Interview with Yu Qingtai, China's head of delegation at the Bonn Climate
Yu Qingtai, China's head of delegation at the Bonn Climate change meeting, talks about progress made so far, the recently announced Japanese targets and lack of action from the developed countries
Part I
The 2% reduction targets announced by Japan are nowhere near, what an annexe I country can and should do
Part II
Developed countries continue to subvert the mandate of the climate working groups
.... and this is what he told us before(September 2008) "Dividing developing countries will spell disaster for Copenhagen and future climate negotiations" Read more for the interview with Yu Qingtai
Camel ride: Shrinking targets, growing deserts
European Youth groups have set up a tent just outside the entrance of Hotel Maritim. They have got two camels (they look like Llamas though) from Dortmund and are offering anyone, who wants to, a ride on the camels. There message is: Shrinking targets, growing deserts. The campaigner said that they are getting people used to riding camels because that is what they'll do if they do not make huge emission reductions.
11th june, 2009
Press conference of Shyam Saran, Special Envoy of the Indian Prime Minister for Climate Change, heading the negotiating
team at Bonn
Audio 1:
40% reduction (by developed countries) is a rather reasonable target for 2020. Most missed their targets for the first commitment period. We need significant cuts in the second commitment period to compensate
Audio 2:
The National Action Climate plan (to cut emissions) sets out national actions and not international obligations
Audio 3:
Historical responsibility is an integral part of determining the equitable basis on which a new climate change relationship can be fashioned
Audio 4:
The Kyoto is a valid legal document and the negotiations taking place right now have nothing to do with bringing in another protocol
Audio 5:
We are not only focusing on carbon emissions, we have a much broader agenda in terms of climate action plan
Audio 6:
We don’t see that scale of resources (to fund mitigation measures in developing and least developed countries) being made available
Audio 7:
We need to look at the IPR regime to make (climate change) technologies, public good
Audio 8:
To talk about any deviation from business as usual and not talk about how this is to be supported by technology and finance is simply not saleable
Audio 9:
There are commitments, which have to be undertaken by the developed countries and appropriate actions to be taken by the developing countries. Its not on an equal level
Few Greenpeace activists have locked themselves inside a truck just outside Hotel Maritim. They have a generator inside with which they are blowing the very loud CLIMATE ALARM. They are gracious enough to distribute ear plugs to journalists and those standing nearby. A few policemen were also seen asking for ear plugs.
Firefighters have arrived and are trying to cut the locks to stop the alarm. The event is making a huge statement and is causing much excitement among the delegates. Will keep you updated as and when the activists have stopped.
Firefighters failed to cut the locks put up on the truck by the activists. They finally cut open the cage and arrested the activists.
No time to waste:
Campaigners at Bonn
Volunteers from Christian Aid, Danish Church Aid and APRODEV dressed
as Human clocks, campaign everyday in the morning at 8:30 just outside
Hotel Maritim, the Bonn II Climate talks venue. They collect
signatures inviting people to pledge to campaign for a fair and
effective climate deal in Copenhagen.
The UNFCCC meeting in Bonn [June 1-12, 2009], also known as Bonn II
started on a low note. There were some signs of improvement in between. But with Japan's emission reduction proposal, attitudes have turned negative.
Kushal Yadav reports from Bonn:
Comments from Shyam Saran, Special Envoy of the Indian Prime Minister
for Climate Change made at press conference
On LCA work
It is our conviction that as long as delegations adhere to the
principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and follow the faithfully the
mandate spelt out in the Bali Action Plan, a comprehensive, balanced
and equitable outcome in Copenhagen will be achieved. Let us not
forget the objective of these negotiations is not a new Climate
Treaty, but rather enhanced implementation of the principles and
provisions of the existing and valid climate treaty, which is UNFCCC.
On KP work
Here again, there should be no ambiguity about what our objective is.
We are not negotiating a new Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol does not
cease to exist in 2012. It will remain valid and in effect until such
time as the State Parties decide to abrogate it or amend it or decide
to replace it with another legal instrument. This is not what these
current negotiations are about. They are about commitments on
emissions reductions to be assumed by developed countries Parties,
included in Annex I of the Protocol, for the second commitment period
which will commence in 2013. It is a matter of deep regret that most
Annex I countries are unlikely to meet their emission reduction
obligations set further for the first commitment period. And it is a
matter of even deeper concern that there has been hardly any progress
on achieving the key objective of our negotiations that is to announce
the second commitment period targets, which must be of scale equal to
the challenge we face from global climate change. Some individual
targets that have been indicated fall far short of what is required,
and there are inadmissible attempts to abandon the agreed baseline for
emissions reductions, which in the Protocol, is set at 1990. We hope
that by the time we return to Bonn in August, this unsatisfactory
state of affairs, will witness positive change. A Copenhagen outcome
without clarity on this important issue is unlikely.
G-77 and China express dismay with progress made
SBI closing plenary took place last evening. G-77 + China expressed their disappointment with progress made. Sudan (who holds G77 presidency) speaking on behalf of the group said:
We are distressed that during the whole session, issues of great importance to the group are being subject to conditionalities and delay by our negotiating partners. It is very disappointing and frustrating to note that in the ongoing negotiations under many agenda items, our partners have shown their unwillingness to even continue discussing issues, trying to find every opportunity to ensure that it does not even appear on the COP 15 agenda.
The group of G77 and China is greatly concerned with the lack of progress on Capacity building under the convention and Kyoto Protocol and lack of flexibility to address the factual capacity building needs for developing countries.
Update on negotiations
AWG-LCA
The group has made group progress after a slow start. First reading of entire text is complete. Second reading of text on adaptation, technology and financing is also finished. But the text is getting bigger and bigger. All the parties are putting their negotiating chips on the table which keep adding to the text. Everyone just wants to get in their proposals and real negotiations and drafting will start only in the next intersession in Bonn.
In addition to this there have been five formal submissions from governments giving a legal framework for protocol. The Costa Rica proposal ruffled a lot of feathers in the G-77 + China as they were not expecting this. G-77 was hoping to put forward a joint legal framework. Don’t know if it’ll happen this time.
AWG-KP
Things are a lot less positive. In fact there is a major deadlock. Till now there has been no agreement on aggregate reduction targets for the Annex I countries. And as I write this the Chair of KP is holding a closed session with parties to get them to agree to some kind of conclusion for this session.
On individual reduction targets from Annex I countries the list is not yet complete. The major party missing from that list is Russia. Japan has till now announced only her domestic and not international targets. Almost all countries have announced targets well below the expected “ambitious targets”. Mostly because these are only negotiating targets and everyone is waiting and watching others. Unlike LCA no one wants to put all their cards on the table.
Australia is the only country which has made a formal legal submission seen as a basis for amendment of Kyoto Protocol.
Merging of two groups
There is absolutely no clarity on the merging of the two working groups. I don’t think it will happen soon, at least not before Copenhagen. We might go into Copenhagen with two texts and also might come out of it with two agreements.
LULUCF and REDDs
Draft text is now available though not much progress has been made.
A heavily bracketed text for REDDs has been forwarded for discussions at the next intersession. There have been some discussions on methodologies on how to measure reduced emissions from REDDs.
“I live off waste.” Opening lines from Baida Gakwad, a waste picker from Pune. Addressing a handful of journalists here today Gakwad says that she not only sifts and recycles whatever she can from a waste dump near Pune, she also often eats the food that she finds in the dump. But an incinerator project, to earn carbon credits under Clean Development Mechanism, is threatening to rob her family and 6,000 other waste pickers in Pune off their livelihood. All of them have lost access to the dumping ground.
Silvio Ruiz is facing the same situation. But thousands of kilometres away in Colombia. He represents 35,000 recyclers under the Colombia National Association of Recyclers. “The CDM is funding incinerators and landfill gas projects that compete with recycling for recyclable materials”. “Such projects are actually increasing emissions,” says Neil Tangri of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “This is because recycling and composting are 25 times more effective at reducing emissions than waste-to-energy”. Ruiz cites examples.
1 tonne paper recycled = 17 trees saved
1 tonne glass recycled = 67 % energy saved and 90 % primary material saved
DELAY KILLS. That was the message Oxfam International gave to the delegates here about 10 mins back.
Volunteers held 2 metre by 1 metre red coloured letters inside the main plenary hall. Earlier the installation was to be held outside and journalists were asked to go to the roof to take pictures. But some security issues made them relocate it to the main plenary hall. Negotiators were seen smiling and taking pictures. One negotiator was over heard saying, “Hope people in this hall take it seriously”.
Press release
It is out now. Japan announced its targets at 11 AM Bonn time. As predicted, Japan plans to cut its emissions just by 8 per cent below 1990 levels. There is outrage here at Bonn and NGOs are getting ready to protest in a major way. I can safely predict that Japan will get an extraordinary 'Fossil of the Day' award today evening from Climate Action Network.
Late evening yesterday (June 9) the SBSTA's second informal discussion on REDDs got over. Instead of removing the brackets, even more brackets were added to the draft text during the closing stages. So discussion on REDDs is far from over. The second draft now contains more brackets than the first draft. Today there is another informal consultation of SBSTA on REDDs but it is being seen as a mere formality because the decision to forward the heavily bracketed text to the next session of SBSTA is almost final.
June 10: Today morning at the Plenary I of AWG-LCA Philippines complained that because of so many meetings and groups G-77 plus China have extremely limited time to coordinate. Inside news is that despite the protracted discussions G-77 plus China are not being able to come to a united stand on most of the issues. The group is heavily divided and there are major problems. Yesterday was the deadline for submissions for technology transfer. G-77 plus China, AOSIS and LDCs submitted three different proposals.
8 June 2009
The general mood
In the hallways and meeting rooms the general mood has been not to expect anything concrete out of Bonn II. But the kind of progress made over the last week and a half has surprised many.
Informal plenary of Ad-hoc working group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA), June 8
The plenary started with intense comments on developing countries mitigation measures. The entire issue of NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions), how they would work, level and kinds of actions and technological and financial support continued to be a sensitive topic. Philippines spoke on behald of G-&& pluc China stressing the clear distinction between NAMAs and mitigation commitments of Annex I.
Meeting of Contact group on Annex I Emissions reductions under the AWG-KP
Today most of the comments and interventions revolved around the time-frame of the second (and third) commitment periods and the base year. The proposal on second and third commitment periods ranged from having two five year periods, 2013-2017 and 2013-2022 or having one eight year period beyond 2012 or having two 8-year periods. Evolving climate change science and need to review targets were also discussed.
Yu Qingtai, the lead Chinese negotiator in a private conversation expressed his disappointment. In Fact China officially registered its disappointment in progress at the end of meeting of Contact group on long-term shared vision.
There is a deadlock and little progress. Definitely no negoitating text on any issue has come out of this meeting
Lots happening since Saturday. Had a chance of one-on-one meeting with Jonathan Pershing, the chief US negotiator on Saturday and a good chat with him. US is having a bilateral with India this week. And he made it clear they will not sign Kyoto but are looking for a new legal instrument.
More later.
4 April 2009 7:29:44 PM
Yesterday (April 3) afternoon was the plenary session of the Contact group on enhanced action on mitigation and its associated means of implementation to discuss Article 1 b (ii) of the Protocol. Highlight of the session was the spat between India and Japan.
The talks are halfway through but not much progress has been made till now.
Read more...
Glossary of climate change acronyms
AOSIS Alliance of Small Island States
AWG-KP Ad Hoc Working Group on Further
Commitments for Annex I Parties Under the
Kyoto Protocol
AWG-LCA Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term
Cooperative Action under the Convention
BAP Bali Action Plan
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CER Certifi ed Emission Reductions
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CGE Consultative Group of Experts on Non-Annex I
National Communications
COP Conference of the Parties
COP/MOP Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting
of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
EGTT Expert Group on Technology Transfer
COS Global Climate Observing System
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
HWP Harvested wood products
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IMO International Maritime Organization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LDC Least developed country
LULUCF Land use, land-use change and forestry
MRV Monitoring, review and verifi cation
NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action
NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action
NWP Nairobi Work Programme on impacts,
vulnerability and adaptation to climate change
ppm Parts per million of carbon equivalent
REDD Reducing emissions from deforestation in
developing countries
REDD-plus Reducing emissions from deforestation in
developing countries, including conservation
SBs UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies
SBI UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Implementation
SBSTA UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Scientifi c and
Technological Advice
SCCF Special Climate Change Fund
SIDS Small Island Developing States
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
Press release
“George W. Aso” Prime minister undermines Japan’s reputation, undercuts global climate talks—world outraged
Tokyo, Japan -- Provoking shock and outrage around the world, Prime Minister Taro Aso announced a target today to cut climate change emissions to -8% from 1990 levels by 2020, a goal just 2% lower than the -6% target previously adopted in the Kyoto Protocol.
The move is apparently an attempt by Aso to claim the mantle of former U.S. President George W. Bush, who retired in disgrace after eight years of blocking progress on climate change.
"Aso, like Bush, seems intent on bringing shame to his country and losing the support of his people" said Professor Umataro Tenma, a political scientist. "The -8% target could cause Aso's approval ratings to fall past zero to -8% - a level once thought mathematically impossible."
Experts speculate that Aso -- who, like Bush, famously avoids reading -- might have been unaware that scientists have indicated that emissions cuts of 25-40% from developed countries are necessary by 2020 in order to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change.
By setting such a low target, Aso lowered standards for other developed countries, undercut the chance for a strong agreement with developing nations, and denied his citizens the chance to lead in the low-carbon economy of the future.
Polluters Thrilled By Pathetic Target
Heavy carbon emitters in Japan and around the world greeted the -8% announcement with glee.
"This is a wonderful day for everyone who doesn't care about the future," said Masahiro Tadanuma, Executive Director of the Japanese Polluters Association. "Now that we won't have to work hard creating innovative new green technologies, I'll have more time for my hobby: burning rainforests."
Polluters speculated that Aso's family background in the cement industry contributed to his decision. But other experts suggest that he may simply be tired of serving as prime minister.
"Why would Aso choose -8%, when a recent poll found that 63% of Japanese would support a -25% or stronger target?" asked Fukushima Hirota, a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Studying Why Aso Makes Bad Decisions. "He must be tired of politics and want his party to lose the next election. It's hard to see any other explanation for it."
The general mood
In the hallways and meeting rooms the general mood has been not to expect anything concrete out of Bonn II. But the kind of progress made over the last week and a half has surprised many.
The meeting began with strong protests from developing countries, India being quite vociferous, about the lop-sided nature of the negotiating text which was in favour of developed countries and gave developing countries little options. But good progress has been made and we are now into the second reading of the text in the working groups.
The first reading led to several portions being marked red (advising deletion) by several parties as per their negotiating stands. Many portions have been bracketed (meaning they will be re-negotiated). Brazil has asked for bracketing almost the entire text dealing with REDDs.
This week the second reading will take place in the working groups and generally this is being seen as good progress (when compared to what was initially expected).
Informal plenary of Ad-hoc working group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA), June 8
The plenary started with intense comments on developing countries mitigation measures. The entire issue of NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions), how they would work, level and kinds of actions and technological and financial support continued to be a sensitive topic. Philippines spoke on behalf of G-88 + China stressing the clear distinction between NAMAs and mitigation commitments of Annex I. These commitments (beyond 2012 or Kyoto II) are being discussed in the other Ad-Hoc working group on Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). Philippines, and later several other developing countries, stressed that any action from developing countries will only come if supported by effective implementation of the developed countries commitment on financing such actions and transfer of technology.
Also what kinds of action are measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV), was intensely discussed. Developing countries stressed that only such actions can be MRV for which finances and technology are available. “Agreed full incremental costs” for all mitigation actions from developing countries have to be met. Many developing countries pointed out that they are already undertaking individual actions without any kind of support and this needs to be recognised.
China stressed that each developing country should choose the kinds of mitigation actions it can take as per its domestic situation and that all actions need to be voluntary. This point on all actions being chosen as per the country’s specific situation and taking into account the need to develop was expressed by other developing countries as well. The general stand was that all this needs to be incorporated into the final text expected out of LCA at Copenhagen.
Meeting of Contact group on Annex I Emissions reductions under the AWG-KP
Today most of the comments and interventions revolved around the time-frame of the second (and third) commitment periods and the base year. The proposal on second and third commitment periods ranged from having two five year periods, 2013-2017 and 2013-2022 or having one eight year period beyond 2012 or having two 8-year periods. Evolving climate change science and need to review targets were also discussed.
India proposed one 8-year commitment period of 2013-2020 but also asked for a mid-term review in 2016 based on new science. Justifying the 8-year cycle India said that:
“A typical policy making cycle is at least three years, before investment decisions can be made. At the end of the policy making cycle is the investment decision cycle, of at least another 3 yrs. And then the investments have to get started. If you fix on a specific year a number of events might occur in weather, economy etc. We need a band of time. For all these reasons a pragmatic way to go forward is to start in 2013 and end in 2020”.
Bolivia proposed a “short period of 5 yrs makes it easier to follow science” Philippines pointed out that looking at the track record of meeting commitments under Kyoto the compliance issues are very important especially when recommending a 8-year commitment period.
Japan once again was isolated in the group mostly because they keep saying no to everything and are very reluctant to accept any kind of commitment. They said that they did not find their option in Chair’s summary. They rejected both the 2013-2017 period as well as having two commitment periods. They again (and have been doing it continuously) raised the issue of distinction between the developed countries and the advanced developing countries and said that having two commitment periods for Annex I countries will lock them for too long. They asked for inclusion of option of 2013-V for the Annex I countries.
Australia asked how can numbers be adjusted in the middle of a five year commitment period.
South Africa speaking on behalf of G-77 and China supported the base year of 1990. They said that it was advantageous to stick to this year in political perspective. It was “clear and unambiguous and also referred to in the convention. We then don’t have to go back and adjust the numbers”.
European Union, Switzerland, Norway, South Korea and New Zealand all supported having 1990 as the base year. Japan once again disagreed saying that 1990 as a base-year was advantageous to certain countries. They said that having 1990 as a base year would not be good for including newly developed countries. They suggested having commitments as absolute emission targets thus avoiding the base year issue.
India then raised a question to Japan:
Japan has always been talking about carbon dioxide (CO2) density of the industry. Then, why does she not look at the CO2 density beginning from 1990.
Micronesia speaking on behalf of AOSIS asked for retaining 1990 as teh base year for transparency and consistency reasons. China supported 1990 saying that change of base year makes some countries look better but it doesn’t solve any problem.
It is coming out in the open now. Most developed countries have made it evident that they are very uncomfortable with the Kyoto and Bali Action Plan architecture and would prefer a new legal instrument.
About the meeting with Pershing, it was an informal interaction and they did not allow me to record it. They said that US is developing its position on most of the issues and thus they cannot comment officially as of now. But to give you the details I asked Pershing about the new Waxman-Markey draft on clean energy and whether by the amount of offsets it allows it will send a right signal? He said that first of all the Bill was at a draft stage and that there are still a few hurdles to cross. Secondly he said that it has to meet the needs of US states and companies while the US develops the sectoral mechanism. He said who could not comment on the offsets and that I should put that question directly to Waxman who had drafted the bill.
Then I had asked him about his views on Kyoto and whether they will consider joining it. He said that US will not join the Kyoto Protocol because it does not work for them politically. We are looking at another deal which we can sign.
On issues like developed countries targets, adaptation and technology transfer he replied that the administration was still working on the US policy. He also said that US was having bilaterals with lot of developing countries to understand their positions and needs. He also emphasised that all developing countries cannot be clubbed together. On bilateral with India he said that Indian national plan seemed encouraging and US wanted to know more about it.
Earlier US had a briefing session with the NGOs which I also attended. There also Pershing talked and made quite a few comments.
On US’s role:
We are back and we will be engaging. There is a great deal of diversity in discussions and very little convergence. Globally people are not ready to move yet. US can only do a piece of it (reductions). Even if you take into account our cumulative emissions over the last 50 years we are less than half of the global total. There is currently a rift in the conversation happening in AWG-KP and AWG-LCA.
On Kyoto:
We will not sign it. We need other parties at the table to work out another agreement. We are interested in various mechanisms under Kyoto like those dealing with forestry and reporting ideas. But Kyoto architecture is very complex. The conversation taking place in AWG-LCA seems useful. If we add up what is on the table, is not enough. We are seeking to re-convene the major economies. We could end up with a new agreement carrying forward mechanisms from Kyoto.
On distinction in developing countries:
There are three different kinds of developing countries. There are LDCs who have suggested that there needs are pretty immediate. Some of these demands can be met through aid. Then there are very large countries who may not be close to developed countries in terms of income but are capable of doing a lot. China is spending the largest sum on economic recovery in the world and Korea the largest percentage. It is hard for me to argue that China and Korea need aid. There are a very large number of developing countries somewhere in the middle. The idea that there is a single common thread in developing countries does not work. There are three different kinds of countries. You cannot say that does not work for you. Certainly larger developing countries need to do more.
On the philosophy and principles of Kyoto (equity and common but differentiated responsibilities)
We don’t find the need to develop over arching framework of principles. I do not mean to suggest whether they are good or bad.
I found it disconcerting in these negotiations the suggestions that we need to pay enormous sums for something seemingly evil we have done in the last 150 years. That’s not a good message for US. There is something in notion of equity that seems very political to me. I do not know what agreement we will sign in Copenhagen.
On Saturday, March 4 two major discussion took place in the working groups. On financial mechanism and institution arrangement and REDDs.
On financial mechanism
In the contact group meeting everyone was commending and supporting everyone else’s proposal but finally there was no concrete decision. I am highlighting the G-77 and China proposal below.
The proposal said that the financial mechanism must be based on principle of equity and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, and that should operate under and must be fully accountable to the COP. It reiterated the demand for direct access that was supported by many other developed countries as well. It also said that the funding should be “new and additional” over and above the official development assistance (ODA) and that level of funding can be set at 0.5 to 1 percent of the GNP of Annex I countries.
Then several countries made their statements on the framework of financial proposal as well as the institutions to handle it. India said that deploying existing institutions (like World Bank) was not supported under the convention and that the existing institutions have a very different mandate. GEF and World Bank came in for a severe criticism from the developing countries. Philippines said that we are operating under a failed system of delivery. It said that GEF had high administrative costs and is an inoperational entity. Philippines also gave an example. They said that they send proposals to GEF. We got back the proposal with a budget head of foreign consultant for awareness generation that we did not even ask for. We do not need anyone for awareness generation.
Switzerland commented that we should try to use existing institutions to which India replied later that they hoped Switzerland does not have to deal with these institutions in a way LDCs have to. Many LDCs and Small Island nations said that they faced lot of problems when dealing with these institutions. Barbados said that the past multilateral financial system had failed to deliver. “We dot not have a voice in the World Bank. We shall not have a say in any reforms in these institutions”. Most developing countries preferred a mechanism and institutional system under the convention and which follows directions of the Parties.
Yesterday (April 3) afternoon was the plenary session of the Contact group on enhanced action on mitigation and its associated means of implementation to discuss Article 1 b (ii) of the Protocol. Highlight of the session was the spat between India and Japan.
Tanzania on behalf of LDCs called for a sense of urgency in dealing with the observed increase in impacts on LDCs. They also called for support on finance, technology and capacity building and that this support should also be measurable, reportable and verifiable.
Singapore questioned per capita GDP continued to be used as a basis for mitigation measures. They said that it was flawed criteria and irrelevant. They referred to Article 4.10 on limitations of countries highly dependent on fossil fuels and highlighted their specific situation where water supply processes in Singapore are highly energy-intensive and thus limit their potential to move away from fossil fuels.
China said that NAMA’s should have four main factors.
1. They should be completely voluntary and developed by individual countries.
2. They should reflect priority needs of developing countries
3. Should be concrete actions
4. Supported by technology finance and capacity building.
Developing country should first identify the actions and the support they need for these actions.
India (Surya Sethi) said that presentations of developed countries do not reflect the task before the AWG-KP. Developed countries are deviating from the Article 4.1 which says they provide agreed full incremental costs” for mitigation actions in developing countries.
Then he criticised the developed countries on several accounts.
--Developed countries have ignored historical emissions.
--They are creating suspect future emissions scenario for developing countries.
--They are creating new categories like “more advanced developing countries”.
--They are demanding low carbon pathways from developing countries without yielding anything on finance and technology.
--They are doing little at home
India said that such an approach is not likely to take us very far. If we are to move forward we cannot keep coming back to the negotiated text. He also asked what “registry” in NAMAs window of financial mechanism, meant.
Responding directly to India Japan made a very categorical statement: “Japanese government cannot accept any scenario of simple extension of Kyoto Protocol which does not include non-parties (US) and major developing countries, including you India.” By this statement Japan has made it clear that there no possibility of a deal until China and India take commitments.
Saudi Arabia then said: “We are sure our Indian colleagues will have capability to answer Japan but my question to Japan is that are we re-negotiating the Kyoto treaty or the Bali Action Plan because the word ‘major developing countries’ is not there at all. It is too late for that if we need some agreement at Copenhagen”.
Chair then gave India the opportunity to respond and Sethi said: “We are thankful to Japan for at least clarifying what the agenda is.”
Saudi Arabia also raised the issue of concept of registry. They said that registry will end up being a list of NAMAs and developed countries will then pick and choose which of these can be done on their own and which ones they want to support. This will lead to cherry picking. This is the idea of registry that we get from developed countries.
Overall in the entire plenary developing many raised the issue of registry and its operating mechanism saying in the currently proposed format it will not work. This will be further discussed.
This open spat between India and Japan led to speculation in the evening that the talks on the verge of breaking down.
The talks are halfway through but not much progress has been made till now. In fact today at the meeting on Contact group on Annex I emissions reduction under the AGW-KP, a lot of work done earlier was undone with no clear conclusion or progress on drafting negotiations text.
It is increasingly becoming a flip flop game between G-77, China, India and some African nations forming one group and EU, Australia, Japan and others forming the other group. Developing countries are demanding that clear aggregate and individual targets for the Annex I countries should be decided under the AWG-KP and made part of negotiation text. But EU and others have been saying that before deciding on targets they must have the rules on LULUCF and the base year. These discussions are taking place in AWG-LCA. So it’s a chicken and egg story here where developed countries want conclusions from AWG-LCA first before committing on reductions while developing countries asking for targets first under the AWG-KP. Japan has been asking for major developing countries to take ‘appropriate action’ saying their emissions now surpass many developed countries. China has been constantly stressing on historical emissions principal being the basis for setting targets.
How much reduction is enough?
Today and the contact group meeting on AWG-KP there were intense discussions how much reduction is to be done by the Annex I countries. AOSIS said 40 percent by 2020 and more than 95 per cent by 2050. G-77 and China have been saying that and aggregate of 95 per cent by 2050 and quoting the IPCC figure of 25-40 per cent by 2020 by Annex I countries. But suddenly with Japan’s intervention the target debate went out of the window. Japan said that this 25-40 per cent just one of the several scenario and ranges proposed by IPCC and is just a summary and not a conclusion. It cannot be used as a basis for policy making summary.
Then Czech Republic intervened on behalf of EU saying that IPCC was asked not to give any decisions on reduction targets and leave it to the policy makers. Finally the meeting ended with no clear conclusion. Many delegates wanted to know the offers for reductions made by various individual countries and blocks. So now the UNFCCC secretariat is preparing a document listing out all these offers or pledges. Zambia made a very nice comment saying this is not a pledging club. We need clear binding commitments. The document should be ready by Sunday and expected to contain also the commitments of each Annex I party under KP and progress.
Technology and financing
Not much progress here again as there is till now no money on the table. But lots of discussions are taking place (mostly outside the meetings) on financing and the new carbon trading regime.
Surya Sethi, Dasgupta and Mauskar in the Indian camp are till now pessimistic about the outcome. Yesterday Yvo De Boer made some very interesting comments on the talks and generally about the road to Copenhagen. His point is that developed counties must be convinced to leave the protection of Kyoto agreement where they do not have any binding obligations. For this developed countries need to take ambitious individual targets and also make a significant and predictable financial architecture for developing countries. Any new legal instrument cannot be finalised unless this happens.
He refered to the G-2 and said that it is US and China who will be the key and if they can come to a common understanding lot of things will work out.
