Key Takeaways
The Global Stocktake put the spotlight on transitioning away from fossil fuels, but failed to call for a ‘phase out'
The Global Stocktake, or the UAE Consensus, was the result of intense negotiations among countries and parties, and is the first time that the phrase 'fossil fuel' has made it into a United Nations COP outcome. The GST stated the need to transition ‘away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, to achieve net-zero by 2050’.
Despite the historic inclusion of the goal to 'transition away from fossil fuels', there were mixed reactions to the text and a disparity between what advocates saw as incremental change and radical action.
EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra stated that ‘humanity has finally done what is long overdue’ and that we are now ‘at the beginning of the end of fossil fuels’. However, AOSIS representatives noted disappointment in the final text, and claimed that ‘the course correction that is needed has not yet been secured … what we really needed in an exponential step-change in our actions and support’. AOSIS also highlighted that the text still provides many loopholes for the continuation of fossil fuel use and suggests a heavy reliance on scientifically unproven technologies such as carbon capture and storage to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
The world agreed to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030, but a critical financing gap remains
Beyond transitioning away from fossil fuels, the GST final text recognized the need to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2050, while recognizing that ‘transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security', highlighting an equitable path to decarbonization. However, a question remains around how LMICs will be able to finance the green development that is needed quickly and at scale, considering that high-income countries have so far failed to provide the promised annual US$100 billion international finance pledge. The text of the GST urged countries to fully deliver on this goal through 2025, and highlights the ‘significant role of public funds’.
The GST's final text also noted that ‘scaling up new and additional grant-based, highly concessional finance, and non-debt instruments remains critical to supporting developing countries, particularly as they transition in a just and equitable manner’. The question remains, however, whether all countries are willing to work together with LMICs to solve persistent issues around debt sustainability and access to concessional finance for green development.
The operationalization of the Loss & Damage Fund was a win for advocates
A new Loss & Damage Fund was agreed upon on the first day of COP28 and is no doubt a major success of this year’s COP presidency. The new fund has received almost US$800 million worth of dedicated funding, with the UAE France, Germany, and Italy all contributing approximately US$100 million each. The United States, which had been in disagreement with many aspects of the operationalization negotiations over the past year, pledged significantly less at US$17.5 million. While the funding was welcomed by advocates, it did not reflect the estimated US$400 billion needed annually to combat loss & damage.
The key questions now remain on how the fund will ensure that concessional finance is accessible to those that most need it, and at the speed that it is most needed. Discussions about the NCQG, which will be decided at COP29, did not make major waves at COP28, so the question around NCQG financing remained unchanged.
Barbados envoy on finance and architect of the Bridgetown Initiative Avinash Persaud reminded participants at COP28 that while the Loss & Damage Fund is a clear win, the world requires major reform of the international financial architecture to ensure climate finance reaches the most vulnerable communities to climate change and its impacts.
Read The Loss & Damage Fund: A primer for advocates
The Global Goal on Adaptation did not meet expectations
After difficult negotiations and a series of quite disappointing drafts, the final decision on the GGA showcased some important definitions around targets that will help guide adaptation action, but it did not deliver everything advocates had hoped for.
The negotiations led to the adoption of a framework for the so-called ‘iterative adaptation cycle’, to ‘guide and strengthen efforts, including long-term transformational and incremental adaptation, towards reducing vulnerability and enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience, as well as the collective well-being of all people, the protection of livelihoods and economies, and the preservation and regeneration of nature, for current and future generations’.
The language used in the thematic targets specified in the GGA was weaker than what advocates and some negotiators advocated for. In particular, advocates felt that the implementation target lacked ambition, and asked vaguely for progress in implementing the national adaptation strategies without further specifications.
Finally, the language on means of implementation and financial means was considered by advocates to be heavily watered down. The lack of explicit linkages with the climate finance landscape calls for a hard push on financing for adaptation at 2024's COP29 in Azerbaijan, when the NCQG on climate finance must be agreed upon.
Read The Global Goal on Adaptation: A primer for advocates
The impact of climate change on global health was highlighted
COP28 highlighted the nexus between climate and health, with a dedicated health day. Over 120 countries endorsed the COP28 UAE Declaration on Climate and Health, which highlighted the impacts of the climate crisis on health worldwide. More than US$1 billion was committed to the climate-health nexus during COP28 events, including US$300 million from the Global Fund, US$100 million from the Rockefeller Foundation, and approximately US$70 million from the United Kingdom.
The Guiding Principles for Financing Climate and Health Solutions, which aims to build consensus on financing for climate-health solutions and more resilient health systems, was endorsed by 41 funders and partners. The GCF and the Global Fund also announced a partnership to tackle the impact of the climate crisis on health, especially in the most vulnerable countries.
Despite progress, a lack of trust and transparency remains
While there were some wins at COP28, the road to climate justice is still long and winding. COP28 once again highlighted the divide between voices calling for incremental change and those voices calling for a radical transformation of the climate finance architecture.
Emerging markets called for wealthier nations to take more responsibility for their role in ensuring climate justice. President of the African Development Bank Akinwumi Adesina against the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. The mechanism has been described as a ‘landmark tool to fight carbon leakage’ that will penalize companies that move carbon-intensive production outside of the EU to countries will less strict carbon regulations. However, according to Adesina, such a mechanism will only result in African countries losing up to US$25 billion annually from value-added exports such as cement, steel, and fertilizers to EU markets. Climate justice efforts must first consider potential negative effects on those most vulnerable to climate change and its impacts.
