 |
| Peter Woolcott delivers a speech at the University of Queensland. Photograph: Kaylene Biggs/University of Queensland |
Woolcott is Australia's ambassador for the environment and for the past 14 months has led the country's negotiating teams at UN climate talks.
The reason you don't hear from him (and that perhaps you've never heard of him, full stop) is that as a civil servant working in the highly politicised and supercharged issue of climate change, public statements tend to come from politicians.
Requests for statements are routinely batted back to a ministerial office in Canberra, not necessarily because Woolcott doesn't want to answer but because this is simply how it's done.
Woolcott has, in his words, "spent years in the multilateral trenches" and knows that it can be "a slow-moving and frustrating business".
Just two weeks before he heads to the major international talks in Paris, he delivered a rare and so-far-unreported speech where he set out in exhaustive detail what Australia wants from the meeting.
In an hour-long presentation to the Global Change Institute in Brisbane this week the career diplomat gave a fascinating insight into the changing world of the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCC) – the umbrella agreement under which all the UN climate deals operate.
He explained how the system of multilateral talks was "struggling to cope" with the expectations and demands of a rapidly changing world.
In Paris, he said Australia wanted a deal that would set the world on a pathway to keeping global warming below two degrees. The deal should not be seen as an end point, but as a "waypoint".
In terms of a collective global problem, "issues do not get any bigger" than climate change, he said.
Last week's terrorist attacks would, he said, "only strengthen the resolve" of the French government to come out of the talks with an ambitious deal."Left unchecked, it will magnify existing problems and increase pressure on resources including land, water, energy, food and fish stocks. It has the potential to erode development gains, undermine economic growth and compound human security challenges."
He speculated that the success of the Paris agreement could boil down to the willingness of richer countries to commit to financing for developing countries. In exchange for this, developing nations could then sign the deal.
So here's what Woolcott had to say about Paris; about multilateral international talks; about the UN; and about climate change.
It's long, but think of it as a briefing for the Paris talks by the person representing the Australian government's agenda who has been, and will be, in the room. I'll be "outside the room" for the second week of the talks.
Woolcott on shifting powers
Woolcott said coalitions such as Brics (China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Russia) "occupy critical positions". Other emerging powers such as Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan and Nigeria were "similarly focused on occupying a place at the top table and preserving their political and economic freedom of movement.""Twenty years ago the US and Europe could often dictate the terms of the debate. If they wanted to push something through strongly enough, they could do so. Now it's different and the game has changed. There are now no longer one or two hegemonic powers and power is shifting to coalitions."
Woolcott on responding to climate change"We are also dealing with a much more fluid ideological landscape. A significant number of these emerging powers want the west's material progress but they do not want to sacrifice their own cultural identities and political traditions.
The west's vision of modernity and human rights is under challenge. Nationalism, state sovereignty, state capitalism and religious identity are growing forces and are being used to strike at fundamental concepts such as freedom of expression and responsibility to protect.
Secondly, behind this shift in the power dynamics is the increasing pace of globalisation and the extraordinary wealth transfer from west to east.
Third, not only is there a shift in national power, but there is a shift in the very nature of power. As a result of new communications technologies exemplified by social media, power is moving to coalitions and networks that are able to effectively influence state actions, particularly in liberal democratic societies.
What characterises them is their ability for mass organisation, speed and multiple and diverse actions, and you see this very much in the environmental space. The strength of these networks whether they be civil society, sub-national entities or business groupings, will only grow and increasingly questions will arise as to how they should exercise this power and to who they are accountable.
These factors greatly complicate the decision-making and are putting significant stress on international governance, at a time when we need the system to work effectively."
"The policy response will require coordinated action in an unprecedented way across economic and ideological divides. The stakes are high and the multilateral institutional tools that are at our disposal are somewhat compromised.He said that the UNFCCC had "set up a divide between the developed world and the developing world" and that it was still struggling to shake this off.
Part of the problem is history. In the multilateral setting, we tend to rely on the outcomes of old battles where they be previously agreed language, or previously agreed processes or the ways of conducting themselves and they tend to dictate or try and dictate the future.
This is Ok if we are content with incremental progress, but we are not and we need to change the very basis in which we address climate change."
Woolcott on what Australia wants in Paris
Woolcott on success in Paris"What Australia wants in Paris is a strong and effective legal agreement that is applicable to all countries and drives serious reductions in emissions while ensuring economic prosperity.
It has to be an agreement that reflects the real world and the way it has changed and continues to change.
We are however stuck with an outmoded convention that divides the world into the developed and developing country camps – annex 1 and non-annex 1 countries.
It assigns them very different obligations and responsibilities, all based on GDP levels from 1992. China, Singapore and Korea, for example, are all deemed developing countries for the purpose of climate action.
We have little chance of tackling climate change based on these divisions. Let me reinforce this point with a few statistics.
In 1992 only three non-annex 1 countries – or to put it simply developing countries – were among the 12 largest emitters. Today this has risen to seven.
Now non-annex 1 countries represent two-thirds of total emissions and this will be nearly three quarters of total emissions by 2030.
So not only is the engineering obsolete, the decision-making machinery is cumbersome. The 195 parties to the convention must make decisions by consensus.
While it is right that responses to global problems endorsed by most countries have a legitimacy that agreements negotiated amongst smaller groups lack, the reality in UNFCCC is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and decisions usually result in lowest common denominator outcomes.
So the UNFCCC reflects the microcosm of problems of the wider UN. We are between multilateral worlds. The old world dominated by the west can no longer dictate – nor finance alone – the solution.
The new world has not yet arrived and the emerging powers are reluctant to take on responsibilities which might compromise their freedom of manoeuvre and their economic developments."
Woolcott on beating 2C"Success at Paris is not a given. As I said, change is hard.
There is a strong sense that the world's largest two emitters are working collaboratively to an agreement in Paris although they have slightly different visions as to what that agreement will look like.
These are all critical differences to what unfolded in Copenhagen. There are others, in particular what is the utilisation of a clever strategy of having states announce their intended nationally determined contributions – that is their post-2020 emissions targets – before Paris. To date 161 countries have announced post-2020 targets, which include all of the G20 countries and covers over 90% of global emissions. This is quite a remarkable statistic.
While they vary in ambition and detail, it is an extraordinary number and will go higher before we reach Paris.
The deal in Paris will be built around these nationally determined targets. I should be clear here. Paris is about negotiating the agreement text. It is not about negotiating the targets.
But in setting targets in this bottom-up way we have recognised the limits of multilateralism in addressing climate change.
We have recognised that the top-down multilateralism – the old way of doing it which imposes emissions targets on countries – doesn't work and that if we are to ensure a global, effective and durable solution then we need to set up a system whereby it might be self-determined, is subject to public and peer pressure, it is subject to review and transparency and cognisant of the science.
We have also learned that a successful climate deal needs participation before ambition. It needs all countries on the same footing for taking action before we ramp up that action. It would be pointless to have a deal on paper if the US or China won't sign up to it.
So the agreement in Paris will be framed by what countries can accept given their national circumstances. For example we expect that only the obligation to have a target, not the target itself, will be legally binding – an approach that gets around the US difficulties of treaty verification.
So how will Paris work out? It is hard to predict, but my sense is that the real danger is not that there will be no agreement but that it will be a minimalist agreement – that Paris will tie a neat bow around the INDCS and that much of what we want in terms of transparency, accountability, durability and review may be lost.
The minister at a negotiating level will be working hard to avoid this and for an ambitious and durable agreement.
Within the UNFCC Australia has developed significant multilateral muscle. We are effective operators and play the honest broker well, especially from our role as chair of the umbrella group – the negotiating group that includes the US, Japan, Russia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway.
The outcome on how emissions targets are captured in the Paris agreement will be due in no small part to the Australia's 2009 idea … of creating a schedule for commitments. We including the French are also engaged in seeking to manage expectations in a realistic way.
Let me repeat, Paris will not put us on track to keep global warming below two degrees. That should not lead to a Copenhagen moment with headlines the morning after saying we have failed. Paris is a waypoint, not the final destination in our efforts to tackle climate change.
What is different about Paris compared to our past efforts is that we are building a wider, silver buckshot approach which better harnesses national, bilateral and non-government efforts and builds into the agreement a dynamic and durable process that puts us all on the same floor and allows us to work within the two-degree goal.
The Paris agreement must reflect and build on the real world action that has already moved well passed old political divisions so rampant in the United Nations and establish partnerships for the future. It is a huge test for the system."
Woolcott on what should be in the Paris deal"The international community is guided by the science and is seeking to limit the rise in global temperatures to below two degrees Celsius.
Now there is no expectation that Paris will show that we are on track to meet that two-degree goal … But what we want the agreement to do is to set out an agreement to build global action over time which has all countries similarly engaged and provides us with a pathway to stand the two-degree goal."
Woolcott on Pacific islands and Australia"Australia has been working for three things in the agreement.
First, to seek that all countries, especially major economies, commit to mitigation efforts that are nationally determined but also meet minimum-quality criteria for mitigation.
Secondly, to ensure accountability and transparency in how states are meeting their commitments. We need this in order to judge how we are tracking collectively against the below-two degree goal, and to see whether our neighbours, trade partners and competitors are doing what they say.
This transparency will build confidence which in turn will build greater ambition.
And thirdly a durable process that will allow us to build action over time to keep within a two-degree guardrail through a regular periodic process that prompts states to revisit and update their national mitigation efforts through five-year cycles.
Developing countries have argued that this agreement must give legal status to adaptation. We understand these concerns and have sought to be constructive in addressing this. The Paris outcome should encourage the mainstreaming of adaptation and promote the sharing of best practice. We need to assist the most vulnerable to manage and adapt to the economic and security implications of climate change and we need to build disaster-response capacities and strengthen economic and governance resilience within countries."
Woolcott on Paris sticking points"For the small island states, particularly in the Pacific, climate change is an existential challenge.
Our development program in the Pacific is focused on climate resilience and building in disaster-response capacities. Despite the occasional heightened rhetoric from the South Pacific, at the practical level we work closely with them in pursuit of an ambitious Paris agreement.
We also know that Australia needs to prioritise resistance to climate impacts nationally and through international partnerships.
We will produce a national climate resilience and adaptation strategy which Minister Hunt will release at Paris."
Woolcott said there had already been good progress towards a commitment made in Copenhagen to make US$100bn a year available to poorer countries by 2020."There are many contentious issues still to be resolved – things like loss and damage, legal form, transparency and accounting, cycles of compliance, review and long-term goals – but the two biggest issues are finance and differentiation.
These are inextricably linked. Ultimately it may well come down to the ask by the developing world in relation to climate finance in order to secure their participation in a common and legally binding agreement to tackle climate change."
Woolcott on the role of civil society groups and business"The amounts required in the future are enormous both for adaptation and for a low emissions future. A recent Bloomberg energy report has stated that up until 2040 US$12.2tn will be required for power generation and some 78% of this to the developing world. We are dealing with vast sums of money.
Much of this finance will have to come from the private sector. And will also require an expanding country donor base."
He said Bill Gates' announcement to provide $2bn of his money for research and development to tackle climate change "shows how the ground is changing"."Civil society has always played a highly constructive role and will continue to do so. They might be styled as observers but they are in fact often participants and not only pressure governments but are often part of developing countries' negotiating teams.
What is changing dramatically now is the role of business and industry. The private sector and innovation are going to be critical if we are going to tackle climate change. They have viewed the UNFCCC as irrelevant at best ….
One of the things that has changed is that the national determination of targets has created the necessary domestic conversations with stakeholders.
Australia has seen commitments from a host of major companies – the ANZ, the National Bank, BHP Billiton and AGL – in Paris there will be a series of themed action days and non-government meetings involving business, industry, NGOs, cities and other sub-state actors.
The aim is to create a link between the on-ground action by these organisations with the political leadership that multilateral processes provide, as well as governance. The French have been exceptional in driving this change in approach which recognises the private sectors crucial roles in tackling climate change."
"This more expansive approach to engendering climate action beyond just states gets around a core criticism of multilateralism – that once institutional solution is imposed, it cauterises the need to think about the problem any more.
The Paris action days will seek to turn this criticism on its head by using an institutional process to think more deeply and widely about how to act on climate change.
While it is also changing the relationship between civil society and the corporate sector – and this is a very interesting development – there is an increasing understanding that civil society and corporate Australia do not need to be on opposing sides of the divide and they need to work constructively together.
In this context I refer to the statement of principles by the Australian Climate Roundtable which really is an impressive illustration of this collaboration.
These groups have real and growing power in the multilateral system and with power comes both responsibility and accountability."
