Second reason points to the lack of clarity produced by the deferment of key substantive issues and the serious lack of ambition on numbers in the Cancún Agreements. These will bear heavily on COP 17 negotiations to deliver the promise of a full legally-binding deal that is able to meet the level of ambition to maintain temperatures to 1.5-2°C. To this day, there are still lingering doubts on the world being able to come to an agreement since it was and still is heavily affected by the lack of leadership on the part of the United States, as a major developed economy, to commit to an ambitious reduction target.
Key successes in the Cancún Agreements are found in the adaptation, REDD-Plus, and technology transfer and capacity building. For these issues, the Cancún Agreements was able to fulfill the goals of the Bali Action Plan in a modest manner. Success on the finance text will depend on whether or not it actually delivers on critical provisions and requests for 2011. On shared vision and mitigation, albeit disappointing in ambition, substance and maybe even balance, they still represent a good step forward towards more fruitful and executive discussions for 2011. The challenge for the Parties is to muster up confidence on a process with a set deadline to deliver the numbers, clarity on legal form, transparency, and resources needed to meet urgent goal of combating climate change.
In terms of process of the negotiations, the authors highlighted how the Mexican hosts effectively facilitated the negotiations to ensure that that progress could be made. The Mexican Government is only deserving of the praise expressed by nearly all Parties, except Bolivia, for facilitating a process that is participative and inclusive.
How decisions will be made in subsequent COP/CMP is likely to be affected by how the rule of consensus was reframed by COP/CMP President Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister Patricia Espinoza: “Consensus requires that everyone is given the right to be heard and have their views given due consideration and Bolivia has been given this opportunity. Consensus does not mean that one country has the right of veto, and can prevent 193 others from moving forward after years of negotiations on something that our societies and future generations expect.” (ENB, 2010a)
What remains worrisome in the process is how the UNFCCC process has come to a state where the full text of an agreement is not negotiated openly and publicly by the Parties but is offered to everyone on a “take it or leave it” manner. Its success in Cancun is highly attributable to Mexicans being perceived as fair and honest brokers but there may be no guarantee from future hosts. In the future, such method may have the likely but unintended effect of making hosts, chair-persons and facilitators, and not Parties, the most influential in the UNFCCC; thus, requiring a re-examination of this new approach to arriving at consensus and ensure that negative implications and consequences are avoided.
To facilitate agreement in future negotiations, the authors reiterate their recommendation of adopting the “Building Blocks Approach” proposed by Falkner et.al. Said approach would allow the negotiations to move away from the paralyzing mantra of “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” to “agreeing where there is already enough agreement”, or in other words, finding innovative ways of capturing progress and translating these into tangible benefits and political action on the ground as soon as possible.
In conclusion, the international community faces a golden opportunity, with renewed sense of hope and political momentum injected into the climate change negotiations by Cancún, to expeditiously reach a fair and ambitious legally-binding agreement in the next two years. The risk of failure is possible if there is no clarity on the future of the Kyoto Protocol and legal form (Reuters, 2010a). Implementation of the Cancún Agreements is also important is enjoining the key stakeholders to effectively and efficiently contribute to global efforts for addressing climate change. While there were challenges to getting an agreement in Cancún, the authors believe that with political wisdom, good will, and imaginative thinking, there would be realistic prospects to move the climate change process forward.
This article is an abridged version of a detailed paper “The Cancún Agreements: Do they Advance Global Cooperation on Climate Change?” which was published by the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD), U.K., in February 2011.
The authors are affiliated with the Ateneo School of Government, Manila, Philippines. Although they are civil society representatives and advisers of the Philippine Delegation to the UNFCCC negotiations, including in COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico, this paper does not reflect official positions of the Philippine Government. The support of the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA) is acknowledged, but likewise, this paper does not reflect CLUA’s opinion on any issue.
Check the following link for Full Paper:
http://www.field.org.uk/files/the_cancun_agreements__lavina_ang_dulce_0.pdf
About the Authors:
Dr. Antonio Gabriel M. La Viña
Dr. Antonio La Viña is currently the Dean of the Ateneo School of Government. An environmental legal expert, he has played a global leadership role within the UNFCCC framework facilitating negotiations on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). He has also served as an advisor to the Philippine National Government on international and national climate change policy issues. From 1996-98, he served the Philippine National Government as an Undersecretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). He earned his Masters and Doctorate degrees in Law from Yale Law School and carries expertise on equally important issues of biodiversity, biotechnology & bio-safety, trade & environment, sustainable agriculture, access to genetic resources, forestry, mining, and indigenous peoples’ rights.
