Climate or business negotiations? So many processes on going outside the convention at COP26

President Uhuru Kenyatta holds a meeting with the leadership of the Kenya-UK Health Alliance on the sidelines of the ongoing 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland. [Courtesy]

Characterised by access difficulties, moving speeches and high expectations from the negotiations, the 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is turning out to be a mismatch between what the world leaders delivered in their opening remarks and negotiations.

Beforehand, moving the “high-level delegates” with his charm for words, Prime Minister Boris Johnson expressed his disappointment with the commitment by developed countries towards raising the $100 billion needed yearly to support countries worst affected by climate change. He went ahead to express his support to developing countries, saying: “….if I’m forced to choose between them and countries like my own, I’m backing the first group – I’m backing the most vulnerable. And I want you to know we have your back and we are going to support you.”

US President Joe Biden was quick to express his country’s commitment to the Paris Agreement, doubling their contribution to climate finance, besides the President’s Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience (PREPARE).

The stage even gained lots of adhesion and power when Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley and Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta set irreducible minimums, including enhanced climate finance towards adaptation, recognition of Africa as a region of special needs and circumstances, financing of loss and damage and raising ambitions by developed countries under the UNFCCC, among others, as key agenda items to determine the success of COP26 in Glasgow.  

As if they were never there, the private sector, who are the key contributors to global greenhouse gas emission remained silent. Days after, a commitment by the private sector to mobilise $130 trillion annually to finance just transition to renewable energy was announced. In this announcement, a very clear business case was displayed by the private sector on the how and when, with almost the entire plan premised on mitigation despite the push for increased adaptation financing by the African group.

A few days later, the energy alliance for the people and planet announced the commitment of $10 billion by philanthropists for funding energy access and clean energy in the global south under a strategic partnership with the UK-led energy transition council. As if this was not enough, the First Movers Coalition, a US-led buyer club of 25 major global companies, made a commitment to help commercialise key emerging clean technologies across sectors like steel, trucking, shipping, aviation, aluminium, concrete, chemicals and direct air capture. 

Moreover, AIM4C, a new initiative led by USA and UAE, with over 30 supporting countries, by November 7 committed to accelerating innovation in sustainable agriculture, having already garnered $4 billion dollars in increased investment in climate-smart agriculture and food system innovation; not to forget the Scottish government’s pledge of $1 million pounds to address loss and damage caused by climate crisis through the Climate Justice Resilience Fund.

With all these finance commitments and goodwill, the question now remains: What are the aims of these finances? Why are they not being committed under the UNFCCC, but aside? What lies are in these commitments for the profit-hungry global north private sector institutions? 

Mr Otieno, a youth, is a climate justice activist based in Kenya.