Fiery debates as rich nations look to press India, China on climate funding, emissions

SHARM EL SHEIKH: Developed nations are pushing to use language like “emerging economies”, “major polluters” and “parties with capacity” in the cover text of the ongoing UN Climate Conference (COP27), negotiators aware of discussions on Wednesday said, signalling a widening rift in global efforts to tackle the climate crisis, including what appears to put into question previously agreed upon fundamentals.

As negotiations entered the final couple of days, several red lines have emerged around the principles of “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR), and rich nations separately sought to turn the tables on economies like India and China to contribute to a fund that the latter maintain should only be paid for by the historical emitters (read: developed countries).

Negotiators are making last minute efforts to work with the Egypt Presidency for a balanced cover decision and other texts that will come out of Sharm El Sheikh by end of the week, and to prevent any dilution of the principles under the Paris Agreement. But the differences on the two aspects – who contributes to the Loss and Damage fund, and how much responsibility is spread over mitigation work programmes (steps that reduce emissions) – threaten to do just that.

“When principles of equity and CBDR are erased what that would essentially mean is that we clean up the mess or take on the mitigation burden for historical polluters. Isn’t that unfair? The developing countries, in particular the Like Minded Developing Countries, the Africa group, Arab group, Argentina-Brazil-Uruguay (ABU) are pushing to get balance now,” said a negotiator for one of these groups on Wednesday.

The first texts being informally circulated among negotiators was “extremely imbalanced” in favour of developed nations, the negotiator quoted above added. Developed nations plan to address mitigation efforts to “high emitters”, a classification that will also include developing nations like India and China.

“They want the implementation roadmap for Glasgow mitigation goals (emissions cut steps that keep warming to under 1.5°C) to be addressed to all, particularly 20 top emitters,” a member of the Indian delegation too said, asking not to be named.

“They have also very openly said that they do not prefer mentioning the principles of equity and CBDR along with the goal. The US is against any reference to historical responsibility. Not only India, but most developing countries have objected to this attempt because it is to put all countries on the same scale and push for aggressive measures to reduce emissions while they exhaust the remaining carbon budget,” the Indian official explained.

India is insisting that the cover decision stick to the Paris Agreement goal of “to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared to preindustrial levels” while underlining Paris Agreement’s principles of equity and CBDR.

The other redline is an attempt by the developed countries to make emerging economies contribute to mitigation funds. A negotiator from a South American country said in all climate finance including finance for mitigation, adaptation and Loss and Damage, developed countries have sought broadening the donor base to include emerging economies.

The US, Germany, EU and other developed nations have also not accepted the G77+China’s (a bloc including 134 countries including India) proposal on Loss and Damage, which is guided by the Paris Agreement principle of “including the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (countries will act as per their respective circumstances) in the light of different national circumstances, and taking into account historical responsibilities.”

Equity and CBDR are some of the fundamental principles world leaders agreed on in the past when deciding on how countries share the burden of tackling the climate crisis. These are premised on the notion that developing countries have historically emitted far lower volumes of greenhouse gases, and on a per capita basis, continue to bear a lower burden than rich nations. Their differentiated responsibility includes the recognition that they deserve the right to take steps for the welfare of their poorer populations, since rich nations have already exploited the carbon budget to have done so for theirs over past decades.

“It appears that this is an attempt to break the G77+China unity on this matter. The developed countries are not inspiring confidence because they are only talking about processes, meetings and workshops but are resistant to a funding facility,” said a developing country observer who was witnessing the negotiations on Loss and Damage, asking not to be named.

“Issues like these arise because at COP27, G77 and China bloc is fully united on the question of loss and damage. This thread of unity is due to the common circumstances that all these countries face as a consequence of the excessive emissions of developed countries. Various false narratives are floated by those who have opposed this unity consistently. We are confident that with the leadership of all the various sections of G77 and China, a just and equitable agreement would be reached,” said a member of the Indian delegation, who asked not to be named.

“This is an attempt to break G77 and China unity and completely evade historical responsibility, nothing else,” said Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy, Climate Action Network International.

There has also been no progress on a multilaterally agreed definition of climate finance and the new collective and quantified goal on climate finance for the post-2025 period. “They (developed countries) have been silent on the definition issue and on the new goal the attempt is to get most parties to provide finance. Most of the climate finance is in loans. Developing countries for example can calculate the grant equivalency of loads. If you see the progress report published on delivery of the $100 billion a year from developed countries, it states we are at around $83 billion now. But there is a grant equivalency that says it is only around $22 billion. So that’s a different thing,” the South American negotiator added.

During negotiations on the second periodic review (review of overall progress towards achieving the Paris Agreement goal), the US asked if parties can explain what equity is as it is not defined in the Paris Agreement, according to observers.

“This is a red line for developing countries. Let’s see how the Presidency strikes a compromise,” a negotiator from a developing country said.

The US climate communications team did not respond to HT’s query.

“The Paris Agreement says in black and white. Under Article 2, it states that the entire Paris Agreement should be guided by based on equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. This is a conversation that takes place every year. We are patrons at this time and we are trying to find a common ground. We will have to find the right language to accommodate differentiation. We are aware of the various positions and we are working now to accommodate the parties’ views but also the legal agreement that we ratified together,” said Egypt’s COP27 ambassador Wael Aboulmagd.