Centre for Social Markets (CSM) PARTNER EVENTS
CSM is proud to support Cleantech Group LLC in the Cleantech Forum at Delhi
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 6 – 03 Oct 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 6 Report [03 Oct 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
A new week of negotiations begin. Hopefully more text will be consolidated by Monday. Some text to be consolidated by Tuesday.
First reading of newer text on Finance finishes. Mexico makes strong pitch for its Green Fund proposal, says ‘victims of today (us), may well be the culprits of tomorrow.
Consolidated text on Reduced Emissions from Decreased Deforestation (REDD) out. Many areas of convergence, Parties to revert next week.
Text on Mitigation Action by developing countries consolidated. Parties provide initial thoughts.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Parties (member states) finished their first reading of the consolidated negotiating text on Finance today. Many take this to indicate progress, particularly because Finance and the architecture for institutional arrangements to deliver it form the crux of any potential deal at Copenhagen. During the discussion, while several Annex I countries were in favour of existing financial institutions (e.g. IMF and World Bank and Global Environment Facility) continuing as the key touch points for disbursal of finance, Many non-Annex I Parties argued that speaking from experience, it was difficult for many to access these institutions and get financial aid from them.
Mexico’s Proposal for all countries to contribute to a ‘Green Fund’ in proportion to their respective capabilities and historical responsibilities met with some nods of agreement from several Annex I countries, while the G77/China, Pakistan, China and India were not in favour of the Mexican proposal, or any proposal that was not in conformity with the Convention.
Consolidated text on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) was available today, and Parties went through the initial portions of the text, including principles and scope of the text. It was decided that Wednesday 7th October would be set aside for drafting of the text, based on the condensed text now made available. Parties agreed that there was much convergence on this issue, but that the aspects of REDD that referred to finance would have to be looked at once the overarching issues of overall finance (including figures) were looked into.
The chair indicated that negotiations on text could begin by Wednesday 7th October. Bolivia stressed the need to maintain environmental integrity, and recognize the interests of indigenous people. They noted that the current text concentrated too much on mechanisms that would, in effect, help Annex I countries meet their emission reduction needs. India raised the question of subjectivity in the text, such as ‘low carbon’, while Norway indicated that biodiversity principles and attention to biodiversity conservation needed to be improved.
Consolidated text on developing country mitigation action (1b (ii) of the Bali Action Plan) came out today. On the overarching pillar of mitigation, Australia had recently proposed a registry of mitigation actions (whatever they might be) for both developed and developing countries. These would include the nature of the targets (domestic/offset/ technology improvements/ adaptation actions, etc), and eventually help in assessing combined contributions for a long-term goal. In the discussions today, Australia proposed that this registry system be complimentary text (i.e. not as an option that can be negotiated out of the final deal). Japan indicated that new text misses out details for measuring and reporting on mitigation funded actions. Overall, the discussion was rather positive, and Parties will come back to the text on Thursday next.
FOCUS ON THE GOI
On Finance, India requested the chair to condense the text but to do so in conformity with the Convention and its guidelines. While this view is supported by most Parties from G77/China, many Annex I Parties, including the United States, Australia, Canada, EU and Japan are not averse to exploring new possibilities and mechanisms that can add value to the Copenhagen outcome. These include market mechanisms, as well as substantial reductions in emissions (as compared to a business as usual scenario) by large and key Non Annex I Countries.
On REDD, India’s interventions focused on the sources and basis for funding of REDD Mechanisms. Dr. Prodipto Ghosh highlighted the point that text such as ‘low carbon’ was ill-defined, and not in the Convention. That in the interest of keeping things simple, such principles must be kept out of the text. He also said that in the current text, there was a reference to nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), and that this should be removed owing to such references posing contradictions to the Convention, but also because this could raise the issues of double counting.
On developing country mitigation actions, India raised issues of substance as well as arrangement. But indicated that this section – which is meant to address the requirements of developing nations did not do so. For example, that the reference to offset in the text should not be included here, as again, it raised the issue of double counting.
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 5 – 02 Oct 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 5 Report [02 Oct 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
Weekend Stock-taking session for Kyoto Protocol (KP) and Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) tracks.
Kyoto Protocol – stock-taking indicates good progress made on land use change, potential consequences. Targets remain the big question.
LCA – Technology transfer and capacity building makes good progress. First reading of text on Finance nearly done. Progress remains to be made in mitigation, adaptation sections.
Venezuela says in the past there use to be land grabs, now it is sky grabs.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Today marks the last day of the first week of a two-week session. Negotiators have a text before them that they must consolidate, but the point is not so much that they have to cut down the number of pages (>200), but rather that they must identify the key elements that must go into a Copenhagen deal.
As the Chair of the Kyoto Protocol session indicated during the stock-taking session, the reality of the crisis has NOT sunk in. That, while politicians made big promises at the UN Secretary General’s summit on climate change, those statements have not translated into anything concrete here.
Eleven negotiating days remain for the Copenhagen process to start. In this short time, negotiators have the unenviable task of seeking to avoid key numbers and commitments while negotiating text. While a number of Annex 1 countries have put down numbers for 2020 and the G8 have agreed to an 80% reduction by 2050, the level of ambition is criticized for not being enough. AOSIS critiqued the Annex 1 collective ambition of 11-18% below 1990 levels by 2020 and said this would lead to a temperature increase of “3ºC or worse.” The numbers do not go far enough to meet calls by them and other nations for cuts between 25-40% by 2020. Mitigation by Annex 1 countries and meaningful contributions by major developing economies is one sticking point. Another is the numbers on finance. These are all issues that will be subject to horse-trading. The fear is that decisions on these key issues will have to wait till the big guns arrive – the politicians – at Copenhagen. By then it may well be too late to reach agreement.
While this Copenhagen outcome will be new, the UN Convention is the main reference document on which the new deal will be built. It will also be guided by the Bali Action Plan, which provides the basis for a larger picture and a long-term vision that will give a perspective to the new outcome.
As for the Kyoto Protocol, it is the legal offspring of the Convention, valid till 2012. Over the course of the week, it has become apparent that some Annex I countries would prefer to phase out the Kyoto Protocol for the post 2012 deal. They would rather have a new deal that does away with the Kyoto Protocol but which keeps in line with the Convention and the Bali Action Plan.
Many developing countries, keen to retain the focus on Annex 1 countries, say that portions of the current text (proposed by Annex I), undermines the three key principles of the Convention – historical responsibility, common but differentiated responsibility and environmental integrity. They charge some Annex I countries with seeking to erode these principles of the Convention. Developing countries also say that the new text cannot just do away with the Kyoto Protocol, since that does away with any sort of legally binding compliance.
Given there are only eleven days (six here, five in Barcelona), time is running out. So the best way to move forward from here, is to focus on core issues and mechanisms. The chair of the AWG will soon convene informal meetings (tomorrow) that will aim to speed up the process for the following week.
The Climate Action Network urged the KP and LCA chairs to inject the political momentum from New York into the negotiations, and urged deviation from business as usual especially in these negotiations.
FOCUS ON THE GOI
In the mitigation section, India indicated that it would like to request the Secretariat to list currently available literature on whether the level of ambition put down by developed countries was adequate, and to assess the targets in comparison to the IPCC 2007 report. This was in response to the Australian proposal of schedules for future targets, on which all countries would put down their numbers.
In the stock-taking section of the LCA, Mr R.R. Rashmi – a key negotiator for India (on all issues technical), said they thought progress so far was fairly good. However, he said that in our efforts to reach a deal, we must not sprint to the end, but rather focus on some key areas:
- Developed countries had to give a deep emission reduction commitment, and reduction of 40-45% below 1990 levels
· Deliver on Finance without losing time
· And a global mechanisms that would deliver technology transfer at affordable cost would be a deal-clincher
He said if delegates could organize their work here to get these key issues on board, and inscribe it into the text before us, real progress could be made before Copenhagen.
The comments were appreciated by the Chair, owing to process suggestions that would lend clarity and de-cloud the rest of the week of negotiations.
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 4 – 01 Oct 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 4 Report [01 Oct 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
Finance discussion plods ahead. Developed country parties want equal importance given to private and public sector funding. India raises important issue of triple counting emission reductions. Battle lines seem drawn.
US indicate preference for all countries to give their mitigation commitments for the long term. Australia puts forward proposal for listing and accounting for mitigation commitments (everybody). G77/China, India raise concerns about slipping away from responsibility of historical emitters, taking on new mitigation targets
Text on Capacity Building might be done rather soon.
US say global deal that does not take their domestic policies into concern will exclude possibility of US money. ‘To access our money’ you have to design a policy in that way – Pershing.
REDD moves smoothly. Parties agree to consolidate initial parts of text. Start discussing what is important for Copenhagen.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Time is ticking, but it is becoming increasingly clear, that if things do not move in the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) track, then things will not move in the Kyoto Protocol track either. The log-jam however, doesn’t end there. It spreads into cross-cutting areas of discussion like a domino. Finance continues to be a fraught and unyielding area in the negotiations.
Discussions on Finance under the LCA are stuck for a number of reasons. One is that private sector financing is favoured by some Annex 1 countries as a key aspect of the funding mix. While they ‘accept that public funding is essential’, and are not shying away from it, they ask for their proposal of private investments to be considered seriously. The role and potential contribution of market mechanisms in facilitating mitigation actions in developing countries is proving controversial.
Many non-Annex 1 countries favour straightforward public finance from Annex 1 countries as funding which bears less risk for them than being exposed to the vagaries of the market. Small developing nations in particular favour a greater share of public finance as market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol (such as the Clean Development Mechanism) have overwhelmingly benefitted the larger emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil.
Looking at a range of options, many Parties raised the pertinent point that future outcomes (whatever they might be), must not be restricted by the Convention. Even the LCA chair alluded to this, saying that we must no be like a ‘nightingale in a cage’.
Sure enough, neither the G77/China, India, Pakistan, Barbados, Colombia, China nor most others of the developing country block said they would not agree to any proposals that were outside the provisions of the Convention, and the Bali Action Plan. The G77/China alluded to the market process becoming like a self-service mechanism.
Practically speaking, new text outside of the provisions of these documents (that themselves were many many years in the making), means more negotiations, more negotiations and more negotiations. And sure enough, proposals will only be countered by counter proposals – which is how we now have a 208 page document that not even the most experienced and wily negotiator can make sense of.
In the second half of the discussions on Finance, the G77/China finally made mention of the AOSIS and LDC countries, and that they would require some special consideration. This is some reason for cheer, because it has been observed that although the AOSIS and LDC blocks are part of the G77/China, they get little special mention, as they rightfully should.
The United States continues to hold to its line that larger developing countries with the means to do so must also make contributions to mitigation. The Delegate from the US noted the difficulty that domestic processes presented (read, in the US case) which implied they could never become a part of the Kyoto Protocol. The US conclusion on finance was: if you want to access our resources, you have to design a policy taking our laws into account.
FOCUS ON GOI
In the mitigation section of the LCA, India opposed the proposals of the Annex I countries to keep the paragraph that indicated that private funding would be the major source of money for mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries. They stuck to the common G77/China stand on following the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, saying that any proposals that did not incorporate those principles, could not be part of the new text. They indicated that proposals to diminish the role of public sector funding ignored the concept of responsibility.
In the Finance discussion of the LCA, India raised two points.
One of triple (or is it quadruple?) counting – that mitigation options considered outside of a legal framework could technically be counted by developed countries as meeting their responsibility, by developing countries as their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), and by developed countries as meeting their financial requirements. Plus they could potentially get Certified Emission Reductions (CER) for it.
They also argued that if the private sector was to be the major source of funding for mitigation and adaptation action that this would come under bilateral partnerships, that would not count as supported mitigation actions (as is intended to be the case).
More By Malini Mehra
More by Malini Mehra – (Climate Change only)
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 3 – 30 Sep 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 3 Report [30 Sep 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
G77/China Chair in press conference says rich countries want to ditch Kyoto Protocol.
NZ becomes bakra of meeting on Kyoto Protocol. Responds to its recent decision to further kill level of ambition. Is asked to defend its position by South Africa. Says from a developed country perspective, NZ is almost like a developing country.
Brazil, China, South Africa, India, Micronesia make impassioned statements at Kyoto Protocol targets discussion. Says Annex I countries are forgetting developed country populations, historical responsibility, or that there is a real climate crisis while defending their poor level of ambition.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Negotiations on Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) continued today, with contact groups beginning the process of consolidating text on developed and developing country mitigation actions (each under separate paragraphs of the Bali Action Plan). Recall that mitigation is a key process to actually reducing emission reductions, and that at some time in the future, developing countries (as they develop) also need to set some targets. For now, the silence is valid and allowed, although pressure for some major developing countries to come out and make commitments is building.
While there is a clear mandate in the Bali Action Plan for developing country emission trajectories to reduce ‘significantly’ from Business As Usual (BAU) paths, the differences of opinion here, are focused around the actual targets, and the need for developing country actions to be Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV).
G77/China and several developing countries indicated that all actions on mitigation that they would take up by themselves (unilaterally and therefore not financed from Annex I countries) would:
– not be subjected to verification
– be voluntary
– and bottom-up (decided domestically)
This is something they have been saying right from the start. Nevertheless, with 65 days to Copenhagen and the pressure for a deal (post 2012 deal) building, developing country silence on any sort of long-term targets seems to be exasperating developed country partners. Many Annex I countries are unable to come to grips with political posturing by India and China or even Indonesia recently, with none of these actually translating into ‘commitments’.
As for the LCA discussion on the nature of developed country mitigation targets in the future, today’s session was focused on the issue of ‘comparability’ – or how emission reductions can be measured one against the other. The United States is keen that comparing targets is done through a domestic process that is then peer reviewed. G77/China and India argued for top-down setting of targets that are objectively reviewed by a legal international process.
Technocratic decisions aside, Parties are still in the process of putting logical bits of currently incoherent text together, so that they can then begin the process of negotiation. As indicated yesterday, real negotiations are still likely to begin only by Monday.
Coming to the other track of the negotiations – the Kyoto Protocol, decisions on Annex I mitigation targets below 1990 levels are still to be decided. Parties (Annex I) still have to agree on the base year, the commitment period, and the proportion of offsets that will come from domestic cuts.
However, it is rather clear that targets are a hugely political decision, and that negotiators here may not have the mandate to set such targets. In effect, the three hour session on Kyoto targets managed to get rather heated, confused and an unhappy exercise for most Parties.
The EU began with its progress report, which included a display of how to use hot air as credits, and how it was possible to cash in on all the loopholes in the Kyoto Process while claiming emission reductions. While their intentions may have been noble, and while they are the only developed country block showing some environmental integrity, they managed along with Japan, to ask for a joint session between the KP and the LCA – tracks meant to be addressed separately since 2007. They added meat to their argument by saying that the LCA and the Land-Use and Land-Use Change (LULUCF) discussions had not progressed so far, and that this meant there was little hope for the targets discussion here at the KP to progress.
The invisible elephant in the KP room was the US, which was mentioned in the discussions despite its not being a member of the Kyoto Protocol. The EU asked for developing countries to make their long-term targets clear so that they (Annex I) would be able to meet their Kyoto Targets. Australia said encouraging political statements made by several developing countries had not yet translated into any action here, in the negotiations, and was visibly exasperated by this. The KP session was not perhaps the most appropriate forum to bring all these issues up – it could easily have been discussed at the LCA sessions.
Venezuela began the rebuff on these suggestions to mix the tracks, by saying ‘no-one held a gun to their head to sign the Kyoto’, but ‘now they want to throw the responsibility on developing countries’. South Africa, India, China, Micronesia and Pakistan chimed in agreement on no need to mix tracks. China made an impassioned statement about whether they ‘recognised their responsibility’, and that they were talking here of 1/4th of the world’s population causing here quarters of the emissions, and vice versa.
What could this complete waste of three hours imply? Simply that there was an absence of a clear political mandate from Annex I countries, and that this meant a stalemate here. As the South African delegate clearly said, ‘it’s a chicken and an egg story’, and nothing will move until something moves, but if no one wants anything to move then nothing will move.
Focus on the GOI
At the LCA, India mostly clarified its position on what it and the G77/China understood by the paragraphs on NAMAs for developing countries. On developed country mitigation requirements, negotiators said there was a need for all comparability of efforts to be transparent and done through an objective process. They also indicated that they wanted the benchmark for future ambition and targets to come from the architecture (rules and processes) of the Kyoto Protocol.
On the KP targets track, when the EU and Australia suggested the idea of a joint session for the two tracks, India said ‘was it a dream that we met in Bali where we decided to keep the KP and the LCA tracks separate?’ India argued that what developing countries said – referencing to Australia’s exasperation on political movement but lack of translation into negotiation process – was not relevant here. They charged that Annex I countries were comparing apples, oranges and all kinds of Annex I fruits, and finding ways of measuring their emission cuts in several different ways. But that they were not addressing their targets in the context of science, rationality, and responsibility.
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 2 – 29 Sep 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 2 Report [29 Sep 2009]
WISE WORDS FROM THE NEGOTIATORS
“Let us discuss FOOD and what it looks like.
But do we get to eat it?
… well, that’s another matter altogether!”
HEADLINE NEWS
Line-by-line negotiations only look likely by Monday next. ‘Accelerator’ meetings may add some momentum.
United States brings up issues of mitigation commitments. Almost threatens to stall negotiations if its demands are not met
Negotiations on Technology Transfer move smoothly. Some reason for cheer. Co-chairs given unanimous mandate to consolidate all of the new text on the section by Thursday.
Adaptation, Shared vision for Long-term Cooperative Action text hits same old roadblocks. Developed countries oppose developing country preferences and vice versa.
Finance negotiations start on text from the word go, differences in Parties’ approach remains. Similar status quo on differences in Shared Vision for Long-term Cooperative Action.
New Zealand may backtrack on already miniscule targets. Sets more conditions for acceptance.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
For some time now, there have been large differences between key Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries regarding mitigation issues – specifically, how each group should address emission reductions and mitigation action. These specific mitigation discussions have failed to progress for some time now, but in the run-up to Copenhagen, it is crucial that these matters be resolved as they form a key part of the negotiations.
Developing countries want measurable reportable and verifiable (MRVs) commitments for themselves to be discussed as a separate issue from that of developed country MRVs. The United States wanted a discussion on mitigation elements common to all Parties, and for this issue to be discussed under a separate sub-group.
Matters came to a head yesterday when the US said it would not move forward on the rest of the negotiations on mitigation unless this issue was settled, and their demands met.
Australia and Norway supported the US proposal, while India led the opposition supported by China and the G77+China. While such spats threaten to stall discussions and get reported as such, they are in some ways a good sign that negotiations are indeed progressing. Unless diplomats thrash out their differences (even if they are through veiled comments), there will be little progress. No one wishes for a treaty or a deal on which everyone agrees meekly, and in which no one strives to achieve what is in the best interests of all.
For some good news, decent progress has been made on the section on Enhanced Action on Development and Transfer of Technology, with parties asking the co-chair to go ahead and consolidate the entire text. Blocks of text will be circulated to Parties as and when they get ready, and the entire text on technology will be ready by Thursday. The G77 and China however, did manage to dampen the spirit of the negotiations, by saying that although all the text could be consolidated, they may or may not find it acceptable.
Other tepid news included slow movement on discussions of Finance, and on what portions of the text Parties would agree to. Here again, developing countries insisted that details of Finance must be out, and that paying for ‘services’ in some sense, must not be considered as charity.
For some time now, the only region to verbally commit some money to the process and through the Convention, has been the European Union (EU). However, many experts suggest the money proposed by the EU is too low. The EU today expressed its belief that much money would come through external mechanisms such as carbon markets and private sector investments rather than government transfers. G77 and China, India and the Co-Chair, pointed out that neither the EU nor any Annex I countries should mix issues, nor confuse their obligations with external or optional mechanisms.
Not to make too fine a point of it, it seems rather clear that while developed countries are less and less keen to talk about ‘differentiated’ responsibilities, the developing countries refuse to talk about ‘common’ responsibilities. Developed countries are also firm on wanting major developing countries on board with legally binding mitigation targets – something that countries such as China are opposing in a big way.
Polemics aside, negotiators are keen to make progress on shortening and clearing out the text. Given the short span of time left to thrash out issues (only 13 negotiating days), they are also keen to focus on the key and ‘bigger picture’ issues, and leave the nitty gritty bits of relatively unimportant text for a post-Copenhagen discussion. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that hard negotiations will only be able to hit the ground by Monday, since much discussion on process, the ‘how’, and on consolidating text is currently underway.
Focus on the GOI
At the mitigation discussion, India questioned MRV and highlighted the need to discuss the issue of mitigation separately for Annex I and Non Annex I countries. This grew into the much talked about spat between the developing countries and US negotiators, with India being a special focal point. The US delegate Jonathan Pershing, breaking protocol, made a direct reference to India’s environment minister’s recent statement, but going further, suggested that the US would be unwilling to continue discussions on the matter unless they got consent for a formal contact group.
Nevertheless, on more substantive issues, India did reiterate environment minister Jairam Ramesh’s statements that the scope and frequency of the National Communications (NATCOMs) would be expanded to each year, as opposed to every six years until now. However, India reiterated its position that mitigation actions not supported by developed country action would not be subject to verification.
On Finance, India highlighted the need for a financial mechanism under the Convention, since there was only an interim arrangement through the GEF at the moment.
India’s position is unlikely to have changed as regards MRVs and legally binding targets. This is similar to what the Chinese may have in mind at the multilateral process, regardless of bilaterals and their own unilateral mitigation actions.
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 1 – 28 Sep 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 1 Report [28 Sep 2009]
“The political winds are behind you
The negotiating sails are set.
With all my heart I urge you to pull up the anchor and make full sail before we lose the tide
and are left stranded on the beach, exposed to the coming storms”
– Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC, Bangkok 2009
The negotiating sails are set.
With all my heart I urge you to pull up the anchor and make full sail before we lose the tide
and are left stranded on the beach, exposed to the coming storms”
– Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC, Bangkok 2009
Headline News
UN climate negotiations resume in Bangkok 28 September 2009. Progress here is crucial for a successful deal in Copenhagen.
Thai PM Abhisit Vejjajiva and Danish Minister Connie Hedegaard open talks. Thai PM says “our children and grandchildren will never forgive us unless action is taken”.
Negotiators look forward to Bangkok discussions being fruitful. Understand that progress here is crucial for Copenhagen. All groups and countries say they are willing and ready to engage constructively in discussions.
New climate leadership from Japan welcomed. Many countries commend action to reduce GHG emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.
The week gone by adds critical momentum
Five weeks after the Bonn3 round of negotiations, climate talks resumed in Bangkok. Between August and now, there has been much political activity directed towards building momentum. Among the numerous high-level meetings, the UN climate summit, hosted by UN Secretary General and attended by over 100 world leaders was the most successful in bringing out the political will necessary to reach a successful deal in Copenhagen this December. Here leaders expressed their determination to seal a comprehensive, fair and effective deal to avoid dangerous climate change. Other developments that brought hope were Japan’s commitment to reduce its emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and China and India agreeing to implicit or ‘soft’ targets on mitigation. However, an AOSIS summit held just before the UN climate summit provided a stark reminder of the survival of island and vulnerable countries being in question given the rapid rate of climate change.
Key issues of the day
As Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, said at the opening of the Bangkok climate talks, ‘time is not just pressing, it has almost run out’. Barely 16 days of negotiating time remain, within which negotiators are imposed with the onerous task of making 280 pages of text clearer, shorter and more coherent. Danish campaigner, Tove Ryding, said that with just three months to a deal, we are still ‘drowning in text’.
Clearly the task of negotiators is not just complicated, it is crucial to a successful outcome. Political will aside, if these two weeks at Bangkok yield a poor harvest, it could mean that a delay in a climate deal could be inevitable.
It might be a optimistic to hope that the pace of negotiation progress will match the increasing pace of action at the highest levels. However, if negotiators have been given high level support from capitols, this may well be possible.
However, key caveats to the success of negotiations include the need to focus on the substance of the text rather than process and a perspective of the larger deal.
Key issues to address over the next two weeks include the ‘bigger picture’:
– On Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA), comprehensive and shorter text, details on key issues – finance, technology transfer, adaptation finance, developed and developing country mitigation action
– On the Kyoto Protocol, firming up targets for developed country emission reductions and rules for forest mechanisms (REDD) and land use (LULUCF)
– On the overall negotiations, commitments to action, follow through of commitments, building trust and transparency in processes
Unlike the Bonn sessions, where the focus was on process rather than substance, negotiations here at Bangkok need to get down to the brass tacks as soon as possible.
Bangkok began on a fairly high note, with negotiators from all groups (G77+China, LDCs, AOSIS, Umbrella, Environmental Integrity, EU and the African group) indicating that they were keen to progress discussions and ready to engage constructively. One measure of positive progress over these two weeks will come from solid output on substance. If by Monday next we see no work on substance, we may not ‘make full sail before we lose the tide’ in the words of Yvo de Boer. In addition, the survival of the Kyoto Protocol and all negotiations finished by Barcelona would indicate real progress.
While India and China’s efforts to engage in the process as responsible Asian giants have not gone unnoticed, what has not yet been said by others is worrisome. Action from the United States is still awaited and their level of ambition is certainly wanting. The EU is still silent on financing, and the Australian proposal submitted to the Greenland Dialogue mainly provides fresh impetus to strengthen carbon markets but specifies little else. Many individual developed countries are still silent on targets, a base year and even commitment periods (5 or 8 years). It is now openly suggested that the numbers game will go on till the last night at Copenhagen in December.
The AOSIS and Africa Group emphasized what was possibly a pressure point for one and all – that a missed opportunity at a deal would undermine the integrity of the Convention itself.
Focus on the GOI
India backed the G77 and China in its statements, saying that no targets for emission reductions by Barcelona will mean that the Copenhagen outcome will be a failure, and pointed out an important point that the negotiation text still does not include any targets.
While other representatives alluded to the mandate by their leaders at key political forums this September, India was silent on comments made by Jairam Ramesh at New York and Pittsburgh. Specifically on positive moves made by the environment minister on India wanting to be a ‘deal maker’and measures such as releasing India’s National Communications to the UNFCCC every year instead of six, and a proposal for a National Climate Change Mitigation Authority mentioned by the Prime Minister earlier this month. Nor was there any effort by India’s negotiators at Bangkok to re-package and sell India’s actions as the Minister for Environment and Forests has been doing successfully internationally.