Opinion: COP23 at Bonn ended with no concrete decisions

It is difficult to assess the success of a negotiation round when it is not meant to deliver concrete decisions. The recently concluded 23rd session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP23), in Bonn under Fiji’s Presidency, was mandated to deliberate on the contours of deliberations at future COPs. Not surprisingly, therefore, the outcome of the COP23 consists of decisions to hold further dialogues and how to conduct them.

The COP23 decided on two sets of dialogues to be concluded by the COP25 in 2019. First decision relates to the issues around pre-2020 commitments. These include commitments by developed countries of providing USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to developing countries, ratification of the Second Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol and meeting the mitigation pledges made in support of the Copenhagen Accord of 2009.

Even the liberal assessments of the implementation of developed country commitments on pre-2020 climate finance show that the status is way off the mark.

Even the liberal assessments of the implementation of developed country commitments on pre-2020 climate finance show that the status is way off the mark and COP23 is still requesting parties to ratify the Doha Amendments to Kyoto Protocol. With this reality check, the decision to hold stocktakes on pre-2020 implementation and ambition at COP24 (in 2018) and COP25 (in 2019) promises little in concrete terms.

Nevertheless, it is a moral and diplomatic achievement for developing countries to keep the agenda and monitoring, reporting and verification of developed country commitments up to 2020 on the table. It may very well serve as a pressure handle on the outcomes of the biennial high-level ministerial dialogues on climate finance scheduled in 2018 and 2020.

The second decision is more open to interpretation in terms of its implications. The COP23 adopted the proposal of the Presidencies of COP 22 (Morocco) and COP 23 (Fiji) to launch a facilitative, participatory, inclusive dialogue to promote cooperation among countries—the Talanoa Dialogue, drawing from the Fijian tradition of collective decision making through building common understanding.

The Talanoa Dialogue will focus on post-2020 climate action with a particular reference to the upcoming special report of the IPCC focusing on limiting the mean global surface temperature rise to 1.50C by 2100. It is expected to “send clear forward-looking signals” for “greater confidence, courage and enhanced ambition” in preparation of nationally determined contributions which are due to be revised in 2020.

The concept of “signals”, perhaps, offers a better key to understand the significance of COP23 in implementing the Paris Agreement.

The concept of “signals”, perhaps, offers a better key to understand the significance of COP23 in implementing the Paris Agreement. While the Paris Agreement allows countries to set a moving target for themselves, hence greater flexibility— to the chagrin of many—what it was able to accomplish was a forward-looking strong collective signal, through submitted NDCs, about the direction of technological transformation and partnerships. The International Solar Alliance, a partnership among governments on the initiative of India, was launched in Paris, followed by the Marrakech partnership of non-state actors next year.

Through such initiatives, governments, non-state and sub-national actors are sending each-other signals of willingness to go the extra mile if they give each other the confidence to do so. It is in these signals from sub-national actors that the optimists plant their hope to undermine the negative impacts of USA’s announcement to pull out from the Paris Agreement.

How do we see a climate of confidence emerging? Who should take the lead? Delivering on earlier commitments appears to be a certain way of doing it. Hence, the two dialogues on pre and post-2020 implementation and ambition are intricately interwoven.

In case, governments fail to deliver on this balance, the responsibility will fall on the non-negotiating actors, particularly the private sector to respond to the “signals” of the Paris Agreement through investments in non-fossil technologies and ensure that governments feel confident and encouraged to enhance their ambition. Whether we like it or not, such are the risks and opportunities of a bottom-up regime, working through signals.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).