However I think there still needs to be a short section of the agreement establishing the principle of Capacity Building and providing a loose framework of what it involves.
Paragraph 134 - I consider this fine when written as;
"The objective of capacity-building should be to enable all Parties to identify, design and implement adaptation and mitigation actions and to enable domestic development and absorption of technologies to enhance the capacities of national governments to be able to absorb technology and finance for the implementation of the Convention."
This serves to underline that capacity building is the shared responsibility of all parties. After all a country can't hope to enhance it's capacity unless it is able to identify the deficiencies in it's current capacity.
Paragraph 135 - Fine as is.
(a) - Fine as is.
(b) - Fine as is. It is guided by rather then bound by.
(c) - This is better covered by (d) so can be cut because there is no need for both.
(d) - This is fine as is but you could also include; "Structured, predictable" to allay concerns about the cutting of (c).
(e) - Again this is covered by (d) so should be cut.
(f) - This is fine where;
(ii) "Establishes" the INDC process to give formal strength to both it and the peer review process.
(iv) Mentions only "Financial Mechanism" because that includes "Climate Finance" so the use of both terms is redundant.
(v) This needs to be removed because it places a limit at which point capacity building will stop. That is counter productive because everybody's capacity can always be enhanced.
(g) - This is fine with all the brackets included as is because it gives reassurance that a nation will not have more of a burden placed upon them then they are given support to meet that extra burden.
(h) - This gives me a bit of a problem because I understand that the private sector has an important role in both capacity building and climate finance. However I also understand that many parties political ideologies prevent them from using the private sector. Therefore I don't want to include a clause that forces those parties to change their political ideology. Nor do I want to include a clause that prevents parties that don't have that ideological barrier from using the private sector.
Therefore I think it is best to leave the matter open to each nation's interpretation by including Option C which will leave the paragraph reading simply;
"Developing countries will enhance their climate change actions subject to the provision of additional sustainable and predictable means of implementation provided by developed country Parties under the Convention through the appropriate mechanisms including the climate resilience and sustainable development mechanism."
This again reinforces the link that the actions poorer nations can take is dependent on the level of support they receive from richer nations.
(i) - This is fine when it reads; "Country Driven" because this allows nations to set their own demands.
I would also include a section (j) "Supported by the peer review process." to establish the role of that process in capacity building. In order for it to scan better I may include that earlier in the list somewhere between (b) and (f).
Paragraph 136 - Generally I am happy with this as is where (e) reads; "into all other elements." I would also like to see (b) read; "The mobilization of public and private sector capital and public engagement." so it can't be interpreted as an attempt to force capitalism on nations that don't wish to use it. After all this is an agreement to tackle climate change - not a battle of ideology.
Paragraph 137 - Here I think there should be some commitments to capacity building so Option 2 is out immediately. Option 3 is the binary approach from the Kyoto Protocol (KP) that this agreement will have to move away from. Option 1 is broadly sufficient currently reflects negotiating positions rather then the functional text of a final agreement. Therefore it needs to be refined as follows;
"All Parties in a position to do so shall cooperate to enhance global capacity to support the implementation of commitments under this agreement including South/South and triangular cooperation schemes."
That encompasses all the positions of Option 1 under the guiding Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) principle of the agreement by establishing that there is a common responsibility but that is shared differently depending on a nation's individual circumstances.
Paragraph 138 - This is fine as; "The institutional arrangements established under the Convention shall enhance and intensify their work on capacity-building" because that establishes all the existing arrangements including the financial mechanism and intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations can be applied to this agreement.
- Paragraph 138.1 - This is fine where (a) reads; "by sharing experiences, best practices and lessons learned regarding the implementation of capacity-building activities." (b) doesn't include the binary brackets and (c), (ii) applies to "All Parties" but removes the language allowing the governing body to adjust commitments because that goes against the voluntary and consensual nature of the agreement no nation is going to sign up if it means the governing body can hand them a sudden and unexpected bill.
Containing lots of brackets and two sub-options Option 1 is thinking along the right lines but needs to be dramatically rationalised to make it part of a functional final agreement;
- Paragraph 139 - As an opener this reads fine as;
The subtle change in the end of the sentence allows the exact mechanism to be developed and refined seperate from the agreement as the need arises while still establishing the general principles
- Paragraph 139.1 - This is fine when it reads as;
- Paragraph 139.2 - Here Option (B) is too weak because it fails to provide enough guidance on what the capacity building mechanism will be and how it will operate. Option (A) is again thinking in the right direction but needs to be streamlined as follows;
(a) - This is fine where (i) reads; "All Parties" to reflect CBDR.
(b) - This is fine as is but it would work as a single sentence.
(c) & (d) - There really is no need for "Regional Capacity Building Centres" (c) and an "Institute for Capacity Building Operating in all Regions of the World" (d). This is the sort of needless duplication of work that will drain the resources of the financial mechanism leaving no money to carry out any practical action. Therefore the two should be merged to read;
"Regional capacity-building centres operating as a consortium of tertiary institutions in all major regions of the world to facilitate building capacity at the national and regional levels as a means of strengthening the ability and effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation actions."
(e) - This is essential because it connects the regional centres created above together and is fine as is. However strictly speaking I don't think the sentence "In addition, the centre will assist developing countries...." is needed because that has long been established as the principle of Capacity Building. Whether it stays in or not though really makes little difference to me.
(f) - This is fine because if the coordination centre doesn't provide advice there's little point to it. I will need to see the word "Developing" removed though so it reads simply "Countries." That allows all countries to receive advice regardless of how their development status may change over the 80-100 year life-span of the agreement.
(g) - This is fine as is making sure that all stakeholders are able to participate in the centres.
- Paragraph 139.3 - Simply giving the governing body the authority and freedom to establish the above this is fine as is. Unless something dramatic is going to happen in the time-scale section the brackets about the agreement entering into force in 2020 are fine to be included.
22:15 on 7/11/15 (UK date).
No comments:
Post a Comment