How paralysis of global climate change negotiations affects us

Climate change negotiations have been under way for over three decades, yet there is no quantifiable evidence of success in realising the various climate-related targets and agreements. Instead, over the same period, humanity has doubled atmospheric carbon emissions, exacerbating the climate crisis.

At the same time, awareness of the problem has been built, leading to adoption by 196 countries of the Paris Agreement, whereby countries committed themselves to limiting global temperature increases to less than 2oC above pre-industrial levels, and would pursue efforts to limit that increase to 1.50C. Under the same agreement, parties also agreed to establish a loss and damage facility, another milestone.

Despite these agreements, however, negotiations have largely been deemed unfruitful, especially for developing countries, which have always left the negotiations frustrated. Let’s explore some of the issues that have paralysed climate change negotiations.

First, the negotiation process itself. Since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into force in 1994, climate negotiations have taken place each year through the Conference of the Parties (COP), the supreme decision-making body of the process. Climate change negotiators have met regularly to discuss and make decisions on how to tackle climate change. Through written proposals and negotiating texts, decisions are arrived at and new treaties are adopted.

Decision-making has been impeded, however, by the approach, mandated by UNFCCC, that agreement must always be by consensus. The need for consensus arose from the original lack of agreement on the draft rules of procedure. As a consequence, any country can block a decision that it does not agree with.

A luring example of this facility is the delay by the US in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, a key instrument for the operationalisation of the UNFCCC, setting emissions targets for industrialised countries, as the US perceived that developing nations, which were exempt from certain emission reduction targets, would benefit at the expense of the US economy. Furthermore, at the COPs, participants are overwhelmed – suffocated, even – with a surfeit of information that needs to be sifted through in a matter of a few days, leaving little time for negotiations and the push to reach consensus.

Second, mistrust between participants from developing countries and advanced countries. For instance, during COP15 in Copenhagen, the EU and other developed countries indicated their willingness to reduce emissions by certain percentages, despite a host of other challenges. During the meeting, the text under consideration, the Copenhagen Accord, was leaked.

The wording of the agreement suggested that decisions had already been made by developed nations and the World Bank and that the COP was just window-dressing. As a result, developing nations legitimately felt that their concerns were being ignored, leading to arguments between them and developed countries. China and India seized the opportunity to scuttle the negotiations and encouraged other developing countries to accuse advanced countries of working opaquely and making agreements that suited their interests without seeking consent from developing countries. Such self-interest measures, coupled with failure by developed countries to honour their side of the deal, have continued to widen the trust deficit.

Third, broken promises and commitments. As the world inches closer to 2050, the Paris Agreement targets are still far from being achieved. The $100 billion per year pledged by developed countries to help least developed countries transition from fossil fuels to clean energy has not materialised. In November 2024, at COP 29, the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF), instituted to help least developed and climate-vulnerable countries claim compensation for damage caused by greenhouse gas-producing developed nations, was finally operationalised and $300 billion per year has been promised.

The questions are: Will developed countries start honouring their commitments to the LDF? How accessible will the funds be to least developed nations? In the past, while some funding has been available, access to and allocation of funds have been a major challenge. While pledges and commitments remain unfulfilled, is there even any point in negotiators continuing their efforts to propose new agreements and treaties?

Fourth, failure to take responsibility. Many parties within the UNFCCC support the principle of ‘contraction and convergence’ – the idea that every country must reduce its emissions and that all countries must converge on net zero emissions. But how many countries are actually actively working towards this? At COP15 in 2009, for instance, the US had led drafting of the Copenhagen Accord, which set aside earlier proposals aimed at reducing emissions and global temperatures, in particular the aforementioned Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

While the Kyoto Protocol was legally binding and could hold signatory countries accountable for their non-compliance, the Copenhagen Accord was a considerably watered-down agreement enabling countries to set their own emission reduction targets. More recently in 2017, during his first term as president, President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement, stating that it would undermine the US economy. The US rejoined the Agreement under President Biden but, with Trump’s re-election, many experts believe that the US will further abandon its undertakings to curb greenhouse gas emissions and raise funds for least developed nations. 

Overall, it is worth noting that, given their current pace and meagre results, the UNFCCC negotiations are doing little to resolve the unfolding climate change crisis. The successive COPs have become avenues for proclaiming new ambitions and commitments without tracking prior commitments and evaluating performance. In addition, the concept of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ has failed to deliver on the need for equity and climate justice for developing countries. It is now time for countries to ‘walk the talk’: to scale up mitigation and adaptation, to honour their climate funding pledges, and to provide the promised loss and damage compensation.

- john.o.kakonge@ gmail.com