Over the past two weeks, delegates from 183 countries convened in Bonn, Germany to create negotiating texts under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for consideration in Copenhagen this December. In focus at Bonn was the enhancement of international climate change cooperation, particularly as it relates to the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. In all, over 4,600 participants were in attendance, consisting of government delegates, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, representatives of the private sector, academia, and the media.

The Bonn Climate Change Talks, which began on June 1st and concluded on June 12th, consisted of four meetings as part of the UNFCCC: the sixth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 6), the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Protocol met for its eighth session (AWG-KP 8), and both the Convention’s Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) held their 30th sessions.

A brief summary of the meeting results are as follows:

AWG-LCA 6

The meeting by the AWG-LCA focused on the negotiating text development and was largely a success, resulting in a 200-page draft negotiating text. The draft managed to hold to elements addressed under the Bali Action Plan such as a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, adaptation, mitigation, finance as well as technology and capacity-building.

AWG-KP 8

The AWG-KP considered the various proposals put forth by the Annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol. Unfortunately, these discussions resulted in less success than that of the AWG-LCA 6. Over the course of the plenary sessions, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on emission reduction targets post-2012 and developing countries expressed disappointment at the proposals made by Annex I countries. According to John Ashe, the Chair of AWG-KP, while options for the treatment of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) to reduce emissions saw great progress, both aggregate emission reduction targets and individual targets have yet to be decided. In addition, the negotiating group remained far from the target range required by science to avoid the severe climate change impacts.

SBI

In focus for the SBI was the development and transfer of technologies. Three reports were produced by the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (including future financing options, long-term strategies, and indicators of performance). Furthermore, the SBI produced an agreement to reconstitute the Consultative Group of Experts on Non-Annex I National Communications. Unfortunately, the second comprehensive review of the capacity-building framework under the Protocol and the Convention was met with a lack of agreement.

SBSTA

The SBSTA considered such issues as the methodology, technology transfer, research and systemic observation, and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (referred to as REDD). The methodologies that make it possible to both monitor and report emissions from deforestation (accounting for 20% of greenhouse gas pollution) made solid progress. However, the SBSTA failed to come to an agreement on REDD for the COP draft.

Despite lack of agreement in various areas of discussion over the past two weeks, the meetings in Bonn resulted in the adoption of 31 conclusions and seven draft decisions. According to Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, “A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome…In my view, an ambitious and effective agreed outcome in Copenhagen is in sight - an outcome that provides a strong and definitive answer to the alarm raised by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

The Bonn session marked the second in a series of five major UNFCCC meetings occurring this year in preparation for the UN Climate Change Conference, taking place from 7th-18th of December in Copenhagen. The next step in the process toward Copenhagen is for parties to refine the specifics of the text for discussion at the next Bonn meeting in August, followed by another session in Bangkok in late September and a gathering in Barcelona in early November.

The second two-week round of UN-led climate talks, held in Bonn, met with some critical feedback, though there were notable highlights in the dialogue.  One such highlight was the pitch four of the world’s largest air carriers made for a worldwide emissions limit for all airlines as part of the deal to be reached in Copenhagen this December.

The Aviation Global Deal Group (AGD), which includes British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Air France/KLM and Virgin Atlantic, presented what they deem an “ambitious, equitable, and effective” regime of emission caps for all airlines.  This proposal is an effort to include the industry in a climate treaty that 192 nations aim to agree upon this December.  The UN estimates that airlines account for about 3 % of global emissions.  The airline industry has not been subject to GHG regulations up to this point.

Executive secretary of the UN’s climate-change agency, Yvo de Boer, does admit that “it’s very hard to say if aviation will be included” in a final agreement in Copenhagen.  Regardless, airlines are expected to be included in EU regulations in 2012.  The USA has also proposed future legislation on airline CO2 output.  The AGD specifically discussed capping carriers’ GHG output based on annual fuel purchases.  Companies overshooting their target would have to buy permits from those emitting less than their allocation.  Revenue from auctioned permits would go towards helping developing countries adapt to climate change and developing cleaner air travel technology.

Yet, the Bonn talks were described as yielding little true consensus. France’s climate ambassador, Brice Lalonde, said that compared to previous sessions, in Bonn “the attitudes were more constructive, but the level of ambition was lower.”  His specific criticism was that it is now commonly accepted knowledge that global emissions have to be halved by 2050 (compared with 1990 levels), implying an 80 % reduction by industrialized countries. It is also generally agreed that the emissions levels in developing countries must start falling by 2025 at the very least.   But in Lalonde’s opinion, “no one is signing up” – in which statement he is also rather critical of the EU’s involvement.

The driving issues, such as who should cut their emissions and how soon, as well as the question of technology transfer to poor countries, require specific road mapping exercises – for example the proposal by the AGD.  Just last month in a major meeting in Paris (reported in a previous Climatico article), representatives from France and Germany were ardent in their call for flexibility in the mechanisms by which climate change mitigation occurs, so long as it does indeed occur.  Perhaps it will be industry partnerships of multi-national firms that ultimately pushes – or flies—  climate change negotiations over this precarious negotiation standstill?

While delegates continue with meetings this week to develop a negotiating text for Copenhagen in December, the attitudes and voices heard outside of the plenary sessions can be perhaps even more revealing about the progress being made at Bonn. Courtesy of daily coverage compiled by IISD Reporting services, we are granted a peak at the wizards from outside of the curtain as they walk within the corridors at Bonn…

MONDAY, 1 JUNE 2009

Enjoying a needed break

With over 4,300 registered participants for the Bonn meeting, the corridors were congested on the first day of the meeting. Many participants characterized the meeting as a significant step in the lead up to Copenhagen. “We have Chairs’ draft negotiating texts on the table under both AWGs and we also have the six-month rule to consider, so it should be an interesting meeting,” commented one participant.

Many expressed cautious optimism about what they felt had been constructive plenary discussions under the AWG-LCA. Although there were some diverging views over the contents of the Chair’s negotiating text, most delegates were happy that agreement had been reached to discuss it further in informal plenary sessions. Some developed country delegates said, however, that they would have preferred to dedicate more attention to the legal framework, pointing out that only one hour of informals is currently allocated for what they felt was an important topic.

The AWG-KP’s opening plenary was delayed by more than an hour while parties consulted informally over mandate issues and the structure and number of possible contact groups. The result - three different contact groups on Annex I further commitments considering the same two texts, was, as one delegate put it, “an arrangement that everyone can live with but no one is happy about.”

TUESDAY, 2 JUNE 2009
While the SBSTA and SBI continued their opening plenaries, the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA kicked into a higher gear with the commencement of contact groups and an informal plenary. Under the AWG-KP, some participants characterized the day’s deliberations as “useful but not too exciting.” Delegates spent the afternoon contact groups in largely procedural discussions on how to structure their work for the remainder of the meeting. While the “other issues” group agreed to prioritize LULUCF discussions in Bonn, the “numbers group” planned to proceed iteratively between aggregate and individual commitments. “It was a good start,” said one AWG-KP delegate, “though I’m still not sure how the ‘numbers group’ is going to move forward - we’re still looking at some pretty fundamental disagreements.”

Meanwhile, informal consultations on how to proceed with the agenda and the financial mechanism under the SBI continued throughout the day, “almost reaching agreement but just coming up short,” according to one delegate.

After its initial informal plenary session, AWG-LCA delegates were left with some food for thought regarding how to address issues and proceed after the first reading of the negotiating text. Some concerned-looking observers were heard wondering whether they would be sitting inside or outside the negotiating room when the second reading of the negotiating text begins. However, no one appeared particularly perturbed over the confirmation that the November meeting would be held in Barcelona.

WEDNESDAY, 3 JUNE 2009
On Wednesday, the corridors were filled with busy delegates who spilled out quickly after meetings, rushing to coordination groups spread throughout the Maritim Hotel. Parties had plenty to coordinate on as contact groups and informals proliferated. One delegate emerging from the “question and answer” informal in the AWG-KP emission reductions group stopped long enough to say that the informals were “elucidating.” He explained, “I don’t know if we agree any more, but at least we understand each other better.”

A number of delegates seemed to be feeling the pressure, and some voiced frustration about duplicating discussions across bodies. “Why are we still talking about adaptation in SBI when we talked about it all morning in the AWG-LCA,” sighed one delegate. “It’s time to put some of these agenda items to bed if we’re going to have the time we need in Copenhagen.”

Many delegates appeared a bit hesitant to offer opinions about progress made or lack thereof, saying that it was still too early in the game. Some were looking forward with anticipation to the AWG-LCA informals on legal form scheduled for Thursday.

The “forest club” made its first appearance today as the REDD and LULUCF discussions got underway. “What are they talking about” one bewildered observer was overheard whispering in the back of the REDD contact group. “These people speak their own language,” his colleague whispered back. Perhaps one African delegate was right in Tuesday’s AWG-KP plenary when he welcomed a specialized spin-off group on LULUCF, saying “generally speaking, those negotiators are a different breed.”

THURSDAY, 4 JUNE 2009

Jukka Uosukainen (Finland) and Zaheer Fakir (South Africa) stop for a quick chat before a session

The atmosphere at the Maritim Hotel was lively and busy as ever on Thursday. The meeting room hosting the lunchtime technical briefing organized by the AWG-LCA Chair was standing room only. During the event, delegates from Brazil, Bolivia, China and India made presentations on historical responsibility as a guide to future action on climate change. Lively discussions followed, continuing later in the corridors and even in some negotiations, including the AWG-KP contact group on Annex I emission reductions. One observer commented that notions of historical responsibility reflect “deeply held beliefs” for some developing countries who are unlikely to “be pushed around” on the issue. Some developed country delegates, however, were heard wondering when current responsibilities would be discussed.

Some conceded that they could use a refresher course on the Convention as so many of the discussions are now centered on what is written in it - whether historical responsibility is included, and whether and how the various proposals under the AWG-LCA relate to the Convention’s provisions. “I’m glad that someone announced in yesterday’s plenary that they have some extra copies of the Convention text - the Secretariat may soon be running out of the coveted booklets.”

Later in the day, a number of delegates met in an informal group under the AWG-LCA to discuss the legal form of the outcome. Some emerging from the room afterwards seemed perplexed: “For non-lawyers, it was certainty a crash course in international law.” Others, however, were excited: “This was it! We have been postponing these discussions, but now the options are finally on the table, countries are speaking frankly about the options they prefer, and we’re starting to address some real issues,” commented one seasoned negotiator. “I wish I was following some of those issues,” commented one envious delegate, languishing in largely routine discussions under the SBs all day.

FRIDAY, 5 JUNE 2009
After yet another busy day, some delegates were starting to feel fatigued, including many that had attended 3-hour AWG-LCA plenary sessions every morning for five days. “It’s true that we’re finally getting into substance, and that we’ve managed to go through two very important chapters, but still, things are moving slowly,” one delegate commented, continuing: “But we had better brace ourselves for an intense second week if our aim is still to get through a second reading at this session in Bonn.”

Most delegates did not seem surprised that the second round of informal consultations on the legal form of the AWG-LCA’s outcome continued to elicit intractable positions. However, an announcement by a developing country that it was planning to present a fifth protocol proposal aimed at reflecting a broad range of views set the corridors buzzing, and caused quite a ruckus among some developing country delegations. “Where did that come from?” exclaimed one negotiator emerging from a coordination meeting. “I guess the proponents are trying to ensure that a comprehensive legally binding outcome in Copenhagen is not precluded,” said one seasoned negotiator.

Some AWG-KP delegates were in a relatively positive mood, feeling that at least some progress was being made. Others, however, felt that despite more substance being added to the discussions, positions remained polarized. Some were wondering how the new paper, expected on Saturday, calculating a collective emission reduction range based on Annex I parties’ unilateral pledges, would affect the mood. “At least it will be useful to finally see what the numbers look like when the various base years and assumptions are translated into the same language,” opined one delegate after the morning’s meeting on emission reductions.

AWG-KP negotiators in the “other issues” group were also looking to the future. Some hoped that they would start talking substance and narrowing options, after several days of running through the text and ensuring the inclusion of all proposals. “It wasn’t the exciting part, but it had to be done,” one delegate noted, adding, “If you lay a shoddy foundation, the house might crack later.”

Attempts were also made to take some battles outside the negotiating rooms, as well as build bridges between some traditional divides.

SATURDAY, 6 JUNE 2009
Rain and a heavy workload kept delegates inside on Saturday as the first week of negotiations drew to a close. Reflections on the progress made ran the gamut from excitement to frustration.

As mitigation discussions got going in the AWG-LCA in the afternoon, the plenary room filled with observers and senior delegates. “Even though we’re not negotiating yet, I can’t help but be a little excited,” one long-time observer noted. “We’re seeing history - the stone that will become the sculpture is right here in this room.” Some developing country delegates were less sanguine, with one stressing that although all the pillars of the Bali Action Plan are important, discussions on adaptation, finance and technology are still lagging far behind mitigation.

Outside of the plenary, forest discussions continued. While delegates seemed upbeat after the REDD informals on Friday, some were less pleased with Saturday’s deliberations, with one characterizing parts as “rehashing Poznán.” On the whole though, delegates seemed confident that the Co-Chairs would help find a way forward, as many were quick to praise their “remarkably balanced” text on such sensitive issues. Some AWG-KP delegates also gathered over coffee to chat about LULUCF issues. A number of delegates felt the discussions on some issues were “productive,” and had helped to clarify proposals such as the bar approach. “Of course, the hallways are the hallways,” one delegate noted as he finished his espresso, adding “we’ll see what happens when the full group sits down together on Tuesday.”

The week’s intensive schedule took its toll on many delegates. As the plenary hall emptied after the AWG-LCA plenary at the end of the day, some prepared for the NGO party while others struggled to summon the energy to debrief the week’s events with their delegations.

MONDAY, 8 JUNE 2009
As the second week of the meeting began, many delegates were thinking about the organization of work for the remaining days of “Bonn 2″, “Bonn 3″ and beyond. While the AWG-LCA completed the first reading of text related to the first three mitigation paragraphs in the BAP, some grew increasingly skeptical of the prospect of finishing the second reading of the draft negotiating text at Bonn 2 - “I don’t think we’ll finish it here, but what happens if we aren’t even able to finish it during Bonn 3?” wondered one seasoned negotiator. Despite not completing comprehensive discussions of the mitigation text during the first reading, some delegates were glad the second reading of the adaptation chapter would begin on Tuesday. “It’s progress, but until everybody’s words are on paper it’s hard to see where this thing is headed,” one delegate observed.

Indeed, getting those words on paper to meet the deadline for submitting text set by the AWG-LCA Chair for Monday evening was a key activity after-hours at the Maritim: nearly every small meeting room was filled with delegates working into the evening to prepare their textual proposals.

Under the AWG-KP, a long contact group session convened to discuss Annex I further emission reductions, with several hours of further informal discussions on the topic scheduled for Tuesday. Some characterized the atmosphere during Monday’s discussions as “quite congenial,” and parties could be seen looking relaxed and exchanging friendly banter afterwards. “But obviously, there are still no concrete numbers on the table from all parties,” one noted. Some developed country delegates also worried that the flexibility mechanisms were not being given enough attention, while others lamented what they felt was a too narrow mandate for the legal matters group.

Informal consultations were also taking place on the upcoming sessions of the AWG-LCA and other bodies, including the Copenhagen meeting itself. The side-event on COP 15, organized by Denmark during lunchtime, was well-attended.

TUESDAY, 9 JUNE 2009

Sergio Zelaya Bonilla (UNCCD) and Hanna Hoffmann (UNFCCC) offering a smile for the camera

Many delegates spent the bulk of the day in various informal consultations and contact groups, attempting to finish the SB agenda items before the closing plenaries scheduled for Wednesday. While some groups reached agreement on how to conclude their work earlier in the day, other issues required longer consideration. Discussions on issues such as REDD and non-Annex I national communications stretched into the evening. The REDD discussions culminated later in heavily bracketed draft decision text. With so many delegates happy about the first draft of the text, some expressed frustration about the “explosion of brackets at the eleventh hour.”

Informal consultations also continued under the AWG-KP throughout the day. Some delegates emerging from the negotiations introduced a new term into the corridors’ discussions: “esKPees” - which they explained refers to parties that are considering leaving the Kyoto Protocol. “I’m concerned,” sighed a seasoned developing country negotiator, “but we will be continuing discussions under the assumption that the Protocol will survive.” Many were predicting, however, that several long hours of discussions would be needed to bring AWG-KP 8 to a conclusion. “One of the major questions is how to proceed with the texts,” commented one.

Those following the AWG-LCA, in turn, seemed positively surprised by the early end to the informal plenary in the morning. Some commented that the Secretariat had done such a good job of incorporating proposals that very few people had to intervene to note omissions.

WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 2009
On Wednesday, the corridors and meeting rooms were once again busy with delegates attempting to complete work under the SBs. Throughout the day, informal consultations were held to finalize outstanding items, such as financial issues and arrangements for intergovernmental meetings. Agreement was eventually reached on all issues - if not in substantive terms, then at least concerning the process forward. Delegates seemed reasonably pleased with many of the outcomes, including the agreement to reconstitute the Consultative Group of Experts on Non-Annex I National Communications. However, the evening ended up being long for those following the SBI, as the closing plenary concluded just before 11 pm.

As the SBs gradually wrapped up, all eyes started shifting towards the AWGs. With textual proposals on mitigation and finance due under the AWG-LCA, the Secretariat was anticipating “another all-nighter” to incorporate the proposals in the draft negotiating text in time for the plenary discussions on Thursday.

While the AWG-KP contact group on other issues was able to wrap up its work and submit text to the AWG-KP Chair, informal consultations on emission reductions continued throughout the day with little progress reported. Some anticipated that “the real battle” over the AWG-KP conclusions was to come over the next two days. “I’m not sure whether there will be a collective decision by the parties to circulate text on proposed amendments to the Protocol - or whether we will end up with several parties submitting their individual amendment proposals,” commented one veteran. “Being a great fan of the Protocol myself, I’m worried about its future,” he added.  “We’ll start Thursday with informal consultations on the AWG-KP conclusions - and that’s when the rubber will really hit the road,” commented another seasoned negotiator on things to come.

THURSDAY, 11 JUNE 2009
Even after the conclusion of the SBs, the corridors of the Maritim remained busy on Thursday. Many commented that it was also “a noisy day” - throughout the morning, a loud “climate alarm” blared from NGO activists outside the hotel. Some delegates were amused and others welcomed the protest as a useful reminder of the seriousness of the issues being discussed. However, some of those working closer to the source of the noise were not so understanding: “I felt it was quite effective - if the aim was to prevent us from concentrating on our work,” one delegate half-joked.

Those following the AWG-LCA seemed already willing to reflect on the session’s achievements and the possible way forward. While some seemed puzzled by the brevity of the second week’s AWG-LCA plenary sessions, others praised the immense amount of important work that went into putting together the text, which has now grown to over 200 pages. “What we did was useful - and going through the text in an informal plenary setting, paragraph by paragraph, would not have been helpful,” said one delegate. He seemed optimistic that what might have seemed like a “short-term loss of time” could be made up for at Bonn 3. “Realistically, not much more could have been expected at this session,” another delegate added.

Outside the plenary, one of the main topics discussed in the corridors was how the AWG-KP would move forward. During the day, the form and content of the AWG-KP 8 conclusions were being worked out in a series of informal consultations with the AWG-KP Chair. For some of those emerging from final informal consultations at around 8 pm, the mood was resigned: “We couldn’t agree on a mandate for the Chair to communicate text on possible Protocol amendments, so it looks like all we’ll be asking him to do is to prepare documentation to facilitate discussions next time,” one delegate reported. “It would have been nice to forward jointly a legal text,” said another, “but it’s a negotiation, and I see why others didn’t want to.” Some were surprised that the evening’s informal AWG-KP meeting ended up being so short. One senior delegate however was happy with the early finish, saying he had been worried about having to pull an all-nighter.

Thanks to IISD Reporting Services for the above coverage. Climatico would also like to express it’s condolences to the delegation of Belarus along with the friends and family of Vladimir Tarasenko who passed away suddenly on Saturday. Tarasenko was the Head of the Delegation for Belarus and will be remembered for his valued contribution toward the UNFCCC negotiating process.

The significance of the current Bonn talks is clear (see “Bonn off to a good start“). But what should the outcomes of the negotiations be; what the contents of the final Copenhagen document?

Different institutions have different opinions and approaches that I will discuss in a small series of blogs starting with the Saint James Palace Memorandum, outcome of the St James Nobel Laureate Symposium (26th - 28th May) and signed by the present Nobel Prize winners.

The Saint James Palace Memorandum

In a few words, the contents of the memorandum are marked by a discourse of the “fierce urgency of now” - the word “now” being underlined across the three key action points or “milestones of the Great Transformation” outlined in the memorandum:

1. Delivering an effective and just global agreement on climate change
2. Delivering a low carbon energy infrastructure
3. Delivering tropical forest protection, conservation and restoration.

The key message is that “we know what needs to be done (and) cannot wait until it is too late” …..consequently, “the zero carbon economy is an ultimate necessity and must be seriously explored now.”

Nothing new?

Sounds more like a text conceptualized by a radical environmental organisation rather than by twenty of the world’s most renowned scientists. The urgency is nothing new; the milestones (international agreement, energy technology and forests) we find in other recommendation statements (to be discussed in future blogs) that describe these necessary actions in more detail than the present text can provide across its two pages.

But at closer look, the memorandum provides an interesting new twist to the prisoner’s dilemma of global climate change negotiations. “In this spirit of trust, every country must act on the firm assumption that all others will also act.”

Past climate change actions and negotiations have not been marked by trust. Quite the opposite: countries have delayed action waiting for others to take the lead, or made commitments conditional upon similar commitments by other countries. As successful action is dependent on all large-scale emitters, progress in the past has partly been stalled by the lack of trust in the international community that others will act in a similar fashion and thus make efforts worthwhile and share the economic burden imposed by the energy transformation (see also Simon Billett’s blog: Poznan Day 11: Ministerial Statements and Game Theory).

From a theoretical perspective, this deadlock can be overcome in three possible ways: communication, e.g. through international conventions and conferences such as the UNFCCC; punishment for inaction which in an international context of sovereign nation states is next to impossible; or repeated games.

Repeated games

From the perspective of the St James Memorandum, “repeated games” in the climate change context implies shifting the focus of climate change negotiations away from fixing individual country targets at a once-off event (Copenhagen) where countries face insecurity about the actions of others. Focus should be placed on setting a common global goal (a peak of global emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2015 and at least a 50% emission reduction by 2050 on a 1990 baseline) whose achievement is the responsibility of all countries according to their respective abilities; compliance will be triggered through repeated events of negotiations. In the words of Schellnhuber, German climate scientist and responsible for the St James Nobel Laureate meeting: “in the worst case scenario we can negotiate every year”.

Copenhagen then is not the one and only game where countries set their commitments suspicious about being cheated by “fellow prisoners” but rather the first in a series of games that make country actions more transparent over time, allow learning and build trust.

The solution?

Sounds somewhat compelling; like a “mean-lean” flexible mechanism to break the deadlock of climate change negotiations. But as always, in reality the problem is a bit more complex. While politicians can build trust and cooperation through regular meetings where partners are able to adapt their behaviour to the behaviour of their counterparts, at the same time, these politicians have to create confidence and a secure investment environment in their countries. Ad hoc negotiations may be more feasible from a political point of view, yet, from a business and economic perspective it is likely to ruin emissions reductions opportunities that require long term planning and investments and therefore long term certainty about regulatory and political decisions. As emissions cannot be reduced by merely pushing a button, flexible negotiation structures may send the wrong signals and  create too much insecurity for the economy to take necessary adjustment measures.

Are there any other ways to resolve a collective action problem? Could a political hegemon pave the way towards a stable international agreement? Germany seemed to take over that role in the climate change debate setting climate change on the top of its G8 summit agenda, yet seems to have withdrawn from its role. The world looks at Obama - but even if the US takes the lead, can that suffice to convince China to move in the same direction?

The Context of Bonn

On Monday the interim meetings of the UNFCCC began in Bonn, Germany. The negotiations, which are scheduled to last for the next two weeks, are both a legal and political forerunner to now infamous ‘Copenhagen Meeting’ in December this year.

Legally, the parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change were slightly caught unawares back in March when it emerged that, under the details of the Kyoto Protocol, any new negotiating texts and amendments must be agreed six months prior to their intended signature and final agreement.  Far from giving a full twelve months of negotiations between Poznan in late 2008 and Copenhagen, then, negotiators now find themselves in something of a scramble to agree to at least a skeleton document by the end of the next week.

Politically, there is such pressure on parties for Copenhagen that there is little scope for delaying agreement, thus making Bonn an unavoidable cram.  While much of this pressure is coming from NGOs and outside observers, a significant portion is also from the parties themselves.  Since the G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan, in July 2008, the major developed countries have constantly deflected difficult questions about meeting agreement to Copenhagen.  Indeed, in his press conference at the G20 in April 2009, UK Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband redirected almost all questions to the UNFCCC process.  As a result, then, the importance of Copenhagen has grown significantly, and so, because of the legal issues above, has that of Bonn.

Opening Days

Signs, at present at least, look positive.  The UNFCCC released draft texts in mid-May into which targets, mechanisms, and implementation details can now be slotted.  Moreover, Monday and Tuesday appear to be ‘off to a good start’, according to one UK negotiator speaking with me yesterday.

Of most interest are the two Bali Action Plan working groups–one (the KP) working out what can be taken forward from Kyoto and the second (the LCA) drafting a new text on ‘long-term, cooperative action’.  In practice this division breaks down to a discussion of targets and mechanisms under the KP and discussion of who should take on commitments and ‘new’ issues like adaptation under the LCA.  So far, both groups have hosted their opening sessions in Bonn.

Post-Kyoto Discussions

The LCA–traditionally the more contentious forum–has opened with a frank discussion on the plethora of proposals submitted by parties over the past few months.  The African Group, for example, expressed concern about a number of the more ‘radical’ proposals–especially the suggestion of a more fluid boundary between developed and developing countries in terms of emissions targets.  Indeed, the classic divisions that tend to emerge at UNFCCC meetings, such as the African Group’s position, do not appear to have been put aside completely in the effort to reach a deal.  Indeed, some of the major middle income countries, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, all expressed concern about the suggestion of developing country targets–an issue for which there are many many options outlined in developed party submissions.

A particular problem here is the structure of the UNFCCC treaty under which the Kyoto Protocol falls.  The treaty document clearly preserves the common but differentiated responsibility and right to develop of developing countries.  While clearly important provisions, these principles hold the UNFCCC in something of a permanent tension between extending global mitigation action as the economic situation in middle income countries changes and abiding by the treaty text.  Indeed, during Tuesday open session of the LCA group, both China and India suggested that possibilities for compulsory developing country action–either with targets or not–were not in line with the Framework Convention itself, and so could not be included.  This continues to grate with the USA’s on-going position (see the Luagr-Biden Resolution) that such countries should take on some commitments.  Japan has also added to the chorus, suggesting that a simply continuation of Kyoto divisions is not acceptable.

Reform and Reuse of Current Kyoto Provisions

Within the KP group of the Bali Action Plan discussion is largely focussed around the level of targets in an amended protocol.  Regardless of who takes these commitments on (something discussed by the LCA, above), the actual numbers are always a point of contention.  As per the usual for an opening meeting, non-Annex I countries were highly critical of ballpark figures for Annex I in 2020; the Assoc. of Small Island States (AOSIS) argued that major Annex I cuts were need immediately, suggesting that the UNFCCC was on the verge of missing the 2 C target.

The Weeks Ahead

It is my expectation that the focus on these two groups will shift as the Bonn talks progress.  While the LCA currently seems to be where most of the action is taking place, it is the KP that brings the fireworks when it comes to agreeing numbers.

What is clear from the opening two days is that party lines remain firmly inscribed in the process.  This gives all the more importance to the various adjunct issues that are also to be finalised during Bonn: REDD+, CDM, No-lose targets (if not in the CDM), technology transfer, and so on.  I think it is likely that these issues will not only grow in importance in their own right but will become the major system of bartering and ‘horse trading’ by which the larger disagreements are overcome.  Thinking back to 1997 and the Kyoto Negotiations, it was the inclusion of the CDM in the closing hours that sealed the deal rather than a substantial shift in existing policy.  Watch these newer issues, then, as they are the currency in which old, stock UNFCCC disputes are traded off.