Please, download the Document here....
The first week of the Sharm El-Sheikh Climate Change Conference concluded with the closing plenaries of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI). Substantive conclusions were adopted on a limited number of issues, mostly related to the consideration of reports by constituted bodies and to reporting. On many issues, only procedural conclusions were adopted which noted that further work is required to finalize the relevant decisions.
COP
Long-term finance: In informal consultations, co-facilitated by Carlos Fuller (Belize), parties welcomed the co-facilitators’ draft text, circulated the previous night along with a compilation of submissions and inputs received. They requested further streamlining of the text, including by using decision text from previous years.
Developing countries highlighted as important areas, inter alia, concern over gaps in fulfillment of pledges and between needs and delivery, and a common definition of climate finance. They also called for using agreed language and terminology, opposing, among others, references to “parties” and “donors,” noting the provision of finance is not a donation but a commitment. Many developing countries also opposed references to the Progress Report on the Climate Finance Delivery Plan, saying it comes from outside the UNFCCC process.
Developed and developing countries diverged on whether to mandate the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) to prepare an annual report on the delivery of the USD 100 billion goal, with developed countries noting the reporting cycle under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework is biennial. In response to some developing countries opposing references to Paris Agreement Article 2.1(c) (on consistency of finance flows), two groups stated that an agreement had been reached in ministerial discussions in Glasgow to have an agenda item on this article, while recognizing that this item is not the right place for discussing this.
Discussions will continue in the second week, based on a co-facilitators’ revised draft text.
CMA
New collective quantified goal on climate finance: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Zaheer Fakir (South Africa) and Georg Børsting (Norway) shared that a compilation of parties’ submissions and in-session inputs for draft decision text had been made available, and invited comments on the co-facilitators’ proposed structure for the draft decision, including: past decisions; stocktake of progress; procedural elements, such as working modalities, participation, and submissions; and substantive elements, such as themes and topics to be addressed, and guidance for the high-level ministerial dialogue.
Parties expressed support for the proposed structure and mandated the co-facilitators to prepare a first draft decision text.
Developing countries underscored, inter alia: calling on developed countries to accelerate delivery of their finance goals; the level of the new goal; principles of the Convention; public and grant-based finance; balance between adaptation and mitigation finance; and transparency and accounting arrangements for tracking delivery.
Countries diverged on whether to agree on the modalities for the work programme under this item for 2023 only or also 2024. One identified a decision on the themes of the technical expert dialogues (TEDs) as an area requiring time in the second week.
Most parties agreed on the need to make the ministerial dialogues more interactive and focused on delivering political guidance for the technical process under the work programme. Others called for also revising the format of the TEDs to be more outcome-oriented.
Discussions will continue in the second week, based on the co-facilitators’ draft text.
COP/CMA
Matters relating to the Standing Committee on Finance: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Janine Felson (Belize) and Dominic Molloy (UK) invited parties to reflect on a text based on a compilation of submissions and inputs, shared earlier in the day. Parties reflected on paragraphs relating to: the Fifth Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows; Paris Agreement Article 2.1(c); and climate finance definitions. Parties called for the co-facilitators to further streamline the text, including by removing duplication.
On the Biennial Assessment, parties shared views on elements and data, including quantitative information, to be highlighted in the decision. Some groups called for also referencing non-Paris Agreement aligned flows. Some called for referencing the recommendations from the SCF report (FCCC/CP/2022/8/Add.1−FCCC/PA/CMA/2022/7/Add.1).
Noting challenges relating to the SCF’s draft guidance for the Financial Mechanism’s operating entities, one developed country suggested removing this element from the Committee’s terms of reference. A developing country group opposed, calling for requesting the SCF instead to improve engagement with parties.
On Article 2.1(c), many called for a space for a dedicated discussion. Two developing country groups opposed references to the SCF’s mapping and synthesis of views, arguing they are not representative of all parties’ views and stressing the Article must be interpreted in the broader context of the Paris Agreement. One developing country group reiterated that it wishes to elevate the discussion on finance definitions to the political level.
Discussions will continue in the second week on the basis of a revised co-facilitators’ draft text.
Matters Relating to Funding Arrangements Responding to Loss and Damage Associated with the Adverse Effects of Climate Change, Including a Focus on Addressing Loss and Damage: In informal consultations, co-facilitated by Ursula Fuentes (Germany), several developing country groups reiterated their call to establish a finance facility for loss and damage at COP 27/CMA 4 and set out a clear roadmap to ensure its full operationalization by 2024. Several also suggested establishing an ad hoc committee to guide the operationalization process, noting the need to give it a clear mandate and timeline, decide on its composition and modalities of work, and ensure sufficient budgetary provisions.
Several developed countries reiterated their acknowledgment of funding gaps, the diversity of challenges related to loss and damage, and the urgency to address the matter. They emphasized: building on existing initiatives; welcoming announcements of support; examining issues at the regional level; and prioritizing support for those most vulnerable.
Many envisioned the Glasgow Dialogue to provide the space to discuss specific issues, including slow-onset events, rapid response, the role of multilateral development banks (MDBs), and debt relief. One developing country group recalled similar work done over the past decade, pointing among others to extensive work done by the SCF.
Fuentes invited parties to share written versions of statements made during the session, noting these will be published on the UNFCCC website. Building on the views expressed by parties, the co-facilitators will prepare an overview of elements to be included in the decisions to be taken at COP 27/CMA 4.
Find out more....
For more Information, please, download the Document here below:
