COP28 Notes: Global Stock Take informal consultations 3/12/23 3pm

[this is one of a series of notes of negotiations at COP28. This one is the Global Stock Take, the 'what's been achieved under Paris and what do we have to do next?" exercise. The discussions noted covered the Response Measures element of this draft text: https://unfccc.int/documents/634203]

CF1: We are resuming discussion of response measures after lunch and I hope you’re geared up for robust discussion. [Saudi notes that G77 is still in coordination meetings] We will wait a few minutes.

[15 minutes later]

EU: we welcome this section of text, it acks past work and the Katowice Committee of Experts well. Som mods are needed:

Par 95 – add “of the workforce and the creation of decent quality jobs”

Appreciate the language on avoided impacts and co-benefits.

Support prior speakers on removal of references to pre-94 and assessment of gaps – this belongs to the Forum

Malawi for LDCs: ?in general we believe this section should reflect that nobody should be left behind. The transition to low emission society must not worsen inequality and we should acknowledge the need for JT and support for JT in LDCs and SIDS.

Economic diversification is key to managing impacts of response measures.

Par 95 – support expanding bullet on means of implementation and support.

Australia: we have a positive story to tell in this section.

Dot point under para 89 – ?include assessment of gaps, assessment of new stranded fossil fuel infrastructure, integration of strategies like JT of the workforce and economic diversification.

More emphasis needed on how 1.5C pathway includes significant development and growth opportunity, new sectors and job creation, and how parties to maximise these opportunities.

Iran: Support inclusion of 1 or 2 more pars referencing art 4.8 of the Convention. Support Malawi on economic diversification, and on avoiding any unilateral measures with negative effects on developing nations. Also re means of implementation, need reference on ways of support and liability and compensation for nations impacted by response measures.

Ghana: generally response measures should not worsen inequality, that would leave people behind. Currently unilateral measures are depressing national revenues of many developing country partners and worsening inequality and hindering the goals of Paris. We stress the case of Africa in particular, with our negligible historical footprint. We need a para on response measures after par 88. Need to avert adverse effects on international trade and developing countries’ ability to finance their priorities.

Also need reference to just transition and effective implementation.

Par 92 – the KCI should be collaborating inside and outside the UNFCCC.

Par 90 should be followed by encouragement in poverty eradication, sustainable development, and note negative impacts of disinvestment in natural resources and response measures.

Switzerland: this chapter could do a better job of explaining how climate action relates to our economies and societies. “response measures” is not often understood from the outside. We could tell how climate action can benefit economies as well as address climate. Need to create opportunities for diversification.

Para 90 and 95 could be more coherent on maximising cobenefits and minimising costs of implementation. 95 should refer to economic diversification and should refer to opportunities including greenindustrialisation, greening of supply chains, and supply of related products. Cobenefits of transition from fossil fuels and reduction of dependency on fossils. Also need references to intergenerational equity and opportunity for scaling the workforce.

Need reference to collective and participatory processes for reducing negative impacts of transformation. par 92 – delete “more”

Japan: support US this morning and suggest deleting par 94 – outcome of KCI can’t be prejudged. Don’t call on other agenda items.

Colombia: ?just transition can create jobs and offer benefits in all economic sectors. Economic opportunities of 1.5 goals need focus – skills creation, decent work are part of response measures. Can create more durable jobs outside fossil fuels and drive community benefits.

Par 90 – mention negative and positive impacts of response measures.

Par 91 – expand scope to methodologies that increase positive impacts.

Par 92 – stronger emphasis on best practices that maximise positive and minimise negative impacts.

Additional paras needed on transitional challenges and solutions in priority sectors like renewable energy and sustainable agriculture.

Also stress need for further improvements in the KCI.

Add calls for means of implementation and support to extend to methods for managing positive and negative effects of response measures.

Sustainable transport systems should be mentioned.

Russia: welcome min-max text and diversification and JT.

Par 92: suggest adding “including sectoral, national, subnational and local unilateral cross-border measures.”

Recognise transition to low carbon should be gradual and consistently implemented, and cover all sectors and be guided by nationally determined priorities

Recognise special status of economies with income largely derived from fossil fuels

Stress that parties can decide for themselves which measures would best contribute to their goals.

Philippines for G77: Overall approach we want to see on response measures? - enhancing the capacity of the Forum and its KCI is crucial – so mandate development of plans and tools to assess and address the impacts of response measures. We suggest because of the importance of addressing the impacts of response measures has not yet had the political focus it deserves. This will build cooperation and multilateralism, which are essential.

Par 90 on min-max and the above bullet point – would need clear references to the importance of addressing the social and economic impacts of response measures, and the role of international cooperative approaches rather than unilateral measures.

We must address the impacts of unilateral and cross border coercive measures which exacerbate impacts.

Where 95 says JT, delete and add a new section just for JT elsewhere consolidating other input – don’t do it in the Response Measures section. We need ‘further elaboration’ in par 95 to be in the context of SDGs and poverty eradication, and response measures being undertaken to build unity and multilateral approaches and not unilateral measures.

Forum on Response Measures should be mandated by GST to consider measures to address impact of response measures in developing countries.

China: support G77 and BASIC. Want language about “the Forum and its KCI” and need to address lack of actions dealing with unilateral trade measures.

Need to establish a new activity under Forum and KCI to assess and eliminate the negative effects of UTMs

Negative impacts on developing countries must be addressed here.

Paris temperature goal must be fully and fairly represented [ie don’t just say 1.5]

India: support BASIC and G77 and LMDC and oppose all forms of unilateralism and protectionism. Such measures undermine multilateral cooperation and ability to combat climate change.

JT should be a bullet as the meaning is very different. Should be in a different section to response measures. Is in the context of historical responsibility and overconsumption of the carbon budget by developed parties.

We must avoid actions that shift responsibility to developing countries.

BASIC statement on UTMs abjures all forms of unilateralism and protectionism.

We emphasise that just transition is subject of an independent work program not to be pre-empted by GST. So give it its own section and placeholder.

Par 92: regional and sector specific – delete, intrusive

Calling on parties should be avoided in GST text – outcome must be informative and non-prescriptive. This word ‘call; has been used in mitigation, adaptation, L&D and should likewise be replaced.

Economic opportunities in pursuing 1.5 is not part of mandate of GST. The mandate is about impacts.

Saudi for LMDC: add a recollection in 88 of relevant articles from Convention – Art 4.8, “reaffirm” in same para. Add more context setting in beginning, concern on slow progress, KCI not keeping up with mitigation policies.

Backward looking area: add ack that lack of energy security and poverty in developing countries requires nationally determined action including technology development.

Space to highlight issues and barriers.

Reject all Australian insertions to para 89 – how is this relevant to response measures, agree with India on mandate of response measures – it would be confusing to add such references.

Par 91-94 – do not support mention of range of other documents and charters suggested by Switzerland

Par 95 – heard colleagues indicate JT should be moved or changed – topic is broader, would support different sentence elsewhere in the text. JT has a strong global element.

Second confusion about term ‘economic opportunities when pursuing 1.5’ – issues should be well covered in other sections, this section is about difficulties with the transition and we don’t understand this point about opportunities here.

Don’t agree with narrative about including information on how to advance net zero or source based measures

Extra elements useful for political messages:

-????????? Call for JT to ensure no increase in inequalities

-????????? All parties to increase efforts to achieve JT

-????????? Economic diversification

-????????? Welcome work program on JT pathways and roundtable

-????????? Request Forum and KCI to review outcomes of each GST cycle to min-max

-????????? Decide GST shall facilitate reporting of obligation on any negative impact of response measures and how it can be redressed.

-????????? Decide that response measures forum shall be equipped to deal with rapidly changing landscape, BAS and advancing tech to enable developing country parties to address in their national contexts

-????????? Request Forum and its KCI to assess things including negative impacts of UTMs and how to minimise

-????????? Indicate development of methodologies and tools to assess measures including UTMs.

Philippines for G77: apologies, forgot to raise process points. Please add Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) – it is important. Ensure balance in next iteration of document in terms of what parties have said, issues raised, issues not able to be raised, and way in which issues will be presented.

It’d be useful to have clarity from cochairs on how you’ll proceed with iteration in reflecting the issue so far.

We want to make sure there’s a good way to reflect the balance of perspectives put forward by the parties.

Cochairs: Re JT – we note this proposal was just made today – we will have to deliberate and take account of views – we haven’t heard reactions yet – otherwise we’ll have to take that and decide how to reflect it. Re ACE – there were references, and the section on international cooperation is still to be discussed. On balance, we are aware of this. Alison and I are taking into account all that is being said and put some coherence in how we reflect all views in a balanced way. We’ll try to be very fair and inclusive and come back in due course. That’s why we’re trying to go through the first draft, and we note many parties have asked for the space to discuss among yourselves. We intend to give you the space tomorrow to discuss – not sure if we can get you next iteration by then but we’ll do all we can with the limited space we have.

Egypt: nothing should be policy prescriptive in this part – opportunities in 1.5 opens the door to that. G77 proposal on JT section elsewhere is very important. UTM rejection language is needed, response measures should not be cover for UTMs that can specially impact developing countries.

Iran: want clarification – there were earlier references to sections on international cooperation and the way forward – we haven’t made comments there – should we do that now or later?

Cofacilitator: yes we have those sections to follow this discussion, will get there.

Iraq: Align with Saudi. Par 90 min-max – necessary to specify ‘particularly developing countries’

China: align with LMDC. No new country categories are acceptable, we’re implementing the Paris Agreement.

USA: On G77 JT proposal to add a new heading and section on JT and maybe ACE. We don’t need new headings here, there’s adequate space to comprehensively cover JT. On ACE – we’re open to that, could support; there’s other cross-cutting issues, eg oceans, that we’d strongly support referencing.

Canada: similar to USA, appreciate new proposal but lets stay within Bonn draft structure.

[my stream failed for several minutes]

Cochair: we’ll close this section and resume on international cooperation in 5 mins.

[I left!]