UNFCCC Climate Change Talks, Bangkok: Day 2

We are winding up the second day of the UNFCCC Climate Change Talks in Bangkok, Thailand. The delegates here seem to be either representing governments with an intent of influencing proposed climate change treaty text negotiations or they are from NGOs that are intent on influencing the governments. The past two days have consisted of closed sessions for the national delegations, such as from the G77, China, Africa, the EU, the Island States etc., and open sessions for general text negotiations. We have been attending the open sessions. Today, we attended sessions regarding Adaptation, Capacity Building and Mitigation as well as the Regional Briefing by the United Nations System Organizations on Climate Change Programmes in the Asia and Pacific Region.

The Regional Briefing was chaired and monitored by the Executive Secretary to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). The panel consisted of representatives from United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and ESCAP. In addition to discussing their programs, the panel was faced with difficult questions from the audience as to how various policies and procedures were being implemented by these organizations. There were questions such as: How to transition to a green economy? How to benefit the local populations? How are these programs benefiting children? How do these programs benefit the farmers who are facing increased difficulties as a result of extreme weather events cause by climate change? Why do the students in school in the developing nations not feel the effects of the project outcomes from these programs?

The proposed climate change treaty text negotiation open sessions were attended by the Parties and conducted by chosen chairpersons who facilitated discussions on certain proposed consolidated text that was discussed at the Bonn Climate Change Talks in August. However, as one Chair stated, the discussions were more about positions than actual content. During the sessions, each delegation’s chosen speaker put forth their positions on the proposed text, often combined with general statements supporting the delegation’s policy positions.

The Adaptation and Capacity Building sessions focused on different views regarding whether to focus on the guiding principles or implementation. The session on the mitigation portion of the proposed climate change treaty text regarding the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) program was directed at discussions of substance. For instance, India did not think that the paragraphs in question regarding scope could be discussed without first defining the proposed term “REDD plus actions.”

REDD, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.

Brazil led the counter to India by saying the Parties should not get bogged down with a "REDD plus" definition because it was adequately defined in the United Nations Climate Change Conference of 2007's Bali Action Plan. Brazil was supported by the United States and the European Union. Norway indicated that "REDD plus" was a results-based mechanism through Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable actions which are a part of National Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) for developing countries as mentioned in the Bali Action Plan. Thailand and other forest rich countries responded that for "REDD plus" to be a part of NAMA, there needs to be a definition for NAMA and clarification of "REDD plus". Tanzania wanted to make sure that the human rights of indigenous peoples were adequately addressed in the REDD discussions. Japan stressed that the REDD language was necessary to secure environmental stability.

Today I gave Mediators Beyond Border's Supporting Statement on the Importance of Mediation to Climate Change to the Parties. I had brief discussions with several party and NGO representatives about mediation during breaks and before and after the conference. The delegates I have spoken have indicated that they consider mediation to be a good option in resolving climate change disputes.