Slow but Steady Progress
A Reflection on the UNFCCC COP-20 Outcomes
The latest United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference, also known as the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20), was a two-week affair in Lima that concluded in early hours of Sunday morning — 30 hours late — with an approved draft agreement on a global climate response. The 5-page document, which calls for all countries to establish individual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plans, is meant to be the solid foundation on which a legally binding pact can be established at the COP-21 Paris conference one year from now.
Reactions to the outcome are mixed. The simple fact that there is an agreement at all is a form of success, however many are disappointed by lackluster language in the text. Environmental groups have criticized the agreement for not being aggressive enough and not addressing adaptation and financing issues. Furthermore, they argue that it falls short of responding to the overall goal of cutting emissions enough to keep global temperature rise below the 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) threshold.
I empathize with the critics, as climate change is happening at a faster pace than the negotiations. While delegates continue to deliberate, extreme climate events are already causing devastating damage around the world. We were reminded of this grave reality midway through the conference, as Typhoon Hagupit tore through the Philippines last week.
However, international environmental negotiations are by nature a slow and steady process that fundamentally resists radical change. Even in the best of cases, it takes time. The Montreal Protocol, commonly used as the poster child of successful multilateral environmental agreement, did not instigate sweeping measures at once, but (as pointed out in Libby’s post) established the path for gradual changes over time. The established structure of the UNFCCC’s multilateral negotiation process makes sweeping transformations nearly impossible and, for better or for worse, necessitates gradual change. Therefore, expecting anything different from a relatively vague draft text would be exceptionally hopeful. But this does not mean that change will not come. It will happen; it simply does not happen all at once.
At the Lima conference there were advances in the realm of both mitigation and adaptation that are worth getting excited about. While they may not be explicit measures listed in the draft text, they are the first steps to larger moves. And in this way, it is worthwhile progress.
Movement on Mitigation
The agreement signed last week, called the Lima Call for Climate Action or the Lima Accord, requires all countries — both developed and developing — to state their individual pledges, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), for a collective global GHG emissions mitigation strategy. This is a step forward from previous agreements that required only developed countries to establish reduction targets.
Throughout the negotiations, developing countries were understandably resistant to a universal requirement given the economic burden of such a pledge, but conceded upon the inclusion of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and a note that the INDCs are dependent on “respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.”
While the expectation of INDCs from all parties is a landmark development, many critics argue that the Accord lacks rigor and is far from reducing emissions by the necessary amount. It calls for quantifiable information on a voluntary basis only and does not prescribe the methodology used to measure emissions. Furthermore as the New York Times reports, since the plans will not take effect until 2020, the strategy is expected to reduce emissions by only half of what is needed to combat temperature rises beyond the 2 degree Celsius threshold.
Even so, one must keep in mind that to enable buy-in from all countries, the INDC requirements required some flexibility. Now that the rule has been established the negotiators can work to sort out logistics to make the expectations feasible for everyone. Now that it has been codified, the ruling can garner the support necessary to establish more specific requirements.
Adaptation is Evolving (Slowly)
Adaptation measures are arguably more than a few steps behind mitigation strategies in the climate talks. While there is a quantified target driving action on mitigation — namely, the 2-degree threshold — no such objective exists for adaption. Despite calls by some to establish a global adaptation goal, the issue remains be seen as a national rather than a global problem.
While developed countries have committed to mobilizing $100 billion of climate finance by 2020 (and reached the $10 billion mark at the Lima talks), the Accord does not outline a path for realistically achieving this fundraising target in time; nor does it address adaptation financing under the purview of the INDCs. Furthermore, the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage, a critical instrument for compensating developing countries for destruction due to climate change caused by other, is only nominally mentioned in the new agreement. All in all, the language pertaining to adaptation and compensation is vague and does not require any concrete commitments. Without any quantifiable goals, many argue, these issues run the risk of being ignored.
At the same time, however, adaptation has been gaining significant prominence in the climate talks. In the Lima Accord text it is listed next to mitigation as a priority, validating its importance. This has not always the case. As developing countries are forced to deal with the effects of immediate climate change, adaptation and resiliency have become increasingly critical, increasing the need for time-pressing solutions. Developing countries certainly got this message across in Lima, as adaptation and Loss & Damage were two of the largest points of contention in the negotiations. So there is hope. Just as the UNFCCC’s approach to mitigation has tightened over time, so will its adaptation measures. The only question is, will it be soon enough?
The Road Ahead
It is easy to be cynical about the outcomes of the COP-20. Climate change is already happening and waiting for the UNFCCC’s painfully slow process seems like a recipe for imminent disaster. However, having observed the COP-20 talks over the last two weeks, I am still optimistic. The text in the Lima Accord is only the surface level of information driving the the global climate response. It is the foundation of the climate movement, giving it legitimacy and credibility. Even if specific goals or requirements are not explicitly stated, simply by including certain language in the Accord, it gain relevance. In this way, the implicit message is as important as the explicit statements.
While the Lima Accord may be considered “watered-down” by critics — and I agree, it is — it sets the stage for future measures. So, as much as radical changes are desired, the slow and steady progress of the Lima talks is a still step forward. The UNFCCC’s process may not deliver drastic measures overnight, but through patient and persistent deliberation it is making a difference. And with that perspective, we turn our sights to Paris with high hopes.
