COP27’s disappointing results
ALTHOUGH the participants in the grandiosely named 27th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, more commonly known as COP27, tried to spin the outcomes of the annual global climate summit as a breakthrough, the general consensus, particularly among climate-vulnerable countries, is that they fell far short of expectations. The lesson that the Philippines should take from this is that our own efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change should not rely on global action, because that is not likely to be forthcoming.
COP27 faced a great deal of skepticism before it even began. Apart from the choice of Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, an upscale coastal resort as the choice of venue, there were criticisms raised about host country Egypt’s human rights record and the contradiction that represented for efforts to develop climate assistance for emerging economies and disadvantaged populations.
An even bigger issue was the unimpressive record of progress toward meeting commitments of past COP meetings. Since the landmark Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, pledges of emissions reductions and funding for climate action have consistently fallen short. It is not that no progress has been made — there have been some accomplishments — but that progress is far too slow, and as a consequence, it has become inevitable that the ideal target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels will be missed, probably within the next 10 to 15 years, perhaps sooner.
Given these problems in perception, it was hoped that the conference of 199 country and territory representatives would agree to some definitive actions to restore confidence in the global consensus process. There were two main outcomes that were anticipated. The first was a framework to begin the phase-out of the use of fossil fuels for energy production, as this is considered necessary for achieving overall emissions reduction goals. The second, and more important to the Philippines, was an agreement to compensate climatevulnerable countries for loss and damage caused by climate change effects.
On the first item, COP27 completely failed, producing only a statement reaffirming an earlier global commitment agreed at last year’s COP26 in Scotland to gradually phase out the use of coal. However, after marathon negotiations that extended the conference beyond its scheduled closing date last Friday, an agreement was reached on the matter of compensation, which was promptly hailed by COP27 participants as “historic,” and “a breakthrough.”
The agreement turned out to be anything but that, amounting to no more than a statement of good intentions. The important details of how the proposed “loss and damage fund” would be set up, how much would be paid into, and by whom were all kicked down the road at least a year. According to the agreement, a “transitional committee” will be set up to develop recommendations to be presented at COP28 in November 2023; those recommendations will include “identifying and expanding sources of funding,” among other things.
Given the grindingly slow pace of anything organized under the umbrella of the vast UN bureaucracy, it is doubtful whether such a committee could even be properly organized, funded and complete its work within a year.
The disappointing outcome of COP27 invites a comparison with the positive atmosphere created by the recent Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summits held in Cambodia and Thailand, respectively. In both regional meetings, climate concerns were near the top of the agenda, and the region expressed a single mind with respect to addressing the crisis proactively in areas of common interest. While specific programs or goals did not emerge from the meetings, they clearly set a positive foundation for further action.
We believe that this bodes well for the Philippines’ own efforts to adapt to a changing climate and mitigate its effects, and that the government should make every effort to cultivate its regional relationships to that end. It might, in fact, be the only real path for progress against climate change; while it is a global problem that requires a global solution, it does not seem we are moving closer to achieving that, despite seven years of summits since the Paris Agreement. The climate certainly will not wait for the world to get its act together; neither should we.