While ministers gave high-level speeches that relayed their national priorities, negotiators worked to clear as much of the backlog of pending issues as possible. By the end of the day, numerous issues remained unresolved. Ministers will take up a shortlist of issues to bridge the remaining differences.

 

Please download the following PDF Documents:

enb12815e.pdf (452.9 KiB)

enb12815f_0.pdf (461.5 KiB)

 

Presidency’s Consultations

Cover Decisions: Heads of delegation met in a session open to observers, co-facilitated by Wael Aboulmagd and Mohamed Nasr (Egypt), who invited parties’ comments on a non-paper on the cover decisions’ elements.

 

Many called for a focus on implementation, expressing differing views on how to, as one phrased it, “infuse” implementation into the decision. For three developing country groups, equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) were central, with one urging recognizing implementation gaps throughout. Several pointed to implementing all aspects of the Glasgow Climate Pact, including phasing down coal, reducing methane emissions, supporting just transitions, and providing adaptation finance. Several shared a preference for text on accountability on all aspects of the Glasgow Climate Pact in a balanced manner, while two groups preferred improving transparency and called for deleting the term accountability.

 

On 1.5°C, many supported its inclusion, with one group characterizing it as a “red line.” Two groups preferred referring to the Paris Agreement temperature goal instead.

 

Additional ideas included: establishing a two-year work programme on the Technology Mechanism; ending the expansion of new fossil fuel production; phasing out, or phasing down, oil and gas extraction; establishing a loss and damage response fund; inviting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to prepare a special report on adaptation; requesting the Standing Committee on Finance to prepare a report on indebtedness due to climate change; and expressing disappointment at developed countries’ failure to reach the USD 100 billion climate finance goal.

 

Among the topics suggested for removal were: multilateral development banks (MDBs); the private sector; nature-based solutions; organizations and initiatives outside the UNFCCC; and any new mandates that may renegotiate or reinterpret the Paris Agreement.

 

Many called for a more substantive written text. Consultations will continue.

 

Stocktaking Plenary: In the evening, COP 27 President Sameh Shoukry convened a short stocktaking plenary. He informed delegates that while progress has been made, more work was needed to drive ambitious climate action. He noted that some issues required further technical work, which he hoped would be concluded by Wednesday, 16 November. However, other issues would require higher-level political engagement. He proposed ministerial consultations, as follows:

• Mitigation work programme, chaired by ministers Barbara Creesy (South Africa) and Dan Jørgensen (Denmark);
• Global Goal on Adaptation, chaired by Aminath Shauna (Maldives) and Teresa Ribera (Spain);
• Finance, particularly the new collective quantified goal (NCQG), chaired by Bhupender Yadav (India) and Chris Bowen (Australia);
• Article 6 and related issues, chaired by Grace Fu (Singapore) and Espen Barth Eide (Norway); and
• Finance for loss and damage, chaired by María Heloísa Rojas Corradi (Chile) and Jennifer Morgan (Germany).

President Shoukry indicated he would meet with all facilitators and continue to assess how to move forward.

 

COP

Matters Related to Finance: Long-term finance: Carlos Fuller (Belize) and Gertraud Wollansky (Austria) co-facilitated informal consultations, inviting general comments on a revised draft decision text. A developing country group said some paragraphs misinterpreted agreements already reached and that the document should also reflect the need for increasing ambition. He called for removing references to initiatives outside the UNFCCC process. Another developing country group said the text should better balance adaptation and mitigation, while another group sought more direct language on MDBs increasing the share of funding provided as grants.

 

A developed country described the draft as unbalanced, given inadequate reference to developed countries’ efforts and progress to date. Another developed country called for streamlining duplicative text on the USD 100 billion commitment, while other developed countries urged streamlining and shortening the text generally.

 

Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA): In informal consultations, Co-Facilitator Monika Figaj (Poland) described changes in the new published text, reflecting submissions received after informal informals the previous evening. These included: revising the title to highlight the importance of implementation and action; splitting the request for parties’ submissions into two on the work programme, and on operationalization of the online platform; and requesting the Subsidiary Bodies to report to COP 30. Figaj noted that bracketed options remained around establishing either a three-year or open-ended joint work programme to implement the KJWA outcomes.

Several groups and parties thanked the Co-Facilitators for the revised text, describing it as a good basis for discussions. An observer reminded parties of the need to ensure food security, ecosystem integrity, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable land use. Informal informals convened in the afternoon.

 

Second Periodic Review of the Long-term Global Goal under the Convention (LTGG): In informal consultations, Co-Facilitator Andrew Ferrone (Luxembourg) sought parties’ “maximum flexibility” to find convergence.

 

Discussions focused on a paragraph on equity, containing two heavily bracketed options on how to reflect the importance of equity in achieving the LTGG, one of which reflected Convention language. Views remained strongly divergent, including on a new third option supported by some developed countries, which noted “parties have different starting positions, face different circumstances, and have different opportunities to contribute to achieving the LTGG.” Several developing countries opposed the third option, cautioning against redefining agreed Convention language relating to equity and CBDR. The Co-Facilitators will produce a new iteration of text.

 

Find out more...

 

Please download the following PDF Documents: