Blog: UN climate change negotiations, Barcelona, November 2009

November 2009

Day 5 Friday 6 November

Mixed Messages and Confusion

So what did the Barcelona talks herald? The beginning of the end? The end of the beginning?

We blogged earlier in the week about expectation management exercises that appeared to be being rolled out by senior figures. A possible model for a Copenhagen “agreement” was described. “Political agreements” and “pledges” were discussed. “Legally binding” was no longer a pre-requisite. These messages of doom have been picked up widely and extensively reported on.

This appears to have triggered, publicly at least, renewed determination not to rule anything out (see further the report of the KP plenary below). At his final day briefing, Yvo de Boer spoke about the strong sense that the Kyoto Protocol needed to continue. He also said that the Copenhagen agreement must record, in black and white, the accountable commitments of individual governments. He stressed the urgency for industrialized countries to raise their ambitions and, in particular, the importance of the U.S. announcing a clear, numerical mid-term emissions target, implying that US negotiators had suggested that this might be possible. This contrasts to messages from senior negotiators at side events during the course of the day.

With Copenhagen just four weeks away, Mr. de Boer said that commitment and compromise will make Copenhagen the turning point. However, this potentially leaves the door open on the question of timing. Where does a “turning point” fit on a timeline to reaching an agreement? And where, how and when would a US target fit in to the overall schema of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol? Will these questions be resolved by 18 December?

AWG-KP Plenary

Chair Ashe opened the KP Plenary. A brief summary of progress was given by the Chairs of the KP Contact Groups that had met in Barcelona:

Annex I emission reductions, co-chaired by Leon Charles (Grenada) and Gertraud Wollansky (Austria)

As a result of protests by the Africa Group earlier this week, this Contact Group had the lion’s share of the KP meetings. A number of positive developments were reported. This included almost universal support of using 1990 as a base year for emission reduction targets. Discussions are ongoing as regards the length of future commitment periods. Lots of time was spent on the assumptions that underlie emission reduction pledges, particularly in relation to the use of offsets and the extent to which LULUCF is included in pledges.

Other Issues, chaired by AWG-KP Vice-Chair Harald Dovland (Norway)

This Contact Group has three sub groups, “mechanisms”, “the basket of methodological issues” and “LULUCF” (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry). Some progress was reported in respect of “the basket of methodological issues”. Less progress was made in respect of “mechanisms”, which includes some important provisions for reform of the CDM such as the use of standardised baselines and the inclusion of CCS in the CDM. On LULUCF, a table is being put together to help compare data presented by the Parties in relation to LULUCF. Work on all of these areas will continue at Copenhagen.

Potential Consequences, co-chaired by Mama Konaté (Mali) and Andrew Ure (Australia)

It was reported that though some progress has been made in this contact group, the parties would need to shift positions for further progress to be made.

Parties

After these summaries of progress, the Parties took the floor. Sudan began on behalf of the G-77. In line with many comments from developing countries that would follow, Sudan stated that killing the Kyoto Protocol would put at risk the ability to address climate change. The AWG-KP’s mandate is to negotiate a second commitment period and the Barcelona talks have made little progress on the question of individual or aggregate targets. The EU followed, stating that it firmly stands behind the Kyoto Protocol, reconfirming its 30% target and saying that it is committed to a global, comprehensible agreement. The EU also added that it may be difficult to reach a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen, in which case the Parties work “would not be completed in Copenhagen”. In Grenada’s view the slow pace of negotiations is intolerable and discussions had been circular. China was scathing, stating that the Kyoto Protocol is not a fiction, but a treaty at international law and that now we are required to change its nature into something called political pledges. Saudi Arabia stated that level of confidence between the parties had reached their lowest ever.

AWG-LCA Plenary

The AWG-LCA plenary followed that of the AWG-KP. The Chairs and Facilitators of Contact Groups and Sub-Groups did not give summaries of progress. Sudan began on behalf of the G-77, stating that the negotiations should be open and Party-driven. He denounced attempts to limit the determination of the outcome at Copenhagen to the decision of a few countries and expressed his concern at the low levels of ambition. Grenada called for a legally-binding outcome in Copenhagen said that AOSIS will not go to Copenhagen “just to reaffirm the status quo”. Sweden on behalf of the EU noted again that reaching a legally-binding agreement may be difficult because of lack of time that and that if that is the case, work would have to go on afterwards. The EU’s goals are a legally-binding agreement including all nations, with a target of limiting temperature increases to below 2°C. It has to set out ambitious emission reduction targets and scale up public and private finance, Norway referred to a “political decision” from Copenhagen which should include a pathway to reach a legally-binding agreement.

Conclusion

And that marked the end of a confusing and frustrating week which provided little in the way of clarity with respect to the likely outcome of Copenhagen. We will publish links to the documentation that will be relevant for following the Copenhagen discussions in due course.