Less than a month before COP28, a number of impactful events were organised by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to build the momentum for negotiations. Amongst these, the Regional Climate Weeks (RCWs) were the most inspiring, as they symbolised that COP28 is for all, not only for government negotiators.

Within the RCWs, a series of events took place that provided space for grassroots-level exchange of knowledge and best practices across the region on the implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Global Climate Action (GCA). Indeed, apart from tagging COP28 as ‘Global Stock-taking COP’, the RCWs tagged the mega-event as ‘COP for all’.

Three of the four RCWs were already held for the Africa, MENA and Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) regions. During the LAC region Climate Week, in Peru, I was there to flag-off a ‘Net Zero’ movement for universities and higher educational institutes in the country. The movement encourages university students to make their campus a ‘living laboratory’ for Net Zero.

That activity by university students stands out, as compared to regional meetings involving environment ministers, as the university atmosphere encourages and inspires action and not just discussions. Indeed, for more than 30 years, the regional meetings, global meetings and even the geo-political groupings have been holding discussions, huddling to chalk out strategy, thronging together to decide on approaches and attempting to wriggle out of unfulfilled promises. The youth in universities instead are drawing up the roadmaps to bend the emission curves.

Anyway, we now find ourselves in COP28, with no less than 70 environment ministers in attendance. The President of the Summit, H.E. Dr Sultan Al Jaber, had already raised a rallying cry: “We have to come through. We must unite. We must act. And we must deliver in Dubai. There is need to unite on climate and deliver a clear message of hope, solidary, stability and prosperity. We need to show that the international community can deliver and send a clear signal that keeps 1.5 (limiting global average temperature rise above pre-industrial level) within reach.”

Meetings leading to COP28 had increased in frequency, but they did not seem promising enough to turn the tide of climate crisis. The world is still severely divided by trade interests, marred by geo-political conflict, blemished by unkept financial promises and flawed by lacklustre efforts to meet NDCs. The trust-deficit amongst countries and amongst various regional groupings – mainly North and South – has been burgeoning. Negotiations risk being unproductive or even fatally flawed.

After COP26, hope soared, because business and industry had unprecedentedly joined forces in pledging emission reduction and Net Zero. But global emissions kept rising globally – a one per cent rise in 2022 – though they should have reduced. In COP27, the source of hope was the agreement by developed countries for payments for loss and damage caused by climate calamities in the developing countries; this was hailed as significant progress. But a year after that agreement, even the methodologies of the loss and damage fund are not ready. Simply put, the hope turned into hype. As if in despair, Nature has reacted in 2023, when the global loss and damage due to extreme climate events has touched a new high.

COP28 should not be only a global stocktaking conference, it should also result in unprecedented ambitious and committed response to the Global Stocktake by demonstrating month-to-month verifiable reduction. Put simply, that is the only way to get the world back on track towards the goal of delivering three key goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. First, a strong mitigation outcome; second, a comprehensive adaptation agreement; and third “ground-breaking” real actions on finance, including delivering on the fund and funding arrangements for loss and damage and annual financial contribution of USD 100 billion for mitigation in developing countries.

Ahead of global stock-taking, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of 2022-23, had clearly spelt out that to keep global warming at an average of 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures, greenhouse gas emissions must drop 43% by 2030 from 2019 levels. But even with the revised and enhanced NDCs, as they stand today, the world is likely to emit 11% more GHGs by 2030. That sums up the uphill task at COP28.

Dr Rajendra Shende

What many missed amidst the stream of pre-COP28 meetings was another ‘sort of pre-COP28’ meeting that took place from October 22 to 26 in Nairobi. I am referring to the ‘35th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (MOP35)’. Apparently, the title of the meeting did not show a direct connect with the Paris Climate Agreement. But in reality, it not only had a direct connect but it also served as an example for COP28 – on what could be achieved in a global climate agreement and how out-of-box solutions could be found by going beyond the borders of the mandate of the countries under global agreements. Indeed, what is needed is a strong political will, partnership skills and people-oriented policy-implementation.

The Montreal Protocol has been termed as the singularly successful Multilateral Environmental Agreement so far in UN history. The reasons for its success include a timely phase out of Ozone Depleting Chemicals; in countries like India and China, the phase-out was ahead of the time stipulated in the Protocol. And all 196 countries in the world that are Parties to the Protocol, went beyond the original mandate to derive multitude of environmental and economic benefits by implementing out-of-box decisions.

Firstly, most of the ozone-depleting substances, mainly chloro-fluro-carbons (CFCs) that were phased out were also greenhouse gases, even thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Hence, phasing out these substances, by consequence, had provided a co-benefit of reducing global warming. Secondly, the ‘ozone-clean’ alternative chemicals, like hydro-fluoro-carbons (HFCs), introduced when CFCs were phased out, had significant global warming potential. In one of the amendments to the Protocol – the Kigali Amendment – the parties agreed to phase down HFCs for which additional financial and technical assistance was provided by the developed countries. The amount of financial assistance has nearly doubled, compared to what it was about 10 years ago. What’s more, the multilateral ozone fund, which started its operation under the UN umbrella, in the early 1990s, was never found to be in deficit, and there were never any delays in providing the promised funding by the developed countries to the developing countries.

ODS emissions, due to compliance with the Montreal Protocol, will avoid global warming of approximately 0.5-1 degrees C by mid-century, with another estimated avoidance of 0.3-0.5 degrees C warming by 2100 from the anticipated phasedown of HFCs under the Kigali Amendment, as per the Science Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol.

The story does not stop there. All was not well with the Montreal Protocol and the ozone-protection effort, as one can imagine. There were instances of illegal production and trading of ozone-depleting chemicals, despite worldwide controls. But they were resolved through transparent discussion and science-based investigations. The residual and nagging challenges remain, including incinerating and dumping of the unwanted chemicals and equipment. Discussions continue, but the spirit of negotiations is positive. There is always a confidence that “challenges exist for better solutions”. The assessment reports under the Montreal Protocol, though not as featured in media as IPCC reports, were taken with utmost seriousness, and governments acted accordingly. The opportunity of enhancing the energy efficiency of the cooling and heating equipment that the Montreal Protocol has offered is considered by the countries as the best solution for global warming.

Many wished that some of the delegates engaged in the flood of pre-COP28 meetings and RCWs should have attended the concurrently held Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, in Nairobi. Yes, the protection of the ozone layer is a relatively smaller issue now, but many times the successful issues look smaller when compared to bigger, yet-to-be-resolved issues.