COP27: Success or cop-out?
Flavia Gouveia
COP27 wrapped up last month after two weeks of talks and negotiations. The conference and the resulting agreement have been the subject of much criticism and praise. But was the result a success or a cop-out?
The COP27 agreement, known as the Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan, has been the subject of praise and criticism. Historically the agreement included the establishment of a Loss and Damage Fund, but it failed to meet expectations around the phasing out of fossil fuels.
“COP27 was not a success, despite the big win of getting a Loss and Damage fund. ”
Young European Leadership Delegate to COP27, Jessica Antonisse, said: “COP27 was not a success, despite the big win of getting a Loss and Damage fund. This historic win was tirelessly fought for by campaigners and countries on the frontlines of the climate crisis and civil society”.
She added: “more work is to be done to make sure the fund serves those who need it before it is operationalised at COP28”.
The securing of a Loss and Damage fund has been largely hailed as a historic success. In the lead-up to the conference, it was expected to be a key area for negotiations. But it wasn’t always guaranteed that this would be secured from the outset.
Powerful nation-states like the US and Europe were sceptical that a separate monetary fund was necessary and that what constitutes ‘loss and damage’ may be too ambiguous.
Eventually, as negotiations progressed, Europe capitulated putting pressure on the US to support the calls. The establishment of the fund still has a while to go, and it is expected that the funding mechanism for this fund will be decided at COP28.
Sceptics may point to the failure of nation-states to meet climate finance funding commitments targets and question how successful a ‘Loss and Damage’ monetary fund will be. Only time will tell.
One key criticism levelled at COP27 has been its failure to achieve stronger commitments around the phasing-out of fossil fuels. The wording around this was historically achieved at COP26 in Glasgow and it was expected that this year this wording would have been strengthened.
Speaking about this, Jessica said: “COP27 failed to produce any significant progress to make sure we phase out fossil fuels, with fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbering many delegations”. She added: “we are on a course to 2.6 degrees, we will see greater loss and damage, and we are not tackling the root cause. Countries did not come to the table with concrete plans to reduce their emissions”.
COP27 saw a record breaking fossil fuel delegation present. The campaign group Global Witness reported that over 600 people present at the talks in Egypt were linked to fossil fuels.
The presence of such a large fossil fuel delegation at the conference as well as the energy challenges presented by the war in Ukraine are largely accepted as having undermined negotiations surrounding the phasing out of fossil fuels.
Jessica said: “recent geopolitical developments such as the invasion of Ukraine by Russia drove European countries to look for new sources of gas, with deals struck on the sides of the conference. We cannot afford new oil and gas projects and demand a complete and timely phase-out of all fossil fuels”.
“the most important thing is not what happens in the two weeks, a call is what happens in the 50 weeks between the conference. ”
Climate communicator Jessica Kleczka echoed disappointment about the wording around phasing out fossil fuels. Speaking of what this means for the 1.5-degree target she said: “we've known since the IPCC six assessment report that we're likely to temporarily overshoot 1.5 degrees, but that we can also bring warming back down again if we implement ambitious policies very soon”. She added, “as many people have stressed, the most important thing is not what happens in the two weeks, a call is what happens in the 50 weeks between the conferences”.
What will happen in the year leading up to COP28 will be important and will test the success of COP27. However, as we fast approach the third decade of COPs some are starting to question the suitability of the process itself.
Writing for the Belfast Telegraph, Rosalind Skillen said: “I’m not arguing for the COP process to be scrapped — they can be a mechanism for change and have a unique ability to bring together 196 countries — but it’s the 27th year of trying the same thing.”
While Rosalind acknowledges that changing the rules of COP is a “huge task”, she nonetheless encourages us to consider the origins of COP and whether it continues to be fit for purpose. She contemplates whether the current format reflects a system “designed at a different period, for different purposes and which does not currently match up to the scale and speed of action required”.
Certainly, the rate of progress achieved to date has failed to meet the scale and speed that science demonstrates is required to avert significant and detrimental changes to our climate and ecosystems.
“The UN gives primacy to ‘parties’ and ‘nation states’, but we need to strengthen the voices from ordinary people to ensure that global humanity becomes more included”
One of the key areas that concerns Rosalind is the extent to which COP can facilitate equitable outcomes. She says: “the UN gives primacy to ‘parties’ and ‘nation states’, but we need to strengthen the voices from ordinary people to ensure that global humanity becomes more included”.
She adds: “thinking about the composition of COP delegations also suggests that the process is inequality by design.”
“For instance, wealthier G7 nations have much larger delegations and some of their negotiators are better resourced because the countries have more funding to train their negotiators. By contrast, poorer nations have much smaller delegations, some of whom have not attended many COPs before, and are less familiar with how the process works.”
Equitable representation is crucial to ensure equitable outcomes. It has been demonstrated that climate change will affect poorer nations disproportionately. This is already happening and has been a driver behind the establishment of a Loss and Damage fund.
With less than 50 weeks to the next COP, the looming question remains: should COPs be a thing of the past?
Flavia Gouveia is The Scoop’s Science and Environment Editor and is studying for a Journalism MA at Ulster University.