Disenfranchisement of Countries and Civil Society at COP-15 in Copenhagen

Abstract

Civil society organizations were disenfranchised, as were many countries, at COP-15 in Copenhagen in December 2009. The main forces that contributed to this disenfranchisement were not, however, increased registration and the merging of movements within civil society. Poor planning did contribute to the disenfranchisement; however, in cooperation with state actors, this was also to some extent overcome at COP-15. The unusual process by which the Copenhagen Accord was developed did disenfranchise civil society and many countries. Major concerns regarding the undemocratic nature of this process and the inadequacy of the Accord were raised by some countries in the final plenary of COP-15. These countries were backed by a number of civil society organizations that had already denounced the Accord as a non-deal, contributing to the COP not adopting the Accord as a formal decision. The Accord's existence was eventually only noted by the final COP-15 plenary, reflecting this widespread disaffection.

Exclusive Minilateralism: An Emerging Discourse within International Climate Change Governance?

“…Importantly, this history shows the influence of minilateralism on the events at As discussed above, ENGO delegations at COP15 were also highly critical of the unusual opaqueness of negotiations and generation of negotiating texts at the meeting (Fisher 2010;McGregor 2011;Phelan 2010;Rajamani 2010: 3). The difficulty of NGO involvement at COP15 has been linked to the large number of NGO delegates, poor planning at the conference venue by the host Danish Government and a broadening of the agenda of climate justice groups present at the meeting (Fisher 2010 The exclusive minilateralism discourse is in direct contestation with cosmopolitan democratic version of liberal multilateralism.…”

International Socio-Environmental Conferences and Agreements: A Thematic Review

“…The presidential election of Barack Obama in the U.S., the economic crisis and the scientific studies showing the environmental impacts of global warming did not change decisions at COP-15 in Copenhagen (FISHER, 2010;MCGREGOR, 2011).…”

“…This allowed in 2010, in Copenhagen, the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. From economic crisis, academic studies (FISHER, 2010;MCGREGOR, 2011;PARKER et al, 2012) demonstrating the environmental impacts of global warming did not transform the deliberations at COP-15 in Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Climate Conference mobilized the world's population and leveraged the contention environmental problems caused by environmental destruction of business activities worldwide.…”

Climate Change and Global Policy Regimes

“…The potential for non-state actors, especially ENGOs, to utilise these organisational structures to influence outcomes has been much commented on in the literature (for example Betsill 2002;Betsill and Correll 2008;Cabré 2011;Giorgetti 1999;McGregor 2011). Betsill claims that members of the major environmental coalition attending the UNFCCC, the Climate Action Network (CAN), 'directly shaped the nature of debates around emissions trading and sinks, and indirectly influenced negotiations on targets and timetables by putting pressure on delegates from the European Union and the United States ' (2008: 65).…”

“…In other words, these negotiating forums also lack input legitimacy. In particular, the marginalisation of scientists, environmentalists, indigenous peoples and affected populations in small island states means that greater weight is placed on protecting short-term economic and social interests to the detriment of the planet's ecological future (Dimitrov 2010b;Lynas 2010;McGregor 2011;Vormedal 2008).…”