Why do some developing countries appear to be resisting a fossil fuel phase-out? The answer is fundamentally about implementation – how countries struggling to eradicate poverty and provide basic services (including energy) for their people fund the transition away from fossil fuels.
The “means of implementation” has become a sticking point at the talks, with developing countries united in demanding that developed countries honour their legally binding obligations under the Paris agreement. Developing countries that have contributed so little to the climate crisis but are suffering the worst impacts argue that a phase-out must be centred around equity, which means it must be “fast, fair, funded and forever”.
Developed countries must go first, start immediately, stop expansion plans, and provide proper financial assistance rather than loans so the rest of the world can work towards the same ends.
What do developing countries say?
After the draft global stocktake text was published on Monday, Barbara Creecy, South Africa’s minister of environment, said: “Today, we have received less than 10% of the support of what we need between now and 2030 for the [just transition] implementation plan. For many developing countries, particularly in the African continent, the gap is not in ambition; it is in the question of means of implementation.”
Brazil’s delegate added: “It is very difficult to do something without the necessary means. Let’s talk about the means first. And it is on the basis of those means we will take up our ambition for climate justice. We have managed to reduce emissions by saving forests. We cannot act alone. We need everyone to act. The means of implementation has to be aligned with our decisions and ambition.”
What does ‘means of implementation’ actually mean – and why is it so crucial?
The architecture of the Paris agreement requires each country to create and implement a nationally determined contribution (NDC) that includes mitigation, adaptation and the means – finance, technology transfer, and capacity building – by which this would be implemented. The current NDCs, which cover 2021 to 2030, include country-specific climate targets and plans that are both unconditional and conditional or dependent on international processes.
Why should developed countries be obliged to help developing countries such as Chad, Nepal or Barbados meet their NDC targets?
This is dealt with under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Paris agreement. Article 9 states that developed countries “shall” provide and mobilise finance, while other countries can voluntarily do so. Article 10 states that support, including financial support, “shall” be provided to developing countries for technology development and transfer in order to improve resilience to climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Article 11 deals with enhancing capacity-building of developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and those most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, such as small island nations.
So when you hear blocs such as the G77 plus China (135 countries) and the like-minded developing countries (20 nations) talk about implementation of the Paris agreement, they are often referring to the above obligations, which have mostly not been met.
Why can’t developing countries pay for their own energy transition?
As it stands, developing countries need $5-11tn to implement the current NDCs that expire in 2030, according to the UN framework convention on climate change, which said that the huge funding gap covered only 30% of the actual costs. So that’s partly why developing countries simply cannot accept a fossil fuel phase-out – or any new target – without means of implementation, as they’re already unable to fund their current mitigation and adaptation plans (all while loss and damage costs are spiralling).
Also, this is a key climate justice issue: developed countries have contributed the most to the climate crisis and benefited the most from fossil fuels, while developing countries have contributed least but are suffering the worst effects – in part because they do not have equal access to mitigate, adapt and recover from climate impacts such as drought, floods, wildfires and extreme heat.
Why does the global stocktake matter?
The global stocktake (GST) is the five-yearly required assessment of the collective progress on Paris commitments. The outcome of this is important because it will guide the next round of NDCs, which have to be submitted by 2025.
Article 9.5 requires developed countries to provide upfront information on what public resources will be available in order to help inform poorer countries’ NDCs. But this hasn’t happened. The figure of $100bn a year for climate action to be mobilised by 2020, which the US came up with at Cop15 in Copenhagen in 2009, has never been delivered and the number was more or less pulled out of thin air.
Next year, countries must agree on a bigger, needs-based annual financing sum: the new collective quantified goal (NCQG). Developed countries say all meaningful talk of finance should be postponed until then, while developing countries say the GST, global goal on adaptation and just transition programme needs to be accompanied by the means of implementation – as required by the Paris agreement – otherwise they are simply being setup to fail.
Meena Raman, a climate policy expert and Cop veteran from the Third World Network, said: “Without means of implementation, it’s all just words.”
