All posts tagged ADP

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 14, 2012
Author:
greeder

Bonn Intersessionals Kick off

~by Joe Perullo and Graham Reeder

Photo credit: UNFCCC.int

The sun is shining in the old capital of western Germany as the 36th session of the Subsidiary Bodies (Implementation and Scientific and Technical Advise) kick off on day 1 of the Bonn intersessionals.

Intersessionals are smaller meetings than COPs, they are charged with getting the work done that the annual COPs agree to and preparing for the following year’s work, the atmosphere is more casual and delegates can be seen chatting in the hallway with one another. However, that isn’t to say that the meetings are a vacation; this session has a very full agenda with crucial work to be done that will determine the future of the climate regime (and by extension, the climate).

The Convention’s new body, created last December known as the Ad-hoc Working Group for the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, more simply the ‘ADP,’ will have its very first session during these meetings this Wednesday. This body is what will virtually replace the LCA (Ad-hoc Working Group on Long term Cooperative Action) which will finish its work this year. Like the LCA, the ADP will cover issues of Technology Transfer, Finance, Capacity Building, Adaptation, and Mitigation. Unlike the LCA, the ADP does not contain words like ‘equity’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities.’ Their absence from the text is the result of utter stubbornness by developed countries, particularly the US, to not agree to anything that would contain these words and threaten their race to the bottom.

Equity still has a chance though! While it is not mentioned in the ADP text itself, Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) and Historical Responsibility are two foundational principles of the Convention, which the ADP must adhere to. Developing countries claim that, since the ADP is a subsection of the Convention, these rules still apply.

So the battle for equity is ever clear, and as the ADP begins to take form over these negotiations, we will see which interpretation of it prevails.

One clear theme of these negotiations will be ambition. The ADP is all about increasing ambition, a welcome change of tone from the LCA, which has been bogged down in incredibly slow progress and stalling. The question is, ambition from whom? As the ADP is designed, it is important to remember who has already showed ambition in reducing their emissions: the developing world.

While rich countries have complained that the poor are asking for too much and not doing enough work, the developing countries have cut more emissions that the entire developed world, and have done so without being bound to legally binding emissions reductions. Rich countries (the US notably excluded, who couldn’t even muster ratifying the Kyoto Protocol) on the other hand have completely failed to reduce their emissions despite being legally bound to do so. While some, like the EU, have gone about hiding their mess under the rug with loopholes, offsets, and creative accounting, Canada has just gone ahead and stormed out of the room, complaining that it should be up to the world’s poor to clean up it’s mess. Canada is having too much fun playing in their tar sand-pit to stop. It is important that all countries participate in fighting climate change, but we cannot forget who has created this mess and who has the capacity to clean it up. China and India have huge populations and, on a per-capita basis, are neither rich nor major emitters, the burden of fighting climate change cannot be shifted to their shoulders and this meeting will be important for keeping the burden of responsibility where it belongs: with the rich and developed.

Lots of other work will be going on under the different bodies of the UNFCCC over the next two weeks, and we’ll be here to keep you up to date of what is going on.

Newer Entries →