The SB 30 which begun on the 1st June is till date being represented by over 2000 delegates from all over the world. This is going to be an intense one in terms of negotiations. While almost all of them agrees real actions now, many of the important blocs are still taking a wait and watch actions. EU is due for an election in Germany, which is key player. Therefore there has been not much movement from EU side on commitments and finance issues. However, with the US expectations are high but they are yet to come up with promising inputs as of yet now in any kinds of issues.
UGANDA Delegate on Tech:
Really concerned about the heaviness of the proposal in terms of institutional structure proposed in the G77 and China proposal. Ultimately it is the end product that matters and therefore we may not need the heavier structures. Little skeptical about the heavy structure.
Also there is need to push forward the A1 actions on technology transfer, diffusion and capacity building. Till now there has been little progress in this regard. Also the TRIP and IPR protection has been over exploited at present to block the ToT. There is need to utilise the existing mechanism rather than creating another structure.
Public funded technology should be available in the public domain/ it should be available at affordable price at least. Really not supportive
MEF declaration on Technology, is really a positive step that can be feed into the UNFCCC process. We are not arguing that the recommendation has to be fully integrated to the UNFCCC, but it would act as a positive process for facilitation.
Indian Delegation:
The Indian delegation is really frustrated by the pace and the positioning of the certain developed country groups especially Japan on the commitments towards emission reductions. Further, the discussions going on at the AWGLCA is not balanced in terms of representation of the developing country concerns. The developing country issues have been put back and the Negotiating Text only focuses on the developing country actions that are needed to be undertaken. There has been an overall unhappiness about the progress of the negotiation as the Indian delegates are referring to.
Agenda Item 4(a): National Communication
In the SBI, there has been much discussions on the National Communication and National Inventory. The general theme was that the developing countries wanted the finance and capacities have to come forst and then the national communication, however, the developed countries have been making the support conditional of the national communication.
China:
It is conditional on the support from the GEF in finance and Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) as the technical support. However, there is no coordinated effort in this regard. Has to be in compliance with the Convention.
Timor-Leste:
CGE is meant for the LDCs as the capacity building and technical support making entity. Till date it is yet to work in full tandem in this regard.
Uruguay:
Do need CGE. Help in capacity building of the nations under the NA1. But due to the lack of funds from GEF in this regard the countries were not able to make such communications. Also the lack of CGE efforts in terms of technical support is one reason for late or no communication. The help is not conditional on Communication, but the support is required to develop the Communication.
USA:
Important to maintain the timeline for the national communication. Gives an idea on the activities of the inventories and also on the mitigation actions by the NA1 countries. Financial support is to be extended from the GEF. The national communication is a requirement under the Convention. Therefore the national communication should be made under the specified timeline.
Australia:
National communication is required for capacity building support. In a post 2012 framework these support are going to be based on the national communication to identify the scale of support.
Major understanding of the developed countries is that at the first instance there has to be National Communication, and then the support needed could be identified. While the NA1 countries are arguing that to make the national communication, there has to be support in the first place.
Implementation of the NAPAs:
Tanzania:
NO additional money. LDCs have no other sources to raise the money. Therefore they need full cost support. Therefore change the requirement in the implementation of the NAPAs.
Bangladesh:
NAPAS are for immediate action oriented programmes. Most of the LDCs have completed the NAPAs. But it took long time to get implement the NAPAs. Need to expedite the process. Current donation base multilateral funding is not adequate to cover the cost. Further, an action oriented programme is required for the mid and long term basis. Required predictable funds, training, fin needs assessment, and financial planning is required and have to be time bound one, and should form the new programme of the SBI in future.
Philippines:
Funding adaptation is legally binding commitments of the Convention. They are predictable, implementing measures. Cooperation including ToT for the adaptation technologies, particularly in Africa. These are legally binding commitments and agreed full incremental costs. The fund is abysmally low. This is voluntary funding, and not meeting the legally binding commitments by the A1 are completely unacceptable. We are punishing in this regard the most vulnerable people in the least developed countries.
Reported by :
Tirthankar Mandal from Bonn
June 2009
|
