Cancun, 11 December 2010 
COP-16 is now finished. I left the session at 4:30 this morning after the President of Mexico spoke, but before the last round of country statements, so I don’t know what time it actually finished. Mary and I had a wonderful debriefing session as she packed, which is reflected in the comments below. I decided that I couldn’t manage to pack and get to the bus from Cancun to Chetumal in time to catch the boats to San Pedro and then Caye Caulker, so I am staying in Cancun another night to wind down.

COP-16 has restored the participants’ confidence in the multilateral, United Nations, process. In Copenhagen a year ago the process was not open and functioned via secret consultations. The country statement from Cuba noted that the recent revelations in the Wiki-leak well demonstrated the betrayal in the process perpetrated in Copenhagen. The President of COP-16 is the Mexican Foreign Minister, Patricia Espinosa, who is extraordinary. When approaching the difficult negotiations of the second week, she assigned two countries to facilitate each category of issues, one developed country paired with a developing country. She clearly knew who would function well in those capacities and chose appropriately. At every turn the process has been totally open, transparent, and inclusive. She says that several times a day and the others have reiterated it in their sincere, enthusiastic support of her wise and skillful leadership. In fact, twice when President Espinosa entered the room last night she received standing ovations. 

The representative from India noted that she got two standing ovations, even before the performance began. He went on to quote someone from the Mexican revolution 100 years ago saying that Mexico was too close to her northern neighbor and too far from God. But now in Cancun we must be close to God because miracles are being performed here. He went on to say that he comes from a country that has more goddesses than gods and we are guided by one here. This model of openness, inclusiveness, and transparency of the process so ably demonstrated by Mexico’s leadership in Cancun sets a new standard which hosts of future COPs must emanate.

In spite of all that enthusiasm for the draft decisions by almost every country, there is one expressing dissatisfaction. Bolivia has a number of concerns with the draft decisions and all are quite legitimate. Some issues are not spelled out enough in the documents, like exactly what will be each country’s target reduction of greenhouse gas reduction and will the second period of the Kyoto Protocol be guaranteed? While the decisions contain considerable financial support for those countries most vulnerable to climate change, Bolivia wanted details: how much money, from whom and when will it be available? The maximum temperature increase in the shared vision is less than 2oC, while the developing countries all supported less than 1.5oC. But since we have no lists of countries with their emission target reductions for the second period of Kyoto, Bolivia says we must assume they would be the same as those of the Copenhagen Accord, which would lead to only a 14-percent reduction in emissions and a 4oC rise in temperature by the end of the century, legitimate concerns, indeed!

But the package of decisions has considerable support from the three most vulnerable groups of countries, the Least Developed Countries, the African countries, and the Small Island States. A fourth informal group of countries is greatly affected by climate change are the mountainous countries because their snow caps and glaciers are all melting and causing massive flooding and then drought when the ice and snow do not return the next winter. An Adaptation Fund has been created, along with an Adaptation Board to coordinate adaptation activities. A Climate Green Fund has also been created to support transition to sustainable economies. Donations from the developed countries are to support these funds. There is a renewed commitment to technology transfer to provide the developing countries with the tools they need. The position of the conference is that these four groups of countries are the most vulnerable to climate change, but have contributed the least to the problem. It is not that the developed countries should be charitable and help the poorer countries. The developed countries have the historic responsibility for having caused the problems that are now occurring and will continue to occur to a greater extent in the future. So, they have an obligation to the vulnerable countries who deserve that support. 

After Bolivia expressed their dissatisfaction, several countries supported them: Cuba, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. After that first round of comments, Bolivia stood alone in their objection, which was noted, but the decisions were taken over their objection. Most countries indicated that the package of decisions is not perfect and they had some concerns, but one concept was repeated over and over again at the Conference, “do not let the perfect (ideal) be the enemy of the good.” So most countries wanted to approve these decisions and continue to work throughout the year to come to agreement on the remaining issues. In a spirit of compromise and good will, they wanted to accept the package as a starting point and look forward to next year’s meeting in Durban, South Africa, where they hope for a Legally Binding Agreement. That general sentiment was obvious in the room, which was filled to the brim with many people standing or sitting on the floor. Whenever one of the countries said, “let’s get on with it and approve the package,” the room broke out into enthusiastic applause. It was an incredible feeling of global unity to be in that room (see http://judylumb.com/cop-16/cop-16.html for photos of the room.

But there is the great dilemma with the United Nations process. Bolivia is correct to raise the issues. Their view is long-term, realistic, and politically astute. I agree totally with their position and admire their courage in raising it despite the opposition from the rest of the world. But the multilateral process is essential to solve our greatest global challenge, climate change. I am reminded of a quotation in Tom Robbins’ Still Life with Woodpecker, “The function of the revolutionary is to stir the pot.”