The initial LCA text we got on Friday morning was really weak and missed the section on finance. There was no decision of the Technology mechanism (TEC), low mitigation decision, weak sectoral approaches section, and unclear shared vision elements with no specifics about numbers and global peak year for emission reduction. Most of these issues are still pending and are being deliberated upon by the ministers. In the early hours of Friday night, the LCA plenary took place where the parties expressed their reservations on the draft text forwarded by the chair. According to veterans, the final draft text did not include anything new but just deletion of brackets, options and everything else that parties did not seem to agree on. In the plenary, China compared the text with the bad food of QNCC (the conference venue) – “not great, but something to eat”. Most countries rejected the text and chances could be that they would reopen the text in ministerial consultations. After hearing the criticism, the chair of the LCA, Ayysar Tayyeb forwarded the draft text to the COP, where decisions would be taken under the COP presidency by the ministers. This marked the end to the LCA track which was established in 2007 as per the Bali Action Plan.

Progress on the KP track is not anything less than disappointing. The draft text that was forwarded to the COP for final consultations has existing loopholes such as the issue of AAU surplus carryovers and low ambition. Developed countries seemed interested in keeping the market mechanisms intact and strengthened, but developing countries expressed concerns over this. Also, the second commitment period length was also highly debated. Rumors are we will see some last minute bargains in the Kyoto Protocol, which may not be good news for the world.

After several postpones, the ADP plenary finally happened in the late hours of Friday night. The co-chairs managed to forward an agreed draft text to the COP after much arm twisting from parties, particularly China and the US. The fights were mainly over the wording of the text with the US not wanting to add ‘commitments’ or ‘actions’ in the draft conclusions. China and other countries remained adamant that they wanted ‘commitments’ in the text otherwise they would not accept it. Finally, with Egypt’s linguistic help, parties managed to agree with having “enhanced action” in its place.

Decisions relating loss and damage and MRV standards are also outstanding. Several groups are bilaterally working to resolve differences and come up with an agreed outcome. The COP president will also hold a ministerial consultation session or “Majlis” (a meeting in Arabic culture where political decisions are made) to provide space to ministers to come to convergence.

We are over 12 hours of additional negotiations and have been informed that the plenary that is scheduled for 3 am, will now take place at 7:30 am (if odds are with us). Rumor mill has it that the COP president is gone off to bed (he lives only 10 minutes away from QNCC). Guess we all should get some sleep too. It will be a long day ahead of us, yet again.

In a recent unfolding of things, a new alliance of 5 middle-income economies has emerged at the Doha climate talks. Collectively known as the Alianza Independiente de Latinoamerica y el Caribe (AILAC), the group includes Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, Chile and Guatemala. The alliance is formed to counter the growing influence of BASIC and ALBA groups of countries, which does not reflect the economic realities of all the countries. The group has garnered support from some major parties such as Mexico and the civil society, who see it as a constructive way forward – “moving from the politics of blame to the politics of responsibility”.

According to Costa Rican negotiator, Monica Araya, AILAC is a partnership of countries that want obligations for all but keeping the changing realities of the world in mind. The idea is for these countries to pursue economic development, without repeating the same mistakes of the developed countries that has caused the problem of global climate change.

The alliance is seen as a balanced negotiation group trying to create a middle ground between countries. It aims to bring a Latin American perspective to the talks, but one that promotes cooperation between rich and poor countries.

Will AILAC be successful in bringing parties to convergence in Doha? Would it be as strong a group in changing dynamics in Doha talks as was its counterpart the Cartagena  Dialogue in Cancun? Or will it be just another bandwagon that misses its targets? Only time will tell.

A COP Presidency stocktaking plenary had just ended that resembled a lot like the Copenhagen version of 2009. With almost two days remaining, negotiations on all 7 tracks (AWG-LCA, AWG-KP, AWG-ADP, SBSTA, SBI, COP and CMP) are still going on without any prospects of successful closure. Several draft texts are still being introduced in the negotiations, which was pretty much the case in Copenhagen. Most of the decisions are left for the ministers to decide. Rumours are circulating in the corridors that several bilateral meetings are happening between different parties and not all parties are being consulted for an agreed outcome. As one negotiator puts it: “it’s not a party driven process, but a process driven party”.

Here are the updates so far on the negotiations:

SBSTA: Most work has been completed, but 2 outstanding political issues remain. One related to common tabular format related to MRV and the second on methodological issues related to Kyoto Protocol. Issues relating intellectual property rights (IPR) also remain.

SBI: Agreement has been reached on national adaptation plans. One issue relating Climate Technology Center (CTC) is unresolved. Loss and damage is still a problem, but parties have managed to remove 9 brackets from the text.

AWG-KP: Scheduled to close by midnight, but some options remain to be taken up by ministers.

AWG-LCA: Nothing substantial emerged out of the informal consultations. Most likely to continue discussions in a single informal group.

AWG-ADP: Three roundtable discussions happened on the two workstreams. Relatively progressed more than any other track. Scheduled to close by noon tomorrow.

COP and CMP: Work progressing smoothly with many issues finalized. Few outstanding issues related to finance remain.

Developed countries have committed to mobilize sufficient funding for developing countries adaptation and mitigation efforts under several international negotiations, the recent being the promise to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020. Yet, past experience from Fast Start Finance and Adaptation Fund tells us that most of the funding that came into these instruments was redirected from the ODA (Official Development Assistance) share of the developed countries. Further, there lacks consistent and comprehensive data to track the commitments and climate finance by developed nations.

The negotiations under the subsidiary body of the UNFCCC (SBSTA) aimed to adopt common tabular formats for reporting and verification by developed countries on climate finance (MRV on finance). The idea, proposed by developing countries, is to list individual, bilateral financed actions of each country in a detailed format rather than just mentioning aggregate figures. Clearly, this was blocked by the developed countries who see this process to be cumbersome. It is important to note that in the absence of such reporting system, it is easy for the developed countries to pledge money for climate finance by just changing numbers in their balance sheets than actually making concrete and real contributions.

So while we thank the UK government for being so generous in pledging money to climate finance, I think we will appreciate more if you and your friends (the developed countries) be more transparent in telling us from where and how your climate finance is flowing.

Since countries have so far been unable to raise adequate funds to support developing countries either through public finance or innovative sources such as imposing levies on bunkers and aviation, the Bond can provide a “middle ground” for countries to address on-going finance issues.

Post-flood situation in Jacobabad, Sindh, Pakistan

So what is loss and damage?

Past actions by nations have been inadequate in responding to climate change impacts such as extreme weather events (floods, storms) and slow onset conditions (sea-level rise, desertification). When emissions reduction efforts (mitigation) fail and responses to climate impacts (adaptation) reach its limits, the subsequent effects result in permanent loss and damage. In this case, the loss and damage mechanisms come into play and rehabilitate and/or compensate affected communities for permanent loss and damage incurred that cannot be reversed.

International Framework on Loss and Damage

Currently, efforts are being put together to develop an international mechanism on compensation and rehabilitation. The developing countries and Alliance of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS) are calling for an international insurance facility to protect them against the damage of climate impacts. This requires money from the developed countries, who as historic emitters, need to mobilize additional funding than just the $100 billion they are currently being asked for. Of course, this is getting a lot of friction from the developed nations who see the concept of loss and damage having legal and moral consequences.

Last year in Durban, parties agreed to a work program on loss and damage, through which five expert meetings were held focusing on three thematic areas: assessing the risk of loss and damage, approaches and the role of the Convention (UNFCCC). As a next step, an international mechanism was to be agreed upon in Doha. However, developed nations oppose the idea and instead want to continue the work program (organizing five more workshops) for another year. They seem adamant in going on with the idea of compensation due to loss and damage. Developing countries also want a separate track to be established on loss and damage, but there is no convergence on it so far.

I sat with Ali Tauqeer Sheikh, Asia’s Director for Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), to talk more about the issue. Here’s what he has to say about loss and damage:

Finance Agenda for COP18

In order to build the trust back, and to ensure a successful outcome in Doha, parties must agree on certain things related to finance:

1. Parties need to make sure and agree that climate finance in 2013 will go up and not down the levels of Fast Start Finance (a finance mobilization period between 2009-2012), and continue to rise to USD $100 bn by 2020.

2. New and additional public resources should be committed, amounting to USD $60 bn.

3. 50% of public finance should be allocated for adaptation purposes.

4. There should be full transparency on common criteria and baselines for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of finance.

5. Generate revenues from innovative sources of finance such as Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) and global carbon pricing schemes on international transport with no net incidence on developing countries.

6. Capitalization of the Green Climate Fund (putting actual money in the fund).schemes with no net incidence on developing countries.

7. Increased political will by developed countries to fulfil their financial commitments.

State of Play

As one of the top priorities of COP18, finance is spread across different negotiating tracks. Discussion on finance is simultaneously happening under the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA), and COP. A lot of countries have suggested to establish a separate negotiating track to merge all the issues related to finance. The COP presidency has also decided to make a contact group on long-term finance (LTF), which aims to address issues related to mobilizing and scaling up of finance up to and beyond 2020. Most developing countries also called for a political process or a ministerial roundtable to discuss long term finance. So far, the discussion is centring around the reports on the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Standing Committee on Finance, LTF work program, and arrangement between COP and GCF.

US was pragmatic in the discussions and said it was willing to work on LTF and committed to provide finance after 2012 (oh USA! we love the way you lie). Barbados, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, called for a multilateral and inclusive process. Mexico reminded the countries that they were far way from the objective and need to continue the work program on long term finance. Philippines appeared proactive in the finance discussions and highlighted the fact that the workshops on LTF happened earlier in the year focused more on  ’providers‘, but not on ‘receivers‘. It also said that work under GCF was happening on ad hoc basis. Pakistan told the parties that decision on finance could not happen without three crucial elements: institutional mechanism, increased political will, and bringing the right actors in the discussions.

All of these views point out to one thing that things will get pretty serious on finance in coming days. It is certainly going to be a make or break issue in Doha and will be contested by all parties. Any misstep on this issue will collapse the talks. In that case, according to one negotiator, “history will judge the Qatari leadership at the 18th Conference of the Parties on very harsh terms”.

And what did you see, Clarice? What did you see? 

 (The Silence of the Lambs, 1991)

What is ADP?

In post-Durban climate negotiations scenario, ADP is everything. Last year, during COP17 in Durban, parties agreed to start a new negotiation track called Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, which was given the mandate to launch a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or (wait for it) an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention and applicable to all parties by 2015. The decision taken at ADP will determine the future course and actions of the global climate regime. But so far, parties are unclear about what will emerge out of the ADP, except that both the developed and developing countries will take on similar obligations as part of the new agreement.

Courtesy: IISD

What happened in the First Roundtable?

The discussion in the first roundtable session on ADP was centred around some key questions related to applying the principles of the Convention (see: CBDR) to the new agreement; how national circumstances will play a role; and what incentives can be included to ensure the full and ambitious participation of all parties. Singapore started the discussion by clarifying if the NGOs were allowed in the room. He stressed that parties should make commitments and take actions keeping in mind their national circumstances. Along with his Pakistani counterpart, Singapore asked the developed countries to demonstrate leadership and define that leadership in tangible and quantifiable manner. Australia and EU (the lover’s feud in Doha) called for “dynamic” interpretation of the Convention principles that can be applied to all countries, which basically meant that they wanted to change the definition of common but differentiated responsibilities or perhaps even revoke it completely. Other countries like New Zealand and Marshall Islands suggested different approaches to move forward. India stuck with its equity argument and said that actions should be based on national circumstances and development priorities.

What will happen next?

In addition to discussion on the first workstream, parties will now start discussing issues in the second workstream, which deals mainly with the means of implementation of actions and initiatives that can be part of the workplan. While it is a good sign that parties have started discussing issues in the ADP, what remains to be seen is how successful will they be in resolving their differences and coming to consensus. Will we have a workplan by the end of the session? Will parties move beyond ‘equity’? Will the principles of CBDR remain intact? The success of Doha climate talks depends on the answers to these questions.

Last year in Durban during COP17, parties agreed to close the LCA track in Doha (formed in 2007 to negotiate the BAP). Certainly, this will going to be a difficult thing to do here since parties seem divergent on how to conclude LCA, or whether to conclude it at all. The developing countries want LCA to finish its outstanding work related to adaptation, mitigation, finance and technology before closing it down, or properly transfer these issues to other bodies according to the principles of the Convention. The developed countries, on the other hand, seem adamant in closing the LCA track. This will allow them to start the negotiations from scratch in the new ADP track where both the developed and developing countries will take on similar obligations. The firewall separately the two blocks will be eliminated or minimized forever.

The first session of LCA at COP18 opened today with the parties picking up the fight from where they left last time. Despite agreeing to the chair’s text in Bangkok, parties did not show their willingness to stick to their promise (stating the obvious here, I know). The Umbrella Group of countries rejected the chair’s text, but stressed the closure of LCA. The EU reiterated the Umbrella Group’s position and brought about a disappointing turn in the negotiations, from the start. Even the developing countries seemed less constructive. Philippines, while reminding the plenary that she was “the only housewife” among the negotiators, did not agree fully to the chair’s text, but wanted to add more issues to it for discussion.

The only positive proposal came from the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), proposing a second term for Fast Start Finance (FSF), whose first term is expiring by the end of the year. Since the full operationalization of financial mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund will take some time (hopefully by 2020), it is important that there is money on the table between now and 2020 to enable developing countries to adapt to climate change impacts.

The LCA chair, Aysar Tayeb, adjourned the LCA session by stating that “not everyone liked rice”, so his text reflected a range of dishes to suit the tastes and preferences of all parties. I think someone should remind Mr. Tayeb that when you have too much food on the table, it is likely that it will get wasted. While he gets that point, it is suffice to say that the start of LCA negotiations in Doha has certainly made the desperate housewives of COP really desperate to fight and disagree with each other. Who will come to their rescue? Only time will tell.