Copenhagen: The Big Picture

A couple of days ago, my friend Henning Gloystein wrote an article that clarifies a lot of what's going on in Copenhagen, where a decision is expected tomorrow. I'll now reproduce his article, which I think is extremely helpful. The highlited parts are my own doing:

With all the acronyms, the multi-tiered negotiating structure and rapidly-changing schedules, it is easy to forget the big picture at COP-15. So to review the main headline issues while the informal closed-door talks go on, we’re taking this opportunity to remind ourselves of just what the overall issues are:

1. The US won’t sign up to Kyoto. This has never really been a question, but it’s important to bear in mind given the G77 (developing) country positions.

2. The EU and other developed nations want the US to take on a legally-binding commitment to reduce emissions but this, given the above, will only happen under the negotiations being carried out in the AWG-LCA track.

3. The EU, Japan and other developed countries prefer a single, legally-binding solution that includes all developed countries rather than two parallel agreements: another vote for the LCA solution.

4. African nations want, above all, a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, so a single treaty solution (unless it’s the Kyoto Protocol) is unacceptable to them. They worry that the developed country insistence on bringing the US into a post-2012 framework through the LCA track means that the Kyoto Protocol might be side-tracked and quietly dumped.

5. The G77 is not entirely unanimous on this, though; some member nations have also called for a single agreement.

6. The Tuvalu proposals for a pair of treaties is equally contentious, as it calls for voluntary but binding actions by major developing countries as well as a second commitment period under Kyoto. This is probably the main reason why it’s been held up and why the COP and CMP are suspended.

What these all mean then is that the immovable object (the US) is meeting the irresistible force (G77 and China). For progress to be made in Copenhagen, there needs to be a strong assurance for developing countries that whatever comes out of the LCA track will assume a legally-binding nature. So far, they don’t even have that, hence their extreme reluctance to let go of the AWG-KP track.

Who’s going to give?

We suspect that it will be the developing countries that may be forced to take a step back, but they will exact a stiff price. If a single treaty is the only way by which developed countries will take on further commitments that include the US and the voluntary actions from the emerging economies, then the G77 will want to see a concrete agreement in Copenhagen that sets the timetable for a binding, ratifiable treaty next year.

A vague political statement that expresses a vague intention to come to an agreement at some vague time in the future will not be enough, and this is where the developed countries may have to do some giving of their own. If they want to transition from Kyoto to a new treaty, they’re going to have to offer guarantees that it will become as legally-binding as Kyoto is, if not more.

Copenhagen may yet produce a mandate for such a new treaty, but it’s in the balance at the moment.

Published December 14th 2009, by Henning Gloystein

Comments and responses can be made here, and I'll forward them to Henning.