COP28 has concluded. After the last tumultuous two days, a final global stocktake decision was gavelled through at speed this morning by the UAE President Sultan Al Jaber without giving nations a chance to start to comment – a tactic also used last year at the biodiversity COP15.  The proceeding was followed by many national statements; including emotional statements from Samoa and the Marshall Islands, two of the many small island states whose existence is under threat. For those people who wonder whether COPs have any benefit; one is that the COP is where the small island states, indigenous communities, and young people have the largest of voices, and others are forced to listen to them. 

The big ticket item, the Global Stocktake text, was strengthened, having been weakened over the weekend - perhaps a deliberate tactic from the Presidency to speed up the ability of countries to find a point of agreement. The key words are ‘calls on Parties to contribute to the following global efforts…. transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science’. The inclusion of the words ‘call on’ not ‘could take action’, and ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’, not ‘reducing production and consumption of fossil fuels’, marks a historic shift in COP outcomes – recognising  the need to end fossil fuels for the first time. Whilst a huge step forward, it is frightening how long it has taken for nations to outwardly acknowledge in the COP process the key cause and driver of climate change.  

This text also, crucially, contains multiple references to nature including reference to the Global Biodiversity Framework and implicitly its 30 by 30 goal, as well as halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, the first time the target date has been included as a formal outcome in the COP text. The need to safeguard food security, and create resilient, sustainable food systems, was also recognised, though the text remained general.  

For many developing countries that are on the frontline of climate impacts, the adoption of the global goal on adaptation was most important, and marks another historic moment. Wording on timescales of ambitious action by 2030 (and beyond) was included in the final document, and the set of targets includes the words ‘reducing climate impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity, and accelerating the use of ecosystem-based adaptation and nature-based solutions’, as well as ‘attaining climate-resilient food and agricultural production and supply and distribution of food’. This is a positive step forward, and represents the first time the COP process has agreed a set of adaptation targets. But the targets remain generalised and difficult to measure, and many countries were unhappy about the commitments on adaptation finance. More work will be needed by individual countries to show tangible progress on the new global adaptation targets. 

Critically for carbon markets, the Article 6.4 talks collapsed without agreement. Fraught discussions were had on the need for transparency, robust accounting, and the needs to protect communities and biodiversity. In the closing statements, the alliance of tropical forest countries accused some other Parties of deliberately trying to subvert the negotiations and weaken the whole system. This is a very concerning outcome for those of us wanting to see a significant change in direction for global, and voluntary, carbon and nature markets; to ensure they play an important role in climate action through robust regulation and transparency. We will have to wait to see what unfolds in 2024. In the meantime, we are pushing forward with our own version of voluntary carbon and nature markets that we feel works, grounded in the IUCN standard for nature-based solutions and with the needs of nature and communities at its heart. 

Finally, the decisions did not include a big push for uncertain, hugely expensive and problematic engineered carbon removals. In contrast, 2024 needs to be a year when all countries re-examine the role of nature in helping to reduce emissions and increase carbon removals as part of their national plans.  The difficulty in measurement has stifled greater appreciation and investment towards the role of nature in getting to net zero and supporting adaptation. This needs to change. 

We had three asks at the start of COP; faster action on emissions reduction now, putting nature recovery centre stage, and championing the role of adaptation and the loss and damage mechanism. As ever, there was partial progress on all of these, and in particular the UK made various statements on domestic action on nature, which we welcomed. I spoke about these in our regular COP video updates and we look forward to working with the UK Government to progress them further. 

For a COP, this is a good result. But this is a COP – progress is both hard fought and glacial, too slow for the many people who have already been killed in wildfires and floods, and billions of animals and plants that have already perished. In the words of Colombia at the closing plenary, the politics at this COP was between the interests of fossil fuel capital, and life. Parties and commentators, particularly those representing the energy sector, feel that the message is clear – the age of fossil fuels is waning.  But how fast can we now get there, and how much will this COP galvanise further action and economic change to save life that will otherwise be lost in the future?  

In the end, COPs produce words, and only words. The commitment that follows to make those words a reality is what matters. Countries are not yet delivering on the Paris Agreement. In the words of UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, we ALL need to do everything, everywhere, and all at once.