Negotiating like the Amazon River

Yesterday was the first day of the decisive stage. This is the week of ministers and decision makers, and they have begun arriving for these last five days. One observer explained to me: It is as if there are three groups, the Group of 100 with the issues on the agenda, and the Group of 4 with the items being discussed in the consultations; And comprehensive roadmaps, from which the roadmap to ending deforestation and moving away from fossil fuels could emerge.

The COP is a mess. Organizing them and reaching an agreement that moves these difficult negotiations forward is a task that sometimes seems impossible. First, it is necessary to understand what was “delegated” to the COP, as they say, i.e. the arrangement they issued. The main theme of our meeting is the creation of adaptation indicators that show how, at what pace and in what ways countries need to prepare to confront climate change, which is already relentless. Which will come due to the effect of the gases already emitted.

Everything seemed fine, until Africa said no. “Quality no,” one source told me. This is because they know that the adaptation agenda of countries, peoples and regions to extreme climate events is essential. They just want to get funding for it. And the money on the table is always less than expected and necessary. If the impasse continues, the danger lies in not reaching agreement on adaptation indicators. Then the Conference of the Parties will have failed in what was asked of it.

But the Amazon River, when it bends, surprises and delights. This is what happened in the section on road maps. Although it was stated in the final document in Dubai that it was necessary to think about getting rid of fossil fuels, the matter remained pending. Now, in Belém, President Lula addressed this topic and said that it is necessary to have a road map to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. “I was surprised, in fact I was shocked,” he said at an event with Minister Marina Silva and Germany’s Deputy Environment Minister, Jochen Flasbarth, last week, followed by the British representative at the table, Rachel Kate, the UK’s special envoy for climate change. But what was even more surprising was that they said that if Brazil went in this direction, they would support it. “I’m totally with you, Marina,” Rachel said.

It was an event organized on behalf of Brazil, it was not a negotiation, but it was a signal. Yesterday, an observer following the negotiations told me that after the arrival of the ministers, this discussion is gaining momentum and support. This item is not on the agenda, not even in the four points remaining for consultation. The fact is that it has grown, even at the pace of climate negotiations. The scenario seen as the most moderate is for Belém to issue a mandate or order to a group of countries to begin designing this timeline for a phased exit from fossil fuels. Since everything in COP becomes an acronym, there is one name that defines it, and that is TAFF (from Transition Away from Fossil Fuels). It has become a tangible item even if it is not on the agenda. In the huge corridors of the COP yesterday, a group of protesters, who had agreed to remain in kindergarten, chanted “the end of fossil fuels.” They want it right away.

The four outstanding issues – government participation in climate finance, increasing climate targets, transparency in meeting those targets, and unilateral trade measures based on environmental arguments – are becoming a monolith and may end up being part of the bottom line.

If Brazil manages to organize all of this during the week and achieve any results, it will be, I was told, mainly due to the quality of the Brazilian presidency of the conference, because the environment is hostile in the absence of the United States, which prompted other developed countries to withdraw.