As the climate diplomacy conundrum continues, a look back into the development of the global environmental conflict shows a hit and miss record of reaching negotiations, but failure in satisfying international goals. A major problem is the fact that various countries are trapped in a cycle of defending their positions — a term in negotiations referring to arguing over precise numbers — instead of focusing on reconciling their interests.

Take, for example, last December's United Nations Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen when the heads of state and top negotiators failed to reach a political agreement on climate change. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change required the consensus of all 192 member states. But there was no quid pro quo in the Danish capital. Well, not counting the last-minute understanding between President Obama and the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Copenhagen was meant to set the stage for an international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol once it expires in 2012. The long anticipated showdown on climate change failed to "seal the deal" on practical and enduring solutions to mitigate the global climate crisis.

While climate change negotiations have recently reached an impasse, the 2007 Bali Map, designed in the Indonesian islands, was the first step towards a renewed negotiation process. The small island of Papua New Guinea, located in Oceania between Indonesia and Australia, has been a crucial driver in pushing climate change on to the United Nations agenda and shoring up support for international agreements in the past.

Prior to the Bali Road Map, developing countries were marginalized even though they approach climate change negotiations around the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," which recognizes the differences in the historical contributions between developed and developing countries to global environmental problems. In the years since the UNFCC was established in 1992 to create the first international environmental treaty, global emissions continue to grow at unprecedented levels with poor and vulnerable countries in the developing world, like Papua New Guinea, arguably suffering the most from the diplomatic and environmental conflict.

Papua New Guinea essentially played the role of bringing Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) into discussions during the December 2007 Bali conference. The REDD forests-for-carbon credits initiative is meant to reduce emissions in developing countries by funding conservation, reforestation, and poverty reduction to fight climate change.

"While Papua New Guinea is a very tiny nation, it essentially pulled the United States into the Kyoto process with its intervention and accepted reforestation in exchange for carbon credits," said Columbia University economics professor Graciela Chichilnisky in an interview in her office.

On the last day of the Bali conference, Mr. Kevin Conrad, a member of the Papua New Guinea delegation, noted the unwillingness by the U.S. to supported the Bali Road Map. (The Map charts the course for new negotiating process designed to tackle climate change, with the aim of completing this by 2009). Mr. Conrad interjected, "There is an old saying: if you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of our way." The room flooded with applause several minutes later, Ms. Dobriansky reversed the position of the U.S.

The story of Papua New Guinea all started when Mr. Conrad figured out you can bring value to carbon sequestration and earn five time more money to forest conservation than deforestation. How can a third world country, with perceptions of corruption and a weak position go up against major global powers? How can a tiny island nation like Papua New Guinea carry enough bargaining chips to convince the diverse G-77 and resistant international community to reach a consensus?

"If you can be the small underdog and be persistent in your argument, then you can bring change," Conrad said. In a presentation to a Columbia University environmental negotiations class, Conrad said he had to expand the alternatives in order to gain leverage at the negotiating table. Having alternatives, in effect, expands your bargaining power and enables you to stay in the negotiation. The more alternative you have, the greater your power. Papua New Guinea's best alternative to a negotiated agreement would answer this question: What will we do if we can't come to an agreement that meets our needs? If global action is not taken to multilaterally to mitigate emissions and provide access to adaptation funds and transfer technologies to the most vulnerable, then small islands' alternatives looks very bleak. This is why small islands have been trying to manifest a "snowball coalition" to reframe the agenda, promote consensus in decision-making, and by building allies, one party at a time. "We used tactical positions to show their weaknesses, that is how we started leveraging groups, and building our coalition," explained Conrad.

Papua New Guinea is an exemplar in the way it strategically works to maximize its influence on climate policy. What Papua New Guinea, and other small islands lack in geopolitical leverage and economic powerhouse that other member states bring to the negotiating table, they make up for in their firm stance and unified voice. "Any agreement that the small island states accept would be difficult for G-77 to reject. So in that sense they have decision making power," said Prof. Chichilnisky. 

The UNFCCC negotiations have in a way emboldened developing nations to tailor discussions. Papua New Guinea has been an instrumental driver in shaping the terms of commitments and building a powerful coalition. It has gone through a steep learning curve to figure out the intricacies of skillful negotiation. "At first, I didn't understand in negotiations silence is golden. I didn't understand consensus. If you say nothing it means you go ahead. When you say nothing, then you signal to your opponents you are on your own," said Conrad.

Resolving the climate change conundrum requires sustainable alternatives to meet the challenges and find the common ground. Adaptation and mitigation will be necessary but so is addressing how natural resources and economic growth will be managed in a more inclusive and sustainable manner. Papua New Guinea changed dynamics of multilateral negotiations on climate change from the narrow focus on the principles of environmental protection, to expanding the negotiations to include development and trade. For over two years, Mr. Conrad built a growing coalition within the G-77. When asked what he recommends to other negotiators, Conrad answered: "Sometimes it is good not to be the expert, because you are likely to ask a dumb questions and set an informal process that leads you to another direction. And small victories lead to big victories over time."

Mr. Conrad brought to his side the major developing countries and coincidently the major re-forester (China), the country spending the most on conservation (India), and the largest de-forester (Brazil) by making REDD more inclusive, keeping the language vague and avoiding specificity, and deferring major "battles" for another day. "We allowed everyone to see what they wanted to see. Everyone looked at the prize and could see their face in it. A reflection of themselves," Conrad said.

Post Copenhagen, a fresh look at repositioning the way people think about the causes, consequences, and opportunities created by climate change is sorely needed. But the perception problem is the major battle: convincing all parties that transforming the business as usual will be beneficial for all regions of the world. Papua New Guinea change its perception and demonstrate leadership. Now is the time to re-generate new thinking to overhaul the stalemate and reach a sustainable international environmental treaty.