COP16: More questions than answers…

Posted on 17. Dec, 2010 by annac in United Kingdom

Nearly a week has passed since the unfccc finally reached some consensus and the Cancun agreements were formally accepted at COP16.

These agreements were hailed by many as the saviour of the multilateral process, a success because we finally managed to agree. But by most were not hailed as the saviour of the climate. A failure because we didn’t actually agree on taking action.

But at the very least, at the lowest common denominator of measures of success, they were agreements where the countries of the world came together and decided what the next steps to saving the climate should and could be.

Or did they?

As the night slowly ticked away on the final sessions of COP16, negotiators and ministers alike were applauding the Mexican presidency for the transparency of the process, for the fact that they all felt included, and for the fact the Mexicans had managed to put a text together that they could all agree on.

All except one.

Consistently over the final few sessions Bolivia took to the floor to oppose the decisions that were being made. Each time this happened the tension in the room rose and rose, frustration spilled over from the chair, ministers and observers alike. It felt like Bolivia were completely blocking the process. We just wanted them to stop talking (at one point one of their interventions went on for well over 20 minutes!). We just wanted them to agree, to let us all go home. To let us get some sleep, crack open a beer, and declare Cancun a success.

It’s happened before. Many times at the unfccc we have prayed for the USA, or the Saudis, or some other country to stop blocking progress. But this time it was different. This time it was Bolivia calling a halt on the process. Bolivia, our champions in this game. Bolivia, who call for the strongest possible measures to tackle climate change, call for the rights of mother earth. Bolivia a country with an indigenous president. Bolivia who sit at the unfccc seemingly with no hidden agenda, the safety of our planet, our future, their priority.

And in the frustration of still working at 4am in the morning, in the desperation to just for once come away from the unfccc feeling we had succeded, in the tiredness of the final throws of COP 16, we turned our back on them.

Or did they turn their back on us? At one point in the evening the chair spoke frankly to Bolivia as they aired their grievences over the process. She said she was dissapointed in them for deliberatley choosing to exclude themselves.

Is this really what happened? If so why did Bolivia choose this way?

And as the night wore on it was Bolivia who were ignored. Despite their objections, despite their blocking, despite their passionate words, the chair declared consensus and passed the agreements.

As she banged the hammer she declared that consensus does not mean unanimity and it does not mean the right of one country to veto a decision 191 others are agreeing on.

But isn’t that exactly what consensus does mean?

That’s how we use it when I work with consensus in groups. If any one person or group of people block the proposal it cannot be passed. That person must then offer an amendment and the discussion starts again, until a proposal can be passed by everyone in the room.

What is different about the unfccc form of consensus decision making?

Coming away from Cop16 I seem to have more questions than answers.

Should we be happy with the progress made at Cop16?
Why do I not feel behind Bolivia, our seemingly champions in this process?
Did the chair violate the rules of consensus?
What are the rules of consensus?
If this did happen is it for better or the worse?
Because if one country is able to block an agreement does this effectively give the Saudis or the US the same powers?
If this is true is there any hope for this process?
What does this really all mean for the climate, for our beautiful world and a better future?

As we leave one Cop behind and hurtle towards another. As governments, media and civil society alike around the world praise the success of Cancun. As it already fades into a distant memory, I sit and I ponder my questions.

Questions I cannot yet answer.

If process is not process. If consensus not consensus. If champions are not champions, and success is not success.

If nothing is as it seems, and it seems what we have is nothing.

Then where does this road lead?

Tags: Bolivia, consensus, COP16, featured, mexico, UNFCCC