|
||
|
TWN
Belém Climate News Update No. 16 Climate talks advance ‘Non-Market Approaches Platform’ for mitigation projects Delhi, 1 Dec. (Radhika Chatterjee) - At the recently concluded climate talks in Belem, Brazil, that ended on 22 Nov, the final decision adopted under the ‘Sharm el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme’ (MWP), encourages Parties to record projects they identify on the ‘Non-Market Approaches Platform’ [NMA Platform], [established under Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement]. In Belem, after several days of negotiations under the 7th session of the CMA [CMA 7 - Conference of Parties to the Paris Agreement], Parties agreed to mandate the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) “to consider ways to implement additional functionalities” in the NMA Platform that would enable Parties “to record projects” that are identified through the MWP. [According to the UNFCCC website, “The NMA Platform is designed to record and exchange information on non-market approaches under Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement. It is established in accordance with decision 8/CMA.4 and enables participating Parties and non-Party stakeholders to identify, develop and implement non-market approaches. The platform includes information on finance, technology and capacity-building support available or provided for these initiatives”.] The idea of using the NMA Platform arose following an initial proposal by Brazil, representing Group Sur at COP 29 last year, for having a digital platform as a facilitative tool that could help support the matchmaking activities that are undertaken in MWP, to ensure that the means of implementation is provided to mitigation projects that are brought to the MWP’s global dialogues and investment focused events. In the informal consultations on the MWP in Belem, developing countries like the Like-minded developing countries [LMDC], the African Group, Arab Group, India and Egypt had expressed a preference for continuing work on the digital platform, highlighting the need for using it as a facilitative tool that could help support the matchmaking activities that are undertaken in the MWP to ensure the provision of the means of implementation for mitigation projects that are brought to the programme’s global dialogues and investment focused events. They had said that instead of creating a new platform, the digital platform could be linked to the NMA Platform under Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement. Some developing countries like the Alliance of Small Island States [AOSIS] and Independent Alliance of Latin American and the Caribbean Nations [AILAC] along with developed countries like the European Union [EU], Environmental Integrity Group [EIG], Australia and the United Kingdom [UK] said they did not see any value in the digital platform, and some expressed doubts about the idea of linking the digital platform with the NMA Platform. Eventually, Parties agreed to mandate the SBSTA “to consider ways to implement additional functionalities in the NMA platform that would enable Parties to record projects” that are identified under the MWP for SBSTA to recommend a draft decision on this matter which will be considered for adoption at CMA 8 in 2026. Parties have also requested the secretariat to prepare a technical paper “exploring options for the operationalization of the additional feature and functionality of the NMA Platform.” This paper will be considered by the SBSTA at its sixty fourth session to be held in 2026 Parties also agreed to exchange views on the continuation of the MWP in the next session of Subsidiary Bodies, i.e. SB64 to be held in June 2026. Another key aspect of the MWP decision adopted are the high-level political messages on forests and waste that Parties agreed to include in the decision. The MWP decision also invites further submissions for deciding the topics for the global dialogues to be held in 2026. [See details below.] In the discussions on MWP held in the first week of COP30, key areas of divergence amongst Parties were on the following issues (i) how the key findings of MWP’s annual dialogue are taken into account in the decision; (ii) linkage between MWP and the global stocktake (GST) and the idea of making the MWP a vehicle for implementing the mitigation section of the GST outcome; (iii) the relationship of the MWP with nationally determined contributions (NDCs); and (iv) whether to carry out further work on the digital platform or not; and (v) how to address the continuation of the work programme. (See TWN update for details). Key messages in the decision In the decision, key findings from the annual report of MWP, based on the fifth and sixth global dialogues held in 2025, are reflected in paragraph 13. Developing countries like the LMDC, the African Group, Arab Group, Algeria, Egypt, India and South Africa had stressed that mitigation targets should not be imposed on developing countries in a top-down manner while considering key findings of the MWP’s annual report. They also pointed out the importance of acknowledging the fact that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach, given the different contexts in various regions and countries. They also opposed any kind of linkage between the MWP and mitigation section of the GST outcome and pointed out that the MWP and GST had separate mandates which should not be linked. Some developing countries like AOSIS, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and (AILAC) and developed countries like the EU, EIG, the UK, and Australia wanted to see mitigation messages that were aligned to the 1.5 °C temperature goal. They also wanted to see a strong linkage between the MWP and the mitigation section of the GST outcome. This issue of linkage with the mitigation section of GST outcome was particularly in reference to paragraph 33 of the GST outcome which has a 2030 target related to forests and reads: “Further emphasizes the importance of conserving, protecting and restoring nature and ecosystems towards achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through enhanced efforts towards halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems acting as sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and by conserving biodiversity, while ensuring social and environmental safeguards, in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.” In the adopted decision from Belem, paragraph 13 (a) notes among other key findings: “(a) The critical role of forests, including boreal, temperate and tropical forests, as well as mangroves, as carbon stocks and sinks and in enhancing climate resilience, biodiversity, water and food security, livelihoods in the context of poverty eradication, and sustainable development, as well as food security. (b) The vital role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and the need to support them in the sustainable management and use of forests, as well as the importance of recognising their land rights and traditional knowledge, including as a part of long-term mitigation policies; (c) The potential for synergies among mitigation, adaptation, biodiversity conservation, combatting desertification, and sustainable development.” [There were also other findings in the decision related to wastes.] [Language relating to halting deforestation and reversing forest degradation has also been reflected in the preambular paragraphs of the Global Mutirao decision, which reads as follows: “Mindful of being in the heart of the Amazon and emphasizing the importance of conserving, protecting and restoring nature and ecosystems towards achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through enhanced efforts towards halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030 in accordance with Article 5 of the Paris Agreement, and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems acting as sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and conserving biodiversity, while ensuring robust social and environmental safeguards,..”] Concerns of some developing countries about ensuring that the high-level messages are not imposed as mitigation targets on them were addressed in paragraph 14, which reads: “Emphasizes that addressing the key findings, leveraging the opportunities, overcoming the barriers and considering the actionable solutions referred to … is voluntary and can be enabled by country-specific action in the light of different national circumstances, international cooperation and the mobilization of financial, technology and capacity-building support for developing countries; that there is no single solution that fits all contexts; that not all of the opportunities, barriers and actionable solutions are applicable to every national or regional context; and that opportunities and challenges will vary in accordance with national circumstances, development stage and priorities, as well as the diverse pathways followed by different countries;” Continuation of the work programme Parties agreed to exchange views on “opportunities, best practices, actionable solutions, challenges and barriers relevant” to the continuation of the work programme at the sixty fourth session of the subsidiary bodies to be held in June 2026. Submissions are invited from all stakeholders on this issue. During the informal consultations, the LMDC, Arab Group, Egypt, and India had expressed reluctance on having any kind of discussion on the continuation of the work programme before CMA.8 [next year] as they felt it would be beyond MWP’s mandate. The African Group was reluctant on having any discussion on this matter at COP30. The AOSIS, AILAC, EU, EIG, UK, and Australia had expressed keenness on having a discussion on the review and continuation of the work programme. The resolution on this issue is reflected in paragraph 16 of the decision text, which reads: “Invites Parties, observers and other stakeholders to submit via the submission portal by 15 April 2026 views on opportunities, best practices, actionable solutions, challenges and barriers relevant to the continuation, functioning and effectiveness of the work programme, with a view to an exchange of views at the sixty-fourth sessions of the subsidiary bodies (June 2026), ensuring that the work programme’s objective is to urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation in this critical decade, that its continuation shall be operationalized through focused exchanges of views, information and ideas, and that the outcomes of the work programme will be non-prescriptive, non-punitive, facilitative, respectful of national sovereignty and national circumstances, take into account the nationally determined nature of nationally determined contributions and not impose new targets or goals;” The MWP decision has also invited submission from all stakeholders on topics for the global dialogues to be held in 2026 under MWP. The deadline for sending these submissions is February 1, 2026. [During the closing plenary on Nov 22, Colombia had objected to the MWP decision after it was gaveled by the Presidency and proposed insertion of new text in the decision in relation to the topics for the global dialogues to be held in 2026. The Colombian proposal was not entertained as the decision had already been gavelled on the matter. See TWN update for details.]
|
||
