Author: Fabian Schmid

The final hours of COP 27 were thrilling. While we were already on our way back, negotiators were still struggling to come to an agreement. On Sunday morning, it was finally accomplished with ambiguous results. The decision to establish a loss and damage facility is a huge success despite a bunch of open questions. However, the disagreement on more ambitious mitigation efforts at this year’s COP was disappointing and does not help to decrease the severity of future climate damages. In this blogpost I want to focus on the Article 6 outcomes at COP 27. After the successful adoption of the rulebook in Glasgow, this year’s negotiations were all about implementation and thus very technical. Negotiators were not able to agree on a decision for Article 6.2, 6.4, and 6.8 before Saturday and after long night sessions. I attended the negotiations on Friday morning which were characterized by desperate statements on how to somehow find an agreement. The Swiss representative of the EIG even opened his statement by joking that the intense light in the plenary room plus the lack of sleep reminds him of interrogation techniques.

Let’s start with the decisions which were not made in Sharm El Sheikh. The controversial topics of emission removals and emission avoidance were already deferred in week one to next year. Remarkably, the recommendation by the supervisory body on removals was rejected by parties supporting removals and by parties not supporting removals. Still, among others the setup of the carbon market infrastructure, and reporting requirements provided enough room for disagreement so that the negotiations took such a long time. Encouragingly, the Parties agreed on the initial report outlines for Article 6.2. Nevertheless, NGOs criticize that the rules allow that the reporting is kept confidential which could result in greenwashed ITMOs. For Article 6.4, non-authorized A6.4ERs were discussed intensively as fears exist that they could be subject to double-counting. They are now labeled as mitigation contribution A6.4ERs and the Parties agreed on a procedure which makes double-counting less likely.

An interesting development in the last days was the proposal by the European Union to agree on establishing a loss and damage facility under the condition that China also contributes to the funding. Its exceptional economic growth accompanied by carbon emissions make it overdue to no longer classify China as a developing country like in the Kyoto Protocol 25 years ago. However, the EU did not achieve to build an alliance with vulnerable countries of the G-77 to increase pressure on China. Thus, the final decision at COP 27 does not provide an agreement on this topic but I am curious to see how it will develop when more details about the loss and damage facility will be negotiated in the next months.

At the end, I want to briefly talk about the circumstances of this year’s COP happening in Egypt which affected our preparations but much more the participating actors from civil society. Taking place in an autocracy, COP 27 was a huge challenge for climate and human rights activists. In contrast to previous COPs, demonstrations were highly regulated and local activists were afraid of protesting in public. Spyware in the official COP 27 app, Egyptian secret service agents surveilling official events, and human rights violations provide serious reasons to question that this year’s COP was an inclusive and safe conference for everyone.

Back in Durham, I’m still in the process of organizing my thoughts and reflecting on the countless impressions I gained during the last week at COP 27 in Egypt. The time passed by incredibly fast, and I tried to absorb as much knowledge as possible. It seems like only yesterday that I was entering the venue for the first time and being completely overwhelmed by the sheer size of the conference. I was surprised to see that the actual negotiations cover only a small proportion of the venue while the pavilions offer so many interesting and diverse events. I do not know how often I got lost during the five days to find the right event location in the different buildings. The huge number of negotiations, official side events, and pavilion events taking place at the same time made it very hard to decide where I would like to spend my time. Mostly, I attended events focusing either on carbon markets and Article 6 or climate finance. They helped me a lot to improve my understanding of the current difficulties in these fields.

It was a unique experience to attend the negotiations, witness the slow processes and to see how difficult it is that all Parties agree on one text. I did not anticipate how crucial the rule of the presidency and the co-facilitators are and how often country representatives complain about the late release of important documents. Together with my client, I mostly followed the Article 6 negotiations. At this year’s COP, they were highly technical and focused on the detailed implementation rules. Despite all my preparation, it was still sometimes hard to understand why countries have such strong opinions in technical details and are not able to compromise.

The event I learnt the most was a panel discussion at the pavilion of the Global Environment Facility. I enjoyed the critical and constructive discussion which I sometimes missed at other pavilion events which were just highlighting the positive outcomes of their own efforts. Representatives of Small Island Developing States vividly highlighted the current problems of climate finance in their countries. Processes to apply for funding require high upfront investments to write the application and take years until the money flows. But the biggest problem is that the funding is just not sufficient. In Vanuatu, the average damages by only one storm amount to $500 million. Currently, this sum must be covered by the countries’ public budget. Their reconstruction budget is as high as the one for education which shows the big burden climate damages are already now for these vulnerable countries. Besides that, they underscored the limitations of the current narrative that the private sector needs to step up and invest in climate finance. There might be interesting investment opportunities for mitigation projects but for adaption and loss and damages, there is in most cases no return which makes it unattractive for the private sector. Hence, the polluting states are urged to support these vulnerable states. Fortunately, a first step was taken at COP 27 by the decision to establish a loss and damage fund.

To sum up, attending COP 27 was an unforgettable experience for me and I am more than grateful for this unique opportunity offered by Duke.

It’s happening! Over 30,000 people are gathering in an Egyptian resort town to discuss about urgently needed climate action. Together with a group of amazing Duke students, I have the honor to fly to Sharm El Sheikh and attend week 2 of COP 27. After weeks of interesting readings with fruitful discussions in class, and eagerly waiting to hear news regarding badges and flights, we have the unique opportunity to be part of this mega event. It is such a privilege for me to be able to attend a COP. Four months ago, I would have never expected to sit in a plane to Egypt and be part of this conference. What makes this year’s COP special is that it takes place in an African country. Hence, I hope to meet diverse people from all around the world which share my passion for a just and efficient transition to a carbon-neutral economy.

Two topics seem to overshadow COP 27. First, most international commentators are pessimistic when they talk about their expectations regarding this year’s COP because of the war in Ukraine. I hope to learn more at COP how governments are planning to both, solving the current energy crisis while staying committed to their mitigation pledges to come closer to reaching the 1.5° C target. As an example, my home country Germany which is often seen as a progressive actor in climate policy decided to ramp up coal power station and invest in new exploration of natural gas fields abroad. I sincerely hope that we will still witness significant emission reduction pledges in week 2 so that the key goal of the Paris agreement does not get out of reach. The second topic which attracts the most attention during this year’s COP is loss and damage. The historically extensive emissions of just a few, mainly rich, countries already cause severe damages all around the globe which will even become worse over the next years and decades. During our class, we did a mock negotiation about this issue, and it highlighted me how difficult it is to find common ground on such a controversial topic. Thus, I am curious to attend the negotiations in Sharm El Sheikh and see how developing and developed countries argue and hopefully compromise to find a just solution which works for the most vulnerable ones.

Most observers frame COP 27 as an implementation COP. This is in particular true for the topic which I am most passionate about, Article 6 and carbon markets. Most open issues were solved during last year’s COP in Glasgow. However, as often in life the details are crucial so that the mechanisms will actually become a success story. By supporting my client, attending Article 6 related side events, and following the negotiations, I hope to learn more about these critical details and how actors try to influence the negotiations in their favor.

After learning and reading a lot, I cannot wait to finally enter the venue on Monday and experience what it’s all about to attend a COP!