COP 31 | Dispute over the State Council for Climate Protection

A look at the COP 31 plenum: As usual, the negotiations are complicated. Photo: AFP/Ozan KOSE Since 1.5 degrees has been internationally recognized as the upper limit for global warming, the climate “gap” has existed. This describes the gap between the amount of CO2 emissions that would allow 1.5 degrees to be maintained and the actual global emissions of greenhouse gases.

In 2021, at the climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, the goal was to reduce global emissions by around 45 percent by 2030 compared to 2010. Since the national climate plans presented summarily showed that almost twice as much would be emitted, the states launched a work program to improve the implementation of the promised climate goals. As part of this so-called Mitigation Work Program (MWP), there have since been eight global dialogues on topics such as emissions reductions in industry, CO2 pricing and land use. At the meetings, experts and politicians exchanged ideas about what emissions instruments each country was using, what experiences they had with them and to what extent this could be useful for other countries - the MWP is essentially a large state guide for CO2 reduction.

This is more important than ever, because the climate gap is growing and growing. Although the goal of reducing emissions by 45 percent by 2035 is also in effect at the COP 31 world climate conference in Antalya, this means that the 1.5 degree limit can no longer be met. The smallest possible excess that can be achieved is 1.7 to 1.8 degrees at best. The Mitigation Work Program actually expires in 2026. If it stayed that way, it would be fatal, says Kerstin Opfer from the environmental and development organization Germanwatch. Not being able to negotiate climate protection in a negotiation process in which the 1.5 degree limit can no longer be met without temporarily overshooting would be absurd, emphasizes the consultant for energy policy and civil society in Africa.

The MWP is currently the only formal negotiation space in Antalya that is explicitly dedicated to reducing emissions. Fentje Jacobsen from the WWF is also calling for an extension of the work program, but “in an improved form”. In its current form, the work program will not help countries increase their climate protection efforts, says the political advisor for climate and energy. So far there doesn't seem to be any improvement.

In fact, many countries want to expand the MWP from a rather non-binding exchange of experiences into an instrument that in some way stimulates ambition in CO2 reduction. On Thursday, the negotiators in Antalya also presented a first informal note. The work program should then be extended until 2029 and aimed at strengthening the implementation of the climate goals in this crucial decade, as can be read in two versions in the paper. To this end, the global meetings should also focus more on questions of access to investments and finance.

One of the sticking points at the UN conference is whether and with what improved content the MTW will be extended. Next week, Germany and India will take over the lead in negotiations at ministerial level.

"In order to achieve an ambitious and successful MWP at COP 31, Germany and the EU cannot simply say no to the central concerns of poorer countries."

“In order to achieve an ambitious and successful MWP at COP 31, Germany and the EU cannot simply say no to the central concerns of poorer countries,” explains Kerstin Opfer. “They would at least have to show a way to triple the promised adaptation financing and create the necessary transparency about the implementation of their climate financing commitments next year.” According to the Germanwatch expert in Antalya, it is not about negotiating new financing targets, but rather about concretizing the existing commitments within the framework of the “new collective quantified climate financing goal” and ensuring their implementation.

In recent years there have already been deep tensions between the contracting parties regarding climate financing and access to know-how. “Fossil fuel producing countries, especially Saudi Arabia, specifically used these differences to block progress in the MWP,” explains Opfer.

Fentje Jacobsen from the WWF also sees a “field of tension” between the reduction goals and climate financing at COP 31 - with the danger that these points will block each other, as she assessed halfway through the negotiations. This not only affects the MWP, but also other topics relevant to reduction, such as the goal of increasing the share of electricity in the energy supply to 35 percent by 2035, or the global roadmap for a fossil fuel phase-out. In order to implement all of this, many countries rely on sufficient climate financing, explains the climate and energy expert.

As always at a climate summit, the individual strands of negotiations are closely related. The mitigation program is linked to the upcoming second “global inventory” of national climate plans, the results of which should be available in 2028. For many countries, especially in the global south, this is also closely linked to progress in climate financing.

Meanwhile, the Australian negotiators are obviously trying to achieve a different decision-making process than has previously been the case at world climate summits. While the most important final document of a COP, the so-called cover decision, was previously presented to the states by the respective negotiating leadership after more or less intensive consultations, this time co-host Australia asked for suggestions for the final declaration. A first informal compilation was published on Friday, but it does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the actual results.

Apart from the good mood in Antalya, what was already apparent in the run-up to the summit was confirmed at the end of the first week: progress in climate financing will be the key to the possible success of COP 31. On Friday, Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the UN Climate Convention, spoke to state representatives again about this. Many developing countries are in a downward spiral and climate finance can help them emerge from it. To do this, Stiell further emphasized, the focus of financing individual projects would have to be shifted towards supporting economic change. This could create a “positive cycle” in which good investment conditions attract more capital, which in turn could flow into resilience and low-emission development.

Other media have corporations or billionaires behind them. We have the nd.Genossenschaft and readers like you. That makes us independent and that’s exactly how we want to remain. But it also means: without you the calculation won't work. We need 300,000 euros by the end of the year.

You can donate directly here, one-time or regularly, so that nd stays.