A ‘Post-Copenhagen’ climate in Cancun
Sergio Abranches
Cancun has opened as a regular COP, without the rumors, conflict and all the fuss that marked Copenhagen from the very first day. But the climate in the corridors of the Moon Palace is clearly a ‘Post-Copenhagen’ one.
The first two days were dedicated to routine activities. In the opening sessions of the two Subsidiary Bodies – SBI (Implementation) and SBSTA (Science and Technology) – all substantive and potentially conflictive issues were deferred to later days. The two central working groups, AWG-KP on the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and AWG-LCA, on long-term cooperative action, that has the responsibility for drafting a new global agreement, did not meet formally yet. There were only informal consultations on the most sensitive issues, on both groups.
The general impression was that there was no improvement on issues regarding the new commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, since the Tianjin meeting. A new LCA draft was circulated. The general opinion is that it offers a fair basis for conversation, but it will still require a lot of hard work to reach consensus among key players.
Echoing some of the outstanding features of the Copenhagen meeting rumors flow through the corridors of the Moon Palace. They talk about surprises prepared by several countries; documents that are expected to be circulated soon; “non-papers”. These factoids about unexpected attitudes, surprising papers to be tabled at several points of the negotiations are the bread and butter of COPs. They are tactically used to generate expectations, tentatively test some points, to create momentum for focused deals on deadlocked or controversial issues. They charge the corridors with strong currents that are usually useful to boost negotiations, but can also easily short-circuit and lead to paralysis.
Three points appear in most informal talks about the prospects for the Cancun negotiations. On his first press briefing, U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing said that his country would seek a “balanced package” deal in Cancun. This has been interpreted by some as a tough “all-or-nothing position”, raising concern and all sorts of speculations. A “balanced package” is in line with what U.S. chief negotiator Todd Stern said earlier: that his country will make every effort to persuade the Parties to turn the Copenhagen Accord into a legally binding, comprehensive treaty. Both declarations have a clear meaning: all high-carbon emitters – developed and emerging – should have mitigation commitments under the new agreement. Commitments may be differentiated, in terms of both magnitude and time span for emissions reductions. In Copenhagen, emerging countries with advanced economies, such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico and many others have, for the first time, admitted to register voluntary targets for emissions reductions. It was also the first time the U.S. has made a public pledge to reduce its own emissions. The U.S. wants to improve on that, make the commitments stronger and ensure their transparent implementation. The problem is that this course of action collides with the idea of an expanded second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol.
Developing countries, the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), the alliance of small island-states, AOSIS, all consider the Kyoto’s second commitment period a non-negotiable issue. Brazilian chief negotiator ambassador Luiz Alberto Figueiredo has defended on his first press briefing that Kyoto’s Annex I be expanded. This expansion would require its ratification by the country’s legislatures. He said implementation could be provisional, depending on ratification, and progressive along a negotiated timeline.
It seems that this time the center of conflict and controversy will be the working group on the Kyoto Protocol. A strong rumor runs on the corridors that Japan would not support a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. If the Japanese delegation adopts this position officially the Protocol’s chances will all but vanish. A veto from Japan and the lack of U.S. ratification would become an insurmountable obstacle.
Another interesting piece of information circulating behind the scenes at the Moon Palace is that India might table a proposal for the operationalization of the transparency mechanism that was negotiated between President Obama and Prime-minister Wen Jiabao on the last hours of the Copenhagen Summit. This negotiation took place on a meeting of the BASIC countries, and was actively mediated by the Brazilian President Lula da Silva and India’s Prime-minister Manmohan Singh. The final formula was that the parties should develop a methodology for a mechanism of “International Consultation and Analysis” (ICA) of the implementation of the pledges registered in the Copenhagen Accord. India, some sources say, might table a proposal of rules and procedures for implementing “ICAs” on a meeting of the AWG-LCA. It proposes that all countries associated to the Copenhagen Accord with registered pledges would have to follow these rules. This document has never been showed on any of the several meetings of the BASIC countries this year. Sources that have been following India’s preparations for COP16 told me they were under the impression that its delegation could surprise its partners by adopting an aggressive attitude, looking for a leading role on Cancun negotiations. A procedural decision on International Consultation and Analysis would represent an important step towards making the Copenhagen Accord an official, though voluntary, agreement under the Climate Convention.
My sentiment so far is that potentially powerful undercurrents are emerging that could lead to some surprising moves, outside the official meetings so far dedicated more to routine than to substance. These moves, if they happen, could either expedite decisions or cause new deadlocks. These are foreseeable trends on a “Post-Copenhagen” environment for climate change negotiations.
Tags: Cancun, COP15, COP16, Copenhagen