A New Coalition of the Willing

Negotiating blocks, stalemates and impasses have characterized much of COP 17. The US, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and others have been blocking the road to meaningful agreement on almost every turn along the way, and the need for a breakthrough in these final moments is becoming increasingly exigent. Throughout COP 17 the African Group have bandied together and united their voice in order to create a strengthened position with more political clout. Putting their differences aside and working together for a better climate future, the Africa Group has set an example that the rest of the world could learn a lot from. Not only have they put their differences aside, but, as I have previously argued, the proposals that they have put forward, if accepted, would take us a long way to a meaningful COP 17. This was corroborated earlier this evening when the Africa Group received a Ray of the Day from the Climate Action Network for their efforts within COP 17. Unfortunately their voice hasn’t been strong enough to break the deadlocks, and more is needed.

In the closing hours of the 2^nd last day at COP 17, a new coalition of the willing (CoW) is emerging which might play just that role. 117 countries from the African Group, AOSIS, the EU and LDC came together for a meeting this evening and presented their common vision towards a future below 2 degrees Celsius under a legally binding framework. Their voices when combined may just have the political clout needed to push through their proposals; however, they are up against some politically potent interests. China, India, and the Umbrella Group remain outside of the coalition and while the outsiders are far from united in their opposition their divergent views may still become an insurmountable obstacle to real progress in negotiations. Furthermore, it remains to be seen just how cohesive the CoW position is, and whether it will hold strong or fracture as negotiations progress. Bearing this in mind (as well as the fact that many of the discussions have been happening behind closed doors in the past two days leaving me with limited knowledge) here are some of the major obstacles the CoW will have to overcome tomorrow.

The first obstacle comes in the form of the number 2020. China, India and the US (however, surprisingly not Canada) are all pushing for a post-Kyoto agreement on legally-binding emissions to come into effect only by 2020, while CoW is pushing for 2015. The difference between the two is massive: if we only develop a new treaty by 2020 we will be locked into the Cancun Agreements’ emission reduction targets until then, which will set us on a disastrous course, possibly ending up at 3.5 degrees Celsius worth of climate change, far off from the agreed 2 degree target. While both 2015 and 2020 are far away progress on this is critically important as it will shape the terrain of another hurdle to overcome, the Kyoto Protocol itself. CoW wants a second commitment on the Kyoto Protocol (KP2C) but there are a number of important conditionals on the table, which might delay progress on this. EU has been clear that they are not willing to sign on to KP2C unless a new more ambitious treaty is being signed afterwards for as mentioned earlier, KP’s reduction targets are not ambitious enough to keep global warming below the 2 degree level. So we need the previous obstacle at least partially overcome in order to get KP2C.

Blocking the progress, however, are the ship-jumpers, Japan, Canada and Russia, who are set to leave KP, and seem now to have turned into hijackers as well. According to a South African government official at COP17, the three countries were hijacking discussions on the Kyoto Protocol and blocking progress, despite the fact that all are set to leave it. Minister Kent from Canada, however, stated in contradiction that, “we will not obstruct or discourage those [who want to sign onto KP2C]”. Although South Africa says they have a strategy to deal with these road blockers, whether it has an effective implementable one is yet to be seen. The Kyoto Protocol, while insufficient with regards to the gigatonne gap, is a critical bridging and building block for the future upon which so much of the UNFCCC structures hand, and if we cannot secure KP2C global climate negotiations may disintegrate.

Another major obstacle in negotiations is the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund. From snippets fed to the broader public outside of the party-only closed-off sections of the talks, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) structure seems to be coming in place, but sources of funding for it remain a serious source of dispute. Despite Germany and Norway pledging millions of euros to climate finance, much work needs to be done to secure more new additional, reliable, consistent, no-strings-attached funding. An empty shell is not what the developing world has in mind, and as the GCF remains a crucial conditional in many countries negotiating positions, securing something more substantial is key.

Other loose ends in the discussions have to do with review, LULUCF, AAU’s, CDM and many others. Much work needs to be done before the end of tomorrow night and some groups are calling for the COP president not to conclude the COP if a meaningful agreement isn’t made. Hopefully, however, the CoW will be able to push through its political agenda, and perhaps side-line the US along the way, and make meaningful progress within negotiations. Even among civil society groups the call to rally behind Africa, AOSIS and the LDCs is finding a deep traction in the hope of bolstering their position. We must be wary, however, of the possibility that the CoW may not have its way and that the negotiations may end on less than a sub-optimal note (tautology intended). In that case we must be weary of spin that would package such an outcome as something desirable, for a weak and ineffective climate deal might be worse than a defunct one. South Africa has already shown its willingness to put such spin on the negotiations, as on Wednesday a spokesperson for the COP Presidency said, on reflection upon progress which was in trouble even then, that they were not even considering the possibility of getting a bad outcome. If the New Coalition of the Willing isn’t successful, or even if they are partially so, we may end up with an unpalatable global climate regime, and, if so, we must be willing to see a weak climate deal for what it is, and make the tough decision as to whether it is not better to move outside of such an agreement than to lock ourselves into a false solution to climate change. Let’s hope and pray, if you will, that it doesn’t boil down to that.