ICW Daily from Bonn - Day 5

Headline News

Small Island Countries and Least Developed Countries join forces on climate change: Two of the most vulnerable blocks of countries – the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have joined forces to demand for a new Copenhagen Climate Agreement that agrees to limit temperature rise far below 1.5 degrees C.

Long-Term Cooperative Action Chair Michael Cujatar asks all delegates to “please bring your Copenhagen Cards with you to Bangkok and play them there”.

India, Mexico China and many other developing countries reiterate that ‘external fora’ can only help build momentum, but cannot influence the negotiation process here at the Climate Talks.

Condensing the revised negotiation text makes more progress in some areas than ‘expected’ - Tech transfer, Capacity Building, Adaptation and Reducing emissions through Decreased Deforestation REDD.

China, India make formal statements against trade links and emission caps: developed country parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures including countervailing border measures against goods and services imported from developing countries on grounds of protection and stabilization of climate.

Optimism for Bangkok talks: Countries express their willingness to get some hard work done at the Bangkok session – time for ‘good old negotiations’ come September.           

Key Issues of the Day

Day Five: The last day of the Bonn 3 round of negotiations was marked by some degree of optimism from Parties - that they could get ‘down to business’ at Bangkok, and some even wanted to jump-start the negotiations at Bangkok.

The revised negotiating text has been consolidated in some areas of work, particularly technology transfer, capacity building, adaptation and REDD & LULUCF. The text on Shared Vision (the opening bit of the Bali Action Plan in which countries agree there should be an ambitious level of commitment and a strong enough political statement) has also begun to be consolidated into a more coherent form. The outcome of all the consolidation has been a series on non-papers that will be out at least two weeks before the Bangkok session, for Parties to reflect on.

The actual process of ‘negotiations’ has not yet begun – although that would have been ideal. Parties know only too well that negotiations are a highly political and complex process, and seem to be delaying that process for as long as they can help it. They also see that circumstances are vastly different this time, than they were in Kyoto, in 1997. It will therefore be much harder to agree to a Copenhagen text.

In any case, the actual negotiations will require Parties to go over every word and every line carefully and repeatedly. The Chair of the working group on Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA), Michael Cujatar acknowledged that that there are many areas of convergence, on which progress can be made. Clearly however, the areas of divergence as clear as they are contentious.

The last session on mitigation concluded with many developing countries asking for a clear distinction between the nature of the targets that developed and developing countries take on. Developing country Parties clearly seem to fear that merging text into one paragraph can provide room for ‘alternative interpretations’.

On the tricky issue of targets for Annex I countries and technology transfer and finance, the G77 and China are unhappy that developed countries are blocking negotiations and not putting anything positive on the table (in terms of technology transfer initiatives or any commitments to public finance).The US for instance made clear references to the fact that IPR was a fairly non-negotiable issue. The EU was sorely silent on it, as were Japan and Australia. As for putting down public finance on the table, although Gordon Brown said US$100 billion per year of public finance is required, the EU has made no comment on the same.

The uneasy relations between the Indian and US delegations continued, with the US reiterating that they were keen on a deal at Copenhagen in which, in the words of Jonathan Pershing, the head of the US delegation;  ‘WE WANT AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES and I STRESS, ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES’. Both countries agree that the MEF and G20 are key summits that can be potential game-changers. But each is doggedly hoping that their ideas will gain universal acceptance. If the US thinks they can persuade developing countries to accept targets, India thinks it can persuade developed countries to aid in technology transfer and commit finance.

The closing plenary of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) section agreed that the contribution of Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) and REDD were an important part of the process by which developed countries would meet their Kyoto targets. The Chair of the KP also said that Parties would have to work twice as hard on the ‘numbers’ (developed country targets) to make progress. But the clear lack of ambition from Annex-I countries does not bode well for developing countries including India.

In the LCA closing plenary, the Chair noted that some progress had indeed been made on several sections, but that “nothing is agreed and everything is agreed, which is until the last day at Copenhagen”.

Focus on GOI

India reiterated its positions on structure and position of the text, on the need to separate developed and developing country MRV targets (commitments that would be Measurable Reportable and Verifiable), and reiterated that fora such as the MEF and G20, although important in building momentum towards COP15 and Copenhagen, would not and could not be processes whose outcomes could be included in this negotiation process.

Several countries agreed with India on this, raising the valid point that the Major Economies Forum, or the G20 summits, were exclusive, did not include voices from the most vulnerable regions, and clearly did not address nor represent those of Afro origin, the poor, women, children, indigenous people and forests and ecosystems.

India and China both separately made submissions to the Secretariat, that developing country parties shall not take any unilateral decision on taxing the import of goods and services from developing countries that did not take on emission targets.

These statements come close behind the heels of the US Energy and Climate Bill (still to be passed by the Senate), and its implications for international trade. Several developing countries agreed that an open and international economic system is critical to progress and equality.

Views on India

Bangladesh: India and China are the next big emerging economies. Therefore, the decision they take at this forum, will have several implications for their future. It is only likely therefore, that they will consider their actions very carefully.

Within the G77, several countries are pushing for more movement at the negotiations, and so far, the negotiations are not proceeding so well, however, one is hopeful that things will move forward in Bangkok.

India will certainly move cautiously in the coming months, and assess the track that the negotiations will take, before taking any hard stand.

ICW Daily from Bonn - Day 4

Headline News

Indian Delegation speaks to NGOs: We have to be optimistic about Copenhagen. We are not fixed on our line of action for COP15 as yet – we will wait and see.

Where’s the AMBITION? We need 85% reductions from 1990. We have only 18%. AOSIS asks some hard questions. 

KISS (Keep it simple stupid): China asks negotiators from developed countries to keep the analysis for complicated emission targets simple in a general discussion.

For Japan, Less is more: But India has strong comments for Canada on weak targets, Micronesia for all AnnexI countries: Japan seems to think that more emission reductions are not necessarily good. India criticizes Canada’s weak targets, says the numbers you provide are impossible. Micronesia and AOSIS push all for more.

Party flip-flop: In June Parties gave in submissions for a revised negotiating text, and said they didn’t want to ‘attribute’ submissions. Meaning that they did not want the submitting Party or block’s name beside the text. But now trust has eroded enough for them to ask for ‘attribution’ again.    

Key Issues of the Day

Stop and Go! A note before you proceed: Most meaty and weighty discussions take place in ‘closed’ sessions and therefore, one really has no way of knowing how discussions progress behind closed doors.

Tag Vier (Day Four): On the second-last day of negotiations, progress is equal to some minute changes to a portion of the revised negotiating text. Changes are under two sections:  mitigation, and technology transfer and capacity building.

But despite the best efforts by the secretariat to build trust among parties, that is the one thing that is lacking. The second major thing that is lacking is consensus.

In effect, the work done by facilitators to consolidate the text has only made minor progress. They now need to table it, reorganize, consolidate, reorganize, consolidate…

Today the issue of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) – a portion of text under the Bali Action Plan, that details mitigation by developing countries (only in cases where finance and technology are provided) was discussed. The usual two-sided debate ensued with the same old North South suspects on either side. Pakistan made light of the many many ‘new’ NAMAs that have come into discussions, likening their spread to a virus.

The United States in this session alluded to the possibility of a new mechanism/s that would be included in Copenhagen, in addition to the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan. They also said they were not willing to accept the Kyoto Protocol without NAMAs in it. The refusal to sign the protocol indicates their severe allergy to it, and of the possibility of a whole new framework tailor-made for them – they are after all, the largest emitter of them all.

The session on technology transfer and capacity building met to discuss the re-revised text that the Facilitator and his team had worked hard on to get out (the time on the document says 6:50 am). Other than thanking the facilitator for his efforts, the Parties were rather stuck on the same issues, but this time under the valid excuse that they hadn’t had the time to go through the text in detail. The co-chair of the G77 and China vehemently opposed expensive capacity building, saying that the only ones building capacity in the process were the foreign capacity builders themselves. She urged Parties to give in suggestions for local, indigenous and cost-effective solutions for capacity building.

The AWG-KP Chair gave up a consecutive lunch break, and met again with NGOs, this time on mechanisms; land use, land use change and forestry; methodological issues and potential consequences. Uncharacteristically, there were not many questions for the Chair or Coordinators, and most questions were answered with the pre-fix ‘thank you (once again) for asking me such an easy question’.

By afternoon the head of the Indian delegation, Shyam Saran, met with international NGOs. He was accompanied by R.R. RashmiJoint Secretary MoEF, and Taranjit Singh Sandhu, Joint Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Shyam Saran answered a majority of the questions and ended on the note that for Copenhagen, “We are optimistic: we have to be”.

The group on Annex I (developed country) targets for emission reductions met again today. New Zealand made a 48-clicks complicated presentation on their targets, and Sweden made one on the EU’s targets.
The EU today came out and said ‘even the most ambitious targets will not get us to 2 degrees’. So a top-down approach – using science as a guideline to set targets – is required.

Sure enough, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and Canada opposed this – they want a bottom-up approach, with Parties deciding to put out ‘their own’ targets.

Micronesia and the Association of Small Island States passionately pushed developed country Parties to increase their level of ambition, and to push for a 2 degree, 350 ppm, 2015 peak mandate in the negotiations. The young lady from Micronesia said ‘we will keep saying the same thing till our voice is heard’.

Focus on GOI

Today was India’s day out with NGOs at Bonn. Shyam Saran, head of the Indian delegation and the Prime Minster’s Special Envoy on Climate Change answered most of questions, and R.R. Rashmi handled the more technical aspects.

On India’s Solar mission and options for financing from this negotiation process: Solar mission and other missions of the National Action Plan on Climate Change are not predicated by other countries providing finance. But if there is a global regime that will support this, its well and good.

Why did India oppose the proposal to borrow from MEF text in these negotiations? India has been participating in international fora with the understanding that discussions from there won’t come into the UNFCCC process. It will not be a copy-paste process.
In addition, 2 degrees is A scientific view, and if global warming is taking place as it indeed is, then a reference to 2 degrees underscores the need for significant action.

On Offset, Mechanisms to reduce emissions (CDMs): Economy-wide emission reductions for developed countries cannot come from offsets alone. Should not be double counting, and there is a need to maintain the environmental integrity of the Kyoto process. As far as CDM reform, India advocates CDM reform in terms of programmatic CDM but not sectoral reform.

Should there be a dual protocol at Copenhagen? India does not as yet have a defined outcome on this. We need to see how this develops as the negotiations proceed.

On levy related to shipping and aviation fuel: The UNFCCC has referred this to the IMO and ICAO. They need to evolve the principles by which this will work along with the specific mechanisms of Kyoto, not as according to the WTO guidelines.

How are the negotiations proceeding so far? The process until now is not as much as expected, but there is likely to be an acceleration in pace by Copenhagen.

How is the process of negotiation proceeding so far? This process of consolidation and of taking and tabling every Parties’ views on the issue is an important part of the negotiations. Countries need to feel ownership for the text they will come out with.

The US’s plans to use of CDMs to offset emissions at least for the near future. What is your take on that? We cannot say what the US should and should not do. But if it materializes, then the net reductions will be insignificant. And this is why there needs to be a greater level of ambition.

In order for international organizations to make the case to countries such as the US on the issue of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), what is the concrete data that countries like India can provide – for us to make the case? If and when technology is a key component (we have not yet got down to the details in the negotiations), we need to create enabling environments through the UNFCCC process itself. This can include a UN Mechanism, and a Global Platform for Technology Transfer. But as for specific technological needs and data to support that, we still do not know.

On the current level of ambition: Bilateral and multilateral for certainly help to persuade developed country partners to adopt a more ambitious target.

Views on India

Global Wind Energy Council: Yes India does have big plans for solar energy, but as far as wind energy goes, India is a net exporter of wind turbines. However, there needs to be considerable amount of policy-level intervention on supporting incentive-based wind energy generation for the domestic market.

GWEC has heard of quite a few wind energy projects in India that are not performing as well as intended, because of capital-based incentives, or the wrong incentives. In addition, there is no boost from the central government for wind energy production, through robust policy mechanisms. Whereas in reality, only token customs duty cuts for wind turbine parts are announced.

India might be willing to accept finance from the Kyoto mechanism, but has not asked for any so far, despite a solar mission being on the anvil for December. However, it is not yet clear on when the funds will materialize through this negotiation process.

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.

ICW Daily from Bonn - Day 2

The Bonn Train moves forward at last

In today’s LCA meeting on technology the Facilitator agreed to consolidate the Technology text as far as possible, and have something ready for discussion by Thursday, 9 am. This move came from Parties themselves - welcome progress at last! The Finance group also tabled a request for the same.

Australia targets ‘Bland News’

There’s nothing new in this, but Australia updated its joint submission of national targets relating to possible quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs) – in plain English, that means its 2020 target – a weak 5 percent reduction below 2000 levels. Note that 1990 is the base year for most part, but countries are taking the liberty to decide their own base years (2000, 2005).

Lord of the Loop: NZ’s ‘conditional’ future

Oxfam and several other organizations in New Zealand have shamed the target put forward by the NZ Government, saying that this decision shows a serious lack of ambition. And New Zealand in a previous intervention at the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS, had the pluck to tell countries like Fiji and Samoa to cut down their emissions!

In today’s session, Micronesia and Philippines pressed NZ for bigger targets, and finally asked the question on everyone’s lips: If you mention a 2 degree C limit, how will a 10-20% reduction help meet that target?
                                    
Key Issues of the Day

Stop and Go! A note before you proceed: Non Governmental Organisations and civil society are only allowed to sit in as observers in ‘open’ sessions. Most meaty and weighty discussions take place in ‘closed’ sessions and therefore, one really has no way of knowing how discussions progress behind closed doors.

Day 2 at Bonn: Parties met on three areas of the Bali Action Plan - Technology Transfer and Capacity Building (for the second time), enhanced action on Mitigation (first time), and enhanced action on Finance (also second time). In parallel to these was the AWG-KP group to discuss what the emission reduction targets of Annex I targets should be under the Kyoto Protocol, the potential consequences and LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry).

Parallel groups met under the AWG-LCA to start whittling down the text, but overall (for the Bali Action Plan as a whole), there seems to be a lack of a consensus as to what text should be in, and what should be out.

This lack of a strong mandate to consolidate text, will mean that external multilateral forums such as the MEF or the G20 can potentially gain importance. This brings up the issue that poor and marginalized developing countries can loose out a chance to have a voice.

Down to the details: Across all LCA groups, it appeared that the G77 and China put forth a formidable front, and were in some sense attempting to ‘stall’ or block the negotiations. The group clearly wanted their text in the counting, and was not in the least enthused about looking into text that was outside ‘agreed Protocols and Action Plans’. 

In the enhanced action on Mitigation group, Parties refrained from getting down to business.  G77 and China on the one hand garnered favour from the developed countries, while Anenx I countries lay low, seeking the ‘intestices’ to make headway.

Barbados was a lone voice, with support from Gabon: Barbados saying 350 ppm and 1.5 degrees C temperature rise were the values that needed to be inserted into the mitigation text, and Gabon saying that COP 15 should NOT be a failure, but that the growing lack of trust between countries did not bode well.

The highlight of this session was a heated barrage of words between India and the United States. But the Chair suggested that India’s proposal to ‘check and delete’ common text through multi and bi-lateral discussion be taken up with immediate effect.

 If Mitigation made little progress, Technology transfer and Capacity Building had a more heartening outcome, with the Facilitator being directed by parties to actually whittle down the text. The group on Finance also suggested that the Facilitator move things in the same direction for the Finance section. With due consideration, this was the second meeting of the Technology and Finance groups, and the first for the Mitigation group.

As for the working groups on the KP on Annex I targets, developed countries appeared to be stalling the discussions, not putting down hard targets – that it seems, may only realistically happen by Copenhagen.

Focus on GOI

A ten-strong GOI delegation is here in Bonn, and delegates divide up between the many parallel sessions. Some delegations suggest that parallel sessions be reduced since they do not have the capacity to attend all.

India had points to make only at the enhanced action on mitigation session. Mr Shekhar Dasgupta spoke on behalf of the Indian delegation, and put down three possible methods to move forward on consolidating the text.

a)    Compare and eliminate similar text – through multilateral and bilateral discussions with immediate effect
b)    Remove text that is not in accordance with the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol
c)    Remove texts from legal submissions (meant to be checked at Copenhagen also), to avoid duplication

The Chair indicated that the first suggestion would be more that welcome, and agreed to proceed in this direction in the coming meetings.

The United States had some strong reservations about the suggestions to work only with the BAP and KP. This led to some point of dissent between the two parties, with India re-defending its statements towards the end of the session rather strongly.

The Chair noted that there was ‘strong will for progress but there remained ‘some tough issues and differences of opinion’.

Views on India

The representative of a network that did not want to be named said the Indian side was ‘doing well for themselves’ at the discussions. Another Non-Governmental Organisation Representative who did not wish to be named said that in negotiations, there needs to be some amount of ‘give and take’. The Indian stand on negotiations needs to change with the changing times – it has stayed the same for the past 15 years.

ICW Daily from Bonn - Day 1

August 10th to 14th marks the informal consultations of the UN climate convention (taking place between the more formal sessions of Bonn 2 and Bangkok). Previous sessions concluded by producing a lengthy and largely messy 200 page ‘revised negotiating text’.

This intersessional hopes to get some serious work into motion. It aims to bring to the table, some concrete solutions for medium-term mitigation and financing, and to reduce the length of the 200-page document, making the document legally sound and good enough for Copenhagen.

Headline News

New Zealand announces the adoption of a highly inadequate and very conditional 2020 target of 10% to 20% below 1990 levels at the Plenary session of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations opening session today.

New Zealand was awarded first prize for Fossil of the Day by the Climate Action Network International. Sara Shaw, co-chair of CAN-I mitigation group said ‘these kind of low targets from Annex-I won’t achieve the emission reductions needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change’.

Key Issues of the Day

As of today, there are 118 days left to ‘seal the deal’ in Copenhagen, as a UNEP addage goes. Therefore, making the text more concise and robust is in everyone’s interest. The chair of the working group urged Parties to seriously work towards consolidation and convergence of the text in the coming week.

The second working group meeting of the day was on Technology and Capacity Building, one of the main pillars of the Bali Action Plan. The aim of this meeting was to begin the process of identifying areas of ‘convergence’ in the text among Parties, and at some later stage, agree on pieces of the text to be left in and left out.

The chair reminded parties that ‘this is your text not mine’, and that taking ownership for it would help in moving the discussions forward.

Most Parties that took the floor complained about the length and illegibility of the text, including G77+ China, Gabon, Belize, the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), Columbia, and Ghana. Sure enough, Parties also brought up the issue of ‘divergence’ on key issues – the need to identify the key issues and points on which Parties disagreed with one another.

Parties including G77 + China (of which India is a part), thought that the text that they had suggested was not included in the ‘revised negotiating text’, and if it was, was no longer recognizable as ‘their own’. G77 and China form a major negotiating block in the United Nations, and use the block to articulate and promote the collective economic interests of countries of the South.

The G77 + China, Ghana and Gabon posed substantial questions, asking why they were still working out the ‘what’ after ‘fifteen years of discussing ‘what’, and had not yet moved on to the ‘how’. They asked why developed countries were only talking about the non-substantial but ‘convergent’ issues of ‘technology information’, ‘innovation centres’ and ‘R&D centres’ but not raising issues about the key issues of financing, technology transfer and capactity building in the true sense.

The Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) also chimed in their agreement with the questions the G77+China raised.

Focus on GoI

On moving forward on consolidating the text, India stuck to its position previous stands, saying any paragraphs and text that was inconsistent with the Bali Action Plan and the UNFCCC should be eliminated. This would make the process of shortening the text quick.

India also asked to bring to attention the fundamental interpretation of ‘technology transfer’ and what it meant to developing as opposed to developed countries. Mr. Gosh said that this basic difference in understanding implied that the interpretation of ‘technology transfer’ by either side was completely different.  While Non Annex I countries see technology transfer as affordable access to technology, and as a UNFCCC method through which purchase of IPR rights and capacity building for further innovation, Annex I countries want to use this as a ‘crowbar to force open developing country markets’.

As for cooperation for technology transfer, he said there was scope for collaboration not in marginal technologies, but in ‘transformational technologies’ including biomass, solar and adaptation technologies – in deployable and cost-effective renewable energy technologies that can ‘fully replace fossil fuels for all times’.

As a final word, India suggested the formation of a ‘Global Collaborative Partnership’ that would enable the transfer of technology and capacity building that would in turn allow local innovation to address issues locally.

The Chair was cautious towards India’s suggestions, saying that the negotiations needed to be wary of a North-South divide, and that the text and country positions are not ‘irreconcilable’.

Pakistan, G77+China, and Ghana lent support to India’s point on a fundamental difference in interpretation, and support for action in tandem with the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol.

Check these links for more on the UNFCCC and the COP15 process.