Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 8 Report [06 Oct 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
Kyoto Protocol: no discussion over numbers as yet: NZ reminds everyone that if offsets are restricted, they will have to lower their targets.
Crucial discussion on LULUCF in KP scheduled for tomorrow.
IEA yearly World Energy Outlook out today: Says savings from energy, co-benefits etc more than offsets additional investment.
REDD begins negotiations today afternoon: G77/China meeting on LULUCF expected tomorrow.
Adaptation contact group is busy – new text out.
Head of Indian Delegation Shyam Saran meets with Indian NGOs.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Progress was again minimal at the Kyoto Protocol targets discussions, with more debates on offsetting and targets. While several Annex 1 Parties were pushing for a greater role of markets in meeting targets, non-Annex 1 countries warned about the need to create supply in the case of carbon markets, and on the need for concrete targets.
Annex 1 Parties indicated their domestic difficulties in moving towards an international carbon markets framework. The EU pointed out that their domestic policy limits access to international markets. Canada said offset limits was a domestic policy issue, and New Zealand said that if offsetting were to be restricted, it would be forced to lower its target further (current target is only 5% below 1990 levels, and includes hotly debated areas such as LULUCF).
On the issue of base year, Canada is the only country to continue to demand 2000 as the base year, all other countries agree to 1990. In the corridors there was considerable talk of this sticky point and the fact that no other Party was requesting a 2000 base year.
On REDD, negotiations based on consolidated text began today. While many agree that forests may not be the ideal or long-term solution to emission reductions, they can serve as an interim buffer solution, and help forest conservation in the process. The largest forested areas – Boreal and Tundra forests – lie in the Russian Federation, and it becomes important to recognize them as a key stakeholder in the process – currently it is the Coalition of Rainforest States that are considered the key stakeholders for the REDD and REDD plus issues.
On Flexible Mechanisms, in the LCA today, non-Annex 1 countries were pushing back against the desire by some Parties to remove some of the text relating to the Kyoto Protocol. South Africa is soon to table a new proposal on the issue, and the United States tried to address concerns of some non-Annex 1 Parties.
The LCA discussion on developing country mitigation action (1b(ii)), the two main issues discussed were the means of implementation of mitigation action, and the agreed cost of all mitigation related actions in developing countries. The EU proposal (supported by US and Canada) to place the finance text in the Finance section was opposed by many non-Annex 1 Parties. There was also much discussion on what text on cost would be appropriate, ‘agreed full incremental cost’, ‘full incremental cost’, ‘agreed full cost’ or ‘full cost’. There was also some discussion on commitment periods (whether to have 8 or 5 year), on how to quantify QELROS, and on mid-term review.
Focus on the GOI
In the mitigation contact group today, India said it was not possible to discuss mitigation separately from the means of implementation, since there were some critical elements in some paragraphs that could not be separated. Under NAMAs, India said two crucial elements were the mobilization of new and additional financial resources, and support for actions based on needs identified by developing countries.
Saving the biggest highlight for the last, was the Head of the Indian delegation, Shyam Saran having an informal chat with Indian NGOs. In a discussion that went on for a little over an hour, he gave NGOs a sense of where the negotiations are at present. He indicated that although progress had been made on technology transfer and adaptation, there was little progress on the key areas of finance and mitigation. He said ‘we have not been able to get far on this front’.
Mr Saran said we are not in a very good position to get an ‘ambitious outcome’, and he was no astrologer to predict the outcome at Copenhagen, but hoped that it would help to address some of the key issues.
On the domestic front, he agreed that it was in India’s own interests to do more, since India too had sufficient low-lying areas and for several million people to be affected by climate change. However, in terms of the international negotiations, he indicated that G77/China were a fairly formidable front of 130 countries, whose demands could not be overlooked simply because of one big developed country that had not yet come on board. He was very clear that India was most keen to keep the Kyoto Protocol, and not kill it. He said that unfortunately, things were not moving in the direction that Bali (in 2007) had intended to put on track. But to move forward and to deal with the climate crisis, there was a need for collaboration, not competitiveness; and to realize that a key issue in this whole debate was equity.
Shyam Saran also, somewhat controversially, called on India’s media and civil society to get behind the government and support it in the negotiations. There was a perception that western media were unfairly targeting India and this was detrimental to the GoI’s efforts in the negotiations.
Leave a Reply