Unlock the gridlock; the working mitigation theme at COP27 planned to have two dialogues

 By Abay Yimere

Abay Yimere presenting at COP27

Abay presenting at a Climate Policy Lab event at COP27

Increasing mitigation ambition and enhancing implementations are the focus of the mitigation work program to achieve the Paris Agreement’s long-term goal of 1.5°C. However, recent studies and analyses of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) demonstrated that existing goals and implementations are subject to 1.5°C of uncertainty. As a result, a chasm exists between the NDC’s pledges and desired goals. According to the sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, a 43% emission reduction is required by 2030 to attain the 1.5°C targets. However, the NDC’s current goals and implementation level show a 13.7% increase in emissions by 2030 compared to the 2010. Considering these diverging instead of converging emissions trends and targets, the Glasgow Climate Pact urged countries to boost their NDC ambitions before 2022. However, the country’s revised NDCs for 2030 need to be seven times more ambitious to meet the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goals. Consequently, the two entities, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), urged the parties to find a consensus on the road to the Paris Agreement that all parties could support.

In light of this backdrop, at COP27, in Sharm El Sheikh, subtle but distinct views and perspectives of countries and groups surfaced during the mitigation working group negotiation. For instance, the larger group of G77 plus China, which is mostly united on other topics, wasn’t in agreement on this one, as their emission levels vary. The least developing countries propose that major emitters and developed countries revise and strengthen their NDCs with tangible and succinct measures through 2030. Additionally, their negotiators recommended that China and other significant emitters follow this work program. China hoped the work program would be completed by 2023, while many developed countries argued that China and other major emitters need to take a similar responsibility under the work program. 

 The African Group of Negotiators also expressed concerns about whether this resulted in additional burdens for developing countries and demanded assurances that the process would not create any parallel processes outside the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). I observed that the delegates negotiated hard but cordially. Sometimes negotiations extended to midnight, but when concluding their negotiation, the parties, mainly the developed countries, at COP27 merely copied the result of COP26 on the crux of the matters related to increasing mitigation ambitions or putting a firmer emission target to achieve the 1.5 0C. Renewables are the future, and countries must leave behind fossil fuels to stop the world from overheating.

Establishing a loss and damage fund is a historical outcome for Cop27 , which vulnerable countries have been negotiating for since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. It is right to acknowledge that vulnerable countries need compensation for the damage caused by global climate change. However,  it is the absence of agreements on stricter emission targets that led us to deliberate on adaptation, and then the lack of sufficient funds for adaptation measures led to loss and damage. The trajectory is clear, and advanced countries must agree on ambitious emissions targets before vulnerable regions and countries wash away by water bodies, turn into deserts, and become inhabitable. The positive sign is that the working group agreed to hold two dialogues within a year to debate what we ought to do.  Additionally, the dialogues aimed to increase participation and develop a framework to map out all impediments, identify opportunities to increase mitigation ambitions, and enhance implementation mechanisms to ensure that the long-term global goal is achieved as per the Paris Agreement’s ultimate objectives. 

Without robust political support, I suspect the dialogues will remain mere workshops and talk shops. The political dangers are looming. The threat will be worse if we are competitive instead of cooperative, and nationalism rather than globalism seeps deep into the policy agenda. Impermeable political boundaries could create an unbridgable chasm for the use and application of the sciences. Policymakers need to fly high above the political boundaries of nationalism and geopolitics, and scientists need to stay ahead of climate change as the world does not have time to waste. Nevertheless, I hope these two planned dialogues will be accompanied by strong political will to resolve the impasses and make substantial progress towards a giant leap in mitigation ambitions. Moreover, it may prepare the world for a possible landmark mitigation outcome at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates. ∎

Abay Yimere is a Postdoctoral Research Scholar at Climate Policy Lab at The Fletcher School.