Is the world keeping its COP 26 climate promises?

Last year’s 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP 26, saw a slew of commitments, some as part of the Glasgow Climate Pact, which rounded off the two weeks of negotiations, and some in the whirlwind of initiatives announced throughout the summit.

But since then, Russia’s war in Ukraine has caused a major geopolitical rift and worsened tension, driving up gas prices and demand for fossil fuels, amid sanctions imposed by Western countries. The war sparked a global food crisis, compounding a debt crisis in lower-income countries.

After a year of geopolitical and economic turmoil — which may yet worsen by COP 27 — which of those promises have been kept?

Devex looks at some of the areas most relevant to development professionals.

Doubling adaptation finance 

The Glasgow accords urged “developed country Parties to at least double their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties from 2019 levels by 2025.” This amounted to at least $40 billion by 2025 — and there are doubts this would be enough even if it was met.

Climate finance is split between mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation spending is designed to cut carbon emissions — such as investing in renewable energy — and is often well suited to the private sector, meaning the money can be dispersed through loans which will return a profit.

But adaptation spending — measures which help adjust to a heating climate — is often done through projects involving the state, such as early-warning systems and flood-resilient infrastructure, meaning grants are preferred.

Adaptation funding tends to be more urgently needed by lower-income countries but has historically been underfunded, something African countries in particular are hoping is changed at COP 27. A failure to progress on this could be a key sticking point in negotiations.

A major reason for this is the promise high-income countries made to disburse $100 billion in climate finance annually to lower-income nations vulnerable to climate change between 2020 and 2025. That promise has not been met, causing tension at COP 26, and is not expected to be this year. Just $21.8 billion total adaptation finance is expected by 2025, according to a prediction by the International Institute for Environment and Development.

The continued failure to meet the $100 billion target has led climate campaigners to shift their efforts from deciding on a post-2025 financial target toward emphasizing that a greater proportion of climate finance should be spent on adaptation funding.

It’s still too early to see how progress toward this is going, according to Carolina Cecilio, policy adviser for risk and resilience at E3G, a climate research and campaign group. She said because the COP is being held on African soil, adaptation is likely to be a key priority for the hosts, Egypt, and there are “some expectations [that] some countries will announce commitments.”

One of the most significant projects is the United States President’s Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience, or PREPARE, which aims to provide $3 billion in adaptation finance annually by 2024, but will require Congress to be on board — far from a certainty as the U.S. approaches the midterm elections, due to take place on Nov. 8, the second day of COP 27.

COP 27 will be a key marker to demonstrate what progress is — or is not — being made. Canadian and German officials are working on a report into the missing $100 billion, which should be presented in late October, just before COP 27.

“We need to see evidence of how [high-income countries] will double adaptation finance to at least $40 billion in 2025, as agreed in Glasgow. Funding for adaptation and resilience must represent at least half of all climate finance,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres told journalists on Oct. 3.

Loss and damage talks

The Glasgow Climate Pact decided to “establish the Glasgow Dialogue … to discuss the arrangements for the funding of activities to avert, minimize and address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate change.” While definitions can vary, such “adverse impacts” can include the loss of life or property, or damages to health or infrastructure through climate related events, like extreme weather.

Climate campaigners representing the global south are, as in previous years, pushing to make “loss and damage” a “litmus test” issue gauging the success of COP 27 — language which is now being used by Guterres.

Campaigners want a working U.N. structure dedicated to the impact of climate catastrophes, called the Santiago Network, and more contentiously, dedicated finance. Given loss and damage has been described as the “most politically contentious issue” in climate negotiations, it is an ambitious aim.

But the Glasgow Dialogues are said to have helped in shifting loss and damage up the agenda.

“A lot discussed at Glasgow Dialogues helped understand better what developing countries need and why they need it,” said Cecilio.

The talks are not the only factor involved in a greater prominence for loss and damage. While Europe scorched under drought, terrible climate-worsened flooding in Pakistan also caught the attention of the world — and the country is currently the chair of the Group of 77 enabling it to ramp loss and damage up the international agenda.

But extreme weather becoming more obvious isn’t the only factor, and all the talking at climate meetings in Bonn, Berlin, and elsewhere served a purpose, according to Cecilio. She said: “All those events and conversations, both formal and informal conversations, have helped progress towards COP 27. It’s a bigger package than just what's happening in countries over the summer.”

At a press briefing on Oct. 28, Ambassador Wael Aboulmagd, special representative of the COP 27 president, also referenced the ministerial meetings — where he said loss and damage has “been front and center of the negotiations.” He said negotiators were “inching closer to an understanding” including on central issues such as having an official agenda item for loss and damage, and called for COP 27 to find a “creative” way to provide financing.

Denmark recently announced 100 million kroner ($13 million) of climate finance, additional to the aid budget, to go toward loss and damage funding — but how it will actually be spent, given the lack of an official facility, is unknown. During COP 26, the Scottish government made a donation of £2 million — hailed as symbolic, as the first national authority to make a specific loss and damage pledge — which went to the Climate Justice Resilience Fund, an NGO, and various climate think tanks.

“There’s a shift clearly [to thinking that] loss and damage matters, no one can deny at this point,” said Cecilio, who predicted that it would be a “big topic in Egypt.”

Just transitions in South Africa

The South Africa Just Energy Transition Partnership, or JTEP, was hailed as a landmark deal at COP 26 because, if successful, it has the potential to serve as a model to decarbonize emerging economies in a way that emphasizes fairness to the people who could lose their jobs.

It was brokered with the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, and German and French governments. While the concept of Just Transitions is not a new one, this deal was the first major attempt to put theory into practice.

It aims to end the use of coal power, which South Africa is highly reliant on, by incentivizing renewable energy investments, all while looking out for the jobs of the 120,000 workers affected. To maximize the potential $8.5 billion donor funding, South Africa needs to enact reforms to its energy sector — state energy company, Eskom, has a monopoly on coal, dampening appetite for renewables.  

Since COP 26, climate experts have been very excited about the project, which is yet to be agreed.

But the deal is reportedly encountering problems, and it is unclear whether there will be a successful agreement in time for COP 27. Donor nations have concerns about the South African government’s failure to provide a detailed investment plan, and its officials are also pushing for funding to develop green hydrogen, which wasn’t part of the original plan, according to Bloomberg.

The erratic recent behavior of the U.K. government — originally a key driver of the project — is not helping matters. The climate credentials of new Prime Minister Liz Truss are in doubt and amid domestic politicial and economic strife, it is not clear if the U.K. can be relied upon to maintain its aid-funded climate finance commitments.

Ending international fossil fuel financing

The commitment to align international public support toward the clean energy transition and out of unabated fossil fuels by the end of this year was one of most well-received surprises of COP 26. Researchers later predicted it could shift $28 billion annually in international public finance for fossil fuels toward an energy transition.

Ending “new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022, except in limited and clearly defined circumstances that are consistent with a 1.5°C warming limit and the goals of the Paris Agreement,” was agreed to by 34 countries, including five G-7 members, and five institutions: European Investment Bank, Banco de Desenvolvimento de Minas Gerais, Agence Française de Développement, Financierings-Maatschappij voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V., and the East African Development Bank.

It aimed to challenge the narrative that oil, coal, and gas are necessary for the development of low-income countries, an official who worked on the deal said at the time.

But since then, the world has changed amid geopolitical and economic turmoil.

Oil Change International, an NGO, is working on an analysis showing progress on the agreement. The NGO found just seven countries or institutions are on track, the U.K., France, and EIB, which is the only multilateral development bank that has joined the agreement.

Meanwhile, the United States, Canada, and Germany are lagging, according to OCI. The U.S. is refusing to publish how it is implementing the policy while exploring gas development in Croatia and South Africa, as Germany is in Senegal. OCI fears Canada’s policy will feature big loopholes.

The U.K. is due to host a side-event at COP 27 aimed at gathering new signatories and tracking progress.