The climate conference recently held in Cancun provides food for thought. The Copenhagen summit quasi-fiasco was in the background. This time round, in Mexico, the UN simply could not afford to have a repeat of what was originally hyped as a unique moment in time expected to crystallise into something as big as a post-Kyoto deal but which went astray into dismal disappointment. Post-Copenhagen the powers-that-be must have reasoned out the least said about Cancun the better.
Political analysts had argued that in what resembled an effective hijack of the summit by the big five – the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa – at the expense of the UN’s ability to deliver, there was a lesson to be learnt: that the role of the UN as a world forum through which global deals could be made had to be revisited. The UN desperately needed a face-saver and Cancun simply could not be missed. COP16 was left low-key, with both the UN and world leaders being careful not to send the wrong message that there were any great expectations whatsoever that the promised land of a post-Kyoto climate deal would be reached.
In its more pragmatic handling of COP16 (Cancun), the UN may have succeeded in recovering lost ground in its status as world forum for climate negotiations. It would be however unfair to describe the Cancun meeting as if it were merely a political travesty when representatives from almost 200 world nations knew well what lies in the balance: the direction world economies should take in the need to reassure humanity that given or, even, irrespective of any scientific findings the global climate phenomenon poses no apocalyptic future threat.
If climate talks were almost sent to oblivion in the Copenhagen freeze of December 2009, the underlying current at Cancun was to boost the morale of all those who had practically lost hope the climate process would finally lead somewhere. Despite the fact that no legally binding international agreement emerged, the need to keep the global temperature rise below 2ºC with the intention of further lowering this to 1.5oC in a post-Kyoto scenario remains on the drawing board.
The world nations have reaffirmed that greenhouse gas emissions should be made to peak at the earliest and that in this respect the developed world should take the lead in allowing more elbow room for economic growth in developing nations. Cancun has graced the developing world with a Green Climate Fund worth $100 million per annum by 2020 as assistance for the adoption of green technologies, plus coping with extreme weather events that may result in droughts and flooding, plus a new scheme to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (Redd). That said, very cautious optimism remains the name of the game also given that the pathway to a successful outcome in COP17, to be held in Durban, South Africa, is far from clear.
Face-saving realities aside Cancun may have reactivated the global process on climate. Yet, it still remains a long and winding road and any “reactivation” does not necessarily imply we are to expect any immediate trickling down effect in the form of clearly defined, country-specific, carved-in-stone commitments that are, after all, what is needed to manage the climate phenomenon.
In a White House statement to congratulate Felipe Calderon for what the US has described as the Mexican President’s “excellent work” in hosting the conference, Barack Obama’s rather dry description of Cancun as an event “that advances the effort to address the challenge of climate change” may actually exemplify what level-headedness in climate politics is all about.
Rural Affairs and Resources Minister George Pullicino did not miss on the opportunity to mention that his speech at Cancun was the first ever with Malta having Annex I status despite the fact that the exact implications of such status still need to be clarified. And especially given the underlying message conveyed in the next sentence in Mr Pullicino’s speech: “But we remain a small Mediterranean island country that is vulnerable to climate change.” He did well to refer to Malta’s climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Incorporating no fewer than 181 specific recommendations in all, the two strategies combined constitute Malta’s holistic road-map on climate change in line with EU and international climate policy. Malta’s 1988 UN resolution initiative had set the ball rolling to where the global community stands today on climate change. But this achievement was secured more than 20 years ago.
Whether Malta shall live up to Annex I party expectations, a status it arbitrarily asked for and was granted in Copenhagen, will be judged on how far we can go in implementing our own home-made climate road-map. It may be the case that going all the way right now, mid-term through the legislature, may ultimately prove an acid test. If we fail to deliver we risk having to save face post-Cancun.
I take this opportunity to convey the best wishes for the festive season to all.
The author specialises in environmental management.