The Bonn climate conference: Work ahead of us still significant

______________

OPINION

By Amb Adonia Ayebare

Three weeks ago, I had the honour on behalf of Uganda, to chair the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) intersessional meetings under the subsidiary bodies held in Bonn, Germany on June 3-13, 2024.

This meeting brought together technocrats to discuss the outcome of the previous conference of parties (COP) that was held in Dubai for two reasons: Refine decisions ahead of the conference due in Baku, Azerbaijhan. But most significantly serves a formal meeting of the UNFCCC two subsidiary bodies:

1. The subsidiary body for implementation (SBI) which discusses mitigation, adaptation, financial mechanisms, capacity building initiatives as well as reporting and review processes.
2. The subsidiary body for scientific and technology advice (SBSTA) which assesses the latest development in science and technology relevant to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The subsidiary bodies meet twice a year, once in June and once in November/ December alongside the conference of parties (COP) with the understanding that the recommendations from these sessions shape the negotiations and outcomes of the subsequent conferences of parties (COPs).

Therefore, going into Bonn we have had an enormous opportunity and potential to build on the strong outcome that we achieved in Dubai along the following elements: Realign discussions on climate finance in particular the new collective quantified goal (NCQG), the UAE consensus, the outcome of the global stock take, operationalisation of the loss and damage fund as well as several other decisions that were made in Dubai.

To advance these negotiations in Bonn, the G77+China expectation was that the negotiations and discussions in Bonn would lay the groundwork for a successful COP29 in November, which should be defined by several key outcomes enumerated below that are instrumental to accelerating action under the Paris Agreement and enhancing the implementation of the convention;

On finance for climate action — is a fundamental enabler of climate action whose work and outcome at Bonn is central in ensuring we have a meaningful outcome in Baku. Indeed, this formed the basis in setting the group’s ambitious new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) that is based on and commensurate with the evolving needs and priorities of developing countries, including for advancing implementation of the UAE consensus.

In addition, there are other various elements the group further pushed for within the finance framing: The quantum and the need to base the quantum on the needs and priorities of developing country and support country-driven strategies, with a focus on nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs).

I will further argue that there is strong validity in this point. As an example, Uganda alone requires approximately $40b to implement the NDCs — given the diversity of the group composed of 134 countries, this means that the quantum is justified in trillions of dollars.

Other elements of critical importance to the group was to clarify on burden sharing among developed countries to establish their fair share of their collective obligation to provide finance which allows predictability, transparency and accountability and also address the disenablers of climate finance such as the high cost of capital and the high transaction costs associated with access.

In contrast, the implications of the groups key tasks as we head into Baku mean that the new collective quantified goal must be bound around a reasonable quantum and delivered by developed countries to developing countries and in a grants based manner, based on the principles of equity and common, but differentiated responsibilities in a way to support G77 countries implement their climate plans.

In relation to the operationalisation of the UAE dialogue on implementing the global stocktake outcomes and the first Annual Global Stocktake dialogue — my expectation was that the Bonn conclusions and the informal notes by the co-chairs provide us with very robust and clear pathways to allow us have a more meaningful discussion in Baku.

In this regard, we stressed that for this G77 group, nationally determined implementation of the GST outcomes through countries’ NDCs, NAPs and other action is crucial.

It will be remiss, if I don’t point to the adaptation outcome because resilience is key to the group. As a group, we recognise the need to implement the UAE resilience framework and the onboarding of the UAE-Belem work programme on indicators which we see as a way of improving individual livelihood and well being of our people.

Of course, coming out of Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt and the decision in Dubai was the operationalisation of the loss and damage fund and progress made on the Santiago network.

As a group, the full operationalisation of that fund is an important area of work. We see a significant positive first step as the seed capitalisation of the fund and the urge and need to accelerate that operationalisation and capitalisation of that fund to support developing countries.

Therefore, despite the procedural agreements on a number of elements — the NCQG remains a contentious issue.

There was also little progress in substantial areas like markets and mitigation and when divisions on substantive issues persist, particularly on finance and mitigation strategies it calls for more robustness in the multilateral process.

The expectations are huge to some extent unrealistic yet the work ahead of us is still significant. The challenge is to ensure we steer clear the delicate balances and compromises needed and manage the huge expectations, if we are to save tomorrow’s climate today.

The writer is the Uganda’s Permanent Representative to the UN/chair G77+China