The Law of Nations
  • Home
  • About
  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Arbitration
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
Environmental Law, Public International Law 0

Implementation of the Paris Agreement: An update from COP-23

Nicola Swan of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP provides an update on the latest round of climate change negotiations in Bonn

By Nicola Swan · On November 29, 2017


The latest round of the international climate change negotiations closed on 17 November in Bonn (“COP-23”), with delegates meeting to hammer out the details of states’ commitments under the Paris Agreement.

With the Paris Agreement having entered into force more quickly than many parties had envisaged, the negotiations in Bonn were focused on developing technical guidelines to support implementation of the Paris Agreement. In particular, negotiators were working on measurement and reporting requirements to ensure transparency of parties’ greenhouse gas emissions and on the processes for a global stocktake of emissions planned for 2018.  A useful summary of the technical outcomes of the negotiations is here.

With the majority (164) of states having filed their first mandatory Nationally Determined Contributions (“NDCs”) and thereby signaling their national strategies and planned actions to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, negotiators were focusing in Bonn on the details of how to measure states’ progress in reduction of GHGs, as well as realisation of climate finance commitments, including the $100 billion per year that developed countries pledged in 2009.

negotiators were focusing in Bonn on the details of how to measure states’ progress in reduction of GHGs, as well as realisation of climate finance commitments

Several of the major announcements from the Bonn negotiations were HSBC’s announcement to provide $100b in sustainable financing and investment by 2025, the UK and Canada’s announcement to phase out coal for energy production (alongside 20 other countries), and President Macron’s announcement that France would cover the shortfall in funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) caused by the planned US withdrawal.  As the first COP to be hosted by a Pacific Island nation (Fiji – even though physically the meetings were in Bonn), two important announcements were the organisation of the 2018 ‘Talanoa Dialogue’ (a process to showcase best practices to raise ambition and pre-2020 action) and progress on a platform to promote participation of indigenous peoples and local communities within the negotiations. See the Fiji Presidency’s round-up of achievements from the talks here.

One of the big talking points among business and government delegates was the ‘alternative’ US pavilion, largely sponsored by Michael Bloomberg, representing the ‘We Are Still In’ coalition of states, cities and businesses supporting the Paris Agreement despite the planned US withdrawal (an earlier update on the US withdrawal is here).  Bloomberg called for formal representation within the negotiations of his coalition, which was claimed to represent over half of the US economy.  Delegates also reported that China was increasingly stepping forward to take leadership roles as the (official) US delegation became less visible.

Alongside the negotiations, a series of side events were hosted by civil society and business groups.  I participated in an official side event on dispute resolution for climate related disputes, hosted jointly by the International Bar Association, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Chaired by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP partner Wendy Miles QC, speakers considered the options provided in the Paris Agreement for state-state dispute resolution (including conciliation, arbitration and/or referral to the International Court of Justice), as well as relevant factors to ensure legitimacy of investor-state dispute resolution linked to Paris Agreement mitigation and adaptation actions, and the implications for commercial disputes.

COP-23 and the Fijian Presidency succeeded in holding together the delicate balance achieved at COP-21 in Paris in 2015

One final talking point among legal delegates was the series of side events hosted by NGOs on the growth of climate related litigation being brought against Governments and corporates.  It is evident that more cases are being filed against corporates alleging responsibility for climate harms, with a German regional court recently permitting a case brought against RWE for climate related damage to continue, Californian litigation ongoing against energy companies asserting responsibility for sea level rise, and hearings currently underway in Norwegian litigation challenging the Norwegian Government’s issuance of licenses in the Barents Sea.  A useful summary of current global litigation and legislative climate trends presented during COP-23 is here.

Although the outcomes of COP-23 are more muted than previous conferences, COP-23 and the Fijian Presidency succeeded in holding together the delicate balance achieved at COP-21 in Paris in 2015. Much attention will now come onto the Talanoa Dialogue to create a positive platform for the 2018 negotiations in Katowice, Poland and to hold parties to account to their Paris NDCs.

Nicola Swan

Nicola Swan

Nicola Swan (née Leslie) specialises in public international law and international arbitration at Debevoise and Plimpton LLP’s International Disputes Group in London. Having previously advised on international and constitutional law at the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Nicola focuses on international and commercial disputes, particularly in the energy, telecoms and finance sectors. Nicola is a founding board member of the Young Public International Law Group in London, and is active in the International Bar Association and International Chamber of Commerce’s initiatives on climate change and dispute resolution.




You Might Also Like

  • Human Rights

    Why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship breaches international law

  • Public International Law

    Review of the year: top ten international law cases of 2018

  • Public International Law

    Do Ministers have to comply with international law? Court of Appeal looks at legal challenge

No Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mailing List

Sign up to our Mailing List

Categories

  • Arbitration
  • Book Review
  • Brexit
  • Business and Human Rights
  • Comparative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Environmental Law
  • From the editors
  • Human Rights
  • International Trade
  • News Round-up
  • Podcasts
  • Private International Law
  • Public International Law
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • November 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016

From Twitter

  • New post: why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship violates international law. https://t.co/I51X5qT8um… https://t.co/FF0p3hqE8Q

© Matrix Chambers. All rights reserved. | Accessibility | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy