Despite its shortcomings, Copenhagen can teach some valuable lessons
By Nathan Johnson
One thing to emerge quite clearly from last December's global climate change summit in Copenhagen is just how much has changed since the 1997 adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. As climate science becomes more sophisticated, and as political strategies to deal with climate change become more nuanced, multi-state climate change negotiations since Kyoto have become more and more complex. Too complex - as the Copenhagen result seems to indicate - for the present process to produce adequate results.
It was then, perhaps, in the interest of expediency that the so-called 'Danish text' was drafted prior to the much-anticipated United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP-15). The UK's Guardian newspaper, to which the secret draft agreement was leaked, wrote on December 8 that the text was "worked on by a group of individuals known as 'the circle of commitment' - but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark - [and] shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised."
Whatever the intent behind it, the text proved a diplomatic blunder. Not only did it put poorer countries on the defensive prior to negotiations, but the secret agreement clearly violated the spirit of the UN's general consensus-based negotiating process, and undermined the text under negotiation in place since at least 2005 - namely, within the context of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).
After two tension-filled weeks - both inside the summit venues and on the Copenhagen streets - a waning hours, closed-door and allegedly acrimonious session between a half-dozen heads of state and state representatives produced the so-called 'Copenhagen Accord' and presented it to the Plenary. While the European Community has acceded to the document, it has yet to be approved unanimously.
The Copenhagen text is ultimately a weak and imprecise deal, which is the main reason why some countries have rejected it. To use a culinary analogy, the accord is something like a recipe that provides only a partial list of ingredients and quantities to be used, and is vague about how much cooking time is required. But it is a recipe nonetheless, which can be put to highly effective use with experience, patience, skill and a lot of political will.
What next?
There is, indeed, reason for optimism despite Copenhagen's failure to produce the breakthrough agreement that many had hoped for. One reason is that, failure or not, Copenhagen played itself on an enormous stage with tens of thousands of actors.
"Who would have thought five years ago - even three years ago - that climate change would be so high on global leaders' agenda?" exclaimed REC Executive Director Marta Szigeti Bonifert. "Look at the more than 100 global leaders and heads of state who went to COP-15 and contributed."
Maria Khovanskaya, Climate Change Topic Area project manager for the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) sounds two more hopeful notes: "First, the AWG-LCA's mandate was due to expire at Copenhagen, but that mandate has been extended. Second, it has to be said that a chance still exists for a future agreement."
But what will be the nature of future negotiations? To begin with, a great deal of political will is needed for a 'top-down'-driven agreement to work, and the will just wasn't there in sufficient amounts during COP-15. It even seems necessary to ask whether the world's many political election cycles actually work against efforts to achieve universal, binding consensus on issues such as climate change. Maybe it's time to step back and thoroughly reassess current approaches and to make some important conceptual and strategic adjustments.
With the present lack of global consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it might fall to national governments and parties to strengthen their own mitigation efforts. It might therefore be best to re-channel efforts through a consolidated 'bottom-up' approach - that is, to involve as many stakeholders as possible in developing local, regional and national strategies. Individual citizens, communities and various geographical or political entities may succeed in influencing national policies in lasting and effective ways, although this is certainly no easy task. There needs to be the right kinds and amounts of technical investment, in addition to educational efforts to persuade people to change their behaviour as consumers.
NGOs, meanwhile, stand to play a number of vital roles in mediating between citizens and government bodies. For its part, the REC is well poised to act as such an interface. The REC been involved for several years in environmental education for young people (through the Green Pack), and provides many points of contact between civil society, government bodies and the scientific community. The REC also aids stakeholders through its work as a Regional Focal Point, which relates directly to the UNFCCC's Article 6 concerning awareness-raising, information sharing and international cooperation.
Such efforts are certainly needed throughout Central and Eastern Europe, a network of several countries facing several "common challenges," according Szigeti Bonifert, who made a statement at COP-15 on December 18 on behalf of the REC.
"In Central and Eastern Europe - and beyond - it is crucial to increase the share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix and to promote energy efficiency solutions, sustainable consumption patterns and sustainable production methods," Szigeti-Bonifert told the Copenhagen audience. "Education and awareness-raising about climate change and sustainable development, and capacity building for key stakeholders such as governments, municipalities, NGOs, the business sector and younger members of our society are also part of the Regional Environmental Center's efforts to avert the threat of climate change and to promote the concept of sustainable development in all areas of life."
Indeed, the REC has the networking capacity and expertise, in partnership with other major stakeholders, to become an essential platform for the promotion of low-carbon societies in Central and Eastern Europe.
At the global level, the climate change challenges lying ahead are certainly daunting, but one of the lessons to take away from Copenhagen is to explore every possibility of meeting them.
