The 27th
United Nations Climate Change Conference in Egypt COP27 has come and gone leaving
world climate actors with much to complain of, lay blames of or on, lay claims of
and commit all the powers that be.
In the heated exchanges
and deliberation shrouded with countless calls, campaigns and pacific demonstration,
world climate ambassadors and advocate left SHARM unresolved a 100% on much of what
were invoked, leaving other upcoming COPs with much to do and the absolute need
for world alliances to intensify claims and clemency at all fronts.
Doing justice to nature
and people greatly affected was at the center of Africa’s calls, the South, West
did all in their best to understand global priorities and mitigating actions.
The over time climate
summit ended on the 20th of November 2022 Resolving;
Fossil fuels
At last year’s Cop26 in Glasgow, the
presidency made a push to “keep 1.5 alive”, referring to the most ambitious
temperature limit in the Paris Agreement. And it named coal as a problem for
the first time, with countries agreeing to phase down its use.
In Sharm el-Sheikh, coal-reliant India sought
to turn the heat onto other fossil fuels. This was seized on by a broad
coalition of more than 80 developed and vulnerable countries – but not by the
Egyptian presidency.
Egypt never included fossil fuel phaseout language in the draft text.
Indeed, it promoted fossil gas and
struck deals on the sidelines. Behind closed doors, countries including Saudi
Arabia and Russia made the argument that oil doesn’t cause climate change,
emissions do.
The text does promote renewables but also
“low-emission” energy. This could be interpreted as gas, a fossil fuel which is
less polluting when burned than coal, or fossil fuels with carbon capture and
storage.
It holds the Glasgow Pact line on 1.5C and
coal, but doesn’t go beyond it. There is recognition that the 1.5C target “requires rapid, deep and
sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions reducing global net
greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 relative to the 2019 level”.
Loss and damage finance
Three decades ago, small island states and poorer countries started
calling for compensation for the damage climate change inflicts on their
communities. While “compensation” became taboo, they finally got finance for
“loss and damage” on
the formal agenda at Cop27.
Wealthy nations, reluctant to put their hands in their pockets, offered
up a “mosaic of solutions” like insurance and early warning systems. Developing
countries were determined to get a dedicated new fund.
The EU blinked first. They announced they would
support a fund if the donor base was broadened, if it was targeted at the most
vulnerable developing countries and if Cop27 also agreed strong action to
reduce emissions.
These conditions were partly met and developing nations accepted the
offer. The US and other rich countries got on board and they all agreed “to
establish a fund for responding to loss and damage”.
A transitional committee will look into what funding is needed and where
the money should come from. It will tackle the thorny issues of whether to
expand the donor base to countries like China or Qatar and report to Cop28.
Some of the money is to come through “existing funding arrangements”,
like development banks or debt relief. Some from “innovative sources”, which
could mean taxes on fossil fuels, aviation or shipping.
The EU specified that support should only go to “vulnerable” countries –
a term for the transitional committee to define.
UN Climate Change has been tasked with holding two workshops on the
issue before Cop28 and reporting back.
Countries agreed on how to set up an
organisation called the Santiago Network which will provide technical
assistance in averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage.
Mitigation work programme
At Cop26 in Glasgow, countries noted that emissions were projected to be 14%
above 2010 levels in 2030. To limit global warming to 1.5C, emissions need to
fall 45%.
To fix that, they agreed to set up a “work programme to urgently scale
up mitigation ambition and implementation in this critical decade”.
In Sharm el-Sheikh, nations debated how to structure this work programme.
Developed and vulnerable countries wanted the talks to be long, strong
and specific. Emerging economies wanted them to be short, weak and broad.
The latter’s fingerprints are on text saying the process should be “non-prescriptive,
non-punitive, facilitative, respectful of national sovereignty and national
circumstances” and “not result in new targets or goals”.
They former group
wanted talks to continue until 2030, the latter until only 2023 or 2024. They
compromised on 2026.
The Bridgetown agenda
A serious conversation about shifting trillions of dollars into green
and climate-resilient investments has been gathering traction over the past
year.
Barbados’ Mia Mottley set the ball rolling in Glasgow. Since then,
her “Bridgetown agenda“ has gathered momentum.
The proposed reforms to the international financial system are happening
outside UN Climate Change. But unlocking much-needed climate finance is
relevant to the process.
The International Energy Agency estimates that $4 trillion need to be invested in
renewable energy every year by 2030 to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Developing countries alone need an estimated $5.6 trillion to meet their 2030
goals. Increasing debt levels is making matters worse.
Countries agreed that delivering such funding will require “a transformation of the
financial system and its structures”.
They called on multilateral development banks (MDBs) and international
financial institutions to scale up and simplify access to climate finance and
ensure their activities contribute to “significantly increasing climate ambition”. This echoes recommendations made by a G20 expert
group on the issue
However, Mottley’s flagship proposal to use IMF relief, known as
special drawing rights (SDRs), to fund carbon-cutting projects doesn’t feature
in the text. Discussions will continue at the spring meetings of the IMF and
the World Bank.
Carbon trading rules
Negotiators outlined the broad framework for a new global
carbon trading scheme in Glasgow. In Sharm el-Sheikh, they filled in some
details.
The text creates a two-tier carbon market, applying
different rules depending on who buys the credits and for what purpose.
The Glasgow Pact banned double counting: if one country buys an emission
credit from another to use towards its target, the host country needs to make
an accounting adjustment. This also applies to international compliance markets
such as aviation’s trading scheme Corsia.
In the new second-tier market, carbon credits are called “mitigation
contributions”. A company can buy a credit from another country and the host
does not need to tweak its emissions inventory.
While the name suggests the buyer should not use these credits to offset
their own emissions, there is nothing to stop them. Campaigners warn this opens
the door to
double claiming and corporate greenwashing of net zero pledges.
A technical body made recommendations on
how to define “removals” – sucking carbon dioxide out of the air – for trading
purposes. Many of the options involve untested or controversial processes and
negotiators sent the recommendations back for further work.
Regarding bilateral carbon trades between countries, the text allows governments to designate any
information about the exchange as confidential.
Experts have raised concerns this could allow shady deals to go
unchecked and make accountability toothless.
Just energy transition
The energy crisis has been the stark background for Cop27. A number of
countries have ramped up their coal, oil and gas production to deal with the
short-term supply crunch.
In Sharm el-Sheikh, countries “recognised” that the crisis
underlines the need to “rapidly transform energy systems,” including by
accelerating renewable energy roll out.
Deals between rich and emerging economies to accelerate the shift away
from coal, known as just energy transition partnerships, got a special mention
as a way to speed up emission cuts.
Two days before the start of the summit, South Africa published details
of a $84bn investment plan to transition from coal
clean energy. It outlined long-awaited details of a $8.5 deal with wealthy
countries
On the sidelines of the G20 leaders’ summit in Bali, rich countries
announced a similar $20bn deal with Indonesia. The funds include both
public and private finance contributions. Vietnam is next in line, with an
agreement mooted before the end of the year.
At Cop27, countries agreed that “just and equitable energy transition”
must be based on national development priorities and include social protection
and solidarity measures, such as providing retraining programmes and support
for coal workers affected by the transition.
Cop27 decided to establish a work programme on “just transition” and
convene an annual ministerial roundtable as part of this process.
Adaptation
A year ago, Egypt billed Cop27 as a “resilience” Cop. That buzzword was later dropped for
“implementation”.
Adapting to the impacts of a changing climate never stopped being
important to those on the front lines.
But measuring progress on adaptation is harder than counting tonnes of
carbon. Work to define the Global Goal on Adaptation inched forward.
Countries agreed to develop a framework to guide
delivery of the goal and track progress. This will take into account countries’
vulnerability and capacity to cope, consider a range of themes include water,
food and agriculture and poverty, and science-based indicators, metrics and
targets.
A proposal to commission a special report on adaptation from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change went nowhere.
Frustrated negotiators from both developed and developing countries told
Climate Home the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) hogged the mic
with unproductive interventions.
Mariam Allam, lead AGN negotiator on the issue, rebutted the accusation. On the contrary, she said
the AGN’s “willingness” to engage with the substance “was unmatched” by other
groups.
Richard Klein, an adaptation expert at the Stockholm Environment
Institute, told Climate Home: “There was an opportunity to show what ambitious
and transformative adaptation could look like. But it didn’t happen.”
It doesn’t help that this agenda is poorly funded.
Countries “noted with serious concern” the
gap between current levels of adaptation finance and what is needed to
responded to climate impacts. They “urged” countries to “urgently and
significantly scale up their provision of climate finance”. The only mention of
a pledge by rich countries to double adaptation funding to $40bn by 2025 was
about preparing a report.
Climate finance
Rich countries are late to deliver
the $100 billion they promised by 2020 to help developing countries cut
emissions and cope with climate impacts. The definition of madness is doing the
same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So perhaps it shouldn’t surprise that talks
on a new collective climate finance goal for 2025 got off to a slow start. A
decision is not due until 2024 and the Cop27 text is mostly procedural.
One developing country negotiator likened the process to growing grapes.
Harvesting fruits too early doesn’t make good wine, he said.
The text agreed in Sharm
says the new goal will “take into account the needs and priorities of
developing countries”.
It is not just about quantity but quality. Contributors prefer to lend
money for carbon-cutting projects, “mobilising” private finance where possible.
Recipients want public grants, particularly for unprofitable, but essential,
adaptation projects. Much of the debate will centre on sub-targets and
accounting standards.
Developed countries are pushing to expand the
donor base when it comes to loss and damage funding. It’s only a matter of time
before that flares up in the
broader finance talks.
Africa’s ‘special needs and
circumstances’
African nations had hoped that the “Africa Cop” would recognise its
special needs and circumstances to tackle climate action. The status
unlocks priority access to international support and is enjoyed by the
least developed countries (LDC), which includes 33 African nations, and small
island developing states (SIDS).
But a proposal by the African Group of Negotiators was
once again rejected.
A group of Latin American and Caribbean nations (Ailac) has repeatedly
argued that expanding the special needs status to all African countries should
allow them to claim it too.
Chile, on behalf of a group of Latin American and Caribbean nations
(Ailac), proposed to open a space for different groups and
regions to discuss their needs. There was no consensus on the proposal.
