COP27 has just ended with a disappointing agreement. In fact, many environmental activists argued that the main goal this year was not to make significant progress, but rather to avoid reversals of previous agreements.
It is not the first time that UN Conferences of Parties (COP) disappoint. Since the Rio summit of 1992 during which 154 countries agreed to act on climate change, the outlook has, in fact, drastically deteriorated: we are now on track for a +2.6°C by the end of the century (1), and many of the ambitious agreements taken in the 26 UNCOPs that followed have not led to action. More specific issues have also shadowed this year’s COP, such as the attendance of more than 600 lobbyists from fossil fuel companies, the sponsorship of Coca-Cola—which produces an estimated 100 billion plastic bottles every year—or the plight of imprisoned political dissident Alaa Abdel Fattah.
We know the causes and effects of climate change transcend borders, meaning that part of the solutions must be collective. So with the patchy track record of UNCOPs, are we lost for good? Can we still expect significant progress from UNCOPs?
Yes, but only if we know what to expect: UNCOPs appear more efficient as arenas of discussion than as platforms of planning and decision.
Indeed, on the positive side, UNCOPs are the only events that bring together national leaders from around the world around topics of sustainability, giving a voice to people that would otherwise be left out, such as small island nations and poorer countries at the front line of climate change impacts, or youth activists. They also bring new dimensions of sustainability to the center of media and political attention, as was most recently the case with the discussion around “loss and damages," i.e. the financial compensation from rich to poor countries for the irreversible damages caused by climate change. Discussion around these underrepresented issues, and around sustainability in general, is already a form of progress that we cannot afford to forego.
Yet, on the negative side, it appears that supranational climate policy is largely determined before the UNCOPs take place based on individual countries’ priorities. This means that the content of general agreements is more likely to simply reflect points of similarity between national policies than represent new, negotiated solutions proposed during the annual meetings: we divide ambitions to find the common denominator rather than build together.
In short, UNCOPs are precious arenas of discussion that must be preserved. They allow for proper judgment of countries’ climate ambitions, but have proven unlikely to lead to global, coordinated action on climate change—beyond promises, that is.
- Thibaud Auzière, Press Associate
Sources and Further Readings
- For French speakers, the podcast "L'Heure du Monde - COP 27, face à l'urgence climatique, l'indifférence des Etats?" available on Spotify summarizes the successes and limits of UNCOPs.
- The FT article "COP27: Guide to the basics" is a useful introduction to COP27 and includes a tool to compare countries' climate pledges.
Comments