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.
Leave a Reply