Tiptoeing into the Polycene:[1] Launch of the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade
On November 7, during the Belém Climate Summit, President Luís Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil launched the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade (IFCCT).
The IFCCT is a recognition of the need to integrate trade policy and climate policy. It is a “space for dialog” intended to “bring together government officials from both the climate and trade domains.” (Para. 2.3 of the launch document) It will be independent of the UNFCCC and WTO (para. 2.2) and is not intended to “encroach” on their mandates or those of other organizations (para. 5.3). It is not clear what that means in practical terms.
The IFCCT will not be a “normative” organization. That is, it will not produce binding outcomes, interpretations of existing agreements, or adjudicative judgments. (Para. 5.3) It seems to be intended to function as a think tank that will produce backround notes and technical notes.
It will be co-chaired by Brazil and a “developed country,” each of which will appoint a co-president. Its work will be carried out through two working groups—a “Pathways” working group focused on policy and cooperation, and a “Tools” working group focused on technical and analytical frameworks. (Para. 5.2.) (Para. 10.1) It will operate under the Chatham House Rule, and publications will be under the responsibility of the co-presidents. (Para. 10.2) The work of the IFCCT will be supported by an expert panel, and its secretariat will be comprised of the Forum on Trade, Environment and the SDGs (TESS), as “anchor” and by the the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy. (Para. 14.1).
This is a very welcome initiative. It begins to address one of two problems that seem to frustrate effective global governance, in climate change and in many other fields of concern. The problem that it begins to address is that existing international law and governance seems excessively siloed and insufficiently adaptable to grapple with the polycene. (I will not here address the second, related, problem: the inability to make decisions except by unanimity, resulting in a deeply inefficient tyranny of the minority.) For more on both problems, see the work of the Remaking Trade Project, including especially chapter 12 of the Villars Framework.
Of course, international lawyers will recognize the polycene as reminiscent of the problem of fragmentation that we have discussed since at least 1991, but we have viewed it largely through single-issue lenses (e.g., trade alone), often focusing on binary and non-reciprocal relationships across issue areas, such as “how does trade deal with environment?” Furthermore, the literature of fragmentation failed to extend beyond the problem of dispute settlement given overlapping types of international law and international organization.
A more holistic approach, focusing on legislating integrated international law that harnesses multiple areas of expertise and multiple political mandates or concerns, is required. The IFCCT is a small step in the right direction, but what is needed is a paradigm-shift.
The Center for International Law and Governance at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, is planning a global hybrid symposium on “Governing the Polycene: Climate Change, AI, and Governance Mechanisms, on February 6. Stay tuned.
[1] The word polycene, coined by Craig Mundie and popularized by Thomas L. Friedman, comes from the Greek "poly" for "many," and describes a move from binary (two-sided) systems to a complex network of many interconnected "poly” systems.