The co-faciliators have released two new texts this morning: a slightly modified version of the official text, and a cleaned-up version containing bridging proposals that have been heard from different countries to help find compromise.
The most significant change in the text incorporating bridging proposals is that the contentious ‘no text’ options have been removed. ‘No text’ means that countries want a particular sentence or issue to be dropped altogether.
Yesterday the negotiations descended at times into a tit-for-tat between developed and developing countries, with both introducing or defending options for ‘no text’ on key issues of concern to the other. This is the diplomatic equivalent of throwing your toys out of the pram.
For example, the developed country option on loss and damage in the text has been for ‘no text’, despite the G77/China proposal having made significant compromises compared to the start of the year – notably the dropping of an explicit reference to ‘compensation’. Similarly, G77/China negotiators complained yesterday that ‘no text’ options had been introduced into the adaptation section. In response, the EU and others noted that ‘no text’ options have been proposed by G77/China on issues including the long-term mitigation goal.
The text incorporating bridging proposals has removed all the ‘no text’ options, revealing the real battle lines on some of these issues. On loss and damage, this has been replaced with the option either to include text in a separate article or as part of the adaptation text. By trying to get loss and damage in the adaptation text, developed countries are attempting to merge the issues of adaptation and loss and damage, primarily so they can fund both with the same pot of money. For developing countries, it is critical to recognise the conceptual difference between adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing the impacts to which it is not possible to adapt. As such, they need to see a separate section of the agreement.
Significantly, the bridging proposal text keeps the option for a reference to human rights and gender equality in Article 2. This is encouraging, given the attempts by Norway and the US to have it removed yesterday, with the tacit consent of the EU. However, important language supported by the international trade unions calling for the need for a just transition for workers has been removed.
On the crux issues concerning mitigation and finance, no significant new bridging options have yet emerged, suggesting that countries are holding their cards close to their chest on these issues until next week.
The Contact Group to discuss the new texts was adjourned earlier this morning to allow countries time to consider them. This will re-open at 12.00 to clarify how the negotiations will move forward, including how the proposed bridging options may be incorporated into the formal text.
No comments:
Post a Comment