It was a vibrant, uplifting, informed, occasionally pessimistic, wide-ranging day. A few weeks ago, on the 20th November, PSA Environment and PSA French Politics co-hosted a forum in Edinburgh that outlined what the Paris climate talks needed to achieve. (For more on the Paris climate talks, or ‘COP-21’, see an earlier article on this website.) The Edinburgh event was funded by the PSA’s ‘Pushing the Boundaries’scheme, drew over 50 attendees from across the UK, and was structured around three broad roundtables. So, what was called for in Edinburgh, and does the Paris Agreement fulfil those aims?
The first roundtable explored the importance of France’s role as host, particularly in the aftermath of the horrific Paris attacks and the significance of President François Hollande’s struggling poll ratings. The speakers in Edinburgh warned that in this context, it could be difficult for the French to get an ambitious result. The French hosts, led by former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, however, proved hugely effective facilitators throughout the conference. Inviting world leaders to attend the start of the conference – rather than the close, as has occurred in previous years – was an astute manoeuvre that created momentum from the first day. Moreover, Fabius personally drove through many of the negotiations in their final hours. While most states that host global conferences wish to see a successful outcome, it is difficult to imagine host nations that have been less ambitious, say Poland, committing as heavily to a final agreement as France.
The second roundtable explored the governance model of the UN’s climate negotiations, and the importance of justice to any agreement. As predicted in Edinburgh, the governance model pursued in Paris addressed the top-down weaknesses of the Copenhagen conference in 2009 by requiring all states to submit targets before the conference began. This new approach ensured that all states were ‘on board’ beforehand, and thus guaranteed that the conference would not be a failure. Participants at the Edinburgh forum also called for the inclusion of five-year assessment cycles for climate targets, which would ‘ratchet up’ ambition. Pleasingly, these assessment cycles were included in the final agreement. As such, Paris was a political and diplomatic success.
Where the speakers on the second roundtable in Edinburgh had concerns, however, was the inclusion of the principles of justice – particularly regarding international and intergenerational equity – within any agreement. For instance, concerns were raised that the voices of women would be lost at the negotiations; these concerns proved to be correct. In addition, the challenges faced by developing countries in affording to participate in climate change mitigation, or adapt to the worst effects of climate change, or address any ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change were highlighted as paramount in Edinburgh. A little progress was made on these fronts in Paris. A commitment to provide financial support to developing countries was consolidated at COP-21. However, the EU blocked efforts to share technologies with poorer states, the USA opposed the inclusion of any references to liability for helping states affected by climate change, and the sums of money promised may prove inadequate. As such, it is easy to see why one well-known climate scientist has labelled the Paris Agreement as ‘no action, just promises’.
The third and final roundtable of the day in Edinburgh discussed the role of civil society. Joined by speakers from three different climate NGOs, the news had only broken that morning that the proposed march by activists through Paris would be cancelled. The speakers in Edinburgh emphasised the importance of civil society groups both in the months leading up to Paris, and during the conference fortnight. And with good reason: Climate activists campaigned knowledgeably, peacefully and effectively throughout COP-21. For example, the cancelled Paris march was replaced by an impromptu and grassroots protest comprising thousands of pairs of shoes that represented the missing marchers. Throughout the conference, activists targeted key negotiators with a view to ramping up ambition. While many activists were disappointed with the final Paris Agreement – primarily because of the issues surrounding justice and equity explored above – civil society voices played a vital role in Paris and will continue to do so at future conferences.
There must be a German compound word for it. ‘Better-than-expected-but-probably-still-inadequate’. Whatever that compound word is, the Paris Agreement appears to embody it. The conference was a diplomatic success story, and went far beyond the hopes of many people. Yet, even if the promises are fulfilled, those who are most vulnerable to climate change will almost certainly still face catastrophic changes to their ways of life. A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for the Political Insight blog calling for the Paris talks to be a springboard for improved ambition in future. The Paris Agreement has the potential to achieve exactly that. It’s now up to states – and their citizens – to make it happen.
Paul Tobin is Co-Convenor of the PSA Specialist Group on Environmental Politics and a Leverhulme Trust-funded postdoctoral researcher at the University of York. Follow him on Twitter: @_paul_tobin_
Image: Author’s own.
