|
||
|
TWN
Antalya Climate News Update No. 2 CLIMATE TALKS START IN ANTALYA, AFTER WRANGLE OVER AGENDA ITEMS Antalya, Nov 10, (Radhika Chatterjee and Meena Raman) - The climate talks began in Antalya, Turkiye, after a slight delay on Nov 10, following an all night long wrangle that began the day before, behind the scenes for Heads of Delegations (HODs), convened by the joint presidencies of Turkiye and Australia, to resolve major agenda fights on various matters, including on the Climate Finance Work Programme (CFWP). The opening plenary and the launch of the talks were presided over by Murat Kurum, Minister of Environment and Urban Planning, Turkiye, and Chris Bowen, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Australia. (See details on opening below). Various understandings were reached among Parties, sometime in the wee hours of Monday morning at the HODs consultations, which led to the opening plenary being delayed by an hour. The gaveling through of the agendas of COP 31 (the 31st session Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC) and CMA 8 (the 8th session of the Conference of Parties to the Paris Agreement) happened in a more or less smooth manner, following the understandings reached amongst Parties on the agenda issues. A major item on the provisional agenda of CMA 8, and which generated significant controversy, was the CFWP, which is the "Work programme on climate finance, including on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement (PA) in the context of Article 9 as a whole", with a footnote as follows – “Established in decision 1/CMA.7, para. 54.” (The CFWP was established through para 54 of the "Global Mutirão" decision adopted in Belém, Brazil, which decided "to establish a two-year work programme on climate finance, including on Article 9.1 ... in the context of Article 9 ... as a whole", accompanied by a footnote stating that this was "without prejudging the process on the implementation of the new collective quantified goal on finance.” The G77 and China had pushed for the CFWP on the CMA 8 agenda, which they view as a critical process to provide a dedicated space to address implementation of Article 9.1 of the PA, which places a mandatory obligation on developed countries to provide financial resources to assist developing countries in mitigating and adapting to climate change. Since the June session of the climate talks this year in Bonn, Germany, developed countries, including the European Union (EU), Switzerland, Canada, Norway, New Zealand, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK), were opposed to the CFWP agenda, arguing that the Belém decision had already defined the scope of the work programme and that its implementation had effectively begun, making any further negotiations on scope and modalities unnecessary.) (See TWN update for more details). According to reliable sources, the resistance of developed countries continued in Antalya in the wrangle behind the scenes consultations on Sunday, Nov 8, but ultimately, developed countries relented, and accepted that the CFWP remain on the agenda. This saw a great relief among developing countries, but as can be expected, the big fight will now be in the contact group dedicated to deal with this matter. However, in respect of five new agenda items proposed for inclusion by various Parties, there was no agreement, but there were some understandings reached, following proposals by the Presidencies. Among the proposals, two were related to finance proposed by the African Group (which were supported by other developing country groupings) viz. (i) CMA 8 agenda item on "Tripling adaptation finance: implementation of para 53 of decision 1/CMA.7" and (ii) COP 31 agenda item on "Determination and periodic review of funding necessary and available for the Green Climate Fund" (GCF). CLOSED-DOOR HODS CONSULTATIONS ON THE AGENDA According to sources, the HODs consultations began with the Presidency inviting the proponents of agenda items to present their rationale for the agenda items. The Presidency also made specific proposals to resolve the issues at hand. The Presidency also informed Parties that there was no consensus on the agenda item on CFWP. The G77 and China was of the view that CFWP was not a new proposal and should therefore not be treated in the same manner as the other proposals. Developed countries tried to engage the developing countries on the other proposals and package all the proposals together, but the G77 and China was firm in their call for resolving the issue of the CFWP first. Sources also said that developed countries tried to propose various footnotes to the CFWP agenda in huddles. However, the G77 and China was united in their call that they could not accept any revisions and would accept the CFWP agenda as it was originally proposed in the CMA provisional agenda. They expressed their concern that developed countries were questioning a mandate from COP30/CMA 7 and it did not send the right signal for climate finance discussions under the regime. They also said that if Parties had objections, they could raise these objections during the opening plenary. Following huddles and discussions that lasted for a long while, developed countries had to concede to a strong and resolute G77 and China on the CFWP agenda. On tripling adaptation finance, the proposed agenda item was also highly contested, and even though developing countries showed a lot of flexibility, it did not result in consensus. The G77 and China’s initial proposal was that tripling adaptation finance should be a standalone agenda item. Following resistance, the group proposed that the issue could be discussed as a sub-item under matters related to finance. However, developed countries said they could not entertain such proposals. Presidency and developed countries’ proposals that the tripling issue be discussed as part of the CFWP were met with disagreement by developing countries. At the end, the Africa Group proposed that the matter be taken under any other agenda item as appropriate and for the Presidency to put it on record in the plenary that there was no consensus on the issues. The proposal on “determination and periodic review of funding necessary and available for the GCF” be considered in the discussions under the finance items relating to the report of the GCF and guidance to be provided to the GCF. The issue of trade and climate was also met with resistance, with developed countries calling for the proposed agenda item to be part of Presidency consultations. However, the Africa Group supported by other developing countries did not agree. Eventually, the proposal did not get included with the understanding that this approach (of not adopting) is without prejudice to the matter or any other matter being raised elsewhere and this to be noted in the report of the session. It was also agreed that the SB Chairs would invite submissions from Parties and observers on possible topics for the next two dialogues as well as views on the focus, format and inputs to the high-level event envisaged under the COP 30 mandate. On the issue of the proposals related to mountains, the proponents decided to merge the issues and it was called ‘Matters related to mountains and climate change’. There was no agreement leading to Presidency consultations on the issue. It was agreed during the consultations that matters related to ‘mountain and climate change’ would be discussed as a topic for the Research Dialogue in conjunction with SBSTA 66 without prejudice to the matter being raised elsewhere. There would be a dialogue series on the matter on the issue at SBSTA 66 and SBSTA 68 to be convened by the chairs of the Subsidiary Bodies and a summary report of each dialogue to be orally presented by the SB Chairs in their report to COP 32 and COP 33. It was also agreed that the COP Presidency would facilitate with the proponents to host a world leaders’ event on “Advancing the mountain agenda: glaciers, cryosphere and resilience under overshoot, shared responsibility and sustainable financing” on 12 Nov. Following the adoption of the agendas, Ghana for the African Group said that “Africa comes to Antalya with one clear message: implementation depends on means of implementation. Our continent contributes the least to this crisis and is among the most exposed to its impacts. African countries have put forward ambitious NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) and adaptation plans, but most of that ambition depends on finance that has not yet arrived. An implementation COP must therefore be a COP that delivers on finance”. It added further that “In this spirit, the African Group requested the inclusion of three items in the supplementary provisional agendas (on tripling adaptation finance, the dialogue on trade and climate change, and the determination of funding necessary and available for the GCF.)” Ghana added that “in Belem we further agreed on a climate change and trade dialogue, as trade related climate measures impact African economies. They shift the burden of the transition onto developing countries and threaten our industrialization, contrary to Article 3.5 of the Convention. Belém recognized this concern. We cannot not shy away from addressing how trade impacts our collective ability to achieve PA goals.” It elaborated further that the African Group “participated in the HOD negotiations that concluded early this morning” and “support the conclusion of the HOD discussions”. India speaking for the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) expressed regret that the tripling of adaptation finance was not included in the agenda and expressed surprise at the resistance and reservations expressed by developed countries on the CFWP. “We hope we can move forward, building on the consensus we reached at Belem,” said India. The UK for the Umbrella Group thanked Parties for the flexibility shown on adoption of agenda, and said that it arrived in Antalya to have a substantive conversation on adaptation finance, and would have welcomed the explicit recognition that adaption finance would be an exclusive part of discussions under the CFWP, and hoped for assurance that adaptation finance is not an orphan issue, It added further that it wanted all Parties to engage in delivering efforts to triple adaptation finance. The EU took note of the adoption of the agendas, and said that it had expressed serious concerns at Bonn and on the delicate compromises reached in Belem which it said “are being undermined even though they were agreed outcomes”. It added that the CFWP established in Belem was with a broad focus that includes the NCQG, with the understanding there would be no agenda item, It also said that the ‘Global Mutirao’ decision did not adopt any agenda item on the CFWP, adding that the CFWP has an agreed mandate and scope from Belem, which will end automatically with CMA 9. It also said that it is “the biggest contributor to climate finance, including in contributing to NCQG” and the scaling up of this is an urgent priority. It also reiterated the calls to triple adaptation finance. Switzerland for the Environmental Integrity Group noted with concern the multiple agenda items of developing countries, which it said “go against hard fought compromises reached” and that “this weakens collective trust.” The agendas of the SBs were also adopted on the opening day, in a joint plenary presided over by Subsidiary Body for Implementation Chair Julia Gardiner (Australia) and SBSTA Chair, Ambassador Adonia Ayebare (Uganda). HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE OPENING PLENARY Ambassador Andre Do Lago, the out-going COP30 Presidency, reiterated his faith in the PA and said “we are among the people who believe that the PA is working. He said the hard-fought negotiations have brought results for doing everything that is possible to keep 1.5 C within reach in accordance with what science says. He pointed out that it is because of the PA that the world in now on a trajectory of global warming to 2.7 degrees instead of 4.4 degrees. The Mutirao decision showed the world that consensus exists to move decisively for implementation. “We know what we have to do to preserve the principles of the UNFCCC and the PA.” Adding further, he said, “climate agenda is a development agenda” and it should not strengthen inequality. Stressing the need for strengthening adaptation, he said that it is progress in adaptation that comes closer to people and makes them feel that they are being considered in this very difficult moment of climate change impacts they are facing. Adding further, he said, we must erase the perception that upgrading the lives of the poorest that have no access to electricity and infrastructure will lead to a significant increase in emissions. He also said that it is the wealthiest that are responsible for significant emissions. Recalling the commitment made by COP30 Presidency at the conclusion of COP30 regarding the roadmaps on transition away from fossil fuels and halting and reversing deforestation, degradation by 2030, Do Lago said the roadmaps were documents that “were meant for implementation” and as “inputs for debates” in countries for their implementation. Murat Kurum, Turkiye stressed the importance of the target of electrification of 35% by 2035 as a “global electrification pledge” that is part of the Action Agenda at COP31. He said, renewable energy, strong grids, storage capacity, energy efficiency, clean transport and green industry are complementary components of the transformation needed for achieving those global pledges. Türkiye has historically been a bridge and now has the responsibility of bringing developed and developing countries to a common ground, together with Australia and Pacific Island states. Stressing the importance of finance, he said “resilient investment postponed today may become tomorrow’s disaster.” Chris Bowen, Australia said it is now nearly certain that the world will overshoot 1.5 C and that global warming can still return if countries work together and “act with solidarity.” He said the message from the Pre COP held at Fiji was very clear: keeping 1.5 C within reach, speeding up climate action and making finance easier to access to strengthen communities. Adding further, he said there is an enormous momentum on electrification and stressed the need to shift electricity from a fifth to a third of global energy consumption. Speaking about the cover decision, he said, it is a Presidency initiated Party driven process for COP31 which must be owned and driven by Parties. “We will build it together from ground up.” The cover decision will not duplicate negotiations and would present a focused, practical, concrete response to climate change. He said it could recognize the progress made together and accelerate high impact concrete solutions to keep 1.5 C within reach, alongside strengthening international cooperation. UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary, Simon Steill and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Chair, Jim Skea also spoke at the opening plenary. WAY FORWARD ON THE COVER DECISION Based on the announcement made at the opening plenary regarding the cover decision, the COP31 Presidency informed Parties about their convening of the first meeting of Presidency consultations on the cover decision to be held on Nov 10th, from 3-5pm. Parties have been invited to share their views on the following three guiding questions: 1. What recent progress and developments could the decision recognise to strengthen confidence in collective climate efforts? 2. What are the impacts, challenges and opportunities we face in the world today? 3. How can we work together to accelerate implementation by advancing concrete solutions, means of implementation and international cooperation? Only two participants per delegation would be invited to the consultation, with one being the HOD and the other an additional member of the delegation. One seat would be given to representatives of the nine NGO constituencies.
|
||
