Professor Spain's Observations from COP15

Colorado Law School had two faculty members—Anna Spain and William Boyd—and two research fellows—Kevin Doran and Julie Teel—at the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009 (COP15).

Professor Spain, who is an NGO delegate with Mediators Beyond Borders where she serves on the Board of Directors, was interviewed by local radio station KGNU on its Morning Magazine show on December 14. The topic was “Ongoing Climate Change Coverage,” and Spain says, “There are more than 13,000 NGO participants at the Bella Center trying to advocate for particular causes. We are focused on how to prepare in advance for peaceful cooperation in an era of climate change. One aspect we’re seeking is the eventual inclusion of the word ‘mediation’ in the treaty text as it refers to dispute settlement in climate change at local and national levels. While this process is standard in Art. 33 of the UN Charter and in many multilateral environmental treaties, it has been notably absent in draft texts on climate change.” Listen to the interview (at 16:30 minutes in).

In a second interview with KGNU on December 21, Professor Spain looked back at what was achieved and what was not achieved at the COP15 climate talks.

Spain has also written an article on the American Society of International Law (ASIL) Insights titled, “Who’s Going to Copenhagen?: The Rise of Civil Society in International Treaty-Making,” and on IntNatGrrls as a guest blogger.

Spain made the following observation while at COP15:

During the first week, the mood inside the Bella Center was one of discernable hope. Everywhere I turned, people commented, “we are all in this together.” Beyond words, innovative actions showed how people are doing what they can to reduce their carbon footprint. This message was captured in green signs posted around the city that read “Hopenhagen.”

During the next week, the mood had shifted from hopeful to frustrated anticipation. Inside, several African Nations walked out on the formal negotiations in frustration with the process as the U.S. and China continued their unproductive exchange over emission targets and verification.

The nature and structure of such a large multilateral process lends itself to the triumph of power-based dynamics over interests. Simply put, there is a deficit of trust. No country wants to make the first move if means they will be vulnerable. This is why deals are made in the side-negotiations as this context provides parties with the assurances they need to “get real.” Yet these fragile deals can and often do fall apart when parties return to the formal plenary sessions where posturing and protectionism resume. In this venue, governments also face an audience of NGO observers in the open session that also promotes a dynamic of power-based negotiations.

Gaining entry to these open sessions for an NGO delegate can feel, in that moment, like winning an Olympic medal. The feeling we were left with was not one of transparency or empowerment but that those with power have rights. This is the same dynamic the African nations rejected on Monday.

Because climate change is such a global issue, it attracts diverse interests groups and demographics. And while this activism should be encouraged, it should not necessarily be encouraged in such a manner and magnitude at the COP 15. All of the delegates were not participating constructively toward a common goal. The focus at COP 15 must remain on helping governments reach binding commitments embodied in a new treaty.