Meeting of the President of COP21 and Observer Organizations

The President of COP, French Minister Laurent Fabius, held a meeting with observer organizations on Wednesday, December 2^nd, to discuss the developments within negotiations and dialogue with observer organizations.  He engaged comments and concerns from organizations on procedural matters of transparency, as well as issues regarding the negotiation of the agreement.

Minister Fabius highlighted the “major role” that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play in the COP process.  He said that meetings between COP leadership and NGOs have taken place throughout the year and into this first week of negotiations, as his administration is striving to be as “open, transparent, and inclusive as possible” in order to reach a “good agreement for all.”

“Your actions are quite decisive…to change the paradigm of climate change,” Fabius said, thanking NGOs for their role as organizers, networks of information, and representatives of local concerns.  The issue of climate change “is not just a role of government” but of all stakeholders. 

He said that COP21 was unprecedented in terms of NGO and civil society participation, but due to the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, some events were regrettably canceled for security reasons.  He stressed that these events must not prevent the expression of civil society participation and that he intends to keep “close and personal contact” between civil society and the Presidency of the COP. 

The former President of COP20, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, offered to be a bridge and focal point for civil society participation in COP21.  Recognized for his work with NGOs in previous COPs, Pulgar-Vidal invited all observers to continue discussion on transparency issues to facilitate greater and more effective civil society involvement. 

CAN Press Brief Summary: Dec. 3rd

With days left for negotiators to compile a workable agreement to the ministers who will take over the negotiation process next week, CAN representatives argued the need to clarify specific language in the text of the COP 21 Paris climate convention.  They noted some optimistic developments and progress, but also highlighted the gaps that exist between Parties that are reflected in the multiple options still bracketed within the text.

Kaisa Kosomen of Greenpeace articulated the need to revise specific sentences with stronger environmental language.  She spoke of implementing exact language with regards to the long term goal in the agreement and how to achieve it.  Currently the long term goal is set at a reduction in global temperature between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees Celsius, but many Parties and observers are calling for reductions at 1.5 degrees or lower. 

Raman Mehta of the Vasuhda Foundation spoke from the perspective of the developing countries, arguing for needed developments in the areas of differentiation and finance.  He noted that some Parties were disturbed by the disregard for the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), which recognizes the historical and national circumstances of Parties. He characterized some nations as arguing instead for a “symmetrical” model of obligation and responsibilities.

Alex Doukas of Oil Change International noted the persistent gap in climate change related finance.  Despite countries reluctance and dialogue of their inability to find funds, Doukas argued that money being used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry could be shifted to funding climate action.  This transfer would dually help the mitigation of greenhouse gases, while also funding and supporting a shift to renewable energy and adaptive technologies. 

CAN Press Brief Summary: Dec. 2nd

At the daily press conference of the Climate Action Network (CAN) on Wednesday, December 2^nd, 2015, panelists commented on the first day of negotiations and the further actions needed to achieve a sustainable and effective deal at COP 21 in Paris. 

Alden Meyers, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that after day one’s initial optimism due to head of state speeches, negotiations have stalled especially in the areas of climate finance.  CAN called for a general need to “scale up” financial commitments, especially by developed countries, to mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damages.  They stipulated that these contributions must be new contributions and separate from existing aid packages, thus increasing the availability of funds in developing countries most vulnerable to climate change.

CAN discussed the European Union’s role in negotiation, noting their general partnership with lesser developed countries (LDCs), but their lack of action in mobilizing these alliances.  They also commented on the exclusion of the EU from negotiations, much like the events of Copenhagen in 2009.  CAN argued that “strong signals” are needed from the EU in order to achieve a lasting agreement.

India’s negotiating position was also discussed and their role as either a leader in or a blocking force for an agreement in Paris.  As the world’s thirds largest emitter but with a low per capita emissions and huge need for electricity, India is poised to either be a leader in clean energy development or to continue on a path of traditional carbon emitting fuels.  1/3^rd of India’s population is also vulnerable to the effects of climate change, making adaptation and loss and damage aspects of the agreement especially important.  

Ultimately, the key issue of for Indian negotiators is the issue of finance, with a CAN representative reporting the Indian positions saying: “finance is the accelerator to the common finish line of less than 2 degrees warming.”  In order to reach that goal, India says the agreement must mobilize finances and technology for low carbon development and that schedules agreements to increase ambitions over time. 

Loss and Damage

A key issue in the crafting of the Paris Agreement at COP21 is the inclusion or exclusion of Article 5 known as “Loss and Damages.”  This article seeks to formalize an international mechanism that provides financial and non-economic support for the losses and damages that communities experience due to the irreversible and permanent effects of climate change, especially to the most vulnerable in developing countries. 

            
Negotiators from G77+China countries and from the Like-Minded Developing Countries block introduced Article 5 to draft texts of the agreement in October, but in other versions of the text, supported by the United States and other developed countries, the Loss and Damage clause is completely excluded. 

            
Developing countries argue that in addition to efforts to mitigate and adapt, mechanisms must be in place to compensate those effected for the loss of their livelihoods and property, especially by countries most responsible for the emissions that have caused this issue. They site instances of the submergence of small island nations, desertification of agricultural land, and melting glacial sources of fresh water supplies that impact communities and individual’s ability to continue their current life, oftentimes existential crises that cannot be adapted to.  Programs offer risk insurance, preparatory support and assistance in managing losses, and migration and relocation related funds. 

            
Sponsors of the text without Article 5, like the United States, have commented that they support the principle of Loss and Damage, but they will resist the inclusion of language that makes any mention to liability for climate change or compensation requirements.  They argue that Article 5 is redundant in the agreement, and that the loss and damage principle is covered within the articles on adaptation. 

            
In 2013, the UNFCCC agreed upon the Warsaw Mechanism which implements a program that does offer some support and cooperation for climate change related loss and damage.  But negotiators of many nations have urged that the loss and damage framework must be incorporated in the Paris Agreement to ensure the continuation of support for climate change victims post 2020.  The Paris Agreement is set to be a durable document that will govern the future of climate change response in the areas of adaptation, mitigation, and finance. 

Compromise is possible and has been hinted at from observers, as negotiators decide between the inclusion or exclusion of Article 5 and Loss and Damages.  A hybrid of the Article, one that recognizes the need for Loss and Damage framework, but does not make any specific commitments or distinguish any direct responsibility, is predicted and hoped for in the creation of a lasting Paris Agreement.   

CAN Press Briefing Summary: Dec. 1st

[I will be doing a series of summaries on the communication made by the international environmental organization, the Climate Action Network, a group that coordinates many other environmental NGOs and is a prominent voice in civil society here at COP21.  They give a daily press briefing which is a good summary of the state of affairs at COP21 and is widely attended by many press organizations as well as other NGOs.]

CAN COP21 Press Conference: Tuesday, Dec 1^st, 2015.

At the daily Press brief of Climate Action Network (CAN), members expressed cautious optimism from their observations of the first day of negotiations.  Positive signs from countries like India and China suggest that a deal is possible, considering their previous role as a stopping power in earlier negotiations.  Prime Minster Modi’s “constructive tone” was noted as a sign of flexibility from India, especially with the launch of the International Solar Alliance with the French President Francois Hollande.  However, some expressed frustration with the negotiations outside of the head of state forum, saying that “negotiators are stuck in negotiation mode,” while there is necessity for actual agreement and action.

Developments from the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a group of 43 of the most vulnerable nations to climate change, expressed that plans to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius would not be enough to protect the most vulnerable people, arguing instead that a goal of 1.5 degrees would be necessary to protect all.  A representative said that this goal is “difficult but not impossible,” and that a need for increased push for a commitment to full decarbonation. 

This goal of 1.5 degrees has caused a rift in the major block of G77 countries, with some nations maintaining the agreed upon 2-degree commitment.  Sanjay Vashit, a director of Climate Action Network South Asia, noted that even nations like India agree with the 1.5-degree commitment, but that this increased mitigation must happen in or be financially facilitated by developed countries.

Day 1 Update

First day of COP21 was a whirlwind of activity--from the statements made by heads of state, the fascinating opening side events, to the high level press conferences of new initiatives.  I will highlight a few of the most interesting and exciting events.

Opening Ceremonies and Statements by Heads of State

We began the day by watching the opening ceremonies and the first statements made by the leaders of many of the world's nations, broadcasted live into an observer room.  We were not able to enter the actual plenary halls where these statements were being made due to the heightened security and our limited level of clearance, but we followed each statement and development by webcast.

Obama's opening address was especially notable, due to its excessive length and the tenor he set for the US delegation.  Originally set for 3 minutes, Obama took his characteristically sweet time, with long dramatic pauses, to describe the need for action on climate change.  He said that the enemy of the negotiations was "cynicism" and the "broken old arguments" against action, urging the world to come to agreement, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., as "there is such a thing as being too late."

Third World Network: Key Issues for COP21

I then broke off to attend an official side event put on by the NGO Third World Network.  This panel discussed the key issues facing Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs)/Developing Countries during COP21, providing an overview of challenges that the LDCs face and their aspirations for negotiating.  

The head of the Chinese delegation, Su Wei, outlined the Chinese objectives for an agreement in Paris, one that enhances implementation and action, while being guided by the principles of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR).  He emphasized that historical responsibility for emissions from developed countries creates the responsibility to lead efforts in mitigation and provide financial and technological support for LDCs in terms of adaptation and instances of loss and damages—thus implementing the principle of CBDR in negotiations and going forward to further agreements.  

An Indian representative, Mr. Rasheed (?), communicated optimism for the possibility of a strong agreement, but reiterated the need for action based upon the principles of the Convention, especially CBDR and the idea of climate justice.  He emphasized that developed countries (DCs) must lead, but that their financial contributions must be new and “over and above” current contributions, and that all all actions must be “amplified.” 

Juan Hoffmaister, a coordinator of the the G77 on Adaptation and Loss and Damage noted that while mitigation is an important component, all too often it comes at the expense of adaptation efforts.  He also criticized earlier efforts that implemented planning procedure but did little to actually offer active support to LDCs attempting to adapt to environmental crises.  He noted that a lack of recognition of the Loss and Damages clause, which expresses cooperation for countries with situations that they are unable to adapt to, was “contrary to the science.” He also expressed frustration with the process of accreditation within the UNFCCC.  He said that he felt “humiliated” by the process of reapplication every three years and that recognition from the UNFCCC is needed.  

Finally, Mariam Williams of the South Centre argued that climate finance is akin to climate justice, in that countries that have historically benefited from emissions that have caused the global climate crisis now must recompense those that are bearing the consequence. 

International Solar Alliance Launch

Finally, India, in partnership with France, announced the inauguration of the International Solar Alliance, a partnership of 120 countries that fosters investment and construction of solar energy projects across the world.  India plans to increase its solar power capacity from 4 gigawatts to 100 gigawatts by 2022, providing for 75 million Indian households.  Developed countries like France would provide financial support and facilitate the transfer of solar technology.

This event was technically only open to accredited members of the press, but I was able to get there early and sneak into the event.

The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, and the President of France, Francois Hollande, along with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, all spoke at the launch event of this new organization.  Each spoke of the importance of these multilateral alliances that not only unite nations around energy and technology, but also unite governments and citizens in historic partnerships.  Clean energy initiatives are an element of climate justice by providing individuals with access to clean, and sustainable energy and work to meet sustainable development goals, according to the leaders.

Ban Ki-Moon

Francois Hollande

Narendra Modi