Money matters
AKSHIT SANGOMLA IN BONN, GERMANY WITH TRISHANT DEV AND ANANYA ANOOP RAO IN NEW DELHI The last meeting before COP28 gets little work done as developed and developing countries fight over climate finance
HEATED DEBATES on climate finance between developed and developing country groups hijacked the recently concluded conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s Subsidiary Body 58 (SB 58) in Bonn, Germany. The conference, held between June 5 and June 15, was the last opportunity for countries to prepare frameworks for adoption at the upcoming 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to UNFCCC in UAE in December.
Participants took nine of the 10 days to accept the agenda for the conference. Their disagreement revolved mainly around an agenda item on the mitigation work programme (MWP) introduced by the
European Union, which the developing countries insisted puts an unjust mitigation burden on them, while sidelining the developed world’s commitment to transfer money and technology for equitable climate mitigation and adaptation.
Bolivia, on behalf of Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs), introduced a separate agenda on finance in line with Article 2.2 of the Paris Agreement that talks about equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. “All these are code words for justice,” a negotiator from the LMDC group said in a closed room meeting with non-profits. Ultimately, rich countries did not want to discuss providing more finance and developing countries would not discuss stronger mitigation targets without finance being provided.
The agenda was finally adopted on the penultimate day of the conference after a compromise that the agenda item on MWP would not be included in the formal agenda and only an informal note on it would be prepared by subsequent SB chairs.
LITTLE PROGRESS
The delays meant that negotiations on crucial agenda items, such as assessing the outcomes of the global stocktake or progress made towards
the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), got sidelined. Global stocktake is an “accountability exercise” that enables countries and other stakeholders to see where they are collectively making progress towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. It is a key agenda this year, as its first report card is expected to be submitted at COP28.
Developed countries like the US, Canada, and Australia urged that the stocktake focus on current progress rather than pre-2020 gaps. Developing countries, led by the G77, China and LMDCs, stressed equity and differentiated responsibilities. Least developed countries and the African Group demanded a separate agenda on loss and damage. Some countries also highlighted gaps in adaptation, particularly in finance and technology transfer. India objected to any prescription on nationally determined contributions by the process, asserting the sovereign right of countries to determine climate ambitions.
Little progress was made on what to include under GGA, established under the Paris Agreement to enhance climate change adaptation. Parties could not come to a consensus on whether to put enabling conditions in the text. They could also not agree on whether there should be overarching targets and separate targets for GGA or just shared adaptation priorities.
“Developed countries do not want to discuss finance within the framework for GGA and they do not see the principles of equity and common but
COUNTRIES TOOK UP NINE OF THE 10 DAYS DISCUSSING THE AGENDA FOR THE CONFERENCE. THE DELAYS MEANT NEGOTIATIONS ON CRUCIAL AGENDA ITEMS GOT SIDELINED
differentiated responsibilities being included in GGA as well,” says Nicolas Zambrano, adaptation expert and negotiator from Ecuador.
Countries also failed to select the host for the secretariat of the Santiago Network, set up after COP25 in Madrid, Spain, to provide technical assistance to developing countries to avert, minimise and address loss and damage. The Sixth Technical Expert Dialogue of the Ad hoc Work Programme on New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance was held at SB 58 where countries discussed details on ways to determine the quantum of as well as options on framing the mobilisation and provision of financial sources. Developing countries insisted that the new goal should be based on science and not on arbitrarily defined numbers as was previously done. Developed countries countered that NCQG should not be based on the needs of developing countries alone.
The issue of financial flows enshrined in Article 2.1 C of the Paris Agreement also permeated the negotiation rooms with developed countries demanding that all investments globally be channelled towards climate purposes. Developing country negotiators expressed reservations to Down To Earth that this could impose top-down criteria, and could also reduce funding flows for poverty eradication, if projects are now found to not be “Paris aligned”.
Although MWP as a negotiation item held up the agenda adoption process, MWP co-chairs did facilitate two events for the first time— a two-day Global Dialogue and an Investment Focused Event. Presentations were made by expert groups and developing and developed countries discussed challenges and opportunities in accelerating a just energy transition.
Deliberations also took place on various aspects of the work programme on Just Transition pathways established last year at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, including its objectives, scope, institutional arrangements and modalities. (With inputs from Avantika Goswami in Bonn, Germany)