“Was COP26 a Success?” – Observer Perspectives on the Outcomes of COP26

By Veena

Some might say, Glasgow was a success because countries stepped up, and in a certain way, consensus was reached. Some others might argue that the phasing down decision of coal instead of a phasing out was the worst possible decision we could have had. In such situations, is no decision better than a bad decision? After two weeks of shadowing negotiations closely on different UNFCCC processes, lobbying for the inclusion of youth in the negotiations and parties and observing parties make decisions, the following are the small wins I want to highlight from Glasgow, especially from a youth perspective.

1. Glasgow work program: The decision text of the Glasgow work program includes the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) work program in it, reaffirming the importance of the 6 elements of ACE. It also recognizes and ensures the availability of and access to sufficient financial resources and technical support for adequately implementing Action for Climate Empowerment continues to be a challenge for all Parties, but particularly for developing country Parties.

2. Adaptation, Loss and Damage: The youth had a big win here – the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB) agreed at COP26 at Glasgow that ‘Youth engagement’ will now be a key indicator for assessing Loss and Damage funds by countries. What this means is that – the countries now have the responsibility to engage with the young people to access these funds. Additionally, youth will also be given the opportunity to evaluate the applications that come in from nations to access the Adaptation Fund. Additionally, 232.7 million US dollars have been raised this year in a single event for Adaptation.

3. Technology negotiations and seat at the table: There was a history-making decision in the Technology negotiations – to give the youth a seat at the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN) Advisory Board, together with the two seats for the Women and Gender constituency and Indigenous Peoples constituency respectively. This is the first time where YOUNGO (Youth NGOs)  joins a UNFCCC constituted body as a member and has a seat at the table.

4. Youth Negotiator Program: Young people have been sidelined from negotiations although they are the ones who are going to be inheriting this planet with all the climate challenges that we are predicting for the future. At COP26, young people (I being one) also initiated a conversation with various bodies on a ‘Youth Negotiator Program’ to build the capacity of the youth to meaningfully contribute to negotiations and actively participate in the decision making rather than being present as a passive observer. The proposal is getting a lot of positive feedback and there should be developments on this front soon.

Having said that, was COP26 a success? I am not sure. It depends on what lens we are looking at it from. Of course, circling back, the big aims with which we went into COP26 were not met – funding, technology as well as phasing out coal. However, during the entire two weeks, we did not hear anyone speak about 2 degree Celsius. Everyone spoke about sticking to 1.5 degrees as our target and science was accepted – that is a big win. Human beings are the most complex organisms and we are talking about consensus here – every single country has to agree. And that does not come easy, as we know it already. Overall, Glasgow did not deliver, but we can add Glasgow to another start and hope that COP27 would deliver.

By Melissa Jiménez Gómez Tagle

After two weeks of sitting, discussing, negotiating and being sleep deprived, parties concluded that an agreement, made from past agreements, could be the “last solution”. Let’s just think about the last years: We can’t solve a crisis using the same old mechanisms that have driven us to this problem. However, most people from other sectors had suggested that no agreement was better than a bad agreement. Given the pressure that sir Alok Sharma had during this summit, trying to finalize the Paris Rule Book, article 6-section 4 was completed, with irregularities. The National Determined Contributions and the carbon markets rules were slightly misinterpreted by nations who pretended to put in first place the most vulnerable countries to climate change. The Glasgow Climate Pact shows some improvements, not so ambitious as expected, and that’s the reason why observers and civil society had criticized it. The document does not contain exact dates, nor quantities, nor benefits for the most affected countries. The text contains “patches” that will try to run the whole Paris Agreement. It’s also considered to have short term goals and not so optimistic results. In order to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees, it would be necessary that carbon dioxide emissions go down 45% in 2030, in reference to 2010 levels. This declaration recognizes the “great concern” that NDCs presented now will just reduce emissions by 13.7%, according to some reports. So… the goal might not be reached, and they know it.

Special envoy of the United States, John Kerry, and his homologue from China, Xie Zhenhua, along with vice president of the European Commission Frans Timmermans, were the main centre of the conversations, jumping from one group to another, discussing the final draft, after hours editing. The outcome was not great for India. During the negotiations, this delegation was defending its “right to use fossil fuels”. Countries like China, India and Brazil, have short term plans, not being aligned to the goal of reducing 45% of emissions by 2030.

This pact only assures that global warming will go up 2.4 degrees, making the whole Paris Agreement a failure, compared to the original goal. Moreover, it was an interesting event to see how human reactions could switch a whole context and the whole perspective. Just a couple of hours before delivering the final pact, India and China decided to change the wording from “elimination” into a “gradual reduction” of the use of fossil fuels as their main source of energy.

“Keep 1.5 alive” could be just a tricky quote.