COP 20: Capacity Building.

I am currently still slogging my way through the draft text of December 8th (8/12/14). What I am trying to do is give it the type of calm, in-depth consideration that is often hard to find in the pressure cooker environment of this type of summit. Therefore I don't think I'll really be in a position to go through it clause-by-clause, option-by-option until at least Thursday (11/12/14) not least because my brain keeps reaching a point where the information just refuses to go in.

It must be said though that it is deeply frustrating that the December 8th draft has grown by 10 pages from the earlier non-paper. After all you would hope that the point of a week of negotiation would be to reach an agreement on certain options in order to reduce the size of the text.

One thing that I am finding deeply problematic that features throughout the text though is that certain people are still clinging to the binary approach of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). So not only are there still direct references to Annex I and Annex II Parties there are also more oblique references to to "Developed" and "Developing" nations etc.

As I've said throughout I personally do not support the binary approach for the simple reason that the KP just did not work. Added to that the US, the European Union (EU) and Australia have all made it very clear that a binary approach is a red line that will prevent them signing any agreement. As these 30 odd nations represent the overwhelming majority of global economic activity and global GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions if people keep pushing for a binary approach they simply will not sign up and there will be no agreement.

I am particularly bothered by the description of former Annex I Parties as "Developed." This suggests that they have finished and therefore will not develop any further. This is simply not the case because it is in these nations that the majority of development in terms of scientific understanding, technological solutions and political implementation is currently taking place. Therefore I think the text needs to include new terms to distinguish between nations.

Given the preamble's commitment to Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) I actually think that the term "All Parties" is applicable in all but a few clauses. However if there is a need to distinguish further at this point in the evening I'm tempted to go with "Mature" and "Immature" parties. I suspect though that "More Capable" and "Less Capable" will be slightly more useful. After all if we can begin to break down the areas which make an individual nation less capable then another it makes it easier for us to go about providing solutions to increase their capacity or "develop" if you prefer.

This brings me rather neatly on to the issue of capacity building. Although this is often used as a by-word for "Give us more money" capacity building is supposed to refer to increasing a nation's capacity to respond to climate change by increasing their knowledge in areas that fall outside of direct technology transfers such as scientific understanding, political and legal expertise and education.

By requiring that all nations adhere to the same standards in the submission of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC's) and providing the assistance for them to do so the process itself takes on the role of capacity building by forcing and equipping less capable nations to improve.

Therefore I think that any party that is still clinging on to the notion of a binary system and the lower requirements it demands in the hope of leveraging it against more support for capacity building is doing themselves a great disservice. In much of the English speaking world we refer to that as; "Cutting off your nose to spite your face." 

22:15 on 9/12/14 (UK date).