Despite all the drum-beating, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen last December failed to produce a binding political agreement. A three-page Copenhagen Accord negotiated in the closing hours of the summit by the leaders of some 20 countries failed to garner unanimous support.
Unless a solution is found soon, the fault lines of the Copenhagen Conference may undermine the negotiations carried out under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Shock waves from the abrupt stoppage in Copenhagen may also upset other international negotiations, especially those that require G192 consensus - the support of the full membership of the United Nations.
The stakes are high and so are the political risks. Several hundred parliamentarians who took part in the meeting organized by the IPU and the Danish Folketing during COP15 spoke strongly in favour of a more active role for parliaments in shaping national action plans to address climate change. They also advocated more energetic involvement of the IPU in the UNFCCC process, making use of its recently acquired observer status.
At its forthcoming session in Bangkok, the Governing Council of the IPU is expected to approve a series of practical measures aimed at stepping up the Union's work in the field of climate change. It will consider, for example, establishing an ad hoc consultative body on climate change that would advise the IPU governing bodies and help coordinate Members’ activities to address climate change.
One of the IPU's immediate priorities is to engage parliamentarians in exerting political pressure on governments to reach a legally binding treaty at the next Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Cancún at the end of 2010. Among numerous open questions is the status of the Copenhagen Accord. What will happen to it and how can it be reconciled with the ongoing UNFCCC negotiations? The issue has ramifications stretching well beyond the UN system.
There is also the issue of scientific data on global warming. It has been pointed out that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been on the defensive for some months now, is only as reliable as its members. Nonetheless, the Panel remains the best source of expertise the international community has in matters of climate change. Rather than undermining its work, politicians should support the mammoth task the IPCC has been assigned to assemble scientific knowledge on climate change, energy security, air pollution and natural resources management.
The IPU could also be instrumental in mobilizing parliamentary support for the implementation of the pledge to assist developing countries in their efforts to adapt to climate change. The parliamentarians in Copenhagen emphasized that adaptation funding should be prioritized for the least developed countries, small island States and Africa. With the help of its Members, the IPU could monitor the situation from a parliamentary perspective.
Ultimately, the outcome of the global talks on climate change is in the hands of the 192 countries that are parties to the UNFCCC. Stringent parliamentary oversight of this inter-governmental process is an essential element of democratic accountability and good governance. This is why it is so important to ensure a strong parliamentary presence at COP16.
