The outcomes of COP27

Agreement and disappointment at Cop27. Save the 1.5 degree target, the novelty is the “loss and damage” fund. Lack of progress on mitigation and no courage to phase out fossil fuels.

Credits to Matías Tejeda

At COP27 in Egypt, negotiations ran 40 hours past the Friday night deadline. After long and difficult negotiations, parties have reached an agreement that made history. Developing countries secured a new “loss and damage” fund to support the victims of climate disasters.

Yet this was tempered by a wider agreement – the “Sharm el-Sheikh implementation plan” – that excluded any mention of winding down the use of fossil fuels. It also provided little indication that nations were serious about scaling up efforts to cut emissions.

The conference was marketed as “implementation” COP. It would see the pledges of the past give way to balanced action on tackling climate change and preparing for its effects. I doubt it happened. In my opinion, the results were a mixed bag, achieving more on the impacts of climate change than on its causes. It is like opting for liposuction to lose a few extra kilos instead of starting a diet: are we sure this is the most sustainable approach?

I still have to clear my head on the key outcomes of COP27 but I have reasonably clear ideas on two of them. So, let’s dig deep.

1.       Creation of a loss and damage fund

After 30 years of climate talks, wealthy countries finally conceded to on the financial hook for the damage their emissions have caused. Indeed, parties have agreed to create a new fund for loss and damage, that will pay reparations to victims of climate change.

As Molwyn Joseph, minister of health and environment for Antigua and Barbuda, said "This is not charity. This is an issue of climate justice”. Indeed, the fund is a financial mechanism that could send billions of dollars from wealthy countries to help developing nations treat the symptoms of climate change.

Great idea but the hard part comes when the ribbon touches road. First, discussions on who pays and who receives the money have been postponed. In this, China's role is to be reviewed and redefined considering its economic and political weight. Technically, it would be a developing nation but it is also responsible for a big portion of today’s emissions and the US and EU want it to be on the payer side.

Second, getting the fund filled with cash. The agreement to establish the fund was achieved but discussions about the funding arrangements and amount have been postponed to COP28. So we have a text that establishes the principle of the creation of a specific financial fund, but leaves many questions unanswered. Put differently, we have no clue how it will work.

2.       Lack of progress on mitigation

“Ambition” refers to the promises countries make to cut emissions. “Implementation” means turning promises into results. On both counts, countries are falling far short of what is needed to stay below 1.5C. As of 18 November, only 30 countries, responsible for a fifth of global emissions, had responded to this request with updated pledges, according to Climate Action Tracker.

An example of lack of progress is the declaration 'Accelerating to Zero (A2Z)'. The initiative secures the commitment of more than 200 countries, regions and manufacturers to accelerate, towards zero-emission transport by eliminating the sale of cars with combustion engines from 2035.

The truth is, however, that this is nothing new, but an extension of the declaration on zero-emission vehicles signed last year in Glasgow and now joined by Spain and France. A commitment that still leaves out the world's other major car manufacturers such as China, the US, Japan, India, South Korea and Germany.

Another example of a “recycled text” is the global alliance to reduce methane emissions by at least 30 per cent by 2030 compared to 2020 levels. This is the fastest way to reduce warming in the short term. The group of signatories has already reached 150 countries but the big polluters (China, India and Russia) are still missing.

The summit also included special commitments by the participating countries and minor alliances, commitments that will certainly have a significant impact, such as the joint proposal by Colombia and Venezuela to set up a fund against deforestation in the Amazon.

The Brazilian government does not oppose it. On the contrary, the newly elected Brazilian President Luis Inàcio Lula da Silva has proposed the Brazilian Amazon as the venue for COP30. However, Lula da Silva also announced his intention to revive the oil industry through the state-owned company Petrobras, so his position is contradictory to say the least.

To sum it up, parties are saying something in the chords of “I don’t like new emission reduction measures. But I absolutely commit to the 1.5 degrees target!”. A good suggestion we could adopt for upcoming New Year‘s resolutions: “I don’t like going to the gym. But I absolutely commit to lose 20 kg next year!”. I doubt it will work.

***

The Cop27 outcome document recognises that a 43% cut in emissions to 2030 compared to 2019 is necessary to maintain the 1.5 C target. It is agreed to update the states' decarbonisation commitments by COP28 in 2023 and reaffirm the Glasgow commitments to reduce coal-fired power generation and methane emissions. Finally, the decisive role of renewables is recognised, but no commitment is made to reduce fossil fuels.

So was COP27 a success or a failure? Based on my experience, I believe that giving a thumbs up or down is not the correct way to tell the story. A COP is so complex that labeling it a “success” or a “failure” is wrong by definition. Maybe it was still acceptable for COP21 and slightly for COP26. But not any longer now that the real point is to translate past pledges into action.

My take from this experience is that COPs will not address climate change, but climate change will not be addressed without COPs. These conferences are the only global forum that represents and gives voice to the demands of all countries, especially the most vulnerable.

During my days in Sharm, I was lucky enough to meet a delegate of Vanuatu. If you don’t know the story of this small island state that is severely impacted by the effects of climate change, you should (here is a good start). The agreement on loss and damage, achieved after 30 years of negotiations, will help Vanuatu and many similar islands. This makes me hope that, despite all its controversies, COPs still make sense.