Daily report for 2 December 2023

Various high-level events on topics ranging from mountains to health convened throughout the day. Negotiations proceeded on topics key to the success of this conference, including the Global Stocktake (GST), mitigation ambition and implementation work programme, and finance.

High-Level Roundtable on Mountains and Climate Change

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Nepal, moderated, saying mountain countries must collaborate to incorporate mountain-related issues into all the UNFCCC’s frameworks and negotiation processes. Participants cited the GST and Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) as priority areas to include mountains and the cryosphere. They also highlighted the need to ensure the loss and damage fund is accessible for the most vulnerable mountain regions and least developed countries (LDCs).

They discussed the importance of mountain regions as guardians of biodiversity, sources of freshwater, and critical to regulating climate change. They also underlined the need for more finance to support mountain communities.

Mitigation

Sharm el-Sheikh Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Kay Harrison (New Zealand) and Carlos Fuller (Belize) informed parties that following consultations with the Subsidiary Body Chairs, they prepared a note with no formal status to assist discussions. Parties could not agree to use the note as a basis for consultations, with some underlining the lack of a mandate for the Co-Facilitators to prepare it. Consultations proceeded without reference to the note, with parties identifying elements they would want to see in a draft text. Informal consultations will continue.

Matters Relating to Article 6: Guidance on Article 6.2 (cooperative approaches): In informal consultations co-facilitated by Maria AlJishi (Saudi Arabia) and Peer Stiansen (Norway), parties considered draft decision text. Several parties underlined the need to focus on those elements of the decision necessary to operationalize cooperative approaches. Parties commented on the need to define a “cooperative approach,” with some stating that this is not part of the mandate, while other parties underlined the importance of a clear definition. Informal consultations will continue.

Guidance on Paris Agreement Article 6.4 (mechanism): The contact group was co-chaired by Kate Hancock (Australia) and Sonam Tashi (Bhutan), who invited parties to consider the annual report of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body (FCCC/PA/CMA/2023/15 and Add.1). They noted the report contains recommendations to the CMA on: establishment of a Designated National Authorities Forum; exemption for activities in LDCs from payment of the share of proceeds for adaptation; activities involving removals; and development and assessment of methodologies.

All parties welcomed the Supervisory Body’s report. Most comments focused on the recommendations on activities involving removals, with some comments on the methodologies recommendations.

ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, and URUGUAY (ABU) and the EUROPEAN UNION (EU) expressed satisfaction with the methodologies recommendations but significant concerns with the removals recommendations.

The AFRICAN GROUP, LDCs, ARAB GROUP, LIKE-MINDED GROUP OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LMDCs), JAPAN, and BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY NGOs (BINGOs) supported adopting the recommendations, noting that although they are not perfect, they are an acceptable basis for operationalizing the Article 6.4 mechanism. The AFRICAN GROUP and LDCs said a work programme with a clear timeline can be established to provide additional guidance to address the issues including activities involving removals.

The COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS (CfRN) expressed concern about the removals recommendations, urging coherence with Paris Agreement Article 5.2 (forests), such as national-level aggregation. She lamented that the recommendations are a step backward, as they would allow credit for afforestation in one area while ignoring forest loss in others. She said the Supervisory Body has no mandate to develop new methodologies for forests.

Several parties, including the EU, ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS), and LMDCs, urged the Supervisory Body to engage with experts and science through relevant panels. The INDEPENDENT ALLIANCE OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (AILAC) noted the lack of explicit reference to environmental and social safeguards. JAPAN and LMDCs noted the Supervisory Body expected to finalize the sustainable development tool next year. AOSIS identified the need for further work on durability, excluding activities with a high risk of reversal, and distinguishing between emissions reduction units and removals units.

CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK (CAN) and WOMEN AND GENDER said the recommendations are not ready for adoption, noting concerns about removing some recommendations, among others.

Adaptation

Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh Work Programme on the Global Goal on Adaptation: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Mattias Frumerie (Sweden) and Janine Felson (Belize) lauded pre-sessional discussions which led to several areas of convergence emerging around structural elements for a draft decision. These include: the need for an overarching statement on the GGA’s global aspirations; some targets; themes; avoiding additional reporting burdens; engaging with stakeholders; and the importance of means of implementation. They noted that the “how” to achieve several of these elements remained unclear.

Several parties reiterated their priorities for inclusion. Views diverged on: whether to include as an element the principles of the Convention and Paris Agreement, particularly equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC); and having a new standalone agenda item on the GGA under both SBs. Informal consultations will continue.

Report and review of the Adaptation Committee (AC): Co-Facilitators Pilar Bueno (Argentina) and Roberta Ianna (Italy) proposed that the first informal consultations focus on reviewing the 2023 AC report.

Parties welcomed the AC report and its recommendations. Some parties suggested adding forward-looking elements to increase resilience. Several parties welcomed the technical paper on monitoring and evaluation systems at national and subnational levels and the work done with the LDC Expert Group (LEG) on methodologies for reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of adaptation action and support.

A developing country group underscored the importance of calling for greater engagement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), especially Working Group II (on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), noting the need for the IPCC’s assistance to complete aspects of the AC’s flexible work programme. The Co-Facilitators will prepare draft text.

National Adaptation Plans (NAPs): In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Jens Fugl (Denmark) and Antwi-Boasiako Amoah (Ghana) reminded parties of the mandate to continue considering progress and needs relating to NAP formulation and implementation, and information from the AC and LEG. Parties debated whether to consider the heavily bracketed text from SBI 58 (June 2023) or share their priorities.

Proposals included: recognizing new NAP submissions and highlighting progress; emphasizing the importance of financial, technical, and capacity-building support for NAP formulation and implementation; participatory approaches that engage local stakeholders and integrate Indigenous and local knowledge; and adding links to the GST and GGA. Some underscored the need for adequate monitoring and evaluation to track adaptation action over time. Others suggested highlighting sources of funding like the Green Climate Fund (GCF), LDC Fund, and Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and encouraging the use of NAP Central. The Co-Facilitators will produce revised text.

Finance

Guidance to the Global Environment Facility (GEF): Discussions opened in a COP contact group, co-chaired by Marine Lannoy (France). The AFRICAN GROUP, supported by others, called for reflecting the operationalization of the loss and damage fund.

Developing countries expressed strong concerns over access restrictions related to countries’ income groups and expected co-financing, urged for a direct access modality, and called for opening accreditation opportunities. The ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP (EIG) noted it will submit language on conflict-sensitive approaches. LDCs and AOSIS called for pledges to the LDC Fund and SCCF.

Other points raised related to gender responsiveness, Indigenous Peoples, and how the tagging of climate-biodiversity co-benefits affects the magnitude of the GEF’s climate portfolio.

Discussions then continued in a CMA contact group. AILAC emphasized support for in-house capacity development for developing country reporting under the enhanced transparency framework (ETF) and for conducting needs assessments. The Co-Chairs will prepare draft texts.

Standing Committee on Finance (SCF): Ali Waqas (Pakistan) and Apollonia Miola (Italy) co-chaired a contact group on this COP and CMA item. They proposed the group first address matters related to Paris Agreement Article 2.1(c) (on making financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low GHG emissions and climate-resilient development), followed by the doubling of adaptation finance and urgently scaling up support.

On 2.1(c), AUSTRALIA, NORWAY, the EU, the US, and others underscored progress is critical, with the EIG and the UK, opposed by the AFRICAN GROUP, underscoring the matter should be both addressed under this item and referenced in the GST outcome.

All parties underscored the importance of discussing the issue, with several developing country groups emphasizing the significant divergence of interpretation, which they saw better reflected in the COP 27 Presidency’s report on the Dialogue (FCCC/PA/CMA/2023/7/Rev.1) than in the SCF’s synthesis of views (FCCC/CP/2023/2/Add.3−FCCC/PA/CMA/2023/8/Add.3).

Pointing to the principles of CBDR and equity and the broader focus on sustainable development, the AFRICAN GROUP, ARAB GROUP, and others underscored the need for safeguards. The AFRICAN GROUP welcomed some countries’ domestic work on 2.1(c), but emphasized just transition pathways for developing countries.

Parties debated how to carry the discussion forward. EIG, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, and others considered the Dialogue was not sufficiently well structured and suggested establishing a work programme, with a clear mandate to be agreed by CMA 5. Responding to the AFRICAN GROUP, they emphasized the aim to address various issues of interest to all, including implications for sustainable development, finance for adaptation and resilience, and sectors such as agriculture.

Matters relating to the Adaptation Fund: Discussions opened in a CMP contact group co-chaired by Diann Black-Layne (Antigua and Barbuda). Parties’ comments related to, among others: concerns over multi-country projects; enhanced complementarity and coordination with the GCF, including on accrediting implementing agencies; and calls for enhanced contributions to the Fund, with LDCs noting the share of proceeds from the Clean Development Mechanism is negligible.

Discussions continued in a CMA contact group co-chaired by Louise Rousseau (France), who recalled that the SBI agreed to postpone its consideration of matters related to membership in the Fund’s Board. The AFRICAN GROUP called for clarifications on preparing for the eventuality that the Article 6 mechanism and its share of proceeds does not materialize. The US suggested increased attention on the intersection between climate and conflict, on which the AFRICAN GROUP expressed concerns, also noting the provision of guidance is up to the CMP, not CMA. The Co-Chairs invited submissions.

Global Stocktake

First Global Stocktake: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Alison Campbell (UK) and Joseph Teo (Singapore) invited comments on the adaptation section. There was a shared sense of the need to improve the overall narrative to reflect efforts undertaken, relate key ideas underpinning adaptation such as integrated solutions, and elaborate on other aspects of the way forward. Countries provided various divergent comments on specific paragraphs.

Some agreed on the need for improved methodologies for assessing adaptation progress and expanding access to climate information services and early warning systems. Views diverged on inviting an IPCC special report on adaptation, with two developing country groups urging elaboration of the invitation. One suggested a task force on indicators, metrics, and methodologies. Developed countries noted the ongoing efforts of Working Group II on adaptation.

On the link between mitigation and adaptation, one developing country group urged recognition of historic responsibility for current and projected temperature increases and the resulting need for adaptation. Others suggested a more holistic understanding of why adaptation needs continue to increase, including poverty and a lack of access to support. Some called for strengthened recognition of limits to adaptation.

On adaptation finance, developed countries preferred to move these paragraphs to the means of implementation section. Developing country groups called for transparency on how adaptation finance will be doubled, pointing out that a doubling is insufficient to meet adaptation needs. They further urged specifying that finance be grant-based and more accessible.

Two developing country groups opposed reference to maladaptation, asking for clarity on the concept and suggesting it could prove a barrier to finance. Another suggested “avoiding” rather than minimizing maladaptation.

There were some calls to strengthen and include references to human rights, Indigenous rights, gender, and youth from several countries. There was support for references to locally-led adaptation, but some developing countries added national- and transnational-level action. There was some agreement on the need for inclusive adaptation processes.

Informal consultations continued into the evening, addressing sections on means of implementation.

High-level Ministerial on the GST Findings on Means of Implementation: President Miguel Díaz-Canel, Cuba, called for the GST to be a vehicle to push for additional support to developing countries.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Germany, observed the importance of increasing finance and highlighted the need to continue attracting private capital.

Prime Minister Mia Mottley, Barbados, urged non-state actors, including insurance companies, to play a role in establishing adaptation financing mechanisms.

Prime Minister Mark Brown, Cook Islands, called out the failure of developed countries to meet their climate finance commitments.

Prime Minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar, Pakistan, evoked the significant loss and damage experienced by his country, underscoring that the finance gap will continue to balloon to trillions of dollars annually by 2050.

President Alain Berset, Switzerland, highlighted that only this first GST can keep the world within the limit of 1.5°C. He noted the domestic challenge of increasing climate finance while others with higher GDP and emissions are not contributing.

Mafalda Duarte, GCF, emphasized the GCF’s unique position to respond to key challenges identified in the GST, including with regard to blended finance and technology accelerators and incubators.

Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, Ireland, noted those with the greatest climate risk are also experiencing the most significant barriers to accessing finance. He appreciated that the loss and damage fund foresees a specific allocation for LDCs and small island developing states (SIDS).

Deputy Prime Minister Salah Ahmed Jama, Somalia, stressed that, while Somalia would need an estimated USD 4 billion in climate finance over the next six years, compounding factors, including a significant debt burden, mean they will only receive USD 300 million.

Minister of Environment Yasmine Fouad, Egypt, pointed out the gaps in adaptation finance, encouraging the use of new finance mechanisms and commitment to multi-party frameworks to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault, Canada, called for the GST to scale up finance and urged increasing and accelerating adaptation resources from public, private, domestic, and international channels.

Transparency

Provision of Financial and Technical Support for Reporting under the Paris Agreement: In informal consultations, parties debated on waiting for Co-Facilitators Sandra Motshwanedi (South Africa) and Julia Gardiner (Australia) to send a draft consolidated text or to share copies of all the parties’ submissions. The Co-Facilitators will send a draft compiled text on Sunday, 3 December, and confer on options to send out individual party submissions for those that want to share them with the group.

Capacity Building

Capacity Building under the Convention, Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement: In informal consultations, co-facilitated by Catherine Goldberg (the US) and Gonzalo Guaiquil (Chile), parties reviewed draft decision texts.

Several developing countries proposed adding a reference to CBDR and developed countries’ responsibility to provide financial support. A group of developing countries proposed to add language that would operationalize findings of the Paris Committee on Capacity-building (PCCB) report to, in essence, “stop noting the gaps, and start addressing them.”

Some parties countered these proposals, pointing to ongoing discussions under the GST, and noting the proposed draft decisions should mainly focus on the PCCB report. One party responded that many discussions are related to the GST and that this should not preclude their uptake in other rooms when relevant.

One party raised strong concerns regarding fair regional representation, citing a reference in the report to 50% expert representation from certain regions as a target for 2024. The Co-Facilitators suggested informal informal consultations.

Agriculture

Sharm el-Sheikh joint work on implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security -Informal Consultation: SBI Chair Nabeel Munir urged delegates to move quickly towards a conclusion. In informal consultations, co-facilitated by Annela Anger-Kraavi (Germany) and Una May Gordon (Jamaica), some delegations shared ideas on workshop topics, including food sovereignty, risk management, and biosecurity measures. A few cautioned against following in the footsteps of the Koronivia joint work programme, while others said that work should not be discarded.

The Co-Facilitators encouraged the delegates to work out their divisions before the next and final session.

Social Considerations

Gender: During informal consultations, co-facilitated by Angela Ebeleke (Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Marc-André Lafrance (Canada), delegates deliberated over draft conclusions. One country expressed disagreements with some findings of the mandated reports (FCCC/SBI/2023/4, FCCC/SBI/2023/13), thus suggesting to “take note” of the reports rather than welcoming them with appreciation.

A debate ensued over possible guidance for next steps or future work. Delegates expressed concerns over how smaller delegations could find the resources to participate in a future workshop under the Work Programme, proposed to be held immediately before or during SB 60. Many delegates requested further consultations.

Action on Climate Empowerment: In informal consultations co-facilitated by Arne Riedel (Germany), delegates discussed the annual summary report on progress in implementing activities under the Glasgow Work Programme on Action for Climate Empowerment (FCCC/SBI/2023/16). Many delegates welcomed the report. Several countries called for more clarity and details on parties’ financial needs beyond what is reported in national plans. On implementation, several urged more diversity in workshop topics and participating organizations. Several countries also called for further integration of cross-cutting topics, such as finance and gender. The Co-Facilitators will prepare draft text.

In the Corridors

On Saturday, it became clear that upsizing COPs has downsides. The size of the event was the only topic next to the water stations dotted around the venue. This is the biggest COP yet, with 103,000 people registered and roughly half of those already holding their badges. Several rooms were beyond capacity, prompting Co-Facilitators to ask observers and even party delegates to limit their numbers and leave, if possible.

While crowd control was excellent, the queues delayed morning coalition coordination meetings on various texts delivered overnight. Coupled with the historic G-77/China leaders’ summit, which one delegate hinted had “stretched their energy,” there were delays and postponements to several negotiation items, “the traditional aspects of a COP,” in the words of a long-time negotiator.

In these negotiations, the GST proved pervasive. Some red lines on what should be in the GST text were drawn in the finance room. Capacity-building discussions debated if some aspects are better sent to the GST. While on the GGA, one delegate said there should “be no daylight” between the GGA and GST outcomes, which is a tricky proposition since both are being developed in parallel.