By Ben Galil Te and Gab Mesina
This year’s SB64 opens amidst the backdrop of both conflict and crisis, from the unprecedented heatwaves and the projected highly potent and rapidly intensifying El Niño. Yet there is one particular crisis that cast an ominous shadow over the June climate talks – and that is the war in the Middle East. The heightened geopolitical tensions have not only shaped the priorities of each party but have also seeped into the discussions in different fora. Perhaps not explicitly mentioned in formal negotiation rooms, the Middle East conflict has certainly been a crucial context in conversations, if not being highlighted as a main topic itself, in side events, dialogues, informal discussions, and even protests during the two-week event. Notably, it was even mentioned by the UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell during his speech at the Opening Plenary, emphasizing how the war has not only caused immense human suffering but also sparked a “fossil fuel cost crisis that’s strangling economies everywhere.” Stiell goes on to say how fossil fuel dependency leads to continuing importation of economic instability while exporting energy security and that it leaves “communities exposed to climate disasters, taking a wrecking ball to lives and prosperity everywhere.”
The conflict has indeed exposed the systemic vulnerabilities inherent in fossil fuel dependence – something that was deeply felt in the Philippines. This realization might have been pivotal for some countries, or at the very least an impetus for others, to focus more on or accelerate energy transition efforts. It has likewise amplified calls for the transition away from fossil fuels. This might be a reason why the just transition workstream was among the agenda items that made visible progress. The rest of the negotiation topics, however, held up a mirror to the state of world affairs reflecting global disagreements and the inability to cooperate while crisis upon crisis burdens the people and planet.
Just Transition
Just Transition continues to be debated and redefined across national and international lines. As such, the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme (UAE JTWP) was established to help countries reach the goals of the Paris Agreement while ensuring climate action is equitable and inclusive. The negotiations for SB64 follow the fifth annual dialogue of the JTWP in South Korea. The negotiations revolved around three main sub-agendas; the JTWP implementation, terms of reference (TOR) of the JTWP review, and the operationalization of the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM).
While limited, progress during the June negotiations was not entirely absent. On the review, despite some contention, the parties were able to forward a text in time for the review during COP31. Some progress was also made on furthering the JTM’s operationalization. Parties provided input on how they believe the JTM should operate. Notably, some parties had contentions on the mechanism’s scope, citing the mapping exercise that would help ascertain the exact scope of the mechanism. Ultimately, the upcoming COP session is expected to be pivotal for Just Transition. All hopes are on the negotiations producing a mechanism that centers communities and works for transformative climate justice.
Agriculture
2026 will be a crucial year for agriculture in the UNFCCC process, as the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture (SJWA) reaches the end of its four year mandate. The framework on agriculture is set to undergo review later this year in COP 31. SB64 was host to the second in-session workshop of the SJWA this time on means of implementation for climate action on agriculture and food security and the sharing of best practices. On a positive note, the workshop reveals that some countries are beginning to integrate agriculture into their national climate policies. Switzerland for example, has published its Climate Strategy for Agriculture and Food which aims to reduce emissions from agriculture while maintaining food self-sufficiency. The Philippines, for its part, has the Adaptation and Mitigation Initiative in Agriculture (AMIA) which recognizes the need for adaptation and mitigation in Philippine agriculture. However, negotiations on the conclusion text, which will help guide the upcoming review, dragged on through the second week. The primary point of contention between parties centered on the key messages extracted from the two previous workshops. Some parties felt that their views were not appropriately reflected in the key messages within the draft text. In a disappointing end to the sessions, as all parties could not be satisfied, all key messages were removed from the final text.
There was much to be desired from the negotiations and one has to hope that the parties are much more amicable in the following session as this would decide if the SJWA continues. Given that agriculture is the backbone of global livelihoods and food security, the pressure is on for parties to secure the framework’s future and firmly cement food systems in international climate strategy.
The Three Pillars of Climate Action
It is highly unfortunate that the so-called “pillars of climate action”, namely Mitigation, Adaptation, and Loss and Damage, were among the agenda items that proved to be unfruitful in SB64. Loss and Damage, for one, was not included in the formal agenda. The rationale behind the exclusion was that there was already significant progress from previous COPs and SBs on this workstream. The prevailing view is that the international Loss and Damage bodies (such as the Fund, the WIM, and the Santiago Network) should now be given space to do the work expected of them. This, however, did not assuage concerns of stakeholders who are worried that the exclusion of L&D in discussions was due to a reluctance to turn it into a permanent agenda item.
Mitigation and Adaptation, on the other hand, were certainly discussed. They are after all considered as the “bread and butter” of the climate talks. Although this does not mean that they would always be the most productive of workstreams.
In Mitigation, the main agenda is the continuation of the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP), with an expected decision by COP31. Parties had hoped to come up with some progress, capturing points of convergence on the road to Antalya. Unfortunately, parties disagreed on how the continuation of the MWP should take shape in terms of scope, focus, and practical functions. Despite several iterations of a document that sought to capture the views of the parties, they were still unable to arrive at a consensus. Without any document reflecting the progress of their discussions, parties are left with no choice but to continue their work in Türkiye.
In terms of progress in discussions, the agenda on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) was perhaps more substantive, but no less contentious nor productive. One key point of divergence during the negotiations was the reference to the tripling of adaptation finance and a reference to the principles laid out under the Paris Agreement. Some parties opposed its inclusion in any text arguing that such topics are beyond the scope of the agenda as it should fall within the discussions on finance. Many from the developing countries and their corresponding negotiating blocs had emphasized the need for including means of implementation in any discussion on adaptation. Although a draft text had already been produced, and even forwarded to the Heads of Delegations for continued discussions, there was still no final consensus.
Towards COP31 and Beyond
There should be no illusion that each round of climate talks would be more productive than the last. After all, progress should not be measured by each of its stages but in the final outcome. Nonetheless, managing expectations should not lead to complacency. It must be stated that the lack of substantive outcomes at this stage of the climate negotiations process was, at best, a manifestation of the increasing strains in the UNFCCC space and, at worst, indicative of a profound lack of a sense of urgency among parties. Not only that, it serves as a reminder of the state of disarray of global affairs. From wars to climate injustice, much of the stagnation we see in our quest for peace and climate justice stems from the stubborn efforts to preserve the global status quo – one which prioritizes profits over the people and the planet. The ENGO Constituency, represented by the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice, stressed this point in their intervention during the Closing Plenary where they said that “we must acknowledge that climate action will not deliver as long as Big Polluters continue to write the rules of climate action.” In that context, we see how the failure to cooperate is merely a symptom of a larger systemic problem rather than being the root cause of the problem itself.
The seemingly unending conflicts and crises must lead to a better understanding of our collective responsibilities, differentiated they may be. We have a collective responsibility to seek out not only justice but accountability. We must demand accountability from our own governments when they fail to deliver during climate negotiations and accountability from all governments when they refuse to make sensible compromises for the sake of our existence. From climate-related harms to wars of aggression, the continued disregard for human life and ecological destruction must be met with a call for accountability. This is the continuing task for climate advocates. After last year’s COP30, where lofty expectations were met with bitter realities, we had reaffirmed the view that climate justice is a movement that must be built, broadened, and sustained. Now, in the face of heightened global challenges, this movement must continue to press forward.
Going into COP31 in Türkiye and beyond, achieving climate justice requires us to ask not just how to address the climate crisis but who is responsible and what we must demand from them. To emerge from conflicts and crises through cooperation and compromise, justice and accountability must first be recognized. Addressing the climate crisis requires nothing less and it would be essential for our collective survival.