The power of presidency in UN climate change negotiations: comparison between Denmark and Mexico
In December 2010, the 16th Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ended with adopting Cancun Agreements as official decisions under the UN process. The international community determined the meeting a success. This was a substantial change compared to the previous year’s Copenhagen climate conference, which failed to reach consensus at the official level and thus having come under severe criticism as “diplomatic failure.” This article aims to explain the stark contrast between the two consecutive COP meetings and argues that the leadership style of the president of the conference is one important factor propelling negotiations forward. While the current literature scarcely addresses the role of the president, this article explores multiple variables that condition the president’s effectiveness in moving negotiations forward. This article concludes that the Mexican government successfully chaired the negotiations with excellent agenda management and process management capability, which the Danish government lacked. In particular, its transparent and embracing manner in handling subgroup meetings and the production of a single negotiation text facilitated trust among negotiators, which in turn made the parties tend to cooperate better. More importantly, the case study reveals that the Mexican government had a significant influence on given conditions of the negotiation process, such as the international environment surrounding the negotiation and the decision-making rules.
KeywordsClimate change negotiation Power of chair Chairmanship in multilateral negotiations Effectiveness of chair Leadership of president of COP UNFCCC COP
- Araya, M. (2011). The squeezed middle: Why Latin America matters in climate politics intercambio climatico: Latin American perspectives on climate change. http://www.intercambioclimatico.com/en/2011/04/13/.
- Chevallier, R. (2011). COP17: What role for South Africa as an agent of change?. SAIIA Policy Briefing 38. Google Scholar
- Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy. (2009). Press release ‘Connie Hedegaard hosts Greenland dialogue ahead of UNclimate talks in Barcelona’. http://www.kebmin.dk/node/859. Accessed July 17, 2015.
- Depledge, J. (2005). The organization of global negotiations: Constructing the climate change regime. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- Grubb, M., & Gupta, J. (2000). Leadership: Theory and methodology. In M. Grubb & J. Gupta (Eds.), Climate change and european leadership: A sustainable role of Europe. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Hampson, F. O., & Hart, M. (1995). Multilateral negotiations: Lessons from arms control, trade, and the environment. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Khor, M. (2010). Complex implications of the cancun climate conference. Economics & Political Weekly, 52, 10–15.Google Scholar
- Knight, S. (2009). ‘Eleven days in December’. Prospect. Issue 164 (October 2009). http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/10/eleven-days-in-december/ Accessed July 17, 2015.
- La Vina, A. G. M., Ang, L. & Dulce, J. (2011). The cancun agreements: Do they advance global cooperation on climate change?. Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD). http://www.field.org.uk/files/the_cancun_agreements__lavina_ang_dulce_0.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2015.
- Mehling, M. (2010). From Brokenhagen to cancun can!: The cancun climate summit and its significance for transatlantic relations. Perspective, FES Washington Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/07729.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2015.
- Meilstrup, P. (2010). The runaway summit: The background story of the Danish Presidency of COP15, the UN climate change conference. In Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2010. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/rome2007/docs/What%20really%20happen%20in%20COP15.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2015.
- Morgan, J. et al. (2010). Reflections on the cancun agreements. World Resources Institute. http://pdf.wri.org/reflections_on_cancun_agreements.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2015.
- Pew Center (2009). Summary of COP 15 and CMP 5 prepared by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. http://www.pewclimate.org/international/copenhagen-climate-summit-summary.
- Steinmo, S. (2008). What is historical institutionalism? In D. DellaPorta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches in the social sciences (pp. 113–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Sweney, M. (2009). Copenhagen climate change treaty backed by ‘Hopenhagen’ campaign. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jun/23/hopenhagen-climate-change-campaign. Accessed July 17, 2015.
- Tallberg, J. (2002). The power of the chair in international bargaining. Article prepared for presentation at the 2002 ISA Annual Convention, New Orleans, March 24–27 2002.Google Scholar
- Underdal, A. (1994). Leadership theory: Rediscovering the arts of management. In I. Z. William (Ed.), International multilateral negotiation: Approaches to the management of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- UNFCCC (1996). Draft rules of procedure of the conference of the parties and its subsidiary bodies. FCCC/CP/1996/2. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop2/02.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2015.
- Yamin, F., & Depledge, J. (2005). The international climate change regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar