Once again, the United Nations Summit has not yielded effective results. The agreement was concluded by the countries on 19 November, following the last days of blockade. Environmental actors have applauded the central point of the agreement and underlined that pressure from social movements has helped to respond to the demand of impoverished countries for years: they have agreed to set up a fund for the “most vulnerable countries” most affected by the disasters of the climate crisis, in order to compensate for damages.

Greenpeace stressed that the formation of the fund is “the beginning of climate justice” and that it is a citizen victory, but warns that it is not enough: “If the use of fossil fuels is not immediately rejected, there will be insufficient money in the world to pay the costs and damages of losses.”

Well, no decision has been taken in the COP27 agreement on the abandonment of fossil fuels or on greenhouse gas emissions. “The agreement does not represent any progress in reducing climate change compared to Glasgow’s COP26,” Ecologists in Action described the “one-year loss” as “unacceptable” in the fight against the climate crisis.

Who will receive the fund?

The establishment of a fund was the top priority of the most impoverished countries of the Summit. They consider the agreement to be historic, but the reality is that at the moment there is nothing in that fund, nor have they decided how much money will be raised. The convention concluded in the Egyptian city of Xarm el-Xeikh does not specify who will contribute and receive the funds, nor their amount.

As agreed, “developing countries” may apply for this amount as compensation. The fact is that the classification of “developed” and “developing” countries was agreed in the UN Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Since then, developing countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are the three oil exploiters. China also belongs to the group of developing countries and is the country with the most CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, and the second country with the most power in the world economy, Berria has recalled. It is therefore doubtful who is most vulnerable to a climate emergency.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of this fund remains to be seen. In fact, the Paris Convention signed in 2015 agreed on the creation of a fund for poor countries for the climate transition, which from 2020 would amount to $100 billion annually. So far, in these two years, only 80 billion have been gathered, as you pointed out Eldiario.es. The current fund could follow the same path.

The operation of the fund has not yet been completed at the Egyptian conference and will therefore depend on an interim meeting. That’s why the spokesman for Ecologists in Action, Javier Andaluz, who told the media El Salto that the operation of the fund has not been agreed.

Greenwashing and bleaching

A year more international environmental agents have criticised the UN summit as a greenwashing. Greta Thunberg, a young activist of the Fridays for Future, rejects the invitation to attend the quoted quote. In addition, the environmental movement Extinction Rebellion warns that 90% of the summit’s sponsoring companies are related to the use of fossil fuels. Coca Cola, the world's largest plastic producer. A total of 636 oil, gas and coal lobbies have been recorded at COP27.

The COP Civic Space group has also denounced the absence of climate justice without human rights and has gathered firms from at least 86 countries to warn that there are thousands of activists in prison in Egypt for no reason whatsoever and that state repression is enormous. They ask for the release of political detainees and criticise the summit for the action of the Egyptian Government.