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.