This year, more than 1,500 participants from 95 countries were discussing the topic “The Heat is on – Climate Change and the Media” in more than 50 workshops. The German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) hosted the Panel “Moving towards COP 16 in Cancun – a ‘Climate Pioneer Group’ is necessary”. Since the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009 failed to adopt a new legal framework for protecting the climate, a “Climate Pioneer Group” is necessary to provide new leadership on the climate issue. DIE-Director Dirk Messner discussed the Climate-Pioneer-Concept with the Brazilian Ambassador in Germany, H.E. Everton Vieira Vargas, Halldor Thorgeisson, Director of the Bali Road Map at the Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC), as well as with Winfried Häser, Vice President at Deutsche Post DHL.

The German Advisory Council on Global Change (Wissenschaftliche Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen - WBGU) recently submitted the Policy Paper "Climate Policy Post-Copenhagen: A Three-Level Strategy for Success" to the German Government. DIE-Director Messner, being the Vice-Chairman of the WBGU, outlined the key messages of the Policy Paper, which calls for a pioneer group, consisting of like-minded countries, companies, regions or cities that should go parallel to the UNFCCC process in order to overcome the present deadlock. This demand is based on three barriers that, according to Messner, caused the failure of Copenhagen: 

First, there is a huge contradiction between the promises formulated in the Copenhagen Accord and the belief to fulfil them, namely between the two degrees goal and doubts in politics as well as in the business sector to actually reach the goal. Second, there is a governance problem. Apparently, the established routine with 192 countries negotiating within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) until there is a consensus is not working, especially with regard to the time pressure the world is facing in the issue of climate change. Also, due to the actual world order, which is rather multipolar than unipolar, no state is willing and able to assume a leading role. Third and last, there is the matter of fairness or so-called climate justice. Historically, climate change is caused mainly by the developed world; but it is the developing countries that will feel the consequences most. The question about how to share the burden globally is a crucial one and was one of the most discussed issues in Copenhagen. 

The bottom-up approach of Climate Pioneer Groups should make multilateral negotiations more effective. Taking on the leadership role in protecting the climate, in particular by moving towards a low-carbon economy, the pioneer group will influence the rest of the world in a positive way. 

Mr Thorgeisson of the Climate Change Secretariat emphasised that a bottom-up as well as a top-down approach can and should coexist within the UNFCCC process. But it would be a substantial mistake to give up the negotiation process completely, since there is no alternative to reaching an agreement on the United Nations level. Also, he does not see Copenhagen as a complete failure since progress was achieved on certain topics. The rules of the game will not change in the near future, and the principle of consensus is also necessary to ensure that by the end of the day, every single country is fighting climate change. Of course, there can be coalitions which go ahead in certain key areas. This already happens, for instance, in forest policy and does certainly not mean that the process within the UNFCCC is threatened. 

As a representative of the business sector, Mr Häser of Deutsche Post presented a similar point of view. While Deutsche Post as a logistics firm is a key contributor of carbon emissions the company already implemented its own reduction targets, Häser emphasised the importance of global standards and a global agreement with binding targets, which would provide a more consistent framework and would consequently be the perfect solution to avoid the distortion of competition. Also, an international contract would support the endeavours to develop new technologies. Addressing the issue of achieving the two degrees target implemented in the Copenhagen Accord, Häser embraced the fact that there is a target at all. Setting a goal is the first step to take real action, but on the other hand the options need to be identified before targeting.

According to H.E. Ambassador Everton, the UNFCCC is not an environmental regime but a development regime in which the environment is an important factor. This is why actions by the developed countries are required. Compared to emerging states like Brazil, which has an energy mix including 46% of renewable energy sources, the developed countries did not keep their promises, Ambassador Everton also appeals to the industry to offer new and innovative solutions which will make a change in energy policy affordable, since states are just willing to convert their politics if they are not threatened in their existence. A new paradigm in international cooperation would help to speed up these efforts, as it is already on its path, demonstrated by co-operations between China and Brazil or Brazil and Germany. Still, these endeavours cannot replace a binding agreement within the UNFCCC process in the long run.

The discussion has shown once again the deep deadlock the current climate protection debate is facing. The panellists agreed that there is no alternative to the UNFCCC process. However, positions between developed and developing countries, especially with respect to the issue of “climate justice” continue to be controversial, whereas the business sector, represented by Deutsche Post, surprised with its clear demand for a global agreement and binding targets. In the end, we are all reminded that every single person can help fighting climate change by rethinking one’s behaviour and realising one’s personal responsibility.