Should the 2021 Climate Summit in Glasgow Still Take Place?
First published on IPS News on the 1st of April 2021 and mentioned in POLITICO Global Translations newsletter on the 5th of April 2021.
With uncertainties over
face-to-face meetings resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors
consider the case for postponing the Climate Summit in Glasgow again and ask
how, if it does proceed, we can improve its chances of success?
By Felix Dodds, Michael
Strauss and Chris Spence
Among the COVID-19 pandemic’s many damaging impacts, could a halt to international progress on environmental issues be added to the list?
A year ago, the Glasgow Climate
Summit—originally scheduled for late 2020—was postponed to 2021, along with its
preparatory meetings. This wasn’t the only critical intergovernmental process impacted.
For instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the U.N. treaty on the
high seas were also moved. With uncertainty over travel and safety continuing
into 2021, the postponement of meetings has continued, with the United Nations
Environment Assembly and the Convention on Biological Diversity conference both
being moved back many months.
Currently, the Climate
Summit in Glasgow—COP26—is slated for 1-12 November 2021. But will even this later
date work for many participants?
Even though there is increased
optimism in the US and Europe that they may get their populations mostly vaccinated
by July or August 2021, that will not be true for many other regions. The varied
pace in vaccine distribution is another example, if we needed it, of the
disparities faced by developed and developing countries.
In an opinion piece by IMF
Chief Kristalina Georgieva for CNN Business Perspectives on 7 March, she said:
“Even in the best-case
scenario, most developing economies are expected to reach widespread vaccine
coverage only by the end of 2022 or beyond.”
Why COP26 Needs to be
In-Person and Inclusive
What does this mean for
COP26? The idea that negotiations could be held virtually has been largely
ruled out. While it has worked for some processes on a limited basis, most
experts acknowledge climate negotiations are too complex, sensitive, and
high-stakes to be conducted over Zoom or WhatsApp. They require face-to-face
discussions to have any chance of meaningful success. Furthermore, our
experience in the past has told us that climate talks need to be inclusive and
engage as many governments and stakeholders as possible, both in the lead-up to
the conference and at the “main event” itself. For instance, previous
conferences in Cancun (2010) and Paris (2015) are remembered for their
inclusivity and painstaking preparations, while less successful meetings such
as those in Copenhagen (2009) or The Hague (2000) were unable to achieve this. If virtual negotiations are not a realistic
option, then, it’s clear vaccines will need to be made available for government
negotiators to attend and negotiate.
What about stakeholder
groups who want to be there in person to lobby or put pressure on their
governments? Will they be allowed to attend? If so, under what conditions?
These are key questions that will need to be answered soon if COP26 is to have
any chance of delivering what so many people want it to do.
Timing is Everything: The
Case for Postponement
Already rescheduled once,
COP26 is now timetabled for 1-12 November. Furthermore, the two preparatory
meetings originally scheduled for 2020 were postponed to 2021, meaning there is
still much to be done. The first preparatory meeting is currently due to happen
from 31 May to 10 June. This is now in doubt and a decision will be taken in
the next few weeks on whether to proceed.
With such uncertainty, it
could be argued that COP26 should be postponed again. Surely this would be
better than trying to undertake preparatory meetings virtually, or holding a
COP26 that is so diminished by travel restrictions that the meeting is but a
shadow of its usual size and scope.
We hope those making
these decisions take into consideration both arguments of inclusivity and the
need for careful, thorough preparations as they continue to review this matter.
A Roadmap for a November
COP
Should COP26 be held in
November as currently planned, there are, however, some ways to improve its
chances of success.
First, concerted efforts
should be made to coordinate and strengthen the outcomes from President Biden’s
planned Washington Climate Summit on 22 April, the G7 meeting in June (to be
hosted by the UK) and the G20 Meetings in October (to be hosted by Italy).
Together, these could generate useful momentum and begin to refocus high-level
political discussion on the climate crisis.
Secondly, the UNFCCC
process could review its pre-COP26 scheduling to provide more time for in-person
discussions in the lead-up to Glasgow. For instance, there is already agreement
that a UNFCCC meeting will be held in Milan from 30 September to 2
October.
What if this
already-scheduled event was to be expanded to at least 10 October? If this event
continued through the month of October, it could have an even greater impact,
allowing key negotiators ample time to prepare in person for Glasgow.
One challenge may be the
timing of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s conference, now rescheduled
for 11-24 October. Decision-makers will need to figure out whether the UNFCCC
could meet concurrently with the CBD.
If it is not thought
possible to run the two events at the same time, there are still some creative
ways forward. For instance, the CBD could play an important role in accelerating
discussions on nature-based solutions for climate change. This is one of the
key issues both the UK and Italy have identified for COP26. Informal negotiations
could continue during the CBD meeting and the UNFCCC could reconvene formally
on 25 October to see if agreement on any informal decisions could be progressed
before the G20 on 30 and 31 October. In fact, the G20 meeting in Rome dovetails
nicely into COP26, and could provide a welcome final impetus for it.
If preparatory meetings
did take place through much of October in Italy or elsewhere, it would set up
an almost continuous negotiating forum through to the start of November for national
governments’ experts, diplomats and political leaders—as well as concerned
scientists, business leaders, labor groups and NGOs—to meet in-person. If
planned carefully, it would mean only two or three geographically-proximate
locations in Italy and the UK would be involved, which should help greatly in
terms of dealing with the complexities of travel involving vaccinations, Covid
testing, and so on.
In effect, it could
create a climate negotiating ‘bubble’ where safe pandemic protocols would be
possible and the necessary actors would have time to interact extensively and
negotiate both broad agreements and details.
The G20 would also be an
excellent end-point for intensifying pressure on countries to increase their
National Determined Contributions as they head north for the Glasgow meeting
just a short flight away.
What Key Issues Need
Resolving at COP26?
At the most recent UN
Climate Summit—COP25 in Madrid in 2019—several controversial issues remained unresolved.
In some cases, the
negotiating gaps are wide. Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace
International, told journalists, “in the 25 years that I have been at every
COP, I have never seen the gap bigger between the inside and the outside.”
Some of these issues are quite technical. For
instance, reporting guidelines on annual inventories for developed countries need
to be reviewed. Governments will have to agree common metrics to calculate the
carbon dioxide equivalence of greenhouse gases and address the emissions from international
aviation and maritime transport. There are also outstanding issues relating to
land use, land-use change and forestry, as well as market and non-market
mechanisms under the Convention.
These aren’t the issues you generally find in the mainstream
media, which tends to focus on where we are on National Determined
Contributions (country targets) and the contributions to the Green Climate Fund,
which should have reached US$100 billion a year by 2020. Of course, the
question of NDC ambition and the Green Climate Fund are absolutely essential,
and progress will be key at COP26. However, the more technical issues are also critical
if we are to be sure we are measuring progress consistently and fairly.
The Green Climate Fund may prove politically
sensitive at COP26. For instance, the host country last year indicated a shift
from an ODA contribution of 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. The timing is problematic, to
say the least, and has been challenged in a letter by over 3000 global health
experts warning that the cut will hit “some of the world’s most complex and
challenging global health problems”. If you add to that the damage it will do
to climate finance, are we moving to a perfect storm instead of a path to a
more sustainable planet to live on?
Felix Dodds is a sustainable development advocate
and writer. His new book Tomorrow's People and New Technologies: Changing the way we live, travel, entertain
and socialize will be out in September. He is the coeditor of Climate
and Energy Insecurity: The Challenge of Peace, Security and Development with Andrew Higham and Richard Sherman.
Michael Strauss: is Executive Director of Earth
Media, a political and media consultancy that advises UN agencies, NGOs and
governments on international environmental, development, and social issues. He
served as the UN’s Media Coordinator for NGOs, Trade Unions, and Business
organizations at the UN Summits on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg
(2002) and Rio de Janeiro (2012).
He is co-author of ‘Only One Earth: The Long
Road via Rio to Sustainable Development’ (Earthscan, Taylor & Francis),
with Felix Dodds and Maurice F. Strong.
Chris Spence is an environmental consultant,
writer and author of the book, Global Warming: Personal Solutions for a
Healthy Planet. He is a veteran of many COPs and other UNFCCC negotiations
over the past three decades.
Comments
Post a Comment