POLICY BRIEF: The Challenges of COP28 and the Way Forward

The world is moving close to halfway through the first decade of climate change commitment set in 2030 once again as COP29 is scheduled a few months ahead. Last year, critical challenges including the conclusion of the first Global Stocktake were placed for policy and decision-makers to contemplate, but they have failed to meet those challenges on several fronts, raising fears that the world could miss a chance to correct its climate action in time

COP28 was highly anticipated that it would deliver stronger commitments than those made a few years before as it was held in the oil-rich country of UAE, where the most critical Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission cuts from fossil fuels were highly demanded. But the two-week-long discussions and negotiations concluded with the delivery of such vague language and promises as “the North Star within reach” and “transition away from fossil fuels”, which have left the world close to a blink of climate catastrophes and collapses once again.

As the first Global Stocktake’s findings noted, the collective mitigation targets of countries, which are known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), showed that GHG emission levels in 2030 are projected to be just 5.3 per cent lower than in 2019 even though all nationally determined contributions including all conditional elements are fully implemented.

That means an increase in the range of at least 2.1 to 2.8C and limiting global warming to 1.5C will require deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in GHG emissions of 43 per cent by 2030, 60 per cent by 2035 relative to the 2019 level, and reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. At the year-end Dialogue Forums, Thorny Issues at COP28 and the Way Forward, this challenge was highly discussed by noted climate experts and advocates including the noted IPCC author, Assoc.Prof. Dr. Seree Supratid.

According to Dr. Seree, who was a director of the Climate Change and Disaster Center at Rangsit University and now an advisor to FutureTales Lab by MQDC, a research centre focused on future-solutions planning, cooperation, and proactive advocacy, some notable global reports on the state of climate showed a similar trend.

Based on the 2023 Emissions Gap Report he had cited, GHG emissions increased by around 1.2% instead of being reduced by 7% per year, prompting the global GHG emission reduction target to increase by more than 8% per year until 2030. This means the global temperature possibly increases up to 3C by the end of the century rather than being kept below 2C or limited at 1.5C, and this could prompt climate patterns to shift towards more extreme events that would send significant impacts to climate-sensitive countries including Thailand.

On the adaptation front, it also faces a critical challenge as to whether climate-related risks could be assessed in more detail so that early warnings could be sent to people in time. Aside from climate impacts, Dr. Seree noted the challenge brought by land uses, citing the case of the Chao Phraya basin where land uses play a critical role in climate-related disasters and mitigation. While climate-related impacts are enormous and adaptation needs a great deal of financial support, normally known as Climate Finance, fund flows have posed a great challenge to climate finance as to where the funds could be originated and channelised to those in need.

Aside from climate finance, the new initiative known as the Loss and Damage Fund is posing a greater challenge as it requires larger funding to compensate countries affected by climate change beyond adaptation capacity. The initial climate finance is set at around US $100 billion a year, but so far countries have managed to raise only around US $80 billion. As analysed by the World Resources Institute, developing countries will need US $340 billion annually by 2030 to adapt to the impacts of climate change, but they received only US $29 billion in international adaptation finance in 2020. Loss and Damage, meanwhile, will require around US $894 billion annually by 2030, and all these pose a bleak future to overall climate finance.

Some other noted climate experts including Assoc. Prof. Dr. Witsanu Attavanich of Kasetsart University’s Economics Faculty pointed out that the complexity of climate change is the result of its nature as a public good, which is both non-exclusive and non-rival. This means there are “Free Riders” or advantages taken by some countries in solving the issue by not paying for costs incurred like others. There are also “externalities” that pose additional challenges to climate mitigation, he added.

Last but not least, it’s about climate justice which is still in question and whether multilateralism like COPs can still function and serve the best benefits for all. As noted by some climate justice advocates like Dr. Kritsada Boonchai of Thai Climate Justice for All, the world is still stuck in fossil fuel production and consumption and there has long been a wrangling between fossil fuel producers and climate change victims. Despite several rounds of talk, the world’s fossil fuel production remains almost unchanged, not to mention its structural reform that should help pave the way for meaningful GHG emission reduction.

Several governments, meanwhile, are not accountable to their people and governance is still a serious issue when climate justice is addressed. Dr. Kritsada cited the cases under which community rights or Indigenous rights are often disparaged or sidestepped in climate negotiations. He questioned whether the world should rely solely on such a multilateral platform as the COP (Conference of Parties, UN Climate Change Conference).

COP28

As expected, COP28 for the first time revealed global efforts to mitigate climate change and its impacts after the agreement milestone, the Paris Agreement, was inked in 2015 and started to take real effects in 2020 when the countries started to file their climate mitigation targets or NDCs. Instead of giving a hopeful conclusion, the Global Stocktake, or an assessment of global efforts in climate action after Paris, has shown a bleak future. 

As noted by Mr. Pavich Kesavawong, Deputy Director General of the Department of Climate Change and Environment, who had attended the COP meeting, the findings of the Global Stocktake were worrisome as there had been little progress made despite the agreement being put in place. The world’s temperature, meanwhile, has already increased to 1.2C, leaving only around 0.3C before it reaches the limit set under the Paris Agreement.

Despite the bleak future painted by the Global Stocktake, the climate discussions and negotiations at CO28 did not provide solid outcomes except for vague language and promises. This is also despite the fact that climate negotiators kept vowing on the key principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC) for their negotiations.

COP28 held firm on the theme of Just Transition, but at the end of the day, it received the vague promise of “transition away from fossil fuels” for the mitigation front, rather than “phase down or phase out of fossil fuels” as earlier paved in the past COPs in Glasgow, the UK and Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. This is because major countries like the US, Russia, and China insisted on the need to use fossil fuels while the host, the UAE, tried to maintain its neutrality in the negotiations. On the contrary, triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency were proposed as a new path to take from now on.

Greenpeace Thailand’s Tara Buakamsri remarked that the result of the negotiations sounds bleak for the future as the wording was apparently watered down to the point that it becomes uncertain where the world is heading to. Mr. Tara said there was an elephant in the room but people tried not to touch it. Despite the fact that they agreed to address “fossil fuels” for the first time, they decided to use the word “transition away”, which provided much room for interpretation for future implementation of GHG emission reductions.

As an organisation following up on the progress of climate change mitigation, Greenpeace observed an increasing trend of  “liquid fossil fuel” imports especially in Asia, suggesting the shifting trend towards the transition. The only question that remains is whether this liquid fuel helps deliver the deep cuts of GHGs as expected, given the shrinking Carbon Budget before the world reaches the limit at 1.5C.

Mr. Tara said the most critical point of the industry to think about is the whole reform, which is not just replacements or new technologies for the transition. The critical challenge is energy sector is still much centralised and it needs decentralisation to let loose the implementation that helps cut GHGs deeper and faster. Instead of reducing the climate challenge, COP28 has cast an even more challenging moment for the global community due to its vague language and promises, Mr. Tara noted, adding he would rather call it “backtracking”.

On Climate Finance, the countries managed to raise a great deal of funding but it’s short of what is needed, at US $100 billion a year. Assoc. Prof. Witsanu said the world needs at least US $200 billion a year to support adaptation but at best they managed to raise funding worth only around US $80 billion. The costs incurred due to climate change account for 1.8% of the world’s GDP or around Bt 53.5 trillion (2-3 times larger than Thailand’s GDP), according to Assoc. Prof. Witsanu. Thailand alone needs around Bt2 to 20 trillion to compensate for the losses due to climate change, and the funding it can expect from the new Loss and Damage Fund seems to be minor. His critical question towards the fund is whether it’s enough and timely to cover the losses.

Although it was successfully set up and started to operationalise at COP28, the Loss and Damage Fund is still full of questions to be answered as the scope of losses is still unclear and affected entities remain undefined, Assoc. Prof. Witsanu noted, concluding that the agreement on climate finance especially the Loss and Damage Fund cannot be seen as a success yet, but its progress would rather slightly be a disappointment, considering the urgency and the challenges ahead.

Climate Watch Thailand’s Executive Director, Wanun Permpibul, who also attended COP28, noted at the conclusion of the meeting that it was “poisonous honey” as climate negotiators tried to lure people into the belief that COP28 delivered what was the most needed, which is the Loss and Damage Fund. While being operationalised, several questions remain for the fund especially its governance after the operation, she said.

Policy recommendations

Ms. Wanun said there is a need to go back to the question of climate justice as climate change indeed is the climate justice issue, under which injustice during the colonisation period has been prolonged until these days. Right to development, she said, is still much of a debate as to who should be held responsible for the causes of climate change. 

Throughout the COPs, climate discussions and negotiations were watered down and diluted to the One World concept, under which everyone should be responsible and help each other address climate challenges, rather than truly adhering to the CBDR–RC principle. It’s what she calls “sidetracking”. 

Ms. Wanun and Dr. Kritsada suggested climate justice be placed at the heart of climate negotiations during this transitional period and the CBDR-RC be truly honoured by climate negotiators. 

Climate issues, Dr. Kritsada added, are not just about a human-to-human struggle, but also that between humans and nature, which is universal. It needs a universal approach to help address alongside, he said, giving an example of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), which addresses the principle of balance and harmony between humans and nature.

From principles, they should be translated into countries’ policies, according to the experts, and if possible, policies should be turned into solid laws and enforcement so that climate action can be enforced. Climate litigation is also on its way as a few cases are explored in certain countries, including New Zealand, and Montana, the US.

Last but not least is public participation and inclusiveness which should be addressed alongside so that climate justice can be materialised and multilateral platforms like COPs can be more balanced with more stakeholders and other platforms and approaches such as bilateral talks, bottom-up approaches, and civil-based standing committees in Parliament. Any related reforms, they added, should be structural, not just a shift in knowledge or technologies.

Officials in Thailand have said that the country has set a goal in line with the global community, aiming to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2065. However, the country has also acknowledged well that it’s an affected country rather than a polluter so it is focusing more on the Loss and Damage and seeking ways to get funding to support the work in the country. The new climate change law will be more compulsory with new economic mechanisms to catalyse climate action and adaptation, they noted.

Assoc. Prof. Witsanu suggested that the country’s climate policies need to be subject to reviews to see whether they are catching up with the shifting trends and challenges. Several policies are found to be contradictory to the climate goals, he said. Last but not least, new knowledge and research to support climate policies and action need to be built up, and this is the country’s big gap that still remains a challenge to all climate fronts, the professor noted.

Also read: วิเคราะห์ข้อท้าทายการเจรจาฯ ลดโลกร้อน COP 28 I Thorny Issues at COP28/ COP28 และเส้นทางสู่อนาคต I COP28 and the Way Forward