Connect with us

Published

on

Paul Watkinson is a former chief climate negotiator for France who now works independently on ways to improve the multilateral climate process and strengthen climate action.

As COP30 in Belém approaches, the focus must shift from process to impact. We need a credible response to counter attacks on multilateralism and to boost action on reducing emissions, adaptation, loss and damage, and finance.

Whilst the traditional agendas will be heavy and results on items like adaptation indicators, just transition, finance and global stocktake follow-up will be vital, even together they do not constitute the “big ticket” item Belém requires for success.

Some have suggested that an additional political statement – often called a “cover decision” – would be a way to try and bridge the substantial gaps in climate ambition and action the world is facing.

 Comment: Why COP30 needs a cover decision to succeed 

However, while there is certainly a need to maximise the impact of Belém, I am not convinced a cover decision is most effective vehicle. It is time for the COP to move beyond fighting over decision wording and truly pivot towards supporting and facilitating implementation.

What are the problems with a cover decision? Firstly, most COPs function fine without one, and a good host-nation presidency – this year, Brazil – can land and communicate an outcome regardless of whether results are in a single decision or a series.

A cover decision does not necessarily provide a better overview of results across multiple work streams, nor does it make it easier to find the balance between different priorities. Indeed, throwing one in the mix can even complicate the management of the final days if it overlaps with ongoing substantive negotiations on parallel decisions (a concern in Sharm El Sheikh in 2023).

“Christmas tree” of issues

Secondly, whilst the initial justification for Glasgow in 2021 was the valid need to address mitigation ambition (and a similar argument can be made for Belém), proposing a cover decision inevitably opened the door to inserting a host of other topics.

Almost inevitably, the cover decision encourages a widening of the debate and quickly risks turning into an infamous “Christmas tree.” Yes, that can be a way to ensure balance across topics, but there is a cost to pay as issues multiply, as seen by looking at the 17 sections of the Sharm El Sheikh cover decision.

Thirdly, cover decisions often launch poorly prepared mandates. There were good reasons for the mitigation work programme from Glasgow and the just transition work programme from Sharm El Sheikh, but there was little discussion of their scope or aims before the decisions were adopted, and parties have been struggling ever since to find agreement on how to implement them.

COP30 president hints Brazil may be open to a cover decision in Belém

We should be looking at how to rationalise and improve the mandates we have, ensuring that we set up processes that make a difference, not clog up the process further.

Above all, what would a cover decision at COP30 concretely achieve? Would another invitation to revise NDCs, like the request from Glasgow, be effective? Using political capital to get decision wording in Belém would be little more than feel-good posturing if it does not also deliver real world impacts.

A Belém Implementation Plan

What should we do instead? Pivot to an implementation forum, as I suggested a few months’ ago.

The Action Agenda – which mobilises voluntary climate action across economies and societies – can provide just the vehicle we need to do this, with the great advantage that it does not require consensus outcomes. However, it does require major improvements to be effective.

I am heartened by the fact that the Brazilian presidency is already moving in the same direction, with the reorganisation of the Action Agenda as set out in the fourth letter from the COP president and the work by the high-level champions.

To be acceptable, an implementation forum must correct the central weakness of the Action Agenda to date – its tendency to multiply announcements rather than ensure credible follow-up and real implementation. That must change.

Global South campaigners question inclusivity of COP30 as some stay home

Pulling this together, the final days of the COP should not be the scene of yet more tense negotiation of yet another cover decision that will not be make much impact, but should instead be the moment for the presidency to present a Belém Implementation Plan.

This plan would provide clarity on how all work mobilised will move forward, specifying who, what, and when, with clear results over the next year or two. It would say where and when an implementation forum would convene in 2026 (options might include during climate weeks or in New York) to oversee progress. That process would be led by the COP30 presidency, the champions and, hopefully by then, the incoming presidency of COP31.

Maximising real-world action

Such a plan would be inclusive, bringing in not just parties, but also other international organisations, financial institutions, business, sub-national governments and civil society. Crucially, it could still capture key political messages – on mitigation ambition, adaptation, finance, loss and damage – but as results to be delivered through action, not mere rhetoric.

Changing the UNFCCC’s habit of negotiating decisions is going to be hard. I can see that, despite my arguments, many may remain of the view that the outcome should include some sort of decision text. If that can be kept short, and focused, why not? But there would still be a need for an implementation forum alongside to give it credibility.

The leaders’ summit just before the opening of COP30 may also provide further opportunities to capture high-level calls for strengthened action. Perhaps the outcome will be some combination of options.

The point is that working on the basis that a cover decision would be sufficient and the test of success in Belém is not enough since it would carry a high risk of disappointment down the road.

Belém must aim higher – and COP30 can be the moment when the world shifts its focus to ensure stronger credibility and, most importantly, starts to maximise its impact in the real world.

The post COP30 needs an implementation forum, not another cover decision appeared first on Climate Home News.

COP30 needs an implementation forum, not another cover decision

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

Published

on

Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.

After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.

It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.

“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.

    In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.

    Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.

    By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.

    Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions

    The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.

    After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.

    Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

    Greenpeace campaigner Raoul Monsembula in the peatland forest around Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 15, 2017 (Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace)

    Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.

    “Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.

    “Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.

    Paris Agreement requirement

    The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.

    The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.

    Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.

    Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

      The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.

      Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.

      “In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.

      The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’

      Published

      on

      Article Contents

      Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.

      The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.

      Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.

      But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.

      Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.

      The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.

      In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).

      Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.

      A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.

      Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.