On 22 January 2010, an Ecologic Transatlantic Luncheon was held in Berlin in honour of Adil Najam, a Professor at Boston University. In his short speech, Adil Najam pointed out that Copenhagen was different from other international conferences and also that the wrong conclusions have been drawn from the event. In the lively discussion that followed, participants discussed whether Copenhagen was a spectacular failure or not.

Adil Najam stressed that, although Copenhagen was certainly not a success, it is also not a failure as yet. According to Najam, there are two ways to make Copenhagen a failure: either by getting depressed or by drawing the wrong conclusions.
Furthermore, stated Adil Najam, Copenhagen set itself apart from previous international conferences in that the heads of states not only read their speeches, but actually participated in the conference themselves. Consequently, much more political capital was put into this conference.

At the core of his presentation were five propositions for the future:

1. The environment is too important to be left to environmentalists alone. Climate is synonymous with development, growth and security. Therefore, climate and environment must be tackled by all actors.
2. There is a new carbon economy in the making, and it will not be stopped. Climate is only one driver of this change. The structural change in the carbon economy is demand driven, but the demand will be increasingly climate constrained. These shifts, however, also offer a wider perspective on development.
3. Climate change will hit the poorest first, hardest and disproportionately. This is not about poor nations but about poor people.
4. Internationally, the politics of climate will remain fractured. International fault lines will persist beyond Copenhagen. Three elements are crucial in this context: broad participation, the fulfilment of the Kyoto targets and the decarbonisation of technologies. The fulfilment of the Kyoto targets, however, remains the most important issue, because it connects the other two elements like a bridge.
5. To be “effective”, a “new multilateralism” is struggling to emerge. This means that climate is not only an environmental issue, but a global issue which should be tackled by means beyond “forum shopping” in different multilateral organisations.

The discussion following Adil Najam’s talk touched upon several issues related to Copenhagen, international environmental governance and the role of different actors and policy instruments in the context of climate change negotiations.

One issue intensely discussed was the question of whether Copenhagen was a failure or not. On the one hand, it was argued that the failure to reach an agreement constitutes a failure of the event. On the other hand, it was stated that the presence of all the heads of state generated awareness among developing countries – a large group of actors – for climate change.

Besides the general debate about a failure in Copenhagen, the role of the heads of states was discussed. The case was made that a solution or an agreement would have been made if the negotiators had had more time before the heads of states stepped into the process. In this context, it was also stated that an important failure of the researchers was to measure Copenhagen’s success only by whether an agreement was reached or not– instead of measuring success by actions taken.

Another much debated issue was the role of targets. While it was stated, on the one hand, that a lack of targets is not the end of the process, others stated that targets were essential, because the UN is not in the position to pave the way for implementing policies. According to the latter position, this is a task for national governments and, therefore, targets are crucial on the UN level so that they may be implemented on the national level.

A last main topic discussed was the role of China. The country perceives itself as frontrunner in the field of climate change because its growth during the last year was cleaner than any other growth rate in history. By contrast, other countries do not necessarily perceive China as a frontrunner.

The conclusion to be drawn from this Transatlantic Luncheon is twofold. On the one hand, it remains to be seen whether Copenhagen was a failure or not. On the other hand, there was a plea for understanding the positions and views of the other countries, be it China perceiving itself as a frontrunner or other countries with their respective views on the world.

Adil Najam’s presentation [pdf, 1.4 MB, English] on “Climate and Environmental Governance after Copenhagen” is available for download.

Further links:

• CV Adil Najam [pdf, 335 KB, English]
• Ecologic Publication: Weichenstellung statt Katerstimmung – Nach dem Kopenhagen-Debakel braucht Europa eine effektive Klimastrategie
• Ecologic Project: Global Environmental Governance and International Environmental Regimes
• Ecologic Project: Transatlantic Media Dialogue: Climate Change and Climate Policy in Europe and the US – Opportunities and Challenges in the Run-Up to the Copenhagen Summit and Beyond
• Ecologic Institute side event in Copenhagen on regional adaptation for coastal areas
• Ecologic Institute Technology Transfer Side Event at UNFCCC COP-15 in Copenhagen