Tension until the last minute in Egypt: from “disappointment” to the “historic” agreement of COP27

After two weeks of negotiations, COP27 leaves behind an agreement that, they say, could change the fate of vulnerable countries.

The morning of Saturday, November 19, dawned in Sharm el-Sheikh with an aura of hopelessness. The final hours of the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were intense: Europe threatened to leave, the most vulnerable countries demanded more funding for loss and damage, and environmental activists watched in amazement as delegates swayed.

Soon, some began to call it “disappointment”. The climate summit dragged on a marathon day in which it seemed impossible to agree. But after a long morning, the pact finally arrived. An agreement that is already being branded as “historic”, especially by the countries most vulnerable to climate change, who celebrate the text signed by the participants of COP27.

But progress in the long-awaited loss-and-damage fund does not dazzle the deal’s lack of ambition elsewhere. Mitigating and decarbonizing the global economy are two points on which senior world leaders will have to continue working.

A long day

Spokespeople for the Climate Action Network (CAN), a global network of more than 1,800 civil society organizations from more than 130 countries, were the first to ask the summit’s national representatives for seriousness and answers in their negotiations.

“Is it time to talk about political red lines? No, the planet is already crossing all its red lines, so leave behind the ‘politicking’ and act,” said one of the CAN spokespeople. Thus, he referred to the statements of Frans Timmermans, vice president of the European Commission (EC), a few hours earlier: “We prefer that there is no agreement if the alternative is a bad agreement.”

In a press conference held mid-morning, several members of the CAN also blamed the EU and the US for being obsessed with the goal of keeping global warming at the limit of 1.5 °C above the pre-industrial temperature while “we see how they expand their fossil fuel infrastructures”.

The commitment to polluting energies of which they spoke from the CAN refers to the current increase in the use of polluting energy that Europe is carrying out. On this, Timmermans recalled throughout the week that it is “an exceptional situation” derived from the Russian war in Ukraine and the energy crisis it is causing.

The vice president of the EC assured on November 15 that the EU “will burn coal only three more winters” and that at the same time it will continue to promote and bet on renewable energies. After three years, which will serve to “not let European families or businesses fall”, the Union will open the current energy mix as quickly as possible, according to Timmermans.

Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate reminded world leaders gathered in Egypt that “COP27 was called to be Africa’s COP.” However, the young woman said, “the needs of Africans have been obstructed during the summit.”

Loss and damage

Nakate insisted that “loss and damage in vulnerable countries can no longer be ignored, but some developed countries have chosen to ignore our suffering here in Egypt.” In her words, the Ugandan climate activist referred to the reluctance – especially of the EU – to address the financing of loss and damage from scratch.

However, the Vice President of the Government and Minister for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge, Teresa Ribera, assured throughout the day that “in the latest drafts of the agreement a step forward is taken in the reinforcement of solidarity for the losses and damages of the most vulnerable countries”.

Ribera assures that the final proposal is not that of the EU, but that it is a beginning. “Europe thinks it is important to consolidate a mosaic of resources to solve this problem and only create a new facility to concentrate resources on the most vulnerable, but it is true that this possibility is not excluded.”

The Vice-President referred to the request of developing countries to create a new aid fund. The EU’s thesis in the last two weeks, on the other hand, was to use existing funds and mechanisms, and facilitate, through the COP agreements, their use and dynamize resources.

“In the coming months we will have to work on how the mechanism materializes and that it not only has public resources, but also private resources,” Ribera insisted. In addition, he made clear a basic demand of the EU: that the financing of losses and damages not only falls on the OECD countries, “but also that it can count on resources from large emerging economies that are also large polluters and that have the capacity to pay.”

Of course, throughout the afternoon of Saturday, the European Union managed to include in the final text regarding loss and damage a key phrase for Europeans: the fund will prioritize access to the countries most vulnerable to climate change. This claim would prevent States such as Qatar, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, which have sufficient financial resources, from accessing loss and damage funds. Something that, according to Europe, would be feasible if they were opened to all developing countries.

According to journalists from the British newspaper The Guardian, the Minister of Environment of Chile, Maisa Roja, said that the text takes “a historic step” in terms of losses and damages.

Mitigation

Ribera also wanted to emphasize on the last day of the COP the impossibility of responding to the needs of adaptation and loss and damage “if we are not able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible.” The vice president, as Timmermans has been doing in the last week, was concerned about the lack of agreement in this regard.

“Europe cannot be complicit in an outcome that puts climate security at risk, that puts the 1.5°C target at risk due to lack of ambition,” said the Spaniard. Both the draft agreements proposed by the COP presidency and the final text are, for her, “very elementary”, because “it maintains the commitments of Glasgow, but makes little progress”.

For his part, Xie Zhenhua, special envoy of the Chinese Government to COP27, was happy on the last day of the summit for the “very constructive” negotiations carried out with his US counterpart, John Kerry. Xie told Reuters he wanted to “ensure the success of the COP.”

Keys to the final text

Generic

There is no mention of phasing out fossil fuels.

Brief mentions are made of the scientific evidence and the 1.5 °C limit on global warming.

The language used does not highlight all the importance of renewables that was expected.

Calls to decarbonise economies are bare-bones and there is no progress on the Glasgow Accords.

It makes no reference to the Biodiversity Summit to be held in Montreal in December, nor does it delve into the role biodiversity plays in climate action.

It calls for a transformation of the financial system.

It urges countries to significantly scale up their financing for climate adaptation.

It calls for the updating of the climate plans of countries that have not yet done so before COP28.

He supports the United Nations proposal to curb corporate greenwashing.

Loss and damage

The text does not delve into the financing mechanism.

It relates loss and damage to the 1.5°C limit of global warming and makes indirect references to mitigation.

It recognises that the most vulnerable developing countries need help and, finally, recognises that they must have priority in accessing the loss and damage fund.

A number of references are made to existing funds and mechanisms.

The fund will materialize through a transition committee that will hold at least three meetings in the coming year. The task of this committee will be to assess the situation and make practical recommendations that will be considered and adopted at COP28.

It calls for further negotiations by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank for financial reform in spring 2023.

Work programme on mitigation

It prevents the Mitigation Work Program from recommending new objectives.

It mentions, but does not reiterate, the need to improve NDCs or national climate plans.

It barely maintains the language of COP26 regarding the global warming limit of 1.5 °C.

It does not propose new emission reduction targets.

There is no mention of the commitments made in Glasgow.

It keeps the work in mitigation until 2030.

Source: The Spanish