COP27: No Time to Waste
Author: Alice Palmer, Communications and Events Intern
COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, has arrived. One year on from the Glasgow Climate Pact, the world contends with a human-induced climate crisis that only intensifies with every delayed action and commitment to tackle the defining issue of our time. Whether it's catastrophic flooding in Pakistan, a drought so severe that the Horn of Africa is on the brink of famine, or a hurricane of immense proportion wiping out homes around the Gulf of Mexico, 2022 has shown that the era of climate migrancy is upon us, with millions of people facing displacement. As we look back at the commitments of COP26, and the pressure points for COP27, it has never been more clear: the action that is – or is not – taken now, defines the security of our future, and that of future generations.
Recap: What happened at COP26?
The Glasgow Climate Pact, signed by nearly 200 countries, finalised and built upon the commitments of the 2015 Paris Agreement. After late night negotiations that extended into the early hours, COP26 President Alok Sharma announced that an agreement had finally been reached at the close of the two-week event. Here’s a recap of the key achievements from Glasgow’s Pact, the formal outcome of the 26th annual Conference of the Parties.
The number of countries pledging to reach net-zero emissions passed 140, with 90% of the world’s GDP covered by net-zero commitments.
The goal to “keep 1.5°C alive” was reaffirmed, with an agreement to “revisit and strengthen” emission reduction plans (known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs) by COP27.
Explicit plans were announced to reduce unabated coal usage.
A group of major car manufacturers, including GM, Ford, Volvo, Jaguar Land Rover and Mercedes-Benz committed to zero emissions by 2040.
More than 100 countries pledged to reverse deforestation by 2030.
A promise to double adaptation finance by 2025 from 2019 (but no guarantees).
India’s PM, Narendra Modi, vowed that by 2030, half of India's energy would come from renewables. Further to this, India – the third largest emitter of GHGs – pledged to reach net-zero by 2070.
COP26’s true measure of success, however, is something that will vary depending on who you speak to — even more so now that another year has passed with unrelenting climate-related emergencies, including a summer of record-high temperatures here in the UK. There’s no doubt that important, and welcome, commitments were made in Glasgow. However, many vulnerable nations who currently bear the brunt of climate change – those that suffer disproportionately from the abnormal increase in natural disasters like floods, tidal surges, fires, and droughts – were frank in voicing that commitments did not go far enough for the scale of the threat they face.
Take for example, the response from the Maldives’ Minister of Environment, Shauna Aminath. Aminath was clear in voicing that adaptation to climate change was “a matter of survival” for the Maldives, 80% of which could become uninhabitable by 2050 at the current rate of global warming. While COP26 provided some foundations, “it does not bring hope to our hearts. The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is a death sentence for us”, she said.
Such is the frustration when the pledge to “phase out” coal was changed at the last minute to “phase down”, at the behest of India and China. Or when the $100 billion in climate funding promised every year by developed countries to vulnerable nations was not met by 2020, and adaptation funding remains below target. Or when efforts by the latter to secure loss and damage financing was openly rejected by those rich nations responsible for global warming.
The road ahead to limit global warming is very clear. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that global emissions must fall between 2020 and 2025, while in reality emissions continue to rise. To keep 1.5 alive, global emissions must halve by 2030, and reach net-zero by 2050. At the end of last month, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) laid out in a damning new report that “there is no credible pathway to 1.5 degrees in place today.” Current commitments are insufficient, and a best-case scenario will still result in a 1.8 degree increase. Yet even this scenario is “not currently credible”, based on discrepancies between “current emissions, short-term NDC targets and long-term net zero targets.” Furthermore, the promise made at Glasgow to update NDCs by COP27 is not being honoured, with only 26 out of 197 countries submitting their plans so far.
While there is a consensus that drastic measures are now a necessity, good intentions do not equate to material actions. Delivering on commitments is another matter. As summarised by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, COP27 is “the number one litmus test” of the richest nations’ genuine climate engagement.
COP27: Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt
Often labelled as “Africa’s COP”, COP27 is being held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt – a point of geographical significance given its location on the world’s most climate-vulnerable continent. As the IPCC report laid out, “multiple African countries are projected to face compounding risks from reduced food production across crops, livestock and fisheries; increasing heat-related mortality; heat-related loss of labour productivity; and flooding from sea level rise.” Africa’s pressing climate needs will inevitably feature very heavily in discussions, proving an important opportunity to push for urgent support for the continent least-responsible for climate change.
So, what should we be keeping an eye out for at COP27? What are the big talking points that will dominate negotiations?
Dedicated loss and damage support
Loss and damage will play a big part in discussions at COP27. Egypt has pushed it to the top of the agenda, while the U.N. Secretary General signalled on a visit to flood-stricken Pakistan that it needed to be addressed with the seriousness it deserves in Sharm el-Sheikh.
Loss and damage refers to the consequences which follow the limits of adaptation being reached. Adaptation, as defined by the UNFCCC, “refers to adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts.” Loss and damage occurs when these adaptation measures are unaffordable to communities, lacking thorough support, or simply not possible. In other words, the negative consequences of human-induced climate change that are already here, and impacting vulnerable countries, need to be compensated.
At COP26, the case for a fund dedicated to loss and damage was rejected by developed nations, though there was some progress, with Scotland and Wallonia symbolically pledging £2 million and €1 million respectively. While a three-year “Glasgow Dialogue” was established at COP26 to explore ways to address loss and damage, there will be heightened pressure from vulnerable nations for concrete financial commitments this time around. In October, Denmark became the first country to announce that it will give $13 million to developing countries that have suffered climate-related damage, and called on wealthy nations for global “climate solidarity.” COP27 will be a crucial test to see if they finally follow suit.
Adaptation financing and roadmap
A target was set by developed countries at COP15 in 2009 to donate $100 billion a year to low- and middle-income countries by 2020, a commitment that has not been honoured and was noted with “deep regret” by officials at COP26.
In Glasgow, developed countries made a commitment to double adaptation support to $40 billion dollars a year by 2025. It also established the Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh Work Programme on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) to assess progress towards the adaptation goal. COP27 will be a test of the programme’s progress, as well as the seriousness of certain pledges. Developed countries need to come forward with an explicit roadmap for implementation at COP27 and to clearly designate the format of these augmented finance flows.
The V20 group, made up of finance ministers from climate-vulnerable countries, have called for more grants and a commitment to 50% of funding being allocated to adaptation projects. Will COP27 finally see some tangible progress on this front?
A new international crime?
Once a fringe movement at the edges of environmental campaigning, the effort to make ecocide an international crime is something that has rapidly gathered momentum in the past few years, as the climate emergency has intensified. Ecocide, legally defined by an expert panel in June 2021, refers to “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”
Stop Ecocide International (SEI) seeks to introduce individual criminal responsibility for key decision-makers responsible for mass devastation of the natural environment, covering things like oil spills, deep sea mining, deforestation, or tar sand extraction. Philippe Sands QC, an internationally-renowned British lawyer who co-chaired the panel, said that the “single most important thing about this initiative is that it’s part of the broader process of changing public consciousness.”
Vanuatu and the Maldives became the first states to call for the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to include ecocide, with eight others following suit. Kenya, co-host of the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon this past June, announced their plans to make ecocide illegal. Even further, the French citizens’ assembly has voted to make it a crime, with French President Emmanuel Macron declaring that extending this law internationally was a “battle” of the highest degree.
It’s hard to say how much coverage ecocide will get at COP27, but it’s worth taking note of any publicity it receives. Altering the Rome Statute won’t be a quick process by any means, but inevitably, the more outspoken bigger countries are about ecocide, the more likely it is to one day become an international crime. Will countries with geopolitical influence step forward to make the case at an event that, crucially, only happens once a year?
COP27 could not come at a more challenging time. Increasing geopolitical tensions, energy supply shortages, global food insecurity and a looming recession will make complex negotiations even more difficult. But this context cannot hinder decisive action. Come what may, the climate crisis continues to unfold and affect millions. Developed countries responsible for global carbon emissions also carry the weight of responsibility for the deteriorating welfare and livelihoods of people all around the world. As it stands, half of the world’s population is highly vulnerable to climate change, and the window of opportunity to avert the crisis is rapidly closing. Not only do we need to see more ambitious commitments from rich nations to keep 1.5C alive, but they also need to prove they are serious about delivering on commitments at COP27. There is no time to waste.
