Il se pose donc ainsi un problème, que les Nations Unies et les parties trainent comme un boulet depuis la conférence de Bali. Il n’y a pas d’espace commun où les parties peuvent discuter des réductions d’émissions. Il y a en ce moment, des discussions pour réduire les émissions des pays développés du groupe de travail sur le Protocole de Kyoto (AWG-KP) et des discussions pour réduire celles des pays en développement dans le groupe sur l’action concertée à long terme (AWG-LCA)…

Ainsi, et dans l’espoir de résoudre ce problème, les petits Etats insulaires (AOSIS) ont proposé de créer un espace commun de discussion aux parties pour discuter des réductions d’émissions qui sont nécessaires pour rester sous la barre des 2°C d’augmentation de la température globale. Cet « espace commun » de discussion serait donc la réunion sur un sujet spécifique de deux groupes de contact. Et cela permettrait ainsi de résoudre l’irrationalité de la discussion sur les objectifs de réductions d’émissions.

Mais bien entendu… Ca bloque ! De quel côté ? Toujours du même, au niveau des Etats Unis. En effet, ceux-ci ne veulent pas avoir à discuter d’objectifs de réduction d’émissions tant que leur loi sur le climat n’a pas été votée. Donc, pour éviter toute discussion internationale à ce sujet, ils bloquent la création de cet espace de négociations.

Et les USA, bloquent le processus, encore !

Antes que embarque nesse trem comigo, farei  uma pequena recapitulação dos fatos mais relevantes que aconteceram depois de abril, quando ocorreu o último encontro, para que você, meu querido leitor, não se sinta tão perdido e consiga achar um lugar perto da janelinha logo.

Embarque em mais uma viagem comigo nesse longuíssimo, porém finito (assim esperamos), caminho até um acordo justo, ambicioso e legalmente vinculante

A reunião de três dias, em abril, também em Bonn teve o objetivo de discutir a metodologia de trabalho para 2010 e acabaram decidindo por mais dois encontros entre Bonn 2 (esse encontro) e a CoP-16, que acontecerá no fim de novembro, em Cancún, México. Já se sabe que o próximo encontro acontecerá entre os dias 2 e 6 de agosto, novamente em Bonn. Além disso, em Bonn 1, após toda a lavagem de roupa suja de Copenhague, os países decidiram que a nova coordenadora (chair) do grupo de trabalho sobre ação de cooperação de longo prazo (AWG-LCA)  elaboraria um novo texto de negociação com base no relatório apresentado por esse grupo durante a CoP-15, bem como nas decisões da  CoP, o que implicitamente inclui o famigerado Acordo de Copenhague. A chair apresentou um novo texto de 42 páginas para facilitar as negociações no dia 17 de maio, conforme acordado (lembrando que, no ano passado, o texto chegou em Copenhague com cerca de 200 páginas).  Até o momento, por incrível que pareça, o documento não foi motivo de nenhuma controvérsia, mesmo porque as partes mais sensíveis, como as metas de redução de emissões,  permanecem entre colchetes por falta de consenso, com algumas sugestões de texto esboçadas pela chair.

Outro acontecimento relevante foi a Conferência dos Povos sobre Mudanças Climáticas e Direitos da Mãe Terra, que aconteceu em Cochabamba, Bolívia, na segunda quinzena de abril. Contrariando as expectativas, mais de 35 mil pessoas de 140 países participaram do evento recheado de discussões bastante heterodoxas, como: a dívida climática dos países desenvolvidos; os direitos da Mãe Terra; um referendo global sobre mudanças climáticas; perigos do mercado de carbono; refugiados climáticos; adaptação; redução de emissões e criação de um tribunal de justiça climática. Como resultado da Conferência, foram publicados o Acordo de Cochabamba, que demanda um aumento da temperatura média global de no máximo um grau centígrado, e um projeto de Declaração Universal dos Direitos da Mãe Terra, que foram submetidos (ver páginas 30-39) à Convenção de Clima pelo país anfitrião da conferência. Acho muito interessante essa iniciativa e totalmente legítima, mas, sendo muito pragmática, minha preocupação é que o abismo entre as demandas de alguns governos de países em desenvolvimento e  ONGS e a contrapartida oferecida pelos países desenvolvidos é cada vez maior. Não estou falando de jeito nenhum que temos que aceitar as posições e ofertas vergonhosas dos países desenvolvidos, mas lembro que precisamos de consenso para qualquer acordo ser atingido na UNFCCC.  Temos que chegar num meio-termo e, sendo idealista, que puxe para o lado da Bolívia.

Além disso, após muitas especulações, o secretário-geral das Nações Unidas, Ban Ki-moon apontou a costa-riquenha Christiana Figueres como nova secretária-executiva da UNFCCC, no lugar de Yvo de Boer, a partir de julho. Para ser sincera, não tenho muito a dizer sobre ela, por não conhecer seu trabalho, mas acho positivo que uma pessoa de um país em desenvolvimento, ainda mais uma mulher, tenha sido escolhida. Ontem, na tradicional festa das ONGs, que acontece sempre nos sábados entre uma semana e outra (e eu quase nunca vou…), as organizações observadoras homenagearam o Yvo de Boer. Vale a pena assistir os vídeos e prestar atenção na letra da música!

Finalmente, no dia 27 de maio, foi estabelecida, em Oslo, Noruega, uma parceria interina de REDD+ (redução de emissões de desmatamento e degradação florestal, papel da conservação, do manejo sustentável das florestas e do aumento dos estoques de carbono das florestas nos países em desenvolvimento) por cerca de 50 países com o objetivo de criar uma estrutura voluntária para acelerar as ações de REDD+enquanto as negociações sobre o tema no âmbito da UNFCCC não são concluídas. Essa é uma das consequências da demora em se conseguir um acordo: outras iniciativas paralelas vão pipocando e a UNFCCC, o espaço legítimo para discutir e produzir decisões sobre o tema, acaba perdendo espaço.

Terminada minha breve recapitulação, vamos ao que interessa: qual é a agenda dessa reunião de duas semanas (agora restando uma) em Bonn?

Na verdade, quatro reuniões estão acontecendo paralelamente no mesmo lugar:

1. A 10a. sessão do AWG-LCA, Grupo de Trabalho Ad Hoc para Ação de Cooperação de Longo Prazo, que foi criado pelo Plano de Ação de Bali (CoP-13)e se reúne desde março de 2008. Esse grupo está reunido em Bonn para preparar um resultado a ser apresentado para a CoP-16 com o objetivo de que seja adotado pela Conferência das Partes, possibilitando, assim, a implementação plena, efetiva e contínua da Convenção por meio de ação cooperativa de longo prazo.
2. A 12a. sessão do AWG-KP, Grupo de Trabalho Ad Hoc sobre Novos Compromissos para Países do Anexo I do Protocolo de Quioto, que se reúne desde maio de 2006 e por quatro anos tem discutido justamente o aprofundamento dos compromissos dos países desenvolvidos que fazem parte do Protocolo (os Estados Unidos não ratificaram Quioto).
3. A 32a. sessão do Órgão Subsidiário de Assessoramento Científico e Tecnológico (SBSTA) da UNFCCC, que acontece duas vezes por ano. Para ver a agenda detalhada do SBSTA, clique aqui
4. A A 32a. sessão do Órgão Subsidiário de Implementação (SBI) da UNFCCC, que também acontece duas vezes por ano. Para ver a agenda completa do SBI, clique aqui

Por hoje é só, pessoal. Amanhã conto com mais detalhes o que está acontecendo por aqui.

Boa semana para todos!

Juliana

]]> http://youthclimate.org/pegando-o-trem-e-sentando-na-janelinha-52135/feed/ 0 http://youthclimate.org/tout-n%e2%80%99est-bien-qu%e2%80%99une-question-de-mandat-42884/ http://youthclimate.org/tout-n%e2%80%99est-bien-qu%e2%80%99une-question-de-mandat-42884/#comments Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:52:04 +0000 Florent Baarsch http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=8223

La président du AWG-LCA

Aujourd’hui, les négociations sont enfin entrées dans le vif. Et le principal sujet sur la table, le principal de disputes et de discussions entre les pays fut une question particulièrement concernant le mandat à donner ou non au secrétariat de l’un des groupes de travail.

Cela semble d’un coup très compliqué, mais en réalité, la chose est très simple. Entre la conférence de Bali, en 2007 et la conférence de Copenhague, les parties ont travaillé sur un texte dans un groupe de travail appelé AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action). L’objectif de l’année dernière, avant la conférence de Copenhague était de prendre en compte l’ensemble des propositions de l’ensemble des parties, puis de « nettoyer » le texte afin de faire ressortir les options les plus importantes et d’éliminer toute redondance. Ce travail fastidieux, réservé aux négociateurs techniques (les experts, ceux que l’on voit à chacune des sessions de négociations) a vocation à donner aux ministres et autres chefs d’Etats des options claires pour qu’ils puissent négocier et trouver un accord.

Ce nettoyage fut en partie réalisé l’année dernière par le président du groupe de travail,  M. Z. Cutajar qui avait produit un excellent texte d’une dizaine de textes avec toutes les options majeures. Or, ce texte, au grand malheur des négociateurs s’est retrouvé en concurrence avec le texte préparé et négocié par les chefs d’Etat eux-mêmes.

Puis, dans la mesure où l’Accord de Copenhague est né depuis, celui-ci devrait, du moins tel que le demandent les Etats-Unis, être ajouté comme un élément faisant partie du matériel de négociations. Sans compter que le premier texte présenté par M. Z. Cutajar a été modifié jusqu’au cours de la dernière de négociations.

La question qui se pose à présent est de savoir qui pourra et devra faire ce travail de nettoyage particulièrement ardu et intensif de nettoyage du texte LCA.  Et c’est bien tout l’objet de la négociation actuelle. Certains Etats refusent de donner un mandat au nouveau chair du groupe, ou cherchent à le réduire au maximum ; refus alimenté par des problèmes de confiance, ou bien par une vraie volonté de ralentissement du processus de négociations.

Deux « drafts » (brouillons) ont été présentés aujourd’hui. Le mandat est toujours discuté mais celui-ci a été retravaillé et surtout amoindri. La question est donc de savoir ce qu’il en restera dimanche soir, au moment où les délégués se sépareront.

The Process of the UNFCCC

So we all know there is this UNFCCC Conference, and we are pretty sure that its outcome will have a determining effect on which way climate policy heads. However, many of us have only the faintest idea on how the UNFCCC works, how groups with esoteric names such as SBSTA, AWG-LCA, AWG-KP etc come together to work and reach a global consensus that will mitigate the problems of climate change. Thus, the introductory blog post for the day will attempt to explain the structure and the decision making process of the UNFCCC. Before we begin, it will be useful to note that Annex I countries in the UNFCCC refers to developed economies and economies in transition such as Russia, Annex II countries refers to developed countries that pay for costs of developing countries and developing countries refers to countries that are well, still developing.

First and foremost, the biggest group in the UNFCCC is the Conference of Parties (COP), the supreme body of the convention that meets annually to discuss new policies on climate change. Another major body is the CMP (Conference of Parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol). The CMP serves as the supreme body of the Kyoto protocol, encompassing the parties that ratified the Kyoto Protocol

The are also 4 permanent convention bodies. The SBSTA (The subsidiary body for scientific and technical advice) addresses the promotion of environmentally friendly technology and provides the COP with advice on scientific and technological matters relating to the convention. This group works closely with the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) to facilitate the policy work of the COP. The SBI (subsidiary body on implementation) reviews the actions of the convention and advices the COP on financial and administrative issues. These two bodies meet twice each year. There are also two different working groups, namely the Ad-Hoc Working Group on further commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG – KP) and the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA). AWG -KP deals with generating further commitments by Annex I parties after 2012. AWG-LCA is the group charged with implementing the Bali Road Map to reach a decisive treaty in Copenhagen 2009.

Decision making process in the UNFCCC focuses on achieving a consensus. To facilitate the arrival at a consensus, pockets of discussion are usually formed around the main discussion. These include Committees of the Whole, groups which report back to the COP. There are also smaller negotiating groups such as open ended contact groups which can be attended by all interested delegates. There are also drafting groups that involve a smaller number of delegates and are closed to observers. Informal consultations can also occur where delegates contact each other and interact on a informal basis to facilitate the reaching of an agreement. As the text is negotiated, any comments will be added into the document in [Bracketed Text] which signifies that the language has not been finalized. The text will then be discussed at the COP plenary. If there are no objections, the text will then be adopted.

With that, we have come to the end of today’s post. We hope this has given you greater insight into the decision making process, and we pray that these processes will be put to good use here at COP15 to bring about a greener future.

Live From Copenhagen

Zhang Yi Tao

ECO-Singapore

]]> http://youthclimate.org/the-process-of-the-unfccc-21134/feed/ 0 http://youthclimate.org/awg-lca-meeting-on-enhanced-mitigation-and-its-implementation-572/ http://youthclimate.org/awg-lca-meeting-on-enhanced-mitigation-and-its-implementation-572/#comments Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:30:12 +0000 Leela Raina http://www.whatswiththeclimate.org/?p=539 Reporting from the AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action) contact group meeting on the mitigation actions and its implementation:

Saudi Arabia  stated that they cannot support REDD being so fast tracked.  They need more time.  Measurable, Reportable, Verifiable (MRV)-pledges from the DCs (developing countries) and demand for the resources to be pooled together and  for a system that matches the resources with the action, provided that there is reporting from both sides.  What they can do with some of the unilateral reactions is that they can use their resources to pick up the credits which will contribute to the mitigation.  The other concern for them was the impact of mitigation actions- need for bigger cuts and more involvement, a system that provides for the assessment of this mitigation for different parties that should be a part of the portfolio for mitigation activities under the UNFCCC. The actions and efforts to combat Climate change, MRV efforts in particular system can find out how to distribute resources equitably.

Papa New Guinea’s main concerns were on focusing on the list of points on the Bali Action Plan, and lack of clarity on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries). They highlighted the tension as a country to reach emissions reductions and at the same time go by their sustainable development objectives.  Thus, nationally appropriate measures and GDP growth financing capacity should be combined with the dual objectives should coexist.

New Zealand stated that MRV in context of developing countries and developed countries want their actions to be recognized and this is fundamental to the whole process. The bulk of global emissions is with Annex , thus they should take responsibility.

Japan felt that countries should try not to be prerogative and should consider the sectoral proposal (a proposal that quantifies emissions reductions based on the efficiency of key sectors:  cement, steel, etc.), spread of information and the importance of actions.  Their emphasis was on measuring- collection of the right data and capacity building.  On the REDD issue Japan commends all countries and appeals them to keep the momentum of workshop in Accra.  There is a need to revise the methodology for implementation of REDD and they have organized various workshops in their country to discuss the topic. Finally, they believe that the benefit of REDD should go to all stakeholders in a transparent manner.

France on behalf of EU (European Union) feels that  developed coutries should take lead in emission cuts and national mitigation programmes as a vehichle to encourage others . They should continue to build on current systems on measuring in MRV and make it comprehensive.  This should be seen as a vehicle and a tool for mitigation and to recognise the actions and context of accountabily and its environmental effect. We must be clear as to where we want to end up because for building this system the measuring should be done at national level and reported in compliance with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

I’m currently blogging from an informal contact group of the AWG-LCA on Shared Vision. The reason why I’m blogging and not paying attention is not because the discussions are boring, but because the acoustic in the room is of such a low standard that one wonders whether there could be better planning by the UNFCCC secretariat. It doesn’t help that English’s not everyone’s first language, and different accents makes understanding what the different delegates are saying extremely difficult and sometimes impossible due to the bad acoustics. Besides, the distinguished delegate of USA, perhaps not very sure of USA’s position due to the complex transition of power, was stammering and showed an extreme lack of confidence by not speaking into the microphone, making deciphering what he’s saying as hard as breaking a cipher. Besides, delegates merely articulate what their countries’ positions are, making dialogues virtually non-existent. Discussions were not built upon the previous point made. No wonder it’s so hard to come to a consensus and make progress on negotiations.

       ]]> http://youthclimate.org/diplomats-speak-up-422/feed/ 0 http://youthclimate.org/long-term-shared-vision-towards-cooperation-325/ http://youthclimate.org/long-term-shared-vision-towards-cooperation-325/#comments Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:34:02 +0000 ecosingaporeinpoznan http://unfcccecosingapore.wordpress.com/?p=104

Today marks the day for the culmination of 2 days of workshops discussing the Shared Vision for Long-term Cooperative Action (although definitely not the end of negotiations!). Judging from the way open discussions are going, it seems as though this debate will be divided again between developing countries (G77+China, Alliance of Small Island States, LDCs) and developed countries (EU, Japan, USA), with USA posing the greatest obstacle to probably the greatest collective action problem of humankind.

First day of the workshop probably signalled to what could be expected for the next 9 days of intense negotiations. Japan shot themselves in the leg by being the 2nd presenter of the day (considering that they would definitely be the target of most nations, ie from the developing world) and giving impertinent and sometimes bordering on arrogance answers. No wonder they were declared both the winners and runner-up of Fossil of the Day. France, in responding to a question about EU’s target of 30% emissions reduction by 2020 is not sufficiently ambitious, tried to dodge the question in true diplomatic style. The distinguished delegate from France, representing EU in general, argued that 30% is ambitious enough as compared to other developed countries who have been keeping absolutely silent on the issue, subtly hinting at perhaps the greatest per capita polluter of the world, the United States of America. Indeed, the USA didn’t even speak on the first day, perhaps being a bit ashamed of themselves for not being able to propose huge cuts in emissions just like what the Alliance of Small Island States can. AOSIS proposed cuts of 85% by 2050, with emissions peaking at 2015. This is the strongest stance any alliance have put forward on the negotiating table.

2nd day of the workshop saw USA speaking up finally. They showed why they are so unique from the rest of the world, with broad principles laid out, yet still leaving much room for political manoeuvre in future negotations. The US said a shared vision should be optimistic, pragmatic and reflect scientific and economic realities. What is pragmatic and reflects economic realities? That USA is the world’s richest country, who else could afford huge amount of cash (see the huge banking bailout) anytime, anywhere? Who better to pay for adaptation, mitigation and technological transfer costs than the USA (and other developed countries of course)? What is considered optimistic? A reduction in emissions level to 1990 level as articulated by President-elect Barack Obama? This, although a huge change in stance by the USA as compared to the out-going Bush administration, is a target that developing countries will not accept. China and India specifically argued that Obama’s target is insufficient to deal with the problem of climate change (see http://news.stv.tv/environment/56044-obama-climate-goals-not-enough-china-india/).

What is needed in future negotiations here in Poznan is coming to a consensus as to what ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ mean. Most countries such as the G77+China, LDCs and AOSIS argues for developed countries to pay their historical debt as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is emitted mostly by them. Differentiated responsibility to developing countries therefore constitutes greater commitments for developed countries, with huge adaptation financing and technology transfer provided to them by the developed countries. Developed countries, on the other hand, calls for less stringent emissions reduction targets and seems unwilling to provide the huge amount of financing called for by the developing states. USA, in particular, articulated their interpretation of this principle by arguing for more commitments from developing countries for them to be willing to commit to any targets. Whether any comprehensive deal could be negotiated by Copenhagen 2009 depends on whether the different interpretations of this principle could be reconciled, and whether a consensus on the level of financing commitments and emissions targets could be reached.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article is not supposed to provide a comprehensive and factual account of the actual proceedings. Readers are advised to refer to official releases and other accounts for a more detailed summary of the proceedings. Defacement, manipulation, missuse, reproduction in any form, of any and/or all information and/or material in this article, without the consent of the author is strictly prohibited.

       ]]> http://youthclimate.org/long-term-shared-vision-towards-cooperation-325/feed/ 0 http://youthclimate.org/fossil-of-the-day-award-3rd-dec-305/ http://youthclimate.org/fossil-of-the-day-award-3rd-dec-305/#comments Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:03:39 +0000 ecosingaporeinpoznan http://unfcccecosingapore.wordpress.com/?p=92

The 3rd day of the conference produced another first in the history of the Fossil of the Day Award. Japan won both the 1st and 2nd placing, both coming from her ‘excellent’ work in yesterday’s Ad-hoc Working Group for Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) workshop on Shared Vision.

1st place for Japan was awarded due to its ‘attempt to weaken its emissions reduction goals’ during the AWG-LCA session. Although Japan noted during its presentation that its goal is to cut emissions by 50% by 2050, it further clarified during the Q&A session that the goal was non-binding, and the 50% cut will be measured from ‘current levels’, rather than the generally agreed 1990 levels.

2nd place for Japan (again) was awarded due to its super lengthy discussion of showering and bathing in the LCA session. This involves Japan’s ‘lifestyle innovation’ to limit showers to 20 minutes. Besides, the distinguished delegate from Japan solemnly and sincerely pledged that he will reduce his weekend baths from seven to eight times a day to three.

3rd place goes to Kuwait for its dissent at negotiations for access to adaptation funds. Kuwait argued that it should have access to the adaptation fund as it is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to the adverse effects of climate change, according to the IPCC. Adverse effects for Kuwait, when sea levels rises, are damages to its coastal oil industry. It is hard to imagine that adaptation funds is to be used to save the Kuwaiti oil industry and sponsor more carbon emissions.

       ]]> http://youthclimate.org/fossil-of-the-day-award-3rd-dec-305/feed/ 0