We’re 128 days away from COP28 kicking off: As this year’s summit nears, a fossil fuel phase down continues to be a contentious issue as nations fail to reach consensus at conferences preceding the summit. Major disagreements are emerging and intensifying between developed and developing countries during preparatory meetings, sparking worries on progress given the urgency of the climate crisis. Vulnerable and climate-hit nations are still awaiting concrete progress on the landmark loss and damage fund agreed upon in COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, with the COP28 presidency handing out assurances that pledges will turn into actions.

We sat down with Mahmoud Mohieldin — Egypt’s UN high-level climate champion at COP27, a special envoy for the UN secretary-general, and an executive director at the IMF — for a follow-up chat to discuss climate finance and the necessary mechanism for emissions reduction ahead of COP28. Prior to his appointment as Egypt’s climate champion, Mohieldin served as the World Bank’s senior vice president for the 2030 Development Agenda, where he helped shape the 17 sustainable development goals — the global metric for development.

In part one of our interview, Mohieldin highlights the necessity of adequate climate finance to help achieve desired climate goals while underscoring the importance of climate-driven tech solutions, a more evolved role for multilateral development banks (MDBs), and a just transition for all.

Enterprise: Let's begin with the landmark loss and damage fund. What progress has been made since it was agreed upon during COP27?

Mahmoud Mohieldin: After waiting for such an institutional arrangement to cope with the losses and damages affecting many countries — especially the small islands countries with high vulnerability for many years — the loss and damage fund was not an easy objective to fulfill. It required patience, skills, and the support of the Egyptian presidency of the COP.

There has been an arrangement to facilitate the governance and the structure of the fund through a committee with the representatives from developing economies and emerging markets, and from the advanced economies. There have been meetings, they have been in meetings for some time now. I think by COP28, there will be some sort of a structure of governance and identification as well of the sources of funds. The existence of a fund isn't enough though, there are other elements that should be taken in consideration, including who signs up for it, who is eligible, and who monitors it.

There have been some discussions with non-state actors, the civil society and the private sector. Firstly, regarding the role of the ins. sector in assessing the risks and damages, as they are more qualified than others to do that especially regarding the implications on the private sector or provision that they have to make. Another point of discussion is the need for capacity development and technical assistance.

E: There appear to be major differences emerging between developed and developing countries’ delegates during preparatory meetings ahead of COP28, the latest being the lack of concrete progress during the Bonn Climate Conference. Why do you think this is happening?

MM: For those who have spent a great deal of their lives attending these conferences and negotiating at them, this is not atypical for the conference — you experience wide differences between advanced economies and the developing economies and emerging markets. A conference like Bonn — held at the midway point between each COP summit — concluded with resolutions and recommendations for a COP that is being prepared for. Having said that, there are reasons — it’s not just playing games.

The priorities for advanced economies is to expedite the work on dealing with the emissions. We can always talk about the fact that some of them — despite them pushing for dealing with emissions — are not achieving that, especially in the aftermath of the Ukrainian war which led to an increased use of high emission emitting sources of energy such as coal. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us we need to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030, but unfortunately we are adding around 15% more emissions so we need to double efforts.

E: How can countries manage that?

MM: First, you need finance, which is not at adequate levels currently. Financing usually comes in the form of debt, and less so of investments and grants. This has been the expectation since COP15 in Copenhagen — and endorsed by 2015’s Paris Agreement — to have developing countries assisted by developed nations to help them achieve their goals and targets on climate.

Next, countries need to focus on technology, research and development, technical assistance, and development. Without technology, developing countries like Egypt, Morocco, or Senegal wouldn’t be able to invest in renewable energy. Thanks to technology and production at scale, we are able to invest with decent returns compared to a decade ago.

Lastly, all the above needs to be carried out within a just transition — not just for energy, but the just transition at large. There will be people affected if an energy transition is rushed without adequately substituting traditional sources of energy used or upgrading production lines dependent on the hydrocarbon sector.

You cannot solve a climate crisis by creating a debt, unemployment, or poverty crisis. There are more feasible and balanced alternatives to phase out fossil fuels and hydrocarbons, but renewables need to be phased in first.

E: Some have criticized the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact in Paris for failing to provide a relief for poorer debt-distressed countries ahead of climate talks at COP28. What are your thoughts on this?

MM: I think people need to manage their expectations when they attend these summits. Sometimes the expectation is that heads of states will be there, matters will be dealt with, and there will be concrete decisions. But you cannot upgrade global financial architecture during a summit.

The recent discussions in Paris had an overwhelmingly large agenda including international financial architecture, debt challenges, and supporting sustainable development. From a positive perspective, it's good to see leaders meeting and discussing global issues of mutual concern. But I was expecting more movement on putting MDBs like the World Bank and the African Development Bank on a faster track for a so-called evolution roadmap.

I have concerns regarding what MDBs can do and the unnecessary delay in capital increases causing harm — both to the institutions and the private sector. Without adequate resources, many key projects and partnerships will be slowed down. It's very much a requirement today to see that evolution roadmap put on a fast track.

Tags: