COP27 reaches final agreement in extremis that manages to save loss and damage

COP27 reaches final agreement in extremis that manages to save loss and damage
COP27 reaches final agreement in extremis that manages to save loss and damage
  • After an agonizing end to the negotiations, the international community recognizes the need to create a fund for the losses and damages suffered by the most vulnerable countries in the face of climate change.
  • Civil society gets its demand heard and demands that the committee for the design of this fund have the participation of the social platforms present in the negotiations.
  • Regarding mitigation, the final text does not have any progress with respect to the COP26 in Glasgow, which is why Ecologists in Action points out that it is unacceptable that a year has been lost in the fight against the climate emergency.
  • Financing for adaptation is the package that has gone the most unnoticed, where the results have no progress and are unable to determine a roadmap to double the financing objectives agreed in Glasgow.

COP27 was planned as a summit of trust and the implementation – or launch – of the Paris Agreements and the Glasgow Pact. However, for two weeks the negotiations have been complex: without a clear facilitation role of the Egyptian Presidency, with hardly any drafts that advanced the status of the discussions, and with information about blockages and very different points of view on relevant aspects.

So much so that, in the last 24 hours of the negotiations and already in stoppage time, the EU has even raised the possibility of a no-deal and abandoning the summit before accepting that the ambition of 1 '5 ºC. It also seemed impossible for the US to give in to the creation of the loss and damage fund. However, the Parties have managed to save an agreement that, according to Ecologists in Action, “includes the demand of civil society to create such a fund – aimed at the most vulnerable countries in the face of climate change – but has quite worrying elements to advance the climate struggle that, in addition, widens the gap between the global North and South.”

This is Ecologistas en Acción's assessment of the most notable points of the final agreement:

  1. Loss and damage fund. Although throughout the negotiations none of the proposals on the table seemed to satisfy the different countries, the final wording of the agreement has managed to include this fund—demanded by civil society for more than a year—as well as other financial mechanisms. The countries that have historically contributed the most to the increase in emissions are the ones that must nourish this economic fund. A decision that has been made despite pressure from some countries like the United States that have tried to block it.

Despite the approval of these mechanisms, it should be noted that the polarization and slowness of the discussions has prevented progress in the methodology and in the design of next steps for their rapid implementation. The final text contemplates the creation of a transition committee that will have to clearly define the process for financing the fund and the criteria for selecting projects that could benefit from that financing.

The numerous actions held during COP27 by civil society have contributed to unblocking this agreement that was expected to be complex or impossible after listening to the words of representatives of many of the countries of the global North.

For Javier Andaluz, spokesperson for Ecologistas en Acción, “this has been bittersweet news. Although this tool will allow us to meet the demands of the most vulnerable countries, it also leaves the transitional committee to define the fund with tasks that should have been completed at this summit. Environmental organizations, indigenous, gender and youth platforms demand that we be taken into account in the design of the next steps.”

  1. Mitigation. The measures on reducing emissions are undoubtedly the most disadvantaged of this agreement. The Egyptian Presidency has not shown interest in moving forward in this regard; In fact, it has limited itself to repeating what was already agreed in Glasgow and has not presented any progress to discuss. For the environmental organization, this represents the loss of a year of work and shows the inability of the COPs to include the obligation to adhere to the latest IPCC reports.

Likewise, during these two weeks in Egypt, the opposition of many countries to taking additional measures to confront the climate emergency has been clear. Public statements and proposals for new texts have shown attempts by some Parties to relax emissions reduction measures or avoid any mention of the 1.5ºC target.

As already happened in Glasgow, the inclusion of a mention of the need to abandon fossil fuels has been a major stumbling block. At COP26 last year, it was possible to include this mention, although only in recommendation mode and without mentioning all fossil fuels: “increase your efforts to abandon inefficient coal subsidies.” On this occasion, the wording has been left intact, which means that no steps forward are taken in a crucial decade to defossilize our economies.

Once again, all these debates have distracted and prevented consensus on a stronger text that would allow progress towards the end of all fossil fuels and a development model based on the destruction of the planet, facilitating access to renewable technologies for the majority. of the planet that is affected by an energy, ecological and social crisis.

Furthermore, COP27 has shown itself incapable, once again, of ruling out false solutions such as nuclear energy (an energy that is too expensive, dangerous and radioactive) by including the mention of “energy with low emissions” at the same level as renewable energy.

Sharm el Sheikh's lack of ambition shows the enormous price of reaching consensus agreements in negotiations. It also reflects the power of the big oil countries, which avoid at all costs mentioning the necessary disappearance of all fossil fuels from the economies before the end of the century.

Irene Rubiera, spokesperson for Ecologistas en Acción, stated: “Countries in the global North – such as the EU or the US – have to increase their ambition to reduce emissions, while developing countries with emerging economies cannot evade their responsibility to "when it comes to promoting an energy transition that does not repeat the same mistakes made by the global North."

  1. Adaptation and financing. Ecologists in Action wants to remind countries that “it is difficult to have credibility in fulfilling financing promises when they have not yet been able to mobilize the goal of the 100 billion dollars committed to the Green Climate Fund.” For the environmental organization, agreeing to create an adaptation fund is a great step but it must be guaranteed that the financing is new, additional and sufficient.

In the midst of all the COP27 negotiations, the inability of countries to set a new financing figure for said Green Climate Fund has gone unnoticed. What's more, for the first time mention of private financing such as Bloomberg Philanthropies appears in the final documents of a summit.

Marta García Pallarés, spokesperson for Ecologistas en Acción, has pointed out that “the incorporation of private financing sets a bad precedent in international agreements; it is the countries that should be represented in these negotiations and not the corporations. Furthermore, countries have the legislative capacity to establish sufficient fiscal measures so that these companies—largely responsible for the emergency—pay for the damages caused.”

On the other hand, the final documents do not include a clear roadmap to guarantee the doubling of the financing commitments agreed in Glasgow, and leaves it to the mere voluntariness of the countries to ensure that this objective is met in the coming years.

Regarding progress within the adaptation package, the Sharm el Sheikh Climate Summit has managed to stabilize the work program on the global adaptation goal. This mechanism establishes the next steps in the matter, which will give continuity to the Glasgow mandate and should reach conclusions at the next summit to be held in Dubai.

  1. Human rights. One of the most serious points of the final decision of this COP27 is the lack of agreement on the presence of human rights in the drafting. For Ecologistas en Acción, this lack of direct mentions only affects the problem of not understanding the climate crisis as a human rights crisis.

On the other hand, the demand for human rights has been central to the civil society agenda of a COP chaired by the totalitarian government of Abdelfatah El-Sisi. The slogan “without human rights there is no climate justice” as well as the demand for amnesty for political prisoners has been the protagonist of a large part of the actions, along with others on the demand for a fund for losses and damages, the increase in ambition in mitigation or the demand for climate justice.

Marta García Pallarés added: “We denounce the repression exercised by the Egyptian Government against activists, political dissidents and journalists, before the COP and also during the summit. The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms has estimated that more than 800 people have been detained since the beginning of October to date, with a spike in the number of arrests since November 11 due to an alleged call for protests in the country. We ask the international community and the UN to condemn these actions and demand that the host country release the political prisoners.”

As a general assessment of the Climate Summit that has just closed in Sharm el-Sheikh, Javier Andaluz has declared: “The Egyptian Presidency has shown itself incapable of making significant progress in a COP that was transcendental. The breakdown of trust between countries has become evident, widening the differences between countries and putting in check a process that is based on its mere voluntariness. Today more than ever it is clear how far governments are from taking scientific indications and responding to climate justice. Civil society is the one that has risen to the challenge, while countries continue playing geopolitics at these summits.”

Share: