Blog form Warsaw and the United Nations Climate Conference, Latest draft of the adp as of 06:45 23rd of November http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600007766#b eg ADP Notes Evening of 22nd November 30minutes break from 20.43 - probably longer, Update 21:50 Break is still on Update 22:21 Break is still on Update 23:51 So leaders from the different blocks have been huddling up now… for quite some time.. we are looking forward to an all nighter...’ BREAK. Update 03:00 Meeting is adjourned, next step is plenary at 5 am. Update 06:01 ADP is further postponed, finance should have started in plenary 1 at 5am, also that is postponed.
Text that is being discussed: Version 4 of 22 November 2013 at 05:45 hrs http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/application/pdf/adp2-3_i3_22nov2013t0545_dt.pdf
2b To invite all Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined commitments in the context of adopting a Protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed
outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties and to communicate them well in advance of the 21st session of the Conference of Parties [(by the first quarter of 2015 by those parties in position to do so)] in a manner that facilitates clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended commitments. 2c To request the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action to identify by the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties, the information that Parties will provide when putting
forward their commitments referred to in paragraph 2b above.
Short summary of negotiations up to the “short huddle” *with reservation for faults in the summary until this text is removed* Main element being discussed is paragraf 2 b. To invite all Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined commitments towards achieving the ultimate objective of the Convention and to communicate them well in advance of the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended commitments; “ In the discussion concerning paragraf 2b, there is a clear division between two blocks. ALBA + LMG + BASIC vs AILAC + EU + UG. What the first mentioned blocks wants is to keep the more domestic approach on commitments introduced by the ADP outcome. Meaning a bottom up national approach. They do want to keep the standard provisions of the convention, keeping the annex definitions the way the were declared in rio 1992. The second block wants to keep the top down approach on a national level. The block also wants to redefine standard provisions of the convention, due to the changes that countries have experienced in the past 20 years. What we can take from earlier negotiations this week is that second block have compromised a lot on the standard provisions of the convention. What to take out of this is that it is probably more likely that BASIC will give away on the way to approach commitments in the ADP outcome. Thanks to Ties Mouven, NL youth delegate, for providing an expert update. Summary of second battering Three key issues,
1st Whether to include “ ‘ultimate’ objective of the convention” in 2b 2nd whether to keep the annexes 3rd whether to keep natural targets Chairs went to draft new text, venezuela made sure to gather countries in a new huddle and came up with a new draft on an addition in the form of 2(d)
Second round of discussions of the 22nd of novemeber between approximately 19.00 and 20.50 Lacking some parts of the beginning. We weren’t in the room.
Dominican Republic 4e, comment from Switzerland – keep “to developed countries”, but add something on support “for other countries to do so?” Move commitments to COP20 -> specific date. Suggest compromise: 2b, 1st line to: “To invite all Parties to initiate or intensify national preparations for their intended commitments”, also change facilitate to ensure 2C: June 2014 instead of cop20 Yada yada essential to keep working. “We feel your text has indeed brought us together” “It’s the closest marker that us in these room, and indeed our generation…”
Nicaragua: “All future agreements must be under and within the convention”, built up since Rio etc. “We must resist the attempt to open doors that lead outside the convention”.
Mentions pre 2020 financing as essential to ensure post-2020 ditto. It’s irresponsible to ensure commitment that we don’t have the means to fulfil, finance, capacity building technollogy. Private finance searching isn’t “so much really looking for private sector finance, as it’s looking to avoid public sector finance. And we need public sector finance”. The fact that it’s hard to establish past emissions (?) shoudn’t let us live historical responsibility aside, but (Durban intentions) on both former, current and future emissions should be taken into account? Note the Ban Ki-Moon summit. (something about Doha outcome) Summit can be “a Copenhagen moment” undercutting Lima because of document arriving outside normal negotiating process. BKM summit must be transparent. We must ensure that the COP is a summit meeting. “The fact that orld leaders are not here today, is due to the increasing irrelevance of this forum” “We need negotiations, not impositions.. We need world leaders present in Lima. We need World leaders present in Paris.” Guatemala: Annex should be kept, referred into A. Important to have “indicative eements” of what “we will discuss in 2014”. Encourages all to “show more leadership outside this room” Minimal changes to 2b, slightly increasing level of ambition. Missed the details due to computer struggles… Chair: Thank you I am now leaving the word to: Russia: Something about national intended commitments – but not easy to follow what he is saying… “We do not see clear criteria for the commitments”. Bangladesh Good progress so far, “we are actually seeing very encouraging movements towards agreement” 2b: Strongly feel dominican republic suggestion is constructive and fair, can accept it. Sense of urgency needs to be added to the text Elements put forward by LDC, AIOSIS, AILAC should be taken forward?
Chile on behalf of AILAC comment on trinidad, dominican republic Could work with Dominican Republic proposal. 2c: After the information for arties to consider, propose replacing “consider” with “put forward”. Will read “the parties to put forward their commitments” Chair:
Malaysia Associate with previous LDC statements. Associate with Trinidad and Tobago, points out that pre-2020 ambition is missing. Two kinds of conditionalities to address this problem Political conditionalities -Solved with political will Functional conditionalities -Didn’t follow : ( Finance text came out this evening, and we see no sense of urgency in the ambition of this texts. Adaptation, mitigation, loss and damage is behind Asks on what basis developing(?) countries should make pledges for post 2020 mitigation, when there’s no known ways of achieving? Questions the ability to plan for post 2020 action before action between 2013-2020 is decided.
Echo sentiment of Singapore, “move to where the mood is positive”
Referring to §4 (se link in the beginning) Barriers, incentives, capacity 4.c 3 (…) high mitigation potential sorry lost that (we are recording as well) “urgency is great and the likeminded group are ready to continue working with you and your negotiation parties to come to an agreement”
Co-chair some things “We’ve heard over, and over, and over, and over, and over, – was that five times? I’ll make one more – and over.” Followed by laughter (some) Look at the time and the date, this is the last day of the cop. “No repetition please, I want solutions. I want suggestive text.” Philippines Thank you. I will not repeat what has been said by many colleagues. I am compelled to take the floor after developments tonight. We are not working “from the delicate balance that we’ve been striving to acheieve in this process.” What is passed in darkness, is the willingness to be ambitious. Especially in the process of the pre 2020 actions. Context of the pre-2020 period: “Philippines views this as the last chance for develooped countries to step up to the plate and take responsibility” This text (adp). While i thank you deeply,I think we’re moving forward here, however we still don’t see ambition “Where is ambition without ernest and forward *what? action?+ I must stress that the post 2020 discussion only is relevant with serious pre 2020 ambition. THe world is not asking for action in 2020, the world is asking for us to take action now”
We hear worries from the outside world. We know the outside worls also has expectations. The outside world also has needs. Something on the post 2020 and pre 2020 worlds being the same reality. I thought the outside world is the same outside world for us, but I am afraid that we do not all live in the same reality. Bolivia Thank you good night etc. I won’t provide more texts, we have provided all texts needed. Let me delivier a message to close my participation:
“We were hearing to them, they where outside with cardboards saying “wheer is the finance?” “Those civil society orgs that decided to withdra from the cop, presented a release qhere they sid they whre concerned, they where angry vecause there’s nothing on L&D, nothing on finance, nothing on the transfer of technology.” “We have to have a clear amount, clear commmitments of developed countries” Some of the people outside held up cartons saying “where is the finance” There is nothing on loss and damage, on finance, on transferring technology. How can we advance without this. We have to discuss this in complete terms. I have in my hands, the draft of the GCF (green climate fund, expected to be filled with 100billion dollars yearly by 2020) guidelines beeing provided in the plenary 2. There’s nothing complete except abstract parts. “There is no possibility to say that there are no financial conditions in developed countries. There is money for other activities that are not related to climate change. There os money for spying. There is money for war.” You know how much money is spent by the north atlantic treaty organisation? 3 trillion dollars per year.
1 trillion is ten years of 100 billion yearly of GCF Let me leave this message: that we have to have a clear commitment on this, otherwise we will not have a clear … to work with this - adaptation - mitigation - loss and damage
Venezuela thank you… Very difficult task, we have not made it easier. We’re representing nationali interests, we are not in high school, we are not here to make firends. If 2015 happens, it will be the most ambitious (ever? last 20 yrs?) Noone is fooling themselves about the economical implications that these affects will have. Especially in the developing world surprisingly right now (developing countris) are taking more mitigation actions than developed countres. To chair? → You have in your hands the last minutes of this cop, to make it a successful cop. “Calling every single party to be very delicate with every single world used, in order not to start the blaming game, this is such a complicated agreement” I have ot inform you to be fair, that one representative f a lagre gruop of developed countries 8…) went to media to accuse the LDC for being obstucive in this rocess”. Countries who wants to agree represents 50% of the world. We are not litlte countries. We represent 50% of people on earth. Having to struggle with poverty, etc. We have countries like the Philippines in our group. No one that is actually currently violating something, s going to be believed that they’re going to compy with something in the future.
I do not know what the future is going to be, I do not know if I am going to be alive in 2020 noone knows. But I know that I am here in warsaw, able and with a voice. I call for you to be sensible enough to know that history is in your hands. You say that you have heard of over and over and over and over and over again, I am not sure. I don’t see the agreement on the table. We represent 50% of the people. We are ready to negotiate we don’t deserve heads of groups of the countries not beeing here in the country, instead of being out talking to the media. I wnat this conference to be a success. Now when this room is breaking, we will remeet in the plenary. I want to know what the next step will be. Are you going to present a document in there, or put us in a Copenhagen situation. I just want a clear answer *applauds* Chair: Took note OF complaints on blaming. Reminds that it’s a party driven process. Co-charis will not take blame for anything that is driven in this room Text reflects eceyone’s participation and wills. The mere fact that noone in this room is satisfied in with the text. As a result of the above, the co-chairs have listened, and listened very carefully. Won’t take any blame This is a party driven process, you have said that over and over and over and over. If this cop fails, everyone is equall responsible, -and if this cop succeeds everyone is going to be responsible. Saudi Arabia Go to preamble 2 *Reading the text* hard to follow.
Colombia Appreciates efforts to try and reach “some sort of convergence”. Reminds there is consensus on wanting an ambitious dela – but ot on what to be ambitious about. Our priority given the latest IPCC report, given the fact the window is closing. ”We can negotiate until we are blue, or until 2020 rolls around” (I think)
That window cannot be negotiated. “WE are not negotationg an environmental treaty, we are negotiating economies, and societies” Something about loss and damage being important. “We are not trying to predudge, and I think that this text that has been put forward Unhappy that the annex is no longer part of decision but in conclusions. “We are willing to live with that in the interest of concensus.”
The annex in this very watered down form, that we want to keep. we have already conceded quite a bit chair, and I hope that you can accept that. Regarding proposed amendments to §B: What we want is an ambitious agreement, we want to make sure that the pledges on the table are adequate. Want to ensure that pledges are adequate, therefore don’s (something) the term “nationally appropriate” Proposes “national preparations to determine their commitments” somewhere. This phrase won’t lock us into hard negotiations in future? In C/6, there was a proposal to replace current wording with “put forward”. We are trying here to find ways of moving forward. You all have seen chair that we have tried to be flexible. We have tried to be flexible, in particular with the annex Invites others to also show flexibility. Colombia
Previously insinuattions on inflexibility – not really so? Nicaragua This is the track to the agreement that the world is wating for. Mentioning flexibility in Durban and Doha, woth the “blank check” of Kyoto 2. Signed without numbers and dates – this is real flexibility. “The real roadbloch here is finance” GCF still does not have financing. Not one single donor for pre 2020 financing? “How can we believe there will be post 2020 finance when thereäs no pre 2020 finance?” Mitigatoin: Nicaragua has no problem what so ever woth numbers, goals and figures. We are going from 25 % renewables in 90% renewables in 2020. based on 9.6 x dollars . Money doesnt have to go througs a U N body to arrive at “wind, solar, hydro, renewable” projects. If we can focus on the real block *finance* thens omething might come out of this. South Africa on behalf of BASIC We look at the text and specifically paragraf 2 of the text. We want to say that we find that the text and I have to.. I just have to giva a short introduction… we find that this text is very much scaled towards mititgation and as we have said so many times before, we find this is so much broader than mititgaion and when we go to paragraf. b and c We believe that technology transfer, adaptation etc needs to be added. Very difficult to reflect that in a way that will not destruct the text in §§ a, b, c. Supports a and 2c in current form. Talks very fast, co-chair asks for repetition. Repeats, end result of changes as below. Only changes would be in paragraph 2B:
To invite all Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined commitments in accordance with article 4 of the convention towards achieving the ulitmate -.- of the convention to set out something from the 2 convention and to communicate them well in advance of the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended commitments; India context is important, support changes in para 2a, 3c, they would like to retain existant ext Brazil Explaining BASIC position, feel that the text resulting from BASIC ministerial coordination is a way to take things forward. Very necessary clarificatoin of the scope of comimtments. China My two previous speakers would strongly support South Africa on behalf of the basic group This proposal, about over and over and over again. I would only like to use the word over. So that the discussion on this would be OVER. Co -Chair summarazing from what we have discussed from this morning Appears that most of the areas where there is major concern is mainly paragraf 2. Other parts have not been as substansive as what we heard of paragraf 2. There is a proposal from BASIC: Only modification is to sub paragraph 2b. Switzerland: “We weren’t in the meeting with the BASIC ministers” “inivite all parties to take action on national levels in accordance to paragraf 4.1 (lost something) Philippines on behalf of LDC supports the BASIC proposal
Chair Any other comments? USA Thanks Actually looking for a couple of proposals that came up awhile ago that I thought was pretty good. And I wanna say what I liked before I say what I didn’t like. Proposal from Chile, on pragraph 2C. Proposal from NZ, that we liked With respect of the current proposal, we expect that predudges discussion. BASIC proposal prejudges dicsussion, expect we’ll have wuite significant discussions over next year. Fair to say 4.1 cast very broadly, not sure to say we’re bound to follow conention (?) rather we’re operating under the ADP which is under the convention? Trinidad and Tobago Something on prejudging 2015 proposal. And we prefer to work on the proposal made earlier by…. Japan We have turned out to support the proposal by the BASIC countries. something more on “all parties” EU Thank you. I too though we were getting closer, and it is getting very late, I think we’ve heard a number of good proposals. Narrowing areas of difference.
We are very much guided by what india said earlier, we shouldn’t adress to solve issues that are unsolvable at this stage. We should work on areas where we can get results.
New country Needs a new proposal before can say anything about it Swatziland In the interest of beeing breif the African Group says. something on 2c, hard to hear. Nicaragua We support the BASIC proposal, it is agreed language. Article 4 and 2, based on principles of RIO. I think that we are never going to advance if we do not work on the basis, the ADP should be in that contest, so we can advance towards real consenus. Chile Can’t work with BASIC proposal, insists that dominican republic proposal doesntä prejudge discussions, and want to keep working on it. We look forward to discuss, differentiation, but we think that BASIC text predudges and we therefore cannot accept, to move with the text proposed by the dominican republic. BASIC proposal prejudges, and therefore dominican proposalshould be used. CUBA We support BASIC proposals. “this is not really a step back” We are trying to move away from the mandate.
We try to work on the basis of the mandate we have, and if we try to keep at the minimun of what we are looking for in this decision. Let’s try to keep with langauge that is already approved, that will help us alot. Finance: Has to be there too in order to get somewhere.
New zealand Switzerland; US, Chile. cant work on basis of the proposal We prefer either the text as it stands or any suggestion by dominican replublic
Russia Not a restatement of our position but a comment. What ever, are the proposals we make, they have to be addressed towards the major goal, the goal of arriving of a comprehensive solution to the climate change. That should be the key concept for what ever we come with further. Venezuela I want to support proposal of BASIC, considering and repeating, that this is an agreement under the convention (RIO or UNFCCC) ? China “I thought this issue had been gone over, but unfortunately I was just prejudging the situation” *laugh* Mr chair, rather the very mandate of the durban plattform is for enhanced action of implemention the convention.. We try to elaborate the elements, including mitigation adapatiation, finance, technology transfer, I heard some parties saying that maybe the proposal would be some way of prejudging the outcome. but no one is prejudging the outcome, the outcome has been set.
To adpot the context a Agree an outcome with legal forcce. for it to come into effect, we implement a contract… we are not prejudging We have already determined that the process is on enhanced action, implementet from 2020, and the outcome of the protocole shall be adopoted at the 21st session december of 2015. Nothing is prejudgedt. (can’t spell) Except my prejudgment that this was gone over. “The prejudging argument that nothing is prejudged” Saint Kitts and Nevis Thanks for contributions, with regards to to big issues. We feel, that there is an issue with the convention text: No issue with including the objective and principles in the work of this body. However in regards in this particular text. We do not feel that this adresses Supports Trinidad and Tobago PERU We are reaching towards clarity consensus that there are other proposals? Could we also incorporate those in the discussion? Canada we can not work with BASIC, we prefer the text as it is. Also considering the dominican republic proposal?
Clearly interest in working with this, what we are going to propose is that there are other porposals from groups. We need parties to speak to eachother, rather than to the chair. We will break for perhaps about 30 minutes, for groups to consult, and then we will come back.
30minutes break from 20.43 break extended indefinitely Co chair Want’s to hear what has happened India as a volunteer without representing a specific group I have to say that we are frankly not there yet. Text for 2b and 2c. This is not an agreed text, but I am going to read up it anyway. There are three or 2b - will be re read and completed. To invite all parties to initiate or intensify domestic preperations for their intended nationally determined commision, in the context of adopting a portocole or an agreed outcome of legal force under the convention under the convention for all parties. and the communicate them well in advance in By the first order of the beginning of 2014 2c To request the ADP to identify by the 21th session of the COP the information that parties will provide, when putting forward their commitments when referred to the paragrah above. “The words towards toward achieving the ultimate objective of achieving should remain” - suggestion by some countries This is not in the text, but how to fix this line is one of our concerns. Last one is a matter raised by many parties in the “huddle”
When developing country parties go about their domestic preparations for their national commitments, then what will happen to the financing tech transf and capacity building that helps them with this preparation to do this in time for the meeting of the 21st session of the COP. There was a need to address this particular issue. This has to be done, in the context of a pre 2020 period. It will help everyone to start this process. Finally I want to underline, the fact that there was parties expressing concern on the word commitments. Some expressed that there should be a very clear understanding that at this point there should be Nature of commitments, what does it mean, is it something we can use in context. 2b and 2c is what we want to focus on. India’s proposed text: 2b To invite all Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined commitments in the context of adopting a Protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties and to communicate them well in advance of the 21st session of the Conference of Parties [(by the first quarter of 2015 by those parties in position to do so)] in a manner that facilitates clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended commitments.
2c To request the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action to identify by the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties, the information that Parties will provide when putting forward their commitments referred to in paragraph 2b above.
Chair time for parties to express what they think about the text. -noone indicating anything Trinidad and tobago
We are still not comfortable with the text, for the reasons previousl explained, however the hour is late. and we do need to make som progress, so I will propose that if we can show that we are working towards the ultimate achievement of the text. we can use the text as it is currently instructed. -inclusion of achieving ultimate goal of conv. Mexico
thanks. By either introducing the objective of the conv or 2 degrees. I would also want to include the section, Singapore Thanks to colleague and friend from India, for undertaking this vouluntary cooperative. Prop: Want to show support for line “achieving the ultimate goal of conv.” If no Party has any objections I suggest that we continue on the basis of it can be concluded. Regarding 2 C, I would urge Mexico to look a the broader draft. Not a satisfactory solution, as Trinidad and Tobago said. Chair Any objections to the additional sentence?
China (this might be a very long one, before he spoke for 45 min :)) “Ok co-chair, good morning” Clarifies “towards achieving the ultimate objective of the convention” Proposes to delete the word ultimate form sentence above. Reason:
We do think that the objective has set of the article 2 is not only combined with the sterilsation objective, because the article 2 the sentence starts with the... There is also a second sentence to this objective. The titel of article 2 is just objective, and not ultimate objective. Second sentence “object shall achieve within time frame ecosystems shall to climate change also … ensure the common development to proceed …shall proceed.” By just referring towards ahieving the objective set as in article 2, we would have a more comprehensive understanding of the objective. We would not only talk about adaptation but mitigation and sustainable development. By achieving this objective something about article 3 “in their actions to achieve the objective of the convention, and implement this… “ By chaing the achieving the objective we would get som reasurances that the referrenses in order context. The principles of the convention shall apply. - We got a tip to start listening after 5 minutes of his speech, whitch would be right about now, when he also stopped talking. - from s******h official.
“I’m just talking *murmurs something+” Chair Could accept the “a little wider” version from China, but not trying to negotiate *the convention+? Trinidad again Can accept the proposal from China, since nothing is lost. The ultimateobjective of the convention “goes understood”. Chair “As we’re not trying to win the literature Nobel prize, I think we could live with the longer version as well”
Bangladesh * Colombia Yada yada good morning, weäre all sitting in this room... We are united by convention, helpful that we cannot leave. need to cannot pick apart article 2 of climate change convention. article 17d ARTICLE 2: OBJECTIVE The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. We can not leave this room and not leave Warsaw by not working on a new we can not pick apart the article 2 of the climate talk convention. Quote A few days ago in the discusisons on articel X, When we weere talking about the diffuclites and problems that it is impportant for the process to be robust, Opinions and position of all parties should matter. OF ALL PARTIES although I’m not a lawyer – which is a good thong, because this is not going to be read by lawyers – When we talk about these paragrafhs they are seen in utter isolation from the rest of the text. There is bracketed text, which for us would also be very important, by those… Before we rewrite the convention, we would like to understand the text on that table. We did not have the privilege of being in the huddle, peraps because we are a small nation. I don’t really know what the deal was, but I see the deal infront of me. THat was mentioned by the incoming presidnecy, by Peru. d
This was not about june 2014 WE have also asked, and we ask now, because we were not part of the huddle What happened to the annex?? There are still questions on the floor before we can say that we agree on this watered down proposal. “What is the whole package, that we are being asked about?” I am beeing helpful, because I am looking ahead, on what is going to happen when we leve this room. Chair What do you mean when saying picking apart the convention. The way I understood T and T could live with the chineese proposal. I didn’t hear China say that we picked apart article 2. Colombia again? yes The ultimate objective is to keep the GHG in a the low level..
Because if that, countries like Colombia, that are highly vunerable, are facing dramatical consewonses?
So for us, that objective, is for us something fundamental. You have to understand that this hole process, because of the way we come to decisionmaking in this convention, this is increasingly strange, when you don’t understand how the decision came in place. When you are not part of this deal, when you donät understand all the positions and subpositions that goes in it, d Because there were really good and diverse proposal in the raimaing of the text. and we want to understand how the whole thing works, before we start to go into detail on article 2 (picking it apart) Chair number of elements come to the tables Proposals made, and modicating proposals.
Explains chair work, has to understand all the proposals etc etc. If you agree on it or not will happen in the plenary, what we are dealing with at the moment is what came out of the huddle 2b and 2c. India told me not a 100% deal was achieved but there was some questions and negotiations and I am trying to get to that first before we get into other discussions. I do not think that anyone wants to take out the objective of the convention from the text it’s not picking apart article two, the objecive of the convention. Can I have more viewvs on that proposal by Trinidad and Tobago proposal modiffied by CHina anyone else against this Guatemala It’s important to understand why we are working in the text, don’t understand why we are removing the ultimate objection, it is the only thing that is fundamental in this convention. WHy does china want t remove it.
Unless there’ a greater understanding of why the ultimate objective part is removed, Guatemala won’t accept that text. I can’t accept the text as it is unless explanation is given. Chair “I think there’s a misunderstanding”. Article 2 title is “objective”. Nobody has proposed to delete anything from the objective of the convention – all that is discussed is how article two shall be referred. Colombia Similar discussions before, don’t want to “asked if we can have it when it is still bracketed text in it”
We feel deeply uncomfortable that we discuss this when there are other proposals on the table, mainly brackets.
We understand that the results of the huddle includes bracketed text. India “The huddle could have gone on for another hour, and we would have reached a consensus! But we were aware that there were people outside the huddle. We broadly agreed on the ides that were there, but we did not want to have a consencus in the huddle.” for example 2 c. we really wanted it that way, it was our understanding
In general, explains that the huddle wasn’t about a full consensus, clarifies that he’s just volunteering to summarize the huddle text because “he was there”. What china has proposed, i also understand it that there are two sentences there. first ultimate objective second, it is important like countries like ours that this is made in a manner where food production is not harmed and … in a sustainable manner. It is not a way of divertion We are capturing it realisticly (and holistically) Clarifies that the huddle shouldn’t be seen as a consensus mechanism/group trying to force a text on everyone Chair The huddle is always the limited entitie of the participants, and it is important it comes back to the room Mexico And I will say that we will be okay when talking about the objective Maybe can move first to the bracketed text, Suggestion regarding bracketed text: Oh just that it should be discussed. No actual suggestoin there.
Chair “We have achieved quite a lot.” Last bits and pieces. I want to hear what countries around the floor tthink about 2(b) in its entirety. Colombia Wants to have bilaterals? The Gambia on behalf of african group Asks about the context in which the paragraphs “has come in”. Wants to see paragraphs in context of the whole text? Suggests removing brackets before considering §2b as a whole.
Chair Insists on continued discussions of 2b and 2c with brackets, as they stand.
Switzerland Huge sympathy of what colombia was saying. talking about the placing of the specific phrases.
Venezuela Thank you mr chair Before tackling the comments of my delegation. Supports “the nature of the huddling” Noticed by many that the “huddle was a likeminded huddle”, Just to let you know, we actually are starting to tackle 2 c. Some of us understand we
feeling that i recieved from the .. was not a gabbling of anything it was just to approach our ideas better Recommends chair to open discussions “about everyting that’s there”. Most of all because the political discussions of everythong there is because some countris are willing to send a very strong message. “I would encourage parties not to tackle the comma struggle but rather the bigger politcal mesage that we are trying to deliver at this hour.” When I was feeling the most heating winter, I want tomention something more…-.- .-.-.
“I have to ust mention something that I dind’t mention there, well I did mention it, but I didn’t make a proposal” When we were discussing this, the readyness of developing countries, a message to delivier something (plan of action) Suggestion: Not any/every developing contries have the means to partake in such a process, even if they have the political will. Producing information about mitigation is going to be very expensive, it is going to be very expensive for some, and if that information is requested to be produced in LIMA, we need to know that the financial mechanisms are in order to be functioning at that very time.
The discussion needs to be where the support should come from, to help the developing countries that wnat to take mitigation actions.
Developed countries need to have a willingness to support devloping countries.
This is my message: “To thee don’t kill me” Suggestion for new paragraph 2(d): add new text to support financially developing countries in preparing commitments
“The domestic preparations of developing countries for the intended nationally detemrined commitments refered to in paragraph 2(b), the preparation of the information requested in paragraph 2(c), and the implementation of such commitemnts shall depend on the provision on finance, technology transfer, capacity building in accordance with the with the view of achieving its objective.”
Chair talking about reading it once more
Bolivia Suggests China proposal (the use of “objective” instead of “ultimate objective”) Concerns 2b: Agrees with 2c, and everythng proposed by Venezuela. adds “article 4 of the convention” back into 2(b)
US I guess we have 4 comments: 1st referrence to the objective or ulimate objective Prefers “ultimate objective”, because when looking at the durban plattform that’s the terminology used. recognises that fulfiling the ultimate goal of the convention.. 2nd: clarification: After the huddle there was no brackets. “You could say that the whole text was in brackets.” We would support this with the inclusion of the language currently in brackets. 3d: Support: Could accept a reference to support. Support for implementation should be negotiated “when we negotiate”?
we have a slight variation of what was proposed to venezuela.
we would say something like (hoping for usa to reapeat): 4th. Can’t accept Bolivias proposal, but htere where other solutions to that during the huddle. Chair EU After long discussion among EU ministers. we tend to argue longer about the workplans than actual commitments This text does not give us the urgency, as we are going to need when moving towards Paris. Referrence to ultimate objective, is essential. It demonstrates the integrity? of commitments. Gives us a lot of confidence of what we are actually trying to achieve. Agrees with US on the text in brackets not being in brackets during the huddle. “certainly not in square brackets” Reminds that “an awful lot” of support is currently going on. Would it help to change “position” to “capacity”? Swaziland A 2015 agreement, from an African standpoint? is a mitigation agreement. We have supported langauge that have been opposed by parties that address these concerns. We don’t get the assurance that we need. In order to be confident that issues of commitments to finacne, adaptation, technolgoy development and transfer are covered. We were not in the cdiscussion, wondering if 2(b) there’s a chance of changing to: “To invite all parties to initiatve or intensify domesic preparations for their intednndedonally detemrined commitment in the context of decision 1/CP.18 and, to communicate well in advance …” There is a broader coveregage of elements that iclude some of the elements in paragraph 5. “adopting a protocol…” is already in the chapeau
Response to US proposal: “Quite welcome”. Did not a full reflection of h eactual text around support for the process that we’re going to have, but it seems that we do have stringent time frames and as outcome we would believe that rather than invite we would secondly you should also find reference of (something) costs
Co Chair Nicaragua Thank you very much
Supports Venezuela’s proposal. Takes into account, means of implementation and formulation n the formulatiosn of commitments many conutries will require support, (somehting already existst)
however many more countries will require support for the implementation of their commitments we want ambitious commitments and would be irresponsible to take on commitments if we do not know how we’re going to fulfill them d therefore tech transf, cap building so that the solution of the commitment are truly supported China Several points First regarding the issue of the objective It’s borader and more comprehensive to refer to “objetcive”, agrees with chair’s view that this is the better way to refer to article 2.
And on the commitment issue. The offset, yesterday what could have a better compromise. Why invent new language when there is already agreed langiage on the topic? WE need to get some assurances in the text, that some countries put forward a proposal earlier then last nigt.
On the bracketed text, we do have some concerns about “by the first quarter of 2015 by those parties in position to do so)” I think we can try to address that concern by two options. Cause of time and issue and to
second opt chagne the reference by those parties in a position to do so, maybe “as early as the 1st quarter of 2015” two sub options to those parties listed in annex one second by those parties ready to do so.
On the porposal made by venezuela: certainly support that para 2 (d) cause for developing countries domestic preperations need the necessary financial support also very clear provision under geneva convention article 4 plan 7 ??
shall depend on provision of finance, capacity building that regard we fully support the addition of paragraph 2(d) into the text. I think it is quite early in the morning and we need to make quick progress Chair Yes we need to be fast. Bangladesh Thank you co-chair, good morning. (you don’t really need to transcribe this part) In fact we do also follow the negotiations, nothing is agreed content?? even if we don’t have bracket 2 (B) and 2(C) we have mental brackets of these two paragraphs. We like to see that the “ultimate objective” would be there, and I personally pronounced that phrase tens of thousands times in the last 21 years. and I have not heard those of my colleagues not differentiating that phrase in any way in this last 21 years. Suggests brackets in 2b suggestion, surrounding “by those parties in a position to do so” Chair Ecuador at this very late hour, it’s time for compromising LET’S AGREE TO SOMETHING….adorse proposal by India, amended by Trinadad and China. support proposal by venezuela, additional item 2d. nicaragua is important, where financial stuff is going to come from and is necessary. “Started in the corner, but showing the spirit of the table” Addition paragraph (only read it fast) To provide developing countries with assistance for mitigation...
Chair we need to mindful about what we are talking about. intended nationally as of year 2020, a bit more than 6 years of time. “I’m a public servants, which means that I don’t know what will be possible (politically) in 2021. i am not sure if we are asking too much about public budget We’re discussing the planning step.
Philippines Support Trinidad & Tobago / China proposal Support Venezuela & US idea linking domestic preparation and gathering of info to the need of support for developing countries. Reflecting Swaziland’s mention of [what] 2(d): “That the domestic preparations refered in 2(b) of developing countries, including the gathering of the information refered in 2(c), shall depend on the provision, tech tranfser and capacity building by developed countries in the context of the implementation of article 11 of the Convention, with a view to acheiving the objective of hte Convention” Chair “It’s stariting to get a little messy with many texts and proposals on the table” India Trinidad and Tobago and china we like what you are talking about. the placing of the line towards achievning th eobjective of the convention, should actually be behind the line pllicable to all parties. I think that was a very useful suggestion from someone ← what? The brackets where not deleted, “we were just fixing the language”. Wants to clarify that. I would suggest Presenting SOMETHING ? (probably ambitions? )“as early as the first quarter of 2015” Switzerland How long do we ahve to continue here, it is not really moving towards a common ground.
2(b), ( c) was the most important part of the drafting (except perhaps also the annex). First, agree on b, c. These other issues have not been raised over the last few days. By saing we have to decide here, and we cant hide behind the issues that we acutally have two years to work on. I believe we should work with the issues that we acutally have to get done here. Support US proposal. “We should move from cherry picking to strawberry picking” – reiterates need to find a solution. Common ground is that we should have 2(b) as written here without the brackets. 2(c) and the new US paragraph, “invtiing developed countries and international institutions to support developing countries in the preparation of their national commitments”
With that package we would really make a huge step. Not maby the one we wanted to do here…
EU “I think we should remember we are here negotiating a workplan, not I think there are issues we can solve and those we can’t, we should focus on the solvable.
We spent a very long time in the huddle spending time uncomfortable close to each other *laugh* this did not give the results we predicted The text is “ok” for EU, “because it’s a work plan” I think we are all in a position where we want to find a way through this Thre are other elements of the agreement in Warsaw that “we wnat to see adopted”, mentions emerging agreement on finance and loss and damage. I do urge colleagues wheather can rally around something closer to the tet. I think we can add ***
Support proposal from T and T and china (on “objective of the convention”) We should retain something with brackets – thus remove square brackets in 2b And difficulty wtih india’s proposal 4.7 simply wont fly and will bring the agreement down
if we want to be constructive we should focus on capacity building and support in order for them to completet their commitments. This is just how we se we can progress. Cuba Support Trinidad and Tobago and China Also supports Bolivia insertion of 2(d) Supports Ecuador’s proposal on planning step? I believe that what our colleague from Php will fill those lines, and i won’t repeat this additional proposal. Would rather have the proposal from the Philippines. Chair Norway COncerned about that we now seem to be backtracking.. we want to leave warsaw with a clear signal that we are moving ahead, we are trying to come out of here with a workplan and not negotiating an agreement. Failing to do so would be a huge dissapointment We call on everyone to be flexible and cooperative and look at the paper coming from (presented by india)
The way we see it: A lot of parties made compromises coming up wth the text from the huddle, so a lot of comprmises have already been made. It isn’t perfect, but we are not going anywhere moving away from that. On the proposals raised in meeting: Support “towards achieving the ulitamate objectives of the convention”, “but again we saw AOSIS giving alot of flexbility around the wording ?ultimate objective? (not sure if that was right”)
Important that indicative commitments are given “as early as possible” Want to start from where we were inthe beginning, with the understanding from the huddle,where parties had already made large comprimises. We think the message from the US was very useful. Chair Nicaragua It is difficult to believe that there is no ambition after 2020if there is not increase ambition before 2020. It is difficult oto belieave there is significant financing after 2020, if there’s no financing before 2020. (word for word the same intervention he gave three hours ago)
Chair What certainly stands is the convention and convention articles Canada 2.5 hours of huddling The notion that I took from it and that others did aswell . ex EU THe broad parameters, there are some reasonable proposals on the table, [something] ultimate objective is mentioned in the Durban platform and therefore Canada supports the wording “ultimate objective”.
We can support the suggestion brought by the US, but want clarity in how we can support the process. Chair The Gambia Hard to follow… ThE BASIC proposal was meant to adress (what) Agreeing on these two paragraphs if annex is intact? Concerns being raised in terms of support? We try these two paragraphs and we can the focus on something else. Chair My understanding was that in the huddle only 2 b and 2 c were discussed. I did not hear wheather the annex was discussed or not. Was not to my understanindg Brazil We support T and T as demanded by China One the issue es, and proposal form India: it deserves consideration, I think that the proposal of the first quarter of 2015, was a good idea. On Venzuela proposal with US parts(?) regarding financing for developing countries, “the issue of finance is indeed a matter of great importance”, sympathetic with the issue. Ready to negotiate text. Preference is the determination athat we ahave a basic ministerial meeting, to see if we can wirhra from that position, we are ready to negotiatte but would also like other sides to show flexibility Need to confer with minister regarding proposals
Panama given that we have heard many different positions I would say some comments. How good the original texts looks today, witch all of us critizied, todays text is now looking better than ever. It’s reflecting (from our point of view) a position taken by most of the parties. Not heard much criticism on the original text today. We are not discussing anything of substance. I feel that we’ve had a long day, and we’ve had good intents. Know that we and very many other delegations are concerned by substance beeing politcally downslided. Suggests to bring back the original text, and include the bracketed part of 2(b) from huddle (“by the first quarter of 2015 by those parties in position to do so”) Chair Peru Preserve minimum ambition on two levels – Universality and process (the work ahead), A lot of ramblings here, that I didn’t catch. Aligns with comments by Gambia. Chair Lot of proposals on 2(b), (c) Besides, lots of convergence on “future generations” Will try to do our best. Remembers someone earlier talking about future generations, reflects that “that is why we are all here”. Thinks the huddle and it’s outcome is very encouraging, even if aware that some might not agree about that. Wants to adjourn until five am for drafting. REassembling in plenary 1 at 5am. Venezuela
Know by experience that plenaries don’t give proper room for reactions. Wants to include “some manner of supprt”. Suggests continued work here, in small groups. “I don’t care if I go to bed one hour later”. “We can work it out here, together, now”. One hour hre can take five hours in plenary.
Chair Gives 30 minutes, will include the text in draft “if you push under the door a little piece of paper, with all the texts and all the signatures in the room, then I am happy to do that. But we will listen to your proposals.” India Are you still taking in context? More comments on 2( c)
Nicaragua “I think both cochair and us are victoms of this negotiation process.” Wants huddle. Chair Asks Nicaragua to summarize what progress has been made and should be made in the future? “I’m not inclined to use any kind of prematurely *murmur+ on this text, because we’re now discussing Doha inclusions”. We are now ready to accelerate discussions. Bolivia We still have to try and arrive at convergence, maybe half an hour is not enough for this. Cochairs also have big responsibliity to come up with a new text and find this convergence. Mentions problems with balance between adaptation and mitigation, the annex conflict and some other problems that will be hard for the chairs to solve.
Supports removing of brackets in 2(b) suggestion from huddle. Equador I truely commend the process of Every such process needs some facts and figures, so that the negotiations and decisions are about something fiscal. At least a broader range of views by the time that we start this planning process.
Support issue, very delicate. We did not have any results in the financial discussion. We don’t know if we can comply with 2b/c or nithing Tehre’s a division between those that conseider – developing countries – that this is something (what)
Secondly, then again how much under the convention we want this csupport to be. Some said agreed full cost. Others said appropriate financial institutions. It is not a drafting discussion, but a political discussion Developing countries are going to leave this conference with, nothing at alla gain nothing at all “We didn’t get anything from L&D, we didn’t get a work program on finance, not even a work program to discuss finance. I’m not talking about the money. Not even that. Not even talking about the money, not even talking about the money.” now in this text we are even getting to the place if we are going sign the the agreement under the convention or outside the convneniton “If we’re going that far, what the hell are we getting in this convention to take back home and bring to our governments?”
This is going to be again a european winning situation, and the only thin I am requisting is that we have the positive experience to talk about this. We want a very specific guidance that we are going to be helped to deliveir and d we have all the right to request it, under the convention and under international law Under the conveniton and under the law, we have to right to requist support from the discussion we are not begging charity, they need to provide us. I’m willing to act because I heard the US support is, I heard the EU support is. If we miss this little thing we are requuiting , because if you don’t want to be hold responisble for the consequences if the text, we are ready to do this. if you decide to do this by yourself I will respect you . I just had my lunch now in the back, so I’m ready now to interact.
“I do respect you as a chair, but I also do respect me as a vice minister” d *applauds* Chair you know that I do respect you If you do want to have a huddle, w can do that. Mentions that there’s both ADP and and COP planeries left, “they will bthoth take some time”. finance, huddle, support the co-chairs Guatemala AILAC supports Venezuela’s huddle proposal, to stay in the room and discuss in an smaller setting. Chair the lanugage on the table, i think there is a lot of language on the table.
2(d). You know where you’ll find us. Meeting is adjourned, next step is plenary at 5 am. The ADP-session will start “shortly”.. It seems like the new ADP draft is out. We’ll publish here as soon as we found it Here is the new ADP-text: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/adp2/eng/l04a01.pdf