From the Copenhagen Disaster to the Cartagena Dialogue: Crafting a New Climate Alliance

This case study explores pivotal moments in international climate negotiations, focusing on the ill-fated Copenhagen COP and the subsequent formation of an informal alliance. Despite high expectations, the Copenhagen summit ended in a diplomatic disaster. A key contributor to the failure was poor process management and the reliance on what was perceived as exclusive, behind-the-scenes negotiations, which sparked distrust and revolt among traditionally marginalized voices.

In response to this failure, a group of climate negotiators formed a new alliance to bridge traditional divides. This group engaged negotiators differently and focused on learning and idea generation rather than crafting agreements. Operating informally and emphasizing individual, rather than national, representation, the group developed ideas without agreeing on them as joint positions. Over time, they would strategize to get their ideas introduced in the formal processes.

The case explores the different negotiation dynamics that are produced by different processes and how one can strategically think about setting up a process that advances one’s goal. With respect to the formal process, the exploration of the Copenhagen failure highlights shortcomings of highly formal processes that focus on positional exchange and the tensions between efficiency and legitimacy in facilitation. The second part of the case illustrated how informal collaboration and relationship-building across divides can circumvent the drawbacks of rigid formal processes, as demonstrated by the alliance’s significant role in shaping a more ambitious international climate agreement post-Copenhagen.