Institutions, NGOs, scientists, figures connected to the fight against climate change. All the reactions to a Cop27 that has divided opinion on its outcomes
The twenty-seventh United Nations world climate conference, Cop27, held in Sharm el-Sheikh from 6 to 20 November, was it a success or a failure? Or simply a summit of light and shadow? Do the advances made on the front of climate justice — with the decision to create a fund to compensate the world's poorest and most vulnerable nations for the losses and damages (loss and damage) they have suffered as a result of climate change — represent a sufficient step to leave the summit satisfied? Or does the fact that on the mitigation front — that is, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions — there was no progress whatsoever, render the advances made on the financial front essentially worthless?
Since the Egyptian presidency declared the conference closed, institutions, non-governmental organisations and experts from around the world have been divided. In most cases, they have highlighted the bittersweet flavour of the COP's final outcomes. After years of demands, the nations in greatest difficulty — and least responsible for climate change — have finally received a promise. This, however, remains just that, at least for now. It is not yet known how the new fund will work: who will contribute to it, in what way, which countries will be able to draw from it and under what conditions. Many have also recalled that back in 2009, at Cop15 in Copenhagen, the world's wealthiest nations had promised to provide 100 billion dollars per year to poorer countries to help them adapt to the impacts of global warming. Yet that figure, 13 years on, has never been disbursed in full.
It was, however, also easily foreseeable — if not inevitable — that a conference hosted by an African nation would place particular emphasis on the question of losses and damages. And, even taking into account the fact that the money earmarked for loss and damage is essentially non-repayable, the mere fact of having established a principle that will lead to the creation of a dedicated fund represents a historic milestone. With the caveat, however, that if the global average temperature continues to rise, we will never have enough money available to cover all the losses and all the damage that this will cause.
We have gathered a selection of comments on the outcomes of Cop27, useful for understanding the different points of view expressed in the hours following the close of the conference.
According to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, Cop27 represented a great step forward on climate justice. The Portuguese diplomat nonetheless stressed that "clearly this is not enough," even if "it is a necessary political signal to rebuild trust (between the Global North and South, ed.)." Speaking to the international press, Guterres also underlined, however, that on the front of reducing greenhouse gas emissions "this COP has not provided answers."
Of particular interest is the view of Hon Seve Paeniu, minister and member of parliament for Tuvalu, a nation at risk of disappearing due to rising sea levels. "We have not responded sufficiently and this has made Sharm el-Sheikh a missed opportunity for real success," he explained. This despite Tuvalu being one of the nations that could potentially benefit from the loss and damage fund. Then again: what losses and damages could ever be compensated if, in the case of this island nation, the "damage" will be its very disappearance?
Of an entirely different tone was the comment published by Gilberto Pichetto Fratin, Italy's minister for the environment and energy security, according to whom "the final approval of the package at Cop27 represents a positive step in policies to tackle climate change. And Italy has made a significant contribution, participating at the highest level."
The conference's mixed outcomes were also highlighted by Alok Sharma, president of the twenty-sixth world climate conference (Cop26) held in Glasgow, Scotland, in 2021. The British politician stressed the historic result on loss and damage and the fact that the goal of limiting the rise in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, relative to pre-industrial levels, had not been abandoned (something that had, however, been feared). He also highlighted the "lack of ambition on coal and fossil fuels."
The reactions of non-governmental organisations also frequently underlined the ambivalent nature of Cop27's final outcomes. The American organisation 350.org, for example, expressed itself in these terms: "Thanks to grassroots pressure, loss and damage is in the final text! However, the door has been left open for a further increase in fossil fuel exploitation and a rise in climate impacts."
Greenpeace took a similar view, stating that "the historic agreement on the loss and damage fund is important, but there is still no significant progress on phasing out fossil fuels."
Italian organisation Legambiente spoke of a "Cop27 saved in extra time." Underlining the value of the loss and damage agreement, it reiterated that Europe and Italy alike no longer have any excuse: "We must accelerate the just transition towards a 100% renewable future in line with the 1.5-degree target."
More negative was the comment from Wwf Italia, according to which the loss and damage fund "risks becoming a fund for the end of the world if we continue to fail to address the real crux of the climate crisis."
