Midnight meeting at COP27: Countries war over climate policies night before talks set to close

The developed and developing countries continued to spar over the approach towards climate finance, mitigation, and loss and damage funding.

COP27 President Sameh Shoukry | Photo: Twitter/@COP27P

Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt: In a midnight intervention, countries aired their disagreements over several climate action policies – stuck in a deadlock – in front of the Egyptian Presidency, during a late-night stocktaking Friday at the ongoing COP27 in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh, day before talks are slated to conclude.

Ministerial consultations on matters related to climate finance, mitigation, and loss and damage funding didn’t yield concrete outcomes, with negotiations scheduled through the night to arrive at a consensus. Outcomes on loss and damage and climate finance will be a litmus test for the COP27’s success, experts have said.

Developing countries, led by the G77 bloc – a group comprising more than 130 developing nations – and China pushed to include loss and damage funding arrangements on the official agenda for the talks – a demand that developed countries have long resisted.

But that early victory pales in comparison to the disintegration of consensus at the talks. The G77 and China proposed creating a new funding facility for all developing nations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Pakistan, which suffered a loss after a devastating flood and is chair of the G77 group, told the floor, “The next few hours are going to determine where we take our processes forward.” It also highlighted that there continued to be divergent views on the issue of loss and damage.

Several developed country groups, including the US, are said to have blocked the proposal of setting up a finance facility.

During the informal stocktaking, the European Union (EU) said it would be willing to fund loss and damage, but only if it was for the world’s most vulnerable countries, and “in a way that would enable it to receive financing from sources from a broad donor base.”

This was opposed by developing countries in the African group and Bolivia, which said expanding the donor base to include developing countries and relying on private finance undermined the very convention that underlies the COPs.

COP president Sameh Shoukry told parties, “I hope that all will rise to the occasion, address the issue with the due urgency it deserves and address this in the spirit of flexibility accommodation and our desire to fulfil our responsibilities.”

Deepening divide

During its intervention, the EU said all parties need to urgently increase their efforts in this “critical decade” with a view to “closing the remaining mitigation gap to pathways consistent with 1.5 degrees”.

It also stressed on the need to “go beyond Glasgow to pursue and accelerate the phase down of unabated coal power as soon as possible and to submit roadmaps towards this aim.”

India had earlier proposed a phasedown of “all” fossil fuels, rather than just singling out coal, since “all fossil fuels contribute to global warming”.

Switzerland supported the EU’s position on financing loss and damage, adding that climate finance should include “countries that have the capacity to greater support, so all high income countries and major economies,” and called for mitigation ambitions to ensure global warming was limited to no more than 1.5 degrees.

“This is not the COP only about loss and damage. This is a call about loss and damage, about mitigation, about financing,” Switzerland said. 

The COP27 is dubbed the “implementation COP”, where expectations on climate finance outcomes are high, since climate finance is the basis upon which poorer countries can achieve their goals. 

Bolivia, which also represents the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group of countries including India, called the developed countries “liars” and alleged that they are trying to “shift the burden” to developing countries and the private sector.

“Developed countries are pushing very hard, overreaching 1.5 degrees in the context of achieving the net zero by 2050 to solve the climate crisis, but this is really a lie, because this is not under the principles of the convention and its Paris agreement. This narrative is not under equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and climate justice. They are really creating the scenario to shift the burden to developing countries and to shift the burden to the private sector,” Bolivia said.