THE ULTIMATE

MULTIPARTY DISPUTE

KYOTO & BEYOND 2012

CLIMATE CHANGE

NEGOTIATIONS

CLIMATE CHANGE

NEGOTITIONS • Why negotiate climate change?

• Who are the players?

• What are their needs?

• Where do their interests/opposition lie?

• What are the outcomes?

• How can they achieve their objectives?

• The future?

Why Negotiate?

The Core Objective

• To co-operatively limit average global

temperature increases and the resulting climate

change, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions

• To manage climate change impacts

Multi-party & Multi-issue

• Although environmental in nature, climate

change has consequences for all spheres of

existence on our planet.

• It either impacts on - or is impacted by - global

issues, including poverty, economic development,

population growth, sustainable development and

resource management.

• Involves nearly all countries of the world – 195

signatories

History • 1979 - The First World Climate Conference

• 1988 - UN General Assembly resolution 43/53

recognises climate change as a common

concern of humanity

• 1992 - Earth Summit – Rio, 20th anniversary

• 1995 - The first Conference of the Parties

(COP 1) takes place in Berlin.

• 1997 Kyoto Protocol

Since Kyoto

• 2005 - Montreal, entry into force of the Kyoto

Protocol.

• 2007 - Bali Action Plan for post 2012 period

• 2009 - Copenhagen Accord

• 2010 - Cancun Agreements

• 2011 -The Durban Platform for Enhanced

Action.

• 2012 - Doha, Qatar

How? • Subsidiary Body for Scientific & Technical

Advice (SBSTA)

• Ad Hoc Groups

• Global Environment Facility (GEF) to

operate financial mechanisms

• Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI)

• Conference of the Parties (COP)

Who are the Players?

• Developed Nations

– large emitters v small emitters

• Developing Nations

– large emitters v small & poor

• Countries in Transition

– the wealthy v the struggling

• North v South of the equator

• Energy producers v energy consumers

The Coalitions

• The EU Bubble

• AOSIS- Alliance of Small Island States

• PICs - the Pacific Island Countries

• OPEC - Arab Group

• G77 + China group of developing nations

• Umbrella Group (USA, Canada, Russia*,

Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland ,

Ukraine

• The Coalition of Forest Nations (REDD)*

• BASIC - Brazil, S Africa, China, India *

• MLDC – Mountainous Landlocked Developing

Countries

• ALBA – Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of

our America

• GRULAC – Group of Latin American &

Caribbean States

• LDCs – Least Developed Countries

• EIG – Environmental Integrity Group

The Leaders/Agendas

• The EU - Germany (high moral ground)

• PICs - Tuvalu (the Victims)

• China & India (the spoilers)

• The Umbrella Group (the leftovers)

• Australia (“we are a special case”)

• Japan, Denmark, S Africa- the host must save

face

• The scientists

• The bureaucracy

What were their Needs

• PICs were losing land to salinity and rising

water

• EU needed to share Germany’s windfall

• Australia needed recognition for historical

land clearing, efficiency of energy production

& neighbours committed to targets

• Japan needed special consideration for certain

gases

• Russia needed to trade its credits for income

Needs • OPEC wanted compensation for loss of

commodity

• USA needed emissions trading, & future

developing nation commitments

• Norway & Iceland needed special consideration

for their coal production & use

• Developing nations needed technology transfer

and control of their future development

• China needed sovereignty recognition

• Tuvalu wants to remain above water

Interest Groups • Environment lobby groups

• Domestic Opposition Parties

• Industry

– energy

– minerals

– insurance

– motor vehicle

• Unions

• Community

• Medical

What was achieved at Kyoto

• Commits developed countries to reduce their

overall emissions of greenhouse gases by an

average of 5% below 1990 levels between 2008-

2012, with specific targets varying from country

to country

• domestic policies & measures

• coverage of all gases

• flexibility mechanisms

What was achieved at Copenhagen

• Disappointment – high expectations?

• Disputes over transparency & process

• Increase in power to China (BASIC)

• From fissure – chasm, rich vs. poor deadlock

• From a top down to a bottom up approach

• RED(D) – Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation (and Degradation)

What was achieved at Cancun

• Success? Low expectations

• Recognized the need for deep cuts in global

emissions in order to limit global average

temperature rise to 2 degrees

• Mitigation through reducing emissions through

deforestation and degradation, conservation &

sustainable management of forests

• Several new institutions & processes

What was achieved at Durban

• Green Climate Fund

• Establishment of a 2nd commitment period

under Kyoto Protocol

• Decision on long-term cooperative action

• Ad Hoc group to a develop a protocol or an

“agreed outcome with legal force” applicable to

all Parties by 2015 for implementation from

2020

Negotiation Strategies &

Techniques

• Soft bargaining – to advance the negotiation for

the mutual benefit of all, by proposing solutions

in the common interest to all in order to

overcome stalemate. AOSIS

• Hard bargaining – to seek to increase on

country’s gain at the expenses of another, using

threats & demands. USA, China & BASICS

• Compromise

Power Asymmetry

• Borrowing power - drawing on external sources,

e.g. NGOs, media

• Moral power – supporting legitimacy

• Playing the negotiating game well, skills,

alliances, respect

• Stressed alliances & shifting interests

Challenges

• Managing expectations

• Managing the domestic front

• Requirement of 100% consensus, resulting in

blocking of potentially constructive resolutions

• The need for a mechanism to break deadlock

• Compliance & enforcement mechanisms

Challenges

• Transparency

• Trust

• Cooperation - although individual nations may

not have the incentive to reduce emissions, all

nations would be better off if all agreed to do so.

(prisoners’ dilemma)

• Fulfilling promises already made

• Political will

A Way Forward

• Multi party disputes need customized processes

• the role of sub-groups to provide admin and

expert support

• the influence of parties not at the table

• work with what is agreed

• the need for strong leadership & facilitation

• The need for a common but differentiated

approach