All posts tagged outcome

Posted:
December 10, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Negotiations drag onwards..

by Samuli Sinisalo

The ministerial consultations went on last night. The announcement after 11pm was that no plenaries will convene before 10am on Saturday. It is no about 4pm on Saturday, and no negotiations have begun. Consultations continue. The situation is too unclear to give a comprehensive update at the moment.

But, I have come across the transcript of a speech held by the minister of India, in response to Canada’s accusations of India blocking the negotiations. Enjoy:

 

Durban, December 9: Following is the text of the minister’s speech:
Indaba Session:December 10, 2011 – 1800 hrs
Remarks by Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan, Hon’ble Minister for Environment & Forests

Thank you Madam Chair.

I do not know how to start. I have heard people across the room carefully. I am from India and I represent 1.2 billion people. My country has a tiny per capita carbon footprint of 1.7 ton and our per capita GDP is even lower.

I was astonished and disturbed by the comments of my colleague from Canada who was pointing at us as to why we are against the roadmap. I am disturbed to find that a legally binding protocol to the Convention, negotiated just 14 years ago is now being junked in a cavalier manner. Countries which had signed and ratified it are walking away without even a polite goodbye. And yet, pointing at others.

I was also deeply moved listening to the comments of my colleagues and friends from the small island states. Our positions may be different, but their sentiments resonate with me very strongly. India has 600 islands which may be submerged, we have deltaic region in which millions of people live. We are absolutely at the forefront of the vulnerability of Climate Change. When I talk here, I have in front of my eyes, the face of the last Indian who is affected by the effects of Climate Change.

It would be helpful if we do not talk at each other and do not prejudge each other.

As a developing country, the principles of equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities are central for us. India is asking for space for basic development for its people and poverty eradication. Is this an unreasonable demand? Former Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi said that poverty is the greatest polluter and development is the greatest healer. Equity has to be the centerpiece of the Climate discussion and our negotiations should be built on it. We cannot accept the principle of CBDR to be diluted. The firewall of CBDR must not be broken. Equity in the debate must be secured.

I too raise my voice for urgency. Climate Change is the most pressing and urgent problem for us. I too have a grandson, the son of my son. Climate Change affects us too. What is important is what action we are taking to address it. We are not saying nothing should be done now, or no action should be taken. On the contrary. We are asking that the actions of the developed country parties must be reviewed.

We have taken ambitious steps in India to address Climate Change. My Prime Minister has announced that our per capita emissions would never exceed that of developed countries. Has any other country done this? We have ambitious energy efficiency targets. We have pledged to lower our emissions intensity of our GDP by 20-25% by 2020. A recent report from Stockholm Institute has noted that the mitigation pledges of developing countries amount to more mitigation than that of developed countries.

What we demand is for existing commitments to be met. What we demand is comparability of actions. We demand that the emissions gap must be bridged.

Coming to the text you have presented Madan Chair, I have three comments.

First of all, there is an imbalance in the two texts. The KP is weak. It does not have:
1) The numbers for KP parties, not till next years
2) No timeline for ratification
3) And no indication of how the gap in the implementation will be avoided

My biggest concern with reference to the texts is that there is no reference to the fundamental principle of equity and CBDR in the bigger picture text.

We should have clear timelines that advance the actions and ambition of parties. We in the developing world are taking very ambitious domestic actions. It is because we need urgent actions that we should urgently implementation the Bali Action Plan and operationalize the Cancun Agreements.

We should have an ambitious implementation phase till 2013 and then go to the Review in 2013-15 to make an assessment based on science and commitments.

We should then begin work on the arrangements that can enhance our ambition further. We should not confuse legally binding arrangements with ambition. We need commitments, not mere hollow promises.

Thank you.

Times of India report:

Posted:
December 9, 2011
Author:
COA Students

The last night draws on

by Samuli Sinisalo

The texts just presented were not accepted by the Group of 77 and China. Later EU also denounced the documents.

Canada had called more ambition from China and India. This was done by name, which is not very politically correct – especially from a country like Canada, which has notoriously low ambition. They were just awarded the fossil of the year award from being the biggest obstructor in the negotiations in 2011.

So new text went into drafting, we’ve been waiting in the conference centre. Now the latest update just came out – the ministerial Indaba will convene again at midnight (in 1 hour). There will be a new text, and there are promises for improvements in the time-frames, ambition and the legal form in that text.

The COP will not reconvene before 10 tomorrow morning. Seems that if the COP is going to be decided in the wee hours of the night, those meetings are either closed to us, or they will happen tomorrow night.

I just hope that the first drafts that were circulated around the conference centre relatively widely, were not just laying down the groundwork for a compromised deal. Circulating bad drafts like that might prepare the crowd for a deal that is an improvement over the first round, but still far from ideal. But this might be just the skeptic in me speaking.

As of now, the security wants to empty the whole conference centre. We are trying to negotiate to have the right to stay. Might be that everyone is thrown out. Ministerial negotiations are just about to begin and civil society is pushed out on the streets. Does not look good in terms of transparency…

Posted:
December 9, 2011
Author:
COA Students

The Last Night in Durban

by Samuli Sinisalo

A lot has happened today, I hope. Everything that is going on takes place behind closed doors, so we have no way of accurately reporting it the play by play.

The ministerial Inbada started just few minutes ago, and that will hopefully bring some clarity to the situation.

So far there are two draft texts presented by the COP presidency, to conclude the work in Durban. Text from the presidency at the last minute sounds all too familiar from Copenhagen.

There are two drafts, one about the Kyoto Protocol, another about the LCA text.

As the text stood last night at 5 am, the Kyoto text would be dead as we used to know it. It would lock countries into the pledge and review system until 2020. The pledges at the moment are effectively those presented in Copenhagen. There is no aggregate overall emissions reduction target. Hopefully the consultations still improve the text, legally binding second commitment period and increased ambition would be welcome.

The LCA track on the other hand would conclude next year in Qatar by a series of decisions. It would end the Bali Action Plan without a legally binding outcome. A new negotiating mandate would be launched, which should be completed by 2015 in COP-21. This is what has been in the works since Bali 2007, and has failed in Copenhagen and ever since. It will be hard to get a deal mandate that is as balanced as BAP, but hopefully the new mandate can deliver.

In any case, a long delay before emissions are actually cut seems to be inevitable.

The text on the bigger picture can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/75225916

The text on the Kyoto Protocol is pasted below:

Version of 9 December 2011 @ 05:00
Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its sixteenth session

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,
Recalling Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol, Also recalling Article 20, paragraph 2, and Article 21, paragraph 7, of the Kyoto Protocol,

Further recalling decisions 1/CMP.1, 1/CMP.5 and 1/CMP.6,

Noting with appreciation the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol,

Noting also the importance of developing a comprehensive global response to the problem of climate change,

Recognizing the importance of ensuring the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol,

Cognizant of decision -/CP.17 {    },

Emphasizing the role of the Kyoto Protocol in the mitigation effort by Parties included in Annex I, the importance of ensuring continuity in mitigation action by those Parties and the need to start the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol without delay,

1. Welcomes the agreement achieved by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol on its work pursuant to decisions 1/CMP.1, 1/CMP.5 and 1/CMP.6 in the areas of land use, land-use change and forestry (decision -/CMP.7), emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms (decision -/CMP.7), greenhouse gases, sectors and source categories, common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks, and other methodological issues (decision -/CMP.7) and the consideration of information on potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including spillover effects, of tools, policies, measures and methodologies available to Annex I Parties (decision -/CMP.7);

2. Takes note of the draft amendments to the Kyoto Protocol developed by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol as contained in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to this decision;

3. Takes note also of the quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets communicated by Parties included in Annex I and presented in Annex 1 to this decision and of the intention of these Parties to convert them to quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol;

4. Invites Parties included in Annex I and listed in Annex 1 to this decision to submit information on their quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol by 1 May 2012 for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its thirty-sixth session and requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to deliver the results of its work to the Conference of the Parties title of decision on AWG-LCA serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol with a view to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol adopting them as amendments to Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session, while ensuring coherence with the implementation of decision {    };

5. Decides to adopt the amendments contained in Annexes 2 and 3 to this decision in conjunction with the adoption of the amendments referred to in paragraph 4 above;

6. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to assess the implications of the carry-over of assigned amount units to the second commitment period on the scale of emission reductions to be achieved by Annex I Parties in aggregate for the second commitment period, with a view to preparing a draft decision for adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session;

7. Decides, on the basis of the outcomes and results described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, that the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol has completed its work in accordance with decision 1/CMP.1;

8. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to assess and address the implications of the implementation of decisions -CMP.7 referred to in paragraph 1 above on the previous decisions on methodological issues related to the Kyoto Protocol adopted by Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol including those relating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol, with a view to preparing relevant draft decisions for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session, and noting that some issues may need to be addressed at subsequent sessions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

Annexes:
Annex 1. Draft amendments to Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol
Annex 2. Draft amendments to Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol
Annex 3. Draft amendments to the Kyoto Protocol

Separate -/CMP.7 decisions:
Decision -/CMP.7: LULUCF
Decision -/CMP.7: mechanisms
Decision -/CMP.7: methodological issues
Decision -/CMP.7: potential consequences

Posted:
December 8, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Ministers begin their work

 by Samuli Sinisalo

The ministerial Indaba-consultations about the Durban outcome begin tonight. In front of them, the ministers have five options for the possible outcome. No decision is not amongst them at this level.

The first option is to implement a new legal instrument under article 17 of the convention. This would mean that the contents of the new instrument can be anything – made up in Durban.

Option two is to complete an agreed outcome based on the Bali Action Plan. Then the outcome would build on what that LCA track has negotiated since 2007. It would address Shared Vision, Adaptation, Mitigation, Technology Transfer and Finance.

Third option is to conclude the aforementioned BAP pillars through a series of decisions. This takes into account work done in Cancun and Durban. Fourth option is to implement BAP and the Cancun Agreements.

Option five is to complete the BAP and Cancun agreements through a series of decisions and begin a process to develop post-2020 arrangements/legally binding instruments. These negotiations could either take place in the LCA group, or within a new subsidiary body. Suggestions for timeline vary from 2012 to 2017.

Any of the above mentioned options can be described as a partial success – at least on the surface. What is common to all of them is the lack of ambition. That much seems granted at the moment. Only numbers on the table at the moment are those pledged in Copenhagen and cemented in Cancun. They put the world on a 4-6 degrees Celsius pathway.

Fortunately the EU proposed text today under the KP track that would enable countries to increase their ambition level in future. Similar designs have worked under the Montreal Protocol. But the climate negotiations are currently suffering from lack of political will for more ambitious emission reductions, and a mechanism by itself is not going to change that, or save the planet. It has to be used as well.

Further, the briefing paper for the ministerial Indaba mentions that the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities might be dynamic. The responsibilities specified for developed and developing countries might be redefined and renegotiated. Up to now, developed countries emissions reductions actions have been conditional on financial support from the developed world.

Friday night will tell what the final package is. It seems that things are in motion in Durban, and something will come out. Whether it is a real solution, or an empty shell is yet to see. There are positive signals for a potential outcome, but the risk of getting empty declarations instead of real solutions is still looming. Total failure is not likely, but neither is complete success.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →