[A2k] TWN Bali Update No. 1: DIVISIVE START TO BALI CLIMATE TALKS, NORTH PRESSES FOR NEW AGREEMENT

[Sangeeta]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understan=
d
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

Title : TWN Bali News Update No. 1
 Date : 04 December 2007

 Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE  NO. 1

4 December 2007
Published by Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg

DIVISIVE START TO BALI CLIMATE TALKS, NORTH PRESSES FOR NEW AGREEMENT

Nusa Dua, Bali, 4 Dec (Martin Khor) -- The Bali meetings on climate change
which opened today became quickly embroiled in a divisive debate on whether
there is a need for comprehensive negotiations to change the Kyoto Protocol
or to replace it with a =B3new agreement.=B2

Many developed countries were quick off the mark, proposing that
wide-ranging negotiations should be launched at Bali for a new post-2012
climate agreement which would include deeper and possibly more binding
commitments by developing countries, or at least some of them.

The proposals were made in the context of whether to =B3upgrade=B2 the two-=
year
informal dialogue on =B3long-term cooperation to address climate change=B2 =
to a
formal negotiation under a new negotiating group that would oversee talks o=
n
several components of a new climate regime.

>From the preliminary proposals put forward by the European Union, Japan and
other countries, the new regime would incorporate some new features,
especially deeper commitments by developing countries, and a level playing
field for =B3economic competitiveness=B2, which appears to be a code for li=
nking
trade or trade measures to the climate issue.

The move to convert the informal dialogue on cooperation to full scale
negotiations for a new treaty was opposed by some developing countries,
including China, Saudi Arabia and Algeria, while other countries like
Nigeria and Malaysia said there was no reason to re-negotiate the present
climate regime as real problem was the lack of implementation by the
developed countries of their existing commitments.

Several other developing countries (especially small island states and
several in Latin Americans) spoke in favour of launching formal negotiation=
s
on various issues. But most of these countries stopped short of saying they
wanted a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol.

Whether to launch a new round of =B3comprehensive=B2 negotiations, and the =
fate
of the Kyoto Protocol, has quickly emerged as the biggest issue at the Bali
meeting.  Indonesian Environment Minister Mr. Rachmat Witoelar, who assumed
the presidency of the meeting, announced a =B3contact group=B2 on =B3enhanc=
ing
long-term action=B2 would be established, with him chairing, and officials
from Australia and South Africa (who had co-chaired the Dialogue process)
helping him.

The contact group is to prepare options on the way forward, and the
Ministers who will be at the high-level segment on 12-14 December, will be
asked to make the decision, said Witoelar.

The main meeting in Bali is the 13th session of the Conference of Parties
(COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)=
.
Also taking place is the meeting of the parties (MOP) of the Kyoto Protocol=
,
as well as the meetings of the subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC and Kyoto
Protocol and of the ad hoc working group (AWG) on further commitments for
Annex I parties (comprising developed countries) under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bali meetings are taking place amidst heightened global concern over th=
e
increasing Greenhouse Gas emissions and concentration in the atmosphere, an=
d
the environmental and social effects of this, such as melting of glaciers
and ice-sheets, sea water rise, water shortage and effects on agriculture
and health.

There is now a consensus among governments about the seriousness of the
climate crisis, but deep divisions on how this is to be handled, especially
in terms of which countries should cut or slow down the growth of emissions=
,
by how much and when, and which countries should be legally bound by these
rules.

Under the UNFCCC, developed countries commit to cut their emissions and to
assist developing countries to handle climate change through finance and
technology transfer.  Developing countries also commit to collect scientifi=
c
data and to take measures to address climate change, but it is recognized
that the extent to which they implement these commitments depends on the
extent to which developed countries meet their obligations on finance and
technology.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries committed to cut their
emissions by 5.2% collectively by 2008-2012 as compared to 1990 (with each
country having its own target).  The first commitment period ends in 2012,
and negotiations are taking place in the AWG to decide the reduction target=
s
for the next period.

While the negotiations in the AWG are already taking place, with a deadline
of completion by 2009, the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol (which
are almost all industrial countries, with the exception of the United
States) seemed in recent months to be asking for new =B3comprehensive
negotiations=B2 for a new climate agreement.

There have been suspicions that the proposed negotiations are mainly
intended to bring the developing countries (or some of them) into the list
of countries (in Annex I of the Convention) that have to make emission
reduction commitments.   The targeted developing countries (those with larg=
e
populations and large emissions) have been resisting this move.

Today, these suspicions were finally proved correct at the COP session on
the report on the dialogue to long-term cooperative action to address
climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention.  Several
developed countries spoke up openly revealing that their aim to negotiate i=
s
to get some developing countries to make commitments.

The co-facilitators of the Dialogue, which was originally intended to build
confidence and trust among the members, Howard Bamsey of Australia and
Sandea de Wet of South Africa, reported on the outcome of the dialogue

Their report said that almost all participants stressed the need for urgent
action. They put forward four options for the way forward:  (1) extend the
(informal) Dialogue;  (2) continue discussion on long-term cooperative
action under an item on  the COP agenda and reorganize the agendas of the
subsidiary bodies (on science and implementation) around the =B3building
blocks=B2;  (3) establish a negotiating process in a negotiating body under
the COP with a clear mandate and set time frames;  (4) establish a =B3fully
integrated negotiating process=B2 in a negotiating group under both the COP=
 of
the Convention and the Meeting of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, with a
mandate and time frame.

During the discussion, Japan as the first speaker jumped straight into the
issue with clear proposals.  Ambassador K. Komachi said that =B3it is
essential that we move beyond the Kyoto Protocol to a new framework in whic=
h
the entire world will meaningfully participate in actions leading to global
reduction of emissions.=B2

Japan proposed a new ad hoc working group be set up under the Convention, i=
n
which all parties to the Convention will effectively participate.  The work
should complete in 2009 at the 15th COP session which will adopt a decision
on =B3a future framework beyond 2012.=B2

It proposed 9 elements to be discussed in the negotiations for a new
framework:  (1) global long term goal for emission reduction;  (2)
mitigation policies and measures;  (3) technology R, diffusion and
deployment;  (4) efficiency, energy security and co-benefits;  (5)
Greenhouse Gas inventories;  (6) forestry;  (7) adaptation;  (8) financing;
(9) level playing field in terms of international competitiveness.

Japan also proposed that the group would consider amendments to the
Convention, which would include formulating new functions (such as a new
Annex on support for adaptation efforts in LDCs, landlocked countries and
small island developing states).

[Japan therefore is suggesting not only changes or replacement of the Kyoto
Protocol but also changes to the rules of the UNFCCC].

Canada supported Japan=B9s proposal as encouraging and a positive developme=
nt.
It said there is need for a new negotiating process for a comprehensive
agreement, with elements such as long-term goal, and a cut in global
emissions by 50% by 2050.  It said even if developed countries cut their
emissions to zero, that would not be enough (implying a need for developing
countries to assume obligations.)

China said that the basic principles (of a climate regime) had already been
established in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.  Noting that some
delegations had expressed that we should go beyond the Kyoto Protocol, Chin=
a
said it did not know what is meant by this.
In fact, the negotiations that are needed are for the commitments of Annex =
1
countries after the expiry of the first commitment period.

If some countries want to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and put something else
in its place, we will not accept this, said China.  Such a proposal would b=
e
frustrating the process of on-going negotiations in mid stream. This is not
conducive.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility was established i=
n
the convention within the framework of sustainable development, equal
treatment of mitigation and adaptation and effective solutions for finance
and technology transfer, said China.

Future arrangements should focus on enhancing the Convention and Kyoto
Protocol. The COP in 2005 decided on the Dialogue on long-term cooperation.
The report had been presented.  The next step is to continue with dialogue
by extending its mandate.

On proposals on the need for a Roadmap, China said a roadmap already exists=
,
with the  Montreal Action Plan as the map and the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol
as the road. We should continue using the map.  The Dialogue should continu=
e
and focus on sustainable development, technology and finance and make
progress as soon as possible by 2008 for substantive achievement by 2010.

China said that key elements (in the continued dialogue) should include (1)
On Mitigation, Annex 1 countries should reduce emissions by 25-40% by 2020
compared to 1990 levels.  (2) They should help developing countries with
technology and finance to take on policy measures to address climate change=
;
(3) Adaptation is especially urgent and there should be technology transfer
and cooperation supported by removal of barriers, and developing countries
should be given incentives to build their adaptive capacity;  (4) Adequate
and predictable finance for climate change for mitigation, adaptation,
technology transfer, and reducing emissions from deforestation.

China concluded that implementation of existing commitments should be
enhanced through the Dialogue.  The work of the AWG should be independent.
The two parallel processes (Dialogue and AWG) should go ahead.

Micronesia, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said
that the IPCC=B9s  reports had set the context, and the consequences for th=
e
small island states are dire.  It was concerned that a goal of limiting
temperature rise to 2 -2.4 degree Centigrade was far too high for the small
island states.

It said that the Kyoto Protocol should be expanded and broadened to include
Non Annex I countries which may wish to engage in an expanded Protocol. Thi=
s
can be discussed under the Convention.

Saudi Arabia said the developed countries=B9 commitments on provision of
finance and  technology transfer had not been implemented. We would be more
able to act if there had been technology transfer, but there was none. Now
we being asked to negotiate what has been already been negotiated.  The
Convention had been carefully negotiated.    There is need to fully
implement, but there has been no fulfillment of the commitments.

On the use by some delegations of the term =B3enhancement of the Convention=
=B2,
this sounds innocent but it is not, said Saudi Arabia.  Referring to Japan=
=B9s
proposed elements for negotiations, it said that many of these elements are
not part of the convention.  Elements such as energy security, a level
playing field for international competitiveness, or that developing
countries will assume commitments, are all new.

It questioned why energy security was being brought in.  An economic regime
is being imposed on the Convention, through concepts like energy security
and international competitiveness.  There is need to build confidence which
is at low level, especially when  extraneous issues are being introduced
here.

On the real intention, Saudi Arabia said t is very clear that this is to ge=
t
developing countries to assume commitments and timetables and to divert the
Convention into becoming an energy convention, which deviates from the
convention and articles which had been negotiated.

Saudi Arabia proposed that the Dialogue should continue. The mandate on the
Dialogue was that it will not open up negotiations leading to new
commitments.

Switzerland said it was in favour of a negotiating process to a
comprehensive climate regime after 2012, which had to involve all parties.
The negotiations of the future regime should conclude in 2009 in line with
the AWG=B9s deadline.

Portugal (for the EU) wanted to upgrade the Dialogue into formal
negotiations for a post-2012 regime.  The Bali roadmap should lead to a
comprehensive post 2012 agreement.  There should be an oversight body over
the Kyoto and Convention tracks.  The global temperature rise should not
exceed 2 degrees, and there should be a global emission cut of at least 50%=
.

Portugal said the COP should convert the Dialogue into formal negotiations,
which should especially focus on the contribution by developing countries.

Tuvalu wanted a negotiating process through a working group of the
Convention, with a clear mandate and timeframe.

New Zealand supported a negotiation mandate for a global, comprehensive,
post 2012 agreement.  It supported a long-term global goal.  Now that the
AWG had given a range for developed countries=B9 cuts, we should adopt the
corresponding range for global cuts.

Norway also wanted a global agreement based on a 50-85% global emission cut=
.
To reach the global goal, all major emitting countries must be included.

The US said it was committed to negotiating a Bali roadmap to a  post 2012
regime. Besides the 4 building blocks, the US would suggest additional
elements in the contact group.  It proposed an ad hoc group for negotiation=
s
should e formed.

Algeria said the mandate for the Dialogue had said that there would be no
negotiations on new rules. We want to see real implementation of Annex I
commitments in the first period.  It proposed that the Dialogue should
continue.

Nigeria said the Dialogue had been valuable.  The identification during the
dialogue of mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance as issues did no=
t
mean that these were =B3building blocks=B2 in themselves, but they were act=
ually
confidence building measures, because they are issues which should have bee=
n
addressed but were not addressed.

Nigeria said the dialogue should continue.  We are dealing with adaptation,
but even if we have an adaptation fund, it won=B9t be ale to address
adaptation.  It stressed that the building blocks should be seen as blocks
to build confidence and not building towards a final decision.

Malaysia said developing countries are already doing many things to address
climate change, some are doing more than developed countries.  Negotiations
are not always effective.  The dialogue must build confidence and trust, an=
d
it should continue.

Jamaica, Mexico, Colombia, Mauritius and Argentina were in favour of
starting negotiations.

At the end of the session, Witoelar said he had heard strong calls to launc=
h
a process for long term action.  He proposed a contact group be formed to
deal with enhancing long-term action.  The limited mandate of the group is
to prepare options.  The Ministers during the high-level segment could
decide on the options.

Much of the success of the Bali meeting depends on this contact group, said
the Indonesian Minister.

Author :


--