Daily report for 10 June 2024

The mood of the day was very industrious. Many negotiation sessions went over time, as delegates tried to get disagreements sorted before running out of allocated negotiation slots. Some, such as those reflecting on the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP), managed to reach agreement. Others, such as discussions on the Mitigation Work Programme, seemed less optimistic.

Negotiations and Mandated Events

Procedural and Logistical Elements of the Overall Global Stocktake Process: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitator Thureya Al Ali (United Arab Emirates) presented an updated informal note.

On references to the Global Stocktake (GST) timeline, the EU, the LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs), and NEW ZEALAND underlined the importance of allowing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s seventh assessment cycle to inform the second GST, while the LIKE-MINDED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LMDCs) stressed the independence of the IPCC’s timeline. AUSTRALIA suggested flexibility on whether the headings and structure of the first GST outcome are maintained in the second GST, while LMDCs argued for maintaining the first GST’s structure. The PHILIPPINES reminded parties that the informal note was meant to capture all views rather than serve as a negotiation document.

The Co-Facilitators will prepare a revised informal note and draft conclusions.

Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitator Carlos Fuller (Belize) invited parties’ views on improving the work programme’s global dialogues, adding that other issues may also be discussed.

On improving future global dialogues, the AFRICAN GROUP called for investment-related events to be used to unlock funding, including from multilateral development banks and blended finance approaches. The US noted dialogues should consider the links between mitigation and broader policy contexts at all levels. Parties agreed on the need for more inclusive dialogues, including through possibly conducting regional dialogues, which the ARAB GROUP opposed.

On a potential informal note, the ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS) requested that it include: reference to the importance of showcasing the best available science; key findings from global dialogues; and elements that could contribute to other aspects of the dialogues. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA noted that it should highlight mitigation-related outcomes of the GST and high-level messages, as well as procedural improvements for the work programme itself.

Co-Facilitator Fuller noted the item has run out of time for consultations at this session, and said the Co-Facilitators will draft procedural conclusions. SWITZERLAND and the US, on a point of order, requested more time for informal consultations. The Co-Facilitators will consult the Subsidiary Body (SB) Chairs. 

Guidance on Cooperative Approaches referred to in Paris Agreement Article 6.2: Co-Facilitator Maria Al-Jishi (Saudi Arabia) invited views on draft CMA decision text, recalling that any agreed text will be moved to the draft conclusions text. Parties made various suggestions aimed at enhancing the document’s readability. They supported better “bucketing” of related issues, especially in the sections related to: sequencing and timing; the process of identifying, notifying, and correcting inconsistencies; and inconsistencies identified in Article 6 technical expert reviews.

The ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP (EIG), GRUPO SUR, and CANADA suggested that the draft text’s next iteration flag elements that are inconsistent with previous decisions. Other comments related to, among others: ensuring consistent terminology, for example with regard to “participating party” registries; ensuring interoperability between the different types of registries: and provisions for party-specific accounts in the international registry.

Heads of delegation will reflect on progress with a view to informing another round of informal consultations.

Global Goal on Adaptation: In informal consultations co-facilitated by Pedro Pedroso Cuesta (Cuba), parties shared their views on the revised informal note.

The G-77/CHINA reiterated that the Adaptation Committee (AC) should not lead the mapping process on indicators, with LMDCs noting that Decision 2/CMA.5 already addressed the work programme on GGA indicators and how constituted bodies can support the work on adaptation. The EU opposed, stating that existing bodies such as the AC should be utilized to avoid duplication of work and make the mapping process more efficient.

AOSIS preferred that parties “recommend” rather than “nominate” experts. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION expressed concern about the new structures being proposed in the establishment of expert groups.

AOSIS, the INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (AILAC), LMDCs, and the EU supported having the SB Chairs conduct workshops instead of dialogues under the work programme on GGA indicators.

On criteria, AOSIS, the EU, and MEXICO agreed to mapping the set of indicators that are relevant to measuring progress towards one or more of the GGA targets and that such indicators be specific to adaptation.

Discussions will continue in informal informals.

Terms of Reference for the 2024 Review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage Associated with Climate Change Impacts: In informal consultations co-facilitated by Meredith Ryder-Rude (US), the Secretariat shared the budgetary implications of the proposed events and preparation of inputs to the review, noting total costs of EUR 143.000.

Discussions will continue in informal informals.

Second Meeting under the Ad Hoc Work Programme on the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance: Work programme Co-Chair Fiona Gilbert (Australia) introduced a second iteration of the input paper and urged parties to begin engaging on substance. Parties expressed their views on the text, identifying ways to further streamline it.

Many parties underlined the issue of access to finance as a key element of the goal, with PALAU calling for simplified access particularly for small island developing states (SIDS) and LDCs.

Parties also considered issues related to transparency arrangements. NORWAY called for building on the enhanced transparency framework (ETF). LDCs underscored a definition of climate finance as a key aspect of transparency. AOSIS urged for funds to be reported when released to the recipient countries. 

Just Transition Work Programme: In contact group discussions, Co-Chair Marianne Karlsen (Norway) invited views on draft conclusions text and a draft decision text.

The G-77/CHINA proposed that the draft conclusions “take note” rather than “welcome” the first hybrid dialogue under the work programme, with LDCs suggesting “acknowledge.”

The G-77/CHINA suggested that the topics for the second dialogue be decided “in consultation with parties” rather than through “taking into account submissions” by parties. The EU and US sought clarification on the suggestion.

On ensuring inclusive participation in the second dialogue, the G-77/CHINA suggested including language on increasing participation from developing countries. The US and JAPAN opposed. The G-77/CHINA clarified that the point was not to limit participation from any country, but to increase participation.

Reacting to the G-77/CHINA’s proposal that the Secretariat prepare an informal summary report of the second dialogue, the EU requested that the paragraph be bracketed and asked for the cost implications of such a suggestion.

The US, CANADA, and AUSTRALIA suggested deleting a paragraph encouraging holding the second work programme dialogue intersessionally.

The G-77/CHINA further suggested that the SBs develop a work plan at SB 61. The EU, US, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, opposed, with CANADA arguing that such a plan would be premature.

Discussions continued in informal informals.

Dialogue on Experiences Relevant for the Implementation of the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework: Executive Secretary Simon Stiell noted the need for a paradigm shift from thinking of reporting as a burden, to leveraging it as an opportunity to learn, design more effective policies, unlock finance, and direct resources to where they are most needed. Noting that countries have different starting points, he cautioned against “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good,” and called upon every country to play their part, following the example of Andorra and Guyana which have already submitted their first Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs). 

In a video message, the COP 29 Presidency encouraged all parties to submit their BTRs ahead of COP 29, pointing to training workshops such as on linkages between the ETF reporting tools and the IPCC’s inventory software. The COP 28 Presidency underscored the ETF is fundamental to the Paris Agreement architecture and pointed to the “Together4Transparency”-initiative, which provides capacity-building support. 

Participants shared their experience in gathering, analyzing, and managing data, highlighting key lessons learned including on:

• the importance of establishing effective data arrangements and formalizing them legally;
• the need to effectively communicate the purpose and benefits of the data collection in order to overcome industry pushback due to, among others, confidentiality reasons; and
• the benefits of effective storage systems to help preserve institutional memory, improve communication between teams, and avoid inconsistencies.

Research and Systematic Observation: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitator Patricia Nyinguro (Kenya) requested feedback from recent informal informals. Parties reported some progress, but disagreements arose on whether to consider paragraphs on follow-up activities on addressing research needs, with BOLIVIA arguing that these could not be considered until paragraphs on the research needs themselves are resolved. Several parties noted that the connections between them are not causal, and that they could be considered separately.

On research needs, BOLIVIA recommended deleting language on the continued need for scientific information to inform the development of more ambitious NDCs and on calling for further research on adaptation limits. CHINA noted that NDCs should be considered in a manner that respects national circumstances.

Disagreements arose on a way forward, with BOLIVIA objecting to further informal informals. Parties will submit their views to the Co-Facilitators to inform the preparation of a revised informal note.

Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform: In informal consultations co-facilitated by Kajsa Fernström Nåtby (Sweden), parties shared views on a draft COP decision text.

The ARAB GROUP agreed to remove brackets around a paragraph on budgetary implications of LCIPP activities undertaken by the Secretariat. The US dropped the proposal to invite the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Paris Agreement to decide that the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of the LCIPP shall also serve the Paris Agreement.

On language interpretation during FWG meetings and in mandated events under the LCIPP, GRUPO SUR and CANADA proposed that both formal and informal language interpretation be recognized to avoid increasing the budget. The Secretariat agreed to add the phrase “explore other arrangements,” to allow for the use of informal interpreters.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ ORGANIZATIONS emphasized that protecting and safeguarding Indigenous Peoples’ rights remain a priority, calling for parties to uphold these rights in all UNFCCC processes.

With these amendments, parties agreed on the draft decision text.

Joint Work on Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security: In informal consultations co-facilitated by Una May Gordon (Belize), the Secretariat noted the online portal will be ready by end of June 2024 and launched at SB 61. Parties shared views on revised draft conclusions text. 

Parties agreed on two workshop topics:

• systemic and holistic approaches to the implementation of climate action in agriculture, food systems, and food security, understanding, cooperation and integration into plans; and
• progress, challenges, and opportunities related to identifying needs and accessing means of implementation for climate action in agriculture and food security, including sharing of best practices.

Parties agreed to hold the first workshop at SB 62 (June 2025) in order to allow for the consideration of the report on the Standing Committee on Finance’s 2025 Forum, which will focus on “Accelerating climate action and resilience through financing for sustainable food systems and agriculture.” They agreed to hold the second workshop at SB 64 (June 2026).

Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings: In a contact group, Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) Chair Nabeel Munir (Pakistan) invited views on draft conclusions text. On hosts of future sessions, the AFRICAN GROUP asked for clarifications on the current practice regarding public availability of host country agreements.

On increasing the efficiency of the UNFCCC process, the ARAB GROUP and LMDCs suggested language on following the rules of procedure when preparing provisional agendas and ensuring the process is party-driven. The AFRICAN GROUP, LMDCs, and ARAB GROUP objected to language on applying broad agenda titles. EIG and JAPAN supported encouraging the Bureau to take a more prominent role in the process. AUSTRALIA, NORWAY, the UK, and US acknowledged the need for further engagement on the matter, but urged for better capture of discussions held at SBI 60 and suggested the SBI Chair hold informal consultations ahead of SBI 62. 

On observer engagement, the EU and US objected to establishing a new trust fund for developing country observer participation, noting challenges with resourcing existing trust funds. The US objected to quotas. The EU cautioned that many observer organizations cannot be clearly assigned to either developed or developing countries. BRAZIL suggested specific provisions for observers of incoming Presidencies. 

Discussions will continue in informal informals.

Administrative, Financial, and Institutional Matters: In a contact group, Co-Chair Gabriela Blatter (Switzerland) invited views on revised draft decision text. She outlined revisions related to, among others: disaggregating references to the trust fund for participation and the trust fund for supplementary activities; and encouraging increased clarity in budget documents on whether activities are mandated or not.

Parties welcomed the revised text and suggested further changes. Debates centered on the suggestion to have the Secretariat present potential cost implications of decisions before they are agreed. After informal consultations, parties agreed to request that the Secretariat prepare an information document after each meeting of the COP to present additional mandated activities and their respective cost implications for parties’ information.

The Co-Chairs will revise the draft decision text.

In the Corridors

“Why the long line—are the Spice Girls playing or something?” One delegate’s early-morning quip ended up becoming a refrain on Monday, which saw delegates waiting long minutes for the previous session to end before they could begin their own consultations. As session after session went over time, a domino effect of sorts ended up playing out in the World Conference Center, such that some end-of-day consultations ended up starting half an hour late.

“There’s no way around it: it’s crunch time,” a seasoned observer noted. Many of the discussions ended with parties requesting—and, in more than one case, begging—for extra time to continue discussions in informal informals. Huddles proliferated, occasionally succeeding to unlock agreement.  

As UN security began ushering delegates out of certain sections of the building, the mood remained industrious, and several surveyed delegates anticipated sticking around several hours longer. “So begins a week of long nights,” one prophesied with an ironic smile. “Thankfully, it’s a short week.”