Clashes over whether to launch formal negotiations on Durban Platform in Doha

Negotiating parties were divided over whether to ask ministers to discuss the two work streams of the exploratory roundtable discussions started here in Bangkok, Thailand, at COP 18. COP 18 will be held in Doha, Qatar in November.

The split became even more apparent at the closing plenary of the Adhoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (AWG-ADP) today. Today, September 5 is the final day of the Bangkok informal inter-sessional.

Essentially nearly all developed countries want the ministers to meet on the ADP in Doha even though its work is still at the preliminary stages. The European Union, the Umbrella Group (led by Australia) and the Environmental Integrity Group (led by Switzerland). It was not all developed countries asking for the meeting. The Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) led by Nauru backed the suggestion by rich countries.

However the BASIC group countries, a group made of the big emerging economies of Brazil, South Africa, India and China, opposed the suggestion. The ADP discussions are still in their exploratory stages and therefore it is premature to have the ministers meet on the issue. The BASIC’s position received a boost with an endorsement from the fairly new but increasingly influential Like Minded Group (LMG) of countries led by Malaysia.

The Umbrella Group is a coalition of non-EU developed countries Canada, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United States, Australia and Iceland. The Environmental Integrity Group is made up of Mexico, Republic of Korea, Liechtenstein, Monaco and Switzerland.

South Africa speaking for the BASIC countries said a ministerial on the ADP in Doha will be premature. He urged parties to allow the ADP to crystallize its work first.

But this was not the only point of departure. The Like Minded Group (LMG) of developing countries also dismissed Gambia’s call for negotiations on the ADP to be launched in Doha as ill-timed. Like many other other parties, LMG want the exploratory discussions to mature before launching contact groups at the negotiations.

For Gambia and the LDC given the 2015 for a new climate regime to ready (although its implementation will start in 2020) it was necessary for parties to move quickly to launch the negotiations so as to complete it on schedule.

Divergent views, limited movement

Reports from facilitators of spin-off groups on progress achieved in their negotiations under the AWG-LCA amplified the lack of progress in Bangkok so far. AWG-LCA Chair Aysar Tayeb concluded that progress in the Bangkok negotiations had been limited, as strong divergent views remain on whether further work on the issues is needed beyond Doha and what body would be suited for addressing them.

On shared vision parties are divided on whether the context or the numbers for a global goal and peaking time frame should be addressed first. It is also unclear yet which body will undertake this after if the AWG-LCA winds down in Doha.

On developed country mitigation the discussions have not moved beyond clarification of targets and approaches for measuring progress to parties taking deeper cuts in their emissions. In fact the European Union on a separate platform has indicated that they will not go beyond 20 per cent on 1990s although the economic bloc had announced prior to Bangkok that will take up high ambitions to reduce emissions up to 30 per cent on 1990s levels.

On developing country Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) the spin-off group discussed elements which could be included as part of an outcome in Doha. The elements include enhanced support to deliver NAMAs, understanding the diversity of NAMAs, development of guidelines for Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of support, proposals for building the capacity of countries to prepare and implement NAMAs through regional workshops, guidelines and handbooks.

On REDD+ financing, the discussions have focused on guiding principles, enabling conditions necessary for scaling up and facilitating financing, issues that require further exploration and signals required from Doha to trigger financing for the full implementation of REDD+. Some of the institutional arrangements required include the establishment of REDD+ board, registries, insurance or reserve mechanism, review and regulatory bodies.

On sectoral approaches contact group which has focused on four options on the general framework, parties remain heavily divided. The facilitator of sectoral approaches reported discussions addressed five options on bunker fuels. This is expected to be narrowed down in later discussions.

There were also reports on various approaches, finance, technology, response measures, adaptation, capacity building and review.

Progress slow in Bangkok

Parties remain stack on many fronts at the ongoing climate change negotiations in Bangkok, Thailand. At a stocktaking session of the Adhoc Working group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) convened by the chair, Madeleine Diouf, developing countries expressed frustration at the lack of progress. 

G-77 & China negotiators in a huddle

Developed countries were equally dismayed at developing country parties’ persistence that Annex I parties make deep cuts in their emissions as well as make available finance, technology for developing countries to adapt and pursue low carbon pathways.

Senegal said without any substantive progress on the Kyoto Protocol track, other tracks cannot make any meaningful progress. Senegal spoke for Least Developing Countries (LDC). 

St Lucia, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) expressed concern over developed country parties’ lack of ambition, to cut more deeply their carbon emissions. For AOSIS, developed countries don’t seem to appreciate the consequences of a likely 3°C rise in global temperature. 

However, Russia like many of the parties that have withdrawn from the KP or simply do not subscribe to the rules-based, top-down multilateral system that the protocol represents, want to enjoy the rewards of the mechanism. 

Developing countries remain resolute that these rewards including New Market Mechanisms will be limited to parties that sign on to the second emissions commitment period of the KP. It remains to be seen how firmly these countries will stand their ground to defend their science-backed position.

Bangkok climate talks: parties clash

Bangkok, Thailand, may be the world's capital of "smiles" but it's no smiling business at the climate change negotiations here. It is another big, bare knuckle fight over the future of the earth. 

Parties, mainly Annex I (rich countries) have clashed with non-Annex I Parties (developing countries) yet again. Negotiating parties are split down the middle pretty much on every single substantive issue at the informal inter-sessional on climate change underway in Bangkok, Thailand from August 30 - Sept. 5, 2012. 

It's more than a fight over agenda and/or process. It's really about the future of the planet, how to save it from possible meltdown.

Negotiators

Rich countries want two of the three negotiating tracks terminated at the end of 2012 in Doha, at COP 18, but developing countries which stand to lose the most from an overheating planet, think and rightly so, that the work streams of these two tracks (AWG-KP and AWG-LCA) under the Bali Action Plan have yet to be completed and therefore can and should only be closed when they have delivered on their mandates as per the Climate Convention. The third and newest work stream is the AWG-ADP (Durban decision). 

Shutting down the work of the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA at this stage will effectively leave rich countries off the hook to jump ship (to the AWG-ADP) without actually honouring their prior international commitments under these two tracks. And the big question is what will be the guarantee that any agreements reached under the Durban mandate in future will be honoured by wealthy countries given their failure to do what they pledged to undertake under the two older negotiating tracks. So, this fight also an issue of trust and not only substance.

A global coalition of climate change campaigners, the Assembly of the Global Campaign to demand Climate Justice hit the streets of Bangkok to urge developed countries to honour their moral and legal obligations to save the planet and world's most vulnerable from climate change.

Turning vision to action: Mining conference opens in Accra

A four-day conference on mining and Africa’s development got underway in Ghana’s capital, Accra today. Participants are drawn from a wide range of organsiations and constituencies from around the continent. The 40 participants includes activists and researchers working on mining and development issues, trade and investment issues, gender and development issues; trade unionists, artisanal and small-scale miners and community leaders from mining areas.

At the opening this morning, Yao Graham, coordinator of Third World Network-Africa (TWN-Af) and host of the meeting said the conference has three key objectives: deepen participants’ understanding of the Africa Mining Vision (AMV) and Action Plan; generate a common understanding about opportunities and challenges for civil society advocacy around the reform agenda; and discuss and make input into and help shape the Business Plan of the African Minerals Development Centre (AMDC). The AMDC is the continent operational body to oversee the implementation of the plans generated under the AMV.

The 2011 adoption of an Action Plan for the realization of the AMV and release of the International Study Group (ISG) report which offers critical intellectual ammunition in support of the Vision and the principles for the Action Plan represent a body of analysis and principles which provide a firm basis for policy dialogue between African grounded agenda about the place and role of mining in Africa’s development.

Since 2008, TWN-Africa and its counterparts in African Initiative on Mining, Environment and Society (AIMES) has pressed for the widening and deepening of outreach by the African Union and the UNECA towards organizations of Africa civil society for their meaningful and credible involvement in the processes around the AMV. Without an active and organized engagement by African citizens and their organizations, the promises of the AMV and its related documents will not amount to much.

Getting more revenue from mining companies is an important step. The AMV agenda is, however, much deeper and wider than the reform processes taking place in most African countries. The AMV envisages an end to Africa’s dependence on the export of raw material commodities and the structural transformation of African economies. It places far-reaching shifts in mining policy and the role of the sector in Africa’s economies within this transformative agenda.

This conference will thus hopefully contribute to how African citizens and their organizations work together to ensure that the policy decisions taken at continental levels not only become more widely known but more critically become the drivers of domestic policy change across Africa.

Hosted by TWN-Africa with support from the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) the meeting is organized by African Initiative on Mining, Environment and Society (AIMES) and the Africa section of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC-Africa).

Citing the Lagos Plan of Africa, ITUC’s Kwasi Adu Amankwah observed that the AMV is not the first time that Africa has developed a new progressive document to transform Africa’s primary commodity dependent economy to an industrialized one.

On the question of sub-regional and regional, ITUC-Africa suggested the need to develop a follow-up mechanism at the regional level to guide and assess national level work regarding the AMV to avoid relapse. There is also the need to institute mechanisms by which African countries can assess each other.

Oliver Maponga of the UNECA said although the ISG report took several years to complete the work done laid a solid foundation for the AMV. The recommendations of the ISG report have been applied to develop the AMV Business Plan. The AMV and its related documents and processes are owned by the African Union and its related bodies.

UNECA expectations from this consultative meeting include additional views or issues to be considered and new ideas on implementation. The UNECA is also hoping to build momentum around the AMV, review the work streams of the AMV Business Plan to be finalized for implementation by the end of July 2012.

Divergence on details of renewing the Protocol

Many parties were explicitly dissatisfied with the slow pace of progress at the AWG-KP and the failure to reach convergence on a list of critical issues around the second commitment period of the Protocol.

The issues over which they diverge are many and range from the length of the second commitment period, through the overall ambition level, to the mid-term review of commitment period reserve and carryover of Assigned Amount Units (AAU) to the failure of some Annex I Parties to submit their Quantified Emissions Limitation and Reduction Commitments (QELROs) information and conditions attached to QELROs submitted by some developed country parties.

These concerns shot to the fore at the closing plenary of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) on May 24.  Senegal’s Madeleine Diouf–Sarr is chair of the AWG-KP.

Algeria (chair of G77 and China) said the lack of clarity around the QELROs especially will impede satisfactory outcome for the second commitment period of the Protocol.

Swaziland speaking for the Africa group said some parties were pushing for re-interpretation of Protocol in an attempt to stall the process. In an apparent reference to the AWG-ADP process, the group also expressed concern over attempts by developed country parties to link the second commitment period with other processes.

Developing countries and groups want a five-year term for the second commitment period to avoid locking in the low ambitions of Annex I Parties. However Annex I Parties insist on an eight-year period.

Gambia (chair of the Least Developed Countries) said it was unacceptable that some Annex I Parties have failed to submit their QELROs due to ‘national circumstances’. Nauru (chair of Association of Small Island States) also noted that the low ambition levels of Parties cannot warrant an eight-year commitment period.  These concerns were also echoed by Ecuador (for the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America), Saudi Arabia (for the Arab Group), Bangladesh and India.

The European Union which insists on an eight-year period said the length of the second commitment period is inextricably linked to other outstanding issues such as amendments to Annex B and the carryover surplus AAUs. In effect, for the European Union the lack of progress on the length of the second commitment period will impede movement on all the other issues.

The first commitment period of the KP ends later this year and the second period is expected to come into force on January 1, 2013 to avoid gaps between the two periods.

Parties split on where to discuss technology issues

Parties were split on how to enhance action on technology development and transfer to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. 

Some parties, mainly Annex I, want the issue of intellectual property in particular pushed to fora other than bodies under the UNFCCC – institutions such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the World Trade Organsiation (WTO).

Developing countries however want technology and its related issues addressed under the AWG-LCA and other UNFCCC bodies.

AWG-LCA contact group, chair Aysar Tayeb of Saudi Arabia also underscored this sharp divide in his final report to the group on May 24, 2012.

Blame game kick-starts in Bonn

There’s been hardly any movement at the Bonn climate talks in the last 24 hours even as the meeting draws to a close.

If anything, it is that the blame game has kicked-in in earnest with both the EU and United States ploughing into China, accusing the Asian country in particular of ‘hardening’ its stance on how not to launch talks under the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (AWG-ADP).

But it is not only China that maintains that the issue of pre-2020 mitigation be completed under the two existing mandates (AWG-LCA and AWG-KP) which are already working on the issue, a large number of developing countries from all regions of the global south (which make up about four billion of the world’s population are united in their call on Annex I countries to honour their legally binding international obligations under the climate change convention and protocol.

Annex I Parties’ mischaracterization of these developing countries as ‘blockers' is not only misleading but is also hollow and scandalous.

**A plenary is scheduled for later tonight in search of a breakthrough after a series of meetings on Wednesday collapsed. Throughout today, May 24, Sandea De Wet, interim Chair of the ADP from South Africa, has been in closed informal sessions with some parties. 

There’s even the possibility that parties would be forced to a vote on the issue. If that happens, it will be the first since the UN climate change process began two decades ago.

US, EU block negotiations on finance

The United States and its allies are blocking negotiations on finance at the Bonn UN climate change meeting. Developing countries want Annex I Parties to renew commitment to the three-year Fast Start Finance (FST) as a first step towards bridging the gaping funding gap. Little progress has been made in Long-term Finance.

At the AWG-LCA contact group meeting on finance on May 23, 2012, developing countries sought for clarifications on the nature and sources of finance to fill the gap that will emerge once the (FSF) ends later this year.

United States said the FST was a ‘one-time political commitment’ and therefore will not be renewed to set a precedent. The European Union was much less blunt. The EU said it will contribute its fair share of international public support but also noted that private and innovative finance will play a much bigger role. Discussions on Long-term Finance stalled. The EU said a workshop in July and another later this year will deal with the question of long-term finance.

But the US and EU also opposed calls by developing countries for a spin-off group on finance to concretely address the funding gap post 2012.

Developing countries pointed out the financing gap from 2013 to 2020 and the need for new, additional and predictable funding. Developing countries also want climate change finances to come from predictable and public sources rather than private and other less predictable sources.

Under the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Decision Annex I (developed) countries are obliged to provide developing countries with Fast Start Finance of US$30 billion to mitigate the impacts of climate change for the three year period of 2010-2012. In addition to the FSF, Annex I Parties were committed to provide US$100 billion annually by 2020 to enable poor countries to tackle climate change.

The US said the 2020 target of mobilizing US$100 billion was linked to meaningful mitigation actions for 2020. For the US if developing countries want to have a mid-term finance target, as proposed by many developing countries, then they would have to take on mid-term mitigation targets. However Egypt remarked that the US$100 billion was not set with mitigation goals and that a mid-term goal for mitigation (for developing countries) was a new idea.

Developing country concerns about long-term finance borders on clarity of sources, access modalities, timeframe and pathway for scaling up finance and the adequacy of the US$100 billion.

Bonn talks deadlocked: Annex I Parties insist on deregulation

The Bonn UN climate change negotiation has hit a stalemate. The rift is over whether mitigation for the period 2012–2020 should be tackled by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (AWG-ADP) or the two existing negotiating tracks.

The two already existing negotiating tracks are the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).  A series of sessions, both plenary and informal, over the last few days have failed to resolve the impasse.

Developed countries have failed to meet their legally binding international obligations under the existing climate change regime and are therefore pushing to have mitigation negotiated under the ADP even though the Durban mandate/COP 17 extended the mandate of the AWG-LCA to enable it to continue its work which includes mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building in accordance with the Bali Action Plan (BAP), Decision 1/CP/13.

Three main outcomes emerged from the December the 2011 climate conference in Durban, South Africa. The ‘Durban mandate’ launched a process for the negotiation of a new climate treaty to be implemented from 2020. The mandate also agreed on measures to implement some decisions adopted by earlier COPs.

Developed countries are required under the existing global climate regime (convention and protocol) to cut their emissions and for non-Kyoto protocol members, such as the United States, to undertake comparable, measurable and verifiable emission cuts.

Developing countries are also, under the Bali Action Plan, tasked to carry out Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) with financial and technological support from developed countries.

If developed countries are successful in their pursuit, it will abruptly and effectively terminate the AWG-LCA process, outcomes and the principles of equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) which distinguish the actions and responsibilities of both developed and developing countries. These principles have been at the heart of climate negotiations up until now. 

Developed countries’ at Bonn will also render the work of the AWG-KP meaningless.

As a tactic, developed (Annex I) countries have categorized the stalemate as a fight over procedural issues, which imply that developing countries are wasting precious limited negotiating time.

However, as noted earlier, the fight is actually about the substance, context and paradigm of the climate regime pre-2020 and indeed the post-2020 when the Durban mandate requires a new legal global climate change regime to come into force.

Rich countries led by the United States and the European Union are most content with the ADP as it does not have comparability, firewall or support for NAMAs of developing countries unlike the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA.

The danger with developed countries’ plan to move 2012-2020 ‘enhancing mitigation ambition’ to the AWG-ADP is that it will reprieve these countries from legally binding commitments to install lower non-binding targets.  It will also impose an inequitable burden on developing countries in meeting mitigation ambition.

Such an outcome will invariably send global temperatures above safe limits and out of control.

UNFCCC 2012 climate change conference in Bonn

The 2012 inter-sessional meeting of the UNFCCC will take place in Bonn, Germany from May 14–25. The Bonn meeting is the first session post-Durban’s COP 17. Negotiators are expected to launch the Durban Platform and plan their work to negotiate a new climate regime which is expected to be completed by 2015 for it to take effect from 2020.

The inter-sessional will also discuss technology and adaptation support developing countries require to build their own sustainable energy futures and to adapt successfully to existing climate change.  Other critical issues for the Bonn meeting are the question of finance, the Green Climate Fund and how to expand funding support for developing nations to and beyond US$100 billion per year by 2020.

Negotiators will also work on finalizing other decisions for their adoption at COP 18 in Doha in December 2012 and this includes the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. 

TWN-Africa staff, Kwesi Obeng will blog the inter-sessional from Bonn.