National negotiators have talked for five days in these rooms, but what have they said?
The Paris Agreement (PA) calls for keeping global temperature rise well below 2˚C, yet we are still on the pathway of above 3˚C with the current set of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). it’s time to ratchet up our collective ambition.
As the Bangkok intersessional climate change negotiations draw to a close with just a day left, Parties are scrambling to the finish line. The mandate is for the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PAWP) to be complete by the end of 2018. In the May session in Bonn, it was recognized that the only way that would be possible was to organize an additional session in Bangkok.
Despite having just over five days of negotiations, many issues may be left on the table in Bangkok without being resolved. If this were to happen, negotiations to prepare draft texts would have to continue at COP24 in Katowice, Poland, where there will only be five or six days of negotiation.
Even though COP24 will be a two-week conference, it will see an absurd amount of time taken up by high-level ministerial meetings that will eat up into crucial negotiation time. Other issues and points of discussion regarding COP24 have been deliberated over the past few days in Bangkok, including a new daily badge system, a shift in the date of the first day of COP, along with the expected outcome of the Talanoa Dialogue – which may be downgraded to a Presidential note or high-level ministerial declaration.
While focus in Bangkok is to prepare draft negotiating texts in time for COP24, the talk of ambition has barely been heard
Article 4.3 is clear.
Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.
It means that Parties need to update their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) over a period of time by including more ambitious climate action goals each time. This provision in the Paris Agreement to continually increase ambition is called the “ratcheting mechanism”.
So how can we increase ambition? There are a number of ways; such as means of implementation led by developed country Parties, feeding in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Special Report on 1.5˚C, and the Talanoa Dialogue outcome. If we are serious about hitting our 1.5 ˚C or even 2 ˚C target, all three methods need to be utilized to the fullest.
Leadership by developed nations and means of implementation
Financial flows, capacity building, technology transfer and development are all pillars of the means of implementation. Trust-building is at the core of building ambition via means of implementation. If developing nations are being called upon to increase their ambitions, they should only do so on the back of increased ambitions by developed country Parties, who do not have conditional contributions in their NDCs.
In addition to leading by example, developed countries also need to fulfil their promises of providing developing nations with the means of implementation. Taking historical emissions into account, it has been reinforced time after time that the equitable way forward is to have nations that developed their economies on fossil fuel-intensive industries must pay up and provide support to developing countries that will be more affected over the coming decades, yet not be able to respond to the climate crisis.
Inherently built into many countries’ NDCs is a mini-ratchet mechanism of sorts – namely conditional contributions. Only upon support from developed nations with means of implementation, will developing nation Parties strive to achieve their more ambitious conditional contribution. With financial flows, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building we will be able to push for overall increased ambition.
Giving space to the Special Report on 1.5˚C (SR1.5) at COP24
Next comes one of the most important reports ever put out by the IPCC, the SR1.5. In decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 21, the COP invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways.
Parties are set to meet in early October to review and agree on the summary for policy makers of the report in Korea. This report has monumental implications should it reveal that global temperature rise will not be kept under either 1.5 ˚C or even 2˚C should we stick to our current NDCs.
While this report is a scientific paper, it will be highly politicized due to how it is meant to inform Parties on the reality of 1.5˚C pathway, by way of the Talanoa Dialogue. Although the report has been finalized, the summary for policymakers (SPM) is still in its draft phase and will be approved at the 48th Session of the IPCC in Korea in the first week of October.
When the SPM is approved and released, Parties must take its findings into consideration when finalizing the PAWP in Katowice and use it to call for stronger ambition in getting the world on the 1.5˚ pathway. While there is no information on plans from the IPCC for the COP24 opening plenary, the COP24 President has already indicated that there will be a dedicated space for the Talanoa Dialogue to consider the SR1.5.
Legitimizing the Talanoa Dialogue
Since launching in January this year, the Talanoa Dialogue (f.k.a. 2018 Facilitative Dialogue), has been lauded for its intent, the storytelling platform it provides, and its nature of being inclusive, participatory and transparent. It is still unclear as to exactly how the Talanoa Dialogue will conclude in COP24, but it should end meaningfully, with the collective input over the course of the year contributing to raising ambition.
The ratcheting mechanism in the Paris Agreement Pic: Carbon Brief
Is the Global Stocktake (GST) make or break?
The one ambition mechanism built into the Paris Agreement is the GST. Currently, the modalities, inputs, outputs and outcomes are still being negotiated in Bangkok. As the GST draft negotiation text begins to take shape, it’s important for it to be robust as it will inform and improve NDCs to come. Finally, it’s crucial to ensure there is space for inputs from all stakeholders – not just the Parties themselves, but third-parties as well as non-party stakeholders.
What the final draft text from Bangkok will look like remains to be seen and although there is little time left, there are still some avenues to promote ambition in order to better the current set of NDCs. Let’s get finance flowing to countries that need it the most. Once that happens, the rest will follow, and we’ll continue on our fight to 1.5˚.
The most recent round of climate change negotiations started with a bit of a furor. At the very last minute, constituencies and parties were suspended from giving interventions. The SBSTA Chair came around, asking the constituencies if they would be agreeable to this. Safe to say, the request was more of a formality than anything else.
As one of the people who was supposed to deliver an intervention on behalf of Climate Action Network, I was somewhat annoyed. It was an inconvenience, especially since several of us had spent time drafting and editing the intervention. However it was nowhere near the level of the Youth NGOs. A heated exchange ensued between a YOUNGO representative and the chair. Both parties brought up salient points which I thought served as interesting talking points to the principles and practicalities of the UNFCCC.
Me eagerly (with a hefty dose of nervousness), looking forward to delivering an intervention for the very first time ever.
The UNFCCC process is built on being inclusive. However, many civil society groups complain that they do not get enough of a say in the process. At this point in fleshing out the Paris Agreement Work Programme, inclusivity is an important factor because if a document is not inclusive and representative of everyone’s viewpoints then inevitably people are less likely to adhere to something they cannot relate to. It is also important that people have confidence in the UNFCCC process so that they will have faith in the outcomes such as the Paris Agreement Work Program. These were some of the arguments the representative brought up.
The Chair on the other hand, highlighted that the UNFCCC is a party-driven process, which means that ultimately the text will be written and finalised by parties alone. Time is of the essence here as parties aim to have an agreement on the Paris Agreement Work Program by the end of COP 24 in Katowice and therefore it is essential that parties get as much time as possible to work on the text.. Hence this additional 6-day session in Bangkok. Cutting out this section would save an hour and a half. However, it could be argued that parties interventions can be cut while keeping the opportunity for civil societies. Parties already have plenty of opportunities to voice their opinions. This was certainly a point YOUNGO representatives reinforced over and over.
Members of the youth constituency sitting down with the SBSTA chair.
The move to cut out the interventions was a pragmatic one. However, it has ideological and substantial repercussions – it signals that the voice of non-party stakeholders are not as important to the process. While there are of course other opportunities for non-party stakeholders to interact with the text, such as through and bilaterals, this is much less than the opportunities parties receive. Also, interventions are one of the few formal avenues that is visible to the outside world as the sessions are video-recorded and uploaded online.
After the heated exchange and some discussion among the other youths, once again YOUNGO chose to go up to the Chair to have a sit-down discussion on this matter. Youths are a key stakeholder because they are one of the most vulnerable to this process and also climate change in general. Firstly, because youths are usually self-funded and are not experienced in this arena. They are usually students who are passionate about climate change issues and have to study while doing this on the side. Secondly, youths will feel the impact of climate change much more in the future and will be the most impacted by the policies to combat climate change.
The outcome of the decision was that the chairs and the secretariat agreed that this would not set a precedent for things to work out like this in the future. They apologised for the impromptu decision and said they really believed this was the best choice. This incident reflected an interesting clash between practicality and principles. Which should be prioritised is up in the air. As a youth I would definitely be inclined towards principles as someone who is going to live the rest of my 60 years or so under the governance and impacts of the Paris Agreement.
It was a struggle at first. To attend, or not to attend. But when the YOUNGO speaking opportunity was secured, I knew it was a sign. I had been quite detached from the climate negotiations conversation and I guessed it was time I immersed myself once again, even for a short few days.
Pre-work of preparing for my session, “Unlocking opportunities for NDC enhancement and implementation’ was rather limited. All of it was done in a rushing manner as I was drowned with work. Yet, while drafting the key points with assistance from other members, I was pleased that my knowledge in both MYD and my full time job have been able to contribute nicely. The most exciting part was that a subject matter expert of this area had agreed to share his thoughts and inputs on top of mine and it was all done in the nick of time.
Looking at the panelist profile, I felt small. Sitting with these people working on NDC implementation on a national and inter-governmental level, I asked myself, what can I bring to the floor? YOUNGO (insert link), the official youth constituency of UNFCCC had entrusted me to represent the youths. How do I strive to establish the balance between not being the typical “hoo-ha-youths-who-only-know-to-make-noise” and being able to deliver my pressing message?
In the morning, after saying goodbye to our host, Cheryl from Singapore Youth Climate Action (SYCA), I travelled with Hanis to Resorts World Sentosa, the conference site for my 9am session. As if weeks of sleep deprivation wasn’t enough to torture me, the purple line on the MRT decided to freak me out at the final moment – with just 3 stops to the designated station, it broke down and delayed our journey for more than 10 minutes.
Time was ticking. With no time to spare, we rushed for a cab and went straight to the conference site. A rush of relief went through us both. We reached just on time, at 9am sharp. Not knowing if the other MYD members would make it on time to set up and live stream the session (as they too were stuck on the purple line). We ran through the corridors and met the session moderator, Mr. Stefanos Fotiou, Director of United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), who was kind enough to brief me through with patience and reminded me “not to worry”. Of course, a big thanks goes out to Hanis for being my luggage guardian at this crucial moment. Another blessed moment was Melissa Low’s presence, a research fellow at NUS Energy Studies Institute who showed up at the session and calmed me down with providing me guidance on what to speak about. In chaotic times as such, you see kindness in people.
When all the courtesy introductions to the panelist were done, I sat down as the fourth speaker from the left. When the first speaker, Mr. Albert Magalang, Head at Climate Change Office, Philippines started his take on NDC implementation, my heart was thumping at the speed of light. All of my pre-drafted speech was all over the place in my mind. I was screaming for help from the inside but I knew that I still had to look cool and collected. Soon, it would be my turn.
Mr Stefanos took an unexpected and refreshing approach while cueing me in. He asked the floor “How many of you in this room were born at the end of the 60s or beginning of the 70s?” Few hands were raised, including Mr Stefanos himself, exposing their age (oops). He then turned to me and said, “Emily, for us who have raised our hands, we have completely failed to deliver a better planet to your generation.” He then asked what should youths be doing to deliver a better planet to the next generation and also our roles in NDC implementation. Amused by his introduction, it cracked me up a little and prompted me to share my thoughts.
I started off with one of my favourite framing sentences: “While our future is being negotiated, we, the youths need to be part of the process”. I shared that youth participation is in fact, another form of capacity building to nurture talents and to ensure succession and a just transition. I proudly slipped in the Malaysian government as a good example in allowing MYD to engage with them and learn from the national delegation in COP, hoping this could urge other nations’ participants in the room to mobilise their government to do the same. NDC implementation is a long term strategy and thus, sustainability in ensuring the talent pipeline to continue the work is vital.
The second point I raised was on adaptation. It was one of the strongest messages from my heart, yet, I felt a sense of intimidation to share my message with the crowd. Gathering all my guts, there it went – I said it. I shared my sentiment on how the whole conversation in climate negotiations have been very mitigation-centric. It channels out to affect how corporate, cities, and even financing opportunities lean towards being mitigation-focused. We should now have more tools and mechanisms to enhance adaptation projects’ environmental and social impact assessment and the respective ROI to let investors see the value of it. I witnessed a few nodding heads from the floor and even from the panelists, which was a very assuring response for me, as this was my first time voicing my views out in a public forum as such.
After I spoke, other panelists also voiced their thoughts on adaptation. When the session ended, a lady from FAO came and thanked me for raising up adaptation matters. It was a humbling experience to hear from everyone. I hope I did my part to raise the youths voice, especially on our concern about adaptation. Mr. Stefanos concluded my part fittingly with “If the youths talks about it, it is a signal that it is not in a very optimistic situation. And therefore we should pay more attention and look more into it.”
Dear world, it is time for a paradigm shift within the climate circle.
The Asia Pacific Climate Week (APCW) 2018 opened with a strong pro-business and private sector sentiment. A number of heavy weights sat on the opening panel: Patricia Espinosa, Luke Daunivalu, Masagos Zulkifli, President Michal Kurtyka, Bambang Susantono. Steve Chao moderated the session. The importance of a business and private finance solution to climate change was well highlighted by the presence of such individuals.
The rhetoric among the speakers on the panel and also subsequent ones, stressed highly on the need for private finance, investments and the engagement and evolution of the business industry. The need for increased ambition by these sectors and more finance poured into addressing climate change was emphasized upon.
Singapore’s Environment Minister Masagos Zulkifli was the first of the panel. He started with an appeal to emotion and enhanced action by narrating the disasters that have been happening in the region including the ongoing flood in Japan that has claimed almost 200 lives as of then. Then, he stressed the importance of trade and the need to keep global systems open and made the age old call for urgency and the spurring of global climate action.
He highlighted innovation and collaboration as two important thrusts towards achieving a low carbon future. Certainly the image of Singapore is also based on this. Then he announced that Singapore plans to implement a carbon tax starting at 5 dollars for every tonne of greenhouse gas emitted.
“No exception!” he exclaimed.
He also reinforced that the integrity of the Paris Agreement needs to be preserved, which was somewhat ironic given that a petrochemical company was one of the platinum sponsors of this APCW.
Following him was the Executive Director of the UNFCCC, Patricia Espinosa. She brought up the need for carbon forums to be more inclusive of input from different groups of people. She also called for more action on climate change using a personal story to evoke emotion in the people. She narrated her visit to Tuvalu. At a visit to a primary school she had been ‘deeply moved’ by how the children were aware of and had to deal with the floods. It would be great if more high ranking individuals were ‘deeply moved’ by such sights so that they would persuade governments and important businesses to increase ambition.
She listed a number of things that should be done: All levels of government need to be involved. The PA work program needed to be finalised, firm commitments should be made by countries to increase climate ambition by 2020, proper financing should be provided by developed countries and they should honour their promises. She also highlighted the inadequacy of current finances,
“the global community is talking in millions and billions, but it should be trillions.”
She compared financing climate change with current finances to walking into a category 5 hurricane protected only by an umbrella. Ms Espinosa presented climate change as an unprecedented opportunity instead of an unprecedented challenge. All in all it is a dire picture, our current rate of addressing climate change.
Luke Daunivalu followed after Ms Espinosa. He stressed the importance of climate leadership at all levels: government, grassroots and the private sector. One key point he mentioned that I found particularly interesting was how he stressed on leadership that is feasible and heard by the international community. Presumably he is referring to his own. What I took away from his implications is that it is important for leadership to be mindful and inclusive of counter agendas but also one that is inspirational and significant enough to make a difference in the international community. He reiterated the importance of the Talanoa dialogue and how we need to share our stories and followed up by saying that we need to move beyond rhetoric, towards action.
Subsequently the next President designate of COP24, President Michal Kurtyka of Poland took the podium. He reinforced the messages of the previous panelists, picking up on Masagos’ idea of innovation and innovative leadership. He then praised the EU’s goal of a 40% reduction of carbon emissions. Another ironic statement, considering earlier on, Poland had protested against being assigned a portion of the intended distribution. Specifically, it had been assigned a 7% reduction in overall emissions, a percentage somewhat proportionate to its contribution to the EU’s total emissions. Given that Poland is organising the upcoming COP, it would have been a good show of faith if the president could have committed to actions that move it away from being a coal powered nation and announced policies to encourage renewable energy. As of now, more than 90% of Poland’s electricity comes from lignite and coal.
Bambang Susantono from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) wrapped up the panel. He outlined measures the ADB was undertaking with respects to climate change such as how it has been supporting the Asian Carbon Forum. One of the ADB’s seven operational strategies is also tackling climate change. He mentioned how the Asia Pacific is home to more than 60% of the population and emits 40% of total output of green house gases. Seven of the top 10 vulnerable countries are also located in the region. He issued a warning that climate change will reverse the benefits of economic development in the region. He moved on to the progress ADB has made in mobilising finance for addressing climate change and how they are working with countries to help them transform Nationally Determined Contributions into climate investment plans.
Strategies to Reach Scale: Adaptation and Climate Resilient Initiatives in Coastal Zones
The coast is a battle zone. Coastal communities all over have to fight to survive against rising sea levels, worsening typhoons, depleting fish stocks and ocean acidification. That makes them one of the more vulnerable communities to climate change. At the recent Asia Pacific Climate Week that took place in July in Singapore, coastal zone climate initiatives got its own discussion session. A panel sat down to talk about “Strategies to Reach Scale: Adaptation and Climate Resilient Initiatives in Coastal Zones”.
The panel featuredYoussef Nassef, Director of Adaptation, UNFCCC; Singapore Red Cross secretary-general Benjamin Williams, Andi Eka Salva, Ms Rima Al-Azar Senior Natural Resources Officer from the Climate and Environment Division of the FAO,Stefanos Fotiou, Director for Environment and Development at UNESCAP and the UNFCCC High-level Champion Tomasz Chruszczow.
Community led adaptation and mitigation measures are important in coastal zones. This is for a variety of reasons such as:
They can respond flexibly to disasters,
Their knowledge of local issues is advantageous in such situations,
They can be more efficient than a government or an international NGO in many instances and
Their solutions can be very unique and suited to their context.
The panel was asked to share some innovative models from communities in coastal zones that have managed to achieve a large impact. While they did not quite manage to share on these (perhaps a reflection of the general lack of attention on ground up initiatives) they each spoke of coastal adaptation and mitigation measures in their own contexts.
Benjamin Williams talked about the Redcross’ Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA). The tool aims to enable local priorities to be identified and appropriate action taken to reduce disaster risk.
Mr Williams also stressed on the importance of finance in adapting coastal communities for climate change resilience as well as in disaster risk responses. The financing model needs to improve to take an integrated approach to addressing climate change issues by involving all relevant partners, across geographic and type boundaries.
Andi Eka Salva talked about a variety of conditions needed for effective adaptation and mitigation in coastal communities. These included early warning systems, timeliness in response and building literacy among communities regarding such measures. This is so that they will be prepared to aid and respond to such problems. For example, teaching farmers how to collect data.
He also emphasised on the importance of youth involvement in scaling up coastal climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. Forest fire and tsunami response education should be adapted into suitable mediums for children. In order to engage with the younger generation, he stated that there is a need to adapt to using their language and technology. In line with the principle of intergenerational equity, this is an area that should be given more focus in general. There is a lack of involvement and consideration of the future generations in climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Stefanos Fotiou referenced the 1991 publication by John Clarke as a good guidebook on integrated coastal management. The guidebook puts out 17 different activities that can be taken in coastal zones. He also noted that participation is an important factor for the Small Island Developing States.
Ms Rima Al-Azar focused in on the context: that 3.1 billion people around the world live within 10km of the coast. Coastal zones also have large implications for countries given that 84% of NDCs and INDCs mention aquaculture and fisheries as important.
She made a distinction between scaling up vs scaling out: up has not been as successful and that we are still at the pilot stage of scaling out. Better vertical and horizontal coordination and integration management is needed to address this. And this needs to be paired with a greater awareness about this issue.
Youssef Nassef also highlighted that coastal zones are important areas of focus for the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for loss and damage. This Mechanism addresses climate induced loss and damage. These could be extreme events or slow onset events.
He reiterated that developing countries in particular are vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. There should be more contingent measures such as insurance and innovative finance. It must be noted however, that insurance is a controversial solution. This stems from the international negotiations where developed countries were careful to address the issue of loss and damage as one that does not provide a basis for any liability or compensation. Therefore insurance was brought up as the alternative.
However many CSOs highlight the unfairness of expecting poor, vulnerable communities in developing countries to bear the costs of climate change disasters when they have disproportionately smaller greenhouse gas emissions.
EnviroNewsNigeria: Tomasz Chruszczow, Special Envoy for Climate Change from Poland
Tomasz Chruszczow spoke on how adaptation measures need to be integrated into general development planning in the countries. There is potential here for synergy between the Sustainable Development Goals and climate change when making national infrastructure, education and development plans. He highlighted an obstacle to adaptation which was that it is difficult to measure and there is no standardised system for this.
Day 2 of SB48-2: Negotiations in APA, SBI and SBSTA moving into informal consultations and informal informals
As the Bangkok climate negotiations kicked off yesterday, it became clear very quickly that parties, for the next week, will be saying the same thing. From the opening ceremony, to the plenaries, to the contact groups as well as the informal consultations, almost all chairs, facilitators and parties started their interventions with similar themes; we’re running out of time, we should not waste any more time now, and we must leave Bangkok with a draft text to bring to COP24.
Parties are so eager to get straight to work, that they proposed and agreed to forgo the opening plenary interventions from parties as well as CSOs. While it is clear to see why parties chose this course of impromptu action, several Youth CSO representatives did not appreciate the decision to cut out one of only two opportunities for CSOs to speak at this SB session.
While parties continue to reiterate the need to move fast with negotiations in Bangkok, CSOs are calling for parties not just to move swiftly but also to produce a strong and robust draft text for each facet of the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PAWP). The hope and expectation is to head into COP24 with draft texts that will be ready to be negotiated on in Katowice, Poland.
What does it mean to have draft negotiating texts coming out of Bangkok?
Currently, agenda items relating to the PAWP are being negotiated on the basis of informal notes and tools which have been drafted by the respective facilitators of each agenda item. These informal notes and tools contain inputs from parties from the past several sessions, dating back to SB44 in May 2016. The task ahead of parties in Bangkok is to distill the inputs and streamline the options with clearer and meaty text.
With stronger and more focused text coming out of Bangkok, the hope is that it will facilitate a good session of high level negotiations at COP24, with the ultimate goal of completing the PAWP by the December 2018 deadline.
What are the potential risks in Bangkok?
While it is promising and encouraging that parties see the urgency and feel the pressure, they also run the risk of pushing out draft texts that are weak. On the other hand, should parties take their time to negotiate, or come across stumbling blocks, they run the risk of ending the Bangkok session with incomplete draft texts.
Either option is unacceptable. And parties have no other choice than to work in overdrive. The current situation was perfectly captured in the opening address by COP23 President and Fiji Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, who said, “In three months’ time we will be in Katowice, and frankly, we are not ready. I don’t think that statement should surprise anyone in this room.”
Although discouraging, the COP23 President’s words were necessary. He told it like it is. The situation is dire now. Parties have left it all to the last minute and need to find as much common ground as possible over the next four days if we are to get any closer to implementing the Paris Agreement in 2020.
MYD is currently tracking the negotiations on the Paris Agreement Work Programme
United Nations Conference Center in Bangkok Pic: UNFCCC
UNFCCC climate negotiations resumed today in Bangkok, kicking off with opening plenaries for SBSTA 48-2, SBI 48-2 and APA 1-6. But why are we in Bangkok?
In a typical year, intersessional negotiations are held in Bonn between COPs. These additional sessions allow for negotiations to take place in the subsidiary bodies, namely SBSTA, SBI and APA. This year a second intersessional conference has been organized in Bangkok due to the urgent nature of having to complete the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PA) by the end of 2018.
Since parties adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015, they have been working on drafting guidelines to implement and operationalize the PA, beginning in 2020. With that deadline approaching quickly, parties are feeling the pressure to deliver texts to be negotiated and agreed on at COP24 in Katowice this December.
While this session in Bangkok is the result of the inability of parties to come to a definitive negotiation text at the last intersessional in May, the parties have also displayed the willingness and motivation to complete the PAWP on time.
10 MYD members are in Bangkok, tracking the negotiations at SB48-2
So what needs to be done in Bangkok?
As negotiations in SBSTA, SBI and APA get underway today, parties will only be discussing agenda items relating to the PAWP. This is so that there can be a strict focus on the most pressing issues that are holding back its completion. The absence of side events and UNFCCC-sanctioned actions at this session further stresses the importance of making complete and strong progress on the negotiations on the PAWP.
Finance is proving to be one of the crucial issues that will be negotiated here, specifically in SBI agenda item 15, relating to Article 9.5, which calls for developed countries to provide adequate information on a roadmap of potential financial contributions, as well as SBSTA agenda item 13, relating to Article 9.7, the modalities for the accounting of financial contributions provided and mobilized. There is the expectation that the African group will continue to ask for more robust text on Art. 9.5, something they have been adamant about since COP23 last year.
Finance is going to be key as it is most commonly seen as a factor in building trust. With higher financial flows, or even commitments to providing more quantitative and qualitative information on potential funds in the future, it would go a long way in galvanizing parties from both developing and developed nations to push for higher ambitions.
NDC enhancement will also be negotiated this week, with features and the accounting of NDCs, yet to be agreed on. Along with that, there is a question mark on the general timeline of NDC periods. Agreeing on these common timeframes around the submission and reporting of NDCs over a short interval of five years is crucial to opening up transparency on the collective contributions of all parties and will better push for stronger ambition in each iteration of NDCs.
The one thing I’ve noticed today, however, is the lack of follow through in the themes from COP23 specifically global stocktake (GST) and the Talanoa Dialogue. A lack of emphasis on GST may be a result of good and timely negotiations in May, however, the Talanoa Dialogue is more important than ever. The process, which involves collecting stories from parties, CSOs, and non-party stakeholders, is meant to build understanding and boost ambition for stronger climate action. It is still underway and should last until COP24 where it should see some sort of political input. If not, this all will be have been for nothing.
Lastly, where does Loss & Damage sit within this Bangkok session? All parties are scrambling to complete the PAWP in time and it feels as if L&D is being left behind. It’s been reiterated by many that the PAWP should be inclusive and an all-round package. No one stream should take precedence over the other. With L&D being tied to the WIM, it will be interesting to see how it fits into the PAWP.
All I can hope for, as we begin the week, is that parties do not waste time and start serious work in completing the PAWP in time to facilitate good negotiations and a decision in COP24. If not, we run the risk of accepting very loose and weak text should we run out of time at the end of this week. And that would just be doing a disservice to the Paris Agreement and its adoption three years ago.
Written by Mike Campton Peer reviewed by Daniel Teoh
