During the build-up to the previous Conference of Parties held in Glasgow (COP26) late last year, I shared insights on the symbiotic nexus between climate change and the delivery of social and economic rights. Indeed, on the core agenda of COP26 was climate change mitigation and adaptation, climate finance and a just transition towards renewable energy.
However, an analysis of post- COP26 commitments reflect more on the failure of the international community to seriously address climate finance as a key factor towards successful adaptation for developing countries. There has been less traction on the implementation of the $100 billion climate finance target and developing countries have decried the somewhat lack of genuine intent on the part of developed countries. Additionally, the mitigation efforts have been marred with policy inconsistencies and discord amongst member states. Why has this been the case and are there prospects of a better outcome ahead of COP27 slated for Egypt from the 6th of November.
Implementation of COP26 commitments- “awfully inadequate”
The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), a body responsible with providing scientific reviews of environmental initiatives at global level generally bemoaned the mitigation efforts post the Glasgow Conference. Describing the international mitigatory efforts as “awfully inadequate”, it is clear that climate change mitigation is not being taken seriously.The climate threat is being addressed with soft gloves. This is a rather frustrating note in view of the 2015 Paris Agreement whose fundamentals boarder on climate change mitigation. Given the apparent climate change disasters observed this year for example, floods in Pakistan and Nigeria, heatwaves in Europe and hurricanes in the United States, world leaders are implored to place the weight that the climate change discourse deserve in the latest deliberations.
Glasgow Climate Pact- Last minute call to “phase down” as opposed to “phase out” coal
One of the key outcomes of the previous episode was the deletion of ‘phasing out’ and its substitution with ‘phasing down’ the use of coal. This followed a series of lobbying by Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) led by India who queried the existence of huge volumes of coal in their reserves.However, the phase down approach includes measures that are operatively costly for smaller nations that heavily rely on the use of coal in energy production. Thus, in the mid-to-long-term, developing countries are faced with greater commitment pressures that will require a more robust climate financing initiative.
Climate financing
COP26 saw developed countries lining up to pledge funding to developing countries to enable them to lessen the burden of climate change. Agro-based economies like Namibia, Mali, Togo and Zimbabwe have borne the brunt of climate change with regards to agricultural productivity yet they have contributed insignificantly to greenhouse gas emissions. While the legal framework on climate change has placed ethical considerations with a view towards collaborative efforts for mitigation and adaptation than playing the ‘blame game’, it is prudent that developing countries be given a chance to steadily adapt .
The passive refusal by developed countries to cover loss and damage in terms of the Convention will worsen the tempers on the negotiation table should they fail to implement commitments. Consequently, the $100 billion pledge made by developed countries under the OECD needs to be actionable otherwise the whole Conference aspect will lack a sense of good faith and transmogrify into a greenwashing gimmick.
Developing countries must scale up their efforts
Historically, for most developing countries, climate financing has been generally understood as the sole responsibility of those most responsible for highest greenhouse emissions. However, the ongoing war in Ukraine has most certainly stretched the economic demands of climate funders in the European Union. Justifiably, developed countries may bemoan the war as a factor hindering their financial capacity to action their commitments. Hence, in the build-up to COP27, there is need for developing countries to take-up actionable solutions towards their domestic climate financing initiatives. This ‘owning up’ approach is central towards a more viable, efficient and independent climate change adaptation mechanism. This may include public financing schemes and luring of private investment in the energy sector towards mitigation and adaptation.
The advantage of private financing schemes is that renewable energy carries less investment risks coupled with potential to draw the much-needed private capital. In scaling up their efforts, developing countries can consider tax incentives towards renewable energy projects and public-private partnerships in the form of subsidies. This would follow that same preferential policies that fossil fuel projects have been accorded in the past be twisted towards green energy. Developing countries may also consider de-risking finance through government guarantees to attract the private sector investors. In the same vein, finance accessibility woes that have been characterized by the poorest and most vulnerable countries can be comprehensively addressed without the dependency syndrome.
Setting priorities right
The climate discourse has been quite a sensitive terrain given the rights and responsibilities issues associated with it. At the international platform, the discussions tend to take a more diplomatic and political angle. The backdrop of these two approaches is that, in most instances, parties often disagree and end up with empty pages. In order to avoid this obvious possibility, a clear framework and sequence of events are highly needed. In as much as there is a lot of geopolitical complications coupled with increasing food insecurities, climate change should form the core agenda of COP27. Climate change is an existing threat and its now or NEVER.
Munashe O’brian Gutu is a corporate and commercial attorney practicing in Zimbabwe. He is passionate about energy law,investment and sustainable development. He is also a climate change activist with a bias towards social and economic rights. He writes here in his personal capacity.
Well written