The presidency of COP26 published this Saturday morning (13) the last draft of the document that must be approved by the countries in plenary at the end of the day.
Differences in texts on carbon market and increased climate finance were moved to the assessment of other bodies or postponed for discussions in the coming years, seeking to remove barriers that prevent a consensus in the rest of the negotiated text out of the way of COP26.
According to the first analyses, the texts maintained important advances, such as the forecast of doubling the financing for climate adaptation by 2025 (compared to the amounts collected in 2019) and the mention of the elimination of subsidies to fossil fuels – considered historical, as it does not have cited in a text of the UN climate convention since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
However, changes attributed to the lobbying of the oil and coal industries also remained and weakened the language of the text, which now refers to the elimination of “inefficient” subsidies for fossil fuels and coal without offsetting emissions.
The last draft on article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which proposes the creation of a global carbon market, appeared ready to go to the approval plenary.
To the surprise of observers following the negotiations, the text published this Saturday morning (13) by the COP26 presidency no longer has brackets, used to indicate the different language possibilities defended in the negotiation of the document.
Insurmountable technical differences in the text were transferred to other bodies, such as the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice of the UN Climate Convention, which should carry out its assessment over the next year.
The article was the target of the impasse that led to the failure of the previous conference – COP25, in Madrid. The negotiators’ divergence revolved around how to avoid double counting the results in the reduction of emissions, which ran the risk of being accounted for in the results of the seller and buyer of the credits (which act as authorizations to emit carbon, remunerating projects that capture the gas).
Last Thursday (11), a solution articulated by Brazil in partnership with Japan proposed transferring the technical differences to an executive body of the carbon market, which should decide the criteria for each case.
The countries showed broad acceptance of the exit in the consultations held on Friday (12) and the configuration was kept in the last text, which must be voted on in the plenary this Saturday (13th afternoon).
The text of article 6 also mentions that carbon market transactions must respect human rights, but the language is still considered weak by social and environmental movements. The concern of these groups is that the rights of traditional populations to their territories are more threatened by the financial valuation of forest conservation – which, by absorbing carbon, generate credits that can be traded on the global market.
For the NGO Avaaz, the text would need to mention that projects submitted to global emissions trading must submit to international standards of consultation with traditional populations, guaranteeing the consent of local communities.
“Without a clear mention of the right to free, prior and informed consent, communities throughout Brazil and other countries may be excluded from the green economy that the carbon market itself seeks to create”, says Diego Casaes, director of campaigns at Avaaz.
The journalist traveled at the invitation of Instituto Clima e Sociedade.
.
