My observation of the time since the Earth Summit since 1992 is that the drivers were pragmatism, international cooperation and the avoidance of systemic interventions. Often single issues and sector problems can be solved easier than complex, interrelated and dynamic problems. This impacts policy priorities and agendas.
A good example for solving a single-issue problem is the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This international treaty of 1987 has been signed by 197 countries and as a result, the ozone hole in Antarctica is slowly recovering. UN Secretary general Kofi Annan described it as "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date"[1]. The success is attributed not only to effective burden sharing by signatories of the treaty but also by the fact that solution proposals were available. For instance, the use of Chlorofluorocarbons and Halons could be simply substituted by other substances.
The issue of climate change is a lot more complex and has already a long story. At the Earth Summit in 1992 the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was agreed upon. As the basis of following climate agreements it stipulated that parties should meet regularly at the Conference of Parties, or COP. The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 at COP 3 and at the United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP 21 in 2015 196 parties agreed on the Paris Climate Accord. The latter is a legally binding international treaty. The most prominent aim of the treaty is to hold the increase in the global average temperature well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. However, countries ratifying the agreement determine themselves what contributions they should make to achieve the aims of the treaty – and that doesn’t seem to roll out well.[2]
The next UN Climate Change Conference or COP 26 will be hosted by the United Kingdom from 31 October to 12 November 2021 in the Scottish Event Campus (SEC) in Glasgow, UK. At the UN Summit in September 2021 in New York Secretary General António Guterres at Security Council Debate on Climate and Security stated that parties have to increase their contributions:
“Much bolder climate action is needed ahead of COP 26 – with G20 nations in the lead – to maintain international peace and security. Our window of opportunity to prevent the worst climate impacts is rapidly closing. No region is immune.”[3]
Speaking at the Major Economies Forum on energy and climate change convened by the US President Joe Biden ahead of the of the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and host of COP 26 said
"this is the most important period I think now in the history of the planet - because COP simply must succeed".[4]
Looking at the situation Germany it can be said that the call for much bolder climate action has been a major subject during the election campaign. Unfortunately, the forming of a new coalition government may take well into November or December. That will be after the end of COP26! Therefore, Germany is likely to be represented in Glasgow by the old government of Angela Merkel but it won’t have a mandate to take bold action on behalf of a new government still to be formed.
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol - accessed on 1 October 2021
[2] https://unfccc.int/ - accessed on 1 October 2021
[3] https://unfccc.int/news/statement-by-antonio-guterres-at-security-council-debate-on-climate-and-security - accessed on 1 October 2021
[4] https://news.sky.com/story/cop26-boris-johnson-says-climate-talks-in-glasgow-simply-must-succeed-as-major-conference-nears-12410684 - accessed on 1 October 2021
No, while pillarization, sector policies and single-issue solutions may be welcome actions to reduce complexity in day-to-day politics and administration they do not correspond to the real world where they may be closely related and interdependent.
According to e.g. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “there is a dual relationship between sustainable development and climate change. On the one hand, climate change influences key natural and human living conditions and thereby also the basis for social and economic development, while on the other hand, society’s priorities on sustainable development influence both the GHG emissions that are causing climate change and the vulnerability.” The Panel doesn’t argue in favor of a separation between climate policy and sustainable development. Instead, it states: “Climate policies can be more effective when consistently embedded within broader strategies designed to make national and regional development paths more sustainable. This occurs because the impact of climate variability and change, climate policy responses, and associated socio-economic development will affect the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development goals. Conversely, the pursuit of those goals will in turn affect the opportunities for, and success of, climate policies.” Recognizing the dual relationship between sustainable development and climate change points to a need for the exploration of policies that jointly address sustainable development climate change. The IPCC websites lists a number of references for this need. 2003).[1]
Closing this blog post, it’s necessary to note that parties of the German parliament are now calling for a Climate programme to be at the core of the future government’s activities.
As advisor I would recommend better considerin the dual relationship between climate change and sustainable development because a systemic intervention is necessary in anyway. A transformative change of the way our governments do politics is necessary. If not done now, again time will be lost.
[1]
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-1-3.html - accessed on 1 October 2021