ADP Wrap Up

Friday afternoon rolled round and the AWG-LCA finally closed and submitted a draft text to COP for review. Despite repeated calls from the President to conclude work on Friday; by midnight the Ad-Hoc Working Group for Enhanced Action (ADP) had only just submitted its draft text with outstanding matters to ministerial review. With stock take scheduled for 1am, Saturday morning the President’s call for parties to “come back at 11pm with the white smoke” clearly went unheeded.

Following the long and convoluted LCA conclusion that left numerous significant issues unresolved; the general atmosphere was that the ADP closing session would be a far more expedient affair. Unlike the LCA, the ADP negotiations had been characterised as positive and constructive. Inexpertly, the ADP closing session encountered numerous roadblocks and was unable to reach a consensus on the text. It closed at 10:30pm on Friday evening.

The key issues in the ADP concluding text related to the language in:

Work Stream 1, 13(d) “ways of defining and reflecting undertakings”

Work Stream 1, 13(a) “application of the principles of the Convention to the ADP”

Work Stream 2, 15(a) “application of the principles of the Convention to the ADP”

Work Stream 2, 15 (d) “finance, technology, and capacity-building to support implementation”

Work Stream 2, 16 “…to rapidly, cost-effectively, and equitably reduce green house gases.”

Conclusions, 4(c) “In Bonn, Germany, from Monday, 29 April to Friday, 3 May 2013 and/or from Monday, 9 September to Friday, 13 September 2013”

Negotiations over this language lasted for approximately two and a half hours. Parties failed to reach a consensus but the session was concluded and a draft text submitted to COP for Ministerial review. Whilst these issue of language may seem like petty disputes of individual words, their interpretation is crucial to ensuring that countries carry out their obligations as intended and to ensure that the legal meaning of the terms is certain. Surprisingly the vast majority of dispute took place in relation to language contained in the concluding text rather than the decision itself which was subject only to a handful of minor amendments the most controversial of which referred to including language from Rio+20.

“Application of the principles of the Convention to the ADP”

China voiced concern over 13(a) and 15(a) because it believes that is misunderstands the relationship between the Convention and the Durban Platform. The ‘Convention’ refers to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is both the body which conducts the UN Climate Talks as well as a policy document. The Durban Platform was created under the Convention and, China argued, thus all of the principles and annexes contained within the text ought to fall under the same banner. China’s concern was that the language in 13(d) and 15(a) did not accurately reflect this relationship. South Africa and Mexico echoed these sentiments. India suggested that this problem could be resolved simply by removing the words “to the ADP”. This suggestion was supported by Egypt, Singapore and Japan.

After extensive to and fro with the Chair, Uganda submitted a proposition that reference to the Convention be removed from the concluding text COP and instead the phrase “guided by the principles of the Convention” be inserted into the draft decision itself. This would have the effect of strengthen the reference to the Convention whose ultimate mandate is to produce an effective response to climate change. The US opposed this suggestion, but none-the-less it was noted by the Chair as a point of issue for COP to consider when the draft text was submitted to them.

“Undertakings”

The European Union took the floor first expressing its concern over a lack of clarity in the use of the word “undertaking”. China echoed their concerns and recommended that it could be changed to “ways of defining and reflecting commitments and actions” to utilise the language that was already employed in the Durban Platform founding text. India agreed with China as did Norway who found the use of the word undertaking “a bit strange”. Columbia made the eloquent point that “we do not know how long a path from undertaking to undertaker and we certainly don’t want to bring that into the ADP”. Whilst evidently in jest, Columbia refers to the serious problems that can arise from legally uncertain language. Costa Rica agreed.

Egypt agreed with China that a “range of commitments” is a more appropriate expression and went further to conclude they would also want to add “actions” but that they could be flexible.

The US voiced strong opposition to the inclusion of “actions” because it construed actions as a term that referred to the Bali Action Plan (a mandate agreed upon in Bali that the LCA was designed to fulfill). The US negotiator uncompromisingly said, “Actions and commitments” as a phrase are straight out of Bali. Bali had its place. Durban platform is not Bali.”

China was an incredibly vocal party to these debates and true to form utilised the “three carbon concept” to challenge the US argument not to use Bali Action Plan terminology. “reduce, reuse and recycle”.

“Rapidly, cost-effectively and equitably reduce greenhouse gases”

Marshall Islands requested the inclusion of the word “urgently” before “rapidly” to reflect the science upon which the UNFCCC is based.  Uganda proposed the inclusion of an additional phrase “as well as enhancing resilience to impacts of climate change particularly in lesser developed countries” to reflect the reality of climate change impacts currently.

Bonn Spring and Fall Sessions

With regards to 4(c) the parties debated the words “and/or” with some parties satisfied with the option contained in the text whilst others wanted to insist on removing the “or” to ensure two sessions in 2013. Nauru, on behalf of AOSIS, expressed its preference for two sessions but made no strong case to alter the text.

Concluding remarks

As the negotiations approached the two and a half hour mark the Chair suggested that the text be submitted to COP for Ministerial review to determine the final outstanding issue. The issue of “action” discussed extensively through the evening once again flared up when the Chair attempted to resolve the dispute in closing by using words “what parties will do” which the European Union suggested. In a dramatic series of events the Chair in fact declared the session closed having heard no objections.

China responded with a lengthy interjection expressing indignation that their objection wasn’t noted.  “Actually we are not play games here. What does it mean by “what parties will do.” It’s meaningless! I am really very much disappointed.

This is not acceptable. I can’t, I can’t go ahead with what you have adopted.”

In what was effectively a showdown, the EU responded, “We are very disappointed that one party has said that they can’t agree to this and has held up the progress. We came here to reach an agreement and we came here to negotiate.”

The Chair called both parties to the front and, allegedly with some assistance from Egypt, managed to achieve a compromise.

The very long and heated session concluded with Chair remarking wryly “I guess you are not very interested in a round of closing statements and you’d rather find a cup of coffee?”

By Sophie Trevitt, photo by Laura Owsianka.