ICW Daily - CSM@Bangkok - 8 Oct 2009

HEADLINE NEWS

Norway announces its unconditional 2020 target of 30% below 1990 levels, and conditional 40% target if major emitting economies meet some targets. Some reason for cheer in an otherwise lack-lustre setting.

All text is bracketed at this point – i.e., nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. But negotiators’ hands seem tied.

Technical progress = Yes. Political progress = No. Implies no emission reduction targets, no finance as yet.

Say ‘Ensure’ not ‘Promote’. This refers to environmental safeguards for REDD, but is relevant elsewhere too. Most countries concerned about conversion of natural forests to plantations and watered down text that can provide a loophole for that.

KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY

While it is abundantly clear that the outcomes of the G20 and UN Climate Summit did not translate into anything here, to have expected miracles out of Bangkok in the first place, may not be appropriate. Negotiators are trying to move things forward as they can, and many of them are batting for and sticking to the principles of the Convention. They have said it in as many words. Their hands are tied, and they need political mandates to put anything down on the table.

The nature of negotiations is such that delegates must go line by line and word by word, considering the implications of each phrase in the text. Informal contact groups have been initiated all this week, and drafting has been in progress. What has not been in progress is deleting text. That seems to be ‘hopefully’ left for Barcelona. While there is no rule saying negotiations must proceed as slowly as they are, given the political realities, all is left until Copenhagen (or a miracle before Barcelona).

In the contact group on REDD, a new non-paper is out, and includes comments on changes to governance structures and safeguards. In the discussions today, many Parties raised concerns about the text on REDD being rather watered down. They said there was nothing in the text to protect existing natural forests, and this would undermine the integrity of the work here. Parties also voiced their concerns over clauses indicating that ‘all stakeholders’ concerns’ must be voiced – would this include loggers too? There is concern that the introduction of such statements will encourage logging and deforestation activities in countries where there is a desire to discourage it.

Again, and as expected, nothing of substance happened in the Kyoto Protocol Targets discussions, except for new text from Australia that seems to weaken the provisions of the Protocol. Bolivia called for Annex 1 countries to cut their aggregate emissions by 49% below 1990 levels by 2017 – a five-year commitment period. UNFCCC compilations indicate that the 2012 target only looks like it will add up to much less than that.

On the discussion on mitigation action by developing counties, several countries asked for the deletion of paragraph 26 of the new non-paper, which makes mention of nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric as mitigation action. Canada, Argentina, India, Japan, the African group and Ethiopia all asked for the deletion of this paragraph, indicating that it clearly undermines the environmental integrity of the Convention. Countries expressed concerns over text that may attempt to set top-down policies for appropriate technologies. They indicated that while certain technologies might be good for some countries, they may not work for others, and hence need for policies and technology requirements to be country-driven.

In the contact group on mitigation actions by developed countries, Norway made its announcement to cut emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. This is an unconditional target, while the conditional one is of 40% if major emitting countries meet some targets. Norway’s announcement was welcomed with sustained applause, and the chair commented that this was the only news that had so far, received such applause. The Norwegian head of delegation explained to youth negotiator trackers later on, that Norway’s plans to encourage other countries to increase their level of ambition in the lead up to Barcelona and Copenhagen.

This was the only news in 1b (ii), since Parties already seemed to be in the return-home mode. There was silence all around, and the chair suggested that an informal meeting in a smaller contact group be scheduled immediately.

FOCUS ON THE GOI

On developing country mitigation action, India asked for the inclusion of ‘high-growth’ everywhere there was reference to ‘low-carbon’ or ‘low-emission’ in order to emphasise the need for rapid development. Indian negotiator, R.R. Rashmi indicated that text on market mechanisms did not belong in developing country mitigation action, since this was a way for developed countries to meet their targets, but was not in the interest of developing countries. On MRV, he said supported and unsupported actions must be dealt with separately.

On REDD, India said there is concern about the watered down nature of the text on environmental safeguards as well as social safeguards. Indicating that there is a need to send out a clear message to the outside world that the conservation of natural forests is an important issue. They also indicated that Sustainable Forest Management was not the same as Sustainable Management of Forests, and the need to distinguish between the two.

ICW Daily - CSM@Bangkok - 7 Oct 2009

HEADLINE NEWS

• Just two days to go to Barcelona. Big picture progress still missing.
• Is the Convention a Box, a Brick or a Tile? Well, if we sort that one out, then the deal is nearly done!
• In LULUCF some Parties are trying to create big loopholes, others say LULUCF needs to have a cap otherwise it can hijack environmental integrity.
• Finance makes little progress. Philippines on behalf of G77/China give impassioned statement. Bangladesh says need one single fund, single executive board and funding that is predictable, new additional, robust, at required scale, enables direct access
• In new market mechanisms EU, Republic of Korea, New Zealand propose differing versions of sectoral crediting and trading.
• Adaptation – Co-Chairs get mandate to produce new non-paper by Friday. Bhutan highlights extreme vulnerability of mountain communities.
• On response measures to climate change G77/China want insertion of term ‘sustainable development’ instead of ’low-emission economy’
• In KP track, discussion on text from Tuesday continues. China suggests text opposing unilateral measures against imports, draws ‘line in the sand’, says if no progress on LULUCF by Barcelona, this could be end of road.

KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY

Two days remain, and Parties look to make better progress than they made here in Barcelona. While that does not bode well for the pace of negotiations, it seems likely that the big decisions will be left for December.

In the heated discussion on KP emission targets and the inclusion of LULUCF, G77/China drew a line in the sand as far as LULUCF and its rules are concerned. They indicated that there had to be a cap on LULUCF, and that unless such a cap was put in place, their participation in Barcelona would be in question.

In the KP track on Potential Consequences, the discussion revolved around reviewing guidelines for the second commitment period, where the stress was on taking consequences into account after they had been identified. The key highlight of this session was China’s suggestion to insert text that would prevent Annex 1 Parties from resorting to unilateral measures against imports from developing countries on grounds of protection and stabilization of the climate. This proposal was strongly opposed by EU and Canada.

Discussions in the Finance track made little progress today. Parties are still putting forth their positions and raising issues that underline fundamental differences between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 Parties. The US read out its proposal on the mechanisms and architecture for that proposal in greater detail this morning. The US proposal is along the lines of a trust fund structure, with donors in the ‘driver seat’ and a system that can accommodate contributions from all Parties. It did not get much support from the non- Annex 1 countries for it to be the sole window for financing climate change action. Parties such as Indonesia and Bangladesh said they saw no fundamental difference between the US proposal and existing GEF and World Bank funding. Colombia highlighted the fact that these mechanisms do not provide easy access to funding and have not worked so far. They also pointed out that if the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was not renewed, then even existing successful (but currently minimally-funded) mechanisms such as the Adaptation Fund would cease to be functional.

In the LCA contact group on response measures, Argentina stated the importance of sustainable development as a precondition for addressing climate change, and insisted on the term ‘negative’ appearing before impacts. India suggested that para 2 of the non paper include the term ‘developing country Parties’ – in reference to the negative social and economic impacts of climate change. However, EU came back on this point and noted that people in all countries were capable of being negatively impacted, and hence requested the option of all Parties to be included.

On Adaptation, Parties delved deeper into section A of the non-paper, and gave the chair a mandate to come out with a new non-paper by Friday. Colombia proposed new text that would protect the interests of ecosystems. Canada agreed with many Parties, including the Maldives, that adaptation actions need to be country-driven. While LDCs and SIDS want special reference to most vulnerable countries, South Africa indicated it would prefer the text to have a reference to any vulnerable communities, and noted that some areas needed a transboundary adaptation response.

The session on Mechanisms saw several proposals on new market mechanisms that would boost the transition to a low-carbon economy. The proposals were from the EU, Republic of Korea and New Zealand, and focused on sectoral trading and sectoral crediting as ways to move forward. The proposals also included enhanced and improved CDM Mechanisms that would in effect, allow developing country Parties to participate in international market mechanisms, and these sectoral proposals would be country-driven. Some Parties requested technical papers on the operation of such processes, so that the same mistakes that were made with CDMs would not be repeated here. Venezuela opposed the entire approach, while many asked for clarifications on the issues of double counting, MRVs and the role (if any) of NAMAs in this process.

FOCUS ON THE GOI

In most of the discussions attended, India was fairly quiet today.

In the contact group on response measures, India asked for the insertion of text ‘developing country Parties’ under a paragraph which referred to the negative social and economic impacts of climate change. This move was opposed by the EU, saying that people everywhere can be negatively affected by climate change.

The head of the Indian Delegation, Shaym Saran gave a press briefing to Indian media, as well as a briefing for International NGOs. While many of the statements were similar to the ones made yesterday to Indian NGOs, an important point he made was a clarification on the US position in the Kyoto Protocol, where he said the only narrow issue for US involvement and commitment was a method to compare their commitments to those of other Annex 1 countries (the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore does not have legally binding obligations). He also gave some clarifications on the US MRV proposal and where India stood on the issue.

ICW Daily - CSM@Bangkok - 6 Oct 2009

HEADLINE NEWS

Kyoto Protocol: no discussion over numbers as yet: NZ reminds everyone that if offsets are restricted, they will have to lower their targets.

Crucial discussion on LULUCF in KP scheduled for tomorrow.

IEA yearly World Energy Outlook out today: Says savings from energy, co-benefits etc more than offsets additional investment.

REDD begins negotiations today afternoon: G77/China meeting on LULUCF expected tomorrow.

Adaptation contact group is busy – new text out.

Head of Indian Delegation Shyam Saran meets with Indian NGOs.

KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY

Progress was again minimal at the Kyoto Protocol targets discussions, with more debates on offsetting and targets. While several Annex 1 Parties were pushing for a greater role of markets in meeting targets, non-Annex 1 countries warned about the need to create supply in the case of carbon markets, and on the need for concrete targets.

Annex 1 Parties indicated their domestic difficulties in moving towards an international carbon markets framework. The EU pointed out that their domestic policy limits access to international markets. Canada said offset limits was a domestic policy issue, and New Zealand said that if offsetting were to be restricted, it would be forced to lower its target further (current target is only 5% below 1990 levels, and includes hotly debated areas such as LULUCF).

On the issue of base year, Canada is the only country to continue to demand 2000 as the base year, all other countries agree to 1990. In the corridors there was considerable talk of this sticky point and the fact that no other Party was requesting a 2000 base year.

On REDD, negotiations based on consolidated text began today. While many agree that forests may not be the ideal or long-term solution to emission reductions, they can serve as an interim buffer solution, and help forest conservation in the process. The largest forested areas – Boreal and Tundra forests - lie in the Russian Federation, and it becomes important to recognize them as a key stakeholder in the process – currently it is the Coalition of Rainforest States that are considered the key stakeholders for the REDD and REDD plus issues.

On Flexible Mechanisms, in the LCA today, non-Annex 1 countries were pushing back against the desire by some Parties to remove some of the text relating to the Kyoto Protocol. South Africa is soon to table a new proposal on the issue, and the United States tried to address concerns of some non-Annex 1 Parties.

The LCA discussion on developing country mitigation action (1b(ii)), the two main issues discussed were the means of implementation of mitigation action, and the agreed cost of all mitigation related actions in developing countries. The EU proposal (supported by US and Canada) to place the finance text in the Finance section was opposed by many non-Annex 1 Parties. There was also much discussion on what text on cost would be appropriate, ‘agreed full incremental cost’, ‘full incremental cost’, ‘agreed full cost’ or ‘full cost’. There was also some discussion on commitment periods (whether to have 8 or 5 year), on how to quantify QELROS, and on mid-term review.

FOCUS ON THE GOI

In the mitigation contact group today, India said it was not possible to discuss mitigation separately from the means of implementation, since there were some critical elements in some paragraphs that could not be separated. Under NAMAs, India said two crucial elements were the mobilization of new and additional financial resources, and support for actions based on needs identified by developing countries.

Saving the biggest highlight for the last, was the Head of the Indian delegation, Shyam Saran having an informal chat with Indian NGOs. In a discussion that went on for a little over an hour, he gave NGOs a sense of where the negotiations are at present. He indicated that although progress had been made on technology transfer and adaptation, there was little progress on the key areas of finance and mitigation. He said ‘we have not been able to get far on this front’.

Mr Saran said we are not in a very good position to get an ‘ambitious outcome’, and he was no astrologer to predict the outcome at Copenhagen, but hoped that it would help to address some of the key issues.

On the domestic front, he agreed that it was in India’s own interests to do more, since India too had sufficient low-lying areas and for several million people to be affected by climate change. However, in terms of the international negotiations, he indicated that G77/China were a fairly formidable front of 130 countries, whose demands could not be overlooked simply because of one big developed country that had not yet come on board. He was very clear that India was most keen to keep the Kyoto Protocol, and not kill it. He said that unfortunately, things were not moving in the direction that Bali (in 2007) had intended to put on track. But to move forward and to deal with the climate crisis, there was a need for collaboration, not competitiveness; and to realize that a key issue in this whole debate was equity.

Shyam Saran also, somewhat controversially, called on India’s media and civil society to get behind the government and support it in the negotiations. There was a perception that western media were unfairly targeting India and this was detrimental to the GoI’s efforts in the negotiations.

ICW Daily - CSM@Bangkok - 5 Oct 2009

HEADLINE NEWS

Informal consultations (without observers) seem likely in Shared Vision and Mitigation sections.

Technology section makes good progress. Many make constructive suggestions to strengthen text. Chair says work here should inspire rest of contact groups.

Parties put forth various numbers on long-term targets for Shared Vision. 

Adaptation text could be up for drafting tomorrow. Shorter text to be out by Thursday. 

United States puts out a new proposal for financial mechanism.

KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY

Whilst the negotiations are confronted with the practical problem of lengthy text that makes it relatively ‘un-useable’ for Copenhagen, there is also the political issue of the lack of commitments on finance or emission reduction targets being put forward by Annex I Parties.

However, the first day of the second week of negotiations began with some progress being made in the areas of Technology Transfer, Shared Vision, Adaptation and Finance. Overall, the text has been cut down, and is structured better than it was last Monday. There is therefore the potential to end this week with a negotiating text.

In the corridors we hear the need for dynamism to be injected into the process, and this would truly be reflected if negotiators stayed late, and sat down to draft more text. While that has not happened as yet, the EU Head of Delegation Turesson Anders indicated, said that negotiations were making some, albeit insufficient, progress. However, the China Head of Delegation Yu Qingtai indicated that industrialized countries as a whole were trying to change the rules of play weeks before the deadline for a new climate pact.

On Technology Transfer, Parties and the Chair agreed that it was important not to reinsert text that would effectively take us ‘one step back’, but to set a good example and to provide ‘good vibes’ for the rest of the negotiations. This is text on which there is significant convergence, but many Parties including Canada and Pakistan saying there was a need to concentrate on institutional mechanisms.

On Shared Vision, Parties met once again. This session focused on the long-term global goal as well as the nature of the flow of the text. Most Parties reiterated their (or their group) positions, with AOSIS asking for a target based on science and the precautionary principle. The EU emphasized that a peak was also an important criteria. Many Parties indicated that a 50% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 was the desired level of ambition, with AOSIS asking for developed countries to cut their emissions by 95% below 1990 levels by 2050, and for clear mid-term targets. Of the Parties that spoke, Norway was the only country that mentioned a base year of 2000, and Saudi Arabia was the Party that raised the issue regarding vulnerability also implying economic vulnerability (possibly a direct reference to themselves).

The relatively big news on Finance was a new proposal on funding and mechanisms, proposed by the United States. The US provided a detailed elaboration of its proposal which would build on existing institutions (such as the GEF, the LDCF, SCCF and Multilateral Banks), and have an operating entity consistent with the Convention. Papua New Guinea brought to attention the overt focus in the text on just mitigation and adaptation, to include other sectors. The step back in the Finance section included a re-inclusion of text, annexes, and some new text.

The US has also made a submission in the mitigation section, on MRVs for both developed and developing countries, with enhanced National Communications with low carbon pathway plans, review by expert panels and presentations by Parties to the SBI.

Key developments within the US that may have a bearing on the negotiations here, including the US Senate bill to move for a national policy on climate change – hopefully before Copenhagen. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new cap on greenhouse gas emissions from some of the largest polluters. These two tracks will together help reducing emission reductions in the US. But will this help the world get a fair and binding agreement on climate change – that will still be answered only at Copenhagen, or hopefully, by Barcelona.

FOCUS ON THE GOI 

India shone through in the technology section under the LCA track today, with the Chair (who provided superlative congratulations to many countries) saying the constructive suggestions were magnificent.

India indicated that the text on technology was good, with several areas of convergence. That this provided a basis on which to work. However, there was a need to convert the Bali Action Plan and the Marrakesh accords into accelerated and action oriented work.

This could be made possible through robust financial arrangements that could be linked to the finance discussion. However, the GoI Delegate indicated that there was a real need for roadmaps (as the United States also indicated), and for developing countries to enumerate what technology and actions need to be financed. As for the operational details, the delegate indicated these procedural issues could be finalized after Copenhagen.

ICW Daily - CSM@Bangkok - 3 Oct 2009

HEADLINE NEWS

A new week of negotiations begin. Hopefully more text will be consolidated by Monday. Some text to be consolidated by Tuesday.

First reading of newer text on Finance finishes. Mexico makes strong pitch for its Green Fund proposal, says ‘victims of today (us), may well be the culprits of tomorrow.

Consolidated text on Reduced Emissions from Decreased Deforestation (REDD) out. Many areas of convergence, Parties to revert next week.

Text on Mitigation Action by developing countries consolidated. Parties provide initial thoughts.

KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY

Parties (member states) finished their first reading of the consolidated negotiating text on Finance today. Many take this to indicate progress, particularly because Finance and the architecture for institutional arrangements to deliver it form the crux of any potential deal at Copenhagen. During the discussion, while several Annex I countries were in favour of existing financial institutions (e.g. IMF and World Bank and Global Environment Facility) continuing as the key touch points for disbursal of finance, Many non-Annex I Parties argued that speaking from experience, it was difficult for many to access these institutions and get financial aid from them.

Mexico’s Proposal for all countries to contribute to a ‘Green Fund’ in proportion to their respective capabilities and historical responsibilities met with some nods of agreement from several Annex I countries, while the G77/China, Pakistan, China and India were not in favour of the Mexican proposal, or any proposal that was not in conformity with the Convention.

Consolidated text on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) was available today, and Parties went through the initial portions of the text, including principles and scope of the text. It was decided that Wednesday 7th October would be set aside for drafting of the text, based on the condensed text now made available. Parties agreed that there was much convergence on this issue, but that the aspects of REDD that referred to finance would have to be looked at once the overarching issues of overall finance (including figures) were looked into.

The chair indicated that negotiations on text could begin by Wednesday 7^th October. Bolivia stressed the need to maintain environmental integrity, and recognize the interests of indigenous people. They noted that the current text concentrated too much on mechanisms that would, in effect, help Annex I countries meet their emission reduction needs. India raised the question of subjectivity in the text, such as ‘low carbon’, while Norway indicated that biodiversity principles and attention to biodiversity conservation needed to be improved.

Consolidated text on developing country mitigation action (1b (ii) of the Bali Action Plan) came out today. On the overarching pillar of mitigation, Australia had recently proposed a registry of mitigation actions (whatever they might be) for both developed and developing countries. These would include the nature of the targets (domestic/offset/ technology improvements/ adaptation actions, etc), and eventually help in assessing combined contributions for a long-term goal. In the discussions today, Australia proposed that this registry system be complimentary text (i.e. not as an option that can be negotiated out of the final deal). Japan indicated that new text misses out details for measuring and reporting on mitigation funded actions. Overall, the discussion was rather positive, and Parties will come back to the text on Thursday next.

FOCUS ON THE GOI

On Finance, India requested the chair to condense the text but to do so in conformity with the Convention and its guidelines. While this view is supported by most Parties from G77/China, many Annex I Parties, including the United States, Australia, Canada, EU and Japan are not averse to exploring new possibilities and mechanisms that can add value to the Copenhagen outcome. These include market mechanisms, as well as substantial reductions in emissions (as compared to a business as usual scenario) by large and key Non Annex I Countries.

On REDD, India’s interventions focused on the sources and basis for funding of REDD Mechanisms. Dr. Prodipto Ghosh highlighted the point that text such as ‘low carbon’ was ill-defined, and not in the Convention. That in the interest of keeping things simple, such principles must be kept out of the text. He also said that in the current text, there was a reference to nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), and that this should be removed owing to such references posing contradictions to the Convention, but also because this could raise the issues of double counting.

On developing country mitigation actions, India raised issues of substance as well as arrangement. But indicated that this section – which is meant to address the requirements of developing nations did not do so. For example, that the reference to offset in the text should not be included here, as again, it raised the issue of double counting.