As COP27 climate negotiations come to an end in Sharm El-Sheikh, commentary has been higher than ever on whether the process can produce a meaningful and ambitious outcome, while feedback on the process by civil society has been bold and in some cases alarming.
This year’s negotiations are challenging. The world is facing a war in Ukraine, widespread inflation, a transition from the COVID-19 pandemic and several major political shifts at national and global level (including electoral transitions in Europe, Brazil, US and others). These present an unfavourable context to achieving global political agreement on climate action. In addition, there continue to be several systemic and structural issues within the negotiations that stall progress, and exacerbate the impact of the current geopolitical and socioeconomic constraints.
Our recent article ‘Why do climate negotiations stall?’ examines three of these systemic issues in detail and suggests innovative approaches to overcoming them, drawing particularly on social scientific evidence. The first problem is overcoming opposed interests (for example, between fossil fuel-based economies and small island states facing devastation from sea-level change). Secondly, consensus is required for a climate agreement. The final hindrance is weak institutional design and enforcement and implementation, as national sovereignty clashes with multilateral governing.
While it may be too late to influence the outcomes of COP27 this year, it is our hope that reflecting on the negotiations from this perspective can trigger a debate on strengthening the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for more ambitious climate action in future. Let’s explore these issues in a little more detail.
The challenge of reconciling different interests in a social dilemma
One of the biggest challenges facing the UNFCCC process is resolving extensive interests and delivering outcomes for an improved climate, a global public good. The range of these interests is vast. For example, negative impacts from rising greenhouse gas emissions will not be equally felt by countries. Some might even benefit through higher agricultural production; others depend heavily on fossil fuels for their welfare and face extensive challenges to diversify their economies. Yet for others the impacts of climate change are a matter of life and death, and the risk posed is in the very near term.
Further conflicting interests include differences in attitudes to climate change between populations and governments. While some governments and their peoples are aligned in their goals for ambitious action, others face a disconnect with governments presenting less ambition than citizens would like. This difference in interests can often be seen bubbling to the top at the COPs, as civil society pushes back against timid action by national governments.
These conflicting interests also manifest themselves through issues in the negotiations. For example, countries at COP27 are currently locked over ‘loss and damage’, which is rooted in countries having different attitudes to the historical responsibility for climate change. Other ‘interest issues’ which stall negotiations include fair reporting and accounting of greenhouse gas emissions and the responsibility around consumption emissions (a country’s emissions resulting from goods consumed in other countries).
The balancing of all these different interests is a significant driver of stalled progress. This, coupled with uncertainties and unresolved fairness questions, makes finding a consensus about the right measures nearly impossible.
The challenges of a consensus decision-making system
To adopt a decision within the UNFCCC, there has to be consensus on it. This system, which has its origin in UN rules of procedure, was long ago recognised as a problem and continues to be one of the biggest blocks, since it gives blocking countries undue weight. This problem with consensus decision making was witnessed last year at COP26 in Glasgow, where India was able to push through ‘watered-down’ language on a global agreement on coal phase-out in the final minutes of the COP negotiations, reducing the overall ambition in the final outcome, the Glasgow Climate Pact. Similarly, the Copenhagen Accords in 2009 were blocked by seven countries. However, while Saudi Arabia and Bolivia imposed a block because the Accords were too ambitious, Tuvalu also opposed them because they were not ambitious enough. Consensus decision making, therefore, not only prevents stronger action, but also serves as a protest mechanism. It has even been dubbed the ‘Law of the Least Ambitious Programme’ – serving only the least ambitious party.
However, changing this system is politically challenging and unpopular. Consensus decision making is considered inclusive and cooperative and therefore fair. The system also preserves an equal structure in contrast to a majority vote, where minorities are at a disadvantage. The challenge of consensus is not unique to the UNFCCC negotiations; it is a structural issue faced by several UN processes. Reform in the climate sphere could therefore not only help unlock more ambitious climate action, but also have a profound impact on reforming the UN.
The challenge of adequate sanctions
Compliance with the outcomes of the UNFCCC agreements is also a cause of stalled progress. As the empty promises from the process stack up – for example commitments to climate finance for developing countries that are unmet – the level of trust between countries decreases and again prevents consensus outcomes. Moreover, a lack of enforcement at multilateral level means that these collective promises, or even national commitments, do not get sanctioned. Under the current globally agreed framework, the Paris Agreement, the responsibility lies with national governments, which are only accountable to themselves.
Although there is a system of reporting national emissions and policies, implementation lags far behind COP decisions and there is no enforcement for those who report slow progress, and no sanctions at a multilateral level. Again, it is not hard to see why progress is slow.
Confronting these challenges and reforming the system
With these systemic reasons in play, what are some of the options for reforming the system to deliver bolder and faster climate action? In our aforementioned article ‘Why do climate negotiations stall?’, we explore in detail some key options for reform. These include:
- Learning from research on public goods games, looking at learnings on how to confront different interests and what influences group formation
- Exploring options for UN reform including comparing consensus decision making and majority voting
- Strengthening institutions to promote the implementation of climate commitments
- Learning from examples of cooperative success by establishing good communication channels, clear thresholds for achieving common goals and removing uncertainties to help achieve these
Exploring these opportunities could be key to unlocking greater progress in climate action. The UNFCCC of course remains the only forum to deliver global climate cooperation, and so the opportunity to improve it should not be ignored. This can help promote collective action and build on momentum from some recent positive trends in global climate action such as progress on policies on a just transition in developed and developing countries, the growth of enabling conditions created by progressive and ambitious climate action in global cities and the move by many global businesses to make commitments in their operations.
As COP27 concludes, be it with or without progress, the time could be right to start reforming the system.
Ulrich Frey a Senior Researcher at German Aerospace Center where he works on modelling of Renewable Energy systems and cooperation problems.
Jazmin Burgess is Deputy Director of the Inclusive Climate Action programme at C40 Cities and leads the Global Green New Deal work, which provides in-depth programme assistance and policy guidance to cities to deliver inclusive climate action and a just transition at the local level. @jburgessclimate
Why do climate change negotiations stall? Scientific evidence and solutions for some structural problems by Ulrich Frey and Jazmin Burgess is free to access on the Bristol University Press Digital here.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Suganth on Unsplash