Negotiations May Need Another Kind of Forum

• Author: Bill Fang
• Position: Deputy General Counsel and Climate Issue Director of the Edison Electric Institute
• Pages: 49-49

MARCH/APRIL 2010 ❧ Page 49

Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, March/April 2010

Th e fo r u m

Negotiations May

Need Another

Kind of Forum

B F

The international negotia-

tions culminating in the

Copenhagen Accord had

some positive outcomes

from a business and in-

dustry viewpoint. ese include the

announcement of voluntary climate

commitments from China and In-

dia and a concession from China

that it would not be the recipient

of direct international aid in the

U.N. Framework Convention on

Climate Change process. China will

still receive international support

for projects approved through the

Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Develop-

ment Mechanism and through inter-

nationally f‌inanced climate-related

projects.

But overall, even President

Obama found the outcomes of

COP-15 disappointing, and I would

characterize them as modest. Sub-

sequent to COP-15, the climate

convention’s secretary announced

that the January 31 deadline for the

submittal of party commitments

pursuant to the Copenhagen Accord

had been waived. Fifty-six countries

made submittals on or around that

date, but a closer examination of

those pledges reveals that the key

commitments were from seven ma-

jor developed nations, the European

Union on behalf of its member

states, and six major developing

countries.

e World Resource Institute’s

analysis of those pledges indicates

that they fall far short of the range

of emissions reductions that the In-

tergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change says will be necessary for

stabilizing atmospheric concentra-

tions of greenhouse gases at 450

parts per million. Moreover, only

two sets of negotiation sessions are

currently scheduled for this year

under the climate convention, while

last year f‌ive such sessions were held.

And there are already indications

that expectations are being lowered

for COP-16 in Cancun, Mexico.

Under these circumstances, what

can be considered a good path for-

ward for the international commu-

nity negotiating a successor to the

f‌irst commitment period (i.e., post-

2008–12) under the Kyoto Proto-

col? First, as many observers have

recommended, it is well nigh time

to consider alternative approaches.

Frank Loy, under secretary of state

in the Clinton administration, and

Michael Levi have suggested a two-

track international process, under

which the major emitting nations

(developed and developing) would

negotiate signif‌icant GHG emis-

sions reductions, and some form of

the U.N. process would continue

to address adaptation and funding

needs of developing countries.

e Edison Electric Institute and

other observers have pointed out

that 20 countries are responsible

for more than 80 percent of global

greenhouse gas emissions. State

Department of‌f‌icials and academics

have seized upon this fundamental

geopolitical fact to suggest that a

relatively small number of coun-

tries should get together in a room

and work out not only emission

reductions, but also related energy,

economic, and trade issues. is

international track could be pursued

under the aegis of the Major Econo-

mies Forum or an expanded G-8,

G-20, or other multilateral negotia-

tion process.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

recently proposed a balanced, rep-

resentative group of 28 unnamed

countries to provide ideas and pre-

pare for the next rounds of negotia-

tions culminating in COP-16. “e

wisest option would be to pursue a

twin strategy,” he said, “talks among

the 192 [nations], as that involves

the whole international community,

and among ministers and sherpas

from the Group of 28.”

While including other major is-

sues in the second track of interna-

tional negotiations besides climate

change could well be biting of‌f too

much, many have observed that it

is simply a political reality to ac-

knowledge that climate, energy, eco-

nomics, and trade are intertwined.

e battles over climate and energy

legislation in the U.S. Congress have

certainly brought all of these issues

to the fore, and that is where those

issues will land once a new binding

international treaty or protocol is

brought to the Senate for ratif‌ication

and, assuming ratif‌ication, in the

Congress for implementing legisla-

tion.

Admittedly, a two-track inter-

national process could be cumber-

some and unwieldy, and could face

many of the same problems that

have plagued the climate conven-

tion process. But let’s consider the

alternative: two or three more years

of grindingly dysfunctional inter-

national negotiations under the cli-

mate convention umbrella. COP-16

in Cancun and COP-17 in Johan-

nesburg, South Africa, conceivably

could be worse than Copenhagen.

And barring negotiating break-

throughs, the protocol’s f‌irst com-

mitment period will be over with

no succeeding binding international

commitments.

Faced with such a likely scenario,

the Obama administration and

State Department should consider

alternative international negotiating

paths, such as a two-track process or

forums outside of the U.N. process.

Bill Fang is Deputy General Counsel and

Climate Issue Director of the Edison Electric

Institute. He has participated as an industry

non-governmental organization representa-

tive in the Intergovernmental Negotiating

Committee on Climate Change since 1991.

These views are his and not necessarily

those of EEI or its member companies.