COP28 Final Outcome: Success or Failure?

The final text for the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA) has been released at COP28 and reactions are mixed. While the COP presidency celebrated what it considered to be historic and unprecedented achievements, much was left to be desired. It is true that, for the first time ever, there has been text included that calls for action regarding fossil fuels, but instead of the strongly advocated call for full phase out, the wording "calls on Parties to contribute to [...] Transitioning away from fossil fuels."

There are also calls for tripling renewable energy capacities and "accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems," both of which could be considered as wins, but this is tempered with much milder calls for "accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power" and "phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies," thereby leaving a substantial window open for interpretation.

The Loss and Damage Fund is addressed, along with mechanisms for implementation, but again with mild wording that does not necessarily inspire action. The CMA "urges developed country Parties to continue to provide support and encourages other Parties to provide, or continue to provide support, on a voluntary basis, for activities to address loss and damage," leaving many to wonder what type of action urging and encouraging would bring about. That the CMA "expresses deep concern regarding the significant economic and non-economic loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change for developing countries, resulting, inter alia, in reduced fiscal space and constraints in realizing the Sustainable Development Goals" does little for actual assistance to the least developed but most climate vulnerable countries, but the CMA does use the strongest wording of the text and "calls on Parties and relevant institutions to improve coherence and synergies between efforts pertaining to disaster risk reduction, humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation, recovery and reconstruction, and displacement, planned relocation and migration, in the context of climate change impacts". It also makes multiple references to action and support under the Warsaw International Mechanism and funding arrangements for responding to loss and damage.

With respect to the first ever global stocktake, much of it was taken into consideration and referred to in the CMA, urging Parties to fully consider the outcomes and implement the suggested actions, along with committing to and reporting on how their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) have been informed by the global stocktake. The CMA also requests that an annual global stocktake be organized by the Subsidiary Bodies beginning with SB 60 in Bonn in June 2024. This appears to add a level of accountability to the NDCs, not only in relation to the act of contributing but also the manner in which the contributions are distributed.

The Lima Work Programme on Gender (LWPG) and its Gender Action Plan are referenced, urging climate action that is gender-responsive. National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and the Loss and Damage Fund are also encouraged to reflect this gender-responsiveness and the particular vulnerabilities to climate that are experienced by marginalized genders. Once again, while gender has not been ignored, much of the language revolves around urging and encouraging Parties to action. Moreover, there is only a single reference to the LWPG, even though the aim since 2019 has been to enhance the Gender Action Plan over a period of five years and a synthesis report is expected to be presented at COP29. The lack of emphasis implies a deprioritization of gender-responsive action.

In the end, the CMA is a document that required unanimous consensus by almost 200 Parties over every word through days of deliberation. Some believe that this was as far as consensus would allow, while others argue that the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists and other agents against climate action was counter-productive to the work that was required. Though the desired outcome to phase out fossil fuels was not achieved, many view this as a first step towards that end. Whether or not the language is considered too soft, whether the conference itself had been vulnerable to sabotage, achieving consensus was no small feat. However, what remains to be seen is true, meaningful action. Will soft text lead to soft action (or any action at all), or will Parties heed the call and begin to make true changes towards the goal of net zero and 1.5°C?