[A2k] TWN Bali Update: TALKS START ON WHETHER TO LAUNCH NEW CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS

[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.5
Date : 07 December 2007

Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE  NO. 5

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

TALKS START ON WHETHER TO LAUNCH NEW CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS

Nusa Dua, Bali, 6 Dec (Martin Khor) -- Delegates to the United Nations
climate conference have started discussions on perhaps the most important
issue to be decided in Bali =AD whether to launch formal negotiations on a
range of topics, or to carry on with an informal dialogue in the next few
years.

After a plenary discussion on this topic on 3 December (the first day of th=
e
conference), a contact group was established on dialogue on enhancing
long-term action. It first met on 5 December in an open-ended meeting.  A
small group meeting involving some 30 delegations was then held on 6
December.

The meetings are taking place under the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, whose 13th session of the conference of parties is meeting here.
Also taking place is the 3rd meeting of parties of the Kyoto Protocol.

At the 5 December meeting, the co-chair, Howard Bamsey of Australia,
presented his view of the issues and decisions to be taken.  The structure
of tasks included to determine the next steps; and to reach agreement or
narrow options on issues, form, modalities and time frame.

The substantive issues were the overarching building blocks (adaptation,
mitigation, technology, investment and finance), other elements to be
accommodated under these, and concrete elements to be addressed under the
blocks.

Among the process issues are the level of formality, the relation between
the Kyoto and Convention =B3tracks=B2 and timeline.  And, most important of=
 all,
the co-Chair listed three process options (reduced from the four options in
his paper):

=80 Informal Convention process with no predefined ability to prepare
decisions.
=80 Formal Convention process, with informal activity, able to prepare
decisions.
=80 Fully integrated (Convention and Kyoto) process, with informal activity=
,
able to prepare decisions.

The options are for either a continuation of a dialogue process that has
gone on for the past two years on long-term cooperation to address climate
change; or to upgrade this into a formal negotiation.  The developed
countries want the latter, to develop into a full-scale negotiation towards
a =B3comprehensive post-2012 agreement.=B2

This contact group on long term cooperation is the main body determining
whether negotiations are launched and the scope and content.  It is expecte=
d
that Ministers will make the final decision when they take part in a
high-level segment on 12-14 December.

But there are several other processes now taking place in Bali which the
developed countries hope to link to this overall process, including the
group working on a review of the Kyoto Protocol (see separate article) and
another group working on a Russian proposal on how to facilitate commitment=
s
of non annex I parties (the developing countries) which could become an
element of a new agreement.

During this Bali conference, the developed countries are taking
opportunities in many areas to lay the ground for greater commitments by
developing countries.

At the 5 December meeting of the contact group on long-term cooperation,
several developing countries, including the G77 and China stressed the
importance of focusing on the implementation of developed countries of thei=
r
commitments under the Convention (especially finance and technology).

Many developed countries, including Japan, Australia, Canada and the EU,
insisted that there be a negotiation, to be guided by =B3long term goals=B2=
. The
US said the Bali roadmap should launch negotiations for a post 2012 regime.

The EU spelled out the long-term goals as limiting temperature rise to 2
degree centigrade and a global emission cut of at least 50% by 2050.  It
also candidly stated that an important part of the work is to elaborate
further contributions of developing countries.  For more advanced countries=
,
there would be elaboration of concrete actions on this.  All industrial
countries must make comparable efforts (an allusion to the need for the US
to come on board).

Some developing countries (Micronesia for the small island states, and
Bangladesh) agreed with setting long term goals and with negotiations.

Other countries were cautious.  Malaysia wanted the dialogue to continue.
Indonesia wanted the two processes to be separate under the Protocol and
Convention.  Saudi Arabia wanted the dialogue to continue and said that the
hidden objective of those who wanted negotiations was to have developing
countries assume targets and timelines.

According to some delegates who attended the small-group meeting on 6
December, the EU proposed that a =B3new architecture=B2 (for the climate re=
gime)
be discussed, as well as a shared vision including long-term goals.  In the
afternoon of 6 December, the small group is reported to begin to discuss
adaptation, technology, finance and mitigation.

Differences of views on Review of the Kyoto Protocol

Nusa Dua, Bali, 6 Dec (Hira Jhamtani) -- A review of the Kyoto Protocol is
scheduled to take place in 2008.  This is mandated under Article 9 of the
Protocol.  This will be the second review, and the UN Climate Conference in
Bali has been discussing how this review should take place.

It is one of the most important issues being discussed in Bali because the
2008 review could lead to major changes to the Protocol=B9s rules or even i=
ts
architecture.

Such major changes are envisaged and planned for by several developed
countries, as was evident from their statements in Bali.  However many
developing countries do not agree to this approach.  Instead they want to
retain the basic rules and architecture of the Protocol, while insisting
that the review focus on the implementation of commitments under the
Protocol.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries listed in its Annex B are
obliged to reduce their Greenhouse Gas emissions, with each country having =
a
reduction rate that is specified in the annex.

The first period of commitment is 2008-2012.  An ad hoc working group (AWG)
is currently negotiating the reductions for a second commitment period,
which is scheduled to start in 2003.

The developing countries do not have to commit to reduce their emissions
under the Kyoto Protocol.  It is believed that several developed countries
would like the developing countries, or some of them, to undertake some for=
m
of commitments, and it would seem they are using the opportunity of the 200=
8
review to put forward their proposals.

The differences on this topic are among the many points of divergence at th=
e
Bali conference.  Although countries agree that the review is important to
improve the Protocol, there are sharply diverging views over the scope and
content of the review.

The issue was first taken up during the Meeting of the Parties (CMP) to the
Kyoto Protocol on Wednesday December 5, and continued in a contact group in
December 6.

On scope, the G77 and China (represented by South Africa) said the Kyoto
Protocol is relatively new, only three years old, so the review should focu=
s
on the strengthening of implementation.

But developed countries want the review to be focused on the =B3architectur=
e=B2
of the Protocol. Australia said that the review should look at the
architecture in detail, take stock of the Protocol in view of the Russian
proposal on accession to Annex 1 of the Convention or Annex B to the
Protocol.  This proposal, on making it more easy for non-Annex I countries
to join Annex I, is being discussed in another group, where there are also
many differences of views.

The EU wants to build upon and broaden the KP architecture, in the interest
of all parties.  The EU is convinced there are technically, legally and
methodologically necessary amendments that need to be made to the Protocol.
The word =B3architecture=B2 has crept into the discussions on the review an=
d
some believe the intent is to rewrite the Protocol.

China twice said that the review should not deny or rewrite the Protocol
while Tuvalu said the review should not threaten the architecture of the
Protocol.

Tanzania said that the review should be in the context of implementation by
annex 1 countries in terms of Greenhouse Gas emission reduction, technology
transfer and funding for adaptation. Then the adaptation measures must be
focused on practical activities. The common but differentiated
responsibility and the precautionary principles must guide the review.

On content, many developing countries were of the view that the review
should focus on improving the Clean Development Mechanism and adaptation
activities. South Africa on behalf of the African group said that the
adaptation provisions are not consolidated efficiently.  This and the
adaptation funding issue should be an important issue of the review.

India and China said the review must also look at the extent to which the
Annex B countries (i.e. developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol) have
implemented their commitments, especially in terms of green house gas
emission reduction, technology transfer and adaptation funding.

India also said that the lifestyle and per capita emission in developed
countries must be taken into account in the review in order that solutions
can be sought for these. Saudi Arabia said compliance should be part of the
review.

On content, the EU outlined  a set of issues for amendment, i.e.how the
carbon markets should be developed and expanded; the treatment of land use,
land use change and forestry; scope and sectors included;  the existing
annexes and procedures for amending these annexes;  provisions and decision=
s
related to adaptation;  and privileges and immunities.

Japan clearly said that the Annex B must be revisited.  It added that the
content of the review should also include forestry, and long-term goals,
among others. Japan also said that all major emitting countries must be
included in a future framework and the review should also come up with
efficiency indicators for each sector.

On preparation for the review, the EU said there must be enough preparatory
work in order that the review be effective. Canada said the preparatory wor=
k
could be in the form of a working group or some other process. Most
developed countries wanted the review to be linked to other Convention and
Protocol processes, especially the Ad hoc Working Group on further Annex 1
Commitments, and the Dialogue on long term cooperation. China on the other
hand cautioned that the review should not be used to delay the work of the
AWG.

The divergence in views over the second review of the Kyoto Protocol is jus=
t
one of the many differences that have to be thrashed out during the Bali
Conference. The contact group on review of the Protocol should finish its
work by Monday 10 December.

Contact group meets on AWG (Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for
Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol)

Nusa Dua, Bali, 6 Dec (Lim Li Lin) -- The AWG meeting resumed its fourth
session in Bali.  Its first session considered the focus of its future work=
.
At the second meeting it agreed to focus on three areas: mitigation
potentials and ranges of emissions reductions; possible means to achieve
mitigation objectives; and consideration of further commitments by Annex I
Parties.

The third session agreed on the analysis of mitigation potentials and to
develop a timetable to complete its work in order to ensure that there will
be no gap in time between the first commitment period (2008-2012) and the
second commitment period. The fourth session on the AWG began in Vienna in
August 2007, and is resuming here in Bali. The discussion has been on
mitigation potentials and possible ranges of emission reductions for Annex =
I
Parties.

The Bali contact group

The reconvened AWG in Bali resumed on the opening day of the conference and
focused on the review of its work programme, methods and schedules. A
contact group was established to further discuss this matter.

At the contact group on the work programme and timetable for the further
work of the ad hoc working group on further commitments for Annex I Parties
under the Kyoto Protocol, the Chair, Leon Charles from Grenada, tabled a
draft document which stipulated activities in 2008 and a timetable to guide
the completion on the work. He stressed that this was not a draft proposal
but some ideas to stimulate discussion to develop enough material for a
draft decision on this matter.

The discussion at the contact group centred around the activities in 2008
(the approach, various submissions, types of meetings on various topics and
the kinds of technical inputs from external experts and forums and the
timetable), and a work programme for 2008 which envisages two AWG meetings,
with the second meeting in two parts, and the issues to be analysed,
considered and agreed in 2009.

However, the industrialised countries such as Japan, the EU, and New Zealan=
d
were careful to stress that the work of the AWG must contribute to the
ultimate objective of the Convention, and that it was very important to mak=
e
the linkages with the processes under the Convention. The EU stressed that
the AWG was one important element of the so-called =B3Bali Road Map=B2, and=
 one
key component of the =B3new agreement=B2. Therefore the end dates should
coincide. They wanted to see these points reflected in the conclusions of
the AWG.

South Africa speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, Gambia, and China wer=
e
opposed to such linkages. They instead stressed that this was an independen=
t
process that did not depend on other processes, and that there should be no
formal linkage.

The contact group will reconvene on Monday afternoon, and will probably hav=
e
before it a draft conclusion. To achieve this, the Chair will conduct
informal consultations with relevant Parties and develop a more rigorous
timetable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.twnside.org.sg; twnet@po.jaring.my


--