When non-decisions are more important than decisions: the role of brackets in climate diplomacy

Two documents are under formal consultation today in Copenhagen. If approved, they will be presented to the political heads of COP15 delegations, for a “pre-COP’ to be held on Sunday.

Sergio Abranches

Brackets are the paramount resource in the negotiations of resolution drafts at the climate meeting. They indicate items that are still divisive, but have been admitted into the formal negotiation track.

Here is an example taken from the “Chair’s Proposed Draft Text on the Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention.” Yes, titles are like this: long and apparently meaningless. But they might mean a lot. The first paragraph goes without wording within brackets:

Developing country Parties shall undertake nationally appropriate mitigation actions, enabled and supported by finance, technology and capacity-building provided by developed country Parties, may undertake autonomous mitigation actions together aimed at achieving a substantial deviation in emissions relative to those emissions that would occur in the absence of enhanced mitigation (…).

Compare with the text including the words within brackets, in italics.

Developing country Parties shall undertake nationally appropriate mitigation actions, enabled and supported by finance, technology and capacity-building provided by developed country Parties, may undertake autonomous mitigation actions together aimed at achieving a substantial deviation in emissions in the order of 15-30 per cent by 2020 relative to those emissions that would occur in the absence of enhanced mitigation (…).

The common part in the two texts is already a matter of likely consensus, but it is too vague to be really meaningful. The brackets indicate what is still under negotiation.

There are two decisions to be made: first, whether or not to assign a number to the objectives of mitigation of developing countries; second, if yes then what percentage of deviation: 15, 20, 25 or 30 per cent, by 2020?

If the brackets fall and the full text goes into the final version, it would mean that, for the first time, developing countries would accept an explicit minimum level of reduction of future emissions relative to the Business as Usual Scenario: “in the absence of enhanced mitigation.”

Let’s look at another example, now comparing texts that begin within brackets.

[Developed country Parties] shall, beginning in 2013, provide resources based on an [[assessed] [indicative] scale of contributions] to be adopted by the conference of parties.

[All parties, except least developed countries, shall, beginning in 2013, provide resources based on an [[assessed] [indicative] scale of contributions] to be adopted by the conference of parties.

The brackets delimit two crucial decisions yet to be made. First whether only developed country Parties or all Parties, except least developed countries, shall provide resources for mitigation beginning in 2013. Second, whether resources would be provided based on assessed or indicative scale of contributions.

If it is decided that all parties shall provide resources, except least developed countries, for the first time emerging countries would admit to contribute to mitigation and adaptation finance.

If all parties should contribute, except for the least developed countries, then it should be decided whether the contributions will be based on an indicative scale, or on a scale coming from the assessment of each party’s financial capacity.

Brackets and some words are the bread and butter of the decision-making process here in Copenhagen. Not all words are equally important. There is a pair that makes a sea of difference, as top US climate negotiator Todd Stern said today in his press briefing: “shall” vs “may”. Stern complained that the LCA document is unbalanced and the part addressing mitigation does not provide basis for a deal. He said the document does not express with the same strength the commitment of the major developing countries to mitigation efforts as it does with developed countries. “The US will not support a deal that does not include an important mitigation effort from major developing countries.” Right now he sees it as a “(developed countries) shall versus (developing countries) may” definition of obligations.

Stern has also corrected a statement he made in his first press briefing regarding US and other developed countries historical responsibilities. He admitted developed countries are responsible for the largest share of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the US has the largest share among developed countries.

In a few hours the negotiators will make a preliminary decision on the document. If approved it will be taken to the heads of delegations, on Sunday for further instructions on how to proceed with the words within brackets and sections still considered inadequate.

The future of the planet’s climate is now hanging on a handful of words within brackets.

Tags: COP15, Copenhagen