Poznan: disappointment or success?

There is no clear point of view about the outcome of the UN climate change summit in Poznan. Some reported that it did all it could have, others speak of a complete failure. The 14th Conference of the Parties, as the meeting is officially called, took place over the past two weeks. It was intended as a half-way marker towards the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009, where a new post-2012 agreement is planned to be agreed.

To those who think that the half-way mark means that 50% of the Copenhagen agreement is written, the results of Poznan are indeed disappointing. Particularly environmental organizations have voiced their concerns about progress made. Those familiar with negotiation processes with some 190 countries on extremely complicated issues, however, should not be surprised about the outcome. Poznan was an important meeting as it allowed parties to voice their views in a climate context which is changing rapidly.

Suppose you would be negotiating about a “shared vision” of how the world should respond to the threat of climate change over a period of 50 or a hundred years ahead. Imagine this would involve deep restructuring of all economies in the world, and for some countries (notably large exporters of oil and coal) a complete abandonment of all activities that currently constitute their main source of income. Envision the necessity to restructure an energy system that has been built up over the past 150 years into something completely new, while preserving energy security for those who have access to energy, and bringing energy to those currently in desperate need of modern energy. You can probably imagine that governments approach these challenges with a lot of care, and want to make sure that they make decisions based on the right information, that their information is similar to that of countries they close a deal with, and that they are not worse off than others.

Healthy exchange of information
This is why the result of Poznan should not be a surprise. In any negotiation process, but perhaps in climate change even more so, information is crucial. For negotiators, but also for researchers, business representatives, environmental NGOs, and other stakeholders, Poznan meant a healthy exchange of information on what technologies, what levels of finance, and what policy options can be considered. Even when the US and EU delegations had arrived with a clear mandate, information had to be digested. Just one year ago, oil prices were above 100 US$ per barrel, Obama was a newcomer, and there was no sign yet of a financial or economic crisis. There is a lot of new information that needs to be exchanged and digested before any decision can expected to be made.

In general, COP14 went by in a good and constructive atmosphere. Researchers and negotiators are finding each other and are collaborating on new ideas. More meetings will follow in the course of 2009, in which further steps can be taken. A notable statement in the COP14 outcomes is that by June 2009, real negotiation text is bound to be on the table. That is about as much progress as one could expect in Poznan – the pessimists should count their blessings!

Further information
ECN was present at COP14 as an “Research and Independent Non-Governmental Organisation”. Researchers from ECN contributed to a total of eight side-events in various fields, including post-2012 climate agreements, technology transfer and finance, the Clean Development Mechanism, and CO2 capture and storage (CCS). Further information with Heleen de Coninck surf to this link.

---