|
The
concluding days of
the COP 14 were marked by wrangling over a number of issues. The most
difficult negotiation was over the issue of enabling and scaling up
of funding for adaptation by agreeing to put a levy on the revenues
from two Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, Joint Implementation (JI) and
Emissions Trading (ET).
Currently,
only one of
the three Protocol mechanisms, the Clean Development Mechanism, is
used to provide revenue for the Adaptation Fund that operates under
the Kyoto Protocol. A 2% levy is taken from the funds receivable by
the developing country partners from companies in developed countries
that use the CDM to "offset" their carbon emissions.
Many
developed-country
parties would not agree with the developing countries' demands that
the Adaptation Fund also obtain revenues through the JI and ET.
The
breakdown of the
talks on this issue sparked statements expressing bitterness and
frustration from many delegations. "I must say this is one of
the saddest moments I have witnessed in all these years," said
Indian delegate Prodipto Ghosh. "In the face of the unbearable
human tragedy that we in the developing countries see unfolding every
day this is nothing but callousness." He criticized the "refusal
of some parties to experience a minuscule loss of profits from
trading in carbon" at a time when climate change was stripping
the poor of their homes, hearts and their meager loaves of bread."
The meeting adopted several decisions. However, it failed to reach
agreement on a few key issues. Most significantly, negotiations broke
down over new funding sources for climate-related adaptation
activities in developing countries.
The
differences as
already mentioned above is clearly evident in the discussions
followed on the important issues. Here we identify some of the key
issues that were evident from the discussions during the two weeks of
negotiations.
Financial
issues at
the COP 14
Contentious
issues
-
Throughout
the COP14, there was a clear division between Annex 1(A1) and
Non-Annex-1 (NA1) countries regarding financial mechanisms. While A1
countries broadly wanted to maintain the status quo and use existing
financial institutions for the purpose of managing finances for dealing
with climate change, NA1 countries pressed for alternate financial
mechanisms that could be governed and controlled by the COP
-
NA1
countries put forth their suggestions for raising adequate finances to
deal with climate change. A1 countries, however, did not engage with
NA1 countries on their proposals and were also not able to put forth
counter proposals that could/would raise the required resources at an
adequate scale
-
Share
of proceeds to finance enhanced adaptation in the near term: NA1
countries pressed for extending the 2% levy on CDM to other flexibility
mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol in order to enhance funding for
adaptation. This, however, has so far not been accepted by A1 countries
-
Role
of public finance and the scale at which it is required: NA1 countries
repeatedly kept emphasizing that raising public finances at an adequate
scale was crucial to meeting the objectives of the convention and
delivering, predictable and sustainable finances to them in order to
deal with the consequences of climate change. NA1 countries also stated
that raising adequate public finance was crucial for achieving MRV
requirements. However, there was a difference in perception by the A1
countries that looked at public finance as an enabling and leveraging
component of financing the implementation of the convention, the bulk
of which, they felt, would come forth from the private sector. This
proposition, however, was not acceptable to NA1 countries.
Technology
Transfer:
The
debate was limited to
couple of contesting issues. First the developing countries have put
forward the importance of collaborative effort in developing the
climate friendly technologies, diffusion of the same also access.
This, according to them has to be achieved through the private public
partnerships. Secondly, the debate was related to the financing of
the technologies.
-
Brazil,
China and South Africa in the last of the Contact Group meeting
submitted some of the concrete proposals on the modalities of
technology transfer. They argued for the scaling up of the finance
available for technology development, and also to develop new useful
instrument for transfer. All these three important nations of the G77
and China bloc were in favour of extension of the TRIPS flexibilities
to the Climate Change regime.
-
There
was a clear lack of interest expressed covertly by the developed
countries on the G77 and China Proposal on Technology Transfer that was
submitted to the Secretariat at the Accra meeting. The developed
countries after the first week on non-responsiveness has actually
involved in delaying tactics on the same issue.
-
To
counter the attitude of the developed countries on technology transfer
and related financing issues, the developing countries like India,
Philippines, Pakistan, and Bangladesh came up with innovative and
concrete ideas. India proposed the idea of building world wide
technology-business development centres. These centres will work in
tandem with the scientists, policymakers, and the business experts to
innovate, diffuse and commercialise the technology for clean
development at fair rules for access.
-
Bangladesh
emphasised on the need to develop the adaptation technologies and their
need to replicate across the regions of similar socio-economic areas.
They have laid out a methodology to enhance the technology transfer
mechanism. In doing so, the delegates proposed to develop a Framework
statement having objective, guiding principles methods and criteria to
operationalise the technology transfer.
-
The
developed countries proposed that the need to build IPR regime so as to
make market more effective. They choose to ignore different proposals
set forward by the developing countries on building up alternative
framework. The main emphasis remained on the existing framework of
arrangements prevailing.
Carbon
Capture and
Storage (CCS) and the CDM:
This
issue has been on of
the sensitive issues of the COP. There were sharp differences between
the developing countries over the benefits of CCS. Saudi Arabia
supported the idea of CCS, while India and others took a very
cautious stand. The uncertainty prevailing over the success of the
capturing technology is the key behind the differences. Norway and
other highly oil dependant economies were in support of the CCS and
the CDM related issue and were aggressive in clinching a conclusion.
The
decision taken was to
request the CDM Executive Board to assess the implications (taking
into account technical, methodological and legal issues) of the
possible inclusion of CCS in geological formations as CDM project
activities, and to report back to the next CMP in 2009.
Shared
Vision:
During
the High-Level
Ministerial segment of the COP, a round table on the issue of "shared
vision" was held, chaired by the President of the COP, the
Polish Minister, Maciej Nowicki. The issue of shared vision is a
contentious issue under negotiation in the Ad hoc Working Group on
Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA), the process launched by the
Bali Action Plan at the last COP in Bali in December 2008 and which
is mandated to reach an "agreed outcome" by parties at COP
15 in Copenhagen in December 2009.
India
said that it could
not accept some of the conclusions in the Chair's summary, as there
was no specific reference to the guiding principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and no
reference to equity, which it described as the cardinal principle.
India
stated that the
reference in the report to a "deal at COP 15 that can be
ratified by all" implies a new treaty or Protocol or other
legally binding document, which is not in accordance with the Bali
Action Plan which only mentions an "agreed outcome". It
wanted its comments on why India could not accept some conclusions in
the Chair's summary to be placed on record.
To
the surprise of many
delegates and observers, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo
de Boer then took the floor to say that a revision of the Chair's
summary had already been prepared. He said that in paragraph 4 of the
Chair's Summary, "common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities" would be added in. And in paragraph 13,
he said that the words "agreed outcome that can be ratified"
would be used instead.
China
then said that it
still had serious reservations about the paragraph 13 of the report,
even as amended, as it still mentions an outcome that can be
ratified, as this is pre-judging the outcome of COP 15. It asked for
its comments to be placed on record.
China
also said that the
principle of equity was not adequately reflected in the Chair's
summary. It insisted that its statement be placed on record in the
proceedings of the final report, when the Chair suggested that the
amendment was sufficient to address the concerns raised.
Venezuela
also voiced
similar concerns about the Chair's summary and asked that this be
recorded.
Saudi
Arabia said that it
shared the concerns of previous speakers and insisted that the
Chair's summary does not bear weight in the negotiations of the
AWG-LCA. It said that all the countries of the G77 and China had
spoken about common but differentiated responsibilities in the
roundtable, but that this had not been reflected in the Chair's
summary. It said that any pre-judgment of the form of the outcome in
Copenhagen at COP 15 was not conducive and requested that its
comments be placed on record.
The
Chair then suggested
that the phrase "that can be ratified by all" should be
deleted from the Chair's summary. However, China insisted that it was
not engaging in a discussion on the Chair's summary, and would just
like its views to be placed on record. Pakistan insisted that any
revision does not change the status of the document, as it is only
the President's summary of the roundtable discussion.
India
said that it had
not seen the revision that was proposed by the Executive Secretary
and that it wanted its statement placed on record in the report of
the proceedings of the meeting. The Philippines insisted that the
Chair's summary must not be included in the documents to be prepared
in 2009 for the negotiations in the AWG-LCA, and that it would not be
considered by Parties in its entirety.
Saudi
Arabia said that a
Chair's summary is not usually a document that is revised based on
comments from the floor. It said that it was the prerogative of the
Chair to revise the documents as he sees fit, but whatever its form
or shape, this does not change its legal status as being a Chair's
summary, and that this does not reflect any form of consensus.
Bolivia, Colombia and Gabon also made statements expressing their
concerns with the Chair's summary.
The
last COP started off
with mild optimism among the parties over the developments, but at
the end of two weeks of discussions what was achieved were just the
set of ideas on many of the contentious issues. The developing
countries were able to put forward a set of innovative ideas which
put pressure on their developed country counterpart to deliberate
upon. This has actually set the tone of the high level segment. The
achievements are few but the pressure has to be there on the parties
to come up with more conclusive discussions during the next year
starting from March 2009 at Bonn. Time is running out.
Tirthankar
Mandal, Centad, New
Delhi, India
|
