Washington, this is COP 13: We have a problem (COP 13)

15 Dec 2007 – Geoff Lye

12.15 am and I’m back at the conference centre. Having seen on the news that the talks were going into the night, I was fascinated to see how it played out. The media were gathered outside the two meeting rooms where the final negotiations were taking place. Delegation members were shuffling from one room to the other, including Harlan Watson who at one point described the talks to a nearby journalist as going ‘swimmingly’: was the U.S. delegation getting its way? I’d not been there long before Timmons Roberts strolled up. I know him from a sabbatical year he spent away from William and Mary College to work with the Environmental Change Institute in Oxford. He had been presenting at a UNESCO side event on the final day and was passing by, like me, to see what was developing.

At about 1.30 am, Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesia’s Environment Minister and President of this COP, joined the main meeting room; 45 minutes later delegates drifted out and gave impromptu press conferences in huddles in the lobby area. I joined the huddle around the German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel I have seen him at work in a number of different environments here and he is very impressive. The general feeling according to him and others is that the text to be presented to Plenary in the morning is about as good as could be hoped for under the (U.S.) circumstances.

Just outside the main building, I spotted Hilary Benn being miked up for an ITN interview. I stood nearby – keen to hear his take on the outcome so far. He looked incredibly uncomfortable in the intense heat and humidity of the night and was having problems with his earphone. When the interview finally got under way, he made generally positive comments about progress, but – whether provoked by a question or comment from his interviewer I do not know – suddenly shouted ‘AND IT IS 2.30 IN THE MORNING HERE!’ Did anyone see that interview? It looked very odd from this end.

Four hours – and two and a half hours’ sleep – later and I was back in the conference centre. I headed for the document distribution point and spotted Friends of the Earth’s Tony Juniper (whom I had last seen snacking with his team at 2.30 am on the steps of the building) looking as though he’d spent the night in an armchair: he assured me he’d actually made it back to his hotel for a couple of hours, but he – like the rest of us – was not looking his best. It was clear that things were already running late. The final draft text was not available until well after 8.30 – each copy was literally hot off the photocopier with a team of document producers barely able to keep feeding the queue. Bumped into Hilary Benn at the water machine and commented on the invisible sides of his job, like standing sweating in front of the cameras in the middle of the night. He made very light of it and seemed much more relaxed than a few hours ago.

Eventually, the Plenary got under way and it looked as though the President was going to get unanimous support for the draft text when India raised an issue on the wording. India, China and the G77 wanted the words ‘measurable, reportable and verifiable’ to be moved from the beginning of a particular sentence to the end (I think this has some significance since the move would slightly soften the developing countries’ commitment to take ‘appropriate mitigation actions’, but it carried greater symbolic significance since it had become a crucial point of power play between the developing and developed economies – notably, the U.S.). None of us realised at the time, but this was set to trigger a rollercoaster of procedural and diplomatic skirmishes which were to last well into the afternoon.

The issues raised led to a temporary suspension of the meeting. Each time the meeting was about to be resumed, new issues seemed to be emerging and the process looked at risk of unravelling. I witnessed an attempt by the Ukrainian minister to change another phrase; de Boer and Gabriel were trying to persuade the Ukrainian that the agreed text covered off his concerns when a South African delegate pushed his way in and demanded a role in the discussions. Tempers flared and de Boer walked off, rapidly followed by Gabriel. Across the floor, similar huddles appeared and then dispersed.

Minutes after the meeting was called to order, China lodged a protest that their senior representative was in discussions with the Indonesian Foreign Minister and not in the Plenary. He launched a scathing attack on the process suggesting that this was a deliberate attempt to drive through the draft while some key delegates were in a parallel meeting. Another suspension. By now, it was clear that the meeting was in deep trouble. ‘Washington, this is COP 13: we have a problem.’

More huddles of ministers and advisers appeared around the room. I listened in on a group which included Germany’s Sigmar Gabriel and John Ashton, the UK’s ‘climate envoy’. They were desperately concerned to find a way to get things back on track and to avoid a breakdown of trust. ‘The way this going,’ said one of them, ‘the only winners will be the White House’. And so it seemed. A battle between the developed and developing countries was looking inevitable. A battle or stalemate could well play into the hands of the U.S. delegation who (I would guess) wanted to avoid coming out as the villains of the piece if the talks failed.

Another resumption. Rachmat Witoelar apologised for the procedural errors – which were mistaken, but unintended ‘and I am not too old to learn’ he said. The President of Indonesia and Ban Ki-moon had arrived on the platform and were invited to address the delegates. Each appealed bluntly and directly for the conference not to let the world and future generations down. They left the platform – and the Plenary – to rapturous applause.

It was 1.30 pm and China asked to speak. They demanded an apology from the secretariat for the morning’s procedural problems. The meeting’s President and Executive Secretary looked at each other and it was Yvo de Boer, who switched on his microphone. He moved as though to speak, but nothing. Twice he put his hands to his head. The second time, his head dropped. I heard myself thinking, ‘don’t break now’ (I had stood beside him at the Ukrainian negotiating huddle and he was already shaking from exhaustion). He looked up, and in a cracking voice muttered: ‘This morning, the Executive Secretary did not know that there were parallel talks on the text…’ He must have known that the cameras were trained on him and that the huge screens were capturing every facial expression as he gave way to tears. He stood and walked off the stage and out of the room. Before he got to the door, the delegates were on their feet applauding. Lump in my throat.

The meeting continued without de Boer. India again requested the change in wording. Portugal was given the floor: with very diplomatic and conciliatory words, the EU accepted the changes. Huge applause. One developing country after another affirmed their support. In a short procedural break, I took a picture of the U.S. delegation who were in a huddle obviously aware of the danger they were in: this could leave them completely isolated. I sensed that I was seeing the game plan being hatched on the floor earlier, by the UK, Germany and others, beginning to play out. Isolating the U.S. was more important than protecting the subtle distinctions of the text. Saudi Arabia spoke in support. And so to the US and Paula Dobriansky. The proposed change in wording, she asserted, weakened the negotiated intention of giving the developing countries a greater role in mitigating climate change: the US would not support the change. The atmosphere was electric. Jeering, booing and cries of ‘shame!’ for (maybe) ten seconds. It was 1.50 pm.

South Africa passionately re-stated the overall case for action and urged the US to re-consider. More countries spoke in support of the change. Tuvalu, Chile and then to Papua New Guinea. Exploiting the gaffe by US negotiator, James Connaughton who earlier in the week had said: ‘We will lead. We will continue to lead but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow’, Papua’s speaker challenged the US delegation: ‘If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way’. Huge applause.

And then back to the U.S. Dobriansky teased the conference by listing the indications that the US was willing to do its part. It was committed to a long-term GHG reduction target of 50% by 2050. It was willing to sign up to three new commitments: the inclusion of ‘measurable, verifiable and reportable’ reduction targets; qualified emissions limitations and reductions; and accepting the comparability criteria in assessing commitments in the context of national contributions. And then, after a pause, she conceded: ‘Mr President, we will go forward and join the consensus’. Sustained applause. Palpable relief. It was 2.20 pm and the end was in sight.

The President proposed that the text be adopted with India’s proposed change; and it was done. The rollercoaster had run its course: after a final wave of congratulatory speeches, COP 13 slowed, lapped and landed gently onto Bali’s soft sands. Time for the real journey to begin: bring out The Roadmap.

………

Postscript 1. 9 days ago, my first blog opened with: ‘Quake hits Indonesia’s Bali’. No, not a seismic shift in the US position but rather a 5.4 scale quake under the sea 150 miles off the island.’ Yesterday the US position did indeed shift seismically. The journey to Copenhagen in 2009 will not be easy, but by the time specific emissions reduction targets are under negotiation, a new U.S. administration will be in place. The outlook is encouraging.

Postscript 2. It feels premature to make a full and objective assessment of what has been achieved (or not) here in Bali, but my final blog and reflections will be posted when I am back in the UK on Tuesday.