For me, Copenhagen resembled a high-stakes game of Russian roulette, all sides wanting their own, unique outcomes. And despite a very detailed two-year negotiating process, Copenhagen failed to narrow divides and build geopolitical bridges. The developing countries wanted a result whereby they could proclaim to the world that the Kyoto Protocol had been saved. The developed world, on the other hand, wanted to announce the death of Kyoto—its rebirth a new legally binding instrument. Somewhere in between, the negotiators and heads of state came unstuck and the Copenhagen outcome can be seen as transitory, at best. I would hesitate to call the outcome a failure, but one would also be naive to proclaim it a victory.
As a veteran of UN negotiations on sustainable development, I view Copenhagen as the most intense and complicated negotiations probably ever witnessed in the UN. As a colleague remarked, the technical negotiations have become too political for the negotiators and too technical for the politicians. It is therefore no surprise that agreement on the post-2012 climate regime was not finalised. Similarly, the way Copenhagen ensured the involvement of heads of state in negotiations was unique not only for multilateral environmental agreements but also for the UN in general. It resulted in an unprecedented process and outcome, the ramifications of which may be felt for years to come.
The world watched the negotiations with hope, but most of us left Copenhagen with more questions than answers. In seeking honest answers to questions about the future of multilateral cooperation we may indeed rediscover some hope and finally respond to the 100,000 people who marched through the streets of Copenhagen unequivocally stating that “there is no planet B”.
Richard Sherman participated in the December, 2009, UN climate summit in Copenhagen as a member of the South African delegation. He was also the political editor of a daily stakeholder newsletter, Outreach Issues. These views are the author’s own and do not represent the views of the South African government, the stakeholder forum or the RCCP.