Most contentious

But talks on other contested issues, such as mitigation work programmes (matters related to reducing emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals) and the Loss and Damage fund did not appear to have made any progress since these sections were only identified by placeholder text.

Rich countries have been pushing to expand the donor base to include developing countries like India and China for climate finance, particularly for Loss and Damage and for mitigation, according to observers.

“The logjam over expansion of the donor base and taking on similar mitigation efforts is continuing behind doors. The Arab countries in particular are fuming because of being counted as high income countries. India and China are also being pushed. But Paris Agreement is paramount and no other country classification can be recognised other than how Paris Agreement classifies countries under its annexures,” said a third developing country negotiator, asking not to be named.

Experts said there were some positives from the early draft. “Important statements [have been made] on the issue of disproportionate use of carbon budget and the need for climate justice for mitigation and finance. I hope these are not diluted or removed in final draft,” said Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment, commenting on the so-called nonpaper.

“The elements paper, which will form the basis of the cover text, has been a hard-to-navigate document. It lists down a lot but doesn’t stack up to anything that can be termed as progress so far. It puts placeholders in key agenda items like mitigation work programme. Offers no clarity on the fate of a financing facility for loss and damage, which was a key demand of this COP. A statement in the text acknowledges [the need for] scaled up finance to the tune of $4-6 trillion per year for global transformation to low carbon. Current estimates suggest a mobilisation of less than $1billion from all sources,” said Aarti Khosla, director and founder of Climate Trends, who is tracking the negotiations.

“The cover text decision in its present form recognises the low impact of NDCS that will be far short of [leading to] 45% emissions reduction by 2030. But, it suggests that global peaking is possible in 2030 if all conditional and unconditional NDCS are implemented fully. This implies additional financial flows. All fossil fuel phasedown is not mentioned but the failure of developed countries to reduce emissions and the urgency of their becoming net negative by 2030 is mentioned in the current text,” said RR Rashmi, distinguished fellow, The Energy and Resources Institute.

The place holder on Loss and Damage led to anxiety among small island countries bearing the worst impacts of climate change.

“We are running out of time and patience. The developed countries have failed to mobilise $100 billion but they have unlimited money for pharmaceuticals and weapons but not for Loss and Damage. Our need is existential and waiting for two years is untenable,” said Ralph Regenvanu, minister of climate change, Vanuatu, in a press briefing.

“At the moment the cover text looks like a declaration and not a decision. It needs to be narrow and sharp,” said a negotiator from a South American country, asking not to be named.