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.

Small progress made in Panama climate talks, AOSIS

By Makereta Komai for Climate Pasifika in Panama

07 October 2011 Panama – There is a general agreement here in Panama that some progress has been made in advancing a climate change deal, in whatever form it will take, in Durban in December.

At the conclusion of the last round of climate talks before the 17^th Conference of the Parties in South Africa, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is happy with the draft texts that have emerged from the weeklong negotiations.

“This is critical for securing the future of the international climate regime. We must preserve the multilateral rules-based climate regime to limit greenhouse gas emissions to ensure the survival of small island states and the planet, said AOSIS chair and Grenada’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Dessima Williams. 

Ambassador Dessima Williams, chair of AOSIS

Multilateralism is likely to fail if key Parties in the 194 membership of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will not give political backing to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.

“Durban could witness the dissolution of the multilateral rules-based process that has been in place for nearly 20 years. We are disappointed that some Parties are reneging on their commitments.

“I can tell you what real progress looks like for AOSIS: Real progress means doing what is required to keep island nations from drowning, famines from spreading, rainforests from burning, and ice caps from melting.

“Real progress is setting emissions targets capable of keeping global warming well below 1.5 degrees Celsius; mobilizing a minimum of $100 billion a year by 2020 to build sustainable energy sources in the developing world and help the most vulnerable countries adapt to the impacts of climate change; agreeing to second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol before it expires in 2012; and finally climate finance must scale up after the end of fast start finance in 2012 to avoid a gap.

“Real progress is doing what is essential to save entire ecosystems, countries, and cultures from destruction and not “just enough” to get us to the next round of meetings, said Ambassador Williams.

Speaking to journalists immediately after the conclusion of Panama talks, United States deputy special envoy on climate change, Dr Jonathan Pershing said even though the U.S is not party to the Kyoto Protocol, ‘It’s uncertainty is a source of anxiety for the future of a global climate change deal.’

Dr. Jonathan Pershing, US lead negotiator on climate change in Panama

“The future of the Kyoto Protocol is relevant to the U.S. We will only undertake any commitment if major economies are part of the global deal that reflects today and tomorrow’s realities and not those of 1992.

“We are encouraged by some of the progress made here in Panama especially some of the negotiating test which we think reflects structured thinking on the Cancun Agreement.

The U.S, Dr Pershing said remains committed to its short and long term climate financing pledged under the Copenhagen and Cancun Agreements.

“Let me make it clear we are not blocking debate on how and where our funds will come from. We are committed to what developed countries promised to mobilise the US$100 billion by 2020.

In response to suggestion of a gap in financing after 2012 when the initial US$30 billion runs out, Dr Pershing said, “I do not see a gap after 2012. This is a collective effort by developed countries and we are committed to raising the long term US$100 billion financing for mitigation and transparency.”

“It will not end in 2013 and the ramp up long term finance to 2020 will be met through public and private financing.”

 The European Union (EU) on the other hand said it wants to see governance issues related to the setting up of the Green Climate Fund is in place before there is discussion on how the fund can be financed.

AOSIS is pushing the Transitional Committee to complete its work on the design of the Green Fund to allow it to be operational by 2012. The group of 43 small island developing states also want a work programme established to identify long term sources of climate change finance.

Here in Panama, ‘good progress’ has been achieved on preparing decisions on adaptation, access to technology, said UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres.

UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres

“The progress made in Panama means that governments can have more time and space in the coming seven weeks and during Durban to resolve those outstanding issues on the future of the global climate change regime which will require political guidance.

“Durban will have to resolve the open question over the future of the Kyoto Protocol and what that means for a future global climate agreement, said Figueres.

At the negotiations, governments retained their different positions but many technical issues have already been brought to conclusion and there is a strong desire from all sides to see a final political decision made, she said.

The UN climate chief said Panama has also made some progress on the longer term question of how governments will meet their agreed goal of limiting global average temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

“In Durban, governments will decide on the shape of a formal review between 2013 and 2015, which they agreed in Cancun as a reality check on progress towards their temperature goal.

“Clarity on an effective, credible review is important, especially in light of the fact the sum total of national pledges to reduce global emissions falls 40 percent short of keeping below 2 degrees and that gap will have to be filled in the future, Figueres said.

The 17^th Conference of the Parties will convene in Durban from 28 November – 09 December.

U.S moots ‘modernisation’ of UN climate change convention

By Makereta Komai for Climate Pasifika in Panama

06 October 2011 Panama --- The United States has mooted the idea of the ‘modernisation’ of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Dr. Jonathan Pershing, US Deputy Special Envoy for climate change

Now ten years old, the Convention enjoys universal membership of 194 State Parties. The Convention was adopted in 1992 as a basis for global response to climate change. It’s ultimate objective is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

At the climate talks in Panama City this week, the US argued that as of 2009, nine of the top 20 emitters of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are from developing or non-Annex 1 countries, according to the Third World Network (TWN), a daily publication on climate change negotiations.

While the U.S did not name these countries, it urged the 194 Parties to the Convention to consider ‘graduating’ non-Annex 1 countries.

“The other option would be to eliminate the Annex 1 –non Annex 1 distinction and take more continuum approach. The continuum would apply to common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, reports TWN.

Both India and Philippines criticised the U.S suggestion saying it was clear that emissions of the past, a large part was due to developed countries and that was why there was a differentiation between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), whose members fall under the category of non-annex 1 countries disagrees with the U.S position.

AOSIS chair, Ambassador Dessima Williams said under the Convention, Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries have different legal obligations.

Developed countries who are historically the cause of the problem have to take obligatory actions under the Conventions.

“Developing countries under the Bali Plan of Action have two points – one, we must focus our priority on poverty eradication, that’s our main obligation. Our second obligation is to move away from business as usual. If you notice, developing countries are doing both.

“We cannot do that – eradicate poverty and disrupt business as usual until and unless we get some support, argued Ambassador Williams.

Most of the debate around the negotiations for the past three years now has been the push by industrialised or Annex 1 countries for major developing nations like Brazil, South Africa, Indian and China, whose global emissions are high to make similar mitigation commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

Mitigation targets remain a sore point of the negotiations - AOSIS chair

By Makereta Komai for Climate Pasifika in Panama

06 October 2011 Panama ---- A day before the resumed negotiation session here in Panama concludes, mitigation actions by wealthy nations remains a major sore point of the climate change talks, especially for Pacific Island Countries and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

Climate Pasifika caught up with the chair of AOSIS, Ambassador Dessima Williams Wednesday evening before she went into one of the many informal meetings convened here to try and consolidate positions of Parties before draft decisions are finalised at the end of the weeklong negotiations.

Ambassador Dessima Williams

“AOSIS is working at three levels – within our group we are working to streamline our positions, within G77 we are working to get our positions on board and we are also working on more understanding with Annex 1 and other partners. 

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Annex 1 countries refer to 37 industrialised nations who have committed to reducing their emissions by an average of 5 percent against 1990 levels over a five year period 2008-2012.

While Ambassador Williams was very cautious with her views on the negotiations so far – describing them as ‘slow but positive energy’ there remains huge gaps in the positions of Parties, especially on mitigation targets.

“I think everyone believes the mitigation is very weak. There is some agreement that we cannot have the gap between the second commitment period and the first but not enough parties are convinced yet. 

“I don’t see universal agreement on that yet and that remains a problem. 

“I think AOSIS, the African Group, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and others are in conversation and are committed to that. We are in conversations with the European Union, the Environment Integrity Group, Australia as chair of the Umbrella Group and we will be meeting with the U.S on Thursday. So there is a sense that everyone is in dialogue. It’s not enough but it’s a starting point, Ambassador Williams explained to Climate Pasifika.

Since the European Union is taking the lead on pushing for a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol (KP), most AOSIS members who also members of the G77 and China group have been meeting with the EU to reiterate their positions to find common grounds.

“We want a KP that is five years (2013-2017), we would like to see real mitigation and not a carry-over of commitments of emissions reduction. There is still some weakness and divisions but we will get there. 

“My point is that within a structure of 190 plus member states, it is very difficult to reach agreements. We have limited and good but insufficient agreements in Cancun and we are now trying to build on them because there are new submissions and that is what is slowing us down.

“I think there is no magic solution and this is a slow multilateralism. But we in AOSIS are clear that we must have a rules based multilateral system that is consistent with our commitment under the Bali Action Plan and almost all delegations agree to that but it is how they want to implement it that is causing the difficulties. 

“Parties are now submitting proposals on how to implement the Bali Plan of Action. Panama is awash with proposals. There are lots and lots of ideas, proposals and texts and that is really where the work is – to see common ground.

She has ruled out any compromises from AOSIS.

In a number of the non-papers and draft text now emerging from the talks, the AOSIS push to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees is reflected but under consideration or bracketed. 

“Everything is on the table. Some of the major emitters in the developing countries are showing flexibility around KP that we haven’t heard before so watch out for that, she told Climate Pasifika. 

Most of the debate around the negotiations for the past three years now has been the push by industrialised or Annex 1 countries for major developing nations like Brazil, South Africa, Indian and China, whose global emissions are high to make similar mitigation commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

“The legal obligations are different. Developed countries who are historically the cause of the problem have to take obligatory actions under the Conventions. 

“Developing countries under the Bali Plan of Action have two points – one, we must focus our priority on poverty eradication, that’s our main obligation. Our second obligation is to move away from business as usual. If you notice, developing countries are doing both. 

“We cannot do that – eradicate poverty and disrupt business as usual until and unless we get some support, argued Ambassador Williams.

On the expected outcome, Ambassador Williams expects closure to come very late Friday.

“We still have two or three political opportunities to finalise an agreement before Durban. The pre-COP meets in two weeks time and this would be another occasion where what we cannot agree technically here will be discussed politically and fed into the process. 

South Africa has taken the lead in the canvassing the views of the Parties.

“They are leading the way in calling for ambition and providing a space to discuss idea. I think Parties here are impressed and encouraged by South Africa’s initiative. The Mexicans have not pulled back and are also leading the conversations in some areas, especially in the legal form and legal outcomes. However, there are still wide gaps in the negotiations but there are lot of conversations going on now, said Ambassador Williams.

Interview with the Chair of the Alliance of Small Islands States and Grenada’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Dessima Williams.

As negotiations reach the half way mark here in Panama City, the chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) shares her insights about the highs and lows of the negotiations with Makereta Komai, Editor of PACNEWS and Journalist for Climate Pasifika . 

Ambassador Dessima Williams

Q: It’s now half-way through the negotiations here in Panama, what is your take on the current negotiations so far?

Ambassador Williams: Slow progress but positive energy. I think there is a willingness to use Panama to seriously prepare for Durban. AOSIS is working at three levels – within our group we are working to streamline our positions, within G77 we are working to get our positions on board and we are also working on more common grounds with Annex 1 and other partners. In AOSIS you will find an eagerness for helping Durban be a success. The South Africans are here at many levels, as participants and also as incoming presidency. They are leading the way in calling for ambition and providing a space to discuss idea. I think Parties here are impressed and encouraged by South Africa’s initiative. The Mexicans have not pulled back and are also leading the conversations in some areas, especially in the legal form and legal outcomes. However, there are still wide gaps in the negotiations but there are lot of conversations going on now.

Q: Is that conversation enough, given what you just said about the wide gaps that still exists in the negotiations?

Ambassador Williams: It seems to me the closure comes very late. On Friday, we will see how far we’ve come with the negotiations. We still have two or three political opportunities to finalise an agreement before Durban. The pre-COP meets in two weeks time and this would be another occasion where what we cannot agree technically here will be discussed politically and fed into the process. We have seen some movement amongst G77 partners. I think everyone believes the mitigation is very weak. There is some agreement that we cannot have the gap between the second commitment period and the first but not enough parties are convinced yet. I don’t see universal agreement on that yet and that remains a problem. I think AOSIS, the African Group, the LDCs and others are in conversation and are committed to that. We are working with the European Union. We have had conversations with the Environment Integrity Group, Australia its capacity as chair of the Umbrella Group and we will be meeting with the U.S on Thursday. So there is a sense that everyone is in dialogue. It’s not enough but it’s a starting point.

Q: With only two days, is that enough? The expectation is to get some draft text for Durban at the end of the Panama talks?

Ambassador Williams: The draft text is progressing on the long term co-operative action (LCA) side and we have some text around adaptation, technology transfer, global environment fund (green climate fund). The text is slow in coming but I think we will get there on the building blocks of the LCA. The difficult areas remain with the mitigation.

Q: How can the problem of mitigation can be best resolved?

Ambassador Williams: I think there is no magic solution. This is a slow multilateralism. But I think we are clear that we must have a rules based multilateral system that is consistent with our commitment under the Bali Action Plan and almost all delegations agree to that but it is how they want to implement it that is causing the difficulties. Parties are now submitting proposals and how to implement the Bali Plan of Action. So Panama is awash with proposals. There are lots and lots of ideas, proposals and texts and that is really where the work is – to see common ground. We have a joint consultation between G77 and the European Union on the way forward for a Kyoto Protocol (KP) and we will be taking to them some common positions of our groups We want a KP that is five year, we would like to see real mitigation and not a carry-over of commitments of emissions reduction and we are still stumbling about new market mechanisms. There is still some weakness and divisions but we will get there. My point is that with a structure of 190 plus member states, it is very difficult to reach agreements. We have limited and good but insufficient agreements in Cancun and we are now trying to build on them because there are new submissions and that is what is slowing us down.

Q: Any compromises along the way in terms of positions?

Ambassador Williams: Not yet, not yet, everything is on the table. Some of the major emitters in the developing countries are showing flexibility around KP that we haven’t heard before so watch out for that. 

Q: On the second commitment period for KP, there are some discussions of transition period after 2012. Is that good enough?

Ambassador Williams: No, I don’t think we have to consider that. We have in fact over a 100 countries that are ready to sign and I know there is an argument that KP represent a very low level of emissions captured underneath it but the truth of the matter is that KP is one and the LCA is another and we need to take them together as two distinct conventions as a package to give us the level of certainty at this stage. What I do really have to say is that we need to scale up, particularly developing countries, the level of ambitions in relation to mitigation and financing because we are witnessing more extreme events and that mist be the signal for faster and more rapid reduction of gases in the atmosphere and the faster and more decisive intervention for mitigation and adaptation.  

Q: And that is exactly the European Union position- it is willing to take a second commitment period in KP on the condition that both developed and developing countries step up on their levels of ambition.

Ambassador Williams: The legal obligations are different. The developed countries who are historically the cause of the problem have to take obligatory actions under the Conventions. The developing countries under the Bali Plan of Action have two points – one, we must focus our priority on poverty eradication, that’s our main obligation. Our second obligation is to move away from business as usual.  If you notice, developing countries are doing both. We cannot do that – eradicate poverty and disrupt business as usual until and unless we get some support. We’d like to acknowledge and thank Denmark for making available assistance to 24 AOSIS countries in renewable energy projects. That will make a lot of difference and allow us to have carbon neutrality and take on more initiatives of greening our economies. If we can get more fast start finance to help us out of poverty and move into something that is cleaner, then that’s the way for us to meeting our obligations under the convention.

Q: I notice that in your AOSIS statements, you mention the support of the African Union and the Least Developed Countries. Does collective diplomacy helps in climate change negotiations?

Ambassador Williams:  Yes, enormously. As I said before, we have almost 200 countries trying to come to an agreement on a wide range of topics. The key is we work by consensus to build alliances, build common positions which we have had in the last three years. We have been having common dialogue, common conference with the LDCs because of the poverty eradication priority with island states, the vulnerabilities that we share and climate resilience that we want to build. Now we have that dialogue extended to another 50 countries in the African group and we are negotiating technical points on the level of finance, scale of commitments and various areas. We believe that when come as a group of 100 already with the common position that helps the process as opposed to just 43 of us with a common position. So what AOSIS is doing is taking citizenry responsibility within the negotiating process to be able to bring with LDCs and with Africa 100 plus agreed parties so that we can make more rapid progress.

Q: You are still optimistic that by the end of the week something can come out of Cancun?

Ambassador Williams: Yes Panama will produce texts for the different negotiating groups but we won’t get everything we want but some agreed text. We would get clarity on where the differences are and I am confident that within the developing countries we would have a very strong agreed to positions for going into Durban.