Opinion: Failing to act at COP 27 will weaken multilateralism

It’s past half-time and everything remains in play at the 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 27, now underway in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Billed as an “implementation COP” and one to deliver for Africa and vulnerable countries, failure for COP 27 to accelerate action and provide financial support for the worst climate-affected communities risks a major legitimacy crisis for multilateralism.

It is no mean feat that after over 30 years of campaigning, finance for “loss and damage” — a form of climate reparations — is finally an agenda item within the UNFCCC process. But the quality of the outcome is still uncertain, as high-income countries remain jittery about a dedicated fund or facility that would expose them to liability claims.

With just a week to go, discussions on loss and damage, which covers climate losses that cannot be adapted to because they are irreplaceable, remain unsettled on too many negotiating issues.

The push to design a constructive and more ambitious program of work to increase efforts to reduce emissions is moving ahead slowly, with still too many questions about keeping the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius as a global threshold. This leaves vulnerable nations anxious and increasingly frustrated, as they are already reaching the limits of adaptation.

While high-income countries may have the means to bounce back from one of the globe’s hottest summers and unprecedented outbreaks of wildfires, the most vulnerable who are least responsible for this crisis do not. This stark reality is why COP 27’s legacy must at least be on adaptation and loss and damage finance for countries already being walloped by escalating impacts.

A recent report suggests that the “V20” — made up of the 58 most vulnerable countries facing the worst climate impacts — has lost over $500 billion from destructive climate events in the last two decades. In the absence of loss and damage support, these populations now face a tax on their development, existence, and dignity as climate impacts escalate and compounds indebtedness, unfair trading regimes, and limited access to capital.

High-income nations must move on from the endless fear of compensation and liability and from procedural discussions and demonstrate true solidarity and pioneering spirit. Previous summits have focused on guidelines and agreements, but that normative approach has run its course.

The time for implementation has come. Success at this COP should hinge on delivering the resources and tools needed to make it a reality. As illustrated in various reports, options exist to finance loss and damage.

While unprecedented levels of funding for adaptation initiatives and for loss and damage were announced last week, many of the announcements are not new. They are largely recycled funds that muddle the discussion. To deliver on the promise of the historic inclusion of finance for loss and damage on the COP 27 agenda, we need the mosaic of options now on the table to deliver more than a mere disaster relief fund.

Vulnerable countries have demanded more than insurance mechanisms: They are campaigning for resources to address the capacity, gains, and cultural attributes gutted by climate impacts that can never be replaced by relief or aid.

It’s a justice claim needed to build a brighter future, bounce back without losing hard-won development gains, and face displacement with dignity. This is why vulnerable countries need this COP to produce a dedicated funding mechanism for loss and damage rather than kicking the can down the road.

The urgency of the situation could not be more obvious. According to the latest UNFCCC Synthesis Report of national climate plans, we are even further off course — up to 2.7 degrees Celsius warming — than we were ahead of the last COP.

The new “Traffic Light Assessment” report finds that major economies are stuck on red: Their 2030 nationally determined contributions lead to a 3 degrees warmer world. Since the last COP, Pakistan and Nigeria have suffered devastating floods, while the Horn of Africa is facing the most prolonged drought in decades, and small island states could face bankruptcy in the face of more frequent and devastating hurricanes.

Low- and middle-income countries stand to lose hundreds of billions of dollars more by the end of the decade if wealthier polluters do not step up or simply fulfill their promises. But the overall losses are incalculable when we take stock of the loved ones taken by extreme weather events, and the damage of being made homeless and deprived of cultural heritage due to hurricanes, flooding, or sea-level rise.

This year, polluters must cast-iron commitments to reducing the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century and deliver the doubling of adaptation finance promised by the Glasgow Pact at COP 26.

Of course, expectations must be managed. The annual climate COP is always a journey and never an endpoint. Everything pertaining to the climate emergency will not be resolved at Sharm el-Sheikh. But COP 27 cannot run the risks to undermine further a fragile multilateral system.

Mitigating that risk rests on trust and good political will among parties, as well as accountability. This matters particularly to vulnerable nations who have no seat in the Group of 20 major economies but do have an opportunity for visibility at climate conferences where they have a rare platform.

The concepts of solidarity and multilateralism must be fought for with deeds, not words. If heavy hitters at the COP 27 fail to deliver for climate-affected nations once more, then the opportunity provided by its multilateral process will be widely seen as a mere gimmick.

Participation in other forums of cooperation may also be questioned, and their downfall welcomed by authoritarians and polluters alike. At a time when power imbalance and politics threaten global security, this would be the worst legacy of all.