COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh: what results?

The negotiation round that just ended in Egypt promised progress in the concrete implementation of previous diplomatic commitments.  Overall, the final declaration or “implementation plan” from Sharm el-Sheikh looks more like a status quo to hold until the next COP than a real implementation roadmap.

Below are the points that we feel are important to highlight. The full text is available on the UNFCCC website here https://unfccc.int/documents/624444.  

In its preamble, the Plan recalls the fundamental principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibility, while considering the broader objective of poverty reduction and sustainable development. It reaffirms the principles of multilateralism, the United Nations’ founding values and, more broadly, the importance of international cooperation. 

The United Nations does not have the exclusive right to cooperate on climate change policy. This cooperation also takes place outside its conferences and treaties (Kyoto Protocol, Paris Climate Agreement, Glasgow Climate Pact). 

While the Egyptian presidency had the ambition to accelerate the implementation of the climate goals, the paragraphs on strengthening ambition and implementation in the Sharm el-Sheikh Plan can be considered insufficient or even lacking.  

The text recognises the importance of the contributions of scientific work to public policy-making, including that of the IPCC and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), on the state of the climate. For example, it stresses “the urgent need to address, in a comprehensive and synergetic manner, the interlinked global crises of climate change and biodiversity loss in the broader context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the vital importance of protecting, conserving, restoring and sustainably using nature and ecosystems for effective and sustainable climate action”. It “recognises that the effects of climate change are exacerbating the global energy and food crises, and vice versa, particularly in developing countries”.

Building on recent IPCC work, the final declaration emphasises that the impacts of climate change will be much less at 1.5°C than at 2°C. It maintains the global level of ambition at 2°C and decides to continue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. 

In the current context of economic recession and energy crisis, it is probably a victory to have stayed the course and not to have backtracked towards a target of limiting the temperature increase to 2°C (the recorded increase is already +1.1°C).

The plan notes the importance of the transition to sustainable lifestyles and consumption and production patterns in the fight against climate change. This issue is also being addressed by a major ’emerging’ nation, India, which is on course to become the most populous country on the planet and for which an environmentally friendly lifestyle (Lifestyle for the Environment or LIFE movement) is a political programme.

The final text also stresses the importance of adopting an approach to education that promotes lifestyle change while encouraging models of development and sustainability based on care, community and cooperation. 

The potential impact of changes in consumption patterns on the planet is likely to be significant.

The communiqué emphasises the urgent need for “immediate, deep, rapid and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions by Parties in all applicable sectors, including through increase in low-emission and renewable energy, just energy transition partnerships and other cooperative actions”. It recognises that “the unprecedented global energy crisis underlines the urgency to rapidly transform energy systems to be more secure, reliable and resilient, including by accelerating clean and just transitions to renewable energy during this critical decade of action”. It calls on the Parties to accelerate efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. 

While oil and gas are not explicitly mentioned in the final declaration, these energy sources, which are particularly prized by developed countries, are called upon to be treated in the same way as coal.

Southern countries have been mainly impacted by policies to exclude coal, a resource that is widely available at lower cost in these countries. The latter invoke the principle of equity to demand that the same abatement policies be applied to all fossil resources and make it a condition for their own application of coal phase-out policies. 

The plan sets in stone the fact that in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced rapidly, deeply and sustainably by 43% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.

Aside from COP27, the Conference of the Parties to the Paris Climate Agreement noted “with great concern” the conclusion of the latest synthesis report on nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that the total level of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, taking into account the implementation of all remaining NDCs, is expected to be 0.3% below the 2019 level, which is not consistent with the least-cost scenarios for keeping global temperature increase to 2 or 1.5°C. Actions to reduce non-carbon greenhouse gases, such as methane, are insufficient and need to be deepened by 2030. 

Mitigation must be considered more broadly by protecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosystems to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature target, including by ensuring that forests and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems act as sinks and reservoirs for greenhouse gases and by protecting biodiversity.

This is a major admission of failure of the current climate governance system.  

Rich countries have been unable to provide the promised $100 billion per year for 2020 to the adaptation fund, despite annual reminders. In Sharm el-Sheikh, the “Southern” states obtained the creation of a fund for loss and damage. The initial endowment is symbolic, as is the recognition of a principle of “solidarity” between rich and poor countries in the face of climate-related damage. The richest states are thus reminded of their financial promises.  

As India points out in its concomitantly published NDC, “A wide range of estimates exist regarding the economic losses and damages caused by climate impacts to the Indian economy. Isolating the climate component of total losses due to extreme weather events continues to remain a challenge. Developing countries fulfilling their commitment in providing adaptation finance to minimise further losses, and adequate compensation for unavoidable loss and damage is critical for developing countries”.

Not making this financial issue a divisive one will be a major challenge in future negotiations in 2023. The Plan identifies the financial system (public, private and international aid) as the strongest link in the future scheme. However, the final communication notes that the objectives will not be achievable without reform of the current financial system, which is struggling to shift its paradigm. 

In a previous article, we recalled the fact established by the IPCC that the return on investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation is guaranteed due to the lack of resilience of our economies and societies to change. Faced with the financial resources to be mobilised to achieve the climate objectives, the final communication of the COP 27 establishes an assessment and a diagnosis. 

For example, about $4 trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The global transformation to a low-carbon economy is expected to require investments of at least $4-6 trillion per year. The need for financial support for the implementation of nationally determined contributions by developing countries would be estimated at less than US$6 trillion for the pre-2030 period. 

Global climate finance flows are small relative to the overall needs of developing countries, with flows estimated in 2019-2020 at $803 billion, or 31-32% of the annual investment needed to keep global temperature increase well below 2°C or 1.5°C, and also below what would be expected given the identified investment opportunities and the cost of not achieving climate stabilisation targets. 

Given the scale of the needs, the failure to jointly mobilise US$100 billion per year (the fund amounts to US$211.58 million2 ) shows that trade-offs in the allocation of financial resources are struggling to evolve. 

According to the COP, the provision of funds will require a transformation of the financial system, its structures and processes involving governments, central banks, commercial banks, institutional investors and other financial actors.  

The final communication recalls that climate is at the intersection of other high-profile issues, such as the state of the oceans, agriculture and food security, and forest cover loss, for which member States are invited to formulate conservation objectives. 

At Positivéco, we see the new national and international regulations on CSR as an opportunity for positive growth.

Our aim: to apply financial and commercial skills to structure projects outside the traditional silos.

Since 2009, we have been supporting climate investment and development aid projects; we evaluate CSR policies and carry out extra-financial reporting for our clients. Positivéco advises financial institutions, public actors, listed and non-listed companies.

Request a callback today and discover how you can meet the new CSR requirements while serving the company’s project.