Climate diplomats need to prepare for a hot summer. Leaving Bonn mid-May after two weeks of complex negotiations, the current status of the negotiation text shows how much work remains to be done. Therefore, negotiators have scheduled another week of discussions for early September in Thailand’s capital to close some of the gaps and to ensure that a huge step towards implementation of the Paris Agreement can be taken at COP24 in Katowice.
At least three issues are of major relevance for the current stalemate.
No text – no rules: It became clear early in the negotiations in Bonn that there would be no negotiating text by the end of the two weeks. However, without such a basis, agreement on a substantial rule book for Paris Agreement implementation at COP24 is simply not feasible. One spotlight is on the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) to deliver proposals on contested items such as climate pledges and transparency of activities. The discussions on pledges are focussing e.g. on what elements should be included in the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and what kind of guidance should be established. The transparency item refers to the nature of reporting on action, including support in form of climate finance.
Finance – a lack of predictability: Money is always a crucial element of trust building and there are still quite a number of open questions at the moment. During the negotiations in Bonn in May one could see that it is currently not so much a question of whether there will be sufficient resources available, but how the available resources are reported to ensure some predictability for developing countries. Article 9.5 asks developed countries to review and report on their financial commitments every two years, whereas all other countries should do so on a voluntary basis. Apparently, a number of states are not able or willing to ensure clarity in this regard at the moment, though more transparency could serve as a major builder of trust.
Responsibilities – same, same but different: One of the key reasons for the success in Paris was overcoming the dispute about differentiation of commitments between developed and developing countries. In Bonn, disputes between China, India and others on the one hand and the EU, US and Japan on the other, became obvious – mainly on the question of whether there is to be one set of rules (favoured by developed countries) or two sets, as was proposed for example by India to consider historic responsibilities.
Options to take the lead
In the light of these, partly substantial, differences, renewed leadership is required to create new momentum for the kind of compromises reached in Paris. And there are sufficient opportunities to do so. First, issue-specific round tables will be organised before Bangkok to pave the way toward a concrete negotiating text that is perceived to be party driven. In addition to these more informal formats, there are several high-level opportunities for climate diplomats to enter further discussion and to explain what kind of leadership role they are ready to play:
There is no doubt that Poland’s COP presidency will be among the first to welcome major progress in the weeks to come, not waiting until December in Katowice for high-level engagement.
Several climate security studies have assessed the risks of climate change to security and examined potential foreign policy responses, but the connection between climate change and foreign policy remains underexplored. The new Climate Diplomacy Report of the German Foreign Office takes up the challenge.
Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan are currently engaged in vital talks over the dispute relating to the filling and operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile River. While non-African actors are increasingly present in the negotiations, the African Union (AU) is playing a marginal role.
Climate change was more central than ever at this year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC), the leading international forum for senior military, security and foreign policy leaders. The release of the inaugural “World Climate and Security Report 2020” (WCSR 2020) by the Expert Group of the International Military Council on Climate and Security (IMCCS) should help policymakers take effective action.
The mission of the Munich Security Conference is to “address the world’s most pressing security concerns”. These days, that means climate security: climate change is the ultimate threat multiplier, and anyone discussing food security, political instability, migration, or competition over resources should be aware of the climate change pressures that are so often at the root of security problems.