Cancun texts adopted, overriding Bolivia's objections

Despite the strong dissenting vote of Bolivia, the 2010 United Nations climate change conference in Cancun adopted two draft documents (dubbed by the Mexican presidency of the conference as 'the Cancun Agreements') at its concluding session on 11 December. Meena Raman reports.

TWO decisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, which the Mexican host government dubbed as 'the Cancun Agreements', were adopted in the early hours of 11 December morning by the UN climate change conference held in this Mexican resort city, despite a lack of consensus following objections by Bolivia to their adoption.

The outcome was heralded by Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister, Patricia Espinosa, who presided over the Cancun climate conference, as 'a new era of international cooperation on climate change'. The conference comprised two main meetings, the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP16) and the 6th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP6).

The two draft documents had been put together by the Mexican presidency of the conference, and were 'clean texts' (without square brackets, which would have indicated a lack of consensus on the bracketed text, or options). They were issued on a 'take it or leave it' basis as a final package, and not as drafts for possible amendments.

The documents were initially presented by Espinosa at an informal plenary meeting of the COP and CMP convened at 6 pm on 10 December. Delegates were given three hours to review the texts before the next informal plenary at 9.15 pm. The first plenary had been scheduled at 8.30 am but the draft texts were not ready.

The draft text for the Ad Hoc Working Group under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) outcome was issued around noon, while that for the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) was distributed at around 5 pm. The notes at the front of each of the draft texts stated that the documents 'had been prepared in direct response to requests from Parties urging the President to present a text that covers all the issues and paints the whole picture of the outcome'.

Bolivian opposition

At the later informal plenary of the COP/CMP which started at 9.15 pm, Espinosa said that these texts were the product of a collective exercise of drafting and that any change needed the support of others. At the start of this informal plenary, and at various times of the night, Espinosa received a standing ovation from large sections of the participants, and there was an atmosphere of near-euphoria. This was understood to be a sign by advocates of the documents to urge all delegations to adopt them.

However, there was not unanimity, as Bolivia raised strong objections to the adoption of both the documents, first at the informal plenary of the COP/CMP, then at the formal sessions of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA and then at the final plenary meetings of the COP and the CMP (see boxes). Bolivia's Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Pablo Solon, presented detailed reasons why he found both texts unacceptable.

While many delegations urged for the documents to be adopted without changes, some requested that Bolivia should be allowed to voice its concerns in the spirit of inclusiveness. Bolivia insisted that there was no consensus as it objected to the documents. However, Espinosa gavelled both decisions, signifying adoption, after indicating that the objection from one delegation did not constitute a lack of consensus.

After the adoption of the documents, Norway said that many in the audience shared Bolivia's concerns but these concerns could be addressed in years to come and that this was not the final agreement but a major step in the right direction.

Many countries, both developed and developing, expressed support for the two texts, saying that they reflected balance, pragmatism and compromises, while many also used qualifications such as that they were 'imperfect' or that they felt 'guarded optimism'.

Countries' statements

These views were a reflection of statements made at the informal plenary held earlier.

In that meeting, Grenada welcomed the texts for adoption, saying that though they were imperfect, the 'perfect should not be the enemy of the good'. The Minister from Grenada said it was 'not a done deal but we can say we leave Cancun with something we can live with'.

Switzerland, speaking for the Environmental Integrity Group, said that the solution was a compromise. Australia, indicating support for the AWG-LCA outcome, called it well-balanced. Nicaragua (referring to Bolivia's concerns) said that it was important to make last efforts to hear positions of all Parties with flexibility and mutual understanding. Saudi Arabia agreed on the need for all Parties to be included to agree, and that the two working groups could discuss minor details and thus guarantee that all Parties can agree.

Lesotho, for the least developed countries (LDCs), said the package laid a good foundation for further work at the next COP in Durban, South Africa (to be held in December 2011). It supported the recognition for the adequate treatment of the issue of vulnerability, the adaptation framework and committee and the establishment of the Green Climate Fund, and applauded the inclusion of LDCs in the Transitional Committee of the Fund.

Cuba, referring to the Bolivian leadership of President Evo Morales, said that it represents the demands of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It said that Bolivia speaks on behalf of movements in Latin America and therefore deserves attention.

Cuba expressed dissatisfaction with the text of the AWG-LCA. It said that the text did not have clear greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Referring to the pledges under the Copenhagen Accord, it said that the emissions could rise by 6% compared to 1990 levels (taking into account the loopholes) and could lead to a temperature rise of 2.5 to 5 degrees Celsius. It expressed profound concerns over the document. It said that it is key to have the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. On the issue of finance, it said the language in the document was ambiguous on the source of the $100 billion for the Green Climate Fund.

India's Minister of Environment, Jairam Ramesh, quoted a Mexican hero as saying that Mexico is 'far from God', but coming from a country that had many Goddeses, he would say that a Goddess had been present that night. He said Espinosa had restored confidence in the multilateral process at a time when confidence was at a historical low. He said that Parties could confidently look ahead and approach the challenge of climate change in a spirit of constructive compromise. He said that not all Parties had gained and that all had compromised.

Espinosa, in response, said that Ramesh's proposals had been key to unlocking difficult gridlocks in the negotiations.

Singapore said the text was not perfect but in any negotiations, not everyone will get what they want. It said that there were some missing elements that would need to be clarified. It said the document was not the end but a step forward for a legally binding outcome in Durban.

European Union (EU) Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said that multilateralism had shown results. The EU came to Cancun hoping for a balanced package that has been achieved.

Bangladesh said that the text did not fully reflect the concerns of LDCs. Nevertheless, it was a good outcome, as there was agreement on the adaptation framework and committee and the Green Climate Fund.

The US said that the text was not perfect but it provided a good basis to move forward. Parties had agreed to launch the Green Climate Fund; there was a technology mechanism and progress in adaptation and on the issue of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD); and the anchoring of mitigation pledges and a system of MRV (measuring, reporting and verification) and an ICA (international consultation and analysis).

The Philippines commented on the process and said that there was confusion that enveloped the venues and postponement of meetings. It received the text with guarded optimism. It said that the Green Climate Fund constituted progress. Kenya said that the text was not a perfect text but was a delicate balance.

China, represented by Minister Xie Zhenhua, said that Parties had demonstrated good political will for a balanced result. The texts provided a sound basis for future negotiations. There were shortcomings but it was satisfied that the negotiations had adhered to the Bali Roadmap.

Afghanistan said that though it had concerns in relation to the issue of finance and the vulnerability of mountainous systems, it was flexible in making progress. Japan expressed support for the text.

Algeria, on behalf of the African Group, said that confidence in the multilateral system was shown. The text did not meet all its expectations but it could support it.

Ecuador said that it did not like all the results and said that Parties must redouble their efforts to ensure the health of the planet. It stressed the need for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to be confirmed and to come into effect after 2012. It said that the Green Fund should be established and for effective technology transfer, it was important to have flexibilities as regards intellectual property rights. It supported the observations of Bolivia on the various deficiencies in the text and said that it must be improved.

Zambia thanked Mexico for lifting the spirits from the depression of Copenhagen and for restoring confidence in the multilateral process.

Brazil said that the document was balanced in essence although not perfect and there was a sense of realism and pragmatism.

After the documents had been adopted, a few countries, notably Cuba and Ecuador, raised concerns over several issues in the texts. Several countries also said that following the failure to reach agreement at the previous UN climate conference in Copenhagen, the Cancun outcome restored confidence in the multilateral process. Other countries were even more upbeat. Australia called the agreements 'a game-changing moment'.

The mood among many delegations appeared to be that the texts should be adopted in order to avoid the collapse of another climate conference, following the failure at Copenhagen last year. Several delegates privately said that another failure would further dent the image of the UNFCCC and multilateralism, and that it would be difficult for the talks to regain momentum. In this atmosphere of having 'all or nothing', many developing countries decided to go along with the drafts even though they had concerns on various parts.

The highlight of the long night's proceedings was an intense exchange between the COP president and the Bolivian delegation over the president's gavelling of the decisions as being adopted despite the objection, giving rise to argument as to what the meaning of consensus was. In the practice of the UNFCCC, decisions have been taken on the basis of consensus.

Bolivia's Ambassador Solon said that consensus required the absence of explicit rejection or objection to a decision proposed for adoption and that consensus did not mean a majority being in favour of adopting a decision. In contrast, Mexico's Foreign Minister Espinosa was of the view that consensus did not mean unanimity or a right of a Party to veto a decision.

Joining the exchange on this issue was US climate envoy Todd Stern, who supported the adoption of the agreements and suggested that the 'practice in this body has been general agreement rather than consensus'.

At the conclusion of the Cancun meetings, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said that 'a good agreement is one in which all Parties are left equally dissatisfied.'                    

Meena Raman is a legal adviser and senior researcher with the Third World Network. The above is an edited version of an article which appeared in the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS, No. 7060, 14 December 2010), which is published by TWN.     

*Third World Resurgence No. 244, December 2010, pp 12-15