Beyond COP 26: Towards more effective international climate architecture

The UN-led Conference of the Parties (COP) process of global climate negotiations has built on the delicately-crafted 2015 Paris Accord and achieved a high level of legitimacy across the international community. However, progress towards climate goals remains inadequate.

This blog reports on a seminar in the Political Economy of European Climate Action series, hosted by the European Studies Centre of St. Antony’s College Oxford, on June 14, 2021, which discussed whether the COP process can be made more effective to deliver climate goals. The speakers were Selwin Hart (ASG for Climate Change, UN) and Benito Müller (Professor, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford); the discussant was Adrienne Cheasty of EuPEP; and the session was chaired by Hartmut Mayer, Director of the European Studies Centre at St Antony’s College, Oxford.

Click here for the podcast of this session

Selwin Hart started by outlining the stakes, quoting the UN Secretary General as saying that 2021 would be a make-or-break year for climate action, with COP26 in Glasgow in November. We now have less than a decade to achieve effective emissions reduction before it becomes too late to cap global warming below 2°C. He emphasized that global challenges require global solutions: the strength of the Paris Agreement is its universalist approach—all countries have a role to play and contribution to make. Small island developing states and the less developed countries were the first to sound the alarm about the consequences of climate change and are most at risk, while engaging the larger states (and major polluters) is obviously vital. A universalist approach reflecting the interests of all countries will remain key going forward.

Hart allowed that the Paris Agreement was imperfect, but stressed that it represents the best framework for progress. It is high time to shift the focus from finalizing treaties, towards achieving effective implementation.

• In this connection, the COP process serves its intended purpose. COPs must remain annual, to keep the momentum for implementation and for increasing ambition.

• The continuing engagement of heads of state and ministers is crucial: decisions cannot be made by technocrats but require political action.

• The current work to improve the transparency of the process should help implementation. A planned and desirable improvement is to bring more economic data to bear in making the case for climate action and climate finance.

• Finance will be a key determinant of countries’ capacity to implement their pledges and to build resilience to climate change; assistance to poorer countries is a core agenda item for COP26—including for adaptation, which has been neglected for too long.
  

Benito Müller agreed with Hart on the importance of a universal approach. Justice in all its forms (including procedural justice) is essential for the legitimacy of the framework—and smaller countries must be heard. He also agreed on shifting the focus squarely to implementation.

He considered, however, that there is room for improvement in the COP process. COPs have become too large and unfocused, with large delegations and an explosion of non-state participants and side-events. COP23 in Bonn had more than 20,000 participants spread over two campuses, with only a minority contributing to the negotiations.

Müller’s March 2021 report (Quo Vadis COP?, ecbi) recommends slimming down future COPs, ideally back to their post-Kyoto levels of 5000 participants. This could be achieved by breaking the COP into two separate events. The slimmer COP would be devoted to technical matters related to implementation, with political elements (the high-level segment) and non-state climate activism shifted to a new Climate Action Week. Such a division of labor would have the benefit of allowing COPs to make Bonn their permanent headquarters. Geneva could permanently host the Climate Action Weeks, with larger conference capacity and proximity to Bonn. This reform would significantly reduce costs, focus agendas, and eliminate the perception of the COP as ‘a jamboree’. He agreed with Hart that there were some times when high-level engagement in the negotiations, and the public opinion pressure of non-state participants, would be prerequisites for a successful outcome. Hence, for the most vital COPs, e.g., the 2023 Global Stocktake, the COP could shift to Geneva and recombine with the Climate Action Week.

Adrienne Cheasty commented that, unless the current framework could be strengthened, there was a real risk of failing to get effective implementation and increase ambition enough to close the gap between goals and pledges. She agreed with Müller that COPs have become too unwieldy, and would support splitting the negotiations from the side-events—but, like Hart, cautioned that maintaining high-level policymakers’ engagement in the substance of negotiations would be key for getting decisions. Also, it would be important for a split not to lose the energy and innovation associated with the non-state Marrakech process. She thought it might be necessary to pull back from universalism—e.g., coordination on carbon pricing might only be feasible for a small group of the biggest emitters.

She proposed two avenues for strengthening implementation.

• The first was to develop a formal system of scrutiny for NDCs, with the aim of bringing peer pressure to bear on countries. She compared the current vague and intentionally-unofficial processing of NDCs with the more structured IMF consultation process for countries’ macroeconomic plans. IMF Article IV consultations have a uniform format and time frame; they start with technocratic evaluation of plans and end with feedback from the international community. Introducing this more explicit accountability for NDCs, on a level playing-field and with peer feedback, would add a mild stick to the climate architecture.

• The second was to streamline finance, by rebalancing from project financing towards programme financing—which could be delivered faster and more flexibly. As regards mobilizing financing, she saw the IMF’s new SDR issue as a rare opportunity to break the logjam: the UK as COP president should mobilize rich countries to donate their unneeded SDRs for developing-country resilience-building.
  

Kicking off the discussion, the Chair commented that the world appeared to have made more progress in increasing global awareness of the problem than in actually reducing emissions. We should be more creative. The discussion considered whether the UN’s planned strengthening of transparency could act as an effective ‘stick’, with commentators divided on whether more formal IMF-type oversight would help or discourage implementation. Q&As covered: the carbon impact of COPs; the role of the private sector; the carbon border adjustment mechanism; climate litigation activism; the urgency of climate action; bringing China fully on board; a Common Time Frame for measuring results; and other international models worth studying, e.g. CERN. There was broad agreement that the priorities for Glasgow are to make coal a thing of the past and to mobilize financing. 

David Madden (Distinguished Friend of St Antony's)