Debate: Outcome of COP
Date: MONDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2022
Speaker: Frans Timmermans
Language: EN

I attended several meetings, including the G—20, where major emitters were trying to step back, quite substantially, from the agreements we had reached in Glasgow in COP26. So the months leading up to COP27 weren’t very auspicious for the most ambitious amongst us.  Secondly, a confrontation was growing between the developed world and the developing world on the issue of adaptation, but especially on loss and damage. So this combination of major emitters trying to step back from their commitments, and an increasing confrontational attitude from developing countries because they felt not being heard by the developed world, did not bode well for the preparation of COP27. Now, I think the results are a lot better than what I expected before and I want to start by thanking both the Council and Parliament for playing a very active role on the spot, but especially in the preparation.  Because one of the myths that was created in the months ahead was that because of the war, Europe was stepping back from its commitment in the Green Deal, was digging up a lot of coal and that all our commitments would be lost. And thanks to the very hard work of the co—legislators, we could go to Sharm el—Sheikh and explain very clearly that we are not just sticking to our commitments of reducing our emissions with at least 55% by 2030, but that we would overshoot that commitment already on the basis of the three pieces of legislation agreed between the co—legislators,   between Parliament and the Council. So, we could take that thing at the beginning of the second week of COP off the table, and we could still show clearly that we remained ambitious. In the days leading up to the end of the COP, tensions were high because of attempts to step away from the commitments in Glasgow, and also because of the proposal put on the table by G77 plus China on a fund for loss and damage, which would mirror earlier funds and which would not look at countries in terms of their role in emissions, but only whether in 1992 they were considered developing countries, yes or no. I think at some point in close dialogue and cooperation with both the Member States and the ministers present, who were all extremely active during the COP, and the delegation of the European Parliament, we came to the conclusion that Europe should try and bridge these differences by coming up with a plan, especially on loss and damage, that would not start from 1992 but from the situation now. So that would do a couple of things: that would address the responsibility of all those who are major emitters and all those who can afford to take responsibility; that would focus the loss and damage fund on the most vulnerable countries and not spread it out to all developing countries; and that would be able to use what we call the ‘mosaic of measures’ from all other instruments, including, for instance, reforming the international financial institutions, putting the MDBs in a different position, the private sector engaging with the private sector etc. When the European Union put this on the table – and I discussed it on behalf of the EU with the Secretary General, with my colleagues from the US and China – especially the US and China were taken aback a bit that we were doing this. China thought that the G77 plus China plan was the one that would carry the day; the Americans thought that there would be no plan at all. So when we came up with this idea, I think we were able to create – as the Secretary General of the UN put it – a new situation where we did not have a confrontation between a classical developing world and a developed world, but we would distinguish, especially on the basis of whether you are a major emitter or not, and look at those countries that needed support more than those who needed less. I think this was an important breakthrough that allowed us to bring parties closer together and also allowed us to insist on at least not stepping back from our commitments made in Glasgow. And we can use the mitigation work programme now to make sure that these commitments are still solid and strong in the months and the years to come. All in all, my verdict – as you know – on the mitigation side was negative at the end of the COP. My verdict on the loss and damage fund is positive because it will allow us – if we act collectively and strongly in the months to come – to shape it in a completely different form than previous attempts to address the issue. And the combination between the mitigation work programme and the work on the fund would allow us to shape it in a way that takes our commitments into the future in a positive way. I know that the incoming presidency of COP is very ambitious on these issues. I also know, we’re still faced with huge challenges in the time to come, but all in all, the results of the COP will allow us to move forward, will allow us to bring along the major emitters who, some of them, wanted to step back from the commitments, who are still in to the commitments, and will allow us also in the combination of the just energy transition plans to also take some of the major emitters in the Global South with us in the right direction.  All in all, my verdict today is positive. We would have liked to see much more on mitigation. We got, I think, a good result on loss and damage. I think we also have an opportunity to work very closely with those most vulnerable also in adaptation. And I think, all in all, the European Union showed real leadership, and we were the ones building the bridges, we were the ones who were able to get a result that everybody could sign up to.