Showing posts with label Bangkok talks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bangkok talks. Show all posts

Thursday, April 14, 2011

UNFCCC meets in Bangkok

The meeting of the United Nation Climate Change Conference, held in Bangkok on April 3-8, closed without major developments, highlighting lingering differences between developed and developing countries. The meeting was mainly aimed at organizing the work of 2011, starting from the conclusions of the last Conference of Parties held in Cancun. While developed countries seemed more focussed on discussing ways to implement the Cancun Agreement, developing countries’ main concern was the future of the Kyoto Protocol. This issue became central to the discussions held during the Conference and was responsible for creating a stalemate in the debate between developed and developing countries, overcome by an agreement to continue discussing about the future of the Protocol. No specific binding emission reductions were agreed, with the emission reduction pledges remaining unenforceable by law, despite the call of developing countries to go for even bolder binding cuts to avoid environmental consequences. The work of the UN Climate Conference will resume at the beginning of June, when the delegates from the 175 parties will rejoin in Bonn, Germany.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

The long journey: from Bangkok to...

The first part of the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 7) and of the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Protocol (AWG-KP 9) took place at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks from 28 September to 9 October.
Below are summarized the main issues debated in the two AWGs.
1. Mitigation. Discussion highlighted differences between developed and developing countries. The US, supported also by the Umbrella Group countries, proposed a framework on mitigation for all parties. While India and China opposed to this, stressing the need to distinguish between mitigation actions taken by developed and by developing countries.
2. Further Annex I targets. Japan announced the new government’s mid-term emission reduction goal of 25% from 1990 levels by 2020 (in Bonn III it was 8%) if there is a fair and effective international framework where all major economies participate, stressing that a simple Protocol extension would not be sufficient. Also Norway announced plans to increase their emission reduction target from 30% to 40% from 1990 level by 2020, specifying that this commitment requires an agreement that go beyond the present framework of the Kyoto Protocol.
The map below summarizes the targets proposed by the countries.

Note: Map is provided by

3. Flexible mechanisms. Regarding supplementarity, EU identified a strong wish to limit the CDM, noting a cap on CDM credits in the EU’s post-2012 climate and energy package. China stressed the need to define the concept of supplementarity to avoid mainstreaming offsetting, specifying that the figure can be further discussed but that it should be below 50%. Finally, India proposed that caps on the use of offsets could be scaled according to Annex I countries’ circumstances, such as historical responsibility or sustainable lifestyles.
4. Adaptation. Developing nations emphasized that adaptation actions in their countries must be supported by developed countries. India called for a 2% levy on all capital transfers in developed countries to support adaptation in developing countries. The US and Norway highlighted integrating adaptation into national planning and policies as a critical element.
5. Finance. Despite the consensus on the need to scale up new, additional and predictable financial resources for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, the principles and structure of the financial architecture remain uncertain. No consensus was reached on: whether public or private funds should be the main source of funding, whether developing countries should make contributions, the role of Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the operating entity of the financial mechanism.
6. Open issues. Most developed countries agreed that a simple continuation of the Protocol will not be an acceptable outcome in Copenhagen, and that is needed a comprehensive international agreement involving the US and key developing countries in mitigation efforts. In the AWG-KP’s opening plenary the EU said that it prefers a single legal agreement as an outcome from Copenhagen. This position was strongly opposed by developing countries. Developed countries also highlighted the need to coordinate with the discussions taking place in the AWG-LCA process, engaging also the US. Developing countries, however, strongly opposed any attempts to coordinate or merge the two negotiating tracks, mainly due to a desire not to see the distinction between developed and developing countries compromised. However there were some positive progress in terms of new and more ambitious pledges from Annex I parties.