UNEA 6 – No consensus on climate justice resolution

New Delhi, 14 March (Radhika Chatterjee): Countries failed to find consensus on the resolution entitled ‘Effective, inclusive and sustainable multilateral action towards climate justice’ at the 6th session of the UN Environment Assembly, held in Nairobi.

This contentious resolution was proposed by Sri Lanka, and later was supported by Guinea as its co-sponsor. It was eventually withdrawn by the proponent on the concluding day of the meeting of the Committee of Whole (COW), 28 Feb due to a lack of consensus on various issues, including over the duplication of work under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement as well as differences over the reflection of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) between developed and developing countries.

Prior to UNEA 6, before the commencement of the 6th Open Ended Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR 6) (that took place 19 to 23 Feb), the draft resolution focused on addressing climate justice for “climate-vulnerable developing countries”. One of its main asks was the establishment of “a forum on climate justice for climate-vulnerable countries to collaborate on, engage in and work towards addressing the needs of climate-vulnerable developing countries and achieving long-term climate resilience for all”. But right after the first day of OECPR-6, Sri Lanka replaced the term ‘climate vulnerable developing countries’ with ‘developing countries’.

The operative paragraph (OP) of the resolution read as follows on 20 Feb:

“Requests the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme to:

a) Invite Member States to take a collective position and action towards innovative and transformative approaches that will contribute to building long-term resilience of developing countries;

b) Request Member States to establish and maintain a common platform for active engagement and sharing of experiences and good practices of the global South, as well as identifying key needs to be addressed in combating the threats of climate change;

c) Urge developed countries to speedily scale up climate ambition by strengthening their commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, in line with the global temperature goal;

d) Identify key gaps and needs to be addressed at all levels in the developing countries to reduce and manage climate risks and design collective input gathering and resource mobilization;

e) Identify opportunities and avenues for mobilizing adequate climate finance from developed to developing countries, including other means of implementation, through innovative approaches, including enhanced new, additional grant-based climate finance, debt relief, debt swaps and other suitable processes, as appropriate and based on country circumstances;

f) Highlight the urgent need for scaled-up means of implementation, including climate finance, technology transfer and development, and capacity-building for developing countries;

g) Invite Member States to establish a forum on climate justice for climate-vulnerable countries to collaborate on, engage in and work towards addressing the needs of developing countries and achieving long-term climate resilience for all.”

The key points of contention on the resolution were: whether or not the proposed work amounts to a duplication of ongoing work under the UNFCCC; lack of a common definition of climate justice and the need to focus on climate action instead as an alternative; and the purpose of the platform proposed in the resolution. Sharp disagreements were also seen over how climate ambition through efforts to reduce emissions is reflected in the resolution in terms of the principles that should guide this, and the question of who should take the lead in this. Countries also diverged considerably on the question of how differentiation between developed and developing countries is reflected in the resolution. Disagreements were also seen on the way in which UNFCCC and Paris Agreement is referred to in the text.

Duplication of work under UNFCCC

In the first few days of discussion, several developed countries made their unwillingness to proceed with the resolution clear by placing a reserve on the whole resolution. They cited the duplication of ongoing work under the UNFCCC as the key reason for this. Some developing countries including China, Malawi and Chile expressed reservations over the use of the term “climate justice” as it lacked a commonly agreed definition. Some countries like Saudi Arabia, India, Algeria and Kenya shared reservations about the possibility of duplication of work under UNFCCC, but also expressed the need for having a discussion on the resolution.

Cuba shared concerns over the term “collective position” and said, “it does not reflect the Rio principles and specifically, that of CBDR”.

India said, “Climate change is definitely the domain of UNFCCC. We are the assembly. We can deal with issues that are relevant to climate change and biodiversity…Climate justice is a very important subject. It has got its mention in the Paris Agreement. Since it is there we would like further deliberate on this subject here”.

Kenya suggested redrafting the resolution in a general manner, without going into the specific issues of UNFCCC and also proposed alternative text requesting “the Executive Director of UNEP to work in collaboration with Member States towards enhanced climate action in order to build resilience mitigation, adaptation and enhance resilience for sustainable development”.

Saudi Arabia did not want UNEA to infringe upon or contradict UNFCCC topics. It however saw climate justice as an issue that is very important to developing countries. It suggested the following alternative text viz. “Invite Member States to contribute to the ongoing work undertaken under the UNFCCC related to the relevant environmental dimensions of enhancing adaptive capacity and building resilience for developing countries, through the development of technical inputs to the global goal on adaptation as well as the UAE/Belem work programme, where relevant and as applicable”. It also disagreed with the suggestion by Kenya (referred to above) and said “enhanced action is for Parties to determine under their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in a nationally determined manner.” The alternative text suggested by Saudi Arabia was supported by India, South Africa, Brazil, Algeria, Ethiopia, Russia, Argentina and Chile.

Algeria shared Kenya and India’s position on wanting to work with the resolution. On the issue of how climate ambition is reflected, it said, the “different circumstances, capabilities and contexts” of countries should be taken into account while discussing the need for action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. South Africa stressed the importance of retaining equity in the resolution.

Egypt said (enhancing) resilience should have a focus on developing countries, and proposed additional text in “ensuring coordination and cooperation for shared ecosystems to avoid maladaptation”. It also asked for retaining the focus on “developed” taking the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The European Union (EU) said “UNFCCC is and should remain the primary arena to promote this effort. This draft resolution will interfere with the mandate and ongoing work under UNFCCC.” It further asked, “whether UNEP constitutes the most appropriate forum for this discussion”. Placing a reservation on the whole resolution, it added, “without clarifications there is a risk we would duplicate existing processes”. On the purpose of the proposed common platform, it said, “we are still unclear what the new platform entails…we are not sure about its function and composition” and asked how this cannot be achieved under UNFCCC as the primary area for dealing with climate change. Regarding the way in which climate ambition is reflected, EU proposed this alternative text that “Urges all countries to contribute to deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with the 1.5 degree pathways.” EU’s alternative text proposal was supported by United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland.

Reacting to the additions made by EU on the language on emissions reduction, Saudi Arabia said, “We are not sure that we are going to negotiate any of the above and come to clear conclusions. These have been discussed, negotiated and closed in Dubai. All of this is not very relevant to what the proponent would like to add through this resolution. We would delete the insertion of alternative suggested by EU. CBDR was referenced numerous times in the Global Stocktake (GST) outcome” (from COP 28 in Dubai last year) and called for deletion of the EU proposal.   Russia and Iran too asked for the deletion of the proposal made by EU.

On the EU’s proposed text, China asked for replacing “1.5-degree pathway” with “the goals of the Paris Agreement as well as adding the principle of CBDR.” This suggestion was supported by Egypt, Brazil, Iraq and Iran. Cameroon asked for the inclusion of “providing substantial support to developing countries” at the end of the alternative suggested by EU.

The US said that the resolution “contains issues that are actively being discussed in other forums – that have been going on for years, and draw on expertise… We would see significant revisions in all paragraphs of this resolution.” Sharing its lack of support for the resolution, it added, “the text as it is, we do not see how we will move ahead with this.”

Later US suggested this text as an alternative – “We invite member states to contribute to relevant work undertaken under the Paris Agreement; the global goal on adaptation, UAE Belem Work programme, as appropriate”. Questioning the need for a platform, the US asked for its deletion as it felt “it would be a duplication of the work of UNFCCC”. Sharing its support for the EU’s proposal, it said, “it is important that all countries take ambitious action here”. It also asked for framing texts in terms of placing the responsibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on “all countries” instead of just on “developed countries”.

The UK said it had “concerns about duplication with UNFCCC work” and placed a reserve on the whole resolution. Other developed countries like Canada, Norway, and Japan echoed the EU, US and UK regarding the concerns on the duplication of work with UNFCCC. Australia and New Zealand joined EU, US and UK in questioning the need for a platform.

Co facilitators’ non paper at the end of OECPR-6

On the last day of OECPR-6, the co-facilitators Karin Snellman (Sweden) and Alejandro Montero (Chile) presented a “non-paper” as an alternative proposal for continuing further discussions at UNEA-6. In the non-paper, the title of the resolution had changed to “Effective, Inclusive, and Sustainable Multilateral Actions towards Climate Action” and the operating paras read as follows:

“OP1 Requests the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme to:

a. continue working in collaboration with Member States towards enhanced climate action, in line with UNEP’s Medium-term Strategy and Sub-programme on Climate Action.

b. prepare a report exploring measures to address the negative impacts of climate change and related environmental challenges on communities in vulnerable situations to support a just transition, addressing inequalities of impacts, to leave no one behind.

c. explore the organization of informal dialogues within the context of the UN Environment Assembly and regional environmental forums, subject to the availability of resources, to enhance understanding of the concept of climate justice and the social dimensions of climate change and related environmental challenges, taking into account varied perspectives.”

OP2 “Invites Member States, as appropriate, to advance climate action, including in the development of UNEP’s Medium-term Strategy, for the period 2026-2029, which will be presented at UNEA-7 for approval.”

Concerns about the use of “climate action” and “climate justice”

Reacting to the co-facilitators’ non paper on the resolution, Sri Lanka as the resolution proponent said that the “core of the resolution had elements of climate justice” and asked for the insertion of “climate justice” in OP(a) alongside “climate action”.

India, Pakistan, South Africa, Algeria, Brazil, Indonesia, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda supported the insertion of “climate justice” made by Sri Lanka, while Chile, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, and Australia asked for its deletion.

The insertion of “climate action” was supported by Japan and EU. On the other hand, it was opposed by South Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia and India.

South Africa said that the resolution has moved away from the original intent in what was originally proposed and that those elements are contained in the GST decision (from COP 28) in terms of climate justice being referenced. “Essence / intent of justice parts of what needs to be done is somehow being subsumed in this text, where everyone is being allocated the same responsibility. The principle of CBDR and equity has to come through. This will be a major challenge,” it added.

Saudi Arabia said “Climate action is within scope and mandate of the UNFCCC, i.e.  nationally determined contributions, don’t know how we can discuss this here… Don’t know how climate action is relevant, but not climate justice – both are relevant to UNFCCC – that is our broad reservation”. Expressing support for Saudi Arabia’s statement, China said “There is no clear principle guiding us; (it is) even hard to choose between climate justice and climate action”.

India said, “the original proposal was about climate justice. Now there is an emphasis on climate action”, adding that there need not be an overlap in the functions of UNFCCC and UNEA. This it said was “problematic and should be taken care of”.

Brazil said that “this new revised text departs considerably from the original intent of the proposed resolution. We would like to express our wish to stick to climate justice as the core of this resolution”.

Algeria called for maintaining “climate justice” in the resolution and suggested an alternative proposal for OP1 (a) as: “Continue working in collaboration with Member States, relevant UN organizations and the secretariat of multilateral environment agreements including  the  secretariat of UNFCCC, to enhance the understanding of the concept of climate justice and the social dimensions of climate change and related environmental challenges, taking into account the need for an enhanced climate action and support, in accordance with national circumstances, capabilities, and the need to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development agenda especially SDG 13, and the Paris Agreement goals and objectives”.

Saudi Arabia suggested the following alternative text to bring back core elements from the previous versions of the resolution for OP1 (a): “Continue working in collaboration with Member States, where relevant, in line with the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, including the principle of CBDR.”

Expressing support for the alternative texts proposed by Algeria and Saudi Arabia, China proposed a combination of the two texts as follows for OP1(a): “Continue working in collaboration with Member States, where relevant, in line with the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, including the principle of CBDR, taking into account the need for an enhanced climate action and support for developing countries”. It said “this could be a way to share concerns from colleagues on both climate justice and climate action”. Argentina, Iran, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Egypt and Ethiopia supported the proposals made by China and Saudi Arabia for OP1(a).

Egypt also proposed the addition of this text at the end of the OP1(a) alternative texts suggested by Saudi Arabia and China: “while ensuring that enhanced climate action is in the context of achieving sustainable development and poverty eradication.” The US, EU, and Switzerland called for the deletion of both China and Saudi Arabia’s proposal on OP1(a).

Russia proposed the following alternative language for OP1(a): “Continue working in collaboration with Member States on issues of climate change in line with UNEP medium term strategy and sub-programme on climate action and taking into account processes and principles under UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement.” This was supported by Kenya. 

The alternative text proposed by US for OP1(a) read as: “Continue working in collaboration with Member States on issues of climate action, as appropriate, while recognizing the need for those countries whose emissions are most consequential with respect to keeping 1.5 within reach to answer the Dubai call to submit economy wide, all greenhouse gas, 1.5(degree C) aligned Nationally Determined Contributions.”

China, India, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and South Africa called for a deletion of US’ proposal for OP1(a).

Concerns over circumstances of developing countries

It was in the discussions on OP1(c) that the issue of whether or not the circumstances of developing countries, concepts like “sustainable development” and “poverty eradication” should be taken into account in the informal dialogues on climate justice.

Brazil suggested the use of “sustainable development and environmental challenges” instead of a general framing of “related environmental challenges” for OP1(c). It also asked for a particular focus on developing countries while taking into account varied perspectives.

India proposed that the context of “poverty eradication and sustainable development” be taken into account in OP1(c). This was supported by China, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and Russia. The US, EU and Canada on the other hand opposed the inclusion of any reference to “poverty eradication and sustainable development” in the text.

Switzerland asked for the addition of “countries obligations to reduce emissions” in OP1(c). (It had also asked for the insertion of a focus on “urgently reducing emissions” in OP1(b).)

Reacting to their proposal, Saudi Arabia said, “we are not entirely sure what obligations are referred to here, in OP1(c) by Switzerland. We know obligations of developed countries with respect to climate justice. We support addition of eradication of poverty and sustainable development, developed countries’ obligations on means of implementation and support to developing countries”.

India said the proposal made by Switzerland was “not in sync, it should rather be countries experiences in reducing emissions”. South Africa supported Saudi Arabia’s proposal on adding developed countries obligations on means of implementation (MOI) and support to developing countries.

Differentiation between developed and developing countries

The fight for maintaining a differentiation between developed and developing countries happened during the discussion on preambular paragraphs (PPs). Developing countries wanted the insertion of language that would reflect distinctions between developed and developing countries regarding both the “responsibility and impact of climate change”. Developed countries on the other hand wanted to eliminate references to any such distinction as they felt “all countries are affected” and all should contribute to the fight against climate change equally.

South Africa suggested that developed countries should take the lead in enhancing climate action. Supporting this proposal, Saudi Arabia said this should occur “in accordance with the principle of CBDR.” This was supported by China, Cuba, South Africa, Bahrain, and Argentina.

The UK opposed the insertion made by South Africa and Saudi Arabia and said, “Understanding of developed countries taking the lead was in a different context. Focus here should be equal cooperation and collaboration between all Parties.” The US, Canada and Norway too asked for the deletion of suggestions made by both South Africa and Saudi Arabia.

South Africa also proposed the replacement of “vulnerable communities” with “developing countries”. This proposal was supported by Brazil and opposed by US.

In the earlier discussions on the resolution Algeria and Egypt had asked for the deletion of the reference to “vulnerable communities” because “impact of climate change supersedes communities”. This was also supported by Iran, Argentina, and Russia. The US, UK, and EU on the other hand wanted to maintain the use of the term “vulnerable communities”.

On the issue of MOI mentioned in the PPs, Argentina suggested that it should be specified that the MOI has to flow from “developed to developing countries”. Justifying the need for MOI in the resolution, Saudi Arabia said “since we are talking of climate justice and action, important to reflect MOI”. Argentina’s proposal was supported by Sri Lanka, Bahrain, South Africa, and Cuba.

The US said during the discussion that it was “not sure why we are negotiating climate finance here in UNEA”. Other developed countries who opposed Argentina’s proposal on MOI were EU, UK, New Zealand, Canada and Japan.

Disagreements on referencing UNFCCC/Paris Agreement

Several developed countries insisted that references to Paris Agreement alone should be sufficient and any references to UNFCCC as “the main international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change and that the global nature of climate change calls for international cooperation without duplication of work” should be removed from the text. The countries who wanted these references to be removed included US, Norway, UK, Canada, EU, New Zealand, and Japan.

Developing countries like Saudi Arabia, China, India, Sri Lanka, Bahrain, and Brazil on the other hand insisted that the reference to UNFCCC as the main international intergovernmental forum for negotiating on issues of climate change should be retained.

Sri Lanka in its statement at the closing plenary of UNEA-6 said, “This resolution aimed at identifying avenues for collective efforts to engage towards better inclusion of climate justice in climate action, as well as to provide the opportunity to explore approaches and measures for addressing climate vulnerabilities and risks through just solutions, including scaling up ambition that builds on the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. While it remains unfortunate that the resolution was not adopted and did not reach consensus, the engagement during UNEA-6 forms the building blocks for future work on enhancing the integration of climate justice into climate action, and the work will continue. Sri Lanka remains dedicated to promoting climate justice as well as inclusive approaches to climate policy and action through collective engagement and will take the efforts made during UNEA-6 forward to aspire for a successful outcome in the future”.

Given the wide divergences and in many areas, which exposed the North-South divide, the resolution was withdrawn by Sri Lanka. – Third World Network