The following is a C and a podcast. Welcome to the climate conversations, I'm Jamie who I'm talking about COP26, the annual meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Negotiators have started converging in Glasgow and in coming days, leaders will follow as they seek to agree on all the key issues that have remained unresolved since the landmark climate conference six years ago in Paris, just as France hosted and led negotiations
in 2015 is the United Kingdom's time. It's time to make this final push in the coming days. The context could not be clearer. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has in recent months laid out an even more stark terms the code Red for Humanity through its latest report, laying out the extent of the Earth's warming and the role that we have all no doubt played at the launch of the report. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said there was no more time for delay and
no room for excuses not to take action. I count on government leaders and all stakeholders to ensure COP26 is a success, he said. So just what would success look like, what's been done or not done in the last years and what needs to be done in the coming days? With me to discuss this is about the lobbying force who works for the British government as head of Southeast Asia COP26 strategy based here in Singapore. Isobel, welcome. Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
I'm going to jump straight into it and refer to something that Mr Alok Sharma recently said. He's your boss, I presume, as president of COP26. And he has said over the last couple of days in my mind, he's appeared to either manage expectations by seeing that achieving a global climate deal in Glasgow might be harder than back in Paris. Or, you know, maybe he was just setting out the immensity of the task ahead in the coming weeks.
But before we get into that lay out for us in broad strokes what the key deliverables for COP26 are going to be that will make up this global deal.
The key thing we have to remember about Glasgow COP26 is that we are not seeking to have a new deal. We actually are seeking to deliver on the Paris Agreement. Paris Agreement was a milestone, a landmark agreement. The position we are in now is to make sure that Glasgow delivers on what Paris promised. It's a difficult task because since the parties got together in Paris in 2015, can has gas emissions have continued to increase and the impacts
of climate change have kept telling themselves already works. We have massive impacts of climate change at the party. Glasgow is a big cop running circles of five year cop. Every five year you have a big cop where the big agreement is made and then the years in between
the more boats monitoring progress. This one comes five years after Paris, actually six years because we had one year of delay because of going to this one actually is looking at showing how the world's reinforces its commitment to the Paris Agreement and actually demonstrates that it can deliver on what Paris signed up. It's also the unresolved issues in the Paris Agreement to make it actually work effectively. There are things that the negotiators who have agreed to
Paris agreements to nail down. So that's the first thing. It's basically Paris promised a lot and we are still committed to these promises and we want all the parties to still confirm their commitments to Paris. But Glasgow must deliver on what Paris promises. The second key objective for COP26 is about keeping this 1.5 degrees alive because since the Paris Agreement was signed, the world has not done enough.
Emissions have continued to increase, and the IPCC has issued a report of its summer in August showing that the world is not on track to keep 1.5 degrees alive. Therefore, we must step up the actions before the window for action is closing because we actually must reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2030 and move globally to a net carbon emissions by 2050. And the trajectory now is still in a remote region, especially in Asia and
Southeast Asia. We need to keep this 1.5 goal that was set at Paris the lies and show that countries come to the table with commitments to keep this alive, and we will do that through actions across different sectors that contribute the most for the reasons gas emissions, the power sector, deep forests and land use sectors. These are key target sectors where we must show that we are
committed to reduce emissions. The last, so let's would say, is that because of COVID, it will not really feel like your normal cop health safety rules will be straight and stringent, and we have to do that to ensure that we can have a physical cop and safeguarded irrigation. So we really have to develop code that is transparent, inclusive and driven by the parties who need to be there to negotiate. So it's not an easy task, but I think we've set ourselves in a good position to get there.
You've raised many, many issues and I hope to get into all of them, including the last thing that you mentioned about how the negotiations actually take place. But let me jump on a first question before that, and that relates to obviously the ambition and the targets that I have already been put up, which, as you allude to need to be improved on NDCs, is what they're called
nationally determined contributions. They've all been submitted, but there have been continual calls for people to bring improved contributions to the table. Are you expecting anything between now and two to three weeks time in terms of more ambitious targets? We saw recently that Australia has now spoken about net zero emissions by 2050, but what else might you realistically expect
under the Paris Agreement? All the parties have a legal obligation to submit their indices. This is basically each country setting for themselves their targets in terms of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the countries have set these. In South East Asia, for instance, 10 countries have submitted
their budgets in. Seemed to the unit to proceed and monitor them where we are at this stage is that if you look at some of the indices, he still doesn't keep us on a trajectory to 1.5 degrees, not even a two degree trajectory. So there's still more that needs to be done. And these only see look at 2030. By 2030, this is really the Typekit where we have
to bend the curve, bend the curve of emissions. So shifting from globally increasing emissions to actually globally decreasing emissions and then the steep dawn curve to keep 1.5 degrees alive, we're expecting a number of key countries to come to Glasgow with increased ambition. So I won't be able to tell you which countries they funding because that will be for the announcement. Yes, but we can't really expecting some
countries to step up. We've already seen countries that we were not expecting to step up when we took the presidency about a year and a half ago, and we've seen them come to the table, increase the ambition. So I think we see that there is a clear process of ambition raising that is happening. When you talk about conditions, we have to consider as the nation is set for 2030 and these are the indices and then the big announcement that we looking at as well are these net
zero announcements. And as you know, this net zero is about 2050, so we're looking at a bit longer term. But the IPCC told us is that we have to reach net zero globally by 2050. Some countries may do it later, but globally the bulk of the emissions have to reach net zero by 2050. And that's where we were expecting a number of countries who have not yet spoken on net zero to come to cope with announcements
on when it would reach net zero. The countries that have committed to net zero account for about 75 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions and around 80 percent of the global GDP. And when we took our presidency in December 2019, the coverage was less than 30 percent of the GDP. So we've already achieved massively over the last year and a half, and it is definitely a trajectory of increasing ambition.
As you say, the job of a president is to help push things along as it relates to ambition and targets to push all the parties along as quickly as we can and as strong as you can. A lot of work has already been done in the last couple
of years. But how much of it actually culminates now and is it realistic always to expect the president to be able to put the cats in this last couple of weeks towards at least a good outcome in terms of ambition and enhanced NDCs, whether we are looking at targets for 2030 or even further to 2050.
That's the challenge of the presidency and to, as you said, herding cats. We have 196 countries here. This is basically all the countries in the world and there are some difficult cuts in that match. So the role is really to lead by example. So I think what the UK presidency has been very firm on is really leading by example announcing our net zero commitments, or NDC. Last week we published on a dual strategy so leading by example. I think it's really important to be a credible presidency.
The other element that's very important is building trust with the other parties, especially parties that are more reluctant to order tends to be more difficult to get around the table and get to consensus. And that's what I look. And what are you communities have done over the last year and a half, you know, travelling around the world where we could and virtually travelling when we couldn't really speak with their opposite numbers and try to give the
defense some momentum. This sense of urgency that COP26 will be. So it is a challenging role to sort of rule where when we take the presidency, we have to be neutral and be facilitating discussions. So it's not about taking sides, it's really about facilitating discussions, facilitating consensus and being as helpful to reach an agreement as possible. Luckily, the UK has a long history of leading international negotiations. I think we're quite well positioned, hopefully to achieve that.
I must imagine that it would have been extremely difficult for the COP presidency to do its work in the last 20 months. And because, as you say, so much of the work in terms of negotiations happen face to face happen at meetings, happen with travel happened with meetings outside of the usual you F2Pool C circuit. Would you say, therefore that COVID has sort of set back negotiations quite significantly?
And has that meant that the ball has been pushed a bit further into the end of this year than you might have liked?
COVID has definitely had an impact, and there's no denying it has an impact not only on cop negotiations but on, you know, when everyone in the. In fact, it has is that crop has been delayed by one year, crop was meant to be in November 2020 and though we're having it in November 2021, so that's delayed by one year. What did it allow? It actually allows couple of in-person crop has to be in-person classes. A very difficult negotiations
are very sensitive one. Yeah, lots of interests and parties involved. And there was a clear recognition last year in 2020, not only by the UK, but by the Chilean existing presidency and by the bureau that a cop has to be physically. You can't have a virtual negotiations with so many parties. You need to build trust. You need to look at your negotiators in the eyes and that could
only be done in person. So the key impacts of COVID is that we have to delay when the global health system was more ready and not perfect, but more ready to accommodate the physical copy, flu vaccine and so on. That's why we we're having cop physically in Glasgow this week, but with a reduced number cop, not like a usual cop, it will feel different because of this your framework for preparation over the last year. I wouldn't say that it's been a setback. It's been like a change of ways
of working. Obviously, a lot of negotiations and diplomatic engagement has to be done virtually, which is not the natural habitats. Diplomats. The core of diplomacy is to meet people. Face to face is to build that relationship, build that trust. We have to do that virtually, which definitely wasn't easy, but because only countries were in the same situation, we all had to adapt. So having this extra year to prepare was really useful to basically took more time to build
that trust and prepare for these negotiations. There has been some physical meetings during the year, but limited to key parties and key players that had to meet physically. We've had a ministerial summit in December, so in July in London, with key ministers and negotiators on some of the areas of the Paris Agreement that still need to be resolved and you have to proceed has organized some targeted physical meetings with the parties and negotiators that's actually had to
meet that particular set up. So it hasn't all been, which really has mostly been virtual, but there has been some physical engagements over the last year.
Let me get into the actual nub of the negotiations and the issues that everyone hopes will be resolved in Glasgow. One of the things that people talk about is Article six, and obviously in these climate negotiations, that's only code words. It's almost like a secret language. Article six is said to be an important part of it highly technical aspect of the Paris Agreement, which you know helps government implement
carbon markets. Explain to us as simply as you can perhaps what it means and where we're at in terms of realistically delivering on an outcome. Why Article six in the next couple of weeks,
there are lots of jargon abbreviation the article language. When you talk about the Energy Policy Conference of the parties so articulate as you say, it is the carbon market particles. You have different sort of articles under Article six without getting too technical. The purpose of Article six is to set up a new framework for international carbon markets to operate.
So that means the principle is that if you reduce emission in one part of the world, then another part of the world can claim that emission towards their targets for their commitment to reduce emissions. That's a principle. It's about international cooperation to facilitate reducing emissions and actually tapping into areas or parts of the world where reducing emissions
and cheaper than other areas. So there are parts of the world where you have natural ecosystems that could be used to capture much more emissions, while some developed countries or industrial countries may have less potential to capture emissions. So it's about international cooperation on how to reduce emissions and then creating a market for this carbon to be treated. So that involves carbon rules about how you will recognize
the emissions from one country to the other. Rules about how you will measure the emission reductions rule about how you will report these emissions rules, about how to make sure that these emissions are additional to what would have happened anyway, because you only want to capture the value of additional reduction that you beings. There are points about how to make sure that these emission reductions are permanent.
For instance, you invest in the new forest that you want. Basically, plenty of forests, let it go for 10 years and then cut it down because the think of your emission would not be permanent. So there are lots of technical issues to resolve about how this market monopoly. But what's interesting in the Article six negotiations also is that it's
not only technical. Becomes very political, very quickly. And that is why it is an area that has always been trickier in the negotiation because political interests come into play, especially about recognition of existing carbon credits, for instance, because there was another carbon trading system that has been operating up until 2026 under the Kyoto Protocol, which was the
agreement before the Paris Agreement. But there was a lot of recognition about this failure and the limitations of that system, so the new system is supposed to be better. But some countries who have benefited a lot from the previous system want to keep the benefits of their system as much as possible. Poorer countries now want to make sure that a new system becomes a perversion of empirically is not the way polluted by the adverse elements in the
previous system, and that can become very political. The political issues about transparency as well and how much information you want to share with the other countries. So, you know, it is very technical, but it becomes quickly, very political. And that is why in the negotiation tracks, there is a technical track and there is a ministerial track that you will have. The first week is mostly negotiators and
technical negotiations at the end of the first week. Of course, they come together, come to a conclusion of where the discussions lead. And then the second week is more when ministers weaving into the conversations on the negotiations and you need both tracks to progress.
So many of these things are technical, but in the end all comes down to a political decision because they are politically sensitive as well. Correct? So I would imagine that as it stands, there probably has been a lot of work done over the last few years since Paris
on Article six. Would you say that the political decisions that are left over that need to be decided on in the next couple of weeks, the gaps are closer will have to negotiate this sort of teed up situation sufficiently enough so that by the time the ministers come or even the leaders come, there are enough areas for landing or trade offs in other places.
We are within reach of agreements on the different areas, so the gaps are definitely plausible. The technical negotiations have progressed. We've seen, you know, movements towards consensus areas, but I see, you know, all these negotiations. You never know until the last minute because you need in the way the pressure
of the negotiation. Well, having come to a deadline to see things falling into place, but we are in a better situation because we we could be and the way we have structured the programme of COP26 with the leaders coming first. So the first two days of COP will be the World Leaders Summit that will be on the
first and the second plus November. And that is when the leaders from over 120 countries are going to be physically in Glasgow to really send a clear signal to the negotiators to work together and agree on the best ways and rules to accelerate the actions and resolve the issues. I think that will really set the tone, and we're counting on these 120 leaders who have accepted the invitation to send that message. Then we have the first week of negotiations and then we have ministers coming also on
the second week finalising some of the deals. And that's something that most of the parties, a lot of them are seasoned negotiators to the know how it works. And although, as I said, it will feel a bit different this year, inevitably because of COVID, which is still very much the same essence of negotiation that will happen.
In negotiations, I suppose it is often said that nothing's agreed until everything's agreed, right? So I'm going to get into the key things as to what the rest of the everything looks like. Another sort of catch phrase and key word that we always hear is finance. It's always finance, finance, finance. It seems to be the same every year. Every time there is a conference of parties, people talk about finance. It was before Paris was an issue. After Paris is
still an issue. Very quickly sum up where we are at now in terms of parties ability to meet expectations of the $100 billion a year that has been committed to. And do you expect Glasgow to lead to some clarity there?
Yes, definitely. As you said, nothing you didn't until everything's agreed in. There can be trade offs between different strands of the negotiations because they were so lots of links between them. So obviously there are links between multiplicity of common markets and finance and also how you monitor the indices. So that's why it is very important to see how
the whole package. But as I said, if we don't start from the thing, we start with the Paris Agreement, that is already the starting point and it's about delivering on that Paris agreement and making it work effectively. Finance is always the tricky issue. It is a tricky issue. You know, in international negotiations in I think in general when we think of a COVID recovery source of our time. And so you can't have a discussion on financing and
you shouldn't because finance are very important. So currency is one of the three pillars of the Paris Agreement on mitigation. So reducing emissions. Second pillar, another patient. And then the third pillar was on finance, and you need finance to be able to deliver the other two pillars. So where do we stand on finance? The Paris Agreement sets this 100 billion figure, which is basically commitments from all the developed countries to commit to deliver 100 billion of finance
per year between 2020 and 2025. And then this figure should increase to 2025. And that is one of the reasons that negotiators will discuss in Paris. So where are we now on this 100 billion? We're not quite there yet, but we are building touching distance of it. So we've seen over the last few months and weeks a number of countries who have come up with increased level of commitments the UK, ourselves, we have to commit all commitments to the international finance. We have to choose eleven point
six billion pounds for the five year period. We see that the G7 nations have committed to do more towards this when it begins, and we've seen the US increasing the commitments. Canada with Germany, lots of countries have already showed that they will increase their commitments. We have a working group led by Canada and Germany that will be reporting at COP on the progress on the 100 billion. There will be a report on the progress towards this $100 billion and the one thing that I want to
mention on this one independent. It's not only public and money from governments, it's also about mobilising private finance and development finance from international development banks. We've just seen last week that ADB has announced 100 billion contribution to commit finance continues for between 2019 and 2030. So that is 20 billion more than what they had previously announced, with the International Development Bank's increasing their commitment to international Islamic finance.
We also see that the private sector. So as I said, leveraging private finance is very important to deliver the needs of the finance for mitigation and adaptation. And we have launched through the Makhani, who was a former central bank governor in the UK Islam, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. And that alliance mobilised the financial sector to flow to net zero, and it now represents over 90 trillion in assets just in over a few months this year.
So we see that in the private sector is also mobilising more and more, you know, to fit the bill. These low carbon transition?
Yeah, I mean, the issue of finance comes up at almost every cop, and it's something which developing and least developed countries obviously look to in terms of commitments from the developed countries to step up and as a signal of their commitments. And one other thing which I should raise, which is of interest to small and island nations, is obviously the issue of again climate negotiator catch phrase loss
and damage. Explain briefly what loss and damage means, and again, what progress has been made in the last couple of years, which lead us now up to here and what you think Glasgow can deliver on loss and damage.
It's really about recognising that even if we stopped all emissions now. So even if we reach net zero tomorrow, the impacts of climate change will still be felt because two greenhouse gases are still trapped in the atmosphere. So it's really. Countries will still inevitably suffer from the impacts of climate change and the loss and damage that India is about cognizant the loss and the damages that some
of the most vulnerable country face. Making sure that there is enough finance for these countries to be able to adapt each resilience in the face of the impacts of climate change again is not only about finance, obviously, you know you need finance to do that, but you also need a plan. If you are of another country, you need to come up with a plan to say, OK, this is how we fight the impacts of climate change. This is how I will adapt my community, how will
adapt my economy. This is how I will make my country more resilient. So I think the flip side of the finance from developed countries, it's about definable countries recognizing what they need that money for and being ready to use that money in an effective way so that money can really go directly to where it is needed for the local communities and for employment and livelihoods of people
who are the most impacted. It hasn't always been easy to secure these national adaptation plans for adaptation communications from some countries, some good neighbor countries who clearly recognize that they needs help. But it's sometimes difficult to identify what's to help build towards. There's been a lot of work happening in Spanish on adaptation and resilience and loss and damage to really recognize what sort of project we need.
Yeah, I would imagine that this is probably one of those issues which can be highly politically sensitive as well, because some people use the word reparations. Some people use the word responsibility, so it's going to be tough. Has there been enough sort of closing of gaps between those who would need the funds and need the help and those who are in the position to provide it and recognizing that there is a need to close this gap?
I don't really like them to produce the words reparation responsibility. There is a responsibility, but it's a responsibly today that everyone has to accelerate their actions to reduce climate change, but also adapt to climate change. So talking about reparation, blaming and others, that doesn't really help move the needle
and resolve the issues. So that's very much a spirit of the Paris Agreement to the Paris Agreement was where all the parties recognized that there is a common responsibility, common but differentiated responsibility to actually act, he said about some parties waiting to see what others will do so
for parties acting together. Obviously, some parties are better placed to finance than other parties and about sharing and collaborating and recognizing where responsibility lies and when we're shown where our strengths and weaknesses lie to be able to collaborate effectively. But that's much more the spirit of the international organization since the Paris Agreement. It was not like that before. Under the Kyoto Protocol, it was very much A and
B countries and very much an acquisition. I think that was really changed in Paris. This was his recognition that it is a common issue and that we can only solve it if we work together. Finance has to flow from some countries to the. It's support flowing to the right place for the right purpose. And it's about taking responsibility. Then there is this report that's a feature of the
Paris Agreement, which is the adaptation communications. So countries are meant to submit adaptation communications to Germany, where they recognize the need for adaptation resilience based on the damage that they are already facing or that they think they will face in the future based on projections. So things are really critical reports. And finally, when you look at the research on many and a lot of countries have to find it hard to submit these national communications or a
more detailed national adaptation plans. So that's why a lot of the international work now is about helping vulnerable countries not only access finance but also understand how they can protect themselves. A lot of support, not only on financial terms with our strengthened of capacity building technical assistance. To understand how you can protect yourself from these disasters and how you can adapt and build your resilience to finance
is one thing. But I think building capacity, resilience and technical assistance is a big part of the offer as well to whenever countries
going to start closing off our conversation. It's been fascinating and I'll talk a little bit maybe about process now as we conclude. Firstly, explain to the layman what's going to happen in the next couple of days. You've already made a brief reference to this in terms of how the process is going to go and what the public can expect in terms of the news that's going to start emerging from Glasgow. That's one. And secondly, as will
talk about what you make about leaders. Who will or will not be present in Glasgow for good and for bad? Much of what happens at these meetings usually boils down to news about leaders actions on the ground, right? And when you look at Copenhagen in 2009, there was talk about Obama and his secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and then in Paris, it was Obama again and John Kerry. This is now President Joe Biden's time. It's unclear whether President Xi Jinping is going to be there. Probably not.
But explain, as well as we conclude, the importance of having leaders stay and what their role will be in the final reckoning.
COP26 will formally open on Sunday, so the first that will be when the negotiation will open. And then the world leaders are coming on the Monday and the Tuesday. So the World Leaders Summit is on the Monday and Tuesday, and that is where we can expect over 120 leaders coming physically in Glasgow and deprogram Ford Explorer Leader Summit
last for two. This will really allow these leaders to send a clear signal to the negotiators about actually meeting what commitments they are making political, basically sending clear political messages. The beginning, of course, in terms of net zero commitments, in terms of adaptation, in terms of finance, in terms of some tricky and important policy areas like energy transition, like zero emission vehicles like forest conservation that will be the core of the World Leaders Summit. So you have
a plenary opening on the first day. So on Monday morning, then in the afternoon, there is an event where leaders are being invited to reflect on what Conference six will achieve and also provide examples of success and solutions that they experience in their countries. So starting with saying this is how it works in my country, this is these are the lessons learned from my country on the second day, they will be two kind of theme events one on
forest and land use. And that's a very important moment for countries to show the importance of linking climate and nature. And that will be about leaders endorsing the declaration on protecting forests and sustainable land use. And in the afternoon there is a leader level session on innovation. So looking at innovations in sectors like energy transport, the Agenda for the World Leaders Summit is kind of a plenary, the
statesmen from some leaders. And then it will go into details on some policy areas where we expect leaders to really show that they are taking commitments themselves. It's important to have the leaders there. Obviously, we never have all the leaders. I think we're ready, very happy with 120 leaders. When we started thinking about hosting a physical leader level event in November 2021, we thought it's infuriating and the way 120. So I think that's a pretty big success
in itself. If some leaders are not able to come and there are different reasons for COVID reasons, gender politics reasons than their ministers will be there to being cop and they will be giving their national statements during cop and the negotiators will be there. We expect in negotiations delegations from all the countries will be represented. So I think this leader setting the signal at the beginning, of course, is really important that that's not the end, it's the
beginning of the cop. And then we'll have the negotiators and the ministers who will carry on on their mandate from their leader during the two weeks.
Well, you know, as all these negotiations go, they usually go right up to the last minute and they'll be long nights, early mornings, whatever it is, we all hope that your presidency will be able to deliver a good outcome in the meantime. Thank you so much, Isabelle De lobbying for us.
Thank you, Jamie. Pleasure.
And thanks for listening to the climate conversations. Stay up to date on CNN's coverage of climate change on CNN Asia. You can also find this and other senior podcasts on our website and on iTunes and Spotify. The team behind this podcast are Christina, Robert, Lisa Ling and Erin Low. And I'm Jamie Hall till next week.