Start main page content

COP27 key outcomes: progress on compensation for developing countries, but more needed on climate ju

- Prof. Imraan Valodia and Julia Taylor

Academics unpack wins, tensions at COP27 and the way forward.

There were high expectations for COP27, the 27th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

COP conferences broadly provide a platform for the negotiation of international climate change agreements. This was to be the first COP held in Africa since 2016. It was also framed as the implementation COP, which would lead to action.

COP27 was expected to make progress on “loss and damage”. This is financing to compensate developing countries for the harm to the climate that has been caused primarily by the developed world.

The outcome – the establishment of a new fund for loss and damage – is a relief for climate activists and developing countries.

Below we unpack this, and other key outcomes from this crucial climate change conference.

Urgency, justice and equity missing in negotiations

Outside the formal negotiations, there were clear and consistent messages about the urgency of climate action from scientists, NGOs and climate activists. They gathered at the event and in small, peaceful protests. The same urgency wasn’t seen among party negotiators.

Inside the formal negotiations, mostly wealthy country parties pushed back on immediate action in these areas:

  • support for people displaced by extreme events caused by climate change
  • strong and transparent governance of carbon markets
  • the phasing out of all fossil fuels.

This disconnect was striking and has led to significant delays and setbacks in agreements relevant to climate justice.

Further, the decision-making process raises questions about the equity of different voices at COP, and whose reality counts. All decisions within COP are made by consensus, not a vote. Decisions can be overruled by one dissenting party.

There’s also inequality in representation of countries and the prevalence of lobby groups at COP27. Certain countries can support large teams of party delegates and technical support. Poorer countries can’t.

New fund for loss and damage

A significant achievement of COP27 was an agreement to establish a new fund for loss and damage finance.

This negotiation was very contentious, with some parties threatening to walk out at various points. The central tension was between developed and developing countries. Developed countries did all they could to avoid a new financing entity for loss and damage.

Developing countries are largely represented by the G77 and China. This is a negotiating group of 134 developing countries initially founded by 77 countries in 1964. Rich nations tried to divide the G77 and China negotiating group by arguing that China, India, and other less vulnerable countries should also have to pay for loss and damage.

It’s true that China and India are currently large emitters of greenhouse gases, but this approach shows a refusal to acknowledge the historical cumulative emissions mostly attributed to the early industrialisers.

The responsibility for cumulative emissions does vary based on which emissions are counted, how they are counted, and whether it is analysed on a per capita basis. However, North American and European regions stand out as the largest emitters.

While the agreement on a fund for loss and damage is a significant step forward, a lot of work needs to be done before it is set up. The parties agreed to set up a transitional committee to make recommendations for adoption at COP28, in November 2023.

Technical assistance to address loss and damage

An additional positive move was made with the agreement on the institutional arrangements to operationalise the Santiago Network, which was established at COP25 to help developing countries identify their technical needs and connect with providers of assistance to address them. For example, in the case of flooding, improved systems to prepare and implement early warning systems and evacuation processes.

The next step will be to identify the host for the Santiago Network Secretariat.

Continue reading. This article is an extract from The Conversation and is republished under a Creative Commons license. 

About the Authors

Prof. Imraan Valodia, Pro Vice-Chancellor: Climate, Sustainability and Inequality and Director Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand

Julia Taylor , Researcher: Climate and Inequality, University of the Witwatersrand