The Tribune

HAVING written only last week about COP26, the UN Climate Change Conference which opens in Scotland in less than one week, I hesitate to return to the subject today for fear of repetition. But there has been a significant new development and it may also be worth reiterating the importance of the conference to Small Island Developing States (SIDS) which include, of course, The Bahamas.

The BBC has reported it has seen leaked documents – via the UK non-governmental environmental body Greenpeace – showing that some countries have been seeking to alter a crucial scientific report on how to tackle climate change and global warming. The documents consist of thousands of submissions made by governments, companies and interested parties to the team of scientists compiling the latest report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is designed to bring together the best scientific evidence on the subject.

With pressure on countries at COP26 to commit to slashing their carbon emissions in order to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the leaks show that the IPCC has been pressed to play down the importance of moving rapidly away from fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – to create energy because the world does not need to reduce their use as quickly as the current draft of the report has suggested. These countries include, among others, Saudi Arabia, Japan, China, Australia and India. In response, the IPCC has declared its openness to all comments and that a reason for its strength and credibility as an organization is that it will take account of these if they are supported by the science.

Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer, and other OPEC countries have a major interest, as does Australia which, according to the leaks, rejects the need to close down coal-fired power plants, even though ending the use of coal is one of the stated objectives of COP26. Likewise, India has warned that coal is likely to remain the mainstay of its energy production in the foreseeable future. The leaks also refer to new technology designed to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and store it underground.

COP26 is supposed to be the event that saves the planet by promoting environment sustainability. But there is mounting concern that the conference could be derailed by the reported growing opposition to phasing out fossil fuels. Critics are also expressing doubts about the conference itself. With the delegations becoming bloated and the notable absence of the leaders of China and Russia, there is a danger of showboating and a lack of meaningful commitments about reducing carbon emissions. But others discount this danger, saying that with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s flair for the big occasion he is more likely than not to deliver a successful event.

All this is important to SIDS because it is in their interests for the major polluters – the larger and wealthier industrialised countries – to reduce their carbon emissions as a matter of urgency since it is SIDS who, as a result of global warming, are extremely vulnerable to rising sea levels and environmental disasters like hurricanes. Higher sea levels will be catastrophic for some islands and coastal regions and, even keeping warming to an increase of 1.5 degrees will have a heavy impact on low lying areas.

So SIDS, with a small carbon footprint themselves, should be at the forefront of COP26 since they are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change and have a vested interest in limiting it. There is also the issue of whether SIDS should be able to hold accountable those countries responsible for the highest emissions and insist on compensation for loss and damage caused by disasters precipitated by global warming.

Most significant in the short-term, however, is the COP26 goal of enabling and encouraging those countries most affected by climate change to protect and restore ecosystems, build resilient defences, protect agriculture and avoid the loss of homes, livelihoods and even lives. New infrastructure will be expensive, so at the conference there should be an emphasis on adaptation and capacity building together with financial assistance and debt relief for SIDS with limited resources. According to reports, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) played an influential role in securing recognition of the unique needs of SIDS at the negotiations leading up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. In this context, it is perhaps also worth mentioning the UK government’s report as the Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth for the period 2018 to 2020. This described, inter alia, its support for the Commonwealth Small States Office in Geneva and, specifically, the UK’S help to various SIDS in managing their marine economies in relation to climate change, global warming and rising ocean levels.

People are now asking how SIDS will be represented in Glasgow. In an article last week, my fellow columnist Alicia Wallace asked who will be attending COP26 for The Bahamas, what contribution they will be making and whether they will be joining the call for the polluters to be held accountable. From what I hear, people would like to know the answers to such questions since global warming is a critical issue facing the nation.

More generally, it is said that COP26 ought to be a defining moment for global climate action. Decisions taken by world leaders will have long-term effects worldwide – and this should include SIDS for whom one of the main issues is availability of funds for climate adaptation measures that could be vital for their survival.

BARBADOS WILL STAY CLOSE TO BRITAIN WITHIN COMMONWEALTH

Despite the UK media hype about The Queen being surprised and shocked at last week’s announcement by Barbados about becoming a republic, the reality is somewhat different.

The Queen has been the head of state of Barbados as a realm since its independence in 1966. But the latest announcement has hardly come out of the blue since a Constitutional Review Commission in 1998 recommended republican status for the country. This was followed in 2005 by Barbados making the Caribbean Court of Justice its final appellate court rather than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. People also forget that the Governor General of this former British colony formally announced in her speech from the throne in September last year its intention to make the transition from being a realm to a republic by November, 2021, which is the 55th anniversary of the island state’s independence.

In reaction to the news, Buckingham Palace has made it clear that this is a matter for the government and people of Barbados and last year the British government commented officially that “we have an enduring partnership and will continue to work with them along with all our valued Caribbean partners”.

That surely remains the case since it is important to respect the wishes of the Barbadian people. Prime Minister Mia Mottley has stated that the “time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind”, adding that the public now wants a Barbadian head of state as an “ultimate statement of confidence in who we are and what we are capable of achieving”. She called it a “seminal moment”, but she was quick to reassure people that this was not a condemnation of the country’s British past.

For the record, Guyana took the same step in 1970 less than four years after gaining independence from Britain. Trinidad followed suit in 1976 and Dominica in 1978; and all three stayed as members of the Commonwealth. The most recent country to remove The Queen as head of state was Mauritius in 1992.

It might be worth noting that, apart from Britain itself and The Bahamas, the now existing 15 realms are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu – as well as, in our part of the world, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

Becoming a republic is considered a significant move for Barbados, but changing its constitutional status in this way ought not to make a great deal of practical difference since realms are already wholly independent sovereign states and there is no involvement or interference by Britain in their affairs. So all will surely be confident that the commitment of both Barbados and Britain to work together constructively on a range of issues will continue for their mutual benefit – both bilaterally and as fellow members of the Commonwealth.

Where does the power lie in Europe?

A controversy that has been bubbling away during months of division between Poland and the European Union in connection with judicial reforms, LGBT rights and media freedom has reached a critical point.

Poland is under fire from the EU after its Constitutional Tribunal ruled recently that some parts of the EU Treaties and elements of EU law were incompatible with the Polish constitution.

It has declared that the EU Treaties are subordinate to the constitution and that European regulations in force in the country must comply with it. This has, of course, put Poland at loggerheads with the EU since it challenges the key tenet of European integration which is the supremacy of EU law throughout the 27-member bloc.

The European Commission in Brussels has said the ruling in Warsaw raises serious concerns about the primacy of EU law and could jeopardise Poland’s future as an EU member state, though there appears to be no sign of the nation wishing to withdraw from the bloc.

The EC has added that it is committed to the uniform application and integrity of EU law. Its President, Ursula von der Leyen, has described any suggestion that Poland’s constitution should take precedence over this as a direct challenge to the unity of Europe and, therefore, unacceptable.

Until this clash is resolved, Poland is unlikely to receive any grants under the EU’s recovery plan after the COVID-19 pandemic. But the country’s Prime Minister has said that, by threatening to withhold such financial assistance in response to the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal, the EU is overstepping its authority and his nation “will not be cowed by threats of financial penalties which are tantamount to blackmail.”

It will be interesting to see how this dispute develops. It looks to be another major test for the EU after the last few years of managing a messy divorce from the UK. The issue goes to the very heart of the EU project and its aim of ever closer union to become a European federal superstate, with such a union written into the EU Treaties and European Court of Justice case law.

People tend to think about the EU in terms of the economic advantage of belonging to a single market and a customs union so that trade is protected and is tariff-free. But what was, I believe, a significant factor in Britain’s 2016 referendum and eventual withdrawal from the EU was the bloc’s creation – from the beginning – of a new legal order within the jurisdiction of its signatories that gave it primacy over their domestic statutes. In my view, apart from pressure to control and limit immigration, a major reason for Brexit was that by joining the EU in 1973 Britain partially lost control over its own laws since directives from Brussels became part of its domestic law – and that this was no longer acceptable.