Fatalism is not an option

For a long period of time, human-induced climate change has been approached in a passive way, as an abstract phenomenon of interest mainly to scientists. It was first considered in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly only 20 years ago.

Meanwhile, the gravity and the urgency of this problem have increased. There is a long list of calamities that can be counted among the devastating consequences of climate change: drought, floods and severe storms, hunger, malnutrition, disease, mass homelessness and migration.

Climate change also has a universal negative impact on development initiatives and efforts. In spite of this, the commitments assumed 15 years ago at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro are not close to having been accomplished. More than 600 environmental agreements have been concluded by various groups of states, but their role in promoting true respect for nature still remains modest. They have failed to lead to a global ecological solidarity and consolidate the nexus between development and environment.

Moreover, recent conferences have revealed significant disagreements about how countries should cooperate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global warming. Awareness has not galvanised a global response for immediate collective action. Defining an action-oriented global vision continues to be on the waiting list.

At the Vienna Climate Change Talks in August this year, attended by about 1,000 diplomats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists from 158 countries, the results were disappointing. Diplomacy could not play a catalytic role to a meaningful consensus. Yet, this should be no surprise. Ecological diplomacy is still in its infancy, an evaluation made by eminent diplomats.

Many industrialised countries estimate that mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could affect important sectors of their economies. The Group of 77 (in fact, 130 states) requested that industrialised nations target an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, at a cost of at least $200 billion a year. Could multilateral diplomacy be instrumental in finding appropriate solutions acceptable to all?

The Group of 77 called for efforts to address climate change in a manner that ensures sustained economic growth of the developing countries, while allowing for the universal elimination of poverty, hunger and diseases. The Group reiterated its appeal to all states that have not yet done so to ratify and implement the UN Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, which represent the central multilateral framework for cooperative actions in this sensitive field.

The unprecedented challenge of climate change demands imaginative leadership capable to set new directions.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hosted in New York on September 24 the largest-ever high-level diplomatic gathering on this issue, with participants from over 150 countries, including some 70 heads of state and government. This one-day event was officially titled ''The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change.'' It focussed on ongoing efforts to mitigate, and adapt to, the impact of climate change, on costs and financing as well as on how to use technology to combat global warming. This event was expected to go beyond ceremonial diplomacy and be a great landmark facilitating the search for mutually acceptable solutions.

The New York marathon debate was not meant as an occasion for real negotiations, as no final document would be adopted. It was just a consultative gathering with the limited mandate of expressing the political will of world leaders to tackle climate change through concerted action, and to increase and generate additional momentum.
The United States hosted three days later a Washington meeting of 16 countries that together account for some 90 percent of global emissions. During that meeting it was cogently recalled that climate change required an integrated approach encompassing environmental stewardship, economic growth, energy supply and security, and the development of new clean energy technology.

The UN diplomacy cannot produce miracles, but it is expected to become more active and, by consequence, more fruitful in finding adequate solutions. But can it deal successfully with the immediate objective of transforming common concerns into a strong consensus on the way forward?

The European Union (EU) contributed to crystallising a collective answer and offered in advance a positive example by deciding the unilateral 20 percent reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020, and other ambitious measures on energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and biofuels. The EU also warned that the impacts of climate change would quickly become unmanageable without swift and effective international action.

Beyond frequent lamentations and catastrophic assessments, the essential parameters of a general framework as identified at the UN high-level meeting in New York include, among others, enhanced leadership by the industrialised countries on emission reductions; incentives for developing countries to act, but without sacrificing economic growth or poverty reduction, and fully consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; significantly increased support for adaptation in developing countries, especially for least developed and small island states; strengthened technology development and dissemination; and new approaches to financing.

An important journey for finding solutions to these problems will begin at a UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia (3-14 December 2007). It has to set a roadmap for negotiating global pollution cuts to be implemented after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires. A new comprehensive legal instrument must also be drafted, negotiated and completed for adoption by 2009 or 2010, so that all potential signatories can ratify it in time.

On to Bali

''Nature, time and patience are the three great physicians,'' teaches an old Chinese proverb. This wisdom should be revalidated.

Is there sufficient determination to break with the past and act decisively in Bali?

Answering this question will be a great test for negotiators. Firstly, the conference should launch a round of negotiations for an agreement leading to win-win situations for all, which must advance cooperation to stabilise emissions and promote alternative energy sources.

Dealing with the predictable impacts of climate change is also an integral component of global political and human security which cannot be ignored by negotiators.

The task is tremendous. Practice shows that on many issues some countries are reticent to accept mandatory commitments. That trend might continue. Yet, climate change knows no borders and efforts to address it may fail unless a visionary multilateral approach is accepted by all countries. The success of the Bali Conference would be a symbol of the undeniable value of multilateralism. For that to happen, it is imperative to learn from past mistakes.  There is no more time for rhetoric. To act energetically now is a matter of great responsibility. All countries must be prepared to face this challenge and shape a sustainable ecological system for present and future generations.

Fatalism is not an acceptable alternative. Reinvigorated universal action is more necessary than ever. A dynamic ecological diplomacy must prove its capacity to be robust and proactive in building a workable consensus. A fruitful outcome of the Bali Conference would be beneficial to all groups of states on all continents and to the cause of world peace.

Diplomats may find useful inspiration in the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 was awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and to Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for appropriate measures to counteract such change.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee emphasised the urgency of a sharper focus on the processes and decisions meant to protect the world's future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Indeed, resolute political and diplomatic initiatives are needed now, before climate change inevitably moves beyond human control.