At November 2014's 20th Conference of Parties (COP20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP) produced a draft, negotiating text for an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol (KP). At the February 2015 Geneva Climate Change Conference this text was debated and streamlined. At June's 42nd meeting of the Subsidiary Body (SB42) to the UNFCCC the ADP text was debated and streamlined further.
Having missed both the February meeting and SB42 it has become vital that I take a break from the war in order to catch up. This is particularly true because it appears that my definition of the term; "Streamlining" differs wildly from the definition used by many of the delegates.
I take "streamlining" to mean reducing the size of a document by reaching agreement on areas of contention and eliminating duplications and other unnecessary elements. ADP delegates though have taken it to mean massively increasing the size of the document by including extra elements of text that more specifically reflect their positions. I understand that this is a vital part of the negotiation process. However if we are to end up with an agreement that can be signed up to at the November 2015 COP21 we need a coherent and workable text. That is what I am setting out to achieve here;
Section A: Preamble;
Obviously this text has to start somewhere so Option (1) of simply leaving a placeholder is not possible meaning that we have to go with Option (2).
P1 - I consider this to be fine as is because surely no party can object to being referred to as a party to the convention for the purposes of the agreement.
P2 - I consider this to be fine as is because the "pursuit of the ultimate objective" acknowledges that while there is a final destination to the activity different parties are at different stages on their journey towards that destination.
P3 - I consider this to be fine as is because the global ecosystem is a common responsibility meaning that everybody must take action to protect it - not just a select few. The paragraph goes on to acknowledge the need for sustainable development in accordance with the relevant articles of the convention.
P4 - I think this should read; "In accordance with" because it is more robust then "guided by." I would reject the phrase "In particular" because although they are important enough to mention specifically I don't think the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity should be elevated above the objectives they are listed alongside in Article 3.
I object to the use of the term "historical responsibilities" here and everywhere else it is used in the document. I appreciate that it is being used almost as a euphemism for the fact that nations which got rich releasing Green House Gases (GHG) during the 19th century should do more to help less developed nations. However in this specific context it creates a massive loophole for nations like South Sudan which don't have a long history and therefore don't bear much of a historical responsibility. This group includes nations such as Saudi Arabia (est; 1932), Qatar (est; 1971) and the United Arab Emirates (est; 1971). These nations produce much of the World's fossil fuels which in turn produce much of the World's GHG's. In doing this they have built up vast Sovereign Wealth Funds that could be used to fund all sorts of the mitigation and adaptation efforts. So saying that they have only a limited responsibility under the agreement strikes me as extremely counter-productive.
I would end the paragraph with the bracketed text beginning "and the provisions of Article 4." This makes reference to "evolving Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR)" which I consider to be hugely important because it underlines that while everybody bears a common responsibility more economically and scientifically capable nations also bear a responsibility to help less capable nations. The use of the term "evolving" indicates that this can change over time because if the government of a less capable nation isn't trying to improve then I would say that it is failing it's citizens.
P5 - Here I support Option (a) because "Recalling" acknowledges that there was a binary approach under KP providing a loose guide to everyones CBDR's. "Reaffirming" declares that the binary approach is going to continue. It's not. Due to the use of the binary approach the KP failed so if it is included again in this agreement KP Annex I parties simply won't sign up to it and I won't be able to criticise them for doing so.
P6 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P7 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P8 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P9 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P10 - Here Option (c) seems to have been included to give less capable nations an opt out from taking action. This is not acceptable. Option (b) is less of a loophole and seems intended to give reassurance to less capable nations that their differing responsibilities will be taken into account. In the interests of a concise text I don't think this is really necessary because the concept of CBDR is well established both elsewhere in the preamble and in the rest of the document. Therefore I support Option (a) with the phrase "widest possible" because it conveys the ambition that everybody will do everything in their power. That seems to be what the agreement should aspire to at least in the preamble/mission statement section.
P11 - I consider this fine as is because if parties don't agree to that it rather begs the question of what we are doing here.
P12 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P13 - I consider this fine as is but strictly speaking I think it should be the assessments of the IPCC rather then a specific (5th) assessment.
P14 - I consider this fine as is because again if parties don't agree to that there's not really a lot of point to them being here.
P15 - Option (b) is clearly trying to create another loophole by referencing those notorious "historical responsibilities." In terms of what it is trying to achieve I consider Option (a) to be just fine but the way it is written in no way constitutes a coherent paragraph. Therefore I propose that it is re-written as follows;
"Recognising that deep and urgent cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and that such cuts must be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."
It needs to reference "GHG emissions" rather then simply "emissions" because the IPCC has spent decades defining exactly what GHG emissions are and what impact they have. The looser term "emissions" allows nations to pick and choose what emissions they count. For example Morocco has opted not to count F-gases as part of their emissions. Although Morocco's F-gas emissions are practically zero this strikes me as bad science because there really needs to be a baseline to monitor change.
P16 - I consider this fine as is because again if parties don't agree to that it rather begs the question of what we are doing here.
P17 - I consider this to be fine with the use of "2C" and "zero emissions within the second half of this century" because in the interests of a coherent text I don't think we should get excessively specific in the preamble section.
P18 - I consider this fine as is because they do. I would even be open to the idea of a global carbon budget if the research was in place to allow it.
P19 - I consider this fine as is because carbon pricing is important. However in the interests of a concise text I'm not convinced it is strictly necessary in this section. As such I really don't have a strong opinion about whether it is cut or kept.
P20 - Now this is completely unnecessary because while it is a valid point it is one that has already been raised in P3.
P21 - Option (b) is the binary approach. Although I appreciate that less capable nations will need help to adapt to the effects of climate change this is not the way to go about it because the binary approach has been tried before and it failed. As such it will not be signed up to again.
Option (a) is fine provided it is "Emphasizing" rather then noting "that adaptation is an global challenge and a common responsibility that requires global solidarity that must be addressed with the same urgency as mitigation and recognising that both climate-resilient development and adaptation to the impacts of climate change will be essential." I consider this simplified version to include the elements of "political/legal parity" and "international cooperation" to be covered by the equivalency to mitigation and the references to solidarity.
P22 - I consider this fine as is because it establishes the link between a failure to mitigate the causes of climate change and the need to adapt to the effects of climate change. It also underlines that all parties have a role to play in adaptation helping to further clarify P21.
P23 - This just re-states P22 making it unnecessary meaning that it should be cut from the text.
P24 - I consider this unnecessary because although once something has been lost or damaged it can't be replaced you still have to adapt to it's loss or damage. Therefore I don't think that it is distinct from adaptation. However I will be prepared to keep it in as a guide to how the rest of the agreement deals specifically with the issues of loss & damage and adaptation.
P25 - I consider this fine as is although again I have to question whether it will needed in the preamble when the section on loss & damage has been completed.
P26 - I consider this fine as is.
P27 - I consider this to be largely fine provided the binary references such as "developed/developing parties" or "Parties in Annex X/Y" are removed and replaced with the non-binary term of simply "All Parties."
P28 - I consider this unnecessary because it just re-states P27.
P29 - I consider this fine as is because private sector finance is going to be essential.
P30 - I consider this fine as is because special consideration does need to be given to the SIDS and the LDC's.
P31 - I consider this fine as is because climate change does pose a threat to the existence of low laying island nations presenting a very unique set of problems.
P32 - I consider this unnecessary because the link between the level of mitigation efforts and the need for adaptation efforts has already been established in P22.
P33 - Having extensive experience of the problems created by failures of job creation in North African societies such as Tunisia and Egypt and having read the warnings about sub-Saharan Africa I fully support the concept behind this paragraph. However people who talk about "Mother Earth" in an effort to bog down discussions about climate science in gender politics have long annoyed me. Also I don't think the preamble is really the place for long lists of every specific problem. As such I think this should be re-written as follows;
"Stressing that all actions to address climate change and all the processes established under this agreement should ensure gender equality and intergenerational equity, take into account environmental integrity and respect human rights in accordance with nationally determined development goals."
After all it means exactly the same thing. It's just easier to understand.
P34 - With human rights being covered in P33 this is just unnecessary.
P35 - I consider this fine as is because done right action on climate change will also improve these other areas.
P36 - This is fine but obviously I think that it is already covered by my version of P33.
P37 - This is simply a Chinese loophole. It is intended to give China and it's clique an opt out from climate actions on the grounds they would adversely impact on economic development. This is entirely against the spirit of the agreement not least because it only grants certain parties the opt out and therefore cannot be included. Also with the frequent references to "sustainable development" and "national development goals" already providing plenty of wriggle room it strikes me as completely unnecessary.
However I agree that the text does need to better establish the link between climate actions and social economic development so the paragraph should be re-written as follows;
"Reaffirming that responses to climate change should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of all parties and their right to equitable access to sustainable development and to achieve economic growth and eradicate poverty."
P38 - Again this is an attempt to create a loophole but all nations do have a right access natural resources and consume energy in order to achieve sustainable social and economic development. As such this should be re-written as follows;
"Also reaffirming that all parties need access to the resources required to achieve sustainable social and economic development and that, in order to progress towards that goal, their energy consumption will need to grow, taking into account the opportunities for achieving greater energy efficiency and for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including through the application of new technologies."
After all in terms of cutting emissions it makes far more sense to allow nations to develop by taking advantage of new technologies then forcing developed nations to shut down completely.
Although less capable nations have included the phrase; "on terms that make such an application economically and socially beneficial" in order to increase the assistance they receive I have excluded because it creates an unintended loophole.
For example the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently struck down parts of the Clean Air Act on the grounds that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not considered the cost of fitting new filters to power stations. Therefore I think that phrase is likely to see more capable nations opting out entirely rather then handing out more assistance.
P39 - I consider this fine as is because climate change does adversely affect human health and this should be recognised in the agreement.
P40 - Subnational authorities (like Mayors and local councils), intergovernmental organizations, civil society, indigenous peoples, local communities, the private sector, financial institutions all have a vital role to play in combating climate change. However Option (a) thinks they should be used to "catalyse" national action while Option (b) thinks they should be used to "strengthen" national action. To my mind the private sector, financial institutions and foreign NGO's catalysing changes in government policy undermines national sovereignty. Therefore Option (b) is the better option.
P41 - I'm fine with this as is because it simply acknowledges that in order to achieve it's objectives new procedural rules and methodologies may have to be established in the future as our understanding of the problem develops.
P42 - This simply establishes the mandate for the agreement.
P43 - This simply establishes the international legal framework in which the agreement will function.
P44 - Read as; "Have agreed to further enhance the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention as follows;" this simply establishes that what follows in the text is intended to implement the UNFCCC.
Section B: Definitions.
As the name suggests this simply covers the definitions of certain terms. I won't be spending time on this because under existing UN rules there are only so many ways you can interpret terms like; "Party to the Convention," "Party to the Agreement" and "Present and Voting."
I will say though that there is no need to define VIII and IX covering parties to the different binary annexes because there won't be binary annexes. As I've explained twice in this post alone the binary approach was tried under the KP and it failed. As such if it is included in this agreement many nations will simply refuse to sign and walk away. As I personally am very opposed to the binary approach I will be in no rush to chase after them.
17:25 on 4/7/15 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment