The India Climate Observatory

Commentary, action and research on climate and development in India

  • Home
  • About
  • Monsoon 2018
  • Current
  • Bulletin
  • Contact
  • Announcements

CSM @ COP 15 – Daily Reports

December 10, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 13 – Saturday, 19 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    Copenhagen Accord released. Well below expectations – not legally binding, no ‘lock-in’ of targets. But gets support from several regions around the world – a good starting point say many
•    26 nations representative of all regional groupings discuss US/BASIC draft and rubber stamp the political agreement. All in all, over 110 heads of state attend COP15
•    “Copenhagen Accord is amicable – not the best, but a beginning that can migrate to bigger ambitions” – President Nasheed of the Maldives
•    Countries have up to 1 February 2010 to put down their commitments into annexes of Copenhagen Accord
•    India plays a strong supporting role for the Accord. Continues calls for no reference to ‘legally-binding’ in either the Accord (a demand it won) or the two-track BAP approach which will continue into 2010 at COP16 in Mexico

Key issues of the day

In a day on which the 18th and the 19th merged – after almost 48 hours of continuous negotiations- and saw intense high-level discussions by no less than 26 heads of state, weary delegates sat down to decide the fate of the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord was a political statement drafted by President Obama with the heads of China, India, Brazil and South African –and subsequently acceded to by 26 Heads of State and their representatives.

The final draft of the Copenhagen Accord itself falls severely short of expectations, particularly if the asks of the science and the ambitions of the past two years are taken into account. However, those seeking to put a positive interpretation of the Accord point to the level of engagement it has secured from all parts of the world, and – in the words of Yvo de Boer –it marks a serious ‘Letter of Intent’ with the potential of doing for the climate what  fifteen years of negotiations before this have failed to achieve.

What is it? A political statement initially drafted by President Barack Obama along with the heads of state of the BASIC countries – China, India, Brazil and South Africa, and refined after extensive consultations with a total of 26 heads of state, representing between them, all regional groupings.

What it says
[what it doesn’t say in red]:
•    Deep cuts in global emissions to limit temperature rise 2 degrees C. [No specific targets for emission cuts, targets for developed countries and deviation from business as usual for developing countries, no time limit for mid-term and long-term global goals]
•    Peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible [No peaking year despite IPCC guidelines]
•    Enhanced action on adaptation particularly in small island states, Africa and least developed countries
•    Industrialised countries to implement (individually or jointly) economy-wide emission targets for 2020. Delivery of reductions and financing will be subject to measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) as per Convention guidelines (existing or adopted in future) [No details on proportion of offsets, no compulsion (legal) to set or meet targets or financial commitments]
•    Non Annex-I Parties (NAI) will implement mitigation actions – subsequent actions will be communicated through National Communications every two years, unsupported mitigation actions must be subject to domestic MRV, supported actions to international MRV. Action by small island states and LDCs to be voluntary and support-based. [For major economies no required deviation from BAU, details on national MRV procedures]
•    Scaled-up, new and additional financing and improved access to the finance with specific focus on mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building and reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). 30 billion USD fast-start financing for 2010-12, and 100 billion USD per year by 2020, particularly through a Green Climate Fund through a variety of sources. [Proportion from public financing, proportion by developed country, converting pledges into action, mode of disbursing finance]
•    Assess implementation of this Accord by 2015 [still no mention of legally binding anywhere]

While a much stronger political statement was expected, it was clear by the end of the first week itself that the negotiators did not have the go-ahead to put concrete figures down. Arguments and areas of divergence still focused around known sticky issues, and – as it turns out – intense negotiations at the ministerial level did not yield any results either. Ministers stuck to their ‘briefs’ and ‘red-lines’, while still hoping for a miracle from fellow ministers or negotiators.

As Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, a ‘normal’ high-level segment of such a conference would imply that Heads of State would come to the table only to solve the outstanding issues, and sign the final political statement, not sit down over several hours to personally draft the text. Seen in that light, leaders deserve credit for not allowing the climate talks to go the WTO route, and leaving with nothing at all.

A gathering of heads of state was as unlikely in the past as it is in the future. While leaders did their jobs, one wonders what went wrong at the COP and CMP process. Several countries supported the adoption of the Copenhagen Accord, saying that while their Prime Ministers or Presidents may not have been present at the drafting table, their representatives, either through the AOSIS, SIDS, LDCs or Africa Group for instance, were present.

The COP President asked that Parties in favour of the Accord to support it by adding their names to it by 1st February 2010, given that the names of Heads of State of representatives who were involved in the drafting would be in the Accord statement.

Sudan’s direct references to the President or his country producing the document which was ‘murderous’ and a document ‘devoid of responsibility, morality and on solutions based on values that tunneled 6 million people in Europe to furnaces’ did not go down well with many delegations, some of whom asked for the statement to be retracted.

President Nasheed of the Maldives, himself present at the COP and CMP Plenaries,  said that while he would be the ‘first to be unsatisfied’, and that the document was not what ‘we were seeking’, it was ‘amicable’. He stressed that this document was a beginning, and allows Parties to continue negotiations and have a proper legally binding agreement within 2010. Fearful that there was real danger of the UNFCCC talks going the same was as the WTO and other multilateral agreements, he said ‘I beg you all to please back this document and do not let these talks collapse’.

Papua New Guinea highlighted the fact that while Annex I countries were willing to be more ambitious in their targets, the flaws were due to ‘us G77 members ourselves’ who cut the ambition down.

For much of the Plenary discussion, India kept a low-profile choosing to intervene only to reject suggestions by other Parties that the Accord be legally binding or that the outcomes of the two-track approach under the Bali Action Plan would be legally-binding.

The Government of India had secured its ‘red lines’ of not permitting any legally binding commitments or any reference to a peaking year for global emissions.

The wisdom of this approach will be revealed in years to come when the efficacy – or not – of this bolted-on ‘Non-agreement’ in addressing the climate crisis becomes apparent.

NB.: For a CSM comment on the Copenhagen negotiations, please see ‘Copenhagen – Munich of our times’ an opinion piece by Malini Mehra on her ‘Honest Opinion’ column on the CSM Portal – www.climatechallengeindia.org


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 12 – Friday 18 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    Obama walks into BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India & China) Heads of State (HOS) meeting. Spends four hours and emerges with a joint ‘Copenhagen Accord’ text drafted with HOS of India, China, Brazil and South Africa. This then presented to 20 odd countries and regions for agreement.
•    A downbeat last or penultimate day for negotiators. Speeches by Heads of States all day. But COP meeting starts talking about COP 16, 17 and 18 already.
•    Obama calls for action – says nations can act boldly in the face of this climate threat. Offers conditional cooperation and financial aid from US if there is participation from all major economies and transparency in reporting. Convenes two multilateral meetings with other Heads of State.
•    Chinese Premier says China willing to do its share, take concessions on monitoring. Will go ahead with plans irrespective of Copenhagen outcome. Lacklustre speech by India’s Dr Manmohan Sing, restating well-known positions. Brazil’s President Lula comes out shining – wants no money for domestic action, will give developing countries money for action

Key issues of the day

President Obama arrived this morning and cancelled his one-on-one meeting with Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen to go into a multilateral meeting with several heads of state including Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. Obama gives a much-awaiting speech at the informal High Level Segment convened by the Danish Prime Minister, but little new offered to what Hilary Clinton had announced yesterday. Makes a dig at China and says US will honor its commitments.

The Heads of State of the ‘make-or-break’ nations – United States and China also met for an hour before the informal high-level meet. While a White House official said ‘they made progress’, details of their discussions are not known. However, it is reported that the two leaders asked their negotiators to have a one-on-one after the meeting to follow up.

High drama and a turning point took place in an action-packed day (and night), when President Obama strode into a meeting of the Heads of State of the BASIC country group – Brazil, South Africa, India and China, saying ‘we really need a deal’. In an open attempt to persuade the BASIC countries agree to a consensus draft, he reportedly said ‘it is better to take one step forward than two steps back. I’m willing to be flexible’.

The essentials of the 3-page ‘Copenhagen Accord’ were thrashed out by heads of state of the four emerging economies and the United States. Reportedly the US, China and India in the lead, with Brazil as a bridge and South Africa a somewhat conflicted fifth party.  Details were left for negotiators to figure out.

Upon being presented with a ‘fait accompli to the Plenary, angry ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) countries, Bolivia and Venezuela, left the talks – reportedly upset over lack of transparency in the process – but returned to lay into the process in the COP Plenary session.

President Obama’s speech was seen as lacking in ambition and perceived by many as a pitch for US action, rather than providing hope and proving his ‘Yes, we can’ motto. Calling for ‘actions and not talks’, he asked all nations to act ‘boldly on climate change’. However, other than telling counterparts gathered at the meeting about existing domestic actions, and re-announcing Hillary Clinton’s offer to partake in a USD 100 billion climate finance fund, nothing new was offered up on the table. He gave no new hope, and made no new offers.

His speech made no reference to the Bali Action Plan (leave alone the Kyoto Protocol), nor promise to push harder for a legislation in the US Senate. President Obama called for a ‘broader accord’ to which the United States would be a part, if and only if all major economies came one board with ‘decisive national actions to combat climate change’, mechanisms for the review of commitments through a ‘transparent’ process, and financing both in the short term and post 2012.  While he mentioned ‘common but differentiated responses’ (instead of ‘responsibilities’ – perhaps a slip of the tongue), he asked to ‘chose the future over the past’.

Reactions to Obama’s speech varied and the extremes were reflected in Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s highly-critical speech attacking capitalism and the USA where he scoffed at the US offer to help raise $100 billion in long-term finance for developing countries, saying that the US spent more on its annual defence budget of $700 billion.

Despite the BASIC-US deal, the COP did not take up this accord under formal negotiations, owing to objections from Parties. Delegations maintained their positions on fundamental issues, and a lack of consensus meant that ‘consultations’ would have to be undertaken in the following year. Discussions regarding the hosting of following COPs were also among other things discussed.

Focus on the GOI

India has said the outcome here at Copenhagen may fall well short of expectations at these negotiations, but that “India is willing to do its part to meet the climate challenge.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said “whatever emerges from these negotiations must address the glaring injustice of those least responsible for climate change being the most seriously affected by it.” 

While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the outcome from Copenhagen may not be as expected, Copenhagen can “become a significant milestone”. Singh supported the call for subsequent negotiations towards building a global collaborative response to climate change talks being concluded in 2010.

However, he called for three lessons to guide future efforts: (a) sticking to the Convention, (b) keeping the Kyoto Protocol as the valid legal instrument, and (c) respecting the need for development and growth in developing countries. He called for equitable burden sharing to underlie any effective global regime, while reiterating that India has a vital stake in the success of these negotiations.

Mr. Singh said “each one of us acknowledges that those worst affected are the least responsible for it. Whatever emerges from out negotiations here must address this glaring injustice – to countries of Africa, LDCs and to SIDS, whose very survival as viable nations is in jeopardy. We in India are also very vulnerable, but as responsible citizens of the globe, we have agreed to voluntary targets of emission intensity reduction of GDP growth of 20% by 2020. We will deliver on goal regardless of outcome of this conference, and can do more if there is a supportive regime in place. “

In an interview to NDTV in India, Minister for New and Renewable Energy, Dr Farooq Abdullah, said there were no inconsistencies in India’s positions nationally and internationally, and hoped that the US would come forward and play an active role in stopping climate change. He said that while the talks might be failing, the world is still fighting, and the Prime Minister is there to show that “India means business.”


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 11 – Thursday 17 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    Almost two days lost over procedural wrangling. Heads of State now arriving but no text for them to consider. Negotiators not been able to deliver a text due to persistent divergences and suspicions over which text would go forward. ‘Politicans talk, leaders lead.’ Now political leaders need to rise above procedural politics and be ready to take hard decisions.
•    Danish Presidency finally brings clarity on way forward. Connie Hedegaard appointed to chair work under two separate tracks – KP and LCA. No text other than Chairs’ texts to be used for negotiations (i.e. no Danish/ BASIC/ other text to be used). Negotiations finally resume under these two tracks with KP starting first, followed by LCA – as forcefully insisted on by G77/ China for past two days. A victory for the G77.
•    US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, arrives in Copenhagen with surprise announcement: US will contribute to mobilizing a global fund of USD 100 billion a year by 2020 for poor and vulnerable countries on condition that major economies take meaningful mitigation actions and agree to full transparency. This could be the deadlock-breaker.
•    China added further excitement by a significant announcement designed to address key US red line on ‘transparency’ of mitigation efforts. Vice foreign affairs minister, Hu Fei, said China would enhance and improve national communications on carbon emissions to improve transparency – including considering submitting reports for international review. 
•    PM Manmohan Singh leaves for Copenhagen. Says India willing to do more, and ‘looks forward to constructive talks’. Jairam Ramesh has talks with Hillary Clinton; says they agree 75% on 4-point agenda for transparency, 25% disagreement remains.
•    French show leadership role: President Sarkozy makes impassioned, workmanlike speech – issues call for Heads to work throughout the night to ensure a deal is ready for tomorrow. Asks to keep historical responsibility, Kyoto and a six month deadline for a legal text. Says France and EU ready to negotiate and will stand by Africa and vulnerable nations.
•     Malaysian Prime Minister announces voluntary reduction of emissions intensity by 40% by 2020, conditional on finance and technology transfer. Several other Heads of Stats from Malta to Trinidad & Tobago confirm their desire to adopt low-carbon growth plans and make every effort to combating climate change. There appears to be no lack of political will on public record.
•    International campaigning organisation, Avaaz, issues petitions from the ‘global south’ to China to show leadership, and calls on India to accept a global peak on emissions and a minimum of 2 degrees C of temperature rise so as not to be a deal-breaker at Copenhagen.
•    Leaked UNFCCC report adds sobering note to end of the day by confirming what many feared, that Annex 1 targets on the table would lead to a 3 degree temperature rise and CO2 concentrations of 550ppm by 2100. Far far above the 1.5 degrees/ 350 ppm that island nations and 102 UN member states – though not India and major powers – are calling for to ensure their survival.
The inadequacy of ambition coupled with the gravity of failure makes the necessity of success indisputable.

Key issues of the day

The COP and CMP reconvened today for a brief period, with President Lars Lokke Rasmussen indicating clearly that there would be a two-track process to begin from 1:00 pm today, along the LCA and KP tracks. The text to be forwarded for consideration by Heads of State would be the ones prepared by the LCA and KP Chairs, not any other. Open-ended drafting groups would convene with Connie Hedegaard as the chair, and other co-chairs assisting the process. The G77 asked for clarification that two separate texts would be put forward to the Heads of State, and that the KP discussions would begin first. This Danish prime minister, in his position as COP President and chair of the session, confirmed this process point and the meeting adjourned.

In the High-Level Segment speech today, UK premier, Gordon Brown, asked everyone to summon up the highest level of will. He said the task of politics was to overcome obstacles, and the task of statesmanship was to make ideals real even when critics said they are unachievable. French President Nicola Sarkozy, dispensing with diplomatic flourishes, got straight to the point in his speech and stated categorically that an agreement must come out of Copenhagen. He pushed the United States, China and the EU to make the cuts necessary to get a deal and stressed the importance of a strong compliance regime to ensure cuts were made.

In what would have been sweet words for the Indian negotiators, he included India in a list of poor and vulnerable countries from Africa and Asia that would be first in line for climate finance, saying that the country was in a different category to Brazil and China.

With a great deal of internal lobbying from the likes of Brown and Sarkozy, we may see the long-awaited move by the EU to raise its emissions targets from 20% to 30 % by 2020 soon, and an announcement of major figures on climate finance in response to the US offer. The pieces of the puzzles are beginning to emerge.

Several members of the US Congress arrived in Copenhagen today to pledge their support for a global climate deal. Senators Kerry, Waxman and Markey, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all made their presence felt on a day when the sun finally seemed to shine.

In a significant commitment from the United States to mitigate climate change – though less than the $400 billion target set by many developing nations – Hillary Clinton put forward a conditional finance proposal. She said “In the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation, the United States is prepared to work with other countries in jointly mobilizing 100 billion USD a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries’.

The funding is expected to come from public and private sources, bilateral and multilateral, and innovative finance solutions. It is expected to have a significant focus on forestry and adaptation, and will be directed particularly to the most vulnerable countries. However, she stressed that this must remain a common effort despite the loss of precious time amidst a difficult negotiating atmosphere.

Clinton emphasized that a key to successful negotiations remained transparency on mitigation actions, particularly by developing countries. She said ‘if you don’t commit to transparency, it is something of a deal breaker’.

Japan re-announced its Hatoyama initiative, and announced a USD 11 billion public finance contribution towards mitigation and adaptation in developing countries – particularly the least developed. Japan also pledged an ‘additional’ USD 3.5 billion towards a REDD fund.

Ministers will be part of a stock-taking session this afternoon and negotiators will be working through the night to prepare texts for Heads to consider tomorrow – the last day of the conference. In the meanwhile, Heads will have consultations amongst themselves and perhaps even take up President Sarkozy’s challenge to work through the night following the formal dinner hosted by the Queen of Denmark.

Focus on the GOI

Before leaving Delhi for Copenhagen today, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh issued a statement. He said “India is willing to do more provided there are credible arrangements to provide both additional financial support as well as technological transfers from developed to developing countries.” He said the adverse consequences of global warming will impact most heavily on developing countries like India, and that India as a responsible member of the international community, is fully committed to working with the rest of the world to preserve and protect our environment.

Speaking to the media today while coming out from talks, Jairam Ramesh, India’s Minster for Environment and Forests, said he was still hopeful of a successful outcome here at Copenhagen. According to press reports, he felt that “If the US comes up with a generous financial offer, the chemistry of Copenhagen would entirely change. …But they can’t do it on Friday morning when Obama gets here. They must change the atmosphere now.”

Ramesh welcomed the US proposal to contribute climate finance, but commented that the entire process of these negotiations was being badly handled. He repeated (as yesterday) that the Kyoto Protocol is in the Intensive Care Unit, and that if the premise for these negotiations is the demise of the Kyoto Protocol, the process has been very badly handled. In such a circumstance, there is a ‘serious trust deficit here’ he said, and that the start of a ‘blame-game is inevitable’. Nevertheless, Ramesh declared he was confident that the conditions for a political deal were present.

Transparency is a key demand from the US from China and India to ensure that emissions reductions are actually made and not faked. A view increasingly shared by many other delegations and civil society, though clearly a compliance mechanism that must be universally adopted – including by the US – in order to be effective. On this issue of transparency, Ramesh said discussions had taken place with the US, and there was “75% agreement” on ensuring transparency on mitigation actions – on 3 points out of a “4-point formula”.

In a separate blog interview, veteran Indian negotiator Dr Prodipto Ghosh, struck a more negative note saying not much movement could be expected to come from Annex I target discussions under the KP unless there was movement on LULUCF and mechanisms discussions. He stated that the differences between Annex I and non-Annex I countries (such as India) would only be exacerbated in this COP as in past COPs. The coming 24 hours will show whether cause for optimism or pessimism was more justified.


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH –  Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 10 – Wednesday 16 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    High-level Segment (HLS) opens today with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, heads of major blocs and many heads of state speaking. Island nations make impassioned speeches for action by all – survival is not negotiable. Prince Charles warns that ‘door to our future is closing.’ EU makes pointed call to USA and China to show leadership.
•    Danish minster, Connie Hedegaard, resigns as COP President – as expected – to make way for Danish PM Lars Lokke Rasmussen to take over the High-level Segment which will conclude the COP.
•    LCA closing plenary opened at 4:48 am this morning and went on through 7am. ‘Core COP decisions’ and conclusions on adaptation, mitigation, financial resources, technology and capacity building released by LCA Chair.
•    Day mired in lack of clarity over formal process – which text will go through for HLS discussion? The AWG-LCA and AWG-KP texts or another one ‘parachuted in’ from the Danish Presidency? Brazil, China, India and G77 complain about lack of transparency in process of preparing draft text. China said wouldn’t accept ‘text from the sky’.
•    Ethiopian President, Zenawi Meles, uses HLS speech to introduce specific new proposals for innovative financing. Calls for 40 % of adaptation funds to be earmarked for Africa starting with fast-track financing of $10 billion by 2012 and $100 billion by 2020 from variety of public/ private means.  Proposal criticized by some for breaking ranks with Africa Group position, and welcomed by others for seeking to bridge Annex 1 and G77 divide.
•    Protests at the Bella Centre by NGOs with sit-ins and expulsions as entry for observers’ such as NGOs restricted due to security. UNFCCC arranges alternative venue. Activists storm Plenary chamber during HLS segment chanting ‘climate justice’ and anti-capitalists slogans.

Key issues of the day

The High-level Segment of the COP began today, with the Danish Prime Minister, Rasmussen, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, COP President, Connie Hedegaard, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer, Noble Prize winner, Waangari Mathai, Prince Charles and other dignitaries calling for an ambitious and successful outcome.

President Tilman Thomas of Grenada, who spoke on behalf of AOSIS, said it was “not often that leaders of the world concentrate their diplomatic assets onto one issue” to provide a “collective solution to this common challenge.” “Today,” he said “is one of those unique moments.”

Negotiators and ministers had been hard at work on LCA discussions, which went on into the early hours of the 16th. The LCA Chair released draft conclusions on action on adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building, provision of financial resources and on some aspects of mitigation. While the atmosphere inside the Bella Centre was marked by distrust and a near collapse of negotiations on Tuesday evening, the burning of the midnight oil does indicate a desire to succeed.

In a major show of solidarity, top ministers of the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) said they would reduce emissions by 2.1 gigatons by 2020, but do so voluntarily. This they said, while insisting on developed country action according to the Kyoto Protocol.

Ethiopia launches daring proposal

At the HLS session, President Zenawi Meles, speaking on behalf of the Africa group, made a concrete proposal reminiscent of his recent Joint Appeal with President Sarkozy of France yesterday, for fast-track and long-term finance. He also called for global temperature rise not to exceed 2 degrees – a position consistent with the EU’s position but at odds with the official Africa Group position which calls for warming not to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius and funding of up to 400 billion by 2020. (A global average of 2 degrees C would, according to the IPCC, translate into 3 – 3.5 degrees for continental Africa.)

Meles said he recognized “Africa will be disappointed” by aspects of his proposal, but said that he had scaled back the level of funding asked in return for reliable long-term financing for Africa and a seat at the table. Otherwise, he said, “we will lose more – because our best days are in the future.” And because Africa had “so much more to lose” he felt it needed to “show flexibility and compromise.” 

He cautioned, however, ”Flexibility should not be confused with desperation” and must ensure that “all of us – Africa included – are happy” with the outcome and would strive for a fair and just deal. “Otherwise there will be no agreement for anybody,” adding sternly that this was not an “idle threat.” President Meles asked for his proposal to be considered in whatever text the CoP presidency considered it fit. A proposal that was accepted by the CoP President.

Europe challenges US and China

The plenary speech delivered by Sweden’s Minister of Environment, Andreas Calgren, speaking on behalf of the European Union, sharpened the political atmosphere with a direct challenge to the two big elephants in the room, China and the USA. Starting his speech with a reference to the first UN conference on environment in 1972 in Stockholm, the Swedish environment minister noted how Indira Gandhi has attended the conference and made her now famous comment “poverty is the worst form of pollution”.  He re-emphasized the EU’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and to ‘seal the deal here in Copenhagen’,and to the EU’s resolve to keep global warming to ‘well below 2 °C’, and reduce emissions by up to 95% compared to 1990 levels by 2050.

Noting that the EU of 27 member states was only responsible for 10% of global emissions and could not by itself solve global warming. He turned made some extremely pointed remarks directly to the USA  and China on their responsibility as the world’s two largest emitters – winning huge and sustained applause:

“Here I turn to the United States and China. Together you are responsible for half of the global greenhouse gas emissions. You have different responsibilities and capabilities. From the United States we expect, as from all developed counties, a legally binding economy-wide commitment to reduce emissions. From China we expect binding actions. Your ability to reduce emissions will be absolutely crucial. It is promising that you have come forward with your contributions in an international context. However, the world needs more and we are confident that you have the ability to deliver more. Let us be honest with each other: Together
your ambitions to limit emissions will make or break the world’s efforts to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. Therefore I turn to you, as a friend and a committed partner, and I say: United States and China: unleash your full potential and thereby the world’s efforts – make it possible for the world to stay below 2 degrees!”

Prime Minister Calgren’s words aroused huge and sustained applause and the chair commented that they had raised the tone of proceedings. The Chair reminded delegates that it was an EU / G77 proposal -the Green paper submitted in Bali in 1995 that led to the Kyoto protocol. He hoped that the EU/ G77 would be able to lead the way here too.

Small Nations to the Fore

Today was the day of small nations taking centre stage with brave and innovative plans for addressing the climate crisis. From the Pacific, the President of Samoa spoke and said “we will be the biggest losers if no substantive deal is delivered” and that Samoa supported a legally binding instrument to reflect science under the two AWG tracks with a proper compliance regime to ensure action.

From our own neighbourhood in South Asia, Nepal emphasized that it was ready to play its part and even set an aspirational carbon neutral target for the country. Another Himalayan neighbour, the government of Bhutan, had recently announced it would remain “carbon-negative”.  Thanks to the active preservation of the forest cover of the small Himalayan country – which cover 72% of the country’s surface – Bhutan is one of the few, if not the only country in the world, to absorb more carbon than it emits and thus functions as a net ‘sink’ for greenhouse gases.

Arguably the most challenging speech from the small nations, came from President Nasheed of the Maldives. In his address to the Plenary, he called on both developed and developing countries to show leadership in moving on from entrenched positions in order to avoid the collapse of the negotiations.  He noted, “Kyoto divided the world …It divided us between rich and poor, developed and developing. Annex 1 and non-Annex 1. Our task now is to unite the world behind the shared vision of low-carbon growth.”

Nasheed emphasized that industrialized countries needed to raise their level of ambition at the talks and commit to “collective reductions of 40% by 2020, and 95% by 2050.” Stating that small island states and vulnerable developing countries needed it to to survive, he restated the position of AOSIS and the LDCs – more than 100 of the UN’s member states – global temperature rise must be limited to 1.5 degrees C and atmospheric CO2 to 350ppm.

Challenging developing countries, he said they must play their part. “The rich world may have caused the climate crisis, by filling our atmosphere with pollution,” he said. “But two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Targeting China, he called on the country to show more willingness to compromise at the talks. “I am sure that if China shows leadership, others will follow,” he said. He therefore urged China and other big developing country emitters “to come forward with quantifiable and internationally verifiable actions to reduce their emissions 30% below business as usual by 2020.”

The position of the Maldives, and almost 100 other nations within the G77/China grouping, is at variance with the position of the Government of India which resists the notion of a global peaking year for emissions and a limit of global temperature to 2 degrees C by mid-century, and objects to any binding cuts for India although it has come up with a target to reduce the carbon intensity of India’s GDP growth by 2020.

Focus on the GOI

The GoI is hunkered down in ministerial consultations it seems and the negotiations and Plenary interventions were handled by chief negotiator, Vijai Sharma, from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). Unusually for an intergovernmental process, there appears to be no senior official from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) evident on India’s pared down delegation. In possibly a first for the ministry, this crucial inter-governmental process is now very much being driven by the MoEF which in past years has been the junior partner to MEA on such issues.

Minister Jairam Ramesh has been keeping a low profile – no further press conferences or interventions – but told the media today that the Kyoto Protocol is in “intensive care if not dead” since many developed countries were “vehemently opposing” the KP. However, he also said that the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), also among the top emitters of greenhouse gases, are united and are “coordinating our positions almost on an hourly basis”.

This was very much in evidence at the CMP discussion where Brazil, China and India kept following each other in turn – aided by Sudan speaking for the G77/China – to note their objections to the process. Their objections centred on the lack of clarity over which text would form the basis of negotiations by Heads of State. Was it to be the two texts that negotiators had worked on for the past two years under the Bali Action Plan – the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP – or was it to be another text ‘parachuted in from the sky’ by the Presidency.

India’s Vijai Sharma was adamant on this point. He noted that India sought a party- driven outcome, not a top-down one to the conference. He said that the LCA and KP texts under the Bali Action Plans were the only ones “that can guide us”. He emphasised “The issue is about our text – how to protect our text.”

In this long exchange, the only country to demur was the Maldives. President Nasheed made his views clear that the Copenhagen could not “afford to be bogged down in the process, negotiators have been working for many months, but need to move forward.” He openly disagreed with the points made by Brazil, China and India and re-emphasised “ In my mind we need to move forward. Whatever texts come out will be in front of Heads of State… We want process to move forward and fruitful process.” He proposed that the Chair proceed with the process the Chair intended.

The Danish Presidency, was unable to provide a clear answer to the questions pressed by BASIC/ G77 question and Premier Rasmussen left questions hanging with his response that the chairs of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA would be reporting back in Plenary later that morning. He rejected notions, however, that there was a ‘Danish text’ in hiding as evidently suspected by the line of questioning from BASIC and G77.

There was visible dissatisfaction within the Indian delegation, with what many saw as the continuing lack of clarity over the process, and the crucial question over what text would imminently be discussed by Heads of State.

In all the public posturing, however, the reality that many parties – including the Danish Presidency – have been working on separate texts for weeks now went unremarked upon – somewhat disingenously. It is known that the Danes have been consulting on at least one, if not many, texts as part of the Presidency’s efforts to identify areas of potential congruence for an eventual political agreement.

India herself – as the Minister has openly stated many times – has worked closely with China on a BASIC text which was shared with G77 just last week in an effort to harmonise texts. It is clear that everyone is hedging their bets and that public statements made in Plenary negotiations must still be taken with pinches of salt.

The FAB deal that is awaited – a Fair, Ambitious, Deal – will now be thrashed out in private discussions not between negotiators but between political leaders. A process that could finally bring clarity to the process, but also brings with it some dangers. Tomorrow will reveal whether enough progress was made in midnight meetings for clarity on a text to emerge by Thursday 17th December.


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 9 – Friday 15 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    COP President, Connie Hedegaard and UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer signal a crucial point reached in negotiation – with only 48 hours to go, de Boer says today marks a “distinct and important moment.”

•    Africa group speaks of its dissatisfaction with the process and complains about being sidelined in the process, initiates a walk-out of the KP Plenary to signal displeasure.

•    Chaos at entrance to Bella Centre with introduction of pass system to manage numbers as 46,000 try to squeeze into place designed to hold 15,000.  NGOs on verge of mutiny at lack of access. De Boer calls Copenhagen the most transparent COP he has been to in 14 years.

•    France and Ethiopia issue joint call to limit warming to 2 degrees and ensure adequate financing for vulnerable countries. Call for tax on international finance transactions and marine/ aviation taxes to raise innovative financing for climate action.

•    EU Commissioner Dimas defends EU’s commitment to the KP reminding that EU member states have translation KP commitments into domestic law – with many going far beyond KP – and are heavily invested in schemes such as CDM, accounting for 80% of the 24 billion dollar spend on CDM credits. No intention of ‘killing the Kyoto Protocol’ as accused by G77/ China, but seek to build upon it.

•    Jairam Ramesh, Indian Environment Minister calls Australia ‘Ayatollah of the one-track’ for its insistence on a comprehensive, single outcome.

•    With ministers converging, progress on KP remains stalled and CMP is adjourned as Chair calls for a Contact group to progress negotiations.

•    LCA plenary held up as a consequence. Africa group, China and others determined that LCA will not take place until progress assured on KP track.

Key issues of the day

Ministers have begun to arrive in Copenhagen today marking the second stage of this three stage process at the Conference of Parties in Copenhagen. With the third and final stage about to start on Thursday with the arrival of 113 heads of state,  COP President, Connie Hedegaard, reminded everyone that “Ministers would need to be extremely busy and focused over the next 48 hours if we are to succeed.”

She summarized the key ‘five crunch issues as the following:

1.    Annex 1 (industrialized countries) mitigation targets

2.    Non-annex 1 mitigation actions – especially from advanced developing countries

3.    Finance – especially long-term finance

4.    Bunkers (maritime and aviation)

5.    Special circumstances of countries linked to mitigation (response measures)

Yvo de Boer admitted that “haven’t seen enough progress” and more ground needs to be covered. Very important phase now and needed a “step-change” in the negotiations with arrival of ministers. He admitted the process would be tough and that “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” They had now brought 192 horses to water … 193 with the recent (10 December) addition of Somalia which had become a COP member.

Parties continued to position themselves with the Africa Group standing its ground that no progress would be made on the KP unless their fears of Annex 1 countries seeking to “kill the Protocol” would be met. They initiated a walk-out by several African ministers which brought a halt to the KP plenary proceedings. Negotiations moved into Contact groups.

When the KP plenary resumed in the evening – after a four-hour delay – there was continuing disagreement on the CMP KP with the entire text remaining bracketed. Reference years for Annex 1 targets remained undecided and the chair decided to forward options for text to help the AWG KP and CMP to come to an agreement. Key issues such as targets had been referred to ministers for further consideration as these would most likely be subject to political decision-making above the level of negotiators. Echoing the thoughts of many, Switzerland said “each time we meet in drafting groups, we add things, but go nowhere.” After some to’ing and fro’ing, the draft report was adopted with no further objections to be forwarded to the COP Presidency.

France and Ethiopia issue joint initiative

In a move that was surprising as it was bold, France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, launched today an appeal to all Parties to “adopt an ambitious agreement on 18 December limiting the increase of temperatures to 2°C above preindustrial levels, as recommended by the IPCC, and ensuring that vulnerable countries will receive adequate financing to face the challenge, translated into a legal international instrument as early as possible in 2010.”

They called for a “halving of global CO2 emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. This implies, according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, that developed countries commit to reducing their emissions by 80% at least by 2050 and to adopting coherent and comparable mid-term objectives.” Further they called for “the most advanced developing countries” to  adopt “ambitious low-carbon growth plans and actions aimed at yielding a significant deviation of CO2 emissions compared to “business as usual” scenarios and compatible with the recommandations (sic) made by the IPCC.”

They proposal called for 40 % adaptation funding for Africa in light of the continent’s climate vulnerability. A proposal sure to cause much discussion with other vulnerable countries from across AOSIS and the LDCs who seek their own breakdowns of the funding pot. In a move reminiscent of France’s push in other quarters for innovative finance mechanisms to support climate adaptation, the two countries also called for the “creation of a tax on international financial transactions [Tobin tax] and consider other sources such as taxes on sea freight or air transport [bunkers].” (Brackets added.)

The joint France/Ethiopia initiative is sure to set the cat among the pigeons and be seen by some in the G77/China as a ‘disloyal’ act by Ethiopia (a fellow G77 member), but such transboundary initiatives are occurring more frequently now – witness the joint Norway-Mexico proposal for a Green Fund – and mark the slow re-shaping of intergovernmental bloc politics. One only hopes that they bring much needed political momentum to the negotiations in their final days.

Focus on the GOI

Still no press conferences announced by India – only two so far in the last nine days – so information is gathered through interventions in meetings. A number of other developing countries – Brazil, Indonesia, AOSIS, Africa Group, G77/China – are holding daily press conferences but India is communication-lite at this COP.

One of the few visible interventions was by India in the KP Plenary this evening when the country made its displeasure at the current state of the KP known, noting that “We have what we have, but it is in no shape to go to the Minister.”

There were also reports of Minister Jairam Ramesh having snubbed COP President Connie Hedegaard in her request for India and Australia – the traditional developing/ developed country model – to co-chair a  meeting to break the deadlock between countries on the one-track/ two-track approach.

According to Australian press reports, the Minister said, “Australia is sort

of the ayatollah of the single track” referring to the country’s determination to get a one-track outcome from the Copenhagen climate talks. The so-called Australia proposal, backed strongly by the US, Japan, New Zealand and Canada, calls for all UNFCCC parties to put their commitments onto a joint ‘registry’ of mitigation actions. In effect a ‘Pledge and Review’ system as favoured by the US.

Developing countries such as India have resisted this arguing that it dissolves the distinction between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 developing countries. They see it as threatening the two-track approach that had been enshrined in the Bali Action Plan – binding commitments for Annex 1 parties under the Kyoto Protocol track, and non-binding commitments for non-Annex 1 parties under the Long-term Cooperative Action track. Australia objects that this would place no legally-binding obligations on non-Annex 1 parties such as the USA and let advanced emerging nations such as China and India off the hook.

In an attempt to overcome differences, the COP President, Connie Hedegaard, had asked Jairam Ramesh and Australia’s Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, to meet and thrash things through with other nations including China and Brazil. Minister Ramesh then reportedly pulled out of the talks saying he was “too busy” to chair a three-hour meeting with Senator Wong, adding “Penny Wong remains a good friend of mine, a very valued colleague” but he would not be  chairing a session with her.

The move has raised questions about how closely India is cleaving to her ‘red lines’ such that even meetings to discuss non-negotiables become non-starters.

The fear for India appears that even agreeing to such a meeting could force the country to soften her stance principally rejecting any parallelism with Annex 1 countries – potentially the thin end of the wedge to binding emissions targets for major developing countries.

Whatever the reason, diplomatic friction has now been caused and we await clarification on this – and other GoI moves at this crucial juncture – in Copenhagen tomorrow.


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 8 – Monday 14 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    President of COP15 and CMP5 Connie Hedegaard to open informal consultations to address crucial issues that need political guidance.

•    Africa group concerned about ‘falling into the deep ocean’ – stress need for two-track outcomes with focus on KP, LCA discussions later. Call for a resolution on Kyoto Protocol discussions before LCA talks resume.

•    India not okay with six paragraphs of draft LCA text that cross Indian ‘red lines’. Jairam Ramesh says India committed to 2 degrees threshold by 2050 but not the same figures converted into ppm ‘equivalents’

•    Todd Stern – glad Parties are back at the table. US launches ‘climate Redi’ through Major Economies Forum along with Australia, India and Italy to improve energy services for households.

Key issues of the day

Chair of the Africa group in a press conference today said Africa can never accept the killing of the Kyoto Protocol, for it ‘will mean the killing of Africa’. Africa is unhappy with the prospect of a one-track process given the direction in which negotiations have been proceeding the past week. It is also fearful that the present focus on Long-term Cooperative Action might imply that KP discussions are kept to a later date, and by 18th, will be declared as ‘too late’ to discuss.

With no intention to give way on this aspect of the negotiations, African parliamentarians too are backing this. In the halls of the Bella Centre today, there was spontaneous action from youth, Tck Tck Tck and Avaaz in support of the Africa stand.

In KP discussions on Annex I emission reductions, while proposals were being added to certain portions of the text, Australia changed the track of discussions, saying it was disappointed that other partners had decided to discontinue LCA discussions until issues here were resolved. In effect, Australia proposed to suspend discussions in this Contact group to understand what was going on ‘outside the room’. The proposal was seconded by Russia, who felt the main purpose of this session was to elaborate a new approach.

Sweden on behalf of the EU was unhappy that the G77 & China had dropped ‘out of’ some of the work done on Saturday, and that this was ‘costing a lot of dollars of tax payers’ money’.

In the KP discussions on potential consequences, Parties could not come to an agreement on the text being forwarded to the KP Chair. The back and forth between South Africa and Sweden implied there was no movement on this portion of the text. 

In the only-just-ended KP discussion on Annex 1 numbers (targets), Parties eventually moved into a smaller ‘friends of the Chair’ group for further discussion. On base year discussions New Zealand seemed to think that 1990 was defined for the first commitment period but not for the second, and Canada interpreted it as a single base-year over all commitment periods for each country. Both Parties seem to be looking very hard for loopholes in the KP!

Focus on the GOI

Jairam Ramesh, Minister of environment and forests, who is here in Copenhagen discussing the text of the draft Copenhagen agreement, indicated that good progress was made on the text while with fellow environment ministers. He said India was ‘agreeable to all but 6 paragraphs of the 46 paragraph text’ (paras 3, 4, 8, 20, 24 & 39) put forward by the LCA Chair, which crossed the ‘red lines’ as far as India was concerned.

Ramesh indicated that parts of the text which elaborated a long-term goal for emission reductions without any ‘differentiation between developed and developing countries’, references to peaking years, and review processes on the adequacy of emission reduction actions did not provide any alternative texts, and therefore needed consideration. Three other clauses that refer to nationally appropriate mitigation action by developing countries – particularly on the nature of monitoring actions and on finance also posed problems for the Indian delegation.

Indian negotiator R.R. Rashmi from MoEF told youth that the Africa group was disturbed on lack of progress in KP, and would stall the negotiations in LCA until issues reach a balance between the two tracks.

US Climate Envoy, Todd Stern, announces US joins Australia, India and Italy to launch quick-start technology initiative through the Major Economies Forum (MEF). The initiative, Climate REDI, is intended to boost the work of the MEF as a technology cooperation platform. Climate Redi intends to reduce emissions and fight energy poverty through focus on a few key technologies through successful international climate collaboration. It will provide affordable high-quality solar home systems and LED lanterns, and coordinate standards and labeling programmes.

Another initiative announced through the World Bank, called Scaling up Renewable Energy, combined with Climate Redi, will add a budget of USD 350 million over 5 years, with a US contribution of USD 85 million.

 


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 6 – Saturday 12 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    Conference of Parties reconvenes for stock-taking
•    President of COP Connie Hedegaard and Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer conclude informal meeting with ministers and heads of delegation. Despite challenges and unsolved problems, as ministers start to arrive, so does political will
•    Ministers continue discussions on Sunday. 48 ministers to come together from all regional groupings and continents
•    Tens of thousands converge in Copenhagen and march to Bella Centre to observe Global Day of Action on climate change. All across the world, ordinary people express concern and demand action.  The signal that a global political mandate for a fair, ambitious, legally-binding agreement is there. Negotiators must now catch up with public opinion and deliver.
•    Tuvalu impasse: not yet resolved. Procedures and conflicting opinions make it difficult to find easy way out, but movement inescapable
•    Papua New Guinea awarded a Fossil of the Day by NGOs for opposing AOSIS proposal for a legally-binding two-track approach

Key issues of the day

The Conference of Parties reconvened today at the resumed session. In an emotional speech, Tuvalu’s key negotiator Ian Fry said Tuvalu’s call had been misinterpreted by the media, and that his intention was not to discredit the Danish Government. While he was at pains to explain that he was not on an ‘ego trip’, he asked for a serious consideration of Tuvalu’s proposal for two legally binding treaties.

The Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) and Kyoto Protocol chairs gave an update of both the progress made in the Plenary and informal discussions, and on the draft texts. On discussions relating to the draft LCA text, among those not fully satisfied with the LCA text were the EU, Japan and Australia. The United States thought that some elements of the draft text were inadequately reflected in terms of ‘where it was headed’, and that informal consultations on this would be the way to progress. Along with the US, Japan and Australia also suggested that the ministerial level meetings be leveraged to solve the deadlock in key areas of finance and mitigation actions by both developed and developing countries. President of the COP Connie Hedegaard suggested that while there was a seven-page text, she would not like to comment on whether Parties have agreed to work on it as a starting draft.

On the whole, the EU was unhappy with the text, indicating that ‘the text gave us too little certainty that we would be able to stay below 2 degrees’. AOSIS was in favour of open and transparent discussion on the text, and wanted to ensure a legally binding outcome. Yvo de Boer in a briefing to the media indicated that it might only be practical to expect a political agreement from Copenhagen, and for all the legal details to be cast in the next six to twelve months from now.

The G77 and China was confident that the text was a good place to move forward from, which ensures the continuity of the Kyoto Protocol.

At the CMP on the KP, the Chair’s text was an ‘attempt to capture state of play in the three working groups in the negotiations’. The KP will meet on Monday and Tuesday, and submit its recommendations to the high level segment. South Africa cautioned against the KP being superseded by outcomes here at Copenhagen, while the EU said the KP alone would not be sufficient to cut down emissions to the required levels. Several Parties emphasised the importance of retaining the two track process, while Japan reiterated its commitment to the KP. The EU repeated what it had said in the COP, and highlighted the omission of the second commitment period under the KP. 

President of the COP Connie Hedegaard said that while ‘political will is very essential, it is not enough’, but that in the last 24 to 36 hours, core discussions of the COP had started. Yvo de Boer and Connie Hedegaard referred to the massive scale of the civil society gatherings both outside the Bella Centre and around capitals in the world, and that Heads of State have to rise to that call to action.

While she did agree that more commitments are due on finance and developed country mitigation targets, she said world leaders are well aware of the responsibilities and expectations from them on this issue. Her enthusiasm at having a good informal meeting with the ministers was palpable, we look forward to a good culminating week at Copenhagen.

Focus on the GOI

India agreed with the G77/China intervention, and emphasized that the sanctity of the two tracks must be maintained. The Convention and the unambiguous standing of the KP was essential they said.

In the CMP Plenary, India was in support of G77/ China’s position on the KP, on a two track process to continue, with the KP as the legally-binding part. Vijai Sharma on behalf of India said the KP was behind in terms of progress, and that a balance on work was needed.

India strongly resisted a second intervention by Tuvalu for the President to consider the Tuvalu proposal for a Protocol to amend the KP. Vijai Sharma said “We already have our plate full on so many items – so many issues raised just in the last hour .. Our objective here is deep ambitious targets by Annex 1 countries to make headway. .. This moment is clearly inopportune for discussion on this (Tuvalu proposal). Many aspects of the (Tuvalu) draft in conflict with historical responsibility and CBDR. … Not in tempo with momentum of last few days – want to go along with work as proceeding without sidestepping it to consider
other issues.”

The President, Connie Hedegaard, noted that consulations on the Tuvalu proposal would continue and gaveled the CMP meeting to a close.


 INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 5 – Friday 11 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    New climate drafts out – Chairs of Long-term Cooperative Action and of Kyoto Protocol distill main elements to produce 10-page document. Discussions on till late tonight.
•    EU council discusses climate change. Ups its conditional emission reduction pledge to 30% below 1990 levels. Actions fast-track finance
•    Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh talks of India’s plans at Copenhagen. India wants to play constructive, facilitative leadership role.

Key issues of the day

The first version of the new draft text for a Copenhagen agreement on a post-2012 outcome, prepared by Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) Chair came out this morning. Following this, Parties met in informal sessions pre and post-lunch, with the last session reportedly on until 9:30 pm tonight.

The EU Summit held today announced a conditional target of 30% below 1990 levels for the EU, if other developed countries agreed to do their fair share. The Council also decided on a figure on fast-start financing at 2.4 billion Euro per year between 2010-12. On mid-term monies for adaptation and mitigation, the EU acknowledged that an amount close to 100 billion Euro was necessary, and that the EU would be willing to contribute its share. However, no EU target was announced for this. It looks like the EU lost a good last chance to take a real leadership role on climate finance before Copenhagen comes to a close.

The Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) met to discuss national communications (or NATCOMS) that Annex I Parties are expected to provide to the secretariat at regular intervals of time, but could not agree on a date by which the sixth NATCOMS would be submitted.

Focus on the GOI

Minister (of State) for Environment and Forests (Independent charge) Jairam Ramesh arrived in Copenhagen today and met with Indian NGOs and press this evening. He said he had met with the Algerian chair of the Africa Group, Todd Stern, head of the US delegation; Ambassador Xie, head of the Chinese delegation; and Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for Climate and Energy. These indicate the priority attached to these countries by the GoI in the negotiations.

The Minister said that India and China were now working on a new draft of the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) text with the Africa Group with a view to producing an integrated draft text. With informal ministerial meetings starting tomorrow, Ramesh said the draft prepared by the BASIC countries as being  discussed with the Africa group to produce an integrated draft text. While he indicated that people in the room might know more about the Danish draft than he did, he emphasised that India was here for proactive action on an equitable agreement, in a ‘constructive, facilitative leadership role’. While he was happy to have not received the fossil of the day award today, he indicated he wasn’t too keen on getting one.

Ramesh enumerated the issues that were red lines for India, and that India would:

“Agree to any global goal for 2050 provided it makes clear what equitable burden-sharing is”

“Agree to well below a 2°C limit by 2050 provided, I repeat, provided, there is a commitment from the international community for a framework for equitable burden sharing”

“Emission intensity reduction of 25% by 2020 on a 2005 base”. However, he did also say the effort could be bettered if finances and technologies are made available, but that these targets were aspirational.

While India is coordinating its position closely with China, he made clear that the two were not ‘in the same boat’, with India in 5th place in absolute global emissions and with a far lower emission intensity than China.

His brief is clearly to position India as a deal maker, for (in his own words) he was here for a FAB (Fair Ambitous and Binding) deal. That while India is a part of G77, it would engage with all countries proactively. ‘We are not here for confrontation or scoring debate points’ he said, but ‘any here for an agreement that does not violate the principles of the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Bali Action Plan, but not for a new treaty, protocol or action plan’.

On MRV, the minister said he could say quite confidently, that ‘nowhere else in the world is the domestic MRV as aggressive as it is in India’, since it goes through Parliament, civil society and media. He also said he had received domestic brickbats and international bouquets for his positions on climate change, and he rather hoped it was the other way around.

When asked by South Asian youth about the government-pushed report on glacier melt, he said the Indian scientific view (although the report itself had no references to peer-reviewed scientific literature post-1980), is that most Himalayan glaciers are retreating, some at a decelerating rate of retreat than others (Gangotri glacier), and some are advancing (Siachen), and that the link between global warming and glacier retreat has not been conclusively established. However, he also indicated that they would not wait for all the studies to be conclusive in order to take action – that at least is a very faint ray of hope. 

 


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 3 – Wednesday 9 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    CMP discussions under Kyoto Protocol derail as Tuvalu supported by several Parties asks for a contact group to discuss all amendments to KP in an open and transparent manner. China + others support narrow focus to consider amendments. CMP suspended till Saturday’s stock-taking
•    Parties begin work (consultations and line-by-line consideration) on draft texts under Shared Vision, technology transfer, adaptation, mitigation, finance
•    France opposes EU position on LULUCF and is making a submission to EU council for the same
•    Kazakhstan ratifies Kyoto Protocol (KP) and is included in Annex B of KP. Move and targets welcomed by Australia, Sweden, Japan
•    Canada and Croatia blocking single base year in KP discussions
•    G77 & China (in press conference) wants United States to sign Kyoto Protocol

Key issues of the day

In yet another halt to the discussions at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), CMP discussions under the KP were suspended. Under Article 20 of the Kyoto Protocol, any Party can propose amendments that ‘shall be adopted at an ordinary session of the Conference of Parties (COP)…’. KP Chair John Ashe, in a briefing to civil society organizations today, indicated that twelve proposals were submitted by Parties (before the stipulated six month advance notice) – Australia, Belarus, Bolivia (for other countries), Colombia, Japan, the EU, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, China (for several non-Annex 1 countries) and two proposals from Tuvalu.  

On general discussions on the KP today, Kaszakhstan’s new mitigation commitments as an Annex I Party under the KP were welcomed by Australia.

Also discussed under the COP/MOP was the consideration of proposals to amend the Kyoto Protocol, under Article 20.

Several non Annex I Parties were in strong favour of retaining the Kyoto Protocol, and its continued existence with amendments. Australia asked for a unified protocol instead of two treaties, and Japan indicated that the KP needed to be made ‘more durable vehicle and expanded in scope’. 

South Africa indicated that an agreement here in Copenhagen would be difficult without the continued existence of the Kyoto Protocol.

The AOSIS said that while the KP’s legally binding nature must be preserved, amendments to it must ensure the survival and viability of all Parties.

Tuvalu requested the COP President Connie Hedegaard to form a contact group to discuss all amendments submitted to the COP in an open and transparent manner. While Tuvalu supported by Grenada, Kiribati, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, Brazil, Palau, Belize (at which point discussions were suspended) asked for a discussion on all recommendations, China supported by Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, UAE, Nigeria and Bahrain asked to discuss limited proposals that would take the discussions forward.

Ethiopia raised the pertinent point that proposals and documents had not been provided to Parties, and while that would not be a reason for inaction, asked for them to be made available in order to enable decisions on this issue. 

COP President Connie Hedegaard asked for consultation with KP Chair John Ashe on this issue, and to present it on Saturday, considering that there was no consensus on taking discussions forward. However, this move was blocked by Ian Fry on behalf of Tuvalu, who said “there is no substantive or legal reason why we should not agree to those amendments here. So put the proposals on the table. To delay this process gives us little time for us to prepare amendments for heads of state to sign on to”.

With no agreement between Parties even after a ‘discussion in the corner’ for over half an hour, the CMP meeting was suspended. The second half of the COP meeting that was suspended yesterday also did not take place owing to the spill over of this meeting. In addition a KP contact group meeting was shelved owing to the delay.

Contact groups under the LCA were held on all pillars except capacity building. Also discussed were AWG-KP issues of emission reductions and issues under SBI and SBSTA.

Focus on the GOI

In the CMP of the KP, India indicated that quantified emission reductions must be reflected in the second commitment period, and on discussions around amendments to the KP, indicated it was ‘willing to work till whatever time to resolve this issue’. India made no comment on the contact group and interestingly took no sides in the consensus for scope of amendments between China’s and Tuvalu’s proposals.


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 3 – Wednesday 9 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    Breaking: Conference of Parties discussions halted temporarily. Chair proposed a Contact group on developing new treaty (under Article 17 of UNFCCC) as proposed by Tuvalu on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Tuvalu asks for ambitious and legally binding treaty. India, China, Saudi Arabia and others oppose formation of contact group. Think this might imply doing away with Kyoto Protocol in long term. COP suspended until issue resolved – Connie Hedegaard’s team still consulting with AOSIS and parties on way forward
•    Contact group on finance under Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) sees no progress since G77 & China have no coordinated position on text
•    Japan to reveal new finance proposal tomorrow
•    G77 & China sheds light on Danish draft proposal. Think it is violation of principles of UNFCCC – of transparency and openness, reworking of substance
•    EU says leave the numbers to the Ministers.
•    Discussions on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) indicate clear message to reform CDM process, methodology and reflect balanced geographical representation of projects
•    India, China & Saudi Arabia push for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to be included under CDM.
•    Adaptation Fund Board (AFB) reports progress in 2009. German government offers legal capacity and institutional support to AFB.

Key issues of the day

Today history was made in the COP Plenary with little Tuvalu, a Pacific island nation at threat of extinction due to climate change, forcefully speaking out for an additional legally-binding protocol under the UNFCCC and forcing the COP Plenary to be suspended when consensus was not gained in the room. The issue began with the discussion of the legal form of the outcome (Article 17 of the Convention), and the process by which Protocols under the Convention are considered. Proposals had been put forward by five Parties – Tuvalu, Costa Rica, Japan, Australia and the United States – six months ago as required under Article 17.

Ian Fry, speaking on behalf of Tuvalu proposed the formation of a Contact group to discuss in detail, openly and fully, a legally-binding agreed outcome under this COP which would result in two legally-binding Protocols being adopted by the end of next week. Fry said: “Being one of the most vulnerable countries in world, our future rests on the outcome of this meeting … We are here to seal the deal. We are here to commit to a legally binding agreement that will guarantee the future of Tuvalu and the future of millions of people around the world. … The time for procrastination is over. It is time to deliver.”

The proposal to form a Contact group was seconded by other AOSIS countries, African and Latin American countries and Annex 1 nations Japan and Australia, but opposed strongly by China, India, Saudi Arabia and Kenya among others, but particularly by China and India. The fear of major developing nations opposing the move is that established a Contact group to study the matter in the LCA track could open them up to carbon emissions reductions themselves. Following significant back and forth on the issue, the Plenary Chair, Connie Hedegaard, suggested having an informal discussion to take issues forward. However, this proposal was blocked by Tuvalu, who called for the suspension of the COP until the issue was resolved.

Tuvalu said: “We are now bound into one of the most unfortunate processes in the UN: informal discussions on whether to establish a Contact Group. We strongly disagree, this is a core element of the Convention. We cannot accept even to consult on how to consult.  We consider that this COP should be suspended and no other items continued until this item is resolved.”

However, as UNFCCC Executive Director, Yvo de Boer, indicated, Tuvalu had made very clear over the course of the heated discussions, that their proposal was not intended to replace the Kyoto Protocol (KP), but for a new treaty under the Convention, to in fact supplement it. While the KP currently binds 37 industrialised countries to take emission reductions, it still leaves out the United States, and the Tuvalu two-treaty proposal would be a possible way to involve them into the process.

The development marked the first time that an open fissure had been revealed in a COP plenary within the G77 with a bold public stand being taken by AOSIS to insist on their right to ‘island survival’ –  a position many in AOSIS feel has been surpressed and undermined by more powerful countries within the G77. The open support provided for the motion by Tuvalu from other African and Latin American countries indicates that the rift is now out in the open and the many tensions and geographical nuances within the 135-member G77 have now surfaced. AOSIS and Least Developed Nations such as Bangladesh and Ethiopia account for the overwhelming majority of G77 – more than 100 nations – and their calls for emissions reductions, 350 ppm, and financing levels have been higher than those officially adopted by the  G77/ China.

While the COP was suspended and AOSIS parties met with the Chair’s representatives to discuss a way forward, the Plenary moved on to issues under the CMP of the KP, discussing the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). Here several developing countries put forward their concerns that while the CDM was a promising initiative, its implementation needed review. Sierra Leone, Syria, Lebanon, Chile, Morocco and Bangladesh among other developing countries were strongly in support of more equitable geographical distribution of CDM projects. Analyses indicate that 70% of CDM projects currently go to India and China, and Africa as a whole, gets only 1.4% of CDM projects. Swaziland asked (in a request echoed by several Parties) for capacity building and special consideration of Africa for the CDM.

On Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and its inclusion into the CDM, India, China and Saudi Arabia supported the introduction of CCS into the CDM, while several other Parties including Grenada, Syria, Republic of Korea, Uganda and Tuvalu advised caution against hasty inclusion of methodologies that are as yet under review even by the CDM executive board.

The CMP discussed the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB), and the chair of the AFB enumerated its progress in the current year. Uruguay urged for short and mid-term help under the AFB, while Afghanistan highlighted the need for financial support in capacity building and technology transfer support for adaptation.

Focus on the GOI

The last Indian negotiator who was due to arrive was spotted in the halls of Bella Centre today. This completes the team of Indian negotiators – reported to be a total of 37, including the head of the delegation, Shyam Saran.

In the COP Plenary, Vijai Sharma (MoEF) on behalf of India intervened four times on the point of opposing the formation of a Contact group to discuss the proposal of a new treaty. He argued that there is already a protocol in place, and that India does not support the proposal for any new protocols. While the rules of the Convention do ask for a minimum of six months for Parties to consider new treaties, and none of the treaty proposals can therefore be adopted by this COP, India’s opposition may not merely be on a process point. Vijai Sharma said “by asking us to discuss new proposals for a protocol, you are actually asking us to express a no-confidence in the Kyoto Protocol.  We should not and cannot sidestep our own legitimate processes and create more hurdles for ourselves.”

The palpable nervousness in the room could well have been from major emerging economies wanting to maintain a Kyoto process out of the fear that a new treaty could ‘lock-in’ their own pledges and penalize them for defaulting on them.

In the CDM discussion of the CMP, India again with China and Saudi Arabia were in full support of CCS being included in CDM projects. On the Adaptation Fund Board, India suggested connecting Joint Implementation mechanisms with the AFB, and push for deeper emission reductions from developed countries, which would enable scaled-up finance through levies on such processes.


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 2 – Tuesday 8 Dec 2009

Headline News

•    Russia announces 20-25% target to reduce emissions by 2020 under Kyoto Protocol (KP). Move welcomed by many including Japan. Could imply overall Annex I targets for 2020 move up from present 16% level.
•    Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) to break into smaller working groups for drafting. Some sessions informal, some open to observers. Expect text from all areas by end of week.
•    UNFCCC head, Yvo de Boer, confident that Copenhagen will deliver additional financial support for action. Quick-tart finance of 10 billion per year until 2012.
•    2nd meeting of Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), 1st meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advise (SBSTA)
•    Youth get special briefing session from AWG-LCA and KP chairs. Chairs clarify to all media: purpose of this meeting NOT to kill the Kyoto Protocol as reported, but to negotiate the second commitment period. Some Parties want legally binding outcome here, some want political statement, some want single outcome – in any case, need a strong substantive outcome.
•    International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) put forward key concerns and ‘asks’ to UNFCCC, ask for clear overall shipping and aviation specific emission caps/ targets.

Key issues of the day

While the major outcome of the Copenhagen negotiations may well be a political statement, negotiators are a key component in the formulation of such a statement. Politically sensitive decisions on numbers – both in emission reductions and in finance post-2012 will be left to Heads of State. However, the main body of the text is one that must be distilled out of the two-year negotiating process, and this must be done by the negotiators themselves.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer’s challenge to negotiators was to ‘make sure the foundation stones are in place’. He said it would be the job of ministers and Heads of State to ensure that developed country targets were made more ambitious, and to increase the scale of finance.

In effect, their work is cut out for the next week, although in the opening meeting of the AWG-LCA, the Republic of Korea asked what the basis of the text would be, and who would initiate it. This indicates some lack of clarity even to negotiators on where to start and how. While there are several draft texts doing the rounds, it is as yet unclear which ones will be the starting points for negotiations.

At the AWG-LCA, the Chair decided to break negotiators into informal drafting or working groups in order to focus on substance. The Chair urged Parties to draft the text and not prejudge the outcome – the ‘stock-taking’ for the LCA will take place on Saturday.

For the next two days, some of the key focus areas for Parties will be Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMAs) for developing countries, which are supported by public finance (including measuring reporting and verification [MRV] for such supported action); sectoral approaches and mitigation in the agriculture sector; economic and social consequences of response measures; and REDD+.

In the informal sessions on Kyoto Protocol targets, discussions focused on how to raise the level of ambition. Russia’s new announcement of a 20 to 25% reduction from 1990 levels was received with some cheer. Micronesia on behalf of the AOSIS however, continued to press for higher ambition, since everything currently on the table is still only a minus 13 to 19% reduction from 1990 levels – far short of what the science demands.

The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) met to give its reports on scientific and technical advice, and on advancements in procedures in the development and transfer of technologies, on adapting to climate change and on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries (REDD). The Chair of the SBSTA urged Parties to keep the discussions here technical, and leave the policy related discussions for the LCA.

On REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation), many Parties were supportive of keeping most recent (2006) IPCC guidelines on monitoring of REDD. Parties including the United States, India and China were in favour of this as well as the importance of independent monitoring.

The SBSTA also discussed emissions from fuel for international aviation and maritime transport. Here the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) presented progress in emission reduction strategies in their respective organizations. The ICAO announced a 2% improvement in fuel efficiency every year until 2050, while the IMO indicated it would be able to take measures to play its role as a global body in international shipping. In a side event organized by the IMO and ICAO, the IMO said it would like to see some strong emission reduction targets coming out of the UNFCCC process.

The IMO indicated it would like to see some strong emission reduction targets coming out of this UNFCCC process, and for the UNFCCC to set a cap on total shipping emissions. Considering issues of manufacture, ownership and operations of ships being across boundaries, as well as the international nature of the industry, the IMO and the ICAO both highlighted the importance of setting sectoral, industry-wise targets, action for which could then be undertaken by UN bodies IMO and ICAO.

Focus on the Government of India

The Indian government has come to Copenhagen under a storm of controversy provoked by the open opposition of some veteran negotiators and advisers to the GoI’s announced targets. The fate of two key negotiators – Ambassador Chandrashekhar Dasgupta and Dr Prodipto Ghosh – is not yet clear, though Ambassador Dasgupta was spotted in one of the informal meetings in the afternoon. The lndian delegation currently appears to be fielding just four negotiators – an extraordinarily small number given the importance of these negotiations. How is such a small team expected to cover and do justice to the many different meetings which are being held -each of which will required highly competent and experienced negotiators batting for India.

We will investigate this state of affairs and return with further updates tomorrow.

In terms of their substantive interventions in the negotiations, the GoI spoke in the SBSTA discussion on REDD, saying it was very essential (as has been flagged in LCA) that countries are aware of REDD+ activities that stand to qualify for incentives. India requested clear definitions and enumeration of the specific activities that qualify for REDD+ activities.

On monitoring systems, India felt it essential to assess the status of stabilized forest carbon stocks – which should be reflected clearly in monitoring. On the paragraph on independent review, India agreed with the United States on the need and such a process for all REDD and REDD+ activities – as it is essential that incentives to provide financial assistance be based on the ground results. 

On international shipping and aviation under the SBSTA, India agreed with China that regulations proceed under UNFCCC resolutions and take into account all principles of the international climate regime. This move was supported by other non Annex I countries including Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Brazil.  


INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – Brought to you daily from Copenhagen by CSM

Day 1 – Tuesday 7 Dec 2009

Headline News

All eyes on Copenhagen

COP 15 opens with speech by Danish Prime Minsiter Lars Lokke Rasmussen. Urges negotiators to be ‘constructive, flexible, realistic, vigilant’ but still be ‘ambitous, courageous and visionary’ at the same time.

Yvo de Boer hopes Copenhagen Christmas cake will have three layers. Icing on cake = shared vision.

COP Plenary starts the negotiation process. AOSIS urges for legally binding outcome. Saudi Arabia rakes up hacked email and IPCC issue once again.

‘Who’s who’ to grace Copenhagen in week two: 110 Heads of State, Ban ki-Moon, Environment Ministers of many countries, Mayors of 70 mega cities.

AWG-LCA opening Plenary – Chair says ‘action is of essence’. Parties agree to work through single contact group.

France pushes EU for 30% reduction of emissions by 2020 below 1990 levels. Says 100% of its own emission reductions will be done domestically (in-house), announces public finance for Africa, LDCs and AOSIS, which could be through tax on financial transactions.

Key issues of the day

COP15 opened with an emotional video of a little girl who has had a nightmare about climate change, and wakes up and begs politicians to take action. The video was watched by over 2000 delegates and dignitaries including the Danish Prime Minister, as well as thousands of delegates from screens around the Bella Centre.

The Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s speech focused on building momentum for ‘Hopenhagen’. While he agreed that decisions would be difficult to make considering the varying perspectives on framing an agreement and its ‘precise content’, he placed the baton in the hands of the negotiators by relying critically on their technical and ‘diplomatic entrepreneurship’ skills to reach a multi-laterally agreeable, strong, ambitious and equitable deal. This deal would be placed before world leaders next Friday, and such a deal, he said, ‘must be founded in the Convention and track all aspects of the Bali Action Plan’. He also drew attention to civil society involvement, and advised negotiators to ‘listen to their advice’ since ‘we are their representatives’.

While the major part of the COP Plenaries were devoted to organizational issues, the Umbrella group of countries asked for emissions to peak ‘as soon as possible’, and called for the set up of financial mechanisms to support the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in their mitigation and adaptation actions. The AOSIS was firm on the need for a legally binding outcome. Saudi Arabia brought up the issue of hacked emails of scientists from the University of East Anglia. This was after IPCC Chairman R.K. Pachauri’s opening ceremony speech, which focused largely on the robustness of IPCC data, and briefly touched on this issue as well.

The Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) had agreed in Barcelona, that all subsequent work would be carried out under a single contact group (as opposed to one each for mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building). The Chair urged Parties to focus initial discussions on substance rather than placement, with informal consultations as and when needed. The outcome of this is to be tabled on the 16th of December, at which time the ‘High Level Segment’ of the negotiations start.

The G77 and China indicated they would reject any attempts to shift attention to developing countries, since this would undermine the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ commitment under the UNFCCC. The AOSIS highlighted the lack of urgency to act, which was evident in Bali in 2007, but not here. The AOSIS said they would not accept any agreement that lacks ambition, and were in full support of a legally binding outcome.

The Umbrella group indicated they were willing to reduce global emissions by half by 2050, according to national ability and along the lines of a pledge and review process. They indicated that while announcements by several developed and developing countries to cut their carbon emissions were a welcome step, these actions needed to be ‘internationalised’ in order for such actions to be transparent and subject to review. Several LDC countries including those of the Africa Group and Bangaladesh stressed on the need to focus on adaptation, and finance for adaptation in the form of sustained and predictable finance.

Norway asked for this process to send a strong signal to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and from the aviation sector to speed up the process of levies on shipping in order to account from emissions from shipping. Norway also asked for a focus on REDD, as it had ‘the fastest mitigation potential till 2020’, provided international monitoring of the process were in place.

The United States highlighted the importance of several countries making commitments to reduce their carbon emissions. The US’s own commitments, said Jonathan Pershing, included an emission reduction trajectory of 30% by 2025 and 43% by 2030 – in keeping with scientific requirements.

While several Annex 1 Parties alluded to the figure of 10 billion USD as financial commitments, Bolivia said this sum was insufficient, and that several trillions had been spent to save the Washington stock exchange.

Focus on the GOI

Key Indian negotiators were missing in action at the opening ceremony and the Plenaries of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP (Ad-hoc Working Group – Kyoto Protocol) today, even as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh confirmed that he would attend the last two days at Copenhagen.  Ex-IFS Chandrashekhar Dasgupta and ex-environment secretary Pradipto Ghosh – two core members of the Indian negotiating team – stayed back in India to ‘clarify’ some of the statements made by minister of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh. They are due to arrive tomorrow. It is understood that the negotiators were concerned over India offering unreciprocated emission cuts – its most recent offer of 25% reduction in carbon intensity by 2020.

At the AWG-LCA, India said the AWG-LCA would be expected to complete its work in Copenhagen, and pursue a legally binding outcome. The Indian negotiator indicated that the suggested political agreement would be counter-productive, and that we must use the time prior to the high-level segment of the COP to deliver a mandate. It was indicated that developing countries are doing much more than developed countries although they are not under legal obligation to do so. Post-Copenhagen, it was necessary to ensure that the UNFCCC remains the foundation of any efforts, and not to undermine this process. The negotiator indicated that India stands behind the Bali Action Plan, the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC, and that it was necessary to maintain the difference between the COP decisions and the high-level conference that is to take place at the end of the COP, and not to allow the outcomes of that conference to affect the workings of the COP.

India also indicated that the text for discussion must emerge from the AWG, and not an outside process – that a high-level segment cannot make such a decision. Also that aggregate emission reduction targets of Annex I countries should be the starting point for negotiations.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Rapid Consulting USA

December 8, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Uncategorized

India Climate Watch – November 2009

November 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – NOVEMBER 2009 (Issue 8)


INSIDE THIS ISSUE

UNFCCC hits buffers in Barcelona
10th EU-India Summit
PM state visit to USA
PM at Commonwealth Heads Meet
Jairam Ramesh visits China
MoEF Glacier report
JN National Solar Mission
Delhi climate change plan
Fuel efficiency labeling
BASIC grouping
India-Australia climate partnership
India-Egypt energy partnership
National climate events round-up

Editor:

Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting

Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha, Somya Bhatt, Malini Mehra

 


UNFCCC hits buffers in Barcelona

The UNFCCC resumed the last leg of its negotiations before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in Barcelona from 2-6 November. The ‘two-track’ approach adopted since the Bali Action Plan of 2007 saw the ninth session of the AWG-KP (Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol) and the seventh session of the AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention) take place.
Regrettably, the meeting started in disagreement and ended in disagreement. With only five crucial negotiating days before the two week UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen, officials saw almost two days knocked off their schedule as a result of open disputes between nations.

On the opening day –partly as a result of rumours that the EU, Japan, Russia and others were seeking to ‘kill’ Kyoto and partly as a show of force by some developing countries – the African Group staged an impromptu and apparently unofficial walk-out from the negotiations. This caused consternation and seemed to be welcomed and reviled in equal measure. The consequence was almost two days lost from the negotiation schedule but a clear political signal sent that the delay in announcement of mitigation figures and finance numbers by key developed countries was no longer acceptable if progress on the two tracks was to be expected.

 

India welcomed this move although officials were reluctant to go on the record. The negotiations never really picked up from the drama of the walk-out and little progress was made on the key issues of mitigation and finance that had provoked the dispute in the first place.

Speaking at the end of the conference – and putting a brave face on the outcome – the UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer talked up what he called “significant advances” in the negotiations on adaptation, technology transfer, capacity-building and reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD).

On the make-or-break issues of numerical mid-term emissions reduction targets – especially for the US which remains outside the Kyoto Protocol, and short- and long-term finance, de Boer called for industrialized countries to raise their game and make the announcements in order to avoid continuing deadlock.

Barcelona left the talks in the holding pattern that we had seen coming out of Bangkok. Although the five-day meeting was preceded by a ministerial meeting hosted by Danish Minister Connie Hedegaard, there was little sign that governments were going to make any further moves until just before Copenhagen.

10th European Union-India Summit

The Tenth India-European Union Summit was held in New Delhi on 6 November. India was represented by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The EU was represented by Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden, in his capacity as President of the Council of the European Union, and Jose Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission.

The EU and India addressed climate change, energy security, terrorism and other global issues. Leaders also discussed the international response to the global financial crisis, as well as reforming international financial institutions following the G20-Pittsburgh meeting. The summit underlined a joint commitment to achieve progress in negotiations on a bilateral trade and investment agreement.

In the field of climate change and energy, the summit underlined the importance of early implementation of the Joint Work Program on Energy, Clean Development and Climate Change, especially cooperation in solar energy, development of clean coal technology and increase in energy efficiency. It also welcomed the launch of call for proposals focusing on solar power technologies amounting to € 10 million, and two Euopean Investment Bank loans totaling € 250 Million.

Climate Change

India and the EU underlined that climate change is one of the most important global challenges. They reaffirmed the provisions and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including that of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and will work together to achieve an ambitious and globally agreed equitable outcome of Copenhagen based on the principles and provisions of UNFCCC and the Bali Action Plan.

They recognised the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees Celsius but this objective should take into account the overriding priority of poverty eradication and social and economic development of the developing countries.

They agreed that, in the fight against climate change, equal priority had to be given to mitigation and adaptation, and recognised the critical role of enabling financial and technological support to developing countries to this end. The EU highlighted the importance of the EU Energy and Climate package. India highlighted the importance of its National Action Plan on Climate Change. They will prepare ambitious, credible and country-owned climate-friendly plans including adaptation and mitigation actions and will work together to implement the agreed outcome at Copenhagen.

Energy and Energy Efficiency

Both sides noted the ongoing cooperation under the India-EU energy panel and underlined the need also in this context to focus on energy efficiency, clean coal technology, energy conservation and renewable energy, and expressed their intent to develop expeditiously their cooperation efforts in these areas. To this end the leaders welcomed the launch of the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC) in May 2009 at the G8+5 Energy Ministerial Meeting in Rome and the ongoing establishment of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Indian Government also signed a cooperation agreement in the field of fusion energy research during the summit. Fusion is the technology which aims to reproduce the physical reaction – fusion – that occurs in the sun and stars.

India-Australia meet discuss climate change

The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd visited India from 11-12 November, his first visit to India as Prime Minister. Rudd’s travel to India follows the recent visits by the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Julia Gillard, and Australia’s ministers for Immigration and Citizenship, Trade, Foreign Affairs and the Australian Treasurer. Together these visits demonstrate the key priority that Australia is giving to its relationship with India.

The focus of the visit was meetings with business and political leaders covering the full breadth of the fast growing Australia-India relationship including strategic affairs;  shared multilateral priorities; energy and climate change; sport; high-end science, technology and education collaboration; and the fast growing economic and trade partnership.

Energy, climate change and water cooperation

Both leaders stressed the determination of Australia and India to work together to achieve a comprehensive, fair and effective outcome at Copenhagen, with the involvement of all countries. Rudd noted India’s plans to meet its future energy requirements by exploring and developing all sources of energy, including nuclear, renewable and non-conventional resources.

Both sides recognized the benefits of enhancing bilateral commercial exchanges of renewable and non-renewable energy resources and expressed their willingness to join efforts which promote a cooperative response to any global energy crisis, noting the important role of open and transparent energy trade and investment markets.

In developing a global response to climate change, the leaders agreed to engage constructively with each other, and with other countries, including under the UNFCCC and in other multilateral fora such as the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP).

The Australian Government will provide A$1 million (4.315 crore rupees) to support a joint solar cooling and mini-grids project being undertaken by India’s The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
The Prime Ministers noted the positive contribution being made by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI). An International Advisory Panel, which includes a TERI representative, will play a key role in guiding the work of the GCCSI.

A Memorandum of Understanding in the Field of Water Resource Management was also signed. Rudd also announced Australia would devote $20 million in funding over five years under the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research for joint research in dry-land agriculture in India.

A knowledge partnership

Building on the success of the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund, Australia will increase its commitment to bilateral research efforts to $10 million per year for the next five years, which will be matched by India. The expanded fund will introduce a new ‘grand challenge’ component, which will support large-scale research projects designed to deliver practical solutions to some of the major challenges like” energy”, “food and water security”, “health” and “the environment” in both countries.

Delhi adopts climate change plan

In alignment with the National Action Plan on Climate Change, the National Capital territory of Delhi came out with the Climate Change Agenda 2009-2012 on 5 November.  Delhi now seeks to become a role model for the rest of the states by being the first e to release a separate climate action plan. This plan was drafted and completed after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked each state’s environment minister to come up with a climate action plan to suit their regional needs and issues. It was released by Union Minister Jairam Ramesh in the presence of the State Minister Sheila Dikshit. 

With the aim of making Delhi pollution free and tackling the issues related to climate change the plan presents sixty-five ambitious targets to be completed in a span of three years. These are divided across six core missions of Enhanced Energy Efficiency, Sustainable Habitat, Strategic Knowledge, Green India, Water Mission and Solar Mission.  The main highlights of the plan included promotion of battery operated vehicles, introduce more CNG buses, encouraging use of solar power, promotion of CFLs, and increase use of bio-fuels, closing down of thermal power plants, installation of electronic waste facility among others. It has its basic missions picked up from the NAPCC which are presented with a new packaging.

The state level plan aims at retrofitting of buildings for energy efficiency as a part of solar-power mission but fails to mention about any mandatory emission standards. Similarly new policy measures like congestion pricing, tax relaxation for cleaner fuels, tax on diesel vehicles, switching over of all three wheelers to battery etc will take forceful mechanisms and strong political will to actually bear desired results in the given span of time.

The Delhi plan drew forth stinging criticism from the Minister for Environment & Forests, Jairam Ramesh, who charged that most of the claims made by the Delhi government were unfounded and that the plan would only be fruitful if what is mentioned in papers was practiced on the ground. He challenged the claims made about converting all buses to CNG suggesting these were a result of local city leadership and argued instead that this occurred as a result of Supreme Court intervention and rulings. Similarly he deplored what he saw as little progress on river clean-up of theYamuna despite a grant of 14,000 crore from a Japanese Bank.
No doubt the Delhi climate change action plan will attract supporters and detractors. The key thing is that the city government has finally put a roadmap on the table for vigorous engagement with stakeholders.

MoEF issues Glacier report

Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh released a report on the Himalayan glaciers in early November. The report reviews glacial studies and glacial retreat in India, as has been prepared ex-Deputy Director General of the Geological Survey of India V.K. Raina. Regrettably, what was hoped to “encourage informed science-based discussion and debate on critical environmental issues” is replete with biased and unscientific statements that have put the report in muddy waters. To add to the wide discrediting of the report, its untimely release comes just after India met with other SAARC countries (including 3 other Himalayan nations) and pledged to take action on climate change, and after the meeting of Himalayan Chief Minsiters in Simla to discuss a roadmap for development in a climate constrained world.

The report has come under fire from scientists studying the issue, including scientists from TERI, who say the report has completely missed out peer-reviewed scientific literature post 1980 – the period after which climate impacts became visible. For example, the report makes no mention of measurements that show glacial retreat in 466 glaciers in the Chenab region3, of an eight percent glacier area loss in Bhutan between 1963 and 1993 (Karma et al. 2003 in WGMS 2008), or an annual ice thickness loss of 0.8 m.w.e between 1994 and 2004 (Berthier et al. 2007 in WGMS 2008) closer to home, in Himachal Pradesh, or studies that indicate that 67% of glaciers in the Himalaya are retreating, with the main factor for retreat identified as climate change5.

This and the omission of reference of key scientific literature including Geological Survey of India (GSI) studies (Vohra, 1981 on Satluj River Basin glaciers, and Shukla and Siddiqui, 1999, on the Milam glacier), and reports from ICIMOD based on long-term monitoring studies in the Nepal and Bhutan Himalayas raises questions as to whether there is a political agenda behind releasing the report at this time.

Claim to fame

The report challenges internationally-accepted views that the Himalayan glaciers are receding due to climate change. Its concluding remarks suggest “glaciers in the Himalayas, although shrinking in volume and constantly showing a retreating front, have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat…”.

Such statements openly challenge the understanding that global warming is contributing to the large-scale retreat of glaciers around the world and to most glaciers in regions such as the Himalayas to recede substantially. Glacier changes are recognized as high-confidence climate indicators, and considered as evidence for climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Reports from the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) indicate that measurements taken over the last century “clearly reveal a general shrinkage of mountain glaciers on a global scale” (WGMS report). Despite this, this government report suggests that “to postulate that a glacier can warn of climate changes likely to take place in the future is a big question mark”.

The paper provides a summary of the history of glaciological science in India, and insights from such studies so far. However, it fails to mention international peer-reviewed scientific literature from studies within or outside of India (rest of Himalayas and Hindu Kush mountain regions), nor does it mention any IPCC reports and publications.

The MoEF/ Raina report argues that “none of the glaciers under monitoring are recording abnormal retreat”. It also indicates that the Kangriz glacier has “practically not retreated even an inch”. But such strangely unsubstantiated claims of “not even an inch”, “abnormal retreat”, “hardly any retreat” and “slowed down considerably” undermine their own credibility as scientific statements are based.

If merely words were an issue, disregard for ‘climate’ and ‘climate change’ is seen through statements such as ‘recent years’ by which the report means 2007-09. Clearly two years is too short a period to make sweeping conclusions about glaciers and climate science.

And yet, in direct contrast to statements aimed to generate disbelief in glacier retreat are data and photographs of these glaciers in the report itself.  Below is an image of the Kangriz glacier (image also from report), which the report claims retreated ‘not even by an inch’. Where is the ice in the image on the right hand side?
 
The report awaits ‘many centuries’ of data to conclude that glacier snout movements are a result of ‘periodic climate variation’ or to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are ‘retreating abnormally because of global warming’.

India-Egypt energy partnership

Indian-Egyptian joint investment history dates back to 1970s. As many as 275 Indian companies have been established in Egypt between the time span of January 1970 to September 2009. In October this year first Egypt invited more Indian investment in the country particularly in infrastructure projects to achieve a high growth rate and secure more jobs for its youth.  Then later in November the Egyptian Minister for Energy and Electricity Hassan Younnes solicited Indian investment in Renewable energy in Egypt and put forward attractive offers like providing free land and government guarantee with every purchase and reducing the customs duty on renewable energy equipment from 2% to 0%. He said that they aim build the renewable energy projects by keeping 67% under private sector and 33% under Renewable Energy Authority.

Egypt has immense potential for tapping solar and wind energy owing to its climate and topography as stated by Hassan Younnes, and therefore he offered to provide subsidies for wind and solar energy projects. At present the solar of Egypt is 440 MW which is expected to increase up to 550 MW by May 2010. For wind energy project the government has already shortlisted one Indian firm. The aim is to increase the share of renewable energy in power sector from the current share of 10.5% to 20% by 2020.

Union Minister for Renewable Energy Farooq Abdullah and Minister of State for Power Bharatsinh Solanki stated that an MOU would possibly be signed when Dr. Farroq Abdullah visits Egypt in February next to increase cooperation in renewable energy.

Dr. Hassan who himself is a Ph.D. in electrical power engineering said that the reasons he was keen on promoting renewable energy  share in the power sector is due to the exhaustible nature of oil and natural gas and the need for reducing greenhouse gas emissions which are the main cause of climate change. Thus the Egyptian minister also demonstrated his concern and willingness towards decreasing global GHG emissions and reducing the pressure on non-renewable natural resources.

Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission

The Government of India approved the Solar Mission under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCCC) on 23rd November 2009 and has renamed it after the first Prime minister of India Jawahar Lal Nehru. Although draft for the mission was finalised in April 2009 itself and got an in-principle nod from the Climate Change Council headed by the PM  in August 2009. This Mission is one of the eight key National Missions which comprise India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change. The objective of the National Solar Mission is to establish India as a global leader in solar energy, by creating the policy conditions for its diffusion across the country as quickly as possible.

The Mission will adopt a 3-phase approach, spanning the remaining period of the 11th Plan and first year of the 12th  Plan (up to 2012-13) as Phase 1, the remaining 4 years of the 12th Plan (2013-17) as Phase 2 and the 13th Plan (2017-22) as Phase 3. The third phase has been extended by 2 years from 2020 to 2022 to bring synergy with country’s 5 year plan development targets. 

The first phase (up to 2013) will focus on capturing of the low-hanging options in solar thermal; on promoting off-grid systems to serve populations without access to commercial energy and modest capacity addition in grid-based systems. The Cabinet has approved setting up of 1,100 MW of grid solar power and 200 MW capacities of off-grid solar applications utilizing both solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies in the first phase of the Mission. In the second phase, capacity will be aggressively ramped up to create conditions for up scaled and competitive solar energy penetration in the country.

Mission Targets:

  • To create an enabling policy framework for the deployment of 20,000 MW of solar power by 2022.
  • To create favourable conditions for solar manufacturing capability, particularly solar thermal for indigenous production and market leadership.
  • To promote programmes for off grid applications, reaching 1000 MW by 2017 and 2000 MW by 2022.
  • To achieve 15 million sq. meters solar thermal collector area by 2017 and 20 million by 2022.
  • To deploy 20 million solar lighting systems for rural areas by 2022.
  • To ramp up capacity of grid-connected solar power generation to 1000 MW within three years – by 2013; an additional 3000 MW by 2017 through the mandatory use of the renewable purchase obligation by utilities backed with a preferential tariff. This capacity can be more than doubled – reaching 10,000MW installed power by 2017 or more, based on the enhanced and enabled international finance and technology transfer. The ambitious target for 2022 of 20,000 MW or more, will be dependent on the ‘learning’ of the first two phases.

Policy and regulatory framework

  • National Tariff Policy, 2006 would be modified to mandate that the State electricity regulators fix a percentage for purchase of solar power. The solar power purchase obligation for States may start with 0.25% in the phase I and to go up to 3% by 2022. This could be complemented with a solar specific Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) mechanism to allow utilities and solar power generation companies to buy and sell certificates to meet their solar power purchase obligations.
  • In order to enable the early launch of “Solar India” and encourage rapid scale up, a scheme is being introduced in cooperation with the Ministry of Power, the NTPC and the Central Electricity Authority, which would simplify the off-take of solar power and minimize the financial burden on Government.
  • Establish a single window investor-friendly mechanism, which reduces risk and at the same time, provides an attractive, predictable and sufficiently extended tariff for the purchase of solar power for the grid.
  • NTPC’s wholly owned subsidiary company engaged in the business of trading of power – NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. (NVVN) will be designated as nodal agency by the Ministry of Power (MoP) for entering into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Solar Power Developers. 
  • Fiscal incentives – It is also recommended that custom duties and excise duties concessions/ exemptions be made available on specific capital equipment, critical materials, components and project imports.
  • Solar Manufacturing –  To take a global leadership role in solar manufacturing (across the value chain) of leading edge solar technologies and target a 4-5 GW equivalent of installed capacity by 2020, including setting up of dedicated manufacturing capacities for poly silicon material to annually make about 2 GW capacity of solar cells.
  • Research and Development
  • Setting up a high level Research Council comprising eminent scientists, technical experts and representatives from academic and research institutions, industry, Government and Civil Society to guide the overall technology development strategy.
  • A National Centre of Excellence (NCE) shall be established to implement the technology development plan formulated by the Research Council and serve as its Secretariat.
  • The Research Council, in coordination with the National Centre of Excellence, inventorize existing institutional capabilities for Solar R&D and encourage the setting up of a network of Centres of Excellence, each focusing on an R&D area of its proven competence and capability.

Financing

  • Budgetary support for the activities under the National Solar Mission established under the MNRE;
  • International Funds under the UNFCCC framework, which would enable upscaling of Mission targets.

PM state visit to USA

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh led a delegation of ministers and business leaders to Washington DC this November when he and President Barack Obama had their first official engagement in the US capital. The PM’s visit was the first State visit to the US by a foreign dignitary under the new Obama Administration. The Indo-US visit was headlined by cooperation on issues such as nuclear energy, terrorism, trade, investment, agriculture, clean energy and climate change. A dizzying number of MoUs were signed including one on energy security, clean energy and climate change which would feed into the India-US Energy dialogue and the India-US bilateral dialogue on Global Climate Change announced earlier in July 2009.

The MoU seeks to establish an India–US Clean Energy Research and Deployment Initiative, with a Joint Research Center to promote innovation and cooperation to accelerate deployment of clean energy technologies. Priority areas of focus for this Initiative may include: energy efficiency, smart grid, second-generation biofuels, and clean coal technologies including carbon capture and storage; solar energy and energy efficient building and advanced battery technologies; and sustainable transportation, wind energy, and micro-hydro power.

This MoU was a component of a new ‘Green Partnership’ announced by Prime Minister Singh and President Obama on 24 November 2009. Sounding remarkably reminiscent of the language on display at the G8 meeting in Pittsburgh earlier this year, the Green Partnership  sought to “reaffirm (the US and India’s) strong commitment to taking vigorous action to combat climate change, ensuring their mutual energy security, working towards global food security, and building a clean energy economy that will drive investment, job creation, and economic growth throughout the 21st century.”

The leaders ran through a list of new initiatives as part of a new drive to deepen cooperation on energy, agriculture and climate change issues. Other initiatives mentioned were new funds to support clean energy projects in India, two further MOUs on Solar Energy and Wind Energy enabling the lead bodies, the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and India’s Solar Energy Centre to partner to develop a comprehensive nation-wide map of solar energy potential. It was announced that “more than two dozen U.S. and Indian cities will partner to jointly advance solar energy deployment”. On the wind energy side, the NREL and
India’s Centre for Wind Energy Technology would collaborate to develop a low-wind speed turbine technology program.

India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests also announced it would team up with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to support Indian efforts to establish an National Environmental Protection Authority focused on creating a more effective system of environmental governance, regulation and enforcement.

On the agriculture side, a number of initiatives to promote joint research on productivity and food security were flagged with climate change a key feature. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and India’s Ministry of Earth Sciences would lead on collaboration to “more accurately forecast monsoons, and thereby reduce risks associated with climate change and to develop early warning systems to protect people and crops from the adverse effects of extreme weather.”

All in all a blizzard of pronouncements by both sides. The visit was short of detail on how these initiatives would be implemented. Significantly, little was mentioned of the role of external stakeholders in giving these initiatives practical form and energy. Given the well-known capacity constraints on the GoI side, this seems an important point for concerned parties to follow up with the relevant ministries on.

PM at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)

The Caribbean island nation of Trinidad and Tobago was host this year to the annual meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attended on behalf of India and made his way to Port of Spain the capital city at the end of his US state visit. CHOGM this year had a strong climate change focus and the PM made an intervention in the special session on the subject.

Held on 27 November, the meeting sought – in the Prime Minister’s words – to “send a powerful political message to Copenhagen so as to ensure an ambitious, substantive and equitable outcome.” He assured the  Danish Prime Minister present at CHOGM that “my delegation will play a constructive and positive role and support all his efforts to secure a successful outcome. ” In his speech, Dr Singh expressed solidarity with the small island nations and vulnerable African countries, he also made a number of clarifying statements on issues regarding the potential outcome of Copenhagen as well as India’s red lines in terms of acceptance of an agreement.

On the legally-binding versus political agreement discussion currently taking place around the world, this is what the PM had to say:
“A view has been expressed that given the limited amount of time available, we should aim for a political outcome rather than a legally binding outcome. Our view is that we should not pre-empt the Copenhagen negotiating process. Whatever time is still available to us before the High Level Segment meets from December 16, should be used to achieve as much convergence as possible. If the consensus is that only a political document is feasible then we must make certain that the post-Copenhagen process continues to work on the Bali mandate and the UNFCCC continues to be the international template for global climate action. We must avoid any lowering of sights.”

On its core red line – which refers to arrangements agreed for burden sharing in terms of climate change mitigation, the Prime Minister said: “India is willing to sign on to an ambitious global target for emissions reductions or limiting temperature increase but this must be accompanied by an equitable burden sharing paradigm. We acknowledge the imperative of science but science must not trump equity.”

Fuel-efficiency standards for automobile sector

Transport sector contributes about 15 to 20 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in India. At present, transport sector is placed at number three after the power and agriculture sector as far as the national emissions are concerned. But the rate at which the automobile sector is growing our own estimations are that by the year 2030 it could account close to 25 per cent of our GHG emissions.

The government of India is in the final stage of notifying the fuel efficiency standards for automobile sector in the country which will be enforced from 2011. After long tussle between Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Bureau of Energy Efficiency, the Prime Minister’s Office has finally given the authority to Bureau of Energy Efficiency to formulate the norms for auto fuel economy and notify the heavy industries, surface transport and power ministries about them under the Energy Conservation Act of India. It also stipulated that the implementation of these norms will be a responsibility of the surface transport ministry. Although in all likelihood BEE will formulate the norms and notify them under the Energy Conservation Act while the surface transport ministry will ensure the implementation.

Currently, administrative formalities are being finalised on how these standards has to be notified either through the Energy Conservation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act. By 2011, it will be mandatory for automobile manufacturers to sell vehicles with energy-efficiency tags, and adding information on the labels will have to be certified by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE). The industry has already come on board for voluntary certification, and in two years will take on the mandatory norms

The labelling of vehicles will not be based on one standard but different standards for different categories of automobiles such as small cars and commercial vehicles. Also, India will follow a conventional route of legislating the KMP (kilometre per hour) figure.

BASIC grouping and Jairam Ramesh China visit

India’s minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh was called to Beijing in the last week of November to finalise a counter-draft to the draft political agreement on climate change proposed by Denmark.

The Danish draft proposes a mid-term emission reduction target of 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, and asks for a peak in emissions by 2020. India and other major emerging economies strongly oppose this year as the peak year, saying these are unrealistic estimations.

The idea of a counter-proposal putting forth developing country perspectives came from Beijing. Reported to have been ‘in the making’ for some time now, Chinese climate negotiators prepared a first draft in mid-November. This 10 page counter-draft puts forward the absolute ‘non-negotiables’ and has been agreed to by the four major developing countries Brazil, South Africa, India and China (called BASIC for short). This draft is to be released in Copenhagen by China’s special envoy on climate change, Xie Zhenzua, on behalf of the four countries.

Jairam Ramesh as well as environment ministers from South Africa and Brazil arrived in Beijing on the 27th of November to make final changes and agree to the draft – this in an effort to come up with a ‘coordinated position to present in Copenhagen’.

This draft for a political statement that is to be adopted in Copenhagen, and is based on the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan.

The key ‘non-negotiables’ are:

  1.  No to legally binding emission cuts
  2. International measurement, reporting and verification of unsupported mitigation actions
  3. Use of climate change as a trade barrier

Jairam Ramesh agreed that China was definitely taking a ‘proactive leadership role’ in changing the climate debate, and said the draft “fully met” India’s requirements.

Incidentally, China and Brazil have both announced carbon intensity reduction targets by 2020, and while India has made no such announcement, recent calculations by ministry of new and renewable energy suggest that India’s carbon intensity could reduce by24 percent by 2020 compared to 2000 levels if most current plans under the National Action Plan on Climate Change are implemented. Officials say this figure could go up to37 percent if all plans of the NAPCC are implemented.

EVENTS ROUND UP FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER’ 2009.

  1. 3, 4 and 5 of November 2009, International Design Workshop on ‘Sustainability’ for Students, Mumbai: Organised by IIT Bombay, the theme of the event ‘In a Planet of our own – a vision of sustainability’. It was a three day International Design Workshop on ‘Sustainability’ for Students, filled with high energy interactive sessions with lots of enthusiasm to search, ideate, discuss and design. The workshop was meant to address and solve sustainability related problems
  2. 05 November 2009, Local Government Climate Roadmap – South Asian Regional Meet, , New Delhi : this was a one day event organised by ICLEI South Asia to release their research report, “The Carbon Emissions Profiles of 53 South Asian Cities” under the Climate Roadmap initiative.
  3. 06-07 November 2009, Climate Change and Sustaining Mountain Ecosystems, INSA New Delhi: A two day National conference was organised by LEAD India in collaboration with BHC. It provided a platform to Climate Leaders from different states, working on climate change issues at the ground level to, have o  have  an  interface  with policy makers,  experts,  institutions  and  donor  agencies,  who  would  be  appreciative  of  their commitment  and  be  a  catalyst  for  their  future endeavours.
  4. 6 November 2009, The 10th EU-India Summit, New Delhi:
  5. This Summit marked a decade of growing relations, and sought to further deepen relations between the two strategic partners in key areas of cooperation. It also aimed at enhancing dialogue and cooperation on issues of major global concern such as climate change, energy security and fight against terrorism, as well as prominent regional issues and bilateral trade.
  6. 11 November, 2009, Women’s Tribunal on Climate Justice, New Delhi: Wada Na Todo Abhiyan (GCAP in India) organised the second Women’s Tribunal against poverty as a part of a larger process to discuss issues related to climate justice.
  7. 16 and 17 November 2009, 2nd Energy Efficiency Technology Cooperation Conference, New Delhi: As a part of the US-India Energy Dialogue, Confederation of Indian Industry is organised the “US – India Energy Efficiency Technology Cooperation  Conference” jointly with US Department of Energy, US Agency for International Development and Ministry of Power, Govt of India. The conference focused on exploring the barriers to implementation of energy efficiency in India, illustrate ways such that barriers are overcome, and delineate approaches of how energy efficiency markets could be triggered in India in the buildings & industrial sectors.
  8. 16-20 November, 2009, Energy Efficiency Trade Mission” to New Delhi, Chennai, and Mumbai. Organised by U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC).
  9. 17 November, 2009, Interactive Meet with South Asian Journalists, Kolkata, organised by CSM-DFID-PANOS, This was an interactive session for a group of 15 journalists from Nepal, Bangladesh, and India who are on a Road Trip from the Himalaya to the Bay of Bengal to see and discuss the effects of Climate Change on people across the region and initiatives concerning Climate Change. The group was accompanied by John Vidal, Guardian’s environment editor and others from DFID.
  10. 17 November, 2009, International workshop on ‘Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture’, Ahemdabad: Organized and hosted by   Space Application Centre (ISRO), this workshop focused on defining protocols and methodologies to efficiently and economically utilize remote sensing inputs for Assessment of climate change impact on vegetation and other ecosystems
  11. 17 November, 2009, National Conference on Climate Change in the Himalayas, New Delhi: Organised by Navdanya; Navdanya / Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology have carried out an in depth participatory study with local communities in the Himalaya on the impact of climate change. These have been supplemented by studies by experts. These studies were presented at this Conference.
  12. 19 to 21 November, 2009, National Conference on Forestry Solutions: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation of the Impacts of Climate Change in Western Himalayan Mountain States,  Shimla: Organised by the HP forest department, the conference aimed to  deliberate on the impact of climate change on the forests/vegetative cover of Western Indian hill states by involving various stakeholders including planners, implementers and beneficiaries to provide a road-map to devise relevant strategies for global warming and eco-services among mountain communities.
  13. 23 and 24 November, 2009, CENTAD Annual South Asia Conference ‘CLIMATE FOR A NEW CONSENSUS: POLICIES FOR A FAIRER GLOBALISATION ‘, New Delhi: the focus of this conference was to focus on the areas of Trade, Finance, Public Health and Climate Change and re-explore links between trade and development in the context of a rapidly evolving trade scenario.
  14. 23 and 24 November, 2009, Knowledge Sharing workshop ‘From Mountains to the Sea: Adapting to Climate Change’ New Delhi: Organised by WWF, the prime focus of this workshop was to bring together experts working on climate change research at various mountain and coastal areas and present their findings to come up with new ideas for adaptation.
  15. 22-24 November, 2009, Indigenous Technology, Livelihood Options And Habitat Utilization: Concepts And Perspectives Of Development, Guwahati (Assam). Organized by North East Centre For Research and Development (NECRD), IGNOU; North-East India as an important geographical space with unexplored resources, both human and natural, can augment understanding of global sustainability. The conference aimed to explore third world perspective to sustainability.
  16. 23 and 24 November, 2009, 4th Environmentally Friendly Vehicle (EFV) Conference And Exposition, New Delhi, With an objective to share the experiences with regard to ongoing measure for promoting or introducing environmentally friendly vehicles, Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India is organised this conference in Delhi.
  17. 25-26 November, 2009, 4th Sustainability Summit: Asia 2009 Winning Strategies for a Sustainable World, New Delhi: Organised by CII, the conference focused on how visionary businesses and institutions are turning crisis into opportunity to change our world into one that is sustainable and all inclusive.

 

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: Barcelona, BASIC, Centre for Social Markets, CSM, Delhi climate change plan, fuel efficiency standards, Glacier Report, ICW, India Climate Watch, Jairam Ramesh, JNNSM, MoEF, UNFCCC

Resource Guide – COP 14 Issue

November 17, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

                        Name of Organization Email Address
   
Andaman and Nicobar Environmental Team Not Given
Society of Andaman & Nicobar Ecology sane@andamanisles.com
Administrative Staff College of India tsvallimani@yahoo.com
Blue Cross of Hyderabad info@bluecrosshyd.in
Centre for Environment Concerns cecgopal@yahoo.com
Centre  for Resource Education subaro_bv@hotmail.com
Dr. Reddys Foundation Not given
Dr. Reddys Foundation Laboratories rsubramanyam@drreddys.com
Friendship Foundation vikram_aditya_99@yahoo.com
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority jayesh_ranjan@hotmail.com
Institute of Science and Technology iyyanki@icorg.org
Saraswathi Samrajyam IVM@ieee.org
Shri Shakti Alternative Energy dvsk@shrishakti.com
Veda Macs Ltd msatya58@rediffmail.com
Aaranyak partha@aaranyak.org
Balipara Foundation robin@baliparafoundation.com
The Missing Link ambajamir@gmail.com
Chetna drbkbehera@rediffmail.com
Dept. of Environment and Water Management A.N College ashok.ghosh51@gmail.com
Action for Food Prod scjain@afpro.org
Alexis Ringwald alexis.ringwald@aya.yale.edu
Arun Kapur arunkapur@vsnl.com
Bennett, Coleman& Co Ltd.  rajdeep.lalvani@timesgroup.com
Businessworld snagrath@gmail.com
Carbon Minus India carbonminusindia@gmail.com
Centre for Science and Environemnt cse@cseindia.org
Centre for Study of Law and Governance ndubash@gmail.com
CleanStar Energy Pvt Ltd shashank@cleanstar.in
Cleantech India razvan@cleantech.com
Damandeep Singh legspinner@gmail.com
Delhi Greens kartikeya@delhigreens.org
Deloitte Touche  daggarwal@deloitte.com
Development Alternatives kvijayalakshmi@devalt.org
E Square Verification Private Limited sckatyal@esquare.net.in
FICCI rita@ficci.com
German Technical Cooperation juerger.bischoff@gtz.de
Heinrich Boll Foundation shalini.yog@hbfasia.org
Indian Instute of Ecology and Environment info@ecology.edu
Kriti: A Development Research kartikeya@iycn.in
One World South Asia space.kriti@gmail.com
Oxfam naimur.rahman@oneworld.net
Paharpur Business Centre & Software Technology  depinder.kapur@oxfamint.org.in
Sony roopali@pbcnet.com
SAIL irfangreen@gmail.com
Swechha sonyindia.care@ap.sony.com
The British Council Division sailco@vsnl.com
The Nand and Jeet Khemka Foundation  vimlendu@gmail.com
The Times of India lowcarbon@in.britishcouncil.org
World Wide Fund d.lee@khemkafoundation.org
All India Disaster Management Institute  narayaniganesh@gmail.com
Centre for Environment Education shirish@wwfindia.net
Gadhia Solar dmi@icenet.co.in
Reliance Industries r.gopichandran@ceeindia.org
Corporate Communications & Sustainability BT India jai@gadhia-solar.com
Direction  jnana_dash@ril.com
Osram India Pvt. Limited carson.dalton@bt.com
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana dronah@gmail.com
The Oceanic Group c.bhattacharjee@osram.co.in
Winrock International India cfhq@sify.com
Department of Botany tog91@yahoo.co.in
Green Hopes wii@winrockindia.org
Indian Society for Himalayan Studies ruqayajabeen@gmail.com
Actnow thegreenhopes@gmail.com
Centre for Green Building Material & Technology ggpkash@sancharnet.in
Global Citizens for Sustainable Development editor@actnow.co.in
Good Earth cgbmtblr@gmail.com
Greenpeace India ajohn316@gmail.com
Holistic Desh goodearthblr@gmail.com
Infosys Technologies ksriniva@dialb.greenpeace.org
INTEL nilima.bhat@holisticbangalore.com
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board  rohan_parikh@infosys.com
Keya Acharya sales@icelect.com
Mansaram Architects sharathchandra@vsnl.net
Mitra Foundation keya.acharya@gmail.com
Paryavarani mansarch@gmail.com
Reva Electric Car Co. ( Pvt.) Ltd seema@mitrafoundation.org
South Asia Alliance to Save Energy paryavarani@gmail.com
TESCO Hindustan Service Centre cmaini@reva-ev
Titan Industries Limited ssetty@ase.org
Wildlife Aware Nature Club captain.dayalu@in.tesco.com
Centre for Earth Research and Environment Management sumant@titan.co.in
Centre for Earth Science Studies tvnmurthy@vsnl.com
Centre for Environment and Development nair59@yahoo.com
Joseph Paul Kavalam dr.mbaba@gmail.com
Thani Illam ceddir@vsnl.com
Environment Planning and Coordination Organization popychenkavalam@yahoo.com
Indian Institute of Forest Mangement santhapan@yahoo.com
Aditi Constructions lokendrathakkar@yahoo.com
Air Quality Management Cell of PMC mverma@iifm.ac.in
Airport Road Mohalla Committee aditigreenscapes@gmail.com
ALERT ajaysworld@rediffmail.com
Bombay Natural History Society satyagrahi2000@gmail.com
Cantor Co2 e India Private Limited vandanchavan@hotmail.com
Centre for Development Eduacation bnhs@envs.nic.in
Centre for Policy and Sustainability Research Rbabu@cantorco2e.com
Centre for Youth Development Activites  indec@vsnl.net
Climate Change Capital cpsr.wise@gmail.com
Conservation Action Trust cyda@vsnl.com
Daily Loksatta nakulzaveri@c-c-capital.com
Department of Environment Sciences, University of Pune debi.cat@gmail.com
Forum of Environmental Journalists of India abhigorpade@rediffmail.com
Frenz Greenearth Technologies Ltd. rsgavali@unipune.ernet.in
Hariyali- Enivronmental Cellf of ILS Law College darryldmonte@gmail.com
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. imran@frenzgreenearth.com
HSBC suchetadikshit@hotmail.com
IMC ERTF Indian Merchants Chamber Meeta.Singh@unilever.com
Indian Institute of Tropical Meterology malinithadani@hsbc.co.in
Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research kironnanda@gmail.com
Institute of Environmetn Education and Research goswami@tropmet.res.in
Kalpavriksh- Environment Action Group sudhakar@igidr.ac.in
Karmayog bvieer@vsnl.com
Lehman Brothers kalpavriksh@vsnl.net
M/S . Sleek Boards (I) Limited info@karmayog.org
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.  sanjeev.kaushik@lehman.com
Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai sleekboards@gmail.com
National Environment Engineering Institute rodrigues.sylvia@mahindra.com
National Society for Clean Cities- Pune rarajeev@gmail.com
National Solid Waste Association of India anjali54@gmail.com
Nature First Consulting Private Limited nsccpune@gmail.com
Praj Industries nswai@envis.nic.in
Prayas Energy Group ncsa.india@gmail.com
Pune Municipal Corporation samir.menon@gmsworldnet.com
RPG Enterprises PramondChaudhari@praj.net
Sahyog Trusts prayashealth@vsnl.net
Sanctuary Asia praveen.pardeshi@punecorporation.org
Sarang Yadwadkar pankajkedia@rpg.in
Satpuda Foundation sahyog.trust@rediffmail.com
Tata Consulancy Services bittusahgal@gmail.com
The Climate Project- India sarang@vsnl.com
The Tata Power Co. Ltd kishor.rithe@gmail.com
ADHAR aniruddha.agnihotri@tcs.com
Basics Energy and Environment Consulting Company info@climateprojectindia.org
Asia Carbon Global apatkar@tatapower.com
Better Environment for Long Foundation adharbolangir@yahoo.co.in
Citizens Alliance for Sustainable Living ashoksingha@gmail.com
ENVIS Centre ravi@asiacarbon.com
Green Coalition Network bellfoundation@yahoo.co.uk
Green Indian States Trust deva1940@gmail.com
Green Wings tomson09@yahoo.co.in
Institute of Financial Management & Research alertgreenwings@gmail.com
Madras Institute of Development Studies shanty.kapila@ifmr-cdf.org
M.S Swaminathan Research Foundation janak@mids.ac.in
Nizhal arnambi@yahoo.com
Pasumai Thaayagam mailtopt@gmail.com
Consulate General of the USA- Chennai guptar@state.go
Central Himalayan Environment Association pushkinp1@yahoo.com
Climate Energy and Sustainable Development Analysis Centre lal_m@cesdac.org
Grameen Development Services gdsho@rediffmail.com
ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability- South Asia emani.kumar@iclei.org
Centre for Environment and Development & ENDEV cedkolkata@yahoo.com
Centre for Social Markets info@csmworld.org
CII Not Given
Consulate General of the USA- Kolkata aileen.nandi@mail.doc.gov
eaga Energy India Pvt. Ltd lopamudra.mahapatra@eaga.co.in
Environment Conservation Society switchonindia@gmail.com
FOSMI fosmi@cal3.vsnl.net.in
Habitable Earth habitableearth@yahoo.com
Indian Insitute of Bio-Social Research& Development  info@ibradindia.org
The Indian National Trust for Art& Cultural Heritage gmkapur@gmail.com
ITC ltd. nazeeb.arif@itc.in
Jadavpur University jadavpur_gcp@yahoo.co.in
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority tk.ghatak@gmail.com
Kolkata Municipal Corporation nb.basu_cme@rediffmail.com
Nature Environment & Wildlife Society news_kolkata@yahoo.co.in
Phoenix Yule Limited  spandit@phoenixyule.com
Sankalpa Trust subra@engr.colostate.edu
School of Oceaniographic  Studies sugata_hazra@yahoo.com
Technology Futuristic surya39@vsnl.net
West Bengal Pollution Control Board raydebal@gmail.com
WWF, India Sundarbans Programme wwfisp@wwfindia.net
Advisory Services info@ashdenawards.org
Ashden Awards For Sustainable Energy atiq.rahman@bcas.net
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies p.a.hollington@bangor.ac.uk
Bangor University Not given
Blue Moon Fund marieke.beckmann@cdproject.net
Carbon Disclosure Project lss@mm.dk
Copenhagen Climate Council sengupta.d@crem.nl
CREM esaltmarshe@gmail.com
Ella Saltmarshe nadaa.taiyab@gmail.com
Environment Education Media Project Johnliu@eempc.org
Euro Akadem KathrinHentschel@EuroAkadem.com
IIT London Chapter bkgurtu@btinternet.com
Munasinghe Institute for Development mind@mindlanka.org
Nexant, Inc. dedwards@nexant.com
One World Youth Project aashish@oneworldyouthproject.org
Pew Center on Global Climate Change patodian@pewclimate.org
Sierra Club stephen.mills@sierraclub.org
SPRU d.g.ockwell@sussex.ac.uk
The Thomson Foundation janet.boston@thomsonfoundation.org
UK Trade and Investment hannah.greig@berr.gsi.gov.uk
Walker Institue for Climate Systems Research  n.w.arnell@reading.ac.uk
World Economic Forum dominic.waughray@weforum.org
Zoe Young eyes@ifiwatchnet.org

Filed Under: Who's Who

India Climate Watch – October 2009

October 30, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – OCTOBER 2009 (Issue 7)


INSIDE THIS ISSUE

From the Editor’s Desk
UNFCCC Bangkok Climate Talks
Global Day of Action – Genius of 350.org
European Union Wobbles on Climate Finance
Jairam & the Leaked Memo Controversy
Delhi Climate & Technology Conference
SAARC Environment Ministers Gather in Delhi
ASEAN Leaders Talk Climate

Editor:
Malini Mehra

Research & Reporting:
Malini Mehra, Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha



From the Editor’s Desk

October saw a number of lackluster international meetings – the London Major Economies Forum and the G20 Finance Ministers Summit – that passed without much of note being delivered. The real action from an Indian perspective lay at the national level. Delhi not only hosted a major international conference on climate change and technology development, but also several regional and bilateral visits including the first Sino-Indian climate change workshop and a SAARC environment ministers meeting.

At the same time as states such as Kashmir were signaling the alarming rate of glacier disappearance in the valley and the threat of catastrophic floods to come, the Government was finally getting a grip on the appalling state of climate impact awareness in the country. The Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, announced the establishment of an Indian Network of Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) and sought to strengthen domestic scientific coordination and capacity on the subject.

The real story of the month, however, was the controversy over Jairam Ramesh and his leaked memo to the Prime Minister allegedly changing the course of Indian climate policy. In the furious ‘trial by media’ that followed, disaffected Indian climate negotiators (covertly) and the nation’s commenterati (overtly) lined up to take pots shots at the Minister and his political future hung by a thread. The Minister was forced to issue a public statement and held onto his post by a whisker.
What the incident illuminated, however, was the abject state of Indian discourse on climate change with more venom being vented over alleged betrayals of national interest, than an examination of what that national interest was in a climate changed-age when basic assumptions about the nation and its future had to be questioned.

In contrast, the Global Day of Action on 24 October saw an awe-inspiring move by ordinary people to send a clear message to their cloth-eared political leaders: climate change required real action and the target had to be a maximum of 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In almost 300 separate events across the country, Indians too joined in the global call.

Given that the UNFCCC’s Copenhagen talks are discussing a 450 ppm target not 350 ppm, such calls may seem heroic at best and implausible at worst. But public opinion will be a decisive force in this debate. And public opinion is now getting globally organized. Importantly, as the 350.org events showed, more and more young people are becoming politicized on this issue. Politicians had better prepare to listen – the personal impacts could very well lie in store at the ballot box.

UNFCCC Bangkok Climate Talks

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held its penultimate session before the Copenhagen climate conference in Bangkok from 28 September to 9 October 2009.  Coming on the heels of the UN Climate Week in New York the week before, the aim of the Bangkok talks was to start ‘real’ negotiations and make a dent in the still highly-bracketed 200+ page official document. The outcome hoped for was the draft of a negotiating document that could be the basis for agreement at Copenhagen in December.  

By Day 2 of the negotiations, however, it was clear that the real work of line-by-line discussions would only start the following week. While the news dampened spirits, two key portions of the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) section of the document progressed much faster than the others. After the downer of Week 1, expectations for an outcome-led Bangkok round of talks were left for Week 2.

Areas that progressed well were textual agreement on enhanced action on development and transfer of technology, and enhanced action on adaptation and means of adaptation. Co-chairs were given unanimous mandates to consolidate the text, and updated ‘non-papers’ on the text were ready by the first Friday of the talks. While discussions on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), a part of the discussion on mitigation, moved forward, progress on developed and developing country mitigation actions (under separate Contact Groups), and response measures saw no progress, as did discussions on finance.

The stock-taking Plenary on Friday, 2nd October was a key milestone that would measure progress made at Bangkok. On the LCA, by Friday, the adaptation text had been streamlined, and text on technology had been reduced substantially. The text on finance had not yet finished its first reading, and little progress had been made on mitigation. On the Kyoto Protocol (KP) Working Group, while there was some progress on LULUCF (land use and land use change and forests), overall there was little progress. It was clear that Parties and their negotiators at Bangkok did not have the go-ahead from their political masters to go further. They could not commit to anything of substance – not on targets, monitoring, base-years or commitment periods, nor LCA mitigation or finance. Clearly, until more ambitious mandates comes from capitals, there could be little hope of progress.

Week 2 of the Bangkok talks saw Contact Groups on all sections of the LCA and KP breaking into informal sessions (to which observers are not allowed), to iron out key differences and issues in the text. Week 2 also saw the level of distrust between Parties growing. While revised texts (non-papers) were presented on REDD, agriculture and LULUCF, international aviation and maritime transport, no significant progress was made on substantive issues even on these sections.

The final Plenary session on Friday 9th October took stock of all the progress made at Bangkok. The main objective of the Bangkok session had been to consolidate text under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action and the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol. A number of non-papers were produced under the AWG-LCA, for further discussion in Barcelona in November. Many delegates described progress on adaptation, technology and capacity building as ‘satisfactory’ but agreed that big divides remained on finance and mitigation.

On the Kyoto Protocol, no conclusions were reached on the first commitment period until 2012. The only good news on targets was Norway’s pledge to reduce its emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2020. However, in line with many other developed country targets, the Norwegian target does contain offsets and is conditional on key emitting countries making similar commitments.

The Bangkok talks ended on an acrimonious note with charges by the Sudanese Chair of G77/ China that Annex 1 countries were plotting to ‘kill’ the Kyoto Protocol. In the febrile environment of the last few days of talks such grandstanding made media headlines but glossed over differences in negotiation stances among both Annex 1 and non-Annex 1. While the US had made unequivocal statements about its objections to the Kyoto Protocol as a non-signatory, those countries legally bound by Kyoto Protocol commitments, such as EU Member States, had more nuanced responses.

The status of the KP in a post-2012 regime, however, will undoubtedly resurface in the Barcelona talks due for November and continue to be the subject of intense discussion at Copenhagen.

The Global Day of Action – Genius of 350.org

This year has marked an unprecedented coming together of civil society around the world fighting to push climate change higher up the political agenda. The largest grouping is the Global Campaign on Climate Action (GCCA) with its TckTckTck campaign which brings together NGOs, faith groups, labour unions and a diverse range of civil society groups united on a common demand for a Fair, Ambitious and Binding (FAB) treaty from Copenhagen. CSM is proud to be a founder member of the GCCA and a proponent of the TckTckTck campaign.

Of the many initiatives that make up the rainbow GCCA flotilla, one of the most imaginative and impressive is 350.org –the movement co-founded by American journalist, Bill Mckibben which call for atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to return from the present 390 parts per million to 350 parts per million. The level leading scientists – including Dr Pachauri of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- argue is the safe upper limit for humanity.

The power of this simple message has set imaginations alight across the world and sparked a new movement for climate action from young to old. The genius of 350.org has been the simplicity of the ‘ask’ and the intuitive elegance of its message. Everyone wants to do their bit and 350 provides a concrete and scientifically-tenable goal. To express their support, people are asked to display the number -350 – in all the endless variety of geographical, cultural, physical and aesthetic locations the world offers, indicating the broad mass of support for it.

The Global Day of Action on climate change – 24 October 2009 – brought this out in an unprecedented and awe-inspiring manner. People around the world rallied to the 350.org call and the website registered over 5200 events in 181 countries. CNN called it, “the most widespread day of political action in history.” Of these events, more than 2000 took place in the United States alone – in every state of the union – belying the indifference to the climate change that has long been associated with the country.

India too saw action up and down the sub-continent. Almost 300 rallies, marches and events profiling the 350.org call for action took place in virtually every region in the country. It was a call that Indians took up as our own. CSM’s Bangalore and Kolkata offices played a key role in local coalitions on climate change that took to the streets prominently displaying their support and attracting strong media attention.

This story was multiplied in towns and cities across the world. The 22,000 photos from every imaginable corner of the world displaying the ‘magic number’ in every imaginable setting can now be seen on the 350.org website.

The Global Day of Action saw the full force of Margaret Mead’s oft-quoted reflection, “Never doubt that a small group of people can make change. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” The difference being that this event could only have happened in the modern inter-connected multi-media, social networking age. It was the first time that small groups of people had issued a common call, virtually simultaneously, from almost every nation on the planet.

There is no doubt that 350.org and the Global Day of Action have unleashed a prolific public movement – gold dust in campaigning terms. People have responded to the call for a simple public statement – make 350.org the target for atmospheric concentration in order to prevent dangerous climate change.

Taken together, this and the World Wide Views project of 26 September, have shown that global public opinion is clearly for strong and meaningful climate change. Politicians looking for a mandate for action need not look far- they have it in these two events. But how quickly can people move from slogans to social transformation? And how will these events impact the negotiations? These and other questions remain. The next Global Day of Action will be on 12 December – right in the middle of Copenhagen. We will see then how responsive – or not – the world’s politicians have been.

European Union Wobbles on Climate Finance

EU finance and environment ministers and Council meet

Expectations were high going into the EU finance ministers meeting on XX October on funds for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, but ministers failed to deliver. The hope had been that finance ministers would get the EU to accept a figure of 100 billion Euros for climate financing to help vulnerable countries meet their climate needs from 2012 onwards.

The EU however failed to agree on an internal financial burden sharing formula as to who would pay what as a collective contribution to climate adaptation and mitigation financing for poor countries. The meeting highlighted strong differences within the 27-member EU between richer and poorer states – in particular, new EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe, such as Poland, who led the charge for fairer burden sharing. Britain’s Chancellor Alistair Darling said although the meeting was a ‘good opportunity, a number of countries wanted two things that the majority found unacceptable’.

While Poland and its allies asked for ‘fast-start’ financing to be contributed on a voluntary basis, they also wanted to contribute less and less to EU’s responsibilities over time. The Polish premier argued that the EU’s poorer member states and those still in industrial transition such as Romania and Albania, should not be expected to pay for the carbon transition of major emitting economies such as China and Brazil which had better infrastructure, technology and standard of living in comparison.

While the EU Finance Ministers meeting was inconclusive on climate finance, the EU Environment Ministers picked up the baton the next day and managed to overcome internal debate on targets and offsets. They agreed to the EU’s 2050 targets of 80-95% below 1990 levels, and an upper warming limit of 2 degrees Celsius. There was also discussion on excess credits in many EU countries, and the issue of hot air or excess Assigned Amount Units (AAUs).
 
The EU Council meeting of 30 October did reach broad conclusion on figures needed at a global level for climate finance and endorsed the European Commission’s estimate of 100 billion Euros annually by 2020. This was agreed as the net incremental cost of mitigation and adaptation in developing countries to be met through a combination of efforts. However, the outcome indicated a wide-range figure of EUR 22 to 50 billion per year to be the required amount through international public support. Missing also were any specifics as to the EU’s contribution to this total sum other than to indicate that the EU was ready to take on its ‘fair share’.

Jairam & the Leaked Memo Controversy

On 18 October, the Times of India broke  a story that Minister of State for Environment  & Forests, Jairam Ramesh, had, in a confidential memo to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, allegedly “suggested that India junk the Kyoto Protocol, delink itself from G77 — the 131-member bloc of developing nations — and take on greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments under a new deal without any counter guarantee of finances and technology.” Furthermore, the paper argued, the Minister sought to align himself with the USA and Australia in agreeing to water down the distinction between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries entrenched in the Kyoto Protocol, and proposing permitting IMF and WTO-style review and `surveillance’ of national mitigation actions that India takes voluntary at its own cost in
At the recently-concluded Bangkok talks, the paper argued that India and the G77/China had opposed the US and EU-backed ‘Australian Proposal’ which they said sought to “kill” the Kyoto Protocol, and alter the character of the UN Framework Convention. India’s negotiators charged that a single legal instrument, as proposed by Australia, would “unilaterally impose new commitments and burdens on developing countries and undermine the exiting convention”. The paper characterized Ramesh’s proposals in the leaked letter to the Prime Minister as marking a “major shift” in India’s climate policy.
The story created a storm of controversy in India. In further reporting, the paper pointed to a wide rift between India’s negotiating team and the Minister saying that he had exceeded his own ‘red lines’ as given to the Indian Delegation in their Brief for Bangkok.
In the days following the report, the Minister’s political future hung by a thread. With little visible public backing – but not insignificant behind-the-scenes support – the Minister was forced to issue a retraction but the speculation continued.

Here we attach the Minister’s statement in full:

 “Yesterday, a leading newspaper had carried a news- item on a discussion note that I wrote on climate change. The news-item has quoted only partially and selectively from this note, and significantly added its own editorial interpretations, thereby completely distorting and twisting its meaning .Let me reiterate India’s non-negotiables in the ongoing international climate change negotiations.

While India is prepared to discuss and make public periodically the implementation of its National Action Plan on climate change, India will never accept internationally legally binding emission reduction targets or commitments as part of any agreement or deal or outcome. Inida will never accept any dilution or renegotiation of the provisions and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In particular. we will never agree to the elimination of the distinction between developed (“Annex I”) countries and developing (“non-Annex I”) countries as far as internationally legally binding emission reduction obligations are concerned. Internationally legally binding emission reduction targets are for developed countries and developed countries alone, as globally agree under the Bail Action Plan.

India will agree to consider international measurement, reporting and verification (“MRV”) of its mitigation actions only when such actions are enabled and supported by international finance and technology.

India, like other developing countries, fully expects developed countries to fulfill their obligations on transfer of technology and financial transfer that they committed to under the UNFCCC and the Bali Action for both mitigation and adaptation actions.

There has always been a broad political consensus regarding the Indian position on climate change. India has been engaged in climate change negotiations, whether in UNFCCC or multilateral fora, based on a clear and definite brief which has not changed since 2004.

My note suggested the possibility of some flexibility in India’s stance, keeping the above non –negotiable firmly intact and keeping India irrevocably anchored in the UNFCCC of 1992 and the Bali Action Plan of 2007. I have never at any stage considered or advocated abandoning the fundamental tenets of the Kyoto Protocol, as was stated in the article- this is a mischievous interpretations of the newspaper. My basic point is that India’s interests and India’s interests alone shall dictate at our negotiating stance. As far as the insinuations by the newspaper that I am reflecting a pro-US bias, I will let my actions speak for themselves. India is working, and will continue to work, closely with our partners in the G-77 and China in articulating a common position on this issue, while also engaging with other countries to our benefit.

I had written a comprehensive 7-page letter to a large number of MPs from all political parties and to all Chief ministers in early October 2009 detailing our thinking, making our position very clear and stating that accountability for our actions on Climate change-through outcome-based legislation ,if found acceptable by our Parliament-is to our Parliament and to our Parliament alone. I welcome the feedback that I have been receiving on it. Earlier, in August, I had written to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha suggesting that four Member of Parliament-based on posts that they hold-be included in the official delegation to the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP-15) to be held at Copenhagen in December,2009.I will continue to keep political leadership across party lines and civil society fully engaged on this issue over the coming weeks and months.”

For a comment piece by Malini Mehra & Bittu Saghal on this issue, please refer to ‘Can India win if it loses the climate battle?’ on the CCI Portal: http://www.climatechallengeindia.org/Can-India-win-if-it-loses-the-climate-battle-30-Oct-2009

Delhi High Level Conference on Climate Change & Technology Transfer

Held in Delhi from 22-23 October 2009, the Government of India and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) jointly organized a high level conference  to promote international technology development and transfer in the context of the Bali Action Plan. The conference was India’s official contribution to the UNFCCC process towards Copenhagen and also included an international exhibition on climate technologies in the sidelines of the conference. The conference followed on from discussions initiated at the Beijing High-level Conference on Climate Change: Technology Development and Technology Transfer, co-organized by the Chinese Government and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) in 2008 which had taken stock of clean technologies, barriers to transfer and the potential for technology collaboration.
The Delhi conference brought together 58 delegations, of which 30 were at ministerial or vice ministerial level with around 30 experts who shared their knowledge of key aspects of technology transfer and deployment. The Prime Minister of India and the President of the Maldives opened the inaugural session and India’s Finance Minister inaugurated the Clean Technology Exhibition which saw the involvement of 148 companies from around the world (and a stall by the Centre for Social Markets). The conference concluded with the adoption of a formal ‘Delhi Statement on Global Cooperation on Climate Technology’.

Key messages from the conference:

1. Technology development and transfer cannot be discussed in the abstract but must move towards specificity in global mechanisms for technology development, deployment, and transfer.
2. Must learn from lessons of the Green Revolution in which India led the way with international cooperation in 1960s and 1970s. Many speakers alluded to the CGIAR network as a model for addressing the challenge of climate change as well as energy poverty.
3. Need for accelerated investment in research and development, including collaboration in research between advanced and developing countries, and support for capacity building in developing countries. Both public and private financing important to enable accelerated large-scale development, transfer and deployment of technologies for adaptation and mitigation.
4. Widespread recognition of need for special mechanism under the UNFCCC for technology transfer, development, and deployment. This should be supported by a special fund with periodic performance assessment and a mechanism to oversee the functioning of an IPR regime for climate and development goals.

SAARC Environment Ministers Gather in Delhi

Environment ministers of Member States of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) met in New Delhi, India on 20th October 2009 for the Eighth Meeting of the SAARC Environment Ministers. They adopted a Delhi Statement, agreeing on specific joint actions to further strengthen environmental governance, biodiversity conservation, and climate change cooperation. They also agreed to hold a joint side event on climate change, voicing the shared concerns of the region at COP-15 in Copenhagen.

The Ministers recognized that the South Asia was amongst the regions most vulnerable to climate change and there was a need to build up capacity in the region to cope with extreme weather events and other adverse effects of climate change. By the Sixteenth SAARC Summit at Thimphu, Bhutan, in April 2010, a SAARC Agreement on Natural Disaster Rapid Response Mechanism is also expected to be finalised for signing. The Government of India will provide US$ 1 million each to the SAARC Forestry Centre, Thimphu, and the SAARC Coastal Zone Management Centre, Malé, to strengthen these Centres.

SAARC Ministers underlined the crucial importance of close cooperation in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP-15) in Copenhagen, with a view to enabling the full, effective and sustained implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They said SAARC will “stick to the Kyoto Protocol, Bali Action Plan and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” and a joint statement on climate change would be issued at the Copenhagen summit in December.

The Ministers underscored the need to undertake and enhance cooperation in areas related to environment amongst the Member States in order to have a coordinated response to climate change and agreed to institutionalize an annual workshop – a South Asia Workshop on Climate Change Actions (SAWCCA). The Government of India will host the first workshop in early 2010. Also, Bhutan proposed to adopt ‘Climate Change’ as the key theme of the Sixteenth SAARC Summit to be held in Thimphu in April 2010 – a move which was welcomed by all members.

Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA) holds ‘Civil SAARC’

Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA) organised a ‘Civil SAARC’ conference on 19 – 20 October 2009 on the sidelines of SAARC Environment Ministers Conference in New Delhi. The objective of the conference was to find a common voice among civil society institutions of the SAARC countries. The seminar was mostly given a miss by ministers and government officials from India and SAARC countries with the exception of a minister from the Maldives. Many of India’s neighbours such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives emphasized the benefits of moving to low-carbon economic base and questioned India’s comparative reticence on the subject. The Maldives outshone other countries in the level of its ambition – the country has vowed to become carbon neutral by 2010 – and acted as the moral voice from the region. The differing views expressed revealed a gap between Indian rhetoric of regional unity and a reality where it is clearly seen as a regional power not living up to neighbourhood expectations on climate leadership.

ASEAN Leaders Talk Climate

India ‘Looks East’

ON 24 October 2009, leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and India came together in the sidelines of the 15th ASEAN summit in Thailand to discuss present and future relations of the 7th ASEAN-India Summit. Among other issues, leaders discussed food security, agriculture and forestry, disaster management and climate change. The ASEAN-India Business Council was reactivated at this summit, and India’s ‘Look East’ Policy given a boost.

ASEAN leaders and India issued a joint statement in which they indicated their shared vision and common concern on the impacts of climate change to the economy, environment and well-being of the people. Leaders emphasized the need to work in a coordinated fashion towards the full realization of the UN Climate Convention and for the successful outcome of the Copenhagen Conference of Parties (COP).

India proposed a joint programme on disaster management and sharing satellite data on areas affected by natural disasters. This was initiated in light of the recent spate of natural disasters in India and Southeast Asia, and would build on India’s expertise in Information Technology and space technology.
 
It was also proposed that an ASEAN-India climate change network be established. Leaders stressed the importance of cooperation in science, technology and environment to promote dynamic and sustainable development in the region. There was also talk of activating the ASEAN-India Science and Technology Fund and the ASEAN-India Green Fund – a fund to which India has contributed USD 50 million.

Bilateral Climate Research Initiatives – Argentina, China, Norway, Scotland and United Kingdom

India-UK Join Hands for Solar Research

A two-day conference held in late September in London marked the start of an India-UK tie-up on solar energy research. The Department of Science and Technology (DST) from India, in collaboration with the Research Councils UK (RCUK), are looking to strengthen collaboration between research organizations of the two countries. Representatives from IIT also interacted with counterparts from UK universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. The DST and RCUK have already called for research proposals on a range of solar photovoltaic and energy generation areas, including low-cost materials for PV systems, power systems and distribution and thin film performance and stability. This initiative comes on the heels of the GoI internal agreement on the Solar Mission announced under the National Action Plan on Climate Change. It remains to be seen whether this UK-India research cooperation will be incorporated as part of the Solar Mission or be a separate, short-term initiative.

Climate Change Research Centre (Bangalore)

Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State of Environment and Forests, announced India’s plan to set up a world-class ‘data hub’ facility to carry out climate change research and investigate its impacts on the economy and environment. To be set up in Bangalore, the institute is to be called the ‘National Institute of Climate and Environment’ (NICE), and receive an initial funding of INR 40 crore. The programme will involve the use of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) satellites to measure greenhouse gas emissions and monitor Himalayan ecosystems. This will be the second such institute on climate change in the country, the first being the Centre for Climate Change Research at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) in Pune.

NICE builds on the Minister’s efforts to strengthen India’s in-house capacity on climate research, especially in climate monitoring and modeling, and generate more locally-relevant, quantified data on greenhouse gas emissions in India over time. The partnership between the MoEF and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is an effort to generate more research and scientific literature and papers from developing countries, since much of the data on emission levels, baselines and standards are currently based Western models.

The Minister argued that domestic research institutions needed to strengthen their capacity to collect and analyse locally-relevant data to avoid biases creeping in with dependence on Western scientific data. If so, this will be a welcome and long-overdue change in policy emphasis in India where research on domestic climate impacts and knowledge generation has been stagnant compared to countries such as China and South Africa.

Climate Change – Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs)

October has been the month of India signing MoUs on climate, energy and clean technologies with foreign powers. Although progress on the UNFCCC multilateral negotiations on climate change might be moving slowly, Indian ministries have been responsive to invitations from foreign partners for bilateral cooperation agreements on climate change.

With four MoUs on partnership and cooperation, there has been an increased focus on South-South cooperation. India and Argentina signed a strategic partnership in mid-October to cover issues of global concern. Efforts to energise consultations will take place in May 2010. The two heads of state were in favour of closer bilateral ties on renewable energy and alternative energy sources and respective technologies.

In mid-October, a senior official for the Ministry for New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) travelled to Edinburgh to sign a bilateral India-Scotland MoU to drive innovation in renewable energy. Both governments agreed to increase supplies of wind energy, solar power and biofuels and leverage Scotland’s work in energy research and boost collaboration between Indian and Scottish universities. India is a potentially large market into which expertise and technologies on renewables can enter on a for-profit basis through the private sector, and also through the Energy Technology Partnership (ETP), an alliance of Scottish universities.

The big MoA this festive season was between the two young Asian giants – India and China. The agreement marked the start of cooperation on addressing climate change. The MoA was signed by Xie Xhenhua, vice chairman National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) of China, and Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment ad Forests, in New Delhi. The two countries are keen to intensify collaboration on energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean energy technologies, sustainable agriculture and afforestation. Key areas of focus are mitigation actions, policies and programmes. However, the two other areas of focus are adaptation and capacity building.

The India-Norway MoU was the last bilateral deal of the month, on cooperation in the implementation of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects under the Kyoto Protocol, to remain in force until 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period lapses. The pact was inked between the environment ministers of the two countries. The Parties will also provide information on domestic CDM regulations and procedures to companies from both countries. This proves as an added boost to CDM projects in the country. India is currently the second-largest beneficiary of CDM projects (1400 approved) after China. Minister Ramesh indicated at the conference, that if all these CDM projects were to be implemented, the result would be a net inflow of $6 billion into the country. This MoU implies Norway will support CDM projects coming to India. However, Norwegian minister of environment and international development also said CDM projects must benefit countries in Africa, where CDM has negligible presence.

Filed Under: Climate Watch archive Tagged With: 350.org, Bangkok climate talks, Centre for Social Markets, Climate technology conference, CSM, EU climate finance, Global day of action, ICW, India Climate Watch, India Climate Watch - October 2009, Jairam Ramesh, Leaked letter to PM, Manmohan Singh, SAARC, UNFCCC

Why Americans must march on Washington -12 Oct 2009

October 14, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Why Americans must march on Washington

12 Oct 2009

The United States holds the key to global agreement on climate change. With strides being made by other nations, and only five more negotiating days to Copenhagen, the US could emerge the spoiler or savior of COP15. On present form, many fear the former. But much rests with the American people. It is time they took to the streets to give their newly-‘enobeled’ President the mandate he needs for leadership on climate change.

The UN climate talks in Bangkok ended on a bizarrely surreal note last week. The US had been fingered all week for back-pedalling on efforts to secure a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Its lead negotiator spelt out US opposition to the treaty: “We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries.”

At the same time in Washington DC, the heads of leading think-tanks, Centre for American Progress and the UN Foundation, issued statements downplaying expectations that a legally-binding treaty with mid-term targets for developed nations would emerge from Copenhagen in December. This went against clear indications to the contrary from the European Union and Japan, and Norway who won thunderous applause in Bangkok for pushing the Annex 1 commitment dial the highest by offering to cut CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2020 –the first developed nation to do so.

Obama’s Peace Prize surprise

In this situation of the US on the diplomatic back-foot came the incredulous news from Oslo that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. The sound of jaws dropping could be heard everywhere. Granted more in hope and expectation, the official citation referred to Obama’s initiative in ensuring “the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.”

If one of the secret hopes of the Nobel Committee in awarding the prize to Obama was to entice him to come to Copenhagen in December, the response from the White House has been guarded. The President is keeping his own counsel and even his assistant for energy and climate change, Carol Browner, says she has no plans to attend. Instead efforts to downplay the importance of COP15 are ratcheting up by the White House briefing machine.

US Chief negotiator Todd Stern is openly talking of limited agreement at Copenhagen and the need to continue negotiations into 2010. In March already he had testified before Congress that the US would not meet mid-term targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020, adding tartly “I don’t think it’s necessary, and I do know it’s not possible.” Another Administration heavyweight, Larry Summers, has recently said that climate change was the sixth out of the White House’s top six priorities.

If the intent of the Administration is to downgrade expectations of Copenhagen, it is having an effect. The UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon is reportedly scaling down his hopes of a comprehensive climate treaty emerging out of Copenhagen. The Danish hosts of COP15 are aiming for the most ambitious agreement possible but say it must be commensurate to the ambition level that parties want. Bangkok has ended in confusion and uncertainty. The effect has been corrosive. 

Kerry-Boxer on the Senate agenda

The reason for the White House’s timorousness can be found on the far side of town in the Senate Hart Building. There Senators John Kerry (D-Mass) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) tabled an 800-page bill called the Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act of 2009, or Kerry-Boxer for short, on 30 September.

The bill is the Senate’s answer to the Waxman-Markey bill which passed the House of Representatives in June by 219-212. Both represent climate legislation that would for the first time set emissions caps on greenhouse gases and establish an emissions trading scheme in the US. Kerry-Boxer differs from the House bill in a few respects and would go further than Waxman-Markey by seeking CO2 emissions cuts of 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, compared to the House bill’s 17 percent cut by 2020.

The bill’s fate – and Copenhagen’s – now rests with 100 senators. Regrettably for us most of them are driven not by climate science or the bated breath of 192 nations, but by pork-barrel politics and domestic interest groups. For the United States to lead at Copenhagen, the Administration needs a green light from the Senate. The Administration does not want a repeat of Kyoto where then Vice-President Al Gore brought back a deal that Congress rejected stalling the US climate debate for a decade.

While publically the Administration’s strategy seems to be to manage expectations, behind the scenes officials say they are working to get the numbers on their side. Press reports suggest that officials have met “with more than half the Senate, made calls to nearly 100 mayors in 17 states, and met with numerous governors.” A White House representative is also in attendance at weekly meetings to advance the bill hosted by Senators Boxer and Kerry involving 20 senators.

None of these efforts, however, is geared at fast-tracking the bill in time for Copenhagen. Instead the bill seems to be moving at the pace of the slowest. Neither do any of the Administration’s top officials seem to be putting themselves out to secure legislation that will – in Todd Stern’s words from March – be “signed, sealed and delivered” in time for the US to go with a clear legislative mandate to COP15.

Senate the key to Copenhagen

With domestic political attention focused on health care reform, the Senate appears to have no sense of urgency on climate change or how acutely other nations are watching the US. For long the Senate debate has centred on what emerging nations such as China and India would do. Whether they would play a constructive role. In recent weeks through a series of significant announcements, countries such as China, India and Indonesia have indicated they are willing to act on domestic mitigation. If Senators are skeptical, they should know that in each country constituencies are emerging to ensure that rhetoric matches reality. There are no more excuses to hide behind.

Everywhere one finds the momentum on climate change rising. Only the US is sending out the wrong signals. At a time when scientists are emphasizing the ‘now or never’ significance of Copenhagen, the US President is seeking to play down expectations. Fearing failure at COP15, he is now courting it. His non-committal response to the Danes’ open invitation to Heads of State to attend Copenhagen is making it less likely that other heads of state will attend. The President has refused to use his political capital to elevate climate change higher up the political agenda and move public opinion in a way only his oratory can.

Low-ambition coalition

Instead Obama’s words are giving succor to those who are dragging their heels and do not wish for Copenhagen to succeed. Countries who will use this to form a ‘low-ambition coalition of the unwilling’, rather than the ‘high ambition coalition’ that Europe and vulnerable nations have been seeking to mobilize.

The world cannot wait. Nations whose very survival is at stake cannot wait. Ecosystems on the verge of collapse cannot wait. The cost of delay will not just be felt in remote parts of the world but on Wall Street and Main Street. With every day that passes, the US loses further its competitive edge to other nations whose governments have decided to make low-carbon innovation central to their economic renewal and growth efforts.

These arguments are being waged by Americans in every state of the union. It is time for them to descend on Washington and make their voices heard.

Moving the Senate

Washington pundits say that the Senate cannot be moved. That the political weather is being made by health care reform and climate change will have to take a back-seat. They must be proven wrong. There is no arguing with the atmosphere. The latest peer-reviewed scientific studies tell us the climate impacts are hitting faster and deeper. For the Senate to delay further on Kerry-Boxer will be tantamount to 100 Neros fiddled while the planet burned.

In a year when climate change was expected to be the dominant issue on the world stage, the political wisdom of putting healthcare reform on the domestic legislative agenda is questionable. But it need not, and must not, jeopardize the chances of a fair, binding and ambitious agreement emerging from Copenhagen.

What is needed is for the unmoveable object of the Senate to meet the irresistible force of public opinion. It is time for Americans to march on Washington and call for the Senate to pass Kerry-Boxer. This will give the President the unequivocal mandate he needs to exert leadership Copenhagen. A million people – or close enough – marching in the Mall waving placards bearing every state in the union will send a signal that unconvinced Senators have not heard yet: that Americans are ready to rise to the challenge of climate change and for their President to bring back an ambitious treaty from Copenhagen.

Americans must realize that their continued talk of ‘US exceptionalism’ no longer washes. The world is weary of excuses from Washington that the US political process is too complex. In more than ten years of hearing this we have become intimately familiar with the ins and outs of Congressional debates on global warming. The US cannot continue to ask the world to wait while it sorts out its political system. It is not alone in the need to gain domestic approval for political action on climate change. This is a struggle every democratic nation has to wage.

Making strides in India

In India we have mobilized around the country to win the argument that as a highly vulnerable country, action on climate change is in our own national interest not as a response to foreign pressure. We have succeeded in changing the victimhood narrative that projected India merely as an innocent bystander while our own emissions grew. We have pushed an opportunity-led agenda emphasizing green growth and green jobs – for the many not just the few. We have gained support in important sections of business and industry for a swift transition to a low-carbon, highly competitive economy. We have emphasized the fact that action on climate change is a pro-poor, pro-development strategy – India’s poor are the ones most dependent on natural resources and functioning ecosystems, their lives and livelihoods are most at risk if we do not build a more climate-resilient society.

We have pushed at every argument that suggested that India was too poor and too feeble a nation to take on a pro-active role on climate change. As the world’s fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the third largest economy in purchasing parity terms, and the second most populous nation, we should be the first in line for climate leadership.

We have begun to win the argument. The carapace of India’s climate orthodoxy has begun to crack. With the arrival of the reforming environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, we have seen fundamental shifts in rhetoric. India is no longer to be seen as obstructionist and defensive. We have seen a breathtaking number of initiatives announced on everything from an ambitious solar strategy for India to the establishment of a national climate change mitigation authority. The minister is now openly talking of the need for India to reduce her emissions and consent to international monitoring and reporting of mitigation actions. All this is light years away from where we were just a few months ago. It shows what a difference focused pressure and enlightened leadership can make.

We are not done yet but we have managed to move politics in our country. We can do much more but not without the United States coming fully into the game. Americans must realize that every country has a major domestic political struggle on climate change, not just the United States. In India we have started to make a difference but we still have an uphill task. We know that our emissions will have to peak by 2030, but we also have a deeply unequal society with hundreds of millions still excluded from the basics of a decent life – adequate food, water, sanitation, healthcare, education and energy services. With our per capita emissions less than 1/20th that of the average American, asking India to do more while the US goes AWOL on climate change will cause more righteous indignation and raised blood pressure in the sub-continent.

What we need to see – and what we have not seen yet – is that Americans understand that the world cannot be eternally patient with their domestic political arrangements. We have a deal to make in Copenhagen. We have waited fifteen years for this. We are not going to have it kicked into the long grass of 2010 and a Copenhagen bis just because the US Senate cannot fast track climate legislation. This is not just any year – this is the year on climate change. We have seen what the collapse of Doha round of trade talks did to the prospects of a global agreement on trade. We cannot afford to have a global agreement on climate change similarly shattered. It would take more years to rebuild than time we have left to protect our planet.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary action. If the world is to conclude a fair, ambitious and binding treaty at Copenhagen, it needs the United States fully on board. If the key to getting the US on board is the Senate, this body must now be the focus of overwhelming citizen action.

We have seen how marches on Washington have been epoch-defining phenomenon in America’s history. From civil rights, to the anti-war struggle to reproductive choice, they have manifested the desire for human freedoms and liberty. Just this past weekend, a march on the capitol for gay rights was met with a Presidential promise to fight to remove discrimination against gay people in the military. For all the engagement of US civil society on environmental issues, there has never been a march on Washington on climate change. Surely the time has come. 24 October – the Global Day of Action – is the date. Washington DC is the place. This is where we need to see America move. Now.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

CSM @ Bangkok – Day 10 – 08 Oct 09

October 9, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

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.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

CSM @ Bangkok – Day 9 – 07 Oct 09

October 8, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 9 Report [07 Oct 2009]

 

HEADLINE NEWS

  • Just two days to go to Barcelona. Big picture progress still missing.  
  • Is the Convention a Box, a Brick or a Tile? Well, if we sort that one out, then the deal is nearly done!
  • In LULUCF some Parties are trying to create big loopholes, others say LULUCF needs to have a cap otherwise it can hijack environmental integrity.
  • Finance makes little progress. Philippines on behalf of G77/China give impassioned statement. Bangladesh says need one single fund, single executive board and funding that is predictable, new additional, robust, at required scale, enables direct access
  • In new market mechanisms EU, Republic of Korea, New Zealand propose differing versions of sectoral crediting and trading.
  • Adaptation – Co-Chairs get mandate to produce new non-paper by Friday. Bhutan highlights extreme vulnerability of mountain communities.
  • On response measures to climate change G77/China want insertion of term ‘sustainable development’ instead of ’low-emission economy’
  • In KP track, discussion on text from Tuesday continues. China suggests text opposing unilateral measures against imports, draws ‘line in the sand’, says if no progress on LULUCF by Barcelona, this could be end of road.

KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY

Two days remain, and Parties look to make better progress than they made here in Barcelona. While that does not bode well for the pace of negotiations, it seems likely that the big decisions will be left for December.

In the heated discussion on KP emission targets and the inclusion of LULUCF, G77/China drew a line in the sand as far as LULUCF and its rules are concerned. They indicated that there had to be a cap on LULUCF, and that unless such a cap was put in place, their participation in Barcelona would be in question.

In the KP track on Potential Consequences, the discussion revolved around reviewing guidelines for the second commitment period, where the stress was on taking consequences into account after they had been identified. The key highlight of this session was China’s suggestion to insert text that would prevent Annex 1 Parties from resorting to unilateral measures against imports from developing countries on grounds of protection and stabilization of the climate. This proposal was strongly opposed by EU and Canada.

Discussions in the Finance track made little progress today. Parties are still putting forth their positions and raising issues that underline fundamental differences between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 Parties. The US read out its proposal on the mechanisms and architecture for that proposal in greater detail this morning. The US proposal is along the lines of a trust fund structure, with donors in the ‘driver seat’ and a system that can accommodate contributions from all Parties. It did not get much support from the non- Annex 1 countries for it to be the sole window for financing climate change action. Parties such as Indonesia and Bangladesh said they saw no fundamental difference between the US proposal and existing GEF and World Bank funding. Colombia highlighted the fact that these mechanisms do not provide easy access to funding and have not worked so far. They also pointed out that if the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was not renewed, then even existing successful (but currently minimally-funded) mechanisms such as the Adaptation Fund would cease to be functional.

In the LCA contact group on response measures, Argentina stated the importance of sustainable development as a precondition for addressing climate change, and insisted on the term ‘negative’ appearing before impacts. India suggested that para 2 of the non paper include the term ‘developing country Parties’ – in reference to the negative social and economic impacts of climate change. However, EU came back on this point and noted that people in all countries were capable of being negatively impacted, and hence requested the option of all Parties to be included.

On Adaptation, Parties delved deeper into section A of the non-paper, and gave the chair a mandate to come out with a new non-paper by Friday. Colombia proposed new text that would protect the interests of ecosystems. Canada agreed with many Parties, including the Maldives, that adaptation actions need to be country-driven. While LDCs and SIDS want special reference to most vulnerable countries, South Africa indicated it would prefer the text to have a reference to any vulnerable communities, and noted that some areas needed a transboundary adaptation response.

The session on Mechanisms saw several proposals on new market mechanisms that would boost the transition to a low-carbon economy. The proposals were from the EU, Republic of Korea and New Zealand, and focused on sectoral trading and sectoral crediting as ways to move forward. The proposals also included enhanced and improved CDM Mechanisms that would in effect, allow developing country Parties to participate in international market mechanisms, and these sectoral proposals would be country-driven. Some Parties requested technical papers on the operation of such processes, so that the same mistakes that were made with CDMs would not be repeated here. Venezuela opposed the entire approach, while many asked for clarifications on the issues of double counting, MRVs and the role (if any) of NAMAs in this process.

FOCUS ON THE GOI

In most of the discussions attended, India was fairly quiet today.

In the contact group on response measures, India asked for the insertion of text ‘developing country Parties’ under a paragraph which referred to the negative social and economic impacts of climate change. This move was opposed by the EU, saying that people everywhere can be negatively affected by climate change.

The head of the Indian Delegation, Shaym Saran gave a press briefing to Indian media, as well as a briefing for International NGOs. While many of the statements were similar to the ones made yesterday to Indian NGOs, an important point he made was a clarification on the US position in the Kyoto Protocol, where he said the only narrow issue for US involvement and commitment was a method to compare their commitments to those of other Annex 1 countries (the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore does not have legally binding obligations). He also gave some clarifications on the US MRV proposal and where India stood on the issue.

 

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

CSM @ Bangkok – Day 8 – 06 Oct 09

October 7, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

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.

 

 

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

CSM @ Bangkok – Day 7 – 05 Oct 09

October 7, 2009 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 7Report [05 Oct 2009]

 

HEADLINE NEWS

Informal consultations (without observers) seem likely in Shared Vision and Mitigation sections.

Technology section makes good progress. Many make constructive suggestions to strengthen text. Chair says work here should inspire rest of contact groups.

Parties put forth various numbers on long-term targets for Shared Vision.

Adaptation text could be up for drafting tomorrow. Shorter text to be out by Thursday.

United States puts out a new proposal for financial mechanism.

KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY

Whilst the negotiations are confronted with the practical problem of lengthy text that makes it relatively ‘un-useable’ for Copenhagen, there is also the political issue of the lack of commitments on finance or emission reduction targets being put forward by Annex I Parties.

However, the first day of the second week of negotiations began with some progress being made in the areas of Technology Transfer, Shared Vision, Adaptation and Finance. Overall, the text has been cut down, and is structured better than it was last Monday. There is therefore the potential to end this week with a negotiating text.

In the corridors we hear the need for dynamism to be injected into the process, and this would truly be reflected if negotiators stayed late, and sat down to draft more text. While that has not happened as yet, the EU Head of Delegation Turesson Anders indicated, said that negotiations were making some, albeit insufficient, progress. However, the China Head of Delegation Yu Qingtai indicated that industrialized countries as a whole were trying to change the rules of play weeks before the deadline for a new climate pact.

On Technology Transfer, Parties and the Chair agreed that it was important not to reinsert text that would effectively take us ‘one step back’, but to set a good example and to provide ‘good vibes’ for the rest of the negotiations. This is text on which there is significant convergence, but many Parties including Canada and Pakistan saying there was a need to concentrate on institutional mechanisms.

On Shared Vision, Parties met once again. This session focused on the long-term global goal as well as the nature of the flow of the text. Most Parties reiterated their (or their group) positions, with AOSIS asking for a target based on science and the precautionary principle. The EU emphasized that a peak was also an important criteria. Many Parties indicated that a 50% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 was the desired level of ambition, with AOSIS asking for developed countries to cut their emissions by 95% below 1990 levels by 2050, and for clear mid-term targets. Of the Parties that spoke, Norway was the only country that mentioned a base year of 2000, and Saudi Arabia was the Party that raised the issue regarding vulnerability also implying economic vulnerability (possibly a direct reference to themselves).

The relatively big news on Finance was a new proposal on funding and mechanisms, proposed by the United States. The US provided a detailed elaboration of its proposal which would build on existing institutions (such as the GEF, the LDCF, SCCF and Multilateral Banks), and have an operating entity consistent with the Convention. Papua New Guinea brought to attention the overt focus in the text on just mitigation and adaptation, to include other sectors. The step back in the Finance section included a re-inclusion of text, annexes, and some new text.

The US has also made a submission in the mitigation section, on MRVs for both developed and developing countries, with enhanced National Communications with low carbon pathway plans, review by expert panels and presentations by Parties to the SBI.

Key developments within the US that may have a bearing on the negotiations here, including the US Senate bill to move for a national policy on climate change – hopefully before Copenhagen. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new cap on greenhouse gas emissions from some of the largest polluters. These two tracks will together help reducing emission reductions in the US. But will this help the world get a fair and binding agreement on climate change – that will still be answered only at Copenhagen, or hopefully, by Barcelona.

Focus on the GOI

India shone through in the technology section under the LCA track today, with the Chair (who provided superlative congratulations to many countries) saying the constructive suggestions were magnificent.

India indicated that the text on technology was good, with several areas of convergence. That this provided a basis on which to work. However, there was a need to convert the Bali Action Plan and the Marrakesh accords into accelerated and action oriented work.

This could be made possible through robust financial arrangements that could be linked to the finance discussion. However, the GoI Delegate indicated that there was a real need for roadmaps (as the United States also indicated), and for developing countries to enumerate what technology and actions need to be financed. As for the operational details, the delegate indicated these procedural issues could be finalized after Copenhagen.

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • …
  • 110
  • Next Page »

Indiaclimate twitter

Tweets by @Indiaclimate

Notable

Between contemplation and climate

Whether or not the USA, Europe, the Western world, the industrialised Eastern world (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), adhere to or not their paltry promises about being more responsible concerning the factors that lead to climate change, is of very little concern to us. We have never set any store by international agreements on climate […]

The ‘Hindu’, ignorant about weather and climate, but runs down IMD

We find objectionable the report by ‘The Hindu’ daily newspaper accusing the India Meteorological Department of scientific shortcoming (‘IMD gets its August forecast wrong’, 1 September 2016). The report claims that the IMD in June 2016 had forecast that rains for August would be more than usual but that the recorded rain was less than […]

dialogue

  • Misreading monsoon | Resources Research on Misreading monsoon
  • Satish on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat
  • Climate portal editor on A tribute to the weathermen of Bharat

Categories

Copyright © 2025 indiaclimateportal.org.