[A2k] TWN Bali Update: MAJOR ISSUES UNRESOLVED AS BALI MEETING APPROACHES ITS END

[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.14
 Date : 14 December 2007

 Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE  NO. 14

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAJOR ISSUES UNRESOLVED AS BALI MEETING APPROACHES ITS END


Nusa Dua, Bali, 13 Dec (Martin Khor) -- A long day of meandering but intens=
e
negotiations characterised the eve of the closing of the UN Bali Climate
Conference, with senior officials going through a line by line reading of
the main outcome document, while a select group of Ministers convened
tonight in a last attempt to salvage the politically most important aspects
of a Bali deal.

Tomorrow the conference will end and participants hope to have all the key
elements of a =B3Bali Roadmap=B2 that shows the way forward to the next two
years of talks, amidst mounting evidence that climate change will
disastrously damage the planet unless drastic changes are made to productio=
n
systems, and very soon.

But it will be a long night and a long day before the Conference will end.

Today saw intense rounds of discussions at various fora and levels,
accompanied by behind-the-scenes attempts to break some of the thorniest
issues.

It was also a day which witnessed scenes reminiscent of past WTO Ministeria=
l
conferences (for example, in Seattle, Doha and Cancun) in which Chair=B9s
texts would appear and re-appear in basically unchanged form, even though
many amendments had been proposed.

And after a decision was taken (by who, it was not known) to restrict a key
meeting (on long-term cooperation) to only a few countries, there were
ungainly scenes of senior diplomats and officials trying to get into the
small room, while security guards checked whether their countries were
listed as eligible to enter, and whether individuals could produce a =B3pas=
s=B2
that had been given to them. It appeared that of the few countries selected=
,
there were again two categories, those who could have =B3one plus one=B2
representatives, and those who could have only one representative.  Some
countries were able to pull in many of their people, while other countries
were reduced to bargaining or arguing with security guards to get through
the door or to have more than one person representing them.

A senior African diplomat, who actually chairs the Africa Group, was refuse=
d
entry and he left angrily.  =B3I refuse to have to quarrel with guards who
tell me I cannot go in=B2, he said.  At one stage, even one of the Co-Chair=
s
of the meeting was denied entry.

It appears that the WTO=B9s famed =B3Green Room=B2 practice has invaded the=
 UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  Delegates used to the mor=
e
inclusive and transparent processes of the United Nations were not prepared
for this and some of them were outraged.

Inside the meeting, according to diplomatic sources, the Chair of the G77
and China, Ambassador Munir Akram and others objected to the procedure of
refusing entry and asked that those countries who wanted to take part shoul=
d
be able to send at least one representative.  Apparently the strict rules o=
f
exclusivity were then relaxed.

Perhaps just in time, as the blocking of most countries from the room, whil=
e
others were able to bring in many of their team, had threatened to become a
major issue.  Said one senior delegate who was refused entry: =B3They can
block me from entering here, but I will simply object to whatever is agreed
on the floor.=B2

Much of the day=B9s energy was taken up with the conference=B9s most conten=
tious
issue =AD how to proceed with =B3long term cooperation to address climate
change.=B2

This morning the Co-Chairs (from Australia and South Africa) of the dialogu=
e
process issued a new draft Decision (FCCC/CP/2007/CRP.1) which in essence
was similar to the previous 11 December draft, despite the many comments an=
d
suggested amendments proposed by various parties, including the G77.

Another draft at 6 pm today had rather minor changes in some parts, while
retaining the language in the most important parts.

There are at least four major areas of contention.  First is the reference
in two paragraphs of the Chapeau to scientific findings on climate change
and that points to emission reduction targets globally and for Annex I
(developed) countries within the Kyoto protocol.

The 13 December draft includes:

--  =B3Responding=B2 to the fact that the lowest category of stabilization
levels assessed by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC)
requires global emissions to peak in the next 10-15 years and be reduced to
very low levels, well below half of 2000 levels by 2050;  and

-- =B3Recognising=B2 that parties to the Kyoto Protocol are considering the
indicative range of emission reductions for Annex I parties of 25-40 per
cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

According to diplomatic sources, the United States had objected to the
inclusion of the figures, arguing that they should be decided on at the end
of the envisaged two-year negotiations.  However, the EU and other parties
are adamant that the figures and ranges be included.

Second is the reference in paragraph 1 to launching a process to develop a
=B3comprehensive and effective global agreement for action up to and beyond
2012.=B2   Many developing countries are uncomfortable with the term
=B3comprehensive=B2 as it implies a lengthy list of agenda items, while the=
y are
rejecting the term =B3global agreement=B2 as this implies the UNFCCC and Ky=
oto
Protocol are not comprehensive and thus they are to be overhauled (with
amendments to their provisions) or to even be replaced.

Third is the reference in paragraph 1 (a) to a =B3shared vision for long-te=
rm
cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission
reductions.=B2

Fourth is an attempt in the draft to bring in the US to be part of a
negotiation on emission reduction, even though it has not ratified the Kyot=
o
Protocol.   This is the objective of paragraph 1 (b) of the draft decision.

The paragraph reads:  =B3Enhanced action on mitigation of climate change
including consideration of: (i) Quantified national emission limitation and
reduction commitments for anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals b=
y
sinks of greenhouse gases y all developed country parties, considering
outcomes from the work of the ad hoc working group on further commitments
for annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol and ensuring comparability of
efforts.=B2

According to sources, the US is not accepting the paragraph.

At 11.45 pm on 13 December, two separate meetings were still going on -- a
meeting of officials to continue working on the draft decision on long-term
cooperation, and a meeting in another hotel of selected Ministers (chaired
by Indonesia=B9s Foreign Minister) to try to break the deadlock over the ab=
ove
contentious issues and possibly to discuss the overall outcome of the
conference.

Meanwhile there was an unusual development in the area of technology
transfer.  Following expressions of frustration by the G77 and China over
the failure of the subsidiary bodies to conclude a Decision on technology
transfer, the President of the conference (at the request of the G77 and
China) directed the chair of the subsidiary body on implementation
(Ambassador Asadi Bagher of Iran) to re-open talks on the issue, even thoug=
h
the SBI and the other body on scientific advice had already finished their
work.

During today=B9s session on technology, the developing countries made some
significant concessions in order to reach a decision.

Originally the G77 and China had proposed the establishment of a new
multilateral technology cooperation fund to finance the development,
deployment, diffusion and transfer of environmentally sound technologies,
which would carry out 10 specified activities. This was not acceptable to
the developed countries.

The concession was that instead of deciding to establish a fund, the
conference would decide that the ten specified activities would instead be
=B3points=B2 that are important for funding through existing vehicles and n=
ew
initiatives.

Also, a next text is added that the Global Environment Facility would
elaborate a =B3strategic programme=B2 to scale up investment for technology
transfer.  The G77 had wanted the word =B3facility=B2 instead of =B3program=
me=B2 and
the eventual compromise was =B3strategic programme.=B2

A senior African diplomat admitted that the text agreed to had been
considerably weakened.  He explained that the developing countries had
compromised in order that an important plank =AD technology transfer =AD wo=
uld
have a decision.  Otherwise the failure of reaching an agreement on
technology would have created such a major gap that the Bali outcome could
not be counted a success.

There are two other issues on which the subsidiary bodies failed to reach a
conclusion =AD capacity building in developing countries and the national
communication (reports sent to the secretariat on climate and emissions
data, etc) by developing countries.

These two issues were also =B3opened up=B2 and reviewed again in the same g=
roup
that discussed technology.

The =B3breakthrough=B2 on technology was seen as a small bright spot on an
otherwise tense day in which the major divisions on the key issues (ranges
in emission reduction commitments; long-term goals; comprehensive agreement=
;
and a provision to include the US in talks on emission reduction
commitments) cast a long shadow.

If these major differences cannot be cleared up in time, diplomats and NGOs
speculate that there may be a Plan B for the issue of long-term cooperation=
.
This may comprise a much simplified text, with fewer details, and which
agrees to start a process but leaves it to the first meeting of that proces=
s
to determine a lot on the scope and terms of its work, which could not be
decided in Bali.

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



--