Briefings from Bonn-4

“Developed countries must fulfill existing Convention commitments”

AWG-LCA Contact Group Meet on Shared Vision

Contact Group on AWG-LCA held a meeting today to discuss concrete suggestions on Agenda item 3¹ with a focus on Shared Vision for long term cooperative action. The chair convened the meeting by requesting the delegates to provide concrete proposal with specific suggestions keeping in mind the discussions held in Bangkok Climate Change Talks on shared vision.

Philippines made a submission on behalf of G-77 & China, which was endorsed by the African group of countries and the LDCs as well as India & China. G-77 stated that shared vision should be based on ultimate objective of the Convention² to reduce the level of GHG emissions within a reasonable timeframe to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure sustainable food production and sustainable development on the basis of principle of common but differential responsibility³. Thus the responsibility of mitigation lies primarily with developed countries with mid term targets. The failure of developed countries to achieve mitigation as per Kyoto Protocol, affects LDCs that are ill-equipped to adapt to climate change. Hence adaptation costs of LDCs & AOSIS should be an integral part of shared vision. Developed countries should take lead in providing financial assistance and technology transfer in this regard.

Speaking on behalf of AOSIS, Barbados sought to arrive at a common understanding of all the elements of the shared vision comprising of:

Long-term reduction goal based on impact of climate change on the most vulnerable countries. Thus, developed countries should take the lead in reducing CO2 emissions by 50-85% by 2050 as quoted in fourth Assessment Report of IPCC Agreeing on set of principles from Bali action Plan of finance mechanism and transfer of technology

EU agreed to a long-term goal of 50% of emission reduction from the 1990 levels by 2050.EU agreed to peaking its emission reduction by 20-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. However, the shared vision should put the entire world on low carbon development pathway based on scientific evidence. EU sees a clear difference developed countries commitments and developing countries action on the basis of Common but Differentiated Responsibility. Thus advanced developing countries should take the lead in taking demonstrable actions. US supported the idea of long term global reduction that should be scientifically based and consistent with economic development without any legally binding, burden sharing or target setting. Japan claimed to have emission reduction target of 60-80% by 2050 however they opposed to any legally binding commitments on the same.

Brazil stated that shared vision can not be limited only to long term goal of global reductions. There must be equitable burden sharing based on Common but Differentiated Responsibility principle. Brazil was opposed to the idea of any further grouping of countries or any new understanding of existing groups. Shared vision should be based on historical realities of climate change.

G-77 & China, Malaysia and Pakistan emphasised on analysing the adverse impacts of global long-term goal of emission reduction by 2050 on the growing population of developing countries.

Contact Group of AWG-LCA Meet on Mitigation

AWG-LCA contact group convened a meeting to discuss the Agenda item 3 of long term cooperative action with focus on mitigation. The chair started the discussion by requesting for submitting proposal on mitigation actions and also give specific suggestions on ideas about workshops to be held in Accra on mitigation.

US emphasised on looking at efforts to mitigate climate change in sustainable manner in tandem economic development. It stressed on measurable, reportable and verifiable measures for mitigation action which need to be further strengthened. While Canada committed to 20% reduction by 2020 and 50% reduction by 2050, however it believed that mitigation need to be done by both developed and developing countries to meet the challenge of climate change. Australia called for future international agreements with binding commitments for developing countries. EU also recognized the need for action by developing countries on measurable, reportable and verifiable measures for mitigation action and agreed to demand for special treatment for LDCs and SIDS.

Japan and Iceland laid emphasis on having a sectoral approach for mitigating the climate change effect and stressed on applying this approach to MRV measures as well.

India stated that Bali Action Plan requires quantifiable emission reduction by developed countries irrespective of whether the latter claim this requirement to be a commitment or a desired action. Further, India stated that issue of MRV can be interpreted as being restricted to ‘support’ for mitigation action or it can be limited to ‘action supported by’ an external source. India will bring out national communications on this matter but will not submit the same for international verification. It said that there are no reviews required for developing countries under UNFCCC.

China appealed to all the parties to concentrate on concentrate on mandate rather than redefining the Bali Action Plan.

AWGKP Joint Contact Group Meeting

The Contact group met today to identify future options and issues to be explored at Ghana covering the Agenda Item 3(a) and 3(b)⁴. A range of issues from identifying the activities, items to be included, and innovative ideas were proposed by the representatives. The wedge between the developed and the developing countries became clear when there was a difference of opinion regarding inclusion of REDD issues under the AWG. Countries like China, India, Brazil, and the rest of G77 had expressed their view that REDD issues should be under SBSTA and there should not be any new arrangements which will bring REDD under the purview of AWG, and was not accepted by the developed countries. The Brazilian proposal of exploration of new eligibility criteria and inclusion of agricultural soil equipment projects received support from its African counterparts. Also there was discussion of including conservation projects to be under the AWGKP.

The developed countries submitted that there is a need to build up accounting mechanism and criteria for the projects to be considered under the AWGKP arrangements. Canada, and Norway were in favour of sustainable land management⁵. Switzerland submitted in favour of expanding the scope of sustainable development and suggested in favour of inclusion of grassland management, and forest management under the AWGKP discussion at Ghana.

Countries like Columbia, Panama, and Tanzania advocated for the eligibility criteria under the AWGKP and have also advocated for the permanency criteria to be one of the important criteria for considerations under AWGKP discussions at Ghana.

Due to the inherent benefit accruing to the developed countries for including LULUCF within the AWGKP Agenda, the mood of the developed world is to propose and also emphasise on changing the current set up of the different Contact Groups and Ad hoc Working Groups to their benefit. The opposition to this has been observed during the discussion and due to this the Chair has offered for further discussion in days to come.

SBI

The discussions under the SBI were hinged across the demands from the G77 and China for a review of Article 4.5 of the Convention regarding technology transfer, and USA and Canada demanding the review of Article 4.1(a).

Apart from this, the latest Draft text⁶ available, the Secretariat put forth the draft terms of reference for consideration for the second comprehensive review of the implementation of the framework adopted under the decision 2/CP.7. The proposed report is to take a stock of progress, and also assess the effectiveness of implementing the capacity building activities relating to the capacity building network. This would be helpful in identifying the possible gaps existing within the decisions of COP and the CMP. The guidelines of such an exercise is subjected to the principles and approaches under the decision 2/P.7, annex, chapter B, and should also consider relevant COP and CMP decisions⁷. As part of the activities, the parties demanded annual synthesis reports on capacity building, antiona reports on capacity building, and also reports and submissions from the GEF on the matter.

The parties were requested to submit their observation by 15th August, 2008, their information on their experiences in monitoring and evaluating capacity building at the national level for consideration at SBI29.

Centad Team                                                                 9 June 2008