Cancun 2010 post-mortem: From dead-lock to a frail lifeline

There are no longer debates whether climate change is a real phenomenon but there are continuous dispute over what are we going to do about it. While the earth’s climate has always varied naturally, the last decade has witnessed some of the most extreme weather events throughout the globe. In December 1997, the international community agreed to tackle climate change by adopting the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which requires industrialised countries to reduce their anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Under the protocol, 37 countries (Annex I – Industrial countries) committed themselves to reduce four GHG (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two other groups of gases (e.g. hydro-fluorocarbons, per-fluorocarbons) produced by them and remaining countries committed in general to reduce their emissions. It was agreed that Annex I countries would collectively reduce their GHG by 5.2% from the 1991 level.

But the world had two options after less than four years of UNFCCC when The US withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001 on the grounds that it did not include binding commitments by the developing world. Withdrawal of the US from the Kyoto Protocol drove international climate change negotiations to all time low. Options were either to abandon the world’s most critical environmental treaty following the stand taken by the Bush administration or to go ahead without the US, who was until recently the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG). Fortunately and very wisely the world chose the latter.

The disagreement of G77 group of developing countries like India, China, and Brazil etc. during the Kyoto negotiations was based on the principles of equity and historic responsibility, which stated that the industrialised countries had created the global warming problem to start with and should therefore take the lead in its mitigation. This was a contentious issue with the US, which demanded that the South should also have quantified GHG emission limits under the Kyoto Protocol.  The Southern leadership argued that it was extremely unfair of the US, the world’s strongest economy to demand that the developing nations freeze their standards of living at such early stages of their development. The rich countries became rich by polluting the environment and why the poorer should pay the consequences, which subsequently lead the birth of dead-lock in the international climate agreement.

The dead-lock has been relentless throughout the climate change negotiations which lasted for many years and even gathered speed with greater intensity when the question raised 'what should we do beyond Kyoto?' Shall well completely paralyse it and start another new accord? Or rolling on the same with legally binding new objectives & targets? Kyoto Protocol clearly has not worked as expected due to rejection of the protocol by the US and Australia, also reluctance by the developing countries on binding emissions reduction targets. While the time is getting closer to 2012, the need for an extension of Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 has been past due. Yet again, the world has been divided between 'The Rich' & 'The Poor' countries on mainly legally binding emission reduction targets, climate finance, transfer of cleaner technologies and conservation of rainforests. Many experts have claimed that the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009 has been real disappointment due to the arrogant behaviour of two countries particularly The US and China. For millions who anticipated positive outcomes at Copenhagen Climate Summit felt their hopes and expectations were completely shattered. Lord Nicholas Stern agreed that what he described as the 'disappointing' outcome of the Copenhagen talks was largely down to rich nations' failure to understand developing world positions and concerns.

At the beginning of the Cancun 2010 Climate Change summit Russia, Japan & Canada hardened their position that they wouldn’t renew their commitment to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, which had caused consternation particularly among developing nations and many NGOs. Failure at Copenhagen then, and now at Cancun, the announcement by Russia, Japan & Canada looked outright collapse and damage the credibility of entire UN negotiating process. Announcements paved further longstanding division between rich and poor countries, indisputably also jeopardised the outstanding advances made in the conference to tackle on other issues such as climate finance and saving the rainforests.

Interestingly enough, while the climate negotiators were virtually tussling with not to commit Kyoto protocol beyond 2012 and drowned in their nations self-interest, many parts of the world’s temperature had tumbled to the record level. 2010 is ‘the year of the heat wave’ where more than 17 countries experienced the swarming heat which devastated their harvest including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan & Burma. Even more add to this – By NASA, World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and Britain’s Met Office reported that from January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record which stretches back to1880. Germanwatch; a German research group showed that Bangladesh, Burma and Honduras have been affected mostly in the past 20 years by the impacts of climate change. Also in the top 10 other countries were affected namely Vietnam, Nicaragua, Haiti, India, The Dominican Republic, The Philippines and China.

Unmistakable signals and collective evidences of extremes of weather of climate change along with the pressure from the society and media have forced the negotiators not to miss another opportunity at Cancun while the wounds are still fresh from an unsuccessful Copenhagen accord a year ago. UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon urged at the eve of the conference to agree to a modest deal to rein in climate change without holding out for perfection. At the opening ceremony in Cancun he said ‘We don’t need final agreement on all the issues, but we do need progress on all the fronts. We can not let the perfect be the enemy of the good’. Well said by Ban Ki-moon as Cancun certainly needed a breakthrough. Business as usual can not be an option where millions or even billions of people around the world are facing directly or indirectly consequences of climate change which were initially created by the richer nations by emitting most green house gases since the industrial revolution.

Talks in the Cancun summit has been so delicately balanced between a positive outcome and a ‘car crash’ because of the deep division between rich and poor countries over the future of the Kyoto Protocol – stated by the UK energy and environment secretary, Chris Huhne. A leaked document emerged during the negotiation on a closed-door meeting between the EU and a group of small island Pacific states who had jointly proposed a new treaty on developing and developed countries to reduce their emissions. Bolivia and Saudi Arabia complained to the Mexican presidency that all the parties should be consulted in open before taking on board any new proposal.

As the talks entered into its final hours, there has been a standoff because of Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been the connective tissue for everything – said by a high ranking UN official, which expected to wreck the hopes of making a deal on forest protection. However, after a long night of negotiation, despite of Bolivia’s strong opposition, ministers came to a compromise which would potentially save the Cancun talks from immediate collapse. As Brazilian climate change ambassador quoted ‘We know we can not finish this here but we would like a further commitment to further discussion’. Precisely, when a modest deal outlined many analysts argued that the deals have actually saved the dysfunctional UN negotiation process from collapse, rather than protecting the planet from the climate change.

So, what are the deals? Delegates in Cancun among others predominantly reached agreement on forestry, transfer of cleaner technology and green funds to developing countries to facilitate their mitigation and adaptation process from the impacts of climate change. Adaptation, finance and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) were the strongest areas where the International community has moved to the right direction but the details have not yet been put forward how it will be managed on regional, national and local level. An essential part of mitigation of climate change - transfer of cleaner technology aspect that had long been thought it would help developing nations 'leapfrog' over from the coal to the clean energy technology; hence received fierce opposition in Cancun because many private companies in the developed world do not wish to share technology to the developing world due to weak enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). This issue is still up in the air who will govern cash flow and the IPR.

A green fund of $100 billion a year was promised by the European Union, Japan and the United States for the developing countries by 2020 and another $30 billion in immediate assistance. However, many questions still remain unanswered on who will pay and how much, how this money will be managed. Developing nations deep distrust of World Bank's motives that usually perceived as pursuing western countries foreign policy, therefore giving money to the World Bank wouldn't be a good way forward. Many developing countries have previously argued that green fund should be governed by a new board and supported by an autonomous secretariat. Now there are big jobs ahead to build a committee which will be finalised next year by UN and will provide a fund structure before the next year's climate conference in Durban; South Africa.

Many countries share whole heartedly Bolivian’s concerns who were accused of being obstructionist at the conference. May be the conference was largely a triumph of UN credibility of multilateralism but Bolivian’s obstinate behaviour can not be ignored. Not a single nation promised that they would up their emission reduction target from those which was pledged at Copenhagen summit, also the accord text replaced the legally binding emission targets with voluntary pledges; further more, pledges to solve the role of the carbon market would be settled later. The most contradiction of all has been the goal of capping the rise in temperature at 2C, which generally agreed to be the threshold for dangerous climate change, but the Cancun pledges would steer the temperature up to 4C. So, the texts are full of loopholes, no legally binding obligations, no consequences if not fulfilled and reduced obligation of developed countries to act on their emission reduction targets.

Shall we call it irresponsible behaviour from the rich world? Is it really, in effect, our planet is in limbo? Yes - the answer is very simple as who has seen the science on climate change knows that the Cancun agreement wouldn’t stop our planet from further warming up. Undoubtedly, the world particularly big players need to do better than this, but one also needs to be realistic and recognise that the progress was unquestionably made in Cancun, which even looked impossible a few weeks ago before the conference. A train certainly has started rolling from its breakdown but it needs to roll faster. However, risks are even higher next year when the fate of Kyoto protocol and other unresolved issues will be raised in Durban. And solution thus lies yet again on the hands of the big polluters.

Building a sustainable society, but how? – A corporate perception

Recently in his word President of a world leading manufacturer of copiers and office automations (fax machines, scanners, photocopiers, printers, printer cartridges, toners etc.) stated ‘with the global environment in crisis, the commitment to a sustainable society is stronger than ever.’ This is not a usual rhetoric from the head of a very successful corporation who were recently listed amongst the Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies in the world. It’s a genuine commitment and clear departure from a model of mass production and mass consumption to build a new business model. Such paradigm shift and finally radical changes from the precedent model to a new model has challenged the traditional principles of society and economies that are built on.

Corporations are facing new environmental challenges, trying to achieve things that can make a difference to our society and planet as well as to the businesses environmental performances and its productivity, efficiency and profits. It’s not a trillion-dollar question any more on who will now lead the environmental conservation battle. Economic research has always opposes the strategies on urgent actions to reduce green house gases often misleading, while Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change has concluded that strong and urgent action in fact good. Beyond the conclusion of array of dubious reports yet there are evidences which strongly suggest that business as usual in not an option anymore, on the contrary big businesses are benefited by tacking the two critical issues – business risks pose from biodiversity and environmental degradation and ethics of the responsibility of current generations for the future generations. Big businesses have come a long way from those days where corporate greed prevailed over the mass degradation of biodiversity and environment. Corporations are now more and more moving towards to create a new society with new values and rules.

Sustainable society said to be built when there is a balance in using the natural raw materials and assimilate waste while maintaining the biodiversity and quality of life. This balance has been increasingly undermined since the Industrial revolution as environmental impact imposed by human has increased, which sequentially destroyed the earth’s self-recovering capabilities. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to adhere the environmental impact reduction goal ensuring both human beings and the environment can coexist; moreover restoring the Earth’s self-recovering capabilities.

Following initiatives may apply for the medium and long-term environmental impact reduction. Firstly, areas of Energy Conservation and Global Warming where reduction of total CO2 emissions throughout the life cycle of products and technologies for better environmental performance and advice for customers greener use. Secondly, Resource Conservation and Recycling in other word reduce new input of resources in view of possible resource depletion. Those elements which are usually dealt with for instance, reduction of new extraction of fossil and mineral resources, smaller size and longer life of product (resource use could be minimum), increase recovery and recycling rates and more use of biomass materials. Thirdly, Pollution Prevention where necessary (management and reduction of chemical substance to minimise environmental-related risks) such as minimise potential damage from chemicals and rigorous management with a traceability system (Ricoh Group Sustainability Report, 2010).

Alongside reducing environmental impacts, more and more business corporations have started to respond by reducing their impacts on biodiversity, which lies at the core of sustainable development. Biodiversity plays an important role to keep our planet and its people healthy, it sustains human life. Failure to conserve biodiversity in a sustainable manner would have far greater negative consequences on all living species on the planet, which will affect us all. For quite sometimes, Multi National Corporations (MNCs) have been engaged in global environmental conservation in maintaining and recovering planet’s intrinsic capabilities to cure itself and also helping to reduce the negative impacts from their business activities.

The obvious connection between business activities and the biodiversity may not seem to be connected at first stance; however the following connections are very important to recognise. For example the procurement of raw materials, using of energy resources in every steps of manufacturing process to logistics, use/maintenance, collection/recycling, environmental protection, ensuring sustainable growth, strengthening supply chain, cost savings, being seen to be green, healthy and happy staff etc. Therefore, there has been a strong business case and principles for the MNCc to integrate biodiversity conservation plan into their core business management to move further closer to the new model.     

In order to achieve best biodiversity performance it is necessary that the biodiversity action plan has a co-ordinated approach. First step is to strengthen existing environmental management system. A simple systematic management ‘plan-do-check-act’ cycle could be implemented. Responsible people in management must identify first the projects or activities that they want to carry out. Three levels of biodiversity such as species, genetic and eco system diversity must be protected. Following action examples to restore ecosystem recovery may be considered. 1) Think and Act from creatures’ point of view e.g. creation of natural habitats for the endangered species, restoration of neglected woodland, securing the spots of areas of uniform environmental conditions (biotope) for the flora and fauna e.g. recovering or creating of shallow water areas. 2) Monitoring & evaluation e.g. using the ecological indicators such as counting the number of dragonflies and frogs in an area. 3) Building collaborative and cooperative relationship with local people e.g. contributing to the local community scheme, engage with highly specialised organisations, plan and implement cultural services such as aesthetic, emotional, spiritual inspiration & recreational activities, encouragement to the next generations for future biodiversity conservation activities. 

Pursuing a sustainable society would not be fulfilled without the development of innovative environmental technologies. It’s an ongoing task for MNCs yet as the player of ‘Environmental Industrial Revolution’ to continue contributing towards a new society through the development of clean technologies. This would be driving force for corporations which will anticipate lead to a prosperous society and economy as a whole with different values. Innovative environmental technologies would touch the fundamentals of sustainable business practices with the aim of reduced waste, innovative manufacturing processes that requires less energy, minimising green house gas emissions, using more recycled and alternative materials to manufacture the same products. However, stand alone efforts undertaken only by the company wouldn’t be sufficient rather it should be rolled out and continued working with the stakeholders throughout the world including customers, up and down-stream supply chains, investors, NGOs and the public.     

A stronger environmental management is even more necessary to incorporate all the elements of new business models. One of the focus strategies of corporation is to strengthening and intensifying sustainable environmental management for their mid and long term plan. Identifying the risks and opportunities that global environmental problems pose, social changes which inevitably resulting from those environmental problems and incorporating all these into decision making process based on finding results have become routine and sustainable environmental management aims to achieve concurrently environmental conservation and profits. In time, successful corporations will be those who recognize and put into practice sustainable environmental management considering their competitive advantage that greening their products and having clean technology in place can help bringing them closer to a sustainable society in the future.