Given that there are only 6 months to go before a successor to the Kyoto Protocol must be agreed in Copenhagen in December, there seemed to be no sense of urgency to the climate change negotiations that recently took place in Bonn, Germany from June 1st - June 12th. This latest round of talks marks the second of six meetings of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the midpoint for negotiations under the UNFCCC this year. To facilitate the discussions the AWG-LCA has before it a 53-page Negotiation Text that will form the basis of policy negotiations from now until COP 15 in Copenhagen. There are many items on the table, not least of which is the agenda item of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), but after two weeks of talks these issues appear no closer to being resolved than they were in April and a few new problems seem to have crept onto the table.
Structure of the UNFCCC negotiations
The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the supreme body of the Convention that meets once yearly and is an association of all the countries that are Parties to the Convention. The Convention also has several sub groups that are delegated specific tasks within the negotiations. There are two permanent Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) under the Convention that meet twice yearly to give advice to the COP, and two Ad Hoc Working Groups (AWGs) that are temporary bodies under the Convention.
The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) as its name suggests, advises the COP on scientific, technological and methodological matters. With regards to REDD, SBSTA gives guidance on issues such as how to measure, report and verify (MRV) emissions reductions, how to define accurate baselines, and what the scope of REDD is.
The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) gives advice to the COP on all matters concerning the implementation of the Convention. The SBI reviews the financial assistance given to non-Annex I Parties to help them implement their Convention commitments, and provides advice to the COP on the financial mechanism (operated by the GEF). This will have particular significance to REDD when discussion begin in earnest on how REDD will be financed.
The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) was established in December 2005 to discuss post-2012 commitments for industrialized countries and is set to complete its work by the end of 2009. Although REDD, per se, is not being discussed within the AWG-KP, the complex rules for accounting emissions from Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) are being negotiated within this group, and these are likely to have implications for REDD accounting mechanisms.
The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) was established in December 2007 with the sole purpose of progressing the program of work launched under the Bali Action Plan and will also complete its program of work at COP 15. “Policy approaches and positive incentives on” REDD are one of the key elements being discussed within the AWG-LCA, under paragraph 1b iii) of the Bali Action Plan.
The good and the bad of the AWG-LCA text
The AWG-LCA Negotiation Text is a trimmed down version of the 122-page Assembly Document that was presented in Poznan in December. The text aims to encompass the key elements of the Bali Action Plan and is broken down into four chapters, namely:
(a) A shared vision for long-term cooperative action;
(b) Enhanced action on adaptation;
(c) Enhanced action on mitigation;
(d) Enhanced action on financing, technology and capacity-building.
The good news is that the AWG-LCA text provides a solid basis for negotiations. The bad news is that the process of reading through the text has been drawn out and has resulted in a much larger final text.
Fattening up the policy text for Christmas
In the first week of negotiations in Bonn, Parties went through a “first reading” of the text that allowed them to highlight elements of the text that they wish to comment on. The “second reading” requested Parties to offer specific changes to the text in line with their earlier comments. To save time on this reading the Secretariat proposed to collect text submissions from Parties via email the evening before each Plenary session. Whilst this had the desired effect of saving considerable time for negotiations, it had several unwelcome consequences. Firstly, since Parties had little extra to offer beyond their email submissions from the night before, the Plenary sessions during the second week invariably finished early with very little having been said openly in session. Whilst this gave Parties ample time to conduct bilateral discussions, it means that very little attribution will be possible within the changes made to the text. The second concern is that the neatly summarized negotiation text, which came down from 700 pages to 53 pages, has now been re-inflated back up to 300 pages. Having such a large text as the basis for negotiations can only make the task harder of reaching something that resembles a legal agreement by December.
Are some developing countries more “advanced” than others?
An area that is not surprisingly generating conflicting views within the AWG-LCA is that of “advanced developing countries”. Several Annex I countries, including the EU, Japan, and Australia, have proposed that countries such as India, Mexico and China, who have significant GHG emissions, be treated separately from other less advanced developing countries. Currently, the Kyoto Protocol defines two groups of Parties, Annex I countries and non-Annex I countries, in line with their historical emissions levels. Some Annex I countries are pushing for these distinctions to be revised to reflect the growth in emissions of certain non-Annex I countries. The debate is manifesting itself in many ways, but it revolves critically around the central issues of how mitigation and adaptation will be financed, and the level of ambition or targets that developing countries should adopt.
Markets, funds or the Norwegian / Mexican proposals?
An issue that is still a source of debate is the question of how REDD will be financed. It is unclear at this stage whether the financing mechanism for REDD will be discussed within the specific context of REDD or will occur more generically under Paragraph 1e) of the Bali Action plan as it relates to “…the provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation…” The Negotiation Text refers to financial mechanisms within both the mitigation and financing areas of the text - sections (a) and (d) - and Parties gave a range of views on the issue. Whilst there are still differing opinions on the use of markets versus funds for REDD, there is now growing support for the Norwegian or Mexican Proposals. These proposals suggest international mechanisms that use an auction of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) (the Norwegian Proposal) or a contribution based on GDP, GHG emissions and population (the Mexican Proposal) to generate new and additional finance. The auctioning of allowances at the sub-national level has already gained traction in national policy, most notably in the EU climate package and the US Waxman-Markey Bill. The Mexican proposal is attractive because it aims to directly address the "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" of Parties as referred to in the Convention. It remains to be seen how these types of innovative financing mechanism will play out in the international arena.
Is REDD a NAMA?
Another issue that is dividing Parties is whether or not REDD should be a NAMA. Article 1b ii) of the Bali Action Plan refers to nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and on the surface it appears only a question of semantics that, for certain developing countries that would like to reduce their emissions from deforestation, REDD is a NAMA. Yet this issue remains far from resolved. One reason is that Parties such as Papua New Guinea, a strong REDD proponent, and the voice of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, don’t want to see REDD snarled up in the NAMA debate: There is still some confusion among Parties about what NAMAs might involve, whereas REDD negotiations are arguably the most advanced, therefore including REDD as a NAMA could jeopardize a final decision on REDD. Another uncertainty dividing Parties is if NAMAs will be creditable or not. Those Parties that would like to see a market-based approach to REDD that generates offsets, might not like to see REDD as a NAMA, and conversely countries that are against market-based approaches for REDD might push for REDD to be included as a NAMA.
Separate contact group on REDD
The Chair of AWG-LCA is still to announce his decision on whether there will be a separate contact group on REDD. In the AWG-LCA plenary, Switzerland on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Group requested a separate agenda item for REDD to be set up for Copenhagen. Whilst it remains to be seen how this will evolve, there is a chance that there could be both a separate contact group on REDD for the upcoming negotiations this year as well as an agenda item on REDD in Copenhagen. This underscores the feeling that REDD are an essential component in Copenhagen and that it would be unacceptable for REDD to not be included in the successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
Methodology discussions on REDD in holding pattern
Discussions on the methodological issues related to REDD resumed under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) but did not make much progress.
Recognising that REDD is being discussed across
different negotiating tracks within the UNFCCC, the Chair of SBSTA opened discussions by asking Parties to consider a) what methodological issues can be agreed here in Bonn prior to the completion of the work of the AWG-LCA and b) where this body might need direction from the policy discussions being held under AWG-LCA.
The remainder of these discussions were held in closed informals and a
draft conclusion was reached in the second week. The output from these discussions, however, is not dissimilar to the
outcomes of Poznań and this group seems to be simply shuffling around semicolons and somewhat strangely adding the “s” back into Indigenous Peoples.
The run up to Copenhagen
Two meetings have now concluded in this crucial year for Climate Change negotiations but there are still several meetings to go before the milestone meeting in Copenhagen. The key meetings in the run up to COP 15 are as follows:
Aug 10-14 AWG-KP and AWG-LCA (Intersessional) Bonn, Germany
Sep 28-Oct 9 AWG-KP 9 and AWG-LCA 7 Bangkok, Thailand
Nov 2-6 AWG-KP and AWG-LCA (Intersessional) Barcelona, Spain
Dec 7-18 COP 15, AWG-KP 10, AWG-LCA 8 and SB31 Copenhagen, Denmark
The venues and the dates have been arranged but it is still to be announced how these meetings will be structured. There is a strong chance, however, that the Intersessional meetings in Bonn (Bonn III) and Barcelona will be held in closed sessions with no access to observer organizations. Whilst this is not ideal for the transparency and communication of proceedings, it is a price that is worth paying if it means that significant headway can be made before we reach the all important meeting in Copenhagen.
Friday June 19, 2009 11:13am by Charlie Parker, Policy Analyst, Global Canopy Programme
