Here’s a story you may not have heard.

The world’s biggest party is happening right now. Everybody’s invited and they’re having an absolute ball.

The eyes of the world are on Vancouver this fortnight as the world’s most accomplished and experienced performers go into action after months of painstaking practice.

I am not talking however about the world’s greatest Olympic athletes, who are going for gold, but the legions of communications specialists battling for the attention of the world’s media during the early stages of the main event.

In contrast to the snow-shrouded ski village outside, the temperature in the meeting rooms in Davos is hot today - and not just because every room was standing-room only.  The first full day at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland has a different tone than the other years I have attended since 2006.  Reflecting the state of the economy and the world this year, people are more willing to ask the provocative questions and demand answers.  As Don Tapscott, author of Wikinomics, said at a session on the rising influence of social media, "Davos this year is framed around the idea that the world is busted.  The old model in which nation states solve problems is being questioned and we're here to see if multi-stakeholder networks can solve problems."

At the same session, George Colony, CEO of Forrester, cited such a model and its ability to solve problems and innovate inside and outside companies.  It immediately seemed relevant to those of us in communications.  He said Forrester coined the term Social Sigma to describe the increasing phenomenon of companies using social media to listen to customers to improve products.   Just as Six Sigma seeks to continuously improve processes, he sees an unprecedented opportunity to use social media to constantly hear what's being said about products and update them to satisfy customers.  Tapscott agreed saying that he is seeing social production fully come in to its own as the next wave after social networking and cited Best Buy's Twelpforce, a Twitter-enabled advice feed, and Procter & Gamble's Innocentive technology for its open innovation marketplace as examples. (I should mention that both are clients of Ketchum.)

In the session on social media it was widely confirmed that open innovation has gained such wide adoption that someone asked what constitutes and drives competitive advantage now that open sourcing and sharing of ideas is displacing legally protected intellectual property?  A few of us offered that "relationship capital" may become a respected measure of value at a company.  As other intangibles, like brand valuation, have gained respect, so too might a company's relationships gain respect as a measure of how well that company taps the wisdom of the crowd inside and out.

There was a lot of emotion around the decline of mainstream journalism. Calvin Chin, CEO of Quifang, a social venture company that connects students with lenders in China, offered the interesting opinion that until now journalism has monetized the wrong thing, namely "constraint and tightly-controlled distribution," when it should be monetizing judgement and wisdom. As major media outlets increasingly reveal their plans to offer paid or metered online content, they will clearly be gauging the value of that wisdom and judgement.

Another subject that raised the temperature is censorship.  In the wake of Google's decision in China, Eric Hippeau the CEO of The Huffington Post and a former technology investor from Softbank Capital credited U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for calling for an open Internet last week.  He offered the view that regardless of what happens in the near-term, "You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Through hacks and work-arounds it's only a matter of time" before people get the information they want.

This afternoon I saw The Economist's report/editorial on COP-15 and the Copenhagen Accord at  http://viewswire.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=VWArticleVW3&article_id=1965089781&region_id=1510000351&refm=vwReg&page_title=Latest+regional+analysis&GBPNL=truealysis which is very poor but mirrors what was reported on the morning of Saturday 19 December, which mostly filed under acute pressure at the very end of Friday evening before the Accord was discussed by the plenary.

I don't disagree with all of the comments. In particular, the funding and verification of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund is very woolly. But I took real issue with The Economist parrotting the line from campaigning NGOs and the 'six-pack' of nations that refused to adopt the Accord that Copenhagen was a failure amd that the Accord meant nothing.

Below is a note I sent this evening to The Economist Intelligence Unit:

-----

Dear Robin,

I’ve just read the ‘wrap’ on COP-15 and want to express my disappointment with the poor level of analysis demonstrated in the overall conclusion drawn about the Copenhagen Accord – particularly the claim that “this limited deal has minimal support”.

Under the UN’s consensus decision-making model, that was enough to prevent adoption. However, according to the UN assistant secretary-general for policy planning, Robert Orr, “take note” has the same legal meaning in the UN as “accepts”.

Chair, EMEA Energy Environment & Climate Change practice, Burson-Marsteller

Mark Twain famously said that “Wagner’s music is better than it sounds”. In the same way the outcomes of COP-15, while messy and minimal, are better and more hopeful than the reporting to date would suggest – and certainly do not justify patently puerile claims of ‘suicide pact’ and ‘crime scene’ from some intelligent delegates and observers who should know better. This is not the end of the world, but it is the end of a flawed process that was doomed to fail.

Like many observers receiving leaked copies of the draft Copenhagen Accord on Friday, I was disappointed to see a steady retreat of ambition and diminishing level of certainty and detail.  Yet the significance of the agreement reached between the US and the BSAIC group of developing nations (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) should not be understated.

While a handful of countries were able to prevent the Accord being formally adopted (just ‘noted’), there appears to be sufficient support for this to indeed be the foundation for determined effort in 2010. Whether that results in a legally-binding agreement covering all 193 nations is a separate question. I suspect we’ll see a search for a more effective process.

Let me list some of the positive outcomes. First, the US, China and other major economies are in broad agreement with mutual responsibilities – the lack of obligation from China was the biggest weakness in the Kyoto Protocol and led to its 99-0 defeat in the US Senate. Secondly, commitment to holding global warming to 2°C, with a possible review of long-term goals if the science firms around 1.5°C.  Third, forestry and deforestation are included, again another big step – agriculture, aviation and marine will probably be added in during 2010. Fourth, through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund there is serious money on the table for developing countries’ mitigation activities – USD 30 billion for 2010-2012 rising to USD 100 billion a year by 2020 – administered by the UNFCCC.  Finally, there was good progress in reforming the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), especially in granting eligibility for carbon capture & storage (CCS) projects.

There is also a process to ensure that momentum is not lost. Developed countries now have until 31 January to submit their emissions reductions targets for 2020 and list the base year. Developing countries are similarly invited by the same date to submit their national plans (nationally appropriate mitigation actions, or NAMAs), if they want to apply for money from the climate fund.  There will be great diplomatic pressure on developed countries to commit to the higher of their ranges – for example, the EU will be expected to lift its target from 20% to 30% below 1990 levels.

A high-level negotiating meeting, scheduled for the first two weeks of June, will attempt to finalise the text ahead of COP-16 in Mexico City next December.   It would be helpful for all concerned if this had a detailed G-20 agreement, possibly with G-77 support, to give the negotiators something real to work with – otherwise, don’t hold your breath for a breakthrough in Mexico, especially given the US mid-term congressional elections in early November.

Can I say that the weekend attempts to point the finger of blame in China’s direction is unwise, ill-judged and unfair.   Last-minute scrambling for a deal ignores China’s preference for predictability, order and ‘no surprises’. Moreover, China’s leaders are quick to take offence and slow to forgive – finger-pointing for political advantage puts future cooperation at risk. 

Anyway, the glacial UNFCCC process; the lack of urgency in finalising and agreeing draft texts since Bali in 2007; the over-hyping of the conference by the Danish hosts and NGOs; the puzzling silence of the Russians; the strange decision of the Danish hosts to attempt to have an inner-group drafting the documents – all, in my view,  were at least equally responsible for the outcome failing to meet expectations (indeed, for expectations to be set so high long after it become apparent mid-year that an agreement was unlikely).

Finally, I want to share the best short film I’ve seen on the scale of rainforest destruction. I found this on one of Marc Gunther’s posts from COP-15 on ClimateBiz – it’s Maya Lin’s film on ‘unchopping a tree’, from the ‘What is Missing Foundation’ on Vimeo:  http://vimeo.com/whatismissing

Apologies for the clichéd title but whether or not we’ll get a deal tomorrow – and what the implications will be of whatever is decided – seems to be the only issue left to discuss here.  The meetings on the sidelines of COP15 are mostly done and the UN has severely cut the number of observers allowed into the Bella Center, so there’s not much else to do but wait and hope (sorry, there’s that word again!).

For the first time all week there does seem to be some progress.  Hillary Clinton’s proposal that major economies come up with $100 billion a year over the next decade for developing nations managed to shift the conference back into gear.  Some procedural issues were addressed as well and real negotiations seem to be taking place.  Yvo de Boer, the head of the UNFCCC, who must desperately want a deal tomorrow, called these developments “very encouraging,” adding that, “we now have clarity on the process, we have clarity on the documents that will be the basis for work, we have clarity the process will be transparent.”

Unfortunately we have no clarity whatsoever as to whether anything will be signed when the conference comes to a close tomorrow night.  Will Obama save the day?  Will he come away empty-handed (as he did when he last came to Copenhagen, to stump for Chicago’s 2016 Olympic bid, which went to Rio)?  Will the US or China blink first?

Whatever happens tomorrow, it’s worth bearing in mind that Copenhagen is the 15^th of these conferences (hence the name COP15).  By the time 2050 comes along, it won’t have mattered if real change took place at COP16, 17 or 18.  These are extraordinarily difficult issues and progress gets made in fits and starts, when it gets made at all.  Irrespective of the outcome, this has been an important – and, I believe, positive – two weeks.

It seemed like ‘pick your theme’ day in Copenhagen: should we go with frustration, anger or hope?  Any of the three could accurately describe the day’s mood (since I represent the Hopenhagen campaign you can guess where I’ll end up).

Let’s start with frustration, the most obvious theme for the day.  Once again negotiators failed to close the widening gap between rich and poor countries.  When they should be working out final details for heads of state to sign, they remain far apart on fundamental issues, such as levels of emissions cuts by developed nations and financial support to pay for fighting climate change in developing countries.  The lack of any progress on these issues has caused many here to seriously worry that nothing will be achieved at the conference.

And that, of course, brings us to anger.  Hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets, most notably outside the Bella Center, where police met them with truncheons and pepper spray.  The anger and violence seemed both gratuitous and genuine.

With consistently negative news from the negotiations and images of violent protests around the city, though, people here remain tremendously hopeful.  And their hope doesn’t lie in Obama pulling a rabbit out of his hat on Friday. Rather, it comes – to a large degree – from small-scale stories of success.  

Sorry this has been delayed by technical problems - this was my wrap-up from Friday.

--------------------

At some point in large UN conferences like this, it becomes a business of expectation management to recalibrate the benchmark for success. On Friday there was every sign that this was a conference at risk.

When two major plenary-style briefings for civil society are cancelled without explanation – by the heads of the UNFCCC and the Subsidiary Board for Implementation (SBI) respectively – you know there is something significant happening behind the scenes.

By the time the latest draft of the ‘negotiating text’ – which will be the basis for the discussions between Environment Ministers and, then later in the week, the participating Heads of Government including Gordon Brown and Barack Obama – it became clear that the aim is for a minimalist outcome. Indeed, I get a sense that Yvo de Boer would be happy if he can get a three-line haiku agreed.

Mid-year the negotiating text ran to almost 60-pages, which large sections “bracketed” – indicating that there are alternative wordings proposed and yet to be agreed. By Friday the negotiating text had been condensed to less than 10 pages, which indicates agreement on some of the sections but reflects a scaling back of ambition – and all of the critical issues remain “bracketed”.

It looks to me like this week will try to get hard agreement on four key questions (and any others would be seen as a bonus): the target for developed countries to reduce their emissions by 2020 and 2050; matching targets for developing countries to limit their emissions growth; financing the flow of support to the developing world (the World Bank estimates that $100 billion a year is needed); and the governance structures for managing those funds.

The other subtext from Friday is that there appears to be a growing scientific and political convergence on the 350 parts per million target for stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is some 40 ppm below where we are today, and could only be achieved with substantial and early changes. As noted last week, this has been adopted by the Association of Small Island States and is backed by some very senior climate scientists.

While the UK’s Met Office is careful not to endorse any particular targets, in their scientific briefing on Friday afternoon (which was standing-room only) presented some grim data on the impact of a sustained increase of 2 degrees in average temperature. While some parts of the world could enjoy initial benefits, the impacts on the Amazon (dieback), the Arctic (almost total disappearance of summer ice) and rainfall/food production are dire – together with the conclusion that there are thresholds beyond which rainforest and Arctic ice cannot recover.

When I left the Bella Centre for the final time, workers were busy laying grit on roads and nailing carpet over the wooden walkways in preparation for icy conditions and possibly snow this coming week.  I suspect that inside the Centre, the negotiations – like our climate itself – are about to get hotter.

Still, the meetings did get back on track.  And with world leaders arriving this week the world’s attention will once again be focused on climate change.  More than the symbolism is the fact that so many countries have given explicit pledges on emissions goals.  These are not insignificant.  The next four days will tell us if they’re more important than frozen toes and hot tempers.

Richard Black from the BBC posted a story that really rang true today talking about the challenges reporters face trying to “cover” COP15.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_copenhagen_climate_summi_2.html

I identified with his take on the situation. While I’m by no means charged with covering the entire COP15 for a major international media company, I can certainly relate to his points about wondering what to attend and when, and the constant race to find out what exactly is going on at any given moment.

Every day, participants receive the Daily Programme part one and part two. In these documents are 51 pages listing meetings (open, closed and open to some but not others), presentations, press conferences, speeches, demonstrations, and panel discussions. It isn’t like you’re choosing between two or three events at any given moment, it is more like ten – and that is just the ones in the program. 

Beyond the official program, there are the spur of the moment demonstrations like the international girl guides and scouts singing in the main hall or the person dressed up like a polar bear meandering by the EU Pavilion holding a press conference with his handler. And in the middle of all of this, there is news from the outside world.  As I was leaving a presentation by U.S. Interior Secretaty Ken Salazar in the U.S. climate center, the impromptu polar bear press conference (see day two’s post about how stunts really do work – the polar bear got coverage http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/polar-bear-warns-obama-about-climate-failure/) was eclipsed by a swarm of over a hundred people crowding around several large TV screens streaming President Obama’s Nobel prize acceptance speech from Oslo. Cameras rolled and people strained to watch the BBC coverage. The polar bear watched too.

Reporters here face enormous challenges juggling multiple events, real news, reporting deadlines and the general chaos that is the Bella Center. Sure, they have their massive media center walled off to anyone but the media, but when there are 5,000 accredited journalists, this exclusive center becomes a madhouse itself.

News highlights today include George Sorros’ proposal to create a new “green” pool of money funded by investing already existing financing mechanisms called special drawing rights or SDRs. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/soros-identifies-a-money-supply-for-climate-aid/

The divide between the developed and developing countries continued, with tiny Tuvalu – in fear of being literally washed away by rising tides – calling for increased action and a goal of limiting average global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, instead of two. Most see this as a very heavy lift, however tiny Tuvalu has become the rallying cry for many activists on the ground.

Meanwhile, developing countries are not too thrilled about developed countries trying to skirt emissions requirements if they are heavily forested and can claim that these forests offset their emissions. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/10/10climatewire-forested-nations-seek-favorable-accounting-r-75605.html

The main issues – funding, emission levels and the divide between rich and poor are clearly on the table now. Should get MUCH more exciting next week when the VIPs arrive…

 "To agree or not to agree, that is the question". Being in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference, it was hard not to start with a line from The Dane. But this really is the question on everyone's lips here - can 192 nations (observed by some 15,000 representatives from industry, media and NGOs) find agreement on at least a framework and some financial parameters to take forward to COP-16 in Mexico City next year? Right now the smart money is on a political deal, but next week's Conference of the Parties (COP) - a typically clumsy UN title for governments - is like one-day cricket: anything can happen!

I'm here for three days as a member of the International. Chamber of Commerce (ICC) delegation, also helping some clients with meetings, media and high-level engagement. So what are first impressions?

This has the feel of a Party Conference. There's the formal speeches in the plenary hall, which range from empassioned to extremely dull, and are the visible tip of a huge negotiating iceberg that is meeting in some form almost 24-7. The iceberg metaphor is accurate in more than one way as progress tends to be glacial, and months can be spent debating the use of "shall" versus "will".

Around this formal conference is a heavy schedule of fringe meetings, press conferences, lobbying encounters and a festival of exhibitions and cultural events - indeed, even product launches. Coming through registration this morning (an hour, which was good - on Monday the queue was some 200 metres outside of the centre and took up to four hours!) on either side I was talking to a journalist with Friends of the Earth Belgium, a filmaker who has a screening tonight about Ethiopian farmers, a camera crew assigned to cover Global Observancy, and a member of China's promotional team - probably 10% of the exhibit stands are for governments 'selling' their own achievements and ambitions.

As always, NGOs seem to be winning the communications battle but losing the policy war. They have the best advertising, posters, booklets and people (in contrast the two main business stands are usually unmanned!) but have little to contribute to the real negotiations beyond sloganeering and mantras. The hard issues now are not about direction - climate deniers are thin on the ground here - but around policy and financial mechanisms to incentivise and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon future. Most NGOs find this real-world discussion rather uncomfortable as it inevitably involves funding going to industry for necessary action in areas like carbon capture and storage, where there is presently no business case. I don't think this is healthy and hope we see better engagement by pragmatic NGos on the core negotiating issues - and that they reflect these realities back to their membership and the media.

The two other observations are that there are growing rumbles arouind liability and litigation, and recognition that water is central to the whole discussion and the global ecosystem. The other buzz topics are the boost that "emailgate" has given to the climate change sceptics; the US EPA's decision to declare greenhouse gases as a threat to human health; and the possibility that Australia might be the first country to have an election fought mainly on climate change and emissions trading.

More from COP-15 tomorrow.(Bill Royce)

Today’s activities in the Bella Center looked strikingly similar to yesterday, however slightly more crowded. The center had a bit of a Santa’s workshop feel with everyone on the ground doing advance work and preparing for VIP arrivals next week.

The rift between poor and rich countries continues to widen, exacerbated by a leaked Danish plan affording developed countries more emissions and dividing developing countries into poor and really poor groups. And a Bangladeshi request for 15 percent of the funds from any agreement due to their chart-topping status on Germanwatch’s Climate Risk Index isn’t helping the situation.

http://www.germanwatch.org/english.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/poor-nations-threaten-walkout-on-copenhagen-deal/story-e6frg6n6-1225808834422

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

While yesterday’s EPA report that carbon dioxide poses a threat to human health gave COP15 attendees hope that the U.S. just might be able to make a meaningful commitment in Copenhagen, today’s news swung in directly the opposite direction with Republican leaders threatening to come to Copenhagen to rain on the climate change parade. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/sc_afp/unclimatewarminguspolitics

And for those of you climate planners out there, buy your Lonely Planet South Africa now – they will be hosting COP17 following COP16 in Mexico City.  Not far enough out?  Unfortunately all we know about COP18 is that it will be somewhere in Asia… http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9tUdm4jkLGHEDB-fHSD9EJU7Epw