A new text will be considered after informal consultancies with the Head of Delegations is complete
Dan Jørgensen of Denmark and Barbara Creecy of South Africa (pictured) have been appointed as the ministerial pair to lead the GST negotiations till the end of COP28. Photo screenshot credit: @COP28_UAE / X The Global Stocktake (GST) negotiations have now moved to the CMA President as of December 8, representing the countries that have signed the Paris Agreement. Dan Jørgensen of Denmark and Barbara Creecy of South Africa have been appointed as the ministerial pair to lead the GST negotiations till the end of the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Before the first negotiation under the CMA, a new text was released late on the afternoon of December 8. Being the third iteration overall of the GST text, it was expected to include the comments made by Parties on the second version. While there were changes and additions to the new text, certain paragraphs and options were not too different from the previous version. At the negotiation, contentions arose again most evidently over the paragraph on fossil fuel phaseout.
Now paragraph 36 instead of the earlier 35, fossil fuel phaseout still has a “no-text” option for the entire paragraph, meaning that if there is no agreement on the options the entire text can be deleted. There is one new option under the target to triple renewable energy with a specific timeline and direction to gradually transition from fossil fuel dependency to renewables. Zambia, on behalf of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN), said the option on renewable energy is acceptable if it includes language on equitable distribution of investments.
The next option that speaks to fossil fuel phaseout now has three more alternatives. Only one of them explicitly mentions 2050 as a target year although it specifically mentions it is for the energy sector. All language on fossil fuel phaseout is vague, with one of them just being “A phase out of fossil fuels in line with best available science”. One point still only speaks to phasing out fossil fuel “use” and not production.
However, coming to coal, the first stark difference is the point has had no change from the previous version of the text. It still speaks to phasing out coal by 2030 and “immediate cessation” of new coal power generation with specific references to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings, with no such IPCC reference for oil and gas.
Expectedly, differences arose over the paragraph. The European Union (EU) welcomed the paragraph but wanted more focus on the need to peak fossil fuels in 2025. Russia said, “We should pay respect to the role of fuels with all carbon footprints, in particular natural gas as a bridging fuel.” Iran said the paragraph is “unacceptable” and wanted it to be deleted completely. In the same vein, Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) said they do not support any of the mitigation options as the differentiation between developed and developing countries is missing and there should be an option speaking to immediate reduction and a scale up of all solutions. Similarly, the AGN said, “There are different contexts and starting points have not been reflected in the right context in the mitigation section.” Canada supported a phaseout of coal while Pakistan said “phasing out unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies are not in line. Stick to the agreed language and nothing beyond it.”
Switzerland on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Group shared concern over language on the pre-2020 mitigation gaps of developed countries, adding that the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities also speaks to highest ambition and principles must not be included selectively. Developing country groups including the G77 and China, AGN, LMDC and individual countries including Brazil, India and Ecuador have specifically highlighted that developed countries should take the lead based on historical responsibility.
India maintained its consistent position that the GST must not be policy prescriptive and dictate new targets, echoed by China. The two countries also joined other developing nations in demanding that the GST highlight the gap in adequate finance for the Global South to achieve ambition. The United States said: “Several finances paragraphs have been misquoted, includes inappropriate calculations and inaccurate bifurcations.”
The EU, Canada and Japan expressed disappointment that references to Article 2.1c were only presented as options. Article 2.1c speaks to international financial flows being aligned with low carbon development. Developing countries have raised concerns that routing all finance through such a mechanism would lead to a lack of control over what constitute “low carbon” development in the Global South. At the same time, the text included a new paragraph recognising that there is no agreed definition of climate finance, a long standing ask of blocs like the AGN.
The key objective of the GST text is for it to be balanced between the backward- and forward-looking assessment and direction. At the negotiations so far, Parties have brought up issues with the balance in terms of whether it supports the Global South or Global North views more.
A new text will be considered after informal consultancies with the Head of Delegations is complete. The current third iteration has approximately 50 options to iron out.
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.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.