Negotiations on the – obviously ‘indicative’ – the structure of the final COP28 decision on Global Stocktake concluded yesterday, 14 June, a draft that countries will still be able to work on but which in fact lays the groundwork for discussions, and thus decisions, in Dubai at the end of the year.

Countries and other stakeholders will be able to send their contributions and comments on both the content of the decision and the structure before 15 September. These contributions will then be discussed at a subsequent workshop to be held in October – for more details on the Global Stocktake process we leave the link to the article on the same topic published in the previous COP Bulletin from Bonn.

This is the approved draft, viewed by ICN 

“This informal note was prepared by the Co-Chairs of the negotiations on this agenda item [Global Inventory Issues – Global Stocktake – under the Paris Agreement] under their own responsibility, based on the deliberations of the Parties [States] at this session. The indicative draft structure for a CMA5 decision [the Paris Agreement negotiation to be held at COP28] is a work in progress. It is offered to facilitate discussion and does not prejudge future work, the final decision, or future GST or prevent Parties from expressing their views in the future. The Parties have expressed divergent views on C.3. These alternative options are presented in brackets below.

Indicative draft structure for decision CMA5 of the GST1 

A. Preamble 

B. Context and cross-cutting considerations 

C. Collective progress towards achieving the long-term goals and objectives of the Paris Agreement, including in relation to Article 2.1 (a-c), in the light of equity and best available science, and informing Parties to update and enhance, in a nationally determined manner, action and support 

C.1 Mitigation  

C.2 Adaptation  

[Alt. 1

C.3 Financial flows and means of implementation and support 

Alt. 2 [proposed by the African Group].

C.3 Means of Implementation and Support, including Financial Flows

Alt. 3 [proposed by Saudi Arabia]

C.3 Means of Implementation and Support

Alt. 4 [proposed by USA]

C.3 Making financial flows consistent with a pathway to low greenhouse gas emissions and resilient development [text of Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement]

C.3bis Means of Implementation and Support]

C.4 Efforts related to lose and damage 

C.5 Efforts related to response measures 

D. Strengthening international cooperation for climate action 

E. Guidance and perspectives for the future.

The text was approved after a long negotiation, even at times of an informal nature (see in this sense the opening image of this article, stolen during an informal moment), which led to the draft being qualified as ‘indicative’ and which focused in particular on point C3, for which three different textual alternatives are still on the table, proposed, not by chance, by historically very different actors in the negotiations: the USA, Saudi Arabia and the African Group. Convergence was found in the inclusion of the four options mentioned above, thanks in particular to Switzerland’s mediation between countries of the global North and South. Indeed, the Western countries insisted on keeping ‘financial flows’ explicit and separate from ‘means of implementation and support’, in order to make explicit the need to report also with respect to private finance and not only with respect to public finance. 

A divergence of views well framed in the stalemate that dominated the negotiations until 14 June, in the political clash between developed and developing countries with respect to the so far unsatisfactory funds directed by the former towards the latter for climate action. 

Article by Elisa Terenghi, ICN Volunteer

You are donating to : Italian Climate Network

How much would you like to donate?
€10 €20 €30
Would you like to make regular donations? I would like to make donation(s)
How many times would you like this to recur? (including this payment) *
Name *
Last Name *
Email *
Additional Note