In the early hours of the morning on December 10th 2010 the Cancun agreements were passed at the UNFCCC. The chair banged the gavel declaring consensus had been reached and thus closing the COP.
But rather than cheering that we had finally got somewhere there were rather a lot of confused faces in the room. Because those of us listening had very clearly heard one country – Bolivia, state more than once that they did not and would not agree.
“…we clearly stated, and would like to reiterate, that we are opposed to this decision. And we feel there is no consensus for its approval.”
“We are not in agreement with this decision and we wish to clearly state for the record that there is no consensus for the approval of this decision”
- Bolivian ambassador on final night of COP16
So how could the chair have declared consensus? Consensus decision making is a model I use a lot in my work in the UK and if ever someone is so openly opposing a decision I have never seen a facilitator declare it passed.
I left Cancun with a confusing consensus conundrum rattling round in my brain.
This morning at the opening set of negotiations Bolivia raised the issue of what happened in Cancun in the context of discussions about the agenda. They stated that in 16 cops 278 decisions have been adopted, only 1 of which was adopted with an explicit and formal objection, the decision in question being the Cancun agreements. They were bringing it up because they wanted to declare that they were not happy with an item on the agenda relating to forests and the use of market mechanisms. This item was a product of the Cancun agreements and thus this was the basis for Bolivia’s reference to what had happened there. Bolivia’s objection led to the session descending into a drawn out, deflating and somewhat frustrating discussion on the agenda and what could and couldn’t be discussed, instead of any discussion on actual substance. Another UNFCCC classic situation that would make you laugh a knowing laugh if only what was at stake wasn’t quite so serious.
But this is an argument that I couldn’t just dismiss in my head as more UNFCCC tedious squabbling. Because if Bolivia were ignored in Cancun and consensus was passed without actual consensus then they surly have a right to bring this up again?
And if consensus was passed correctly even though they were disagreeing then what on earth does consensus really mean?
So having been confused on this issue since that last night in Cancun I decided to use the opportunity of another UNFCCC day where nothing moves forward, everything is delayed and the negotiators all go behind closed doors, to do some digging and see what in UN terms consensus really means. I didn’t have to look far because this 2 page report has recently come out and it really neatly sums up the whole consensus confusion relating to Bolivia. In fact it’s pretty difficult for me to sum up the issue and answer the questions any better than they did, so I suggest you just read it. But just in case you don’t want to grab a cup of tea and get all wonky with us here are the main points pulled out neatly for your pleasure.
The term consensus is not defined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the rules of procedure applied by its Parties
There is general agreement that consensus does not equal unanimity. A decision can be reached even though it may not have the full positive support of all Parties.
The COP and the CMP have not formally adopted their rules of procedure. However, at all sessions since 1995 a set of draft rules have been applied consistently – with the exception of the disputed rule 42 on voting. To date, Parties have been unable to agree whether decisions on matters of substance should be taken by consensus only; or if after Parties have exhausted all effort to reach consensus a decision may be taken by a two-thirds (three fourths, seven-eights or other) majority vote.
…for an objection to stand it should also be maintained after a decision has been taken.
Before the Cancun Agreements were formally adopted, Bolivia restated substantive concerns it had previously voiced during the course of the preceding negotiations. This included, for example, the lack of sufficiently ambitious emission reduction and limitation commitments, and the need to clearly determine sources of funding for adaptation and technology transfer.
Despite the Bolivian contention, the President of the Conference declared the decision adopted by consensus. She confirmed that the Bolivian position would be duly reflected in the records of the conference.
Following the adoption of CMP decisions despite Bolivia’s vocal objections, the COP resumed its meeting on 11 December just after 3 am. Faced with the criticism of imposing a veto on the conference the Bolivian delegation tuned down its language significantly.
Although Bolivia initially threatened to take legal action in the International Court of Justice, it appears that to date it has not undertaken further procedural steps – within or outside the UNFCCC regime – to challenge the validity of the Cancun Agreements.
So in a nutshell Bolivia never went through with fully blocking the consensus as they did not formally sustain their objection after the agreements were passed. Therefore their objections were noted but the decision can stand and UN consensus can officially be declared.
Well as officially as you can declare anything when you have never actually formally agreed on your rules…
However as this issue raises it’s head again, as Bolivia once again find themselves out on a limb fighting for the deal that we really all need, as frustrations in the process once again boil over, for me the most interesting, thought provoking and scary part of the whole consensus conundrum comes from a sentence buried in the middle of the report:
In international law legality and power often operate side by side. As such one can only speculate about the possible consequences if the persistent objector had not been Bolivia - but maybe China, Japan, India or Brazil. But what else could Bolivia or another country delegation that finds itself in a complete minority position have done?
The Cancun agreements were reached with disputes on all sides, today’s session descended into a tit for tat childish power game over something as seemingly simple as the agenda, the UNFCCC spends most of it’s time with countries politely yet brutally clashing heads with each other. And it’s trying to reach consensus that often takes the blame. But it’s not consensus that is the problem here and we shouldn’t let it take the stick. Because what’s really causing the problem is the power relations being played out within the consensus system. Consensus is probably the fairest method we can think of at the minute - everyone technically gets a say. But we shouldn’t take that fairness as a given, because when you really look at what goes on in these rooms you start to see a very different picture.
And until we tackle the root causes of what is happening, tackle the injustices and the power relations embedded in the system. Until we tackle who is speaking the loudest, who doesn’t feel able to speak up or feel their voice is important in the debate. Until we address the reasons why all these things are happening, we will not be able to take forward a constructive dialogue at the UNFCCC or indeed in many other fora.
But if we could begin to unpick these relations, to tackle the inequalities, understand what has created them and work on moving past them, then perhaps we could start to really work together on a way out of this mess.
Or at the very least we could maybe agree on the agenda….
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
