On the Drama of COP18

ESTRAGON: He should be here.

VLADIMIR: He didn't say for sure he'd come.

ESTRAGON: And if he doesn't come?

VLADIMIR: We'll come back tomorrow.

ESTRAGON: And then the day after tomorrow.

VLADIMIR: Possibly.

ESTRAGON: And so on.

 (warning and apology: this post may take longer to read than one might desire)

“I don’t get it, its getting kind of boring.  They are all saying that talks are progressing but nothing is happening.  Even the NGOS won’t tell me anything.  Even when I provoke them a little bit and say, ‘hey, come on, you know they aren’t moving fast enough’.  I just don’t get it, whats going on?”

I’m sitting in a Qatari journalists’ car and we are stuck in traffic.   He is new to the climate scene and has no idea what is going on.  His instincts are that a landmark deal is not progressing despite the urgency of climate change, and is confused by the lack of drama drama about this mismatch.  Why did 15 000 people fly all the way to Qatar if they are not going to forge a new climate deal?  What is COP18 about, anyway?   
------------------------------------

COP18 is the ultimate bureaucratic COP.  It is full of processes that hide underlying tensions.  For those emeshed in the process, it is a pivtoal moment of global transition and opportunity.  However, for those standing outside the inner machinery of the UNFCCC, it is, as one NGO representative exclaims, “worse than watching paint dry”.

The UN started climate negotiations and formed the UNFCCC in 1992.  The first major agreement stemming from this was the Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.  The KP (as they call it here) had an initial phase of emission reductions that was supposed to end in 2012.  The original plan was that developed countries only would bear emission reduction burdens for this first phase, and then, once they had made significant reductions and developed some lessons about the best ways to do this, a second round of emission reduction targets would be established which would involve other countries.

------------------------------

“Erg.  I’m still not up on these 21^st century technologies” complains an older European delegate while waving his arms futily.  He is standing in front of a white board with a barcode on it.  COP18 has become paperless and the once crowded document distribution desks have disappeared in a sophisticaed “Paper Smart” system whereby delegates can simply scan bar codes with their smart phones and automatically download  the days meeting schedule.  As I too have not yet joined the 21^st century, the delegate and I move on towards one of the TV screens on which the days meeting schedule is scrolled through.

At first I think I have misread.  But no.  On the 12^th line down, it states:

“AWG-LCA  13:00 – 23:59      Agreed Outcomes       Meeting Room 2”

This – a meeting which is scheduled to last for at least 12 hours – is one of the things COP18 is about.

----------------------------

After Kyoto was signed everyone drew a deep sigh of relief.  All that had to happen now was for developed countries to go home and cut some emissions.  However, by 2007 it dawned on people that the Kyoto Protocol was going to soon reach the end of its first phase, nothing was yet on the table to follow it, and global emissions were skyrocketing.  Thus emerged the AWG-LCA – the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Co-operative Action. 

The AWG-LCA negotiation track has evolved into a catch-all for all the strategies that Parties have invented to contribute to the the myriad goals of a climate agreement.  Since goals for a climate agreement are diverse and include cutting emissions, promoting human development and helping countries adapt to climate change, the LCA has dealt with everything from technology transfer to climate finance to the rules of trading systems.  Since 2007 there have been TWO simultaneous negotiation tracks – one for the Kyoto Protocol, one for the LCA.

Thinking ahead, negotiators put an expiration date on the AWG-LCA to match the Kyoto Protocol.  They declared that it should have “agreed outcomes” by 2012, with the intention that a single, comprehensive deal would be reached by then.   However, here we are and we still do not have a global deal.  What we have instead is yet a THIRD negotiating track – the AWG-ADP.

---------------------------------

The Ad-hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (which has evolved into the acronym AWG-ADP) was dramatically born in a “huddle” during the wee hours of the night the day after COP17 was supposed to have finished in Durban (see my post from December 2011 for a description).   When it arrived on the scene it did not have emission targets, it did not have mechanisms, it did not have rules, and it did not have a workplan.  What it did have was an agreement to start talking about a global climate deal that would include all countries.

What makes the development of the ADP so crucial to this story is that is represents the potential for an entirely new climate deal.  To date climate negotiations have been bitterly divided along different ideas of equity and responsibility.  Developing nations were excempt from obligations in the Kyoto Protocol because they argued that developed nations should reduce their emissions first since they had caused the problem.  Developed nations have argued that the world today is radically different than the world of 20 years ago, and that developing countries with rapidly increasing wealth and emissions must also start mitigation action because the bulk of future emissions will come from developing countries. Few details are yet determined about the ADP, but one thing is clear.  In a radical shift from the KP, the ADP will involve all countries and the old "firewall" between developed and developing countries will be removed.  

------------------------------

The central bureaucratic challenge of COP18 is that the fates of the AWG-ADP and the AWG-LCA negotiating tracks are entwined. On one hand, if the AWG-ADP is a workable, credible, long-term agreement,  then the AWG-LCA could be closed as there would no longer be a need for a separate set of negotiations about long term cooperation.   On the other hand, until the ADP is set in stone, closing the AWG-LCA might leave debates about key issues like technology transfer, the development of market mechanisms, and financial support to developing countries without a designated negotiation “home”.

As the delegate from Brazil pleads, “none of us want next year’s discussion to be the same, we have to be more open than we are at the moment”.   Simultaneously, as the delegate from Guatamala points out, “if we are too open we do not have enough guidance and will not be able to get an agreement next year”.  Success of the ADP requires openness.  Success for the LCA requires clarity and closure.  It's no wonder negotiators face a 12 hour meeting to determine the future of the LCA.

-----------------------------

I bid goodbye to the journalist and walk into the Qatar National Convention Centre.  It's not until I’m through the security x-ray machines, and down the hallway with the moving sidewalk that I realize there is only one way to fully capture the excruciating non-drama incrementally unfolding in the conference centre.

People come to COPs dressed as polar bears.  I’ve run into carrots, and robbers, and alarm clocks.   There was a whole band of Robin Hoods in the hall way this afternoon. I’ve never run into a Vladmir and Estragon pairing but maybe its time.  We are, collectively, waiting for Godot.