Additions and deletions make new GGA text a ‘scary’ one

A new and slightly scarier draft text on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) was introduced by the COP28 Presidency just before the first part of the closing plenary on the evening of December 11, 2023. The 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is supposed to close on December 12.

Most of the text remains the same. However, there are two new paragraphs — one on a commitment to close the adaptation gap (Para 38) and the other on Article 2.1 c (Para 24) — that have been added and one crucial paragraph on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) has been removed.

All these three put together make the text even more regressive than before for developing country groups, making the adoption of the framework for GGA at COP28 even more challenging. The reference to adaptation gap (38) and Article 2.1 c (Para 24) could be trade offs. If one of them stays, the other stays too.

This is a developed country tactic that has been used before. It was also used during the negotiations on the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 last year.

First and foremost, the actual statement of CBDR-RC has been replaced by a general reference to the principles of the Convention and the Paris Agreement. This is a big loss for developing country groups as the principle puts the developed countries in the lead to take climate action and share most of the burden.

Article 2.1 c of the Paris Agreement reads as follows:

underscores the importance of making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development in pursuing the achievement of the global goal on adaptation through the framework for the global goal on adaptation and encourages further action to scale up finance flows for adaptation efforts in this context;

The paragraph simply means that global finance flows have to align in such a way that the Paris Agreement temperature target of 1.5 degrees Celsius is achieved via various mitigation measures.

“But Article 2.1 c also opens a window for the private sector to chip in and also an opportunity to broaden the contributor base,” Pratishtha Singh, senior international policy analyst, Climate Action Network, Canada, told Down To Earth.

The paragraph on the commitment to close the adaptation finance gap sounds decently good on paper but it does not have any reference to the scale of the gap or a pathway on how the commitment would be fulfilled.

There are disjointed paragraphs in the text on means of implementation (MOI), including language around the doubling of adaptation finance but they don’t add up to anything. “But there is no extra money and no specific target on MOI, which was the case in the earlier text as well,” said Singh.

There are other concerning issues such as links between the GGA and Global Stocktake (GST) and those between GGA and New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). “We need the GST to recognise the adaptation finance gap — doubling adaptation finance will not cut it and Para 38 waters down the relationship between adaptation and the NCQG,” said Singh.

“Overall, targets are still very weak, not clear and very aspirational. They don’t sound like targets for implementation. There is no coherence between thematic targets and dimensional targets and timeframes in dimensional targets need to be accommodate to 2030,” Singh noted.

The rest of the issues from the previous text around the delay in progress because of the two-year work programme on the development of metrics and indicators to measure the progress on the various dimensional targets such as risk assessments and planning remain the same. “There is also no clarity on who is going to develop the indicators and by when,” said Singh.