Blog

Posted:
May 18, 2012
Author:
greeder

Adaptation negotiations stall as the rift between Rich and Poor grows

~by Graham Reeder

Today's adaptation negotiations took a turn for the worse as developed and developing countries started to disagree about implementation issues. The Bonn adaptation meetings have focused on two important pieces of the Cancun Adaptation Framework: the Work Programme on Loss and Damage and the support for the National Adaptation Plans. The Loss and Damage stream is important for making sure that countries are able to deal with the impacts of climate change related events like natural disasters, sea level rise, and drought. If they don't have help with these impacts, they will incur the costs of something they had no part in creating; this would be a grave injustice. The National Adaptation Plans (or NAPs) are to support developing countries to come up with and implement plans that will integrate medium and long term climate change adaptation into their development plans. The NAPs are supposed to build on the National Adaptation Programmes of Action for the urgent needs of Least Development Countries which are moving towards their implementation phase now.

The 'adaptation community', as they like to call themselves, are a small group of negotiators who work closely together on all the issues. The major players are from the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, Norway; Bangladesh, Bolivia, and Argentina for the G77; Nauru and the Cook Islands for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS); Bhutan and Timor Leste for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs); and Tanzania and Ghana for the African Group. The former US negotiator for adaptation, who has been around for some time, retired this year and her secessor is in her first meetings of these kinds. I haven't been able to gather any information about her, but she seems like an highly competent professional who seems to have a lot of experience in the adaptation field that goes beyond the UNFCCC, though she is a less experience negotiator, she will definitely be a force to be reckoned with in years to come. Ever since I started following adaptation negotiations in Cancun, they have moved along quite productively and have worked through disagreements and made compromises together.

Today, however, was a total change of atmosphere. It started off in the consultations on Loss and Damage, where the Canadian and Argentinian co-chairs presented their draft text that quite explicitly excluded calls from the G77+China to develop a mechanism to address Loss and Damage, when COA's very own Juan Pablo Hoffmaister ('07) for Bolivia pointed this out, developed countries retorted that  laying the foundations of a mechanism would be premature given that the work programme still needs to conduct 3 more workshops. This is a common tactic from developed countries: they call for more information, more workshops, and more academic exercises as long as developing countries want action and implementation and things aren't going their way, but as soon as they frame the debate in their own terms (read: more work for developing countries) they call for urgency of action. As developed and developing countries went back and forth on the issue of creating a mechanism, negotiations didn't seem to go anywhere, and the chair ended up proposing that the group meet again immediately before COP 18 in Doha, Qatar. This seems like a desperate effort to accommodate everyone, but is unfortunate given that reports from these meetings are supposed to reflect submissions from all parties, not just developed country parties.

The tension picked up again in the working group on NAPs. Philippines negotiator Bernarditas Castro Muller (one of the best negotiators for the G77 and the biggest thorn in the US' side, she really knows her convention and how to negotiate and has been called the 'Dragon Woman', the US tried to have her fired before Copenhagen, but Sudan hired her right back on) has been sitting in on NAP negotiations, which is unusual for a negotiator of her status. This gives us a clear indication that the issues being discussed are broader than they appear, namely, that they relate to finance. Bernarditas was there to point out that funds for adaptation need to be scaled up and that reform of the way that adaptation work is implemented (or isn't) by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) needs to happen. After noting that, she pointed out that the NAP process needed to not just be for LDCs, but for all developing countries and that developed countries were trying to shirk their responsibilities under the convention. This fight wouldn't normally come up so bluntly, it has been an underlying conflict since Cancun and a compromise of relatively vague language on this issue was reached in Durban, but her bringing it up so aggressively represents larger political manoeuvring at play.

I suspect that the source of this manoeuvring can be traced back to the last year of work on the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA). In today's AWG-LCA plenary, parties went through the agenda and decided what to move into contact groups, developed countries consistently got their way about what was to be discussed, and developing countries got few of their asks for contact groups, one of the larger arguments was whether to have a contact group on 'enhanced action on adaptation'. Developed country parties, led by Norway, argued that this was unnecessary because there were already adaptation negotiations going on (mentioned above) and the new adaptation committee that should be finalised in Doha will take care of the rest. Developing countries were quick to point out that there are all sorts of activities on adaptation that were supposed to be undertaken that have not yet occurred and that the adaptation committee has not yet been set in motion. There are still many significant gaps in adaptation work, particularly adaptation support for developing countries that are not Least Developed Countries, and Bernarditas' joining the NAP negotiations was a signal to developed countries that developing countries are tired of being pushed around on this issue and are ready to play hard ball.

The question for the future will be how well the G77 sticks together, adaptation negotiations are usually characterised by a very solid block of developing countries with the G77, AOSIS, LDCs, and the Africa Group consistently supporting one another's statement and the EU running around trying to figure out their own position, but with Sudan's plea to Bernarditas at the end of the NAP meeting not to hold this important issue for LDCs hostage, it is clear that the G77 will have to work to keep their group strong. Nevertheless, it is important not to blame the Philippines for standing up for all developing countries when the developed countries have done such a pathetic job of financing and implementing adaptation activities. Adaptation and mitigation are supposed to be equal under the convention, but because rich countries haven't figured out a sure-fire way to make money out of adaptation, they have mostly avoided the issue and stalled progress by calling for more and more expert workshops and research papers before anything can be done. It will be interesting to see how this stalemate gets resolved over the next week as parties are eager to have solid outcomes in Doha, it is clear that major compromises will need to be made on both sides.

Posted:
May 17, 2012
Author:
greeder

Opening intervention to the AWG LCA

~Written by YOUNGO and meant to be delivered by Olivia Andersson from Sweden

Thank you chair. My name is Olivia and I am 20 years old. We make this intervention during a small window of opportunity. Critical decisions on ambitious climate action need to be agreed upon for LCA’s mandate to arrive at a successful and forward-looking conclusion in Doha. We trust that all parties will negotiate in good faith and be able to overcome the remaining differences to achieve a comprehensive outcome that all stakeholders can be proud of.

We would like to specifically comment on 3 issues that are essential to success in Doha. First, on shared vision, where a 1.5degree long-term target is essential. A time-frame for global emission peaking needs to be outlined and implemented immediately. To achieve a 1.5C target we must move forward with ambitious reduction pledges. Therefore, the review process must reflect scientific reality, not simply narrow political possibility.

Second, we believe that transparency of emission reduction pledges for both developed and developing countries are fundamental for facilitating an equitable emissions reduction programme. We hope that the workshops to be held during this session will be taken full advantage of. They will allow for all parties and observers to clearly understand the current level of total ambition and find viable pathways to tangibly increase that, paying full attention to the principles of the Convention.

Finally, resolving the sources of long-term finance this year will be another crucial indicator for success. Despite current fiscal difficulties, the provision of public money is the foundation for reducing emissions and adapting to climate change. Developed countries have not met this responsibility to establish the framework for innovative, fair, and additional finances available on a sustained and predictable basis. Young people in the developing world are already experiencing the impacts of climate change. Therefore, many communities require the prompt mobilization of finances to ensure a balance of funding between adaptation and mitigation funding within the new GCF. Your promises must be acted on.

We remind you that just because the LCA is coming to a close does not mean parties abandon the Bali Road Map. The principles of the Convention were strongly affirmed in Bali. It laid out a plan to cut emissions by using comparable efforts and approaches to emissions reductions that was based on historical and common but differentiated responsibilities. If we remain committed to these principles and show real ambition, the years of hard work in the LCA will not be in vain.

Thank you,

Posted:
May 17, 2012
Author:
greeder

First ever YOUNGO ADP intervention

~Written by YOUNGO and delivered by Joe Perullo

Thank you Madam President. My name is Joe and I am 20 years old.
We the youth will bear the consequences of your decisions in the long term. With the final year of the LCA, the ADP has tremendous responsibility as a final opportunity to create a just and ambitious legal regime to stave off dangerous levels of climate change. We must recognize the huge stakes involved and our massive potential to succeed – but also the potential for failure. We want three guiding principles to inform the successful design of the Durban Platform and ensure a globally accepted and scientifically aligned deal.

First, we remind you that the Durban Platform will produce an outcome under the Convention. While this statement seems obvious, we believe that some parties have forgotten what this truly means. The equitable and timeless principles in the Convention are not negotiable; the world has not changed nearly enough in 20 years. ‘Historical responsibility’, ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ and ‘respective capabilities’ are not negotiable. The security and stability of our common future has suffered from parties’ lack of loyalty to the Kyoto Protocol and wider fractious negotiations since Bali. Moving forward, let us not undermine the integrity of the Convention itself.

Second, we welcome the fact that this programme is on ‘enhanced action’. But beginning implementation as late as 2020 is highly irresponsible. Developed countries must ensure that global emissions peak by 2015 by cutting their own emissions and providing finance and technology transfer through the existing structures of the LCA and the KP. The full, transparent, and adequate operationalization of agreed upon institutions such as the GCF, the SCCF and LDCF are necessary to enable developing countries to alleviate poverty, develop sustainably, and tackle climate change. Closing the ambition gap, with developed countries taking the lead must be the overarching priority of the Durban platform agenda.

Third, the sound basis for an equitable approach should be rooted in a discussion on per capita emissions and historical carbon debt. National circumstances cannot be used as an excuse to avoid the necessary structural changes to address climate change. Shifting the burden to developing countries with large populations and low levels of wealth is an unfair shirking of rich countries’ obligations. This is the prime reason for the current stalemate. The recent financial crises in developed countries does not mean that you are poor, it means that your economies are poorly structured. You need to wake up and prioritize your obligations towards both your own citizens and the rest of the world.

Our demands for equity go hand-in-hand with our demands for increased ambition.Equity is central to achieving our shared goals—it is a gateway to a fairer, cleaner world. A per capita approach along with predictable and adequate finance are central to equity. An inequitable global deal not based on these principles must never be agreed upon and implemented. Failure risks the greatest inequity for all humanity – surpassing the tipping point to a world ravaged by climate change.
Thank you.

Posted:
May 17, 2012
Author:
greeder

Equity matters

~by Graham Reeder

Today’s negotiations have almost exclusively been dedicated to the subject of equity. The Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, after spending most of yesterday squabbling over its agenda, got straight into holding their all-day workshop on equitable access to sustainable development.

The word equity in the context of the negotiations decisions has its origins in the Cancun outcomes (https://unfccc.int/files/na/application/pdf/07a01-1.pdf) and was further entrenched in the Durban outcomes (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf). But the concept is much older, in fact, the concept of equity is central to the very core of these negotiations, the convention itself. Contained as core principles of the UNFCCC are ‘Historical Responsibility’—meaning that those who have created this problem are responsible for cleaning it up—‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities’—meaning that developed and developing countries play a different role in tackling and adapting to climate change—and ‘Respective Capabilities’—meaning that those countries who have more capacity (read: money, technology, institutions) to deal with climate change should take on more responsibility.

The concept of equity is extremely important for parties to address right now, as it needs to be the basis for new negotiations on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. The presentations have been lively and, for the most part, articulate. Sivan Kartha from the Stockholm Environment Institute, a senior scientist for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) kicked the morning off with a highly articulate presentation on how to fairly allocate the remaining atmospheric space as well as the burden for addressing climate change based on science and the principles of the convention. Prodipto Ghosh from the Energy and Resources Institute continued with a highly theoretical and academic approach to defining equity and applying it scientifically to emissions reductions that went over most negotiators’ heads. After that, presentations were given from a whole range of parties and a couple of other organisations (like the South Centre).

The crux of equity is that developed country parties both need to take the lead on cutting their own emissions and finance emissions reductions and sustainable development in the developing world by providing money and affordable clean technologies. This was agreed upon in the convention and has been affirmed countless times, but some rich countries are using the current economic climate and economic growth in China and India as an excuse, saying that they cannot afford what they owe and that times have changed. But have times really changed all that much? China and India’s economies have grown, but their per capita income and emissions have remained small. The US, EU, Canada, and other developed countries however have grown much wealthier, and their per capita emissions are still very far ahead of other countries. Singapore argued that a per capita approach to emissions counting (rather than a gross national emissions counting approach) is unfair to small countries as it exaggerates their emissions. However, Egypt was quick to note that if a per capita approach is taken alongside the other principles of equity, where developed and developing countries are distinguished by capabilities and responsibilities, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Equity will be a central theme of negotiations here in Bonn, as the new Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action begins work here, figuring out how equity will unlock the door to ambition will be necessary to determine how we move forward.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →