The adoption of the Paris Climate Pact, 10 years ago, instilled hope that the global community had found the resolve to tackle one of the most difficult challenges before it. It spurred countries to draft national plans to combat global warming and paved the way for a “rule book” for climate action. The momentum generated at Paris, however, waned in less than half a decade. National commitments today are nowhere close to meeting the pact’s goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The transition to green energy remains fraught, with the developed world, emerging economies and the least developed countries not being on the same page on eliminating fossil fuel use. These failures have raised questions over the processes of the UNFCCC — the UN body which stewards global climate change negotiations. This week, Brazil’s Minister for Climate Action, Marina Silva, suggested setting up “additional multilateral mechanisms complementary to the Paris Agreement framework” to ensure that countries adhere to national commitments.
Immediately after the Paris Pact was inked, a section of experts and policymakers advocated that the UNFCCC should transition from being primarily a platform for international treaty negotiations to one that supports and monitors implementation. On paper, the agency today has more than 30 subsidiary agencies that deal with issues including funding, capacity building, assessing loss and damage and adaptation to climate change. However, the continued breach of the temperature threshold set in Paris speaks of the inadequacy of these institutions. Minister Silva has indicated that the mechanism to review national goals related to the Paris Pact needs reform. “The goals are reviewed every five years. Maybe this is not enough,” she said. The trouble, however, is that the UNFCCC has limited enforcement mechanisms. One way to strengthen the agency is to accord a greater role to parties other than nations — the IPCC, for example. The agency is currently the umbrella body for climate research. The heft and goodwill it has acquired in the last 30 years could be better utilised by giving it a greater role in climate diplomacy.
The fact also is that climate negotiation is too serious an issue to be left solely to one UN agency. It requires building alliances at regional levels — between neighbouring countries, among civil society groups and business organisations. Brazil’s climate action minister’s suggestion could be seen as a precursor to a different — and hopefully more effective — global warming diplomacy.
