Biggest sticking points for Kenya at climate change conference

A girl walks in search of water in Tiaty sub-county, Baringo. Drought is one of the impacts of climate change, and world leaders are meeting in the UK to discuss how to address the global challenge.

As the COP26 -a high-level climate change conference - enters its day two today at Glasgow, UK and many are wondering, what’s in for Kenya at this high power talks. According to United Nations Environment Programme, the COP26 is the 2021 United Nations climate change conference. For nearly three decades, the UN has been bringing together almost every country on earth for global climate summits – called COPs – which stands for ‘Conference of the Parties’.

So what top issues should Kenya look out for at the summit?

United Nations Environment Programme Regional Climate Change Coordinator for Africa Dr Richard Munang notes that there are a number of pertinent issues that will be discussed and the message is in the details.

Dr Richard notes that given that the high stakes and the challenges are insurmountable, the Glasgow talks are unlikely to be easy and its outcomes will be keenly watched and debated. Munang shares with The Standard the top issues that will be addressed and are of great interest to the Kenyans.

But what is adaptation?

Here the key issues are approaches to reviewing the overall progress made in achieving the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), draft supplementary guidance for voluntary use by Parties in communicating adaptation information, methodologies for assessing adaptation needs of developing countries, modalities for recognising the adaptation efforts of developing countries, methodologies for reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness for adaptation and support.

Developing countries are expected to push for a definition of the GGA, including a quantitative and qualitative goal, and for a process to operationalise the goal. Developed countries have maintained in the past that there is no need to define the GGA since it is clear in the Paris Agreement, and are likely to resist any further recommendations in this regard.

Loss and damage

A key issue on loss and damage relates to the operationalisation of the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage (SNLD), which was established by COP25.

Developing countries will push for the SNLD’s meaningful operationalisation. The Network will provide technical assistance and finance and technology support to developing countries in addressing, averting, and minimising the loss and damage to their territories, societies and economies.

Developing countries want to have an in-depth discussion on the institutional arrangements, the functions of the coordination mechanism and how support can be provided to them.

Developed countries on the other hand prefer a quick institutionalisation featuring websites and such like, and do not entertain the idea of financial and technical support to developing countries for loss and damage.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement deals with cooperative approaches among Parties, which includes the use of market and non-market approaches. This is an unfinished item in finalising the rules for implementation, which have been going on since 2016, and have been difficult, complex and contentious.

Discussions in Glasgow will focus on three cooperative approaches in the implementation of Parties Nationally determined contributions (NDCs). These include Article 6 (2), which allows Parties to engage “on a voluntary basis in cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs)” towards their NDCs.

Article 6(4) which is a mechanism to “contribute to the mitigation of Green House Gases and support sustainable development,” and Article 6(8) which deals with non-market approaches, recognising the “… importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches being available to Parties to assist in the implementation of their NDCs… including through, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, as appropriate…”.

Since COP25, various informal consultations, including ministerial consultations were convened over 2020 and 2021 to get more clarity on how to arrive at consensus in Glasgow. Still, several sticky issues remain.

Under Article 6(2), the biggest sticking point is in relation to whether there can be a share of proceeds from the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes that goes towards resourcing the Adaptation Fund (AF).

Paris Agreement is silent on key issues

The Paris Agreement is silent on the matter, while there is an express provision for the Article 6(4) mechanism to contribute a share of proceeds to the Adaptation Fund. Developing countries have been calling for a share of proceeds to come from both the internationally transferred mitigation outcomes and the Article 6(4) mechanism, while developed countries are against this. The matter has been elevated to the ministerial level and while bridging proposals exist in relation to resolving the issue, developing countries are likely to push for mandatory share of proceeds for the AF under Article 6(2), comparable to the share of proceeds under 6(4) mechanism.

Another contentious issue under Article 6(2) whether is the mitigation outcomes to be transferred can be measured in metrics other than the metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2eq), which are consistent with the NDCs of the participating Parties. At COP 25, developed countries (but not including Japan) and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), were opposed to having any other metrics other than tCO2eq, while some developing countries such as the LMDC, the Arab Group, India, and South Korea were in support for the use of other metrics as well.

At COP 26, developing countries are expected to call for balanced treatment between GHG and non-GHG metrics so that the non-GHG metrics are not disadvantaged while the GHG metric ITMOs will be able to be exchanged immediately upon their operationalisation.

Some developing countries want a robust reporting and review mechanism for Article 6(2) in order for the bilateral agreements to not become more advantageous than the Article 6(4) mechanism. They are likely to call for environmental integrity in relation to the exchange of ITMOs under Article 6(2).

In relation to the Article 6(4) mechanism, the biggest sticking points are around transition of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects and the transition of the certified emission reduction units (CERs) under the Kyoto Protocol to Article 6(4) mechanism.

While bridging proposals exist to find possible compromises, there are likely to be differences as to whether there will be a selective approach in deciding what kind of projects will be allowed to transition from the CDM to Article 6. Some developing countries are likely to call for all projects with active credits to transition to the new mechanism, with objections to be expected over concerns over the effect of the CERs on mitigation ambition and environmental integrity. There are bridging proposals that suggest a cap on the transition of the CERs via a cut-off date and on the quantity that can be allowed.

There are also issues around baselines and additionality, which is about the basis on which emission reductions are calculated. This involves the question of how to determine whether an activity is additional to what would otherwise have occurred, and if so, against what level the emission-reducing action would be compared to, such that the resulting credits can be calculated.

For Article 6(8) on non-market approaches, the contentious issue is around how to implement the non-market approaches. Developed countries want to restrict non-market approaches to a knowledge-sharing platform, whereas developing countries’ preference is to expand the non-market approaches to operationalise the implementation of several elements such as finance, technology transfer and capacity building. Some developing countries have been calling for a balanced treatment of all the approaches under Article 6 and for them to be operational and usable for countries.

Enhanced transparency framework of action and support

Under Article 13(1) of the Paris Agreement, Parties agreed to the establishment of an enhanced transparency framework (ETF) for action and support, with built-in flexibility for developing countries to be taken into account due to their different capacities on reporting obligations.

A key issue in developing these common reporting tables and formats would be on how the flexibility provided to developing countries that need it could be reflected in the different outlines and made operational effectively. Progress was not made in COP 25 in Madrid and there were disagreements over the proposed SBSTA conclusions. Divergences are expected to continue in relation to how flexibility is provided to developing countries.

Global Stocktake

Also of interest is the global stocktake (GST) of the Paris Agreement. The global stocktake of the Paris Agreement (GST) is a process for taking stock of the implementation of the Paris Agreement with the aim to assess the world’s collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the agreement and its long-term goals. 

The first GST which will take place in 2023 is to assess the collective progress of Parties in achieving the Paris Agreement goals, including on mitigation, adaptation and the means of implementation and support.

Developing countries are expected to push for keeping the list open, given that work on the substance of related matters such as climate finance definition, global goal on adaptation, transparency and common timeframes for NDCs are still ongoing and may have a bearing on the inputs for the GST.

Common Timeframe for NDCs

At COP 24 in 2018, it was agreed that Parties “shall apply common time frames to their NDCs to be implemented from 2031 onward.” The SBI was tasked to consider this matter, which it did, and a draft decision with several options was discussed at COP 25. Parties are divided on whether to have just one timeframe of 5 years or to also allow a 10-year time frame, with some variation in between of 5 years plus 5 years. With no consensus on the matter at COP 25, the Glasgow talks will continue to discuss the matter with the existing divergences on the table.

Climate finance

Given that poor countries need money to cope with effects of climate change and to support their green projects, climate finance is a big issue for developing nations like Kenya.