"A Change of Climate in Cancun:" Adjunct Professor Cecilia Dalupan Reflects on This Month's UN Climate Change Meetings in Mexico

What a difference a year makes. Leading up to the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in December of 2009, expectations had been enormously high. The goals were tremendously challenging - international binding agreements on a post-2012 climate framework, including controversial issues such as the fate of the Kyoto Protocol and whether the U.S. and developing countries like China would agree to carbon emission reduction commitments. Those meetings were marked by a number of large protests and covered by intense media scrutiny as the biggest political names arrived and over 30,000 delegates from governments, NGOs, business, and other sectors attempted to complete negotiations in a conference complex built to hold 15,000 people.

The atmosphere at the COP 15 negotiations and some of the language used in meetings there struck me as negative and unproductive, sometimes downright toxic. In the end, negotiations in Copenhagen were not completed as originally designed under the action plan decided by the parties two years before in Indonesia (the Bali Action Plan or BAP), and the limited agreements made were to continue the work and to “note” the voluntary Copenhagen Accord put forward by a number of delegations.

In contrast, expectations for the 16th COP in Cancun talks were manageable, even low, and media attention seemed scant especially by comparison with Copenhagen. This was particularly true for the United States where domestic issues on the legislative agenda dominated the news. It turns out that a sober and reasonable level of media coverage may actually be more productive, as the 24-hour news cycle which thrives on sound bites and hyperbole often can not reflect the sensitivities and complexities of multilateral negotiating processes, much less the difficult and often very technical substance of negotiations.

When I arrived for the second week of COP 16 in Cancun in early December, the differences I immediately noted were obvious but, as it turns out, not superficial – sunny and much more pleasant climate (pun intended) and improved logistical arrangements. Noting the even more obvious heavily armed security forces all over the place as I left the airport, I arrived after what seemed like just a few minutes at Cancunmesse, the first conference center which housed among others, registration, NGOs, media and many party (country/delegation) offices. I recalled, in contrast, the bitter cold and long lines at the massive complex at COP 15 in Copenhagen.

From Cancunmesse, all delegates and accredited representatives had to take shuttle busses to the Moon Palace where negotiating meetings were held. While both venues were situated along the Hotel Zone, they were several kilometers apart. While I heard some complaints about this lay-out, it was probably more manageable for security reasons and it did avoid the over-crowding that often characterized COP 15 and contributed to the already high level of stress there.

The COP 16 organizers apparently took some logistical notes from COP 15 and the results were impressive. I would soon conclude that that this may have been the case not just with respect to logistics, but also to the negotiating process itself. As is typical with most COPs, there were multiple meetings that took place almost every hour of the day dealing with the many different parts of the puzzle that make up the ongoing negotiations towards new global agreements on climate change.

The distinct and increasingly complex parts of the puzzle fall under two main negotiating tracks: the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). These two parallel but inter-connected tracks were decided at COP 13 in Bali. Under these working groups were a multitude of negotiations on many different sections.

I noted a generally positive and at times even upbeat tone of negotiations. Bouncing back from the disappointments at Copenhagen, there also seemed to be a real desire to move forward with clear accomplishments, however modest, to set the stage for other difficult issues that will hopefully be addressed and agreed upon in South Africa in late 2011. The host Mexican delegation, led by their Foreign Secretary and President of COP 16, Patricia Espinosa (picture to the left), constantly emphasized transparency in negotiations and recognized the importance of avoiding even the perception that closed-door meetings were being held with select parties or that alternative texts were being developed outside of the main negotiating sessions.

These negotiations, as with other UN processes, seem to have a language all their own consisting of acronyms, too many and sometimes too long (although it has been difficult to avoid some that I’ve already used here such as COP, AWG-LCA, AWG-KP, BAP etc). I also noted more than ever at these meetings the (over)use of certain catch phrases, for example, “form follows function” (or substance) in the meetings that I followed on the legal form of the outcome of negotiations.

I believe that the two assertions often heard in the different sessions, while used at times to mind-numbing, mantra-like proportions, ultimately and actually ended up characterizing – and saving - the negotiations. These were the terms, “party-driven process” and “let’s not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”

At the end of the day, it appeared to me that the overriding sentiment of more than 190 delegations was that the agreements made in Cancun reflected the consensus of the parties, that parties believed that their work drove the process and the outcome. To my knowledge, there were no controversial closed-door meetings or parallel texts and the consensus seemed to be that the Mexican delegation, in its leadership role, went to great lengths to undertake consultations in a transparent manner. Common ground was reached on a number of issues on which compromises were made, and equally recognized was the need to continue working on unresolved issues such as mitigation commitments. The substantive agreements and outcomes of these meetings are now incorporated in official instruments, also known as the Cancun Package, all of which are posted on the UNFCCC website (unfccc.org).

The final day of negotiations that began on December 10 and ended the following day reflected these substantive agreements, but probably more importantly, the progress made on process. President Espinosa - greeted with a standing ovation at the plenary - announced that consultations had been taking place and new consolidated texts had been developed which reflected on-going negotiations, emphasizing that these were not “Mexican texts” (inevitably calling to mind the “Danish text” that was circulated at Copenhagen).

Parties were given a few hours to study these texts and when the plenary session resumed after 9:00 pm, many parties took the floor in general support of adopting the texts with their positions marked by words such as inclusiveness, trust, transparency, and flexibility. And yes, “let’s not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.” Delegations, including China and the United States, concurred with adoption and were met with applause, sometimes cheers. Bolivia, however, maintained its position against the texts citing, among others, the lack of clear agreement on the Kyoto Protocol and mitigation targets. The general plenary adjourned, followed by the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP plenary sessions which commenced after midnight.

At about 3:00 am, the general plenary reconvened and adopted decisions on both the outcome of the work of both negotiating tracks despite the lone resistance of Bolivia. President Felipe Calderon (picture to the left) of Mexico later addressed the plenary, citing among others the confidence regained in the UN process, and he too was met with a standing ovation.

While the COP decisions in Cancun are not a global treaty, they are legal agreements adopted as official UNFCCC decisions, unlike the Copenhagen Accord. A number of the Accord’s provisions - such as emission reduction pledges and a $100 billion per annum Green Climate Fund for mitigation and adaptation programs in developing countries – are now formal agreements under the UN process.

A key message and outcome from Cancun was renewed confidence in multilateralism, however guarded or tenuous. The decisions adopted there moved the negotiating process forward and parties have reason to be cautiously hopeful that broader international agreement might be possible.

There was a moment during the plenary when a delegate who was seated somewhere up front stood up and turned around to walk to the back of the very large conference room. The camera was focused on the podium, and the delegate walked front and center of the camera’s view, prominent on the three massive screens up front. As the delegate walked and realized this, he quickly raised his hand and waved, causing laughter to break out among the thousands in the hall. That shared humorous moment was a fitting symbol of both our common humanity and capacity for convergence – the most important reminders from Cancun.

Cecilia Dalupan
Adjunct Professor

Editor's note: Cecilia Dalupan has attended meetings of the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change in Bonn, the Hague, Buenos Aires, and most recently at Copenhagen and Cancun where she served as one of the civil society advisors to the Philippine Delegation. She is an Associate Director of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. She is also a principal of the Sustainable Development Strategies Group together with Luke Danielson, and both are adjunct professors at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law co-teaching the courses on Sustainable Natural Resources Development.

Leading European Parliamentarian Says it is Time for UN to Abandon "Consensus Style" Decision-Making

Determining whether the recent UN Climate Change Conference was a success or not depends in large measure on one's own perspective.

But what remains without doubt is that the UN decision-making process that requires consensus -- among more than 190 member states -- is a very difficult bar to reach under any circumstances. Bearing that in mind, is there something that the UN might learn from the European Union, another governmental body that has faced its own challenges over time with consensus-based decision-making?

Guy Verhofstadt, a member of the European Parliament from Belgium and chair of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, thinks the UN can benefit from the evolution of the EU's decision-making process.

Writing in the Financial Times recently ("UN Should Tread Brussels' Path in Climate Talks," Dec. 23, 2009), Mr. Verhofstadt, offered the following observation:

If consensus among all parties is required to formally approve a declaration or commitment, then the UN process has severe limitations. Nothing meaningful will ever be achieved to tackle climate change if unanimity remains the rule.

Mr. Verhofstadt, went on to suggest that changes in the EU's decision-making process could help inform a change at UN level:

Perhaps the UN could take a leaf out of the European Union book and examine whether its consensus-based decision-making is sustainable for the sake of the planet and its own credibility. The EU has had to constantly adjust its procedures to make decision-making both possible and more efficient. The recently approved Lisbon Treaty was designed with this precise goal in mind as it had become clear that forging a consensus with 27 member states on highly complex and often technical matters was unmanageable if just one country could hold everyone else to ransom. Majority voting [in the EU] is now the norm.

Mr. Verhofstadt concludes that making decisions based on majority voting is perhaps "a path the UN may have to take in order to extract some concrete commitments to tackle climate change before it is too late."

While his ideas are worth considering, it may be worth bearing in mind that the EU and the UN are very different organizations with different objectives. Nevertheless, something like this should clearly be on the UN's agenda for consideration.

UN Copenhagen Conference: Success, Failure, or Something in Between?

The dust is just now settling from the UN Climate Change Conference, which ended its run last Saturday. Looking back -- admittedly with the benefit of just two days -- did the conference accomplish what it intended to do? Was it a success? Or a big disappointment?

Views are all over the board. Not surprisingly, the word from 1600 Pennsylvania in Washington, D.C. is that the conference conclusions were a "breakthrough [that] will lay the foundation for international action in the years to come." It seems rather "rich" to call the results a "breakthrough," at least if one had been expecting some sort of firm agreement with ambitious and enforceable targets.

An editorial in today's New York Times ("Copenhagen, and Beyond," Dec. 21, 2009) wrote in part, "The global climate negotiations in Copenhagen produced neither a grand success nor the complete meltdown that seemed almost certain as late as Friday afternoon [of last week.]" The editorial goes on to argue that, "For the moment it is worth savoring the steps forward. China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way that it has never been...And the United States is very much back in the game too. After eight years of playing the spoiler, it is now a leader with a president who seems to embrace the role."

From across the Atlantic, a more somber tone was generally in evidence. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose government is serving as the current president of the EU, said, "Let's be honest. This is not a perfect agreement. It will not solve the climate threat."

The Economist put it more bluntly: "Even its biggest fans -- if such people exist -- would be hard put to find the Copenhagen Accord on the climate a rousing success." ("Better Than Nothing," Dec. 19, 2009). Moreover, The Economist offered its view (one that I believe we will be hearing much more about) that the overall process was nearly a flop: "The UNFCCC process...looks in need of some serious attention."

Finally, the Financial Times offered this perspective today: "As the meeting ended, Barack Obama was calling the Copenhagen accord -- the emptiest deal one could imagine, short of a fist fight -- an 'important breakthrough.' Mr. Obama's credibility at home and abroad is one casualty of this farcical outcome." ("Dismal Outcome at Copenhagen Fiasco," Dec. 21, 2009).

The big disappointment from today's review of various newspapers is the fact that The Wall Street Journal editorial team had nothing to say about Copenhagen. But that is not entirely a surprise since the Journal devoted its entire editorial column today to lambasting a cobbled together health bill that the U.S. Senate seems poised to approve. Nevertheless, the Journal will undoubtedly chime in very soon.

Final Post From the UN Climate Change Conference: Dr. Anita Halvorssen Assesses What Was and Was Not Accomplished

All week Dr. Anita Halvorssen has been reporting from the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Here is today's final report:

At the final, tumultuous Plenary meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC at their 15th session (COP15), the Parties agreed to "take note" of the Climate Accord, the deal brokered by President Obama together with leaders from India, Brazil, South Africa, and China last night. Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Sudan objected to the "note." The accord still needs to be formally approved by the Parties.

Highlights from the Climate Accord include the limit of a two degree Celcius increase in global temperature rise, the 30 billion dollars for developing countries for adaptation between 2010 and 2012, 100 billion dollars starting 2020 to be mobilized for developing countries to be used for mitigation and adaptation, and the establishment of the Reduction of Deforestation and Forest Degredation (REDD plus) mechanism and a technology mechanism.

Many participants at COP-15 were not thrilled with the new Climate Accord, since it is not a binding agreement and there are no binding emission reduction cuts for developed countries or mitigation action for developing countries. The small island states in the Pacific are not happy with the two degree limit on the temperature rise because they may well become submerged as a result, but compared to walking out empty-handed, I think COP-15 has taken us one step closer to the goal of the UNFCCC which is to stabilize the greenhouse gases (GHGs) to a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human caused) interference with the climate system.

It is just two years ago since the IPCC in its fourth assessment report (AR4) determined the 2 degree limit was where we needed to be, now the international community has accepted the limit - that has to be progress. The fact that 119 world leaders came to Copenhagen shows that the international community understands the seriousness of climate change. I think we are headed in the right direction, slowly, but surely.

The next meetings will take place in Bonn in June of 2010, and COP-16 will be in Mexico the second week of November in 2010.

Dr. Halvorssen, who teaches at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, has attended the proceedings for the Prof. Ved Nanda Center for the Study of International Law. Her participation was accredited by the American Society of International Law.

Danish family member and Dr. Anita Halvorssen walking on Strøget - the world´s oldest pedestrian street.









Rosenborg - 1630s.

Observations from the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen

This week Dr. Anita Halvorssen has been reporting from the UN Climate Change Conference in Denmark. Today's posting and pictures follow:

Due to capacity problems at the Bella Center, a new venue, the Forum, was reserved for the NGOs that do not have access to the Bella Center. As I did not win the lottery for access cards to get into the COP-15 venue, the Forum (see picture below) is my new meeting place for the last two days of the conference.

The Parties to the UNFCCC seem to be in agreement on the financing side of the COP-15 negotiations. Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian Prime Minister, on behalf of the African countries, Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, among others, have all announced that the developed countries will contribute $100 billion to help developing countries address mitigation and adaptation issues starting 2020. This was one of the biggest sticking points of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention.

Side Event: The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) arranged a panel entitled Fair Climate: US Constituencies’ Perspectives. It was hosted by Bellona, a Norwegian NGO. Gloria Reuben, from ‘ER’, an Emmy nominated actress and climate change activist talked about the negative ramifications of mountain top removal coal mining in Virginia. Jerome Ringo, President of Apollo Alliance, stated that climate change is much more than the COP-15 Conference, it is about tomorrow, it is about humanity. Jerome said “Ten to twenty years from now, what will we say to our children and grandchildren when they ask, 'You were at Copenhagen. What did you do?'”

John Grant, NWF Board member, CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta, emphasized the right to have a healthy, sustainable environment. Look to, not just the near term, but a hundred years from now, what can we do to enable human sustainability a thousand years from now. Alabama had a terrible drought, the governor prayed for rain. In Africa, women walk all day to find water. Ask yourselves every day, he said: “What am I going to do today to create a healthier planet?” The goods we buy and vehicles we drive need to be carbon neutral. “We need to hold each other individually accountable,” he stated.

Jackie Patterson, NAACP Climate Justice Initiative Director, spoke of heightened vulnerability of women. Regarding climate change, gender studies show that women are more impacted than men by environmental disasters. Women who are more likely to be poor, will be more exposed to displacement due to climate change.

The final speaker, Bob Gruenig, National Tribal Environment Council stated that you can tell the character of a country’s leaders by the way they treat their indigenous peoples. Many of these people are being affected by climate change. Southwest of the US, the native American tribes are seeing their water sources drying up due to climate change. In Kivalina, Alaska, the village has to move due to the ice off the coast having melted, enabling the ocean to erode the coastline. It will cost $100-400 million to relocate the people.

Addressing a question from the audience on how to deal with the climate skeptics in the US, the panelist said this was a big problem, but that most Americans wanted action on climate change. The message needs to be simple, that it’s an investment in the future, yes there will be costs, but there are bigger costs of inaction.

Dr. Halvorssen, who teaches at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, is attending the proceedings for the Prof. Ved Nanda Center for the Study of International Law and accredited by the American Society of International Law.

From outside the conference: A little snow does not keep the Danes from bicycling.

Dr. Anita Halvorssen Reports From Copenhagen

Dr. Anita Halvorssen, who teaches "Global Climate Change Law and Policy" and "Sustainable Development and Trade" at the Sturm College of Law, is in Copenhagen, Denmark, this week as part of the University of Denver's Ved Nanda Center for the Study of International Law (and accredited by the American Society of International Law) coverage of the UN Climate Change Conference, which runs from Dec. 7-18, 2009.

Here is Dr. Halvorssen's report on her first day at the conference:

The first day, was disappointing. I waited seven and a half hours in the freezing cold, but still didn't get into the conference venue because they stopped letting people in due to the organizers having underestimated the number of people that would show up. 30.000 people have gotten invitations, but there is only room for 15.000 people at the Bella Conference Center. Did meet a lot of interesting people; A high school student from Wales, a woman journalist from Greece, a Portuguese man working for the European Energy Council, and some of the delegates from Suriname.

Stay tuned for more reports during the week.