A tale of two COPs
What happened at COP25 and what comes next year
By Mette Kahlin McVeigh, the director of the Climate Program at Fores.
COP25, also known as the UN climate negotiations, officially closed on 15 December in Madrid. This COP was always going to be a difficult one. The agenda items for the meeting were never going to be able to live up to the expectations of the youth and others who have demanded climate action. In that sense, this COP has been a dichotomy.
The goal of COP25 was to finalise the remaining nitty-gritty details of the Paris Agreement that were left to sort out after 2015. In fact, it isn’t crunch time till next year. That is when all of the countries will have to submit national climate commitments and declare how much they will contribute towards decreasing emissions to ensure we meet the Paris goal of keeping global warming to below 2°C. These commitments are known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs in UN terms.
Due to this COP being so technical, there was a sense that the meeting needed to signal to the world that countries were also focused on raising ambition (which means more and faster emissions reductions). This became a big sticking point, which the Ministers argued over into the late hours of the night.
When the draft text came out on the morning of 14 December, it disappointingly only stated that countries should be “invited” to “communicate” instead of “update” or “enhance”. This may seem to be just words to the untrained climate negotiator’s eye, but the devil is in the detail. In fact, the latter wording would have signaled a weakening of the Paris Agreement. In the end, those advocating ambition thankfully won, although the win was not by much.
But, even before that text was released, there was a feeling among us observers that there wasn’t any sense of urgency in the negotiations. For example, nine agenda items were simply pushed to the next COP meeting quite early on in the process. Even though some of these decisions are not needed until next year, or even after that, it left many feeling frustrated. One of the issues moved to next year was how emissions are transparently reported. These talks broke down, and China is often pointed to as the reason for this. However, it seemed like negotiators were near a solution, so whilst the postponement was not optimal, as long as there is a decision next year this won’t weaken the Paris deal.
One of the two other issues that became sticking points in the negotiations was a decision on how to to deal with the loss and damage caused by climate change. There were some calls for additional finance to help developing countries recover from damages caused by climate impacts. This got pushback by developed countries, as they fear opening the floodgates of being financially responsible to the developing world if such a text went through. In the end, some wording was accepted by all, and both the vulnerable island nations and developed countries were happy. But, one detail about who governs this work is left for next year.
The final sticking-point issue was dubbed “Article 6”, and it basically encompasses voluntary carbon emissions markets that could enable countries to meet their pledged CO2 cuts by trading reductions with other countries. Around half of all NDCs mention some kind of market as one of the ways to achieve their emissions reduction goals. These approaches have the potential to drive cheaper emissions reductions while generating financing to transition to climate neutrality. But — and this is a BIG “but” — those rules must be designed stringently so it isn’t possible to cheat in such a market. One way to cheat is by double-counting. This is when both the buyer and seller of carbon credits count the same emissions reduction in their national climate targets.
Another concern is that the emission reductions under the old Kyoto Protocol could be allowed to be carried forward and counted toward countries’ climate commitments after 2020. The problem there is that “Article 6” is a completely new system with hopefully better and stricter rules. As such, NGOs and many countries alike agreed that it was better to risk getting no deal, rather than a bad deal on “Article 6”. No deal is what happened in the end, and the decision has been postponed to next year.
All in all, the end result was not great. But, there is still hope, and I, for one, refuse to give up. Next year’s COP will be in Glasgow. Due to Brexit, the Brits have everything to win in ensuring that COP becomes a true success and ensure that the world gets back on track. COP26 will be a great opportunity for the UK to say, “Never mind Brexit.” They will once again be able to display themselves as world leaders after the Brexit debacle — not only to the world, but also to their own population.
The UK’s Foreign Office probably also has one of the top five best networks of embassies and diplomats skilled in lobbying ahead of COP26. In fact, I am told they already hired an extra hundred Foreign Office staff and another hundred in other UK departments to work on COP26. They will, therefore, be able to prepare the ground for the next COP in a way that was never done, for various reasons, for this COP.
So, my concluding message is; yes, get frustrated about COP25, but also recognise the limitations this year’s COP had upon itself. Then look upon COP26 with promise and optimism and work hard for the climate to make this wish come true!
About the author, Mette Kahlin McVeigh
Mette Kahlin McVeigh is the director of the Climate Program at Fores — Forum for Reforms, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability — an NGO and green think tank in Sweden. With a background in politics and communication, Mette is well versed in the international climate negotiations, Sweden’s energy policy and the Swedish climate debate.
About We Don’t Have Time
We Don’t Have Time is the world’s largest social network for climate action. Together we are the solution to the climate crisis.
But we are running out of time.
Join us: www.wedonthavetime.org
