Author: Anita Desai

In the three days since negotiators reached an agreement in Paris, I’ve seen the deal heralded as everything from “the world’s greatest diplomatic success” to “just bullshit”. There seems to be little consensus as to whether COP-21’s outcome was phenomenal, devastating, or even meaningful whatsoever. Personally, I’m happy (and, frankly, somewhat surprised) to see language regarding a 1.5 degree goal, loss and damages, and human rights make it into the text. At the same time, I know that current INDCs still add to 3+ degrees of global warming from pre-industrial levels and that the legal status of the agreement is still uncertain in many countries (including the U.S.). But overall, I align with commentators who claim the deal was better than expected.

 

To be clear, I didn’t expect much from the outcome document. Heading to the conference, I tried to eschew any belief that the parties would reach a deal at all. I anticipated that the process would be slow, opaque, and potentially inconclusive. I knew that the COP was a fundamentally political undertaking and that the negotiators faced immense institutional inertia in attempting to reach an agreement. In this respect, the proceedings presented many pleasant surprises. I was excited to see shifts towards transparency and accommodation for all parties, regardless of delegation size. Developing countries still faced undue barriers in comparison to their developed country counterparts, but structural elements like the Paris Committee and Indaba meetings gave me hope for an increasingly inclusive COP process in the future.

 

After reading the final text, I can’t say I feel excitement or despair or even anything in between. Mostly, I just feel relief. Even though I don’t think we know yet what this text means for decarbonization, fossil fuels, or the environment as a whole, I’m thrilled that the UN successfully provided a space for 196 countries to reach a substantive agreement. This agreement offers a clear focal point for further civil society movements, scientific research, and political negotiations around the world. All of these elements together will determine the trajectory of international climate change policy in the future. For now, the UNFCCC has served its purpose by providing an integral first step that will catalyze countless subsequent actions.

 

Last Wednesday night, when an agreement seemed to be a distant if not impossible prospect, I feared what an inconclusive COP would mean for both the future of the environment and the viability of UN processes as a whole. It’s my opinion that the global nature of climate change requires a global, intergovernmental solution. Nations don’t bear the brunt of global warming equally, but climate change undoubtedly affects the lives and livelihoods of every person on the planet. If governments can’t all come together to do something at COP, I thought, what chance do they have of addressing other issues like peacekeeping or refugee crises, where the moral imperative for action is considerably murkier? Luckily, the parties managed to reach an agreement. And I left the conference with hope, which is, upon reflection, better than expected.

-Anita Desai

As we walked towards a panel facilitated by One UN on human mobility and climate change, we debated the applicability of the word “mobility” in this case. “Mobility” seems to suggest voluntary movement; whereas we felt that climate-induced human movement better resembles forced migration.  Fortunately, our skepticism about the event’s title was allayed as soon as the panel chair started speaking, emphasizing that of issue here is forced human movement and “forced migration.”  The panel was informative and saddening at the same time.

A representative from the Norwegian Refugee Council stressed that since 2008, an average of 22.5 million people have been displaced each year due to natural disasters related to weather and climate events.  As some of the panelists noted, while we may not be able to say climate change caused these disasters (consider the El Nino in Ethiopia this year, which caused the country’s worst drought in 30 years), climate change exacerbates existing extreme weather events, for instance by intensifying El Niño cycles.  At the same time, those who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change have the least ability to adapt to its negative repercussions.  There are, thus, complex but strong linkages between climate change, poverty, poor governance, civil war, and the displacement of people. 

 

A number of panelists referred to the 2014 IPCC report’s recognition of this important issue: “Climate change over the 21st Century is projected to increase displacement of people” and “can indirectly increase the risks of violent conflicts in the forms of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”  As an example, decreased food security and water availability caused by extreme weather not only exacerbate poverty, they might also compel people to move.  Conflict over scarce resources poses yet another risk.

The panelists also drew attention to the Nansen Initiative, which refers to the 2011 conference in Norway that laid out 10 principles with the recognition that “a more coherent and consistent approach at the international level is needed to meet the protection needs of people displaced externally owing to sudden-on-set disasters.” 

 

The panelists called for more data and more monitoring.  For instance, we do not have adequate data on displacement after disasters, and contrary to common assumptions, people who move to a natural disaster are not necessarily able to move back, leading to, what the IDMC calls, “protracted displacement.”  Another issue that requires more study and better policy is “planned relocation,” by national, international, sub-national, and non-state agencies.

 

Despite the depressing statistics, the panelists seemed encouraged that the Paris text might recognize the linkages between human movement and climate change. This would build on efforts from the 2010 meeting in Cancun, when parties endorsed a linkage between adaptation and displacement. Tonight’s (Dec 10) draft agreement included a request for the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism “To [enhance understanding, coordination and cooperation with regard to climate change induced displacement, migration and planned relocation][initiate a process of identifying arrangements, modalities and procedures to convene and promote work on climate change displacement], draw upon the work of and involve, as appropriate, existing bodies and expert groups under the Convention, as well as that of relevant organizations and expert bodies outside the Convention.”  Whether this bracketed reference will survive remains to be seen, as we await the penultimate draft of the Paris agreement tomorrow.  Stay tuned!

 

-Anita Desai, Stephen O’Hanlon, Ayse Kaya

Follow us throughout the week on Twitter (@SwarthmoreCOP21) and Snapchat (SwarthmoreCOP21) to get real-time updates.

Tonight, as the Malaysian minister declared to a vast conference room packed full of people, “everybody seems unhappy.”  As the third-to-last day of COP-21 came to a close for observers (negotiators will remain at le Bourget longer into the night), the prospect of an ambitious agreement seemed tenuous. Despite the fact that the new version of the draft text released today boasts a ¾ reduction in square brackets (though, some delegates remained unhappy about the deletions), serious disagreements remained amongst the parties.

Let’s rewind to earlier in the day.  In the morning, observer groups, ranging from BINGO, to RINGO, to indigenous peoples’ organizations, got a chance to have a briefing with Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres, as well as H.E. Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, President’s Special Envoy to Observers at COP 21/CMP 11.  Vidal served as President of COP 20 and is here in Paris as both the minister of Peru and the conference’s envoy to civil society. Throughout the briefing, various organizations voiced their discontent with the lack of access to negotiations given to civil society. Participants were clearly concerned with finance and differentiation, among other issues, but felt that the meetings lacked transparency and an appropriate avenue for them to voice their concerns. In a candid response, Figueres said that this COP outcome will be a fundamentally “intergovernmental agreement,” and that, in the end, it is the national parties who will have to reach consensus. However, she guaranteed the observers that the agreement “is not going to be moving into the direction of national interests,” but instead will “be moving into convergence, onto common ground.” Yet, despite the discontents voiced, there were also moments of laughter and applause.  For instance, when Figueres received presents from one of the indigenous people’s groups (see picture), the room broke into applause. The group presented her with gifts as well as a message, “we must all grow in the same direction.”

Then, at 3pm, we received the first draft text of the Paris agreement in a meeting that lasted about five to ten minutes.  Observers, and other non-Party participants of the conference, could get the text right after its release from the “Documents” booth.  We wish we could have taken a picture of the chaotic crowd clustered around the booth with hands sticking up in the air for a copy, but we were a part of the crowd with no free hand for a picture!

Now the Parties (and everyone else) had time to study the text, consult with their groups and others, and reconvene at 8pm, for tonight’s Comite de Paris meeting (Paris Committee – see our earlier blog).

At tonight’s session, which lasted until about 10:30 pm, many countries’ interventions expressed forceful and seemingly irreconcilable viewpoints on the future of the agreement. Once again, the G77 + China maintained a strong presence/support base amongst the speakers. The minister from South Africa spoke first as the representative of this group. She outlined the substantial work that still needs to be done with regard to differentiation, adaptation, implementation, capacity building, and loss and damages. Other developing and least developed countries echoed her statement and added additional concerns. A common theme within their interventions was praise for the strong language supporting a 1.5 degree goal, but a fear that this goal will be futile without the appropriate implementation and financing mechanisms. As the representative for Venezuela noted, the current INDCs allow temperatures to rise to 3+ degrees from pre industrial levels. Without more substantial contributions, an agreement on 1.5 degrees would be rendered meaningless.

In stark contrast to the G77 + China was the Umbrella group*.  The Umbrella Group was represented by Australia, whose delegate expressed frustration at the lack of balance in the draft agreement. The group seems to feel that their acquiescence to the 1.5 degree goal warrants significant concessions from developing countries that have not yet been made. For example, one huge issue is how stringent the monitoring, reporting, and verification of the mitigation commitments should be, with countries like China preferring to retain sovereignty over reporting, while others, like the EU, pushing for a review every five years.

Notably absent from tonight’s proceedings was the voice of the United States. Although the U.S. is a member of the umbrella group, our negotiators themselves remained silent throughout the meeting. Earlier in the week Secretary Kerry stated that the U.S. would be willing to support the 1.5 degree goal, so long as other countries were willing to compromise on loss and damages. But tonight, neither issue was addressed by our delegation. Whether or not this was an overt statement of dissatisfaction with the course of negotiations, not having the USA participate in an almost universal discussions of the new draft of the Paris agreement was disheartening and surprising.

In all, tonight’s events struck us as a diametric shift from the positive tenor of yesterday’s Comite de Paris meeting. This COP has been applauded as calm, orderly, and polite in comparison to other conferences. But as some of the delegates spoke, their exhaustion, exasperation, and sadness was palpable. We could clearly hear two divergent tones coming from the speakers. From some (the EU, Japan, Australia and others) came a terse dissatisfaction with what they have found to be intransigence on the part of many developing countries. However, these and other more procedural interventions were punctuated by sincere pleas for swift and ambitious action from many countries (particularly Small Island Developing nations, or SIDs). The minister from Barbados, for example, said that he was “not here begging for sympathy,” but that inaction on climate change would mean the “certain extinction of [his] people.” For those most vulnerable, the fate of their countries still rests within square brackets.  

There is very little time left and many differences to be ironed out.  Hopes are pinned on two long nights.

-Anita Desai, Stephen O’Hanlon, Ayse Kaya

Follow us throughout the week on Twitter (@SwarthmoreCOP21) and Snapchat (SwarthmoreCOP21) to get real-time updates.

*From the UNFCCC site:  The Umbrella Group is “a loose coalition of non-EU developed countries which formed following the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. Although there is no formal list, the Group is usually made up of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the US.”