Newspress

The 2022 Petersberg Climate Dialog took place in a context where the link between the climate crisis and other global crises (COVID-19, energy, food, debt, UKR-RUS war, biodiversity) has never been clearer. In this context, ministers spoke about the new challenges they faced, but also the increased urgency to act on climate as a risk and risk multiplier to sustainable social and economic development efforts and gains, economic stability and security.

Ministers, participants and experts highlighted that climate change already threatens food security, access to water and many other sources of livelihood of millions of people. Approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change. The IPCC's WG II of the incoming sixth assessment report recognizes that there are already limits to adaptation and that the window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future is rapidly closing. With every increment in global warming, the projected adverse impacts for humans and ecosystems and related losses and damages escalate. All communities and countries are affected by climate change impacts. As a result of different vulnerabilities, especially developing countries and in particular the least developed countries, as well as low-lying small island developing states, coastal communities and marginalized and poor people face bigger challenges.

Trust was a key theme throughout interventions as a fundamental element to increasing and enhancing cooperation. This included trust that commitments made (on financial or mitigation ambition) should be met moving forward. The need to deliver on development pathways that keep the 1.5C within reach and the need to accelerate implementation by scaling up action and support, were also cross-cutting themes. There was a general sense that the outcomes in Bonn did not reflect the needed urgency of action and the commitment to consensus that are required. Participants also highlighted the importance of recognizing relevant connections and ensuring appropriate linkages to food security, biodiversity, desertification, oceans, health, social and economic development and other relevant environmental and development issues.

The importance of civil society, indigenous, women and youth in addressing climate change was emphasized by many delegations, including ensuring their active and appropriate inclusion at the UNFCCC climate conferences and other related meetings. At this Petersberg, both Germany and Egyptian Cop27 Presidency put great emphasis on ensuring a seat at the table for civil society constituencies, setting a new standard for participation.

Major take-aways
1. A common sense of the growing risk that climate impacts present to resilient development pathways, and the need to better support those who are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change in adapting to and addressing them.

Almost all countries highlighted stories of devastating floods, droughts, heat waves, forest fires and extreme weather events. It was made clear that everybody is feeling the effects of the climate crisis, but also that the poorest and most vulnerable are least equipped to deal with the impacts they face. Looking ahead to COP, discussions surfaced clear expectations for outcomes that increase the capacity of all to better avert, minimize and address respective losses and damages. There was also growing convergence around expectations that COP lay foundations for better supporting developing countries in dealing with impacts financially, and through capacity building, and technology transfer - in adapting, as well as in averting, minimizing and addressing losses and damages.

There was broad consensus that COP27 should adequately address adaptation through work towards the Global Goal on Adaptation, including looking at how to better assess and measure adaptation progress and capturing progress towards the of the Goal. In addition, many inputs shared experiences on how to turn national adaptation planning into fundable project pipelines and successful implementation. Loss and Damage was central to the discussions. Disappointment was expressed by some participants at the lack of progress so far, including in negotiations around operationalizing the Santiago Network. Many highlighted the need to expand action and funding for Loss and Damage. Perspectives on priority COP27 outcomes varied, but included expectations of outcomes that would: operationalize the Network and to follow up on and define an outcome for the Glasgow Dialogue and to create a standing space in the UNFCCC agenda to discuss Loss and Damage. Parties discussed the need for a space to address loss and damage funding arrangements, and some delegations suggested assessing the existing architecture and the ways to effectively use and strengthen it, and whether additional adjustments are needed in the overall financial architecture. As part of the solution, Germany presented the Global Shield against Climate risks. Other parties highlighted the direct and immediate need for separate "loss and damage" coded channels. There was also growing convergence on the need for strong and coordinated action outside of the formal negotiations, with initiatives like CREWS, the Global Shield against Climate Risks, the InsuResilience Global Partnership, and WMO's work towards a universal Early Warning System in the next five years, being perceived as important, complementary and mutually reinforcing steps in the right direction.

World Café 2: Loss and Damage Funding ArrangementsCurrent climate, humanitarian and disaster risk reduction facilities were described by many as insufficient for
providing funding to avert, minimise and address losses and damages. The current focus on preventive
measures was criticized by some delegates. Insurance was mentioned as an area that needed to be further
explored to close gaps, including lack of coverage in rural areas, nevertheless it would not be silver-bullet
solution to addressing loss and damage. Some delegates highlighted that availability of Loss and Damage
finance was particularly important after disasters have struck (ex post), due to the potentially devastating
effects of extreme weather events on livelihoods and infrastructure, with the scale of losses sometimes
reaching multiples of annual national GDP for a single disaster, particularly in small island developing states.
A number of delegations underlined that funding arrangements for Loss and Damage should not overlook
the support needed to adapt to and address slow onset processes and include non-economic losses and
damages.
The issue of increasing debt due to losses and damages from climate change, including through recurring
extreme weather events, and consequently worsening risk ratings on capital markets, was related with calls
for debt relief.
Regarding institutional arrangements, many called for more coherence not only among different
organisations within the UN system, but also amongst the multitude of other actors in the climate, disaster
risk, development and humanitarian aid system. Here, the Global Shield against Climate Risks could be part
of the solution. Some focused on using existing mechanisms such as the GCF and the WIM that are already
doing work on Loss and Damage. Some other parties pointed to gaps within current instruments and
structures that they saw as intractable, including on funding to address loss of cultural heritage and called
for the establishment of a stand-alone facility. Meanwhile, a number of parties saw a new central facility as
inappropriate, questioning whether such a facility would truly accelerate the provision of Loss and Damage
financing or be bound up in governance questions for the foreseeable future.
Some highlighted an architecture that prioritized funding flowing to bottom up and local approaches on city
or community level as potentially more appropriate.
A proposal was made that all countries that provide funding currently could map the provision of finance
relevant to averting, minimizing and address loss and damage, as well as the barriers to access and availability
that exist. Some noted, in that context common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
in the light of different national circumstances.
Some saw a role for the private sector in allocating a portion of Corporate Sustainable Responsibility funding
to Loss and Damage, while other noted that philanthropic actors were starting to play a role. Many agreed
that multilateral development banks should consider the development of Loss and Damage windows with
simplified access procedures. Special drawing rights and debt relief/swap were also suggested as a
potentially useful modality.
World Café 3: Adaptation
All countries recognized the need to be able to better assess, compare and manage progress of adaptation
efforts, and many saw the potential of addressing this through advancing technical work on operationalizing
CO-CHAIR CONCLUSION
GERMANY & EGYPT
the Global Goal on Adaptation at COP27. Many pointed to the IPCC reports that highlighted the urgent need
for a transformative adaption agenda that delivers timely action at-scale.
The complexity of adaptation was emphasized, with many highlighting the multiple linkages to SDGs,
desertification, biodiversity, the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction, soil conservation, water, food,
health, settlement patterns, livelihood security, technology transfer, and human rights frameworks. This
complexity was exacerbated by the local and specific nature of adaptation pressures, however conversations
highlighted that there were also common elements of adaptation regionally, and globally. In any case, the
need for an inclusive and participatory approach throughout any adaptation planning process acknowledging
the respective context specificities was generally considered a must for ownership and thus impact.
Many inputs shared experiences on what helps national adaptation planning turn into implementation faster,
where national plans of adaptation (NAPs) can play a key role: Building strategies bottom-up, through early
involvement of local communities and stakeholders (civil society, indigenous, youth; but also private sector
and potential investors) was highlighted by many as a best practice. This was highlighted as key for building
buy-in and enhancing chances of effective implementation, as well as avoiding maladaptation. Local access
to data (including on risk), early warning systems, and risk assessments were highlighted as important to help
prioritize implementation. The importance of training at local levels was also emphasized.
Government regulation was cited as an important link between governments and the private sector,
providing a solid framework for adaptation. For example, building codes that consider energy efficiency,
renewable use and production, and adaptation from the design phase were cited as best practices.
World Café 4: Adaptation Finance
Ministers noted that adaptation funding has increased in recent years. However, all agreed that it remains
insufficient and that the scale of and access to funding needed for adaptation remains an increasing
challenge. Participants discussed barriers to getting support and investment flowing, recognizing that
barriers may vary by source: whether funding is coming from public budgets, MDBs or the private sector.
Participants highlighted that Countries with NAPs or Adaptation Communications should be eligible to
receive facilitated support.
Some participants recalled the risk of funding maladaptation, which could be minimized by screening all
investments through the lens of a changed climate. Participants also recognized a clear need to de-risk
investments in adaptation. They suggested that in the future, the risks of not taking adaptation action should
be made transparent and, if possible, priced to incentivize adaptation investments.
Many Parties called for more adaptation funding in particular from MDBs, including through adopting an
increased grant equivalence for adaptation projects. Many also spoke to the need for MDBs to more
systematically consider the special circumstances of the different groups of developing countries, i.e. small
island states, irrespective of income status, when it comes to eligibility for accessing concessional finance,
particularly in the World Bank and IMF.
In terms of access to operational entities such as the GCF, GEF, Adaptation Fund, SCCF, or LDCF, there was
general consensus on the need to move towards harmonized application procedures and improve coherence
and complementarity among funds.
CO-CHAIR CONCLUSION
GERMANY & EGYPT
Many delegations stressed the need to track progress and follow up on the COP26 commitment to double
adaptation finance by 2025.
World Café 5: Mitigation
Participants highlighted that the Mitigation Work Program needs to scale up mitigation ambition and
implementation in this critical decade. Amongst potential guiding principles for the mitigation work
program, they mentioned progression and maximum ambition based on the best available science, as well as
equity, CBDR-RC and alignment with the Convention and the Paris Agreement.
Many clarified that they did not mean the work program to be prescriptive, but rather as a space for voluntary
cooperation and exchange (i.e. used to inform technical-level discussions about overcoming barriers to
accelerated national action. Proposed topics for the work programme included exchanges on policy design
for accelerated just transition, lessons learned on overcoming barriers to technology deployment, access to
finance (including through "NDC Investment Plans"), technology transfer and development, and concrete
solutions through new forward-looking partnerships for action and support. Many also saw the potential for
this sort of a work programme as a complement to the Global Stocktake, building confidence and
momentum to provide the understanding for the needed support for NDC implementation, and updating
NDC. A dialogue on national policy instruments for acceleration was suggested to be part of the MWP.
Some also noted that new or updated sector- or source-specific targets (e.g. for methane) could be better
communicated both at the technical level via the work programme, and at the political level via NDCs. While
others did not agree that sector specific targets as being part of the work program.
Questions were raised about whether the work program would be a place to dock the many sectoral
voluntary initiatives into the UNFCCC process, improving the follow-up on such voluntary commitments.
Some expressed concern that this should not be done under the UNFCCC process since not all parties are
part of such initiatives, others suggested that including discussions of implementing sectoral initiatives in the
work program could help deepen overall understanding and cooperation around barriers and opportunities
for implementation, irrespective of membership in the initiatives.
Many parties also called for the inclusion of non-party stakeholders, including the private sector, cities and
regions, experts and youth. Some cautioned that this should not be an excuse for parties not to discuss and
take action themselves. Some suggested that the work program could feed into and be informed by the
annual High Level Ministerial round table on mitigation ambition and implementation, and would need to
be designed as a complement to the GST.
World Café 6: Energy transition
Current rising fossil energy prices and energy security are an incentive for many countries to accelerate their
transition towards renewable energy. Parties temporarily returning to coal-based power generation due to
the war in Ukraine emphasized that their overall energy transition would be accelerated to offset short-term
coal use, with mitigation targets maintained or increased. Some delegates compared these efforts to the
longer-term challenge of addressing poverty while leaving existing fossil fuels in the ground. Others called
for frameworks that can ensure that any emergency investments are temporary and consistent with the 1.5°C
limit.
CO-CHAIR CONCLUSION
GERMANY & EGYPT
Many are currently focusing more on energy efficiency, some delegates also recommending to focus more
broadly on consumption reduction, both from equity and efficiency perspectives.
For nearly all delegates, renewable energy and climate neutral or low carbon and resilient development
pathways was a clear priority. While some noted national circumstances as determining energy security
considerations, others described fossil fuels as unaffordable due to their highly subsidized nature and their
high external costs, such as mounting health impacts and pollution concerns. Some countries indicated that
technical assistance may be needed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
Frameworks for a just transition were mentioned as a key for combining energy transition with sustainable
development. Some wanted to measure just transition in terms of well-being, others in terms of growth.
Social costs of action and inaction were recommended as indicators to guide decisions, and social protection
measures need to accompany any transition to ensure its "Just" character. Partnerships between
communities, government and investors were identified as critical. Just transition dialogues could facilitate
energy access. African participants highlighted the importance of decentralized energy systems, ensuring
more participatory processes in renewables expansion, and prioritizing local consumption over export. Some
small states and small islands mentioned transaction costs, sourcing of (up-to-date) technology and limited
potential for renewable energy as barriers which could be overcome with cooperation and renewable energy
transport options.
Grid modernisation was seen as an important enabling condition, as well as investments in the workforce
and training measures.
On technology development and transfer, some recommended to identify technologies that could be
defined as a global common to be used for sustainable development.
Many countries noted the need for a comprehensive approach to mobilizing finance. Here many noted the
importance of public finance. The role of MDBs and public banks was also central to other countries
interventions. The importance of Art. 2.1.(c) of the Paris Agreement and the overall consistency of global
finance flows, , with Paris goals was the substance of a large number of interventions. Many participants
stressed the importance of legislation and clear and credible targets for mobilizing sustainable finance.
Various instruments were mentioned, including carbon pricing, blended finance, and de-risking instruments.
World Café 7: Mitigation Finance
There was broad consensus that public finance remains key and that obligations of developed country Parties
under the Convention and the Paris Agreement to provide finance to developing countries as well as the
principles of CBDRRC and equity needed to be respected. It was also emphasized that public finance has a
special role to play in leveraging private investment and additional finance. Many interventions highlighted
the role of the UNFCCC, central banks and governments to provide clear rules and policy frameworks for the
private sector to enable the transformation - long, clear and lasting signals.
There was convergence on the importance of scaling up climate finance in general. Interventions stressed
the need to discuss balance between mitigation and adaption-finance in the context of a general uplift, to
ensure that the one didn't grow to the detriment of the other.
CO-CHAIR CONCLUSION
GERMANY & EGYPT
The mismatch between project based climate finance and the need for a whole sector and society transition
was pointed out. Many interventions called for a more transformative approach in evaluating and
programming climate finance. JETPs and policy based loans were suggested as potential elements for
solutions. Experiences from REDD+ in focusing on the whole society were mentioned as a potential basis
for future approaches.
A dedicated space to discuss efforts and progress on 2.i.c) (i.e. a work programme or agenda item) was
proposed by some. Many also recommended focusing on the sources that can provide the trillions - the
private sector, private banks, institutional investors, with some highlighting that these conversation would
need to go hand-in-hand with work on the regulatory frameworks that could give confidence in profitability
and sustainability of projects.
Parties noted the important role of shareholder countries in MDBs. Some noted that with MDBs having to
deal with several crisis; the priority of tackling the climate crisis needed to be stressed by a wide range of
participants. It was pointed out that it is crucial that MDBs work with regional and national financial
authorities and climate change authorities to ensure alignment with Paris Agreement goals.
As the decisions on Art. 6 have been taken at COP26, some highlighted the need to look into the role carbon
markets can play. It was pointed out that for COP27, the discussions on implementation as well as the
discussion on the new collective quantified goal are crucial.