The push to move discussions from the multilateral forum of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to the informal multilateral forums is seen as an effort to unlock contentious issues such as forestry, finance and technology. The argument being that movement on these individual components would help secure the basis of an acceptable climate deal. To ensure that there are smaller agreements, there has been a push towards taking discussions outside the UNFCCC forum to plurilateral and bilateral forums.

The argument being put forward is that the world needs a solution now, but the multilateral forum of the UNFCCC is unable to deliver as every country irrespective of its size or economy can block a decision. Taking discussions to smaller groups would make it easier to thrash out a workable consensus, which can then be deliberated upon in the multilateral forum under the aegis of the UN or the Conference of Parties (CoP). Those arguing for a shift to smaller groups or plurilateral forums say that such a solution to move forward in the negotiations is neither a new practice nor unusual. These smaller groups are constituted by the members of the larger multilateral forum in an effort to ensure maximum and balanced representation.

However, the current effort to move the climate discussions to smaller groups is different. Broadly, the efforts to 'unlock' contentious issues are being taken up in pre-existing platforms or groups set up by specific countries. While the outcomes of these groups will be fed into the UNFCCC process, there are countries that have serious reservations about the process. This was clear at the Copenhagen Conference, where an agreement was worked out by a small group of countries and the final deal was clinched by an even smaller group. However, the 'agreement' ran into rough weather at the CoP, with five countries expressing their dissent. Countries such as Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Sudan objected to the manner in which the group of 29 was formed. Outgoing UNFCCC executive secretary Yvo de Boer acknowledged that the Copenhagen experiment of using a smaller and representative group to break the negotiation deadlock was a departure from practice on account of the manner in which it was constituted. This is departure is what made it unacceptable to some countries.

The current efforts to unlock components of a climate agreement at plurilateral forums could attract similar objections. Among the influential platforms is the Major Economies Forum (MEF), set up by US President Barack Obama, comprising 17 countries. These are the top emitters, which would include the US, EU, Australia, Russia and advanced developing countries such as India, China, Brazil, South Africa and South Korea. There is no representation in the MEF of vulnerable countries such as the small island states or less developed economies.

The MEF's L'Aquila declaration was instrumental in bringing the 2° C temperature threshold to the mainstream of climate negotiations. It is clear then that deliberations at such forums do have an impact on the climate negotiations under the UNFCCC process. The G-20 is another forum where climate change is expected to dominate.

The Petersberg Dialogue, an initiative of the German chancellor Angela Merkel, comprising 45 countries will meet in early May. The organisers, Germany and Mexico, maintain that they have ensured that all manner of opinion is reflected in their choice of 45. This platform is expected to hold informal discussions of six components of climate deal including finance, forestry, technology and adaptation. Chancellor Merkel had suggested a high-level meeting to resolve issues that were not taken up under the Copenhagen Accord. Pursuant to the accord, the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon set up the high-level advisory panel on finance. The panel is deliberating on the issue of finance, a key and important component of any deal on climate.

Experts suggest that given the pre-dominance of the industrialised countries at these forums, there is apprehension of the nature of a compromise that emerges. However, since each of these forums is outside the UNFCCC process, a consensus from these platforms will have to pass muster of the multilateral UN climate change process. India, which is a participant at these plurilateral efforts, has maintained the primacy of the multilateral process. "Discussions, engagement and problem-solving can always be plurilateral, but negotiations must be multilateral," maintains environment minister Jairam Ramesh.