State Of The Voluntary Carbon Markets Report 2010

http://www.thinktosustain.com/ContentPageMarket.aspx?id=%20334

The Hu-Obama Summit | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Hu is in town! Follow him with CSIS~The Hu-Obama Summit | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Just a starter

Q1: What is the significance of this summit?

A1: On January 19, Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao will hold their eighth bilateral meeting, but only their second state visit (the others were all brief sessions on the margins of multilateral forums like APEC or the G-20). At the last full-fledged bilateral summit in Beijing in November 2009, President Obama hoped to open a more productive chapter in U.S.-China relations through a joint statement with President Hu noting areas of U.S.-China cooperation and highlighting each party’s “core interests.” In the months after the November summit, however, the administration found itself responding to a noticeably more assertive and less cooperative China. As a result, the administration spent much of 2010 reminding Beijing of the depth of U.S. strategic influence in Asia:

• After China’s passive response to North Korea’s attack on the South Korean corvette Choenan in March, the United States tightened security relations with Japan and Korea;
• In June, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates used the annual Shangri-La defense summit in Singapore to highlight the need for greater military transparency from China;
• In July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the annual ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi to stress U.S. interests in freedom of navigation in the South China Sea in response to Beijing’s pressure on smaller states in the region;
• In September, the United States reconfirmed its defense commitment to Japan with respect to the Senkaku/Diaoyutai after tensions rose between Tokyo and Beijing over the contested islands.

In short, this has been a rough year for U.S.-China relations; one characterized more by adjusting false expectations than making real progress on issues. Both U.S. and Chinese leaders hope this summit will now lay the foundation for a more productive relationship in 2011.

Pambazuka - DRC’s magic dust: Who benefits?

Pambazuka - DRC’s magic dust: Who benefits?

Khadija Sharife looks at how commercial and political interests in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s mineral and natural resources have shaped the country’s history, with devastating consequences for its people, wildlife and environment. Will a new concession with China enable the Congolese to ‘really feel what all that copper, cobalt and nickel is good for’, as President Joseph Kabila says, or will the country continue to be seen as ‘a resource-rich bargain bin, open for business’?

...

This inventory not only ‘commissioned and paid for US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellite studies of the country for infrared maps of its mineral potential,’ but also peeled back the skin of the forest and highlands to reveal its finite riches, chiefly coltan – the same magic dust used to develop the technologies underpinning the modernity of high-tech civilisation. Given that 80 per cent of the world’s coltan was located in Africa, and 82 per cent in the DRC, putting friends in high places remained a crucial tentacle of foreign policy.

...

A report in the Inter Press Service (28 October 2009) details how exploitation, primarily from new concessions, save for portions of Katanga Mining Ltd (reimbursed), would see US$3 billion in revenues from the tax exempt Sino-Congolese joint venture, Socomins, used to repay investment, and Gecamines providing US$100 million to finance operating and employment concerns. The following phase of the contract stipulated that 66 per cent of the profit would finance China’s infrastructural works – realised through China Railway Engineering Company (CREC) and Sinohydro, a company specialising in hydroelectric and hydraulic engineering projects. The cost of the projects will be determined in-house, potentially leaving the door open to corporate mispricing. The remaining 34 per cent of profits will be divided among shareholders. In the event that the mines are not as profitable as imagined, China has secured the rights to further mineral concessions. According to the September agreement, China retains the right to extract 626,619 tons of cobalt and 10.6 million tons of copper from the Katanga region, which is part of the copperbelt extending from Angola through to the DRC and Zambia.

China Exim’s loans will pass exclusively through Chinese hands, circumventing the possibility of illicit flight on the part of the Congolese state. Congolese President Joseph Kabila, son of former DRC President Laurent Kabila, described the deal as crucial to the development of the DRC, stating: ‘The Chinese banks are prepared to finance our Five Works (water, electricity, education, health, and transport). For the first time in our history, the Congolese will really feel what all that copper, cobalt and nickel is good for.’ These works include 145 health centres, 20,000 council flats, 31 hospitals, 49 water distribution centres as well as expanded water supplies, four universities and a parliament building. China has also pledged to build 4,000 kilometres of tarred road (prior to Chinese activities, just 200 kilometres existed) in addition to 3,200 kilometres of railway systems). Approximately 50 per cent of loans from China Exim were directed toward the continent, incentivising South- South trade and investment. For this reason, in addition to the necessity of a counterweight, China’s potential as a developing-country investor levels the playing field, shifting investment goals from ‘returns’ to that of ‘access.’ (Africa’s biggest investors however – at 20 per cent – are other African nations.) How well did the DRC and ‘system d’ regions – resource-rich regions located on the peripheries – fare under the conventional system?

...

For the DRC, ‘controlled’ by a fragmented and incoherent state, politically and physically distant from exploited territories, the situation – described by the 2002 UN Report as ‘the systematic and systemic exploitation of the DRC done in the name of resources’ – implies that humans born ‘rich’ in the DRC, are fast becoming as much an endangered species as the gorillas, elephants and other magnificent creatures gunned. Outside and alongside the DRC, in the contiguous world inhabited by ‘everyone else,’ accessorising life with mobile phones and computers and Sony PlayStations, we have become unwitting players in the system; spectators to a nation devoured by the terribly respectable white collar criminals, and their minions, rendering the DRC a large prison without walls, and the ‘unregulated’ free market, a religion of economic mercenaries. After half a century of prayer, the DRC has made into the desired image – a resource-rich bargain bin, open for business.

The U.S. And China: Rivals That May Need Each Other

An interesting article, especially after Vinnie Ferraro's recently lectures on the devolution of American power since 9/11, hence the notion of "post-9/11 era." Militarily it were Afghanistan

and Iraq

that unchained the decline and financially the recent financial crisis, which in many ways was just waiting to happen, was a further blow. Vinnie contend that this in general was not much of an issue for American public, they'd rather the government spend more energy on domestic issues.

But the discussions of who will fill in the rest of the space has long been a discussion. Here this one offers a new point, something valid for China to think about as well.

"Our challenge with China, he says, isn't about competition. "Our biggest problem with them is getting them to come up to the level of responsibility that their networks and their influence around the world actually demands from them."

by NPR Staff - January 15, 2011

Chinese President Hu Jintao's scheduled visit to the White House this week comes at critical moment in U.S.-China relations.

America has entered a new year with a rising national debt and deficit projections. Meanwhile, China continues its ascent as a global economic player. In the years to come, an economically bruised U.S. may have to share the superpower spotlight with the competition.

Still, former Pentagon strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett tells NPR's Guy Raz, American hype over China's rise is overblown, while foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman predicts that China-U.S. relations will get "bumpier" over the next few years.

Bumpy Relations Ahead

Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, says America's "unipolar moment" on the world's stage has passed.

America will most likely remain a preeminent world power in the near future, but "in the aftermath of the financial crisis, we're going back to a world in which [the U.S.] has competitors again," he says. [Yet in Vinnie's words, the super power status had long been altered since 9/11]

Rachman, who wrote Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety, predicts that relations between China and the U.S. are "going to get a bit bumpier over the next five years or more."

"The China-U.S. relationship has always had elements of friendship, cooperation and rivalry," he achman says. "But I think the more rivalrous elements are becoming more emphasized now."

He says that high unemployment rates in the U.S. and global economic imbalances undermine the "assumption that the Chinese economic relationship was equally beneficial to the U.S." and shows that "globalization isn't an unadulterated win for the U.S."

On the other side of the Pacific, a rising China is becoming more assertive in world affairs in ways that the U.S. may find uncomfortable, Rachman says.

"It's not that they want a direct confrontation with the U.S.," he says. "On the contrary, they're very keen to avoid that." Rachman says China is taking a more subtle approach, growing its power and military capabilities at a time when the U.S. is increasingly under financial strain, and has the ultimate goal of shifting the "balance of forces" between the world powers.

Overblown China Hype

Yet Barnett, chief analyst at Wikistrat and contributing editor for Esquire magazine, cautions that Americans' concern over China's rise is "really out of control."

"It's very similar to the way the British looked at us, say, around the turn of the century," Barnett says. "They imagined we could have bought and sold them. The Chinese couldn't do the same with us. Their economy is still a fraction of ours."

That economy may be growing, but it will still be decades before China's people reach an economic status equal to Americans, he says.

Thus, a cooperative U.S.-China relationship is not only a good idea, Barnett says, but it's also "absolutely essential when you consider a global middle class aspiring to a lifestyle that the planet cannot sustain if we use old resource models."

The end of America's status as the world's sole super power wouldn't be a bad thing, either, Barnett argues. Part of the American contribution after World War II was establishing a global economic system that allowed great powers to rise without instigating a war.

"We've created the system for these people to rise, and now we seem uncomfortable with the fact that we're not going to be the sole pole anymore in the system," Barnett says. "And we don't seem to know how to ask for anybody else's help."

Our challenge with China, he says, isn't about competition. "Our biggest problem with them is getting them to come up to the level of responsibility that their networks and their influence around the world actually demands from them."

"We need that help," Barnett says, "because based on our own efforts, we can only do an Iraq and an Afghanistan -- and not much else."

Notes from the UN Conference on Sustainable Development-first intersessional leading up to Rio+20

Folks back in China replied my email introducing this intersessional held in NYC from Jan 10th to 11th and updates of my experiences there and showed interests in further engagement. To my delight, this perhaps was my biggest take-home from the trip to NYC in between the blizzards hit the Northeast region. So here I will give a brief summary of what the meeting is about and its implications for broader youth participation.

If you recall, the first Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 as a monumental event in the formalization of the concept of sustainable development and the adoption of Agenda 21 -- "an unprecedented global plan of action" to achieve SD. It was also where the UNFCCC was officially open for signatures. In 2002 the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation was adopted to provide more concrete steps to implement SD, albeit in slow progress. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development touted 27 principles that recognize the fundamental independence and connection of our earth and aim to protect the integrity of natural environment and development systems.

The aim of this first intersessional meeting is to discuss the role of UN Conference on Sustainable Development, in preparation of the Earth Summit 2012 (or "Rio+20"), of securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and address new and emerging challenges. The meeting will also address the role of UNCSD with regard to the following themes an green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and institutional framework for sustainable development. It is a somewhat different track of meetings from UNFCCC -- more focus on the ideology,methodologies and implementation strategies and of sustainable development.

As the first intersessional meeting after the first preparatory meeting (mostly logistic) held last May, the meeting itself was more about opening discussions and inviting questions by member states and Major Groups (such as Youth and Children major group) around two of the topics raised previously, namely the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and institutional framework for sustainable development.

The organization of the conference itself stands differently from that of a UNFCCC meeting. Scientists, experts and officials from academia, prominent NGOs and relevant UN organs speak and present their understandings of the "new" concept of "green economy" and its relationship to the umbrella goal of "sustainable development," and then invite the delegates from countries organizations and business,women, indigenous people and youth communities to ask their questions and offer their comments and suggestions. There are still quite a lot of debate over what it means by building a world green economy and what it means locally. The goal at Rio+20 next year is to achieve some kind of shared understanding and precious wording of green economy but definitely also leaves room for interpretation and implementation at local level. A synthesis report pulled together by StakeholderForum surveyed over 200 non-governmental organizations and their opinions of the concept of "green economy", which was dissiminated at the meeting and online.

The intersessionals seem to lack the participation of youth -- there were only six of us there (three Europeans, two Americans and myself, despite one of the Europeans' comment that "this is such a diverse group", 我也只有在心里吐痰呸他了).Anyway, we are still all in discussion of how to bring in broader participation of the youth community. There seems to be discussions about setting up funds to facilitate civil society participation. Education, formal and non-formal, also need more devotion by the academic institutions or through national programs but also by youth themselves (as in peer-to-peer training or participating in these meetings). Kyle from SustainUS is thinking about producing a guidebook for youth involvement, so one example of how we as Chines youth could be involved is to adapt that knowledge brochure under a Chinese context. These could also be potential topics at domestic events such as IYSECC 3.0 and or at smaller scales. It is another potentially viable platform for the China-US youth exchange, since one of CUYCE's focus is also on advancing clean technologies for sustainable development.

The reason why I think getting more youth involved in the UN Conference on Sustainable Development is worth pursuing is that it is less politically technical and tedious than the UNFCCC process. It can potentially generate more ideas, actions and projects by the young people inspired by the concepts and framework offered in this set of discussion. And from actions we could potentially lead to changes in the making of policies and business practices.

The following is an article on the second day of Outreach that summarizes some of the issues in our intervention at the official meetings.

http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/

Young people at Rio+20 Intersessional call for a youth-friendly green and fair economy

BEN VANPEPERSTRAETE, ORGANISING PARTNER MAJOR GROUP YOUTH AND CHILDREN

A few young people from across the globe have arrived safe at the first informal. For us, discussions (and even negotiations) on Rio+20 can’t start soon enough. So we where happy to have already the opportunity to go quite directly down to business.

While there would be a fair argument that we young people still have enough time to attend and participate enough conferences, we feel we can not wait with Rio+20.

Green economy – the need for policies and finance

We are not that interested in a sterile academic brainstorm about green economy, but want to see action as soon as possible. Mr. Steiner hit the nail today by stating that “the world is not looking for a treaty/protocol about green economy - it’s looking for policies and finance”. So we should be prepared to take the risk to transition quickly to a fair and green economy when we leave Rio next year. As we think Green Economy seems an interesting method toward achieving Sustainable Development, and to speed up its implementation.

But we understand the hesitation, as we share a lot of questions on a Green Economy:

• Why don’t we talk about a Green and Fair Economy?

• Is there a risk that Green Economy can replace existing language on Sustainable Development, rather complement and even strengthen it with concrete action?

• And why do the national schemes Mr. Steiner mentioned not focus particularly on youth, when it is this generation that needs the prospect of a future and decent jobs?

Young people often hardest hit

We believe that one year ought to suffice to hash out the big details, to converge quickly, and to start putting things into action. The key outcome we want to land is a youth-friendly green and fair economy. As mentioned earlier, young people are often being hit the hardest by the ecological, social and economic crises, despite being the ones needing green and decent jobs the most.

Walk the Talk

We are ready to make own contributions to Green Economy like providing the skills we need through amongst other peer-to-peer education. Another example comes from one of the groups active in the Youth and Children Major Groups, who will organise a green business-plan contest between here and Rio.

So, we are ready and hope the readers start walking the talk. But, within one year we should all be ready to walk, and all walk in the same direction.

Readings and Notes from Social Entrepreneurship Class at Amherst College

First session, Jan 11th 2011

The Social Entrepreneurship has started today and the readings and speakers have been quite fascinating, intriguing and thought-provoking (although I need to take a critical view of the emphasis and structure of the course itself) . My first reaction (to everyone now involved in the Renewable Energy Enterprises Network, REEN) is that in terms of developing ourselves as a social enterprise that seeks to seed more of such, we really need to build our own knowledge base of what it actually means as inspired practitioners. So I would really encourage you to take time and effort to do some studies in the context of REEN and the broader socio-political-economic environment it is situated with a critical eye.

I have the list of very helpful readings from today's class with some highlights and keywords.
You can find the course materials through here http://seinterterm2011.weebly.com/index.html
and I will try to keep my reflections on the readings and class on my blog (yes push me if I do not deliver since I think this is important and will post today's notes later).

Readings from today (in order of relevance and helpfulness of these materials)

"In Kenya, Huts Far Off the Grid Harness the Sun.” Elisabeth Rosenthal – 12-25-2010 – Front page NYT

This article basically outlined the business case and a nascent market for what REEN can provide in its full-fledge especially when it comes to off-grid solar systems. In the article it cited several cases and places where good busniess models seem to be up and running -- potential resources for us. And the rest of the stuff we already know so be proud.

Everyone a Changemaker:SE's ultimate goal

Download File by Bill Drayton

Working with these social entrepreneurs, Ashoka builds
communities of innovators who work collectively to transform
society, and to design new ways for the social sector to become
more productive, entrepreneurial and globally integrated. There
are now over 1,750 Ashoka leading social entrepreneurs, and
Ashoka serves over 60 countries.

Key words: citizen sector, multiplying society's capacity, pattern-changing leading social entrepreneurs, results-based mission and operation, transforming the youth years, underlining skills for young enterprises: applied empathy, teamwork and leadership

Building a Performance Measurement System
File Size:	1777 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File by Root Cause

"Performance measurement provides vital information for advancing
social innovation: the process of developing, testing, and honing
new and potentially transformative approaches to existing social
issues. With the right performance metrics, data, and analysis in
hand, social innovators—nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and businesses that offer innovative, results-driven solutions tosocial problems—can make well-informed management decisions to drive continuous improvement and long-term social impact." This document is a step-by-step, practical guide to create or strengthen a customized performance measurement system for: ƒƒ Start-up or existing nonprofit organizations (including direct service, advocacy, associations/networks, and capacity-building organizations).

Results (magnitude) in various activities and metrics are crucial to measure the social and environmental impacts of REEN or other seedling organizations. Setting the standards prior to the execution of the projects seems to be important if we are to ensure the resource efficiency of our organization and the effectiveness of our work.

Class Notes Jan 11th, 2011:

Notes from social Entrepreneurship Interim class At Amherst

SE: “a social entrepreneur recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create and manage a venture to achieve social change.” Wiki

A SE is not a risk taker in the sense that he or she plan, does research, and strategize

Takes Imagination, gives flexibility

“SEs are not content just to fish or teach how to fish. They will not cease until they have revolutionalized the whole fishing industry. " CEO Ashoko

Major themes in the SE concepts in this course:

ü Profitable: could be in several years, not relying solely on grant money

ü Sustainable:

ü Scalable: easy to duplicate and spreadable

ü Measurable:e.g. SE vs private venture: SE has to have a built-in social impact measurement system

*Be aware of unintended processes, contents or products for potential social disasters.

Guest speaker: Dean’s Beans' founder Dean Cycon

Global coffee supply chain:95% of people involved in the raw coffee bean production are marginalized indigenous people.

Cotton uses 50% of words pesticides supply, coffee plantation only the second

Language barriers of indigenous ppl prevent them from broader participation in the global

Kenya: failed case: advocate for bean plantation free of pesticides
because: donated by German and American aid agencies who require Kenyan government to buy these pesticides.

Q:How has your enterprise be able to contribute to the revolutionization of policy making and global supply chain practices? Given the failure in Kenya, what are the situations competing with traditional aid agencies?--> not all aid programs are bad, just need to be cautious of the tie-backs and strings attached to it.

Three pillars of Dean’s Beans' operation and other strategies:

Economics, ecology and People-centered development (meaning trade relationship built on development in the community, identify comunities' priority based on cash and equity available at Bean’s Dean. Some projects go on for 15 years)

Listening and observing

Facilitating program design and funding: gender violence, not a lack of funding, address fundamental challengesn in the community, not necessarily what outsiders see as important.

Case: Guatemala

Designing a women’s healthcare fund financed by the distribution and management of micro-loans. Promoting indigenous radio programs that provide crop and market information for coffee farmers.

Different from having intermediate micro-credit manager who sometimes sucks away a lot of money. We want micro-bank come in to teach women how to run the program. So women run their own banks. Interests payment channeled into a common pool, which took four years. Manageable size matters. Lasted 8 eight years but shrank back after uncontrollable size.

Peru:assisting coops of 300 families to enter the American market. Funding reforestation and women’s loan program.

Question: who monitors the funds? What happens when borrowers failed to reply?-- will continue the discussion with this guy via email.

How does a progressive funders keep its enterprises embedded mission as it progresses on and have a change of leadership, or when facing acquisition attempts by bigger corporations?

Growth is an outcome of business done well, not the ultimate goal

Unwired world: 5.3 billion mobile phone users by year end

Brought up in Vinnie Ferraro's class today at his first lecture during the winter session on Contemporary U.S. Foreign Policy(access to full syllabus and reading materials). I will write a separate entry on the first session of class. It is a must for his level of intelligence and knowledge on what is going with the U.S. as the world number one power in decline.

October 21, 2010, San Francisco: The world will have 5.3 billion mobile phone subscribers by the end of the year, the International Telecommunications Union has predicted in a new report, publicised at its annual conference in Guadalajara, Mexico.

The report said that mobile phone networks are already available to over 90 percent of the world's population. Mobile phone penetration in developed countries is 68 percent, a saturation level higher than any previous technology.

Internet access is also exploding, the report found. The number of internet users has doubled over the past five years and will reach 2 billion by the end of 2010. An estimated 1.6 billion people have home internet access, up from 1.4 billion people at the end of 2009.

But there's still a huge gulf between the first and third worlds.

By the end of 2010, 71 percent of the population in developed countries will be online by the end of the year, compared to 21 percent of the population in developing countries.

While in developed countries 65 percent of people have access to the Internet at home, this is the case for only 13.5 percent of people in developing countries where Internet access in schools, at work and public locations is critical.

Regional differences are significant: 65 percent of Europeans are on the Internet, compared to only 9.6 percent of Africans

Cancun Climate Negotiation | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Cancun Climate Negotiation | Center for Strategic and International Studies

By Sarah O. Ladislaw Dec 15, 2010

(I have enjoyed many of CSIS's talks on the China-in-Africa discussions from last year. This one seems to be fairly comprehensive. But for better understanding I would suggest you skip through the Copenhagen assessment as well. It's really interesting to note the changes, development and "progresses" taking shape between these big meetings. Again the whole climate change politics and policy extravaganza is a constantly and intriguingly evolving discourse as our understanding of the complexity and interconnectedness of our climate and many aspects of our human civilizations)

For the last two weeks international climate negotiators met in Cancun, Mexico for the 16th Conference of Parties (COP) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). After last year’s near-catastrophe in Copenhagen (see our assessment of the Copenhagen talks), countries spent the better part of the past year tamping down expectations for this year’s round of negotiations. Instead of shooting for the completion of a legally binding agreement, the negotiators focused on making incremental progress on some of the foundational elements of a new regime while sidestepping the issue of whether to extend the Kyoto Protocol and avoiding a more serious discussion about the diminishing likelihood that the international community will be able to reach its collective climate goals.

What agreements were reached in Cancun?

The climate talks in Cancun successfully “anchored” agreements reached last year in the formal negotiating progress and filled out some of the details in each major area. Last year, the negotiators reached an eleventh-hour political agreement referred to as the Copenhagen Accord. For many developed economies, chief among them the United States, this agreement is meant to serve as the foundation for a new global agreement because it solves some of the deficiencies of the Kyoto Protocol (namely, it includes emissions reduction pledges and transparency provisions for all major economies, not just the traditional developed countries). The agreement is broadly supported among the parties but was never formally adopted by the entire group. Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, described the outcome of the Cancun negotiations as “approving and elaborating” on the Copenhagen Accord. This characterization can be derived from the fact that all the key elements of the Copenhagen Accord (i.e., emissions reductions, transparency, financing, technology sharing, forestry and land use, and adaptation) were included in the Cancun agreement. Moreover, while the Copenhagen Accord focused on high-level principles and agreements on each of those issues, the agreement in Cancun begins to set down some substantive detail about how each will be carried out (see the chart below for a partial summary of how the Cancun agreement built upon the major pillars of the Copenhagen Accord).

Does this agreement signify progress or more of the same?

For those paying close attention to the climate negotiation process, the progress made in Cancun is tangible and significant. It solidifies the core achievement from the Copenhagen Accord: all major developed and developing economies are willing to take action and be held to some level of accountability for emissions reductions. This is a significant departure from the world of the Kyoto Protocol and engenders some level of momentum for near-term action on emissions reduction activity.

In other ways, the outcome revealed that the negotiations have become a process that is waiting for the stars to realign before attempting to make any big breakthroughs or address some of the core underlying problems. The decision not to take on major issues seems to be strategic and pragmatic. The negotiators purposely did not take on thorny issues about increasing emissions reduction pledges (which are widely viewed as inadequate for reaching the agreed-upon target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) or ensuring greater levels of financing for developing country mitigation and adaptation efforts. From a practical standpoint, negotiators recognized that none of the parties were in a position to strengthen emissions or financial pledges due to domestic political and financial constraints, so instead, negotiators focused on things they could accomplish in order to facilitate as much real action on the suite of measures as possible.

Where do the negotiations go from here?

The next round of formal negotiations (there will be preparatory negotiations throughout the course of 2011) will take place in Durban, South Africa, at the end of next year. Many analysts have rightly noted that it be will difficult for the negotiators to make the same type of “incremental progress” next year and avoid some of the underlying disagreements and core weaknesses of the current regime. One example of this is the question of whether to extend the Kyoto Protocol for another commitment period. During the negotiations in Cancun, Japan and several other countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol stated that they would not sign on to a second commitment period. All of this is, in some way, political theater. The idea that major developed economies would continue to be part of a legally binding agreement that does not somehow bring in the other major emitters has been a nonstarter for developed country signatories of the Kyoto Protocol for quite some time. However, the Kyoto Protocol is a critically important document for developing countries as it enshrines many of the core principles and structures that they view as the necessary foundation for any and all future action. The agreement reached in Cancun simply puts off a decision about whether to extend the Kyoto Protocol until next year (though it is hard to see how parties will be any closer to an agreement 12 months hence). The underlying strategy here is to build up a “replacement” for the Kyoto Protocol—an agreement that includes all the core principles that the developing world wants to see (e.g., common but differentiated standards, financing for mitigation and adaptation measures, etc.) but breaks down some of the barriers between developed and developing country action that the developed world simply cannot accept. Over time, if parties became more confident in a new agreement, the Kyoto Protocol will seem less important and hopefully fade away (because nobody ever kills these types of agreements). It is doubtful, however, that this type of confidence will be achieved before the deadline for extension comes up.

Perhaps more importantly, the international community seemed reluctant to accept that given current trajectories, the prospect of reaching their stated emissions reduction goals is increasingly unlikely. Most negotiators openly recognize that the world is not on course to effectively limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. This will become increasingly evident as more time passes, especially if major emitters like the United States are not able to make tangible and meaningful progress on emissions reductions. At some point individual countries as well as the global community will have to accept this new reality and come to grips with what it means for our collective action approach.

Progression from Copenhagen Accord to Cancun Outcome (not intended to be comprehensive)
Pillars of a “Balanced Package”	Copenhagen Accord	Cancun Outcome
Emissions reduction pledges	Developed country targets and developing country actions (invited countries to submit targets and actions)	Includes developed country targets and developing country actions as part of the decision (so-called anchoring of pledges)
Transparency	Developed country monitoring, reporting, and verification. Developing country national communication with domestic monitoring review and verification subject to international consultation	Adds detail to the content, frequency, and review of emissions reduction and financial pledges for developed, major developing, and lesser-developed economies Establishes details of the international consultation and analysis process for major developing countries
Financing	$30 billion of “new and additional” resources from developed countries between 2010–2012 Goal to mobilize $100 billion a year in public and private finance by 2020 High-Level Panel on finance goal Sought to establish Green Climate Fund	Locks in the amounts listed in the Copenhagen Accord for fast-start and long-term financing Establishes a Green Climate Fund as the operational entity for climate finance Establishes the World Bank as the interim trustee for the fund Establishes a Transitional Committee and Standing Committee within the COP with the goal of improving the facilitation of the fund
Technology	Sought to establish a new Technology Mechanism (expressed desire but could not execute outside the realm of the COP)	Establishes a Technology Mechanism to facilitate the technology development and transfer. Will include a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Center (agreement describes the functions of both)
Reducing Emissions for Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)	Agreed on the crucial role of REDD and the need to provide positive incentives to such action and enable mobilization of resources from developed countries	Establish a process for developing countries to reduce emissions in the forest sector in such a way that could enable external financing for these efforts
Adaptation	Agreed that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable, and sustainable financial resources, technology, and capacity building to support adaptation in developing countries [Within financing section] Prioritized adaptation for the most vulnerable developing countries and stated that and that a balanced allocation of funding should go to mitigation and adaptation	Establishes Cancun Adaptation Framework to enhance adaptation action Establishes an Adaptation Committee to promote implementation of enhanced action Establishes a work program to study and address loss and damages associated with climate change

Sarah O. Ladislaw is a senior fellow in the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Audio: Post-Cancun Update - What Happened in Cancun and Where do the Climate Negotiations go from Here?

With Johnathon Pershing by CSIS