COP29 | Will Parties overcome the Global Stocktake stalemate?

As we inch closer to the end of COP29, a pressing question overshadows a critical component of the negotiations: Will Parties overcome their divergent views on the UAE Dialogue, a crucial mechanism born out of the first Global Stocktake cycle? The stalemate threatens to undermine the very essence of the Paris Agreement, particularly for the most vulnerable members, such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS). 

In the Caribbean, we have been constantly battered by successive super storms, like Hurricane Beryl, the latest attacker to dole devastating blows throughout the region, while the world looks on, seemingly indifferent to the special circumstances of SIDS worldwide.

The stalled progress on the UAE Dialogue has earned it the unfortunate descriptor of a mechanism in limbo. Some Parties have more skills and support for flexing the necessary muscles to continue holding out their positions. Others are struggling with negotiator’s fatigue having achieved no progress on the matter at the Subsidiary Body intersessional meetings (SBs) in Bonn months earlier. 

The SBs assist the UNFCCC governing bodies – the COP for the Convention, the CMP for the Kyoto Protocol and the CMA for the Paris Agreement – with organisational support and technical advice, areas crucially relevant for defining the modalities of the UAE dialogue and refining those of the Global Stocktake in general. 

There are two SBs. The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) focuses on doing, that is implementing agreements and tracking Parties’ progress. It is solely responsible for guiding the discussion around the UAE dialogue at this COP.  

The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) focuses on knowing, which is how it can offer critical advice to Parties in their various negotiations of text at annual meetings of the governing bodies. Both SBs are involved in the guidance for Parties concerning refining the general Global Stocktake process by addressing procedural and logistical elements.

The SBs host meetings with Parties twice a year –  at each COP and between the COPs, known as intersessionals. It was at this year’s intersessionals in June that Parties were forced to accept that the UAE dialogue and other matters related to the Global Stocktake would be further discussed at COP29 in Baku due to their inability to produce any draft texts. However, at this point, Parties seem to have found themselves in a worse situation than before.

I have been following the negotiations for the Global Stocktake closely on behalf of the Bahamas delegation and in my understanding, at the heart of the impasse lies the UAE Dialogue’s scope, with Parties unable to agree on its mandate. Yes, that’s me ⬇⬇⬇

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Climate Tracker Caribbean (@climatetrackercaribbean)

Before we even got into the details of the divergence of ideas around scope the discussion started to drift off course.  There was a moment early on where Parties began to diverge on the meaning of scope and whether or not it is a modality which is what the informal consultation with the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) was meant to focus on. The co-facilitators reminded Parties that scope is a modality and therefore must be discussed. 

Moving beyond that and listening to the various interventions being made by Parties on behalf of their group alignments, the conflicting ideas are fated to continue butting heads. The divide is stark.

A finance-focused approach that aligns with the placement of the text in the agenda as a subitem under the item Matters relating to finance is being supported by some members of the G77 + China group, particularly the Like-minded Developing Countries (LMDC). This placement alone was an area of contention that went unresolved well into the evening on the opening day of the conference which hindered the adoption of the agenda costing technical delegations an entire day of critical negotiations.

The eventual resolution was a compromise which hinges precariously on a fatigue-induced footnote that seeks to clarify that the contested placement “does not prejudge the scope, outcomes, future placement, and any other matters related to this dialogue.” Although the agreement to adopt the agenda under these conditions finally got the informal consultations with the subsidiary bodies under way,  little progress has been made since then. 

The issue that developing countries who disagree with the finance-focused approach have is that such an approach limits the UAE Dialogue to tracking progress on the new collective quantified goal for climate finance, risking oversight of critical mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage efforts important for groups like AOSIS, the Alliance of Small Island States. 

Not to mention a weak goal, or no goal would then mean a weak dialogue or no dialogue which is unacceptable for the most vulnerable Parties in the room.

This divergence strangely places the most vulnerable groups under G77 + China at odds with others in their negotiating group yet can be seen as aligning them with developing countries who support a broad implementation approach. However, the position of the developed countries is just as problematic for SIDS and other groups because it could potentially dilute the financial responsibilities developed countries should have in the second GST cycle.

Considering this, a hybrid approach that aims to balance finance with clear directives on means of implementation for the three thematic areas of adaptation, mitigation, loss and damage was proposed by those developing countries that felt misrepresented in either position and has been echoed by groups like AOSIS, AILAC,  and LDCs to inspire compromise that leads to consensus on the issue. However, the Parties that need to be ‘wined and dined’ to achieve this crucial compromise are notorious for sticking to a strict negotiator’s diet – especially when “matters relating to finance” are on the table.

This conundrum brings us back to the original question: can Parties break the Global Stocktake stalemate?

The short answer, according to the AOSIS representative Ann Rasmussen from Samoa: they better! At the closing session of week 1 Rasmussen criticized the limited progress made on the dialogue: 

“For [Small Island Developing States], we cannot consider this COP a success if there is no opportunity to advance on what we have agreed last year in the [global stocktake]. Efforts [on] this have been blocked across agenda items. We are being invited to engage in collective amnesia when what we need at this time is to strengthen individual and collective action,”

The bottom line is that small islanders can’t afford to waste any more time, energy, or money engaging in fruitless negotiations that always seem to boil down to unfulfilled promises. Our islands are being swallowed up by the seas that once sustained us. This crisis does not only induce physical & economic damage within our countries. It is also emotionally and psychologically detrimental to our people and to our cultures.  

Parties from climate-vulnerable countries are forced to hold out until our positions are met with serious consideration and significant compromise from other Parties on both sides of the divide. Climate change has compromised us enough. We should be the ones guiding the negotiations rather than being strong-armed or stalled into submission on text that doesn’t reflect the vulnerabilities we struggle with daily.

Despite the divergence in the negotiation rooms there remains hope thanks to the many youth negotiators present at COP29 this year who are engaging not only with their party delegations but with other young negotiators from other delegations as well. 

This is especially true of the young negotiators from the European Union who welcomed other young negotiators from all regions, negotiating groups and tracks to an event that allowed for collaborative discussions within specific track huddles and as a wider group. 

Here are some of their thoughts on the modalities of the UAE dialogue coming out of that event where they benefited from those diverse perspectives in the room. 

“We believe that:

• We need a space to follow up on the implementation of the GST outcomes that are not covered by other agenda items or work programmes, especially the energy-related paragraphs.
• It should provide a space to enhance collaboration and opportunities in implementing the GST outcomes.
• By providing a platform for exchange on best practices, and barriers and including means of implementation, the GST [Dialogue] can allow for bottom-up approaches to complement the top-down approach in implementing the GST”

The efforts of youth negotiators in this COP as they attempt to best contribute to progress on the texts that best fulfil the needs of all Parties involved in these discussions are truly inspiring and a testament to the value of having the youth voice present in these spaces.

In this second week of COP29, various draft texts will be moved up to the ministerial level in hopes of a final decision. By the close of week 1, no text had been drafted for “SBI 61 agenda item 5b Modalities of the United Arab Emirates dialogue on implementing the global stocktake outcomes, referred to in paragraph 97 of decision 1/CMA.5”. This probably means Parties won’t see this stalemate resolved at least for another seven months until they convene again in June at the Bonn intersessional climate meetings. 

—

This story was produced through Climate Tracker’s Caribbean COP29 Climate Justice Journalism Fellowship.