Taking Stock: Paris Agreement Progress on Review at COP27

By Eda Kosma

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) in Egypt concluded with a bang. Negotiators reached an unexpected agreement on a loss and damage fund–a breakthrough that will provide compensation to vulnerable developing countries impacted by climate change. At the same time, language around a phasedown of fossil fuels was replaced by encouragement to use  “low-emission” energy (leaving a backdoor open for continued use of gas), while some countries have signaled their wavering commitment towards the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming target agreed in Paris in 2015. Assuming the intention to “keep 1.5 alive” holds, the latest UN figures show that countries’ current climate pledges–even if fully implemented–would not allow the Earth to avoid dangerous levels of warming.

The Global Stocktake: the ratchet mechanism

Amid these many headline-grabbing developments at COP27, negotiators and experts quietly participated in the first Global Stocktake. A key accountability mechanism built into the Paris Agreement, the Stocktake is charged with assessing collective progress of all countries towards the deal’s overarching goals: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve resilience to climate impacts, and mobilize adequate international finance to support both activities.

The most important role of the Stocktake, however, is to serve as the mechanism that will inform and encourage countries to ratchet up the ambition of their climate pledges. It does this by collecting progress reports from countries and written assessments from non-governmental organizations, boasting nearly 900 inputs so far, as well as in-person dialogues like those held at COP27.

The whole process was designed with equity in mind and the in-person dialogues were meant to be open to all: countries, local governments, experts, advocacy groups, indigenous peoples, and others. Of course, it does not mean that all of these inputs will be equally weighed, and there are concerns about who actually gets to attend and make decisions at COP. That said, the innovative style took the dialogue away from the formality of traditional party statements in multilateral fora and towards productive discussion, though the sessions varied in their ability to dig deeply into technical issues.

Setting a high bar

The stakes are high for the Global Stocktake to set a good precedent and produce a new wave of stronger country commitments. If it fails, the entire process risks becoming another perfunctory checklist exercise incapable of actually producing climate action. This is an opportunity for countries to own the accountability process and acknowledge that, collectively, we’re not moving fast enough on our climate commitments. But the global community is already well aware of this problem, and we don’t need the Stocktake to reiterate what we already know.

It’s unclear how exactly the copious inputs will be analyzed ahead of the publication of the Stocktake’s findings at COP28 in 2023, and the meetings in Sharm El Sheikh ended with many questions still unanswered. How can countries develop and implement strategies to decarbonize their energy systems and other polluting industries while constrained by limited technical capacity? How can we make climate finance more accessible? What does it actually mean to assess collective progress towards adaptation, when adaptation is itself a moving target in a changing climate?

From what I observed, answers to these questions remained far and few between at COP27. In many ways, this is appropriate because this is the first time that countries are assessing collective progress towards global climate goals rather than just reporting their own individual successes. But the magnitude of the work that remains to be done before the findings are released next year is daunting, especially remembering that 197 countries will have to agree on and adopt the results. The Stocktake’s dialogues must dig deeper and distill concrete and technical responses to its many questions.

At the very least, consensus seems to be emerging on what the results of the process should look like. Experts made it clear that the Stocktake’s findings must be constructive and spell out what remains to be done in decarbonization and building resilience. NGOs pushed for the findings to be action-oriented and provide clear priorities to countries on where their mitigation and adaptation efforts should be focused. Others called for a renewed commitment to embrace transparency and reporting as an opportunity to learn from best practices, identify pitfalls, and "celebrate the little wins" of progress made so far.

In order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, the international community needs stronger mechanisms for understanding how off-track its policy actions currently are. Further attention on the Global Stocktake provides one avenue for a better understanding of where we are, and how much farther we have to go.

Eda Kosma is a second-year Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy (MALD) student studying climate policy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Her research focuses on national greenhouse gas emissions reports, and she’s interested in how data and increased transparency can drive greater climate ambition. Eda recently attended COP27 with the Tufts University delegation and worked with the UNFCCC Global Stocktake team throughout the conference. She serves as co-chair of the Tufts Energy Conference and works as a public sector Fellow for CDP, the world’s largest repository for environmental data from private and public organizations.

Adoption of the Paris Agreement is by UNclimatechange and is licensed under CC BY 2.0