The general tone of Climate summit held in Glasgow was positive; which is unusual. The major announcements made during in the first week were in fact nothing new they were presented differently or new nations had signed up. However, it did set a tone of positivity and determination to bring about change.
The real sticking point that would determine whether this time in Glasgow is considered successful is the terms ‘loss and Damage’, the official terms are ‘Adaptation and Mitigation’. In the simplest of terms this is like an insurance policy. Where there is damaged generally a payout is wanted. The developing world is currently experiencing the effects of Climate change. They want the richer nations to pay them compensation for their “Loss and Damage” that has been caused due to Climate change. The contention is of course that the richer nations have not provided the funds; the situation has intensified and the developing world’s situation has not improved in fact the opposite it has deteriorated significantly. As a consequence, people are being left behind because they are unable to mitigate and adapt to the constant evolution of the planet.
The negotiation process is favoured by the richer nations because negotiations happen all round the clock and all through the night. They do not have sessions; negotiators come with an agenda some things are negotiable and others are not. Each nation sends as many people as possible the greater the number of delegates the more influence the nation will have over proceedings. This is because nations will be able to have representation in a larger number of negotiations as all the negations happen simultaneously this also allows delegates to divide the time between each other to enable them to refresh and sleep. This obviously is not as effective if you do not have the luxury of having a large team of negotiators. This is where organisations like CAFOD play their part because they have the opportunity to converse with negotiators to voice the concerns of the developing world.
At the end of the negotiations a document will be produced each nation votes whether to agree to what has been negotiated, the document is not legally binding they are guidance meaning nations can interpret them to fit the country’s situation. The exception is the ‘Paris Climate Agreement 2015.’ This is the only legal binding document on Climate change. If one nation votes against the proposals then the whole process collapses.
The Vatican delegation has a strong influence in the negotiations particularly in those countries that are strongly Catholic. An example of this is when the time came to vote on the proposals put forward during the Paris Climate conference in 2015 it was thought that Nicaragua would vote against the proposal meaning the process would have collapsed. The Vatican delegation conversed sternly with Nicaragua to convince them to vote in favour. They did vote in favour and the agreement was passed.
I think generally there is a lot of positivity to take from Glasgow but also recognition of the fact that there is still a very long way to go; which may be perceived as a daunting task. We need to keep the pressure on those who have the power to bring real change but also continue to do the things that we are able to do at grassroots level.