Faster and stronger: the preliminary version of the final declaration of COP26 calls on countries to strengthen their climate ambitions in the face of a warming that promises to be catastrophic.
After 10 days of high-level discussions and in technical groups in Glasgow, the British presidency of the climate conference published this first draft on Wednesday, which drew mixed reactions, in particular from poor countries.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is due to return to Glasgow on Wednesday to take stock of the progress of the negotiations.
The text, which will be amended by the end of the COP, scheduled for Friday but which may be delayed, calls on countries to “revise and strengthen” from 2022 the national contributions (NDC) which set their short-term commitments.
The 2015 Paris agreement sets out the review of these NDCs every five years, but many countries called for them to be reviewed more frequently, some even annually.
It is, according to the text, to make these commitments “compatible with the warming objectives of the Paris Agreement”, that is to say “well below” of +2 ° C compared to the pre-industrial era, if possible under +1.5 ° C.
Because the latest estimates given on Tuesday by the UN are alarming: despite the new commitments for 2030 made by some states, just before or at the start of the COP, the world is still on the path of a “catastrophic” warming of + 2.7 ° C by the end of the century.
Keep the +1.5 ° C target alive
The British presidency of COP26 made the objective of “keeping +1.5 ° C alive” one of the main markers of the conference’s success.
The text underlines in particular that “the impacts of climate change will be much less with a warming of +1.5 ° C, compared to + 2 ° C”.
It therefore calls for “rapid, strong and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 emissions reductions of 45% in 2030 compared to the 2010 level and carbon neutrality around the middle of the year. century ”.
It also encourages countries to “accelerate the exit from coal and financing for fossil fuels”, which are responsible for most of the emissions.
Such an explicit mention of fossil fuels is unprecedented, and in particular does not appear in the Paris Agreement. But it promises to be bitterly contested until the conclusion of the final text.
On another burning issue, the text “notes with regret” the failure of developed countries to keep their promise to mobilize from 2020 some 100 billion annual climate financial aid to poor countries, often the least polluting, but the most. exposed to the ravages of climate change.
However, he does not advance a clear solution to meet this objective, which the rich countries now ensure they can meet from 2023, according to a new “delivery plan”.
But the draft final declaration calls on donors to double funding for climate change ‘adaptation’ measures, which currently only account for about a quarter of that aid, compared to 75% spent on reducing climate change. ’emissions. Poor countries claim at least parity between the two components.
Little for poor countries
Regarding the other very controversial question of the “losses and damages” already suffered by the most exposed countries, the text “recognizes” the reality of the problem and “reiterates the urgency of increasing support and action, including finance. , technology transfers and capacity building ”. But without concrete modalities.
The first reactions were mixed, like the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), which represents more than a billion people in 54 countries, and estimated that the text “does not meet the main demands of vulnerable countries”. And to call for an “emergency pact” comprising real measures to contain the warming and “guarantee the delivery of the promised funding”.
The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) called the text “the basis for progress [qui] must be reinforced […] in particular to meet the needs of the most vulnerable ”, including a specific“ loss and damage ”envelope.
COP26 is a “failure”, judge Greta Thunberg
For Jennifer Morgan, director of Greenpeace International, “this is not a plan to resolve the climate crisis, but an agreement to cross your fingers in the hope that it will be okay. A polite request to countries to if possible, perhaps, do more next year. It’s not enough “.
For Mohamed Addow, director of the Power Shift Africa study center, “there is a lot about accelerating emission reductions, but very little about the main demands of poor countries”.
The WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) welcomed the call to revise reduction plans and the mention made of fossil fuels, but stressed that this text should “be a floor, not a ceiling” with points to improve.