Se requiere cambio en el clima de la negociación o llegaremos a Río+20 sin acuerdos que se sostengan.
Las negociaciones internacionales en cambio climático siguen entrabadas porque el enfoque de los negociadores sigue basándose en las posiciones y no en los intereses de las partes. Esta estrategia solo consigue acuerdos inertes que logran poco, en muchos casos a un costo muy alto pues la pérdida de confianza entre las partes involucradas es una consecuencia inevitable. Lo resultado en la COP 15 del cambio climático con el Acuerdo de Copenhague es un vivo ejemplo de esto pero no es el único entre tantos acuerdos multilaterales desde la gran cumbre de Estocolmo en 1972.
Por otra parte, los acuerdos logrados partiendo de intereses rompen con el esquema de llegar a la mesa a negociar con una posición inflexible. El ejemplo clásico es la Convención de Viena para la protección de la capa de ozono de 1985. Sin embargo, tales acuerdo no son fáciles de alcanzar ya que requieren de una sólida confianza entre las Partes.
Pesimismo y poca confianza. El déficit de resultados en las negociaciones internacionales, pasando por Río y Johannesburgo, han hecho que muchos califiquen las mega-conferencias como “circos con una causa seria”. Si bien ha habido avances en algunos de los temas ambientales globales, en materia de cambio climático estamos estancados desde 1997, tanto que con el protocolo de Kioto no se ha avanzado mucho en reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero ni en materia desarrollo a través de mecanismos limpios.
Cabe preguntarse entonces si las grandes conferencias valen la pena. A pesar de lo que se asemejen a un circo, estas conferencias trascienden más allá de la mesa de negociaciones. Son el sitio por excelencia para encuentros, la creación de redes de contactos, movilizar intereses y presentar ideas. El déficit de estas conferencias no está en el tumulto de las gentes en las calles o en lo discutido en los eventos paralelos a las negociaciones oficiales. El déficit parte de un proceso de más de treinta años de negociaciones inconclusas basadas en posiciones mezquinas. Ahora con la agenda de cambio climático se pretende resolver el acumulado de acuerdos incompletos para reparar muchos de los problemas globales en materia de ambiente y desarrollo.
Actualmente el clima de las negociaciones está lleno suspicacia, ofrecimientos sin cumplir y dramatismo “palmodigital”, rodeado de una maraña de temas inmanejable. Si a la llegada de la COP15 se hablaba de optimismo lánguido, el encuentro en Cancún está cargado de un pesimismo abrumador.
Como consecuencia, la negación se ha convertido en el argumento, está venciendo a la razón y nos empuja a todos a un callejón sin salida. Su mejor aliado es el daño a la mutua confianza. Es la respuesta más fácil que nos queda, ante la inocente pregunta de por qué no se puede lograr acuerdos sostenibles, que traiga soluciones reales en la escala de tiempo y espacio, ante las imponentes amenazas del cambio en la atmosfera terrestre.
Hacia Rio+20. Todos sabemos que la agenda de Cambio Climático tiene múltiples aristas que unen los temas de pobreza, financiamiento e inversiones para el desarrollo, comercio exterior, transferencia de tecnología, propiedad intelectual, bosques y biodiversidad, recursos marinos, derechos de las comunidades indígenas, etc. Los mismos temas de los últimos treinta años de negociaciones multilaterales.
También sabemos que para resolver estas agendas habrá externalidades (beneficios y costos) cuyo manejo requiere de acciones colectivas y de cooperación. La acción conjunta en asuntos internacionales no es fácil de logar, especialmente si en los recurrentes “juegos” diplomáticos los resultados siguen siendo dominados por estrategias de cooperación, represalia, remisión y reanudación de acercamiento al mejor estilo “Tit for Tat” de Anatol Rapoport.
Pero no hay mucha innovación en el fondo de los asuntos a tratar en Cancún, ni en la estructura, ni en el proceso, puesto que la agenda sigue siendo parte del discurso Norte-Sur. En la estructura global, EE.UU., UE, y Rusia siguen siendo principalmente los que buscan acercamientos hacia los países en desarrollo, por tanto así se definen las agendas. Sin embargo, nuevos agentes como China, India, Brasil, y los países árabes están galanteando a muchos alrededor del mundo (también Venezuela en menor escala). Lo que parece novedoso es un cambio en la actitud de los negociadores, que ahora escuchan recelosos los cantos de sirena, sospechosos de las invitaciones a la cooperación.
Es urgente un cambio en las negociaciones internacionales. La nueva diplomacia para desarrollo debe basarse en acercamientos que busquen avanzar los intereses de unos al mismo tiempo que se avanzan los intereses de otros. Esto requiere un alejamiento de las posiciones rígidas. Para poder evitar el aumento de la temperatura global más allá de 2 grados C, es imperativo que en Cancún se resuelvan los temas de la caducidad del protocolo de Kioto después del 2012, los compromisos financieros para acciones de adaptación y mitigación, y los mecanismo de monitoreo, reporte y verificación de esas acciones. Pero ante todo es necesario recuperar la confianza entre todos los actores Esperemos con optimismo terco un cambio en el clima de las negociaciones en Cancún, y mejores resultados rumbo a la cita de Río+20 y más allá.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Climate Change from Kyoto and beyond Cancun
A change in the climate of the negotiation is needed or we will reach Rio+20 without a sustainable agreement.
International negotiations on climate change are stalled because negotiators are focusing on the positions rather than the interests of the parties. This strategy only gets weak agreements that achieve little, often at a great cost because the loss of trust between the parties is an inevitable consequence. The outcome of the COP 15 meeting in Copenhagen is a vivid example of this but it is not the only one among numerous multilateral agreements since the great summit in Stockholm in 1972.
In contrast, agreements reached on the basis of interests break with the practice of coming to the table to negotiate based on an inflexible position. The classic successful example is the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 1985. However, such agreements are not easy to achieve because they require a strong confidence between the parties.
Pessimism and low trust. The lack of results in international negotiations (from Rio to Johannesburg and before), led to the notion the mega-conferences are “circuses with a serious cause”. While there has been relative progress on some global environmental issues dealt with at these mega-conferences, climate change talks are stalled since 1997, given the little progress with the Kyoto Protocol in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases or inducing development through the clean mechanisms it established.
Therefore it is wise asking whether the mega-conferences are worthwhile. Despite any resemblance to circuses, these conferences transcend beyond the negotiating table. They are the ultimate fora for meetings, networking and coalition building, mobilize interests and presenting ideas. The deficit of outcomes at these conferences does not reside in the tumult of people on the streets or in their parallel events. The lack of outcomes is the result of more than thirty years of inconclusive negotiations triggered by reckless positions. Now with climate change, more than 200 hundred countries pretend to find solutions to numerous unresolved global issues on environment and development at the last minute.
Currently the climate of the negotiations is full suspicion, unfulfilled pledges, “bloody palm” surreal drama, and a myriad of unmanageable issues. If at the arrival of the COP15 optimism was waning, the meeting in Cancun is full of overwhelming pessimism.
As a result, denial has become the argument, it is defeating reason and pushing all to a dead end. Its best ally is the lack mutual trust. It is the handy answer to the naive question of why a sustainable agreement can not be reached, one that brings real solutions to the imposing threats from changes in the Earth's atmosphere.
On route to Rio+20. We all know the Climate Change agenda links multiple issues such as poverty, financing and investment for development, trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, forests and biodiversity, marine resources, indigenous people’s rights, etc. These are the same themes in the last thirty years of multilateral negotiations.
We also know that dealing with these agendas will result in externalities (benefits and costs) whose management requires collective action and cooperation. Joint action in international affairs is not easy to achieve. Especially if the outcomes from recurrent diplomatic “games” continue to be dominated by the cyclical strategy of cooperation, retaliation, forgiveness, and reengagement; at the best style Anatol Rapoport’s "Tit for Tat".
But there is not much innovation in the substance of issues for Cancun since the agenda is still part of North-South discourse, neither in the structure to deal with them nor in the process. In the global architectural structure the USA, EU, and Russia remain the primary players who seek to approach developing countries, and therefore they define the agendas. However, new agents from the South such as China, India, Brazil and the Arab countries are courtshipping many around the world (Venezuela to a lesser extent as well). What seems new is a change in the attitude of the negotiators, who now hear the mermaids’ songs distrustfully, suspicious of invitations for cooperation.
A change in the way international negotiations are done is needed. The new diplomacy for development must be based on approaches that seek to advance one’s interests while the interests of others are advanced as well. This structure requires moving away from negotiating on the foundation of rigid positions. Once again issues such as what to do with the Kyoto Protocol after 2012, financial commitments for adaptation and mitigation actions, and the mechanism monitoring, reporting and verification of these actions will be touch in a climate meeting.
In order to prevent the global temperature rise beyond 2 degrees C, it is imperative that these issues are resolved at Cancun. But first it is necessary to restore confidence among all actors. Let´s hope with stubborn optimism for a change in the climate of the negotiations in Cancun, and better outcomes, in route to Rio+20 and beyond.
International negotiations on climate change are stalled because negotiators are focusing on the positions rather than the interests of the parties. This strategy only gets weak agreements that achieve little, often at a great cost because the loss of trust between the parties is an inevitable consequence. The outcome of the COP 15 meeting in Copenhagen is a vivid example of this but it is not the only one among numerous multilateral agreements since the great summit in Stockholm in 1972.
In contrast, agreements reached on the basis of interests break with the practice of coming to the table to negotiate based on an inflexible position. The classic successful example is the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 1985. However, such agreements are not easy to achieve because they require a strong confidence between the parties.
Pessimism and low trust. The lack of results in international negotiations (from Rio to Johannesburg and before), led to the notion the mega-conferences are “circuses with a serious cause”. While there has been relative progress on some global environmental issues dealt with at these mega-conferences, climate change talks are stalled since 1997, given the little progress with the Kyoto Protocol in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases or inducing development through the clean mechanisms it established.
Therefore it is wise asking whether the mega-conferences are worthwhile. Despite any resemblance to circuses, these conferences transcend beyond the negotiating table. They are the ultimate fora for meetings, networking and coalition building, mobilize interests and presenting ideas. The deficit of outcomes at these conferences does not reside in the tumult of people on the streets or in their parallel events. The lack of outcomes is the result of more than thirty years of inconclusive negotiations triggered by reckless positions. Now with climate change, more than 200 hundred countries pretend to find solutions to numerous unresolved global issues on environment and development at the last minute.
Currently the climate of the negotiations is full suspicion, unfulfilled pledges, “bloody palm” surreal drama, and a myriad of unmanageable issues. If at the arrival of the COP15 optimism was waning, the meeting in Cancun is full of overwhelming pessimism.
As a result, denial has become the argument, it is defeating reason and pushing all to a dead end. Its best ally is the lack mutual trust. It is the handy answer to the naive question of why a sustainable agreement can not be reached, one that brings real solutions to the imposing threats from changes in the Earth's atmosphere.
On route to Rio+20. We all know the Climate Change agenda links multiple issues such as poverty, financing and investment for development, trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, forests and biodiversity, marine resources, indigenous people’s rights, etc. These are the same themes in the last thirty years of multilateral negotiations.
We also know that dealing with these agendas will result in externalities (benefits and costs) whose management requires collective action and cooperation. Joint action in international affairs is not easy to achieve. Especially if the outcomes from recurrent diplomatic “games” continue to be dominated by the cyclical strategy of cooperation, retaliation, forgiveness, and reengagement; at the best style Anatol Rapoport’s "Tit for Tat".
But there is not much innovation in the substance of issues for Cancun since the agenda is still part of North-South discourse, neither in the structure to deal with them nor in the process. In the global architectural structure the USA, EU, and Russia remain the primary players who seek to approach developing countries, and therefore they define the agendas. However, new agents from the South such as China, India, Brazil and the Arab countries are courtshipping many around the world (Venezuela to a lesser extent as well). What seems new is a change in the attitude of the negotiators, who now hear the mermaids’ songs distrustfully, suspicious of invitations for cooperation.
A change in the way international negotiations are done is needed. The new diplomacy for development must be based on approaches that seek to advance one’s interests while the interests of others are advanced as well. This structure requires moving away from negotiating on the foundation of rigid positions. Once again issues such as what to do with the Kyoto Protocol after 2012, financial commitments for adaptation and mitigation actions, and the mechanism monitoring, reporting and verification of these actions will be touch in a climate meeting.
In order to prevent the global temperature rise beyond 2 degrees C, it is imperative that these issues are resolved at Cancun. But first it is necessary to restore confidence among all actors. Let´s hope with stubborn optimism for a change in the climate of the negotiations in Cancun, and better outcomes, in route to Rio+20 and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
