- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Governments are starkly divided over plans for a loss and damage fund, with two months to go until it is due to be established.
While rich and poor countries have agreed to set up a fund to address loss and damage caused by climate change, they are miles apart on who pays and who benefits.
At a ministerial meeting on the sidelines of the UN general assembly on Friday, there was little sign of bridging the gap. The event complemented ongoing technical discussions ahead of Cop28 climate talks in Dubai this December, where decisions are due on how to get the fund up and running.
Ana Mulio Alvarez, an analyst at E3G, said the meeting “did not advance negotiations but it served as a political moment to put the cards on the table more publicly”.
A transitional committee has been working since March to draw up the rules for the fund.
Who gets the money?
One of the major sticking points is the question of who should be eligible for help.
The decision adopted at last year’s Cop27 summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, says it should assist “developing countries that are particularly vulnerable” to climate change impacts. That is open to interpretation.
For the vast majority of rich countries, the pool of beneficiaries should be limited.
Developing countries call for $100 billion loss and damage target
The EU’s interim climate chief Maroš Šefčovič told the meeting that the resources should “explicitly target countries and its communities that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, such as least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDs)”.
His views were echoed by the representatives of the US, UK and Australian governments, among others.
‘No discrimination’
Developing countries disagree with the position, arguing that all of them should be able to tap into the fund’s coffers.
Speaking on behalf of the G77 group of developing countries, a representative from Cuba said “the fund should operate without discrimination”.
Among the most vocal campaigners for a fund open to all is Pakistan, where devastating floods killed more than 1,700 people and caused damage totaling more than $30 billion last year. Classed as middle income by the World Bank, it would not automatically qualify for support based on a tight definition of vulnerability.
“All vulnerable developing countries, irrespective of their level of development and geographical grouping, must be eligible,” said Pakistan’s foreign minister Jalil Abbas Jilani. “We would not be able to lend our support to any such select, divisive and exclusionary approach.”
Speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, Samoa said all developing countries should be eligible, but the fund’s resources should be “allocated equitably” so that the small island states are “not left behind and forgotten”.
Who pays?
The question of who pays into the fund is equally contentious.
When the European Union opened the door to a fund at the Cop27 climate talks last year, its then climate chief Frans Timmermans said large economies like China should also pay. The agreement was eventually struck without that condition, but the same debate has now reemerged.
EU’s Šefčovič said the fund should attract contributions from “all well-resourced governments”, in addition to innovative sources of financing, philanthropies, and the private sector. Spain and France floated the idea of introducing new taxes and levies as a way to bolster resources.
The UK’s energy minister Graham Stuart said governments “must break out” of “outdated categories from decades ago”, to deliver the volume of support needed. His statement was likely referencing the UN classification of developed countries established in 1992. The fund “must be financed by all, all of those capable of doing so,” Stuart added.
Similarly, the US disagreed with the notion that only developed countries would be invited to pay into the fund. “There is no existing donor base for loss and damage funding, it is a new idea,” a government official said.
The counterargument is that history matters. Developed countries got that way by being early adopters of coal, oil and gas. Emissions dating back to the industrial revolution are still in the air causing suffering today.
“Developed countries should effectively fulfill their funding obligations,” said China’s representative. “Developed countries who shoulder historical responsibilities for climate change should provide new additional finance for the funding arrangement of the fund in the form of grants supplemented by concessional loans.”
Debt trap fears
Developed and developing countries also disagree on what the money should be spent on, how the fund should be governed and whether it should be delivered as grants or loans
Avinash Persaud, special finance envoy to Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados, is on the transitional committee. He told Climate Home he feared some developed countries see the loss and damage mechanism more as a way to coordinate existing funding that is primarily loan-based.
“Countries that are particularly vulnerable are already highly indebted,” he said. “We are going to be drowning in debt if we need to get loans every time get hit by a climate event.”
Time running out
With the clock ticking to the climate summit, the time to strike a compromise is limited.
The transitional committee is holding another round of talks next month, before preparing its recommendations for governments to consider in Dubai.
Persaud said he remained “cautiously optimistic” that countries will reach an agreement.
E3G’s Mulio Alvarez said the disagreements put the negotiations in a “tough position”.
“Real steps need to be taken towards a transformation of the financial architecture in order to meet needs, rebuild trust and increase understanding between parties,” she added. “There is a real risk that the fund could be set up but not adequately funded or truly operational.”
The post Ministerial shows fault lines on climate loss and damage fund appeared first on Climate Home News.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2023/09/25/ministerial-shows-fault-lines-on-climate-loss-and-damage-fund/
Continue Reading
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.
-
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
Many governments have still not submitted a nationally determined contribution to the UN, breaching a key requirement of the Paris Agreement
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.
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.
-
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair
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
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.
- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
What timeline options were delegates debating?
Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).
Countries failed to reach a resolution on the scheduling