Is COP18 heading for US-style ‘mini’-lateralism?

Leading into COP18, there were lots of rumors running around the net after the US stated that they may prefer to move the climate negotiations into the Major Economies Forum. This was news that shocked the climate justice world. Activists and developing states alike feared the implications of a negotiating process that would not include the voices of those most heavily impacted by climate change. This is the critical danger of ‘mini-lateralism’.

However, could the Qatari Presidency be heading in the direction of ‘mini-lateralism’? According to Nitin Sethi at the Times of India, it could be.

Sethi reported that: “Qatar plans to start a ministerial-level closed door meeting at the ongoing UN climate negotiations but outside the formal schedule, which could potentially short circuit and make redundant the negotiator-level talks that started on November 26.” -

If it is true, it would transform the nature of the negotiations, and could result in a wave of objections from developing country negotiators, already frustrated at the lack of trust, equity, ambition and political will from developed countries.

Sethi also noted that: “Sources told TOI that Qatar wants to scrap the work done so far and get a set of key ministers to draft new negotiating texts. One key developing country negotiator, who spoke to TOI on condition of anonymity, expressed fears that this would bring to naught all the effort put in so far, and put several smaller countries out of the frame from decision making.”

If this is true, it may indeed fast-track the UN process. This has certainly been the opinion of developed countries such as the US and Australia, who at times have advocated on behalf of a more exclusive political process. After 20 years of political stagnation, I for one would love to inject a bit more pace into these negotiations.

However, could a process such as this threaten the principles of the UN?

It would most definitely spell nightmares for negotiators from small island states such as Nauru. Today, Nauru reminded the COP that “this conference is a matter of survival”. It is not a matter of political card tricks and power steering. It is a matter of fate. A fate in which they can still play a part - as long as their voice is heard on an equal, inclusive and transparent process.

In Durban and Copenhagen, fast-track political wheeling and dealing has failed developing states. It may result in newspaper headlines, but it hasn’t seemed to help those on the front lines of climate change. And if this news is indeed true, I fear that Doha may be on track for a similarly fickle outcome.

But I for one hope it is not. With over a week left in the negotiations, it’s time that we all work to reinstate trust between nations, instead of tearing it down. This has been a key aspect of the negotiations and one which requires much more ‘work’. In almost every negotiating room, trust has been echoing across the translation lines and ringing in the ears of each and every negotiator. If anything is worth pursuing at this stage, restoring trust across the firewall that seperates developed and developing states is critical to moving forward in these negotiations.

This is something ‘mini-lateralism’ would never achieve. But this is also something which Nitin Sethi has written against on many occasions, often playing up and even sensationalizing the divisions of suspicion that plague these negotiations. And this could again be the case here.

So far, the Qatari Presidency has been openly engaging with civil society leaders advocating for a more inclusive and transparent process. In today’s stocktaking plenary, a number of parties from both sides of the firewall praised the Presidency for its facilitation thus far and urged Qatar to embrace its leadership role in this COP.

So at this stage, there are no signs that this trend is going to change.

If anything, it is time to take on the calls of those most vulnerable to climate change and forge ahead in a direction which seeks to amplify ambition, equity, inclusivity and trust.