Pressure mounts to commence negotiations virtually at UNFCCC

Moves to conduct the UN climate change negotiations in a virtual setting have raised concern among developing countries worried this could hamper their effective participation in the already difficult and highly charged talks.

Meena Raman

---

EFFORTS are underway within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to get agreement to commence negotiations virtually.

The Bureau of the UNFCCC’s Conference of Parties (COP) has been meeting since February this year to discuss possibilities to begin negotiations virtually.  

The meetings of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) are supposed to convene in June, while the 26th session of the COP (COP 26) is scheduled to be held in November in Glasgow, United Kingdom.

[The Bureau is comprised of the COP President (which is currently Chile), representatives of Parties from the five UN regional groups and small island developing states. The Bureau oversees the organisation of the sessions and the operation of the UNFCCC Secretariat, especially at times when the COP is not in session.]

The pressure to commence virtual negotiations is also coming from the UN Secretary-General himself, to prevent a further postponement of COP 26 this year after the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic led to the inability to convene the event last year.

At its most recent meeting, held on 15 April, the Bureau agreed to hold a virtual ‘informal’ session of the SBs from 31 May to 17 June.

According to a communication to governments and observers from the UNFCCC Secretariat, ‘Work during the session will be organized informally, and no decision will be taken until the Parties can meet in person again. Informal documents will be prepared by the presiding officers to ensure transparency in the discussions and to capture progress. These documents will not have formal status.’

Said the letter further, ‘Taking into account current recommendations and practices, as well as the challenges of working across time zones, the number of working hours per day will be limited and meetings will be scheduled in pre-established timeslots based on the principle that no region benefits or is affected disproportionately. The Chairs of the Subsidiary Bodies, with the support of the secretariat, taking into account the views and concerns expressed, will prepare scenario notes to further elaborate the modalities for the organization of work in their respective bodies.’

Challenges of virtual talks

According to sources, some developing-country representatives on the Bureau have been opposed to the commencement of formal negotiations by virtual means, pointing to serious challenges posed by the inability of their members to engage effectively due to the digital divide, problems of network connectivity, lack of interpretation services, difficulties in coordinating positions among negotiators from negotiating groups, time-zone issues etc. Developed-country representatives, on the other hand, have supported virtual-based negotiations.

Given the divergent views, the compromise reached at the most recent Bureau meeting seemed inevitable, with an ‘informal’ session with no decision taken until a face-to-face meeting is held.

According to several senior negotiators from developing countries who spoke to the Third World Network (TWN), the climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, unlike other international processes (such as in the UN in New York or under the Convention on Biological Diversity), have been very highly charged, deeply political and complex due to the economic transformation needed for countries to tackle climate change and the consequences that follow. The climate talks have been riddled with a massive trust deficit especially along North-South lines.

One of the most difficult and challenging issues that is pending resolution under the Paris Agreement is the rules for implementation of Article 6, which deals with market and non-market approaches to addressing climate change, including carbon markets. This is one major outstanding matter on which agreement could not be achieved in the previous COPs either in Poland in 2018 or in Spain in 2019, largely due to divergent views and understandings over the approaches/mechanisms envisaged.

According to one seasoned observer who has followed the climate talks for decades, even with face-to-face meetings, the Article 6 negotiations were very complicated, intense and difficult, what more in a virtual setting. Developing countries will face immense difficulties in terms of coordinating among themselves and engaging in a dynamic fashion when Internet connectivity and language barriers pose a tremendous challenge, added the observer.

Another senior diplomat and experienced negotiator from a developing country was of the view that instead of focusing on pushing negotiations by virtual means, efforts should be made by the UN, with the cooperation of developed countries, to facilitate the attendance of delegates at face-to-face meetings for the SBs and the COP, by treating them in the same fashion as frontline workers in the health sector, where all measures are taken to ensure their safety, including in the provision of vaccines to developing countries and in following all health protocols, without travel restrictions and the need for quarantine.

Another delegate from a major developing country said countries do not need to wait for a COP in order to take strong climate action, adding that the Paris Agreement has already come into effect and what is needed now is implementation, through ambitious emission reduction targets by developed countries consistent with their fair shares, taking into account their historical and cumulative emissions. Added the delegate further, one does not need a COP to increase the provision of finance and enable technology transfer to developing countries, as these are pre-existing obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. To portray to the outside world that a COP is needed to implement these commitments is not correct, said the delegate.

Several developing-country representatives who spoke to TWN expressed concerns that virtual negotiations pose serious handicaps to them, in not being inclusive and transparent on how decisions are made. They expressed real worries that this could result in unbalanced outcomes that do not meaningfully reflect or address their views and concerns. It was not about not wanting progress in the climate talks but was about the difficulties in a virtual process which is disadvantageous to them and which can lead to unfavourable outcomes for developing countries.

The informal virtual June session of the climate talks will indeed be challenging, especially for developing countries. How the discussions go, what outputs will be produced and how they will capture the views of the various Parties will indeed be closely watched and scrutinised.

Whether a face-to-face COP 26 meeting will be possible later this year in Glasgow remains to be seen, amidst the uncertainties of the pandemic which has yet to wane.

The June session will be an important indicator as to whether and how advances can be made in the climate talks in the run-up to COP 26.                                                  

*Third World Resurgence No. 347, 2021, pp 22-23