A New Hope

To say that the first week of the Cancun conference was a disappointment would be an understatement. The week started off with Japan's unexpectedly strong stance on the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol, which has been on the endangered species list for a while, saw itself on the brink of extinction. The pressure to advance in key areas such as REDD+ or to formalize new financial instruments, was fairly ineffective. After a rather turbulent weekend, there are signs of a light at the end of the tunnel, and the tone of the conference is more optimistic. And what is interesting, if my national pride can show through for a minute, is that the cavalry in the front lines of COP 16 is Brazilian, British and Mexican.

The weekend was key in turning the tide of this negotiation round. The ghost of Copenhagen was present at all times, like a bad omen hanging on the shoulders of the negotiators. Since COP 15 had an underwhelming outcome given the lackluster Copenhagen Accord, now the trauma of last year's final events echoed in the ears of the Cancun conference's participants. In December 2009, after almost two weeks of long negotiations that led nowhere and were certainly bound to disappoint the international community, the Danish government developed a ‘brilliant solution’: to draft a ‘secret’ new negotiation text, created by a select few that would be the new north of the negotiations. The text could not have had worse reception; outraged countries felt excluded from the process and the accord had no considerable effect in the end.

The fear present in the negotiating rooms was a feeling of déjà vu. During the whole day saturday, the hallways buzzed with gossip of a 'mexican text', produced once again by a select few as a last attempt to save the negotiation. But that did not happen, and this time around the UNFCCC secretary-general Christiana Figueres and our Mexican hosts proved themselves skilled and competent leaders. During the Saturday plenary meeting Figueres mentioned that all negotiating texts would be developed multilaterally and openly, and the result of all the bilateral meetings to be carried out during the next few days would be open to public scrutiny. Thus, a new version of the negotiation texts was presented Saturday night, the result of a restructuring proposed by Figueres earlier in November.  

And that’s where Brazil and England came in. The head negotiators from both countries were appointed as the facilitators for the discussions that will take place during the second week, where we will see the heads of state and ministers debating the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and the Long term Cooperative Action (LCA). This vote of confidence from Figueres also comes with its dose of responsibility, especially for Brazil who is in charge of the KP discussion: to make possible the continuation of the multilateral talks regarding the Kyoto Protocol, while simultaneously solving some of the deadlocks that plague the negotiations.

Today the first round of bilateral conversations ended. These parallel talks are of a purely political nature, with the goal of trying to identify the largest points of divergence, objectives and opinions of each country. Even though these meetings are closed to the general public, the ‘water cooler gossip’ is getting more constructive. Although the situation is complicated, there is renewed hope for the Kyoto Protocol. A new direction being debated by several nations is the continuation of the current commitment period of the KP, giving the negotiators more time to update the Protocol. The focus would be mainly on including the United States in the agreement and on setting more ambitious targets for the developed nations. However, what is most important is that the talks will continue, the Protocol is still alive and I can boast that for once, the cavalry spoke Portuguese and was painted green and yellow. 

Japan the villain?

Since I arrived in Cancun I have heard a fair amount of media ruckus from all over the world aimed at ‘crucifying’ Japan and its attitude towards the Kyoto Protocol. For those who haven’t been following the Mexican soap opera that is this conference, on the first day of the COP 16 conference, Japan informed the international community that it wouldn't be a part of the next commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. This position has been reiterated throughout the discussion and every time that it is mentioned, it raises controversy. It is as if Japan’s position was the sole responsible for effectively ‘killing’ the negotiation. I believe this to be a huge overreaction.

Since Copenhagen’s conference in December 2009, we have seen the Kyoto Protocol (KP) lose considerable steam. The lack of commitment of some developed nations and the refusal of the United States to join the process have created, since the start, an uncomfortable environment for discussing the Protocol. Flexibility mechanisms that do not work as expected, like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the lack of commitment from the polluting developing nations, were and still are the main arguments against the KP.

But let us look more closely at the situation in Japan. Japan is one of the few nations that has mustered up its resources in trying to reach their Kyoto targets. It has tightened its belt and ‘trimmed the fat’ in many of its industrial sectors and with that, naturally, has lost some competitive edge in the international sector. The country has invested in new and less emitting technology, worked on energy efficiency and, in many ways, has ‘paid the cost of carbon’. It can be expected that a ‘pragmatic’ nation such as Japan would reach the conclusion that for a post-2012 world, if other nations (i.e. United States and China mostly) do not board the Kyoto ship and if new and more efficient ‘tools’ aren’t made available for reaching targets, this trip isn’t worth taking. Unilaterally Japan has done plenty and has simply grown tired of waiting for the international community’s ‘good will’.

Japan’s position surprised me with its frankness. While other nations hide behind convoluted positions and mire their arguments with vague and ambiguous diplomatic language, Japan was most honest. The Protocol hasn’t worked for them, and if it keeps going on the same track, won’t work for anyone. Japan’s position hits a sore spot and it truly points out the main flaws of the protocol: it’s faulty mechanisms and the lack of cooperation of country’s such as the United States. The way I see it, what truly amazes me is that other nations haven’t taken a similar position more openly and sooner.

Japan  is far from being the villain of this negotiation. For this role we have quite a few contestants that are certainly more appropriate. First we have the United States, with its obsolete position and a complete refusal to properly directing its domestic legislation. Then we have Canada, which hides in America’s shadow and continues with its tradition of ‘backwards innovation’, with a national policy that is more fickle than the one of its southern neighbors. There’s Bolivia, which mistakes its megalomaniac Bolivarian nationalism for a sense of global ethics.

Japan’s position is mature even on a symbolic level, since it stands against the continuity of a Protocol that not only carries a heavy weight in the multilateral debate, but also the name of one of its most prominent cities. I don’t judge Japan’s stance, discussing the merits and shortcomings of the Protocol is the matter of another discussion. What Japan brings to the table isn’t an absurd position, but an honest reality: these shoes are too old, and in order to keep on going, we need a better pair of boots.