“The United Nations and Climate Change”
Mansfield College, The University of Oxford
29 July 2011
Dear Conference,
At half past seven pm (Denmark Time) on Friday 18 December 2009, the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa were having a “private meeting” in a hotel backroom. Once the US President Obama heard about this, he left the regular multilateral meeting in the main hall and “barged into” the meeting, where he had not been invited to. (Let’s see a clip not in the main news!) President Obama walked into the room and called out from the door, “Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?” A senior US official said the president didn’t want leaders of “major countries” negotiating in secret without the US’s presence. Therefore, it became a five-nation meeting, or some called “BASIC+US”. They talked for roughly 45 minutes and hammered out an accord presented in the plenary session the next day. Since it is not legally binding, it left a tail for negotiating a specific deal in Cancun in 2010. This high drama can actually tell us the UN’s climate process is in crisis.
In fact, the thirteen days of seesaw battles in Denmark 18 months ago did not yield any substantial results. Copenhagen Summit is now recalled as a fiasco for what New York Times commented as “murky end” among dozens of top leaders. It wasn’t a lot better after another twelve days of climate change conference in Mexico last December which achieved almost nothing but the Green Climate Fund. Till now, the international community has not completed the negotiations on the international climate change regime for periods from 2012, which is supposed to be done by late 2009 as enshrined in Bali Roadmap.
For years, state leaders have gone home almost empty-handed from the summits. All climate-change conferences proceeded within the United Nations’ framework agreed in 1992, but a comprehensive, all-encompassing and legally binding climate change deal which many of us want remains out of reach. Right after that failing summit in Copenhagen, or some called a “Broken-hagen”, a French newspaper, Le Figaro, gave this comment: “The part-failure of Copenhagen has in fact shown the limits of an UN’s system ‘out of breath’.” This view is spreading across the Western world. More people may be asking: Is current climate change negotiating framework is not functioning or simply outdated?
The answer is NO. The UN is so far the best mechanism to address global climate change. Before I elaborate on this, let me briefly share my views of the last two climate-change conferences first as a novice in green economics.
First, in Copenhagen Summit 2009, Copenhagen Accord is positive only in a sense that the principles of “double-track system” and “common but differentiated responsibilities” for developing and developed nations are maintained. A deal fashioned outside the official UN framework, it was neither legally nor politically binding. There were no emission cuts targets and no commitment that all counties would sign up to a successor treaty to Kyoto Protocol one day. The conference just “take note of” the Accord, rather than adopted it in the plenary session. It was even left for countries to choose to participate or not. This signifies a departure from its umbrella UN climate convention.
Some attribute the farcical ending to the nightmarish complexity of climate negotiations, involving issues from finance for poor countries to emission credits and MRV. The summit has also been repeatedly interfered with procedural objections by certain countries. Some blame that “DNA” of nation-states and most condemned as well the “DNA of the UN climate process. As a European official has said, the biggest backlash of a Broken-hagen is being directed at the UN system, not on climate change. The UN’s system is criticized of being bureaucratic and awkward mainly because reaching a unanimous agreement amongst 194 countries is doomed to failure. In my view, this problem is structural, and everlasting. If we are negligent of this “birth defect”, the UN’s role in future climate and other environmental negotiations may be weakened, if not paralysed.
Next, in Cancun last December, some opined that the world has moved away from the post-Copenhagen paralysis. It is true to some extent. In fact, it is simply an extension of or a confidence-building exercise for the UN’s system of international climate change negotiations. I’m sure most of you here could see that Cancun conference proceeded relatively “quietly”. Before the conferences, many countries had expressed they should be “pragmatic” and “low-key” in Cancun. By “low-key”, I think it means media coverage of Cancun not as extensive as that of Copenhagen because media found it difficult to follow. “Pragmatic” and “low-key” were actually speaking for the current crisis of international climate change negotiations. Other than the Green Climate Fund set up, Cancun Agreement was still a lot less than the comprehensive agreement which many countries wanted at Copenhagen Summit and continue to seek.
Last year, the combined reduction in emission negotiated in Cancan was 13-16%, meaning a global rise of more than 4°C, much higher than the 2°C threshold scientists advised and major countries agreed in Copenhagen. Besides, the difficult negotiations on the second commitment period of developed countries in Kyoto Protocol are further postponed to the coming climate-change conference in South Africa this December. In my opinion, the negotiating parties sought a few “common grounds” (mainly money and technology transfers) while kept lots of “differences” by infinitely delaying core negotiations on pledges of emission cuts and shares of responsibilities. If there had been no results on these baseline issues, the UN’s system would have collapsed, I’m afraid. That is what “pragmatic” really means. It actually ‘saves the face’ of the United Nations. This modest achievement anyway will help pave the way for a more comprehensive agreement in Durban this year, if making it legally binding is too luxurious. It is worth to point out that in Cancun some developed countries like Japan, Russia and the US were not as enthusiastic as they were in Copenhagen since they require a new framework in which all countries, including China and India, participate. Very likely, COP 17 will serve the same function of saving the UN primarily. I expect the host country, South Africa, will join the EU and Mexico and form a troika to push for a meaningful climate deal.
Having said how disappointed we have been, don’t always blame the UN’s unanimity rule for the failures of reaching a binding agreement! The international climate negotiation, for the past 20 years, is actually a ‘bad debt’. From the UNFCCC in 1992, Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Bali Roadmap in 2007, to Copenhagen Accord in 2009 and Cancun Agreement in 2010, other than China and Brazil making real efforts to mitigate climate change, the United States have been refusing most of the binding international actions. Japan and Russia have done almost nothing but sloganeering and they also declared not to participate in any subsequent negotiations under Kyoto Protocol. Although the EU undertakes all the pledges in Kyoto Protocol, most of their emission reductions have been done through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in developing nations. The effectiveness of CDM in reducing global carbon emissions remains a heated issue of debates worldwide.
The UN remains the best chance for the world to reaching a binding climate agreement. Even though the UN’s process may be inefficient, the crux or the real reasons for failures on negotiation tables for years is that: the developed nations’ political will in international cooperation has declined since 1997 when Kyoto Protocol was signed and some of them are shirking off their historical responsibilities. These can be reflected in three areas:
First, on negotiation tables developed nations attempt to combine the double-track negotiation system launched since 2005 into a single-track one, blurring the boundary between developed and developing world;
Second, their emission reduction pledges are much lower than 25-40% recommended by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
Third, the financial assistance for developing nations is insufficient. Based on the estimation of the EU themselves, at least US$150 billion has to be provided for developing nations annually in order to combat climate change, but the amounts that developed nations have promised during negotiations are far below the amount needed.
With the lack of political motivation, ruined at the end is the common business that tackles climate change. Ruined is the UN’s negotiation system based upon the “common but differentiated responsibilities”.
Put aside the declining political will of developed nations, it is evident that before and during negotiations, developed nations have been attempting to split the camp of developing nations. Many high-profile NGOs have also agreed that developed nations should be responsible for the failures in multilateral climate change negotiations. For example, as Sierra Club considers, the US Senate should be held responsible as it refused to ratify President Obama’s climate bill last year though it was passed in the House of Representative as early as mid-2009.
Undoubted, the UN has been widely recognised for its leading role in the history of international climate negotiations. Nevertheless, since Kyoto Protocol which established mandatory responsibilities of emissions reduction for developed nations was reached, the West, especially the United States, began, on one hand, setting up barriers for UN’s negotiations, on the other hand, advocating the UN’s negotiation system being problematic, inefficient and difficult for decision-making, using the ‘excuse’ that major polluters are not included in the climate change regime in their capacity of developing nations. Many developed nations demand to abandon the UN’s negotiation system, but in fact are diverting the world’s attention and escaping from their vested obligations. If developed nations didn’t create difficulties for others on the negotiation tables, where would be the flaws in the UN’s systems? So for the last two decades the UN’s negotiation system has become an ‘awful mess’.
The United Nations were not perfect, they are not perfect and they will not be perfect. However, the United Nations are not replaceable. We have no better choice. They are already the best platform we have now. There are three major reasons for this:
Firstly, the UN is the bedrock in combating climate change. The UN is the main provider of scientific information on climate change. The WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) and the UN Environment Programme found the IPCC in 1988. Its mission is to conduct regular scientific, technological and socio-economic assessments, providing scientific and technological advice. Till today, IPCC has released four assessment reports and various specials. The conclusions in the reports have long been regarded as the most authoritative source of information for policy makers and the general public. So we can say the reports by IPCC and the UN climate change negotiations are tied up together.
And, the UN is the main convenor and promoter of international climate negotiations. Since 1990, under the UN’s efforts, UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, which are the milestones of negotiations, were signed in 1992 and 1997 respectively. These agreements have established the global system against climate change, facilitating the formulation of a series of national policies, creating the global carbon market and new institutional systems. We can never write off these achievements by the United Nations.
The UN is also the main organiser of global networks and partnerships tackling climate change. The UN Development Programme is the key UN department for cooperation with various state-level private enterprises through the Global Compact launched in 2000. As at yesterday, over 6000 businesses in 135 countries around the world have joined the initiative. The UN has also set up non-governmental liaison service, which promotes and develops constructive relations between the United Nations and civil society organisations in addressing climate issues.
Secondly, dimensionally, the United Nations are the most suitable for dealing with climate change. Climate change is a typical global problem that warrants global solutions and so, global collaboration is necessary. Developing countries, especially the small island states, support the role of the UN vehemently because it preserves their voice and guarantees the process is secure and the deal more legitimate.
Thirdly, dumping the United Nations and setting up a new system incurs very high time cost, which does not favour global fight against climate change. Both the UN Framework Convention and the IPCC have been building capacity since 1992 and there is not any other institution that came close to their experience on this issue. After 20 years of international climate change negotiations, the mechanisms and principles of global climate cooperation have been established and the international community has reached basic consensus. Building a new negotiation system would be too energy and time-consuming. The consequence is: the world would miss the best timing to combat global climate change.
Now, I would like respond to those who have proposed to use G20 or the Major Economies Forum as a new platform to reach a binding agreement. Big names, including the former chief of UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, gave similar comments. Their main argument is that the carbon emissions of G20 member states represent over 85% of the world’s total, so it would be far more effective to just address climate change like the financial crisis in G20.++
They may be correct from an emissions point of view. Don’t forget the UN is found on the values of equity. It is exactly the mission of a multilateral process such as the UN’s to forge a solution to a global problem that may impact the least politically powerful first. We have to take the concerns of all countries into account.
Yes, both financial crisis and climate crisis are global problems, but they are of huge difference. Tackling the financial crisis is short-term action, lasting for 3 to 5 years at most. In contrast, tackling the climate crisis is rather a long-term effort, lasting for 30-50 years at least. Therefore, the scale of these two issues totally differs. Financial crisis comes in full fury and so it is time and efficiency that must count first; climate crisis is lingering, it is the fairness and legitimacy of international cooperation that count more.
Moreover, the two crises are in different dimensions. Financial crisis, from beginning to the end, requires swift reaction. But when tackling climate change, greenhouse gas emissions are everywhere already and all-encompassing and long-term solutions are required. The G20, thereby, is capable of solving financial crisis, but not climate crisis effectively.
In Copenhagen, heads of state came in and crafted a climate change pact independently of the UN’s process. The role of UN may be somewhat diminishing, but there will still be many roles for the UNFCCC to fulfil. For example, the UN climate change secretariat would help monitor actions by developing nations to curb greenhouse gas emissions, one of the thorniest issues at the UN summit. What we should do is not to discard the UN, but to strengthen and streamline the current UN’s process with a new model for post-2012 international climate regime. That’s why I’m not saying countries should not be allowed to “discuss” a potential climate deal in G20 or other Forums, but a deal must be “reached” in the UN framework. We simply need to increase the efficiency of international climate change negotiations.
In fact, many, including our Institute, are thinking about the next round of negotiations in South Africa. We all know it is immeasurably difficult to reach a legally binding, a heaven agreement. If we aim at reaching some kind of politically binding agreement, I’m quite optimistic about the possibility of success.
In short, Copenhagen and Cancun conferences have given us two positive messages, first of which is that the people nowadays are much more concerned about climate change, exerting massive pressure on governments. Another message is that the bottom lines of climate negotiations of many countries have been drawn. None of them is willing to be a sinner who fails the negotiations at all. Together with the robust recovery of global economy, we should be confident of reaching a good climate agreement someday. We shouldn’t give up our negotiations. We shouldn’t give up the United Nations.
Thank you.
