Countries' reactions to the new draft climate agreement

10 minutes

By Libelula hace 10 year

views

With just a few days to go before the close of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21), the time to reach a new global agreement on climate change is getting shorter and shorter.

On December 9, at 8:00 p.m. Paris time, a long plenary session began, where representatives of the 195 countries present at the summit gathered to present their positions on the second draft text generated during COP21, by the COP Presidency.

You can read the text here.

Country approval

The vast majority of countries thanked the COP presidency and the working group facilitators for the smooth conduct of the negotiations. The countries accepted the new draft text of the agreement as a basis for further negotiations and expressed their willingness to continue working towards a compromise. They called for the negotiation process to continue to be transparent and inclusive, i.e. to consider all countries.

You can watch the video of the meeting here.

Key issues to be resolved

COP21 President Laurent Fabius announced that he will chair in the next 24 hours a group of informal consultations on the crucial and interrelated issues of the agreement that remain to be resolved:

Differentiation of efforts between different groups of countries (in particular, between developing and developed countries);
Means of implementation. in particular, the central theme of financial support to developing countries.
Ambition. It refers to the level of ambition of the agreement, in particular with respect to the 1.5°C or 2°C targets, the mention or not of the decarbonization of the global economy, the periodic review cycles of the commitments and the steady increase in ambition.

In addition, the president of COP20 in Lima, Manuel Pulgar Vidal, will lead parallel consultation groups on the following topics that were considered to be recurrent in the countries' comments:

Losses and damages;
Cooperation mechanisms;
Preamble of the agreement;
Forests.

These issues are of utmost importance to different groups of countries, particularly in Latin America.

Below we highlight the positions of the main negotiating blocs with respect to the new text:

G77 and China (grouping most of the developed countries), through its South African representative:

He shared his concern that the principle of differentiation between developed and developing countries was not well represented in the text.
He expressed his dissatisfaction with the component on adaptation to the effects of climate change, a crucial element for developing countries.
He criticized the lack of long-term vision and predictability in terms of support for developing countries.
He favored the option of dealing with loss and damage - effects of climate change to which one cannot adapt - as a separate topic from the adaptation article. He stated that a permanent institution is needed to manage this issue.
He stated that addressing cross-cutting issues such as differentiation, ambition and financing will allow many points to be unblocked and brackets to be removed from the text.

AILAC (groups Peru, Chile, Colombia, Panama, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras and Paraguay), through its representative in Guatemala:

He stated that there are elements that cannot be withdrawn if an ambitious agreement is to be reached.
He called for the agreement to be legally binding for all.
He said that several issues on adaptation were removed from the text. "It is a key issue for developing countries, we want to see it back in the text," he said.
He stressed the importance of the loss and damage issue.
He called for strengthening the element of national commitments, particularly their verifiability.
According to AILAC, it is key to address the issue of vulnerability of developing countries to climate change.
Latin America is a highly vulnerable region, he said.
He asked to maintain the reference to human rights, as well as the issues of gender and intergenerational equity.

BASIC Group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), through its Chinese representative:

He stated that the text is balanced and open. "We are willing to work."
He did not comment on the issues in the text.

Group of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS), through its representative from the Maldives:

Regarding the global goal on global warming, he strongly supported the third option (keeping the increase in global temperature below 1.5°C).
He called for recognition in the text of the special needs and characteristics of small island developing states, especially in the area of financing.
He asked to include the differentiation approach in reference to the commitments presented by the countries and the issue of adaptation.
He is in favor of the option of dealing with loss and damage as a separate issue from the adaptation article. He indicated that a permanent institution is needed to manage this issue.

Caribbean Community (grouping 14 Caribbean states), through its representative from Barbados:

He stated that the 2°C target is not acceptable. He defended the 1.5°C option.
"We will not sign any agreement that condemns us to the certain extinction of our peoples."
"It would be a great injustice to those who pay the highest price."
He stated that it is crucial that the agreement address the issue of loss and damage. "We cannot walk away with an agreement that lacks this element."
According to the group, the provisions for review and compliance with commitments appear weak.
He acknowledged the progress that has been made on the issue of forests (REDD+), but requested that the issue be more clearly present in the agreement.

European Union, through its representative:

He said he was concerned about raising the level of ambition of the text.
For example, he indicated that the text should include a periodic review -every 5 years- of the countries' commitments that would allow the level of ambition to be raised from time to time.
He stated that after 2020, "all countries in a position to do so" must contribute to the financial support.
According to the group, there is a lack of clarity on the loss and damage element, e.g. there is a lack of quantifiable targets.
He regretted that international transportation is not mentioned in the text.

Arab Group (22 Arab countries), through its representative from Saudi Arabia:

He stated that all countries are represented in the text.
He called for the concept of co-benefits of adaptation for mitigation to be incorporated back into the text.
"We will not accept any goal that threatens the development of our countries, our ability to eradicate poverty and ensure food security. And one of the proposals prevents that, the science shows."
He was concerned about the concept of "countries in a position to do so": Who will determine that?
The issue of human rights is mentioned in different parts of the agreement and they asked for more consistency in the use of this term in the text.
He opposed including the concept of a "carbon price" in the text. "We don't want a tax imposed that would weigh on our economies."

Environmental Integration Group (Mexico, Korea, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco), through its representative from Switzerland:

He expressed great concern because, according to him, the text as a whole is not balanced, especially with regard to financing issues. He indicated that it is not representative of the options on the table.
He asked for more compromise proposals. He expressed his fear of an unbalanced outcome.
He stated that emissions from the aviation and international transport sectors should be considered in the text.

Coalition of Rainforest Nations, through its representative from Panama:

He stated that the REDD+ mechanism should be implemented and reinserted in paragraph 3bis of the text.

Umbrella Group (a coalition of non-EU developed countries, including the United States, Japan and Russia, among others), through its representative from Australia:

He stated that some options have been adopted that do not reflect consensus and that critical issues remain, particularly differentiation.
He stated that in terms of differentiation, the Paris agreement must set a clear path, particularly in terms of responsibilities, recognizing the changing context of the global economy.
According to the group, the review of national commitments every 5 years is essential.

Developing Countries Affinity Group on Climate Change (grouping 41 countries), through its Malaysian representative:

"We are all uncomfortable with the text". According to the spokesman, important elements are missing, particularly those related to loss and damage, financing and technology transfer.
He stated that the mitigation component is unbalanced.
He stated that there is a lack of ambition for the pre-2020 period (i.e. between 2015 and 2020, as the agreement will only come into force in 2020).
According to the group, there are fundamental elements such as the issue of common but differentiated responsibilities that are missing from the text. "We are willing to make concessions but not on basic elements."
He called for greater consideration of the "climate justice" element in the text.

Least Developed Countries Group, through its representative from Angola:

He stated that some areas require improvement. There are points of concern.
He was very concerned about including a provision for least developed countries to have priority access to financing.
According to him, the mitigation section should be more balanced.
He called for the establishment of a clear mechanism for compliance with the commitments.
He declared himself in favor of the 1.5°C option.

Groups from African countries, through their representative from Egypt:

According to the group, the issue of differentiation should be reflected in the agreement, particularly in the areas of mitigation, finance and transparency.
He expressed concern that it is not clearly stated that the agreement is dependent on the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
He stated that in the adaptation element, the financing component is missing.
He called for Africa to be considered as a vulnerable region.

See here an infographic from Climate Trackers that summarizes the main points addressed.

Source: ConexiónCOP