The First Week of COP28: A Brief Summary

As the first week of COP28 concluded, and negotiations continued until the afternoon of December 6th, what’s happening in the negotiation rooms of COP28? Parties seemed to be generally disappointed with what they have achieved so far, as expressed in their closing statements.

Here is a brief summary of closing statements made by parties, groups of coalition, and constituencies expressing their views and mood toward the negotiated texts on certain key issues. They also expressed their hope and gave signals for negotiations at the ministerial level in the second week of COP28.

Groups of Coalition Views:

Cuba, for the G-77/China: Cited the GST decision as its top priority and highlighted the importance of incorporating different views in the texts. Emphasized having enough space for negotiations, particularly for the Just Transition Pathways work program. Stressed Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC) and putting poverty eradication and sustainable development at the core of climate action.

Spain, for the European Union (EU): Called for building on the positive experience of operationalizing and capitalizing the loss and damage fund. Hoped that decisions adopted at this COP would keep 1.5°C alive. Stressed the importance of decisions on the Global Stocktake (GST), Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), and the work program on just transition pathways.

Switzerland, for the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG): Welcomed the progress made on loss and damage but pointed out that important issues still need to be addressed and specifically mentioned concerns on the GST, the transition pathways work program, Santiago Network, and Article 6. Expressed disappointment with the lack of progress on the GGA and mitigation work program, encouraging parties to engage constructively to keep the 1.5°C goal alive.

Australia, for the UMBRELLA Group: Called out the limited progress on the mitigation work program and expressed disappointment that the gender decision did not take note of the reports or include gender-responsive language. Emphasized the need to galvanize global efforts to achieve concrete outcomes, particularly on the GST.

Samoa, for the Alliance of Small Island States: Welcomed the operationalization of the loss and damage fund and the decision on a Santiago Network host. Expressed deep concern with the state of the GGA negotiations. Noted the lack of consideration for the special circumstances of small island developing states.

Zambia, for the African Group: Called for a robust GGA framework with figures, targets, and indicators. Underlined hopes that the GGA will receive due attention at the ministerial level in week two.

Bolivia, for The Like-Minded-Group of Developing Countries (LMDC): Expressed concern that the process seemed Co-Facilitator-driven, citing the GGA. Underscored that any outcome that does not reflect equity and CBDR would be unacceptable, noting developing countries’ needs run into trillions of dollars. Yet, whether the USD 100 billion commitment has been met remains uncertain.

Senegal, for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs): Expressed concern that the GST text remains insufficient to stay below 1.5°C. Expressed disappointment in the progress of mitigation, adaptation, the second review of the SCF’s functions, and the transition pathways work program. Underscored that a bold result on the GGA must be part of a balanced political package coming out of COP 28.

Guatemala, for the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC): Called for the GST to address mitigation and adaptation equally and include clear, actionable guidance for ambitious NDCs. Urged adopting a GGA framework that identifies targets and establishes means of implementation.

Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB Group: Expressed disappointment with the GGA text, noting it does not reflect parties’ views. Also expressed dissatisfaction with the MWP consultations, highlighting attempts to rewrite its mandate. Called for a GST outcome that is balanced in terms of treatment of mitigation, adaptation, means of implementation, and response measures.

Uruguay, for Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay (ABU): Welcomed loss and damage results. Called for the GST to be based on CBDR-RC and scientific evidence. Deplored the lack of progress on adaptation issues, especially the GGA. Underscored the importance of the work program on just transition pathways and developed countries meeting their financial obligations.

Honduras, for the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN): Expressed concerns over the Article 6 mechanism, pointing out flaws in Article 6.2. Proposed options for the Article 6.4 mechanism that may allow emission avoidance activities that jeopardize achieving 1.5°C. Highlighted REDD+ as the most successful framework for removals and emission reduction under the Convention.

Constituency Views:

Children and Youth NGOs: Called out the parties’ lack of progress, stating that the failure to deliver a GGA framework is unacceptable. Urged parties to put in the work and serve the international community until negotiations are over.

Business and Industry NGOs: Called out parties’ slow progress on critical issues and attempts by some parties to introduce new barriers to implementing cooperative approaches under Article 6.2. Stressed the need for parties to show direction, commitment, and clarity on an ambitious, forward-looking GST outcome.

Climate Action Network (CAN): Underscored that the outcomes of the GST must include a full, fast, and fair phase-out of fossil fuels by 2050 at the latest, with a rapid decline by 2030.

Demand for Climate Justice: Urged countries to reject efforts to diminish the equity provisions of the Paris Agreement from parties that are “trying to run away from their responsibilities.”

Farmers: Lamented the lack of constructive dialogue on implementing climate action on agriculture and food security and the loss of another year of action. Called for the GST to raise ambition for credible action on agriculture.

Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations: Appreciated the reference to Indigenous Peoples in the GST and loss and damage fund. Called for Indigenous Peoples’ direct access to loss and damage funding and representation in the fund’s board, including Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the just transition pathways work program and human rights safeguards in Article 6.4 governance.

Local Governments and Municipal Authorities: Noted three COP 28 milestones: the inclusion of direct financing for regional governments and communities in the loss and damage fund modalities, the local climate action summit, and the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships for Climate Action, supported by 66 parties.

Trade Union NGOs: Called for transformative decisions that reflect the urgent need for action, including a transition away from fossil fuels. Urged parties to adopt a just transition pathways work program that has an open-ended mandate, includes observers at the table, and incorporates the International Labour Organization just transition mandate.

Women and Gender Group: Lamented the lack of progress and outcomes on the agriculture, ACE, and adaptation discussions. Expressed concern about the backtracking and lack of ambition under the Lima Work Programme on Gender. Called for an end to fossil fuels, with just transitions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *