[A2k] TWN Bali Update: BALI CONFERENCE ENDS, NEW GROUP TO TAKE UP UNRESOLVED 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. 18
Date : 19 December 2007

 Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE NO. 18

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

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

BALI CONFERENCE ENDS, NEW GROUP TO TAKE UP UNRESOLVED ISSUES

Nusa Dua, Bali, 16 Dec (Martin Khor) -- The Bali Climate Change Conference
concluded dramatically one day late on Saturday (15 December) afternoon
after a dramatic day of events. The day (as the night before) was filled
with the tension of deal making and deal breaking.

It saw tempers rising to boiling point, an accusation of mismanagement by
the Secretariat that led to its top official taking leave temporarily in
tears, a direct intervention of the UN Secretary-General and the Indonesian
President to appeal to the countries to make a final deal, a seemingly
recalcitrant United States holding the entire meeting to ransom, before
several dramatic and angry appeals led finally to its announcement that it
would "join the consensus."

In the end, the conference agreed to launch a "comprehensive process" to
tackle a long list of issues, including how to mitigate and adapt to climate
change, as well as provide the financial resources and technology to
developing counties to do so.

The Bali conference marked the fact that all the governments present
accepted the scientific findings that global warming is "unequivocal" and
that delay in reducing emissions increases the risk of more severe climate
change impacts.

At previous meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), it was still being debated by a few governments whether climate
change is really occurring or how serious it is.

The most significant result at Bali was the creation of an ad hoc working
group on long-term cooperative action to discuss a wide range of issues
under the four "building blocks" of mitigation, adaptation, finance and
investment, and technology transfer.

Despite its low-key name, the group will carry much of the power of the
UNFCCC in the next two years, and the talks it will hold (whether they take
the form of formal negotiations or informal dialogues or probably a
combination of the two) may well shape the structures and content not only
of climate politics but also have ramifications for global economic and
development issues, besides a range of environmental issues.

 What was left out in the final document was as important as what managed to
get in, after the many hours of wrangling. At least three controversial
issues have been set aside for the time being, because there was no
consensus, but are bound to re-appear when the group convenes its first
meeting in March or April.

The first is whether issues other than the four building blocks will be
included in the agenda of the group. Many developed countries had proposed
topics such as the further commitments or contributions of developing
countries, a level playing field for economic competitiveness, energy
security and stronger cooperation with other international organizations
(which some saw as meaning the WTO, among others).

Several of these topics had been looked at with suspicion or opposed by many
developing countries as being not in the mandate of the UNFCCC or not
"mature" enough for negotiations. An annex in an initial draft had contained
sub-headings with the four traditional issues (mitigation, adaptation,
finance, technology) as well as a fifth heading "Other Issues", all to be
filled in at Bali.

But in the end, the annex was dropped altogether. Perhaps there was too
little time and too much controversy on what to add or leave out in such a
list that would determine the agenda of the crucial next years. At the
group's first meeting, which will establish its work programme, these issues
will be discussed, and the proponents of the "other issues" (actually "new
issues") are bound to put their proposals again on the table.

The second is whether the new process will lead to a new "comprehensive"
agreement (which is what many developed countries expressed they wanted). Or
whether the existing treaties governing climate change - the UNFCCC and its
Kyoto Protocol - will be retained largely unscathed and the focus will be on
strengthening the implementation of decisions already adopted but not
implemented (this is favoured by the G77 and China).

The developed countries made it clear that they want to radically change or
replace the Kyoto Protocol and even parts of the Convention. The developing
countries are deeply suspicious of this intention, as the two treaties are
relatively friendly to their interests.

Under these present treaties, the developing countries do commit to take
measures to fight climate change but they are not obliged to undertake
legally binding emission reduction targets, and their efforts are
conditioned by the extent to which the developed countries provide finance
and technology.

Throughout the two weeks' talks in Bali, the United States, Japan, Canada,
European Union and Russia continuously pressed the developing countries to
take on more obligations. Some called for binding reduction commitments.

In the final outcome, there was no mention that the working group would come
up with a new "agreement", but the pressures to alter some of the basic
tenets of the existing treaties will resume at the group.

Many of the developing countries, in contrast, are adamant that the existing
commitments of developed countries to their own emission reduction, and to
providing finance and technology, be implemented. Thus, the emphasis placed
by the G77 and China on a work programme on technology inside the subsidiary
body on implementation, and on the monitoring of the finance and technology
obligations through "measurable, reportable and verifiable" means.

Thirdly, the Bali document does not set a global target of reduction of
Greenhouse Gases, nor a target for developed countries.

Originally, a 50% global cut by 2050 was proposed, and later the phrase
"well below half" was used. The Europeans and NGOs were also pushing
strongly for mentioning an "indicative range" of 25-40% emission cuts by
2020 (from 1990 levels) for developed countries.

But strong objections from the United States led to the removal of any
figures. The battle between the US on one hand and the Europeans (supported
by the G77 and China) on the other hand became the most politically charged
exercise in the Bali conference's last two nights and days. In the end, a
footnote referring to the related data and targets from the
intergovernmental panel on climate change was placed in the text as a
compromise.

The main criticism against the US in Bali was the watering down of the text
relating to the scientific facts. The next prominent criticism was its
unreasonable demands on the developing countries, an attitude that led to
the final dramatic exchanges on the plenary floor.

In the last two days in particular, the US became everyone's (including
former Vice President Al Gore's) favourite target. On 13 December night, on
the very eve of the scheduled conference closure, when things were supposed
to be tidied up, the US threw in a bombshell of a proposal to amend the
paragraphs on mitigation.

It wanted to do away with the present distinction between developed and
developing countries, which is a fundamental tenet in the UNFCCC, and it
suggested new ways of categorizing countries (for the all-important purpose
of allocating mitigation responsibilities) according to emissions, energy
use and levels of development. The US also advocated non-binding action,
which would overthrow the principle and practice of binding emission
reductions of developed countries.

The American proposal was rejected by the Europeans and the developing
countries. It also caused intense outrage among the NGOs, which saw it as a
ploy to wreck the Bali meeting, and move in its own rival non-binding
approach through continued meetings of its "Major Economies" initiative.

This threat was eventually deflected. Perhaps the biggest achievement of
Bali was the ability of the rest of the world to contain the US, get it to
withdraw its proposal, and on the final day, pull it into accepting a
consensus. The last was done by the other governments, supported from the
floor by applause and boos from the NGOs.

At the end, the US agreed to take (or at least discuss) its own emission
reduction commitment under the UNFCCC umbrella, although it had pulled out
of the Kyoto Protocol (which is where the legally-binding targets for
emission reduction by developed countries are set).

How to engage with the US, in process and substantially, will be a major
challenge in the working group. Most delegates (government and NGOs) openly
hope that the next US Administration will act differently than the present
one, and a kind of one-year "holding position" in which to continue
engagement with the US until change happens will be one of the delicate acts
of the new working group.

 The Bali outcome says that a comprehensive process to enable the full
implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action up to
and beyond 2012 in order to reach an agreed outcome by addressing several
issues that are then described.

The first two items, known as para b (i) and para b (ii), drew much of the
energy and attention of the delegations in the final two days, and right up
to the end.

Para b (i) deals with the mitigation actions of developed countries. The
final text is as follows: "Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally
appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission
limitation and reduction objectives, by all developed country Parties, while
ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account
differences in their national circumstances."

This is weaker than the previous text which in straightforward fashion asked
for "Quantified national emission limitation and reduction commitments... by
all developed country Parties..." The US had objected to this language and
to the reference to the efforts by parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the
previous text.

The final compromise was accepted by all as a means to get the US on board.
It had to abandon its proposal for a non-binding multilateral system that
did not specifically categorise countries as developed or developing.

Para b (ii) deals with the mitigation actions of developing countries. The
final text reads: "Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing
country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported by
technology and enabled by financing, in a measurable, reportable and
verifiable manner."

A large part of the drama of the final day was led by the G77 and China in
their striving to get this language. According to G77 sources, this
paragraph had been agreed to in long talks of the previous night in a small
contact group of Ministers and officials. At the least it had been
understood that the G77 would be given the opportunity to put in an
amendment to a previous text which would be bracketed to denote that there
was no consensus and therefore that delegates could propose amendments.

But on Saturday morning, to the shock of the members of the G77 and China,
an un-bracketed text appeared which had the words "measurable, reportable
and verifiable" up front, and which thus implied that only the mitigation
actions by developing countries are referred to in this way. The G77 and
China wanted both this and the actions by developed countries to provide
technology and finance to be "measurable, reportable and verifiable."

When behind-the-scenes consultations between Ministers and officials from
China, India and Pakistan with the Indonesian Foreign Minister were taking
place, the President of the Conference of Parties, the Indonesian
Environment Minister, opened the plenary and placed this most sensitive
document for adoption.

This was objected to on procedural grounds by the G77 and China members.
After suspension of the plenary, it was re-convened again with the aim of
adopting the draft decision, at which point China angrily asked why this was
happening a second time when high-level consultations were still going on,
and demanded an apology from the Secretariat.

The UN Secretary General and the Indonesian President made a dramatic entry
and pleaded for flexibility and decisive action.

When the plenary finally convened, the G77 and China asked for their
amendment to be adopted, i. e. that the words "measurable, reportable and
verifiable" be placed at the end and not at the start of the sentence.

The EU said that it could accept the change. But the US said that it could
not and wanted further consultations to be held. The hall gave out a loud
boo, which is quite unprecedented in a diplomatic setting. Many developing
countries spoke out, including an eloquent response by South Africa's
environment minister.

Some developing countries reminded the hall that the paragraph marked an
important step forward for developing countries to undertake new mitigation
commitments.

Most effective of all was the plea from the heart by Papua New Guinea, which
told the US delegation that everyone was looking to it for leadership, and
that it should now: "Either take the lead or get out of the way!"

In the end, swamped by criticisms and appeals from all sides, in the glare
of the world media, the US gave in, and the Bali conference could then
proceed to its end.

No country got from Bali what it really wanted, but no one was forced to
take on something it found unacceptable.

But many of the battles that were fought here were not settled and the ball
is now in the feet of the new working group. It will meet in March/April
2008 and three other times next year. The work programme can be expected to
be even more intense in 2009, when it is mandated to reach a decision.

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


 Author :

------ End of Forwarded Message

--