Climate Negotiations
ensued after its adoption. Firstly, the Venezuelan delegation insisted that, “When the negotiation was facilitated by Ban Ki-moon one of the agreements that was made was that the Accord should not bear the UNFCCC logo and should be on a white page without a logo”. Bolivia was similarly strident. “[the Accord] will not include any formal identification of UNFCCC and [be printed] only in white pages”. The harsh words spoken at the plenary by representatives of
Sudan and Tuvalu made it appear as if they too had joined in on blocking the consensus required for the formal adoption of the Accord. Yet Tuvalu ultimately did not oppose the agreement – only 5 countries cast their voices to block it: Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Sudan. Moreover, Sudan probably would not have been able to block
the agreement single-handedly had it not been for the leadership of the Latin American countries, all of which belong to Chavez- led ALBA group, a political regional grouping that consists of Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela. The harsh words spoken by some of the negotiators from
developing countries reflected both the resentment towards the process and what they felt was inadequacy of Annex I countries’ actions in addressing climate change. The final straw in the eyes of many was President Obama’s announcement (to a select group of reporters) that he had clinched a deal before the negotiators in the plenary had even seen the text. As the delegate from Tuvalu said, it was “disrespectful of the United Nation’s process”. Apparently a snow storm had descended on Washington DC, posing a threat that weather conditions could prevent Obama from being present to oversee his healthcare bill, and Obama had to leave in order not to get caught up in it. But the PR needs of a US President demanded a concluding press conference – and the rest of the world had to bear with it, or so the US administration thought. Still, Point Carbon believes there was a good chance the Copenhagen Accord could have been adopted had it not been for the failure of the diplomatic protocol the day before. The Copenhagen conference was chaotic, there were ugly scenes and some really strong words, but it was heading in the right direction and the agreement was right there within reach. It may have looked as if the Plenary did not accept what the
world leaders had put in front of it, but it was not necessarily so. A couple of world leaders did not agree with the rest of the world leaders and were not present when the President of Maldives was making his plea for consensus. Maybe if the rest of the world ‘asked them nicely’, an agreement could have been possible. But
84
the rest of the world did not even notice their departure. That the world did not notice and was not aware the
agreement was no longer possible was apparent from the baffled looks on the faces of the Danish Prime Minister and the then UKs Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband when the plenary rejected the Accord. This was again the result of diverging from the UNFCCC process. If Venezuela and Bolivia had tried to walk out of the plenary, somebody would have tried to stop them. But they walked out of an informal side event, they held a press conference and that was not enough to raise the warning flags.
Beyond Copenhagen In the aftermath of Copenhagen a lot has been said about
the failure of the UN process. In our view, this is unfair criticism to level. What failed in Copenhagen was an attempt to combine the UNFCCC processes with those of a G-20 Summit and a UN General Assembly. It is not difficult to see why it failed. There are clearly defined protocols for each type of event. Contrary to what some might think, protocols do not exist just to keep the ubiquitous foreign ministry officials looking busy. They have been thought up and refined with a view to preventing bruising the huge egos of those involved. Nor did the much maligned Chairmanship of the Danish
Still, we have an agreement, in spirit if not in form ... more than a 100 countries have associated themselves with the Accord
Prime Minister make such a difference. The only result of his ineptitude as a chair was that the whole world could watch (and rewatch) the drama unfold in webcast, something for which we should be grateful. The efforts of the Danish Presidency
to wrangle the agreement, perceived as ‘manipulative games’ by the developing world, did, however, make a difference. Not that the Danes
should not have tried. Organising a conference of this size and importance was courageous and the Danish government took several political gambles in the hope that the conference was, after all, too-big-to-fail. Some of the gambles paid off, some did not. Still, we have an agreement, in spirit if not in form. There is broad support for it – more than a 100 countries have associated themselves with the Accord. The UNFCCC negotiating processes are set to resume in Mexico and South Africa. After all, there is a need for a continued UN process, now more than ever. Let’s hope they get it right next time. ■
Olga Gassan-Zade, Market Research with Point Carbon.
Point Carbon is a world leading provider of independent news, analysis and consulting services for European and global power, gas and carbon markets.
www.pointcarbon.com
worldPower 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148