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.
Leave a Reply