Since its evolution in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been running for over three decades. The Conference of the Parties (COP) is meeting for the 28th round in Dubai at the end of November 2023. Most parties and observers join the event with little or no confidence in the system, while almost all come back with a broken heart.
Year after year, the Parties and negotiators have remained busy with debate and discussion while the planet needs urgent action. Climate breakdown is a grave reality from the north to south and across the developing and developed countries, though disproportionately. In most cases, people and civil society have also remained engaged in asking for the outcomes, although most efforts aim at the tip of the iceberg. This is why it is critical to challenge the system, model, and the accountability mechanisms, which are often invisible but make the outcomes a continuous failure.
UNFCCC is no longer aligned with its principal objective of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. It has an apparent failure as IPCC and other science streams bring the alarming situation of crossing the 1.5-degree goal. And the sliding back from this objective is also proven in the key features of climate change negotiations. Climate change adaptation has been a prime need for developing countries (also for developed countries now) because of the failure of mitigation efforts by the developed countries. And the loss and damage, the hard reality for climate-vulnerable countries, mean the globe is gradually going beyond mitigation and adaptation.
One of the UNFCCC principles is to protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind based on equity and following common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities of the parties, which has often been debated and neglected because of the different interest of the parties of developed and developing countries, which were supposed to take the lead in respective cases. The latest evidence of ignorance of this principle is the co-chair’s proposal of the Transitional Committee of loss and damage fund and funding arrangements. Ironically, the UNFCCC and its other support structure do not guide how these principles will be applied and what actions will be taken to uphold them.
Such lasting and continued concerns remain, resulting in unexpected outcomes because of the unjust system and procedure. One of the unjust systems is the “consensus-based” decision-making that forces the country parties to follow a “lowest common denominator” strategy. This unjust system forces countries to trade off critical demand for the reservation of only a few parties. This is, maybe, helping reach COP’s decision package, but probably yielding no solution or making the problem more complex, in reverse. Hence, reviewing the appropriateness of the “consensus-based” decision-making process and exploring other options under the Convention is essential. Expecting a consensus-based decision concerning different liabilities, vulnerabilities, and impacts is entirely unjust. Hence, it is critical to look at the rules of procedures and update them, considering the voices of the most affected groups.
One of the loopholes in the whole system is the “voluntary approach” in the conventions, relevant protocols, and agreements. There are no legal bindings, and it is also evident by withdrawal. This gentlemen’s agreement is no longer working in the context of climate breakdown, and there is minimal time to save the planet -- this is time to look for an alternative that must be mandatory for greater humankind.
Oxfam recently released a report that said the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the 5 billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity. The scenario is set and transparent to the world for a long time while this specific data unpacks the grave reality. In this system, the existing system and practices influence it further. There is no debate that the poorest and climate-vulnerable households carry the burden of adapting to the changing climate and the breakdown. Ironically, the adaptation is underfunded, while mitigation takes most of the funds, even within the UNFCCC funding mechanism, for example, GCF and GEF. Globally, the mitigation actions are highly subsidized, fuelling the wealthy block, and it is happening within the system -- which is unjust. Hence, examining the loopholes contributing to unjust decision-making and actions at different corners of the globe is critical.
The system is still running with the mode of the distinction of Annex I and Annex II country parties, defined at the very outset of the UNFCCC. Over time, the situation has changed, and there has also been a shift in the contribution to warming. The whole mechanism is debating around drawing lines between the polluters and developed and developing countries while the least developed and small island countries are suffering continuously. To make the system effective, this must be changed and revised based on the “polluters pay principles” addressing historical and current emissions.
The UNFCCC system and mechanism are liable for unjust accountability as it allows to continue things unaddressed for years; for example, the 100 billion commitments from 2020 are still unsettled. The overall system and practice ignore the pain and suffering caused by the emitting countries and allow those responsible to continue their lives without taking responsibility. Unfortunately, the polluters are continuing to benefit at the expense of the poor and vulnerable countries.
Sadly, most of the parties and other stakeholders got habituated to this ongoing broken system, which is failing to hold the parties accountable for a long time. The practice the COP, CMP, and CMA follow is evidence of an unjust action, as the country parties align to an individual country or block gain at the expense of others and without compassion. The unjust decision-making and negotiation process must be revisited to ensure a safe planet, the future, biodiversity, and other creatures.
The negotiation process has been very diplomatic, though the globe demands bold and urgent actions. In the name of being realistic, most decisions gradually take the situation beyond control. For example, the COP’s decision to promote low-emission technology rather than phasing out fossil fuels will make the problems more complex for future generations. Conflict of interest has also been a significant criticism; for example, the presidency of COP28 is continuing the tone of being realistic at the pre-COP moment. On the first day of COP28, adopting the loss and damage fund without any clear commitment, scale, and replenishment is another blunder, which we will again take time to prove and walk ahead toward an irreparable planet.
The systems and procedures are now essential to challenge, revisit, and revise to ensure outcomes from this global mechanism. And the time window is shrinking very fast. Sadly, we are in the diplomacy of making COP successful with showpieces such as loss and damage funds. People will return with a smile and hope while the globe will slip down more towards an unliveable future without any bold actions on mitigation actions, the 1.5-degree goal, and phasing out of fossil fuels.
Ashish Barua is program manager for the Climate Change and Sustainable Development program of Helvetas Swiss Interco-operation in Bangladesh.
