COP28 Recap: What was discussed at the Mitigation Work Programme?

At the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Dubai, the headline issues of loss and damage, and the Global Stocktake (GST) were in the spotlight. But other negotiation items showed slower progress. The Sharm El-Sheikh Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme (MWP) negotiation stream kicked off on December 1 at COP28. But the final decision text agreed on December 13 focused on procedural issues such as inviting submissions from Parties and other groups for topics that can be discussed at Global Dialogues next year. Substantial discussion on barriers to and opportunities for the energy transition, and the financial and technology needs of developing countries that developed countries must assist with, was missing in Dubai.

MWP was originally proposed by the United States at COP26 to encourage countries to heighten mitigation ambition in their climate plans in order to stay within 1.5 degrees Celius (°C) of warming. But it has seen pushback from developing countries who initially questioned how its role differed from the Global Stocktake – itself a mechanism written in to scale up ambition. At the UN’s mid-year climate conference in Bonn in June 2023, discussions on the MWP were stalled as developing countries demanded financial support to be able to take on more mitigation ambition, as detailed in a proposal by the Like-Minded Developing Countries bloc.

In between negotiations at Bonn in June and Dubai in December, the Co-Chairs of the MWP hosted two events to facilitate discussions on the barriers to scaling up mitigation ambition. A Global Dialogue and Investment Focused Event held in June 2023 brought subject matter experts and country representatives together to discuss how the energy transition can be accelerated. It covered inputs from all on renewable energy, carbon capture, and financing. A second such event held in October focused on transport. Participants discussed opportunities and challenges related to advancing a just energy transition in transport systems, focusing on topics like non-motorised transport modes, energy efficiency, electrification of vehicles, and low-carbon fuels. The proceedings of the two events were summarised in a report by the Co-Chairs which was presented in Dubai.

But in Dubai, this substance was sidelined for nitpicking over procedural items. Developed countries expressed eagerness to start discussions on substance and the need to align nationally determined contributions (NDCs) with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Developing countries spoke of the barriers to accessing finance for the energy transition. India emphasised that the MWP should be non-prescriptive, non-punitive, and impose no new targets. Countries like Egypt spoke of the need to avoid duplication of the Global Stocktake’s processes.

The final text agreed when the gavel was dropped on December 13, acknowledges the Global Dialogues and the summary report produced by the Co-Chairs. It invites submissions for topics to be discussed at further Global Dialogues in 2024, and the possibility of supplemental discussions at regional climate weeks to capture geographic nuances.

There are two possible reasons for the failure of the MWP to discuss substance in Dubai — the first was an unwillingness to prejudge the GST until the final day and commit more than what it agreed to.

The second is the atmosphere of mistrust that exists among Parties with respect to who will bear the mitigation burden. The political undercurrents that shape the MWP heavily influence the discussions. It is hard to say if the original proposal put forth by the US at COP26 was made in good faith for planetary benefit, or with an intent to have developing countries shoulder an equal burden, despite developed countries being historical polluters. Developing countries have stated through the years that climate talks focus excessively on mitigation, and not sufficiently on their other priorities such as adaptation and loss and damage. The Paris Agreement itself diluted the idea of differentiated burden-sharing according to historical responsibility, by placing the equal burden of NDCs on all countries. This explains why developing countries repeat that the MWP must be non-prescriptive, and not force new targets on them beyond what is already committed in the NDCs. Moreover, whenever developing countries demand differentiated timelines and finance on issues such as fossil fuels, they are branded as ‘blockers of ambition’, as seen in the GST’s behind-the-scenes deliberations. 

This lack of trust creates an unwillingness among developing countries to be trapped into taking on more mitigation ambition and paralyzes the MWP’s progress. Co-Chairs of the process will need to tackle this issue in 2024 to enable the MWP to be a constructive space where barriers and opportunities in the energy transition are discussed, and countries cooperatively work on solutions and enablers. 

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.