Tag Archives: COP28

Interventions, SB58

Intervention by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice at SB58 Closing Plenary Session

Delivered by Chadli Sadorra of Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development on behalf of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

Thank you Chair.

I am Chadli Sadorra from the Philippines and the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development, speaking on behalf of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

DCJ departs from Bonn deeply disturbed by developed countries’ doubling-down on their obstruction these past ten days.  

They are playing with peoples’ lives and livelihoods, and indeed our entire planet, as if it’s one more free trade deal to get done, and “stick it” to the Global South.  

It was thirty years ago in Rio when some countries claimed that their lifestyles were “not up for negotiation”.

Yet even today, as they choke on smoke from raging wildfires, they still reject their historical responsibility as “unacceptable”. 

North America’s 4% of the global population is responsible for almost one-quarter of all emissions since 1850.  Let me repeat, 4% is responsible for about 24%.

This crucial IPCC data point is pivotal if the Global Stocktake is to truly assess “how we got here, and how we correct course”.

Such data must be discussed in the Technical Dialogue’s synthesis report to inform the GST’s political dialogue, and any Dubai decisions.

DCJ will not let the GST become a sham.  Article 2.1c’s aim of “aligning all financial flows” is indeed important. 

But imposing a hierarchy that prioritizes this task before prior commitments – whereby developed countries SHALL provide finance to developing countries – is dirty diplomacy diverting discussion from legal obligations.  

Calling for new Renewable Energy targets without securing any new support for finance and technology is another trap we won’t fall for.

What we need for a big breakthrough in Dubai is for rich countries to “come clean” at COP28, to accept their responsibilities, to fully deliver on their obligations, and to help lead a rapid, just, and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels and building renewable energy systems that ensures everyone’s  just transition.

DCJ and allies are escalating our efforts over the next few months; we’ll make sure you feel the heat before you get to Dubai, so that the rest of the world won’t roast.

Thank you.

Press Releases, SB58

Rich Countries double down on obstruction in Bonn: Climate talks face sandstorm of uncertainty in Dubai

15 June 2023

Bonn, Germany

As the UN Climate Conference in Bonn, Germany comes to a close, it was not surprising to see US, backed by the EU, UK and other global North governments, historically responsible for causing today’s climate crisis, continue their dirty tricks to divert discussion away from their failure to deliver on their legal obligations under UNFCCC. The so-called ¨Developed¨countries blocked progress at every step during the climate talk to get away from their responsibility to provide finance and technology to developing countries, who are the first and worst hit by climate catastrophes. Bonn essentially became the staging ground for the Great Escape II.

Rich nations exhausted the capacity of the climate talks by trying to impose a discussion on mitigation without addressing means of implementation. These same countries have not only failed to meet their own mitigation targets, but are locking the world in a fossil fuel dependency. The US alone is planning to expand fossil fuel production by over 300% despite being historically responsible for  23% of emissions from 1859 to 2019 representing only 4% of the world’s population. As we head to Dubai for COP28 in November, there is growing uncertainty on the climate talks to deliver on the real solutions, real finance, real actions on reducing global emissions that can help the world set on the path of just transition.

Representatives of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice share their reactions on the UN Climate Conference at Bonn, outcome of the climate negotiations as well as the key demands that the climate justice movement will be raising at COP28.

Watch DCJ Press Conference here and here

Quotes in English

Titi Soentoro, Aksi! And Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development

It is disheartened to witness the hypocrisy here in Bonn. The developing countries’ governments are pressured to increase their emission reduction target ambitions, while the developed countries still maintain their fossil-fuel consumptions through coal trading and import from the developing countries. 

It is also disheartening to see that millions of people are suffering from climate change disasters like sea-level rise, typhoons, floods, that trigger forced displacement, loss of livelihoods, and impoverishment. On the other hand we witness the objections of the developed countries to their historical responsibilities. We also witness that the public climate finance for mitigation mostly go for massive mega-projects in the developing countries that trigger land and resource grabbing.

As long as the climate negotiations are market and profit based, the needs and interests of climate affected communities will never be a priority.

Marcos Nordgren Ballivian, PBFCC-Bolivia

Science forecasts that the first critical limit set in the Paris Agreement, with a maximum temperature increase of 1.5 Celsius C, will likely be exceeded in the next few years, possibly during the upcoming El Niño cycle warm phase 2023-2024. This development mean that the world is most certainly heading towards failure in meeting the Paris Agreement and on the brink of a global climate catastrophe.  Everything is at risk. However, instead of a collective response from the international community based on solidarity and the acknowledgement of historical responsibilities and capabilities of rich economies, the countries convened in Bonn over the past two weeks, primarily those from developed nations, seem to have opted to block progress as much as possible without getting the blame and see how bad things are really going to get the coming years as to decide how they best can keep on taking advantage of their economic and political advantages.They fail to recognize that we must either confront the necessary and substantial climate justice transitions together, or “accept” a world where even the most fundamental human needs and rights cannot be sustained, be it for the privileged or the underprivileged sooner or later. It is imperative that we raise our voices louder for the common people in Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, and all across the developed world to hear: The Crisis is today and their governments are failing to defend their rights and the future of humanity.

Susann Scherbarth, Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany

“The path towards the global climate conference in Dubai this November remains uncharted. Instead of taking responsibility for curbing the climate crisis and providing trillions to support the poor and vulnerable, wealthy nations such as the United States and the European Union have pointed fingers at poorer nations for impeding progress. As a result, the upcoming climate negotiations in Dubai find themselves engulfed in a big sandstorm of uncertainty.

But it’s crystal clear what needs to come out of the world climate conference in November: a fast, fair and funded phase out of all fossil fuels and substantial financial commitments in trillions from wealthy nations. These funds are crucial to empower and support the poor and vulnerable in effectively tackling the climate crisis in a way that leaves no one behind. Wealthy nations like Germany need to end their shopping sprees around the world, where they fill their bags with gas and colonial patterns.”

Andrea Echeverri. Global Forest Coalition

We cannot achieve a just transition without addressing the interconnections between the energy and food systems. Our current industrial food system is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, from the production of synthetic fertilizers to the transportation of food across long distances. This system is not only unsustainable but also unjust, as it perpetuates inequalities and harms vulnerable communities, women and ecosystems. We must divest from the industries that perpetuate environmental and social injustices, including hunger, land grabbing, and gender based violence. We must demand that governments, development Banks, UN agencies take bold action to address the climate crisis and prioritize the needs of communities over corporate profits. That is divesting in large feed crops, in factory farming in fossils and investing in community energies and agroecology. 

Eduardo Giesen, Regional Coordinator, Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

“The SB58 conference in Bonn has confirmed the farce that climate negotiations represent, captured by the power of corporations and rich countries.

We return to our countries convinced of the urgency of working and fighting from the territories against extractivism and false solutions, as well as denouncing the complicity of the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean, even those who describe themselves as progressive and environmentalists.”

Meena Raman, Third World Network

The climate talks at Bonn this year have been a Great Escape. As the negotiations progressed, we saw developed countries trying to delete references to the convention, to equity, to common but differentiated responsibility just to escape from their responsibility for the historical emissions that have led to the current climate crisis. It has been an absolute horror show. And if you saw what’s happening here it is the preparation for the big wrestling and boxing match during COP28 or what I call the Dubai Marathon. Developed countries have not been negotiating in good faith, which is actually wrecking the climate regime, the convention and the Paris Agreement. They are always shifting the goalposts, always breaking promises and all of this is geared towards rich countries to bring in green colonialism that will allow them to keep control ove the resources of the developing countries.

Romain Ioualalen, Oil Change International, France

“The Bonn climate conference was a missed opportunity. Over the past two weeks, climate negotiators bickered over arcane procedural points instead of charting a clear path towards a decision to phase out fossil fuels at COP28 and unlock a global renewable energy revolution. Governments should be ashamed of their delaying tactics.

“To fulfill the promise countries made in Paris in 2015, they must halt fossil fuel expansion, end public finance for fossil fuels, and agree to a fair, fast, and full transition away from end oil, gas, and coal and towards renewables. Thankfully, momentum is growing inside and outside the negotiations: over 70 countries have called for a COP28 decision on fossil fuel phase out in Bonn, and a growing list of countries and institutions have followed through on their COP26 promise to end international public finance for fossil fuels. Countries like Colombia and the members of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance are doing the hard work of implementing measures to keep oil and gas in the ground.

“The contrast between this leadership and the actions of the world’s biggest historic polluter, the United States could not be more striking. Under Biden’s leadership, the U.S. has failed in its responsibility to lead a global and just transition away from fossil fuels and avert further climate disaster and has instead actively promoted fossil fuel expansion including with public money. Fossil fuel companies, who are doing everything in their power to extract the last ounces of profits from its dangerous activities.

As COP28 approaches, it is crucial that we double down on efforts to build a clean, renewable energy future for all, free of fossil fuels.”

Rachel Rose Jackson, Director of Climate Research and Policy, Corporate Accountability

Yet again, these climate talks failed to deliver the urgent action we need to reduce emissions to Real Zero and scale up real, people-centered solutions. And we know why– as long as Big Polluters are allowed to roam the halls of the UNFCCC and undermine the global response to climate change, climate action will not prioritize people and the planet over profits. While civil society–including youth, women and gender groups, climate and climate justice groups, and trade unions– united to secure a long overdue victory with the first ever requirements for UNFCCC participants to have to declare their affiliation before participating, we have a long way to travel in a very short time to ensure the rules of climate action are no longer written by Big Polluters. We will not back down until we finally Kick Big Polluters Out and reset the system so it works for people, not polluters! 

Sara Shaw, climate justice and energy coordinator, Friends of the Earth International

It’s of grave concern that while rich countries have blocked discussions on climate finance and equity at every turn during these talks, carbon markets are quietly progressing. Big polluters must be delighted. There are no possible rules that can actually make the global carbon market work. Carbon markets are a distraction from real climate action and cause grave harm – preventing real emissions reductions and climate finance, opening the door to dangerous new technologies like geoengineering, and threatening communities in the global South with land grabs and human rights violations,” says Sara Shaw, climate justice & energy coordinator. 

Alex Rafalowicz, Executive Director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative

We are in the midst of a climate crisis happening here and now. Some governments are taking this seriously like Fiji which publicly called for a fossil fuel treaty. The COP presidency, UAE, notably shifted and said that the phase down of fossil fuels is inevitable. So the question for these negotiations is how we are going to make that transition happen faster and fairer. The signs coming out of Bonn are concerning. During the climate talks, the United States and other countries that are some of the biggest producers of fossil fuels actively blocked proposals for full consideration of the just transition issue. If we can’t talk about just transition and how we work together, we are not going to accelerate that transition to meet the deadline that we have. For that reason people across the world have declared that they are going to fight back and fight for the end of fossil fuels, fast, fair and forever.

Victor Menotti, Oakland Institute / Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

Signaling a showdown to come at COP28 in Dubai, developed countries doubled-down on their demands that developing countries mitigate more while shamelessly diverting discussion away from financing required under the UN climate convention. As always, they faithfully followed the lead of the largest historic polluter, the US. While Washington DC choked on smoke from Canadian wildfires and focused on the trial of its previous president, the Biden team’s Trump-like tactics defined Bonn’s political dynamics across all negotiating topics. It was a master course in gaslighting by insisting all countries align their financial flows with the 1.5C temperature goal even though Biden has been encouraging endless supplies of new fossil fuel production from investors by rolling back bedrock environmental laws to fastrack new projects. 

But Bonn also launched escalated efforts by climate campaigners to fight back against industry’s war on people and the planet, with the next few months to define what goes down in Dubai.

Elodie Guillon, World Animal Protection, UK

It is disheartening to witness the slow progress in taking action within the agricultural negotiation stream during SB58, despite the overwhelming evidence that immediate measures are necessary. 

The IPCC warns that even without fossil fuel emissions, emissions from our food systems alone could lead to a devastating global temperature increase. Destructive agribusiness practices contribute to emissions, environmental damage, and harm smallholders and indigenous communities. Addressing these injustices and implementing agroecology and dietary shifts, particularly plant-based proteins, are urgent and real solutions. Let’s harness the lessons learned from the COVID-19 emergency in acting collectively, swiftly, and decisively. It’s time for action.

Gaya, Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung

The bottom line with climate finance is: if it isn’t funded, it won’t get done. If we don’t secure enough climate finance we cannot limit the impact of the climate crisis by reducing emissions or “mitigation”. We cannot protect billions of people from its worst impacts by assuring appropriate “adaptation”. We cannot help people and whole countries recover from its unavoidable damage by compensating them for “loss and damage” suffered.

Currently the discussions under the UNFCCC reveal that rich countries want to evade their responsibility to provide the finance needed. We have seen a push to overburden the existing humanitarian system with the task of addressing Loss and Damage. A reluctance to discuss finance in connection with the Mitigation Work Programme. And we have seen the eagerness of developed countries to unload the responsibility of climate finance onto multilateral development banks – risking piling more debt onto countries already overburdened by unfair debt burdens. These distractions from the core need to generate new, additional, predictable and accessible climate finance must be resisted on the road to CoP28.

We always hear that we need “bold” solutions to the climate crisis. But what does this mean? Aside from having the political will to urgently deliver their promises and obligations as enshrined in the Paris Agreement, it is time for global north countries to use their economic power to come up with bold solutions to generate climate finance now. It means we must be bold in reforming the financial system towards cancelling debt and creating fairer institutions and rules in global lending. We must be bold in the global taxation system and create huge new streams of climate revenue by getting corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair shares. We could re-divert money lost to tax loopholes and havens, and fossil fuel subsidies. We need to make critical climate technology available for free to developing countries so the green transition and adaptation are just and don’t constitute yet another financial burden to countries.

Alexia, Start:Empowerment, U.S 

I live in Texas but my family is in the global south  and I know all too well how rich governments continue to profit off the fossil fuel industry while Black and Brown communities both within the global north and in the global south die. We need the global north to commit to funding loss and damage and an equitable fossil fuel phase out. We can’t continue to have empty summits and throw away our future while those on the frontlines die. 

Quotes in other languages

Camila Romero, Colectivo Viento Sur, Chile

Desde el llamado Sur Global, enfrentamos diariamente los efectos devastadores del cambio climático y del modelo económico extractivista que ha colonizado nuestros territorios. Es imperativo que los responsables históricamente de las mayores emisiones e impactos asuman su responsabilidad y no solamente paguen con recursos financieros y tecnológico a las regiones más vulnerables, si no que se haga justicia, y caminemos hacia una transformación de los sistemas de vida donde se priorice las necesidades de quienes habitamos los territorios por sobre el lucro de las grandes corporaciones.

Susann Scherbarth, Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany

“Die bevorstehenden Klimaverhandlungen in Dubai stecken in einem gewaltigen Sandsturm der Unsicherheit. Statt Verantwortung für die Klimakrise zu übernehmen und Trillionen zur Unterstützung der Armen und Schutzbedürftigen bereitzustellen, schieben wohlhabende Nationen wie die USA und die EU den ärmeren Ländern die Schuld zu. Der Weg bis nach Dubai bleibt mit diesen enttäuschenden Ergebnissen ungewiss.
„Es ist glasklar, was aus der Weltklimakonferenz im November hervorgehen muss: ein schneller, fairer und finanziell abgesicherter Ausstieg aus fossilen Brennstoffen sowie bedeutende finanzielle Zusagen in Trillionen von wohlhabenden Nationen. Diese Mittel sind entscheidend, um die Armen wirksam in der Bewältigung der Klimakrise zu unterstützen und niemanden zurückzulassen.
“Wohlhabende Nationen wie Deutschland müssen ihre weltweiten Shopping-Touren beenden, bei denen sie ihre Taschen mit Gas und kolonialen Mustern füllen.”

Karola Knuth, Young Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany

“Die Staaten und vor allem die reichen, historisch verantwortlichen Länder, spielen hier mit der Zukunft der Welt, weil sie sich wegen Machtspielchen nicht auf grundlegende Dinge wie eine Tagesordnung einigen können. Zukünftig wollen wir deshalb eine bessere Partizipation der Zivilgesellschaft und vor allem der Jugend, indigener Gruppen, local communities und FINTA* sehen!” (FINTA* ist eine Abkürzung und steht für Frauen, Inter, Nicht-binäre, Trans und Agender Personen. Damit sollen alle geschlechtlichen Identitäten zusammengefasst werden, welche vom Patriarchat unterdrückt werden)
“Wir sehen wie sich der Globale Norden seiner historischen Verantwortung entziehen will und auf falsche Lösungen pocht, wie Geoengineering und Marktmechanismen. Aber das einzige, was uns hilft ist ein schneller, solidarischer Ausstieg aus fossilen Energien.”

Eduardo Giesen, Coordinador Regional de la Campaña Global para Exigir Justicia Climática

” La conferencia del SB58 en Bonn ha confirmado la farsa que representan las negociaciones climáticas, capturadas por el poder de las corporaciones y los países ricos. 

Volvemos a nuestros paises convencidos de la urgencia de trabajar y luchar desde los territorios en contra del extractivismo y las falsas soluciones, así como denunciar la complicidad de los gobiernos de América Latina y el Caribe, aun aquellos que se califican de progresistas y ecologistas.”

Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice is a network of over 200 networks and organizations working globally, regionally, and locally on climate justice. Collectively we represent millions of climate activists on the ground.

Our members are available for comments and interviews in different languages. Please contact Rachitaa at [email protected] (+918447445543) to reach out to our members.

LAC, Press Releases, Region, SB58

Articulación global de justicia climática denuncia en Bonn la promoción de falsas soluciones y reclama el fin del extractivismo y una transición justa en América Latina y el Caribe

Desde el 5 al 15 de junio se llevó a cabo la Conferencia de Cambio Climático de Naciones Unidas en Bonn, Alemania. En el lugar convergen gobiernos, tomadores de decisiones y también activistas que de todo el mundo llegan a poner el punto de la justicia climática sobre la mesa.

La mañana de este 13 de junio, a través de una conferencia de prensa, organizaciones de la Campaña Global para Exigir Justicia Climática (DCJ, por sus siglas en inglés) de América Laina y el Caribe dieron cuenta de la “decepción y escepticismo” que les provoca el curso de estas negociaciones a lo largo de su historia. “Se han alejado de su objetivo de enfrentar realmente el cambio climático y se han visto capturadas por los intereses de las grandes corporaciones, con la complicidad de los gobiernos”, declaró Eduardo Giesen, Coordinador Regional de la Campaña Global para Exigir Justicia Climática.

Para la defensora Camila Romero, proveniente del Wallmapu, en Chile, y parte del Colectivo VientoSur, expresó que “mujeres, jóvenes, indígenas, hemos venido para denunciar que el modelo de desarrollo actual lo está destruyendo todo”. Al mismo tiempo señala que el ritmo de crecimiento económico que busca sostener el sistema capitalista está “provocando el colapso climático y civilizatorio. El cambio climático es la crisis de la sociedad de consumo”.

Silvia Ribeiro, parte del Grupo ETC que hace parte de DCJ, puso la lupa en la propuesta de nuevo marco para mercados de carbono, calificándolo como “altamente preocupante”. “Especialmente a partir del artículo 6.4, se dirige a legitimar tecnologías de geoingeniería, las cuales conllevan altos riesgos e impactos sociales y ambientales, como la captura y almacenamiento de carbono (CCS) y otras relacionadas como la captura de aire (DAC) y la bioenergía con CCS. También de geoingeniería marina, como fertilización oceánica y alcalinización de los océanos, aunque por sus altos riesgos están bajo moratoria en otros convenios de ONU”, alerta. Además, esto sería una forma de proponer tecnologías que “no existen realmente, salvo CCS que fue desarrollada por la industria petrolera para extraer reservas profundas de petróleo, que es a lo que están destinados más de 85 % de los proyectos existentes, por lo que aumentarán las emisiones y la crisis climática”.

Alternativas al extractivismo
Junto al reclamo y exigencia, viene también la propuesta. “No podemos olvidarnos de construir las alternativas. El mecanismo desvinculado del mercado de carbono debe convertirse en una opción de desarrollar acciones de respuesta desde y para las comunidades indígenas, locales y los propios ecosistemas en los diferentes frentes de impacto alrededor del mundo”, declaró desde la Plataforma Boliviana frente al Cambio Climático, Marcos Nordgren. El defensor afirma que para que lo anterior se cumpla, es “imprescindible la activa participación y consulta de las comunidades locales e indígenas en el diseño de estas nuevas herramientas y asegurar el resguardo de sus derechos y territorios, evitando la instrumentalización de estos instrumentos para profundizar las soluciones falsas del mercado de carbono.

Interventions, SB58

Intervention by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice at Closing Plenary on Global Stocktake

Delivered by Asad Rehman from War on Want on behalf of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

DCJ stresses the need for the GST Technical Dialogue’s summary report to clearly reference IPCC’s scientific findings on historic responsibility, as well as various assessments showing the shortfalls in developed countries’ support to developing countries.

Recently published academic research in Nature Sustainability estimates that the economic cost of the inequitable colonization of the carbon budget by rich countries is calculated at $170 trillion which is in addition to wealth & resource extraction from the global South which from 1960 to the present day is calculated as $152 trillion. 

For this Technical Dialogue to transparently inform the GST’s key political messages going into COP28, clear data points about “where we are, and how we got here” are essential inputs to equitably “correcting course” in any Dubai decision.

Including an honest assessment of the collective failure of developed countries to meet all the implementation gaps in Mitigation, Adaptation, Loss and Damage and Means of Implementation stemming from their historical responsibility.  

The only transparent way to equitably correct course is with a “fair shares” framework to inform Parties’ future NDCs, which must not be mitigation-centric but also include sufficient grant based support for developing countries as a down payment on their climate debt.


DCJ also emphasizes the need for renewed international cooperation to
ensure a just transition for everyone to have the right to live with dignity – including debt cancellation, economic diversification support, & an end to structural inequality by transforming today’s outdated multilateral rules & institutions governing global trade, finance, investment and technology – 

To ensure an equitable phaseout of fossil fuels and scale-up of renewables alongside measures recognizing material & ecological limits with the necessary support needed for truly just transitions.

Thank you.

Interventions, SB58

Intervention by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice at Open-ended consultation by the Incoming COP 28/CMP 18/CMA 5 Presidency

Delivered by Gadir Lavadenz on behalf of Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

Thank you Mr/Madam Chair,

The Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice would like to stress the following:

  • An equitable and funded phase out of fossil fuels is urgently needed and COP 28 should deliver a pathway to achieve that on the timeline needed
  • Carbon markets, offsets, so called ¨nature based solutions¨ and geo engineering, which is under a de facto moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity, are false solutions that are unproven, risky, cause harm and only divert us from addressing the real causes of climate change. 
  • A just, equitable and rapid transition is needed but through a delivery of climate debt and public finance under the principle of CBDR. Much of what has been provided in terms of finance including from the MDBs are mainly loans, with only a small portion being grants. With more and more developing countries in debt distress, loans are not the right instrument. There is clearly a greater need for non-debt creating instruments.
  • The principle of inclusivity is meant for the marginalized groups and not for the powerful ones to be able to shape the negotiations. The world is losing faith and we need to deliver in the right direction.

A legitimate COP is a fossil fuel free COP. We must end undue influence of polluters in climate action. There is no climate justice without human rights. 

Thank you

Interventions, SB58

Intervention by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice at SeS Joint Work

Dear Delegates, I am Enric speaking on behalf of Climate Save, Global Forest Coalition and World Animal Protection, members of the Demand Climate Justice alliance.

It is disheartening to witness the slow progress in taking action, despite the overwhelming evidence that immediate measures are necessary. 

The IPCC report is clear that if we were to halt all fossil fuel emissions immediately, the emissions originating from our food systems alone could result in a devastating increase in global temperatures, surpassing the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius. The world has demonstrated its ability to act swiftly and cohesively during the recent COVID-19 emergency. We need to channel that same sense of urgency and cooperation into addressing the negative impacts coming from the agriculture sector.

We cannot ignore the destructive practices of agribusinesses that continue to ravage our planet – such as the massive destruction to our world’s habitats caused by factory farming and its demand for animal feed. Large-scale agribusiness operations not only contribute significantly to emissions and environmental destruction, but also push away smallholders and small-scale fishers who are unable to compete, displace indigenous communities, and threaten food sovereignty. It is imperative that we address these injustices and protect the rights and livelihoods of those most affected. 

In light of this alarming reality, we urge the new joint work to prioritize the implementation of effective solutions including non-party actors in this work. False solutions such as climate smart agriculture, gene editing and so-called sustainable intensification will only serve the interests of the big polluters in the agricultural sector.

The global north should take responsibility for its historical emissions and take the lead in first reducing their animal protein production and consumption, and support the global south countries to shift towards agroecological practices and safeguard sustainable existing food systems. The global north must start by redirecting public finance to support smallholders to shift towards a just, humane and sustainable food system.

Agroecology, along with dietary shifts – as advised by the IPCC, which identified plant based proteins as having the highest mitigation potential – are urgent solutions to confront these challenges. Agroecology and dietary shifts are not just concepts; they are real and accessible solutions for our communities worldwide.

The time for action is now. We must prioritize the implementation of agroecology and truly sustainable food systems. Let us harness the lessons learned from the COVID-19 emergency and act collectively, swiftly, and decisively. 

Thank you.

SB58

SB58 CLIMATE TALKS

TWN Bonn Climate News Update No. 5

9 June 2023
Published by Third World Network

Parties provide reflections on outcome of the Global Stocktake

Bonn, 9 June (Meena Raman)- Parties had a rich exchange of views on the global stocktake (GST) during the first joint contact group convened on 7 June at the ongoing 58th session of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Bodies (SB58) in Bonn. They provided their reflections on what the GST decision should look like at the climate talks be held in Dubai end of the year, as well on the GST conclusions out of the SB 58 session.

Differences emerged over whether the GST outcome should assess gaps in the pre-2020 period, with the Like-Minded Developing Countries and BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) calling for inclusion of assessment of gaps in the pre-2020 period. This was however opposed by Canada. (The United States at the opening plenary of the GST had clearly said that the GST is an assessment of the collective progress in the implementation of the Paris Agreement (PA) goals and not the UNFCCC. (See TWN Update 3 ).

(At the current SB session, the technical assessment component of the first GST will conclude, with the convening of the third and last meeting of the technical dialogue, with the corresponding summary report to be published in July this year, and an overall synthesis of the summary reports to be published later in September.)

Cuba for the G77 and China said the GST outcome should be comprehensive and reflect all the thematic areas; it would be about looking backwards at implementation gaps and looking forward towards opportunities for addressing such gaps. The CMA (meeting of the Parties to the PA) decision should reflect an assessment on the progress and gaps in ambition and implementation of commitments and identify the opportunities, challenges and solutions for ambition and implementation in light of the principles and provisions of the Convention and the PA, said Cuba further.

Cuba also suggested that the joint contact group should agree on a top-level outline of the key elements of the CMA decision on the GST, which would then serve as the initial basis for further work to be undertaken intersessionally by the Parties in developing the outputs for the political consideration phase, including at the GT workshop in October and at COP28.

As part of preliminary areas in the outcome text, Cuba proposed a preamble; background/context/vision; crosscutting general assessment of collective progress; mitigation; adaptation; means of implementation; response measures; loss and damage; international cooperation; and way forward.

Cuba also suggested the Joint Contact Group should recommend to the SBs to “issue a joint call for submissions from Parties on the elements of the CMA decision, using the initial draft outline agreed at this session as the basis, and requesting Parties and non-Party stakeholders to provide their views and suggestions with respect to the substantive content based on the outline. The deadline for making submissions pursuant to this call could be in mid-August 2023 but after the publication of the factual synthesis report, with the Secretariat be requested to compile these submissions and make them available to Parties and non-Party stakeholders,” said Cuba.

Saudi Arabia for the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) highlighted the issues of pre-2020 to be at the forefront of the GST outcome. It said it is critical to respond to the mandate and ensure inclusive and comprehensive outcome. Saudi Arabia said that the LMDC sees the nature of the outcome as guided by common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), equity, historical responsibilities and how climate action can better synergise with poverty eradication and sustainable development.

On the types of outputs, Saudi Arabia said the CMA decision needs to be the core component and that the declaration or the annex would not be useful. On the outline of the decision, it recommended keeping it simple by looking at mandates and said it supports a preamble and context and cross cutting consideration sections. It also suggested having sections on gaps in collective progress; mitigation; adaptation; loss and damage; response measures; and international cooperation.

Zambia for the Africa group said the decision’s outline should ensure comprehensive and balanced content and comprise all thematic issues in light of equity. It also said the GST must include the pre-2020 gaps and have forward looking elements to address the gaps. Zambia stressed the importance of leaving Bonn with an agreed broad outline of the decision in COP 28.

Algeria for the Arab group said it expects the outcome of SB58 to have a top-level outline of key elements to be addressed by the decision to be adopted in Dubai. It emphasized on the need for a submission process following SB58, which would give the possibility for Parties and non-Party stakeholders to present detailed views on the elements to be addressed by the COP 28 decision, “based on the outline we agreed in Bonn”. Algeria also said that any political declaration has to reflect the views of Parties and added that it was too early to decide on whether to have a technical annex or not.

South Africa for Brazil, South Africa, India, China (BASIC) said the decision should have comprehensive messages and include messages on pre-2020. It called for the same structure and comparable outcomes for all the themes and for these to be informed by equity and CBDR. BASIC said that any mandate to the co-chairs is premature. BASIC expressed concern that Parties were transitioning to the political phase of the GST without pre-2020 and biennial reports synthesized by Annex 1 Parties. South Africa also expressed concern on the lack of balanced treatment to finance, with a disproportionate focus on Article 2.1 (c) of the PA.

Brazil for Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay (ABU) made an impassioned plea for countries to act as the United Nations and said the global Stocktake should unleash unprecedented level of international cooperation so that the international enabling environment is in place for countries to present their most ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and close the gaps. Brazil also called on countries to work on the basis of empathy, solidarity and trust.

Senegal for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) said the GST must provide a comprehensive assessment and a pathway forward concerning adaptation, mitigation, including response measures, loss and damage, and means of implementation and support. It must offer clear guidance to countries on enhancing NDCs to keep the 1.5°C limit within reach. Additionally, it should promote actions, support, and enhanced international cooperation for climate action. It expressed concern on the way loss and damage continued to be considered only under adaptation, which undermined the “recognition given to loss and damage in the PA”. On the outcome, Senegal said that there should be a CMA decision with a technical annex, followed by a political declaration or a cover decision.

Trinidad and Tobago for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said the GST outcome should provide policy direction to course correct in areas where insufficient levels of ambition and needs of most vulnerable were not addressed. It said that the process and outcome must be both a backward looking as well as forward looking assessment of measures. The AOSIS said the outcome should include a political declaration, a CMA decision and a technical annex. It said the CMA decision should have a section on the way forward, which would invite Parties to explain how the GST has informed their NDC update once it is submitted in 2025 and that the decision must look at crosscutting issues including equity and best available science, progress and gaps, the role of non-Party stakeholders. It also said that it would like to see loss and damage treated separately from adaptation.

Colombia for the Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC) said the GST outcomes must be comprehensive and reflect equity and best available science and should provide a state of how “off-track” Parties are from the goal.

China stressed historical emissions of developed countries and pre-2020 gaps are important considerations for the GST. The GST should make substantive assessment and address gaps on adaptation and means of implementation and an ambitious outcome of the GST should focus on implementation and delivery of ambition, said China. “Empty numerical targets won’t get us anywhere,” said China, adding that the outcome of the GST should be a Party-driven, consensus based on the question of whether there should be a declaration or not, it said it is important to decide how to differentiate the content of the political declaration from the decision. It said an annex is beyond the mandate. The outline of the decision should reflect a balanced presentation of substantive assessment of progress and gaps and have sections on mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, means of implementation and international cooperation, said China and added that there should be no reference to any sectoral approach. It also said within each thematic area, the structure should be comparable and identical and equity and science should be considered holistically instead of being segregated. It added that the formats, outline and the substantive elements are all interlinked and should be finalised as a packaged at COP 28.

The European Union said the conclusions from the SB 58 should have an introduction section, a section on technical dialogue, calls for submissions from Parties with a deadline of end of August. On the structure of the outcome at COP 28, it said they foresee a structure which includes sections on assessing collective progress toward long-term goals of the PA; high level response comprising political messages; opportunity for enhanced action and support along with new political commitments; thematic areas; guidance for NDC and long-term strategies, among others; and a final follow up section.

The United Kingdom said there must be a roadmap of actions across mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation, setting out “forward-looking commitments”, including in relevant sectors. It said it is open to considering how to reflect loss and damage and response measures in the decision.

Switzerland for the Environment Integrity Group (EIG) said that the elements of the conclusions from SB58 should include recognition of importance of GST for collective progress; confirm the closure of the technical dialogue process; call for submissions ahead of the October session and for the Secretariat to produce a synthesis of the submissions. Switzerland also said that the COP 28 outcome must include overarching reflections on progress and scale of challenge as well as be a transformational roadmap comprising information on ways of assessing gaps, ways of closing gaps. It suggested that issues of response measures and loss and damage could be included in a crosscutting chapter and there should be specific section in the decision on updating and enhancing NDCs and on international cooperation. It said the outcome should contain a chapter on way forward, comprising how Parties and non-Parties will implement the GST outcome, provide guidance to the UN Summit. Switzerland also requested the co-chairs to prepare an informal note capturing the discussions in the room.

Australia spoke to the structure of the outcome and said it should contain a preamble and have sections on assessment of progress corresponding to the global goals of the PA and under each of the sections, description of progress, gaps and commitments to close the gaps. It also suggested having a section on enhancing international cooperation as well as next steps.

The United States also spoke along the lines of the structure proposed by Australia. Canada said it does not support an assessment of pre-2020 implementation in the CMA decision.

Interventions, SB58

Intervention by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice at Roundtable on Means of Implementation at TED 1.3

Delivered by Meena Rama, Third World Network on behalf of ENGO – DCJ

There is a clear need for an honest assessment of the lack of adequate progress on the moi, without beating around the bush. We talk of raising ambition on climate actions, but we do not see the reciprocal ambition on the means of implementation for developing countries.

There is evidence to indicate the following:

  1. Developed countries have collectively failed in meeting their commitments on the provision and mobilisation of the financial resources that have been agreed to. This is borne out by –
    • The failure to mobilise the US$ 100 billion per year by 2020 and even up till now. While the numbers of what exactly has been mobilised and delivered vary in the SCF reports, the fact of failure to meet this commitment in a timely manner is loud and clear. This is a pre-2020 implementation gap which has been carried over to the pre-2025 timeframe.
    • This 100b goal is not based on the needs of developing countries but was a political number arrived at in Copenhagen, as we all know.
    • The SCF’s Needs Determination Report clearly indicates that what is needed at least in the pre-2030 timeframe is around $ 5-11 trillion, even with only 30% of the costs estimated in the NDCs of developing countries. Hence, the needs far outweigh what is currently available.
  2. Even the promise to deliver on the doubling of adaptation finance is far from what is needed, as seen from the various reports from various UN agencies.
  3. The Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund are languishing for funds, as numerous projects in the pipelines are not able to be funded.
  4. Much of what has been provided including from the MDBs are mainly loans, with only a small portion being grants. With more and more developing countries in debt distress, loans are not the right instrument. There is clearly a greater need for non-debt creating instruments.
  5. Access to funds have not been easy to the limited funds available at the operating entities of the financial mechanism – the GCF and the GEF – with cumbersome procedures and slow disbursements. Intermediaries have largely been international entities as opposed to direct access entities from developing countries.
  6. The much hype about private finance and investment flows into developing countries. According to the SCF technical report on the 100b mobilisation report, the expectation for private finance mobilization has been severely an underperformance. The World Bank’s own ‘Scaling Solar’ project to try and leverage private finance for renewable energy projects only managed to leverage 28c private finance for every 1$ of public finance, and only with the support of generous guarantees, tax breaks and subsidies.
  7. Furthermore, access to low-cost finance is uneven as the cost of capital differs substantially between regions, with developing countries often paying an interest rate many times more to private creditors than other official creditors.[1]
  8. From recent IEA report on energy, the high cost of capital and rising borrowing costs threaten to undercut the economic attractiveness for investments in clean energy in developing countries, and that most of the positive trends in clean energy investments are leaving developing countries behind
  9. There are also studies which show that while international financial institutions (IFIs) have made progress, for example with increased climate financing and coordination from Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), a Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation in 2021, and a new Resilient and Sustainability Trust (RST) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but IFIs have also been slow to release their financial firepower to meet the demonstrated need,[2] and continue to prioritise de-risking modalities which have little evidence of success. 
  10. There are genuine concerns over use of Article 2.1c as a way to impose new conditionalities for accessing finance in the name of enabling environments and to shift the burden and responsibility onto developing countries, contrary to article 9 of the PA. Should not make it difficult for developing c to access finance for meeting their NDC implementation.

Technology gap –

  1. In the area of climate technologies and their accessibility and transfer from developed to developing countries, progress has been insignificant and abysmal. This reality is clear. 
  2. There is indeed a technology gap which needs to be addressed for climate technologies to developing countries. There is evidence that there are intellectual property rights concerns where developed countries dominate in climate technologies patent ownership, production and trade.
  3. There are reports including from UNEP, UNCTAD and WIPO that show the dominance of developed countries in relation to low-carbon technological innovations. But these are missing in the assessment. Between 1990-2015, 80% of all low-carbon technological inventions were concentrated in developed countries. The fact that most patents for climate-relevant technologies are in developed countries has significant implications on technology transfer possibilities, as the design and use of such technologies may not be directly responsive to the needs of developing countries.
  4. These implementation gaps in finance and technologies will be further   exacerbated by developed countries’ carbon border measures and unilateral trade measures including non-tariff barriers that grossly disadvantage developing countries.  The implications of CBMs is missing in relation to the response measures.
  5. We are good in this process of setting up institutions but real delivery of the moi for delivering is not significant.

If the GST is to have meaning, it must address these gaps and challenges, not repeat the failures and mistakes and dramatically course correct. If there is political will, there will be a way. Need to see that will to realise the hopes and aspirations of esp. of the poor and the planet.

[1] Eurodad, 2021. Sleep now in the fire: Sovereign Bonds and the Covid-19 Debt Crisis. https://www.eurodad.org/sovereign_bonds_covid19;

[2] An Independent Review of Multilateral Development Banks’ Capital Adequacy Frameworks, 2022. Boosting MDBs’ investing capacity. https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CAF-Review-Report.pdf

Interventions, SB58

Intervention by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice at SeS Joint Work

Dear Delegates,  I am speaking on behalf of World Animal Protection and Global Forest Coalition, members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice. 

The interconnectivity of climate change, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity must be recognized. We must build a food system where smallholders and small-scale fishers live in dignity, one that nourishes communities, and  protects our environment for generations to come. Mainstreaming gender-transformative and responsive agriculture policies and approaches to promote  gender equity, and acknowledging women’s unique contribution and challenges in agriculture and food security is also critical. 

Given this, we are encouraging the new Joint Work to take a holistic food systems approach that considers the social and environmental impacts of both agricultural production and demand; and the co benefits of transitioning towards a humane, just and sustainable food system.

We also encourage the discussion of the new Joint Work to include a Transition Towards a Humane, and Sustainable Food system based on Agroecological Practices that would encompass soil health, biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 

To meet the Paris Agreement goals, we urge the exploration of alternatives to industrial farming due to its threat to our environment and climate. We would like to echo the other constituencies in their call for a definition of “sustainable agriculture” to be carefully examined. Solutions put forward under sustainable agriculture should be accessible to and agreed together with smallholders and small scale fishers, and not serve the interest of the big polluters in the agricultural sector.

We particularly urge adherence to a holistic approach to agriculture, and avoid references to Climate Smart Agriculture, Nature Based Solutions, Regenerative agriculture, and other approaches that are not properly defined or have proven to be controversial.

We welcome the recognition of smallholders and small scale fishers, as levers of change. Smallholders and small scale fishers should be at the centre of this work, finance should be redirected towards supporting them implementing Agroecological Practices that ensure gender and social justice, food security and sovereignty, whilst protecting nature. In this regard, we call on the new joint work to prioritise mitigation opportunities in the industrial agriculture sector given their social impacts and carbon footprint. 

As it stands, our food system is unsustainable, causing hunger, habitat destruction at a terrifying rate and contributing hugely to global emissions. Without seriously rethinking our food systems and prioritizing truly sustainable approaches, we will never achieve the Paris goals.

SB58

SB58 CLIMATE TALKS

TWN Bonn Climate News Update No. 4


8 June 2023
Published by Third World Network

Equity and justice must be central to just transition pathways, say developing countries

Bonn, 8 June (Hilary Kung):  At the informal consultations on the newly established Work Programme on ‘Just Transition Pathways’ held on 6th and 7th June under the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) in Bonn, Germany, India expressed that “global equity and justice must be central to the understanding of just transition pathways”.

China stressed that many Parties were talking about the “transition” but not about “just transition”.

The informal consultations are being co-facilitated by Selam Abebe (Zambia) and Marianne Karlsen (Norway).

(The decision adopted last year under CMA 4 [4th meeting of the Conference of Parties of the Paris Agreement], established a work programme on just transition for discussion of pathways to achieving the goals of the Agreement, outlined in Article 2.1, in the context of Article 2.2, and requests the SBs to recommend a draft decision for consideration and adoption this year in Dubai, UAE, with the work programme to be implemented in a manner that builds on and complements the relevant workstreams under the Convention and the Paris Agreement, including for urgently scaling up mitigation ambition and implementation.)

(Article 2.1 of the PA refers to the following goals:

(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels…;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.

Article 2.2 states that the PA will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities [CBDR-RC), in the light of different national circumstances.)

During the informal consultation sessions, the co-facilitators invited Parties to share views and expectations on the work programme from several aspects: objectives, scope, institutional arrangements, modalities, linkages, inputs and outputs and outcomes. There were varied views on the scope and linkages to other workstreams.

On the purpose and objectives, Cuba speaking for the G77 and China underlined that “Just Transitions/ Just Transition pathways” (in plural) are the key part of fully implementing the Convention and its PA in all aspects, drawing references to Article 2.1 in the context of Article 2.2 of the Paris Agreement [PA] and suggested that the work programme should be comprehensive including mitigation and adaptation and also referred to addressing response measures (i.e. the effects arising from the implementation of mitigation policies) and to unilateral coercive measures that are contrary to the Convention.

India stressed that “Just transition pathways for developing countries entail low carbon development based on the equitable access to the global carbon budget and fair and rational utilisation of resources per national circumstances and priorities. Climate change is a global collective action problem and therefore we must speak of equitable and just global transition pathways. Equity and principles of CBDR must be central to the consideration of our work under this program…Low carbon development pathways in developing countries have to foreground issues of energy access, eradicating poverty, and improving the well-being of our people.  There are issues of energy security, affordability and reliability that are central to the meeting of sustainable development goals and meeting the aspirations of the global south.”

In terms of the scope of the work programme, India reiterated that there should be no prescription and the importance of national circumstances in the understanding of just transition pathways.

“Discussions around just transition pathways must not be focused only on mitigation but must take into consideration the challenges for adaptation, the means of implementation, and the implications of the impacts of global warming on the availability of such pathways. This is why we believe that linkages of just transitions should not just be with the mitigation work program but must also foreground discussions on aspects of adaptation and means of implementation we concur with other colleagues who have highlighted the same,” said India.

China pointed out that “just transition” is different from “transition” and that a lot of Parties were talking about “transition” but not “just transition” and suggested that there is need to better define the “boundary” and focus on what is most crucial for this topic. Liberia made similar remarks.

Kenya for the African Group said that the launch of the just transitions work is timely and crucial towards the realisation of the PA goals and it would like to see a broader scope of the work programme. It stressed the right to development for developing countries which supports the implementation of all climate action, and that the work programme should therefore be comprehensive.

Ethiopia for the Least Developed Countries (LDC) also highlighted that the means of implementation is crucial for the just transitions work programme and should not create additional burdens for LDCs and other developing countries.

Saudi Arabia for the Arab Group emphasised the need for a balanced and inclusive just transitions work programme that recognized the different pathways in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. Given that this is a cross-cutting topic, this work programme should not be mitigation centric but should adopt a wider scope, and not just focus on the just transition of the workforce, it added further.

Argentina for Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay (ABU) pointed out that it is important to make sure that the “just transitions” will not widen existing gaps or the inequality among countries and will not hamper the development pathways of the Global South.

Bolivia stated that, just transition is mostly about climate justice that implies thinking from the perspective of the most affected peoples and those that are most vulnerable.  It suggested four areas of work in the Just Transition Work Programme:  “(1) Just transition for Mother Earth with the requirement not to exceed the limits of life systems; (2) Just transition for developing countries, with economic diversification measures and comprehensive energy transition, aimed at drastically reducing social, economic and technological inequalities in the world; (3) Just transition for all peoples with the management of mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage and the provision of the means of implementation, allowing most of the vulnerable people of the world to have access to energy, a decent and secure livelihood, and a future with dignity; (4) Just transition for indigenous peoples recognizing the importance of their knowledge to address the climate crisis, considering the epistemological parity between the modern academic science and ancestral science. To date, indigenous peoples are the heirs and stewards of the wisdom of ancient and millenary civilizations, and have important solutions for the climate crisis.”

Bolivia also proposed a principled-based approach by taking into account equity, CBDR, climate justice, protecting and respecting the rights of Mother Earth for Living-Well in harmony with Mother Earth and also taking into account principles and views of indigenous peoples (Andean societies). It also called for the wise management of the remaining carbon budget (to limit temperature rise) and for developed countries to halt now the consumption of the carbon budget that already belongs to developing countries and for Parties to work for a sustainable future for people and planet.

The United States recalled the mandate of the decision from the Sharm el-Sheikh which stated that the establishment of the work programme is to achieve the goals of the PA outlined in Article 2.1, in the context of Article 2.2. The US agreed with the G77 that just transitions are nationally determined and inclusive of all technologies. The US also said that none of its proposals are inconsistent with CBDR-RC.

In response to calls from developing countries for means of implementation, the US and the United Kingdom, referred to Article 2.1(c) of the PA on aligning financial flows with ambitious climate action or “transition” towards phasing out of “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.

(The interpretation of Article 2.1 (c) has been contentious with developed countries advancing a very broad interpretation which includes looking at financial flows from all sources, including from a broader donor base that covers developing countries as well as the private sector, while developing countries argue that the article should be read within the context of Article 9 of the PA, which makes developed countries responsible for the provision and mobilization of climate finance.)

Norway said that the purpose of the work programme should be to enhance knowledge and capacity and how countries can do just transition within the framework of their nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

Canada said that the work programme can be powerful to enable ambitious mitigation action, provide new economic opportunities, and create new jobs and skill sets.

The European Union (EU) said the work programme should provide information on just transitions and it expects a yearly report to provide relevant information in relation to NDCs and Long-term Low Emissions and Development Strategies (LT-LEDS).

On linkages with other workstreams, most Parties mentioned the linkage between the Just Transition Work Programme and Response Measures. Some Parties suggested that the work programme could look at adapting from the Katowice Committee of Experts on the Impacts of the Implementation of Response Measures (KCI) but avoid overlapping with the KCI.

Japan gave an example that the mitigation work programme was also discussing just transition in the energy sector and suggested that there is need to first identify all the linkages to enhance synergies and avoid duplication.

Bolivia proposed that there should be a strong connection between just transitions and the PA’s Article 6.8 on Non-Market Approaches, which should also link with the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples (LCIP) Platform to incorporate alternative solutions to the climate crisis.

Other workstreams that were also mentioned were the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and Loss and Damage.

In terms of timeline, many interventions by Parties saw the potential of the Just Transition Work Programme feeding into the next global stocktake (which is a collective assessment of the achievement of the PA’s goals).

The organising of meetings, roundtables, technical dialogues, forums, workshops, submissions by Parties were mentioned as possible modalities for the work programme. Some Parties suggested an annual decision while others said an annual report or summary report could be the output and outcome of the work programme.

The informal consultations will continue on Friday and a draft text capturing Parties’ views is expected to be released by the co-facilitators.