Topic: Position Paper Detailing A Reaction to The Response to the

Issue of Climate Change in the Warsaw Conference (2013)

Background
It is no secret that global warming has long since been an issue plaguing world
governments. It seems that there have been constant negotiations over the years, to
address this ever-constant issue. Countries have met to address how they should face the
rise in global temperatures, the impacts of pollution, among others; and they have
attempted to present possible solutions for this important issue.

Within the United Nations particularly, negotiations have been taking place since 2007 to
agree on what action should be undertaken, with reference to climate change during the
time preceding and succeeding 2012. Thus far, negotiations have resulted in the 2009
Copenhagen Accord, the 2010 Cancn Agreements, the 2011 Durban outcomes, the 2012
Doha Climate Gateway, and a set of decisions agreed upon during the 2013 conference in
Warsaw.

The Warsaw Outcomes

The UN Climate Change Conference (2013) in Warsaw, Poland was in fact a continuation
of other negotiations such as the ones held in Copenhagen and Cancn in previous years.
However, during the Warsaw Conference, governments sought to take further essential
decisions toward achieving a universal climate change agreement in, by or before 2015.
The main objectives of this conference were meant to do two things. Firstly, it aimed to
bind nations together into a functional and effective effort to drastically reduce emissions

in such a way that it would ensure humanitys ascent out of the danger zone of climate
change; all the while aiming to build humanitys adaptation capacity. Secondly, the
Warsaw Conference aimed to stimulate faster and broader action now.

To address these objectives, participating governments agreed to communicate their

respective contributions towards the universal agreement well in advance of the followup meeting, which is to be held in Paris in 2015. Furthermore, the mandatory monitoring,
reporting and verification arrangements for domestic action have been finalized for
implementation, thereby providing a solid foundation for Paris (2015). It is important to
note that the Warsaw Convention has made significant progress toward aiding lesserdeveloped countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change as well as build their own
sustainable, clean energy sources.

Warsaw served as a platform for the breakthrough in the area of emission reduction from
deforestation and forest degradation, together with forest preservation and a result-based
payment system for forest protection, as seen with the induction of the Green Climate
Fund aimed at ambitiously contributing toward the action in the developing world in the
reduction of climate change.

To ensure that global climate change and its impact on global warming be kept at a
minimal level, Warsaw (2013) aimed to take critical action and coordinate this action at
all levels i.e. internationally, domestically, on the business scene and on the financial
frontier. To do this, COP191 in Warsaw provided a showcase for climate action by
1 The name given to the Warsaw Conference.

business, cities, regions and civil society. It is clear that the solutions for climate change
as well as the money and technology needed are already available. It is however, only
through immediate action that shared benefits for all can be realized.

Adapted from: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC)

Reactions
Zartman and Berman (1982) identified a model that described three steps in the
negotiation process. It is important to know that the Warsaw Convention (2013) is simply
a stepping stone toward Paris (2015) and its aim was to set up a foundation for further
negotiations for a binding legal framework for climate change. Given that the Warsaw
Conference was in fact a stage in the negotiating process, it can be said that it identifies
with Zartman and Bermans third stage of the negotiation process. The situation has
already been diagnosed; it is a well-known fact that the issue of climate change must be
addressed and counter-active steps have already been put in place, as decided by almost
194 countries already. A formula for change and a movement toward achieving solutions
have been taken as seen in the UNFCCC and by extension, the Warsaw Conventions
movement to negotiating solutions to achieve the reduction of global temperatures in the
next half of this decade. It can be said therefore, that currently, that is, before Paris
(2015), the Warsaw Conferences mandate of implementing the already negotiated upon
decision to drastically reduce climate change and by extension global warming before
2050, has been seen. Therefore it can be said, that currently, the Warsaw Conference has

seen the movement toward climate change reduction, and as stated during the
Convention, significant headway has been made toward achieving sustainable and
cleaner living for all since 2013. Thus far, the Conference has seemed to satisfy all three
stages of the Zartman and Bermans process of negotiation, and at its current stage, it
identifies most with the third stage set forth by the model.

It is important to take into consideration all parties that participated in the Warsaw
Conference. The UNFCCCs Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres and Polands
Minister of the Environment, Marcin Korolec, led the conference. The delegates of the
conference focused on the potential conditions of a final global change agreement
expected to be ratified in 2015 at the Paris Conference. Over 10,000 participants from
189 countries registered to attend and 134 ministers, including those most vulnerable to
climate change2 attended the conference.

Perhaps it is important that in these types of negotiations, where there is a definitive

problem at hand, that a principled/ problem solving approach is undertaken. On the issue
of climate change and global warming, all parties involved in the negotiation process
should perhaps adopt this method since it is geared toward achieving livable, sustainable
standards of living for all, and not just one country/party. It is important that in
negotiating through this issue that all parties remain as objective as possible, and should
aim to secure mutual benefits for all.

2 The Prime Minister/Presidents of Tuvalu, Nauru, Ethiopia and Tanzania

were in attendance.

So too, as many solutions as possible, should be generated to approach this crisis. It was
duly noted that those involved in the conference, attempted to put forth as many solutions
as possible as it was seen through the conferences attempt at:
i.

Making significant movements toward achieving a universal agreement by

December2015, which would hopefully be put into force by 2020; thus creating a

ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

legal framework for which all governments involved would have to abide by.
Closing the pre-2020 ambition-gap3.
Supporting those peoples affected by the effects of climate change
The attempt at strengthened efforts to mobilize USD 100 billion by 2020.4
The slashing of emissions from deforestation and the establishment of the

vi.

Warsaw Framework for REDD+5

Making progress on the drive toward adapting to climate change on the part of

vii.
viii.

developing and lesser-developed nations.6

Making progress toward accountability.
Implementing technology to boost actions to counteract climate change.7

The Actual Negotiation: Walkouts Associated With the Talks

The G77 and Chinese bloc led a walkout involving 132 poor nations during talks about
loss and damage compensations for the consequences of global warming. These lesser3 The gap between what has been pledged to date and what is
required to keep the world below a maximum average of 2 degrees
Celsius temperature rise; before 2020
4 Using the Green Climate Fund to fund actions to curb climate change
in nations actively trying to move toward cleaner, greener actions.
5 The agreed upon set of decisions set to reduce emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation. These decisions are based on a
culmination of 7 years worth of work and this agreement comes as a
breakthrough for climate change
6 48 countries under the UNFCCCs umbrella finalized plans to deal
with the impacts of climate change that have already set in. USD 100
million has been allocated to fund projects in these nations.
7 The Climate Technology Centre and Network(CTCN) geared at
stimulation of technological cooperation & transfer to developing
nations.

developed, poorer nations demanded that the developed nations concede to them, $100
billion annually by 2020. It is important to consider that in decisions such as these, those
countries, usually developed, with great economic prowess, can dictate which way
negotiations go and as such they determine where finances should be allocated.

Additionally, Australia was accused of failing to consider the seriousness of the talks and
it was shunned since, the country did not send high-ranking officials to the conference,
considering that Australia ranked significantly high in its emissions of carbons and the
abolishing of the tax controlling emissions. This position adopted by Australia could be
criticized because in a nation such as this one, where emissions are high, it is important
that they provide meaningful contributions to talks. For far too long, countries,
particularly lesser-developed ones, are forced to bear the brunt of sanctions imposed in
these talks even though their emissions are significantly less than that of larger, more
economically developed countries. Heavily industrialized countries with higher emissions
are the dictators of the outcomes of these talks when in fact; they should be the ones who
have to bear the majority of sanctions for their contributions to global climate change.
Those countries in positions of power determine what decisions are made. In this
conference, the high power distance was noted. Those lesser-developed nations; are
placed in positions of sub-ordinance to those holding the power, and essentially, the
ability to determine the outcome of the conference. This proves that there is not only a
dire need for a legal framework governing the issue of climate change reduction and
punishment of those failing to adhere to it, but also the need to step away from
concentrations of power in the sort of hierarchical nature that it is set up in today.

On the final day of the conference too, the Worldwide Fund For Nature (WWF), Oxfam,
ActionAid, the International Trade Union Confederation, Friends of the Earth and
Greenpeace all walked out of the conference. All six issued an agreed upon statement
essentially establishing that they felt that the conference had failed to be an important
transitional step toward a sustainable future and in fact, it had proven to deliver
nothing.

In essence, these walkouts prove that negotiations almost usually result in less that
favorable results for some parties involved. Perhaps these parties perceived that the
Warsaw Conference would lead to significant headway for addressing climate change, yet
they felt that there was not a significant resolve achieved. Thus, they expressed their
disappointment by walking out on the conference. This also suggests that on issues such
as climate change, although resources are available to address the problem, it may not be
easy for all parties to come to an agreement as to how to go about solving this crisis in
one conference. It can be noted that the first World Climate Conference had been held in
1979 and, to date, little to no consensus has been achieved, proving that Climate Change
and Global Warming is an issue for which achieving consensus is far too difficult even in
the presence of sufficient resources and technology.

The Importance of E-negotiations and ICTs in the Warsaw Conference

Although not a significant factor, it is important to note that the Warsaw Conference
aimed to conduct negotiations in conjunction with ICT usage as well. Those participating

in negotiations during the conference were able to access real-time, prepared documents
that were relevant to the sessions. Participants could visit the UNFCCC website or they
could download and use the Negotiator App to read documents as well. In the same
way, documents for the conference could be attained electronically simply by tuning in
to, and following/subscribing to the UNFCCCs Twitter page to keep abreast with the
proceedings.

It is important to consider the contributions of the relatively new ICTs which have in
recent times, been able to facilitate and expand the scope of negotiations. For example,
countries unable to allocate representatives and provide the presence of delegations to
attend the conferences, could still participate in talks through the utilization of the
Internet. The Internet allows for verbal communication and it was used to provide an
opportunity for direct contact between government officials, their secretariats and those
present at Warsaw.

So too, the use of social media and social networking sites to carry out negotiations is a
fairly new and innovative tool. It can be said that members of the public and outside
spectators of the conference could readily access to the happenings. This would allow
members of the public to be privy to all the information presented at the conference as
well. Additionally, user interfaces such as Twitter, could act as tool to ensure fast
communication, and easier interaction to countries involved in negotiations. The use of
Twitter in COP19 made conference hosts easily reachable by their Twitter handles and

this could only see positive benefits for faster communication among conference
participants.

Orlikowski (2000) views the Internet and ICT use in negotiations as being crucial in
explaining the interplay between technology and organizational continuity and/ or
change. The Internet has proven to be quite useful in its contributions to the Warsaw
Conference and it can be applauded that this conference has integrated technology into
the process of negotiations. It is in the hope that this could perhaps encourage future
usage of the Internet at other conferences, as other host countries try to emulate this
practice.

Conclusions
Perhaps it can be said that the nature of Climate Change has made it a relatively touchy
topic, one in which it has been significantly difficult in achieving one set consensus. It
would be audacious to assume that the Warsaw Conference (2013) adequately and
sufficiently dealt with this crisis. At present, there is no clear picture or no end in sight for
reducing the impacts of climate change on the global scale. It can be said that even
though the Warsaw talks of 2013 were important for gaining some headway in addressing
the issue, it is in no way, form or fashion the final step of the negotiations toward a
sustainable future for the world.

It is in the belief also that economically advanced, sizeable nations play notably the
biggest hand in the contributions to emissions affecting climate change and global

warming. Yet, they are not penalized for their actions. So too, lesser- developed nations
continue to suffer as a result of climate change, while developed nations escape scot free
from the effects of climate change. Conferences such as these are, as aforementioned,
headed by powerful nations and as such as power divide is created among nations. Those
heading the conferences can determine the outcomes of negotiation talks, which do not
necessarily consider sufficiently, the needs of those actually suffering at the mercy of
climate change.

Thus far, climate change conferences, spanning from the Kyoto Protocol (1988), to the
Warsaw Conference (2013) have all seemed to focus largely on adapting to the damage
already done by climate change. Perhaps it is too ambitious, now at least, to achieve
means by which to reverse and reduce the already-occurring effects of climate change. As
far as Paris (2015) goes, one could only speculate what would be the outcome of these
talks. It can be assumed that Paris (2015) talks will only consolidate already existing
measures taken to counteract climate change. It is in the hopes that participants involved
in Paris (2015) would have made some progress since 2013 in developing solutions to
address the climate change and global warming crises. Hopefully, future talks would lead
to significant progress in counteracting the challenges associated with this issue. Climate
change is not likely to change or reverse in this century at the very least and as such, it
will serve as an area for which much action would be needed to fix and conquer in times
to come.

Works Cited
Cienski, Jan. "Leaders Gather in Warsaw for Climate Change Negotiations FT.com." The Financial Times Ltd. 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
"European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press Release - EU
Welcomes Progress on International Climate Action at Warsaw Conference."
European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press Release - EU Welcomes
Progress on International Climate Action at Warsaw Conference. Web. 20
Nov. 2015.
Orlikowski, Wanda J. Proceedings of the Twenty First International
Conference on Information Systems. Atlanta, GA: Association for
Information Systems, 2000. Print.
"The Politics of Climate Change." En Gb. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
"UN Negotiations and Other International Fora." - European Commission.
Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
"Warsaw Climate Change Conference - November 2013." Warsaw Climate
Change Conference - November 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
"Warsaw Climate Conference - Outcomes." Warsaw Outcomes. Web. 20
Nov. 2015.
Zartman, I. William, and Maureen R. Berman. The Practical Negotiator.
New Haven: Yale UP, 1982. Print.