The narrative that India, China or the African Group will block progress must be nipped in the bud
As the Egyptian COP27 Presidency scurries to prove that the conference they hosted actually achieved something, attention must be drawn to the narrative that will build as the summit draws to a close.
At COP26 in Glasgow, world media, particularly from Western outlets, went into overdrive when India chose to be the spokesperson for a “phase down of unabated coal” rather than a “phase out”.
News pieces rolled out about India watering down ambition in Glasgow, regardless of the fact that a US-China joint statement issued earlier in Glasgow had already made public the term “phase down”.
At COP27, a similar narrative will emerge if developing countries do not accept whatever watered-down, compromised outcome that the developed world gives them, once talks close in Egypt.
To nip this in the bud, we must set our eyes on two key factors that are making the developing world unhappy. If the United States, European Union, and others like Australia, Canada, and Japan (essentially wealthy historical polluters of greenhouse gas emissions) stop digging their heels in on these two issues, they will find that the poor half of the world is extremely amenable to a rapid green transition and keeping the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal alive.
Across two weeks of climate talks, there has been a concerted effort to push equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) out of almost every room. Let’s look closely at the two main governing agreements at the summit to understand this better.
Article 3 of the UNFCCC states that:
The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.
Article 2 of the Paris Agreement (PA) states that:
This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.
At discussions on the mitigation work programme (MWP), developing countries repeatedly emphasised that the programme must be implemented under the overarching guidance of the principles of equity and CBDR.
Switzerland objected to this, saying that they “don’t see equity considerations falling under the MWP”. The UK said there is no need to reiterate the principles.
In negotiations on loss and damage finance, developed countries such as the US, EU and Switzerland have repeatedly suggested funding mechanisms outside of the UNFCCC.
But developing country blocs like G77 and China, LDC (Least Developed Countries), and ABU (Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay) have emphasised that the new facility must be established under the UNFCCC, which offers the protection of an equitable climate agreement.
During consultations on the cover decision on November 15, the US stated that it does not agree with the inclusion of the principles of the Convention, and that they do not feature in the Paris Agreement. That is an odd statement to make considering that the UNFCCC and PA both chalk out equity as a principle.
Equity was also removed from the text of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), an issue championed by the African Group in particular.
Equity is at the core of climate politics, whether rich polluter countries find it convenient or not.
Efforts to push talks beyond the scope of UNFCCC, or to exclude equity principles clearly enshrined in it and in the PA, point to a shift in tactic: a renegotiation of the multilateral climate treaties currently holding the annual talks together, and a dismissal of science pertaining to how GHGs accumulated in the atmosphere act.
There is no reason for the developing world to accept this without protest.
The COP26 Presidency was strategic in its slogans about how it wanted the Glasgow talks to progress. Alongside the somewhat crude headline of “coal, cash, cars, and trees”, the UK Presidency also pushed the goal of “keeping 1.5C alive”.
It was highly effective. The emerging Glasgow Climate Pact (GCP) has been called a “mitigation centric pact” by developing country blocs. At the UN’s mid-year climate summit in Bonn in June 2022, developing country negotiators spoke of how the GCP shifted the burden of climate change to developing countries.
The thread has followed in Egypt, with developed country blocs frequently linking mitigation to loss and damage finance. Switzerland suggested on November 14 that “mitigation is critical to reducing damage due to loss and damage” — a link quickly condemned by the G77 as being inappropriate.
There have been calls for “ambitious mitigation” throughout the summit, with frequent references to major emitters (alluding to countries like China and India) and their special responsibility.
But more mitigation, or even ambitious mitigation in the developing world cannot take place without the money needed to shift away from cheap, polluting fuels or internal combustion engines.
When confronted with calls for finance, developed countries have shifted the focus to how the private sector should step in (For climate adaptation? Really?), or how the donor base must be expanded to all Parties who can afford to contribute.
In discussions on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), developed countries have raised the issue of prejudging the outcome too early when pressed for details, highlighting that the NCQG talks need to reach closure only in 2024.
The EU’s narrative has been that all of this is a “global effort” — a term that sounds like one of solidarity, but one that is highly problematic. We are not all in the same boat. Some of you caused the problem and will escape to your climate-controlled bunker. Many of us did little to add to the problem and will not make it out of this unscathed.
If COP27 concludes with an inequitable, unambitious outcome, it will not be the lack of will of the developing world to take action. It will be the callousness, shifting of goalposts, and failure of the developed world to meet its promises.
Follow COP27 with Down To Earth
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.