[A2k] TWN Bali Update: ON EVE OF CLIMATE MINISTERIAL, DIVISIONS REMAIN ON MAJOR ITEMS

[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.10
 Date : 12 December 2007

Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE  NO. 10

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-

ON EVE OF CLIMATE MINISTERIAL, DIVISIONS REMAIN ON MAJOR ITEMS

Nusa Dua, Bali, 11 Dec (Martin Khor) -- The UN Climate Conference has
reached =B3crunch time=B2 as delegates are working late into the night on
Tuesday (11 Dec) to try to resolve some key and sticky issues before the
high-level segment opens on Wednesday.

Two of the most difficult and important unresolved issues are the decision
whether to launch a new process of talks involving many issues (and if so
what form it will take and what the issues will be), and how to take forwar=
d
the programme on the implementation of technology transfer.

At 11.45 pm on Tuesday, delegates reported that the talks on these two
issues are intense and tough and may have to continue into the high-level
segment.

An hour later it became clear that the talks on technology =AD in both
subsidiary bodies in which it is discussed =AD had broken down, thus
threatening the Bali meeting with either a big gap or a failure.

On Wednesday, the high-level segment will start with an opening ceremony.
The Indonesian President as well as the UN Secretary General will be the
main speakers.  Environment Ministers from many countries have already
arrived, and some heads of government (for example from Australia and
Singapore) are also expected.

The climate meetings in Bali comprise the conference of parties (COP) of th=
e
UN Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the meeting of the
parties of the Kyoto Protocol, the subsidiary body on science and
technological advice (SBSTA), the subsidiary body on implementation (SBI)
and the ad hoc working group (AWG) on further commitments of Annex I
(developed) countries under the Kyoto Protocol.

Today, the SBSTA and SBI adopted several Decisions that come under their
purview.

However, discussions on development and technology transfer under the SBI
have bogged down and early tonight the contact group dealing with this issu=
e
decided it could no longer continue and agreed to transfer the matter to th=
e
Chair of SBI.

A senior African delegate was despondent at the lack of progress.  =B3It lo=
oks
like some developed countries are not interested in making technology
available to us at affordable price,=B2 he said at 9 p.m. after the SBI
meeting on technology ended.  =B3They don=B9t have it in their heart.  They=
 are
more interested in protecting their technological advantage and in having
the companies make money.=B2

This view was shared by several other delegates from developing countries,
who appeared frustrated with the technology situation with having to accept
the evidence before them of intransigence of several developed countries
that did not want to budge from a non-cooperation stance.

Meanwhile, another meeting on technology was held within the SBSTA, staring
at 10.30 p.m.  The technology issue is discussed in both the subsidiary
groups (SBSTA for the scientific and technical aspects, and SBI for the
implementation aspects).

But at about 12.20 a.m, there was also a breakdown in discussions on
technology. With no agreement possible, the bracketed draft decision may be
taken to the COP plenary to resolve.

Ghana, speaking for the G77 and China, emotionally said that the Bali
meeting had failed due to the lack of sincerity and mere lip service of
developed countries.  The delegate said that this was unprecedented and
would go down in history. China said it was a shame the situation had come
to this.

Hard though the technology talks have been, the most important and difficul=
t
negotiation is over another item =AD how to proceed with =B3long-term
cooperation to address climate change.=B2

A contact group and its small-group subsidiary have been trying to agree on
the modalities of how to start a new process incorporating a range of issue=
s
that may (may or not) lead to some basic changes in the structure and
provisions of the Kyoto Protocol and perhaps even the Convention itself.

Delegations are deeply divided on the type of structure within which to
carry on the process, the scope and items to be included, the objectives,
and whether the basic architecture and provisions of the Convention and the
Protocol are to be changed or preserved.

The European Union is spearheading the launch of a negotiation that leads t=
o
a comprehensive agreement by 2009, with an extremely intensive work
schedule, and a wide range of topics.  This is supported by countries like
Japan and Canada.  They want basic changes in the provisions of the
Protocol.

The urgency comes not only from the conclusions of the reports this year of
the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which collates a lot
of information on the seriousness of the climate change crisis, and points
to the need for quick and drastic action if the world is to avoid disastrou=
s
effects of climate change.

It is prompted also (or even more) by the imminent expiry of the first
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, and the need to reach
agreement by 2009 on the commitments for reducing Greenhouse Gases that
Annex I countries (comprising developed countries) have to undertake.  This
negotiation is taking place under an ad hoc working group (AWG) of the
Protocol.

The EU is very keen to initiate a complex process under the Convention to
draw in the United States to undertake emission-reduction commitments even
though it is not a member of the Kyoto Protocol.  The G77 and China also
share this objective.

The developed countries also want an eventual decision that will involve
developing countries, especially the bigger ones, making greater
contributions.  Canada has said some developing countries have to also
commit to reduce their emissions, while the EU is not insisting on binding
commitments from developing countries but other forms of commitments
nevertheless.

The developing countries are not very united on this issue.  Some of them
(especially the small island states) agree that some developing countries,
especially the big emitters, should undertake to cut their emissions.  But
many other countries are unwilling to take binding commitments, or to be le=
d
into a range of deeper commitments such as sectoral targets or energy
efficiency targets.

The developing countries are united in their frustration with the lack of
implementation of the developed countries=B9 commitment to provide finance =
and
technology, and they want the focus of the new process to be on the
implementation of the developed countries=B9 commitments on emission reduct=
ion
as well as on finance and technology.

The Co-Chairs of this contact group (South Africa and Australia) issued a
first draft decision last Saturday (8 December).  It was discussed on Monda=
y
(10 December) and a new shorter draft was given out at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday
(11 December).

By 1.00 a.m. the small group discussing this document had only gone through
half of the three-page document, with many square brackets and several
alternative options placed in many paragraphs.

One of the most contentious points was the type of process to be launched a=
t
Bali.  The present draft says in Para 1:   =B3Decides to launch a process t=
o
enable full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention
through the development of a comprehensive agreement under the framework of
the Convention, for long-term cooperative action, by addressing, inter
alia=8A=B2

This is followed by a long list of issues under the themes, (a) shared
vision and long term goal; (b) mitigation; (c) adaptation; (d) technology;
and (e) finance and investment.

There was deep division over the chapeau of Para 1, which in the present
language in effect frames the nature of the process.  According to delegate=
s
attending the meeting, the EU strongly supported the language on =B3a
comprehensive agreement=B2 while the G77 did not want this phrase.  The US
apparently also wanted simpler and more neutral language.

Two subsidiary sub-paragraphs under the theme of =B3enhanced action on
mitigation=B2 are also causing intense debate.   These are:

*  Quantified national emission limitation and reduction commitments for
anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gase=
s
by all developed country Parties, considering outcomes from the Ad Hoc
Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto
Protocol and ensuring comparability of efforts;  and

* Measurable and reportable national mitigation actions by developing
country Parties in the context of sustainable development.

The first of the above is designed to bring in the US into a Convention
process to have it commit to reduce its emissions (because this whole
process is to be conducted under the Convention) as it is not a member of
the Kyoto Protocol (which is the venue negotiating the emission reduction
commitments of other developed countries since they are Protocol members).

The second bullet point is designed to bring the developing countries
towards more mitigation or emission reduction obligations, though not
binding commitments.

Other points under the mitigation theme are:

* Policy approaches and positive incentives to reduce emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries;

* Cooperative action in internationally competitive sectors;

* Market-based approaches with potential to enhance cost-effectiveness of
mitigation activities;

* Economic and social consequences of response measures.

Some developing countries are unhappy with the proposed item on action in
competitive sectors, as it sounds similar to the Japanese proposal on =B3le=
vel
playing field for economic competitiveness=B2 and could eventually refer to
measures to penalize countries or products with higher carbon content, and
developing countries with less-efficient technologies could be adversely
affected.

The developing countries are also not happy with the reference to =B3market
based approaches=B2 as other approaches should also be mentioned.

The group working on this issue is expected to keep working throughout the
high-level segment and finish their work only near the end of the Bali
meetings.

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

 Author :

--