The Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Past Event
2023-12-05
COP28 Stocktake Issue #5
Climate Finance Commitments Underwhelm at COP28 While Vulnerable Countries' Needs Remain Unmet
At the fifth day of COP28, national negotiators continued intense debates across all issues of climate mitigation, adaptation and finance. However, world leaders again used the COP28 stage to tout their latest climate commitments and finance pledges, including the UAE banking sector's $270 billion commitment towards green finance and debt relief for climate-impacted countries.
While seemingly substantial, this pledge pales compared to developing countries' estimated annual needs of at least $2.4 trillion by 2030 for climate mitigation and adaptation. Moreover, the UAE announcement lacks binding force, and much climate finance remains in the form of loan and debt rather than grants. If governments and banks fail to effectively transform climate finance into a permanent mechanism, the purported trillions in commitments will only amount to a drop in the ocean for developing countries' immense needs in the foreseeable future. Worse still, it may saddle developing countries with additional debt rather than providing genuine climate finance.
On the same day, Hong Kong SAR government officials busied themselves with various COP28 formalities, including C40 meetings, exchanges with Indonesia and Singapore on climate projection and sustainable finance, and visits to Hong Kong companies' tech projects in the UAE. However, unlike other countries and regions, Hong Kong has not announced updated climate commitments on either raising mitigation targets or climate finance. We are also concerned about the government's inability to prevent greenwashing in climate finance. Officials thus missed a prime COP28 opportunity to demonstrate Hong Kong's resolve and capacity to increase climate ambition, especially after shelving offshore wind plans pre-COP.
Daily updates (December 4)
Analysis of Key Mitigation, Adaptation and Finance Issues in COP28 Negotiations on December 4
The fourth day of negotiations saw continued intense discussions on key issues under the Subsidiary Bodies, especially regarding mitigation, adaptation, and climate finance matters.
On mitigation, consultations focused on finalizing the Sharm El-Sheikh mitigation work programme and deliberations on just transition. Parties worked to bridge divides on the structure and scope of the programme, with developed countries preferring a more limited programme focused on dialogue and developing nations pushing for more concrete language on raising ambition. Regarding just transition, parties considered a draft decision text but differences persisted on issues like the mandate and whether to reference concepts like trade measures.
In adaptation negotiations, talks centered around the Glasgow-Sharm El-Sheikh work programme on the global goal on adaptation. Serious concerns remained among developing countries that key issues like finance were not adequately reflected. Developing nations stressed the need to enhance adaptation action and support, while some developed countries preferred to avoid re-opening agreed text. Intense informal discussions took place to find compromise.
On climate finance, consultations addressed matters relating to long-term finance, the Standing Committee on Finance, and the Green Climate Fund. Positions remained far apart on key issues like doubling adaptation finance, with developing nations underscoring inadequate levels and developed countries cautious about establishing new targets. Parties also debated governance and policy guidance to the Green Climate Fund. However, agreement remained elusive on many finance issues between developed and developing country groupings.
Overall, the fourth day of COP28 climate talks revealed continued challenges in reconciling divergent views on mitigation, adaptation and finance matters. While some progress occurred in streamlining negotiation text, major political issues remained unresolved, particularly those related to support for developing nations. With negotiating time running short, the pressure was rising on parties to show flexibility in order to achieve substantive outcomes in the key areas under negotiation.
Bridging the North-South Divide: Key Fault Lines Emerge on Just Transition Pathways at COP28
The negotiations on the Just Transition Pathway work programme under the Paris Agreement saw significant divergences between developed and developing countries. Developing countries stressed the importance of equity, historical responsibility, and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) in framing a just transition, arguing against artificially accelerated timelines.
India cautioned against uncritically adopting modelled pathways that ignore equity, noting that no IPCC pathway meets Sustainable Development Goals. It argued that justice has no deadline, and developing countries face twin challenges of development and mitigation. Saudi Arabia called for addressing the full scope of transition. The G77 & China found the draft text unrepresentative, undertaking to provide alternative language.
Conversely, developed countries considered the text reflective of the workshop and submissions, with reasonable timeframes. The EU proposed a two-year programme feeding into subsequent NDCs, while the US questioned references to the UNFCCC. Japan wanted replacing UNFCCC with Paris Agreement. The Environmental Integrity Group envisioned a three-year timeframe like the Mitigation Work Programme.
ABU (Group of Argentina. Brazil and Uruguay) stressed that distributive justice is difficult but vital, necessitating an enduring space for open discussion of transition impacts and justice. AOSIS, representing vulnerable small island states, underscored an extended timeframe given existential threats. The African Group emphasized finance, technology and capacity building to enable system transformation.
There appears consensus on inclusive processes and human rights considerations, as suggested by Canada. But clear differences persist on timeframe, equity, and CBDR-RC.