The outcome of COP 16 in Cancun left many confused. While the official result was clear – a new text, the Cancun Agreement, was adopted with only one country, Bolivia, protesting, and in that overruled – there were and still are two opposing interpretations of what the Cancun Agreement implies. Some thought Cancun a success because it clearly marked the end of the Copenhagen Blues and put the negotiations back on track, be it with little but still tangible hope for a better outcome in Durban. Others believed Cancun dealt the death blow to the process of establishing a top-down and comprehensive international climate agreement. The US lead the lines of those who favour a bottom-up approach and who, through unfair pressure and manipulation, won the game in Cancun.
The truth, as always, could lie somewhere in the middle, as became visible in the climate talks in Bangkok three months later. With the Fukushima nuclear disaster unfolding, there was little to no media attention for the climate talks. Governments once again confirmed their lack of political will to deliver on substance by instead fighting over the agenda for days. The US further confirmed the suspicions and observations of many that it would by no means accept a top-down approach to mitigation. So what hope is there on the road to Durban, and why do we still have to care about what happens in Bonn?
The Cancun Agreement
While the Cancun Agreement can in fact be interpreted as a mere translation of the Copenhagen Accord into the UNFCCC negotiation text, there are a few decisive elements that make it useful to work with. Governments in Cancun recognised the ‘Gigatonne Gap’; that is, the gap between mitigation pledges on the table and the targets needed to limit global warming below 2°C since that is the objective upon which the countries agreed. However, a clear process to close the Gigatonne Gap is missing, though this process discussion will be on the table for Bonn and Durban. There is little hope that the review planned for 2015 will come to any other conclusion than that the gap is big and we won’t be able to close it in time.
Another important element of the Cancun Agreement was a vague compromise on the future of the Kyoto Protocol and the possibility of a second commitment period after 2012. Whether or not the ‘KP is dead’ (and there are many indications that we are dealing with a moribund patient that has already been declared dead several times - for example in 2001 when the US didn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol, or in Copenhagen in 2009) is another item high on the list of key issues to be dealt with on the road to Durban. Leaving the issue unresolved in Cancun turned out to be the only way to prevent the immediate collapse of the international negotiations. The EU, as the key player among the developed countries, remains mostly in favour of a second commitment period (although it has differed from that position even in Cancun). A potential political deal would link the second commitment period to firm developing country mitigation actions and, thereby, prevent complete failure in Durban.
A third important element coming out of COP 16 was the establishment of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to channel the promised US$100 billion a year (by 2020) for mitigation, forest protection and adaptation. The Transitional Committee (TC) of the GCF met for the first time in Mexico City at the end of April. The one big question they didn’t deal with – and whether or not it was wise to not make this a part of the mandate of the TC will not be discussed here – was the sources of funding: Where is all the money going to come from to pay for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries?
What is on the table for Bonn?
Neither the future of the KP nor the question on sources of funding is on the table in Bonn. In Bangkok, parties agreed on an agenda that includes the implementation of the Cancun Agreement as well the building blocks from the Bali Roadmap that were not dealt with in Cancun, and the questions of adequacy of commitments and legal form. In Bonn, all countries are being asked to further clarify their mitigation ambitions in parallel with creating a structure to manage the finances expected to flow from North to South. So, Bonn is just one step in the process, and definitely won’t deliver on the big issues. Some other interesting topics that are on the agenda for Bonn are the role of NGOs and other observer organisations and the question of response measures (the demand of certain countries to be compensated for expected economic losses due to climate protection measures – with Saudi Arabia unfortunately and infamously leading the debate).
On the road to Durban...
In order to understand and interpret the complicated orchestration of meetings between Cancun and Durban, it is worthwhile looking at other fora as well. Serious climate action is a hot potato that governments seem to like to move from one meeting to the next. Right now, the EU is engaged in an intense internal debate on the need to reduce emissions at home by at least 25% by 2020 (further EU support for action in developing countries would, in their view, add up to more than 30%). The G20 seems to consistently fail to agree to any serious financing options for climate support, and its plans to reduce fossil fuel subsidies are lingering. What leaders will do when they meet for the 20-year anniversary in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 is unclear. A failure in Durban would put a clear spotlight on what would have otherwise been a relatively low-key event.
So how can we ensure that the G20 don’t undermine national climate mitigation and adaptation schemes through their growth, investment and development plans? What are the challenges, risks and opportunities of a reformed IMF for global power games between developed and emerging economies, from a climate perspective? How can we ensure that the Fukushima disaster does not provide tailwind for the coal industry? How can the twentieth anniversary of the Rio Earth summit next year complement the efforts in the UNFCCC context? And how can we make sure that the EU finally wakes up to reality and resumes it leadership role among the developed countries, to boldly move forward and put its trust into science and justice?
The role of civil society
With COP 17 only six months away, it is important that not only governments but also civil society focus on the key issues and do not shy away from tackling the big challenges. Just as negotiations turn into highly complex technical discussions over a myriad different agenda items, so the NGO world mirrors that complexity and technocracy, with many actors increasingly focusing on single issues and technical details, for example in the field of climate finance. While counter-expertise within NGOs is necessary, the strategy contains a risk of losing sight of the big picture and thus the chance of coming up with strategies to create real change. Realisation of this risk is critical as some of the big challenges – like the future of the KP, the question of sources of funding, or how to deal with the non-action of the US – will likely increase tension and conflict between different NGO camps at a time when joint strategising and a coordinated division of labour are most important.
Lili Fuhr is Department Head, Ecology and Sustainable Development at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin.