ICW Daily from Bonn - Day 3

When is the deep dive? 

So far, we only have 'consolidation' of text.

We await the more demanding, good-old, word-by-word negotiations

But until then...

Headline News
US Delegation meets NGOs - Jonathan Pershing agrees to deliver a Copenhagen postcard from the Youth Network to Barrack Obama.

Gender is a climate concern too! - Bangladesh, apart from taking the lead in pushing Parties (countries) towards moving on adaptation for climate change, argues that there is a serious lack of gender sensitivity.

US and EU allude to the option of using key high-level negotiations such as MEF and G8 to introduce new targets, decisions. US, EU bring up the issue of MEF (Major Economies Forum) communiqué on climate change, G8 negotiations and future negotiations of key players as having a role in aiding or contributing to text here (the Convention).

Yvo de Boer – Executive Secretary: 300 Billion dollars needed for financing. A 2 degree C target is what may most likely be introduced into the text, not a lower figure (some countries are pushing for 1.5) or 350 ppm (2 degrees implies 450 ppm).

Brazil, India raise concerns on double counting of emission reductions

Key Issues of the Day

Day 3 at Bonn: The day began with a delay in kick-starting the first session of the informal groups on adaptation – apparently owing to a G77 and China (India is a part of this group) meeting doing some over-time. Other sessions proceeded as scheduled, including one on markets, land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), and on mechanisms to aid the Protocol.

On the session on adaptation (which met for the first time this week), the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), Bangladesh and Peru all raised their concerns about the limits to adaptation. They suggested that there is an inversely proportional relationship between adaptation and mitigation – inadequate targets imply a heightened need for adaptation. On the other hand, the G77 and China made few concrete statements – maybe a result of lack of consensus on a common position (remember the over-time?).

Korea, New Zealand and the EU had proposals that they were not ‘ready to elaborate on’ at the session on mitigation and mechanisms. India and Brazil raised concerns over double counting, and that the devil was in the details – otherwise how will we know what we are signing onto?

The Chair of the AWG-KP (Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol), gave up a lunch hour to meet with NGOs and answer any questions they had – in the true spirit of the Convention. Note that other Chairs and Facilitators will also give some of their time to answer questions.
The KP Chair indicated that targets for Annex I countries (how much they would cut down emissions), were not likely to be out until just before Copenhagen, and that in his opinion, ‘yes, a target below the IPCC guidelines is not satisfactory’.

Taking Stock: Chair reiterates to Parties: ‘This is your text’
The stock-taking meeting reviewed the days past (two) and planned for the days ahead (two) – a most important step given limited time (only three negotiating weeks left before COP15!).
The Chair noted that some sections had made more progress than the others. Mexico on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Group said they were unhappy at the slow progress so far.

The AWG-LCA met on Shared Vision. Shared Vision is aimed to form the overarching ‘context’ to long-term and mid-term targets to reduce emissions from greenhouse gases. Countries said the shared vision text must recognize ‘the consequence of inaction’, and must be ‘aspirational. They suggested it should be short enough to form a political view, and long enough of course, to be comprehensive.

A fresh interjection to the debate was the United States saying that some concrete long and mid-term goals, a 2 degree C target, the importance of peaking and of low-carbon development strategies must be introduced here. But India vehemently opposed this positive proposition: a question of the Opposition creating yet another uproar in Parliament probably?

The US delegation meets NGOs and Youth - Jonathan Pershing (key negotiator) said that negotiations were proceeding too slowly, because certain blocks - ‘we know who they are’, are stalling the process.
He clearly outlined the ‘red lines’ – the contentious issue of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and that ‘free’ IPR was just not possible, the fact that the Copenhagen deal was not going to have tones of money, and that ‘everyone’ needs to act – money or no money. He was clearly disappointed on India’s position, and the fact that they were not ready to import text from elsewhere.

Pershing raised a key point, that September would be a HOT month for negotiations. Finance Ministers, G20, G8, MEF, Heads of State of key countries were going to meet that month, and that these negotiations would be the key places to break deadlocks. But the challenge of course, would still remain bringing those agreements into operation at the climate convention.

Focus on the GoI

The Prime Minster’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, Shyam Saran, flew in today – tomorrow NGO’s get to meet with him – we hope for some ‘fresher’ statements.

In the process of mitigating climate change, one mechanism to do so, is through ‘buying’ carbon credits. The credits have to be certified. But as far as loopholes go, there are big loopholes in the legalities of this mechanism – namely double (and triple) counting. So it is technically possible to count the emission reductions ‘here, there and there’. In the mitigation session on mechanisms, India and Brazil raised concerns about this issue of double counting.

Response measures under the Convention refer to the commitment made by Parties that they will minimize the adverse impacts (economic, social and environmental) on developing countries. In a discussion on this section, India has put forth a draft for inclusion in the text that attempts to prevent developed countries from bringing in any tax on exported goods from countries that do not bring in low-carbon measures. The relevance of this text can be traced back to the recent tabling of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the US House, that implied the imposition of a tax on certain imported goods (into the US).

In the Stock-taking session, India indicated that the two references to Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV) must be considered separately for developed and developing countries.

In the AWG-LCA on Shared Vision, India closed the day with a bang: Shyam Saran made a vociferous statement opposing the US proposal to include ‘external text’ originating from the MEF. He said categorically that the communiqués of the G8 or the MEF did not carry any weightage in this Convention.

Pershing openly said in the NGO meeting that he was disappointed with India’s stand. If if and if more countries come out and say the same, maybe India will decide to shift gear – or does the Bharatiya Janta have to do it?

Views on India

US Climate Action Network: The Indo-US negotiations in India did not go down too well - and that doesn’t fare well for India. Compare it to the Chinese bilateral (although still in discussion) – that are progressing fairly well. However, the Indo-US relationship on climate may change with future bilaterals that may take place without the pressure of senior US representatives being part of the process.

The deadlock may probably be broken when Finance ministers of key countries meet – both on 24th and 25th September, and possibly even at a sooner date. India as part of the G77 and China forms a formidable negotiating block here at these negotiations, and although they may have internal differences and may be unable to meet often enough to be able to move the UNFCCC process faster, they are a major stalling block.