Copenhagen climate summit ends in discord

The failure of the Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference in December to successfully adopt even the weak accord it produced was the tragic denouement of the attempts by the host nation and some Western leaders to hijack the summit.

Martin Khor

THE Copenhagen Climate Change Conference ended in disarray because a secretive meeting of leaders of 26 countries held within the conference centre and convened by the Danish presidency of the conference was seen as undemocratic by many developing countries, and the Copenhagen Accord arising from that meeting was thus only 'noted' and not adopted.

The decision of the conference to take note of the Accord saved the conference from complete failure.  In the media, there was ambiguity over what had happened, with initial statements from US President Barack Obama and UK premier Gordon Brown being reported as if a successful conference deal had been adopted. Such statements even before the text of the Accord had been shown to the full membership of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change infuriated many delegates, and became the subject of criticism during the meeting.

Even after the 'takes note' decision was adopted, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a statement to the plenary meeting stated, 'you sealed the deal, now you must turn words into deeds' and at a press conference he also repeated that a deal had been sealed. This added to the general confusion.

Most confusing of all was the way Danish premier Lars Rasmussen handled the conference as a whole and its final plenary, which he chaired.  There were many twists and turns and contradictions in the rulings that he made, especially his repeated overturning of decisions and conclusions over which he had presided or that he made himself.

In the end, the COP did not adopt the Accord that arose from the 'super green room' but made a decision to merely 'take note' of it. In the language of the UN, 'taking note' gives a low or neutral status to the document being referred to.  It means that the document is not approved by the meeting (otherwise  the word 'adopts' would be used). 'Taking note' also does not connote whether the document is seen in a positive light (in which case the word 'welcomes' would be used) or negatively (in which case 'rejects' or 'disapproves of' would be used). Thus there is no obligation, legal or political, for a Party to the Convention as such to implement the Accord.

Many other questions, however, arise, such as the extent to which the participants of the 26-country meeting are bound by the Accord.  Some delegates pointed out, outside the conference room, that their agreement on the Accord was on the assumption that it would eventually be adopted by all the Parties to the Convention.

Following the adoption of the decision to simply 'take note' of the document, more hours were spent on how to interpret the 'takes note' decision, with many of the developed countries trying to stretch its meaning.  The intention of some of them seemed to be to convert the Accord into some kind of plurilateral agreement, which countries can sign on to, and with developing countries that take on the commitments being eligible to get funding. 

The entire situation, legally and politically, remained murky and became more so during the conference and immediately following the end of the conference.  Even the question of which forum adopted the 'takes note' decision is an issue, because the decision was taken in the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (to which the US is not a Party), whereas the decision states that the COP (of the Convention, to which the US is a Party) took note of the Accord.  Moreover the Kyoto Protocol has no jurisdiction over most of the key points in the Accord, which falls under the mandate of the Convention and its COP.

The events of the dramatic last two days of the conference will be debated for years to come, and what is already the subject of interpretation by diplomats and policy makers and politicians will soon be the rich subject of lawyers' interpretations.

Some delegates of developing countries were also already looking ahead and considering the task of picking up the pieces and getting the global talks going again in 2010, as there is much at stake.

Little noticed in the final sessions was the passage of the reports of the Chairs of the two Ad Hoc Working Groups, on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).  These are the working groups within which the governments have been discussing and negotiating the range of climate change issues, for two years in the case of the AWG-LCA and four years in the case of the AWG-KP.

At Copenhagen itself, most of the delegations were involved in intense negotiations, often well past midnight, in drafting groups on such issues as mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity building, shared vision (in the AWG-LCA) and on the numbers for greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, rules for accounting for land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), and market-based mechanisms (in the AWG-KP).   They were attempting to come to as much consensus as possible on texts on these issues, which together would form the basis of decisions covering the Bali Action Plan (in the case of the AWG-LCA) and amendments to Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol (in the AWG-KP).

The delegates in this bottom-up approach were seriously concerned that their work in the multilateral, inclusive and open-ended fora would be undermined by the most important of their topics being discussed in an exclusive group of political leaders working on a text provided by the Danish presidency, which only a few would have access to.

Select group of 26

Even as the Danish presidency assured the Conference of Parties and delegates several times that there would be no Danish text and no secret meetings, the ground was prepared for the group of 26 leaders to meet. News of their meeting was scarce, and by the last day of the conference (18 December) various versions of drafts coming out of the 'room upstairs' were leaked out, with NGOs sharing the texts with delegates and vice versa, and utter confusion as to which drafts were early or later versions.

Throughout the leaders' meeting that started on 17 December and went on to the evening of 18 December, there was no confirmation that it was taking place, let alone which countries had been invited and what text they were discussing.

It was only later, and through media reports, that the delegates found out that the 26 leaders' talks had been on the verge of breaking down altogether, and that President Obama had barged into a room where the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa were meeting, and over an intense period they had thrashed out the wording for the text on contentious issues, particularly whether and how the 'verification' of developing countries' mitigation actions would be undertaken.

It was somehow assumed by some of the leading members of the 26-country group that once they had reached agreement among themselves, the Conference of Parties with its over 190 members would endorse it.  After all, the small group comprised the top leaders of the most powerful countries, including the US, Russia, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and others such as Ethiopia, Grenada and Saudi Arabia. Up till today, the Danish government has not released the list of participants.

So confident was Obama, or so ignorant of UN procedures, that he gave a press conference to US journalists before he left Copenhagen (which was broadcast to the conference centre) that a deal had been done, and how he viewed it.

This incensed some of the developing countries' delegates who had not been officially told about the 26 leaders' meeting nor shown any text of the 'Copenhagen Accord'. Indeed, even some of the 26 leaders had not seen the final draft of the text, according to a developing-country official who had participated in the meeting.

Developing-country objections

When the full membership of the Conference of Parties was summoned to the closing plenary session to hear about the Accord for the first time (and they were kept waiting five hours until 3 am on the morning of 19 December), the top-down 26 leaders' 'non-meeting' finally blended with the bottom-up membership of the Conference of Parties, with explosive results.

And this is where the conference foundered in its last hours on the issue of international democracy and global governance.  The question was:  Can a 'deal' patched up by leaders of 26 countries in a secretive meeting that was not supposed to be happening be simply presented to over 190 countries to adopt without changes in the dying hours of what is claimed to be the most important international conference ever held on climate change?

The answer came in the early hours of 19 December morning, after many hours of high drama in the conference hall, and it was 'No'. 

When Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen, who presided over the conference's final days, convened the final plenary session at 3 am on 19 December, he for the first time officially announced that a meeting had been taking place of leaders of 26 countries (whose names he did not give) and that a Copenhagen Accord had been drawn up for the conference to adopt.

As he tried to leave the podium after suspending the meeting for an hour for Parties to read the document, an attempt was made by a delegate to open the discussion on a point of order.  When told of this by the conference secretariat, Rasmussen was heard through the microphone to say 'No point of order'.

But before he could stride off the stage, he was stopped by Venezuela's delegate Claudia Salerno Caldera, who used her plastic country name plate to loudly bang on the table, for almost a minute. Numerous delegates joined her in a resounding protest.

'After keeping us waiting for hours, after several leaders from developed countries have told the media an agreement has been reached when we haven't even been given a text, you throw the paper on the table and try to leave the room,' she said in a calm and determined voice to the silent and tense hall.

This behaviour was against United Nations practice and the UN Charter itself, she stressed.  'Until you tell us where the text has come from, and we hold consultations on it, we should not suspend this session. Even if we have to cut our hand and draw blood to make you allow us to speak, we will do so,' she added, referring to how she had banged on the table so hard that she cut her hand, in her effort to get the attention of Rasmussen before he left the podium.

Ian Fry, representing Tuvalu, a small island state that will be among the first islands to disappear as a result of climate change, told Rasmussen he had pressed the button on a point of order before the Prime Minister gavelled for a suspension of the meeting.  'We are working under the UN, and it is good to see Mr Ban Ki-moon on the podium.  We are given respect under the UN, whether big or small countries, and matters are decided collectively in the Conference of Parties.

'But I saw on TV that a leader of a developed country said he had a deal.  This is disrespectful of the UN.'  He said negotiations by media may be a norm in some countries but they wanted a process for the consideration of the document and time to be given for this.

Fry said a cursory review showed many problems with the Accord, mentioning several points.  Noting that some money had also been mentioned in the document, he said:  'We are offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future.  Our future is not for sale. Tuvalu cannot accept this document.'

Bolivia said it was offended by the methodology which was disrespectful, that a document was imposed on a majority of countries that had not had the chance to study it.  'You put it that representative leaders of the world were consulted.  But countries not consulted are not represented.  Why have we not discussed this document before and why are we given 60 minutes to look at this document now, which will decide the lives of our people?

'This document does not respect two years of work (discussions that have produced draft texts in working groups) and our people's rights are not respected, so we cannot endorse this document which is by a small group that think they can take the opportunity to impose on us.'

Cuba's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, told Rasmussen that the document that he repeatedly claimed did not exist had now shown up, and that drafts of it had been circulating surreptitiously and discussed in secret meetings.

'I deeply resent the way you have led this conference,' he said, adding that Cuba considered the text 'extremely inadequate and inadmissible. The goal of 2 degrees centigrade is unacceptable and it would have incalculable catastrophic consequences.'

He said the document was also not binding in any way with respect to the reduction of emissions. He stressed that it was incompatible with the scientific view that developed countries have to cut their emissions by at least 45% by 2020. He added that any reference to continuing the negotiations must include continuing the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the paper was a death certificate of the Kyoto Protocol.

He also criticised the President's description of the participants of the small meeting as a group of 'representative leaders' as a gross violation of the UN Charter's principle of sovereign equality, and described the conference as regrettable and shameful.

Costa Rica said that this document could not be considered the work of the AWG-LCA and could not be considered for adoption.  It could only be an information document (known as INF in the US process).

Deterioration of democratic process

Nicaragua, represented by Presidential Adviser Paul Oquist, declared that the UN's democratic system had seen a deterioration here, with a (COP) President convening a meeting of 26 countries while neglecting the G192 (referring to the 192 members of the UN). 

He said a number of countries had just now written to the UN Secretary-General expressing deep sorrow that the Copenhagen conference had not followed the UN's principles of transparency, inclusiveness and equality among states, by the presidency holding a meeting limited to a small number of chosen parties.

'We cannot respect an agreement made by a few countries.  The only agreements we respect are those made through an open process and adopted by consensus,' said Oquist. He proposed that the conference be suspended, that the mandates of the two ad hoc working groups be extended, and that talks resume in 2010 for a final conclusion in June.  He also read out the text of two formal proposals from Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela (members of ALBA - the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) for having resumed sessions of the COP and the Kyoto Protocol's Meeting of Parties in June 2010.

Rasmussen then referred to Costa Rica's proposal to make the Copenhagen Accord an INF document that would indicate the proponent Parties (of the document) and asked if Nicaragua would accept this and change its proposal to suspend this session.

Nicaragua responded that the Accord could be a MISC (miscellaneous) document as a submission of certain Parties. It would then withdraw its proposed decisions and would accept the other two decisions by the President to extend the work of the two working groups under the same mandate to finish their work at the next COP and Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in November 2010 in Mexico. 

Following this, Rasmussen then said the mandates of the two working groups would be extended, the Copenhagen Accord would be a MISC document and the (Copenhagen) conference would not be suspended.

India said that with regard to the proposal to re-issue the Accord as a submission by countries, the COP President should first get the assent of the countries concerned before issuing the document on their behalf.

Rasmussen said this was not a problem and India was correct. Could Nicaragua withdraw its proposal (with these conditions)?  Nicaragua then stated its group could agree to withdraw its proposal.

Disturbing

Sudan, represented by Ambassador Lumumba Di-Aping, said the document was one of the most disturbing developments in the history of the Convention. It threatened the lives and livelihoods of millions of Africans. He said the Chair had advanced with a 'circle of commitment' (started months before the conference) to agree to accept a solution based on a 2oC temperature rise that would condemn Africa into a furnace as it would result in a 3- or 5-degree temperature rise in Africa, citing IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports.  

The pact would be a suicide pact to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries, was devoid of morality and was based on values that got 6 million in Europe into furnaces.    It was immoral for such a document to be issued by a UN-related body and the promise of funds should not bribe us to destroy the continent.  He asked for the document to be withdrawn. He criticised Rasmussen for conducting his duties as President in a biased way, violating all the rules of transparency.

Several countries, including Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Norway, expressed strong disapproval and in some cases disgust of what they considered to be Sudan's reference to the holocaust.  Some developing countries also disapproved of the strong language used by Sudan. 

Several developed countries spoke up to defend the work that had been done by the political leaders in the small group, which should be respected instead of vilified, and urged that the Copenhagen Accord be adopted.  This was also the position of several developing countries, including the Maldives and Ethiopia.

Notably, China and India - the developing countries that were the most active in the small meeting - did not speak to urge others to adopt the Accord.

When it became clear there was no consensus to adopt the document, some developed countries, led by the United Kingdom and Slovenia, proposed that a vote be taken, or else that it be adopted with the names of dissenting countries placed in a footnote.  These 'adoption by non-consensus' views were rejected by others who pointed out that it was against the rules of procedure.  Eventually a compromise was reached to 'take note' of the Accord.

During the debate, President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives commended the Danish Prime Minister and said science suggests we have a 7-year window to act before reaching tipping points. The talks were not taking us to conclusions in two years.  If these talks went on we would have lost the opportunity.  The (COP) President selected a group to come up with a document, which was a beginning and allowed us to continue the negotiations in 2010.  He appealed to not let the talks collapse and to back the document.

Egypt said that to accept it as a MISC document, the (list of) countries that had been consulted and that were morally bound by it had to be inserted.

Some developed countries such as Spain, Australia and France said they were astonished or even 'wounded' by how delegates at this meeting were portraying and belittling those who took part in the 26-country meeting. The efforts were to help those who are vulnerable to climate change.   The people who need help will be frustrated again.  Sweden supported the Maldives and said the Accord was a compromise for the way forward.   Norway said there had been  no progress in the talks for one week and then the leaders came and made an unprecedented effort.  Russia said the document should be adopted. 

Ethiopia, speaking for the African Union, said the document was a compromise and it supported the document.  Senegal supported Ethiopia but regretted certain points in the document, saying it did not want to see the funeral of the Kyoto Protocol and that a 1.5oC target was needed.  Gabon endorsed the view that the document was made in good faith and it was not good to make insulting remarks.  The Philippines also endorsed the document. 

Grenada, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and whose Prime Minister attended the small meeting, said it stood for the document and the process. Although it respected the credible opposition and those who had differences with the process, it was against an offensive portrayal of the work of its government, and asked for emotions to be controlled.

UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, said this institution faced a profound crisis, and had a choice of supporting a document produced in good faith with fast-start funds and $100 billion funding (in 2020) and ensuring responsibilities on mitigation, or referring to the holocaust and wrecking the conference. He said passing the document as an information document was inadequate and urged it to be adopted.

Rasmussen then asked who was against adopting the document, remarking that only four countries were opposing it. Venezuela stated that the procedures did not allow for a vote, and that it would not accept a document from a process that violates UN principles. 

Rasmussen then apologised for counting the people against the document and urged every single country to sign up to it.  Cuba told the President he was confusing the procedure.  There was no consensus to adopt this document.  There had been hypocritical statements, with European countries offering money here to get this document.  This was shameful and we should not go for a path with no solution.

Rasmussen then said Cuba was absolutely right, there was no consensus and this draft could not be adopted.

Slovenia then suggested the paper be adopted with a footnote listing the countries against it.  

Todd Stern of the United States said that it was disappointing to see the work by the leaders not recognised. Listing the elements of the Accord such as targets to be taken by developed countries, listing of mitigation actions by developing countries, a compromise on transparency, contributions to the fund, and a decision on technology mechanism, all of which we would walk away from, he said it was disturbing for the existence of this body.  He supported the UK proposal to adopt the document.

Bolivia made criticisms of the Accord, including the non-commitment to emission reduction, the 2-degree target and the inadequate funds.  It said Bolivia had its own strong positions but did not come up with a surprise document without consulting the Parties, and this was the issue.  There had been a non-democratic process. It urged Parties to respect the work in the working groups and get back to those groups to move forward.

Venezuela said only 25 of 192 members took part in the meeting and only 14 developing countries were involved, and the Parties did not give a mandate to the presidency (to hold the small meeting).  The Accord did not give any figures for Annex I emission cuts.         

Sudan traced the developments of the past two weeks and said that when delegates in the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA tried to make progress on their work, many issues were taken out of their hands.  The finance proposals in the Accord were proposals of the developed countries, and did not reflect the concrete proposals of the G77 and China especially on governance. The Accord denied historical responsibility and shifted the burden to developing countries. The negotiations were taken out of their hands and they only had the proposals of developed countries. It proposed a renewal of the AWG-LCA mandate and to continue the work there in a Party-driven manner.

Saudi Arabia said this was the worst plenary where nothing went right.  It was part of the small group and associated with the Accord but it was against suggestions such as voting and asking Parties to sign on to documents, which broke the rules on how we do things.  The simple reality was that there was no consensus on the document and this was a body that decided on consensus. It was time to accept that and indicate a way to capture the document and to continue the work.

The UK reiterated its request to adopt the document and note those that were against it.  Rasmussen then asked for reactions to this UK proposal.

Nicaragua replied that the least they could hope for was for the presidency to be consistent and to carry forward the working groups as already agreed. 'We don't agree to change the agreement reached tonight,' it said.

Saudi Arabia said we operate by rules and under these rules you cannot put up a proposal for consensus and then put reservations in it.  This was not how this body operated and they were not going to change it now.

Bolivia said that a few hours ago a compromise was reached that allowed the work to continue.  No delegation opposed it then. The ALBA countries agreed to withdraw their proposed decisions while the Accord became a MISC document.  It recalled the conclusions that Rasmussen read out earlier and on that basis they withdrew their proposed decisions.  We have a commitment you made, let us not overturn this decision.

Compromise

After the above wrangling, lasting hours, a break was called for consultations during which a compromise was reached, whereby a decision was adopted in which the Conference of Parties 'takes note of the Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009'.  The Accord, with the names of countries that took part in the small meeting, would be attached to the decision.

In the language of the UN, 'taking note' gives a low or neutral status to the document being referred to.  It means that the document is not approved by the meeting and it does not imply whether the document is seen in a positive or negative light.

Following the adoption of the decision to simply 'take note' of the document, more hours were spent on how to interpret the 'takes note' decision, with the developed countries trying to stretch its meaning.

The United States, supported by a number of other developed countries, tried to interpret the decision as allowing for an 'opt in' type of arrangement, with countries notifying their intention to join.    

They tried to garner support for expanding the 'takes note' decision into a system that seems styled after a plurilateral agreement, and linked it to the finance issue in an attempt to get support from developing countries.

Ed Miliband, the UK minister, was blunt about linking the funding of developing countries with accepting the Accord.  Those that supported the Accord had to register this support.  The concerns he raised must be duly noted, 'otherwise we won't operationalise the funds'.

The US wanted an arrangement through which Parties can 'associate' with the Accord. It said there were funds in the Accord, and 'it is open to any Party that is interested'. This implied that Parties that did not register their endorsement of the Accord would not be eligible for funding.   

This attempted linkage of finance to the acceptance of the Accord is of course not in line with the rules of the Convention, in which the developed countries have committed themselves to providing developing countries with the funds needed for them to take climate-related actions.  Funding the actions of developing countries does not require that a new agreement or an Accord be established.                          

Martin Khor is Executive Director of the South Centre, an intergovernmental policy think-tank of developing countries, and former Director of the Third World Network.