Bonn, 21 December 2009. Until the closing moments of the Copenhagen Climate Conference, the poorest developing countries feared they had failed to exert much influence on the outcome of the climate talks. Yet these apparently ‘weaker’ nations eventually made their mark, and this was the dawn of a new era in international climate negotiations. By resisting the compromise pushed by both industrialised countries and leading developing nations, the poorest countries were simultaneously breaking with two solid 17-year old traditions of the UN Climate Change Convention. Firstly, the group of 130 developing nations had previously stood together on all the main issues, despite their considerable differences of opinion. Secondly, a small group of powerful countries usually negotiated a breakthrough in the final hours of talks. This is what happened in Kyoto in 1997 and again in Bali ten years later. It had been argued that this balance of power was legitimate, given that the biggest greenhouse gas emitters sat round the final negotiating table. However, by its very nature this clique of big emitters overlooked those groups not round that table. The interests of the least developed countries, the small island developing states and the coalition of African countries were ignored.

These poorer countries were right to reject the compromise, with its lack of a clear timetable leading to a binding agreement. They were right to consider that the compromise was insincere about its pledge to avoid a rise in average global temperatures of over 2°C. Nevertheless, that same compromise contains some elements which could be salvaged to build a future agreement. For instance – as Obama has emphasised for the benefit of the media – the newly industrialising countries are now prepared to limit their emissions. In addition, the industrialised nations pledged USD 30 billion by 2012 and USD 100 billion a year from 2020 for emission reduction and climate change adaptation measures to be taken by developing countries. Although the figures fall short of what is required, they nevertheless represent a quantum leap over what had previously been promised. The key is which pots the money comes from. In order to safeguard their own reputations, the industrialised countries must avoid any ‘creative accounting’ here. Instead of rebranding funds already earmarked for development cooperation, they must find new money. Key here will also be which pots the money flows into. At present, only a minority of funds are directly channelled by the contracting states. Most funds are actually channelled through bilateral and multilateral development cooperation, yet many developing countries doubt the legitimacy of the development policy institutions.

What of Copenhagen’s legacy? The Conference has not been a complete waste of time: it has set a clear signal that more heed must be paid to the interests of the poorest countries. There are already arenas in which the industrialised and newly industrialising countries can discuss climate-related matters among themselves, for instance the G8+5 and G20. The ‘underdogs’ made a stand at the UN climate change negotiations, currently the only place their voices will be heard – despite the fact they will be worst affected by global warming. Hopefully the near-collapse of Copenhagen will prove a salutary reminder of the need for a fairer negotiating culture. This year’s resolution must surely be to involve all the developing nations in a more ambitious agreement.

Fariborz Zelli and Britta Horstmann, German Development Institute (GDI)