10 Tests to Find out if Paris Climate Change Deal Is a Success
By Dr Adil Najam
Paris, France
M inisters are back in Paris for the final stretch of COP 21 negotiations. A draft is in hand, peppered with the brackets that indicate areas of disagreement. France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, is busy constructing coalitions. The process of paring down the brackets has begun in earnest.
It is not clear what the agreement will be, but it is clear that there will be an agreement. That means Paris can be declared a success.
Of course, Paris was condemned to succeed. The ignominy that was Copenhagen ( COP15, 2009 ) was never to be its destiny. That meant getting to an agreement – any agreement. Now that such an agreement is in sight , there is a palpable sigh of relief.
Now is a good time to ask just how meaningful (or not) any given Paris agreement will be. Here are 10 questions I will be using as a yardstick. They will be my guide to exactly what we are celebrating, and how much we should celebrate.
Given the science, the experience of a quarter century of climate talks, and all the promises made in the past three years, an ideal agreement should garner 10 “yes” responses. I, however, will be happy with anything that gets at least five. Anything less, I think, will not be worth the carbon cost of everything that has gone into the process.
1. Is there an agreement? Any agreement?
2. Are there binding emission targets for industrialized countries?
The responsibility of industrialized countries is already enshrined in Annex I of the Kyoto protocol . Here, and elsewhere, “binding” would imply clear legal language that makes implementation a responsibility that states would, and could, be held accountable for.
3. Are there binding emission targets for major emerging economies with large emissions?
This category could be defined, for example, by G20 membership. However, it would, at a minimum, include the two mega-emitters, China and India.
4. Does the agreement include quantifiable financial commitments to assist developing countries in mitigation and adaptation, and are these a) binding, b) sufficient, and c) additional?
The obligation to assist developing countries in mitigation and adaptation to climate change has long been accepted. However, actual commitments tend to be vague and often remain unfunded. A yes on this question would mean all of the following: a) any commitment made is considered binding and implemented transparently, b) the already agreed goal of $100bn by 2020 is met or exceeded, and c) any climate financing is “additional” and does not simply relocate existing development assistance allocations.
5. Does it include a clear roadmap for restricting global warming to 2C or less?
The 2C goal is already contained in international agreements. This question, therefore, pertains to whether the Paris agreement will include a clear pathway to reaching this goal through intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) or other mechanisms.
6. Does it revise the long-term goal to restrict global warming to 1.5C or less?
The most vulnerable countries, and many scientists, have argued for a downward revision in the long-term goal of climate stabilization on the grounds that several hundreds of millions of people will slip through the crack between a 2C and a 1.5C goal .
7. Is 2020 confirmed as the date for the next major round of commitments and review of progress?
Any slippage will result in delays in action and could have adverse long-term impacts for vulnerable countries and communities.
8. Is there a clear and independent mechanism to measure, report and verify emission reduction claims?
Especially in the possible absence of binding commitments, a robust and independent system for reporting emission reductions (mitigation) is necessary. Any self-reporting mechanism would, by default, result in a “no” answer to this question.
9. Does the agreement include clear language on conditions for adaptation financing for vulnerable developing countries?
The goal of developing “adaptative capacity” in vulnerable developing countries must not be an unfunded mandate. Clear language on the responsibility of industrialized and large emerging economies to fund such activity, and the principles for its use and disbursement, must not be left vague and should be included in any agreement.
10. Is there a clear mechanism for dealing with “loss and damage”?
There are a number of climate change impacts, particularly in the most vulnerable and poorest countries, that will be difficult or impossible to adapt to. We need a clear mechanism – including principles for funding and disbursement of support – to respond to them.
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
