#11: COP28 Round-up
We give the low-down on COP28 outcomes and their implications for Singapore!
ICYMI: Check out our recap of Week 1 of COP28 here!
As COP28 draws to a close, we look back on some of the key outcomes from the negotiations. Was COP28 truly the “Course Correction COP” that so many had hoped it to be? In this summary update, we cover the following:
Global Stocktake
Global Goal on Adaptation
Article 6
Mitigation Work Programme
Miscellaneous: Finance, Nature, Youth involvement
Global Stocktake
Countries adopted the world’s first Global Stocktake on December 13. (With one major caveat: Small island state representatives were not in the room when the gavel came down!). For the first time in the history of climate change negotiations, the text explicitly calls out fossil fuels:
Calls on Parties to … “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”
Paragraph 28 (d)
In effect, the text sends a strong political message to policymakers and businesses that the world must shift away from fossil fuels. By 2025, parties must submit new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) – documents outlining how they plan to reduce emissions up till 2035. The GST seeks to encourage more ambitious NDCs.
Nonetheless, for vulnerable developing states which have some of the highest stakes in the negotiations, the GST outcome is not a win. The text failed to call for a phase out of fossil fuels, which civil society and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) have been fighting for (a “fast, fair, full and funded” fossil fuel phase-out).
Shortly after the celebration of the text, AOSIS released a statement pointing out “a litany of loopholes” that are of “major concern”, such as:
No commitment by Parties to peak emissions by 2025
Reference to abatement opens the door for further expansion of fossil fuel projects
Only “inefficient” - a highly subjective word - phase out of fossil fuel subsidies
Exclusive focus on energy systems in the transition away from fossil fuels, rather than all systems (e.g. transport, agriculture, etc.)
Efforts to accelerate zero and low emission technologies (e.g. Carbon Capture and Storage) may be regressive
Oxfam International also commented on the GST reference to abatement technologies: “Abatement linked to fossil fuel phase-out is a gift served on a silver platter to the fossil fuel industry they will gladly seize to dodge any commitments… The fossil fuel sector will interpret abatement as a ‘free pass’ to continue extracting and selling oil, coal, and gas. This will risk more land grabs in the Global South and lost opportunities for low-income countries while allowing rich countries to continue to justify their extraction of other countries’ natural resources.”
Reference to “transitional fuels” was problematic
N.B. The text writes: “Recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security” (Para 29). This could give countries the licence to consume and/or produce more gas, crowding out investments in renewable alternatives.
“It is not enough for us to reference the science and then make agreements that ignore what the science is telling us we need to do.” Statement by AOSIS on the GST text.
You can watch the recording of AOSIS delivering their Statement here or read it here.
While Singapore is part of AOSIS, Singapore’s take on certain issues may differ. For example, when asked about Singapore’s position on fossil fuels, Minister Grace Fu responded that “Singapore is still reliant on these, given the limited natural energy and renewable energy sources here”. (Singapore is powered by around 95 per cent natural gas, though the country has been ramping up solar deployment (2% by 2030) and turning to renewable energy imports (25-30% by 2035). From 2024, all new and repowered natural gas power plants will need to be 10% more efficient.) In other words, it is difficult for Singapore to phase out fossil fuels. In addition, Singapore champions the development of low emission technologies like CCS and green hydrogen.
Global Goal on Adaptation
“... the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) means the difference between life and death.” ECO Newsletter, Climate Action Network, Dec 12 newsletter.
Despite dismal progress in Week 1, text on the Global Goal on Adaptation was adopted at COP28. We are glad to see the launch of a two-year work programme on indicators for measuring progress towards the targets for all parts of the adaptation cycle — Impact, vulnerability and risk assessment; Planning; Implementation; Monitoring, evaluation and learning.
But language remains vague, and overall, weaker than earlier drafts. Developing countries were pushing for Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) but only got a vague mention to the “principles of the Paris Agreement”
Wording on finance was also watered down, stopping short of a specific adaptation finance goal, which developed countries tried to push against, pointing to discussions on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) due to happen next year. The earlier text had a figure of $400 billion per year till 2030, which has now been removed.
Why is adaptation finance a major sticking point for many developing nations? Attracting private investment for adaptation projects is difficult, since adaptation tends not to directly bring in revenue. This makes public, grant-based funding from wealthy nations particularly important for supporting adaptation projects. Climate-vulnerable countries require adaptation financing of around 10-18 times above what they are currently receiving, highlighting a significant gap which could have been addressed by specified goals on financing in the GGA. UNEP’s latest Adaptation Gap Report also informs us that the yearly financing gap could go up to US$366 billion a year by 2030.
Article 6, i.e. Carbon Markets
The story so far:
Article 6 rulebook was finalised in COP26, covering 3 different approaches
6.2: Bilateral country-to-country trading
6.4: Centralised international mechanism to trade
6.8: Non-market approaches
At COP27, further guidance on each approach was decided, but several key issues were deferred to COP28
Parties could not agree on a final text for either 6.2 or 6.4 at COP28, hence pushing the agenda items to COP29 in Baku.
Singapore has significant interests in Article 6! As a small country with limited domestic renewable energy capacity, Singapore has fairly limited options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and carbon trading will therefore be an important contributor to reach net zero by 2050. Delayed operationalisation of Article 6 is not in Singapore’s favour.
Source: The Nature Conservancy
Key sticking points at COP28 included
Addressing inconsistencies: How should countries correct credits that have been found to have flaws? Can they still be traded?
Revocation: Can countries take back credits they’ve already sold?
In general, there is disagreement over how prescriptive 6.2 guidelines should be. Countries like the US want loose guidelines, while the EU and Latin American countries want more stringent rules.
Jonathan Crook from Carbon Market Watch felt that the final draft text was ‘minimalist’, so it was good that it did not get adopted.
It is important to note that Article 6.2 is already operational, meaning countries can start trading carbon credits. Switzerland and Thailand launched the first 6.2 project, with the former funding electric buses in the latter country.
However, without an agreement on the specific Article 6.2 rules at COP28, parties are free to design their own terms for trade. This risks undermining transparency and credibility of ongoing deals.
At COP28, Singapore signed an Implementation Agreement (IA) with fellow AOSIS member Papua New Guinea to trade carbon credits under Article 6.2.
Article 6.4 involves carbon credit trade between countries through a centralised UN mechanism. Unlike Article 6.2, 6.4 is not yet at a stage where it can be operationalised.
A ‘Supervisory Body’ has been set up to oversee the implementation of and set rules for Article 6.4. Article 6.4 is widely anticipated to set the standard for carbon credits worldwide..
At COP28, parties rejected the Supervisory Body’s recommendations on methodologies and removals.
Some parties - particularly the Latin American and Caribbean countries, or AILAC - and civil society groups felt that the text did not sufficiently protect human and indigenous rights. But other parties like Saudi Arabia wanted to water down the text even further, therefore resulting in significant divergence. Gilles Dufrane of Carbon Market Watch reflected that “it would have risked reproducing the mistakes of voluntary carbon markets, and by rejecting it, negotiators made the best out of a bad situation.”
Article 6.8 covers ‘non-market approaches’ (NMAs) which is rather vaguely defined (some ideas are listed here). This was initially pushed by parties who objected to market-based approaches as covered in 6.2 and 6.4 in principle.
Parties agreed in COP28 to establish a web-based UNFCCC platform for them to share NMAs before the Bonn climate talks in June 2024.
Mitigation Work Programme
The first decision under the Sharm el Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme (MWP) was adopted on COP28’s final day.
Discussions on MWP were highlighted as “extremely procedural” and with “no substance being discussed”. (I.e. The text focused on questions like: “Where should MWP dialogues be held?” “What is the estimated budget?” rather than mitigation action.) All references to 1.5 degrees were removed from the final text.
According to India’s Centre for Science and the Environment, some developing countries urged for an MWP that is non-prescriptive, non-punitive, and has no new sectoral targets. However, these countries were perceived as “blockers ”pushing back against ambitious targets like a fossil fuel phaseout, adding to further distrust.
Miscellaneous
Nature
On Nature Day (9 December), the COP28 UAE Presidency and the Convention of Biological Diversity COP15 China Presidency launched a joint statement on Climate, Nature and People—the first of its kind. The statement called on signatories to increase the synergy between NDCs and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs), among other things, in recognition of the links between biodiversity loss and climate change.
Youth
On Youth, Children, Skills and Education Day (8 December), COP28 and YOUNGO launched the first ever Youth Stocktake, which details previous youth inclusion in global climate negotiations and outlines a blueprint to enhance such participation.
This years’ COP also featured the first-ever Presidency Youth Climate Champion (HE Shamma Al Mazuri), accompanied with youth engagement initiatives including the International Youth Delegate Programme. At COP28, this position was institutionalised within the UNFCCC. Future COPs will have a Youth Climate Champion “to act on behalf of the Presidency”.
Young people at COP28 raised concerns that the YCC might prioritise the national agenda of the COP host country, rather than genuinely representing global youth voices. Additionally, youth felt that the YCC might funnel funding away from existing youth initiatives, including YOUNGO - the official youth and children constituency of the UN Climate Change processes. YOUNGO plans to continue working with the YCC team to make sure that the process for selecting future Youth Climate Champions is fair and transparent.
Finance
Discussions on the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) are being moved to COP29. Developing countries stressed that the $100 billion pledged by developed nations (namely countries in western Europe, the EU, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan) has not yet been met, and are keen to decide details on the new target as soon as possible.
The Global Stocktake text also references “new and innovative sources of finance”, mentioning taxation as an option for the first time in a COP decision text.
Overall, it often seems like we take two steps forward only to take one step back. Momentum from the operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund on the first day of COP28 soon slowed, as discussions reached a deadlock on items like the Global Goal on Adaptation. Nevertheless, civil society must continue to hold governments accountable to the promises they have made at COP - particularly transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Other questions on our minds: How do negotiators balance the demands of their country against that of a dying planet? How have fossil fuel interests, particularly oil and gas, lobbied for their interests in this particular COP28?
We’ll discuss those in the next newsletter, and more. Stay tuned!
Shoutout to this week’s writers! Terese Teoh and Quek Chui Qing
Questions? Feedback? Reach out to hello@syca.sg.
For quick environmental news updates and volunteering opportunities, join SYCA’s Telegram channel here!