Salā George Carter

Department of Pacific Affairs

Coral Bell School of Asian and Pacific Affairs, CAP

The Australian National University

From Sinking to Syncing:

Negotiating a climate

consensus, and regional

coalition behaviour of Pacific

Island states

“In 2015, the Pacific Island Countries, being the frontline

states in the fight against climate change, were

instrumental in concluding one of the toughest ever

global negotiations for the Paris Agreement.

Collectively, the Pacific Leaders and their

delegations doggedly pursued our region’s priorities

until we were able to make the world see climate change

through our eyes, as the most vulnerable communities to

climate change impacts.”

Tuilaepa Aiono Dr. Sailele Malielegaoi

Prime Minister of Samoa

VUW Pacific Climate Change Conference

February 21, 2018

2

3

“there has been a failure of traditional diplomacy at the UN ...

we need a new brand of diplomacy ... one voice diplomacy”

Foreign Minister Tony de Brum,

Marshall Islands

“we need to establish alliances that are

non-traditional, that serve our best interest”

President Anote Tong,

Kiribati

“ Pacific negotiators need to be in sync at the UNFCCC”

Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga

Tuvalu

Puzzle: SYNC?

– Multilateral climate change negotiations

– Pacific Islands states involvement in climate negotiations?

– Pacific Islands regional solidarity?

– State national climate-interest?

– Inside Negotiations: unpacking the ‘state’, people,

relationships, strategies, the politics?

– Processes and Mechanics of Building and

Reaching Consensus

4

• Cook Islands

• Fiji

• Kiribati

• Marshall Islands

• F.S Micronesia

• Nauru

• Niue

• Palau

• Papua New Guinea

• Samoa

• Solomon Islands

• Tonga

• Tuvalu

• Vanuatu

Research Question

In multilateral climate change negotiations, how do states

participate building and reaching consensus?

In multilateral climate change negotiations, how do (small Pacific

island) states participate building and reaching consensus?

- Who are the actors that are influential in the negotiation process?

- What are the negotiation activities (monitoring, coordinating and

bargaining) they employ in building consensus?

-What states (and their actors) are influential at the consensus point or

the final moments in concluding an agreement?

5

MethodologyInductive qualitative methodology utilising principles from following:

– Process Tracing

• causal inference/ causes-of-effect: variables in negotiation process that

enable consensus (usefulness in unpacking historical narratives and

decision making)

• positivist hypotheses on existing consensus decision making

– Global Political Ethnography

• multi-sited and multi-level policy formulation and negotiation

• impact of (local and) actors in international policy making (and

implementation)

– Talanoa Method

methods of (cultural empathetic reciprocal relationship of the participant and the

researcher the complexity of cultural and political lived realities of participants for

flexible opened-ended discussions ‘talanoaga’

6

SOURCES:

• Document Analysis:

UNFCCC official, ENB

reports, blogs and

media

• Participant

Observation field notes

9 sites/ forums

• Talanoaga: 67

accounts (35 people)-

informal corridor talks

7

International UNFCCC Road

(Formal Process)

• Jan- Geneva Text ADP-8

• Jun- Bonn Session ADP-9

• Aug- Bonn Session ADP 10

• Oct- Bonn Session ADP 11

• Dec- Paris ADP 12

Regional Road (Informal Process)

• April- Liufou (Oceania 21)

• April- HLSM (SPREP Pacific Climate

Change Roundtable

• May- PALM 7 (Japan)

• July- Boknake Haus (MSP)

• July-Taputapuitea (PLG)

• August- SPREP meeting

• August- IPIC (India)

• Sept- Suva (PIDF)

• Sept- SIS Pacific (PIF SIS)

• Sept- Port Moresby (PIF)

• November- HLSM (SPREP)

• November- PSIDS New York

• November- CHOGM

• November- France-Oceania Summit

December COP 21- PARIS

Multilateral Consensus Decision Making Literature

• Psychology/Anthropology/Sociology- Meeting Science (conceptualising consensus in

multilateral meeting context)

– Consensus is not Unanimity, Avoidance ‘voting’;

– Interactional Consensus Participants determine when and where consensus exits;

– Absence of opposition (agreeing not to disagree, can live with decision)

– Logic of Consent (to finalise, continue to cease)

• International Relations- Decision Making Theories and Multilateral Studies

– Decision Making Theories (Individual/Cognitive, Small Group, Game Theory)

– Procedural/Process Norm since post 1945 with voting; but preferred procedure over voting since

1970’s to present

– Consensus, irrespective of power dynamics, controlled by minority in disagreement

– UNFCCC regime no consensus on consensus procedure; regime of consensus

8

• Diplomatic Studies: Negotiation Analysis (integrative analysis and phases of

negotiations)

– Consensus is the act or practice of negotiation; negotiation is consensus (multi-, many);

compromise (bi-)

– Achieved through incremental participation, or logic of consent in various phases

– Multilateral consensus achieve “lowest common denominator agreements”

• Pacific Studies/Political Science (idiosyncratic practices Pacific consensus?)

– ‘Pacific Way’ Mara and elite decision making process at regional forums, compromise,

‘Islander Way’ and special political relations with Australia NZ

– ‘Melanesian Way’ of Consensus (blame and apology, before agreement)

– Compromise, solidarity or ‘unanimous compromise

9

Multilateral Consensus Decision Making Literature

Multilateral Consensus Framework Negotiation Integrative analysis emphasis on

negotiation phases, actors, and their activities

10

Sites1. UNFCCC ADP

2. PIDF

3. SIS

4. PIF

5. UNFCCC COP21Paris

Phases(Touval, Zartman)

• Pre-

negotiations

• Negotiations

• Agreement

• Actors- Coalition or political

groupings of countries

- State Delegation Position

- Leader/ Lead negotiator

(Individual)

• Activities(Druckman)

- Monitoring

- Coordinating

- Persuasive Debates

- Bargaining

Phases Actors Activities

Building

Consensus

Pre-negotiation

(Informal)

-Participants agreed;

Coalitions emerge

-Role Differentiation; leaders and

mediators

Leaders

State Delegations

Coalitions

Monitoring and

Coordinating

Informal Networking

Negotiation Stage

(Formal)

-Exchange of Information

-Explore Alternative Package

-Tentative Agreement

Leaders

State Delegations

Coalitions

Small ‘Coalescence

Groups’

Monitoring and

Coordinating

Persuasive Debates

Bargaining

Informal Networking

Reaching

Consensus

Agreement Stage

-Last Minute Scenario

-Consensus Point

Leaders

State Delegations

Small ‘Coalescence

Group’

Monitoring and

Coordinating

Bargaining

Informal Networking

11

Multilateral Consensus Framework

UNFCCC and the Pacific Islands• Pacific Islands in UNFCCC 1990-2014

– Alliance of Small Island States 1990 (leadership and formation, agenda

setting, ‘moral conscience’ and borrowed power)

– Other: G-77 and China (Fiji, Samoa PNG),

Least Developing Countries (2000 Tuvalu Solomons (Samoa)),

Coalition of Rainforests (2004 Papua New Guinea)

Climate Vulnerable Forum (2009 Kiribati)

Cartagena Dialogue (2010 Marshall Island)

– SIDS seat in the Bureaux (always Pacific) and special committees

• Climate Change and Regionalism- Forum Communique and multiple declarations since 1988

- SPREP climate science and technical (COPs support)

- Climate Change Action Plans and

12

Regional Politics: Climate Change Solidarity 2015

13

Organisation Declaration Date Participating Members

Melanesian Spearhead

Group

MSG Declaration on Environment and

Climate Change

2013 Fiji, PNG, Solomons, Vanuatu

Pacific Islands Forum Majuro Declaration for Climate Leadership 2013 Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall

Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon

Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, VanuatuAustralia, New Zealand

Oceania 21 Lifou Declaration “Paris 2015: Save

Oceania”

April Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, French Polynesia,

Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, Palau, Samoa,

Solomon Islands

Niue*, Palau*, Tokelau*, Vanuatu* Timor Leste, Wallis Futuna

Micronesian Presidents’

Summit

Boknake Haus Declaration July Marshall, Palau, FS Micronesia

Polynesian Leaders’

Summit

Taputapuatea Polynesian Leaders

Declaration on Climate Change

July Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu,

American Samoa, French Polynesia, Tokelau

Pacific Islands

Development Forum

Suva Declaration on Climate Change Septe

mber

Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall

Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu,

Vanuatu**

French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Timor Leste, Tokelau

Pacific Islands Forum

Smaller Island States

Smaller Island States Leaders’

Declaration

Septe

mber

Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Tuvalu

Pacific Island Forum Pacific Island Forum Leaders Declaration

on Climate Action

Septe

mber

Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall

Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon

Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Australia, New Zealand

The 14 Pacific island states who are signatory to UNFCCC are emphasised in BOLD

*Attended the Oceania 21 meeting but did not sign the final agreement. France, Australia and New Zealand representatives were also present as observers**Notable absence of Niue, Palau and Samoa at the Pacific Islands Development Forum

1. ADP 2-8 Bonn (June)- FOCUS: Coalition Consensus

- Mechanics of Participating in Coalitions

• Pre-negotiations (5days)

– Coalitions: AOSIS, G-77, CfRN, Cartagena (LDC)

• Negotiations (10 days)

– Formal: Contact Group

– Informal: 12 Facilitated Negotiation Groups and spinfoffs

• Agreement: Outcome: Mandate to continue negotiations

Inside Accounts

1. Coalition Consensus- cohesiveness and politics in coalitions; focus and structures, coordination groups,

and critical role of lead coordinators

2. Pacific SPREP/SIDS Collective- informal chambers, information sharing position - but without a political

mandate to work as a regional grouping; inspirations and challenges: regional architecture, consistent,

regional vs NGO consultant vs New York missions

– Pacific: SPREP informal information sharing and challenges from regional architecture

14

• Focus: Inclusive Discussion (Talanoa) Consensus

Pre-negotiations (2 days plus months of circulation)

• Draft text PSIDS New York and circulated since July, Email Text drafts to focal points Senior Officials Committee

(Aug 31-Sept 1)- text finalized for Council approval

Negotiations (2 days)

• 8 drafts sent around Open and inclusive town-hall style seminar forums (all sectors including development partners

• COP 21 Strategy

• Amendments to text emailed to Secretariat daily

Agreement

• Council approval

• Outcome: Suva Declaration

Inside Accounts

• Inclusive Open Deliberative forums

-Little to no negotiations- deliberative, mutual understading

• Role of Senior Officials Committee

• Open delibertion, closed decision making– Small number of technical officials, support of NGOs

15

2. Pacific Islands Development Forum (Sept 2-4)

Focus: Discussion (Urgent) Consensus

Pre-negotiations (2 hours)

- Climate change not the only priority: Health, Transportation and Finance

- No text before Sept 7the leaders set the original text

- Leaders morning session- calls for officials to draft a SIS on the 1.5 LTTG issue

- Suggestions by leaders, urgency to re-affirm Suva Declaration

- Attempts to make contact with Bonn and capital for technical expertise

Negotiations (2 hours)

- Officials drafting between 12pm-2pm lunch hour drafted declaration

- Reverted back to leaders for approval at 2p

Agreement

- Smaller Island States Leaders’ Port Moresby Declaration on Climate Change

Inside Accounts

= Top-down declaration, influenced by leaders but driven by SIS Officials

16

3. PIF Smaller Islands States (Sept 7)

Focus: Closed Discussion/Negotiated Consensus)

Pre-negotiations (three weeks- online)

- Drafted Forum Officials Committee (August12/13), email

Negotiations (2 days)

- Draft Committee Sept 8 track changes and streamline text

- Draft Committee Sept 9 (1.00pm) language touch up

- Draft Committee Sept 9 (8.30pm) a new revised text, last munite

Plenary: mobilize a strategy and give mandate for One CROP Pacific COP 21 Team

- Leaders Retreat to endorse the final language and text (closed session) only Leaders, plus Sec General

and Dep Sec.

Agreement

- PIF Leaders Declaration on Climate Change Action

Inside Acounts:

Negotiations within the Forum Officials- the influential role of technical negotiators

Leaders Tuvalu and RMI persisting for political mandate for taskforce

CROP One Team willingness open participation.

17

4. PIF Leaders (Sept 8-10)

UN international diplomatic/political level

**Pacific Small Islands Developing States (New York)

-with AOSIS and Islands’ First

18

Regional Technical Level

**SPREP High Level Support Mechanism

-with Climate Analytics (Science)

19

5. UNFCCC COP21Pre-negotiation (5 days)

- Coalition coordination- to complete

- Pacific SIDS CROP Team Plus

Negotiation

- High Level Leaders Foumf

- ADP 2-12 (Nov 29-Dec 5)

- 48 pages, still no agreement

- Pacfic SIDS CROP Team Plus

Agreement

- Comité de Paris (Dec 7-12)

- no longer coalitions but individual states take the lead- states with disagreement become

prominent

- Consensus Point (Dec 10, 11, 12)

- Role

Paris Agreement (from 92 to 25 pages)

20

21

Pacific SIDS and CROP Plus

-38,000

delegates

15,000 officials

375 Pacific

(multi-actor),

but only less

than 50

engaged in the

process right

-Coalition leads

and recognition

by the

Presidency

Tuvalu-United States: Loss and Damage

• After affirming G-77 and China support in ADP 2-10

(Oct); the text of LD was then only negotiated in on Dec

10.

• Bilateral of two extremes: U.S.- Tuvalu

• working against “holding position”

22

Marshall Islands-

High Ambition Coalition:

LTTG 1.5- working with countries outside of coalition divide

- working with

Multilateral Consensus TypologyConsensus Forum Actors Activities Consensus Point

Coalition Consensus ADP2-8 Technical Negotiators Bottom-Up; Coordination,

Monitoring Bargaining

1 hour final plenary

- Consent to Continue

Inclusive Discussion

Consensus

PIDF Leaders, Govt Official, Private

and CSO (Technical

negotiators)

Bottom-Up; Planning,

Coordination , Monitoring

1 day Forum Officials

- Consent to Act

Closed Discussion

Consensus

PIF SIS Leaders, Govt Officials

(Technical negotiators)

Top-Downp; Proactive 2 hours lunch (before

Leaders endorsement)

-Conesnt to Negotiate

Officials, Leaders

Consensus

PIF Leaders Leaders, Govt Officials

(Technical negotiators)

Bottom-Up;

Proactive

Coordination ,Monitoring

Bargaining

3 hour night drafting

session (night before

Leaders Retreat)

- Consent to Act

Technical, Officials and

Leaders

COP21 Technical negotiators, Leaders Bottom-Up; Proactive

Coordination Monitoring

Bargaining

3 days (and plenary)

- Consent to act and

conclude - continue

23

“Consensus: the influence and power of the minority”

- Actors:• Coalitions

- prevalent in the informal process actual negotiations, carry positions

- lead coorinators

- Coalitions (G-77, LDC, CfRN, AOSIS---Pacific SIDS)

• State (delegations)

– State interest- PNG in PIF, Fiji PIDF, Tuvalu and RMI in COP21

• Leaders

– Sopaaga, De Brum, Tong and Remengsau

– Political mandate

• Technical Negotiators (Climate Negotiator Network)

- technical (scientific, law, and political strategists)

- government official, NGO consultants, regional servants, academia

Small core group influences policy agenda and influential in Pacific islands

climate change in region and technical negotiators of UNFCCC

24

25

“Consensus: the influence and power of the minority”

- Activities: importance of a political mandate that allows a taskforce (only

received after PIF)

- : working as a standalone group versus working with AOSIS. The importance

of a regional mechanism in order to prepare- technical receiving

- specialised technical language, text manipulation, technology forums of

coordination, ‘secret side’ meetings deals, strategies of blocking bigger

states, dealing with coalitions, cultural to garner coalition support, perceived

weakness and inadequacy of decision making process both in region and

international process

- Unconsciously the group of UNFCCC technical negotiators not only

international policy formulation but also slow implementation

26