Tag Archives: Copenhagen Accord

BSR at Cancun: What We’re Watching at the Climate Talks

The sixteenth annual UN climate treaty negotiations are underway in Cancun, Mexico, where my colleague Joyce Wong and I are looking for insights on how business can take the lead ahead of slow-moving governments.  We’re also investigating topics like how companies can best adapt to climate change and motivate people for more climate sustainable consumption.

We’ve been saying for some time that, while the international negotiations don’t directly impact companies, they have a huge indirect effect in that they guide countries’ national and local policies for energy, transportation, and land use. The overall impact of more effective climate policies should be overwhelmingly positive, because it will bring about more regulatory certainty and transparency that enable companies to productively invest in new technologies (not to mention avert potentially dangerous global change). But because climate policy is all encompassing, even positive developments will be disruptive, so it pays to pay attention.

At this point in the talks, there are clear unresolved issues, which include: (1) Finding agreed-upon principles and steps that will guide mitigation efforts following 2012, (2) Determining accountability for implementation of near-term mitigation targets and actions by the more than 70 countries making commitments in the Copenhagen Accord, and (3) Mobilizing the US$30 billion of long-term finance that countries have pledged.

However, as UN’s new climate chief, Christiana Figueras, has warned us, Cancun won’t have a “big bang” result. Decisions that are essential to the process—such as transparency protocols, a “shared vision” of collective emissions goals, and an agreement’s legal details—are likely a year or two off.

Here is what we’ll see if things go as expected over the next few weeks:

  • Country pledges in the Copenhagen Accord will be confirmed, with enhanced detail on key pieces of the spirit of the agreement and how countries will follow through, particularly on the funding pledge
  • An agriculture package launched, building on recent advances in forest protection mechanism and the already finished concise text for the agricultural sector
  • More agreement on handling of green-technology transfers
  • More clarity on the future of the climate negotiations through the UN; that is, whether and how the traditional, 200-country consensus approach, the recent movement with the Copenhagen Accord to focus on a small number of major emitters, and/or the private sector will create the most effective environments for global climate action going forward

What does this mean for business? I’ll cover that in detail in my next post. But I’ll give you a hint—it’s similar to what we said a year ago: For real results, look beyond Copenhagen Cancun.

First posted at BSR.

What Happened at COP15

As BSR predicted, COP15 came down to hard bargaining between the United States and China, and the event materialized as much less of an end to climate policy than as a beginning. This turned out to be an understatement: no binding commitment was reached, and it is increasingly clear that an effective agreement will take much more than simply another meeting.

In terms of progress, views are mixed. Some have called it a complete failure. That is because leaders have been working on the issue for two decades and have had two years since Bali, where they agreed to develop firm action plans. Yet, at Copenhagen, nothing concrete or enforceable was produced; rather, negotiators simply agreed to have more talks, a result which the UN “took note” of—that is, acknowledged symbolically weakly.

Also, the process leading to that point was rather undiplomatic. A deal (the Copenhagen Accord) was rammed through by a few countries—notably the United States and China—without real involvement by the G77 or the EU in crafting it. This subverted the regular UN process while passing over details on critical issues like forestry and carbon markets.

On the other hand, there weren’t any surprises. In the time leading up to Copenhagen, it became clear that such a complex undertaking would require more than one event. That is due in part to the fact that U.S. President Obama cannot act unilaterally on behalf of his government, no matter how ambitious he may be.

The fact that there were no real walkouts or other disasters, and that a foundational political agreement was developed, shows that there was real progress forward. Moreover, Copenhagen proved that climate change has not only become a mainstream agenda item, but that it has become one of the most important political movements in history, with more than 100 heads of state involved (at Kyoto, there was only one there, and it represented the hosts).

On balance, it is disappointing that Copenhagen did not produce more needed clarity and predictability to encourage companies to invest in low-carbon energy, agriculture, and emissions markets. But perhaps there will be a method to this madness. There is still time to act, and we have the ability to ratchet up commitments once it is understood how these commitments contribute to jobs and investment opportunities. Also, for better or for worse, it appears that Copenhagen will spawn negotiations and forums among smaller numbers of large countries (such as the G-20), to expedite progress. This will likely increase opportunities for businesses to contribute in progressive ways.

As for next steps, Al Gore—someone who arguably has more insight into these negotiations than anybody—offers two things: First, why not keep up the momentum and hold COP16 in Mexico City in July 2010 rather than November? Second, says Gore, “The key to success remains as it has always been: to convince people one by one, person by person, family by family, community by community, of the need for the present generation to accept and understand the obligation we have for the future of humanity, to take the steps necessary in our time to safeguard their future.” Gore is referring to grassroots communication. Keep that in mind as the U.S. Senate debates American legislation—which will be key to building (or losing support for) multilateral commitments—this winter.

Originally published at BSR.