Doha concludes work on long-term cooperative action on climate change

Since the 2007 Bali conference, negotiations at the annual UN climate conferences have proceeded on two 'tracks': one devoted to the Kyoto Protocol, the other to establishing long-term mechanisms to combat climate change. Hilary Chiew and Meena Raman detail the outcome of the latter negotiations, which finally concluded in Doha.

---

FIVE years after its launch in 2007 to advance an agreed outcome under the Bali Action Plan, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) ended its work with the forwarding of the outcome document prepared by its Chair to the 18th meeting of the UNFCCC's Conference of the Parties (COP 18) on 7 December.

The outcome document of the AWG-LCA was not adopted by Parties at the working group level, but there was agreement to forward the text of the outcome of its work to the COP for further consideration, as suggested by its Chair, Aysar Tayeb (Saudi Arabia).

Tayeb informed Parties at the conclusion of the plenary held on 7 December that the ministers of Singapore and Germany will conduct consultations on matters under the AWG-LCA.

In the 22-page proposed text by the AWG-LCA Chair which was a clean text with no brackets and options, the page on finance was blank with a note that read: 'Pending the results from the ministerial consultations'.

On 4 December, the COP President Abdullah Hamad Al-Attiyah had launched ministerial consultations by appointing the ministers of Switzerland and the Maldives to conduct bilateral consultations to find solutions on matters related to finance.

The closing session of COP 18, initially scheduled for the evening of 7 December, was postponed while bilateral informal consultations between ministers and Parties proceeded behind the scenes throughout the night on the AWG-LCA text.

When the revised document was presented by the COP President in the morning of 8 December (called 'revised proposal by the President'), there was text on finance, which urges all developed-country Parties to scale up climate finance to the joint goal of mobilising $100 billion per year by 2020 and for developed countries to further increase their efforts to provide resources of at least to the average annual level of the fast-start finance period for 2013-15.

This revised proposal by the President of the AWG-LCA outcome of work was adopted by Parties as part of the Doha package.

In the area of technology transfer, the final text had no explicit reference to the issue of intellectual property rights (IPRs). The earlier text from the AWG-LCA Chair's document provided for the Technology Executive Committee (in paragraph 64), 'in elaborating its future workplan, to initiate the exploration of options for implementing the following activities . with a view to recommending appropriate actions for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its twentieth session: (a) Examining effective mechanisms that promote access to affordable environmentally sound technologies, reward innovators and increase the dynamic of global innovation; .'.

Developed countries including the US and EU had during the closing AWG-LCA plenary objected to the language in paragraph 64 as referring to the IPR regime and wanted its deletion. The final text adopted by Parties has reference to 'the exploration of issues relating to enabling environments and barriers including to those issues referred to in the report of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC)'.

[Paragraph 35(g) of the TEC report states that IPRs were identified as an area for which more clarity would be needed on their role in the development and transfer of climate technologies based upon evidence on a case-by-case basis. Thus the link to work on IPRs was made in a circuitous way to avoid the use of the term in the AWG-LCA outcome document.]

On unilateral measures, the earlier text of the Chair was watered down. The Chair's text in paragraph 57 requested 'the Chairs of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to convene, at their thirty-eighth sessions, a joint round-table discussion on unilateral measures in the context of Article 3, paragraph 5, of the Convention'.

The final decision in paragraph 54 welcomed 'the progress made in the work of the forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures being convened under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation' and invited 'Parties to continue to participate in the forum, including the sharing of views on policy issues of concern, such as unilateral measures'. Developed countries during the negotiations had been resistant to having any text on unilateral measures.

On cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, the final decision adopted had no text on this matter. In the earlier version of the AWG-LCA Chair's text, there was reference in paragraph 42, which several developing countries in the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries wanted deleted, as it was not consistent with Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol.

(Paragraph 42 of the document stated: 'Also agrees that the limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from international aviation and maritime transport should be pursued in a multilateral manner, working through the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation, respectively.' Article 2.2 of the KP, which only applies to developed countries in Annex I, states that 'The Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation, respectively.')

Dissatisfaction

During the final plenary of the AWG-LCA, both developed and developing countries registered their dissatisfaction with the 7 December text from the outset and called for improvements, with the former actively seeking ministerial intervention.

The smooth closing plenary of the AWG-LCA caught many Parties by surprise in the afternoon of 7 December with no objections to the Chair's proposal to forward the final document of the working group to COP 18 for consideration and adoption. Hesitating for a minute, Tayeb jokingly asked the Secretariat's staff if he should go ahead to gavel the decision before he brought down the gavel.

The European Union was prompted to seek confirmation that the decision was to forward the text for further consideration by the COP and Bangladesh said that it had wanted elaboration of the mechanism to facilitate access to climate technology for least developed countries (LDCs). Tayeb confirmed that the text was not adopted but only the decision to forward it for further consideration by the COP.

Following statements by groupings of Parties and countries, Tayeb noted the many reservations on the text. He said it was extremely striking that reservations were on the same issues but from opposite directions, adding that Parties were at the last stretch of a journey and that he had done his utmost best. He believed that Parties were close to the finishing line and under the guidance of the ministers, they would be able to cross the line.

Several developing-country Parties also recorded their appreciation for the leadership of Tayeb throughout the two weeks of tough negotiations.

Algeria, representing the Group of 77 and China, reiterated that a successful outcome lay in the issue of finance in which there must be clarity and certainty for the coming years to meet the need of developing countries in light of the imposition on them from previous decisions of Cancun (COP 16, 2010) and Durban (COP 17, 2011). In particular, it said clarity is needed for the financial resources gap from 2012 to 2020 besides other issues such as adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer.

Equally important is the ability of developing countries to engage first on adaptation then mitigation, the G77 and China said, expressing wariness at the emptiness of the various institutions set up with no effects on the ground. It further expressed concern on the lack of progress on adaptation and technology transfer as expressed by several members of the group and was grateful for the advancement of the AWG-LCA work despite the lack of flexibility shown by partners (referring to Annex I Parties).

It remained committed to all outstanding issues to be addressed appropriately in order to achieve a result that will fulfil the mandate of the Bali Action Plan (BAP).

The Philippines, speaking for the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries, reminded Parties that they extended the AWG-LCA, not merely to close it, but to do meaningful work on all the unresolved issues to reach an ambitious, meaningful and comprehensive agreed outcome.The agreed outcome must comprehensively address all the elements contained in the BAP as an essential element for the success of Doha, which was one of the components of the Durban Package.

Parties must address all the elements under the AWG-LCA including ambitious and comparable emission reduction targets by the developed-country Parties, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building.

The creation of institutions for many of these issues reflects excellent progress but does not necessarily close the issues themselves, particularly as the key political issues of operationalising these institutions remained unaddressed, referring to means of implementation for developing countries.

Developed countries, it said, should rise to their historical responsibilities and honour their commitment to provide developing countries with financing, technology transfer and capacity-building support and to finance the effective operationalisation of the institutional mechanisms.

As such, it noted that the text that the Chair had forwarded to the COP for its consideration could be further improved. The text, it said, did not reflect the full and equitable and ambitious outcome that it was looking for. In this regard, it flagged the following issues:

* The finance element in the final agreed outcome must be meaningful and substantive, with clear commitments on mid-term financing and a process in place to increase ambition on financing; clarity and assurance needs to be made in relation to the provision of the means of implementation to meet the cost of new responsibilities that are being put on developing countries. There is a need for clarity on mid-term finance; a need to examine lessons learned from fast-start finance to see it has fulfilled commitments from Copenhagen; a need to establish mechanisms for measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of developed countries' financial and technology support for developing countries;

* Mitigation ambition needed to be strengthened, particularly for Annex I Parties, including with respect to ensuring the comparability of their mitigation efforts and to increase their emission reduction pledges;

* The technology transfer text needed to be strengthened. In particular, the failure of the text to address IPR issues in the AWG-LCA was a serious concern as IPRs constitute a significant obstacle to successful technology transfer;

* On cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, paragraph 42 needed to be made consistent with Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol, and should not result in any reinterpretation or changing of the scope of such provision. This paragraph should be deleted;

* On adaptation, there was very weak linkage to climate financing. This gap needed to be addressed;

* The text on capacity building was very weak. The G77 had called for a work programme, but the text did not reflect any strengthened modalities for capacity building.

The Philippines said Parties talk about balance but in its view, it must be the balance among the building blocks of the BAP - mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building. It further emphasised that where there is no text, it doesn't equate to agreement or conclusion. Lastly, it thanked the Chair for his guidance and leadership, which had enabled constructive work to be done during the 15th session of the AWG-LCA.

Nauru, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), noted that Parties had agreed to the text being transmitted to the COP for further consideration and that the text was a decent basis to work from. It would like to see a stronger call for urgent actions. It lamented the complete absence of ambition in terms of mitigation by developed countries, where it has not seen any movement forward since Copenhagen (COP 15, 2009). At the very least, it added, Parties expected to enforce the rules-based approach towards accounting rules particularly in the interests of comparability.

On the contrary, on mitigation by developing countries, it saw clearer reference to efforts. It warned that finance was a missing element of the Durban outcome and it could not be left out of the Doha package. It was willing to work on the text at the level of the COP as it was the last chance.

Representing the African Group, Swaziland said the proposed text lacked ambition on mitigation and adaptation as well as the various means of implementation. While appreciating the hard work of the appointed ministers aimed at reaching landing ground on issues related to finance, it reiterated that the proposed text was weak with no indication of commitment from developed countries especially for the mid-term period of 2013 to 2020. It also lamented that the current level of ambition on mitigation was weak and looked forward to a text that would strengthen it.

Gambia, speaking for the LDCs, recognised the shortcomings of the proposed text but believed that Parties could still work on it and hoped to have time for Parties to engage positively.

Speaking for the Arab Group, Egypt said it accepted the decision to forward the proposed text to the COP for further consideration with the belief that Parties would look at the proposed text with overall balance in the three tracks (with the other two tracks being the negotiations under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol and the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action).

It said the AWG-LCA had worked for five years to ensure sustained implementation of the Convention but it had yet to see a concrete outcome on financial resources, which was key to a successful outcome in Doha.

It also wanted to see clear comparability of mitigation efforts among Annex I countries in the AWG-KP but has yet to see such commitments in terms of numbers (quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives). It said the objective of creating institutions needs concrete time-bound operationalisation and market mechanisms are not an end in themselves but require mitigation ambition, which has remained low.

It also wanted paragraph 42 of the proposed text deleted as there was no reference to the Convention's principles and provisions particularly the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Great expectations

China began by conveying its condolences to the people of the Philippines who were affected by typhoon Bopha and expressed its strong solidarity with them to get through this very difficult time and rebuild their homes soon. It then recorded its sincere appreciation to the Chair for his insightful and excellent leadership guiding Parties through the two intense weeks with arduous tasks towards an agreed outcome.

It said it came to Doha with great expectation for a successful and meaningful conclusion of the work of the AWG-LCA, which should address all the elements of the BAP, in particular ambitious and comparable emission reduction targets by the developed-country Parties, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building and for Parties not to leave any key issues off the table, such as equitable access to sustainable development, technology-related IPRs and unilateral measures.

It acknowledged the ups and downs in the past two weeks and even thought that the arduous tasks were going to be mission impossible in Doha. However, with Tayeb's strong leadership and collective efforts of all Parties, they were able to walk out of the gloomy and hopeless situation of becoming 'desperate housewives' (referring to Tayeb's effort at producing a text for the outcome of the working group).

(During the Bangkok session in September, China said the outcome of the Doha negotiations was analogous to a Chinese proverb, that a good housewife will find it difficult to prepare a meal without the right ingredients.)

China was however very concerned about many important issues including ambitious and comparable emission reduction targets by the developed-country Parties, adaptation, finance, technology transfer, market, sectoral approach, equitable access to sustainable development, technology-related IPRs and unilateral measures failing to come to a satisfactory outcome.

It urged all developed-country Parties to rise to their historical responsibilities and honour their commitment to provide developing countries with financing, technology transfer and capacity-building support and to finance the effective operationalisation of the institutional mechanisms. Finally, it said the 'meal' prepared by Tayeb was just like the food in the Qatar National Convention Centre that was not so delicious but at least offered Parties 'something to eat', drawing applause from the floor.

Echoing China, India also expressed its appreciation of the Chair's hard work and patience as well as his vice Chair (Marc Pallemaerts of Belgium)'s skilful and insightful steering of the meetings. It reiterated its call for a comprehensive package and that no issue should fall off the table. It too wanted paragraph 42, that was inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol, to be deleted.

Venezuela wanted to make clear that it did not approve of the text as there were lots of amendments that needed to be made particularly in sectoral approaches, the use of market mechanisms and paragraph 42 that violated the principle of CBDR. It later came back to add that it had since received instruction from its capital to place on the record that Venezuela had reservation in total and reserved its rights on all substantive issues when it deemed appropriate.

Ecuador appreciated the important document reached thus far after long hours of work but noted that there were some areas in which it would like to see improvement in all subject matters of the text, such as REDD-plus, response measures, various approaches and technology.

Bolivia said it understood that finding an agreement among Parties was difficult but the negotiation was not yet over. On finance, it did not want an empty shell fund which simply cannot be operationalised and an institutional framework that cannot carry out technology transfer. It does not see commitment from developed-country Parties but the reverse is true with the hope placed on the market mechanism as replacement to public funding that is not forthcoming.

It warned that Parties must not place their trust in the carbon market that is not providing any guarantee. On mitigation by developed countries, it said there is a huge imbalance in the obligations placed on developing countries concerning common accounting rules and methodologies. It stressed that there was still a lot of work needed as it did not want to leave with the prospect of more carbon markets and empty promises.

Indonesia reminded Parties that in Bali, Parties charted a roadmap and promised that all the building blocks of the BAP will be accomplished. It said the Cancun and Durban COPs established the infrastructure and the task in Doha was to complete the work of the AWG-LCA. It said the most important element of the AWG-LCA on finance was missing and hoped the ministerial intervention would see Parties showing flexibility.

Argentina was pleased with paragraph 2 (in the shared vision part of the document) which acknowledged the equity and CBDR principle but had concerns over the lack of text for finance, technology transfer and capacity building. It said any activities that developing countries must carry out must go hand-in-hand with support by developed countries.

(Paragraph 2 read: 'Also decides that Parties' efforts should be undertaken on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and the provision of finance, technology transfer and capacity-building to developing countries in order to support their mitigation and adaptation actions under the Convention, and take into account the imperatives of equitable access to sustainable development, the survival of countries and protecting the integrity of Mother Earth'.)

It also wanted paragraph 42 to be deleted to avoid legal problems. It believed that Parties could still improve on the language to ensure fair transition to allow for inclusion of workers' welfare and creation of decent jobs, which is part of poverty eradication and the development agenda of developing countries.

Nicaragua said it was important to have real negotiations before the final adoption of the text by the COP. It said a funding mechanism that has no transparency is pointless and why the Green Climate Fund when Parties are not able to use it, adding that there is also no point in discussing the mitigation by developed countries under the AWG-LCA if there is still no agreement on finance and an ambitious second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.

Malawi agreed that the text was  a basis for further discussion. It also registered that it was not ready to adopt the text in its current status and especially that it was weak in terms of means of implementation.

Saudi Arabia said that in the last minute of the lifetime of the BAP, the most challenging task was closing the AWG-LCA. It said some good progress was made but it was insufficient as there were serious concerns that some issues were rejected without logic, pointing to the work programme to address economic diversification of developing countries. It accused developed countries of using the approach of mass destruction, in reference to not everyone will be happy with all paragraphs but for the sake of working in a constructive manner, Parties only need to stick to their respective redlines and not resort to mass destructive tactics.

Brazil said it concurred with many concerns raised by developing countries and also wanted paragraph 42 (on sectoral approaches) to be deleted.

The European Union said the work on the BAP for the last five years has delivered and Parties should be proud to close the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP as well as the various institutional set-ups.

It welcomed the hard work of the Chair in helping Parties to conclude their work and reckoned that the proposed text was an important step to a successful outcome though it believed that it needed changes for the final shape. It said the text should be balanced. Top priorities for the EU are pre-2020 mitigation, accounting and transparency across all tracks. It objected to the language on unilateral measures as there was already the forum on response measures and it could not accept interference with the IPR regime and wanted deletion of that.

The Environmental Integrity Group, represented by Switzerland, conceded that some areas needed more work and believed the differences could be resolved by the COP.

Australia echoed the EU on the achievements of the AWG-LCA and said that the Doha deal though imperfect was still deliverable, adding that it was ready to engage but not without the ministers having an opportunity to engage.

Canada said further work was needed and compromise was within reach. It called on ministers to seek convergence and said that the text could not be a take-it-or-leave-it text. If that was the case, Canada would leave it.

The United States registered its objection to paragraph 2 (reference to equity and CBDR in shared vision), paragraph 8 on mitigation of developed countries (on comparability of efforts among developed-country Parties), paragraph 41 on sectoral approaches, paragraph 47 on various approaches (a work programme to elaborate a framework for such approaches), paragraphs 57 and 58 on response measures (to request the Subsidiary Bodies to convene and report the outcome of a roundtable discussion on unilateral measures) and paragraph 64 on IPRs (in technology development and transfer). It supported the text to be considered by the COP but stressed that in its current shape it was not acceptable to the US.

Echoing the US, Japan said it could not accept the text and looked forward to a packaged agreement by the COP.                                       

Hilary Chiew is a senior researcher with the Third World Network.

*Third World Resurgence No. 269/270, Jan/Feb 2013, pp 30-34