Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Integrated agreement the only way to resolve climate change

By Darcy Gilligan - posted Friday, 22 November 2013


This conference is set to address a number of critical issues in international efforts to meet the global demand for action on climate change.

Arguably the most important issue up for discussion is the specific detail of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.

Despite the confusing name, the Durban Platform is quite a simple concept. In 2011, after a slew of disappointing or failed international agreements on climate change, parties agreed at the 2011 UN climate change conference in Durban to establish a new agreement by 2015, to be implemented in 2020.

Advertisement

This Durban Platform is unique and unlike any other international climate agreement in history. What makes the agreement so different is its application.

The Durban Platform has a mandate to establish a binding agreement, that is, an agreement that will legally bind countries party to the UN climate change conventions and, most importantly, that will be 'applicable to all'.

Australia supports so far the inclusion of some level of contractual obligations in the final agreement.

Almost every agreement reached so far in the UN climate talks' 20 year history has been limited in its application. Parties to the United Nations make a distinction between countries, categorising them as either 'developed' or 'developing'. Most agreements regarding climate action, specifically concerning emission reduction, have applied largely to developed countries.

In the past, developed countries such as Australia and the United States have largely taken the lead, in making commitments and implementing measures to lower emissions and shift to a more sustainable and responsible society

This new Durban Platform agreement will still take into account the capabilities of developing countries to institute climate action programs, as well as support them in the provision of the technological and financial resources require to do so.

Advertisement

With the 2015 Conference fast-approaching, one of the main issues at the Warsaw conference has been precisely what this 2015 agreement will look like.

What will be in the agreement, what will be specifically mentioned, the agreement's legal architecture, and the requirements of each party are still being hotly debated.

There is currently a split between parties on one particularly interesting issue, concerning what exact approach and form the agreement will take.

This is a complex problem, though current the debate can be divided into two main camps.

Some parties, including the European Union, the Philippines and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) wish to take a contractual, 'top-down' approach to the 2015 agreement.

This would require a strong agreement that would legally bind all parties to undertake stringent measures and enforce mandatory emission reduction commitments or other equally strong programs.

Other parties, such as the United States and Brazil, instead hope to reach a more facilitative agreement.

This form of agreement would be loosely binding on parties, and require more voluntary action. A completely facilitative agreement would encourage parties to create and pledge their own emission reduction commitments, effectively allowing parties to determine whether to adhere to and implement the pledged changes.

Each extreme holds a number of major flaws. The chief flaw within contractual agreements is that parties often disagree over their allotted commitment requirements. This can make them obstructive and reluctant to either participate in or comply with the agreed measures.

Conversely the main flaw with facilitative measures is that they are seen as 'soft' and are considered to result in ineffective and weak commitment pledges that accomplish little.

Because of this, the most appropriate and practical approach to the 2015 agreement would be that which incorporates elements of both.

Such an integrated, or multi-track, approach to the Durban Platform 2015 agreement would satisfy a great number of party demands and could be implemented in a number of forms.

The most practical form would be a 'dual-band' tracked form. This would encompass a broad overarching agreement that all parties would agree to.

This core agreement could set new stringent transparency standards and reporting requirements, as well as timeframes to ensure a high degree of transparency in conduct.

A multi-tracked agreement could set universal accounting rules that would ensure all countries measure carbon amounts within the same framework using the same method of unit measurement. This would allow for emission targets to be better understood and more flexible than under current methods.

An effective multi-track approach would complement this obligatory core agreement with a collection of subsidiary provisions. These voluntary, extra provisions would not be legally binding but would instead exist separately to that agreement.

These voluntary provisions would allow parties to build their own commitments to mitigate their national or regional emission levels within a guided system. Self-determined commitments have proven to be a popular idea during negotiations in Warsaw. Parties would more likely follow and implement commitments of their own construction.

In this form the contractual reporting and review system would obligate Parties to justify their commitments and support the adoption of more ambitious pledges.

Australia has so far largely supported the implementation of a multi-tracked form, driven by contractual schedules to guide parties in their commitments. Whether the recent change in Government will result in a new approach is not yet known, but if climate change is to be seriously addressed a multi-tracked form is an appropriate course of action.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Darcy Gilligan is a Global Voices Youth Delegate to the current UNFCCC.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

37 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Darcy Gilligan is a student at La Trobe University's Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences and a Global Voices youth delegate to the current UNFCCC.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 37 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy