Daily report for 11 June 2024

The negotiators focused on the cooperative implementation of the Paris Agreement (Article 6) and the Global Goal on Adaptation barely had a minute of respite as they conducted discussions throughout the day. In the afternoon, delegates reflected on opportunities for enhanced ocean-based climate action.

Negotiations and Mandated Events

Procedural and Logistical Elements of the Overall Global Stocktake Process: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Thureya Al Ali (UAE) and Patrick Spicer (Canada) invited views on a revised informal note that captures elements of procedural and logistical refinements that could be made, in order to inform discussions at SB 61.

The LIKE-MINDED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LMDCs) considered that many of the group’s comments were not reflected in the informal note, urging for their inclusion. Many others agreed that elements important to them were missing, but the INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (AILAC), the EU, AFRICAN GROUP, and US nevertheless indicated willingness to forward the informal note as presented.

AILAC supported the Co-Facilitators’ invitation for parties to submit their key points for inclusion in a new iteration of the informal note. LMDCs underscored they want to see all their points reflected in the text as they were submitted. 

The Co-Facilitators will prepare a revised informal note.

Modalities of the Dialogue on Implementing the Global Stocktake Outcomes: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Ricardo Marshall (Barbados) and Patrick Spicer (Canada) invited views on a revised informal note. Parties reiterated their preferred vision as to the scope of the dialogue, with AILAC and the LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs) outlining that their vision for the dialogue, to follow-up on all Global Stocktake (GST) outcomes with a focus on finance/means of implementation, can be considered a bridging proposal.

The EU called for reference to sustainable lifestyles, sustainable production and consumption, circular economy, action for climate empowerment, and aligning finance flows with the Paris Agreement. LMDCs cautioned against making the dialogue a “dumping ground for policy priorities” and invited developed countries to reflect their priorities in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and report on these in their biennial transparency reports (BTRs).

The ARAB GROUP underscored the non-binding nature of the GST, emphasizing its outcome is not prescriptive. The ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP (EIG) expressed opposition to framing the first GST’s outcome as a “menu of options.” EGYPT highlighted the objective for the dialogue to foster discussion on how to support developing countries in responding to the outcome of the first GST. 

The Co-Facilitators invited submissions to inform the preparation of a new iteration of the informal note. They will also prepare draft conclusions.

Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme: Kay Harrison (New Zealand) and Carlos Fuller (Belize) co-facilitated informal consultations.

Views diverged on how to capture discussions. The EU, ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS), LDCs, AILAC, JAPAN, JAMAICA, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, and US supported capturing parties’ views in an informal note alongside producing draft conclusions. AILAC and the US further called for intersessional work through a call for submissions by parties on elements of a draft decision. The EU, opposed by KUWAIT, requested that the Secretariat produce a synthesis report on potential elements for a draft decision based on parties’ submissions. LMDCs, the ARAB GROUP, and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION argued that the Co-Facilitators should only produce procedural conclusions.

Parties also discussed potential improvements for the global dialogues, including, among others, informal exchanges with experts before the dialogues; more diversity in expert panels; a “world café”-style interactive event; encouraging participants to share their views rather than restate their negotiated positions; and for developed countries to provide more support for the global dialogues, including through hosting.

Several parties, including AOSIS, the UK, and REPUBLIC OF KOREA, expressed disappointment with the “limited progress” made in the room. The ARAB GROUP disagreed, but called out interventions from other parties that it considered as changing the mandate of the work programme. AILAC and the US argued that discussing how GST outcomes can be complementary with the work programme does not limit work programme discussions exclusively to the GST.

The Co-Facilitators will prepare procedural conclusions.

Guidance on Cooperative Approaches referred to in Paris Agreement Article 6.2: In informal consultations co-facilitated by Maria Al-Jishi (Saudi Arabia) and Peer Stiansen (Norway), parties reiterated comments made in the informal consultations on Paris Agreement Article 6.4 with regard to emission avoidance and an intersessional workshop.

AOSIS called for the Secretariat to report back to SBSTA on common nomenclatures. The EU suggested that the SBSTA reflect on the Secretariat’s development of administrative procedures for treating and reviewing confidential information, including a specific code of conduct for Article 6 technical expert review teams. Parties also discussed whether to continue consideration of further guidance on corresponding adjustments for multi-year and single-year NDCs at SBSTA 62 (June 2025) or SBSTA 68 (June 2028). 

Rules, Modalities, and Procedures for the Mechanism established by Paris Agreement Article 6.4: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Kate Hancock (Australia) and Sonam Tashi (Bhutan) invited views on draft conclusions text. Parties’ views converged on:

• considering the development of recommendations on further responsibilities of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body and of parties hosting Article 6.4 activities in order for such hosts to elaborate on and apply national arrangements for the mechanism at SBSTA 68 (2028); and
• continuing consideration of emission avoidance and conservation enhancement at SBSTA 68 (2028), specifying that, until then, the mechanism only covers emission reduction and removal activities.

Debates centered on a possible intersessional workshop. Some convergence emerged around the idea that such a workshop would aim to foster convergence on “crunch issues” without developing a new iteration of draft text, with divergence remaining on whether or not to capture discussions in a report.

The UK, supported by SWITZERLAND but opposed by the ARAB GROUP and LMDCs, called for the Secretariat to present the estimated budgetary implications of this intersessional work. The EU highlighted that the draft conclusions include a paragraph specifying that the SBSTA take note of the budgetary implications. He underscored support for the workshop, noting the estimate is key to ensuring parties provide appropriate financial contributions. LMDCs pointed to discussions in the budget group on how to deal with budgetary implications and underscored its opposition to intersessional work if these were to be presented.

The Co-Facilitators will revise the draft conclusions and the elements for draft decision text. 

Work Programme under the Framework for Non-market Approaches referred to in Paris Agreement Article 6.8: In a contact group, Co-Chairs Jacqui Ruesga (New Zealand) and Kristin Qui (Trinidad and Tobago) invited views on revised draft conclusions text. 

BOLIVIA suggested the 2024 assessment should not only serve to improve and recommend the schedule for implementing activities in the second phase (2025–2026), but should also pertain to the work programme’s scope and approach. The US objected, recalling the objective to have an expedited and simple assessment in 2024, with a review of the work programme taking place in 2026.

Other debates related to, among others: whether to specify the topics discussed in the spin-off groups held at SB 60, such as nature-based solutions; whether and on what to invite submissions; and whether to request the Secretariat to prepare synthesis reports on these submissions.

Global Goal on Adaptation: In informal consultations co-facilitated by Tina Kobilšek (Slovenia) and Pedro Pedroso Cuesta (Cuba), parties reported back on discussions during informal informals.

AOSIS noted that parties agreed for both the Adaptation Committee (AC) and the expert working group to play a role in the mapping of indicators, but had yet to agree on what those roles should be.

Despite several hours of discussions in various formats, including informal informals and huddles, parties did not reach agreement on outstanding issues.

The Co-Facilitators will revise their text based on the discussions and parties’ written submissions.

Second Meeting of the Ad Hoc Work Programme under New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance: Work programme Co-Chair Zaheer Fakir (UAE) invited parties to continue providing views on commonalities they see in the revised input paper, including in the sections on principles, access, and transparency arrangements. Many parties identified areas where they considered there was some commonality, including on the need for better access and using the enhanced transparency framework (ETF) as a basis for the transparency arrangements, but with updates to make it fit for purpose. The EU identified collective tracking of progress, such as using the financial assessments produced by the Standing Committee on Finance.

Many developing countries lamented the “unbalanced” nature of the text, and some called for deletion of references they considered outside the group’s mandate, including references to expanding the contributor base or limiting the recipient base. The ARAB GROUP, CHINA, and others underlined the lack of proposals on the goal’s quantum and questioned how to discuss access and other issues without an idea of quantum. ECUADOR called for focusing on quantum and timelines.

In closing, Co-Chair Fakir said the Co-Chairs will:

• produce a summary of the meeting, including information on progress made;
• start preparations for the third meeting of the work programme;
• prepare and publish guiding questions for those that want to make submissions ahead of the third meeting; 
• invite submissions that update and consolidate elements and identify bridging ideas; and
• prepare an input paper for the third meeting.

Just Transition Work Programme: Contact group Co-Chair Kishan Kumarsingh (Trinidad and Tobago) invited further views, noting that failing to agree on draft conclusions would mean starting over from nothing in Baku.

The US reported on agreements reached in informal informal discussions regarding draft conclusions, including, among others:

• suggesting that the topics for the second dialogue would be decided by the SB Chairs “in a transparent and consultative manner”;
• a new paragraph noting that the SBSTA agrees to work on elements from the outcome of the GST, with CHINA adding a suggestion that this should be done “in a balanced and party-driven manner”; and
• bracketing language around the intersessional nature of the second dialogue.

On the draft decision, the AFRICAN GROUP, opposed by the US, reiterated its calls for developing a work plan. LDCs requested the deletion of a paragraph acknowledging the support available for developing countries’ just transition pathways. Calling the decision text “unbalanced,” the EU requested language highlighting the need to mobilize financial flows and build enabling environments for supporting developing countries.

Parties met again in the afternoon to find a way forward, but were unable to agree on either draft conclusions or draft decision text. Co-Chair Marianne Karlsen (Norway) announced that another meeting will be scheduled to agree upon procedural conclusions, and urged parties to keep all their conversations in mind going into discussions in Baku.

Research and Systematic Observation: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Patricia Nyinguro (Kenya) and Frank McGovern (Ireland) introduced a new iteration of draft conclusions.

AOSIS, the EU, and US, opposed by the ARAB GROUP and GRUPO SUR, supported encouraging parties to strengthen their provision of support and capacity building for the research community.

On research needs, parties diverged on whether to refer to loss and damage, non-CO2 greenhouse gases other than methane, and the alignment of the financial system.

Discussions continued in informal informals.

Joint Work on Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security: In informal consultations co-facilitated by Annela Anger-Kraavi (Slovakia), parties agreed to forward the revised draft conclusions text for adoption at the Subsidiary Bodies’ closing plenary.

Annual Dialogue on Ocean and Climate Change: In this mandated event, SBSTA Chair Harry Vreuls recalled that the first GST encouraged further strengthening of ocean-based climate action. 

Vidar Helgesen, Executive Secretary, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IOC-UNESCO), attending virtually, highlighted the need for timely access to ocean data to inform decisions and support countries in including ocean and marine-related elements in their NDCs and national adaptation plans (NAPs).

Kevin Magron, France, co-host of the 2025 UN Ocean Conference, noted that the Conference will focus on ocean-climate-biodiversity linkages and aims to showcase how international conventions such as the UNFCCC can successfully mainstream a holistic approach to addressing the ocean.

Executive Secretary Simon Stiell underlined that the February 2025 deadline for submission of updated NDCs presents an opportunity to push for greater coastal and marine adaptation and mitigation efforts. He said experiences shared at the Dialogue can enhance countries’ understanding of what is needed, highlighting the need for finance, technology, and innovation.

Panel discussions touched upon, among others:

• mechanisms to track the extent and distribution of nutrients and plastic pollution in the ocean;
• the recently adopted Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction;
• approaches such as ecosystem-based adaptation, nature-based solutions, integrated coastal zone management, and adaptive management;
• the Global Environment Facility (GEF)’s Blue and Green Islands Integrated Program that supports small island developing states (SIDS) in valuing ecosystem services;
• the partnership between the GEF and the International Maritime Organization to address the issue of invasive aquatic species introduced via biofouling; and
• ongoing work by the Technology Executive Committee on early warning systems and artificial intelligence.

In the Corridors

With only a day and a half of negotiations left before the closing plenaries, several delegates’ moods abruptly shifted for the worse on Tuesday. “To speak about a mitigation work programme for this many hours and still not come out with a definition of our own mandate… well, there’s got to be some kind of award for that,” one seasoned delegate grimly observed. 

Those with a big picture-view of the conference pointed out that several items had been concluded successfully. That list might still grow: some negotiators, such as those working on the Global Goal on Adaptation, still seemed intent on brokering an agreement.

Still, it was hard to ignore the disconnect between calls to ramp up ambition and the lack of progress in the conference center. “If countries don’t take the Global Stocktake’s messages seriously, there go our chances to stay in line with 1.5°C,” summed up a somber delegate.