On
Saturday morning, delegates convened in a plenary session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term
Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and in contact groups
o˙˙â˙śother issu˙˙â˙ť (focusing on spillover effects) and on the
flexible mechanisms under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under
the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). In the afternoon, contact
groups on enhancing action on adaptation and associated means for
implementation, and on enhancing action on
mitigation and associated means for implementation were held
under the AWG-LCA. In
addition, informal consultations were held on land use, land-use change
and forestry (LULUCF) under the AWG-KP.
AWG-LCA PLENARY AND CONTACT
GROUPS
LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION: Delegates
convened in an AWG-LCA plenary and considered the organization of work.
Chair Machado proposed establishing three contact groups on: enhanced
action on mitigation in conjunction with identification of needs for
finance and technology; enhanced action on adaptation in conjunction
with identification of needs for finance and technology; and institutional
arrangements for delivering enhanced cooperation on technology and
financing. Many party groupings supported the Cha˙˙â˙™s proposal, while
Australia, for the UMBRELLA GROUP, objected to the creation of the
contact group on institutional arrangements, stating that the first two
contact groups would sufficiently deal with this matter. Antigua and
Barbuda, for the G-77/CHINA, proposed changing the title of the third
contact group to ˙˙śdelivering on technology and financing, including
consideration of institutional arrangements˙˙€ť After informal
consultations, parties agreed to the establishment of three contact
groups on: ˙˙śenhancing action on adaptation and associated means of
implementation˙˙€ť chaired by AWG-LCA Vice-Chair Cutajar˙˙â˙śenhancing
action on mitigation and associated means of implementation,˙˙ť chaired
by AWG-LCA Chair Machado; and ˙˙śdelivering on technology and financing,
including consideration of institutional arrangements˙˙€ť also chaired by
Machado.
During
the discussion, the G-77/CHINA and others expressed disappointment
regarding the slow progress of the AWG-LCA in light of the challenging
programme in the lead up to COP 15.
France,
for the EU, highlighted the potential for using a levy on aviation
revenue to combat climate change and, with AUSTRALIA, for the use of
carbon markets to achieve cost-effective mitigation. Maldives, on
behalf of the LDCs, proposed the establishment of an institutional
structure on adaptation to help ensure food, energy and water security
and the protection of health and livelihoods. Grenada, for AOSIS,
underscored adaptation as a major priority, and proposed the
establishment of an adaptation fund under the Convention.
JAPAN
proposed that parties adopt a shared vision of reducing global
emissions by 50% by 2050 in line with the goal supported by the 2008 G8
Summit. NEW ZEALAND called for greater emphasis on a shared vision, and
said there cannot be two separate and distinct visions under the AWG-KP
and AWG-LCA tracks. On REDD, he suggested elaborating both market and
non-market approaches to enable an informed decision on the issue.
INDIA and CHINA stressed the need to address all four elements of the
Bali Action Plan equally. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION called for all major
emitting countries to participate in a future global agreement.
On
mitigation in the agriculture sector, URUGUAY, supported by NEW
ZEALAND, called for increased action, and proposed a workshop on this
topic in Poznan. BANGLADESH proposed the establishment of an
international adaptation research and technology support center in his
country.
TURKEY
called for flexibility in a future regime to account for the dynamic
nature of national circumstances.
ICAO
noted that it is in the best position to ensure optimum compatibility
between environmental sustainability and the safety of the global
aviation system. She offered to assist the AWG-LCA in its efforts to
address international aviation emissions. GLOBAL BUSINESS and INDUSTRY
noted that the private sector has a major role to play in providing
investment for mitigation and adaptation actions, and highlighted the
importance of creating frameworks and institutional structures to
attract the necessary resources. The INDIGENOUS PEOPLES FORUM ON
CLIMATE CHANGE said a future agreement should recognize and implement
the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and also provide
for official participation of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues in the UNFCCC process.
ADAPTATION AND MEANS OF
IMPLEMENTATION: AWG-LCA Vice-Chair Cutajar opened
the contact group and suggested that the discussion focus on national
planning for adaptation and enhancement of knowledge sharing.
The
Philippines, for the G-77/CHINA, underlined the need for urgent action
and for equal treatment of mitigation and adaptation. GHANA called for
a comprehensive adaptation approach and bridging research and policy.
Barbados, for AOSIS, supported a simple and transparent approach,
without substantial reporting requirements or conditional funding. He
suggested using national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) to
identify immediate priorities, and offered to share recommendations on
knowledge sharing with the group next week. The US called for
leveraging existing institutional capacities, and presented several
means for organizing adaptation priorities and actions.
South
Africa, on behalf of the AFRICAN GROUP, announced its proposal for a
consolidated adaptation work programme. She stressed learning-by-doing,
the sectoral nature of adaptation technology, and the need to
differentiate between short-term climate shocks and long-term shifts in
climatic conditions.
France,
for the EU, explained its proposed framework for adaptation, which
promotes financial resources and investment flows and builds
partnerships between developed and developing countries. He suggested
that the Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and
adaptation, as well as networking and regional centers, should
facilitate exchange of views among parties. JAPAN highlighted its Earth
Simulator System, which, he said, can predict future climates and
enhance understanding of adaptation needs.
AUSTRALIA
supported a focus on implementation, and BANGLADESH, with Maldives, for
the LDCs, urged hastened implementation. INDIA, with AOSIS and the
AFRICAN GROUP, called for additional resources.
MITIGATION AND MEANS OF
IMPLEMENTATION: The contact group chaired by
AWG-LCA Chair Machado met in the afternoon. The Philippines, for the
G-77/CHINA, underlined the distinction between mitigation commitments
of developed countries and mitigation actions of developing countries.
The US stated that a Copenhagen agreement should be flexible to
accommodate differences in national circumstances and how they change
over time. The G-77/CHINA stressed that the only categories for
distinguishing among countries should be those used in the Convention.
The EU, supported by AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND, opposed this, stating
that further differentiation of actions among groupings of countries
must take place in a future regime. TURKEY suggested parameters for
differentiating, including GDP per capita, energy use per capita, and
the Human Development Index.
Many
parties called for developed countries to lead in emission reductions,
and BRAZIL and CHINA said that existing mitigation actions in
developing countries must be recognized. CUBA called for a 35%
reduction in Annex I emissions by 2020.
ANTIGUA
and BARBUDA pointed out that the group does not have a mandate to
discuss amendments to the Convention or the Protocol. TUVALU noted that,
according to the mandate, the group should discuss not only actions
beyond 2012, but also now and up to 2012. JAPAN proposed a roundtable
with industry on sectoral approaches in Poznan. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA
underscored its idea for a market mechanism for finance and technology
transfer.
AWG˙˙“KP CONTACT GROUPS AND INFORMALS
OTHER ISSUES (SPILLOVER EFFECTS): AWG-KP
Chair Dovland chaired the contact group.South
Africa, for the G-77/CHINA, stated that consideration of spillover
effects should focus on non-Annex I parties. TUVALU, with NEW ZEALAND,
Senegal, for the AFRICAN GROUP, and others, said greatest consideration
should be paid to spillover effects on poorer countries. The RUSSIAN
FEDERATION, with CROATIA, said spillover effects on all parties, particularly
developing country parties, should be considered. CANADA noted the
relevance of spillover effects to all parties, but suggested priority
consideration for poorer countries.
JAPAN,
with MEXICO, requested that boundaries be defined for spillover effects,
and AUSTRALIA suggested that these could relate to programmes and
measures taken by parties in relation to obligations. The G-77/CHINA
urged discussion of methodologies. MEXICO suggested the development of
assessment criteria, and, opposed by UGANDA, suggested a step-by-step
process for identifying spillover effects. The EU noted the need for
quick action and urged caution and pragmatism, stating that otherwise
˙˙€śanalysis paralysi˙˙€ť could occur, given the complexities inherent in
anticipating all effects.
The
G-77/CHINA, with AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND, highlighted non-tariff
trade barriers. TUVALU noted the negative impacts of some biofuels, and
GAMBIA drew attention to the current food crisis. The EU explained its
exploration of sustainability criteria for biofuels to address these
concerns. EGYPT made the distinction between biofuels produced from
crops and those from waste. BRAZIL argued that biofuel production
resulted from energy security efforts rather than Annex I mitigation
measures, and highlighted its achievements in enhancing biofuel
production efficiency.
Chair
Dovland called for follow-up in Poznan and suggested submissions from
parties to explore the issues raised. He said a document with
conclusions would be circulated.
FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS: Co-Chairs
Lacasta and Figueres convened the contact group and introduced an
updated list, classifying possible improvements to the mechanisms based
on, inter alia,
whether or not they have potentially significant implications for the
ability of Annex I parties to meet emission reduction targets. Co-Chair
Lacasta proposed consideration of˙˙€śbig tick˙˙â˙ť items first.
Tuvalu,
for AOSIS, supported by COLOMBIA and BOLIVIA, repeatedly objected to
proceeding without inclusion of the issue of extending the share of
proceeds as a ˙˙śbig ticke˙˙€ť item. Consultations on the issue will
continue informally.
SWITZERLAND
stressed that non-big-ticket items should not be overlooked and,
supported by CANADA, suggested that further elaboration of some items
may be necessary before parties could provide their views on the topic.
SOUTH
AFRICA stated that discussions based on the list were too general and
called for a more detailed document. The Co-Chairs will review party
submissions and prepare a new document for consideration on Monday.
LULUCF: During
informal consultations, parties sought to clarify their positions and
specify details of the set of accounting options on the table. Parties
discussed, inter
alia, forward-looking baselines and whether Article 3.4
reporting activities should remain voluntary. One party expressed hope
that concrete options would be articulated by the end of the Accra
meeting so parties could ˙˙ścrunch numbe˙˙â˙ť on the different options
before Poznan.
The
Co-Chairs will collect inputs and produce a Chairs˙˙™ text before
consultations continue Monday morning.
IN
THE CORRIDORS
As
the first half of negotiations drew to a close, most parties were
disheartened, expressing dissatisfaction with the slow pace of talks,
especially under the AWG-LCA. Some delegates were confused as to why
there had been controversy over the establishment of the contact groups
and were distinctly unhappy about the resulting delay in their work. In
the words of one party,˙˙€śI would have preferred heading out to enjoy my
one day off feeling like we had achieved more˙˙€ť
Following
the AWG-LCA mitigation contact group, one delegate observed that
˙˙śdiplomacy had been abandone˙˙€ť and that the negotiators seemed more
interested in attacking one another than in trying to come forward with
ways of taking the process forward.
The
participants in the AWG-LCA adaptation contact group, however, were
considerably happier, with the general feeling that some progress had
been made, pointing to the development of concrete proposals, such as
that of the African Group. Yet, many noted that there was still a grave
problem in moving from planning to implementation, citing the many NAPA
submissions and project proposals with little funding to facilitate
action.
Having problems with message search?
Send Email