A Recipe for COP-Failure: “Much clearer, more streamlined and easier to manage”

By Asgeir Barlaup

Asgeir Barlaup at COP25.

As COP25 President Schmidt gavelled the final plenary to a close this past Sunday, it marked the end of the largest and longest conference in UNFCCC history. Perhaps indicative of the process at large, country delegates experienced technical difficulties accessing the latest version of draft documents during the closing session, adding frustration and confusion to the end of an arduous two-week negotiation marathon.

From my vantage point, the final outcome of COP25 is a mixed bag – it represents both a discouraging “return to form” and the emergence of promising new voices demanding stronger climate action. Yet again, a handful of recalcitrant nations impeded the adoption of new guidelines for international cooperation under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, bringing about, yet another, delay to the implementation of the UN climate change regime. Meanwhile, youth activists and civil society organizations made their mark by demanding an official decision on increased ambition and by staging a demonstration of some 500,000 people in downtown Madrid.

I attended the first week of the negotiations, or the so-called technical week. It was a great experience as I had the opportunity to explore both the process and the substance of the negotiations up-close. I had decided to follow the proceedings of Article 6, by sitting in on most of the negotiations (“informal sessions”) on this subject and by attending some of the related side-events. I also made an effort to speak to the delegates and facilitators during and after each session to get a sense of how/where they were progressing, and which issues were most salient. Overall, everyone I spoke to described how there was a good atmosphere and how other parties were constructive. The informal sessions did experience some push back from the delegates at times, for example if the facilitators were perceived to be rushing the process, but for the most part everyone in the room seemed to be working towards a common resolution.

This is also why it was all the more disappointing to observe the end result. The Parties have had years to finalize the details of Article 6. Everything seemed to be aligned for a good outcome in Madrid. One of the lead organizers told me that the structure of the Madrid negotiations, unlike in Katowice, were “much clearer, more streamlined and easier to manage”, and that they therefore believed they would achieve a good outcome. Yet, the negotiations failed. It seems very unlikely that it will be easier to deliver on Article 6 during COP 26 in Glasgow next year, when all parties also will have to submit their new NDCs.

Article 6 negotiations at COP25.

The reason for failure, and perhaps the reason I was too optimistic, was that I attended the technical part of the conference but was not present during political proceedings in Week 2. It does not matter how much good-will exists between the experts if the politicians can’t agree on the substance. I think that is the best argument for more public participation during these events and for more civic engagement at large. These are not groundbreaking insights. The solutions to climate change exist right now. It is just a matter of finding the political will to take action.

Both during and after COP25, delegates and experts alike have lamented activists for either i) deliberately disrupting the delicate policy process or for ii) coming with unreasonable demands that inflate expectations (by for example demanding an official decision on increased ambition). Both these charges are unjustified. If COP25 really was the “Time for Action” (“Tiempo de actuar”) – like the official motto suggested – we must surely be in trouble.

Finally, I would like to thank Tufts University and the Fletcher School for sending delegations to these conferences. It was also a pleasure to be part of the RINGO-constituency, which provided a fantastic opportunity to meet other researchers, to contextualize the negotiations and to have access to briefings by the Presidency, the UNFCCC Secretariat and the SUBSTA/SBI Chairs. If anything, these encounters only solidified my view that the people running these processes are well-intentioned and extremely competent. If I only could say the same of our decision-makers.

Asgeir Barlaup was a Tufts delegate to COP25 made possible by the Tufts Institute of the Environment (TIE) and financially supported by the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy (CIERP). Should you be affiliated with Tufts University and interested in being a Tufts delegate to COP in future years, please visit: https://environment.tufts.edu/initiatives/events/unfccc-cop/. For more information on CIERP, please visit https://sites.tufts.edu/cierp/.