UNFCCC Climate Change Talks, Bangkok: Days 4 & 5

There appears to be movement backwards and forwards, coupled with frustration and peppered with optimism, as the negotiations continue in the open session Climate Change Treaty negotiations in Bangkok this week. The divide of ideals and political realities of the parties have become foundational, negotiated text statements.

This week's United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Climate Change Talks in Bangkok will determine the language in the COP15 Climate Change Treaty due to be ratified in Copenhagen this December. It will be the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires 2012.

Below are some of my observations from the conference in Bangkok.

During negotiations on the Financial Resources Group, India questioned the private sector funding language because it would require the private sector to keep two sets of books, one for international scrutiny and the other for normal business. India advanced that the developing countries have their own domestic programs without MRVs (or Measurable, Reportable, Verifiable). It questioned as to what happens to the suggested national mitigation funding if significant amounts of funding come from the private sector for NAMAs (National Appropriate Mitigation Actions). Canada’s response was that there should not be a discussion of offsets in this session because it was being discussed in another room.

During discussions on the Enhanced Action on Adaptation and Associated Means of Implementation, Australia put forth that all Parties need to draw on a variety resources to achieve funding goals. There should be direct contribution in relation to capacity. South Africa responded that this is the heart of the discussion. South Africa voiced that there must be financial commitment by the developed countries. The South African delegates maintained that developing countries are already paying for their own adaptation which is holding back their goals of eradication of poverty and sustainable development. According to the Philippines, the resources must be predictable and delivered in a timely manner. The resources to the developing countries should be based in large part on grants. The cost of inaction is much greater than action.

The United States stated that there are few issues as important as finance. There needs to be an upscale of contribution. The results of climate change will result in a whole scale change in energy structures and economics. This cannot be done with just one small group of financial contributors. We need to bring all capacities to bear under the broadest interpretations. The new US administration intends to scale up contribution for adaptation. The private sector will provide mitigation opportunities. The parties must be flexible in the manner of contribution, maximizing resources. The US will not sign the treaty of there is an international tax included in the language. This sparked statements by many supporting the G77 and China’s position which looked for funding from developed countries.

During negotiations on the subgroup on mitigation under 1(b)(i) of the 2007 Bali Plan, Sweden advanced that we need a list of predictable targets and a list of NAMA’s. The US again voiced concern that we were not negotiating text that would end up in Copenhagen. Brazil, on behalf of the G77 and China, countered Australia’s proposal for a schedule of NAWA’s, because it weakens the commitments of the developed countries because it weakens the level of ambition and contribution to the global level of mitigation.

I was able to briefly talk with the US negotiation team regarding mediation proposals.

You can read a daily update about the progress of UNFCCC Climate Change Treaty negotiations in Bangkok on the COP15 web site.

UNFCCC Climate Change Talks, Bangkok: Day 3

Today is the third day of the UNFCCC Climate Change Talks in Bangkok, Thailand. One of the last open sessions yesterday, Day Two, concerned the Contact Group on Enhanced Action on the Provisions of Financial Resources and Investment. The session started with the delegates from Canada requesting simplification of the language. They asked that it not concentrate on the Principles in the FCCC/WGLCA/2009/INF.2 . This is the document that contains the revised negotiated text prepared by the facilitators during and after the informal UNFCCC Climate Change meetings of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention in Bonn August 2009.

Today it became apparent that the United States and Canada- and the EU to a certain extent- wanted to bypass the Principles of the Enhanced Action plan on Financial Resources and Investment and instead concentrate on specific language and action. They voiced concern that concentration on Principles took valuable time away from negotiations of substance. Further, as the United States stated, the guiding principles set forth in this section are already covered by the convention. The thinking was that simplicity equals clarity. The United States further indicated that simplicity helps in aiding and reaching agreement with divergent perspectives.

The United States offered that the whole section be deleted. This was in response to the Philippines on behalf of the G77 and China who thought that the principles were a good idea, presented its views on each paragraph of the proposed text. Many of the developing countries sided with the Philippines such as Bolivia and Egypt. Uganda’s response, on behalf of the Africa Group, was that the text was too long and it would be more effective to spend time discussing core issues. Uganda felt that if time was taken to discuss principles, there would not be enough time to discuss the real issues such as financing. Barbados, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, agreed with Uganda.

Later, at a dinner, regarding the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change, I had informative discussions with delegates from the Philippines and Mali regarding the United States' position and the ratification possibilities by the United States Congress. There had also been discussions about the positive relationship of the delegates from the United States, Brazil, China and Indonesia regarding the United Nation's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries Program (UN-REDD) issues.

Lastly, our thoughts go out to those in Samoa, the Philippines and Indonesia regarding the recent earthquakes and flooding tragedies as well as those who have suffered tragedy in Southeast Asia from the current typhoon.