It is that time of the year again. World leaders gather from all over the world for two whole weeks (possibly the longest conference meeting) to discuss, debate, argue – and usually come up with nothing.
It is time for the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Only to liven things up, the conference moves every year to a different country, and this year it is in Cancun, Mexico.
Last year, there was a lot of fanfare around this time in nearly every single media outlet worldwide. Everyone was abuzz with excitement. The COP15 meeting in Copenhagen was the meeting when a new, binding agreement will be agreed, which will continue beyond the successful, yet ultimately weak, Kyoto Protocol.
The end result was a messy tangle of discussions, accusations, angry nations and distrust. All of which culminated into the Copenhagen Accord which, until now, everyone fails to agree on what exactly it is.
This year, the conference is surrounded by an uneasy silence. Since the Bonn meeting during the summer, everyone has toned down their expectations for the meeting, including the Mexican Prime Minister Patricia Espinosa. A fair, binding agreement is nearly off the table and highly unlikely this year. This situation could lead to one of two expected outputs:
1) We will have a very weak COP16 meeting. At the start of Copenhagen, there was a great deal of expectations and these were quickly reformed over and over during the conference until we ended up with the weak Copenhagen Accord and hardly any agreements on any of the issues. So with already toned down expectations for the Cancun meeting, the results could be even worse, with all the important issues, both big and small, remaining unresolved and delayed till next year.
2) The other option is the more optimistic one. The reduced hype may actually give the negotiators a chance to discuss some of the smaller issues and try to resolve those first. Granted, an “all or nothing” deal will not come up during the conference. But smaller issues, such as agreements on REDD+ or financial compensation for the least developed countries (LDC) might actually get a better chance than they did in Copenhagen. Another critical issue which might get some serious discussions is climate financing, or a ‘green fund’, and how this might be implemented globally. These smaller issues might not be as spectacular as a full agreement, but they are nonetheless extremely important. If the Cancun meeting does resolve some of these issues then it would have achieved much more than Copenhagen did. The low-key nature of the conference might actually offer it that chance. Historically, when the hype went down, results often went up so – so at least we can keep hoping for that.
Which of these options will come to pass will be determined over the next two weeks.
I will be in Cancun for the meetings and Nature Middle East will be blogging here on the House of Wisdom, as well as microblogging on Twitter (follow @Nature__ME).
If you have any questions regarding the discussions or the meetings just leave a comment here and I’ll get back to you with an answer.
I wish to know more of the Arabian Gulf (Oil rich) countries’s positions and level of participations in all the COPs?
That’s a very interesting question Said.
To answer you accurately, I have to explain (very briefly) how the negotiations take place.
While there are 193 countries here in Cancun to negotiate, they usually form blocs with a common position.
Now Gulf states are part of several blocs. They are part of the G77/China bloc (a collection of developing countries) and they are part of the Arab League bloc.
The most vocal Gulf state in the discussions is Saudi Arabia.
It is often accused of being a hurdle to the negotiations and was accused in Copenhagen of actually trying to hijack the negotiations.
The position that Saudi Arabia takes (on behalf of the other Gulf states) is that they stand to lose a lot if countries reduce their use of fossil fuels in order to reduce their emissions, so they should be compensated for that.
So Saudi Arabia is often accused of being a hurdle because it is a very rich country, yet they want money to decrease their oil production.
On the other hand, the country’s economy totally depends on oil. It is currently trying to diversify its economy but as it stands right now it depends almost completely on oil revenue.
That is why it is often seen as a hurdle to the discussion.
I hope that answers your question!
i wonder where those contries disagree with each other.or,how can they settle conflicts to get a expective agreement?thank you.