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.