ESA at COP28, WEEK 2: Days 2 and 3
By Dennis Ojima
Dubai, UAE
CoP28 Day 2 thematic area is Nature, Land Use, and Oceans
I have fallen in with Gillian’s (Gillian Browser, Colorado State University) morning ritual of arriving at the CoP28 complex before the crowds do. Her morning is prioritized to get the coffee booth replenished and set for the expected day’s visitors to the pavilion that her Youth Environmental Alliance in Higher Education (YEAH) Network shares with other universities. After this task, she sets her focus on scanning the various schedules of negotiations, civil society events, and press conferences. She shares her findings with me and many others of the YEAH students and partners attending the CoP. Her guidance here is invaluable.
We do this prior to the 9am Research and Independent NGO (RINGO) constituency network’s morning briefing and updates. ESA and YEAH are members of RINGO, as well as many academic institutions and national research laboratories. So it is not surprising to find other ecology and global environmental change colleagues attending these morning briefings, or at other RINGO events.
These morning briefings are very helpful and well attended so getting a seat is challenging if arrive on time. So about 100 individuals gather at 9 to 10 to get useful information regarding the progress, or lack thereof, of decision and technical documents that are underway as part of the current agenda in Dubai. These updates include summary of the previous days progress, what happened during the wee hours of the morning as groups continued to deliberate over contentious wording and language associated with issues linked to the major agenda items related to Global Stock Taking (GST), Carbon (climate) financing mechanisms, and Adaptation mechanisms.
The word outside the closed negotiations rooms is that various positions were being held strongly dealing with positioning of fossil fuel phase out as part of the Global Stock Taking assessment; nationally determined contributions (NDC) derived from the Paris Agreement and is also associated with GST; financing mechanisms related to the various funds related to mitigation, adaptation, and loss-and-damages. These issues were seen as major points of contention that held any meaningful decision at the conference. However, in favor of making headway over the next 3 days was a consensus that the science is strong on the need to rapidly reduce emissions if the 1.5oC target was to be attained; that financial mechanisms to separately resource the adaptation and loss-and-damage needs could be designed for implementation; and that youth and indigenous voices were instrumental in shaping the direction of negotiations and will be important in maintaining inclusion and diversity aspects of current future developments for the UNFCCC.
Following these briefings, we scamper out in small groups to our various scheduled events and meetings. I ventured off to the see some of the pavilions related to nature and food systems. At these venues I did run into additional familiar faces, including Carlos Cerri from Brazil and Steve Brick from Wisconsin.
The day was also peppered with various events for the YEAH participants including a panel discussion led by Pam Templer on the intersection of art and climate change science related to its role in enhancing communications with the general public. The highlight was a panel presentation of a group of highly motivated graduate students from around the US organized which highlighted the current motivation and future needs of curriculum development to support climate change efforts in the coming years and decades. Issues raised included efforts to enhance transdisciplinary education and training efforts, engaging a more diverse and inclusive community of change leaders, and enhanced efforts to engage traditional knowledge providers. The panel discussion also included an overview of the Smithsonian efforts to engage early career climate change scholars and encourage further participation to expand the programs being delivered.
Day 2 ended for most of us with little further knowledge of what advances in negotiation positions were being made. For the delegates the day was just beginning, as we learned the next morning, the negotiation teams continued to meet into the early morning hours of the next day. A pattern to be repeated over the next two days.
ESA Leader, Dennis Ojima, stands in front of the official COP28 UAE logo.
CoP 28, Day 3 thematic area is Food, Agriculture, and Water
The day began similar to day 2 and included an update by the RINGO coordination committee. Again, the room was filled to capacity and the meeting provided opportunities to meet other friends and colleagues. The schedule of negotiations and open meetings from the various negotiations was sketchy and fluid due to on-going work on languages that would be passed during this CoP conference.
The RINGO leadership shared insights they gained regarding the fossil fuel phase discussion related to the Global Stock Taking agenda item. They indicated that the term “phase-out” or “phase-down” is being hotly contested by not only the fossil fuel consortium but also by some of the lesser developed nations. Groups also argued that the Paris Agreement did not specify sources associated with climate warming gas emissions that needed to be reduced to achieve a 1.5oC target. These negotiations were also being debated around the issue of national determination of contributions as to how emission reduction targets would be achieved. Also at issue was a point to allow “abated” fossil emissions to be allowed for further usage and that only “unabated” fossil sources be required to be phased out.
These delegates seemed to be digging into their positions with little give on their points of view. A knowledgeable RINGO member though brought forth a positive commentary that indicated that what he was hearing and observing was that all groups agreed the science pointed to the need for rapid emission reductions as stipulated in the Paris Agreement. That was being debated was not such huge chasm as it appeared to the people outside of the negotiation rooms and that to see the CoP Presidency working closely with delegates in the various working groups that was good development. So panel overall view was not to despair, but let the process continue and as long they working then the conference has yet to fail.
An interesting panel discussion was held to unpack a set of complexities associated with phase out of fossil fuel negotiations. The panel included remarks from two emission reduction non-governmental specialists and a representative of labor groups associated with fossil fuel’s industry. Again, the science on the issue is not being questioned and a recognition that fossil fuels were the major contributor to climate warming.
However, the disparity in the per capita emissions indicated a disparity development status of the large emitters relative to countries with low development levels. What was pointed by the panel was that many of the lesser developed countries have entered into a fossil fuel dependent development pathway that was initiated over the past several decades at huge costs to the countries budget and the debts incurred to secure development support. These projects are now only coming into meaningful gains for these countries and they are now being asked to curtail them before they are able to pay off heavy debts. Countries are hard pressed not to continue to use the fossil sources that they have finally capitalized on yet have not fully utilized the expected gains to enable their nations development needs. These countries believe too turn away from fossil fuels as being required by a phase out time line would greatly damage the nations financial well-being. Some of these nations would also have the ability to define how these emission reductions will take place (e.g., a national determined contribution issue) in their country and over what timeframe.
These issues above were also conflated with labor concerns regarding fossil industry jobs and jobs associated with development activities. The labor argument pointed to the large number of jobs at risk with a rapid phase out and mechanisms were needed to assure job transitions under a phase out scenario. Various options were recognized, but any assurance that these options for job training or job transfers were not yet included in any phase out language. So the labor sector felt that their welfare was tenuous and not being adequately addressed in the current negotiation language.
At the end of the panel, there was an announcement that the closing plenary was to be held at 6pm that evening. So many opinions were voiced as the meaning of this early closure of the CoP28. As it turned out there was a plenary, but it was only an update of progress to date and a list of unresolved issues that lingered from the day before. So the day ended with no major breakthroughs. As we learned the next morning, last scheduled day for the CoP28, the working groups worked long into the early hours of the morning again.