[A2k] TWN Bali Update: BALI CLIMATE TALKS CONTINUE AFTER MIDNIGHT, BOGGED DOWN BY KEY ISSUES

[Sangeeta]

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


Title : TWN Bali News Update No. 16
 Date : 19 December 2007

 Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE NO. 16

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

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

BALI CLIMATE TALKS CONTINUE AFTER MIDNIGHT, BOGGED DOWN BY KEY ISSUES

Nusa Dua, Bali, 14 Dec (Martin Khor) -- Deep divisions on fundamental issues
bogged the final day of the UN Climate Change Conference, with delegates
still unable to convene the final plenary after midnight on Friday.

The probability is that the final document on the most important issue -
long-term cooperation and action to address climate change - will be a
watered-down version of the original.

The last stretch of the negotiations had been dramatically marked and
altered by an audacious move by the United States at a small Ministerial
meeting on Thursday night (13 December), which was immediately condemned by
NGOs as a ploy to wreck the Bali conference and even the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol.

The US proposal was also rejected by many of the governments in the
Ministerial "Green Room" meeting, as well as outside.

The German environment minister and then Portugal (which holds the EU
presidency) threatened to boycott future meetings of "major economies"
hosted by the US administration if the Bali talks did not succeed. Their
implication was that the US was trying to damage the UNFCCC and its meetings
so that its own approach, involving meetings and presumably commitments of
selected big economies, would take over from the UN process.

The Bali conference actually comprises the conference of parties of the
UNFCCC, the meeting of parties of the Kyoto Protocol, and meetings of their
two subsidiary bodies (on science and on implementation) and an ad hoc
working group on further commitments of Annex I countries.

A majority of UNFCCC members have been concerned with how to enable or
ensure that the US undertakes commitments to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions
similar to those to be undertaken by other developed countries that are
members of the Kyoto Protocol, even though it is not a member of the
protocol.

A paper by the co-chairs of the contact group on long-term cooperation had
proposed "enhanced action" on quantified national emission limitation and
reduction commitments for emissions by all developed country Parties of the
Convention and "ensuring comparability of efforts."

The US is a party to the Convention although not to the protocol. The
paragraph above was meant to bring the US into a comparable reduction
obligation as other developed-country parties whose commitments under the
Kyoto Protocol for the period after 2012 are now being negotiated. The Kyoto
parties' commitments would be legally binding under the international
treaty, while the US-targeted reduction would presumably be through national
legislation.

This, at least, was the plan. But the US would have none of it, at the
Thursday night meeting. It proposed an alternative to the co-chair's text
that first did away with the distinction between developed and developing
countries, unlike the UNFCCC which places developed countries in a category
(known as Annex I because they are listed in the Convention's annex) and
developing countries in another. Only Annex I countries have to undertake
mitigation-related binding commitments.

The US proposal has two major features that differ from the UNFCCC approach.
First, all countries, including developing countries, are eligible for
taking "enhanced action" on mitigation of climate change. It differentiates
the obligations of countries according to their level of development,
greenhouse gas contributions, and energy utilization.
 Second, the proposal does not envisage the binding of commitments through
the UNFCCC or the Kyoto Protocol, but relies on each country to devise
national policies and measures, and these plans could include binding,
market-based and sectoral programmes.

The content of the US proposal contradicts the Convention and Kyoto Protocol
which involves international binding commitments.

When the US circulated its proposal, it caused great consternation in the
meeting, and it sparked off a deep sense of outrage among the NGOs outside
the meeting room. Several NGOs claimed that the US was sabotaging the whole
process, so that it need not have to make any commitments.

By the next morning, there were five proposals for alternative language,
coming from the G77, EU, Tuvalu, Saudi Arabia as well as from the US itself,
which provided a second option.

The US also angered other countries by their reluctance to accept the
co-Chairs' reference to scientific data. It wanted to remove reference to
the 25-40 per cent reduction by 2020 (compared to 1990) as an indicative
range for Annex I countries in the post-2012 commitment period.

Another major issue of contention was the choice of three options on how to
proceed with the process - whether through informal dialogue, the
establishment of a formal group to engage in issues with a deadline of 2009,
or an integrated process involving the Convention as well as the protocol,
with the implication that their provisions would be changed.

According to diplomatic sources, the President of the conference, the
Indonesian Minister, proposed his own text: "A subsidiary body under the
Convention, hereby established and known as the ad hoc working group on
long-term cooperative action under the Convention, that shall complete its
work in 2009..."

Throughout Friday, the US was coming under severe attacks by NGOs and the
media which accused the US of single-handedly destroying any chance of
success in Bali.

Inside the meeting room, the developing countries have also come under
intense pressure to take on more obligations to reduce emissions than they
are presently undertaking. The latest draft at 8.30pm on Friday proposes
that they implement "measurable, reportable and verifiable" actions relating
to mitigation, and that these are enabled by technology transfer, finance
and capacity building.

At a press conference at 8 p. m., the Chair of the G77 and China, Pakistan's
Ambassador, Mr. Munir Akram, announced that the developing countries were
coming under pressure to undertake commitments that are "quintessentially
unfair and unjust", and that even the threat of trade sanctions had been
used by developed countries (see separate article).

Several issues remain unresolved in other areas on the agenda, presumably
because they are linked to the outcome of the long-term cooperation issue.
These include a review of the Kyoto Protocol (where some developed countries
are calling for a change in the "architecture" and where developing
countries have been strongly resisting it) and the Russian proposal on
voluntary commitments by developing countries.

Also, the ad hoc working group on further commitments of Annex I countries
had suspended its work for days until the outcome of the group on long-term
cooperation is known.

After midnight on Friday, the plenary had still not convened. One delegate
who took part in the meeting said that there were still serious differences
in the wording of several issues and it appeared that agreement was still
some time off.

Earlier, a plenary session adopted many draft Decisions of issues in which
work had been completed. Among them were decisions on the Adaptation Fund
(which many hail as a real success of this Conference), technology transfer
and financial review, and capacity building in developing countries.

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

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


--