ClimatePrep

By John Matthews, CI

The COP is finally over, and I’ve had about 36 hours to begin to absorb its truths and promises. Written so soon after the negotiations have ended, I have no doubt my reflections will achieve, at best, a facile and tenuous draft of history (or a poor excuse for journalism). But I must write something to describe where climate adaptation, – our efforts to prepare ourselves and other species for the coming climate – is headed since the conclusion of the Copenhagen sessions.

I’m collecting these observations on the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere. It is the darkest day of 2009, bounded between the two longest nights. I’m writing after spending almost three weeks in Denmark for these meetings, deliberations, and negotiations.

If you’ve followed the news at all then you’ve probably read of slow progress or great disappointment. Perhaps you’ve seen reports about delegates including my friends and colleagues who were stuck inside of the Bella Center for almost two days, of forcible evictions, and of the helpless sympathy those of us outside tried to communicate to our colleagues. You’re probably just as confused as we are about the results.

The final document is called the Copenhagen Accord. It’s a general statement of intent that is a mere three pages in length. Adaptation is almost completely absent. Since the accord is nonbinding, the document represents discord as much as it shows some limited consensus. There is a reasonable chance — perhaps a fighting chance — that within a few months another gathering will transform the accord into something that can spur and enforce national actions, or even lead to an international treaty. In this sense, the weak ending of the COP could still linger on with a bang. I don’t think that history has really settled on the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting yet. If anything, the process just ran out of momentum for now.

My small role at the COP was to focus on adaptation — and on a certain approach to adaptation. I see two results for adaptation from Copenhagen.

For the first, you have to remember that the Copenhagen Accord is not the only product of the COP. A set of documents, equally nonbinding, was also produced on a wide range of more narrow and technical topics, such as the role of forest carbon and how to provide compensation money for the most vulnerable nations. These were finalized in a series of negotiations that lasted nearly a week, with almost every night’s meeting running into the wee hours. Unfortunately,  the final adaptation document doesn’t significantly recognize that adaptation is about managing natural resources in a sustainable way. Narrow interests, not just in the developed world, stripped this language away. The special problems of water management are not mentioned at all.

When a follow-up meeting is scheduled within a few months, many of the technical issues and documents will be taken up again. I am hopeful they can be sorted out, but this first result for adaptation suggests that adaptation will be just as contentious as climate mitigation. There is confusion at the global scale. There is no robust adaptation policy we can look forward to for now — no insurance plan, no cavalry coming over the hilltop. In short, for the time being, the crucial adaptation needs of both developing and developed countries will have to continue to be met by NGOs, local governments, and dedicated individuals around the world without the assistance of the international community.

The second result may just be a hunch I have, but I believe my hunch is confirmed by what I’ve already seen in the eyes of my colleagues and in their first emails in the days since the COP. I went to this meeting knowing that my efforts in the COP were probably not going to be very significant in the larger drama. But I think the policy and communications experts of the NGO community were expecting to exert a stronger voice and role in the end. Their very reasonable expectation was that at a minimum we would have a decent climate mitigation treaty, or a document that seemed like it could easily become one. Much was spent and sacrificed with this assumption — what else could we do? Unfortunately, in the end the decisions were made by a small number of world leaders in a cloistered room in the Bella Center in the early morning hours. We weren’t there, even if we were a few rooms — or kilometers — away. We didn’t really have much to say about the final accord. The effort to result ratio feels discordant and unsatisfying.

As a result, as the leaders of NGOs return to their planning sessions, their boards, and their media teams, I expect many groups may refocus away from climate mitigation, or at least to look more closely at issues they are more likely to impact. Reengineering economies away from a carbon basis is very difficult and relies in the end on influencing the highest levels of power. The situation is not as tractable as we would like it to be. Many groups will begin to work on adaptation. Not every NGO will make this choice, but this approach is closer to the historical norm for most.

I have suspected since at least May or June of 2009 that the work of climate change would vigorously shift to adaptation after Copenhagen, but I thought this because I assumed we would have a firm climate mitigation agreement focusing on greenhouse gases by now. COP16 in December 2010 in Mexico City would have been the Adaptation COP. Instead, I think because of the absence of a global UN voice on adaptation, NGOs will have to create an alternative structure to enable adaptation across borders and institutions. This is a difficult problem, but it’s also a more tractable one. The time for adaptation has arrived, after a long, long night.

As someone who appreciates irony almost more than love, the winter solstice of 2009 will actually be one of the longest days in my lifetime. Taking off at Copenhagen’s dawn to fly 10 hours to Atlanta, Georgia, I will land two hours before sunset. My “day” will last about 17 hours — generous even for a day in June in Denmark. The Norse pagans of northern Europe viewed the winter solstice as a time for contemplation and preparation, and of hope as the following day would begin strengthening. The winter solstice was about spring for them. And I think that’s how I’m coming to see this solstice.