UN remains only legitimate climate forum

Critics of the UN climate negotiations are out in force following the recent summit in Durban. They are calling for its abandonment in favour of climate leadership outside the UN, despite the fact that it remains the only legitimate forum for climate negotiations.

In light of theperceived inability of the most recent conferences in Durban, Cancun and Copenhagen to reach an inclusive, legally binding agreement, there is a spreading loss of confidence in the existing order among the international community.

Some even fear a regime collapse.

This is often blamed on layered bureaucracy. Bennett Bernstein in American Foreign Policy says that the UN climate negotiations are being held hostage to the whims of every small nation represented.

Others have argued that to achieve consensus amongst the world’s largest emitters, climate change negotiations will need to be moved to an alternative forum without the theatrics and formal bureaucracy of the UN.

Greg Hunt, the Australian Opposition Minister for Climate Action claims that shifting negotiations to the G20 would result in a more effective agreement between the world’s largest emitters. Excluding Turkey and Argentina, the remaining eighteen members are among the top twenty carbon emitters.

Todd Stern, the Special Climate Envoy for the United States, alternatively suggests the formation of an ‘E8’ made up of the world’s eight largest emitters.

Similar calls have been made for the seventeen-member Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate to take the lead.

However, a minilateral forum which just includes the major emitters is likely to result in a self-serving outcome.

But minilateral groupings within the UN process itself hold great promise if structure correctly.

The Cartagena Dialogue for Progressive Action is a perfect example of how states are coming together to discuss innovative solutions to the climate crisis within the existing climate regime.

The Group is an informal negotiating space that fluctuates between thirty and forty developed and developing progressive ‘middle’ nations. The Group offers the opportunity for countries to engage in frank discussions, discuss positions, and search for areas of convergence. At last year’s negotiations in Cancun, it was a critical part of forging an outcome.

Academics, like the University of Melbourne’s Robyn Eckersley have also called for the creation of a ‘Climate Council’ under the existing UN framework of between eight and twenty states representing the most vulnerable, the most capable and the most responsible powers.

Both of these structures have the potential to catalyse the UN process from within.

We must recognise that the UN is the best system we have to find solutions to the climate crisis. Unlike its alternatives, it is the universally agreed upon system to address climate change.

This is why it was established in 1992.

Other forums and bilateral agreements do have an important role to play. But unlike the UN, they do not provide universal international representation.

Nor do they have universal support or global participation, which is essential to fight climate change.

The UN has successfully introduced the Kyoto Protocol, Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism, and has agreed to a Climate Technology Centre.

Durban added to these successes by extending the Kyoto Protocol, establishing the Green Climate Fund, recognising the “emissions gapâ€, and agreeing to a legally binding agreement for both developed and developing countries by 2015.

These outcomes provide clear evidence of the effectiveness of the UN, and would not have been possible without its universal representation.

At the end of the day, any failings then lie with the individual nations who fail to ratify or actively participate. Not the UN.

The UN climate regime has stood the test of time for twenty years. Now is not to time to abandon it.

Now is the time to invest in the UN.