Jamaica, the Caribbean and AOSIS at COP26
Jamaica, the Caribbean and other Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) members will arrive in Glasgow for the 31 October to 12 November 2021, 26th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 26) in an environment more sympathetic than in Copenhagen in 2009 or even Paris in 2015. Some major countries, in particular the hosts, members of the European Union and the United States have become more sensitive as their realities begin to coincide with those which AOSIS members have been warning against since the beginning of the 1990s. But, even so, there are influential deniers within those and other countries, so Cop 26 will be very testy.
The die for Planet Earth might well have already been cast. Real actions and commitments will be needed. But many have not shed the old mould where it is the weak and most vulnerable who pay.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis has left no doubt that the world is moving rapidly and inexorably into an existential crisis. The cause is man-made. And, the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the actions States have committed to taking, could see the increase in average temperature reach 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030 and between 2.0 and 4.0 degrees Celsius by 2050. But, there is nothing in the performance of the major countries since 1992 which would suggest that such a performance will be near to the proposed undertaking. Further, AOSIS m members must remain conscious that the Copenhagen trap, carried forward into Paris of 2.0 or below 2.0 degrees Celsius leading to the Paris statement of “ideally 1.5 Degrees Celsius” was never true for them. The AOSIS position was always “below 1.5 Degrees Celsius.” Put differently, an outcome of Glasgow of “a maximum of 1.5 Degrees Celsius by 2050” would not be one for celebration by Jamaica, the Caribbean and other AOSIS members.
A second area that should attract the concern of Jamaica, the Caribbean and other AOSIS members relate to finance. The current Glasgow target of US$100 billon annually was the undertaking given at Copenhagen to have been achieved in 2020 for the loosening of the warming target. The emissions have built up. The UN Independent Expert Group on Climate Finance in its 2020 Report found it impossible to determine the level of contribution but concluded that it was well short of the target. It recommended with respect to Glasgow that “the US$100 billion target therefore be seen as a floor and not as a ceiling”. What the Experts were not brave enough to recommend is that, given the experience of Copenhagen, an annual report mechanism must be a part of the decision.
Further, while the Glasgow Outcome speaks to the private and multilateral financial institutions contributing to the financial basket there are no targets. With nothing to measure against, any amount will represent success. Another red flag in relation to finance is that there are no indications of the proportion of grants in relation to loans. Given, inter alia, the adverse impacts of COVID 19 on GDP, even very soft loans might be difficult for many developing countries, including AOSIS members, to access.
A third area that should agitate the minds of Jamaica, the Caribbean and other AOSIS countries is the absence from the Glasgow Outcome Document of any commitments or even discussions on technology. Technology is the major cause and holds the greatest potential for mitigating climate modifying production and waste build-up. Developing Countries, including AOSIS members, have been advocating since the RIO and Barbados Conferences and, especially in the process towards Copenhagen that industrialised countries, holders of over 80 per cent of production patents: (a) focus on developing technologies that significantly reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) impact per unit of production; and (b) collaborate among themselves and with developing countries’ governments and institutions with a view to ensuring that technologies can be made available to producers in developing countries at costs which will allow for competitive production.
A fourth issue, omitted from the Draft Glasgow Outcomes is consumption, more specifically, over-consumption and its twins, waste production and natural resource over-exploitation. Over-consumption has often been linked to affluence, mal-distribution of wealth and unequal access to resources. These maladies place undue pressure on resources and sustainability. They have been specifically referenced in the outcomes of all major environment and sustainable development-related Conferences since RIO and in all meetings of the COP.
More broadly, the “canaries in the coal mine” should be concerned that, in general, the proposed outcomes of Glasgow seem narrow and, on close reading, biased to actions by developing countries. Adaptation and resilience; safeguard eco-systems; and zero-carbon in road transportation are very important, but nowhere as important as the issues of mitigation; international transportation (air and sea); production systems, and over-consumption and waste which have always been seen as the most critical and overwhelmingly the responsibility of the industrialised countries.
In addition to the above substantive issue areas, there are at least three sets of issues on the process side which should signal caution on the part of AOSIS members.
First, the conference is being hosted by two G-7 states. The fundamental objective of hosts is the appearance of agreed outcomes that can be announced to the media. The shortest way to this end is to appease the powerful, divide the weak and co-opt the strategic. G-7 countries are not only practised in these techniques they have institutional and organizational arrangements, including their meeting on the eve of the Conference, to discuss and to appreciate their various interests and to strategize and coordinate action.
Second, vital interests are critical. Jamaica, the rest of the Caribbean and other AOSIS members’ vital interest – survival and movement towards sustainability – are closely aligned. They must make time during the conference to appreciate each other’s reality and coordinate their action. They cannot afford to prioritise the interests and activities of others, including the organizers.
Third, power going into, during and after the conference are grossly unequal. Undertakings by AOSIS members are enforceable commitments. Undertakings by the major countries, even when captured in text, are hardly enforceable. When left vague as in the case of the financial provisions in the Copenhagen Agreement they are virtually useless. Vagueness or omissions are usually not accidents.
Jamaica, the Caribbean and other AOSIS leaders, technicians and advisers have their job cut out for them at COP 26. They can only hope to have a level of success if they proceed with modesty, recognize that their vital interests are with those in their similar situation and coordinate and work hard on the ground.
