John Vidal, Bonn, 4 August http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/04/climate-deal-loopholes-rich-nations

Rich countries have been put on the back foot after new research showed that current pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions could be wiped out by gaping loopholes in the UN climate change treaty put forward in Copenhagen last year.

Developing countries have argued strongly for minimum 40% emission cuts from industrialised nations by 2020. But new analysis from the Stockholm Environment Institute and Third World Network (TWN), released at the latest UN climate talks in Bonn, showed that current pledges amounted to only 12-18% reductions below 1990 levels without loopholes. When all loopholes were taken into account, emissions could be allowed to rise by 9%.

The research factored in four separate loopholes that are known to exist, but which countries have so far failed to address in the negotiations. These include land use and forestry credits, carbon offset credits gained from UN Clean Development Mechanism schemes, surplus carbon allowances accumulated by former Soviet countries and international aviation and shipping emissions, which are not currently included in emission reduction schemes proposed by countries.

“Industrialised countries pledged a modest reduction in their emissions at the Copenhagen talks last year, but the these loopholes would actually allow them to grow them substantially well into the future,” said Sivan Kartha, senior scientist at the Stockholm Institute.

“This means they [rich nations] need not do anything to hold emissions. They could accumulate huge amounts of credits to continue business as usual,” he said.

“The more we look into the loopholes the worse it gets. The whole thing begins to look like a farce”, said Lim Li Lin, a legal specialist with TWN.

In a separate submission to governments, Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, claimed that industrialised countries were filling all the available atmosphere with carbon pollution, and preventing poor countries from developing. Solon quoted peer-reviewed research by leading Nasa scientist Jim Hansen and the German government’s Advisory Council on Global Change which, he said, showed that the world had a “budget” of 750 gigatonnes of CO2 over the next 40 years if it sought a 66% chance of holding temperature rises to under 2C. The world had a smaller budget of just 420GT of CO2 if it wanted to stay below 1.5C, as more than 100 countries have so far demanded.

“With the current pledges on the table, we have calculated that the Annex 1 (industrialised) nations are going to spend the whole [carbon] budget of the next 40 years in the next 10 years,” Solon said. “What is on the table has no relation to any target that [rich countries] have established. It is like a salary. If you spend it all in the first week then you have nothing left for the rest of the month.”

“Copenhagen demonstrated disastrously low levels of ambition and rich countries are trying shamelessly to wriggle out of even the weak commitments they have made,” said Asad Rehman, international climate change campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “The science is clear. Developed countries must stop trying to hide behind technicalities hidden in the negotiations,” he said.

(Manila, 22 July, 2010) Philippines Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile today launched a new action agenda on climate change which he described as “the first step the country needs to take to ensure national survival.”

“We are already reeling from the injurious effects of climate change, which will only worsen. Climate action is urgent and we must use public finance as a vital tool to protect the vulnerable sectors of our society as well as our fragile ecosystems,” Enrile said.

“Once again, we saw how devastating the effects of climate change could be when typhoon Basyang wreaked havoc in many parts of the country just last week,” Enrile said. “Lives were lost, properties were destroyed, public infrastructures were damaged, industries and even government operations were halted because of the typhoon. We have to be better prepared and equipped for occurrences like this.”

The Senate Chief said he will file a bill that will establish a “National Survival Fund” that will democratize access to available funds, both local and international and, at the same time, create predictable long-term finance streams for urgent adaptation activities and climate-induced disaster preparedness programs.

Enrile also called on the Aquino administration to declare “adaptation as the country’s priority and to ensure that domestic measures provide maximum protection to our people from the impact of the climate crisis which the rich, industrialized and developed nations are largely responsible for.”

“We have to address the inevitable threats of climate change. A more compelling need is to strengthen our adaptation efforts to enable our local communities and our people, particularly in the most vulnerable areas in the country, to immediately and effectively adjust to the drastic changes in our environment caused by climate change, such as sea-level rise, extended drought, or flash floods. We must therefore allocate more resources to these adaptation activities.”

Enrile also filed P.S. Resolution. No. 9 which calls for an inquiry into the utilization of climate finance that the Philippine government has availed of, which were in the form of loans or grants with potentially adverse conditionalities, and P.S. Resolution No. 10 which directs the Senate to review Republic Act No. 9729 or the Climate Change Act to strengthen its provisions to enable the government to effectively address the problem of climate change.

“The climate debate is about justice. Harm has been inflicted on our people. Developing countries like the Philippines should be receiving compensation for such damages inflicted on our environment and on our people. Instead, however, we are accepting or, worse, being ‘forced’ to avail of loans that are, in the long run, more disadvantageous for the country. This has to change,” Enrile said.

The re-elected senator cited two loans with the combined amount of $361 million recently approved by the World Bank and the government of Japan ostensibly for reconstruction efforts related to the damage wrought by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng last year. “The flood waters of extreme weather events have long since subsided but it seems we will be flooded with more debt in the future,” said Enrile.

Enrile cited the study released by climate change think-tank Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (iCSC) which showed that the Philippines accepted more funds for mitigation efforts instead of adaptation initiatives, which he said should be “the national imperative.”

“Worse,” said Enrile, “it appears most of the money for adaptation we received came in the form of loans when, in fact, there are available sources of fund which we can avail of for free or without any strings attached.”
Senator Enrile’s participation in addressing the climate change issue was warmly welcomed by civil society groups.

“Public finance is the most important instrument our country can wield to ensure that vulnerable communities become more resilient in the face of the climate crisis,” said Red Constantino, head of the iCSC. “No one knows public finance better than Senator Enrile and his leadership on this issue will likely change the terms of the debate,” Constantino said.

Constantino supported Enrile’s call for urgent climate action and urged the Aquino administration “to take concerted action against the governance chaos reigning over the administration of climate change-driven finance in the Philippines.” #

AWG-LCA discusses unilateral trade measures and forum on impacts of response measures

Bonn, 10 June (Meena Raman) – The contact group under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term, Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealt with the issue of the impact of mitigation actions by countries which result in economic and social consequences on 9 June.

Developing countries, led by the G77 and China wanted a forum to address the economic and social consequences of response measures, while developed countries said that the existing channels (such as information in national communications) were adequate to deal with the issue and there was no need for a separate forum.

Developing countries also expressed the need to respond to provisions made in the national legislation of some developed countries for cross border tax adjustments (referring to pending US climate legislation that provide for import restrictions on products coming from developing countries on the basis of their greenhouse gas intensity because such countries have no or insufficient climate protection measures).

In this regard, the G77 and China said that measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Developed countries were opposed to having this element provided for in the Chair’s facilitative text as they felt that the Convention in Article 3.5 already provides for this.

(Article 3.5 of the Convention states that “The Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country Parties, thus enabling them better to address the problems of climate change. Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.”)

The Chair asked Parties to consider the following questions, including how Parties showed affected by economic and social consequences be assisted to address such consequences and if there was a need for a forum to address the consequences of response measures.

Argentina speaking for G77 and China said that when dealing with social and economic consequences of response measures, there is a need to respect the principles and provisions of the Convention, and to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention, in accordance with the Bali Action Plan.

It said that consideration must be given to concrete remedies and effective actions to minimize any negative social and economic consequences of response measures experienced by developing country Parties. In this context, developed country Parties shall strive to implement response measures in such a way as to avoid and minimize those negative consequences on developing country Parties, taking fully into account Article 3 of the Convention.

Environmental standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and may cause unwarranted economic and social costs to other countries, in particular developing country Parties. In this context, it is important to fully take into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties, said Argentina.

Argentina also said that in order to minimize negative economic and social consequences, there is a need to avoid climate-related trade protectionist measures. Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country Parties. Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.

With respect to the social consequences, Argentina said that it was important to promote a just transition of the workforce, and the creation of decent work and quality jobs, in order to contribute to the promotion of economic growth and sustainable development.

Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources, including for access to and development and transfer of technology, at agreed full incremental costs in accordance with Article 4, paragraphs 3, 5 and 7, of the Convention, and promote and facilitate the transfer of and access to environmentally sound technologies and know-how to developing country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention.

Argentina also said that it was necessary to establish a forum to undertake activities including identifying and addressing negative economic and social consequences of response measures of developed country Parties, sharing information, promoting and cooperating on issues relating to response strategies and exploring ways to minimize negative consequences in developing country Parties. Further elaboration on these activities and functions of the Forum will be communicated by individual Parties and during our discussions in the appropriate contact groups.

It said that it would like to state that the treatment of social and economic consequences of response measures should have a broader scope than the current paragraph 17 of Chapter 1 of the Chair’s text. The creation of a forum to assess social and economic consequences of response measures is only one of the many elements included in Chapter 7 of the text and one of the many elements that the Group has mentioned that need to be reflected.  It said that there were issues in Chapter 7 that are also relevant to the discussions on ‘shared vision’ that would need to be adequately addressed as such.

Sierra Leone, speaking for the African Group said that the issues related to response measures should be separated from those of adverse effects of climate change. In this respect, it stressed the importance of creating space in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol process to ensure mitigation policies and measures on the economies of developing countries.

It said that the scope of these impacts extend beyond the traditional discussion of the consequences of mitigation policies on those countries whose economies are highly dependent on the export of fossil fuels. This is particularly relevant in the context of provisions made in the national legislation of some developed countries for cross border tax adjustments. In this regard, Sierra Leone said that policies and measures of developed countries should be formulated and implemented in accordance with the principle outlined in Article 3.5 of the Convention.

Sierra Leone also supported the establishment of the forum on response measures. The focus of the forum would be to address serious and consolidated discussion of the issues.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said that the implementation of response measures is separate and different from adaptation. The needs of the small island states and LDCs must be addressed in relation to the impacts of the response measures. SIDs are remote and necessities are brought by boats and planes and they rely on tourism. There was need to understand the impacts of response measures in this regard, both negative and positive.

It also supported the establishment of a forum as a good way to discuss the ways and means to address such impacts.

Saudi Arabia said that while it saw the discussion on response measures as relevant to mitigation, the notion of seeking to adapt to the impacts for all developing countries constitutes adaptation as well.

On measures to address the consequences, it said that insurance and mechanisms can be built to cater to particular policies that result in revenue loss in developing countries, including assistance in economic diversification.

It supported the need for the forum which could be under the Subsidiary Body on Implementation and there was need for policy guidance and decisions of the Conference of Parties, with a work programme. There could be an annual report to the COP for decisions.

Bolivia said that developed countries have appropriated a major part of the Earth’s atmosphere in the past, and they are now seeking to take a disproportionately large share of the remaining budget without compensating developing countries. From 1850 to 2005 the cumulative emissions of CO2 equivalent have been 1.107 billions tons. From this total amount and taking into account that Annex 1 Parties represent 20 % of the population, they have over used their share by 280 %. In other words that means that the space that belonged to developing parties has been occupied by 618 billion tons CO2 by Annex 1 Parties. The discussion in this regard was how to give back this space since this has constrained the development of developing countries.

There was therefore need for developed country Parties to compensate developing countries for the economic losses arising from the implementation of climate change response measures. Based on the historical responsibility of developed countries and climate justice, this compensation is to counter lost development opportunities, including addressing the needs of climate migrants.

It also believed that an appropriate forum should be established under the Convention to give full consideration to what actions are necessary to address the potential economic and social consequences and impacts of the design, selection and implementation of response measures. In addition, this forum shall cooperate with the indigenous peoples through their own representative institutions to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing measures that may affect them.

Bolivia also said that developed country Parties should not resort to any form of unilateral climate-related trade measures including border adjustment measures and tariffs against the goods and services of developing country Parties on climate-related grounds.

Spain speaking for the European Union said that it understood the social and economic challenges especially of the SIDs and the LDCs. Efforts to address climate change must not hinder progress as regards sustainable development. However, it felt that it was best to address such concerns through existing information channels, including bilateral ones. This could be done through national communications with improved information.

The United States said that there would be impacts that need to be managed as a result of all Parties taking mitigation actions. It supported language in the Chair’s facilitative text to promote just transition of workforce in the context of mitigation efforts.  This consideration, it said, belonged to the mitigation aspect and not adaptation.

The US did not see the need for a separate channel such as a forum to address the impacts of response measures and felt that existing channels were sufficient. It also said that Article 3.5 of the Convention was sufficient to address the issue of trade and it was not relevant or appropriate in the context of the current discussion.

Japan said that there was no need to re-open the discussion on trade matters as Article 3.5 already deals with this. There was need to understand the impacts of response measures before establishing a forum to deal with it. Hence, it proposed the use of existing channels such as the national communications as a tool for this.

Australia and New Zealand reflected similar views as other developed countries.

[23 April, 2010] As Earth Day celebrations commence around the world, indigenous peoples from across the Americas are in Cochabamba, Bolivia, to close the historic conference on climate change and the “Rights of Mother Earth” hosted by President Evo Morales. Morales, the only indigenous head of state in the world, called this conference in the wake of failed climate talks in Copenhagen.

As the world prepares for the next round of talks in Cancun, Mexico, indigenous peoples vowed today to push for proposals that keep fossil fuels in the ground, protect indigenous rights, and reject predatory policies like REDD (reducing emissions through deforestation and forest degradation).

“REDD is branded as a friendly forest conservation program, yet it is backed by big polluters and climate profiteers. We cannot solve this crisis with out addressing the root cause: a fossil fuel economy that disregards the rights of Mother Earth,” said Alberto Saldamando, legal counsel for the International Indian Treaty Council. “President Morales has heard our recommendations on the structural causes of climate change and predatory carbon schemes like REDD, and will bring our voices to the world stage in Cancun later this year,” Saldamando said.

This morning President Morales was joined by representatives of 90 governments and several heads of state to receive the findings of the conference on topics such as a climate tribunal, climate debt, just finance for mitigation and adaptation, agriculture, and forests. The working group on forests held one of the more hotly contested negotiations of the summit, but with the leadership of indigenous peoples, a consensus was reached to reject REDD and call for wide-scale grassroots reforestation programs.

The final declaration on forests states: “We condemn the mechanisms of the neoliberal market, such as the REDD mechanism and its versions REDD plus and REDD plus plus, which are violating the sovereignty of our peoples and their rights to free, prior and informed consent and self determination.” ‘MONOCULTURES ARE NOT FOREST’ The working group on forests also challenged the definition of forests used by the United Nations, which permits plantations and transgenic trees, saying that “monocultures are not forests.”

“REDD is not a solution to climate change,” said Marlon Santi, President of CONAIE, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, the largest indigenous organization in that country. “REDD has been created by multilateral institutions like the World Bank that routinely violate indigenous peoples’ rights and pollute Mother Earth.

It is perverse that these institutions are pretending to have the ’solution’ when they have actually caused the climate crisis. REDD should not be implemented in any country or community.” “REDD is a predatory program that pretends to save forests and the climate, while backhandedly selling forests out from under our indigenous peoples,” said Tom Goldtooth, director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, based in the United States.

“REDD will encourage continuing pollution and global warming, while displacing those of us least responsible for the crisis, who have been stewards of the forests since time immemorial,” he said. The declarations forged by the working groups in Cochabamba will be taken to the Cancun summit by President Morales as a counter-proposal to the widely criticized “Copenhagen Accord.”

Movements of indigenous peoples, trade unions, farmers and environmentalists are also building momentum out of Cochabamba with plans for mass demonstrations in Cancun.

The U.S.-based Indigenous Environmental Network empowers indigenous nations and communities toward sustainable livelihoods, demands environmental justice and maintains indigenous traditions.


by Konrad Fisher

India is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, yet it has played a central role in a counterproductive global climate agenda pushed by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and large corporations. India now hosts more registered greenhouse gas emission reduction projects – via the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – than any nation except China. In theory, these CDM “offset” projects – a form of “carbon trading” – supposedly reduce global emissions when developed nations avoid emission reductions at home by funding less expensive emissions reductions in developing nations. In reality, offset projects produce large quantities of greenhouse gases, pollute the local environment, and displace local livelihoods.

The World Bank and Asian Development Bank have become leading proponents of offset projects in India by committing their own resources, and by controlling international funding sources that would otherwise be managed within the more democratic, albeit flawed, United Nations climate framework. Moreover, these two institutions have repackaged their existing corporate-friendly agenda as a solution to the climate crisis, while creating new climate governance programs intended to replace those of the United Nations.

Although it must overcome corporate influence and eliminate existing carbon trading programs, the United Nations – not International Financial Institutions – remains the most viable multilateral body available to manage climate-related finance and international agreements.

To download the pdf copy, click here

Conclusions of working groups on 2010 work programme

Geneva, 14 April (Meena Raman) – The  two working groups under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol met in Bonn, Germany from the 9 April and concluded their meetings on 12 April 2010 which focused on the organization and methods of work in 2010.

Below are the conclusions of the 9th session Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) and the 11th session Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-LCA) respectively.

Conclusions on organization and methods of work in 2010 adopted by the AWG-LCA under the Convention at its ninth session  -

1.  The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) recalled its mandate in decision 1/CP.13 (Bali Action Plan) to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action.

2.  The AWG-LCA further recalled decision 1/CP.15 that extended the mandate of the AWG-LCA with a view to presenting the outcome of its work to the Conference of the Parties (COP) for adoption at its sixteenth session.

3.  The AWG-LCA took note of the views expressed by Parties in their submissions and in statements made during the plenary meetings of this session.

4.  The AWG-LCA invited its Chair to prepare, under her own responsibility, a text to facilitate negotiations among Parties, drawing on the report of the AWG-LCA presented to the COP at its fifteenth session, as well as work undertaken by the COP on the basis of that report, and to make this text available two weeks in advance of the tenth session of the AWG-LCA.

5.  The AWG-LCA invited Parties to make submissions containing additional views, by 26 April at the latest, which the Chair may draw upon in the preparation of her draft text for consideration by Parties at its tenth session.

6.  The AWG-LCA invited its Chair to propose, through her scenario notes, an indicative roadmap, and invited Parties to submit to the secretariat, by 4 May 2010, their views on this matter.

7.  The AWG-LCA agreed that its tenth session would be held in conjunction with the thirty-second sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), as well as to hold its thirteenth session in conjunction with the sixteenth session of the COP for as long as necessary. The AWG-LCA further agreed that its sessions would be held in conjunction with those of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol.

8.  The AWG-LCA agreed that in order to conclude its work it would need to hold two sessions between its tenth session and the sixteenth session of the COP, of a duration of at least one week each, while ensuring sufficient negotiating time as well as allowing sufficient time between sessions to enable Parties to consult and prepare in order to enable the AWG-LCA to continue its work with a view to presenting the outcome of its work to the COP for adoption at its sixteenth session. The AWG-LCA requested the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements.

9.  The AWG-LCA took note of a proposal for the SBI to consider the option that a high-level session be held between the thirty-second sessions of the SBI and the SBSTA and the sixteenth session of the COP to provide guidance.

10.  The AWG-LCA invited Parties in a position to do so to offer, as soon as possible, to host such sessions.

11.  The AWG-LCA expressed appreciation for the contributions received from Parties for the work of the AWG-LCA and strongly urged Parties in a position to do so to provide contributions to the Trust Fund for Participation in the UNFCCC Process and the Trust Fund for Supplementary Activities in order to ensure the widest possible participation in the negotiations, aimed at funding two delegates from each eligible Party and a third delegate from the least developed countries and small island developing States.

12.  The AWG-LCA acknowledged that financial contributions or firm pledges should preferably be made by 26 April 2010 for its eleventh session and by 9 June 2010 for its twelfth and subsequent sessions, to allow the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements.
————-

Conclusions adopted by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its eleventh session

1.  The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) recalled decision 1/CMP.5 and reiterated that it will deliver the results of its work pursuant to decision 1/CMP.1 for adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) at its sixth session.

2.  The AWG-KP took note of the views of Parties on the need for additional meeting time in 2010 contained in document
FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/MISC.1.FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/MISC.1, as well as views expressed by Parties during its eleventh session.

3.  The AWG-KP agreed to continue its work in 2010 in accordance with its work programme. It further agreed to focus its work on the issues identified in paragraph 49 (a) (“consideration of the scale of emission reductions to be achieved by Annex I Parties in aggregate”.) and (b) (“consideration of the contribution of Annex I Parties, individually or jointly, consistent with Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol, to the scale of emission reductions to be achieved by Annex I Parties in aggregate”) of document FCCC/KP/AWG/2008/8, and to continue to work on the issues identified in paragraph 49 (c) (“other issues arising from the implementation of the work programme, with due attention to improving the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol”) of the same document.

4.  The AWG-KP agreed that its twelfth session would be held in conjunction with the thirty-second sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), as well as to hold its fifteenth session in conjunction with the sixth session of the CMP for as long as necessary. The AWG-KP further agreed that its sessions would be held in conjunction with those of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).

5.  The AWG-KP agreed that in order to conclude its work it would need to hold two sessions between its twelfth session and the sixth session of the CMP, of a duration of at least one week each, while ensuring sufficient negotiating time as well as allowing sufficient time between sessions to enable Parties to consult and prepare in order to enable the AWG-KP to continue its work and to deliver the results of its work pursuant to decision 1/CMP.1 for adoption by the CMP at its sixth session. The AWGKP requested the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements.

6.  The AWG-KP took note of a proposal for the SBI to consider the option that a high-level session be held between the thirty-second sessions of the SBI and the SBSTA and the sixth session of the CMP to provide guidance.

7.  The AWG-KP invited Parties in a position to do so to offer, as soon as possible, to host such sessions.

8.  The AWG-KP expressed appreciation for the contributions received from Parties for the work of the AWG-KP and strongly urged Parties in a position to do so to provide contributions to the Trust Fund for Participation in the UNFCCC Process and the Trust Fund for Supplementary Activities in order to ensure the widest possible participation in the negotiations, aimed at funding two delegates from each eligible Party and a third delegate from the least developed countries and small island developing States.

9.  The AWG-KP acknowledged that financial contributions or firm pledges should preferably be made by 26 April 2010 for its thirteenth session and by 9 June 2010 for the fourteenth and subsequent sessions, to allow the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements.

10.  The AWG-KP requested its Chair:
(a)  To prepare documentation to facilitate negotiations on the basis of the annex to the report of the AWG-KP on its tenth session,1 taking into consideration the work undertaken and decisions adopted by the CMP at its fifth session on the basis of the report of the AWGKP on its tenth session, for consideration by the AWG-KP at its twelfth session, and to make this documentation available at least two weeks before that session;

(b)  To make proposals on the scheduling of the issues referred to in paragraph 3 above in his scenario note prepared for each of its sessions in 2010, bearing in mind the focus specified in that paragraph.

11.  In order to make progress in its work under paragraph 3 above, the AWG-KP requested the secretariat to prepare for consideration by the AWG-KP at its twelfth session:

(a)  A paper compiling pledges for emission reductions and related assumptions provided by the Parties to date and the associated emission reductions;

(b)  A technical paper laying out issues relating to the transformation of pledges for emission reductions into quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives.

12.  The AWG-KP noted that taking fully into account the mandate of the AWG-KP, the Chair of the AWG-KP has undertaken, under his own initiative, to meet with the Chair of the AWG-LCA to identify information on commitments of Annex I Parties which is to be made available to Parties.

(For background to conclusions of the working groups, see present and previous articles of the TWN updates 1-6.).

Concerns over Mexican reluctance to ensure groups’ meetings at Cancun

Geneva, 14 April (Meena Raman) –  Developing countries, at the final day of the climate talks in Bonn on 11 April, expressed surprise at the proposal by the Government of Mexico, the host of the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 16), not to already schedule time for the conduct of meetings of the two working groups under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol during the COP16 in Cancun in November this year.

Several developing countries stated that it was the normal practice in the meetings of the UNFCCC’s Conference of Parties to also include meetings of its subsidiary bodies, such as the working groups.

In an intense exchange between the Mexican delegation and developing countries that lasted around two hours, at issue was whether a COP President can make decisions about working group meetings or whether it was a matter for Parties to make that decision.

The G77 and China was concerned that not having working groups meet to carry out negotiations during the duration of the COP was deviating from established practice.

The final session of the Bonn meeting saw a tug-of will between Mexico insisting on its right as the COP President to decide on the organisation and procedures as regards the COP meetings and developing countries insisting that negotiations on the texts of the two working groups (on long-term cooperative action or AWG-LCA and on the Kyoto Protocol) must continue in Cancun and that it was a decision for the Parties to make and not that of the host country.

Eventually, following a proposal by the Chair of the AWG-LCA and the Secretariat, Mexico agreed that that the thirteenth session of the AWG-LCA will be held in conjunction with COP 16  “for as long as necessary.”

While being puzzled by the Mexican reluctance, the developing countries have fears that the organisers may be planning exclusive meetings at high-level (heads of governments or Ministers) in Cancun that deviate from the transparent and inclusive processes of United Nations, as happened in the Copenhagen that led to its failure.

In Copenhagen, a small group of political leaders were invited by the host country Denmark to a secretive meeting which resulted in the Copenhagen Accord which was not adopted but only “taken note of” because of the objections of many countries that said they had not mandated or even known about the small-group meeting.

At the final plenary session of the AWG-LCA, Saudi Arabia, speaking for the G77 and China on this issue, said that there was need for additional meeting time for the work of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA). It said that it was the common understanding of Parties that the AWG-LCA (as well as the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol) would meet in conjunction with the subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC as well as with the Conference of Parties.

Hence, in considering the conclusions of the working group on the organization and methods of work in 2010 (as regards paragraph 7 of the conclusions), there was need to reflect that the AWG-LCA will hold its thirteenth meeting session together with COP 16.

(Paragraph 7 of the draft conclusions for consideration of Parties on April 11 as proposed by the Chair of the AWG-LCA following consultations did not have any reference to the AWG-LCA meeting in conjunction with COP 16).

Mexico’s special representative for climate change, Mr. Luis Alfonso de Alba Gongora in response to the G77 and China proposal said that the Cancun Conference was not for further negotiating meetings but for concluding negotiations. He said that its purpose was to carry the work forward prior to Cancun. As of day one (in Cancun), there was need to resolve (the issue) of the two tracks to avoid two parallel processes, said de Alba, referring to the two tracks of negotiations in the AWG-LCA and the AWG-KP.

(Developed countries have been advocating for one single treaty, which would require merging the outcome of the two working groups, and terminating the Kyoto Protocol. This is because the United States in not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, and developed countries would like to have some developing countries also take on emission reduction targets or actions, with all countries committing in a single legal instrument. However the developing countries are insisting on the continuation of the two-track negotiations, so that the Kyoto Protocol is preserved and a second commitment period is entered into).

De Alba said further that Mexico’s intention was not to take content out of the Cancun meeting and that it wanted the negotiating session to be intense, and that would require many hours. What it did not want was “line by line negotiation.” It was his hope that the line-by-line negotiation could be before Cancun and that in Cancun, only difficult issues could be negotiated.  Mexico did not want to get to Cancun with work that was not ready.

De Alba said that in Cancun, the COP has more powers and can decide to re-establish the working group or have other groups. It was not its intention to limit the option of Parties. He said that Mexico offered to host the process for substantive solutions.

Saudi Arabia speaking for the G77 and China said that while the Group appreciated the role of Mexico, it was the Parties who decide how sessions take place. It said the Group was acknowledging that the AWG-LCA will continue its work at the COP. Having this clarity would help Mexico in formulating how the session will be conducted and it did not see any contradictions.

Spain, speaking for the European Union supported the Mexican proposal.

The United States said that it heard the concerns of Parties on the need for greater certainty (on the meeting of the AWG-LCA). The US said that a compromise proposal could be for the AWG-LCA receive at its next session in June a report on Mexico’s proposals for work of COP 16 and then decide about the need for the AWG-LCA session at COP 16.

Canada said that the US proposal had merit and that it had confidence in Mexico.

Nigeria in response said that it could not accept the US proposal as the need to make the decision was now and an opportunity must be provided for the working group to meet so as not to repeat the sad and difficult moments of Copenhagen.

Ghana said that its understanding was that Cancun was an option for a further AWG-LCA meeting. If, not, there was a need for additional meeting time.

China and India both supported the G77 proposal. India said that the two working groups (of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP) must continue up to and through COP 16 and that talks must proceed well in the two tracks for good decisions.

Sudan, who is the Coordinator of the AWG-LCA for the G77 and China, said that in Copenhagen, Parties had taken a decision to mandate Mexico to make the necessary arrangement to facilitate work of the Parties. It said that the discussion did not seem to reflect working towards success. Efforts of the COP Presidency to influence the process in this way would not necessarily facilitate success.

Sudan referred to rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the UNFCCC which states clearly that the COP President remains under the authority of the COP.  It said that enough time was needed to be given to Parties and that the G77 and China is wanted an effective, good and successful outcome.

Uganda, reflecting on the role of the COP Presidency and Parties said that what it was hearing from the host was strange. It said that the host country is imposing conditions on how the negotiations are to proceed. Uganda said that there was no guarantee that the work of the AWG-LCA would finish by Cancun. For Mexico to prejudge that work must be completed by then was to impose unnecessary constraints and stress. It was also concerned that future hosts of COPs may impose worse conditions. Uganda said that this has never been done before and would be a precedent. Uganda said that the imposition by Mexico that the two working groups should not have their meetings in Cancun should be withdrawn.

Gambia said that in Bali, it was decided that the AWG-LCA was to complete its work in Copenhagen. That did not happen and hence, it was a case of “once bitten, twice shy.” On the US proposal, it said that a decision would be needed (in June) as to whether the AWG-LCA should meet in Cancun. Then, discussions would have to restart all over again on the issue. Instead of wasting time, it said that the G77 proposal was a better one.

Saudi Arabia, speaking for the G77 and China said that the issue clearly goes beyond that of just being about time. Time is one element but the notion that Parties have to decide the possibility or lack of possibility of having a session in Cancun is a strange notion. The working groups, like the other subsidiary bodies, are subsidiary bodies of the COP. There has not been a COP session in which subsidiary bodies decide not to meet, especially when the working groups have to come to a conclusion of their work. This meeting is to determine from here to Mexico the organizational matters and the work programme and it is important to have that clarity. This does not prevent Mexico in presenting its view on how they see different subsidiary bodies working.

Egypt said that it was surprising that bargaining was happening about whether to have working group meetings or not during the COP.  Parties were dealing with the agenda on the work programme for 2010. The lessons from Copenhagen have not been learnt. It said that different methods of work and committees are not welcome. There should be open-ended meetings in which all Parties have equal voice and are transparent in an inclusive setting. It said that there should be no bargaining about holding the working group meetings in Cancun.

Uganda said that the issue was one of principle on the host country deciding how the COP will organize its work. There cannot be a compromise. A Party cannot dictate to the COP. It asked if the host country has powers to override the COP.

Mexico said that there was a misunderstanding. Its reasoning was to learn from Copenhagen and it had no intention of imposing conditions. It said that it had a substantive responsibility for best outcomes from Mexico. It insisted that that a decision can be made in June on this matter.

The Chair of the AWG-LCA, Margaret Mukahanana Sangarwe of Zimbabwe said that paragraph 7 does not exclude a meeting of the AWG-LCA in Cancun. The Chair and the Secretariat suggested the addition of the “words as necessary” after the words proposed by the G77 and China so that the working group meets at COP 16 as necessary.

Saudi Arabia said that if there is no need for the working groups to meet they will not. Only scenario in Cancun where they would not meet would be if they conclude work prior to Cancun.  It said that there should not be a restriction as this was the prerogative of the COP and it is only the Parties who can decide this issue.

Mexico said that it could not agree on how Parties are imposing on how Mexico should organize the session. It said that this was a “storm in a tea-cup”. It said there were two options in relation to paragraph 7 – either to drop the paragraph or to accept the Chair’s proposal to add the words ‘as necessary”.

Following bilateral consultations among some developing country delegates and Mexico, Mexico accepted the proposal of the Chair and the Secretariat, that the thirteenth session of the AWG-LCA would be held  as well as to hold its thirteenth session in conjunction with COP 16  for as long as necessary.

The AWG-LCA  also agreed that in order to conclude its work it would need to hold two sessions between its tenth session and the sixteenth session of the COP, of a duration of at least one week each, while ensuring sufficient negotiating time as well as allowing sufficient time between sessions to enable Parties to consult and prepare in order to enable the AWG-LCA to continue its work with a view to presenting the outcome of its work to the COP for adoption at its sixteenth session. The AWG-LCA requested the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements.

Hence, in total it was agreed that four meetings of the AWG-LCA (and the AWG-KP) will  held in 2010 – in June, in conjunction with the meetings of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA); and another two meetings between the June session and the meetings in Cancun, Mexico.

The AWG-LCA also took note of a proposal for the SBI to consider the option that a high-level session be held between the thirty-second sessions of the SBI and the SBSTA and the sixteenth session of the COP to provide guidance.

Kyoto Protocol work continues in 2010 despite threats to its future

Bonn, 12 April (Lim Li Lin) — The concluding session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) ended early in the morning of Monday, 12 April after heated wrangling over whether or not the Chair of the AWG-KP should meet with the Chair of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) on the issue of developed countries’ emission reduction commitments.

This debate reflects divergent views over the future of the Kyoto Protocol and whether it should continue after 2012 as legally mandated or whether it should be terminated and replaced with a new legally-binding instrument. Many developing countries viewed the proposed meeting of two Chairs as a procedural stepping-stone towards merging the two working groups, and collapsing the Kyoto Protocol into a new treaty.

Developed countries have been advocating for one single treaty, which would require merging the outcome of the two working groups, and terminating the Kyoto Protocol. This is because the United States in not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, and developed countries would like to have some developing countries also take on emission reduction targets or actions, with all countries committing in a single legal instrument.

Some developed countries are also attempting to avoid the international legally binding disciplines of the Kyoto Protocol for emission reductions, and setting an aggregate figure for emission reductions determined by what is necessary according to the science. Instead, they want a pledging system, where countries can voluntarily propose the amount of their emission reductions, without consideration of whether the collective pledges are sufficient to prevent dangerous climate change.

Developing countries on the other hand are united in their demands that the Kyoto Protocol should not be terminated in order to preserve the Kyoto Protocol’s system of international legally binding emission reduction targets for developed countries, and that the negotiations for the second commitment period must be concluded so there is no time lag in between the first and second commitment periods.

The AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA met for three days in Bonn on 9-11 April to discuss their work programme, and organization and methods of work for 2010. The closing plenary of the AWG-KP was postponed until related issues being discussed in the AWG-LCA were concluded.

The AWG-KP has been meeting since 2006 to determine the second commitment period of Annex I (developed) countries under the Kyoto Protocol, beginning in 2013. The AWG-LCA has been meeting for the last two years in order to reach an agreed outcome on the full, effective and sustained implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These two working groups were supposed to conclude in Copenhagen last December, but their work will continue in 2010 and is scheduled for adoption in Cancun, Mexico this December.

The African Group had proposed deletion of the paragraph on the meeting of the AWG-KP Chair with the AWG-LCA Chair to discuss developed countries’ emission reduction commitments. The African Group’s view was that this was not necessary as the two working groups have separate mandates, work programmes and outcomes, and that a “firewall” should be maintained between the two.

The European Union (EU), Japan, Colombia and Micronesia opposed its deletion. The EU went so far as to say that if this issue was not included in the AWG-KP outcome, it could not support any outcome of this AWG-KP session.

This issue had initially been introduced by the EU and other developed countries who had proposed that horizontal groups across the two working groups could be established in order to have closer coordination. Some developed countries had also proposed that the work of the AWG-LCA should be prioritized over the work of the AWG-KP. In an official submission, New Zealand had proposed that there should be no additional meetings of the AWG-KP in 2010.

The Chair of the AWG-KP, John Ashe from Antigua and Barbuda requested Luiz Machado from Brazil to facilitate discussions in order to reach a compromise.

In the end, the following text was adopted on this issue:

“The AWG-KP noted that taking fully into account the mandate of the AWG-KP, the Chair of the AWG-KP has undertaken, under his own initiative, to meet with the Chair of the AWG-LCA to identify information on the commitments of Annex I Parties, which is to be made available to the Parties.”

The decision that was adopted by the AWG-KP mirrors the decision of the AWG-LCA in terms of additional meeting time in 2010. Meetings of the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA will be held in parallel. In total it was agreed that four meetings of the AWG-KP (and the AWG-LCA) will be held in 2010 – in June, in conjunction with the meetings of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA); and another two meetings between the June session and the meetings in Cancun, Mexico “of a duration of at least one week each while ensuring sufficient negotiating time as well as allowing sufficient time between sessions to enable Parties to consult and prepare…”

It was also agreed, after much negotiation in the AWG-LCA closing plenary, that the two working groups would also meet in Cancun “for as long as necessary”.

The AWG-KP also took note of a proposal to the SBI to consider that a high-level session be held between the June session of the subsidiary bodies and the meetings in Cancun to “provide guidance”. This was a proposal by Papua New Guinea.

The AWG-KP agreed to focus its work on the aggregate Annex I emission reduction commitment, and the individual and joint contribution of each Annex I Party to this target. It also agreed to continue to work on “other issues” arising from the implementation of the work programme, to improve the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.

The “other issues” include improvements to emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms; the definitions, modalities, rules and guidelines for the treatment of land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) in the second commitment period; the coverage of greenhouse gases, sectors and source categories; common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks; and consideration of information on potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including spillover effects, of tools, policies, measures and methodologies available to Annex I Parties.

The Chair of the AWG-KP has been requested to prepare documentation to facilitate negotiations on the basis of the Chair’s text that was adopted by the AWG-KP in Copenhagen, taking into consideration the work undertaken and decisions adopted by the 5th Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP) to the Kyoto Protocol on the basis of the report of the AWG-KP in Copenhagen. This documentation should be made available at least two weeks before the next session of the AWG-KP in June.

After some discussion, a paragraph that requested the Chair to revise the documentation for each of its sessions in 2010, was deleted. The deletion was proposed by the African Group and supported by Saudi Arabia, on the basis that it was not necessary to provide the Chair with a “blank cheque” to revise the documentation, and that this request could be made as and when necessary. The paragraph was deleted on the understanding that this issue could be decided upon when necessary at each session.

(Consultations on the next Chair of the AWG-KP are still on-going, and will be decided at the beginning of the next session in June. There are two nominations – John Ashe from Antigua and Barbuda (the current Chair), and Adrian Macey from New Zealand.)

The Chair will make proposals on the scheduling of the issues in his scenario note prepared for each session in 2010, bearing in mind the focus of the AWG-KP’s work this year, and its work on “other issues”.

The Secretariat has been requested to prepare, for consideration at the June session of the AWG-KP, a paper compiling pledges for emission reductions and related assumptions provided by the Parties to date and the associated emission reductions, and a technical paper laying out issues relating to the transformation of pledges for emission reductions into quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives.

UNFCCC group gives mandate to Chair to prepare new draft

Bonn, 12 April (Meena Raman) – After an intense session that ended close to midnight on the last day of the Bonn climate talks on 11 April, Parties agreed to invite the Chair of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) to prepare under her own responsibility, a text to facilitate negotiations among Parties for its next session in June.

Following the opening of the climate talks in Bonn on April 9, there had been differences among Parties on whether a new draft negotiation text should be prepared for the forthcoming session of the AWG-LCA and if so, on what basis. While all the developed countries and some developing countries were in favour of the Chair of the working group drafting a new text for negotiations for its next session, many developing countries were opposed to this proposal, as they wanted a round of discussions first on the draft of the previous AWG-LCA Chair (Michael Zammit Cutajar) that had been adopted in Copenhagen.

On the other hand, developed countries led by the United States wanted the Chair to do a new draft that takes account of both the Copenhagen Accord and the AWG-LCA text. Many developing countries had objected to this, as the Accord does not have legal status in the UNFCCC unlike the AWG-LCA text that had been adopted by the Conference of Parties. (See separate article on views of Parties expressed on Friday, April 9.)

(The Accord, arising from a meeting of 25 political leaders, was not adopted by the COP but was only taken note of).

The session on Sunday, 11 April was considering draft conclusions proposed by the Chair of the AWG-LCA, Margaret Mukahanana Sangarwe of Zimbabwe for adoption on the organization and methods of work in 2010.

The Chair, on Saturday, 10 April 2010 proposed the adoption of following conclusion in relation to the negotiating text –

“The AWG-LCA invited its Chair to facilitate negotiations among Parties by preparing, under her own responsibility, texts for consideration by Parties. The first of such texts should be made available two weeks in advance of the tenth session of the AWG-LCA; draw on the report of the AWG-LCA presented to the COP at its fifteenth session, as well as work undertaken by the COP on the basis of that report; and take into account decisions taken by the COP at its fifteenth session as well as views expressed by Parties at this session of the AWG-LCA”.

Several developing countries had concerns with the words in the last line of the paragraph “and take into account decisions taken by the COP at its fifteenth session as well as views expressed by Parties at this session of the AWG-LCA” which they felt was a way for the Copenhagen Accord to be taken into account.

Following interventions from Parties on Saturday, 10 April, the Chair of the AWG-LCA proposed the following language in paragraph 5 as follows to be considered by Parties on the final day of its meeting on Sunday (which commenced only at around 7 pm when it was scheduled to begin at 11.30 am) –

“The AWG-LCA invited its Chair to prepare, under her own responsibility, a text to facilitate negotiations among Parties, drawing on the report of the AWG-LCA presented to the COP at its fifteenth session, as well as work undertaken by the COP on the basis of that report, and to make it available two weeks in advance of the tenth session of the AWG-LCA.”

Bernarditas Muller, Coordinator of the G77 and China in the AWG-LCA, said the group wanted a small amendment to include a footnote to reflect the correct citation of the document referred to as the report of the AWG-LCA presented to the COP.

The Group also proposed new paragraph 5 bis as follows -

“The AWG-LCA invites Parties to make submissions on additional  views at the latest by 26 April 2010 which the Chair may draw upon in preparation of her draft text for consideration of Parties at the June session’’.

Saudi Arabia elaborated why the G77 and China presented the paragraph. It said that it was to show that the Copenhagen Accord does not have legal status. It said that whoever wants to include (the Accord) into the negotiating text can do that in the form of submissions which the Chair can take into consideration. Otherwise, it would be understood that all documents have the same legal basis which is not the case. The Accord was only taken note of. Nobody can prevent any Party from submitting the whole or parts of the Accord to be included (in the text). This was the reason for the additional paragraph, it explained.

In response, Jonathan Pershing of United States said he was upset with the process. He said that Parties spent time to find middle ground but it appeared to be a “quicksand”.  He said that there were a great number of Parties in the G77 who had associated with the Accord and felt differently. This notion that (the Accord) cannot be drawn upon is not acceptable, said the US.

Russia said that it was willing to accept the G77 proposal if its proposal for the Chair to also “take into account decisions adopted by the COP” was also accepted.  The Russian proposal was also supported by the US and the European Union.

Mueller, speaking for the G77 and China in response said that the proposal it made (re addition of new paragraph 5 bis) was to recognise that there were different levels of understandings (as regards the documents to be drawn on for the negotiating text). The report of the AWG-LCA (including the annexes) was fully negotiated in an open and transparent manner. Work undertaken by the COP on the basis of that report during last week in Copenhagen had not been negotiated. Other Parties may wish to put in “whatever” which was not openly negotiated (in an apparent reference to the Accord) and that was why the proposal was being offered. The (Russian) proposal was not acceptable to the Group, said Mueller.

She explained further that the Group had tried to exercise utmost flexibility to come to an agreement that was difficult and was carefully calibrated.

Following further exchanges, the Chair, Margaret Sangarwe proposed that the meeting would have an understanding that “work undertaken by the COP on the basis of that report” (the AWG-LCA report) covers all work undertaken by the COP and asked Russia to consider this.

(This “understanding” would not be in the text of the conclusions of the meeting).

Russia then accepted the compromise based on this understanding announced by the Chair.