Bridges Durban Update #2 | Uncertainty Lingers on Big-Ticket Items as Durban Prepares for Ministers’ Arrival
This is the most difficult UNFCCC Conference of the Parties to get a read on in recent memory. That seems to be the only thing that delegates and observers will say with absolute certainty as COP 17 wraps up its first week in Durban. The fluidity of the discussions thus far, combined with the quick turn-around seen last year in Cancun once ministers took the helm, has most people close to the talks issuing the caveat that “anything can happen.”
Much of the mystery clouding week one is due to the high number of closed-door contact groups, informal sessions, and “indabas” - Zulu-inspired informal discussions encouraged by COP President Maite Nkoana-Mashabane - that are taking place on a wide range of issues. Both the media and delegates have said it has been difficult to keep track of the many discussions, let alone get a read on how the talks are progressing.
Informally, several delegates have expressed concern that while there has been movement on many unresolved details pushed forward from Panama, macro issues - most notably the future of the Kyoto Protocol - are advancing too slowly to be resolved before the talks come to a close on Friday.
Kyoto remains foggy at best
Last week’s discussions on a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) were intense, KP Chair Adrian Macey of New Zealand noted during Saturday’s plenary, with some core issues having “crystallised.” While the talks to date have shown a “considerable amount of common ground” regarding the Protocol’s continuity, commitments, and future certainty, Macey also acknowledged that divergence among the Parties still remains “significant. ”
Macey thanked Parties on Saturday for discussing issues that were “outside their comfort zone.” However, he cautioned the Parties against locking in a deal with low ambitions, urging instead that any second commitment period - should there even be one - be for a period of time that is worthwhile.
What is crucial for moving forward on Kyoto, he added, is that the Protocol be part of a whole Durban package - a package that will undoubtedly need to include a deal on mobilising the Green Climate Fund.
Green Climate Fund talks look positive
Despite complaints from critics that Washington was blocking the process on establishing a deal on the Green Climate Fund - agreed to at COP 15 in Copenhagen - talks in Durban have made some forward movement. Key Parties - including the US, Australia, and the EU - have indicated that the “middle ground” report that Fund Transitional Committee Co-Chair Trevor Manuel of South Africa introduced on Wednesday could be agreed to, as long as it is a part of a more balanced package.
The Transitional Committee had hoped to conclude talks on the Fund’s structure - such as establishing the 24-member board, deciding on a host country, and setting up regular meetings - in October. However, the matter was pushed back to Durban after hitting roadblocks on a range of outstanding issues.
A key sticking point for the US continues to be restrictions on who can contribute to the fund. Washington says it is crucial for the private sector to be able to contribute to the fund, while some developing countries are concerned about an overreliance on the private sector. The US also said on Friday that the Fund’s governing instrument should be approved in Durban.
The Fund was discussed in contact groups and informal consultations on Saturday, with several countries voicing concerns over the legal framework that will govern the Fund and its formal relationship to the COP. Developing countries are looking for reassurance that there will be some safety mechanism in place, should Annex I countires be unable to live up to their commitments. Meanwhile, Japan suggested that this tricky issue could be addressed later by the Board, rather than having to establish the relationship beforehand.
The EU wrapped up the discussion on Saturday, saying that they were confident they could agree on the draft instrument and that the Board should start work as soon as possible.
IP on back burner
While the past week’s negotiations have devoted some attention to the issue of technology transfer, intellectual property issues related to a range of climate change issues have been largely ignored. Even the discussions on technology transfer have failed to make much headway, with disagreements emerging on multiple fronts.
Last year’s Cancun Agreements established a Technology Mechanism intended “to facilitate the implementation of enhanced action on technology development and transfer in order to support action on mitigation and adaptation to climate change.” To date, however, the relationship between the two elements of the mechanism - the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) - remains unclear. The hope for Durban was that this issue would be resolved, but talks are moving too slowly to tell.
This week, developing countries, the G77 and China, and others expressed a desire to have a clear mention of the link between the TEC and the CTCN in a decision currently being drafted at a COP contact group on the TEC. The United States, however, expectedly proposed that the CTCN not be mentioned.
This decision - based on a report presented by TEC Chair Gabriel Blanco - will also combine inputs from the COP’s subsidiary bodies, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), as well as the AWG-LCA contact group on technology development and transfer.
Regardless of how the relationship between the TEC and CTCN is ultimately defined, neither of these elements will be fully operational until the financing issue is resolved. Talks on financing, which are largely dependent upon the Green Climate Fund, are still unripe at the moment.
While intellectual property concerns are linked to most key items on the Durban agenda, some observers say tackling these details on top of the array of contentious issues already on the agenda may be overwhelming.
Several of the past week’s meetings in Durban have focused on response measures - the domestic measures taken by countries to respond to climate change. During a workshop held early last week, several countries showcased their proposals for the establishment of a forum on response measures. While some - mostly developed - countries said they only want an informal forum to be a means of exchanging information on how to address climate change, others - mostly developing countries - argued that they would like to see the establishment of a permanent forum that offers a way of addressing substantial issues, such as the potential trade impacts of response measures.
Meanwhile, another forum was held on the impact of the implementation of response measures under both the SBI and the SBSTA. Several informal group meetings also took place, in which members drafted and considered a text on the response measures forum.
While no consensus was reached on the issue, it is worth following closely. Even if purely procedural in nature, many developing countries say the issue is key for them in moving the wider negotiations moving forward.
Politics more sensitive than usual
How the rest of Durban will unfold remains largely contingent on the US and China. Washington has been panned in recent years for its slowly diminishing commitment to climate change, especially given President Barack Obama’s post-election pledge to “engage vigorously” in the UN talks. Contrary to that promise, however, the Obama Administration’s presence has instead been markedly cautious.
“Some countries want to stipulate up-front that [post-2020 initiatives] should be in the form of a legally-binding agreement,” said Jonathan Pershing, US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change on Monday. “We want to know more about the content of such an agreement before we commit to a particular legal form. One thing I would underscore about any post-2020 accord is that the only way it could be effective - and garner broad support - is if it applies fully to all significant players.”
Washington’s presence at this year’s talks has been conspicuously small, with not a single member of Congress - or any other major political figures - in attendance for the first time in years.
The role of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries has also painted much of the speculation regarding Durban‘s ultimate outcome. In particular, the future of Kyoto appears to hinge upon major developing country emitters signing on to some form of binding commitment to reduce emissions.
Some crack have already emerged over the first week among traditional political groupings, with rumours that poor countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change were becoming frustrated with their fellow G77 and China members who were blocking movement on contentious issues that could help move Kyoto forward.
Speaking to reporters on Friday, Su Wei, China’s lead negotiator, surprised many by saying that Beijing may agree to binding emissions cuts.
“We do not rule out the possibility of legally binding,” he said in English. “It is possible for us, but it depends on the negotiations.”
It is unclear whether the move is a reaction to pressure from fellow G77 and China members or, simply, an attempt to elicit a response from Washington. Climate watchers will certainly be waiting to see how this move by China colours the discussions in week two as senior ministers arrive.
Add a comment
Enter your details and a comment below, then click Submit Comment. We’ll review and publish the best comments.