AAN Editors check-in on the status of talks

Negotiators made it through tough fights on what would be included on the agenda during this session last week. Since then, they’ve been more-less working on the various agenda items in smaller informal groups. Most of those meetings are taking place with out observers allowed into the room, but here’s what we think is happening inside:

Yesterday, 13 different groups talking about 13 different issues at the UN Climate Talks in Bonn. The general mood in the halls is that discussions are going well, with at least some of the issues moving forward constructively. The large number of concurrent (often closed door) meetings make it difficult to track and piece together coherent view of where we are, but breaking everything down into 4 main sets of negotiations helps us at least frame the discussions and find some of the sticky issues.

In the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), there’s a group reviewing draft text on National Adaptation Plans; another talking about arrangements for intergovernmental meetings (the if, where and what a potential meeting between now and Durban takes place). There’s a group debating the Global Environmental Facility, a mechanism to deal with finances supporting parts of the SBI’s work. Finally, in SBI, appeals against Clean Development Mechanism’s executive board decisions are a contentious issue – Florent Baarsch is digging into this for a story later today.

Next up, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (or SBSTA, one of our favourite acronyms) one set of discussions focused on how we monitor and report on the implementation of REDD+, an issue we decided on in Cancun to protect forests in developing countries. Another group discussed the Nairobi Work Programme and impacts of vulnerability and adaptation.

There was also joint SBSTA/SBI forum on response measures - a contentious issue with countries fighting over whether loss of projected oil revenue due to a transition to clean energy should be part of any adaptation programs we’re building to support developing countries. Countries with lots of oil fight to include response measures in adaptation and countries without generally think it has no place – guess which side we’re on.

In the ad hoc working group on Longterm Cooperative Action (LCA), countries discussed the coherence and coordination of finance. What little money is currently available to help developing countries respond to climate change is spread among a confusing array of funds and options. These discussions were about the potential of rationalising all of these under the newly-formed green climate fund. Countries discussed market and non-market approaches to respond to climate change. A group is discussing the long-term goals of this process, which is currently aimed at keeping global warming below 2 degrees. There’s a question about whether to limit discussion to reviewing the adequacy of the 2 degree goal, or do that and add discussion about the adequacy of actions in meeting that goal – oi! Finally in LCA, a group looked at how, when and if a legally binding agreement under LCA could happen, acknowledging the wide variety of views held by various countries.

In the working group on a second commitment period (2CP) to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) some of the spin-off groups spun-back-in to discuss progress. This included the obvious discussion on further emission reduction commitments by developed countries (willing to commit to a 2CP) and discussion on the rules and accounting systems of KP. Countries reiterated the need for developed countries to raise their ambition. Moving forward from this the chair asked the negotiator from South Africa consult with countries individually on what needs to happen between now and decision time in Durban at the end of the year.

Each of these discussions have their merits – whether they’re necessary for us to understand and forge solutions or they’re necessary in order to bring all the countries along while we try. Continuing the trend of the last few days, lots of these discussions seem caught on contentious issues, and we’re still how all of these groups will come back together. In the mean time, we’ll keep an eager watch for some sense of coherence – and hopefully soon get a view of what will likely come out of Durban and how we move forward beyond then.

If you’re feeling really nerdy and want to dig into the details, the ENB has much better daily analysis than we could ever come up with - here’s their latest.