Author: Sina Reichel

It took delegates until Saturday night to finally agree on a decision text for COP26. Did the text live up to the high expectations? Certainly not! The text does not contain important aspects that were demanded by some developing countries and activists during the conference, including the establishment of a new fund for loss and damage compensation. Some provisions were also watered last minute. For example, the draft talked about “phasing out coal power and fossil fuel subsidies”, while in the final text, the verb was changed to “phasing down,” and adjectives were added. The text now refers to “unabated coal power and ineffective fossil fuel subsidies,” which arguably could be used as a loophole by some states.

Does the text contain some important new elements and marks a step forward? Absolutely! The parties decided to update their nationally determined commitments (NDCs) by next year instead of in 5 years. This could create some momentum towards more ambitious commitments. A dialogue for loss and damage was established that could pave the way for decisions at future COPs on this important topic. Many of the remaining issues that had been hindering the full implementation of the Paris Agreement were solved, and parties were able to make final decisions on the market mechanisms regulated under article 6, the transparency mechanism under article 13, and the Global Stocktake in article 14. Developed countries also pledged to double their financial contributions to developing countries. But after having failed to achieve the target to mobilize $100 billion by 2020, developing countries remain skeptical. States can build on these decisions that COP27. However, considering the urgency of the climate crisis and the fact that negotiations on some of the issues had been going on for more many years casts doubt over whether we have the time to wait until these provisions will pay off.

One thing that makes me hopeful is that a lot happened outside the negotiations. This year additional pledges made more headlines than the text of the final decision. During the first days, the Action on Forests and Land Use to halt deforestation was signed. Over 100 states also joined the US in the Global Methane Pledge and committed to reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030, which could have a huge impact considering that methane is an 80 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Other declarations made a COP26 include a declaration on accelerating the transition to 100% zero-emission cars and vans (signed by 38 states), the Clydebank Declaration for green shipping corridors (signed by 22 states), or the Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement on phasing out coal power (signed by 23 states). Another important aspect is that the private sector is more involved in these commitments. For example, 30 financial institutions with over $8.7 trillion of global assets promised to divest from drivers of deforestation, and several automobile manufacturers, including famous brands like Ford, GM, Jaguar, and Mercedes-Benz, pledged to sell only zero-emission of vehicles by 2035 or earlier. None of these declarations are legally binding. However, they can still create momentum, and NGOs will certainly hold states accountable if they do not make enough progress.

Before I arrived at the conference, I thought I would describe in my second blog post the negotiations on the Enhanced Transparency Mechanism, the Global Stocktake, or Art.6 at COP26. But there are two reasons, a negative and a positive one, why I changed my mind.

First, the access for observers to the negotiations is extremely limited this year, which at this stage makes a detailed analysis of these issues, including which formulations are currently debated and what compromises states are willing to make, impossible. A stocktake on the state of the negotiations after the first week hinted at remaining issues, which included, not surprisingly, Art.6 and the Enhanced Transparency Mechanism. However, the overarching issue of this year’s COP is climate finance after developed countries have missed the target to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020. Several NGOs criticized the limited access and brought this topic to the attention of the UK presidency. Also considering the difficulties that many developing countries have faced with attending the COP amidst the pandemic, it is no surprise that COP26 was declared the most exclusive COP of all times. I hope that the closed negotiations at least allow the parties to make compromises and come up with a successful final decision. Future COPs definitely have to improve inclusiveness.

Now let us turn to something positive. While the negotiations are the most important aspect of each COP, there are hundreds of side events that draw attention to specific climate-related issues and help attendees to connect. Going to these events and meeting people from all over the world that are passionate about climate protection is a rewarding experience. Just after the first days, I have listened to so many interesting talks that I could fill many blog posts with the topics covered. Some of my favorite events so far included talks on how AI applications can be used to address climate change, why small island states face much greater barriers to climate finance than other states, or how climate mitigation in the agriculture sector has enormous potential but is still overlooked. The toughest part is picking the events you want to attend because you are spoilt for choices when looking at the schedule each morning. For example, the presidency organizes high-level panels that focus on a specific topic every day. The NGOs also hold side events and are organized in constituencies that each have a daily meeting to coordinate their work. In addition, another feature of COPs is the zone with the pavilions, which either belong to parties and organizations or are dedicated to specific topics such as methane reduction or climate-related risks for the cryosphere. Each pavilion holds several panel discussions a day. But, these are only the events at the venue that is only open to delegates, the so-called “Blue Zone”. Many side events take also place at another venue that is open to the public (“Green Zones”) and throughout the whole city.

The vibrant atmosphere at the conference is also something that needs to be mentioned. Most people are very open and happy to answer questions or discuss issues. You suddenly meet people that research similar topics while you wait in line to buy a coffee. Or you share a table with a delegate from one of the parties while having lunch. The fact that so many people try to make a change makes me hopeful.

I am writing this blog post on my way to COP26 in Glasgow to attend my first climate conference. I have always been interested in climate protection, and this was one of the main reasons I specialized in international law. After having researched several issues concerning climate law, I am looking forward to getting insights into how these decisions are made in practice.

While attending COP26, I will support Germanwatch, which has been closely monitoring and analyzing climate conferences for many years. I am grateful for having the opportunity to work together with people who have a lot of expertise and experience in climate negotiations.

In my work for Germanwatch, I mainly focus on transparency mechanisms, including the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) and the Global Stocktake. The Paris Agreement is based on a bottom-up approach and allows every party to define its nationally determined commitments (NDCs). The two mechanisms have the potential to create considerable momentum towards more ambitious commitments because they can keep states accountable, make the commitments comparable, and illustrate whether the international community is on the right track towards the goals set in the Paris Agreement. While the ETF and the Global Stocktake were established under the Paris Agreement, many modalities were left open to be decided at a later COP.

The Global Stocktake will be undertaken every five years starting in 2023 in order to assess whether the aggregated commitments of all parties are sufficient to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. The process was outlined in the decisions adopted at COP24 in Katowice. But some aspects such as the inclusion of non-state parties in the process are still debated. The ETF requires states to publish biannual reports that include inter alia information on their greenhouse gas emissions and their progress towards their NDCs. The parties made some progress at COP24 where they decided that there will be only one framework for both developed and developing countries, but the ETF will provide flexibility in certain cases to developing countries that currently do not have the capacities to fulfill the obligations. At COP26 the parties still need to make decisions on details such as Common Reporting Tables and Common Tabular Formats.

The remaining issues seem to be rather technical, but they have a huge impact on whether the transparency mechanisms built into the Paris Agreement can fulfill their purpose. For example, allowing narrative descriptions in the reports under the ETF enables states to hide shortcomings behind vague terms. If non-state actors can participate in all stages of the Global Stocktake, the expertise in the private sector can be used and additional pressure can be put on states.

Apart from my work for Germanwatch, I will also follow the negotiations on the key issues for implementing market-based mechanisms under Art.6 of the Paris Agreement. Another interesting aspect of this year’s COP will be the negotiations on how nature-based solutions can be included in the climate regime.

After the conference was canceled last year and after states have updated their NDCs for the first time, the expectations for COP26 are high and UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson called it “the world’s moment of truth.” I hope that, after all the grand words and promises made at the World Leaders Summit in the first days of COP26, the delegates are able to meet the expectations and agree on key aspects regarding Art.6 and the transparency mechanisms that would finally allow for an effective implementation of the Paris Agreement.