(Photo: Chuckumentary/Flickr)

By Janine Schall-Emden* (GlobalReboot)

Related: Climate change is not about the environment. It is about justice

The global summit on climate change in Copenhagen was not just an international conference on the world’s precarious environment. It was a catalyst of tensions, rivalries and reciprocal accusations, which gave momentum to a renewed synergy between Brazil, South Africa and India in association with China, the so-called BASIC group. The Copenhagen Accord, which salvaged the COP 15 from complete failure, was indeed spearheaded by these four countries with the support of the United States of America. As behind-the-scene rumors have it, US president Barack Obama personally asked to be invited to the last BASIC group’s meeting, sensing that was the only venue where a last minute deal could be brokered. In this regard, Copenhagen might mark a new turning point in the restructuring of global power balances, allowing for a more leading role to be played by emerging powers.

China’s primacy in global affairs is undisputed. Due to its unparalleled growth rates, huge financial reserves and trade relations with the whole world (developed and developing countries alike), China is an fully recognized global player in today’s international politics. While it is not surprising that China be given centre stage in the negotiation of the post-Kyoto global setup (recently, China surpassed the US as the largest polluting country in the world), it is particularly interesting that India, Brazil and South Africa would be able to capture so much attention.

Yet, this outcome was not completely unexpected. During the past four years, India, Brazil and South Africa have constituted a fully-fledged coordination forum (the so-called IBSA) characterized by a number of working groups and ministerial conferences. Their heads of state and government met several times and, through a system of intergovernmental cooperation, IBSA managed to adopt common positions on a number of international matters, particularly those concerning global governance issues. Centre stage has been given to the functioning of the UN, the restructuring of the international political economy (especially the inadequacy of the G8, factually surpassed by the G20) and the reform of international financial institutions. As agreed in the IBSA’s 2008 Delhi summit, “global institutions must be more democratic, representative and legitimate through a more significant involvement of developing countries in the decision-making process.” The IBSA countries have also managed to issue joint declarations on a number of issues, from energy policy, to international terrorism, the fight against and poverty and, last but not least, climate change. Thus negotiators and other insiders participating in the Copenhagen summit were not surprised to see the IBSA representatives often speak with one voice and jointly resist the attacks and allures of the most industrialized countries.

Evolving positions on climate change

Before Copenhagen, all BASIC countries adopted a socio-economic approach to climate change. In their eyes, emerging economies and developing countries could not be asked to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) if this were to compromise their developmental performances. In this regard, they linked the economic growth to social well-being, thus underlining the right of developing economies to bridge the gap with industrialized nations. Nevertheless, while rejecting any binding mandate to tackle climate change directly, they insisted on various indirect mechanisms to contribute to the overall strategy of reducing GHG in the atmosphere. These mechanisms included technology transfers from advanced economies, tackling deforestation through foreign investment and the so-called clean development mechanisms, whereby investments in clean energy projects in developing nations would count as a carbon credits for industrialized countries and their companies. In sum, the BASIC countries were to preserve what was already agreed on under the auspices of the Kyoto protocol while pushing for further emission cuts by industrialized nations.

At the onset of Copenhagen, for instance, the government of South Africa announced that it “will not sign any deal at the UN conference on climate change […], if this will compromise its economic development.” According to AllAfrica, Environment Minister Buyelwa Sonjica admitted that “we know we are culprits in emitting carbon because we generate our energy from coal, but South Africa is a country with […] socioeconomic issues. A sizeable amount of our population is without electricity so you have to factor all those issues before you can move away from coal completely.”

Themba Maseko, spokesperson of the South African government, told reporters in a post-cabinet briefing that “we are committed to taking responsible action to reduce our emissions but we are not ready to agree to any targets that would undermine our growth trajectory.” These statements echoed the positions of the other BASIC partners and most developing countries represented in the G77.

President Lula of Brazil, for instance, called on industrialized nations to bring financing for adaptation in developing countries to the table if they expected emerging economies to come to Copenhagen: “(Developed countries) should not only cover initiatives to reduce their emissions, but all the other harm they have already inflicted on the planet. We have to draw a line between rich countries, which have had an industrial policy in place for more than 150 years, and the poor ones which only now are beginning to develop. With respect to global warming, the responsibility of the rich countries is much greater than that of emerging countries.”

Similarly, the Indian government set the stage for tough negotiations in Copenhagen:
”If the question is whether India will take on binding emission reduction commitments, the answer is no. It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity,” said a member of the Indian delegation according to The Washington Post.

The creation of the BASIC group

Interestingly, in the run up to the summit, all three countries softened their positions in what looked like a concerted effort to strengthen their bargaining power vis-à-vis rich nations. Pretoria expressed concern at “the wrong impression” that South Africa opposed targets for emerging markets, while Brazilian president Lula affirmed that emission reductions “is not a taboo for us”. Similarly, India displayed flexibility in its climate change position by offering to adopt the international guidelines under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Their common objectives was to preserve the main tenets of the Kyoto Protocol, which requests developed nations to respect binding targets while leaving room for maneuver to emerging economies to benefit from carbon trading mechanisms, and negotiate a new Longterm Cooperative Action (also known as the Bali track) to move ahead. On the outset of the Copenhagen summit, this dual strategy (preserve Kyoto and move Bali forward) became the common blueprint for the negotiations.

A few days before the opening of the summit, also China got into the picture. In a closed-door meeting held in Beijing under the auspices of the G77 of developing nations, the IBSA countries and the Asian giant finalized a first “Copenhagen Accord”, the significant predecessor of the final document issued by the COP15 on its final day. This initiative, led by the Chinese government, was conceived as a rebuttal by emerging powers to the so-called “Copenhagen Agreement” allegedly written by the Danish government (which hosted the UN conference), which was received with anger and resentment by all developing nations. The “accord” was also the first major international agreement involving a partnership between India and China.

The BASIC’s strategy also included the possibility of jointly walking out of the conference if the developed nations tried to force their own terms on the developing world. As declared by the Indian minister for environment, “we will co-ordinate our exit if any of our non-negotiable terms is violated. Our entry and exit will be collective”.

Concluding remarks: the impact on international politics

This common strategy and reinforced cooperation between emerging economies such as India, Brazil and South Africa with the support of China is a major factor in international affairs. Not surprisingly, Barack Obama decided to sit down with these countries to finalize the “Copenhagen Accord”. Interestingly, this new alliance strengthened mainly at the expense of European countries, repeatedly blamed by developing nations and emerging markets for the potential failure of the conference.

The BASIC convergence of views and strategies was a direct outcome of the common opposition to Europe’s agenda, which included fixed targets also for developing countries without a serious commitment to pay for the climate debt. Not just the timing of the accord’s first draft (which was presented as a counterproposal to the Danish document), but also the statements of the major political leaders point in that direction. As remarked by the Indian government, “the EU drafts are clearly unacceptable to us”, while other representatives added that any attempt to force such “unrealistic proposals” on the rest of the world would be thwarted by the strength of the BASIC axis. Even African countries endorsed the BASIC approach in an attempt to rule out any possibility that European countries could influence the outcome of the summit.

As a consequence, it probably came as no surprise to many observers that Europe was marginalized in the final stages of the conference. The Copenhagen Accord was presented by the BASIC countries with the approval of the US administration. Not unexpectedly however, the final document falls short of expectations. It is a non-agreement as it postpones to next year the conclusion of a binding text. What matters, though, is its political weight for the future of global governance. This summit did little to address climate change, but confirmed a tendency of the past few years: new countries are calling the shots in international forums and have definitely become forces to be reckoned with. While traditional powers, especially Europe, seem to be walking into the sunset.

* is founder of Global Reboot, a climate justice campaign, and co-author of the documentary “The Age of Adaptation”. To view the film, click here.