Some recent developments mean that the outlook for the Lima climate conference may be more positive than expected, but question marks remain.
On the positive side
The recent announcements by China and the US hold the promise of new momentum for the negotiations. The money several countries pledged recently for the Green Climate Fund is beginning to build confidence in the new fund. Interesting proposals such as Brazil’s vision of a “concentric” approach to sharing the effort to combat climate change among countries are helping to move the negotiations forward.
An important positive trend over the last year has been growing acceptance of the need to phase out fossil fuel emissions and phase in renewable energy. It is reflected in proposals for a long-term decarbonization pathway in the elements for a draft negotiating text that the ADP Co-Chairs have prepared for Lima. (The elements are not a list of proposals by the Co-Chairs – they reflect the proposals and opinions that countries have expressed in the talks).
Another positive trend is that increasing mentions of 1.5°C seem to be cropping up in addition to the 2°C temperature limit. Vulnerable countries have argued strongly that the 2°C limit is too high to avoid severely damaging impacts.
The signals that there may be an emerging trend towards recognition that 2°C is not safe enough reinforce how important it is to construct the 2015 agreement so that it drives and rewards stronger mitigation ambition. This is where FIELD’s idea of a special category for countries with above-adequate nationally determined contributions (NDCs) comes in. It would reward and encourage countries that are willing to show climate leadership.
Question marks over Lima
The positive developments will be tested against the forces of inertia in Lima. The status quo bias tends to rule in multilateral environmental negotiations – arguably in particular in the climate negotiations - and that will be one of many challenges.
As mentioned in earlier blogs, the glaring gap where there should be an effective review system is one of the greatest question marks relating to the 2015 climate agreement. Fixing that needs serious thought, including progress in Lima.
The first Multilateral Assessment of developed countries’ 2020 targets, which will take place in Lima under the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), may give an idea of what some countries have in mind when it comes to review.
It is not just COP 20 in Lima
All countries need to do more before 2020, when the new agreement is meant to come into effect.
To maintain trust and to avoid playing into the hands of some opponents of stronger climate action developed countries need to demonstrate that they are taking the lead in fighting climate change before 2020. The Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was meant to be part of that.
Most people seem to have forgotten that Lima is not just about the UNFCCC and its Conference of the Parties (COP). You don’t hear many mentions of CMP10.
Yet achieving the Doha amendment was very important for many developing countries. The faltering process towards bringing it into force could turn out to be a flashpoint.
Making the 2015 climate agreement better - civil society to the rescue?
Countries have signalled that they prefer a bottom-up agreement based on self-defined NDCs. How to improve what might be a seriously flawed design and make the agreement strong enough to slow climate change to a safer level is the big question.
Civil society could help to fill the likely gap in the place where the 2015 agreement should have a strong review system. Not only that: strong rules to involve civil society in the 2015 agreement could help to make the agreement more than the sum of its probably rather weak parts.
It should include rules to help civil society organizations and other non-state actors to be part of implementation and start new initiatives of their own.
The recent special report by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) argued for democratizing the international climate regime. Strong rules for civil society involvement is part of that.
As the effort to fight climate change intensifies and as the influence of the international climate regime extends it may also be important to think about other aspects of international climate democracy. For example, FIELD has argued that long, complicated and unclear COP decisions are unfair to many countries.
Finding ways in which civil society organizations and other non-state actors can boost the 2015 agreement won’t work if negotiators just pass the buck to them. For example some recent country proposals on review of INDCs seem to be based on a hope that civil society and expert organizations will take up the slack where governments aren’t putting strong review rules in place.
Instead negotiators should make sure that the 2015 agreement includes strong rules for civil society participation. That should begin in Lima. The elements for a draft negotiating text don’t include this yet – time for countries to put detailed proposals on the table.
|
The Climate Action Hub
Building upon the momentum generated by the People's Climate March, The Climate Action Hub focuses the energy and ideas that converged around the 2014 UN Climate Summit to engage civil participation in local, regional and global climate action. The Hub showcases NGOs, eco writers, scientists, bloggers and YOU in a group mission to amplify messaging and promote action on such issues as climate justice, sustainable development and clean energy. It will also serve as a forum for educating and informing the wider public and expand the civil movement to ensure success at the 2015 UNFCCC Paris Climate Summit. Please add any information on climate actions in comments below.
The Climate Action Hub at Daily Kos seeks volunteer ambassadors of climate activism to work on our 'eco swat team' in local communities and here at Daily Kos to disseminate information about the growing role of civil society in climate solutions. Join us here at Daily Kos to contribute your skills and experience. We need all hands on deck!
|