top of page
Search

When Climate Agendas Get Set Outside the UNFCCC : The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate

Writer's picture: Abhay ManchalaAbhay Manchala

Updated: Oct 29, 2023

This is part two in a series analyzing the many impenetrable political spaces and forums where climate agendas and policies emerge, evolve and eventually make their way into official climate negotiations.


For part one, see here.


By: Abhay Manchala


In our last exploration of the spaces where global climate policy is determined, we arrived at the sobering conclusion that climate negotiations have become increasingly splintered and hidden. Behind the closed doors and bright promises of the annual UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COPs), numerous small, powerful groups vie for their own interests when determining climate policy in frustratingly non-inclusive ways.


Take the MEF, or Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. Founded in 2009 by United States President Barack Obama “to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies,” the MEF’s goal at the time was to muster adequate political will for successful breakthroughs at Copenhagen’s COP15. The main agenda items at the time were clean energy, technological equity, and greenhouse gas emissions (3).


Contextualizing the MEF


If you’re an environmental policy buff, you may remember COP15 failed on nearly all fronts.


The crux of Copenhagen’s conflict lay in the fact that developed and developing countries had different opinions on who should be blamed for the climate crisis. At the same time, the Copenhagen Accord itself was devised by an unofficial “Friends of the Chair Meeting” that only a select few states had access to. As one would imagine, the large majority of (developing) states that were left out of these negotiations were angered by this shadowy rule-flouting (2). The Copenhagen Accord was dumped in the lap of the UNFCCC and subsequently left behind, with little binding power of its own.


Haiti delegate with hands over her face at the UNFCCC plenary
Photograph: Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images

With this context in mind, let’s return to the MEF, whose very goal was to stop this outcome from happening. Of course, it failed. Why is that?


If a key concern with the Copenhagen Accord was that of transparency, the MEF did little to expand representation beyond the voices historically at the forefront of climate negotiations. Of the 17 nations initially invited to the MEF —Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — every single one was and is part of the G20.


There was scarcely any representation from the historically marginalized African bloc or from South America. No nations from the Alliance of Small Island Nations (AOSIS), a group of states ecologically vulnerable to rising sea levels and storms, were allowed access to talks about an issue that impacted them the most.


What the MEF Represents


The MEF operates like a boys’ club. Its very creation marks a continuing trend of ‘exclusive minilateralism’ that has manifested in global climate politics over the last few decades. Exclusive minilateralism is the practice of splitting climate negotiations between a series of small groups consisting of powerful nations in the hopes that a broader, multilateral climate agreement is woven together. Supporters of minilateral groups like the MEF contend that limiting discussions to the most powerful with vested interests will result in rapid and effective agreements (3,4).


Breakdown of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Groups

If that sounds like a devil’s bargain, you may be right. Opponents of the minilateral system argue that trading due process for efficiency will only serve to repeat patterns of injustice common in the UN and globalized institutions as a whole (4). A justice-oriented examination of minilateralism is quick to point out that “it offends the basic principles of communicative justice to restrict the negotiations of any anti-pollution treaty to the biggest polluters and to exclude victims of pollution simply because their pollution contribution is negligible” (4).


The alternative to exclusive minilateralism is inclusive multilateralism, which is also fraught with concerns. Despite being a more equitable form of conduct, the UNFCCC floor is not known for rapid change — particularly in response to the climate crisis, a problem that grows by the hour (4). The idea that small groups like the MEF can mold themselves to problems and work quickly holds some merit (3); what matters is who’s invited.


The ideal, then, is some middle ground, which researchers call ‘inclusive minilateralism’ (4). Ensuring that small and efficient groups consist not just of those that are powerful and responsible for climate issues but also of those most deeply affected by the issues themselves is a key goal in the inclusive minilateral process.


The MEF Today


Since Copenhagen, the MEF has added eight new members: Argentina, Chile, Egypt, Nigeria, Norway, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. These changes may seem to speak to a more inclusive trend adopted by the MEF, but the group remains largely exclusive compared to the universally open United Nations.


In its most recent meeting in April, the MEF called once more for its members to hasten efforts to reduce global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The meeting primarily reiterated existing commitments to climate policy, focusing on the rollout of electric vehicles, renewable and efficient energy, and the phaseout of carbon-based energy in shipping.


Group of politicians including Joe Biden in a meeting
(Image: Adam Schultz / White House Photo / Flickr)

Despite the generally firm consensus of parties present in the meeting, the MEF remains more of a mouthpiece for the noncommittal targets proposed by its member nations. The lack of effective political will is just one issue that plagues the MEF.


Observers of the group found it to be disorderly, unprofessional, and, ultimately, innocuous (3). Information from the scarce meetings convened by the group is also often kept private to the public and other parties, enforcing perceptions of unjust minilateralism. You can see that in action for yourself right here.


Conclusion


The MEF cannot hope to play an important role in the global climate regime if it does not challenge the fundamental issues of justice and exclusivity rampant in the many institutions within and outside of the UNFCCC. Instead, it appears to be yet another reminder to the rest of the world that some voices will always appear to be taken more seriously than others, even if they are not doing much at all.


***

  1. Okereke, Chukwumerije, and Philip Coventry. “Climate Justice and the International Regime: Before, During, and after Paris.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 7, no. 6, 14 July 2016, pp. 834–851, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.419.

  2. Rajamani, Lavanya. “THE MAKING and UNMAKING of the COPENHAGEN ACCORD.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 3, 2010, pp. 824–843, www.jstor.org/stable/40835435. Accessed 8 Aug. 2021.

  3. Happaerts, Sander, et al. “Rising Powers in Global Climate Governance. Negotiating in the New World Order.” Lirias.kuleuven.be, 1 Oct. 2013, lirias.kuleuven.be/1899282?limo=0. Accessed 5 Sept. 2023.

  4. Ágoston, Csilla, et al. “The Psychological Consequences of the Ecological Crisis: Three New Questionnaires to Assess Eco-Anxiety, Eco-Guilt, and Ecological Grief.” Climate Risk Management, vol. 37, no. 100441, 1 Jan. 2022, p. 100441, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096322000481, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100441.

  5. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/21/chairs-summary-of-the-major-economies-forum-on-energy-and-climate-held-by-president-joe-biden-2/

27 views1 comment

1 comentario


Cora Sverdrup
Cora Sverdrup
11 sept 2023

Great article! This really helped me understand what is going on at the MEF and its influence in the global climate regime. Very important work!

Me gusta

© 2023 by Gibson Climate Justice Lab

  • White Twitter Icon
  • White Instagram Icon
  • TikTok
bottom of page