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.
Linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans across the Latin American landmass has often been presented as one of the holy grails of development for the region. While China’s idea of a ‘Nicaraguan Canal’ has made headlines globally, another major infrastructure project is in the works further south: the Bi-Oceanic Railway. The idea has already spurred transboundary environmental cooperation, but the public is still in the dark.
Using a progressive environmental security concept can help to tackle a range of environmental issues related to armed conflict, such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, tensions over natural resources, conflict pollution, and damage to ecosystems. The environment can actually play a role in peacebuilding. This article briefly outlines why such an inclusive and environmental protection approach is needed and how it could be implemented.
Climate action and free trade have been perceived as contrary agendas for a long time. Despite more and more governments seeing tremendous potential for win-win outcomes, aligning trade and climate has become harder. This is due to changes in our current geopolitical landscape, as Christian Hübner explains in light of the upcoming G20 summit.
Human activity has caused the temperature of the Earth and its atmosphere to rise by about 1°C above pre-industrial levels, triggering fundamental changes to the planet’s physical and social landscapes. On 8 October an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that temperatures were rising faster than expected, and that 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels could occur as early as 2030.