New GGA text lacks teeth and money

A new draft text on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) was introduced on the morning of December 10 at the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

It was without strong language on means of implementation, especially adaptation finance gap and target and no resolution of the inclusion of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC).

The language around thematic targets has also been watered down from the last iteration of the text on December 5. Experts that Down to Earth (DTE) spoke to feel that if the text, which is largely without brackets or options except for CBDR-RC, gets adopted as is then it would be a very weak outcome on the GGA. The text has now been taken up for further negotiations.

Parties, on the other hand, are still trying to find common ground on many aspects of the text. “We are currently coordinating the text. We are giving our criteria to the coordinations of the different groups. There are several critical issues, let us say, that will hardly reach an agreement. We hope that a consensus can be reached,” Byron J Moreno, negotiator for Ecuador told DTE.

Most of these critical issues are around the context and understanding the objective of the GGA framework itself. He explains that for every word in the text, there are various perspectives on the definitions and scopes.

“So, in that, I see the greatest challenges to add; to reach an agreement. But it is still very green. We need to keep reviewing it. And also continue to look for strategies to address this agenda item,” Morena added.

The text could be around anything from the definition of thematic targets around say water-related adaptation measures or the framing of language around the means of implementation, especially finance for implementing those adaptation measures.

The main contention in the text still remains around the inclusion of the principles of equity and CBDR-RC in the light of different national circumstances, which currently has three options.

The first is the statement of the principle itself. The second says “recalling the provisions and principles of the convention and the Paris Agreement”, without giving any specifics.

The third option put forth by the developed countries has no text, which means that equity and CBDR-RC as principles would not be included in the text. The biggest opponent of the inclusion currently is the United States.

“Developed countries are also worried about Para 31 of the text which they read it as if they would be expected to bear the full financing reaching the targets of the GGA. This is neither realistic nor on the basis of the convention or the Paris Agreement,” said Pratishtha Singh, senior international policy analyst, Climate Action Network, Canada.

The paragraph reads as follows:

Requests developed country Parties to provide developing country Parties, taking into account the needs of those that are particularly vulnerable, with long-term, scaled-up, predictable, new and additional finance, technology and capacity-building, consistent with relevant provisions, to implement urgent, short-, medium- and long-term adaptation actions, plans, programmes and projects at the local, national, subregional and regional level, in and across different economic and social sectors and ecosystems, towards achieving the targets referred to in paragraphs 10 and 11 above;

“There can be many interpretations of this text but the US is choosing to read it like this,” added Singh.

The language around thematic targets in paragraph 10 of the text has been weakened significantly. For instance, the earlier target around ecosystems said: ‘Ensuring that at least 30 per cent of ecosystems are maintained, enhanced or restored, including through ecosystem restoration and enhancing ecosystem services.’

In the current draft the 30 per cent figure has been removed which makes it a theme rather than target and news language around nature-based solutions has been introduced.

“No point of setting targets that cannot be accomplished. Timeframes are important like we have for the sustainable development goals,” said Singh. 

In paragraph 11, which talks about specific targets based on the adaptation cycle, is an assessment of the various measures being implemented by governments to help communities adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change such as tropical cyclones along coastlines or melting of glaciers in the mountains.

While there are targets for all parts of the adaptation cycle — Impact, vulnerability and risk assessment; Planning; Implementation; Monitoring, evaluation and learning — there is no target for means of implementation, especially finance which is needed to achieve the above targets.

Without this fifth target, all targets fall apart. And this is why developing countries, especially the African Group, have been calling for a financial target to be included. The earlier text had a figure of $400 billion per year till 2030, which has now been removed.

“The language around the means of implementation has been restricted only to the doubling of adaptation finance which was decided upon at COP 26 in Glasgow. It is just an iteration of the earlier goal and nothing new has been added to this,” Sandeep Chamling Rai, senior advisor and global lead on adaptation with the World Wildlife Fund told DTE.

This is when “Adaptation Fund only reached 56 per cent of its $300 million goal by 2023. So, significant adaptation finance pledges are yet to arrive,” pointed out Singh.

She also added that “the balance in finance for mitigation with adequate support for adaptation is critical for resilience but often under-funded”.

There is also no language in the text on the indicators or metrics to measure adaptation actions and achieving the targets but in paragraph 37, there is a provision for the establishment of another work programme to possibly decide on the metrics and indicators.

This further stalls the progress of making the GGA framework functional and in aiding countries and vulnerable communities start adapting to climatic changes around them which are rapidly increasing in a warming world.

The new GGA text could be stronger linkage between GGA and the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) which is being negotiated as a more appropriate replacement for the $100 billion goal which was part of the Paris Agreement. It needs to be established by COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.

“It is missing the key language we’d want to see on taking forward work on financing GGA under NCQG. The text proposes a “two-year work programme” on developing quantified indicators but that timeline risks being out of sync with NCQG process timeline over the next 12 months,” Iskander Erzini Vernoit, co-founder and director of the IMAL Initiative on Climate and Development, a think tank based in Morocco, told DTE.

Another aspect that has been removed from the text is a standing agenda item under the COP and CMA around the progress of GGA. This was crucial to keep the focus on the progress of the GGA, a matter of life and death for many vulnerable communities in developing countries.

With all the substance missing from the text right now, the negotiations in the remaining two days will have to speed up so that the GGA framework can be adopted at COP28, making it a success rather than a failure as pointed by the African Group on December 9.