NATIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS, TOUGH NEGOTIATIONS IN BONN

On the second day of consultations on National Adaptation Plans there is still no agreement on how to work: the negotiating text is full of options, and it is not even clear how to deal with them.

At COP28 it was agreed that states should submit new National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) in 2025 and then progressively implement them by 2030. These plans are to be implemented through the criteria and modalities that will be established by the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), which is currently under discussion at the Bonn negotiations.

Adaptation is one of the central topics of the Bonn interims and will also be central at COP30: we have seen it reiterated in various negotiating rooms, especially by developing countries that are most affected by the consequences of climate change.

An analysis of UNFCCC data reveals that, to date, some 41 per cent of developing countries have submitted a National Adaptation Plan, while some 44 per cent say the preparation is “in progress”. The planning process, therefore, is still rather backward.

At COP29, negotiations on National Adaptation Plans focused mainly on the financial resources needed for their drafting and implementation, only to fail at the end of the consultations, which, due to a general lack of consensus, were postponed to the June negotiations, now underway in Bonn. Among the most debated issues, and those for which the November 2024 negotiating text contains the most proposals for amendment, are the so-called Means of Implementation (MoI), particularly with regard to developing countries. These include the mobilisation of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building, but also aspects related to the approach towards the most vulnerable groups and human rights.

During the negotiations we have been following in recent days, it has unfortunately become clear that the difficulties have not yet been overcome. During the first meeting between the Parties, the co-facilitators strongly emphasised the need to proceed with the formulation and implementation of the draft decision on which no agreement had been reached in Baku, and asked the audience to confirm whether work could resume on the draft and to indicate the implementation modalities for finalising the document. However, following this request, no solution was reached even on the second day of consultations.

In general, the parties agreed on the need to be effective in order to achieve the objective in this round of negotiations, without falling back into the stalemate and consequent postponement that occurred at COP29, but they did not reach unanimity on the implementation modalities.

In particular, the G77 group supported the position of starting from the Baku draft version, projecting it onto a screen and commenting on it “line by line” so as not to lose the work done in previous sessions, also in relation to the lack of time to proceed with the activities. This approach was opposed by the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and Australia, which, while considering it useful to work on the text, opposed the proposal to proceed line by line, arguing that this approach had proved unsuccessful in previous negotiations, given the resulting document, full of brackets and alternative proposals.

Furthermore, during the first session, the European Union proposed to work primarily on the sections where there is greater alignment and to group the main issues together, focusing in particular on:

• the integrated Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) process,
• the issue of gender-sensitive and vulnerable groups,
• synergies with other relevant processes,
• the involvement of the private sector,
• the particular circumstances of developing countries and small island developing states.

Australia and Japan took a virtually identical position. Japan also argued that the inclusion of the private sector as an active and involved player, particularly in the implementation phase of NAPs, the importance of platforms for accessing expertise and the need for synergy between processes should also be considered priority issues. The United Kingdom then signalled its intention to include more references to gender issues in the new text and stated that more elements relating to finance and access to funding are needed in relation to the implementation of the plans.

While on the first day of negotiations there was at least an attempt to identify the paragraphs of the document to be retained, without defining a real working methodology, the second day was even more inconclusive, and more time than expected was lost in the so-called “huddles”, i.e. consultation groups.

The G77 group took the floor to propose the same method that had not been agreed upon the previous day, and the United Kingdom and the European Union opposed it. The Arab group then pressed the delegations to give their counterproposal, but without obtaining any more concrete answers than those seen the previous day.

In the negotiating room, the fatigue of the co-facilitators was evident. After repeatedly reminding everyone that they were in the hands of the Parties, they stressed the need to make progress. The parties involved also repeatedly stressed the importance of making progress on the issue of Adaptation Plans, which is crucial in terms of content and urgent in terms of deadlines. However, no concrete results have been achieved so far, and the delegations have not even been able to agree on how to work more effectively.

Time is running out, because the sessions are limited: we will follow the next developments, hoping not to witness a flop on such a vital issue.

Article by Giada Fenocchio, SB62 remote delegate for the Italian Climate Network.

Cover image: photo by Isabela Castilho | COP30 Brasil Amazônia