Il portale web «SCNAT sapere» offre orientamento. L’Accademia svizzera di scienze naturali (SCNAT) e la sua rete raggruppono lo stato delle conoscenze connesse alla Svizzera sulla base di solidi risultati scientifici – a disposizione della politica, dell'amministrazione, dell'economia, della scienza e della pratica.di più

Immagine: Tobias Günther, SNSF Scientific Image Competitiondi più

Checking in with… Géraldine Pflieger

Last November, the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) took place in Baku, Azerbaijan. Amongst the official Swiss delegation was Géraldine Pflieger, representing the scientific perspective. She is a is a professor of urban and environmental policy at the University of Geneva. After the conference, we were able to have a talk with Professor Pflieger and get a scientific evaluation of what was – or was not – decided at COP29.

Géraldine Pflieger am 24. Swiss Global Change Day
Immagine: Andres Jordi, SCNAT

Kislig: You attended the COP29 in Baku. What were the aspects of the negotiations that made you most optimistic about the future and which ones made you more pessimistic?

Pflieger: The decision in Baku doesn’t give much reason to be optimistic. The complicated process of COP negotiations, the tricky geopolitical situation, and the existing global tensions are getting in the way of any real progress. At least there was a first step to increase support and funding for developing countries from $100 billion to $300 billion. It's a step, but it's clearly a compromise. I think it was the maximum that the current contributors – Switzerland, the EU, Australia, Canada and Japan - could promise, given the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement.

More importantly, the decision sparked some interesting debates on a new funding roadmap, moving beyond merely defining the total funding amount. Topics such as fair access to climate funds for least developed countries, involving private finance more concretely when designing climate funding mechanisms, redirecting existing fossil fuel investments to renewables, and expanding the contributors base to include big emitters like China and oil-producing nations were discussed.

I am much more concerned about the very weak results on mitigation and ambition. It's clear that there was no progress from COP28 to COP29 on these issues. All the decisions were blocked, and there were even attempts to downplay the language and the discourse on phasing out and transitioning away from fossil fuels, mainly by the oil-producing countries. This is a big problem because in the coming months we will be evaluating the new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that will be submitted by different countries and parties. It's upsetting to have new NDCs next year without a clear message urging the different parties to raise their level of ambition.

This is not the first time that a COP has failed to produce results. It has happened several times in the past. However, it should not be seen as the end of multilateralism: I am convinced that this kind of multilateralism is key to ensure that at least different countries continue to discuss and converge towards the same goal. But this failure leaves us with a strong pressure on the agenda of the next COP on these particular issues, as well as on finance, to continue this roadmap that we've started now.

K: You mentioned that some negotiations were blocked. On that topic, an open letter was published by the Club of Rome, amongst others signed by the former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the renowned scientist Johan Rockström, urging to rethink the COP and its current functioning. What is your opinion on that?

P: I mean, as a scientist and as a person who has participated in several COPs, I have to say that I agree with all the points in the Club of Rome open letter. It is crucial to critically examine the COP format, as its current structure and size often hinder its ability to make bold and ambitious decisions effectively. But we have to be aware that all these organizational aspects are also a matter of negotiation. In Baku, too, there were several tracks of negotiations concerning organizational aspects of the COP. But as with any other issue, it's not possible to come to an agreement. So, it's not as if all the people in the COP arena were not aware of these issues, and the Club of Rome was here to enlighten them and point out all the contradictions of the current process. I think there are many delegates and experts who are aware of these problems, but a huge blockade situation persists.

K: Another big issue during this COP was the fact that several world leaders of key countries skipped the COP. Which factors do you think led to this phenomenon?

P: If every country decided to boycott the COP, the happiest parties would be the oil producing economies. I think that coming from Papua New Guinea, one of the first countries that decided to boycott the COP, it's quite fair and even a way to negotiate: To send a clear message by staying out of the process temporarily.

Some political scientists point out that we have to push for more initiatives at the urban, local or regional level. But at the end of the day, we have to take stock of what all these initiatives add up to and whether or not they are in line with the common planetary problem, which is the level of temperature and the remaining carbon budget. And I think that this kind of stock-taking, tracking and redefining the goals, is the main and almost the only goal of multilateralism. And beyond that, of course, finding ways to support solidarity, finance, and means of implementation.

K: What do the decisions that were made at COP29 really mean for Switzerland?

P: To clarify, I'm not a finance expert and focused mainly on mitigation and its link to science. But typically, contributions are based on a country's share of the world population or emissions. As a scholar I would say that this $300 billion target is quite vague because it doesn't clearly say where the line between grants, debt instruments, and even private finance is. It leaves room for interpretation and requires research to understand how it will be implemented and whether it will truly boost global climate finance.

On the mitigation side, the Swiss NDCs are currently under consultation and will be validated in the coming weeks. I really don't think they will be reduced because of the outcome of COP29. The Swiss government has clearly expressed its willingness to be fully in line with the IPCC and the Paris Agreement.

K: To wrap up: In your last interview with us in 2023, you mentioned the potential of Switzerland to become a pioneer in terms of multi-level governance on climate issues. Do you think Switzerland is assuming this role?

P: Indeed, Switzerland has a strong asset due to its federalist structure. This structure theoretically enables the country to implement policies at different optimal scales. Switzerland could lead by example with, for instance, inter-cantonal cooperation: showing what were best practices and share experiences from one canton to the another. Or the Confederation could work more closely together with the different sectors to implement concrete measures, and not only to set targets. But we are not using the full potential of federalism. If I were able to change one thing, I would introduce tools and institutional vehicles to create a much stronger alignment. This would be very powerful in fostering a dynamic of a «race to the top»: A positive competition where different cantons strive to lead in ambitious climate action by adopting stronger policies, innovative technologies, and ambitious emissions reduction targets. I'm convinced that the vertical integration of governance levels is missing here. If it weren’t, we could really be a laboratory of implementing multi-level climate action.

K: Thank you so much for these insightful answers, it was a pleasure talking to you.

Categorie