Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 10 Report [08 Oct 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
Norway announces its unconditional 2020 target of 30% below 1990 levels, and conditional 40% target if major emitting economies meet some targets. Some reason for cheer in an otherwise lack-lustre setting.
All text is bracketed at this point – i.e., nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. But negotiators’ hands seem tied.
Technical progress = Yes. Political progress = No. Implies no emission reduction targets, no finance as yet.
Say ‘Ensure’ not ‘Promote’. This refers to environmental safeguards for REDD, but is relevant elsewhere too. Most countries concerned about conversion of natural forests to plantations and watered down text that can provide a loophole for that.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
While it is abundantly clear that the outcomes of the G20 and UN Climate Summit did not translate into anything here, to have expected miracles out of Bangkok in the first place, may not be appropriate. Negotiators are trying to move things forward as they can, and many of them are batting for and sticking to the principles of the Convention. They have said it in as many words. Their hands are tied, and they need political mandates to put anything down on the table.
The nature of negotiations is such that delegates must go line by line and word by word, considering the implications of each phrase in the text. Informal contact groups have been initiated all this week, and drafting has been in progress. What has not been in progress is deleting text. That seems to be ‘hopefully’ left for Barcelona. While there is no rule saying negotiations must proceed as slowly as they are, given the political realities, all is left until Copenhagen (or a miracle before Barcelona).
In the contact group on REDD, a new non-paper is out, and includes comments on changes to governance structures and safeguards. In the discussions today, many Parties raised concerns about the text on REDD being rather watered down. They said there was nothing in the text to protect existing natural forests, and this would undermine the integrity of the work here. Parties also voiced their concerns over clauses indicating that ‘all stakeholders’ concerns’ must be voiced – would this include loggers too? There is concern that the introduction of such statements will encourage logging and deforestation activities in countries where there is a desire to discourage it.
Again, and as expected, nothing of substance happened in the Kyoto Protocol Targets discussions, except for new text from Australia that seems to weaken the provisions of the Protocol. Bolivia called for Annex 1 countries to cut their aggregate emissions by 49% below 1990 levels by 2017 – a five-year commitment period. UNFCCC compilations indicate that the 2012 target only looks like it will add up to much less than that.
On the discussion on mitigation action by developing counties, several countries asked for the deletion of paragraph 26 of the new non-paper, which makes mention of nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric as mitigation action. Canada, Argentina, India, Japan, the African group and Ethiopia all asked for the deletion of this paragraph, indicating that it clearly undermines the environmental integrity of the Convention. Countries expressed concerns over text that may attempt to set top-down policies for appropriate technologies. They indicated that while certain technologies might be good for some countries, they may not work for others, and hence need for policies and technology requirements to be country-driven.
In the contact group on mitigation actions by developed countries, Norway made its announcement to cut emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. This is an unconditional target, while the conditional one is of 40% if major emitting countries meet some targets. Norway’s announcement was welcomed with sustained applause, and the chair commented that this was the only news that had so far, received such applause. The Norwegian head of delegation explained to youth negotiator trackers later on, that Norway’s plans to encourage other countries to increase their level of ambition in the lead up to Barcelona and Copenhagen.
This was the only news in 1b (ii), since Parties already seemed to be in the return-home mode. There was silence all around, and the chair suggested that an informal meeting in a smaller contact group be scheduled immediately.
Focus on the GOI
On developing country mitigation action, India asked for the inclusion of ‘high-growth’ everywhere there was reference to ‘low-carbon’ or ‘low-emission’ in order to emphasise the need for rapid development. Indian negotiator, R.R. Rashmi indicated that text on market mechanisms did not belong in developing country mitigation action, since this was a way for developed countries to meet their targets, but was not in the interest of developing countries. On MRV, he said supported and unsupported actions must be dealt with separately.
On REDD, India said there is concern about the watered down nature of the text on environmental safeguards as well as social safeguards. Indicating that there is a need to send out a clear message to the outside world that the conservation of natural forests is an important issue. They also indicated that Sustainable Forest Management was not the same as Sustainable Management of Forests, and the need to distinguish between the two.
Leave a Reply