A day of anger and optimism
Posted on 07. Oct, 2010 by Philip Ireland in Australia
Things are stirring at these negotiations. Participants are getting impatient. The Australian delegation is getting impatient.
At the conclusion of yesterday’s negotiations there was a stocktaking plenary. These sessions happen every so often and provide a space for the different working groups to report back all nations and all observers. Today was marked by impassioned interventions, including from Australia and the United States. Jonathon Pershing, the lead negotiator from the US, publically declared his impatience in a speech that bordered on anger. I think many in the room sympathised with him.
Tensions are mounting | CreativeCommons
Whilst there has been substantial progress on components of a final agreement like adaptation and technology sharing we have been slowed on mitigation commitments and issue called MRV. This increasingly used acronym stands for Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable. In essence, it is about transparency- keeping track of countries greenhouse gas reduction and financing commitments. The real sticking point in MRV is the Verification component (there is another acronym within this called ICA… but I will save you the pain and not on that). Verification involves international observers being able scrutinise mitigation and financing commitments and reporting.
In short, the international community needs confidence that commitments and actions undertaken by developed and developing countries are being undertaken and fulfilled. We need to ensure, for example, that money for adaptation for the most vulnerable is, in fact, new and additional. (by the way, I do want to be on the record and say that I don’t like the terms ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ and only use them because it is the language of the negotiations).
To state this more simply, using the example of China and the US. The US wants to be able to externally verify China’s greenhouse gas emissions to ensure that they are doing what they say they are doing. And, China wants to be able to verify the US’s adaptation financing (particularly the ‘fast-start’ financing) to ensure that it is new and not just recycled aid commitments.
This may all sound a bit pessimistic but I actually think there is an upside to this emerging debate. It demonstrates that we are getting to some of the nuts and bolts of a final agreement. Issues are surfacing that will need to be resolved if we are to achieve a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement.
In other news, I have an article coming up soon on ABC’s ‘The DRUM’ based on an interview I had with Australia’s Ambassador on climate change Louise Hand. Her comments provide a unique insight into Australia’s game plan as we move towards Cancun. I will post it when it goes up. Stay tuned!
Tracking from a city that has a larger population than my country,
Phil.
very interesting. we are watching carefully to see if this frustration and impatience can yield a strong agreement.
Oct 6 2010
AB CANADA
Wednesday
10:38 PM MDT
to: Mr P. Ireland
re: the verification issue and process
Hello… thanks for the info
I just wonder if the veracity would be self evident in the effecticity of the undertakings, that is the measures and reporting would indicate the effectiveness of the actions unless I am missing something, the veracity thus would be shown in a change in the measures and reports whether greater or lesser, ie they have satellites that measure CO2 emissions but I don’t think they can discriminate to too great a degree where the specific emissions are emanating from and if they thus could and do the measure and reports from these satellites on a weekly basis would have to be of a standard that is used in and by all participating nations and have the final say. Who or what global body would oversee and enforce this though if the satellites data indicated that either China or the US measures and emission were not consistent with commitments. It would seem thus an superior oversight body would have to police all nations in adhering to their commitments. But who or what body would all nations agree to submit to. Perhaps some kind of Earth Climate Council of somewhat independent or arms length or objective capacity would suffice like say in conjunction somewhat with the International Court members or judges and or global space agencies scientists who might constitute objective and sober officers of the Earth Climate Council. All nations though would have to sign off on the agreement and judgment of this Council would be law.
ed Jonas