A divergent wish list for the Durban climate conference

The wish list submitted by developed and developing countries at Bonn for the Durban climate conference only served to highlight the wide gulf that still exists between them.

Meena Raman

DEVELOPING and developed countries have presented their wish list of expectations for the meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol to be held in Durban, South Africa on 28 November-9 December.

While all Parties stressed the need for a balanced outcome, there were divergences among developed and developing countries on what the meaning of balance was and on how to address the issue of mitigation under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol (KP) tracks.

Developing countries want to see developed countries commit to targets for emission reductions in the second commitment period under the KP, with some stressing this as an essential pre-condition for outcomes under the UNFCCC. On the other hand, most developed countries predicate their commitments under the KP on there being a new legally binding agreement for all 'major emitters' under the UNFCCC process, in an apparent reference to the United States and China as well as other 'advanced developing countries'.

South Africa is the incoming President of the 17th meeting of the COP (COP17) and the 7th meeting of the KP Parties (CMP7), and its Ambassador Nozipho Joyce Mxakato-Diseko held an open-ended informal consultation with Parties in Bonn on 11 June on their expectations for Durban. Ambassador Diseko sought the advice of Parties on what issues required technical work and what required political guidance.

Argentina, for the Group of 77 and China, said that for the Group, there must be balanced outcomes in the two tracks of the KP and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA). Under the AWG-LCA, the outcome is for the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention now, up to and beyond 2012 under the Bali Action Plan (BAP) adopted by COP13. In the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the KP (AWG-KP), the primary objective is to ensure the second commitment period of the KP and to avoid a gap between the first and the second commitment periods, said Argentina. (The first commitment period ends in 2012.)

The Democratic Republic of Congo, for the African Group, echoed the G77 and China on outcomes on the two tracks - one to implement the KP and another to ensure the implementation of the Convention - and a balanced outcome under both tracks of the negotiations. On the KP, it reiterated that developed countries should understand that without the second commitment period, there is no legally binding instrument for the reduction of emissions of Annex I Parties.

Referring to the recent UNEP Emissions Gap Report, it said that there is a growing gulf between what Parties have pledged to do and what must be done to create a safe world for our children. The pledges by developed countries are a mere 3 to 3.7 gigatonnes of reductions by 2020 (based on 1990 levels), when the world faces a gap of more than 14 gigatonnes. Inadequate ambition, and the absence of legally binding targets, are together an unacceptable result for the future of the multilateral climate change process. It reiterated the call from African heads of state and government for developed countries to take on an ambitious and binding second commitment period commencing in 2013.

On the negotiations under the AWG-LCA, on the mitigation commitments by developed countries, the (2010) Cancun decision agreed on MRV (measurement, reporting and verification) and added international assessment and review, but was very weak on comparability (between developed-country Parties and non-Parties, i.e., the US) and silent on compliance. International assessment and review must be fully defined at COP17, said the African Group.

On finance, Africa emphasised the importance of the operationalisation of the Standing Committee on finance to provide regular support to the COP in exercising its functions with respect to the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, and also proposed the addition of an agenda item on long-term sources of finance. It is of crucial importance that sources of finance are addressed in Durban, it stressed.

On technology, there has to be a decision to make the Technology Mechanism fully operational in 2012, according to the African Group. On adaptation, it expected a Durban decision that 'kick-starts' the effective implementation of adaptation actions through the Cancun Adaptation Framework with the required financial, technical and capacity-building support from developed-country Parties.

Cape Verde, for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), also stressed the importance of having agreement on a second commitment period of the KP and avoiding a gap between the first and second commitment periods. The KP, it said, was the only legal framework to address greenhouse gases. It also wanted the operationalisation of the Cancun decisions which include: raising the ambition level in mitigation to limit temperature rise to below 1.5oC; agreement on a work programme for loss and damage; developing and agreeing to a robust review of the long-term global goal to keep temperature increase below 1.5oC; institutionalising the Green Climate Fund and agreeing on long-term sources of funding by 2020; institutionalising the Adaptation Committee and a legally binding agreement under the AWG-LCA that will provide balance to the KP.

Balanced package

Saudi Arabia, speaking for the Arab Group, also stressed the need for a balanced package on all the elements of the BAP and for a second commitment period under the KP, and called for setting targets for emission reductions now. The second commitment period under the KP is a pre-condition for any outcome in Durban. It also wanted the operationalisation of many decisions as in the Adaptation Committee; forum on the impact of response measures; the Green Climate Fund and the Standing Committee on finance; and a clear decision for carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be eligible for support under the Clean Development Mechanism.

It cautioned against some Parties redefining the Convention for some developing countries to 'graduate' in taking emission reduction commitments and in not providing finance to all developing countries, saying this undermined the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Parties should not be changing the rules of the game for this was a recipe for failure. On the legal form under the AWG-LCA, this will follow after the content is known.

India recalled Durban as a special place where Mahatma Gandhi started his journey as a young lawyer who went on to become the leader of his nation. India recalled the Bali Road Map and the Bali Action Plan and focused on the concept of balance, which it said is at the heart of any successful outcome in Durban.

For India, there are four specific elements for the balance: balance in the progress on the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA tracks; balance in the KP track between political decisions and technical decisions; balance within the AWG-LCA track with equal emphasis on the four Bali Pillars; and balance in the operationalisation of the Cancun Agreement. In addition, it said that Parties had to be mindful that other issues which are of interest to many of the Parties are not allowed to fall off the table.

(The four Bali Pillars are: enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change; enhanced action on adaptation; enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation; and enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology cooperation.)

On India's doable wish list for Durban, India stressed the following: the second commitment period of the KP must be concluded; operationalisation of the Adaptation Framework under the Cancun Agreements; constituting the Board of the Green Climate Fund and Standing Committee on finance; concluding the work on the Technology Executive Committee; and concerning mitigation, putting in place transparency arrangements, clear accounting rules for the developed-country Parties and the registry for the developing countries.

On process, it said there is a need to make sure that the consultations are conducted in an atmosphere of trust, and be free of preconditions. The consultations have to be transparent and inclusive and need to be held both at the political as well as negotiator levels.

China wanted decisions for a comprehensive and balanced outcome referring to the Bali Road Map with a two-track approach. One key deliverable was to have targets for the Annex I Parties for the second commitment period of the KP. As part of the balanced approach under the BAP, developed countries which are not party to the KP (referring to the US) must undertake comparable efforts including MRV and ensure compliance. Developing countries' mitigation actions are in the context of sustainable development and have to be supported with finance, technology and capacity-building.

On adaptation, it said that institutional arrangements must be in place for the Adaptation Committee, as must be the case for the Green Climate Fund, the Standing Committee on finance and the Technology Mechanism. The purpose is not only to establish the structures but to ensure technology transfer, including to address the issue of intellectual property rights.

Bolivia supported the European Union in its call for closing the mitigation gap (see below) and said that this was a central issue for Durban. The gap must be closed in the KP negotiations. The legal group under the AWG-KP must also address what legal action can be taken against those who do not comply with their legal obligations under the KP. (Canada, Japan and Russia have said that they will not make any commitments under the second commitment period of the KP.)

On the issue of new market mechanisms, Bolivia said there is a need for clarity as to what has been the value of existing mechanisms and how they have reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Bolivia added that it did not support market mechanisms in forests and oceans. It said that South Africa is the place to fight against the new apartheid against Mother Earth and its vital systems.

Venezuela said that there was a need to ensure a balanced package. There must be agreement on the long-term global goal by 2050 for emission reductions. The KP gap must be avoided and a decision is needed on the second commitment period with no time to lose. Operationalisation of the Cancun decision is needed, it also said. Referring to the huge tasks ahead in Durban, Venezuela reminded Parties of what South Africa's former President Nelson Mandela said: 'it looks impossible until it is done'.

Singapore wanted progress on the institutional frameworks as regards the Adaptation Committee, the Green Climate Fund, the Standing Committee on finance and the Technology Mechanism. On mitigation, it wanted a decision to operationalise MRV for both developed and developing countries. On the legal options under the AWG-LCA, it said a decision on a legally binding treaty was not possible in Durban. The second commitment period of the KP was essential for a rules-based multilateral system, stressed Singapore.

Colombia, speaking also for Costa Rica, Chile and Panama, wanted an outcome under the AWG-LCA on the legal form with rules for mitigation, with reporting guidelines for biennial reports, rules for international consultations and analysis (ICA) and international assessment and review (IAR). It wanted new market mechanisms and non-market mechanisms. For the second commitment period under the KP, it said there is a need to address the legal issues for the developed countries to meet their ambition.

Switzerland, for the Environmental Integrity Group, wanted an agreement under the AWG-LCA process and the continuation of the KP to avoid a gap between the first and second commitment periods, and clarity on the rules on land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) and the use of markets. It wanted a regime on MRV with guidelines and ICA and IAR. It also wanted progress on long-term finance. On the process, it wanted technical- and political-level meetings for a good balance.

Japan wanted the operationalisation of the Cancun Agreement and called for concentration on the practical and technical work needed.

The United States also stressed the need for technical discussions to progress work. Building off from the Cancun decision, it wanted decisions on the Green Climate Fund and Standing Committee on finance, the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network; elaboration of the Adaptation Committee; and the anchoring of the mitigation pledges with a robust transparency regime. It stressed that no individual element can move without all elements moving together. The transparency element needed more time with detailed technical components.

The European Union raised the following issues: (1) Raising the ambition gap in mitigation as the overall ambition was not sufficient to limit temperature rise to 2oC but could lead to a rise of 4-6oC. There must be agreement on the peaking of emissions and the long-term global goal, and comparable mitigation efforts by all major economies with a legally binding framework for all major emitters with compliance for a post-2012 framework; (2) Mitigation pledges and a robust MRV system; (3) On the future of the KP, the EU is prepared for the second commitment period only in the context of a balanced package for Durban (referring to outcomes in the AWG-LCA for a legally binding framework for all major emitters).

Australia wanted a decision on the legal form for a legally binding outcome for all major emitters which would not yet be a treaty but a step towards one. Having just a second commitment period under the KP would not do. It also wanted an MRV programme in mitigation, and progress on the Adaptation Framework to also address agriculture, food security, land and water use. It also wanted outcomes on the Green Climate Fund, REDD-plus, new market mechanisms and the Technology Mechanism.

New Zealand wanted the Green Climate Fund launched, mitigation pledges discussed and assumptions negotiated in a common format and a process converting the pledges to commitments, describing this as to 'bank-and-build'. It wanted the MRV guidelines to be elaborated including the ICA and IAR and a timetable for biennial reports. It also wanted an international carbon market and progress for new market mechanisms.

It said that under the KP, for the second commitment period, rules have to be advanced and if the rules were not 'cooked', there could be no possibility for amendments to the KP (the second commitment period targets). For progress on the KP second commitment period, it needed to see all major emitters undertaking binding commitments under a comprehensive and legally binding outcome.

Russia said that no one should be under the illusion that Durban is only about the second commitment period of the KP. It wanted a comprehensive and single treaty outcome with ambition.

Following the comments from Parties, Alf Wills of South Africa made some remarks on the way forward. He said that the mandate of the Ad Hoc Working Groups and the subsidiary bodies (Subsidiary Body on Implementation and Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice) was to conduct technical work under their control so that the political elements can be removed from the technical work.

He proposed consultations at three levels with stakeholders, negotiators and experts feeding into the political level. The consultations will be held with one meeting per month, with the meeting in June focusing on mitigation, MRV and the second commitment period of the KP (the mitigation package); the July meeting will follow up with the mitigation package; the August session will be on finance issues; the September meeting will deal with technology transfer and capacity-building; the October meeting on provision for political-level engagement; and in November, the focus will be on shared vision and legal options. The stakeholder and experts' sessions will be conducted together with Mexico (as the current COP16 President).

The consultations will feed into a ministerial process with three meetings under the topic on the 'Durban Package' to get the ministers to know each other and to find compromise solutions. The first ministerial meeting will be in Germany on 2-3 July, with a September ministerial and a pre-COP session in November. There could be a possible meeting of heads of state in September during the session of the United Nations General Assembly (in New York) with the collaboration of Mexico, said Wills.  

Meena Raman is a legal adviser and senior researcher with the Third World Network.

*Third World Resurgence No. 250, June 2011, pp 26-29