Managing the effects of climate change on the hydrological cycle has come up a few times in this blog and we’ve discussed both community-led, grassroots initiatives as well as transnational management schemes. One of the largest global discussions of climate change and policy is COP which held its 27th meeting (COP27) in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt in November of this year. There were hopes that the decision to hold the meeting in Africa would indicate a discussion focused on the climate injustice faced by African nations and other low-income countries, who are generally the least responsible for climate change but experience its largest impacts.
UCL professors and lecturers Richard
Taylor, Mark Maslin, Priti Parikh and Simon Chin-Yee were in attendance at
COP27 and wrote this
article which describes COP27 as a failure and is more than worth a read
for a broader explanation of the shortcomings at this COP.
Though I agree majorly with the
article and believe the discussions at COP27 largely did not progress past
COP26, there was one key development: The Loss and Damage fund that was blocked
in Glasgow last year by the US, EU and UK was approved at the last minute. This
fund would provide financial aid, especially for developing countries, to
support losses created by climate change-driven events, such as floods, droughts,
and other disasters. While the approval of this fund is a small win for climate
justice, the framework has not yet been created for who is responsible for funding
the scheme and who its recipients will be. Though to many of us it will seem obvious
that the US, EU, UK, and other high emitting countries should be contributing money
to the fund, their previous blocking of the fund means that their involvement is
likely to be contested and could delay the fund’s set-up. Equally, India and
China have a further reluctance to contribute to the fund as they are not
historic emitters, although China’s total accumulative emissions almost match
that of the EU, as seen in the Figure below.
Due to this, it’s difficult to
call the approval of the fund a success but it is, at least, a step forward. It’s
vital that the countries that will most benefit from the Loss and Damage Fund,
many African nations included, apply pressure for the proper policy for the
fund to be discussed and finalised so reparations for climate injustice can
finally begin.
Thanks for your post. I agree with your argument that the agreement on Loss and Damage is significant. It marked one of the first times at the near-annual COP that there has been sustained solidarity among lower-income countries on a key issue. Indeed, their collective determination pushed the high-income countries (higher GHG emitters) to the very end of the proceedings. Let's hope COP28 will see clear commitments of funding to realise this fund.
ReplyDelete