Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 2 Report [29 Sep 2009]
WISE WORDS FROM THE NEGOTIATORS
“Let us discuss FOOD and what it looks like.
But do we get to eat it?
… well, that’s another matter altogether!”
HEADLINE NEWS
Line-by-line negotiations only look likely by Monday next. ‘Accelerator’ meetings may add some momentum.
United States brings up issues of mitigation commitments. Almost threatens to stall negotiations if its demands are not met
Negotiations on Technology Transfer move smoothly. Some reason for cheer. Co-chairs given unanimous mandate to consolidate all of the new text on the section by Thursday.
Adaptation, Shared vision for Long-term Cooperative Action text hits same old roadblocks. Developed countries oppose developing country preferences and vice versa.
Finance negotiations start on text from the word go, differences in Parties’ approach remains. Similar status quo on differences in Shared Vision for Long-term Cooperative Action.
New Zealand may backtrack on already miniscule targets. Sets more conditions for acceptance.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
For some time now, there have been large differences between key Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries regarding mitigation issues – specifically, how each group should address emission reductions and mitigation action. These specific mitigation discussions have failed to progress for some time now, but in the run-up to Copenhagen, it is crucial that these matters be resolved as they form a key part of the negotiations.
Developing countries want measurable reportable and verifiable (MRVs) commitments for themselves to be discussed as a separate issue from that of developed country MRVs. The United States wanted a discussion on mitigation elements common to all Parties, and for this issue to be discussed under a separate sub-group.
Matters came to a head yesterday when the US said it would not move forward on the rest of the negotiations on mitigation unless this issue was settled, and their demands met.
Australia and Norway supported the US proposal, while India led the opposition supported by China and the G77+China. While such spats threaten to stall discussions and get reported as such, they are in some ways a good sign that negotiations are indeed progressing. Unless diplomats thrash out their differences (even if they are through veiled comments), there will be little progress. No one wishes for a treaty or a deal on which everyone agrees meekly, and in which no one strives to achieve what is in the best interests of all.
For some good news, decent progress has been made on the section on Enhanced Action on Development and Transfer of Technology, with parties asking the co-chair to go ahead and consolidate the entire text. Blocks of text will be circulated to Parties as and when they get ready, and the entire text on technology will be ready by Thursday. The G77 and China however, did manage to dampen the spirit of the negotiations, by saying that although all the text could be consolidated, they may or may not find it acceptable.
Other tepid news included slow movement on discussions of Finance, and on what portions of the text Parties would agree to. Here again, developing countries insisted that details of Finance must be out, and that paying for ‘services’ in some sense, must not be considered as charity.
For some time now, the only region to verbally commit some money to the process and through the Convention, has been the European Union (EU). However, many experts suggest the money proposed by the EU is too low. The EU today expressed its belief that much money would come through external mechanisms such as carbon markets and private sector investments rather than government transfers. G77 and China, India and the Co-Chair, pointed out that neither the EU nor any Annex I countries should mix issues, nor confuse their obligations with external or optional mechanisms.
Not to make too fine a point of it, it seems rather clear that while developed countries are less and less keen to talk about ‘differentiated’ responsibilities, the developing countries refuse to talk about ‘common’ responsibilities. Developed countries are also firm on wanting major developing countries on board with legally binding mitigation targets – something that countries such as China are opposing in a big way.
Polemics aside, negotiators are keen to make progress on shortening and clearing out the text. Given the short span of time left to thrash out issues (only 13 negotiating days), they are also keen to focus on the key and ‘bigger picture’ issues, and leave the nitty gritty bits of relatively unimportant text for a post-Copenhagen discussion. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that hard negotiations will only be able to hit the ground by Monday, since much discussion on process, the ‘how’, and on consolidating text is currently underway.
Focus on the GOI
At the mitigation discussion, India questioned MRV and highlighted the need to discuss the issue of mitigation separately for Annex I and Non Annex I countries. This grew into the much talked about spat between the developing countries and US negotiators, with India being a special focal point. The US delegate Jonathan Pershing, breaking protocol, made a direct reference to India’s environment minister’s recent statement, but going further, suggested that the US would be unwilling to continue discussions on the matter unless they got consent for a formal contact group.
Nevertheless, on more substantive issues, India did reiterate environment minister Jairam Ramesh’s statements that the scope and frequency of the National Communications (NATCOMs) would be expanded to each year, as opposed to every six years until now. However, India reiterated its position that mitigation actions not supported by developed country action would not be subject to verification.
On Finance, India highlighted the need for a financial mechanism under the Convention, since there was only an interim arrangement through the GEF at the moment.
India’s position is unlikely to have changed as regards MRVs and legally binding targets. This is similar to what the Chinese may have in mind at the multilateral process, regardless of bilaterals and their own unilateral mitigation actions.
Leave a Reply