Saturday morning excerpts
Posted on 12. Dec, 2009 by Rosa Kouri in Canada, bits
The convention plenaries were very interesting this morning. They were intended to take stock of different country positions after the last few days of closed negotiations and contact groups. Discussion opened on the broader set of talks (called the COP stream), which includes the US, discussing a draft text on long-term cooperative action. Tuvalu opened with a very powerful statement. The US spoke, followed by China, India, Canada, and a series of countries. Nothing was really resolved in this discussion, and countries still seem all over the map.
Shortly after, the plenary moved to a different session specifically for the countries that had signed the Kyoto Protocol (called the CMP track). Canada spoke, as well as many other nations. During their speech, Canada seemed to confirm that they have moved beyond the Kyoto Protocol and are interested in a new agreement. This prompted some response from other countries.
Included below are Canada’s interventions along with some highlights from other countries to put it all in context. I erred on the side of over-quoting as I find these country statements particularly informative. I hope you do too.
Much love from Copenhagen,
Rosa
Canada, speaking about the text on long-term co-operative action (LCA), delivered by Chief Negotiator Michael Martin, loosely paraphrased by me:
This text represents a step forward. It is clear that our work is progressing in a number of areas. We have made progress on technology, on forests, we have constructive work underway on finance. There seems to be growing consensus on fast-start finance as a key element here. We have made progress in Copenhagen to significantly scale up adaptation. It is clear that there is significant work left to do on mitigation. We as parties have yet to make significant progress in this area. As drafted, the mitigation elements in this text are deficient, they are insufficient to support an effective agreement. Many countries, developed and developing countries, have indicated a willingness to take ambitious action. The challenge here is to reflect that willingness in an agreement, need to find a way to express it in a legal form. To build mutual confidence amongst parties to strengthen their level of ambition over time. The commitments must be subject to a transparent process of international process, including both the supported and autonomous actions of developing countries… We have the opportunity here to strengthen national emissions inventory, this can strengthen our mutual confidence in effective global action over time… I believe we can find a way to address these challenges. Canada remains ready to work under your guidance to address them.
Canada, speaking about the text on from the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol, delivered by another Canadian negotiator, loosely paraphrased by me:
Canada seeks a single new legally binding agreement that covers the vast majority of global emissions, the challenge we face within the two-track approach, within which we are operating on the current KP-LCA process. Within the KP track, we are only focusing on actions by a sub-set of parties. First, our discussion presupposes a certain form of legal commitment. When we have not yet decided the form of legal commitment for all parties, in particular developed country parties. The parties in the KP track are only responsible for about a 1/3 of global emissions. This represents a significant imbalance. A single agreement reflects the best approach. But a number of parties support a two-track. We have a fundamental divide concerning the architecture of the post 2012 agreement. It seems apparent that the KP track is not able resolve this. It may be more appropriate for the COP to address this issue. Madame President we are confident that with your leadership we will address this issue and develop a fair, effective, and comprehensive agreement.
Some other excerpts, during the discussion on long-term cooperative action (LCA), loosely paraphrased by me
The USA: Thank you Madame President. I’d like to thank the chair and the work the group has done. It has been a heroic effort to bring the group from hundreds of pages of text to something we can all work off of. As the chair of the LCA suggest, we can see some progress moving forward: the groups on the technology work, forestry, discussions on adaptation. It does bring the question of how we deal with very contentious issues. The current draft text inadequately reflects this. We encourage the chair to continue informal consultations to discuss that. The current draft did not work in terms of where it is headed. The overall document provides a good path forward. We do not think we have very much time. We look forward to seeing this move forward as expeditiously as possible. There are many ministers arriving, they can bring views and a sense of urgency to the table. Carry us forward to the next stage of this effort. We look forward to the next process of this stage moving forward, by Monday we hope we will have more clarity and in particular the very core question of how we will have an operational agreement coming out of this meeting.
Sweden (on behalf of the EU): It is now Saturday, and half of this historic meeting is already behind us. The environmental integrity and effectiveness of the agreement is of utmost importance for the EU. The EU will contribute more than 10 billion for fast-start finance. We were presented the text proposals… let me frank, when it comes to the reaction of the European union and it smember states, the text gives us too little certainty that we will be able to stay below 2 degrees, it does not provide us with enough guidance on how long-term cooperative action will function. On one side, the Kyoto protocol, and on the other no legally binding agreement at all. It will lead to a particular agreement that will cover less than a third of global emissions. There is no time frame. As we come to Copenhagen, the EU said that a new binding agreement based solely on the Kyoto procotol is inadequate, it will not deliver significant reductions … we need common and transparent MRV rules, robust compliance mechanism, common LULUCF accounting rules. The text before us doesn’t include these central elements. The outline of a loosely framed agreement is far below what the EU can accept as it gives us no certainty that we will stay below 2 degrees change. When our leaders leave at the end of the next week, the world expects us to conclude a political agreement that is concise enough to be transformed into a legally binding agreement
Brazil, on behalf of the G77 and China: Thank you madame president, again we would like to indicate our thanks to the chair. We feel that the text is a text is which we are willing to work on. We think we can advance. There are issues that need to be addressed. One element which the G77 would like to emphasize is the treatment of adaptation, in order to fully address this critical issue. The text has a at its basis a critical, important issue for the G77, which is its acceptance and structure reflecting the continuity of the Kyoto protocol. This is essential to the outcome that we are all looking for. This is the Copenhagen outcome that the G77 contemplates. We believe that the text is important in directing our work in a way that achieves progress in the very limited time that we have, and we are looking for these results here in Copenhagen.
India: India associates itself with the statements made by Brazil, on behalf of G77 and China. How should we proceed? Yes, definitely, the two tracks should be maintained. It is good that the parties should be engaged in the process, with openness and transparency. Bearing in mind the convention and the unambiguous standing of the protocol, avoid any sidestepping of our main work. We seek to ensure that the Kyoto protocol be strengthened for the future for the second commitment period. (The delegate now holds up a small cedar box). In my bag, I carry this souvenir, ma’am, it has the words UNFCCC COP3 Kyoto, December 1997. The President of the 3rd COP gave this to me, I carry it with me. The Kyoto Protocol is one of the most important treaties, and we must ensure it is strengthened for the second commitment period.
Australia: We are very encouraged by the areas of convergence. Promising progress on REDD, the development of an adaptation framework. We are starting to see the shape of a technology package. There is no chance of meeting the climate crisis without a dramatic step-change on technology. Progress on finance, but there are still bridges to build. We have some serious concerns about the existing gulfs on those issues which will be ultimately essential for a deal. Currently, we are not yet on a path to deliver the environmental outcome that we need. Mitigation is the stand-out, and we need to see credible efforts by these countries. All these efforts need to be quantified, clear, and solidified in a binding treaty. We are committed to translating our agreement in Copenhage into a legally binding outcome into a fixed time frame… Of course there is the issue of long term finance which will be crucial to a deal. The first set can be addressed in working groups, the second set should be addressed through plenary discussion and detailed ministerial discussion later this week.
Some other excerpts, during the discussion on the Kyoto Protocol (KP):
Sudan, on behalf of the G77 and China: The G77 rejects any opportunity to dismantle or weaken the KP. It is the only good agreement we have. The paper produced by the KP –chair can serve as a good basis for the work of the KP in the remaining short time, to complete the mandate, and to decide the second commitment period. We re-affirm the well-known position of the G77 and China that we need to reach a deal here in Copenhagen that maintains the two-tracks, including the legal framework, the Kyoto protocol and the convention. We need an agreed outcome that is fully effective with sustained implementation of the convention.
India: We welcome the tracks which have been produced by our AWG-chair, and also because it follows the two-track approach and the format of the two-track approach is very – to our negotiations. The lack of progress is of concern to us along the KP track. The velocity of the LCA track has gone far ahead of the KP track, even though the KP track started much earlier. It is not issues, but it is a lack of willingness on behalf of KP parties. There has now been an imbalance of work. It is important that the balance of work between these two tracks remain. The KP track is a legally binding treaty.
Papua New Guinea: We reject the LULUCF text (land use and land use change in forestry). We offered two options, one that enforced measurement and monitoring, and one with optional accounting. Of course, rich countries can pick and choose the rules. To our surprise, the ethical option was deleted, and the fraudulent option remains. We clearly observer the lack of willingness of rich countries to commit, and for small island states our concern remains.
Sweden, on behalf of the EU: The EU is committed to reaching an agreement, we respect the 2 degree goal. We also know that the KP only covers one third of global emissions. This legally binding track alone will not win the fight against climate change. Working solely within the KP is not an option. These texts give us no certainty that we can stay below 2 degrees, no progress on long-term cooperative effort where significant reductions will happen. On the one hand, there is the second commitment period under the KP and on the other there is no legally binding agreement at all. We can’t accept half an answer. We need to sort out certain issues before we can establish new agreements.
China: Certain parties have made determined efforts to obstruct the KP and interfere with its efforts. We are fully prepared to take part in the discussions, the consultations, under the leadership of the chairman of the working group in the net few days, so that we will be able to make some real progress. The Chinese delegation wishes to emphasize that the twin track system we have been working on for the past 2 years, there were no disagreements in Bali, that’s why we had the Bali roadmap, that was something each and everyone agreed to before the eyes of the world. The only reason that we have not made progress as quickly as others had hoped, the only reason is because Annex 1 countries have not been able to show the political will to act based on their historical responsibilities and their obligations under the convention. The world is watching whether the Annex 1 countries are really prepared to match their words with actual commitments, and real action.
Bolivia: It is not acceptable that someone wants to change the rules of the Bali mandate. This is not acceptable. There are two tracks. We have lived by these rules for the year. Why are they trying to kill the Kyoto protocol? Because they want to erase the climate debt they have to developing countries. If we begin to speak about how only a third of emissions are covered under the KP, not remembering that 75% of historical emissions are the responsibility of developing countries, then we are going to forget that who has to give the first step are developed countries. Developed countries have to give clear commitments on the Kyoto protocol. It is their responsibility and they should take the lead. What is happening here? They are saying they are going to wait and see what happens with the rest of the package, and then they are going to make commitments. That is not acceptable from our point of view. We want to say that we have asked for a proposal that is not on the table, that domestic reductions from developed countries should be clearly established in this new section of the KP.
Ecuador: We have asked for the respect of indigenous rights in the text, now we must ask for the respect of our rights in the process. Many people, species, and countries will face disappearance. It is not a matter of a political will of congresses and leaders, it is a matter of action. Developed country parties should assume real commitments. It is not just assuming commitments, it is also complying with commitments that will get there…
And last, but not least. Tuvalu’s incredibly powerful statement at the beginning of the session, loosely paraphrased by me:
Tuvalu: Thank you Madame President, It has been said in the media that I am trying to embarrass the country of Denmark. This is not my intention at all… Madame President, I know that you tried to visit Tuvalu, though you did not make it. Had you visited, I think you would understand our position. Our entire population lives within 2 meters of sea level… I understand that we are waiting for the US senate. It is ironic that we are waiting for one country to decide before the international community can move forward. President Obama was currently in Sweden accepting a Nobel prize, whether rightly or wrongly. For him to honour his noble prize, he should address the greatest threat to humanity, climate change, and the greatest threat to human security, climate change. This is not just an issue of Tuvalu… millions of people around the world are affected. This is not just Tuvalu. Over the last few days I’ve received calls from all over the world, offering faith and hope that we can reach a conclusion on this issue. Madame President, this is not a media trip for me, I have refused to take media calls on this issue. This is not an ego trip. As a humble servant of the government of Tuvalu, I have to make a strong appeal to you that we consider this matter properly. I don’t want to cause embarrassment to you or the government. I want to have for the leaders an option to consider a legally binding treaty. We’ve had our proposal on the table for 6 months. 6 months, it’s not the last two days of this meeting. I woke this morning, and I was crying, and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit. The fate of my country rests in your hands.
The President’s response: Thank you for your strong statement. I would assure you that two legally binding instruments are our goal. No option is taken off the table.