One of the family photos taken after the laborious end of the 26th climate summit in Glasgow, which closed a day later than scheduled with a Climate Pact described as falling short by even the most optimistic, lacking important decisions to combat the crisis and without directly confronting fossil fuels, the cause of the emergency. CREDIT: UNFCCC

By Emilio Godoy
GLASGOW, Nov 13 2021 (IPS)

Developing countries will surely remember the Glasgow climate summit, the most important since 2015, as a fiasco that left them as an afterthought. That was the prevailing sentiment among delegates from the developing South during the closing ceremony on the night of Saturday Nov. 13, one day after the scheduled end of the conference.

Bolivia’s chief negotiator, Diego Pacheco, questioned the outcome of the summit. “It is not fair to pass the responsibility to developing countries. Developed countries do not want to acknowledge their responsibility for the crisis. They have systematically broken their funding pledges and emission reduction commitments,” he told IPS minutes after the end of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) on climate change in Glasgow.

The 196 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ignored the public clamor, which took shape in the demands of indigenous peoples, young people, women, scientists and social movements around the world for substantive measures to combat the climate crisis, even though the goal of containing global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is barely surviving on life support.

The Glasgow Climate Pact that came out of the summit finally mentions the need to move away from the use of coal. But it had to water down the stronger recommendation to “phase out” in order to overcome the last stumbling block.

In addition, COP26 broke a taboo, albeit very tepidly, after arduous marches and counter-marches in the negotiating room and in the three drafts of the Glasgow Pact: there was a mention of fossil fuels as part of the climate emergency. And it also stated the need to reduce “inefficient” subsidies for fossil fuels.

But the summit, where decisions are made by consensus, avoided a strong stance in this regard. It also avoided moving from recommendations to obligations for the next edition, to be held in Egypt, and those that follow, while the climate crisis continues causing severe droughts, devastating storms, melting of the polar ice caps and warming of the oceans.

In a plenary session that was delayed by several minutes, the final declaration underwent a last-minute change when India, one of the villains of the meeting – along with Saudi Arabia, Australia and Russia – asked for the phrase “phasing out” of coal to be replaced by “phasing down”, a change questioned by countries such as Mexico, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

A paradoxical fact at the close of COP26, where civil society organizations complained that they were left out, was the decision of several countries to endorse the final text even though they differed on several points, including the fossil energy face-lifts.

“Today, we can say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees within reach. But its pulse is weak. And it will only survive if we keep our promises. If we translate commitments into rapid action,” said conference chairman Alok Sharma, choking back tears after a pact – albeit a minimal one – was reached by negotiating three drafts and holding arduous discussions on the fossil fuel question, right up to the final plenary.

COP26 chair Alok Sharma blinked back tears during his closing speech at the climate summit, expressing the tension of negotiating the Glasgow Climate Pact, due to the hurdles thrown in the way of a consensus by the big coal and oil producers. CREDIT: UNFCCC-Twitter

The South is still waiting

Lost amidst the impacts of the climate emergency and forgotten by the industrialized countries, the global South failed to obtain something vital for many of its nations: a clear plan and funding for loss and damage, an issue that was deferred to COP27 in Egypt.

Mohamed Adow, director of the non-governmental Power Shift Africa, said the pact is “not good enough…There is no mention of solidarity and justice. We need a clear process to face loss and damage. There should be a link between emission reduction, financing and adaptation.”

The final decision by China, the United States, India and the European Union to turn their backs on a global fossil fuel exit and deny climate support to the most vulnerable nations left the developing world high and dry.

“There are things that cannot wait to COP27 or 2025. To face loss and damage, the most vulnerable countries need financing to battle the impacts on their territories,” Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, global climate and energy leader for the non-governmental World Wildlife Fund, told IPS.

Climate policies were, at least on the agenda, the focus of COP26.

The summit focused on carbon market rules, climate finance of at least 100 billion dollars per year, gaps between emission reduction targets and needed reductions, strategies for carbon neutrality by 2050, adaptation plans, and the working platform for local communities and indigenous peoples.

But the goal of hundreds of billions of dollars per year has been postponed, a reflection of the fact that financing for climate mitigation and adaptation is a touchy issue, especially for developed countries.

The corridors of the Blue Zone of the Scottish Events Campus, where the official part of the 26th Climate Conference was held in the city of Glasgow, were emptying on Saturday Nov. 13, at the end of the summit, which lasted a day longer than scheduled and ended with a negative balance according to civil society organizations. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

Offers and promises – on paper

One breakthrough at COP26 was the approval of the rules of the Paris Agreement, signed in the French capital in December 2015, at COP21, to form the basis on which subsequent summits have revolved. By 2024, all countries will have to report detailed data on emissions, which will form a baseline to assess future greenhouse gas reductions.

The agreement on the functioning of carbon markets creates a trading system between countries, but does not remove the possibility of countries and companies skirting the rules.

Industrialized countries committed to doubling adaptation finance by 2025 based on 2019 amounts. In addition, COP26 approved a new work program to increase greenhouse gas cuts, with reports due in 2022.

It also asked the UNFCCC to evaluate climate plans that year and its final declaration calls on countries to switch from coal and hydrocarbons to renewable energy.

Apart from the Climate Pact, the summit produced voluntary commitments against deforestation, emissions of methane, a gas more polluting than carbon dioxide, and the phasing out of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

In addition, at least 10 countries agreed to put an end to the issuing of new hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation licenses in their territories.

Furthermore, some thirty nations agreed to suspend public funding for coal, gas and oil by 2022.

Demonstrations demanding ambitious, substantive and equitable measures to address the climate crisis continued throughout the 14-day climate summit in Glasgow, which ended on the night of Saturday Nov. 13 with disappointing results for the global South. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy/IPS

Finally, more than 100 stakeholders, including countries and companies, signed up to the elimination of cars with internal combustion engines by 2030, without the major automobile manufacturers such as Germany, Spain and France joining in, and a hundred nations signed a pact to promote sustainable agriculture.

All of the 2030 pledges, which still need concrete plans for implementation, imply a temperature rise of 2.8 degrees C by the end of this century, according to the independent Climate Action Tracker.

The climate plans of the 48 least developed countries (LDCs) would cost more than 93 billion dollars annually, the non-governmental International Institute for Environment and Development said in Glasgow.

In addition, annual adaptation costs in developing countries would be about 70 billion dollars, reaching a total of 140 to 300 billion dollars by 2030, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

But the largest disbursements are related to loss and damage, which would range between 290 billion and 580 billion dollars by 2030, and hence the enormous concern of these nations to obtain essential financing, according to a 2019 study. And their disappointment with the results of the Oct. 31-Nov.13 conference.

During his presentation at the closing plenary, Seve Paeniu, a climate envoy from Tuvalu, an island nation whose very existence is threatened by the rising sea level, showed a photo of his three grandchildren and said he had been thinking about what to say to them when he got home.

“Glasgow has made a promise to guarantee their future. It will be the best Christmas gift that I can bring home,” he said. But judging by the Climate Pact, Paeniu may have to look for another present.

IPS produced this article with the support of Iniciativa Climática of Mexico and the European Climate Foundation.

Boris Johnson’s recent pledge to cut emissions by 78 % by 2035 (compared with 1990 levels) is impressive in its ambition. Opponents are asking how such momentous pledges can be achieved. Credit: Edgardo Ayala / IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Jun 11 2021 (IPS)

How are preparations for the Glasgow Climate Summit in November proceeding? Currently, we are more than halfway through three weeks of virtual preparatory negotiations taking place in June. These online talks are challenging in their own right, just as many had feared  (see: ‘Should the 2021 Climate Summit in Glasgow Still Take Place?’). 

As we enter the final few months before Glasgow, however, there is room both for optimism and deep concern. Curiously, both of these emotions center squarely on the critical role of the host government. 

The success or failure of a climate summit of this magnitude depends greatly on the role of the host government—or “Presidency”. In the past, we have seen both unfortunate missteps from the Presidency, such as Copenhagen in 2009, as well as untrammeled successes, like Paris in 2015. 

The success or failure of a climate summit of this magnitude depends greatly on the role of the host government—or “Presidency”. In the past, we have seen both unfortunate missteps from the Presidency, such as Copenhagen in 2009, as well as untrammeled successes, like Paris in 2015

There are several common elements that make up a good or even a great Presidency. First, the ability to build trust among member states is critical. While this sounds simple in theory, in practice it is immensely difficult, even without the added complication of a global pandemic creating both practical difficulties and showing once again the deep rifts between wealthy countries, which have hoovered up the bulk of vaccines, and developing nations. Another feature of a strong Presidency is its careful planning, both substantively and logistically. Can the UK deliver?

Always look on the bright side

Let’s start with reasons to be optimistic. First, the UK Presidency has made one very positive and intelligent move. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s recent pledge to cut emissions by 78 % by 2035 (compared with 1990 levels) is impressive in its ambition. It set a very high bar for other nations and could, potentially, give the UK a strong moral foundation for asking more of others. 

Another positive for the UK is the enduring quality of its civil service. While the UK’s politicians seem to have discovered a penchant for tripping on every possible banana skin in recent years, the reputation of the country’s public servants remains high. The performance of the National Health Service (NHS) during the pandemic is just one example. More relevant to the Glasgow Summit, however, is the caliber of its diplomatic corps and wider foreign service, which remains exemplary. 

How to lose friends and irritate people

Set against these positives, though, are several worrying facts. 

First, the UK is the assuming the Presidency in the immediate aftermath of Brexit, a process that has left both Britain and its EU neighbors both bruised and a low point in their relationship. Its exit from the EU could hardly be described as one that has built strong and positive relations with the remaining 27 countries. These are countries the UK will need onside to make Glasgow a success.

Secondly, the UK’s recent decision to cut  development aid from 0.7% to 0.5 % Gross National Income (GNI) feels like extraordinarily bad timing..

Development Aid

In October 1970, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting the commitment to the 0.7% GNI for development aid from developed countries. While developed countries had agreed in theory, however, few were willing to put their money where their mouths were.

The UK was one of these few. In 2013, the Liberal Democrat MP Michael Moore introduced the Private Members Bill to the UK parliament that would enshrine the 0.7% GNI development aid target into law. In  theory, this would protect it from being a bargaining tool in any future government budget discussions. 

The law was passed in March 2015 under the Conservative/Liberal coalition government. All major political parties at the last election in 2019 committed to standing by this development target. 

Surprisingly, this changed in November 2020 with the Conservative UK Finance Minister’s Spending Review. The review indicated that in 2021 the government would reduce its allocation of development aid to 0.5 % (GNI). This has resulted in a huge cut: US$5.7 billion in aid will no longer be available. While the consequences are yet to be felt, it can hardly fail to be momentous. To put it into context, this cut is more than the combined ODA of Austria, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic. 

Up until the UK’s startling decision to cut its ODA, it has held the moral high ground on this issue. In fact, it was one of only six countries to have reached the United Nations goal of 0.7 %–and the only G7 country to do so. This gave the UK a great boost for the upcoming Climate Summit, where finance will be a critical issue. 

Tory misgivings 

Now Johnson’s government has surrendered this advantage, many experts are wondering how it will affect the host government’s efforts to win over the international community that will descend on Glasgow in November? Such cuts will have profound, on-the-ground impacts in many developing countries—hardly a smart way to “win friends and influence people.”

Some of Johnson’s own Tory colleagues have serious misgivings. While a possible parliamentary rebellion seems unlikely, a coalition of Conservative MPs led by former International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, and including two former Conservative Prime Ministers, is opposed to the cut, viewing it as a self-inflicted wound. The Conservatives have a majority of 80 in the House of Commons, which means if Conservative 41 MPs supported the reinstatement of the 0.7% then the government could face a humiliating climbdown. 

Logistical confusion 

(Drawn from a briefing produced by our colleague Yunus Arikan from ICLEI who follows the UNFCCC negotiations as the focal point of Local government and municipal authorities (LGMA), one of the 9 stakeholders climate constituencies.) 

Another potential pitfall in the lead-up to Glasgow lies in the meeting’s arrangements and logistics. By early June, publicly available information for participants in Glasgow was in short supply. 

For instance, there was no information yet on the capacity of the Glasgow Blue Zone (the conference location where negotiations will take place) with no breakdown for governments and observers of layout and costs of pavilion and office spaces. 

Special Glasgow Summit visas are currently available only for Blue Zone delegations and visa applications have to be submitted to the UK embassies starting from August. At this time, however, no information is available to facilitate visa applications for Green Zone events (where businesses and civil society will operate). Clearly, the clock is ticking on all of this.

Current UK COVID-19 measures ask for a minimum two weeks of quarantine upon arrival for most international participants,. Does this mean visa applications have to be adjusted accordingly as well? Will the policy be altered ahead of the Summit for government officials and other participants? This is not yet clear.

The Glasgow Summit is scheduled to have a Heads of State session on 1-2 November and a High-Level Ministerial Session the following week. No specific arrangement has yet been announced for access of observers during either of these segments, which again makes planning difficult for many non-negotiator participants.

The UN Climate Change Secretariat is expected to announce calls for special events (known as “side events”) on the UNFCCC-accreditation restricted Blue Zone 29 June. The results will be announced on 30 September which will leave less then a month´s time for speakers and organizers to secure their vaccines-visas-travels-accommodation for Glasgow – which will be a challenge in itself for any COP or major intergovernmental conference in normal times. It is also not clear what specific COVID-19 measures will apply for side events and meeting rooms, which influences the number of speakers and participants.

There is also no information yet on whether the UK Presidency and/or the UN Climate Secretariat will offer special vaccinations for participants, or whether observers will enjoy such benefits. Even if they do, the basis of selection will need to be clarified and it is also not clear which countries will accept such offers. Clearly, many logistical matters need to be clarified in a short space of time.

Details, details

The Glasgow Summit will mark an important moment for Boris Johnson’s Government. After the perceived foreign policy missteps over Brexit, Glasgow represents Johnson’s best opportunity to show that his vision of a new, global Britain can become a reality. The Prime Minister has apparently set great store by showcasing what his country could become in a post-Brexit future. If managed correctly, it could be a crowning success of his leadership. 

Yet if he is to burnish such a crown and make it gleam once more, he will need to ensure the logistical details are taken care of, and promptly. Furthermore, he will need to provide more details for how the UK will meet its ambitious 2035 emissions targets, since opponents are already asking how such momentous pledges can be achieved. Bringing the full weight of his country’s diplomatic skills in the lead-up to Glasgow will also be needed. This is no time for half-measures. It should be a complete team effort. 

Johnson should consider changing tack on his government’s ODA cuts. If this reduction was repositioned as a one-off, single-year adjustment, an announcement to reinstate some or all of the 0.7 % commitment could be timed in a way that would give Glasgow—and Johnson’s own reputation—a major boost. 

Finally, it looks very likely that Convention on Biological Diversity Summit in China may go ahead with only Ambassadors from country embassies in China and no delates or stakeholders from outside China. The Biodiversity Summit starts three weeks before the Glasgow Climate Summit – it makes you think – is this an indicator of what is going to happen?

Felix Dodds is a sustainable development advocate and writer. His new book Tomorrow’s People and New Technologies: Changing the Way we Live Our Lives will be out in September. He is coauthor of Only One Earth with Maurice Strong and Michael Strauss and Negotiating the Sustainable Development Goals with Ambassador David Donoghue and Jimena Leiva Roesch.

Chris Spence is an environmental consultant, writer and author of the book, Global Warming: Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet. He is a veteran of many climate summits and other United Nations negotiations over the past three decades.

Credit: Guillermo Flores/IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, May 27 2021 (IPS)

The past few weeks brought a burst of optimism on the climate front. It began on April 18 with the US-China announcement on climate cooperation. This was followed in quick succession by the EU Parliament’s vote to cut emissions 55% by 2030, the UK’s promise of a 78% cut by 2035, Japan nearly doubling their commitment from 26% to 46% based on 2013 levels and US President Biden’s pledge of a 50-52% reduction, also by 2030 (compared with 2005 levels).

Since such cuts offer a clear pathway to limit temperature growth, only the most ardent cynic would deny it has been a great start to the run up to Glasgow. Not to mention the announcement by a court in the Netherlands as we wrote this article (26th of May) that Shell will need to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 on 2019 levels this could result in a wave of court action against fossil fuel companies.

The Glasgow Summit will be judged, in part at least, on how it acts as a catalyst not only for greater ambition in emissions reductions, but in ensuring they are being consistently measured. Some countries, especially developing countries, will need significant financial support for such actions, and this should be another outcome from Glasgow

An important question now is how do we use the Glasgow Climate Summit to build on governments’ good intentions?

As we noted in a recent article published in IPS, the limitations on in-person meetings in a Covid-hit world are a particular problem for such a complex, high-stakes process. The Bureau managing the preparatory process for Glasgow recently announced its intention to hold virtual “informal meetings” starting next week. While we welcome the resumption of such discussions under the UN umbrella and can see a benefit to online discussions, these will only get us so far.

We hope diplomats, key stakeholders and journalists will be able to meet in person prior to the formal start of the Glasgow Summit, perhaps in October under a negotiating ‘bubble’ in Italy (which is hosting the G20 on the 30th and 31st of October) and the UK (which is hosting the Summit from November 1-12).

The current work being undertaken on COVID vaccine passports should make such in-person gatherings quite feasible, with the EU advancing plans in recent days to introduce them as early as July Furthermore, the UK’s offer to provide vaccinations to developing country delegations is a welcome move and should be expanded to other stakeholders.

National stakeholder climate alliances

What else could help advance progress in the lead-up to Glasgow? We would advocate that stakeholder coalitions at the national level could play a significant role.

Such coalitions have already shown their value. In 2017, Michael Bloomberg and former California Governor Jerry Brown launched America’s Pledge and the America is All In coalition in response to President Trump’s announcement that the United States would pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

The America is All In coalition has now grown to 147 cities, 1157 businesses, 3 states, 2 tribal nations, and almost 500 universities, faith groups, cultural institutions, and healthcare organizations. This is a powerful—and still growing—coalition committed to helping deliver at least a 50% reduction of 2005 emissions levels by 2030.

Meanwhile, Accelerating America’s Pledge—a report published by Bloomberg Philanthropies in 2020—identifies not only areas where work needs to be done but also progress to date. This work has helped build a strong base for President Biden’s recent announcement of a US Nationally Determined Contribution at a reduction of 52% in 2030 on 2005 levels.

Such partnerships and pledges are also happening internationally. In 2019, the Climate Ambition Alliance of Cities, Regions and Business, reported commitments to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

This Alliance, which includes 992 businesses, 449 cities, 21 regions, 505 universities and 38 of the biggest investors, has made a significant pledge because it represents economic stakeholders covering a quarter of the global carbon emissions. This type of coalition helped pointed the way for national governments and others to take on similar goals.

Such coalitions can also be a model for how stakeholders could act in the lead-up to Glasgow. The welcome promises of many governments can be supported and held more accountable by a coalition of key national stakeholders.

For instance, imagine what national coalitions of stakeholders in perhaps the 20 world’s largest emitting countries might do when it comes to ensuring governments follow up on their pledges with clear, actionable policies and financing to achieve the promised cuts.

Furthermore, national stakeholder coalitions could encourage governments to submit new, more ambitious pledges, the so-called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), in the lead-up to Glasgow.

Where a government may be lagging, such national coalitions can help maintain the pressure by taking on their own commitments for their city, region, or business sector.

Such coalitions have also received strong support from the United Nations. “All countries, companies, cities and financial institutions must commit to net zero, with clear and credible plans to achieve this, starting today,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged in March.

Independent monitoring and verification

One specific area stakeholder coalitions can play a role—both domestically and on the international scene—is in pushing for consistent monitoring, measuring, and reporting of emissions. This is an area that was not resolved by the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and yet is critical if we are to ensure full transparency and accountability in meeting government pledges.

The Glasgow Summit will be judged, in part at least, on how it acts as a catalyst not only for greater ambition in emissions reductions, but in ensuring they are being consistently measured. Some countries, especially developing countries, will need significant financial support for such actions, and this should be another outcome from Glasgow.

The UN-supported Race to Zero campaign is playing a useful role in this area. The largest alliance of non-state actors committing to achieving net zero emissions before 2050, Race to Zero recently published a report setting out criteria for how stakeholders can set, measure, and report on net zero commitments.

Interestingly, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a group of 160 financial institutions with a collective US$70 trillion in assets, is taking a similar approach.

Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and Prime Minister Johnson’s Climate Finance Advisor for COP26, is chairing this new grouping.

If these national coalitions are to be taken seriously, there may need to be a national as well as international independent monitoring and verification. Reporting and verification should happen annually.

Collaboration in our cities may be the key to unlocking Glasgow’s potential

Cities could be critical to Glasgow’s success. “Cities use a large proportion of the world’s energy supply and are responsible for around 70 per cent of global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions which trap heat and result in the warming of Earth,” UN-Habitat Executive Director, Maimunah Mohd Sharif, said in 2019.

Starting in the cities of the 20 top emitters might be a good first step in aligning national stakeholders to the Paris Climate Agreement. Cities have the potential not only to be a powerful engine for change; they can also keep the world moving forward even if national political leadership in a country is lacking or is affected by a change in direction following an election.

The recent positive announcements by some governments for stronger NDCs is to be commended. However, only when all stakeholders are engaged and included will we be able to create a sustainable way to live together on this ‘Only One Earth’ we have.

Felix Dodds is a sustainable development advocate and writer. His new book Tomorrow’s People and New Technologies: Changing the Way we Live Our Lives will be out in September. He is coauthor of Only One Earth with Maurice Strong and Michael Strauss and Negotiating the Sustainable Development Goals with Ambassador David Donoghue and Jimena Leiva Roesch.

Chris Spence is an environmental consultant, writer and author of the book, Global Warming: Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet. He is a veteran of many COPs and other UNFCCC negotiations over the past three decades.