Blog

Posted:
May 22, 2012
Author:
greeder

Statement on behalf of 60% of the world’s population in the Durban Platform

More analysis to come….this was delivered by Venezuela

Submission on the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Plataform (AWG-DP)

Bonn, 22nd of May

Thank you for giving me the floor.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has the honor to make a statement on behalf of Argentina, Algeria, Bahrain, Bolivia, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Palestine, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

The developing countries associated with this statement account for over 4 billion people on our planet or roughly 60% of the global population, with high incidence of vulnerability to climate change. We have a high stake not only in the ongoing negotiations but also in the important process that we launched at Durban as part of a balanced package.

We assure you of our keenness to expeditiously move forward with the substantive work of the AWG-DP. We wish to assure all our partners that we will spare no effort in reaching out to them and any other partner in finding a solution.

However, AWG-DP agenda is not a procedural discussion but one of substance and scope, both of which will have deep implication on our work. The agenda we adopt here will guide us in this process at least until the end of this year. We are confident that a frank discussion at this stage would enhance our collective understanding on the way forward. We would reiterate our openness to receive and discuss all proposals made by parties on the agenda in a spirit of constructively moving forward. At the same time, we hope that other parties would also take on board our ideas and concerns and that such issues would also receive the consideration they deserve.

We are constructively engaged in this important exercise of agreeing on an agenda that all parties feel ownership of, thereby ensuring the context, quality and momentum for our work. The discussion we had on Saturday was a useful one and it enriched our
understanding of the views held by parties in this debate.

It would be important to give due time and space to open-ended consultations, including in an informal setting. We would strongly encourage that all future consultations on this be held in an open-ended, transparent and inclusive manner rather than by invitation.

We express our willingness to substantively discuss the post 2020 mitigation framework going forward. At same time, we have no doubt that mitigation actions need to be enhanced during 2012-2020. However, at this stage, we foresee that a separate agenda item on enhancing mitigation ambition in the AWG-DP would render meaningless the ongoing discussions of both the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA. In addition, it would delay actions and decisions in those forums. We stress that the context for ambition is provided by the Kyoto Protocol where we are discussing the 2nd commitment period. In addition, for those parties who are not party to the Kyoto Protocol or would not abide by that treaty, also have a responsibility to ensure comparability of their targets and actions under the AWG-LCA. The AWG-LCA is a depository of several actions, not just mitigation actions. Disaggregating the discussion entirely from KP and LCA context would jeopardize the fundamental equity principle of differentiation between Annex-I and non-Annex-I countries under the Convention, aside from weakening the legally binding nature of commitments and converting it to a voluntary scheme of actions
for developed parties. It will impose an inequitable burden on developing countries in meeting the ambition gap.

With a view to ensure that mitigation ambition under the DP is closely linked to work of parties under the two other groups- namely LCA and KP, we would like to propose the inclusion of the following footnote in the agenda:
The implementation of Decision 1/CP.17 should be examined on the basis of its compliance with International Law, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda and, in particular, with the exception on non-performance related to the full respect and compliance with the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, for the Parties that are Parties of those instruments.

Madam,

We note that the decision 1.CP/17 establishes the Durban Platform for ‘Enhanced Action’, and is not restricted to ‘Mitigation Action’ alone. We have no doubt that on the basis of science, urgent mitigation ambition is needed. However, mitigation alone will
not sufficient. Our collective ambition on other Bali Pillars namely Adaptation, Finance and Technology is also equally, if not more important to this process.

Let me conclude by saying that we fully support an inclusive agenda that captures, in a non-selective manner, all the elements of decision 1.CP/17 and so that it may provide an acceptable basis to start work immediately. The agenda needs to capture the mutual
assurances of all parties exchanged at Durban. It will be more positive if we keep it as comprehensive and broad based as possible and elaborate it in the light of inputs received from LCA and KP. In the meantime we should begin a discussion on developing our understanding on the scope of work under the Durban Platform.

*****

Posted:
May 19, 2012
Author:
greeder

Disagreements and distrust over chairmanship of the Durban Platform

~by Graham Reeder

Last night was an exciting night in the Bonn plenary hall, it was a chance to see the real UN circus at play. There will be two co-chairs for the new Durban Platform on Enhanced Action (ADP), one from a developing country and one from a developed country. The WEOG (Western Europe and Others: all of western Europe, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and Turkey) nominated Mr Harald Dovland of Norway as the developed country chair, there have been no other nominations. The developing country chairmanship is a little bit trickier though. The Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) have nominated Mr. Kishan Kumarsingh of Trinidad and Tobago, an AOSIS member who has chaired a number of meetings in the past including the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice. The Asia-Pacific group, however, have proposed Mr Jayant Moreshwar Mauskar of India to chair, the lead Indian negotiator and was the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). It is clear that there has been major competition between countries on who should be the developing country chair.

The selection of an Indian chair would be a significant move, given that India has been a major player in the ADP negotiations and have been strongly pushing for the centrality of equity to these negotiations. Having an AOSIS member chair could be very different however, and is more in line with EU wishes given the strong influence that they maintain inside some elements of AOSIS. The Asia-Pacific group is taking a strong stance on this issue because it includes many mid-range developing economies that are very concerned about being punished for trying to develop under the new ADP. The chair position is important because chair’s, although expected to be impartial, have a tremendous amount of power in shaping how the process moves forward and who’s inputs end up in the final outcome. An Indian chair could shift the balance of power that has tipped in favour of the richest countries since the UNFCCC was high-jacked just before Copenhagen.

Until there is a chair, the COP presidency (South Africa) will chair the meetings, but because the COP president Mrs. Maite Nkoana-Mashabane is now back in South Africa, the VP of the COP, Mr. Robert Van Lierop from Suriname, was chairing the meeting. China raised procedural concerns that Lierop’s chairing the decision of chair represents a conflict of interest because he also represents a GRULAC country and called for him to step down. As far as I’ve heard, this kind of move is unprecedented at the UNFCCC, but China is very concerned that he is also conducting the informal consultations on who the chair should be, which would be highly problematic. After two hours of back and forth fighting, Gambia for the Least Developed Countries (LDC) proposed a way forward. The proposal was to have the COP presidency continue to hold consultations about the chair while the meeting itself could continue with it’s work under the presidency’s chairing with the end of next week as a hard deadline for the chair decision. Parties agreed to that decision, and the meeting just resumed with a new representative for the COP presidency (this time from South Africa) chairing the meeting. Hopefully the group can adopt a solid agenda that includes all of the elements of the Durban agreement (mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building, and finance).

Posted:
May 19, 2012
Author:
Joe Perullo

Australia Dropping the Second Commitment Period?

~by Joe Perullo

In a contact group for the Kyoto Protocol, Australia announced that it has not yet taken a decision on taking on the second commitment period (CP2). This would be the third country to not adopt the second commitment period, after Japan and Russia. note: The US never ratified the KP and Canada dropped out of it completely. Staying in the KP but not adopting the second commitment period means that these parties can participate in the KP negotiations but have no obligation to its mandate of emission reductions. Australia said that whether or not it joins CP2, it will participate in KP discussion constructively. Constructive for who?

Australia said it didn’t know where it put its target: in the KP or the Convention (LCA), as if it was a choice. This is particularly dangerous since developed countries may win in the LCA discussions, deleting much of its commitments to equity.

Australia defended itself, mentioning its faith in market based mechanisms. It claimed that it will soon have a price on carbon, which was a hard fought domestic reform passed in legislation. “We will soon transition to a cap and trade scheme. It will decouple our prosperity from pollution. Cap and trade will deliver us to make our targets—a 23 percent decline in emissions.” This reduction in emissions is very unlikely with simply market mechanisms.

Posted:
May 18, 2012
Author:
Joe Perullo

Talks on Trade and Tech Transfer lead to Distrust in Process

~by Joe Perullo

The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) opened their meeting this morning on the issue of trade.

The big fight was whether or not to continue discussions of trade in the LCA. The LCA is wrapping up its last year, tasked with developing a new legal outcome of some kind. The outcome will have to address the five items agreed as major issues in Bali: Mitigation, Adaptation, Technology Transfer, Finance, and the Shared Vision (the articulation of the underpinning goals of all decisions for the UNFCCC).

The bigger fight yet is still about equity. Developing countries want to mitigate, as the developed countries are demanding, but can only do so with the help of finance, adaptation, and technology transfer—much of which is provided through trade. Trade, specifically unilateral trade, is an implementation tool to finally get aid moving to the global south. As such, developed countries have been going out of their way to keep it out of the Convention.

One of the first speakers, China, saw what was coming and suggested to continue talking about trade instead of ignoring the issue.

Venezuela, having facilitated issue in Durban, referred to a decision made that there were two parts: First, the establishment of a forum to discuss implementation, and second, the consolidation of all discussions under convention.

Developing countries quickly came to consensus that a spin off group on the item should be established to talk about incompleted work. They also pointed out that a mandate from the Bali Action Plan (BAP), the origin of the five issues above, included a mandate in 1b6 to continue and complete the work.

Developed countries, including the EU, Switzerland, the US, and Japan, supported by Mexico and Singapore, responded by urging parties to “move forward” by dropping this issue for the sake of saved negotiating time. They are trying to jump ship from their commitments in the LCA. Partly with the use of the five building blocks, the LCA differentiates developed and developing countries. If developed countries can undermine the LCA, they will be able to put themselves on par with developing countries in what they would like to see as the “new LCA,” the Ad Hoc Working Group for the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). In other words, equity is squandered and developed countries can be less ambitious.

The most common defense used by developed countries was the fact that other bodies are already in place to take care of trade, notably… (ready for it?)… the WTO.

The US exercised its skill in using the words of developing countries against them: “We agree with what has been said by others. Venezuela noted that a forum decided in Durban would consider all response measures. Yesterday, China noted on the importance of efficiency. Parties are already making measures on trade. We don’t see the need to open a spin off group. There is no prospect to agreeing on it. We have the WTO.”

Cuba rebutted saying that “in real life, nothing is coming from WTO to help climate measures. This is a climate related issue.”

The Chair shifted discussions to Technology Transfer itself, which underwent a similar battle: While developed countries claim that progress has indeed been made with the establishments of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN), the Philippines turned it around by pointing out that although these mechanisms are established they are not yet operationalized. The Philippines continued on a strong speech, outlining the essential nature of the five BAP building blocks, and the clearness of the BAP agreement itself.

The Philippines shed light on how these discussions have shifted from committing to the LCA to sweeping it under the rug. She exposed a lot of the transparency issues in the process. Referring to the exclusive backroom decisions made in Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban, she pointed out how an elite group of negotiators have been put on a certain level, and how the LCA chair (then Daniel Reifsnyder) has allowed that. “I’m only at sea level.” She then continued to criticize the role of the chair, bringing up how parties were not allowed to speak out about the Durban decision because of how the LCA chair took his own responsibility by passing the decision to the next COP. Under tech transfer, there were items bracketed under chair’s responsibility that were crucial to developing countries. “All of our options for finance,” said the Philippines, “were dropped off table in Cancun without us knowing what happened. You cannot just drop my options of the table. I will not accept someone to do so without not letting me know about it.”

The Philippines finished with noting the ambiguity of the ADP. It’s launch and period of when to plan its work is still under negotiation.

The Convention cannot be just swepped under the table. Parties agreed to finish its work. Developing countries claim that trying to do so would be stalling process, when in actuality ignoring these issues will only lead to further negotiation and lack of real action.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →