Should we assess Cancun using the same criteria we’ve used for Copenhagen?

Sergio Abranches

It is by now clear Cancun will not host a summit of chiefs of states and government. The absence of rulers has been viewed as a sign that COP16 has become unimportant. Does it make any sense?

Not to me. COP15 was a singular event. The first, since Rio ’92, to host a Summit of more than 100 chiefs of governments and states, among them the rulers of the major developed and emerging powers. The Summit was one, among many, of the problems that led to Copenhagen’s frustrating results. It was, at the end, impossible to combine the it’s fully political, open-ended, informal decision-making to the UN formal process. The uncoupling of the Summit and the COP itself led to the plenary to only “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord, instead of making it official. I have analyzed this decoupling and its consequences at the time here (look at the COP15 session of this blog) and later in my book, Copenhagen: Before and After (published in Portuguese).

COPs are not summits of chiefs of states, although some do attend one or another convention of the parties, on their own. Usually the hosts of the former COP and of the next one attend the one in-between. Delegations of the so-called “high-level” segment are headed by ministers. The “technical segment” is conducted by the official climate change negotiators and government officials. Cancun’s high-level segment will begin on December 7 with the presence of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, president Felipe Calderon, and some chiefs of state, as announced today by COP16’s chairperson, Patricia Espinosa.  Ambassador Espinosa is also the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Mexican government.

Cancun will not look like Copenhagen in any dimension whatsoever. It will not have the same ambition. Expectations about Cancun are very realistic, contrasting with the inflation of expectations about Copenhagen. Cancun will hold no Summit. It will be an ordinary COP as all others, but COP15.  Its agenda does not support a final global binding agreement. It was formulated to deal with specific, concrete issues, to try to unlock them, and pave the way for a future agreement. Cancun will be a bridge to a final destination, still far away in the horizon of the Climate Convention. The best result would be the to make the Copenhagen Accord official as a voluntary agreement under the UN’s framework for the Climate Convention. The text of the Accord has been admitted in the draft document of the working group negotiating a long-range agreement (AWG-LCA). This admission was a neglected, though important, achievement of this year’s preparatory negotiations. Some decisions may be implemented immediately as should be the case of the fast-track financial mechanisms agreed upon in Copenhagen, but not implemented yet.

The decision to make the Copenhagen Accord official is not a likely outcome. It would require a strong group of sponsors and delicate negotiations at the floor of COP16. Cancun will not be a final destination. Neither will it be a dead end. It will more likely be an enabling step. The careful political preparatory work conducted by Mexican president Felipe Calderon has already had an important result. It partially recovered trust among the Parties. This much was acknowledged today by the delegate from Yemen speaking on behalf of G77&China. Cancun might very well untie some knots that were left after Copenhagen.

COP16, in Cancun, will have a script of its own, determined by its own political and diplomatic dynamics. Part of the roles players will be playing at the Moon Palace has been predefined. They set the limits of each delegation, decided by their governments prior to the meeting. Part will be defined on the floor, through conflict and negotiation. This other half of the player’s role is still open to ongoing decision-making, in consultation with their governments. Decisions will come from this mix of domestically set limitations and margins for a global compromise.

The first interesting point of conflict has already emerged on the opening session of COP16, today in Cancun. It sets apart the less developed countries and the small island-states, on the one side, from developed and emerging countries, on the other side. Papua New Guinea, among others, has proposed that, in the absence of consensus, majority vote should be used as a last resort. The proposal was applauded by part of the plenary. The delegate from India strongly opposed the idea, asking that all decisions are taken by consensus. He got the applause of another part of the plenary. Ambassador Patricia Espinosa, chairing COP16, announced she would consult her technical advisors on the issue and bring it again to the floor later this week. This issue will loom for some time over the plenary, until it is obviated or consensually solved.

Tags: Cancun, COP16