COP26: What does the new UN climate summit draft agreement include?

The latest draft of the COP26 climate summit agreement, released Friday morning, has kicked off negotiations on the last scheduled day of the conference, where nearly 200 countries are trying to close a deal to avoid disastrous global warming.

Here’s what’s in the draft, produced by the UK hosts of COP26:


The COP26 summit aims to keep alive the aspirational goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5 ° C and avoiding its most disastrous impacts.

Current promises by countries to cut emissions this decade would see a warming spiral well beyond that limit, to 2.4 ° C.

Delegates sit during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, Great Britain, on November 1, 2021. (Credit: REUTERS / YVES HERMAN)

To try to close the gap, the draft COP26 agreement calls on countries to update their emission reduction plans for 2030 by the end of 2022, a faster timeframe than the current five-year UN review cycle.

However, he expressed that request in weaker language than an earlier draft and did not offer the ongoing annual review of climate commitments that some vulnerable countries have pushed for.

The United States and the European Union have said they could support a faster review, but others say an annual ratchet would be a bureaucratic burden.

The latest version said that updating the climate pledges must take into account “different national circumstances.”

That refers to the differences between rich and poor countries, and it could placate developing countries who say rich countries should cut emissions and move away from fossil fuels faster, as they are largely responsible for causing climate change. .

Government ministers will also meet each year to verify efforts to increase pre-2030 ambitions, the draft says.


The issue of finances is widely seen as the biggest obstacle to closing a deal at COP26. Poorer countries say they cannot afford to cut emissions faster or adapt to worsening climate-related disasters unless richer countries give them more financial support.

The draft agreement said that by 2025 rich countries should double their funding to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts, compared to current levels, a step up from the previous draft, which did not set a date or date. a baseline. Currently, only a quarter of countries’ climate finance goes to adaptation.

But the proposal remained unclear on how to set a long-standing promise for rich countries to give poorer countries $ 100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, a deadline they missed and now hope to meet in 2023. .

The draft COP26 deal expressed “deep regret” over the missed $ 100 billion target, but does not detail a plan to make sure the money arrives.

The draft also addressed the controversial issue of compensation for the damages that countries have suffered due to climate change. The draft agreement would launch a new “facility” to address those damages, but does not specify whether this would include new funding.

The vulnerable countries had specifically called for a new loss and damage fund, a proposal that the United States and other wealthy nations resisted, and on Friday said they would fight for a more ambitious deal on loss and damage financing.


The draft text aimed to burn coal, oil and gas, and told countries to phase out subsidies on coal power and fossil fuels faster, though without setting a date to do so.

That would be the first time that fossil fuels have been named and embarrassed in the conclusions of a UN climate summit, a controversial move that Arab countries, many of which are major oil and gas producers, had opposed in a previous draft.

The latest proposal qualified an earlier draft by saying that countries should phase out coal power “incessantly”, the dirtiest form of energy, and “inefficient” subsidies for all fossil fuels, that is, coal, oil and gas.

Some activists said the new wording was a loophole to continue funding polluting projects, but other analysts said it would be difficult for countries to argue that fossil fuel projects, which cause huge health costs and environmental impacts, are anything but “ineffective”.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *