Interview with SPREP's Climate Change Adviser, Espen Ronnerberg

Espen Ronnerberg, SPREP’s Climate Change Adviser has been exclusively following adaptation negotiations here in Panama. Here are his comments on the outcome of the adaptation negotiations.

Espen Ronnerberg

Ronnerberg:  After one week of talks here, we have resolved a lot of issues on adaptation. There are still a few issues that need to be fixed up and activities for the adaptation work to be decided on. But at least we have a draft text and we know what we will be dealing with. It’s a lot easier for us to prepare for Durban, at least on adaptation. We also resisted a suggestion to try and link everything together but we decided to move ahead with the positive spirit now adopted here in Panama. It’s a positive signal to other areas of negotiations here where I understand have been facing a lot of resistance from some Parties. We have to keep the big picture in mind. 

Q; So a draft text on adaptation is ready to be taken to Durban?

Ronnerberg: We will have a draft text decision presented at the plenary. Off course we never know for sure what can happen at the plenary, somebody may object but at least the working group has approved the draft decision text, for further negotiations off course. There are a number of key areas that have not been fully resolved but what we have done is clarify some of the underlying issues – the methods of work for the committee and the functions. Now that this is clear, we can all quickly look at the actual activities that the adaptation committee will be undertaking. What will be their short term tasks after Durban and what will be their long term tasks. And having that clarity in the discussion makes it a lot easier to push for things that are important for the region.

Q: What is going to be the work of this adaptation committee?

Ronnerberg: The adaptation committee is an advisory committee group aiming at improving the delivery of adaptation action at the national level. So it will be doing that particularly through guidelines to the finance committee, guidelines to the countries on how to form their plans and programmes and also to develop a yearly report on the state of adaptation work, which will then give us as Parties, information that we can utilise to direct financing to a particular region or to a particular sector because it will give us an overview of what is actually happening. If we can identify that some countries are not getting some assistance or some sectors aren’t getting any help, ten we take remedial action to address that. We need to have this logical framework that we can work with and hopefully the proposed adaptation committee will be able to do that. It’s a welcome that we are getting this committee now.

Q: Apart from some good progress in adaptation, other issues don’t seem to enjoy the same level of progress in the talks here.

Ronnerberg: It is positive that we are making some progress in some areas we do need to step back and look at what the overall package look like for us. For example we may have a good framework developed for adaptation but if the resources are not going to be forthcoming, then it is not much of a victory. Similarly we need a lot of capacity building in the region so the eventual decision relating to capacity building will also have to be taken into account. We need to step back a bit and reflect on what we have on the table and see where we need to do more work and where we need to put more pressure.

Climate change: The power of a label

Tuvalu delegation meeting after AOSIS

Cancun, Mexico - It’s the ‘label’ that is throwing a spanner in one of the works at the UN climate change negotiations in Cancun, Mexico. When it comes to climate change talks, the Pacific islands come under the label – “Small Island Developing States” (SIDS). It is a recognised grouping at the UN climate change conference alike the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s) and countries in Africa prone to certain climate change impacts. These are the recognised terms under the Bali Action Plan formed at the 13th Conference of the Parties in Bali. That meeting unanimously agreed to give priority to developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, but to give special attention to the LDC’s and SIDS.

During the first week of the two-week climate change negotiations in Cancun, the discussions are also revolving around the introduction of new name groupings which are giving way to “unnecessary complications” in an already complicated and intense process.

“Some countries feel that unless their region or their particular concern - the impact that they are most concerned about is mentioned explicitly, then they feel that they are being excluded,” said Espen Ronneberg the Climate Change Adviser for the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).

“Even though we are quite strong on the position that all developing countries that are vulnerable to climate change shall be assisted. The Bali Action Plan and the language is very clear on this.”

The consistent push for new ‘labels’ is a common link throughout many different threads of negotiations now underway in Cancun.

At the Bali Conference of the Parties in 2007, there was an amendment to the text of countries that qualify to be recognised as a grouping to include the countries in Africa that are particularly to climate extremes. However this amendment was supported by science and deemed justifiable during those negotiations.

With other groups forcing their own ‘labels’ upon the text, it gives way to new concerns and arguments.

“I don’t think it will be feasible to have an agreement with a long list and the alternative is a limited text that has been proposed which only refers to countries that are vulnerable to climate change without any sorts of conditions or particular parts being highlighted,” explained Ronneberg.

“This will probably mean that we get pushed aside as unless there is a particular attention being given to small islands, we never seem to get much from the financing process.”

Vulnerable nation’s definition still to be thrashed out, Ronneberg

By Makereta Komai for Climate Pasifika in Bonn, Germany

04 June 2010, Bonn, Germany --- Climate change negotiators face a tough week ahead as they move into final gear and prepare for an outcome that many Parties are describing as ‘workable.’

An issue that needs to be fully addressed by negotiators is the definition of ‘vulnerable’ countries.  This is important because priority for any funding mechanism for adaptation will be given to ‘particularly’ vulnerable developing countries.

Espen Ronneberg, Climate change adviser for the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) said since most of the Pacific Island Countries fall into that category, there is strong push from Pacific negotiators here in Bonn to maintain the definition from the Bali Plan of Action. (BPoA).

“The preference is to stick to the language from Bali that says priority be given to least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and some countries in Africa that suffer from droughts and desertification.

“Limiting it to that definition will allow the Financial Board whatever form it will be, enough guidance to have some rules of procedure much like the Adaptation Fund, said Ronneberg. 

But the current LCA text has proposed to also include ‘other vulnerable developing states with coastal areas, tropical and mountainous glaciers and fragile economies.’

“We have one more week to work through these things and we are fairly confident we will make some progress. We will just have to see, as it stands right now, we are making progress.

WWF International and local NGO, German Watch released a report analysing the state of play at the Bonn negotiations, supporting the Pacific’s push to stick to the Bali Plan of Action definition.

“The Copenhagen Accord definition is almost the same as the BPoA definition – it defines vulnerable states as least LDCs, SIDS and all of Africa. Some of those countries, in particular from Latin America, who will have to face severe climate change impacts, have reasonable concerns since they do not fall under the BPoA/Accord definition.

“What is currently lacking is a more substantial debate of what such a prioritisation of vulnerable countries to receive adaptation support would actually mean, and if it would result in an exclusion of those countries who do not belong to this group, which in principle should be condemned as inappropriate, according to the joint report. 

“The only concrete proposal in this regard was that 70 percent of adaptation finance should be reserved for LDCs. It would not mean a total exclusion of other countries from adaptation finance. 

Since there has not been agreement on this matter in the AWG-LCA text yet, the Accord language being rather supportive of the BAP definition may provide.

Meanwhile, on the Adaptation Fund, Ronneberg said the Pacific wants to take adaptation to the next level – to start to access funds and go into implementing stage. 

“Countries are now in a position to work on their national implementing agency and ready to put forward their projects.

“SPREP is going to be working with the region to ensure that all forum governments register their national implementing entities, it’s likely that SPREP will register as a regional entity to assist countries that need help with their proposals.

“The Adaptation Fund, which was only approved in Poznan in 2008, has just started and looking at the paper work, it appears simplified and more accessible, said Ronneberg.

Workable text emerges after weeklong climate change talks, Ambassador Colin Beck

By Makereta Komai of Climate Pasifika in Bonn, Germany

04 June 2010 Bonn, Germany --- A week after climate change talks here in Bonn, a ‘workable’ text has emerged but negotiators are still cautious with how it will pen out at the end of next week.

It’s perceived as ‘workable’ because all the 185 nations present here have worked comprehensively on the two texts – the Long Term Co-operative Action (LCA) and the amendment to the Kyoto Protocol (KP), said Ambassador Colin Beck of Solomon Islands, who is one of the Pacific’s leading negotiators on climate change.

“It’s not only the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) which includes AOSIS that is positive about the outcome of this week’s progress. The African Group, the European Union, the Umbrella Group and the United States have been contributing to the discussions.

Even though the United States is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, it is participating in the LCA text which is related to the Protocol.

“So far, there has been positive feedback to the well co-ordinated interventions made by Parties. Group statements are being made rather than the open discussions which led to repetitive interventions.

The success talks of the current talks is attributed to what many countries are saying that it is ‘Party driven’ supporting the two ad hoc working group chairs in facilitating the negotiation.

“Mexico is also supporting this process through informal sessions, discussing difficult issues and linking them up with the negotiations.

“Parties are now engaging in constructive and pragmatic discussions.

There is also an outreach from major industrialised countries to discuss more difficult issues, said Ambassador Beck.

“It’s totally a new atmosphere and we are beginning to see a more ‘think outside the box’ approach, he added.

His observations are supported by regional climate change adviser, Espen Ronneberg.

“There has been some progress in the different working groups but there is still a long way to go before we can see any conclusions. I think the sort of targeted questions the LCA chair has put up have been quiet helpful. We just need to see how the responses are going to be reflected by the chair.

“These are questions in the area of financing – the kind of relationship between the different technical boards that are being proposed and the financial mechanisms, on adaptation, there are some questions on institutional structures.

“For us in the Pacific, our focus now is that we need to move into implementation. There are still a few stumbling blocks, with a few countries saying they need to be convinced before any implementation is approved, said Ronneberg.

In addition, Ambassador Beck raised the concerns of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) that there appears to be no lowering of expectations.

“These are part of the imbalances and gaps that need to be sorted out hopefully before the end of next week.

“There are a number of gaps we still see in the negotiating texts.

These include loss of damage and the definition of vulnerability, said Ambassador Beck.

But all in all, there is greater improvement in the text, compared to the failed negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, he added.

Ms Komai will be covering the Bonn Climate Change negotiations from 31 May – 11 June 2010, thanks to support from Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). She will provide daily coverage of the negotiations via PACNEWS and the SPREP website www.sprep.org, the climate pasifika blogspot, http://climatepasifika.blogspot.com and the PINA Green page http://green.pina.com.fj/

Q&A with Espen Ronneberg

By Makareta Komai in Bonn, Germany for Climate Pasifika

01 June 2010, Bonn Germany - As the world looks to Cancun, Mexico for a possible global agreement on climate change, negotiators from 185 countries are gathered in Bonn, Germany for two weeks to try and put together the building blocks of an agreement to take to Mexico. The Pacific is part of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) negotiating group in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

Makereta Komai of Climate Pasifika talks to SPREP’s climate change adviser, who is in Bonn, to give a brief rundown of preparation for the Bonn climate change talks.

Espen: We started off with preliminary meetings of the Alliance of Small Island States where we went through the different agendas, and discussed concerns that members have with the agenda items. We tried to divide up the group into technical groups like we normally do so that we have a mixture of Pacific, Caribbean and Indian Ocean countries in the different subject matters. Each technical group then went into the issues with a bit more detail and provided feedback to the larger group so we could well be prepared for the sessions. You may have heard different delegations speaking on different areas- for example Kiribati and Cook Islands speaking on adaptation, Micronesia on mitigation issues and so forth. We are starting the work proper as of today and we are going through the agenda of the meeting and providing inputs to the chairs of the subsidiary bodies. Tomorrow we go into the working groups and it will be the same sort of exercise. One of the new things at this session is that the chairs have asked their co-ordinators to come up with draft conclusions before there has been discussion.

Q: Why the change?

Espen: To try and save on time feeling that at least some of the points were well known beforehand and can be reflected. We were generally a little bit surprised by that but we, in retrospect were able to say that these can be done for some topics, especially the issues that have almost been reached by consensus. We could follow that procedure. But there are some other issues that we think that we need to have full discussion before conclusions are put together.

Q: Are these conclusions from items from Copenhagen that had received consensus?

Espen: Those types of issues we can work on are already on the table but there are some issues that we have not discussed for a whole year now. As you know the agenda for Copenhagen had to be compressed so some items that were simply put off are now being looked at during this session here in Bonn. A whole year has passed and there is new information that we feel that there is a need to have detailed discussion before we out down on paper any form of conclusions to those discussions. So there is a lot of procedural things going on at the moment. Not substantial as yet but it complicates things if it’s brought later and we will spend a lot of time trying to address it later.

Q: The draft text before AWG-LCA has some parts of the Copenhagen Accord integrated into it. But there have been lot of criticism on using the Accord as the basis for an agreement, if it’s to be reached in Cancun. What is the position of AOSIS?

Espen: There was an AOSIS submission given in late April. Analysing the chair’s text, you can see that all but one of the AOSIS raised has been included in the LCA text. Off course some of them are in brackets because there are repeated or alternative ideas to what was raised by AOSIS. All the points raised by AOSIS except for one have been accepted. 

Q: Which one is it?

Espen: It’s the one that deals with safeguarding small island states as a for benchmark for any agreement.

Q: Is that at least a plus for AOSIS?

Espen: We have secured the inclusion of all but one of the issues that we submitted. On the issue of the Copenhagen Accord, I think the group is fairly pragmatic on this issue. They are willing to look at the text on its own merits, let’s discuss what’s there and see what it means for us. I don’t think anyone from the group will be adamant that the exact wording put forward has to be reflected in the documents. It’s a negotiation and the group will take a practical view of what is there and analyse it and make sure our key concerns are reflected.

Q: Is AOSIS still optimistic? There is already a lot of predictions that Cancun will be another Copenhagen and this exercise is in futility and an agreement will be only be reached in South Africa in 2011? Is that the feeling of AOSIS?

Espen: I think AOSIS is optimistic that we can make progress if we really look at the LCA text, there is a lot of progress made and that has been reflected in the new text. There are some fundamental issues that need to be discussed that are fairly cross cutting. We need to have the time to have full discussion and the political will from all parties to really want to make a deal. We can be optimistic and work on trying to bridge all these gaps to make sure we understand fully the positions of others so that we can come to a compromise solution that is acceptable to the entire membership of UNFCCC. 

Q: Yvo doe Boer talked about the trust and goodwill gap that needs to be fixed here in Bonn. Does AOSIS trust the positions of other negotiating groups, especially those that don’t agree with AOSIS position, like the U.S and other industrialised nations?

Espen: This is an interesting point. I don’t think the issue of trust has been as big an issue for the Pacific and AOSIS, with the exception perhaps of being left out of some negotiations in Copenhagen. In terms of moving us forward, the best way is to have good dialogue on the critical issues so that we can have everyone’s concerns fully reflected. Off course one of the key concerns from the Pacific is that we want to see strong emissions reduction. If the rules are so flexible that you can reach your target by creative book keeping, that’s not really in our interest. We want to see actual, real reductions because that is what’s important. We need to have emissions reduced to a level that safeguard the Pacific and that requires actual, real action in terms of mitigation and also requires proper financing and support for adaptation.

Ms Komai will be covering the Bonn Climate Change negotiations from 31 May – 11 June 2010, thanks to support from Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). She will provide daily coverage of the negotiations via PACNEWS and the SPREP website www.sprep.org, the climate pasifika blogspot, http://climatepasifika.blogspot.com and the PINA Green page http://green.pina.com.fj/