|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Climate Change (Feb22/03) Penang, 8 Feb (TWN) – The developing countries, in outlining their priorities ahead of the 27th meeting of the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties (COP 27) to be held later this year in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, called for the prioritization of decisions on the adaptation goal, loss and damage finance, as well as on the new goal on climate finance. According to sources, several developed countries, while acknowledging the importance of adaptation, loss and damage and climate finance, did not reveal the clear outcomes that must be delivered on these matters at COP 27. (Many
developing countries had expressed much disappointment over the COP
26 outcomes in Glasgow, which were seen as being more mitigation-centric,
with little to show on real delivery of climate finance, and inadequate
outcomes on adaptation and loss and damage. For more details, see
https://www.twn.my/title2/climate/news/glasgow01/ The priorities for COP 27 were conveyed during informal consultations held on 2 to 3 February by virtual means between Parties with the Egyptian representatives, as the incoming Presidency of COP 27, and the United Kingdom (UK), who was the COP 26 President. According to some delegations who spoke to Third World Network (TWN), many developing countries stressed that 2022 must be viewed as the “year of implementation” of decisions agreed to under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement (PA). Sources said that the Presidencies convened the consultations to seek Parties’ views on priorities of work for 2022 to build a successful COP 27. Also present were the Chairs of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), which will be holding their inter-session meetings in Bonn, Germany in early June this year. Some Parties also stressed the value of virtual meetings but cautioned that these cannot be a substitute for in- person meetings. According to sources, the representative of the G77 and China on finance conveyed the view that ambition did not lie in declarations and statements by Parties but on how these are translated into action. The representative also said that at COP 27, Parties “need to give EGYPT to the world”, which stood for “Equity, Goals, Youth, Prosperity, and Transition.” The representative, it seems, elaborated further on the acronym coined, that COP 27 would need to address the issues of equity in the climate process; the need to realise the goals such as the global goal on adaptation (GGA), the new collective quantified goal on finance (NCQG), the delivery of the USD 100 billion per year goal; the need to build on youth demands; that climate actions need to contribute to prosperity for all; and that there is need to ensure equitable transition and not merely a just transition. The Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) conveyed that there must not be a departure from the provisions of the Convention and the PA and that going forward, Parties need to focus on issues of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), historical responsibility, and re-balance attention and advancement on the key areas of finance, adaptation, and loss and damage. (Third World Network managed to obtain a copy of the intervention remarks made by the LMDC representative at the consultations). The LMDC expressed concerns that the developed countries were moving away from recognising the CBDR principle, which is a deviation from the Convention and the PA provisions. It also said that the LMDC did not agree to establishing a net zero by 2050 target for all countries since this amounted to a new form of colonialism which is “carbon colonialism.” The LMDC was therefore of the view that “the work programme to scale up mitigation ambition must not be the way for developed countries to gain new control of the developing world and peoples of the South.” The LMDC’s priorities included making substantive progress on the issues of finance, adaptation and loss and damage, and it also underlined that the work programme to scale up mitigation ambition must complement and not duplicate the global stocktake (GST) process (which is to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the PA and its goals). It also expressed concerns over the purpose of the mitigation work programme, since it had heard reports that some developed countries would not review their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) post-Glasgow this year. The LMDC was of the view that the issue of adaptation, including adaptation finance must be accorded high priority at COP 27 and also called for a robust review mechanism under the GST which would pave the way for meaningful future climate action rather than allowing the narrative of just net zero. It also wanted the GST to focus on equity and not just on science. It also expected to see agreement on the need to finance loss and damage and not merely have a dialogue, and for the institutional arrangements for the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage (SNLD) to be further developed. (At COP 26 in Glasgow, the developing countries strongly pushed for a facility to ensure a process for loss and damage finance, while the developed countries, especially the United States, were firmly opposed to this. The final compromise was just to have a dialogue on the matter, to the grave disappointment of the former). The LMDC also called for meaningful outcomes on finance at COP 27, including agreement on a proper definition of climate finance. It also called for meaningful decisions to move forward the work programme of the Glasgow Committee on non- market approaches in a way that favours the effective implementation of the NDCs of the developing countries, matching their needs for finance, technology transfer and capacity building with international cooperation. It also called for moving into a real process of negotiations through in-person meetings. The Africa Group conveyed that on adaptation, Parties need to define an ambitious adaptation goal, including sectoral benchmarks, and assess adaptation needs in the context of the temperature goal. It also stated that just transition could not be limited to keeping just the 1.5 degrees C temperature (goal) alive, but should be seen in the context of a global adaptation response, said sources. The Africa Group expressed deep regret that the developed countries had failed to deliver on finance, thus rendering them non-compliant with agreed decisions, and emphasized the need for financial support. The group had also proposed that future ministerial dialogues (on finance) should be more compliance-driven. It also called for enhancing the mitigation component of the NDCs and for adequate funding in line with the temperature goal and net zero emissions. It also wanted priority to be given to Article 6 elements that needed to be concluded in 2022. (Article 6 refers to cooperative approaches which are market and non-market based. Further work is to be advanced on some aspects of the rules this year). On loss and damage, it wanted the establishment of the finance facility at COP 27. The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) conveyed that the loss and damage negotiations in Glasgow had failed to meet expectations and that the decision to have a dialogue was insufficient. Among its priorities was the GGA and the finalizing of institutional arrangements for the SNLD and for the loss and damage finance facility. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) outlined mitigation, loss and damage, finance and adaptation as their priority issues for the year. It looked forward to the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and called for more accountability on the mitigation work programme and for more mitigation ambition. It also called for the GST to be comprehensive, inclusive and reflective of the urgency of the climate crisis. It also said that while it spearheaded a proposal for the loss and damage finance facility in Glasgow, all it got was a dialogue, and that this needs to be advanced in 2022. The Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC) conveyed its priorities which included enhanced NDC ambition, the work programme on pre-2030 ambition, ensuring environmental integrity in the Article 6 mechanisms, enhancing adaptation action, making progress on the long-term climate finance agenda, fulfilment of the USD 100 billion per year goal as well as making substantive progress on the NCQG. It also emphasised on finance for adaptation and loss and damage. China stressed the importance of the PA not to be re-written as well as the principles of the Convention. It called for the following of rule-based procedures in relation to NDCs and for cooperation rather than competition among Parties. Saudi Arabia wanted to see COP 27 as an “adaptation COP” and called on Parties to have that ambition. It also conveyed that the current phase needs to be guided by rules agreed to in the past five years and that this would be critical in building the implementation framework. It also said that implementation must be inclusive and the principle of CBDR must be the cornerstone while implementing the commitments. It further added that the guidance from science must be looked at from the lens of the principles agreed to in the UNFCCC. India stressed that equity and CBDR are key pillars of the process and called for upscaled support for developing countries and for developed countries to deliver on the key enablers for action and implementation. Its priority for 2022 included implementation of commitments, including on finance and technology transfer and that focus should be on assessing climate finance delivery to match mitigation commitments. It also said that asking those who have already taken ambitious action on climate change to further review their NDCs poses a challenge, adding that the mitigation work programme should not be a burden on the developing countries and that the developed countries should take the lead. It also said that the GGA should reflect the country-driven nature of adaptation and should not add to the reporting burden of developing countries. It requested for early conclusion on the definition of climate finance and NCQG. South Africa said that its priorities included finance, adaptation, loss and damage and just transition. It said that it expects a clear NCQG with clear commitments by developed countries and spoke to the importance of access to climate finance by the developing countries. On loss and damage, it sought assurance on funding and said that it expects substantive progress on the SNLD. It also called for the launch of a just energy transition financing framework at COP 27. The European Union (EU) conveyed that loss and damage would be one of the key topics for the next two years and that it remains open to strengthen existing arrangements and support vulnerable communities. It also said that implementation of mitigation commitments is key to ensuring credibility and more potential for ambition, adding that the mitigation work programme would discuss how to accelerate action and how sectoral areas would aid mitigation, citing examples of phasing down unabated coal and fossil fuel subsidies. On the GGA, it said what would be important is to strengthen the adaptation agenda, including how to measure and track progress in relation to climate impacts. It also expressed disappointment that developed countries failed to mobilise the USD 100 billion in 2020, and that it would strive to reach the goal in 2023. The EU also said that the issue of aligning climate finance flows to low greenhouse gas and climate-resilient development was important to them. The Environment Integrity Group’s (EIG) priorities for the year included the mitigation work programme, finalization of rules around markets, to begin preparations for the GST and to deliver on the SNLD. According to sources, the EIG also said that it did not expect any “direct deliverables on finance and adaptation” at COP 27, while expressing disappointment that the USD 100 billion per year goal could not be achieved in Glasgow, and to ensure it is delivered. On the process going ahead, the EIG’s preference was to continue using virtual tools and in-person meetings. The Umbrella Group said that it looked forward to making progress across the items, including the NCQG, GGA, Article 6 and the work programme on mitigation. It also said that processes such as GST, second periodic review, the dialogue on ocean and climate change, loss and damage and response measures were all important issues. Clearly, the road to Sharm-el-Sheikh is not going to be easy, as is the case at every COP.
|
||
