Download - Third World Network

C O V E Rder the Kyoto Protocol. There was anapparent lack of balanced text on themitigation of developed countries andthat of developing countries. Whenreading the text, one wonders if it isfor developed countries or developingcountries and it does not reflectthe principle of CBDR.On long-term finance, there is noclear level of commitment for financingwhen the so-called fast start financeends (in 2012). The text hadstrong obligations for developingcountries without similar appropriateprovisions for developed-countrymitigation. The text does not reflectthat balance as contained in the Convention.Thailand also raised concernsover the mitigation chapter and saidthat there was no number for the aggregateemission reductions by developedcountries and the ambition levelwas missing. There was no strong texton the need for comparability of effortsamong developed countrieswhich were Parties to the KP andthose which were not. It was unhappythat a strong compliance regime wasabsent and found the document unacceptableand called for further workat the next session of the AWGLCA.The Philippines said it had difficultieswith the output of work. Therewas grave imbalance in the text inrelation to adaptation. Adaptation hasbeen regarded a poor cousin of mitigation.Securing resources for adaptationappeared to be a distant reality.It said there was opposition to linkingadaptation to finance. This was aprocess of give and take but developingcountries have been giving andgiving. On the issue of long-term finance,the language is very weak inrelation to the scaling up of resources.India said it shared the concernsraised by developing countries. Twoissues of concern for India were onagricultural emissions and trade. Itsaid that detailed discussions tookplace on views within the scope ofmitigation in agriculture as this sectorinvolved the livelihood of millionsof people in terms of employment andwas not merely an issue of CBDR.The agriculture sector still dependedon monsoons and was vulnerable toclimate change and was excludedfrom India’s mitigation targets. Theagriculture issue in the document wasnot mature enough to receive a directionfor a decision at COP 18 (in2012). It wanted this excluded fromthe text.On the issue of trade, India saidthat this was left out of the section on‘economic and social consequences ofresponse measures’ when there werethree options from developing countries,with one option having the supportof about 80 countries. This issuewas fundamental and further workneeds to take place next year as containedin the CRP 39 document forelaboration.The AWGLCA Chair confirmedthat this issue was still on the tableand will be forwarded for further worknext year.Pakistan said while there wasgood work done, progress had notbeen made to complete the work (ofthe AWGLCA). As regards the AdaptationCommittee, it said that theCommittee should have been giventhe right status as a subsidiary bodyof the Convention with more prominence.It expressed sadness that therewas no consensus in this regard.On the Standing Committee onfinance, it said the Committee shouldhave had a strong oversight mandate.On long-term finance, it was sad thatParties were not able to achieve anythingas there was a need for a commonunderstanding on how to scaleup adequate and predictable resources.On mitigation, the document wasdefinitely skewed heavily against developingcountries and blurred the distinctionbetween developed- and developing-countryobligations. Therewas a need to insert the notion of nationalcircumstances in relation to thesubmission of BURs and there wasno link to finance. Pakistan said thatit was at a loss on how the processwas going to unfold and would liketo see a way to work further.Venezuela said that the processhad downgraded the level of ambitionin relation to mitigation and the textwas seriously imbalanced. It did notsee how the clarification and understandingof the emission reductionpledges of developed countries willserve to improve the trust and confidencein Parties when there is no realambition in the mitigation targets. Thedelicate balance between the mitigationof developed and developingcountries was crossed when the principleof CBDR was taken out of thetext. There has been a redistributionof responsibilities and the commitmentsof developing countries arehigher than those asked of developedcountries. The world appeared upsidedownand this was not acceptable.On ‘market mechanisms’, therewas reference in the text to ‘buildingupon the existing flexibility mechanismsestablished under the KP’ andVenezuela was concerned if therewould indeed be a second commitmentperiod under the KP. It did notwant a link between the use of marketsand the undertaking of mitigationactions.Venezuela was concerned thatonce again, Parties were in a take-itor-leave-itsituation as regards thetext, which was given in the morning.There was frustration and fatigueand Parties did not have to accept anythingjust because it was late and peoplewere tired. This (L4) documentwas not ambitious enough and therewas a need to address what the planetneeds. It could not accept a documentthat suits just one country (in an apparentreference to the US for notwanting the level of ambition in mitigationfor developed countries to bein the text).Referring to the Durban package,where Parties could potentially losethe KP due to a lack of ambition, itdid not believe that the documentcould be taken seriously as the basisof a future legally binding regime withpledges, flexibilities and marketmechanisms to serve a few. It wantedthe Chair to tell Parties how to moveresponsibly to resolve the issues.Egypt also had concerns overlong-term finance as there was a needfor predictable and sustainable supportto enable developing countries toundertake mitigation and adaptationactions. The deal was not done interms of long-term finance and thereTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25635