Delegates to the Tawara Climate Chance Conference (Image by: Government of Kiribati)

Article by Guest Contributor: Natalie Antonowicz

Held in Kiribati from 9 to 10 November, the Tawara Climate Change Conference produced the Ambo Declaration, which was signed by Australia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Fiji, Japan, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Island, New Zealand, Solomon Islands and Tonga. Although Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States also attended the conference, they chose to adopt observer status, and did not sign the declaration.

Other observers in attendance included representatives from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UNFCCC and the World Bank. NGOs present included Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). This demonstrates significant attention to the issue from both intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.

The Tawara Conference represents the second meeting of the Climate Vulnerable Forum, or V11, created in 2009, as part of the Bandos Island Declaration, which was signed in the Maldives in 2009. The V11 comprises Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, the Maldives, Nepal, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam. These small island states and least developed countries are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. They are also among the states least capable of adapting to the effects of environmental degradation.

In addition to its core members, the V11 also comprises the following observers: China, Denmark, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Such meetings are key, as they highlight the above stated goals of assuring cooperation, dialogue and partnership between developed and developing states, on issues of climate change financing and adaptation.

Kiribati’s President Anote Tong expressed his country’s goal of having the Ambo Declaration “contribute hopefully to some positive steps forward in the Cancun negotiations”. Presented in 18 points, the Ambo Declaration emphasizes signatories’ “concerns on the urgency of the climate crisis calling for immediate access to adaptation funds to meet and address current and projected impacts of climate change”.

President Tong stated “[t]he message we are trying to make here very clearly is that we are running out of time and as long as the global community continues to debate, it may be too late for small countries”. This indicates the sense of urgency brought to the negotiating table by Kiribati and similarly vulnerable countries.

The Ambo Declaration represents partnership and communication between vulnerable developing countries and their economically advanced counterparts. This is important because it demonstrates developed countries’ support for the unique vulnerability and plight of small island states. President Tong has expressed optimism at China’s signature of the declaration, but feels discouraged by the United Kingdom and United States’ reluctance to do the same, as the participation of these two countries is crucial to the success of any international environmental agreement.

Signatories will present the Ambo Declaration to the COP at the Cancun Conference, with the intention that it will provide “some positive steps forward” for the negotiations concerning financing for climate change adaptation. The ultimate goal of the Tawara Conference was to encourage developed countries to contribute funds to adaptation projects. It remains to be seen at Cancun whether any new agreement to this effect will be concluded. This may be unlikely, as representatives from France and the European Union – major voices at COP16 – have expressed their reluctance to commit to the declaration.

Signatories to the Ambo Declaration called for “decisions on an ‘urgent package’ to be agreed to at the COP 16 for concrete and immediate implementation reflecting the common ground of Parties, consistent with the principles and provisions of the Convention, and the Bali Action Plan, to assist those in most vulnerable States on the frontline to respond to the challenges posed by the climate change crisis”. Parties “welcome[d] the growing momentum and commitment for substantially increasing resources for climate change financing and call[ed] on developed country Parties to make available financial resources that are new and additional, adequate, predictable and sustainable, and on a clear, transparent and grant basis to developing country parties, especially the most vulnerable States on the front line, to meet and address current and projected impacts of climate change”. Developed country support was urged, particularly in terms of capacity building and technology transfer.

Signatories also “call[ed] on parties to the UNFCCC to consider the need for establishing an international mechanism responsible for planning, preparation for, and managing climate change related disaster risks in order to minimize and address the environmental and economic costs associated with loss and damage”. Finally, timeliness and transparency were urged, in order to ensure “a balanced allocation of resources between adaptation and mitigation”, and the consideration of “unique circumstances of most vulnerable States in the frontline”.

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.