A prominent African climate change negotiator has alleged that developed nations did not, in reality, mean to commit to the Bali Action Plan (BAP), which was endorsed in 2007 at the close of the COP 13 in Bali, Indonesia.
Victor Fodeke, who used to be Nigeria’s climate chief, stated that, since 2007, subsequent actions by the advanced world were surreptitiously tailored to reverse the provisions of the BAP, which seemed to favour developing nations.
He said: “The Bali Action Plan (BAP) appears to have been ‘mistakenly’ endorsed by the developed world in Bali in 2007. These countries, who are responsible for over 90 percent of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that is causing the warming of our planet and are now responsible for the extreme weather and disasters that have run riot in many countries, are now bent on rewriting the convention for the second commitment period.”
According to him, processes aimed at redressing the “mistake” began with the Copenhagen Accord in 2009.
His words: “Penultimate to COP15, two of the members of the COP15, during a visit did not know when the ‘cat was let out of the bag’ by stating: ‘How on earth did we agree to BAP in COP13?’ The Cancun COP16 endorsed the Copenhagen Accord, while COP17 was their next plan to operationalise it.
“Now is the time for the continent to wake up and truly strategise, act and negotiate with one voice though political, diplomatic and economic tactics. The tactic of dangling $100 billion through the proposed Green Climate Fund for 2020 is still a mirage.
“While we are yet to see the fast start fund that is not really clear now which is ODA and which is ‘new’ and ‘additional’ as in the negotiated texts. We should guide against any trick to tinker us to remove or ‘renovate’the firewalls. Africa by present records is contributing less that 4 percent GHG.”
The COP 18 holds in Doha, Qatar later in the year.
A weeklong cleaning of parts of the restive Lagos coastline will commence on Monday, September 24 2012. The forum will incorporate a series of awareness raising activities on issues bordering on the impact of pollutants, especially marine debris in coastal areas.
Waste products dumped by the Lagos Bar Beach
Clean Coast Nigeria (CCN), in collaboration with Ocean Conservancy, is organising the exercise, which is the second in the series. According to officials of the CCN, the event will produce and entertain a variety of events highlighting coastal and marine pollution.
They added that, during this programme, friends of the CCN will offer information and inspirational solutions to the public about the increasingly alarming environmental challenge.
“With rising waters due to climate change and global warming, there is evidence to show that, in the event of an ocean surge, what is usually left on our shores and land when the waters recede is marine debris. Comprising of different thrash, they litter the environment, entangle and kill fish and other marine organisms as well as poison them. This debris is in most cases made up of plastic materials, computers, car parts and logs of wood. How do you think local people get rid of these thrash? They burn them. This burning adds to gases that affect the world’s climate,” said Lt. Renner Kofi Omare, a research officer with the Nigerian Institute For Oceanography and Marine Research in Lagos.
He pointed out that the event, which has “Marine Debris and Me” as its theme, aims as encouraging local communities, corporate entities and government covering school children, and environmental stakeholders to speak about marine debris and how it affects Nigeria.
Omare went on: “Clean Coast Nigeria is taking this initiative from its mother body Ocean Conservancy, in line with Lagos State Government’s drive to reduce and protect our environment as seen by the presence of LAWMA and other state officials who make an attempt to keep our beaches clean. This Campaign aims to protect our environment from the harmful intrusions and damage caused by the effects of waste indiscriminately dumped along our coastal waters and posing avoidable serious health issues and environmental hazards to our communities. The beach cleanup event will take place on Saturday, September 29, 2012, and is aimed at promoting awareness-raising initiatives among all levels of society, from government, industry and educational institutions, to community-led initiatives, grassroots organisations, and the decisions of individual households and consumers.”
Scientists have said that, in order to sustain Nigeria’s global position as a major oil and gas exporter, there is need for the authorities to turn to inland basin exploration.
A scientist, Prof Chukwuemeka Ekweozor, believes that, as the Niger Delta oil province gradually matures. Its petroleum production would decline as, according to him, is evident in the case of the North Sea and other basins worldwide that were once prolific.
“Therefore petroleum systems in the inland basin need to be investigated as part of strategic and pro-active national policy because therein lie the fossil fuel source of the future,” he declared
Director-General of the Energy Commission of Nigeria (ECN), Prof. Abubakar Sambo, underlined the importance of petroleum (oil and gas) to the nation’s economy, saying that it accounts for up to 95 percent of the country’s foreign earning.
“The oil and gas reserves in the Niger Delta are projected to last for less than 50 years as at present production rate. So it is imperative for the nation to continue to search for oil and gas to add to our reserves, increase foreign earnings and meet up with our vision 20:2020 aspiration and in line with Mr. President’s Transformation Agenda, he submitted.
According to him, the opening up of the inland basins will no doubt result in new reserve discoveries and afford interested entrepreneurs – both local and foreign – a room to grow, collaborate and engage in profitable business alliances, and economic empowerment and diversify petroleum sources for national development.
Science and Technology Minister, Prof. Bassey Ewa, said that government is commitment to exploring oil and gas inland.
The Nigerian government has embarked on an initiative to tackle the harmful effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) in order to improve public health and environmental quality by preventing the release of the harmful chemical compound into the atmosphere.
Minister of Environment, Hadiza Ibrahim Mailafia, who launched the project in Abuja on Monday, stated that it would ensure sound management and ultimate safe disposal of the poisonous pollutants from active and decomposed electrical equipment in PHCN (Power Holding Company of Nigeria) facilities, and from other private sector players such as oil refineries, airports, and textile mills.
She said that the PCBs are a class of organic compounds found to be fire resistant, stable, non-conductive to electricity and has a low volatility under normal conditions. These characteristics have made them ideal for industrial application and most used for as dielectric fluid in electrical equipment, from large transformers to small capacitors in lighting fixtures, she added.
Further, she noted that PCBs are extensively used as heat transfer fluids and as coolants for high temperature processes.
Nigeria has never been known to produce PCBs but has imported the product severally between the 1940s and early 1980s. The imported products were PCB-containing equipment such as transformers, capacitors and ballasts, as well as hydraulic fluid additives.
She stated that with the financial support from the World Bank’s executed Canadian POP’s Trust Fund, government carried out PCB inventory in the electric power generating, transmitting and distributing facilities spread across 10 states of the federation. She said that the project captured 10 percent of potentially contaminated electrical equipment in the power sector; the total amount of PCB- contaminated waste was estimated to be 3,400 tons. As a follow up, the Canadian Trust Fund on POP financed another study in 2009 called the ‘Location and Assessment of the status of PCB-contaminated equipment’ in all PHCN facilities. It reveals that an estimated conservation amount of 421tons PCB oil and 1,061 tons of PCB contaminated equipment are prevalent.
The minister disclosed that the ministry in collaboration with the World Bank established a project management unit (PMU), and concluded the appointment of qualified personnel to the various positions in September 2011. She stated that an inter-ministerial steering committee (already inaugurated) would provide overall guidance and direction for the project implementation.
According to her, the project hopes to increase awareness among key stakeholders and the general public, increase regulations and enhance physical facilities for the management of PCB containing equipment. It likewise hopes to improve national capacity to manage PCBs in an efficient and environmentally sound manner.
She added that the project wouldbe implemented in four components in order to achieve the stated objectives.
World Bank country’s Director , Ms. Marie Francoise Marie-Nelly, who was represented by Badrul Haque, said that PCB project wouldbe implemented over four years period to December 2015 and the project is jointly financed by GEF to the tune of $6.2 million. Nigeria will provide additional matching fund of $12.2 million to eliminate environmental and health risks in the country posed by PCBs.
She stated that the ongoing $300 million Nigerian Energy and Gas improvement (NEGIP) project would benefit from the design of the PCB project.
Marie Francoise assured that the project would draw on the Bank’s world wide experience in projects conducted in a variety of sector in which environmental health concerns have been steadily mainstreamed include mining, industry, energy, solid waste management, agriculture, health care and transport. Further, the bank focus is to address development of programme to phase out the production and use of toxic chemicals, identification of alternative technologies, and encourage safe disposal of existing toxic stockpiles.
She emphasised that the project is targeted to safely dispose 3,000 tons of PCB oils and 5,000 tons of PCB contaminated equipment to reduce drastically the dangers posed by these chemicals on the environment and humans.
Coordinated action by governments and industry is urgently needed to reduce the growing risks to human health and the environment posed by the unsustainable management of chemicals worldwide, according to a new report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Steiner
These risks are compounded by the steady shift in the production, use and disposal of chemical products from developed countries to emerging and developing economies, where safeguards and regulations are often weaker, says the report.
UNEP’s Global Chemicals Outlook, released today, highlights the major economic burden caused by chemical hazards, particularly in developing countries.
The report reveals that the estimated costs of poisonings from pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa now exceeds the total annual overseas development aid given to the region for basic health services, excluding HIV/AIDS.
Between 2005 and 2020, the accumulated cost of illness and injury linked to pesticides in small scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa could reach USD $90 billion.
Sound chemicals management can reduce these financial and health burdens, while improving livelihoods, supporting ecosystems, reducing pollution and developing green technology, says the study.
The release of the report – the first comprehensive assessment of its kind – follows renewed commitments by countries at the Rio+20 summit in June to prevent the illegal dumping of toxic wastes, develop safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals in products, and increase the recycling of waste, among other measures.
By examining global chemicals trends and their economic implications, the UNEP report maps out the most effective approaches for decision-makers to deliver on these commitments.
“Communities worldwide – particularly those in emerging and developing countries – are increasingly dependent on chemical products, from fertilizers and petrochemicals to electronics and plastics, for economic development and improving livelihoods,” said UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, Achim Steiner.
“But the gains that chemicals can provide must not come at the expense of human health and the environment. Pollution and disease related to the unsustainable use, production and disposal of chemicals can, in fact, hinder progress towards key development targets by affecting water supplies, food security, well-being or worker productivity. Reducing hazards and improving chemicals management – at all stages of the supply chain – is, thus, an essential component of the transition to a low carbon, resource efficient and inclusive Green Economy,” added Steiner.
At the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, UN member states set a target that by 2020, chemicals should be produced and used in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment.
“The economic analysis presented in the Global Chemicals Outlook demonstrates that sound chemicals management is as valid an area as education, transport, infrastructure, direct health care services and other essential public services. This could foster the creation of many green, decent and healthy jobs and livelihoods for developed and developing countries,” said Dr. Maria Neira, WHO Director for Public Health and Environment.
“Effective long-term management of chemicals and wastes lays the foundations for a thriving Green Economy, for ensuring a healthier environment, and for a fairer distribution of development benefits across society,” added Neira.
In recent years, international conventions, governments and corporations have taken significant steps in developing national and international capacities for managing chemicals safely and soundly.
A team of four Nigerian experts that went on a fact-finding mission to the Lagdo Dam in Cameroon has been denied access to the facilities by local officials.
Lagdo Dam
On an instruction to obtain relevant information and hydrological data with respect to releases from the dam that led to the death of about 15 persons and the submersion of some 250 villages, the four-man team from the Upper Benue River Basin Development Authority (UBRBDA) and Nigeria Hydrological Service Agency (NIHSA) however met a brick-wall in the course of its assignment.
The team comprised Abubakar Mu’azu (Deputy Director, Operations at UBRBDA), John Shialsuk (Deputy Director, Hydrology & Hydrogeology at NIHSA), Ahmed Jalingo (Principal Technical Officer, Hydrology at UBRBDA) and Ahmed Isa Mbamba (Information Officer at UBRBDA).
Penultimate Sunday on its way to Cameroon, the team observed extensive flooding at Garoua along the River Benue, but it was denied access to the dam and other relevant information. The dam manager attributed the development to the fact that he had no authority to allow access to the facility or give any technical information. River Benue is the second largest river in Nigeria, second to the Niger.
He, however, disclosed that there was no rainfall during the past five days; that the two spillway gates of the dam were opened as well as the fact that power generation was in progress; that Garoua and Lagdo towns (located downstream of the dam) were extensively flooded; and that only a third of the dam inflow was being released.
The Nigerian team was told to, in the future, observe proper diplomatic procedure before being granted access to the dam facilities as well as other relevant technical information.
According to the foursome, the level of devastation at Garou by the flood is more severe than the Nigerian side of the border. Measurements taken on Monday, August 27, 2012 showed the water level at Jimeta Bridge at 163.486 m.a.s.l. (or metres above mean sea level).
“Moreover, the flood level so far is far below the 1070 incident when Lagdo was not in existence. In view of the foregoing, the Nigerian community should expect progressive increase in water levels,” disclosed the team.
Besides the immediate evacuation of residential settlements (and eventually their permanent relocation) along the River Benue flood plains, the team suggested further collaboration by Nigerian authorities with the Cameroon government to fashion out ways of forestalling future occurrence.
The Lagdo Dam is located on the Adamawa Plateau of the Northern Province of Cameroon, which shares border with the north-eastern Nigerian states of Borno, Adamawa and Taraba.
The dam’s primary outflow is River Benue, which takes its source from Adamawa Plateau (in Cameroon) and flows through the lowland elevations of Adamawa, Taraba and Benue states before meeting River Niger in Lokoja, Kogi State.
The steep elevation of the plateau apparently enhanced the flow of the released water from the dam, inundating lowland communities of north-eastern Nigeria especially those located within the River Niger drainage basin.
Indeed, the cascading waters from the reservoir snuffed out lives, disrupted socio-economic activities, led to environmental degradation as well as large scale ecological dislocation.
The Cameroonian High Commission in Nigeria has warned that if the trend of heavy rainfall experienced this year continues in the next few weeks, more water will be released from the reservoir till October.
Meanwhile, the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) has disclosed that officials at its North East Zonal Office are on ground and working with the respective State Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs) to compile assessment reports, establish Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps, and provide necessary relief materials and first aid in collaboration with NEMA humanitarian partners.
Head of NEMA, Mohammed Sani-Sidi, said: “Reports reaching us from Adamawa State have confirmed that, out of the 10,524 affected persons in 10 Local Government Areas, 15 people have lost their lives.
“Based on assessment reports so far received, approval has been granted for further delivery relief intervention while the agency will soon commence working with the relevant authorities for the rehabilitation of affected communities.”
Chairman, Adamawa State Flood Disaster Committee, Kobis Ari, called on the government of Nigeria to enter into a bilateral agreement with the Cameroonian government on how to avert the yearly disaster caused by Lagdo Dam to the people of the state.
He said: “We received a letter from Cameroun Republic last Friday to notify us of their intention to release water from the Lado Dam which is located at the upper end of River Benue. A day after the water was released, the Cameroun Republic did not give us enough time to communicate with our people to vacate the flood-prone areas.”
Ari added: “Since the 1958 flood disaster that killed many people, this is the worst that has happened in Adamawa State. Many schools, hospitals, government buildings and over 250 villages have been submerged by the flood.”
To avoid an outbreak of disease as a result of the flood, he said that medical workers have been deployed to all the affected areas to provide free medical services to the victims.
“The state Emergency Management Agency have also deployed its workers to various areas affected by the flood to provide the victims with food, blankets and other things they need to survive before the Federal Government arrive with its assistance,” he stated.
Nigeria is seeking more funding for its Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) programme, which was officially flagged-off last week in Abuja when major stakeholders put pen on paper.
L-R: Permanent Secretary, Ecological Fund Office, MacJohn Nwaobiala; Permanent Secretary, Environment, in the Ministry of Environment, Taiye Haruna; Governor Liyel Imoke of Cross River State; and the United Nations (UN) Resident Coordinator and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Resident Representative in Nigeria, Daoda Toure, during the signing of Nigeria’s National Programme Document (NPD) on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), in Abuja
At the 7th UN-REDD Policy Board meeting last October in Berlin, Germany, the country’s National Programme Document (NPD) on REDD+ Readiness was approved with a funding allocation of $4 million. This was followed by a series of events – a capacity building and awareness programme (or REDD+ University) and a stakeholder-wide reassessment of the plan (Local Project Appraisal Committee (LPAC) as well as Technical Review meetings) – that set the stage for the final endeavour.
Following the Programme Document’s multi-stakeholder approach, officials of the Federal Government, Cross River State Government and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) endorsed the NDP, signalling the commencement of the implementation of the project.
However, local REDD+ officials are exploring fresh windows of opportunities other than the UN-REDD, apparently to increase their financial capability and break new frontiers. The alternative REDD+ financing window in view is the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), which is an arm of the World Bank.
The UN-REDD is being operated by the UNDP, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO).
Impressed by Nigeria’s record-breaking REDD+ Readiness preparation process, the FCPF has given the go ahead for the nation to prepare a REDD+ Readiness Proposal (R-RP) for additional funding allocation. Nigeria will be able to access about $3.6 million if the R-RP turns out successful.
Environment Minister, Hadiza Mailafia, disclosed during the official signing of the NPD that the National REDD+ Coordinator, Salisu Dahiru, had been directed to complete the R-RP by February 2013. She urged development partners, state governments and the private sector to support the REDD+ programme with co-funding.
The NDP envisioned a two-track approach to achieve REDD+ readiness, comprising national (federal) and sub-national (state) levels. Apart from Cross River State (which will host intense institutional, strategy-building and demonstration activities), eight other states – Taraba, Nasarawa, Jigawa, Lagos, Enugu, Katsina, Yobe and Oyo – have indicated interest in joining the REDD+ Programme.
Mailafia expressed appreciation to Governor Liyel Imoke of Cross River and Daouda Toure, the UN Resident Coordinator, for their roles in the process.
To Imoke: “He has demonstrated deep commitment and sincere political will to the cause for climate change and environmental sustainability in Nigeria. The state’s level of collaboration with the Federal Government is highly commendable.”
To Toure: “Out profound appreciation for his invaluable support and long-term cooperation with the ministry on climate change, REDD+ and other sustainable environmental management programmes. In particular, I will like to thank the UNDP for providing catalytic funding and technical support towards implementation of Nigeria’s REDD+ process, renewable energy programme and Nigeria’s participation in climate change conferences, including the just concluded Rio+20 Summit in Brazil.”
Imoke expressed his government’s continued support and commitment for the REDD+ Programme, saying: “We will do all it takes to ensure that Cross River State remains a credible model for REDD not only in the country but also across the region. This commitment is a demonstration of our appreciation of our choice of Cross River State as the pilot state for REDD in Nigeria.”
While assuring the gathering of the United Nations’ continuing support and unfaltering commitments to the successful implementation of the REDD+ programme. the UN Resident Coordinator and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Resident Representative in Nigeria, Daoda Toure, stressed that Nigeria has shown in the past years an active participation in environmental and climate change meetings and summits.
“Nigeria earned by its own efforts the priority attention and public recognition of the United Nations’ REDD+ Programme, known as UN-REDD and composed by three U.N. agencies (FAO, UNDP and UNEP), and which has now committed $ 4 million for the national REDD+ programme that we are signing today.”
He added: “Ladies and gentlemen, you will agree with me that we now not only owe it to ourselves, but also to future generations, that the spirit of sustainable development needs to be expanded without delay. The implementation of this programme is likely to be a vanguard effort for that, which we hope will be followed by many other national programmes for low-carbon and climate-resilient development.”
Civil society organisations (CSOs) and environmental experts last week in Abuja attempted a review of the controversial draft Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), in the bid to ensure that provisions relating to environmental and livelihoods protection serve the desired purpose.
Executive Director, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN), Nnimmo Bassey (left); with the Deputy Director, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Country Office, Jan Thomas Hiemstra, during the CSO Consultation on the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), in Abuja
Organised by Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the daylong forum likewise examined CSO engagement in the legislative process towards the passage of the PIB.
After several months of confusion, the executive through the Petroleum Minister, Deziani Alison-Madueke, on July 18th, 2012, submitted what it called the final and authentic copy of the PIB to the National Assembly. The bill was described as the most anticipated draft legislation in Nigeria’s legislative history.
The PIB was originally submitted in 2008 during the 6th National Assembly by former President Shehu Musa Yar’ Adua. It was however not passed because of the many controversies surrounding its provisions and content.
With the commencement of the 7th National Assembly, the PIB was resuscitated. In response to public pressure, the government set up a committee to draft a new draft bill that the Executive will present before the National Assembly.
A reading of the new version of the PIB, however, shows a drastic fall in standards in comparison to previous versions, according to stakeholders, who stress that the new draft bill is being viewed with suspicion due to the lack of adequate consultation in the drafting process.
According to them, a critical look at the document is imperative as the National Assembly reconvenes this month.
Executive Director of ERA/FoEN, Nnimmo Bassey, said that the PIB ought to be predicated on the premise that the petroleum resources sector is a highly polluting sector. He added that the bill should also have the clear understanding that the resources are non-renewable and are thus finite.
“As they will either be exhausted or may simply fall out of use, this demands utmost care to ensure socially and environmentally acceptable practices,” the activist noted.
According to him, oil spills and gas flares should be dealt with as environmental security matters and clear powers to regulate and control activities, punish violators and restore the environment should be identified – and such should be vested on the Ministry of Environment and not on the Petroleum Resources Ministry.
“The minister in charge of the petroleum sector should not regulate a sector in which they active polluters,” Bassey declared, stating that gas flaring is already illegal in Nigeria (since 1984 and confirmed by a High Court decision in 2005), and that “the PIB should not legalise illegality.”
“It is wasteful treatment of a resource and harms both the people and the local as well as global environment,” he remarked of gas flaring, saying that the PIB should make clear statements on the issue “to avoid the minister lowering the fine to below commercial value.”
“Indeed, the punishment for gas flaring should not be limited to fines but should have weightier consequences considering its criminal nature.”
A legal practitioner, Nurudeen Ogbara, pointed out that the bill does not adequately involve or otherwise empower the people of the oil-bearing communities in the ownership, control and management of the oil and allied resources, particularly given the reality and potency of the international right to development.
“It is submitted, with due respect, that this is tokenistic and does not commensurate with what should be put in place for the people because what is good for the goose is good for the gander too. In any case, the way and manner the Fund is to be administered to ensure the development of the social and economic infrastructures of oil-bearing communities is amorphous and not obvious, clear-cut or transparent as to engender the needed benefits to the affected communities and their wishes,” he submitted.
Deputy Director, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Country Office, Jan Thomas Hiemstra, said the objective of the meeting is to further strengthen strategic engagements of civil society organisations in the process of governance.
“Against the background of the recently concluded Rio+ 20 summit, where the entire globe affirmed the urgent need to embrace sustainable development, it is very pertinent to have the issues of environment well integrated into mainstream policy making processes,” he said.
This, he added, would ensure transparency and accountability “that will build confidence and ensure successful performance of the bill.”
Sharp differences remain on how to deal with the twin goals of a long term global goal for greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions reduction by 2050 and a global peaking time frame. The division is whether these goals should be with or without the context of a comprehensive and integrated balanced package which includes critical elements of the Bali Action Plan such as adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building.
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary
After two informal consultations on 30 and 31 August at the informal session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC (AWG-LCA), positions on “shared vision” remain the same as expressed since the 2010 Cancun meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
On the one hand there is a large number of Parties arguing strongly for a “numbers-in-context” approach, that is, discussions on numbers on any long term global goal and peaking must be linked to the impacts of such goals and the necessary means of implementation (especially finance and technology). Parties with this position include the Africa Group, the Arab group, ALBA, Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.
On the other hand, a group of Parties prefer to deal with a “numbers-only” outcome, with the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Colombia, Chile and Costa Rica as leading proponents. The Umbrella Group of developed countries seeks to have “aspirational” numbers only. This includes Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the US.
The European Union essentially advocates a “numbers-only” approach with some consideration of context such as a longer time frame for developing countries to peak.
At the 30 August first meeting of the Informal Group on Shared Vision [agenda item 3(a) of the AWGLCA] in Bangkok, the Africa Group supported by the Philippines, India, China and Brazil argued strongly that the context for agreeing to a global goal and global peak year was critical to a successful agreement. This view contrasted sharply with the view of a singular focus on the twin goals expressed by Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of AOSIS). This point of view was supported by Singapore, the EU, Japan, the US, New Zealand and Colombia.
The session was facilitated by Professor Zou Ji of China, who told Parties that the focus of the discussion was on how the informal group could move forward in preparing for Doha and that the mandate was to advance the substantive discussion based on work done in Bonn (in May), the workshop on equity access to sustainable development (EASD) and other workshops, as well as building on previous decisions made in Bali (1/CP.13), Cancun (1/CP.16) and Durban (2/CP.17).
Zou said that the AWG-LCA Chair (Mr. Aysar Tayeb of Saudi Arabia) had provided two tools to facilitate the discussion: a factual matrix of actions taken and an Informal Note. He emphasized that the tools were informational only and not negotiating texts; they were simply facilitating tools to draw attention to key issues, key debates and key points for further discussion. He said that the objective of the Bangkok meeting was to develop key elements pointing towards text for discussion in Doha. He noted that there was very limited time and lots of work to be done. He urged the group not to consume the limited time with circular debate but rather to move forward to the key elements to the text for negotiation and to identify key barriers or challenges.
The facilitator also said that he would like to focus to equitable access to sustainable development as in the past there were debate and different positions on this issue, and that part of the time of the proposed sessions in Bangkok would be allocated to discussing, merging and reaching common ground so the group can move forward.
While introducing and reviewing the two tools prepared by the AWG-LCA chair with the group, Zou made a brief introduction of the progress made in past year. He noted that starting from the Bali Action Plan (BAP), Parties reached two decisions in Cancun (1/CP.16) and Durban (2/CP.17) regarding shared vision issues. He noted that the matrix provided by the AWG-LCA chair showed the abstract of relevant paragraphs in those decisions. This is the current basis for the discussion. He said that in Bonn, Parties discussed shared vision and a final report was presented to the closing AWG-LCA plenary.
He pointed out that the AWG-LCA chair’s informal note identified three options: option 1 is specific numbers for the long term goal for time frame of global peaking with their corresponding context (qualitative, quantitative or both); option 2 identified a range of numbers for these goals with their corresponding context; and option 3 is on possible process or mechanism with which to identify numbers or a range of numbers for the 2 goals.
Zou also reminded the Parties that there had been no official conclusion and that though the (May 2012) expert workshop on equitable access to sustainable development (EASD) did not have an official status, it led to a lot of ideas and opinions addressing the issue of long term global goal and shared vision. He said that the workshop was important to reflect opinions from the Parties. He also noted that there were many different sources of inputs including the CRP 39 document (‘unresolved issues’ from the Durban COP meeting) that could be the base of further contributions from Parties. The facilitator stressed that there was a need to seek more elaboration on option 3. He also wanted to focus on EASD in order to elaborate the concept of EASD in general and to examine EASD in the context of global goal and global peak as well as look at the context for EASD and equity. Following the facilitator’s introduction, Parties commented on his opening remarks and the documents presented.
Developed countries such as Japan and the US argued that the goals mandated by Cancun are an aspirational goal and that the distribution of reduction for each country, including the principle of distribution, is not the group’s mandate. Developed countries also raised questions about EASD in the shared vision approach and some expressed discomfort with equity.
Uganda on behalf of the African Group said that the Group believes strongly that consistent with decisions of Durban and Cancun as well as Bali, shared vision should include goals on the other BAP pillars (finance, technology, adaptation and capacity building). Uganda urged the informal group to focus on what the number really means. It said that dealing with global peak may not have meaning if there was no focus on the context of sustainable development. It questioned the attempt to agree on specific numbers or range of numbers without a context including the nature of the burden sharing for most vulnerable countries in Africa and LDCs.
Uganda further noted that on equity, the group could consider a hybrid approach with other matters such as GDP, development gap and current capabilities. It also noted that the workshop in Bonn raised different parameters on defining equity so there could be a hybrid of some of these indicators that include sustainable development consideration taking into account what is already contained in the Convention. Uganda said that it believed that CRP 39 provided good parameters for consideration in arriving at a consensus in the matter.
Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of AOSIS argued for a variation of option 1 in the chair’s informal note that would reference specific numbers without a context. Trinidad and Tobago said that it did not want to move too far away from 2/CP.17 (decision from Durban). It further noted the concept of survival and sustainable development could be included as an addition to context. It said that as there was no agreement on what is sustainable development, if the group was going to look at the concept, then survival and development will be one of them.
Singapore supported AOSIS and said that the group should focus on what was agreed in Durban and Cancun: long term global goal and time frame for peaking. It argued for zooming in on the working towards a global goal and time frame and not include other issues. It agreed with Trinidad and Tobago that there are other context to be taken into account, including best available science and referenced UNEP documents and the output on the workshop on mitigation as other inputs that could be useful for setting the context for the global goal and time frame.
The Philippines noting that, as a country, it consisted of over 7,000 islands and was one of the most vulnerable countries in the world, thus it was important for it to emphasize the importance of context for reaching a fair decision in Doha. The Philippines said that reflection on the Bali Plan of Action paragraph 1 showed long term global goal for emissions reduction is not the only focus of shared vision. It included as a summary of the context, the principles of the Convention, CBRD, social and economic conditions. These, the Philippines says, are what it and other developing countries see as the main context that sets the condition under which to set the goals and identify the contribution for developed and developing countries.
With regard to remarks made by Japan and US that the goals are aspirational, the Philippines said that as it was located in the typhoon basin of the Pacific rim and was subjected to hits by earthquakes and drought in some areas, while other areas suffered from too much water. It was hence one of the most vulnerable countries in the world, and the condition under which the Parties address climate change is very important.
The Philippines stressed that the setting of long term global goal and peak year must be more than simply aspirational. It wants to make it concrete and “everybody will get there and everybody will do their share”. It emphasized that context was important. It said that a useful analogy was that if the goal was 100 kilometers, the context of how the goal was achieved mattered: “It mattered if some have flashy Lamborghinis, while some have rickshaws and some walked.” It said that it agreed with Africa, and “that the condition under which we would do or share in meeting those goals are important. Hence, the means of the implementation are just as important for meeting long term reduction.” It said that these should form part of shared vision as was in the Bali Action Plan, “the mother of our mandate”, particularly para. 1(b)(i). The Philippines said that this discussion must stand for something meaningful in terms of numbers and context (since context sets the condition for how we would be able to meet the goals). It further said that it agreed with Trinidad and Tobago that the group should focus on 2/CP.17, as we need to focus on the goal, peaking and the context to avoid being myopic and vague.
China said that it agreed with the Philippines and that the BAP is clear that (shared vision) is not just long term global goal for emissions reductions but include other issues. It said that Cancun reaffirmed that shared vision should address not only long term global goal but adaption, finance and capacity building in a balanced, integrated and comprehensive manner. China further noted that a group of developing countries had also flagged a number of unresolved issues for Doha, including adaptation, response measure, historical responsibility and adequacy. It said that with regard to shared vision, CRP 39 provide a good basis for how they would be reflected in the final outcome. China also noted that at the EASD workshop many delegates propose to have a work programme for EASD which is how to implement the principle of equity. China said that this is a very useful suggestion and could be included in the Chair’s report to the COP.
India said that it agreed with Uganda and the Philippines that context is important. It said in the Durban decision in paragraph 3 ministers agreed that these items cannot be divorced from their context. India said that no one is disputing that agreement on global goal and peak are the mandate. It said that context leads you to these numbers, and that the numbers cannot be arrived at without context. They are not antagonistic – any options of number without context are the same as context without numbers; both of them go together.
Brazil said that it supported India, the Philippines and other developing countries that the group needs to discuss the context. It said that Durban is very clear; our ministers agreed to consider the numbers and the numbers cannot be undertaken in the abstract. Brazil said that context is not already agreed and that shared vision cannot exist as an abstraction. There is therefore a need to discuss financing requirements, technology and capacity building. It said that these issues will impact food security energy security, the quality of houses and should not be a restriction to economic growth and social progress in developing countries.
Saudi Arabia pointed out that the objective of the Convention is the“stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”. It said that that is the driver and that the Bali Action Plan emphasized this as it talks about social and economic conditions hence context was needed alongside the numbers.
Saudi Arabia said that we have always been consistent, pointing to Cancun para. 6 (“… and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries”), and 2/CP.17 paragraph 2 references on equitable access to sustainable development. So there has been consistency with global goal and peaking year. Saudi Arabia said it did not agree or accept global goal and global peak year without the relevant text on sustainable development.
The United States said that the mandate from Durban was to talk about global goal to reduce emissions by 2050 and to identify time frame for global peaking while taking the context into consideration. It said that the group was told to take context in consideration, not define or elaborate it. It agreed with Trinidad and Tobago that context is taking a larger share of the time. The US said that it was intensely concerned about trend line and if we are on track to meet the 2 degree goal set out in Cancun. The US said that it supports 50% reduction by 2020 and peaking as soon as possible and agreed with Japan and others that the goal was aspirational and not the basis for top-down allocation or burden sharing arrangement. The US urged the group to concentrate on the mandate from Durban and not on things that are a bridge too far to resolve in the week.
The European Union said that there was already agreement to work on long term global goal in a certain context. The elements for that context were longer time frame for global peaking for developing countries and that social development and poverty eradication are the overriding priority of developing countries. The EU said that these things were already agreed. The EU also said that CRP 39 contains important elements as well as some elements that are controversial and difficult to agree on. Hence the focus should be on where agreement in Doha is possible. As with AOSIS, the EU said it preferred option 1 (of the options listed in the Chair’s informal note) but would be happy to listen to other Parties proposed options and see how we can make progress.
Colombia said that Cancun and Durban gave important mandates which are the unfinished tasks and that the group should focus on global goal and peak year. It said that it did not feel comfortable about EASD and noted the importance of fulfilling the Durban mandate in regard to closing the AWG-LCA.
The facilitator in responding to the intervention of Parties who wished to remove context from the options, drew attention to the Durban decision as the basis for the inclusion of context and it noted that this was the basis for the inclusion into the options outline in the AWG-LCA chair’s informal note. The facilitator also proposed that the second informal meeting address difficult issues and barriers to be overcome in order to move forward. He said that a major option is to debate on EASD, given the diversity of positions on this issue and the need to close the gaps and merge the positions. He proposed to develop some bullets on key elements based on the interventions from Parties as well as previous material as inputs for discussion in the 3rd meeting of the week.
Japan, Singapore, the US and Canada raised concerns about the facilitator’s proposal for the way forward, especially with regard to further discussion on EASD. These countries argued that the views on the issues were so polarized that it would be difficult to bridge the gap.
Bolivia supported by India and the Philippines supported proposal of the facilitator for the next meeting as EASD is critical and important for moving forward as part of the mandate in Durban. India noted that paragraph 2 of the decision 2/CP.17 explicitly references EASD and that though the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) focused on scientific knowledge there was no intergovernmental knowledge on EASD. The Philippines said that EASD lays the foundation for numbers and that it sets the condition for a fair discussion on global goal for emissions reductions and time frame for peaking. It noted that it would useful to have a session were Parties could discuss and digest the information from workshop and science and figure out how this all related in terms of how we can have an approach in which the development objective of developing countries would not be prejudiced by developing countries having to take deeper emissions reductions than we are ready to do using our own resources.
The facilitator in his closing remarks of the 30 August meeting said that it is a matter of understanding context and EASD and how to define the detail level of the range of the context. He said that context and EASD are overlapping; EASD can also be interpreted as part of the context. He said the he welcomes proposals from Parties about how to use the next round of discussion and would undertake bilateral talks to discuss and identify and determine the focus of the next sessions.
The plenary session of the informal session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP) held on 30 August saw a strong and united call by developing countries for the Working Group’s outcome to be in accordance with the objectives, principles and provisions of the UNFCCC, in particular the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and respective capabilities.
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary
This call was led by the G77 and China and echoed by several groupings of developing countries. Developing countries also called for the agreed outcome not to lead to a rewriting, reinterpretation or replacement of the Convention and its annexes, which distinguishes the obligations of developed and developing countries.
Developed countries on the other hand, led by Australia for the Umbrella Group (which includes the non-European developed countries), and the European Union indicated the need for a global agreement post-2020 which required “updating the regime with 21stcentury realities” and “evolving capabilities in the contemporary context”. The Umbrella Group also called for “a new global agreement with a common legal platform which responds to the diversity and current realities.”
The ADP is tasked with coming up with either a “protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force” by 2015, in order to implement climate actions from 2020 onwards. The session which began on 30 August will end on 5 September, 2012, and is held in conjunction with the meetings of the other two Ad Hoc Working Groups under the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol.
Earlier in May this year, at its inaugural session in Bonn, the agenda for the ADP was adopted, where two workstreams were initiated – one addressing matters related to paragraphs 2 to 6 of the Durban Platform decision (decision 1/CP.17) and another addressing matters related to paragraphs 7 and 8 of that same decision. (Paragraphs 2 to 6 relate to the agreed outcome envisaged for the post-2020 climate regime while paragraphs 7 and 8 relate to enhancing the mitigation ambition in the pre-2020 time frame.) The Co-chairs of the ADP are Mr. J. Mauskar (India) and Mr. Harald Dovland (Norway).
On the issue of the pre-2020 mitigation ambition, many developing countries stressed the need to sequence the work of the workstream so as not to jeopardise and undermine current on-going negotiations in the other two Working Groups.
Dovland, in his opening remarks said that the current informal session in Bangkok is not to take formal decisions on the organisation of, but to clarify the work to be done under, the two workstreams. He said that some Parties had wanted contact groups to be initiated in the Bangkok session. Dovland said that when the session resumes in Doha, Qatar later this year, the co-chairs would launch the idea of having contact groups and other ways of dealing with the work.
He explained that in the first half of the session which will be held from Thursday (30 August) till Saturday, 1 September, roundtable discussions will be held on each of the two workstreams. The discussions will focus on the “vision for the ADP” (workstream 1) and “ambition” (workstream 2). The roundtables are meant to be interactive and the co-chairs want to hear concrete ideas on what we are going to do and how.
Dovland said that the co-chairs intend to prepare summaries of the discussions and make these available on the website for Parties to “use it or throw it away”. Following the introductory remarks, the session was suspended for lunch and resumed in the afternoon to hear statements from Parties and groupings, after which the first roundtable discussion was convened.
Algeria speaking for the G77 and China said that progress in the Durban Platform (DP) is critical for taking the Convention forward. However, work must ensure a strong linkage between mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation, in a balanced manner, as is reflected in the Convention. The negotiations and outcome of the DP process must be in accordance with the objective, principles and provisions of the Convention, including the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and respective capabilities. Any planning of the work should be based on decision 1CP/17. It should also be comprehensive, inclusive and equitable in scope given the urgency of responding to climate change and the vulnerability of our members to the adverse impacts of climate change.
Argentina speaking for Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, and Venezuela said that this informal session is not a negotiating session but rather an informal initial discussion designed to enable the Parties to explore and discuss the issues relevant to the work and mandate of the ADP. It reiterated that, first and foremost, the work in the ADP is under the Convention, and therefore, must adhere to the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principles of equity and CBDR.
It added that the mandate of the ADP is to develop “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force “under the Convention,” which means adherence to the provisions of the Convention, with no amendment, replacement or reinterpretation of the Convention and its annexes.
Argentina said that any outcome under the ADP under the Convention applicable to all Parties must ensure that universality of application is not uniformity of application, since the latter concept implies that there would be the same mandatory nature of obligations for both developing and developed countries and which would go against the principle of CBDR. The first and overriding priorities of economic and social development and poverty eradication on the part of developing countries must also be ensured.
It stressed further that the decision establishing the ADP was part of a delicate overall package in Durban that includes a meaningful second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol, the understanding that developed countries will undertake commitments for deep emission reductions, and successfully completing the work in the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) particularly the comparability of mitigation efforts amongst the Annex I Parties up to 2020 and their provision of finance, technology and capacity building to developing countries under the Convention. Therefore the negotiations and progress in the ADP are intrinsically connected to the developments and conclusion of the KP and the LCA tracks.
Argentina said the ADP should not become the means by which developed countries jump-ship from their legally binding commitments under the Convention. Itshould not duplicate nor prejudice negotiations and work already being undertaken in the various subsidiary bodies, including the other AWGs. The ADP should not take away from the time, energy or resources for the successful conclusion of the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA and this is the precondition for the ADP to proceed. The outcome of the work of the AWG-DP can be an effective vehicle in the struggle to address climate change through the strengthening of the multilateral regime under the Convention in accordance with its principles and provisions, and covering all relevant and interlinked issues, notably the building blocks of mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building.
Argentina also said that avoidance of unilateral measures is another necessary confidence building measure that is a part of the Durban package. Unilateral actions in the name of climate change must not damage the multilateral negotiating process. Italso reminded Parties of the recently concluded Rio+20 Conference outcome document where Heads of State recalled in the outcome document that “the UNFCCC provides that Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Argentina added that the legal form of the outcome under the ADP should not be decided on up-front, nor should discussions on this be an immediate priority, but such discussion should be phased in at an appropriate time, when the negotiations on substantive issues evolve and mature.
Swaziland for the African Group said the ADP negotiations should culminate in an enhanced multilateral rules-based regime that ensures the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention and keeps temperature well below 1.5 degrees C. The outcome is to be “under the Convention”, as agreed in Durban, and so must conform to all of the Convention’s principles and provisions including historical responsibility, CBDR and the overriding priorities of developing countries which reconfirmed at RIO +20. To facilitate a smooth transition, all mechanisms developed under the Bali Roadmap should be fully operational before the outcome comes into effect.
The outcomes should be balanced in dealing with mitigation and adaptation, and should ensure that adequate, sustainable, additional and predictable means of implementation – finance, technology and capacity – are provided to developing countries in line with the Convention and their needs, taking into consideration the time needed for developing countries to achieve their economic development in a sustainable manner, added Swaziland.
The priorities for Africa are sustainable development and poverty eradication. Therefore, outcomes of our work should reinforce a fair, multilateral rules based regime, that brings to effect the right to equitable access to sustainable development, the equitable sharing of atmospheric space and resources, taking into account the cumulative historical responsibility and use of such resources by Annex I Parties.
It expressed their deep concern that the inadequate mitigation pledges, notably by Annex I Parties under the Cancun decisions, risk an increase in global average temperature of greater than 2ฐC – and possibly as much as 5ฐC. Temperature increases of these levels will have catastrophic impacts worldwide, and particularly for Africa due to its high vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and low adaptive capacity. Ambition must be increased immediately through deep emission reductions by Annex I Parties under the KP, and through comparable efforts for Annex I non-Kyoto Parties under the Convention. Annex I Parties are called on to remove conditionalities, move up to and beyond the high end of their pledges, and agree an aggregate commitment that reflects science and equity.
The African Group has called on Annex I Parties to reduce their emissions by at least 40% by 2017 as an equitable and appropriate contribution to achieving the objective of the Convention. It must be ensured that emission reductions are real and called on Annex I Parties to ensure the environmental integrity of their emission reduction commitments, and to guarantee an equitable and appropriate level of domestic emission reductions, by closing existing loopholes, limiting the use of carbon markets and project-based mechanisms to 10% of their commitments, and ensuring the additionality of carbon credits.
Gambia for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs)said that the ADP should take into account the principles of equity and CBDR, with the aim to limit warming to well below 1.5 degree C. It envisioned the work of the ADP to result in a ‘protocol’ under the Convention, which included mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building and transparency of actions in a balanced way. It added that failure to act to close the mitigation ambition gap prior to 2020 will have disastrous consequences. The ADP must prioritise this work and have a workplan to close the gap.
Nauru for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said that the pre-2020 mitigation workplan was an absolute redline for AOSIS as it was the only reason it agreed to allow the postponement of the application of a new legally binding protocol until 2020. Enhancing pre-2020 mitigation ambition is essential in order to minimize the adverse and avoid potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change in all countries and the survival of SIDS. It will be difficult to proceed very far in discussions on the new protocol until we know that the pre-2020 mitigation gap will be closed. We cannot know if we are negotiating an agreement for a below 1.5 degree C world, or a plus 3, 4, 5 degree C world. It asked if it could rely on the Adaptation Committee to completely relocate all of our critical infrastructure further inland and if the Green Climate Fund will be able to pay for it all.
It added that if we do not close the gap, the mitigation cuts that would be required post-2020 to preserve even a small chance of achieving our agreed long-term temperature goal would need to be so drastic that they would stretch the limits of technical, economic, and political feasibility. Accordingly, the workplan on enhancing mitigation ambition must be prioritized under the ADP as a matter of urgency so that immediate and meaningful progress is made towards closing the ambition gap. The mitigation ambition workplan should support, not detract from on-going efforts to raise ambition under the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP so that those bodies can reach a successful completion of their work in Doha. The ADP should not be a forum for renegotiating the principles of the Convention. The principles of the Convention should guide the work under both work streams.
Egypt speaking for the Arab Group believed that progress in the ADP is linked to progress in the other two working groups. In terms of the order and sequence of the work, we need to see balanced progress on all issues, and under each of the working groups. This requires more progress in particular in relation to the KP and the AWG-LCA. It said that weare yet to see the kind of ambitious emissions reduction numbers (under the KP for the second commitment period), that are of a legal nature that provisionally enter into force pending their ratification.
It reaffirmed that upcoming negotiations have to reflect the responsibility of Annex 1 countries for taking the lead in reducing emissions, and the responsibility of developed countries to the provision of finance and technology to developing countries to adapt to the negative impact of climate change and response measures, and that they help them contribute to the international efforts to reduce emissions without putting in jeopardy their development prospects nor transferring to them the burden of filling the gap between the goal of the temperature rise and the modest goals by Annex 1 countries for reducing their own emissions.
It also stressed that the ADP outcome will have to be under the Convention, and should adhere to its provisions and principles. It also referred to the Rio+ 20 outcome which reaffirmed this. The starting point has therefore to be the historical responsibility of developed countries and the fact that they should take the lead in addressing climate change and in helping developing countries adapt to it and contribute to mitigation efforts. We need to examine how to best incorporate national circumstances and the various facets of vulnerability. In reference to the ADP outcome being “applicable to all”, Egypt also emphasized that universality does not mean uniformity and that the primary objective of developing countries is to fight poverty and to achieve sustainable development.
Bolivia speaking for the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA)said the responsibility of the ADP is enormous considering the challenges to be faced in a climate change scenario that threatens to increase the temperature to more than 3 degrees Cบ by 2020 if emissions continue to rise in a business as usual manner. In this sense, the ADP has to develop a new and comprehensive, legal and institutional regime to be implemented in the shortest possible time. 2020 is too late a date to ensure that our Mother Earth is not severely affected by the climate crisis. The legal regime to be completed in 2015 must of course have a comprehensive overview of the key issues related to climate adaptation and mitigation, development and transfer of technology, financing and capacity building, among others. It also expects that all progress in the AWG-LCA will effectively contribute to the completion of the regime.
In relation to the mitigation gap, it was deeply concerned that over 60% of total emissions of developed country Parties have been left out of the second commitment period because of an irresponsible decision by some Annex I countries that have decided to leave the subsequent period of the KP. It asked how we could ensure the fulfilment of promises called ‘pledges’ when there is no guarantee, certainty or means of verification given the inapplicability of the enforcement procedures laid down in the KP. There must be certainty of how much developed countries are contributing effectively in the generation of global warming and we must require them to meet their historical responsibility, so that the discussion on the level of ambition. Only rigorous analysis can effectively lead the ADP to elaborate a clear mitigation system under the climate regime and the work plan for enhancing mitigation ambition that can close the ambition gap.
Bolivia stressed the need to ensure strict compliance of the principle of CBDR as well as expressing the historic responsibility of countries who have contributed more to create the climate crisis. In this framework, equity and access to sustainable development must be central themes of our analysis and the assessment of the technical and technological capabilities to meet the challenge of mitigation which leads to the need for clear mechanisms for financing and development and technology transfer.
Nicaragua speaking for the countries of the Central American Integration System (SICA), stressed the need for an equitable result and the importance of observing the principle of CBDR in the work of the ADP. The outcomes of the work of the ADP workstreams should not lead to a re-writing, weakening or undermining of the UNFCCC but must lead to its full, effective and sustained implementation. The ADP’s workstreams should not duplicate nor prejudice negotiations on work already being undertaken in the AWG-KP, AWG-LCA, SBI, or SBSTA. The ADP workstreams should not detract time, energy or resources from the successful conclusions of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA according to their respective mandates. Substantive work by the ADP on the issue areas that are still being considered by the AWG-LCA and the AWG-KP should not be undertaken until their work has concluded.
South Africa speaking for the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) said that the ADP offers a key opportunity for further enhancement in the implementation of the Convention and its outcome must be in accordance with all the principles and provisions of the Convention, especially that of equity and CBDR and respective capabilities.
Singaporesaid that the principles of Convention must be respected and there is no mandate to re-negotiate or rewrite its’ provisions. CBDR and respective capabilities remain fundamental pillars and developed countries must demonstrate that they are taking the lead.
Dominican Republicspeaking for the Coalition of Rainforest Countries stressed the importance of having mechanisms to address reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and other forest related acivities (REDD+) in the ADP outcome.
The European Unionsaid that for the pre-2020 discussion in workstream 2 should develop a shared understanding among Parties on the key objectives and deliverables. This requires the building of political momentum for complementary initiatives to close the mitigation gap. On the legal agreement post-2020 which is applicable to all, there was need for discussion on how the principles of the Convention are applied in the 2020 framework where all Parties deliver and is fair and with evolving capabilities in the contemporary context.
Australiaspeaking for the Umbrella Groupsaid that there was need for substantial and meaningful discussions in developing a new agreement applicable to all under the Convention and actions to close the ambition gap. The overall goal was to hold the increase in temperature by 2 degree C and this required “climate effectiveness” under the ADP to be built with the participation of all major economies. Climate effectiveness is increasing the ambition by all Parties to make the transition to a low carbon path. Those who need finance and technology will be supported. Designing climate effective outcomes would require updating the regime with 21st century realities. Fresh thinking at the conceptual level is needed before considering the context and the form and the exploring of new possibilities for enhancing action. There was need for a new global agreement with a common legal platform which responds to the diversity and current realities.
Switzerlandspeaking for the Environmental Integrity Groupsaid that there was need to address the future climate regime post- 2020 and the mitigation ambition pre-2020. By Doha, there was need to capture common ground on the elements of the future legal instrument with a broad plan of work with milestones
Third World Network, speaking as a representative of civil society, said it could not understand how those in Annex 1 countries who are escaping their legal commitments under the existing legal regime of the Convention and the KP can show more ambition under the ADP when the ADP’s terms of reference and parameters are yet to be defined. In the name of closing the ambition gap, TWN said that Parties must not negate the historical responsibility of developed countries. They can be no excuses for not acting with high targets in meeting current legal obligations. Low targets, weak pledges and loopholes will mean further appropriation of the remaining atmospheric space that is most needed for the poor of the developing world in meeting their sustainable development needs. Those who need to lead appear to be shifting much of the burden of mitigation on the poor of the developing world and call that “meeting the mitigation gap” and this was unacceptable, said the representative.
Victor Fodeke, who used to be Nigeria’s climate chief, stated that, since 2007, subsequent actions by the advanced world were surreptitiously tailored to reverse the provisions of the BAP, which seemed to favour developing nations.
