COP20: My Thoughts.

On Monday December 1st (1/12/14) the twentieth Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (COP20) opened in Lima, Peru. Although I seem to have avoided my annual Court appearance extensive computer problems along with events the second half of 2014 mean that I am still quite behind with my reading. However it might just be because no-one has yet literally shot anyone in the face but from what I have read I'm finding the general mood of the conference to be much more upbeat then at any similar conference I can remember.

The main reason for this is that most people have now realised that action to combat climate change is not automatically a barrier to economic development. In fact in many cases it actually helps improve economic development. As a result there are far fewer people sitting there scowling; "We're only doing it if they're doing it" and many more people who intend to make changes regardless of whether a global agreement is reached or not.

That said it is still vitally important that a global agreement is reached and this meeting provides really the last opportunity to produce a draft text for that agreement that can be negotiated and signed at the meeting in Paris at the end of 2015. However the main objective of COP20 remains to agree a standard format for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC's) to be submitted in the first quarter of 2015 so they can be subjected to an ex ante review process. After all once that task has been completed a large portion of the negotiating text will have already been agreed upon.

Obviously in order to determine what form the INDC's shall take and what the ex ante review process shall involve the parties first need to decide on what type of agreement they are trying to create.

Sadly a small minority of parties in the African grouping in particular are still holding out for a binary-style agreement similar to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in which nations are divided into Annex I Parties who are economically developed and bear the most burden to take action and Annex II Parties which are less economically developed and bear little responsibility to take action. I myself am very opposed to this binary approach for the simple reason that the Kyoto Protocol failed with both GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions and global temperatures continuing to rise throughout its 20 year lifespan. Also this binary approach severely limits ambition with the Annex I Parties only agreeing to small commitments that they are sure they can achieve in order to avoid punishment for failing to achieve those commitments. It also serves to condemn Annex II Parties to remain economically under-developed in order to avoid reclassification. Fortunately most parties now seem to agree with me and certain parties such as Australia have made it quite clear that a binary approach will be a red-line in that will prevent them signing up to the new agreement.

Therefore it seems the best and only way forward is to adopt a hybrid agreement of the type suggested by New Zealand. This would see all nations submit INDC's that include a upper target, a median target and a minimum target. If the nation misses its upper target there will be absolutely no consequences whatsoever beyond maybe a voluntary discussion amongst their peers about why they failed in order to improve our understanding of the subject. If a nation fails to meet its median target it will then be given the option to off-set its failure by assisting another nation to exceed its median target. After all if USD1 million is spent to take 1000 tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere it doesn't really matter whether that cut comes from France or the Marshall Islands. If a nation fails to off-set a failure to reach its median target or fails to reach its minimum target the matter will then go to a resolution panel which will have the option to impose large fines the proceeds of which will go to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) although the purpose is to discourage nations from missing their targets rather then trying to get them to pay fines.

For the majority of nations who were classed as Annex II Parties under the KP their minimum target will be set at zero meaning that it will be impossible for them to be punished under the first period of the agreement. For Annex I Parties under the KP their minimum target will be their current targets in order to avoid backsliding. Although a typical election cycle is between 4 and 6 years governments tend to last around 10 years so I think this is a suitable length of time for each period of the agreement. At the end of each 10 year period a nations median target will become their new minimum target and so forth although there will need to be room for negotiation particularly if a nation has catastrophically missed its targets or suffered a Force Majeure type event.

As for the issue of whether INDC's should include adaptation measures or simply mitigation measures I think that they should contain both. That's because many land use management measures such as planting or preserving coastal mangroves to protect against storm-surge flooding count as both adaptation and mitigation measures. However I think that only mitigation measures should be legally binding under the terms of the agreement and adaptation measures should be weighted to count for less then mitigation measures if they are being used to off-set a failure to meet a mitigation target.

In terms of the ex ante review process while I hope there will be a lot of healthy competition to boost ambition it is essential that INDC's remain as nationally determined contributions. That is to say that while a nation will be legally bound to a target it has set for itself other nations do not get to say what a nations target will be. So for example Peru won't get to set Venezuela's INDC's, Venezuela won't get to set the US' INDC's and the US won't get to set China's INDC's. If this starts happening then the process stops being about taking action on climate change and starts getting bogged down in rivals trying to ruin each others economies. Nations though will remain free to complain and try to embarrass nations into making greater INDC's.

If the hostility of political and economic rivalries can be removed from the ex ante process it can then become a useful peer review process that allows nations to collaborate in order to better achieve their INDC's. After all if a nation has got its sums wrong or been overly optimistic in setting its contributions I'm sure they would want that matter raised before their INDC becomes a legally binding target.

The discussions about what type of agreement is needed and what form INDC's should take has exposed a serious knowledge gap within the negotiating parties. In short the smaller, less economically developed nations particularly in the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) grouping simply don't have access to the technical specialists they need to draw up their INDC's and engage in discussions with the larger nations such as the US. For example even in many of the larger SIDS such as Jamaica and Barbados you will struggle to find a government ministry dealing solely with development let alone one dealing solely with climate change. Fortunately over the past year a lot of work has gone into closing this knowledge gap through the Technical Expert Meetings (TEM's) which allow all parties access to technical experts in particular fields.

I think this has been a success and should be expanded beyond the fields of science and engineering to include experts in legal and economic matters. After all a lot of the mitigation actions that former Annex I Parties will take will centre around things like establishing carbon markets which require extensive legal, political and economic expertise. Even something relatively small such as establishing a pricing (tariff) structure for a new power station is a complex legal and economic task particularly if it includes funding from an international body like the GCF.

However as with the issue of finance a lot of the parties that require assistance are worried that this technical help with either evaporate completely or become so highly politicised that it fails to provide a level playing field. This strikes me as an entirely valid concern because the developed nations there seems to exist a culture that rather then trying to do their best nations are more interested in beating down their rivals so they can claim they are simply better then everyone else. A prime example of this has been the current situation in Ukraine where it seems obvious to all that the sanctions that the US keeps demanding are intended simply to wreck the Russian economy and drag down the economy of the European Union (EU). After all if the sanctions were intended to end the crisis by altering behaviour they would also include the government in Kiev which seems incapable of honouring a single agreement it has entered into such as the Geneva agreement or the Minsk agreement.

To guard against this sort of behaviour the SIDS in particular have been pushing for the TEM's process to be brought fully online with I suppose webcasts and notes being provided to all parties via a dedicated web portal. The US in particular has appeared very hostile to this idea by raising the spectre of Internet security both through my computer problems and its hacking of Sony Pictures which it blamed on the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) in a story so fantastic Sony Pictures themselves would have been proud of it.

Although I'm not convinced that there is a significant risk of people trying to hack into a public web portal there remains a certain level of concern about bringing the TEM's process fully online. After all there may be aspects of things like nuclear power generation that people will be happy to share on a government to government basis that they would be less happy about publishing on the World Wide Web. Also although it is becoming more widespread Information Communication Technology is a technologically advanced field so there is a worry that a web portal for TEM's will have to be supported by a series of TEM's on the technology used to provide the web portal. Plus as people familiar with COP meetings know a lot of the really interesting work is done away from the webcams in the corridors and in the coffee shops rather then on the floor of formal sessions.

It is clear though that there needs to be certain assurances made to ensure that the TEM's process is open to all. My suggestion for a compromise is for the meetings to be held at regular intervals ideally alongside other UNFCCC meetings and the meeting procedures to be changed so a meeting can only be considered official if all parties have been invited in good time - three months has been suggested - and the program of work is included in the invitation. That way the smaller nations can organise amongst themselves to make sure that they are represented at all of the meetings and able to benefit from it. After all flying a delegation halfway across the world for a meeting every couple of weeks can be a huge undertaking for some of the small, impoverished nations.

Of course if nations want to play politics with technical advice above and beyond that baseline they remain free to do so.

12:20 on 4/12/14 (UK date).