Maybe Angela Merkel was just smart as usual when she declined the UN Secretary-General's invitation for the 2014 Climate Summit in New York. Maybe the German Chancellor, being a self-proclaimed political pragmatic, sensed that the Summit would not produce any tangible results. Well, whatever, it is not my intention to discuss whether the results of the Summit were tangible or not. Or whether the event may have helped to create some momentum ahead of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the UNFCCC in Paris, in 2015, which is supposed to deliver a new global climate agreement.
Instead, I intend to argue that the approach of the Summit in general would have been better placed if it had focused exclusively on determined actors and partnerships that are taking the lead. The traditional strategy pursued in climate diplomacy has been to get all major emitters around the table and push them towards agreeing on greenhouse gas reductions. According to this logic, the climate negotiations are conducted in the spirit of disarmament talks: “If you don't reduce the number of your weapons (read 'emissions') I won't do it either!.” With the difference that, in contrast to disarmament talks, negotiators in climate diplomacy have nothing to threaten with…
Consequently, for almost 25 years now, ever since negotiations started on the UNFCCC, some good-willing countries (and an immensely active NGO community) have made tremendous efforts to convince a number of other countries that the world would be better off with a common (albeit differentiated) effort to combat climate change. For almost 25 years now, climate protection has been treated like a 'burden' that must be 'shared'. And for almost 25 years now, this approach has failed to produce a treaty that is up to the challenge – and consequently it has failed to reverse the trend in emissions. In fact, emissions are growing faster today than ever in human history...
The UN Climate Conference (or COP 15) in Copenhagen, in 2009, finally exposed the basic flaw of the system. It provided ample evidence that it is simply not possible to move in unison on a contentious issue like climate change - where large fortunes are at stake, where powerful industries are threatened and where political careers can be gained or lost by the position toward this issue. That it is simply not possible to move forward by consensus in the framework of a treaty that comprises over 190 States with very different interests. This worked for a while thanks to public pressure and a very creative and effective civil society – but it does not work anymore.
For the complete article, please see IISD.
To fight illegal coca plantations and conflict actors’ income sources, Colombia’s president wants to loosen the ban on aerial glyphosate spraying. However, considering the dynamics of organised crime, the use of toxic herbicides will not only fail to achieve its aim, it will have many adverse effects for the environment and human health, fundamentally undermining ways to reach peace in the country. International cooperation and national policy-makers need to account for this peace spoiler.
As India grapples with the worsening impacts of climate change, the need to strengthen its adaptation efforts has become more significant than ever. Climate diplomacy and mainstreaming climate adaptation into the most vulnerable sectors could provide some solutions to overcoming barriers, such as the lack of sustainable funding.
“Climate Security risks will materialise in very different ways and forms, whether we talk about Lake Chad or about the Arctic, Bangladesh and the Small Island Developing States,” said the EU’s Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Joao Vale de Almeida, in his opening remarks. “But for the EU, there is no doubt, as underlined in 2016 in our Global Strategy, and reaffirmed by the 28 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, that climate change is a major threat to the security of the EU and to global peace and security more generally,” he said.
The challenges facing the international community are growing while the willingness to cooperate seems to be waning. Foreign policy must help bridge this gap. One way to accomplish this is by pushing forward a major achievement of multilateralism: the 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. At a side event during the 2019 High-Level Political Forum, diplomats and policy experts discussed the role of foreign policy in the global sustainability architecture.