Burson-Marsteller

Copenhagen Calling – Part 1

by Bill Royce on 10th December 2009 • The Cast Blog

“To agree or not to agree, that is the question”. Being in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conferece, it was hard not to start with a line from The Dane. But this really is the question on everyone’s lips here – can 192 nations (observed by some 15,000 representatives from industry, media and NGOs) find agreement on at least a framework and some financial parameters to take forward to COP-16 in Mexico City next year? Right now the smart money is on a political deal, but next week’s Conference of the Parties (COP) – a typically clumsy UN title for governments – is like one-day cricket: anything can happen!

I’m here for three days as a member of the International. Chamber of Commerce (ICC) delegation, also helping some clients with meetings, media and high-level engagement. So what are first impressions?

This has the feel of a Party Conference. There’s the formal speeches in the plenary hall, which range from empassioned to extremely dull, and are the visible tip of a huge negotiating iceberg that is meeting in some form almost 24-7. The iceberg metaphor is accurate in more than one way as progress tends to be glacial, and months can be spent debating the use of “shall” versus “will”.

Around this formal conference is a heavy schedule of fringe meetings, press conferences, lobbying encounters and a festival of exhibitions and cultural events – indeed, even product launches. Coming through registration this morning (an hour, which was good – on Monday the queue was some 200 metres outside of the centre and took up to four hours!) on either side I was talking to a journalist with Friends of the Earth Belgium, a filmaker who has a screening tonight about Ethiopian farmers, a camera crew assigned to cover Global Observancy, and a member of China’s promotional team – probably 10% of the exhibit stands are for governments ‘selling’ their own achievements and ambitions.

As always, NGOs seem to be winning the communications battle but losing the policy war. They have the best advertising, posters, booklets and people (in contrast the two main business stands are usually unmanned!) but have little to contribute to the real negotiations beyond sloganeering and mantras. The hard issues now are not about direction – climate deniers are thin on the ground here – but around policy and financial mechanisms to incentivise and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon future. Most NGOs find this real-world discussion rather uncomfortable as it inevitably involves funding going to industry for necessary action in areas like carbon capture and storage, where there is presently no business case. I don’t think this is healthy and hope we see better engagement by pragmatic NGos on the core negotiating issues – and that they reflect these realities back to their membership and the media.

The two other observations are that there are growing rumbles arouind liability and litigation, and recognition that water is central to the whole discussion and the global ecosystem. The other buzz topics are the boost that “emailgate” has given to the climate change sceptics; the US EPA’s decision to declare greenhouse gases as a threat to human health; and the possibility that Australia might be the first country to have an election fought mainly on climate change and emissions trading.

More from COP-15 later today.

---