Author: Paige Uehling

The climate conference in Bonn ended on May 18^th, 2017. The two-week conference addressed many climate concerns, including addressing the rulebook for meeting the goals set forth in the Paris Agreement, adaptation finance, and the global stocktake. The 2018 Facilitative Dialogue, which seeks to measure progress and inform the following round of NDC’s, was also addressed at the Bonn climate conference.

NDC’s, or Nationally Determined Contributions, are the pledges set forth by individual countries. Scientists believe that current NDC’s are not ambitious enough to stop global temperatures from rising 2°C above pre-industrial levels [1]. As a result, it will be critical for the Facilitative Dialogue to be successful in motivating countries to raise ambitions to a level that will successfully decrease global temperatures. Yamide Dagnet, of the World Resources Institute, commented that the Facilitative Dialogue still needs to gain creativity to make the dialogue interactive, real, and connected to what people really need [1]. Real ideas are needed to inform delegates on how to meet ambitions, as the dialogue is the first step in stocktaking.

Kaveh Guilanpour, the Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Marshall Islands, stated that the Facilitative Dialogue is a “process… it’s not just going to be something that happens at COP24, but it’s a process that will go on throughout the year [1].” Allowing the Facilitative Dialogue to be a process, rather than simply an end goal, creates an opportunity for the dialogue to be fluid in structure, shifting and changing to meet the needs of countries and the resulting ambitions.

At the start of the Bonn Climate Conference, UNFCCC Secretariat Patricia Espinosa called for a 7.9% budget increase to support the Facilitative Dialogue, CMA, and APA [2]. The presidencies of COP22 and COP23 began informal consultations on the modalities of the Facilitative Dialogue, with many delegates offering inputs. Concerns for the Facilitative Dialogue were introduced. Specifically, some delegates wondered if the dialogue would have the strength to foster political momentum or the connection to link dialogue processes with review and transparency. Without political momentum, it seems ambitions would fall short and there will not be a clear path for countries to raise ambitions or understand how to meet ambitions, financially or technically. Connection of processes to review and transparency is essential to maintain awareness for where ambitions are lacking and again, how to modify ambitions to meet climate change goals.

At the Bonn Climate Conference, several ideas were called for, including [3] [4]:

• Mexico believes the scientific community and the IPCC need to have strong roles in the Facilitative Dialogue.
• Guatemala believes work on the Facilitative Dialogue is critical for reaching the “trajectory” emphasized by science.
• Maldives believes the design of the Facilitative Dialogue should be completed byCOP23.
• Deo Saran of Fiji believes the Facilitative Dialogue preparations are necessary for COP23.
• Gebru Jember Endalew of the LDC group believes the Facilitative Dialogue is key to increasing ambitions.
• India believes the Facilitative dialogue should address how mitigation efforts will consider poverty eradication and equity.
• Argentina believes the dialogue should consider an early entry into force of the Paris Agreement

As stated earlier, scientists are concerned that current NDC’s are not ambitious enough to stop global temperature increase from a level of 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Given the concern of scientists, the Facilitative Dialogue will need to be efficient and effective in raising ambitions. Just as the LDC group believes increasing ambitions is necessary and India believes that equity and poverty eradication must be considered in the dialogue, the Facilitative Dialogue must meet countries where they are, addressing individual needs and shining a light on opportunities for improvement. Capacity building will be important for the Facilitative Dialogue to consider, as many countries lack the capacity to combat climate change. As such, countries need assistance to adapt to our ever-changing world. Frank Bainimarama, Fijian Prime Minister and President of COP 23, introduced the concept of Talanoa: “this is the process of inclusive participatory and transparent dialogue that builds empathy and leads to decision-making for the common good [5].” Bainimarama envisions a dialogue that is transparent and inclusive for all.

Although there is still much work to be done in preparation for the 2018 Facilitative Dialogue, the Bonn Climate Conference was an opportunity for countries to come together to voice their concerns and their visions for what the dialogue can one day become.

[1] http://enb.iisd.org/videos/climate/unfccc-sb46-env/monday-15-may-2017/

[2] http://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/enb12701e.pdf

[3] http://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/enb12701e.pdf

[4] http://enb.iisd.org/vol12/enb12676e.html

[5] https://vimeo.com/218219058

Photo 1: http://enb.iisd.org/videos/climate/unfccc-sb46-env/monday-15-may-2017/

Photo 2: http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb46/enb/9may.html

Photo 3: http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb46/enb/

The 2017 Intersessional is occurring this week in Bonn, Germany. It takes place from May 8^th through May 18^th, 2017. The Intersessional is the 46^th session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 46) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological (SBSTA 46), as well as the third part of the first session of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Paris Agreement (APA 1-3) [1]. The UNFCCC released several documents on related agenda items prior to the start of the two-week negotiating session.

The World Resources Institute describes several key issues to watch for at the 2017 Bonn Intersessional. There will be work on the Paris rulebook to allow adoption of the Paris Agreement by 2018 [2].  Additionally, the Intersessional will involve designing the 2018 Facilitative Dialogue, which offers space to review the progress make towards ambitions and implementation. The Facilitative Dialogue also allows opportunities for discussion to enhance financial resources for technology development and capacity building [3].

APA 1-3 is expected to continue work on the Paris Agreement, as the Paris Agreement work program is due by 2018. Key issues for APA 1-3 include Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), adaptation mechanisms, development of a transparency framework, the global stocktake, mechanisms to support facilitation and compliance, and the adaptation fund [4].

SBI 46 will discuss the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), the third review of the adaptation fund, and the program budget for 2018-2019 [5]. SBI 46 is also expected to discuss the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) [4].

SBSTA 46 is expected to review modalities for accounting of financial resources according to the Paris Agreement Article 9.7 [5]. SBSTA will review the Nairobi work program, agriculture, science and review, and response measures. They will also discuss methodological issues regarding the Convention and Kyoto Protocol. In the Paris Agreement work program, SBSTA will review the technology framework and cooperative approaches from Article 6 [4].

The 2017 Bonn Intersessional is a key meeting to continue progress towards reaching ambitions set forth in the Paris Agreement. The meeting will allow review and development of goals to gain a clearer picture of how goals will be obtained and where work still needs to be done. Progress on countries’ implementation of mechanisms and ambitions will be discussed, allowing the Intersessional to track the success of individual countries and continue the momentum of the Paris Agreement.

Sources:

[1] http://unfccc.int/meetings/bonn_may_2017/meeting/10076.php

[2] http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/05/climate-negotiations-bonn-countdown-2018-starts

[3] http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/items/9985.php

[4] http://sdg.iisd.org/news/bonn-climate-change-conference-continues-work-on-paris-agreement-rulebook/

[5] http://sdg.iisd.org/news/climate-finance-related-documents-released-ahead-of-bonn-unfccc-meeting/

Photo 1: http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/06/looking-faster-pace-bonn-climate-talks-1

Photo 2: http://unfccc.int/meetings/bonn_may_2017/meeting/10076/php/view/schedule.php

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States occurred just four days after the start of the 2016 UN Climate Conference in Marrakesh, Morocco. During the 2016 presidential election, Trump vowed to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement with his firm belief that there is no proof of human-induced climate change [1]. The Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016, seeks to enhance the global response of combatting climate change and keeping global temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial levels [2]. Trump’s beliefs about climate change are a major cause of concern for the future of the United States in the Paris Agreement.

President Trump ultimately has the final decision on whether or not to remain the in Paris Agreement. An alternative to backing out of the agreement also exists, though neither option is in the best interest of the United States or Planet Earth. Paris Article 4.11 states:

“A Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition, in accordance with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.”[3]

Trump has the opportunity to formally revise the ambitions set forth by the Obama Administration and stay in the Paris Agreement. President Obama said the United States would reduce carbon emissions 26% from 2005 emissions by 2025 [4]. The Paris Agreement does not clearly state that ambitions must become more ambitious.  So, although there is an opportunity for the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement under the Trump Administration, negatively revising the ambitions set forth by the U.S. would result in nearly as many harmful impacts as pulling out of the agreement.  The negotiations of the Paris Agreement will continue this month in Bonn, Germany from May 8^th-May 17th [5]. The hope is that the United States will remain in the Paris Agreement and continue making strides to combat climate change. President Trump is likely going to give his decision about whether or not the U.S. will remain in the Paris Agreement during this time.

This year at the mid-year negotiations in Bonn, only seven U.S. representatives are present at the conference as compared to 45 representatives in 2015[6]. The possibility of a decision from the U.S. exists this week. If not, Trump is expected to make a decision by the meeting of the G-7 leaders’ summit in Sicily later this month. The G-7 meets each year to discuss collective decision making regarding energy policy, security, and governance and is composed of seven industrialized democracies [7].

Withdrawing the United States from confronting climate change could result in many negative impacts. According to a recent poll, 66% of Americans are concerned that climate change will affect them personally[8][9]. Additionally, pulling out of the Paris Agreement would negatively affect job opportunities. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, approximately 800,000 Americans were employed in low-carbon-emission technology, as compared to 160,000 Americans employed by the coal industry [10]. Without the support of the United States in tackling climate change, there would be major concerns about the outcomes of global climate policy and the reliability of the United States, which is the world’s largest economy and second largest producer of greenhouse gases[11]. Furthermore, other countries may want to leave the Paris Agreement if the United States were to leave.

The entry into force of the Paris Agreement in 2016 was a huge achievement for global climate policy and environmental protection. As a world economic and policy leader, the United States plays a major role in setting an example for combatting climate change. Several possibilities exist in which Trump could move forward in combatting climate change. The best option for the health of the environment and the credibility of the United States is for Trump to decide to stay in the Paris Agreement with the ambitions set forth by the Obama Administration. On the other hand, Trump could decide to revise the ambitions currently in place and reduce U.S. efforts to combat climate change. This option is not ideal for climate governance, but it maintains some credibility. The worst option, for reasons discussed above, would be for Trump to pull out of the Paris Agreement. This would be detrimental for the health of the environment and for the reliability of the U.S. as an ally in the fight against global climate change.

Though no formal decision has been made yet, it is likely only a matter of days or weeks before the Trump Administration will release a decision regarding the Paris Agreement. Until then, we can only hope that the health of Planet Earth is kept in mind.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174

[2] http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

[3]https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/climate-change-trump.html?_r=0)

[5] http://unfccc.int/meetings/bonn_may_2017/meeting/10076.php

[6] https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060054180

[7] http://www.cfr.org/international-organizations-and-alliances/group-seven-g7/p32957

[8] https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2449

[9] http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Clean_Energy_Fact_Sheet_final.pdf

[10]https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf)

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/climate-change-trump.html?_r=0

Photo 1: http://www.climatenetwork.org/event/bonn-intersessional-may-2017

Photo 2: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-final-paris-climate-deal