Climate talks are diligently moving ahead toward a global agreement expected at the end of this year. The completion on September 4 of the five-day UN Climate Conference held in Bonn, Germany, marks another step in this process.
Commentaries in public discourse and headlines in the media, however, tend to be lukewarm. To many, the process is moving much too slowly. It is easy to see why a sentiment of dissatisfaction and anxiety dominates, and a “too slow” verdict settles in. If talks are moving at the speed they appear to be moving so far, how can the meeting in Paris guarantee that global temperatures not increase beyond 2°C? This is, after all, a target the international community had given itself six years ago. Negotiators are having difficulty redacting the draft text of the agreement to a manageable length. They are still working on it, now with only 90 days left before Paris. Many think that this calls into question the effectiveness of the whole process.
The inner workings of government
Keep track of who’s doing what to get federal policy made. In The Functionary.
The Functionary
Our newsletter about the public service.
Nominated for a Digital Publishing Award.
Are they right to think so? How are the climate talks going? Are negotiators making progress in taking the talks forward? The problem with the “too slow” verdict is that it suffers from the opposite problem: it moves to the conclusion much too quickly. Whether the talks are going well enough to make meaningful progress is an important question. A satisfactory answer can’t be found, however, without inquiring into what exactly the talks are trying to achieve, and what is to be expected.
A helpful start is to examine the negotiations by contextualizing them. I have previously written about general guidelines on how to understand the process here. Now, I want to focus on the specifics. What was the purpose of the meeting in Bonn on the first week of September?
The work of the ADP
The meeting’s purpose was to convene what is known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform on Enhanced Action (ADP). This committee was struck following the decision made in Durban, South Africa, in 2011, where countries gave themselves an ambitious timeframe to work on the terms of a new agreement by the end of 2015.
The ADP’s mandate is to oversee this process. At this stage, the focus is on writing the agreement’s draft text to be presented to signatories in the French capital in December. The ADP, in other words, is the backbone of the current round of negotiations. Another meeting of the committee will be held again in Bonn in October.
Dividing the task into feasible parts
Many are tempted by the “too slow” verdict because they can’t see happening a tangible, resolute, once-and-for-all action plan to address the problem of climate change. But a global agreement of this scope is an effort far more complex than it seems at first blush. There may be willingness to cooperate on a global scale. But setting the terms of this cooperation, acceptable to all, is another proposition altogether. It would be an error in judgment to expect from Paris to deliver everything we need and want in an agreement, a grand formula to which nothing else could be added.
So, then, what exactly should be expected? In looking for an answer, it may be helpful to distinguish between two different goals:
The inner workings of government
Keep track of who’s doing what to get federal policy made. In The Functionary.
The Functionary
Our newsletter about the public service.
Nominated for a Digital Publishing Award.
Setting the institutional architecture of a durable climate regime
The focus for the draft text currently being prepared is to set the terms of international negotiations in such a way that it confers enough latitude to nations in making their contributions, but puts in place a rigorous mechanism that will ensure a stable and durable process moving forward. This is the priority.
Developing mechanisms for raising ambition
Once an appropriate institutional architecture is set, the goal will be to develop mechanisms to raise ambition. This is a very important component. But focusing on a 2°C target without taking the time to develop a carefully thought out, fully textured, and working institutional architecture, has perils. A global effort as large as this one requires a strong and durable institutional structure. Without it, it may not go too far, and there is too much at stake to take chances. This is why the focus in the next 90 days, and in Paris, is to secure first and foremost an effective architecture and to get it rolling. If designed well, the agreement could facilitate raising ambition. Given the scope of the endeavour, it makes sense to achieve these two goals in sequence.
Understanding progress
When the behaviour of successful people is examined, it becomes clear that they share certain patterns in the way they approach large projects. In addition to working with vision and perseverance, ability to divide a big project into smaller feasible tasks goes a long way. This, however, is not merely a guideline for individuals or businesses. It is a prerequisite for much larger endeavours, and the global climate effort is no exception.
When zoomed out and looked at from a distance, climate talks appear to be painfully slow. If we want all the goals met and presented as a once-and-for-all package, the process is bound to appear disappointing. 90 days would hardly be enough. But when zoomed in, the picture looks different. Capturing a finer-grained image allows us to see the progress that is being made, and to recognize that negotiations are not in vain. All this is a matter of calibrating our perspective through an informed lens. This can make us better analysts. But most of all, it provides a better chance to make sound recommendations for further improvement.
None of this is to suggest a rosy picture. There are many challenges in the 90 days ahead. Persistent differences divide negotiating blocks on some key issues and have to be reconciled. The upside of the latest meeting in Bonn is that the parties are willing to get the work done. They stated their positions and voiced their concerns. They asked the Co-Chairs to distill the draft into its final version to be reviewed in October.
The ADP Co-Chairs have some hefty homework to do.
