English Article

Outcomes of the COP-28 climate summit

The 28th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) — an annual convening of countries signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) — happened in Dubai this year, with high expectations that countries would take concrete steps to address the climate crisis. The negotiations encompassed mitigation efforts, adaptation strategies, financing mechanisms, and the role of developed countries versus developing nations in climate action. The summit ended with progress on certain fronts but lingering challenges on others.

What happened with respect to the loss and damage fund?

Following the agreement reached at COP-27 to create a ‘Loss and Damage’ (L&D) fund, the last year was dedicated to negotiations on fund-management and financing. In a historic decision, the fund was operationalised at COP-28.

However, only a meagre $790 million has been pledged so far, by a few nations, despite the corpus requiring $100 billion to more than $400 billion a year. Notably, the U.S., the largest historical emitter, committed only $17.5 million. Moreover, the World Bank was designated to oversee and administer the fund. But concerns originating from the experiences of developing countries with the World Bank related to questions about legal autonomy, flexibility, and decision-making authority, and general scepticism about the fund’s agility in responding promptly to emergencies, have emerged. There is also a prevailing sentiment among countries that the communities affected by climate-related disasters should be able to directly access funding, preferably in the form of grants and not loans.

What about the global stocktake?

This year’s COP summit saw the first global stocktake (GST). According to the UNFCCC, the GST “enables countries and other stakeholders to see where they are collectively making progress towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement — and where they are not”.

The decision of countries’ at COP-28 to transition away from fossil fuels was coupled with the ambition to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030. More than 20 countries also pledged to triple their nuclear energy capacity. However, the transition from fossil fuels is restricted to energy systems alone; they can continue to be used in the plastics, transport, and agriculture sectors. The declaration also refers to ‘transitional fuels’, such as natural gas, for ensuring energy security. But this falls short of true climate justice as it allows industries to continue operating in the business-as-usual mode.

Further, while the declaration called for accelerated climate mitigation, it alluded to unproven and risky technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon removal. The former enables users of fossil fuels to prevent their emissions from entering the atmosphere by capturing the emissions at the source and storing them permanently underground.

What about green finance?

The financial segment of the GST implementation framework explicitly recognises the responsibility of developed nations to take the lead in climate finance. There is also a reference to the private sector’s role in addressing financial shortfalls and an imperative to supplement grant-oriented, concessional finance to enable equitable transition in developing countries. Nevertheless, specific information regarding the entities obligated to furnish this grant-based finance is lacking.