Philosophy Professor Idil Boran served as a witness to history and an observer delegate for York University during international negotiations on climate change.
On Nov. 30, with hopes of limiting greenhouse gases and their damaging effects on the planet, representatives from nations around the world descended upon Paris, France, for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Boran, whose work focuses on political philosophy and public policy with interests in international relations and negotiations on climate change, provided LA&PS with updates of her experience as COP21 events evolved over two significant weeks that will influence our global future.
Stay tuned for an analysis of the Paris Agreement and more research output.
The Paris Agreement establishes the foundations of long-term cooperation on climate
December 12, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
At 7:26 p.m. the Conference of the Parties gave support to the Paris Agreement. This is a turning point in the global climate effort.
COP21 running on extended time
December 12, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
5:30 p.m. (CET)
Comité de Paris convenes, after having reviewed the final text.
12:10 p.m. (CET)
H.E. Laurent Fabius opened the plenary with a moving speech. He opened his speech with a firm note that the end is in sight. He announced that a new text, after arduous work, is now submitted and will be posted as soon as the session is over.
The new text, noted Laurent Fabius, is promising. It is balanced, differentiated, and adheres to the mandate of the Durban Platform, the process that launched the present round of negotiations in 2011 in Durban.
Most of all, he added, the proposed text sets the limit of acceptable global rise in temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It establishes five year intervals for assessment and review process. In sum, the text is ambitious and respects important requirements of climate justice.
One final step needs to be taken to conclude the work. The parties to the conference now have to accept the proposed text. This is the decisive moment.
He stressed that everything was done to create the best conditions for work, where everyone’s voice was heard. And everyone worked extremely hard.
In an arrestingly moving tone, he ended by saying that we have a unique opportunity before us. This is the moment of truth. If in case we did not succeed, he stressed, it is the very credibility of multilateralism that would be in doubt. Our children and grandchildren would not understand why we could not make it, and they certainly won’t forgive us.
Stay tuned.
11:30 a.m. (CET)
The negotiations are on extended time. There will be a plenary of Commité de Paris in a few minutes.
[accordions title=”” active=”” event=”click” disabled=false autoheight=”true”]
[accordion title=”Getting there… — Dec 11″]
December 11, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
5:45 p.m. (CET)
All entry badges have been extended to Saturday, December 12. A plenary is expected to take place then.
12:30 p.m. (CET)
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which came into force in 1994 after being adopted in 1992, embraces a principled differentiation of responsibilities between countries depending of level of development and economic circumstances. Since the new agreement has to be developed and signed “under the Convention”, it has to be consistent with this principle.
There has been general convergence, so far, over the view that a rigid, binary differentiation between developed and developing countries does not reflect new realities. In order to move forward effectively, the global climate effort needs the cooperation of developing countries that are major emitters, as long as developed countries take the lead.
On this reasoning, differentiation of responsibilities has to be much more nuanced. It has to also apply among developing countries (rather than strictly between developed and developing countries in a binary fashion).
Where parties have difficulty finding common ground is over what this implies in practice. Some developing countries are arguing that the draft text is “unbalanced” and does not reflect the spirit of the Convention. Some still want to see a binary differentiation. A subset regards the idea of working with a more nuanced differentiation of responsibilities as a reason for developed countries to do less and putting pressure on developing countries to do more.
Work is done in smaller groups for effectiveness, without causing any party to feel excluded. In these sessions, parties are discouraged to keep restating their position. They are expected to contemplate what they would find acceptable.
Although this is a difficult process, and some differences persist, the French presidency of the COP consistently receives praise on the rigorous and inclusive way in which it runs the process.
9:00 a.m. (CET)
Overnight negotiations ended just before daybreak. COP21 will go into overtime. It has been extended of 24 hours. There might be further extensions.
There are only a handful of unresolved issues, but they are particularly tough ones to resolve. Pretty much everything is done in camera at this point. We are waiting for the announcement of the next stocktaking session.
This was expected and is part of the normal proceedings of the conference. So, there is no need to read too much into it. Experienced journalists here at the COP know that silence is a sign that the process has entered “crunch time”. This, in many respects, is the most interesting time. Much can happen within this period and every hour counts. We will find out soon enough.
Stay there. More will follow.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”Long nights in the city of lights — Dec 10″]
December 10, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
Anyone who has lived in Paris would know that mornings are dark in the fall and winter, well into 8:45 a.m., and beyond 9:00 a.m. on a rainy day. This is due to the workings of standardized Central European time zone. A glimmer of dawn starts only after 8:00 a.m., and so the morning commute is always in the company of city lights. And they are particularly sparkly this time of the year. The workday starts, then, with a feeling of an “extended night.”
This extended night feeling becomes even more pronounced as the negotiators continue to work overnight and into the morning. Last night was one such night in the city of lights, where negotiators stayed on looking for convergence over various aspects of the draft text.
The positive news is that progress is being made. It is a cleaner text. Nevertheless, some of the persistent differences remain. It was noted at the stocktaking session that this is not yet the final version. It can’t be, as it still contains many square brackets and options. But it does look more “workable.”
The new agreement has many features. And one of its important elements is a system of “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) it puts in place. The system of INDCs is designed to confer some flexibility to countries in making contributions. The goal is to achieve long-term cooperation, one that is to become increasingly more ambitious over time. To ensure rigour, this way of getting the world to work together needs to be supplemented with a well designed and objective system of “assessment and review.” There are still unreconciled differences over how this is to be designed.
One question is: how soon the first review is to take place? Since there is a pre-2020 ambition gap, it is in the interest of everyone collectively to schedule the first review for sometime well before 2020, say around 2018. This is a matter still under debate.
Another question is: what exactly should the reviews focus on? Should they focus only on pledges (intentions)? Or should they focus both on intentions and results? Common sense would say the latter. But again, this opens up a whole range of questions.
Differentiation comes up in this discussion, as it does in so many facets of the agreement. Should the rules of the assessment and review, and expectations attached to these, be applied in the same way universally? Or should developing countries be allowed some exemptions or lenience? If so, should this apply to all developing countries in the same way? Or should it vary based on development needs and circumstances? The reality is that developing countries form a heterogeneous group, with wildly varying development and emission levels. Whether this entails differentiation of responsibilities among developing countries is a thorny question animating the talks at COP21.
These are but a few of the questions arising from the text in preparation. There are many others. Negotiators will keep working all day, and probably overnight, before tomorrow’s deadline.
And so, Paris is for lights; it is also for hard work.
Stay tuned for more updates from Le Bourget-Paris
Photo: UNFCCC photo desk
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”Climate-related activities at COP21:Africa Day — Dec 10″]
A day of meetings and panels on Africa’s readiness to contribute
December 10, 2015
by Idil Boran and Joanna Patouris
Le Bourget-Paris
On December 8, the UNFCCC celebrated Africa Day. Africa plays an important role, and has a prominent voice, in the UNFCCC. The purpose of the event was to understand climate-related challenges African countries face and highlight existing solutions from around the continent. Presentations were on different topics, but they all converged on what it takes to lay the path towards mitigating and adapting the burdens of climate change.
In the opening statement of Africa Day, Mr. Carlos Lopes, Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa set the tone of the event: “Africa is not here to beg, Africa is here to be part of the solution.”
The event elaborated on the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which 53 African countries submitted prior to COP21. This substantial number of INDCs submissions is regarded to be an important step further. It reveals strong intent from African nations, while ensuring that their priorities in adaptation and mitigation are reflected in the final agreement.
Speakers throughout the event emphasized that African countries are determined to operationalize the Convention and to ensure that the agreement is fair. The issue of equity and differentiation is something that African countries take very seriously. It was clear from the presentations that, for African nations, the language of equity in the agreement must reflect historical responsibility.
Additionally, guest speakers referred to Africa’s readiness to take on its share within consideration of its circumstances, further calling for the need of financial arrangements within the agreement to be clear and binding.
Africa Day was an afternoon rich in invigorating presentations. But the importance of Africa in the negotiations goes far beyond this event. It encompasses the entire process.
Note on co-author: Joanna Patouris is pursuing a Masters in Environmental Studies at York University. Her research focuses on climate resilience and development justice in Sub Saharan Africa. Her interests include climate change policy, gender equity and human rights in the context of the UNFCCC. She has served as an observer and civil society representative to the UNFCCC since Warsaw in 2013. Joanna attends COP21 as a member of the delegation for Swaziland.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”Climate-related activities at COP21: Youth Climate Report – Dec 9″]
December 9, 2015, 6:00 p.m. (CET)
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
As most consultations are done in closed meetings at this point, this is a good time to find out what else is going on at Le Bourget, the official venue of COP21. COP meetings are very large events hosting more than the multilateral negotiations. At every annual meeting, there are multiple parallel sessions and events that run alongside the negotiations.
Last week, I had the privilege to attend the screening of Youth Climate Report 6 (YCR), produced by our very own Mark Terry from the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies (LA&PS) and directed by York alumnus Ray Kocur.
YCR is an ongoing project where people from all around the world are interviewed, discussing issues of climate change from different angles. A selection from these reports are put together into a film each year. The film is screened at each annual meeting of the COP, hosted by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). The insights from around the world are of special value to delegates.
This year, UNEP was joined by the Canadian Delegation in hosting the screening of the sixth edition of Youth Climate Report. The screening takes place on a continual basis in multiple locations, including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Pavilion, the Rio Connections Pavilion during the two-week conference, and at the Netherlands Pavilion on the closing day of COP21.
Those interested in the project, can find out more about it here. The highlight of the website is the YCR video map of the world, an interactive map showing the whole range of interviews can be traced to their locations on a world map and viewed online.
It was a great experience screening Youth Climate Report here at COP21. Thank you, Mark, and the entire YCR team!
Photo: courtesy of Mark Terry
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”Paris (will) (might) (can) deliver (a successful) (reasonably acceptable) (weak)(strong) (an) outcome – Dec 9″]
December 9, 2015, 6:00 p.m. (CET)
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
A new draft text has been submitted this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. It still contains many bracketed pieces. The mood is interestingly upbeat, however. Some commentators are somewhat optimistic. Others are more cautious, but still hopeful.
A stocktaking session is scheduled for 8:00 p.m. More insights will be gained at the Plenary.
Stay tuned.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=” ‘Comité de Paris’ reports — Dec 9″]
December 9, 2015, 11:00 a.m. (CET)
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
With inimitable finesse and command, Laurent Fabius, French Minister of Foreign Affairs and President of the COP, led the meeting of “Comité de Paris” on December 8, at 7 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to report on progress. Information on “Comité de Paris” can be found in my previous post below.
In his opening remarks, President Fabius noted that to the four main working groups, four new ones were added. The Comité now comprises eight minister-faciliated working groups. The list of groups and the reports delivered can be found here.
Reports suggest that progress is being made and yet more work still needs to be done. President Fabius heard all the reports and proposed a work plan for the remainder of the week. As part of this plan, he requested submission of a newer and “cleaner” text by 1 p.m. on December 9.
Probably the most contentious issue at COP21 is over differentiation. This was also why negotiations in Lima, the previous COP, were so tough. The debate revolves around distribution of burdens between developed and developing countries. This is a very difficult issue to resolve, and yet crucial for the process to move forward, as it is the keystone of the debate over equity in the global climate effort.
In the next few days, I will write a “special edition” post on differentiation and equity. In it, I will outline the history of the debate over equity in the UNFCCC, the controversies over differentiation, the main fault lines in Paris, and why this question remains one of the most stubborn issues looming over the entire process.
How, if at all, the dispute over differentiation and equity will be resolved remains tenuous. Much depends, at this point, on how the French presidency of the COP carries through the process until the Friday deadline. Much depends also on the willingness of negotiating groups to find an overlapping ground for agreement.
Let me close this morning’s post by remarking that ministers noted with applause COP Presidency’s uncompromising adherence to principles of transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability, as well as its mandate of preparing a truly party-owned draft text.
I will follow up on the work of the Comité as it reports back.
Stay tuned for more.
- Photo: French President of Foreign Affairs and President of COP21, H.E. Laurent Fabius
- Photo credit: UNFCCC photo desk
[/accordion]
[accordion title=” ‘Comité de Paris’ to report back — Dec 8″]
December 8, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
As mentioned in the previous post, as COP21 entered the second week, most of the work is being done in closed sessions over four central, and yet unresolved, issues (for details, see below). These in camera sessions are essentially consultation processes put in place in order to find common ground by the Friday deadline.
This process is called “Comité de Paris”. Further information and updates from UNFCCC on the “Comité de Paris”, and its composition, can be found here.
This evening, onDecember 8 at 7 p.m. (Central European Time), “Comité de Paris” will report back in a stocktaking session about its progress.
Further insights will follow. Stay tuned.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”High-Level Segment convenes — Dec 7″]
December 7, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
Four key issues that need to be resolved this week are:
- the issue of differentiation of responsibilities, simply referred to as “differentiation”
- raising ambition over time
- means of implementation (including finance)
- work stream 2, which refers to the pre-2020 ambition gap (i.e., the gap between aggregate effects of mitigation pledges by 2020 and aggregate emission reduction pathways consistent with likelihood of keeping temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius)
These are not exhaustive, but must be resolved for forward progress to be made. Bilateral discussions are taking place in closed sessions on each issue. At this point, the process is not that of reiterating party positions, but that of looking for points of convergence between parties.
10:30 a.m.
“Nous pouvons et devons réussir” was the point of emphasis in the moving opening speech delivered by French Minister of Foreign Affairs and President of the COP21, Laurent Fabius. He pledged to work hard and facilitate resolution of the political issues described below.
10:00 a.m.
Monday morning at le Bourget, the Plenaries la Seine and la Loire are filling up. Today marks the first day of the high level segment, which will convene throughout the week. Ministers from 195 countries will discuss the draft text, chaired by Laurent Fabius, French Foreign Affairs Minister and President of the COP in Paris. As ministers and delegates are gathering, there is an air of expectation. Some of the most stubborn political issues will have to resolved by the end of the week.
Among them is the issue of equitable distribution of burdens. Equally important are issues of finance and steps to take to raise ambition over time. The position of developing countries is that the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) that they put forward are not unconditional. They expect from rich nations to provide funds to help them assist in their transition to low-carbon economies as well as in their efforts to build climate resilience. How to respond to loss and damage in a world affected by climate change is another issue that is not yet resolved. 
In spite of these difficult issues, there is an air of hope and anticipation, un vent d’optimisme. The first high-level meeting opens in a few minutes.
Stay tuned. More to follow from Le Bourget-Paris.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”The ADP completes its work; toughest phase ahead — Dec 6″]
December 6, 2015
by Idil Boran
Paris
On December 5, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Durban Platform (ADP) handed over the draft text of a Paris outcome to the Conference of the Parties (COP).
On Sunday, delegates took the day off. Talks will resume on Monday, December 7. For the second week, the negotiations will be carried out by the Conference of the Parties, under the presidency of Laurent Fabius, French Minister of Foreign Affairs and President of the COP. The second week of COP21 will be its most difficult phase. Many of the political issues remain unresolved. The text still contains hundreds of bracketed pieces. Nevertheless, that there is a text handed over to the ministers to negotiate is regarded as being an important step forward.
If negotiating parties want a solid agreement, they will have to work very hard over the second week to resolve key political issues. This process may well give rise to a truly positive outcome. It may also end in disappointment. Which way it will go remains to be seen.
Stay tuned. More to follow from Le Bourget-Paris.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”A new text — Dec 4″]
December 4, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
End of day
In the afternoon of December 4, the ADP Contact Group reconvened to discuss the proposed text, which is has been termed the “bridge text”. The mood was much more upbeat, and a willingness to complete the work was noticeable.
ADP stands for Ad Hoc Working Group of the Durban Platform on Enhanced Action. Formed in 2011 in Durban, the ADP has been responsible for carrying through the process in the period leading up to Paris. A preliminary draft text was developed in the months leading up to COP20, held in Lima in December 2014. Since Lima, the work of the ADP consists of completing the draft text of the agreement. Once complete, the agreement text will be handed over to the Conference of the Parties (COP). The deadline is December 5.
Due to its complexity, the task of working on the text is divided up between delegation groups called “spin off” groups. Discussions of the spin off groups are carried out in closed meetings with the help of facilitators. Spin off groups report to what is termed the ADP Contact Group, a central unit that tallies up the results and conducts an overall negotiation process. In keeping with transparency, a core commitment of the UNFCCC, the ADP Contact Group holds meetings open to observers on a daily basis.
On Saturday December 5, The ADP Contact Group will meet again. They have to complete their work and submit the text to the Conference of the Parties for the second and final week of the conference.
11:00 a.m.
The new text is received. The ADP contact group recessed for one hour to allow parties to examine the proposed text. The new text reportedly contains only minor revisions over some of the stubborn points.
10:30 a.m.
In the morning of December 4, the ADP contact group is convening. The purpose is to work on a new proposed draft text. The groups worked overnight, with the help of the facilitators, to produce a new proposed text. This is not a fundamentally different version, but one that the facilitators hope will be more amenable to parties. One of the purposes of the UNFCCC process is to produce a text that is genuinely “party owned,” one that is not imposed on parties top-down, but built multilaterally with the participation of all. The guiding values of pluralism, inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability are all there. The parties just have to find common ground to take the process forward.
At 10:30 a.m., in the ADP contact group room, the co-chairs, all the parties, as well as observers, are waiting for the new proposed text, which should come any minute.
Stay tuned. More to follow from Le Bourget-Paris.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”The ups and downs of the climate talks – Dec. 3″]
December 3, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
The negotiations at Le Bourget-Paris are now at a critical juncture. The first week of the conference is dedicated to the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Durban Platform on Enhanced Action (ADP) on the draft text. The negotiation process is an of example collective deliberation that is truly pluralistic. It is an arduous task to try to reconcile differences over the details of the agreement text.
For example, a tense discussion arose on December 2 over decisions to give effect to the agreement (a section of the draft text). The draft states, on p. 32 (which can be found here), that the Conference of the Parties “welcomes the efforts of all actors to address and respond to climate change, including those of civil society, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other sub-national authorities,” and then invites “the totality of these actors to scale up their efforts and support actions to reduce emissions.”
A fierce debate arose as a result of some parties expressing skepticism over the role of non-governmental actors, particularly the private sector and financial in
stitutions, in the global climate effort. Other parties responded by stating that the process cannot move forward without the support of a broad range of actors, including and especially non-state actors, such as civil society, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other sub-national authorities.
The co-chairs had to explain one more time that the entire purpose of the present round of negotiations is to bring all actors together, in order to create the conditions to build linkages among them and scaling up efforts, and to take the global cooperation on climate change to a whole new level.
In spite of a lengthy discussion, the objecting parties did not relent and insisted on bracketing this section. Adding bracketing implies that no decision is made on whether or not the claim will be included in the final text. At this juncture, the point of holding these sessions is to find common ground and remove brackets — rather than adding new ones. The purpose is to present a more or less clean text to the Conference of the Parties on Saturday, December 5, so they can bring the work to its conclusion.
At the ADP contact group meeting, at 7 p.m. on December 2, parties and the President of the COP expressed deep concern over the slow progress thus far. In response, G77+China requested that the UNFCCC Secretariat prepare a collection of views coming out of the spin off groups. The rationale is to have a holistic understanding of the state of the negotiations and take steps to overcome persisting challenges.
The next day, on December 3, the same issue over the role of non-state actors was revisited and, after further discussion, objecting parties reluctantly agreed to remove the bracket they previously insisted on. This is worrying as this seriously slows down the process.
And what exactly is worrying about this was summed up neatly by the EU last night. With clarity and elegance, the EU suggested that if disputes of this sort over the language of the text continue, those parts of the text that stubbornly remain bracketed could not be included in the final text. But if key aspects of the text can’t generate agreement, the end result will be a thinly formulated text merely stating generalities. This is one of the perennial difficulties of trying to find a common ground in a truly pluralistic environment, but this time the stakes are very high.
The rest of the week will determine if the negotiation process can overcome this challenge.
Stay tuned for more updates from Le Bourget-Paris.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”Companion sources for COP21 – Dec 2″]
December 2, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris
Today is day three of the negotiations. The process is still in its early stages. Multiple parallel sessions are being held at the venue. In the negotiation sessions, the focus is on the draft text of the agreement. Delegates are going over the text paragraph by paragraph, line by line, and sentence by sentence, discussing the meaning and implications of every claim. This is a slow and, at times, challenging process. To date, the text has multiple options and sentences and clauses that are bracketed. This means that no decision is yet made on which option to select for the final version of the text. It is still open whether bracketed parts will be retained or not.
The draft text being negotiated is public and those interested in examining it can consult it through the UNFCCC website, found here. The text is inevitably very complex. Going over the text can be an overwhelming experience. So is, in many respects, the process of following the negotiation process altogether.
For this reason, it is important to go into this journey with good companions and guides. To understand the elements of the draft text being negotiated, my most recommended read is a document titled Essential Elements of a Paris Agreement, a report from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Written by distinguished scholars and experts, deeply familiar with the process, this succinct yet comprehensive guide will help readers understand key issues and goals, as well as contentious aspects of the text that need to be resolved.
One particularly complex matter pertains to the legality of agreement. The goal of the negotiation process leading up to Paris, and in Paris, is to achieve an agreement that will have some legal force. But what this implies exactly is not yet settled. For an understanding of the legal options for a Paris agreement, a report written by distinguished international environmental law scholar Daniel Bodansky is a must read.
Stay tuned for more updates from Le Bourget-Paris.
Photo credit: UNFCCC photo desk
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”Tous ensemble pour le climat: The COP21 negotiations at Le Bourget-Paris — Dec. 1″]
December 1, 2015
by Idil Boran
Le Bourget-Paris, France
The 21st Conference of the Parties (known as COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) opened on November 30, 2015 at the official venue at Le Bourget, slightly north of Paris. The two-week conference brings delegations from 196 parties to discuss the future of the climate effort, with the aim of sealing a legally binding global agreement.
The agreement that is being considered is different from its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, in many ways.
First, whereas previously the sole concern was to ensure reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (a process called “mitigation” efforts), the present round of negotiations is focused on both reduction of emissions to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius (known as the 2-degree target) as well as adaptation and resilience building against climate risks and impacts. Put another way, the effort to respond to climate impacts is as important as the effort to reduce emissions. The spirit behind it is to pursue both goals in a way that is mutually reinforcing. In this process, developing an unprecedented mechanism of climate finance is at the forefront of the debates.
Second, international negotiations were previously focused on determining targets on western, industrialized countries alone. By contrast, the present round (since 2011) is focused on setting the terms of cooperation where everyone takes part in the process in some way. In fact, “tous ensemble pour le climat,” the official motto of COP21, neatly captures this spirit of a truly global effort to move forward toward a climate-ready future.
What COP21 intends to achieve is not an end result, but a starting point for a fair, effective, and durable global effort. The goal is to reach an agreement that will put the world on track for a long-term process. It is intended to grow stronger over time and update itself as it moves forward. For this reason, it must be built on a strong footing, so it can be both durable and effective.
But perhaps most importantly, the terms of the the global cooperation have to be fair. Given its complexity, the entire negotiation process raises pressing questions on equity and fairness, particularly around the question of who should do what. The agreement is not intended to dictate how much each country is to contribute to the pool of efforts. It is intended to create the best conditions to contribute. How the final document is to reflect this feature, and how it is to formulate its core commitment to equity, to the satisfaction of all parties, is one of the most delicate questions that will be at the forefront of the debates. Additionally, the global effort will need to develop instruments to enhance ambition as the process moves forward. This presents another challenge, and addressing it will require a lot of hard work and a considerable degree of imagination.
In sum, there are various themes that are singularly captivating, both for policy and for research, coming out of COP21:
- the debate revolving around equity
- the structure and mandate of a finance mechanism
- the nature of an adaptation framework
- the building of the process of contributions to the climate effort
- catalyzing transition to low-carbon economies
I will post updates on these issues, as negotiations unfold in the next two weeks at the French capital.
Research output on the work done by my research team can be found here (available through York University Libraries). This is a research project, conducted collaboratively from York University and the University at Buffalo, bringing together an international team of scholars working the ethics and politics of the international negotiations on climate change. It provides an account of the latest state of the negotiations at the time of the opening of the Paris meeting. These issues are the focus of PHIL 3595: International Ethics, which I offer recurrently in the Fall term. Information on this course can be found here.
Stay tuned for more updates from COP21 at Le Bourget-Paris.
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”Bracing for climate impacts: The issue of ‘loss and damage’ in the UNFCCC – Nov. 29″]
Bracing for climate impacts: The issue of ‘loss and damage’ in the UNFCCC – Nov. 29
In addition to curbing greenhouse gas emissions, the climate negotiations in Paris will be focused on responding to the destructive impacts of climate change.
November 29, 2015
Written by Idil Boran and Joanna Patouris
Originally posted at Policy Options (where Idil Boran is a regular contributor)
The 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in Paris is opening on November 30. This meeting presents a momentous opportunity for a turning point in the global effort on climate change. As nations will be working intensively throughout the two-week conference to reach a global climate agreement, a range of issues requiring special attention are on the table.
In addition to curbing greenhouse gas emissions and creating the conditions for low-carbon economies, the climate negotiations will be concerned with catalyzing global efforts to respond to the impacts of climate change.
In recent years, the issue of loss and damage has received much attention at the negotiations. As Gwynne Taraska explains in her report, loss and damage refers to “repairable damage and permanent loss due to the impacts of climate change”. Loss and damage can result from extreme whether events, where the likelihood of occurrence is heightened by anthropogenic climate change. Or it can ensue through what is known as ‘slow onset’ events associated with climate change.
At the Minister’s meeting of the newly formed Canadian Liberal government, which took place on November 23, Yukon Premier Darrell Pasloski noted in his speech that the impacts of climate change are starting to be directly experienced in Canada. The thawing of permafrost – an example of a slow onset event – recently forced a school to be relocated in the Yukon.
As these impacts are starting to be noticed in the Canadian north, some of the most vulnerable communities throughout the world have long been familiar with the threats of a changing climate. Among the most vulnerable are Small Island Developing States (SIDs) where concerns are rising over the threat that climate change poses to their well-being, future prospects, and human rights.
In fact, a Paris outcome putting the world on track to meet the 2 degree Celsius target will still leave many communities vulnerable to loss and damage, posing a tangible threat to lives and livelihoods. It is therefore not surprising that loss and damage has been an important component of the climate talks leading up to Paris.
The debate over a mechanism on ‘loss and damage’
Conversations on climate impacts can be traced back to the earliest phases of the international discussions on climate change. Loss and damage was introduced in 1991 by Vanuatu, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), who proposed to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), that an international fund and an insurance pool should be established and made accessible to those who will face the brunt of the damages of climate change. This proposal called on developed countries to supply funds to establish a form of insurance and indemnification mechanism. Despite this call for action, conversations around loss and damage were left out of the COP negotiations, as a focus on mitigation and adaptation prevailed until COP7 in Marrakesh (2001).
At COP7 decision 5/CP.7 was made, outlining party intentions to elaborate on the concept of insurance as highlighted in 1991. However, no decision on insurance or compensation was met through the proceeding COPs. The term ‘loss and damage’ only emerged in the negotiating text of COP13 in Bali (2007), which coincided with the release of the IPCC fourth assessment report found here, which raised concerns over anthropogenic climate change. A work program on loss and damage was then agreed to at COP16 in Cancun (2010), under the Cancun Adaptation Framework. The mandate of the work program is to take into account potential approaches to deal with loss and damage in vulnerable communities.
Continued conversations around loss and damage proved to be complex and controversial, however parties at COP18 in Doha (2012), acknowledged that a comprehensive and inclusive approach would be necessary to address loss and damage. The pursuit for an effective decision to be made on loss and damage through the COP is predominately spearheaded by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), with the support of the Least Developed Countries Group (LDC) and the Group of 77 (G-77).
The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage was established at COP19 in Warsaw (2013). This coincided with the release of the IPCC fifth assessment report as well as the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan, which struck on the eve of the negotiations. The destruction made the dangers of climate impacts vivid and raised a sense of urgency.
After a lengthy negotiation process, a two-year work plan of the Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage was approved at COP20 in Lima (2014), to be reviewed at COP22. In the meantime, the Executive Committee of the Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage reports its progress to the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SABSTA) under the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Options for a loss and damage clause at the Paris climate talks
Heading into COP21, there are two options up for negotiation under Article 5: Loss and Damage found here.
Option 1, as advocated for by members of AOSIS, LDC and G77 and China, elaborates on the purpose of the mechanism and specific mandates which would guide the decision with the intention that The Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage will be anchored in the Paris agreement.
Option 2, generally reflects the position of Annex 1 countries, which proposes “no reference to loss and damage”. The second option implies that a mechanism on loss and damage will be worked out after Paris, in 2016 and beyond.
This is but one aspect of the lengthy text of the agreement that has to be settled at COP21. And it is one of the issues that we will be following in Paris.
Stay tuned for updates on this and other key issues from COP21.
This piece is co-authored with Joanna Patouris.
Joanna Patouris is currently pursuing a Masters of Environmental Studies at York University. Her research focuses on climate resilience and development justice in Sub Saharan Africa. She has long standing interests in climate change policy, gender equity and human rights in the context of the UNFCCC. She has served as an observer and civil society representative to the UNFCCC since COP 19 in Warsaw (2013)
[/accordion]
[accordion title=”Acknowledgements”]
The COP21 updates were written as part of an ongoing research project on “International climate governance and the equity debate.” This work couldn’t have been done without the support of many colleagues and institutions.
Through the Durban Platform negotiations under the UNFCCC, many colleagues and friends have been crucially important. I wish to thank Tracy Bach, Hugh Breakey, Rebecca Lefton, Andrew Light, Karsten Löffler, Joanna Patouris, Kenneth Shockley, Gwynne Taraska, and Jesse Vogel. Special thanks are also due to Annette Dubreuil, Benjamin Hale, John Kelly, Daniel McArthur, and John McNamara.
I am thankful to Dawn Bazely for her longstanding support which made this work possible. Special thanks to Joanna Patouris, who followed the talks with me at COP21 and kindly co-authored one of the posts.
Research that led to this work benefited from funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). It has also received support more recently from the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies through a Minor Research Grant as well as from York University through SSHRC Small Research Grant Program.
The UNFCCC has provided a welcoming and inclusive environment for observers conducive to steady work and building new connections during the meetings.
Above all, I wish to thank the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, York University, for having opened space on the Faculty website for these updates, and for being an institutional home.
Un grand merci à toutes et à tous.
[/accordion]
[/accordions]