Analysis and Resources on Cancun (COP16)

COP 16 established new institutions to support the Global South’s just transition to climate resilience, but those may be undermined by the adoption of the US’s proposed “new paradigm” for global climate governance that risks the current Convention’s environmental integrity and equity principles.

True, Cancun restored some faith in the UNFCCC by advancing weak agreements that establish important institutional infrastructure to support developing countries’ transition to low-carbon development.

But details of the overall deal reveal how a proposed new paradigm could fail to achieve the Convention’s ultimate environmental objective, flout its own established principles of equity, and backtrack from key commitments made by the world’s governments in 1992.

Governments were desperate to agree on something in Cancun, despite universal recognition that the content was insufficient. In the name of “saving multilateralism,” COP 16 President, Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa, bulldozed over substance-based opposition from Bolivia, brazenly breaking the UNFCCC’s own rules of decision-making to proclaim a "consensus." Objective observers must ask if she would have acted the same, and if other governments and NGOs would have cheered her on as much as they did, if the only opponent to the decision had been the United States.

In the end, the Cancún Agreements sacrificed core values of the current Convention—while also making a mockery of its own rule-making procedures—by operationalizing last year’s controversial Copenhagen Accord.

POSITIVE STEPS FORWARD: SUPPORTING TRANSITION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

Cancun’s achievements include several things that IFG and its allies have been advocating, including:

- a UN Climate Fund governed by climate authorities under the UNFCCC (not the World Bank);
- a UN Technology Mechanism for scaling-up the transfer of climate-friendly technologies;
- an agreement to address “drivers of deforestation” and ensure the rights of indigenous peoples;
- an Adaptation Committee to promote the implementation of enhanced action in poor countries.
- a possible lowering of the allowable increase in global temperature from 2C to 1.5C. We want 1C.

In all of the above, decisions could have been made better by including more developing country concerns and civil society demands, but it is imperative to get these new institutions up and running, then improve them quickly. The biggest shortcoming is a better definition of the scale, sources, and structure of their funding. Thankfully, the financial framework for forests protection was not yet decided, as links to carbon markets would pose real risks.

NEGATIVE STEPS BACKWARD: IGNORING GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL LIMITS

Negative outcomes from Cancun may outweigh its few positives if developed countries do not commit to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and if the US approach to setting targets—known as “pledge-and-review”— is consolidated next year at COP 17 in Durban, South Africa.

Cancun allowed the architecture of the controversial Copenhagen Accord to get a foothold in the UN, which, if consolidated at COP 17, would put the world on a pathway built on only voluntary pledges to cut less than half the emissions scientists say are needed to avoid a climate catastrophe. The US’s proposed “new paradigm” is the opposite of what our warming world needs right now, which is to set a global ecological limit on greenhouse gases, based on what the science is saying. Then work downward with each country agreeing what it will do to equitably share in the collective effort to live within our common atmospheric space, starting with developed countries. The US approach would also abandon agreed-upon principles of global equity by adding new obligations for developing countries, even though the US has yet to begin honoring its outstanding obligations assumed almost two decades ago.

The US “new paradigm” vs the current UN Convention for global climate governance

	Cancun Agreements (US “new paradigm”)	UNFCCC (current Convention)
Environmental Objective	Fails to fulfill UNFCCC’s main goal to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” because countries’ voluntary pledgesto cut emissions fall short by forty percent of what science says is needed to avoid a climate catastrophe.	Sets emissions reduction targets based on what science says are ecological limits, per the Kyoto Protocol. Governments then decide equitable “effort sharing” via developed country commitments.
Equity Principles	All major emitters list voluntary national pledges to reduce emissions regardless of status as a developing country, or its per person emissions which are far lower than developed countries per person emissions.	“Common but differentiated responsibilities” guide effort sharing, with developed countries bearing biggest burden due to their longer time polluting and more capabilities.
Sequence of steps	All major emitters act in unison, regardless of their status as developing countries or per person emissions.	Developed countries act first, plus provide developing countries finance - technology.

Perhaps the world could tolerate such an approach as provisional—until the US gets its act together by creating a national climate policy—but it would be collective suicide for governments to accept it as a permanent paradigm for governing our atmosphere. Indeed, it would be the essence of irresponsibility. The US must drop this demand agree to a science-based target for total emissions that the world will achieve equitably.

All governments must agree to set strong ecological limits on the global economy. The world desperately needs democratic global governance mechanisms that stand a chance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our shared atmosphere. If we don’t get commitments soon, we will create atmospheric anarchy. This would permit powerful polluters to continue emitting dangerous gases that poison everyone’s atmosphere, overwhelm the natural world, and overpower the rights of poor countries and communities. If there was ever a global crisis that required cooperation by all governments, the climate crisis is it.

Analysis from IFG, Allies and Associates

Friends of the Earth (pdf)
Union of Concerned Scientists
South Centre
Climate Justice Now! (more)
Third World Network
La Via Campesina
Climate Action Network
Greenpeace
World Resources Institute
Indigenous Environmental Network
World Wildlife Fund
tcktcktck.org

Articles

"Complex Implications of the Cancun Climate Conference," Economic & Political WEEKLY, 25 Dec. 2010 by Martin Khor (pdf)
"Cancun texts adopted, overriding Bolivia's objections," Third World Network, 13 Dec. 2010 by Meena Raman (more TWN Cancun News Updates)
"Strange outcome of Cancun climate conference," The Star Online, by Martin Khor, Dec. 13, 2010
"Cancun: Moon Palace Trumps Planet Earth," www.Newsclick.in, by Prabir Purkayastha, Dec. 12th, 2010

Brief fact sheets on issues arising in the climate negotiations in Cancun:

• Technology (pdf)
• US and International Climate Negotiations (pdf)
• Mitigation (pdf)
• Adaptation (pdf)
• Carbon Markets (pdf)
• Finance (pdf)

The goal is to connect some of the ideas and energy of the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba with issues on the table UN climate talks. Please feel free to use these as a resource and to distribute them further. We hope you find them useful.

Materiales en español: Documentos Referentes al Cambio Climático