The commitment of US in engaging themselves for the Climate negotiations in a meaningful way and also to make up for the lost time is really a very positive and optimistic one. The Special Envoy has categorically mentioned that US is in favour of a constructive dialogue in Bonn. IT was also pointed out by the Envoy that except US there cannot be any meaningful deal and advancement in emission reduction, and also US will not be able to solve the whole problem of the climate change. US wanted to be an important player and a serious player as well. In terms of emission targets, the Envoy said “President Obama is proposing to reduce U.S. emissions by something in the order of about 16-17 percent from where we are right now, about 15 percent from 2005 levels, and about 80 plus percent by 2050. That is a significant reduction. I am well aware that there is a historical affection for the year 1990; and that in 1990 terms, the President has proposed to be at that level, the 1990 level, by 2020”. This is a deviation from the legal commitment required by an Annex I country. So it is good that the US is on board with the climate change reduction efforts but international community should press hard to fulfill the commitment under the Kyoto.
At the discussions related to the AWGLCA, the Chair noted that the deliberations are designed to be focused on the Focus document which essentially a summary of the proposals presented by the parties till the 27th February. The G77 and China under the coordinatorship of Philippines has unequivocally stated its concern for the non-engagement with the various proposals presented out by different parties, especially the G77 and China proposal on Technology and finance. The clear dis-engagement and also an attempt to re-modify the various aspects of the Convention by the Parties were other areas that the Group think is going to have serious consequences in future. That is why the Group urged the Chair to consider only those documents that are there in line with the Convention. Also during the intervention on technology and finance Contact Group, India has pointed out that there are specific commitments laid down in the Convention to be fulfilled by the Annex-I parties. And till date none is being fulfilled. So it urged the countries to fulfill the commitments of the developed countries in terms of financing. Saudi Arabia stressed that the idea of South-South financing is against the principles of Convention. Barbados, speaking on behalf of the AOSIS called for significant public funding and asked the developed countries to “come up with specific numbers about the finance” by the Copenhagen. Bangladesh has introduced the idea of having a rapid financing mechanism for extreme events, and this will go directly to the affected party. Also they called for region specific financing mechanism.
On technology issues, Ghana on behalf of the G77 and China iterated the need for private sector financing for the mitigation technology and private funding for the adaptation technologies. CANADA and AUSTRALIA highlighted the EGGT’s advance reports. Noting that discussions on mechanisms and institutional arrangements should not distract from what parties want to accomplish. CHINA supported a technology roadmap, including identifying areas for technology financing, and urged a strong agreement that leads to meaningful technology transfer.
Discussions on shared vision the G77 and China stressed on the need for developing a financial and technology architecture and committed funds for the purpose. Philippines, China, India stressed the urgency of setting mid term goals for the developed countries in emission reduction. Keeping the reputation of playing around and creating new complications, Japan has came up with the view that the mid-term goals should be addressed under the mitigation goals and the long term goals should be part of the shared vision. This actually results in the undermining of the BAP commitments and also a kind of step down action from their part.
There has been a very pressing demand from the AOSIS, LDCs, and Micronesia in terms of the emissions reduction. They supported the idea of 350ppm and less than 1.5 degree increase of temperature. While the Australia, Canada supported the 450ppm level. However, there has been a dangerous attempt by some of the developed countries to shift the baseline period to later date from 1990. This ploy of date shift actually will reduce the burden of historical emissions and therefore will also shift the burden of undertaking more reduction measures by the developing countries. The shifting of baseline will also squeeze the development space available for the developing countries.
On the first couple of days, except the statement by the US Envoy, nothing much has come out. The differences between the developed and the developing countries remained, and without the serious deliberations, the wheel will not roll.
Reported by : Tirthankar Mandal from Bonn
|
