POLITICAL DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent the views of my delegation and contains no politically sensitive information related to my government or its partners.
Dear colleagues, The climate negotiations are in their final stage here in Paris. A stocktaking meeting ended earlier this evening. Below are highlights of some areas of progress and key ongoing battles. Access is very limited: Civil society is out, as are many government delegates who do not have secondary and tertiary passes required to get deeper inside. I am writing this to help you follow developments, even if you are in Le Bourget. There is a strong sense of “now or never”. The past two days, four groups of ministers and chief negotiators attacked the central contentious issues, seeking breakthroughs at the higher political level. They are 1) Means of implementation (finance, technology transfer and capacity building) 2) Differentiation 3) Ambition (and long-term goal) 4) Pre-2020 actions Everything is constantly changing and “nothing is decided until everything is decided.” With these caveats, here is the state of affairs as far as I understand: AREAS OF PROGRESS (publicly but tentatively noted): * Agreement to establish a Paris Committee on Capacity Building * Growing convergence to include a reference to 1.5 degrees (exact wording will be crucial – see below) * Progression: Assurances that developed country will continue to take the lead without backsliding. Repeated comments from various directions that no country should backslide. * Global stocktaking every 5 years. Still exploring modalities and a possible 5-year harmonization of timeframes. * Regarding pre-2020 actions, growing convergence on two elements: 1)“Facilitative dialogue” in 2017 that is comprehensive and considers policy implementation of all countries, with a focus on developed countries; and 2) Technical examination process on adaptation to be established in Paris. Diplomats from Malaysia and Saudi Arabia look worried – that is a good sign! The two countries are very active in fighting against an agreement, together with other “Like-Minded Developing Countries” such as India. ONGOING BATTLES (selected): * Legal form: the US is strongly against legally binding national mitigation actions. (All national actions are to be determined domestically – the question is whether, once declared, they will be binding). China is strongly pushing for legally binding mitigation actions (yes, FOR). This could be a temporary negotiating tactic … long story. * Major differences on long-term goal (LTG) of the agreement: The US wants a long-term goal of “decarbonization some time this century.” Traditional supporters of strong climate policies want quantified global emission reduction targets. Others want language on “climate neutrality,” some prefer “decarbonization,” some zero net emissions "in the second half of century”. * 1.5 degrees. One important development in Paris is the increase in the number of countries who want the global temperature goal to be 1.5 degrees. Now the majority - at least 106 countries - support 1.5 degrees and exert strong pressure. Some countries want to be creative in crafting a reference on 1.5 degrees, without necessarily making it the official temperature goal in the new treaty. * Transparency (of national actions). As well known, the US, EU, Japan etc are fairly united on a common system of transparency with common accounting rules. They face China who wants a very weak international transparency system. *Major differences on differentiation when it comes to mitigation, finance, and transparency. *Loss and damage (liability and compensation for loss and irreversible damage by climate change impacts). Interesting development: the US stepped ahead and expressed some support for loss and damage (devil in the details, of course, but an important development). Few countries want legal obligations for compensation related to historic responsibility. Now the US has scored some ‘brownie points’ by giving impression they accommodate islands and most vulnerable countries. Still, a major sticking point. Presumably, there must be a separate negotiating group on Loss and Damage but it is conspicuously missing from tomorrow’s agenda. *Response measures, at the insistence of Saudi Arabia (this pertains to negative consequences of climate mitigation policy). Discussions should begin tomorrow. Finally, we expect several new groups on: Forests; Cooperation mechanisms (chaired by the new Canadian minister of environment); Response measures; and Compliance. Stay tuned: denouement this Friday or so! Additions, elaborations and corrections are most welcome. Best, Rado -- Radoslav S. Dimitrov, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Political Science University of Western Ontario Social Science Centre London, Ontario Canada N6A 5C2 Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023 Fax +1(519) 661-3904 Email: [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
