COP27: Urgency and actions

Climate financing activism has increased the pressure on industrialized states

When heading into the critical phase of the COP27 climate conference in Egypt, Islamabad stepped up its calls for emergency cash for the country’s post-flood reconstruction.

Climate justice demands there is a single standard of climate financing for the world’s richest and the poorest. Particularly when only about a third of climate funding to date has been directed towards actual adaptation projects.

Climate financing activism in key groupings – including the Pakistan-chaired G77 – has increased the pressure on industrialized states to advance meaningful diplomacy and resource transfers.

What remains to be seen is how the COP27 negotiators translate climate urgency and action into a verifiable imperative, with buy-in from all states – chiefly industrialized skeptics. Flood-induced damages of up to $40 billion make Pakistan a powerful case in point for the developing world.

The assumption that wealthy countries can afford to look away from concrete financing guarantees is one that the latest COP27 phase has put to test.

For instance, world leaders for the first time are collectively discussing ways for top emitters to cover the extreme weather damages incurred by the developing nations.

Debates around contentious financing mechanisms, such as a dedicated financial facility, are all steps in the right direction and are reinforced by Pakistan’s enormous financing needs.

In the words of German state secretary for economic cooperation Jochen Flasbarth, whichever solution the countries find “needs to apply to all relevant polluters”.

As Islamabad’s principled positions on the developing world’s interests indicate, there are limits to how much the millions in need can brook the developed world’s denial. Patience is wearing thin.

Climate action has also been gaining traction among South Asian powers, particularly due to concerns over losses and damages caused by climate change.

Pakistan’s Climate Minister Sherry Rehman correctly notes that climate adaptation as an established priority makes little difference to disadvantaged populations on-ground.

After all, it is a fact that climate financing talks could drag on for some time, making it difficult for the developing countries to take adaptive measures. However, reluctance by top emitters to release emergency funds for reconstruction could betray the spirit of an enduring COP27 consensus.

Understand that Pakistan needs to leverage an estimated $348 billion for climate and development challenges between 2023 and 2030. Such exigencies prove that summit negotiators have a lot of ground to cover as they hear from the developing world directly.

The process of setting up targets that are agreeable to the developed and developing powers demands stronger emphasis on the latter’s vulnerabilities, by virtue of limited climate safeguards available to them.

It is here that the United States’ refusal to commit to a “loss and damage” fund is part of the resistance that merits correction.

If the true goal is to create harmony between the developed and the developing world in terms of climate financing gains, then there is no case for the top emitters to resist financing arrangements catering to the latter’s stability.

Where Islamabad attempts to make a difference is by arguing for stronger checks and balances on rhetoric coming from the wealthiest powers. It also hopes to walk away, in due course, with formal payment arrangements that bail out millions caught in the throes of a man-made crisis.

Given Pakistan’s enormous climate financing needs, it cannot be expected to sit on the fence and bear the brunt of a crisis tied to the developed world’s actions.

It is here that other climate financing options, such as the gradual cancellation of external debt, are increasingly relevant. It is heartening to see many prioritize such prospects in the developing world.

Thus, giving a hard pass to the developed world’s climate justice contributions is a recipe to undermine global progress.

That is a reputational cost that the wealthiest nations can’t entirely afford at present either.

It complicates the path to consensus-driven climate targets within the developing countries, which have a key stake in promoting carbon-free ambitions in wealthy economies.

“If I say, ‘well, adaptation has now been put as a priority’ … or ‘there’s a a 50- 50 allocation in terms of priority between mitigation-adaptation’, it’s not going to mean very much to somebody whose house has been burned down by a forest fire or somebody who has lost a family member in floods,” said Sherry Rehman in a sideline interview with Reuters.

Waiving the debt of climate-stressed economies offers the world’s historic emitters a chance to prove that they will come good on climate reparations.

Resistance to it can result in the developing world stepping up calls for some other form of climate justice, such as a formal financing arrangement that scores of countries debated at the summit.

If the conference fails to break ground on any of these fronts, it will become an uphill task for Pakistan and other developing countries facing climate change to acquire financing to cater to millions of displaced populations on their own.

In Rehman’s own telling, “there still isn’t a recognition that the financial system that’s been running the world … is not going to be able to bail out the millions that are dying and in need.”

That puts the emphasis on the latest phase of the COP27, where inaction simply isn’t a choice.

It is a big leap for the world to discuss losses and damages at the summit, something made possible due to Pakistan. Given the recognition of climate financing on the official UN agenda, rich countries cannot turn a blind eye to the fundamentals of climate action for long.

The writer is a foreign affairs commentator and recipient of the Fulbright Award