All Quiet on the Western Front?

Posted on 01. Dec, 2010 by astark in U.S.A.

It’s quiet here. A little too quiet.

The second day of UNFCCC negotiations in Cancun opened relatively peacefully, aside from the usual logistical glitches, traffic jams and terminally broken wi-fi, with the opening plenary sessions of the SBI (Subsidiary Body for Implementation) and the SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice). Yesterday at the COP (Conference of the Parties) and AWG-LCA (Adhoc Working Group on Long-term cooperative Action) opening plenaries, opening statements seemed somewhat muted, and most statements followed the standard pattern of pointing out the impending dangers of climate change, the urgent need for this UN body to act and of course commendations to the host country for their hospitality. The only flash of excitement occurred at the opening plenary of the AWG-KP (Adhoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol), where Japan made a statement conveying its strong opposition to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. This stance came as a surprise to developing countries as well as many of their allies in the Umbrella Group of countries.

But overall, things are much quieter here than they were last year in Copenhagen, when hopes for a binding emissions reduction treaty were high. Part of the reason may be that expectations are substantially downgraded here in Cancun, where every player is repeating their stated goal of a “balanced package of decisions regarding finance, adaptation, REDD, etc…” ad nauseum. It’s almost as though delegates are feeling each other out, creating a standard language of cooperation and shared vision that everyone feels comfortable saying.

This is a good sign considering how broken this process seemed after the conclusion of the Copenhagen conference last December. There, parties failed to reach agreement on the text that they had been negotiating since 2007 to create a successor regime to the Kyoto Protocol, a binding emissions reduction agreement. Instead, high-level heads of state, notably including President Barack Obama, flew in to thrash out an agreement behind closed doors at the last minute along with a hand-picked group of leaders from developed countries and a select group of developing county leaders like China. This lead to complaints that the process had lost its democratic, inclusive and transparent nature, three hallmarks of the UN decision-making process. The parties did not agree to the Copenhagen Accord, the resulting document of these closed-door discussions, only agreeing to “take note” of it, and the conference dissolved in mistrust, acrimony and the acrid remains of disappointed hopes.

This time, no one wants to repeat the mistakes of Copenhagen. Officials did their best over the past year to talk down the Cancun negotiations, saying that they didn’t expect an agreement on emissions, but rather a set of decisions on other issues related to finance, adaptation, forest and land use, etc., as well as some forward momentum on various mitigation issues that would create forward momentum before COP-17 in Durban, South Africa next December. The focus on a basket of less contentious issues also ensures that there is a much greater chance of actually achieving a substantive, binding agreement here in Cancun. Although each of these issues has one or two remaining sticking points that will need to be discussed in the next two weeks, the broad contours of many of these decisions have already been tacitly agreed on.

For example, climate finance is one of the key issues being discussed here. On most of the broad issues, every party is in agreement: developed countries should give money to developing countries, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, and this money should be disbursed through a climate fund established by the COP in a way that is efficient and easily accessible for developing countries. There is still some debate on the issue of the scale of these finances. Under the Copenhagen Accord, developed countries pledged $100 billion per year by 2020, to come from both private and public sources, but developing countries argue that this amount is not nearly commensurate to the scale of the need. But it seems like despite these arguments, especially in the face of a global economic recession and a new Congress in the United States that will be more hostile towards increasing foreign affairs spending, these numbers will be very close to the amounts that are listed in a final agreement here. There is also the issue of where these funds will come for, as the text of the Copenhagen Accord doesn’t specify the ratio of public to private spending, how private funds will be mobilized, or who will be held accountable if disbursement doesn’t reach the agreed upon numbers. But there is only one really contentious issue with an uncertain outcome that will need to be decided here: that is whether the executive board of the fund will be under the authority of the COP, or whether it will be created by another international financial institution like the World Bank and later transferred under the COP’s authority (the latter is the U.S. preference).

Despite the fact that negotiators here are tackling the “low-hanging fruit” of a future international climate regime, a relatively small number of nevertheless contentious issues remain. So far, however, no major bilateral spats or shocking twists have shaken things up.

All’s quiet on the UNFCCC front as of now, but as in any action movie, a foreboding silence now augurs a lot of excitement over the next two weeks, especially if negotiators aim to achieve a successful outcome in the end.

Tags: Adopt a Negotiator, Cancún, climate change, COP16, featured, UNFCCC, United States, USA