COP29 negotiation notes: Forum on Response Measures, 13/11/24

While attending #COP29 in Baku I am following various negotiations and posting notes. This one is the first substantive meeting of the Forum on Response Measures at this COP - traditionally a stream where fossil fuel producing developing nations raise concerns about impacts on them if developed country transition policies reduces their demand.

Cochair1: This is the first informal consultation under this agenda item at COP29

Parties will reflect on activities in the forum and which they’d like to see in the work plan, including modalities and time lines. That will enable preparation of a balanced text.

Opens the floor

CANADA: sounds like there is consensus on moving forward with the table and Canada would support that. But some of the activities we put forward were streamlined away in a manner that removes the intent. Elements from par 28 a-h should be captured in their own proposed activities. Relevant that we understand their individual impacts. “Scaling up ocean based mitigation action” seemed particularly in line with the COP28 outcome and that’s why we brought it forward. But happy to love forward with the table, with those activities included.

SOUTH AFRICA for G77 + China: support original agenda and purpose of this group - we must take account of the adverse economic impacts of Annex I parties actions on developing countries. We’re not just looking at positive impacts but specifically at negative impacts.

SWITZERLAND: much said yesterday reflects our views. The current work plan is way too long and should be streamlined. There should be a balanced text between activities that address positive and negative impacts. We suggest reducing duplication with the Just Transition Work Program. Delete activity 144 as out of scope. Keep 158 re how social acceptance of climate policy can be increased to accelerate energy transition.

We’re in implementation phase. People including poor feel consequences of climate policy. If fossil fuels become more expensive this leads to push back. To assure social acceptance we need to discuss how to balance these impacts on the most vulnerable parts of the population.

Great to learn from others on how to address this challenge. Consumer side of fossils should be addressed in work plan, not just producer side.

HONDURAS: what is the mode of work? Will we express our likes/dislikes ? Second, the work program ends in January 2025, but I see items referencing June 2025 in the table. Can the chair clarify?

CHAIR: mode of work: we propose refraining from item-by-item input. Focus on issues of most importance. It’s going quite well so far.

Timeline - we’re going til 2026.

SECRETARIAT: we tried to include all activities from existing work plans.

CHINA: support G77. Not happy that some countries submit a number of activities - that prejudges a future negotiating result. What is the future work plan? Second, activity 144 on unilateral measures should be retained, it’s very important.

AUSTRALIA: support comments on the need for balanced and streamlined list of activities. We don’t need to limit ourselves, but should consider how response measures affect all countries and have benefits too, including for workers. Consideration of human rights is also important.

BRAZIL: Support G77. Our focus should be on the trans boundary negative effects of response measures on developing countries. Other effects can be discussed elsewhere like MWP or JT.

Some activities are the sine qua non of this forum, eg focus on unilateral trade related measures. Here we have the right tool set to assess the effects of these measures and shape a collective approach.

Regarding the number of activities - it isn’t proper to anticipate this decision. The most important element is to have a comprehensive work plan

GHANA: support G77. Need to focus on negative effects of developed country responses on developing countries. Unilateral measures affecting international trade are relevant, included in para 144.

SAUDI ARABIA: support G77 and others - need to focus on essential element of developed country impacts on developing. Support China on not limiting the number of activities at this stage.

RUSSIA: support G77 etc.

SOUTH AFRICA: support China et al and strongly oppose restructure of this forum to consider domestic NDC impacts. In Art 1.4 of GST the reference to international trade specified we should continue to respect the mandate we have. The legacy of international industrial trade has brought us to where we are.

EU: we’d like to see the text significantly streamlined and with a balanced work plan. Consideration of co-benefits, human rights, workers. The priorities for EU are [lists a number of activity line items]

We have engaged with parties in many other forums to discuss these issues and our respective concerns.

UNITED STATES: disturbed by some of the views heard. See 7CMA1: “recognizing parties may be affected not just by climate change but by response measures taken”. Doesn’t say “developing” or “developed”. Says “affected”, not just negative.

Useful for Secretariat to break down the budget for the work plan so far and costings for individual elements and modalities.

Health impacts of transitioning away from fossil fuels should be captured. “Identify, assess, build awareness of the social, health, environmental impacts of change in energy sources.”

Over 8 million people a year die due to fossil fuel air pollution, all over the world. The implementation of response measures has large health benefits - trillions of dollars worth. Implications of this will swamp most other things.

Second most important activity is assessment of how lessons learned across last work plan can be applied.

158 has good elements

Unilateral measures: we don’t think it’s appropriate to single out unilateral measures and the US will not accept this language

The WTO has been discussing in this area in 2923 and 2024, and has scheduled more discussion in 2025. This is an active area of work. The WTO is the appropriate place for these discussions.

CHILE: if we start focusing on individual activity numbers we won’t be in a good mode.

BRAZIL: Will the chairs be assessing streamlining? How will we move forward?

Also on WTO treatment of unilateral measures - that discussion only assesses trade angles rather than the undermining of climate or environmental outcomes. WTO doesn’t have the competency to deal with climate matters.

Some of the measures of greatest concern have not been notified to the Committee on Trade Measures. There has been a purported voluntary notification by one member [presumably EU]

If you have a measure that restricts trade and is justified on climate grounds, how is that assessed?

COCHAIR: our intention is to collect clear views on the non paper to guide drafting of a paper for consideration at an informal tomorrow

G77: TRIPS does not speak to tech transfer, but tech transfer is essential to climate change. So we can’t say that WTO has exclusive competency on these matters.

On unilateral measures, original discussion leading to GST text said impacts on developing countries. Let’s not play games with text. Your actions will have consequences for developing countries.

We have numbers of activities that we will support 102 -106, 109, 111-113, [list goes on a while. Includes 144 on UMs]

UK: Recognise the Convention sets out developing country impacts as a part of our mandate, but nothing says that should be exclusive. The latest mandate is broader. We need to pursue efforts towards 1.5C.

On work plan: like activities that accelerate towards net zero; activities that assess benefits for jobs and work; cobenefits of activities informed by best available science; benefits of enabling environments; support US on health benefits of transitioning away; negative impacts of measures that do not contribute towards keeping 1.5 in reach; and support SWITZERLAND on public support

Support Canada on reinserting individual activities re Par 28 of GST.

KENYA: support G77. the negative impacts are central. Unilateral measures need to be considered. We need to work within the principles of the Convention.

USA: numbers of activities supported (many with some modification) 135, 161, 147, 114, 118, 19, 122, 132, 137, 102, 107.

HONDURAS: this sounds like a restaurant order. I emphasise that 138 - global economic impacts of art 2.1c - we’re discussing the NCQG.

We’ve seen a good discussion here in recent years, but we’re in a new stage where parties are heading for climate neutrality. We need standardized tools for ID and assessment of response measure impacts - 149 goes to this.

CHAIR: you can all submit particular numbers to us later today.

CHINA: support BRAZIL and G77. The previous focus of this forum was on economic diversification , now we’re facing a lot of unilateral measures that are causing big concern for developing countries. Those need to be included in the future work plan. UTM is very complex and we don’t think that this can be addressed by just one forum. Eg JT is discussed in ILO and UNFCCC. We’re talking about climate related trade measures, UNFCCC is very relevant.

LDC: need modelling of impacts of response measures. Negative impacts are the proper focus. Support 129 and 130 on building awareness of response measures

AFRICAN GROUP: agree with China et al that we can’t solely discuss UTMs in WTO. We think 101-106 can be in the decision text.

SAUDI ARABIA: support G77. Like 112 113 [the list goes on]

BRAZIL: [lists numbers of measures they support including 144 on UTMs] we ask that you find a way to reflect 144 in this document. It’s politically sensitive but absolutely essential to reflect in some form in final document. Thanks for all your

KUWAIT: [lists activities] And on negative versus positive impacts - we see there is a gap to be analyzed in all regions - if there is any positive impact we are happy to accept that - but we need the tools and experience to address negative impacts, that’s why we’re here.

SOUTH AFRICA in national capacity: strongly support Brazil - this forum is about negative impacts of any party actions, particularly developed, on developing countries. Now that we have the JT program the priority of this forum is UTMs. Circumstances change and we have to keep up, not be limited by past mandates.

COCHAIR: thanks all. With all the numbers this is like a lottery, but hopefully one that we all win. Final deadline for submissions is tomorrow morning. We hope to supply a text tomorrow before 4pm informal.