by Joan Evers, AWC Madrid
From December 2 to 15, representatives from around the world gathered in Madrid, Spain to attend and negotiate at the COP25. The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the body where decisions are made for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This was the 25th year of negotiations to prevent "dangerous" human interference in the climate system. Spain’s capital hosting this meeting was a last-minute change. Sanitago, Chile had been scheduled to welcome the world’s climate delegates until unrest in the country caused the Chilean president to back out. And even Chile hosting the event was not the original plan, as Brazil had been first slated to do so but also backed out after the election of Jair Bolsonaro. It seems that the meeting to negotiate key elements of the Paris Agreement almost didn’t happen.
While I was lucky enough to attend COP25 thanks to FAWCO’s consultative status at the UN, also in attendance was Dr. Lara Lazaro, a senior analyst with the Royal Elcano Institute in Madrid. Dr. Lazaro has focused on environmental economics, 
environmental policy and economic theory during her entire academic and research career. She lectures on economic theory at the Colegio Universitario Cardinel Cisneros, holds a PhD in Environmental Economics and Policy and an MSc in Environmental Assessment and Evaluation from the London School of Economics (LSE), and a BSc in Economics from Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. I interviewed her shortly after the COP to understand the perspective of someone whose everyday work is focused on the climate.
How did you become involved in climate issues?
While at uni, I took a course that was about Environmental Economics. It explained how we were not the center of the universe but part of the environment, and therefore needed to take into account all that we took from the environment and what we put into it. It made me realize how we fit into the bigger picture. As I took that class I went home and told my father that I had found what I wanted to work on for the rest of my life.
What led to your work being in Spain?
When I was at LSE, I was asked to come back to Madrid and present my in-process PhD work. One of the professors who attended asked me to write a paper on climate change in 2005 for the Madrid School of Economics Journal just as the Kyoto Protocol had come into force. It was my first encounter with climate policy. One thing led to another, and I began my work at Royal Elcano on environment and climate issues. I also teach and have consulted in Spain.
How are you involved at the international level with the UNFCCC, the COP and other entities?
During past COPs I have attended as an observer and learned how the process of negotiations has been developing. This year Elcano hosted seven events and participated in two panels to share our work on climate legislation and citizen awareness of climate change. The former is in partnership with the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics and in consultation with Chilean partners about their draft climate bill. As Chile puts forth a new constitution, they are considering having climate change included in it. That is very exciting.
The Elcano barometer is one of the best-known surveys we do. We ask Spaniards about what they think should be the government’s foreign policy priorities. From 2011 to 2016, fighting climate change was second only to fighting international terrorism. During 2017 to 2018 that swapped, and fighting climate change at the international level was seen as most important. This is similar to opinions in France and Germany.
We also study how people view Spain vis-à-vis climate change and how they individually relate to climate change. In a recent study, we asked 10
00 people open-ended questions about what they see as a threat to the world: for over 55%, climate change was the first or second threat to the world. They were also asked whether they thought the international community and Spain were doing enough. Over 80% of respondents did not think either body was doing all that they should. Respondents were also asked about the need for governmental climate policy and thought it is required. We’ve look at the major parties in Spain (from conservative to more liberal), and all say they want a law and have plans which are not that different in end results. It gives me hope.
This work helps to influence the Spanish government about what people want. It is also a learning opportunity for other countries about how to do the same. With LSE, we’ve analyzed seven case studies in Chile, Mexico, the US, the UK, France, Germany and China and how they’ve used the legislative and executive approaches for climate action. We’ve drawn out the elements, processes and instruments one would want to consider in developing a robust climate law. We’ve assessed the laws and programs and also the demand from citizens. These data are open and available for all to learn, leverage or criticize.
Let’s talk about COP 25. There were a lot of expectations going into this event – and doubts about whether and how it would happen. What are your thoughts?
The fact that Spain was able to hold the COP at the exact same dates as had been committed to by Chile shows that there is commitment, and shows cooperation across the Atlantic. I think this is very important because we cannot look to the traditional leaders at the moment, namely the US. That void needs to be filled. Given how great the challenge is to overhaul the entire economic system as much as we saw with the industrial revolution, we cannot rely on a leader who will be ousted every four years. I think we need a more distributed leadership approach where you create de facto alliances. Spain hosting the COP during a time of crisis for Chile is an example of this and a way forward for climate negotiations.
We went into this COP knowing how difficult it was to get here, and that there were only a dozen or so countries that were able to pull this off. Spain was brave enough, or crazy enough, to volunteer ‒ and that fact has been consistently recognized in the meetings that I attended. It shows we have to do this working hand in hand across countries, governments, business and society.
Negotiating the completion of the Katowice rule book (the implementation guidelines of the Paris Agreement) was a goal of this COP. We did not achieve that. There were some advances: the adoption of the Gender Action Plan being a notable one. We did not make that same progress on Article 6, which addresses trading carbon emissions reductions. A big debate during the negotiations was that if you do not include the environmental integrity of carbon markets you are cheating yourself. And if you don’t include societal issues ‒ human rights issues and climate justice ‒ these reductions could be happening at the expense of communities.
If you watch the statements of the countries during the Plenaries, you see the same countries repeating themselves COP after COP: sovereignty, transparency, human rights, liability ambition, carbon markets. The narratives are interesting to watch. For example, last year the IPCC 1.5 report being welcomed by the policy and negotiation community was blocked by the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia. As such, the language was weak to accept the conclusions even though the UNFCCC had commissioned the report. The complexity to move things forward is made worse by the asymmetries between countries ‒ e.g., how much a given country relies on oil and gas development for their ongoing budgets.
We are in the midst of a transition on many levels, including the story of what it means for climate policy and operations. The International Renewable Agency (IRENA) outlines in its latest report that in many locations around the world the cost of producing energy from renewable energy is on par with that of fossil fuel production. There are differences and hurdles with capital expenditures and operating budgets. How these projects are implemented and potentially underwritten also needs to be considered, and approaches shifted. The Just Transition for those impacted sectors who will lose (the individuals, the sectors, the counties) has to be addressed upfront, and it certainly will not be easy. Transportation, for example, is undergoing a huge transition. All major car companies have electric vehicles in development, but the number of parts needed for an electric engine is less than that of a combustion engine – what does that mean for the value chain and the areas that rely on those industries?
While we are talking, it’s not even 24 hours after the COP25 closing ceremony; but going forward, what do you see as next for Spain and the globe?
There is research about how a country that hosts a COP is more likely to see adoption of climate change laws after the event. It is statistically significant and more possible. For Spain, this comes at an important moment when we have not yet adopted our framework climate law and it could have a positive effect.
For the world: we will still have these conferences…we think. Given the disconnect of society’s demands and the actual pace of negotiations it renders some of these COPs less relevant. I think there is a social risk with this. If we don’t have a license to operate in policy making or in international negotiations, that can become a problem. The closing speeches were concerning in that respect. The process needs to include society more, and what was born during COP20 in Lima has helped to increase that. I think that if the process is not capable of including the messages from non-state actors it may present a legitimacy problem for the international process.
We need to finish the Katowice rule book: agree on common time frames for the Nationally Determined Commitments for this round and the next. Article 6 has to be finalized, and that is tricky given how obstructive Brazil was during COP. It is absolutely crucial that China fills the leadership void along with the European Community and feels the positive political capital change during the UN BioDiversity Conference that they are hosting in 2020. This is an opportunity.
What are your thoughts about the US leaving the Paris Agreement?
The rest of the world is still moving forward with its efforts, but the US is the second largest emitter, so the impacts are felt. The actions of the US weaken the signal to the rest of the world in terms of ambition but also the finance and support for the scientific community. It also makes it more costly for the international community to meet its commitments. Negotiators have been sent every year under the current administration and they have been very specific about the rules they want to have in the agreement for when they reengage.
What could an individual be doing for the climate?
In 2017, research showed that governments were communicating to individuals more low-impact actions ‒ e.g. using your dryer less ‒ than more significant actions like limiting your international flights, living car-free or with a hybrid/electric car, changing your diet or from which company you source your power. Civil action is critical! Quoting Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General: "We should be behaving badly. The pressure we put on governments changes things, it has an impact."
Anything else you want to add?
Yes! Please read the Elcano COP 25 special report !
