By Kaliopate Tavola
My last article on COP26 expressed the hope that the pessimism of the members of my informal talanoa group would be proven wrong by the results of COP26 held in Glasgow from 31 October to 12 November. Having skimmed through the full text of the Glasgow climate pact, and other related communiqués, I’m afraid to say that the pessimism we had pre-COP26 has somewhat remained post-COP26, notwithstanding a few bright spots. Planet Earth is still not safe.
For this month’s instalment, the group members have opted to evaluate our various stances that guided our outlook on COP26 for the purpose of securing learnings that can be benchmark for properly understanding the intricacies of the technicality and politics of climate change.
The authors of the papers that guided our pre-COP26 talanoa had included Australia in their briefing. The group members were especially encouraged by that and anticipated that regional unity would prevail in Glasgow. Our anticipation was dashed to smithereens.
In retrospect, it was unrealistic to have hoped for regional unity. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), in the first place, was fractured before going to COP26. Five Micronesian PIF members had already decided to withdraw from the Forum, resulting from the election of the new Secretary General for the PIF Secretariat. This had ignored the long-standing gentlemen’s agreement which would have given victory to the Micronesians’ chosen candidate.
Furthermore, Australia was true to form. It did not try to shirk its ignobility as a climate change laggard: it being no respecter of PIF’s Boe Declaration and its provision of existential threat of climate change. Under its national banner of ‘Australian Way’, Prime Minister Morrison refused to increase its 2030 emissions reduction targets, even after the close of COP26 when he was asked to consider such reduction specifically. Furthermore, he helped to water down ambitions to kill coal. The Sydney Morning Herald reported: ‘Glasgow climate summit in major backdown on coal, tougher targets.’
For the group, Prime Minister Morrison’s stance at COP26 in contravention of PIF’s collective position is a clear statement of defiance. In the context of the Forum with its rules, objectives and principles, group members insist that such insubordination demands sanction. Fiji was sanctioned under the Biketawa Declaration. Australia should follow suit. We, however, contemplated on whether there was sufficient resolve in the rest of the PIF leaders to see this through.
We are also able to view the whole COP framework, and eventual realisation of its targets, within a reasonable timeframe to allow financial commitments, for instance, to be met. Therefore, we are cognisant of the commitments made at COP26 and note anticipatively for due progress of these commitments in future COPs. The members, however, are appropriately guarded in their anticipation. We are aware of the prospects of a number of climate change tipping points that may have already been breached and which are projecting Planet Earth to possible climatic cataclysmic events. Thus, apart from our circumspection, we also have overwhelming faith in humanity and its sense of duty to save itself from its own excesses. We do look to the future with sanguinity.
On the road to COP26, the talanoa group members had felt satisfied with our diplomats negotiating on our behalf. We regarded them as our climate change champions. We knew that they would continue to do well at COP26. The group did not have reasons to be disappointed.
Furthermore, COP26 produced its own regional champions. Who can forget that powerful presentation by Samoan Brianna Fruen telling the world that: “We are not drowning, we are fighting!” What about that measured reflection by Solomon Islander Maonia Rikimani on the desperate hope of many in Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS)?
However, Tuvalu’s performance at the political level was exceptional – both flamboyant and creative in its visual and oral impact. Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Kofe delivered his presentation virtually for COP26 from a podium planted on land already encroached by sea back home. The message of rising sea level, framed with unscripted SOS: the message from all atoll inhabitants in the Pacific, and from the region as a whole, was as crystal clear as the sea lapping around the podium. We are not drowning as yet. We are still full of fight!
Fellow Minister of Finance Seve Paeniu was the new Pacific face in COP26, in Glasgow. He was the star of the show. His deliveries, replete with emotion and steely determination would have moved the most indifferent to tears. The talanoa group members did not have any doubt at all that Minister Paeniu took the region forward from where the late Minister de Brun of RMI had left off. He placed the region firmly in focus in the context of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He answered Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s rhetorical question: ‘When will Leaders lead?’ As far as the group members are concerned, neither the PIF Secretariat, nor the PIF Chair, was able to stamp its presence and mana at COP26.
The churches, it has to be said, were not to be left behind. Reverend James Bhagwan, General Secretary of the Pacific Council of Churches, travelled extensively in Europe, prior to COP26, conveying the message of the exigencies of climate change as being experienced in the Pacific. He actively sought, inter alia, moral support wherever he stopped during his European tour.
The talanoa group had hoped that the lessons from the region’s experience in COVID-19 would be taken into account in COP26 to preferentially benefit PSIDS at the forefront of the war against climate change. It was a long shot, but the group members dutifully noted the Glasgow Climate Pact and rekindled their hopes. The reference to coronavirus pandemic is included under the Pact’s Preamble immediately preceding that which, inter alia, “acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities…….people in vulnerable situations and the right to development.”
The group had placed a lot of hope on meeting climate finance targets, like many others from the developing world. COP26 and the developed countries did respond. However, the Conference noted the shortfall and the various commitments for future compliance. On Adaptation Finance, for example, the Climate Pact “notes with concern that the current provision of climate finance for adaptation remains insufficient to respond to worsening climate change impacts in developing country Parties.”
Loss and Damage was another area of concern for the group. This is partially financial and the shortfall in commitment was also noted. The members noted further “the urgency of scaling up action and support, as appropriate, including finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, for implementing approaches for averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage …..in developing countries.”
The aspect of transparency, another area of concern, is multi-faceted and can be problematic to monitor and assess, for example, in the area of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and their respective levels of ambition. However, the group noted that COP26 itself, in the context of the UNFCCC is a means to transparency and reporting. We remain reassured by this.
COP26 has come and gone. There will be future COPs. Historians will probably look back and write that Glasgow was an opportunity to save humanity. It didn’t quite happen. However, deferring critical decisions keeps humanity’s hope alive.
The author is a former Fijian Ambassador and Foreign Minister and runs his own consultancy company in Suva, Fiji.
