This NASA image shows the temperature anomaly (change) between the average of 2005-2009 and a base period of 1951-1980. Dark red represents a change of 2 degree Celsius Image from Climatesafety: http://bit.ly/fajvJ5 Used under creative commons licencing
_____________________________
On the ‘Successes’ of COP16
This past December, the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) took place in Cancun, Mexico. Like every other COP convened over the past two decades, the international community met to continue negotiations on the Convention on Climate Change, and evaluate how the world is fairing with respect to the greatest environmental challenge of our time. At the end of COP16, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, declared that the negotiations were a ‘success’, because countries had agreed to avoid a gap in the first commitment period and to continue negotiating up to 2012. The complete political failure of the COP process to achieve any meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over the past decade and a half could not be better exemplified by this current barometer of ‘success’, in which the continuation of negotiations themselves is viewed as a victory.
While the Cancun Accords may have saved the international climate negotiation process from total collapse, and this agreement recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, the world should not be celebrating. In the Cancun Accords achieved at COP16, the parties agreed to: maintain a global temperature rise of 2°C, offered agreement on low-carbon technology transfer for developing countries, and declared that adaptation action and investment for developing countries should increase. The Accords also suggested that the controversial Carbon Capture and Storage scheme should be considered a Clean Development Mechanism, and also agreed that the World Bank should administer an annual $100 million USD Green Fund for mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries. While on the surface, this may seem like reasonable progress for one round of negotiations, what is particularly striking is that none of these agreements achieve, or set out to achieve, the central multilateral commitment that is necessary to halt climate change: a legally binding commitment to emissions reduction between countries.
The ‘success’ of Cancun is grim in light of the calls from scientists, environmental NGOs, and civil society for dramatic global emissions reductions in order to avoid catastrophic warming. Overall, the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions has continued to rise ever since the establishment of the UNFCCC in 1992 and the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. A recent report by the International Energy Association summarized that greenhouse gas emissions reached 32 billion tons in 2010, only one ton below the 33 billion ton pessimistic scenario imagined by the IPCC in its 2000 assessment. If the failure of COP16 to address this overwhelming evidence through a binding accord could be chalked up to political loggerheads at the bargaining table, as has been frequently been suggested, then these failures might be more understandable. Unfortunately, the failure (or success!) of COP16 is better understood as a much more deeply entrenched problem within the UNFCCC itself concerning its democratic deficit and desire to re-legitimate itself in the face of that deficit.
It is often assumed that the UNFCCC and its annual COP represent a multilateral, democratic, diplomatic, and cooperative international process where states negotiate until climate agreements can be made. Unlike most UN processes, the COP offers members of civil society the opportunity to participate and lobby for the representation of their interests in international climate policies. In practice however, the COP is far less then an ideal space of democratic pluralism. Instead, it is well established that throughout the years, the uneven power of non-state actors as well as the uneven power between states have impacted the outcomes of the negotiations, often for the worst.
Historically, corporations have continued to yield a disproportionate influence on the negotiations leading to climate solutions that allow for business-as-usual. This influence was most evident in the establishment of market-mechanisms for emission reduction in the Kyoto Protocol and since then corporate interest groups have continued to hold meetings with negotiators. The corporate lobby includes, but is not limited to, the American Petroleum Institute (API) (representing petroleum interests), the Round Table on Responsible Soy (representing agri-food interests and specifically Monsanto), the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the International Civil Aviation Organization, and recently the ICT industry’s Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) (representing 30 ICT corporations such as Cisco, Microsoft, and Ericsson). In addition, the uneven power of states results in divided perspectives at the negotiations regarding the responsibility of historic emitters for emissions reductions, the climate debt owed to developing regions, and the uneven impacts of climate change on developing regions. This divide is typically framed as a split between the developed, emerging, and underdeveloped economies. At COP15 in Copenhagen, these power differentials reached a point of crisis. Not only did COP15 fail to achieve the binding accord that the world was hoping for, but the accord it offered came from a handful of states (the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa) that negotiated behind closed doors well outside of the UN process.
Moreover, at COP15 the UNFCCC locked out 30,000 NGO delegates from the official process, leaving many stranded in the cold for days. Infuriated with the lock out of civil society, many delegates took to the streets alongside climate justice activists, and they were met by 9,000 Danish police officers who used brutal force, mass arrests, and revocation of delegate status, in order to contain any delegate that failed to tote the UN line. The symptomatic problems of power inside the UNFCCC and the COP process that surfaced violently at COP15 did not disappear at COP16, but instead, took on a radically different form. Instead, at COP16 the UNFCCC used a soft-power approach to contain civil society whilst also making up for the public relations disaster of COP15 in an effort to smooth over the contradictions it could not contain in Copenhagen. To this end, the UNFCCC used the geography of Cancun to contain civil society and remove it from the official negotiation process while also turning Cancun into an environmental fantasyland. This two prong strategy aided the UNFCCC in re-establishing its legitimacy as a protector of the environment among states, corporate participants, and its liberal environmental allies, while also keeping non-delegate civil society on the margins and out of the purview of the negotiations.
Spatial Fixes and Civil Society at COP16
At COP15 the UNFCCC learned an important lesson concerning the willingness and motivation of civil society to mobilize in large numbers to democratically express their discontent with the current process. Unfortunately, the radical deafness of the UN to the substantive part of this critique led them to understand the protests at Copenhagen as a ‘logistical problem’ that could be solved through better organization of the conference space itself. The first means of solving this logistical problem was the relocation of COP16 from its original site in Mexico City, to the resort town of Cancun. Situated far away from major population centers on the Yucatan Peninsula, Cancun provided a strategic spatial fix for the UNFCCC, insofar as the protests that did inevitably occur in Mexico City had no key location to converge on. Secondly, for the first time in its history, the UNFCCC decided to physically separate NGOs from the official negotiation space of the conference. Previously, participants shared the same venue and at COP15 the alternative civil society forum took place within walking distance of the official venue. However, this year the conference was dispersed over 6 locations in Cancun. The official UNFCCC spaces included the Moon Palace where official negotiations took place, the Media Center, Cancunmesse, and Climate Village. These venues were roughly 30 minutes apart from each other by car or bus or nearly 2 hours walk by foot. Similarly, the spaces for non-designated civil society were also massive distances apart, with Klimaforum and Diálogo Climático situated about a 6 hour walk apart or a 1 hour drive apart. Overall, the conference zone was so large, that it would have taken 7 hours to traverse the entire zone by foot and just over 2 hours to traverse the zone by car or bus, a calculation that does not even include the delays caused by military checkpoints put up along the way. Alarmingly, civil society that was not pre-approved by the UNFCCC was no where to be seen in the official COP zone. Unlike COP15, where the negotiations were only a quick train ride or reasonable walk away for civil society actors attending the people’s climate summit, this year grassroots venues such as Klimaforum10 and Diálogo Climático were placed far away from the official process to ensure that civil society kept their distance from the official conference.
As a consequence, unlike COP15 in Copenhagen where an active civil society was present every day either outside or inside of the conference protesting and contesting the actions of the negotiators, this year the conference venue and the streets outside were absolutely empty. There were no protestors around the conference, no staged protests inside the venues, no sit-ins, no coalitions walking out of negotiations, and almost no media circulating the NGO center. From what we could gather on the ground, most NGOs argued that they were so dispersed across Cancun and the southerly town of Puerto Morales that there was no one center for civil society to congregate on effectively. Moreover, the strategic positioning of military checkpoints, in and out of the peninsula and conference zone, ensured that anyone not designated by the UNFCCC to be in the COP zone was limited from accessing the roads hassle free. The cumulative effect of this spatial reconfiguration was that civil society and climate justice concerns disappeared from the purview of the climate negotiations. The spatial reconfiguration of the COP enabled the UNFCCC to effectively remove the dissenting voices of civil society it could barely contain in the previous year. At COP15, 45,000 delegates found themselves in logistical nightmare where NGOs were denied accreditation, locked out, and subjected to police altercations. According to the UNFCCC, the geography of Cancun was expected to simplify the organization of the conference and remove these ‘logistical problems’. And so it did. The ease and efficiency of the new UNFCCC was praised by national and corporate delegates. The ‘success’ of COP16 has led the UNFCCC to believe that the use similar spatial configurations is the best solution for dealing with civil society at future negotiations. However, the consequence of this fix was that people, at the international level, were denied the right to voice their discontent with the decisions of elected representatives with respect to climate change. We should be alarmed at this new tactic to discourage and remove civil society at the UNFCCC if we believe that democratic politics have a role to play in future international climate negotiations.
Environmental Fantasia and Re-legitimating the COP
In addition to offering a strategic spatial fix, the location of the conference in Cancun also offered the UNFCCC an opportunity to place COP16 in an idyllic location for the eco-vacation of a lifetime. To this end, the Government of Mexico and the UNFCCC made COP16 ‘sustainable’. Delegates were offered a chance to purchase carbon offsets to ensure their flight to Cancun was carbon neutral. As well, the conference venues used alternative energy sources and low efficiency light bulbs. To get to the various venues delegates moved along the road in brand new air conditioned Chiapas bio-fuel buses. In addition, all of the official COP16 hotels were stamped with a sustainability certificate. Guests were provided with all-you-can-eat vegan and vegetarian meal options daily. Moreover, all ‘official COP’ accommodations had compost and recycling facilities, while also using alternative energy, low efficiency lights, and water efficient technology. The properties selected as ‘official COP’ hotels had to demonstrate commitment to conservation by establishing programs such as sea turtle release programs, biodiversity gardens, and/or protected forest areas. According to the manager at the Ocean Turquesa, the ‘official’ hotels at COP16 were selected because of their sustainability plans, and were offered financial incentives to implement these plans by the Government of Mexico and the UNFCCC. Finally, the eco-tourism industry was there at every turn to offer delegates a chance to enjoy the natural beauty of Mexico. The various daily activities for delegates included snorkelling in constructed reefs were tourists could dive with captive sea turtles, or swimming with dolphins in contained water parks, or visiting bio-fuel plantations, or taking a hike through a conservation area, or watching a bull fight (the author is uncertain how this qualified as an eco-friendly activity). And, if delegates forgot where they were, the COP16 logo was omnipresent with its idyllic image of a butterfly fluttering around a lush tree.
The net impact of these efforts was the creation of a massive environmental fantasyland, where you could wake up in the morning to the view of the hotel’s ‘conservation’ forest and perfect white sandy beach. You could have a water efficient shower and reuse your towel and then walk through the ‘conservation’ area listening to the sounds of pre-recorded birds (yes, pre-recorded birds!). You would then find yourself at breakfast with a vegan meal before dashing off on a Chiapas bio-fuel bus to Cancunmesse where you could listen to delegates discuss how the market and technology will save us all from catastrophic climate change. And in the afternoon you could ‘get back to nature’ by taking an eco-trip to swim with endangered sea turtles who live in an enclosed water park. Finally, you could end your day with an all-you-can eat vegetarian meal by the sea to the light of an energy efficient lamp and then catch the late night show of local residents, in indigenous Mayan costumes, dancing for the tourists.
Surprisingly, rather then finding environmental NGOs up in arms about this offensive misinterpretation of ’nature’, delegates were enthralled. Major environmental NGOs, like the World Wildlife Fund, lapped up the sweetness of this new found environmental utopia in Cancun. The consequence was that the UNFCCC in partnership with the Government of Mexico had achieved one of its most important goals at COP16: for the institution to re-establish the faith of NGO delegates in the UNFCCC and its processes. The same NGOs, who only a year early, were turned away at the gates of COP15, and who marched in protest to the UNFCCC and its political exclusion, were now praising the UNFCCC for its commitment to sustainability, low-carbon consumption, and the provision of an eco-friendly space for NGO interaction.
Those who worshiped at the feet of false environmental fantasies were unable to see the stark social and environmental contradictions that underwrote this fantasia. Upon further investigation we found that the Chiapas bio-fuels running the COP16 buses were grown by violently evicting local farmers off of their land to accommodate for the growth of monoculture fuel crops instead of food crops. As well, in the rush to build the alternative energy infrastructure of COP16, local news reports claim that in order to build the wind turbines a forest was cleared without an environmental impact assessment. Furthermore, local environmental lawyers claimed that the carbon offset certificates sold by the Government of Mexico to delegates were forged. And last but not least, is the completely man-made construction of a ‘pristine nature’ throughout the tourist area. Before the conference, the government dredged up sand from the bottom of the ocean to pack the beaches in order to simulate the perfect white sandy beaches that Cancun is known for. The conservation areas for eco-tourism included sea turtles, dolphins, tropical birds, tropical fish, and tropical flora held in place for human entertainment value. As well, the ‘conservation forest’ at our official COP16 hotel had imported most of the flora, and the fauna was non-existent. Instead the animals were audible through the elaborate stereo system that laced throughout the forest to create a feeling of ‘conservation’. The mangrove swamps had to be drained and filled with cement, the thorny sprawling plant-life uprooted, and the undesirable species (especially insects) needed to be evicted, all in an effort to construct the idealized ‘nature’ that is worth saving in the view of the privileged professionals who descended upon COP16.
These contradictions only scratch the surface of the problems with Cancun’s environmental utopia. They do not even begin to address the labour relations of Cancun’s tourism industry, where long work hours, low wages, and worker migration, place many labourers in precarious employment positions. Overall, the environmental fantasia of COP16 was the ultimate metaphor of how the international climate governance community understands nature as an idyllic Xanadu existing solely for the aesthetic and recreational delight of those who can afford to access it. ‘Nature’ is to be constructed and contained in ways that ensure that those in power can benefit and profit from its subjugation regardless of the implications of this relationship for all living beings.
Brave New UNFCCC
Reflecting upon these new processes of the UNFCCC, it appears that the institution has turned over a new leaf. It will use less physical force against dissenting voices and instead it will simply make sure that civil society is physically removed from the spaces of power in climate politics. The UNFCCC will provide UN approved NGOs their own space in which to discuss climate change amongst themselves, but it will not provide them with the access to government officials or the corporate interests at the negotiating table. However, to ensure that the all delegates enjoy the COP and to ease their eco-conscience, the UNFCCC is now committed to a form of on-the-ground sustainability, where its long standing liberal environmental allies enjoy their soma on the beach. In a world where sustainability is advocated as the solution to the world’s ‘environmental problems’, and after visiting the UNFCCC’s environmental fantasia for one full week, it is clearer then ever that another alternative is necessary if humanity intends to truly transform its relation to nature and find a real solution to climate change.
Jacqueline Medalye is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at York University. She is the Climate Justice Research Fellow at the Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability and was the Head of the York Delegation to COP16 in Cancun, Mexico.
Jacqueline Medalye. "Brave New UNFCCC? Spatial Fixes, Environmental Fantasia, and the New Governmentality of International Climate Politics". CanadianDimension.com. 9th Feb. 2011<http://canadiandimension.com/articles/3707/>
after three years ecologist Dawn Bazely and political scientist Gabrielle Slowey were ready to deliver. When the two arrived by bush plane, citizens in Fort Simpson and Inuvik crowded into local meeting halls to hear them. Some had helped do the research, all were curious to hear the results. 
make their own decisions and negotiate directly with the territorial government over oil and gas development. Non-self-governing communities such as Tuktoyaktuk must deal with multiple levels of government to get anything done. “Self-government removes all those layers and gives more local empowerment.” 
