Adaptation, finance and pre-2020 implementation gap highlighted at Bonn Climate Conference
The third meeting of the technical dialogue (TD1.3) under the first Global Stocktake is currently underway at the mid-year Climate Conference in Bonn, Germany.
This marks the final phase of the technical assessment as the Global Stocktake process moves into the final leg of the stocktake process, the output consideration, also known as the political phase.
Global Stocktake process timeline. Source: Climate Chance
The Global Stocktake process is meant to assess the progress made in achieving climate goals under the Paris Agreement. It serves as a report card of the agreement and guides further implementation and the setting of more ambitious goals.
The technical dialogue is a part of the technical assessment process under the GST, which considers views and information from countries and non-party stakeholders (organisations).
The three technical dialogues will result in a synthesis report that will contribute to the outputs of the Stocktake. These outputs will be considered during the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Dubai, United Arab Emirates later this year.
The output of the first GST would produce a set of recommendations to guide countries in updating respective Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement and other climate goals and plans.
The third meeting of the technical dialogue began with the opening plenary on Tuesday, June 8. There were several important comments by developing countries and developing country groupings, including India's concerns regarding certain elements of the process.
Speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, Cuba drew attention to the failure of the forum to include the pre-2020 implementation gap in consideration for the Global Stocktake.
Also read: UN calls for overhaul of global governance to tackle climate crisis
The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, obligated developed countries to reduce emissions based on assigned targets. However, the process remained compromised as some developed nations either refused to ratify or prematurely withdrew from the agreement, disregarding their emission reduction obligations.
In 2010, countries made voluntary pledges to reduce emissions under the Cancun Agreement. This approach ignored the ambitious targets required from developed countries and shifted a portion of the burden onto developing countries. Moreover, some countries did not fulfil their voluntary pledges.
This lack of commitment, coupled with a lower level of ambition than what was required, resulted in a series of unmet expectations. Developing countries, including India, have been calling on the developed world to fulfil this implementation gap from the pre-2020 era.
At the opening plenary of the GST this week in Bonn, Saudi Arabia on behalf of the like-minded group of developing countries (LMDCs) made a blunt remark on the issue, criticising the global process for failing to ‘have a dedicated space to discuss pre-2020’.
This concern was echoed by Ghana representing the African Group; Brazil representing Brazil for Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay (ABU); South Africa representing the Brazil, South Africa, India and China group or BASIC; Algeria representing the Arab Group; India and China.
The United States made counter-arguments that the focus ought to be on the progress made rather than finding gaps in efforts.
Also read: Climate finance needs could cost India 85.6 lakh crore by 2030
On the agenda of adaptation, Ghana raised concerns about the struggle of African countries and least developed countries (LDC) in adaptation planning and the inadequate support for adaptation from developed countries.
Saudi Arabia for LMDCs called to avoid clubbing mitigation with adaptation or choosing between the two. LMDC called for more focus on adaptation in the process like Alliance of Small Island States or AOSIS. China highlighted the lack of discussion on adaptation on a global scale, which has been discussed only locally so far.
Ghana, speaking for the African Group, called for a dedicated focus on loss and damage, distinct from the issue of adaptation.
This was also raised by Trinidad and Tobago speaking on behalf of the AOSIS group, Senegal for LDCs and the Philippines expressing reservations about loss and damage being included under the adaptation discussion in the summary report of the second technical dialogue.
In the context of climate negotiations, the issue of loss and damage has become contentious and has acquired several different interpretations over time.
While the Paris Agreement discusses adaptation in Article 7 and addresses loss and damage separately in Article 8, some developed countries attempt to combine loss and damage with adaptation in climate negotiations, thereby avoiding the need for a separate financing stream for loss and damage.
It was only after over 30 years of demand that the loss and damage fund was finally agreed upon at COP27 last year in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt.
Loss and damage continue to be discussed differently by parties, and advocates of the theme continue to highlight the distinctness of the issue as it arises when the limits of adaptation are reached.
Another important issue raised on the floor of the Hall was ‘finance’ as a means of implementation. Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement asks for ‘making financial flows consistent with low GHG emission and climate resilient development’.
Also read: Debt crisis and gap in affordable climate finance in focus at IMF, World Bank meeting
Cuba opined that the discussion on finance is only focused on Article 2.1(c) – an ‘imbalanced’ focus.
Similarly, Ghana called for better financing mechanisms derived from Articles 4, 9 and 13 rather than Article 2.1(c). BASIC represented by South Africa stated that there was an overwhelming focus on financial issues in Article 2.1(c).
Saudi Arabia underscored that finance must consider the ‘national context’ and cannot be applied through a single lens.
China highlighted the neglect of “international cooperation“ as mentioned in Article 14 of the Paris Agreement, to criticise trade barriers, blockades, unilateral measures and sanctions on “clean energy products’.
This came a day after China criticized the EU’s restrictive trade policies including the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism at a meeting of World Trade Organization in Geneva.
India expressed concerns over the lack of incorporation of the ‘needs, rights and aspirations’ of developing countries in scientific models and projections in use.
Thereby providing pathways that ‘constrain energy consumption and income growth’ in these countries. The issue of lack of equity in IPCC global modelled scenarios has been raised in recent times.
Also read: Climate change mitigation: Flood insurance scheme launched to protect small farmers in Kenya
There were some reservations expressed regarding the process of the “World Café” — an informal setting with smaller groups of parties and non-party stakeholders to discuss thematic areas of GST, which was scheduled after the plenary event on the same day.
Saudi Arabia (for LMDCs) expressed disappointment with the element of ‘role play’ in the process as did South Africa for BASIC. India found World Café stations, a specific setup for interactive discussions, to be lacking in upholding the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities.
Discussions continued after the two events on the first day, with a roundtable on Mitigation and response measures on June 7, followed by another roundtable on adaptation, including loss and damage, on June 8.
Two additional roundtables are scheduled, to be followed by a closing plenary on June 13. All of these events are part of the Technical Dialogue process.
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.