides an excellent opportunity to focus on the implementation of these outcomes. It emphasized that, “while these stocktakes will occur every five years, the first GST is crucial for maintaining the 1.5°C target. However, its success will be futile if we do not follow through and implement all outcomes agreed upon at COP28.” On the MWP, it expressed disappointment there were no results, adding that “only a substantive decision that implements the outcomes of the GST and talks to NDCs will be acceptable to AOSIS. As we move forward to Baku, we need to ensure that we truly deliver 1.5°C aligned high mitigation ambition in our NDCs as this is the only way we will be able to stay within the one and half degree temperature goal that is critical for our survival.” On Article 6, it said, it is critical that to move forward and agree on a set of clear rules and procedures for cooperative approaches that are both transparent and respect environmental integrity. It said, “adaptation remains a critical priority as temperatures continue to rise. Concluding the modalities for the UAE-Belem work programme on indicators is crucial so that we can measure progress and ambition in adaptation action and support. This initiative marks a significant step forward in our collective efforts to address climate change with precision and accountability. By developing robust, transparent, and actionable indicators, we can better track our progress and ensure that our strategies are effectively reducing the impacts on our most vulnerable communities.” Venezuela, for Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and itself (ALBA), reiterating its commitment to the principles of CBDR and equity, and the right to development, and insisted on the implementation of the Convention and the PA, without excuses, defending the promotion and defence of the rights of Mother Earth, climate justice, the need for greater financing for adaptation, a transition that is truly fair. “We will not accept that responsibilities be transferred to our countries, which have in no way contributed to the climate disaster in which we find ourselves today. In this way, we will ensure that we maintain a real fight against the climate crisis within the framework of building a fair, equitable and supportive society.” Calling 2024 “the year of financing”, it said “to achieve the objectives we have set, we need predictability and availability of sufficient financial resources for climate action and to work on the priorities identified by developing countries. We must have a fair, transparent and equitable multilateral climate financing architecture. Baku opens up this possibility for us, but it can only be achieved if developed countries assume their historical responsibility.” Speaking about unilateral coercive measures, it said, they “represent a very serious impact on the implementation of the Convention and the PA, limiting the ability to act in the face of the climate crisis and adopt adaptation, mitigation and response measures to climate change. These measures, contrary to international law, must be lifted immediately.” Saudi Arabia, for the Arab Group expressed the need for full adherence to the principles of CBDR and implementation of decisions under the UNFCCC. Emphasizing the critical role of adaptation in climate change, it asked for ensuring an adequate adaptation response to the rising temperatures. Calling adaptation a global challenge, with “regional and international aspects” it said, “each country’s response will vary with their unique national and regional circumstances.” It also said that the MWP is a platform for exchanging and sharing views with a focus on highlighting best practices and challenges and emphasized the “need to respect” the Sharm-el-Sheikh decision according to which it should be non-punitive in nature and in keeping with principles of equity and CBDR. Reiterating the importance of finance this year, it said NCQG should “on needs and priorities of developing countries.” On GST it said it viewed the outcome of GST at COP28 in a “holistic manner”, one which “acknowledged the principles of CBDR and equity” and the need for providing “means of implementation to developing countries” to achieve their NDCs. It said it was disappointed to “see some countries attempting to backtrack on finance dialogue”. On response measures, it said “addressing the negative social and economic impacts of response measures is a top priority for developing countries striving to achieve economic goals of sustainable development and prosperity.” Honduras, for the Independent Alliance of Latin America and Caribbean Countries (AILAC) said that “more than 80% of climate action in our countries is financed through debt in difficult marco-economic context” which is further “complicated by needs of adaptation” and large scale loss and damage. It said the international financial framework is “not favourable” to their climate actions which are “based on best available science”. It called on the prioritising the implementation of the GST on all its outcomes, “with an emphasis on means of implementation and mitigation.” On the NCQG, it said support should be provided to developing countries “in meeting their commitments” and “taking into account their changing priorities and ambition.” Highlighting the need to move forward it said the new goal should “guarantee implementation” and “ensure ambition in current and future planning” instruments. Argentina, speaking for Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and itself ( Group SUR), welcomed the conclusions on GST and the informal note that will be the “foundation” for continuation of negotiations at Baku. Calling adaptation a priority of developing countries, it said “we managed to achieve progress” on the work on indicators within the framework of GGA. On NCQG, it said countries developed countries must support developing countries based on needs and priorities of developing countries, keeping in mind the principle of CBDR. “The NCQG cannot add additional debt burden on developing countries”, it stressed. On mitigation, it said “it is crucial to generate trust between Parties”. Azerbaijan, the incoming presidency of COP29, said “progress in Bonn was vital to build momentum in Baku – to ensure all Parties are well placed to deliver outcomes in COP29.” It said the key to success is to “maintain space for constructiveness in negotiation rooms. Journey to Baku will require huge political effort.” It said the COP29 Presidency is “ready to play its part in enabling and driving forward” the work. The European Union (EU) stressed the need for keeping 1.5 C degree (goal) alive and reducing emissions by 43% by 2030 and by 60% by 2035. It said COP28 at Dubai had set us on a path of transitioning away from fossil fuels. Emphasizing on the importance of mitigation, it said a “good COP has to include a substantial outcome on mitigation.” It said the MWP was a space not only for discussing mitigation but also advancing NDCs, green jobs, green growth “to the benefit of all”. It said there is a need for “expert political leadership to keep us on track to achieve climate action we agreed in Dubai.” It said that Parties have a collective responsibility towards the UAE consensus and highlighted the need for keeping the 1.5 C goal within reach. On the NCQG, it said though the discussions advanced, there was still a “long way to go”. It said there is a need for sending a “strong signal for a major shift in the global economy”, markets, both domestically and globally, international budgets and financial system. It added that the EU remains committed to secure the interests of the most vulnerable countries. It also highlighted the need for focusing on the broader landscape of finance and mentioned the Sharm-el-Sheikh dialogue on Article 2.1.c and its complementarity with Article 9 of the PA in this regard. Australia, for the Umbrella Group said “we are nearly halfway through this critical decade of climate action.” Sharing its reflections on the Bonn sessions, it said, “we have seen progress in some areas” and noted challenges in others. On NCQG it said there is a need to accelerate efforts at the final meeting in October. It said NCQG is a “critical opportunity to scale up financial flows to deliver on the long term goals of PA.” Access to finance in NCQG has to be “multilayered,” include all sources and take into account “current economic realities and capabilities”. It expressed disappointment with the lack of progress MWP and said Parties are “blocking progress” and stressed the urgency required by climate crisis and asked Parties to come to Baku with a “different mindset” and said “accelerating mitigation ambition is a good way forward” and would be “key” for a “successful COP29”. Stressing on the need for continuing engagement in GST, it called the UAE Consensus achieved in COP28 a “landmark outcome” which calls for ambitious NDCs, including aims of tripling renewable energy, doubling energy efficiency and transitioning away from fossil fuels. It said the “ambition of next NDCs will determine” whether we can keep 1.5 C within reach or not and emphasized on building momentum for next NDCs. Switzerland for the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) expressed its disappointment with the progress made on mitigation. It said going back home with procedural decisions make it difficult for it justify at home as to why they are engaging with the process. It said it was “highly disappointed” with some Parties pushing back on modalities of work adding that at COP28 tremendous achievements were made with the conclusion of GST which highlighted the need for 1.5°C aligned NDCs, and goals like tripling renewable energy, doubling energy efficiency, and transition away from fossil fuels. It further said “some Parties referred to GST as a menu option. It is not.” It stressed it was particularly important to ensure mitigation action and 1.5°C aligned NDCs. On NCQG it said there is a need to send policy signals to the financial system for changes to happen and direct public finance where it is “most needed”.
|
||
