Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee
Oral evidence: Preparations for UNFCCC COP27, HC 813
Tuesday 25 October 2022
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 25 October 2022.
Members present: Darren Jones (Chair); Tonia Antoniazzi; Alan Brown; Charlotte Nichols; Alexander Stafford.
Environmental Audit Committee Members present: Philip Dunne; Anna McMorrin.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Member present: Barry Gardiner.
Questions 1 - 70
Witnesses
I: Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP, President, UNFCCC COP26; Alison Campbell, Deputy Lead Negotiator, UNFCCC COP26, Cabinet Office; and Peter Hill, Chief Executive Officer, UNFCCC COP26, Cabinet Office.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP, Alison Campbell and Peter Hill.
Q1 Chair: Welcome to this afternoon’s session of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee. This is the final hearing of the Committee on COP, in an arrangement agreed between this Committee and a number of other Committees. I am delighted to welcome Philip Dunne and Anna McMorrin, from the Environmental Audit Committee and Barry Gardiner from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
This is the final session of our Committee collaboration on scrutinising the delivery of COP26, as we look towards COP27. We are delighted to welcome Alok Sharma, who is the COP26 President; Peter Hill, who is the chief executive officer of COP26 in the Cabinet Office; and Alison Campbell, who is the deputy lead negotiator in that same team. Good afternoon to all of you.
Alok, we have just heard, as I suspect you have, about the changes announced by the new Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. We understand that you are staying in post as COP26 President, but you are no longer a Minister of the Crown and will not be attending Cabinet. What type of signal do you think that sends to countries around the world about our commitment to delivering on our promises at COP26?
Alok Sharma: The first thing to just say is that, obviously, I am continuing in the role. I will negotiate for the UK at COP27. It is very important that we finish that work. It is also important to say that you have a new Prime Minister. He needs to make ministerial appointments that he sees are right for his unity Cabinet. That is something I absolutely respect.
Going forward, the Government will be judged on the commitments that we have made in legislation, such as net zero by 2050 and our carbon budgets, and whether the Government are adhering to that.
Q2 Chair: If I might say so, it was already proving slightly difficult for Ministers to comply with what you wanted them to do, whether it is about North sea oil and gas licences, fracking, energy efficiency or whatever it might be. If you are not a Minister of the Crown and not attending Cabinet, they are not going to listen to you, are they?
Alok Sharma: As you said, I am no longer a Minister, but I will continue to speak on these issues. I would tell the UK Government, and indeed any other Government, to look at the science and what the experts are saying on these issues and to act on that. Ultimately, as I said, I am very proud of the fact that the UK was one of the first countries in the world to pass net zero by 2050 into legalisation and that we have very ambitious carbon budgets. The country and the Government have to demonstrate that they are delivering on that. I know that this Committee, and others, will hold the Government to account.
Q3 Chair: Has Rishi Sunak given you any commitments about his attendance at COP27?
Alok Sharma: That is really a matter for the Prime Minister and No. 10 to set out.
Q4 Chair: Just looking back, when you first came to talk to us, you talked about your four macro goals for COP27: keeping 1.5° alive; adaptation to protect communities and natural habitats; mobilising climate finance; and working to deliver the Paris rulebook. What is your scorecard on how you have delivered against those objectives?
Alok Sharma: In terms of a scorecard, we have made some progress. I would certainly have liked us to go further and faster and for countries to have followed through on the commitments that they have made.
I can give you an overall view on this. Looking at emission reduction targets, by the time we got to COP26, if you add up all the nationally determined contributions, that was suggesting a 4.5 gigatonne reduction in emissions by 2030. Just to remind the Committee, the total emission is around 50 GW a year globally. Since COP, we have had about 25 updated NDCs. Every Government agreed that they would do this by the end of this year. That then adds another 1.5 gigatonnes of reduction by 2030.
If you add that up, during the arc of our presidency, you are talking about six gigatonnes of annual emissions cut by 2030. Just to put it in context, that is the total emissions of the USA. It is not an insignificant amount, but obviously countries will need to follow through and ensure that those NDCs are being delivered upon.
I would just make one other reference point. As a result of what happened in Paris, as I understand it, the total reduction was around five gigatonnes. We have made some significant progress, certainly in the area of emissions reductions. We have obviously had a number of adaptation plans come through—long-term strategies—but the key thing for me is whether we are on the trajectory to keep 1.5 alive. This has demonstrated that, certainly, if countries keep their commitments, we will keep moving forward.
Q5 Chair: That is the big if, Alok Sharma, because you were quite vocal. After the G20 ministerial meeting in Bali, you said that some of the world’s major economies were backsliding on their commitments in both Paris and Glasgow. Which areas in particular do you think countries were backsliding on, and who is doing the backsliding?
Alok Sharma: The G20 represents around 80% of global emissions. What each of those countries does really matters. To tell you the positives first, a number of the G20 have come forward with revised 2030 emission reduction targets. India is a case in point, representing an additional one gigatonne reduction a year, which of course is incredibly large in an international context. Australia is back on the frontline of fighting climate change, also with a new NDC. Indonesia has come forward with an NDC, as has the UK itself.
I have to say to you, and I have said this very publicly, that what we saw at the G20 was backsliding on what had been agreed both in Paris and in Glasgow. We saw some countries, unfathomably for me, starting to question the science as well. This was on the basis that every country gets to agree on these IPCC reports that come out regularly. That was disappointing. We did not get manage to get out a communiqué. There was a chair’s summary.
In terms of who was backsliding, these were private discussions, so I do not want to set that out, but if the Committee looks in the media you will see what the speculation is as to which countries may have been backsliding. Having said all of that, when I was at the UN General Assembly and the Secretary-General held a climate roundtable, I did see people start to revert back to the Paris language and what they agreed in Glasgow. We saw that at the pre-COP in Kinshasa. In some of the bilateral discussions that I have had since, there has been a reversion back to that. People are understanding that the baseline has to be what was agreed in Paris and in Glasgow; otherwise it is very difficult to continue with negotiations and, frankly, for the world to have faith.
Q6 Chair: Is the UK backsliding?
Alok Sharma: We are certainly not in terms of our NDC. We put in an enhanced NDC, with more information in terms of how we would achieve our emission reduction target. As you know, straight after COP26, the Climate Change Committee put out a report, which I think we have discussed previously, where they said that the UK’s NDC of at least a 68% reduction in emissions by 2030, on 1990 levels, was consistent with a 1.5° pathway. In terms of the NDC itself, the UK has an NDC that is consistent with the Paris agreement.
Q7 Chair: My concern is that there are lots of documents and speeches on one side, and then there is action on the other. There is still a lot of hope that certain technologies are going to suddenly appear and work, and help us achieve our climate targets. If we are being really honest, based on the evidence that exists today about the speed of implementation, the technologies that exist and the investment that is coming forward, we are not on track to keep 1.5 alive, are we?
Alok Sharma: Tomorrow the UNFCCC will be publishing its synthesis report, which will tell you where we are moving as a result of the new NDCs that have come forward. Based on the conversations that I have had with Governments, we should expect to see more revised NDCs, both at COP27 and by the end of this year. Let us see what the synthesis report says, but we clearly need to be doing a lot more.
The IEA has brought out a report, which the Committee will have seen, which I think projects that, this year, we will see a rise of less than 1% in emissions globally. That is significantly less than last year. This is because of the very fast deployment of renewables and electric vehicles across the world. There is progress, and technology is being deployed, but frankly just not quickly enough.
Q8 Tonia Antoniazzi: You have spoken quite a lot about the nationally determined contributions. Despite all parties agreeing to them, you have stated that there are about 25—although I have 24 in my paperwork—presented out of 194. If they have to be returned by the end of the year, is there any reason why you have been unable to persuade more countries to come forward with these stronger climate commitments? How many more are you expecting before the end of the year?
Alok Sharma: I cannot tell you how many more we are expecting. This year, we have been pushing countries to come forward. I am certainly aware of countries that, if they do not come forward this year, will come forward next year. In Glasgow, we saw an understanding that you cannot just have your NDCs updated every five years. This is something that you need to be looking at on a constant basis. In terms of the benchmark of how people do this, we have set that right, but of course I would have liked more NDCs to have come forward. Peter, I do not know whether you wanted to comment at all on this particular issue.
Peter Hill: Some feel that they have revisited them, and they have decided that they are aligned with Paris, and some have not done that, which is disappointing. A couple of countries—Turkey and Mexico—indicated earlier this year they would come forward before the end of the year. We are looking forward to those. Some have said privately that they are hoping to do so.
We will have a picture where we have got part of the way, but some of the ones we were hoping might come forward have not done so. There is still the opportunity for them to do so next year because COP28 is the global stocktake, when we are supposed to come together, work out where we are, how far we have got, and then set the ambition for the future. I do not think 25 is a bad crop, but it is not as good as we would have hoped.
Q9 Tonia Antoniazzi: Out of those 25, how many have contained stronger targets than the previous ones?
Peter Hill: I do not know the number, but Australia obviously has. India put into its NDC the commitments—sorry, am I answering for you?
Alok Sharma: No, that is fine. I was just going to make the point that, in a way, the thing to look out for is what the G20 nations individually are doing, because they represent the bulk of all emissions in the world. As Peter and I have just said, a number of those G20 countries have been forward-leaning, but we need to see the others come forward as well. Some of them, like the UK, already are aligned on a 1.5° pathway. It is just a question of them delivering on the commitments that have been made.
Q10 Tonia Antoniazzi: These major emitters are failing to submit their NDCs that were aligned with the Paris agreement. What justifications are they giving you?
Alok Sharma: It is a number of things. There will be some countries that feel they are going as quickly as they can. Others will say, “We have our commitments and we want to try to put in place the technology and effectively look to overachieve them. We would rather focus on a practical demonstration of action than just coming up with another number.” As I said, there are others that are looking at this very actively, and we should expect to see more NDCs over the next few weeks.
Peter Hill: There are some that have come forward with NDCs this year and, in doing so, have said that they know they need to do more and that they intend to next year. The UAE would be one of those examples.
Q11 Tonia Antoniazzi: Do you think that the integrity of the COP process is being undermined by the lack of commitment?
Alok Sharma: As I said, you need to look at where we started off. It is a process and every COP delivers something, building on previous COPs. I go back to the point I have made to this Committee previously, which is that, if you look through the arc of the last few years, before we had the commitments in Paris, we were heading towards 4° of global warming by the end of this century. Post Paris, it was 3°, and, as a result of all the commitments that came out of COP26, it was below 2°.
That is still not good enough. It is not 1.5, but you are seeing movement in the right direction. The whole multilateral system of negotiation is complex. It can be very frustrating, but it is what we have. At COP26, we proved that you can actually get countries to agree to something because it is in their common self-interest. The issue now is to keep that pressure on. One of the ways that we did it was also to work with the most climate-vulnerable countries and the Climate Vulnerable Forum, which has also been pushing the biggest emitters to do more.
Q12 Alan Brown: Good afternoon. If we look at the UK as a role model, the former Prime Minister had offered more than 100 new licences for oil and gas in the North sea. There was a high-profile lifting of the moratorium on fracking, and there is still an outstanding decision to be made about the coalmine in Cumbria.
The Egyptian Government have warned the UK against backtracking on its climate commitments. Although you have said the UK is not backtracking in terms of its nationally determined contribution, is it not the case that it is backtracking on the actions and signals it is putting out there? Does that not undermine its credibility in the final weeks of COP presidency?
Alok Sharma: As I said, you have to look at the commitments that have been made by the UK. You have to look at what we have actually achieved over the last 30 years, through successive Governments. We have managed to cut emissions by over 40% and grow the economy by almost 80%.
Specifically to address the issue on fracking, I think you saw very clearly the concerns that Members of Parliament have. All the polling out there suggests that this is not an issue that is particularly popular. The Government said they want to seek local consent. Let us see, when that happens, which communities come forward.
I personally am not supportive of the idea of fracking, and I have said very publicly that it is not something I would encourage in my area. Ultimately, both on this issue and on new oil and gas licences, the UK Government, and indeed every Government, have to demonstrate how the policies they are putting forward are consistent with legally binding commitments on, in our case, getting to net zero by 2050 or, indeed, our near-term carbon budgets.
Q13 Alan Brown: The reality is that you are against fracking, which I appreciate you saying, but you are also saying that we are effectively going against legally binding commitments if we start doing fracking and having emissions associated with fracking.
Alok Sharma: I am saying that the Government, whether it is this Government or any other, should be demonstrating how the policies that they are pursuing are consistent with legally binding commitments. I do not think anyone in Government is suggesting that we resile from what we have signed up to in law, but I am making the point that the sum total of what policies deliver has to be shown, as to whether that is indeed consistent with our legally binding commitments.
Q14 Alan Brown: On a similar vein, then, in terms of the North sea, are you disappointed that the climate compatibility checkpoint for new oil and gas licences does not include the scope 3 emissions or test the global production gap?
Alok Sharma: The Government did a consultation and they concluded that it should not have scope 3 in it. I would just go back to the point that I made, which is that whatever this or any other Government do needs to be consistent with the commitments we collectively have made in law. The onus is on the Government to demonstrate whether that is indeed the case or not.
Q15 Alan Brown: At the moment, there is a gap between what the Government are doing and actually demonstrating that these policies will comply with the legally binding 2050 targets and the Paris agreement. Would that be fair to say?
Alok Sharma: I would say this to the Chair. I am sure you will have relevant Ministers coming forward to you in the future, when they can explain. I am no longer a Minister.
Q16 Alan Brown: That is an issue. You can no longer explain or challenge this at Cabinet even though you have these views. There is a gap.
Alok Sharma: I can tell you that, during my time in Government—and obviously, as a Minister, you are bound by collective responsibility—where I have had issues with particular policies, I have raised them privately with colleagues.
Q17 Alan Brown: One Government policy that came in, in terms of the oil and gas sector, was the windfall levy tax. At the same time, they brought in an investment allowance that allows 91p in the pound to be written off for tax purposes. Yet, with the Energy Prices Bill, in designing the cost-plus revenue limit, there is not that investment allowance for tax purposes for renewable generators. Does that cause a concern? Does it not effectively favour oil and gas investment over renewable energy investment?
Alok Sharma: This Government have said that they want to speed up the pace of renewables. That is very clearly set out in the Government’s energy security strategy. We should be doing absolutely everything we can to ensure that green energy is being accelerated. The Government have a commitment of ensuring that all our electricity comes from green sources by 2035, so they should be looking at how they can accelerate and deliver on that particular commitment.
Q18 Alan Brown: Have you heard concern from renewable energy generators about the cost-plus revenue limit and the lack of an allowance on their side?
Alok Sharma: I have not had any feedback from them.
Q19 Alan Brown: Just looking at net zero overall, the High Court ruled that the Government’s net zero strategy is unlawful, and the UK Government decided to drop their appeal. The Government have effectively accepted that it is unlawful.
Alok Sharma: If I may, I do not think the net zero strategy was considered to be unlawful. As I understood it, the issue was that not enough information had been provided on a sectoral breakdown of how emissions would be reduced. I am happy to stand corrected on this, but that was my understanding.
Q20 Alan Brown: The High Court ruled in favour of—I think it was—ClientEarth. The Climate Change Committee has said that just 39% of the required emissions savings are backed up by credible plans or policies, and it identified risks in most sectors, particularly in buildings, industry and aviation. What advice will you be giving to the new Prime Minister, given that you are not going to be at Cabinet? What advice would you give the incoming Prime Minister about the Government’s plans, in line with their legal commitments?
Alok Sharma: I would say that the Government need to deliver on their net zero strategy and on a trajectory that is consistent with net zero by 2050. This is the advice I would give to this and any other Government: follow through on the policies that you have.
Q21 Alan Brown: In terms of the Climate Change Committee’s scorecard on buildings, there was significant risk across every category. The Government have a target of updating all homes to EPC band C or above, but right now more homes are graded EPC D to G than they are A to C. Does there need to be a much greater commitment to investment in energy efficiency? Do you agree with the proposal that we start looking at areas on a street-by-street basis instead of this current ad hoc measure that just does not allow any roll-out to gain momentum?
Alok Sharma: The Government have been investing in energy efficiency, and some of the stats that I have in front of me suggest that 46% of homes in England are now EPC C or better. That is up from 14% in 2010. The reality is that we need to be doing more, and a lot more quickly. I would just refer you to what the new Prime Minister said during the summer. He talked about the need to insulate millions of homes and ensure that people know about the steps they can take at no cost to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. I agree with that. We now need to see the Government following through on that particular issue.
Q22 Alan Brown: On that stat you gave, 54% of homes are still band D to G, which, in the current cost of energy crisis, is crippling for many households. There needs to be much better investment, does there not?
Alok Sharma: Self-evidently, we need to speed up the process of insulating homes and to do more in terms of buildings and offices. The reality is that over 20% of our emissions come from buildings and, therefore, it is a key sector to ensure we get right in terms of cutting emissions.
Q23 Alan Brown: Austerity 2.0 is mooted as coming in. Do you have concerns that the state of the public finances is going to prevent the Government from making these positive investment decisions?
Alok Sharma: The new Prime Minister has just come into place. We should wait to see what policies come forward before commenting on them. All I would just say to you is that I agree with what the new Prime Minister said over the summer. We need to insulate millions of homes, and I personally think we should do that as quickly as we can.
Q24 Anna McMorrin: I am just going to follow on from the previous questioner. You stated just now that there must be a consistency with commitments made collectively in law, yet the Climate Change Committee’s annual report, in June this year, suggested there were significant risks with meeting net zero, meeting the targets, and meeting the 1.5° or 2° limit.
In September, the Minister for Climate Change put in an SI to extend to deadline to report from this October to March next year. This is because, as the report stated, there has been no action on addressing emissions in buildings, charging infrastructure, agriculture or woodland creation, and a real lack of investment in peat bog restoration. All have fallen way below the required standard.
What would you say to that? As outgoing Minister, and responsible for getting these negotiations in COP, what are you telling the incoming Minister to make sure that all of this gets done?
Alok Sharma: I simply go back to what I said: where commitments have been made, they need to be followed through on at pace.
Q25 Anna McMorrin: But, quite clearly, they are not. You just delayed the response to a report, which was last June. We are now into very pressing times, with action needed within this decade. You have said that; Lord Deben has been very damning in terms of what the Government action is. We need to hear from you now on what action the Government need to address all of this.
Alok Sharma: It is a case of pace. Lord Deben and the Climate Change Committee actually praised the net zero strategy. The issue for me is the pace of delivery and implementation. That is as relevant for this Government as, frankly, it is for any other Government I deal with in my role.
Q26 Anna McMorrin: You say “at pace”, yet the Government have been talking about 100 new licences for oil and gas exploration. How does that fit into this net zero strategy? It does not even make a dent in it. In fact, it makes it worse. Lord Deben, chair of the Climate Change Committee, says that this would be catastrophic for UK diplomacy. Being responsible for that diplomacy at COP27, how do you feel that fits in?
Alok Sharma: The International Energy Agency—IEA—has also said previously that any projects already committed, or any projects beyond those committed in 2021, should mean that there are no new oil and gas fields in their pathway for 1.5°.
Q27 Anna McMorrin: How can you sit in a Cabinet, up until now, and have a Government making those commitments of 100 new licences?
Alok Sharma: As I said to you, during my time in Government, where these issues have come up, I have very clearly raised any concerns that I have. I go back to this point that the onus is very much on the Government to explain and demonstrate how any of these policies are indeed consistent with the legally binding commitments. I am sorry to keep saying that, but this is now a matter for relevant Ministers.
Anna McMorrin: You argued against the new licences on oil and gas.
Alok Sharma: I do not want to go into the details of my discussions. All I can say to you is that, where I have had concerns about issues, I have set those out.
Q28 Anna McMorrin: Would you argue against them now?
Alok Sharma: Sorry?
Anna McMorrin: Would you argue against 100 new licences for oil and gas exploration? The Minister for Climate Change gave evidence at the Environmental Audit Committee and argued that new licences are in fact compatible with net zero. Would you agree with that?
Alok Sharma: I am not an expert. The IEA is an expert on this issue and does not think that is consistent.
Anna McMorrin: You would agree, then.
Alok Sharma: I would then say to the Minister, as I am sure you did or will do when the relevant Minister is in front of you, “Please demonstrate to us how what you are doing is consistent with your 1.5‑degree pathway”.
Q29 Anna McMorrin: Just going back to the scope 3 emissions, you say there was a consultation, but according to Friends of the Earth just 40 new oil, gas and coal licences would mean 1.3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent—three times the amount of UK emissions. How do you justify the fact that there are no scope 3 emissions included?
Alok Sharma: With respect, it is now for relevant Ministers to address that particular issue.
Anna McMorrin: But you are here, in front of us as a Committee. You can comment on your view.
Alok Sharma: I am here, but as we heard at the start of this session I am no longer a Minister in the Government.
Anna McMorrin: You are no longer a Minister, but you are a negotiator at COP, representing the UK Government.
Alok Sharma: I am negotiating on behalf of the UK.
Anna McMorrin: You are well within your rights to comment on this.
Alok Sharma: I absolutely have commented on it. I really could not be any clearer.
Anna McMorrin: You do not think scope 3 emissions should be included.
Alok Sharma: The Government should be explaining how these particular policies are consistent with the legally binding commitments that have been made and that we all have voted on in legislation.
Anna McMorrin: So they are not. You do not agree that they are consistent.
Alok Sharma: I would like to see the evidence that they are.
Q30 Anna McMorrin: How can you go and negotiate on behalf of the Government when you are disagreeing with what the Government think?
Alok Sharma: Along with my colleagues, I am negotiating on the various work programmes that we have agreed; the work that we have done at COP26, which I will ask my colleagues to comment on further; the detailed work on the Paris rulebook, which we closed off, although there are still technical items that need discussion; and issues related to the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage. There is a whole range of very technical things that we are going to be discussing at COP27.
COP26 was the COP where we agreed what we should be doing, and COP27, by our Egyptian colleagues, has quite rightly been badged as the implementation COP. That is what we want to see coming forward.
Q31 Anna McMorrin: But, as we have seen, the majority of countries have not even come forward with their NDCs. Representing the UK Government as the lead negotiator, how do you feel you have the authority to bring together that negotiating when, quite clearly, as you have just commented on in answer to my questions, you do not agree with many of the policies that are being pushed through and have now lost your place within the Cabinet? You are not a Minister; you do not hold that authority.
Alok Sharma: I have the authority of the Prime Minister to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Q32 Philip Dunne: I would just like to start by thanking you, Alok, for the way in which you have welcomed the idea of scrutiny by Select Committees for your role, and particularly for coming here today, on what is a difficult day for you and a day of transition for the Government. We very much appreciate that.
While in post as a Cabinet Minister, you participated in the Climate Action Strategy Committee, which was chaired by the Prime Minister, under the previous Administration bar one. We all know how difficult it is to manage issues in connection with the environment, because they do not respect conventional Government administrative boundaries. Was it a mistake to scrap the Climate Action Strategy Committee?
Alok Sharma: I personally thought that the move to set up the strategy committee and the implementation committee was positive, because it meant that, rather than individual Government Departments effectively operating in silos, you bought all Cabinet Ministers around the table, and you particularly had the Treasury there as well. The strategy committee was chaired by the then Prime Minister, and it showed very clearly that the person at the head of the Government cared deeply about this particular issue. That is what fellow Ministers then responded to.
It is up to every new Prime Minister to discuss and set out how they want to organise their Government and committee structures. I personally would think that it would be a very good thing to reinstate that strategy committee, for it to be chaired by the Prime Minister, and for the implementation committee to continue. I took on the role of chairing that committee when I was the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Assuming that that committee continues, that would be a good place where the chair should sit.
Q33 Philip Dunne: Did you have the opportunity, in your discussion with the new Prime Minister earlier today, to make that point to him?
Alok Sharma: No, I did not have that opportunity. It was not that kind of discussion. Just to be clear, it was a very friendly discussion, but we did not get into the specifics of any of that. As I said, what I am saying now is on the public record, so if No. 10 wants it will be able to review what I have said.
Q34 Philip Dunne: In relation to the implementation committee, which you chaired, will you still be chairing that?
Alok Sharma: As I said, that was not a discussion, but I would not expect so. Ultimately, that should be chaired by a senior Cabinet Minister.
Q35 Philip Dunne: When did that committee last meet?
Alok Sharma: I think I can say this: it last met yesterday.
Q36 Philip Dunne: Under the previous Administration, it was continuing, and has had the co-ordinating role across Government in dealing with net zero strategy responses.
Alok Sharma: Yes, indeed.
Q37 Philip Dunne: Would your advice to the new Prime Minister be to maintain such a structure?
Alok Sharma: Yes, absolutely. I would go further, as I said, and ensure that there is a committee chaired by him looking at this issue. It is quite interesting.
Philip Dunne: Sorry, this is a distinction. You have said that in relation to the strategy committee, but the implementation committee is more at an operating level.
Alok Sharma: Yes, that is at an operating level and, as I said, a senior Cabinet Minister should be chairing it. As I said, the strategy committee, chaired by the previous Prime Minister but one, sent the right signal in terms of how the Government looked upon this particular issue. Certainly, in the conversations I have had with international counterparts around the world, they have found this an interesting structure, and there are some countries where they have subsequently set up similar types of committees, chaired by the Head of their Government.
Q38 Chair: Did you chair the meeting yesterday?
Alok Sharma: Yes, I did.
Q39 Chair: I understand that there was a progress update on Government delivery against targets. The Government have never shared that information with Parliament. Now that you are liberated as a Minister, surely you would agree that it would make sense for that information to be shared.
Alok Sharma: I am liberated, but obviously I was a Minister at the point that I chaired that committee. What happens in the committee is confidential. This goes back to this overall point that I made, which is that the Government have made some really strong commitments. The net zero strategy, which, again, was worked through and then came through, and was approved through this Cabinet committee structure, is a really good piece of work. It is pretty detailed. As I said, it was praised by the Climate Change Committee. We need to see how those particular commitments are being delivered upon. If that means that, over a period of time, whatever that is, the Government set out the outcomes of the work they have been doing, that would be useful.
Q40 Chair: Do you agree it would be useful?
Alok Sharma: Yes, of course.
Q41 Chair: I am glad you agree with that. How long did the meeting last for yesterday?
Alok Sharma: I am sorry; is there a particular reason for asking that?
Chair: I am just interested to understand what depth of analysis you go into in these meetings.
Alok Sharma: I do not want to—
Chair: Answer the question, seemingly.
Alok Sharma: No. I do not want to breach confidences of that committee, but I can tell you that there was a detailed and thorough discussion on all the items that were on the agenda.
Q42 Chair: How long did it last? I do not know why you cannot share that information.
Alok Sharma: I think it was about an hour and a half—about the length of this Committee.
Chair: Yes, although we could go on for much longer, I suppose, if time allowed, but there we are.
Q43 Charlotte Nichols: In June, REN21, an international energy policy network made up of industry figures, scientists and some Governments, published its “Renewables 2022 Global Status Report”, which concluded that the world was using more fossil fuels than ever. Has enough progress been made over the last year to ensure that global plans for fossil fuel production are consistent with 1.5°? What impact will the continuation of the energy crisis have on these efforts?
Alok Sharma: I will go back to the original point I made about what has happened in terms of emissions during this year. It is estimated that they will go up by less than 1%, despite the fact that countries are using more fossil fuels to meet their immediate energy needs as they try to wean themselves off Russian hydrocarbons. If you look at the overall statistics, some of which I have in front of me, since 2015 the new coal pipeline of pre-construction projects has fallen by 76% globally. Renewables account for 90% of global capacity additions in 2021. That is forecast to be the same over the next two years. If you look at coal, for instance, it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance new coal construction. I can tell you that from the conversations I have had with Governments around the world. The private sector sees this as effectively ending up with stranded assets.
We are moving very much in the right direction. One of the impacts of Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion and war in Ukraine is that countries are accelerating renewables, as a result of which we will see the pace of renewables and installation accelerate more quickly than it would otherwise have done.
Q44 Charlotte Nichols: You mentioned coal. The IEA said in July that coal burning was set to rise in 2022, taking it back to the record level set in 2013. Are countries doing enough to fulfil their commitment to phase down coal? How has the return to coal by developed nations impacted your efforts to encourage developing nations to speed up their coal phase-downs?
Alok Sharma: Again, I would just reference that emissions are only rising by 1%. We of course want to see them falling this year. That is despite the fact that there are more fossil fuels being used this year. Specifically in terms of coal, just six countries effectively account for 80% of new coal projects. Many of those are in south‑east Asia. As I said, from the conversations that I have had, I know that some of those projects are increasingly difficult to finance.
Last year, through the G20 work and our chairmanship of the G7, we managed to ensure that all G20 countries agreed not to finance internationally any coal projects as well. That is making a difference. Peter, did you want to come in?
Peter Hill: I just wanted to pick up a couple of points. The first is on the financing of fossil fuels, not just coal. I think, at COP26, there were 35 countries, which was most of western Europe and North America, saying, with some exemptions and exceptions, they were not going to provide finance for international fossil fuels. That has been followed up by a number of those countries publishing their implementation plans.
The financing is moving. In the last few days, I think I saw a couple of the major insurers saying that they would not be providing insurance services. There is a particular issue in some countries that either have significant coal fleets or coal pipelines, which need support. The responsibility is with donors and the developed world to find the finance that is necessary to support them in that. We might come on to it later, but one of the things we are trying to do in these just energy transition partnerships is to support the phasing out of existing fleets, but also the closing down of the pipeline and the diversion of that funding, and international funding, towards renewables.
Alok Sharma: Chair, if you want, I can pick up a bit more on that. Peter makes a very important point. It is one thing to ask developing countries to do more; it is another to ensure we are also providing support.
In the case of South Africa, for instance, at COP26 last year we announced $8.5 billion of support, as a starting figure, to help them move from coal to clean energy. In fact during this year I have been to South Africa and I have met many of the Government Ministers. There is an investment plan that will set out how this money would be deployed to support that transition.
We are working with a number of other countries, alongside G7 partners. We are working with Vietnam, India, Indonesia and Senegal to support them and to come forward with just energy transition plans for each of those countries as well.
Q45 Charlotte Nichols: In the Glasgow pact, which you oversaw, nations committed to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. How precisely would you define this term?
Alok Sharma: I do not have that in front of me, but I believe the IEA has a definition of “fossil fuel subsidies”.
Q46 Charlotte Nichols: Analysis from the OECD and IEA showed that support for fossil fuels in 51 major economies almost doubled in 2021. How will the energy crisis impact the phasing out of these inefficient fossil fuel subsidies?
Alok Sharma: Forgive me; I do not know precisely which countries you are referring to and whether they would define those as inefficient. We would need to have a discussion with those countries to see whether they were holding to the commitments they have made. This was a particular issue in those final negotiations, as you will know, in COP26. That is the wording we settled on.
Q47 Charlotte Nichols: Is there such a thing as an efficient fossil fuel subsidy?
Alok Sharma: Some countries would say, particularly where they have very poor and vulnerable populations, they need to provide support to those individuals to be able to get access to fuel.
Q48 Barry Gardiner: Sorry, I wanted to call you “Minister”. Can I just echo Philip’s words? You were a fine chair of COP—you have been a fine chair of COP. The focus and energy you have put into it has been really commendable, and I respect the dignity with which you have responded today after being told by the Prime Minister that you were no longer to be in the Cabinet.
The definition of an inefficient subsidy is one that tends to increase production that otherwise would not have been profitable. In that respect, the investment allowance the Government are now putting in, the 91p in the pound subsidy to which my colleague from the SNP referred earlier, for oil and gas producers in the North sea, by that definition, is an inefficient production subsidy. It is tending to encourage investment in further production that would not otherwise be profitable.
Alok Sharma: Again, that is something the Government or the energy Department probably need to clarify. Certainly, up to this point it has been pretty clear that the UK Government have not had fossil fuel subsidies overall. I was about to say that I would be happy to get a ministerial colleague to write to you on this issue, but I would encourage the Committee to take that up directly with BEIS.
Barry Gardiner: We tried.
Q49 Alexander Stafford: I want to echo everyone’s views on you. You have been an excellent COP President. I am very sorry that you are no longer a Minister and sorry that you have left Cabinet. Hopefully, at the end of this period, you will come back into Government in a different way on a similar topic.
One of the most successful outcomes of COP was your engagement with the finance sector and the markets. That was very reassuring. Can you update us on the progress you have made on securing the $100 billion finance target? Where are we?
Alok Sharma: As the Committee is aware, we put together a report—it was put together by the German and Canadian Governments last year—on this $100 billion target. The conclusion was that we would reach $100 billion in 2023 and that over a five-year period it would be $500 billion plus. An update of that report is due to come out very shortly. It will set out what progress has been made, so I do not want to pre-empt that.
I would just say two things to the Committee on this. First, the 2020 numbers, which have effectively been audited by the OECD, show some movement from just under $80 billion in 2019 to just over $83 billion in 2020. There has been some progress, but clearly much more is needed.
Secondly, however, there has been a bigger uplift in percentage terms of adaptation finance. One of the commitments we got from developing countries is that they would double the amount of money going towards adaptation as part of that $100 billion by 2025 on 2019 levels. Again, the updated $100 billion report, which, as I said, is coming out very shortly, will provide some information on the progress on adaptation as well.
Q50 Alexander Stafford: Notwithstanding the update—I know you cannot go into details—can you give us any clues as to whether we are closer to the target than we were or further away? Are things better or worse? Could you give us any suggestion or hint?
Alok Sharma: The actual figures that have come out between 2019 and 2022 show there is some improvement. We are still on target to get to $100 billion in 2023, but I would suggest that the Committee has a look at the detail of this report.
The next COP is going to be held in Africa. Africa is collectively responsible for less than 4% of global emissions, and yet many of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world are in Africa. Therefore, the issue of adaptation will feature very heavily in COP27. For those countries, it will be very important to see the progress particularly on adaptation finance.
Q51 Alexander Stafford: Why has it taken so long and been such a challenge to get to that target? What is slowing things down?
Alok Sharma: There are a number of reasons. One is countries perhaps not following through on the commitments and pledges they have previously made.
Secondly, there has always been this issue about not enough private finance being leveraged off the public money. This is a particular issue for the multilateral development banks, and I will ask Peter whether he wants to comment a little bit more on this issue. The MDBs have been doing more, but, effectively, they need to do a lot more.
I was at the World Bank and IMF annual meetings just a few weeks ago, and I made the point that we need to see the MDBs collectively doing more in terms of finance. There are a number of them that are making good progress in terms of the trajectory, but they also need to look at products that will then leverage in private finance. For instance, a number of people have talked about first-loss products. That will allow the private sector to invest as well.
Just to make a wider point before I open it up to Peter, the finance architecture that we have in place now, particularly with these MDBs, was in many cases set up very many decades ago. If you look at the articles of association and the purpose documents of these institutions, tackling climate change does not figure at all.
I do wonder whether we need to have what I have described as a Bretton Woods 2 moment, in which we look to see whether we can effectively enshrine tackling climate change in all the international institutions we have and the international financial sector.
Peter Hill: Collectively, the world slightly took its eye off the ball on the $100 billion for a while. You will probably remember that the previous US Administration was not a massive fan of climate finance, which left quite a big hole in what we were able to provide.
There was also a bit of an assumption that, given what was happening to costs, private finance would move into many of these areas. It has turned out that it is a lot more complicated to mobilise private finance at scale and it requires a much more active role for the public and the private sector, which is one of the things that we have learned and we need to do better.
On the MDBs, the World Bank put out its figures a few days or weeks ago. They have their highest ever mobilisation of 32 billion for 2020-21, which is significantly more than the previous year. They are overachieving on the targets they have set. Like everything in climate, overachieving is still not enough. The question is what more can be done in order to mobilise. The level of investment needed, as we know, is several times where we are currently. The MDBs and their ability to leverage are going to be absolutely central to that.
Q52 Anna McMorrin: To follow up on that, you have the target to reach the financial goal, but a lot of under-represented communities across the world are promised climate finance but do not see it. I know there was an attempt at COP26 to get the under-represented to have a voice. What more can you do at COP27 and in the run-up over the next couple of weeks? Those under-represented groups are mainly women—a lot of women across the world face the brunt of climate change, as we see those changes—and indigenous groups and communities. What more can you do to make sure that they have a voice, and that they see that finance and can adapt accordingly?
Alok Sharma: This is a really very important point. You can talk about the billions and all the rest of it. The question is whether the money is getting to the people who need it on the ground. This whole issue about access to finance is why we set up the Taskforce on Access to Climate Finance, which we co-chair with Fiji. During this year, we have set up pilot projects in five countries, some of those in Africa, Rwanda being one. We are testing how you can improve access to finance. On the margins of the UN General Assembly, I held a meeting where quite a lot of ministerial colleagues from around the world came together to discuss and take this issue further forward.
At COP27, I hope we can speak a lot more about what we are learning from these projects. It is a really very important point. I am quite sure this is something that, going forward, the COP27 presidency will also want to champion. Certainly, I would encourage them to do that.
Peter Hill: I do not want to misquote the figure, but there was a significant amount of funding—I think it was $1.5 billion—for indigenous peoples and their custodianship, which we secured at COP26. That may be the wrong figure, but it is something around that. It was specifically for nature-based solutions and indigenous peoples. As I say, we can check the figure and give that to you.
Q53 Philip Dunne: Just pursuing the point about multilateral organisations for the moment, yesterday the Environmental Audit Committee had Mark Carney giving evidence to us on the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. He suggested that the UK has a particular role in what he described as thought leadership and financial resource deployment, by which I think he meant that we tend to help, as you have just been talking about, in guiding multilateral organisations towards moving this agenda along. What do you see as your role at COP27 with those organisations to encourage them to deploy more of this resource?
Alok Sharma: We have been in discussions with the multilateral development banks throughout this year, encouraging them to come forward with additional and enhanced targets in terms of the climate finance they are going to be deploying.
I am hoping there will be a joint statement from the MDBs at COP27, as there was at COP26, setting out what they are doing in terms of the deployment of funds to tackle climate change and effectively to help countries adapt to the changing climate. We will see precisely what that says, but this will be part of that ongoing discussion on finance at COP27 and, I suspect, every other COP going forward. Certainly, finance will be a big discussion point at COP27.
Q54 Philip Dunne: How are you promoting the just energy transition partnerships? Were those what you are referring to, Peter, when you touched on the five countries?
Alok Sharma: Yes, that is precisely what we were talking about. To pick up on this word “just”, the need for a just transition was also enshrined in the Paris agreement.
When I was in South Africa, as well as meeting Ministers I met some miners and some mining unions. It was really important to do that. We talk about a transition, and sometimes people can see that it is quite an abstract thing. If your livelihood comes from coalmining, you really want to understand that, if any move takes place away from that, you are going to get the support to retrain, reskill and make sure you can do another job.
That is why some of the funding that is part of these just energy transition partnerships will go towards that element of supporting communities and individuals. This is a really very important point. Any Government engaged in a big transition are going to have to take the population with them, and therefore everything we can do through the G7 to support countries with that will be very important.
Q55 Philip Dunne: Briefly, on GFANZ, you wrote recently to indicate that all the founding members of GFANZ would be confirming where they had got to by COP27. Can you give us any update on how many have announced interim decarbonisation targets?
Alok Sharma: I understand we have 53 banks that have set out interim targets, and we expect there will be some more that come through. The number of institutions within GFANZ has also gone up. It is now around 550. Mark Carney continues to lead this, but GFANZ is now effectively an independent organisation. We were very involved in working with Mark and others to get the thing going during last year, but it is now an independent organisation.
Q56 Philip Dunne: There were reports last month that some of the leading global banks are indicating that they might be alarmed at what the implications are. Are you concerned about that? Have you managed to button that down? They have been threatening to leave, I think.
Alok Sharma: Yes, absolutely. We have had some discussions. As far as I am aware, only a couple of small pension funds have actually left. Peter, do you want to set out anything else on this?
Peter Hill: There was a legal concern about a particular phrase in some of the criteria that might, for some banks, impose some liability. There was a tweak to that. It is not a question, as I understand it, of people leaving the alliance. GFANZ is the umbrella, and under it there are these alliances, which are then taking their criteria from the Race to Zero.
We have not been told that anyone is planning to leave it, and these alliances, I hope, will continue their relationship with the Race to Zero and continue to demonstrate how they are getting their portfolios aligned with 1.5.
Q57 Barry Gardiner: COP President—I have worked out how to address you—in 2013 we established the Warsaw international mechanism. That was after three years of discussion. Three years after that, we had the Santiago network. Then we had the Glasgow climate pact, which again said we should be talking over the next two years about loss and damage.
Earlier, in response to my colleague, you said you thought adaptation was going to be particularly highlighted because the COP was in Egypt—Africa has 4% of global emissions, but it has hugely vulnerable countries—and therefore adaptation was critical. Indeed it is, but so is loss and damage. It has been a bottleneck in the negotiations for 10 years, and it looks set to continue as a diplomatic bottleneck.
Given what we have seen this year, with the drought in Somalia and the floods in Pakistan, has the conversation moved on? As a global community, are we any closer to finding a consensus on this key issue?
Alok Sharma: Loss and damage is an issue that will feature very heavily at COP27. You will know, Mr Gardiner, that there has been a discussion on whether there should be an agenda item around this particular issue. We are very open to it from a UK perspective, and I hope we will end up with an agenda item on this issue.
Even in the three years I have been involved in this—of course, my colleagues have been doing this a lot longer, particularly Alison, and I will ask her to comment—the mood music on this has changed. There is much more of a willingness on the part of developed countries to have this discussion. Just the fact we managed to get agreement on the Glasgow dialogue shows that there is forward movement on this.
In terms of the Santiago network, at COP26 we agreed the functions and funding for this, but we now need to see those detailed arrangements coming through. We will see what progress we can make at COP27. It will be important to show progress on this issue at COP27. How far we can go I cannot tell you; I cannot predict that. The whole thing is based on consensus.
It is clear to me that very many developing nations will want to see progress on this issue. There will be discussions around a facility; that will come up. What we also need to consider is, more widely, what you do in terms of effectively averting and minimising loss and damage as well, perhaps with early warning systems. Just going back to the top, if we could only deal with the mitigation issue, that would clearly have an impact as well.
Alison, do you want to talk a little bit about the progress in Bonn on the Glasgow dialogue and what we expect coming out of COP27?
Alison Campbell: Yes, I am very happy to. First, just to say, I would agree with the way you characterised it. Loss and damage is a conversation that has been too slow for too long. One of the things that has been moving is that it is now being recognised. It was recognised quite significantly at COP26, with the spotlight we put on loss and damage, and the Glasgow dialogue. There was a recognition that the Glasgow dialogue—we had the first one in June—was a really useful forum for sharing experiences and starting to look at some of the options.
The issue that some countries have with it is that it was just a forum for sharing those experiences, and they wanted to see the next step of how we were going to get to the solution from that. For the first time, there is a consensus that funding arrangements for loss and damage do need to be addressed. That is a step forward.
The conversation on what needs to be done is also getting more granular. The issues are a lot clearer. The developing countries that are putting this firmly on the table want to discuss issues around addressing loss and damage in terms of not having enough finance for the response post disaster; there not being enough focus on slow-onset events; and non-economic losses like cultural heritage.
The challenge we now have to work through is what the right solutions are to those problems. To agree very much with what the COP President has said, we are certainly very hopeful that we can move forward with this now there is an agenda item on it. We can start to look at what those solutions are. The finance facility is one of those that is on the table, but progress has been made and we now need to move that forward.
Q58 Barry Gardiner: Can I put some ancillary questions to you, then? Will we get a specific designated funding mechanism separate to all the other funding mechanisms that we have? What do you consider the value of the proposal from the Alliance of Small Island States that there should be a voluntary fundraising round? I do not know whether the COP President remembers, but one of the things I advocated before COP26 was that a voluntary contribution from the UK to kickstart that would have been a very welcome idea.
What do you make of the proposal from the Secretary‑General of the United Nations about a windfall tax on oil and gas companies? That seems to have been featured in the news lately.
Alison Campbell: If I may, COP President, I would probably answer those three questions in two. On the first question about the designated funding mechanism, personally I think it will be too difficult for that to be an outcome at COP27. Like I said, it should be discussed and it should be one of the options on the table. The Alliance of Small Island States has done a lot of good work in showing what the proposal is. The discussions have begun on that, but there are a lot more discussions to be had before we can say that is the solution to all the problems and the issues on the table. That is just a personal view, but it is very much a conversation that needs to be had.
In answer to the second two points, one thing that has come through that proposal is a recognition that we need to look at innovative sources, if we are going to tackle loss and damage. There is this sense that it cannot just be the traditional donor base that is contributing to tackling this problem. Again, that is something that pretty much every country I have spoken to has an appetite to look into.
Q59 Barry Gardiner: I have perhaps one final question on loss and damage. How do you see the discussions interlinking with the Sendai framework on risk reduction and resilience?
Alison Campbell: They are linked. It is not just the loss and damage discussions; it is also the global goal on adaptation. To be honest, there is not a clear view on how those things should interlink other than that the Sendai principles should be one of the things that guide the work we do on loss and damage and on the global goal on adaptation. It needs to be a part of the discussion. There is still work to do to look at how those could help frame the conversations we have in the UNFCCC a bit better.
Q60 Barry Gardiner: Thank you very much. I am now going to move on to talk about the breakthrough agenda. COP President, perhaps you could outline what the breakthrough agenda was at COP26, what it aims to ensure and to what extent there has been progress since last year.
Alok Sharma: We launched the breakthrough agenda at COP26. We have got 70% of the global economy covered; 47 countries are signing up to this. Effectively, it is about accelerating the clean technology transitions in some of the highest-emitting sectors, such as power, road transport, steel and agriculture, as well as work on hydrogen.
The overall aim of this, of course, is to ensure that these clean technologies are available more quickly and cheaply around the world. A report we launched on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, which was put together by the IEA, IRENA and the high-level champions, set out where we were on each of these breakthroughs. What we then agreed to do subsequently was for countries to work together and come forward with specific plans on delivering on the recommendations that were made in this report. We will have a discussion on this issue at COP27 as well. You are also likely to see additional sectors launching these breakthrough agendas.
We have seen some progress. The intention is that we conclude all this work by 2030. I was pretty encouraged, frankly, by the meeting we held with different Governments on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. There is a very real commitment and a very real understanding, going back to the point the Chair was making at the start of the session, that if you are going to get to net zero, you need to not only tackle emissions in the highest-emitting sectors; you need to make sure that technology is available and being deployed across the world as well.
Q61 Barry Gardiner: How have the objectives of the agenda been affected—let me put it no stronger than that—by the events that have gone on this year with the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and the economic turbulence we have seen?
Alok Sharma: I will see whether Peter agrees or disagrees, but the work on the agenda has not slowed down. If you look at the two high-level champions, they have been working incredibly hard on this and other issues during this year as well. Let us see what we can set out at COP27 in terms of progress.
Peter Hill: At the risk of sounding hopelessly optimistic, it has made people more determined. It is having an effect on the commitment to the pace of transition. If you look at most European renewables targets or REPowerEU, these targets are being brought forward; they are not being pushed back. Across most sectors, the impact has been to accelerate and not delay the commitment to the transition.
Of course, one can ask, “What about coal use? What about gas use in the short term?” Those are perfectly legitimate points, but whether it is on the breakthrough side or on the renewables roll-out, what we get from talking to our counterparts around the world is an increased determination because they can see the vulnerabilities caused by the current scale of use of fossil fuels.
Q62 Barry Gardiner: We do not improve our energy security by doubling down on fossil fuels. That is what you are saying.
Peter Hill: Yes. Most of the world has drawn that conclusion.
Q63 Barry Gardiner: When will we get the details of the checkpoint process for the agricultural breakthrough? That was the other one of the original points that have been left for later, if I can put it that way. When will we get the details for the checkpoint finally agreed for agriculture?
Alok Sharma: I am sorry; we do not have that information. We would be very happy to write to the Committee to give you that.
Q64 Barry Gardiner: How are you working with the incoming Egyptian COP President to ensure momentum is maintained around the breakthrough agenda, particularly with regards to getting greater international collaboration?
Alok Sharma: The Egyptian high-level champion will continue to be involved and work on this issue, but we also have individual countries that chair the breakthrough sectors. They will carry on that momentum themselves. As I said, you will find at COP27 that there are a number of other countries that are very keenly going to step forward in other sectors as well. I feel pretty confident that this work will continue and we will see progress.
Q65 Barry Gardiner: Picking up on that suggestion that there will be other sectors, the update report did suggest that we could look at aviation, cement and buildings etc. Which of those other sectors ought to be prioritised?
Alok Sharma: Hopefully I am not breaching any confidences, but you will see the launch of a buildings breakthrough at COP27, which will be co-chaired by France and Morocco.
Peter Hill: The incoming presidency from the first day of COP will be the UAE. We have both been in touch with them, and they are extremely keen to pursue the breakthrough agenda. We will be trying to do some of that at COP27 in advance of their presidency.
Q66 Barry Gardiner: To your knowledge, have there been any intellectual property issues that have held things back?
Alok Sharma: Not that we are aware of, no, but again we will pick up on that point and write to you.
Q67 Alexander Stafford: Looking forward to COP27, as much as you can, what key outcomes are required from COP27 to keep 1.5° alive? Is that realistic?
Alok Sharma: As I said earlier, this is being badged by Egypt as an implementation COP. They will want to see progress across all pillars of the Paris agreement. The key issues that countries will particularly want to discuss will be around finance. The reality is that, to make all of this work, it does require finance, whether that is public finance or private finance. As we have discussed, there will be discussions on adaptation as well as loss and damage.
They will want to move forward on all the work programmes that were agreed in Glasgow. Not many of them are due to complete and conclude at COP27, but they will want to be able to demonstrate some progress. On the finance issue, there is also ongoing work on what comes in terms of the post-2025 goals on finance. Alison, do you want to add anything?
Alison Campbell: On the point about keeping 1.5 in reach, one thing we agreed in Glasgow that does need to be decided in Sharm el-Sheikh is what the mitigation work programme will look like. That is going to be one of the main topics for COP. We agreed to set up a work programme on scaling up ambition and implementation in this critical decade. We know what the work programme is for, but we need to decide what that looks like and how it will work.
From the conversations we have had on that so far, for example, there was a lot of appetite for using that to discuss new mechanisms for collaboration such as the JETPs, which I know the Committee is interested in. From our perspective, that would be an important outcome of COP.
Alongside that, there is a very clear call from a number of countries that it cannot just be the mitigation work programme. There needs to be a follow-up on all elements of the Glasgow climate pact—for example, the commitment to coal phase-down and the inefficient fossil fuel subsidies phase-out. We also need to look at the NDC revisit and strengthening, which has been covered previously.
All those elements need to combine specifically on the part about keeping 1.5 in reach. As the COP President has said, a number of the other work programmes go through Sharm el-Sheikh but do not necessarily conclude there. We will need to show that progress is being made on them as well as, as we have just discussed, on the loss and damage funding arrangements.
Q68 Alexander Stafford: Building on that, how are you working with the incoming Egyptian COP presidency on the handover? Could you talk a bit about that, please?
Alok Sharma: The formal handover will take place on 6 November, but we have been working throughout the year with our Egyptian colleagues. In January, straight after COP26, I went to Egypt. I met with Minister Shoukry. We met with their team. We set out very openly the challenges we had in organising COP26 and in getting certain issues over the line.
Throughout the year, we have been very open in providing our support and advice on issues. Ultimately, this is Egypt’s COP. They will do things in their own way, which is right and proper. Alison may want to comment on how often you talk to your official counterparts and on the negotiation issues.
Alison Campbell: Yes, we are in very regular contact with our Egyptian counterparts. All members of our negotiating team are in touch with their counterparts on the individual issues. I was in Alexandria last week for a heads of delegation meeting on mitigation and finance, which the Egyptians organised in their preparations. We have been supporting them through all of that. There has been very regular contact at all levels, really.
Q69 Alexander Stafford: How would you describe your working relationship? Is it good? Are there any concerns?
Alok Sharma: We have a perfectly decent working relationship. As I said, every country will have its own approach to how it does things. We set out how we did things. Egypt will decide on how it wants to do things.
It is not just the Egyptians. We have also been talking to and having regular dialogue with colleagues in the UAE as well. As Peter said, that is a stocktake. It is going to be a very big COP. From a UK perspective, we have been very keen to share our learnings and our experience.
Q70 Alexander Stafford: We have heard about some of the hard crackdowns on civil society groups in Egypt recently. Is that something you have discussed at all with the COP presidency team—how they are planning to engage with civil society groups for COP?
Alok Sharma: When I was there in January and in subsequent conversations, I have been very clear that at COP26 we ensured there was full access for civil society. We even sponsored the indigenous peoples’ pavilion as well. The right to protest at every COP is also really important and needs to be respected. We will see how Egypt does it. From the conversations I have had, they understand that it is very important for civil society to feel able to have its views heard at every individual COP.
Chair: Thank you. We have timed out. That is the end of the final session of the Committee on COP26. On behalf of the nine Select Committees of the House of Commons that came together to do this work, thank you, Alok, and your team for your engagement with parliamentary scrutiny over the past year, including the questions you took on the Floor of the House of Commons. We thank you for your work. It has been a busy year for you and the team. We wish you all the best in the run-up to COP27. Thank you to all of you. I now bring this session to an end.