“Leadership matters.”
As the Glasgow climate change negotiations wind down, I share lessons and best practices I have seen observing and participating for 30 years in climate negotiations:
Basing decisions on the science is the only way forward. All the successful COPs and the agreements that emerged from them followed IPCC assessment reports. Progress on technical issues from LULUCF to the 1.5 target has been assisted by IPCC special reports. Some more attention to the timing of these reports might be good so that they are strategically placed to influence, as they should, negotiation decisions.
Non-state actors – from civil society organizations, business, and industry associations, local governments, indigenous peoples, women, and representatives of other constituencies, etcetera, have contributed significantly to the process. They are a source of ideas and legitimation of agreements. Their side events and parallel meetings/conferences provide essential space for discussing proposals and finding solutions to some issues.
The negotiation process must not be so rigid in agenda development in the climate negotiations. In this regard, COP 21 in Paris opened the door for inclusion of human rights and climate justice language into the climate regime.
Flexibility in setting negotiation frameworks and deadlines is critical. Two years is clearly not enough to complete a negotiation process. If agreement is not possible, as in the case of COP 6 in The Hague, COP 15 in Copenhagen, and COP 25 in Madrid, the better option is to adjourn without agreement and convene again in six to twelve months with solutions ready to be proposed.
Acknowledging the diversity and unity of developing countries in the climate change process is important. There are issues like climate finance, technology development, and capacity building where developing countries are possible and desirable. In these issues, the Group of 77 and China is still relevant and effective. But there are also areas, like mitigation, where developing countries can negotiate better in different or new formations.
Finding a strategy to engage with the United States and similar countries (Brazil today and sometimes Canada and Australia) where the politics of climate change is complicated and unpredictable is of paramount importance.
Leadership matters in the climate change negotiations. Angela Merkel in COP 1, Ambassador Estrada and VP Al Gore in Kyoto, and the Foreign Ministers of Mexico, South Africa, and France are the best examples of how strong and competent leadership result in good outcomes. The leadership of the United Kingdom is crucial in Glasgow.
Related to this is how to engage heads of states. Kyoto and Paris are good examples of what can work. Copenhagen – where President Obama and others directly wrestled with the text – must be avoided. It appears that Glasgow was a success although the leaders of China and Russia did not attend.
Finally, one cannot underemphasize the importance of transparency and inclusiveness in the climate negotiations. Climate change is a global challenge and requires all hands. The UNFCCC is a universal agreement and Parties and stakeholders expect to participate in its decisions. Without transparency and inclusiveness, UNFCCC decisions and agreements will be illegitimate.
Some people describe the UNFCCC negotiations as a one step forward, two steps backward process. This is obviously tragic as we face what is now a global climate emergency. By learning lessons and following best practices from 30 years’ experience of climate negotiations, we could reverse this and leapfrog to where we need to be to decisively address this emergency.
In a working paper that I co-authored with colleagues Yamide Dagnet, Katia Simeonova, Nathan Cogswell, Mima Holt, and Nate Warszawski of the World Resources Institute entitled “Toward more effective implementation of the Paris Agreement: Learning from 30 years of experience,” we conclude that the implementation of the Paris Agreement is reliant on strong multilateral cooperation among nations. We observe:
“As a result, the multilateral regime is weakened as countries turn inward due to increased nationalism, economic downturn, and, most recently, the global pandemic, making it more challenging to secure domestic buy-in that ensures that countries meet international obligations. This drives inequity in the regime. When developed countries and high emitters are unable or refuse to increase ambition and mobilize financial support, it becomes more difficult for climate-vulnerable countries to develop sustainably and strengthen their resilience against climate risks. To counteract this, vulnerable countries have continuously championed ambitious climate action, engaged in progressive coalitions, and enjoined developed countries to follow their lead, as well as meet their climate finance commitments, in the name of solidarity.”
Indeed, as we also point out in our working paper, leadership is critical in the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Leadership within the UN climate process by COP presidencies and that of non-state actors like from civil society and business has shaped the corresponding implementation architecture, while country leadership is crucial to advancing domestic national climate action. Hopefully, all of these are present in Glasgow and we will get this weekend good and solid outcomes.
Website: tonylavina.com Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs
