In any relationship, it is important to listen carefully – without being defensive – to what your partner is saying. In the listening, and in the response, we acknowledge and respond to the other’s concerns. It is no different in these climate negotiations. We are co-dependent, developed and developing countries: there is no saving the climate without each other. 

If we focused less on the words, and focused more on the outcomes we are seeking – preventing dangerous climate change – what might we hear in what each partner is saying?

Let us look at some real life examples of where different interpretations of, or associations with, key words keep us from moving forward:

1. When developed countries push for a process on Article 9, they are not asking developing countries for Quantified Emissions Limitation Reduction Obligations (QELROs).

2. When developing countries oppose a process to review Article 9, it does not mean that they are not ready to consider specific items such as what might be needed to expand the Clean Development Mechanism and Adaptation funding, and technology transfer.

3. When developed countries talk about developing country participation, they are not talking about developing countries taking on absolute mandatory caps.

4. When developing countries say no new commitments, it does not mean they are not open to discussing to doing more, or the kinds of criteria that could be applied to graduation.

If we listened carefully and focused on outcomes, what might we hear today? 

“We agree carbon markets are an innovative way to achieve climate goals and we, as developed countries, are ready to maintain the framework for those markets to continue.”

“As developing countries, we recognise that Article 9 is an important tool for assessing how we can make the Kyoto Protocol better.”

In negotiating terms, this means developed countries have to make it clear they will continue with a QELROS approach – not intensity or sectoral targets or a menu approach – for the second commitment period, making it is absolutely clear to all partners they commit to building on the Kyoto Protocol architecture. 

This also means that developing countries have to indicate openness to a credible process under Article 9 that provides for analysis of elements not covered by the Ad Hoc Working Group or Dialogue. Together these elements would provide the basis for a negotiating mandate that could be agreed at COP/MOP3.