Author: Dhruv Jhaveri

Climate finance still stands as the most complex, thorniest, and unresolved issue at the United Nations Framework for Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC). Right from the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the conversation has been essentially about developing countries asking for funds from developed countries to accelerate climate action. Within two decades, this issue has spilled over to other discussions such as loss and damage compensation, climate adaptation fund, and Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. With the way the world is approaching 1.5 degrees, substantial and stepped-up climate action commitments will be required by all countries – small or big, rich or poor. While this is undebated and accepted by all nations, all shouts for increased climate financing from developing countries seem to be falling to deaf ears. Holding developed countries accountable and liable for compensation to past emissions is the new age climate prosecution. The promised allocation of $100 billion climate financing weakened over the years, while climate extreme events significantly strengthened. Disgruntlement, distrust, and dilution of commitments, coupled with persistent blame games, take precedence when the promises are not kept.. This, along with the United States swinging out and in of the Paris Agreement, reduces the credibility of this subject altogether. Amidst this backdrop, let’s look at what happened during the climate finance negotiations at United Nations Climate Change Conference – COP26.

At COP26, most climate finance negotiations revolved around legal jargon, with the delegates occasionally discussing where to place a past participle. This was surprising because most delegates come from countries where English is not their first spoken language. Spending an abundant amount of negotiating time correcting grammar seemed to be imprudent. However, there were also heated discussions when incorporating certain words in the final text meant different interpretations and repercussions for different countries.

For example, countries had a hard time deciding what to include in the text to address the $100 billion climate finance gap. South Africa, on behalf of the African group and supported by India, Brazil, Tunisia, and Ghana, demanded the inclusion of words like “significant gap and performance”, “reduced trust”, and “notes with great concern”. On the other side, the developed countries, mainly led by the United States (US) and European Union (EU), opposed it, demanding “milder and more neutral text”. They insisted on incorporating the words “welcomes continued efforts of developed country Parties”. The AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) group demanded a balanced text to treat the $100 billion gap. Norway intervened, saying that there is a need to use “milder words but also acknowledge” that there has been a gap. Seeing the discussion not going anywhere, Switzerland intervened, saying that the negotiations feel like “moving backward” and that there will be no progress if we proceed like this. They requested a balance in the texts and urged the co-facilitators to use their “best judgment and proceed”. India expressed their “disappointment and frustration” towards developed countries who talk about climate action on the one hand and provide poultry contributions on the other hand.

At this point, the time allocated for the agenda point was over. The co-facilitators urged the negotiators to resolve the issue informally and communicate the final decision by the end of the day. The final text, as incorporated in the cover decision, reads as:

“Notes with deep regret that the goal of developed country Parties to mobilize jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation has not yet been met, and welcomes the increased pledges made by many developed country Parties and the Climate Finance Delivery Plan: Meeting the US$100 Billion Goal4 and the collective actions contained therein;”

Deciding this one-line text took countries hours of discussions, several interventions, and an informal breakout meeting. This exemplifies how countries are dealing with the issue of climate finance: with care, caution, and consciousness. Strong words, accusatory tone, and causal references to previous documents are taken very seriously. However, these snail-paced technical proceedings seem to not much help the common collective goal of climate action to keep the 2.0 degrees within reach. Another example involved a lengthy debate, essentially between the choice of two words – urges or requests. Should the developed country Parties be “urged” to step up climate finance, or should they be “requested” to step up climate finance? When the planet is suffering from an event that threatens the existence of the entire human realm, arguing about the structural construct of language felt very trivial.

The other big agenda item continuously pushed by the developing countries at COP26 was the loss and damage fund, which essentially calls out the developed country parties to compensate the poorer countries for the damages caused due to climate extreme events. This fund differs from the climate adaptation fund and stems from the disproportionate historic responsibility to global emissions. While many developing countries argue for the urgent necessity of these funds, the resistance from the developed countries ensured that the agenda item gets pushed back by at least another year. However, as a first, the Scottish government pledged £1m to support the victims of the climate disaster and simultaneously also tripled Scotland’s financial commitments, notably using the word “reparations”. Towards the end, the countries also unanimously agreed to operationalize and leverage the Santiago Network, which will catalyze technical assistance in climate-vulnerable countries.

On Article 6 – carbon markets, which enables companies to buy carbon credits to offset their emissions, the developing countries urged that the share of proceeds from the market transactions should be diverted towards the climate adaptation fund to help countries build resilience. Subsequently, the countries agreed to a “5% commission fee” that will be levied for new credits traded under Article 6.4, which requires a centralized governance system called the Clean Market Mechanism (CDM), but not for credits traded under Article 6.2, which allows countries to strike bilateral and voluntary agreements to trade carbon units. This contentious issue, although now resolved, had halted the implementation of the Paris Rulebook since 2015.

Overall, the issues around climate finance remain notoriously slow. While the language of words is brimming with urgency, the pace of climate action remains painstakingly sluggish. Spending an infinite amount of time choosing words between “urges” vs. “requests”, “lack of efforts” vs. “continued efforts”, and “charity” vs. “reparations”, even though in the best of spirits, is helping very little to what the world is currently facing. Climate change is happening, and it is happening right now. And soon, it will grow into a global catastrophe that will be unseen, unavoidable, and unimaginable in scale. With that in mind, I do not think we have sufficient time to even “urge” or “request”. We just need to “act” and “act fast” enough because the clock has always been ticking.

Let’s begin by acknowledging the fact that organizing a gigantic conference of parties from across the world, especially during an ongoing pandemic, is not an easy task. Facilitating global travel, arranging for quarantine and vaccination facilities, recognizing vaccines from across the world (even though not WHO-certified), and necessitating daily covid tests for participants required tremendous efforts, in-detailed planning, and robust infrastructure. And the UK government did a commendable job.

But when a global pandemic-induced economic slowdown leads to budget cuts and reduced travel, the representations from least developed and developing economies are inevitably restricted. This may not necessarily be a deliberate impingement but an unintended consequence. While developed country parties came with their own intimidating entourage, a smaller island country came in with a handful of delegates. A COP can get chaotic very quickly when multiple working groups break out for informal negotiations running parallelly across several rooms. A big country having a bigger delegation can quickly send people across rooms to participate. At the same time, a smaller country with a smaller delegation struggles even to make it to the breakout rooms. For example: During the long-term climate finance negotiations, the small delegation from Malawi mentioned that they were not consulted for a decision because they could not make it to the breakout room because they were in a different room tracking a different negotiation. How do you ensure equity here?

My second observation was that words in a climate conference could get very repetitive. Over two weeks, with so many side events and main events, the number of times you hear the following words is ear-bending: climate change, climate adaptation, climate mitigation, climate finance, 1.5 degree, 2.0 degree, etc. Having even basic surface knowledge about any of these words can qualify someone as a climate-conscious person and help strike a conversation with literally anyone. By the end of day 2, I realized that I would only be hearing the same words from different countries, although in different texts, tones, and languages. That’s what the world is facing, and many are pointing out, “a lot of big talks but no significant action.”

My third observation was that with thousands of people who are equally passionate (or appear to be) about the same things as you are gathering at the same place, COP26 can be a networking mecca. Having a drink with the Environment Minister of Greenland, spotting John Kerry casually walking around the conference campus and running into a US climate negotiator while buying a souvenir from a local Scottish store are some of the real-life anecdotes of “being at the right place at the right time.”

Being from the global south, I cannot stress how immensely privileged I feel for getting this extraordinary opportunity to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference – COP26. From where I come from, not many people get to be at such places, which are looked at as places for the rich and wealthy. I am immensely thankful to Duke University and all those people behind the UNFCCC Practicum course to make this experience happen, which genuinely is (but I hope it is not), once in a lifetime opportunity.

Thank you for reading!

My biggest highlight of COP26 was to attend the live climate negotiations. Since Duke University is part of the RINGO group (Research and Independent NGOs), we are allowed as observers to the actual climate negotiations. However, this year, most of the negotiating rooms were closed for observers (with reasons ranging from COVID-19 protocol to parties insisting it to be closed). However, some negotiations were open in linked rooms through audio/visual. I had the chance to track the climate finance negotiation, which is the trickiest, stingiest, and most debated agenda item in almost all COPs.

Most of the negotiations revolved around legal jargon, with occasional trips down the grammar lane, with delegates discussing where a past participle should be placed. This was surprising because most delegates come from countries where English is not their first spoken language. Spending an abundant amount of negotiating time correcting grammar seemed to be imprudent. However, there were also heated discussions when the draft text had several interpretations and repercussions for different countries. For example, countries had a hard time deciding what to incorporate from the below two texts:

A. Expresses disappointment on the lack of efforts of developed country parties towards climate finance

B. Welcomes continued efforts of developed country parties towards climate finance

Evidently, developing countries were pushing for statement A, while developed countries wanted statement B. Deciding this one-line text took countries 45 minutes of discussions, several interventions, and an informal breakout meeting. This highlights the sensitivity around the topic of climate finance. Another example involved a lengthy debate, essentially between the choice of two words – urges or requests.

C. Urges developed country parties to continue to provide climate finance

D. Requests developed country parties to continue to provide climate finance.

Again, developing countries wanted statement C and developed countries wanted statement D. My other quick takeaways about international climate negotiations in general are:

1. Negotiations at COP can happen at multiple levels. Technical negotiations between subject experts and high-level negotiations between ministers and heads of state. The negotiators are highly intellectual but are limited by their subject expertise. Thus, for any technical negotiation, let’s say, climate finance, there will be a team of negotiators may be consisting of members from the finance department, environment department, and legal department. And some of the negotiations can get really technical with a lot of legal jargon with references to previous texts and documents. Having prior knowledge of the topic being negotiated is helpful here. The high-level negotiations between ministers and heads of state are generally closed for observers, but there is enough reason to believe that it would have a lot of action too.

2. Most negotiations happen informally outside the negotiation room, paradoxically. Since there is limited time allocated for a particular topic, parties are encouraged to breakout into several informal working groups either at the block level* or country level. The actual meeting time is only used for interventions by countries or blocks when the informal working groups cannot reach a consensus.

*There are several blocks or party grouping in UNFCCC, such as the African group, LDCs (Least Developed Countries), EIG (Environmental Integrity Group), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), etc.

3. There is a common tendency for similar nations to support each other’s intervention. A common trend that I witnessed was that Brazil, South Africa (on behalf of the African group), Guinea (on behalf of G77 and China), etc. generally support each other’s interventions, and on the other hand, European Union (EU), United States, Switzerland, etc. support each other’s interventions.

4. Even though negotiators are stressed and sleep-deprived, they are ultimately humans. They know everyone in the room and may even address them using their name instead of the country name, which in my opinion, humanizes the arguments. Surprisingly, they may also occasionally engage in casual banter (accompanied by nervous laughter).

The above points illustrate the complexity, commotion, and carefulness around climate negotiations in general.  The usage of strong words, accusatory tone, and causal references to previous documents are taken very seriously. Throughout our course (ENV 592:UNFCCC Practicum), we heard from guest speakers and past negotiators how a negotiation room looks like, but never could we feel it. However, having personally witnessed negotiations, there was no other place at COP26 I would rather be than in the negotiation room. 

Let’s recap the past two years very quickly – COVID-19 crippled economies, overwhelmed healthcare infrastructure, and affected millions of lives. While geopolitical tensions intensified in some parts of the world, national boundaries became bolder in some other parts of the world. Amidst all this, climate extreme events increased more than ever. The latest IPCC report is a testimony of the unprecedented levels of climate damage done by human activities. The planet and its people have had a lot to suffer. People quickly started using the three R’s hitherto unknown to humankind – “rebound, restart, and reflect,” rather than the traditional “reuse, reduce and recycle”. With this in mind, COP26 is hailed as “our last best chance,” with solutions claimed to be lying in multi-level, multi-lateral, and multifarious deliberations. Let’s evaluate this in the context of a few big agenda points to look out for at COP26:

Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) – The UNFCCC released the revised NDC synthesis report (FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/8/Rev.1) on 25 October 2021. With the current level of NDC’s, the UNFCCC predicts a global average temperature rise of about 2.7°C by the end of the century. While the science is precise, data is evident, and voices are unequivocal, where are we falling short? The balance of priorities between COVID, climate, and commitment needs to be clear, concise, and coherent.

Climate finance – Arguably, the most debated, anticipated, and pivotal topic for COP26 is climate finance. Debated because it has been on formal agenda points since the inception of UNFCCC. Anticipated because this has been increasingly spilling over on other discussion topics such as climate adaptation and mitigation. And pivotal because if the countries can move past the blame game, then climate finance can decisively stimulate our climate actions.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement – While the Paris Agreement humbly and victoriously mobilized global and collective climate efforts, it left a critical job unfinished. Solving the complex mystery of Article 6 should be done soon because it has the potential to seep into other discussions such as carbon markets, global stocktake, climate adaptation, etc. Having read the article personally and participated in a mock discussion in class, I know that this will not be easy.

Lastly, as COP26 is round the corner, COVID-19 has brought a lot upon us to pause, perceive and ponder on the following questions:

– Are global boundaries diminishing, or are they becoming bolder in the guise of COVID-induced nationalism?

– Are quid-pro quo GHG emissions justified in the guise of kickstarting COVID-induced economic slowdowns?

– Will developed countries enhance climate financing or maintain the status quo in the guise of COVID-induced financial and healthcare burden?

And most importantly,

– Will our future climate actions leapfrog to save the planet, or will they kowtow to a tiny micro-organism feared across the planet?

While I promise to enter COP26 with an open mind, these thoughts will continue to linger with me subconsciously. Like the rest of the world, I, too, am dabbling between bouts of optimism, skepticism, and pessimism. Like the rest of the world, I, too, am going to COP26 in the quest for answers to these contemporary, uncanny, and transitory but burning questions.