Legally Binding Agreement at COP17?

(If you’re new to this blog or the discussion on legally binding agreements at international climate negotiations, please see this blog in order to gain some background knowledge).

After the two most recent UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties, COP 15 and COP16, some least-developed countries are still holding out for a legally binding commitment at COP17. However, due to political concerns, the concept of a legally bound commitment is viewed differently by each country involved in the negotiations, which has previously prevented agreement on this topic. The Maldives, for example, has been advocating for a legally bound agreement for years now, and is probably hoping for the same outcome at COP17. As a country emitting less than 1% of global emissions, this state values a legally binding agreement because it may be able to guarantee that emissions targets are met. If so, a legally bound agreement signifies the relative safety for the Maldives and other small island states, as the cutting of emissions will lead to less damaging effects of climate change (and the population of the Maldives won’t have to relocate). Some countries however, like China, might reach an even larger target without the demand of a legal commitment, due to cultural practices and governmental limitations. And of course, without compliance by the United States, China will most likely not sign on to an agreement.

Is a legally bound agreement a likely outcome of COP17? Probably not. However, there will most likely be discussion about the necessity of a legally bound agreement in partnership with the agreement to following through on the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (which is currently legally binding).

Will COP17 result in a legally binding climate commitment?

Will a legally binding agreement even help the world to achieve a less than 2 degrees C change in global climate (which will keep the world functioning at a “safe” level)?

Not necessarily. At this point, even if all of the countries in the world, particularly the biggest emitters were to stop polluting the atmosphere, we would still see monumental changes in global climate in the next fifty to one hundred years. That’s just the way that the global climate system works. It adapts to changes over a long period of time. This means that 2 degrees C and the conflict of having a legally binding commitment or not at the UNFCCC are really just concepts to argue over. Even if the negotiations at COP17 resulted in the agreement to have an international, legally binding commitment to mitigate and adapt to climate change, states still wouldn’t be doing as much as they need to, as quickly as they should to meet targets that will keep the world safe from dangerous climate change. Individual state agreements to mitigate and adapt are really what matters when making the international efforts actually effective.

Even though the negotiations at the UNFCCC are not necessarily solving the problem of climate change at the pace necessary, it still exists, and may be all that states have in order to prevent further disaster. Regardless of the presence of a legal commitment or not, any outcome from COP17 or future COPs should equally benefit the participants who are willing to agree and those who are wary, while continually being mindful of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” At COP17, parties will probably begin to discuss the possibility of a future legally binding commitment. If they get really excited, the negotiators might even lay the ground work for how to make that happen. It is unlikely, however, that an actually legally binding treaty will be an outcome of COP17.

For more information:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/02/23/a-%E2%80%9Clegally-binding%E2%80%9D-climate-agreement-what-does-it-mean-why-does-it-matter/

http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/11/bind-how-cancun-can-move-countries-towards-legally-binding-climate-targets