Environmental Diplomacy: The Cancún Agreement and its Implications.

On Friday 10th December, 2010 an agreement was reached in Cancun by delegates from almost 200 countries at the United Nations climate change conference; this was achieved by overoding objections from Bolivia to agree to a framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to establishing a new fund to help developing nations combat global warming. This fund will manage the annual $100 billion pledged to developing countries at the Copenhagen summit, the money will be handed out from early 2020 (CTV News, 2010).

Although this will not make a big change, but it is a little step that will lead to the expected change; Asad Rehman a campaigner from Friends of the Earth's International Climate clarified it when he said "The world needed strong and determined action to tackle climate change in Cancun - the outcome is a weak and ineffective agreement but at least it gives us a small and fragile lifeline." (Guardian Newspaper, 2010).

The Cancún conference brought about a positive outcome as a result of the efforts of non-governmental organizations like the Greenpeace, Friends of the earth and many other organizations. Friends of the earth United Kingdom for example helped draft the Household Waste Recycling Act made doorstep recycling which was implemented by the parliament in 2003 (Friends of the Earth, online). Greenpeace on the other hand has contributed immensely in creating awareness about the impact of global warming and climate change respectively that its research budget is known to be larger than that of the United Nations environmental department. It has tried to advice and encourages countries and multinational co-operations to be mindful of its environment.

As much as I believe that the environment needs to be maintained in a way to avoid further damage to the planet, I do not agree with the way campaigners has carried on, especially when it involved developing or third world countries. Take the Greenpeace campaign in Africa against G.M crops for example, according to a Channel4 Documentary entitled “What the Green Movement got wrong” evidence has shown that G.M sorghum is more nutritious than the one that was cultivated the natural way, this will help improve the lives of young people and probably reduce kwashiorkor in kids; in actual fact, poverty campaigners now resort to 'pro-poor GMOs', developed by public institutions and aimed at improving the nutrient content of basic subsistence crops in Africa.

The argument now is, why should Greenpeace campaign against such research in Africa or Asia, were China is using same technique to produce its rice so as to be able to feed its growing population and encourage healthy living. Imagine a country that needed food aid, rejecting G.M corn from the United States because they were advised by organizations like the Greenpeace that it is not safe for them (Channel4 2010, online). When it is clear that even in the United Kingdom today G.M meats, and even milk from G.M cows are in sales.

Therefore based on these facts, it is evident that developing economies have not reached that stage where they can afford to go green and that is why the Cancún agreement should have focused more on the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol than paying developing economies.

Also as the New York Times reported, the Cancún agreement “preserves an escape hatch for Japan and other industrial nations” it goes on to report that after the agreements were formalised, a United States envoy Todd Stern sidestepped a question about whether the compromise effectively kills Kyoto; "I'm not going to speculate on whether this is the end of the Kyoto Protocol or not, he said.”There’s a strong feeling on both sides" (Friedman 2010, New York Times).

In conclusion, as much as I believe in the impact of global warming on the environment, it is imperative that developing countries should take the first step towards saving the planet by reducing their CO2 emission instead of concentrating on paying developing economies to develop in a green way. The fact still remains that whilst developing countries can afford to go green, developing countries cannot. The best way of tackling climate change will be to follow the words of Gandhi “be the change you want to see” (Robinson 2008, 186). Developed economies should show that they are as concerned about the climate by working towards the Kyoto protocol instead of trying to devise a way to deviate the tension with the new Cancún agreement which might see the Kyoto protocol discontinued after 2012 and developing economies receiving money.