ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section C.

Section C: General Provisions.

This section covers the general provisions of the agreement. With Section A functioning as something of a mission statement for the agreement there has been some debate as to whether this section is strictly necessary with many of its provisions being covered in more detail later on in the agreement.

I think it is because it provides an opportunity to expand further on the ideals of the agreement and the principles established here will apply to the other sections of the agreement. So for example if it is established here that all parties have a Common But Different Responsibility (CBDR) to take mitigation and adaption measures we don't have to re-state that throughout the sections on mitigation and adaptation making for a more concise, readable document. Plus once we've agreed on all the options and removed all the unnecessary paragraphs Section C should only be a page to two pages long. 

P1 - I consider this to be fine as is because that is the objective of the agreement and the wording does nothing to prejudice individual parties CBDR's.

P2 - I consider this to be fine provided that it "aims to achieve universal participation" because aiming to include everyone is certainly something the agreement should strive to do. The "principles and provisions of the convention" are implied by the simple use of the word "convention" so I don't think it needs to be re-stated. It has to be "All parties to the convention" in order to achieve the aim of universal participation.The existing commitments and decisions are also implied by the use of the word "convention" so I would exclude that part of the phrase but keep the part about "and to strengthen the multilateral rules-based regime under the Convention in order to achieve the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2."

P3 - Here Option (1) is the binary approach relying on the concept of those dreaded "historical responsibilities." As I've explained in my discussion of Section A and in pretty much everything else I've written on the subject this line of thinking is deeply flawed so it will not be adopted - even by me. Therefore it cannot be included in the text and I really don't think there is time to waste discussing the matter further.

Option (2) is better because it abandons the binary approach. However the phrase; "take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties" is still attempting to give the former Annex II parties an opt out. This is not acceptable. While my entire plan for a working agreement depends on nations with the ability to do so providing financial and technical support to nations lacking in ability the way that the issue is addressed here sounds more like a begging letter rather then the concise language of a durable agreement.

Option (3) is clearly the best option because it places an obligation on all parties "to strive to achieve low greenhouse gas, climate-resilient economies and societies" However I would strengthen it further by basing it on the principle of evolving CBDR etc to make it clear that while all parties have a common responsibility meeting that responsibility means different things for different nations at different points in time. I would also provide reassurance that less capable nations will receive assistance by finishing with the phrase; "In order to achieve this common goal there must be co-operation between all parties with the most capable taking a leading role."

P4 - As is the entire underpinning of the concept of global commons it is not physically possible for nations to prevent pollutants such as Green House Gases (GHG's), smoke or even noise generated within their jurisdiction travelling into another jurisdiction. Therefore this clause is completely unworkable on a practical level so needs to be excluded for the agreement to have any credibility.

P5 - Here Option (3) is far too weak only requiring that all parties take action but offering no detail of what the scale of that action has to be. Although Option (2) doesn't fall into the trap of the binary approach it still reads rather more like a begging letter from the less capable nations to the more capable nations rather then the text of a durable international agreement. These requirements will change as time and technology passes so I think they're better dealt with during the negotiations at each cycle of the agreement rather then being set in stone in the agreement itself.

Therefore here I can only support Option (1) but provided that it requires "All parties to take action" in accordance with "their evolving CBDR and respective capabilities" Of the sub-options Option (c) is too weak failing to set out reduction targets while the targets set out in Option (d) are too severe and therefore will be missed. Option (b) is unachievable for former Annex II parties whose goal is for their emissions to peak rather then immediately bring about absolute reductions. As such I support Option (a) because it strikes the right balance between ambition and achievability.

P6 - Generally I consider this to be fine as is but it does tend to wander off into the twin traps of the binary approach and incoherence. As such I would re-write it as follows;

"Parties recognise that the level and pace of mitigation efforts will determine the extent to which Parties will need to adapt and address loss and damage and the associated costs thereof, as well as the need to explore holistic and mutually reinforcing approaches to enhancing mitigation and adaptation efforts. The overall level of achievement in both mitigation and adaptation will depend on the level of finance and technology available."

I think this wording further reinforces the fact that the level of mitigation actions actually taken is inversely proportional to the level of adaptation actions that will have to be taken. It also makes clear that to successfully carry out mitigation or adaptation actions there needs finance and technology available without falling into the binary trap of only allowing certain nations to provide that assistance and only allowing certain nations to benefit from it.

P7 - Here Option (4) is the famous Bolivian global carbon budget. As I said when it was first suggested it actually strikes me as an extremely good idea. However only really being at the inception phase there is nowhere near enough research to support the idea so it cannot be included in the agreement. Option (3) is far too weak while Option (2) is far too wordy and slips into the binary trap. So here I support Option (1) provided it is not limited to just mitigation action.

P8 -  Generally I consider Option (1) to be fine as is provided it reads simply; "Parties with the highest capability to demonstrate leadership" removing any trace of "historical responsibility." In P8.1 I would disregard both brackets and instead write "Parties included in Annex I of the KP." This provides the assurance that previous agreements will be honoured while at same time making clear that the binary approach will not be repeated.

P9 - Generally I consider Option (1) to be fine as is but I would amend the final line to read; "to reflect their efforts in the context of sustainable development and their specific needs and special situations."

P10 - Here Option (3) is the binary approach placing different obligations on different parties. This is not what theis new type of agreement is about so it cannot be included. To my mind there is very little difference between Option (1) and Option (2) and I think Option (1) is sufficient because with this being an agreement under the convention there seems to be no need to re-state that the provisions and principles of the convention apply.

P11 - Clearly a reference needs to be made and I think Option (1) is sufficient as is because there are already extensive international mechanisms to decide whether a specific action constitutes a restriction on trade.

P12 - Here I consider Option (1) to be fine as is because it allows the existing SB's to continue under the agreement but allows them to be amended should the need arise.

P13 - Subnational and non-state actors have a vital role to play in combating climate change so it is only right that they are referenced in the agreement. However I would amend the wording of Option (1) to remove the phrase; "to scale up their actions" because that can be interpreted as giving license to some of the more questionable 'NGO's' to undermine national sovereignty by subverting government policy.

P14 - Here I support Option (1) because it throws the widest net increasing the ways that nations can help each other to combat climate change. One of the many objections I have to the binary approach is that it dictates that only developed nations can help developing nations. So for example if Brazil was to develop a better way of managing rainforests it would be prevented from sharing that information with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). That strikes me as extremely silly.

P15 - This is unnecessary and should be removed because it is already covered in P33 of Section A.

P16 - I consider this to be fine as is because it allows scope for the convention's institutions and institutional arrangements to evolve and develop if required over the 80-100 year lifespan of the agreement.

16:45 on 5/7/15 (UK date).