Preliminary 1: About the title

The way forward, the way to follow, it was probably the phrase concept most used in the various plenary sessions crises that have characterized the last meeting in Bonn, before Paris 2015 climate negotiations. In one of the last speeches before the end of the formal plenary, Russia stated that in his opinion, it would be necessary to prepare a “Paris bis” because it would be impossible to reach an agreement in time for negotiations that can result if the two weeks of COP21 Paris.

Preliminary 2: about my possible failure as a “political analyst"!

In my last post (September 5^th) on climate negotiations you can read:

http://www.other-news.info/noticias/2015/09/negociaciones-climaticas-vosotros-proponed-nosotros-dispondremos/

I finished, literally saying:

"So I would say today to finish, more as a first impression than as a well substantiated conclusion that: a) I begin to believe that there will be a "Paris Agreement"; b) It won’t be a good deal from the standpoint of what scientists tell us what is necessary, but if this deal ends up being an agreement reviewed periodically, it will be here where the great battle of climate change can continue; c) it would seem it’s more important the fact that there is a "Paris Accord" than the contents of this agreement. Having seen, heard and experienced what has been happening this past week Bonn, nobody seems too willing to try another way."

Well, as you can read here and now, there was someone willing to try "another way"!

The "fundamental" crisis of the first two days: history, evolution and resolution

The so-called "no document of the co-chairs of 5^th October" that should be the result of negotiations from the previous meeting (Bonn, September) became public, as is obvious from its name, on the 5^th October. In fact, it should be, and was intended to be - following on from the last weeks of negotiation, much more than a summary; it should be transformed step by step in the draft text of the future agreement in Paris. As usual, the days before the opening of one of these negotiations, and in this case, the last week (Bonn, October) are days prior to consultations and negotiations.

In the opening plenary session on the 19^th Monday morning, the co-chairs and the representative of the G77 + China have a long and "tense" debate (obviously with many other interventions from several delegations or states-parties to the climate convention) about what agreement had been reached during a meeting that was held on Sunday night!

The G77 + China won at the end of the first large "key" battle of the week and in the afternoon session, in a plenary open session, the delegations could added to the "no-document” of the co- chairs of October the 5^th, the texts that, according to them, had not been well collected or even not included in the "no-document".

This victory broke, therefore, the dynamic that began in the second week of the June meeting in Bonn, where, and in fact for the first time in recent years (“years” because it had not happened during the post-Copenhagen), States parties entrusted a text guide to the co-chairs for negotiating. You can read my analysis in my post of June 14^th:

http://www.other-news.info/noticias/2015/06/los-caminos-de-las-negociaciones-climaticas-son-inescrutables/

So, with this "fundamental" initial battle won by the G77 + China and, indeed, with the approval of a few other parties (especially - and quite particularly- the European Union that it’s been very critical with the latest co-chairs text) became, in part, the text of Geneva from February (The GNT, The Geneva Negotiation Text) which, it should be remembered, has been since then, the only official text of reference for the negotiations to Paris.

The result of Monday afternoon was that only the part related to the Paris Agreement, the "no-document of the co-chairs of October 5^th" went from having nine to 34 pages (and so remained with the same number of pages at the end).

In the words of the G77 + China and, I insist, particularly of the European Union (USA, Canada, Russia, Australia, Japan, etc. -the umbrella Group- were not nearly as happy but in fact they accepted) the new text of Tuesday afternoon was again party driven - "property of the parties and not of the co-chairs"

On the plenary of Tuesday morning, it was explicitly approved that the new text compiled and published by the secretariat of the convention, during the night of Monday to Tuesday, was becoming the new basic text for the continuation of the negotiations. Negotiations, that we can certainly confirm, would essentially start again from that point.

Two and a half days of "meetings" in "spin-off (working groups)" closed to the Observer Organizations

From Tuesday afternoon until Thursday evening this would be the political dynamic of the week.

Although the G77 + China requested that the spin-off meetings be open, the opposition of Japan left this issue behind and all the meetings were finally closed.

There are two and a half days of apparent peace negotiations, rumors and small protests from the observer organizations.

But I believe we should think a little about what really happened during these two and a half days.

As I have mentioned several times, the G77 + China are far from a common position, not even unitary in many of the issues under discussion and negotiation. It is perfectly understandable that the interests of China, Bangladesh, the less developed countries or small island states of the Caribbean cannot be, and are not, the same.

The extension in the early days of the basic text to negotiate the possible agreement of Paris is not therefore a coherent extension; is full of different options not only contradictory but often even antagonistic; and, of course, not only the contradictions within the G77 + China but because obviously everyone (the EU, the named UMBRELLA GROUP etc.) took the opportunity to enter new text (much of which is not even in GNAT). And because, what was done during the two and a half days was introduce more text and just try to order it a bit in different options, we find that the new text is increasingly complicated to work with and therefore harder to negotiate.

In this context it must be said that, in fact, the negotiation among the states parties still has not even begun seriously. First, parties should analyze the positions of other parties and "confront" them with their own and, then, the first attempts in a negotiating debate is that initially, more text appears.

We can say then, that states have not entered yet into real and deep negotiations between them because the text it is not even ready to do so.

One example mentioned by a delegation that illustrates this situation: a choice made by some states in several articles or part of them, it is "no text". This is a precaution in a pre-negotiating situation (the negotiation between state parties has not yet started!) that some state parties have taken because they don’t agree with the existence of this part of the new text. But clearly, it is difficult to negotiate a text against a "no text", right?

At the same time in this process, begin to emerge all sorts of rumors. Especially a Plan B. I believe the most plausible of these B plans was that the co-chairs and secretariat hoped that the last day, the great inconsistencies in the text would force the parties to again ask the co-chairs to take the initiative and return to prepare the negotiating text during the last two weeks in Paris. I think France could also be behind this option.

The "Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries, LDC" back on the scene

Let me -- possible reader who has had the patience to get here --, before reaching the end of this story-analysis, discuss a personal reflection I went through and I was anxious these days and, indeed, I quite understood when I worked writing these lines

Why the G77 + China did not make the crisis that has occurred this week and missed a similar moment of tension on the week of the negotiations in September in Bonn?

Well, the reader must know that this week in Bonn "has raised" one of the G77 subgroups: "The Like Minded Group of Developing Countries, LDC" (currently made up by Argentina, Bolivia, China, Cuba, El Salvador, Ecuador, Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Malaysia, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and India) This group had been very active at the stage that goes from 2013 to 2014 but had disappeared after Lima and especially in the last negotiation meetings in June and September in Bonn.

You can find in internet the final statement from a meeting of the group held in India, precisely on September 15^th!

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=126913

The reading of this statement can help to fully understand why this change of positions from the G77 + China occurred between September and October meetings.

This statement is a clear warning to the co-chairs on the text they had to submit in early October. What I cannot answer is why the co-chairs completely ignored them.

The main content of the statement is to return to the principles and key elements of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Back then to the beginning of CMDR. (Common but Differentiated Responsibility) without additions or nuances (such as "according to national circumstances and own capacities"). Back to the classification between Annex I and Annex II and Non-Annex I and to the responsibilities required by the convention of each one of them.

It is obvious that the co-chairs text clearly exceeded this historical frame of reference. I am not denying it, but was exceeded going in other directions that this statement I am describing as "lop-sided text", that it to say, unbalanced text!

I cannot suppress one: the world can go so wrong when no one is able to assess, as I am doing now, the importance of this statement of September 15^th in New Delhi.

The other “fundamental” and enormous crisis, the night of Thursday; Venezuela’s ultimatum; and its resolution on Friday morning

On Thursday evening there is a call for a new crisis plenary full of elements, at least for me, initially really cryptic.

Outwardly the conflict that generated this crisis, was that the new spin-off meeting started without waiting for the end of the G77+China group meeting. And the co-chairs, would have taken a chance, in this new plenary, to make a proposal of methodology to finish the week of negotiations.

But the plenary started without the presence of the representative of the actual G77+China, who was still in the group meeting and, immediately, Venezuela asked for the floor to, in a point of order, ask to wait for the finalization of that meeting, and more concretely, to wait for the representation of the G77+China in the plenary in order to start it.

That happened really fast, and the first intervention from the G77+China representative was in a choked (due to the absence of air, characteristic of someone who came running) and confusing voice but, at the moment, it didn’t seem such a big deal.

The co-chairs submit then the end of negotiations week proposal. It would be an open session, only for the heads of the delegations, in which the text status, the one made in the last spin-off meetings during Thursday night and Friday morning, would be shown on the screen. After that, “the way forward” would be debated!

The G77+China opposed to it; mainly because it was only a meeting for the heads of delegations and closed to the observers.

Among several interventions, Venezuela asked for the floor, again. Her ambassador at the European Union, specifically arrived for that meeting. She begun by saying that she spoke having received direct orders from her government office. First, speaking mainly about a possible plan B, threatened to make moves against this possibility, same way they did in Copenhagen. The possible reader may get tired of reading what I will just write: as there have been no decisions approved inside the convention, in practice all countries have the right of veto, and some of them used it in Copenhagen. Therefore, the threat of Venezuela against the possible plan B that escaped from the lines that had been followed was so clear (and, in my opinion, so important and alarming) that it caused the representative of G77 + China to ask immediately for a suspension of the plenary for consultations and its postponement until Friday morning. And thus it happened.

The rest of the intervention of Venezuela qualified as unacceptable that the process was being closed to the organizations and observers and demanded its immediate correction.

So, the G77+China won the first day and a half “fundamental” battle, but Venezuela won the last one and, obviously, the “fundamental” battle of Thursday night.

Thus, in the plenary of Friday morning it was proposed and decided very quickly that the afternoon plenary would be open to any member delegation and to any observer organization. Afterwards the secretariat compiled and presented to the plenary the joint text that would have been agreed in order to debate “the way forward”.

The final plenary, final agreements and some final sentences

Three hours later than expected, almost at 19:00h., the final plenaries began; I speak in plural because first of all the non-formal plenary was done, which is where the real work is made, and where many things are decided during the week. Later, on a final formal plenary linked to the initial formal opening during the first day, is where formally things are finally approved, in case anybody opposes it. It is a complex methodology to answer, mainly, one functioning system of a treaty structure, when there doesn’t exist a system for taking collective decisions (because the rules for doing so haven’t yet been approved, after 21 years).

What essentially was approved:

a)   A new base text for negotiations has been constructed during the last week of climate negotiations at Bonn. You can find the current version at:

http://unfccc.int/files/bodies/application/pdf/ws1and2@2330.pdf

b)   The co-chairs and the secretariat will work editorially and technically without affecting its content. In a text that I don’t have (it wasn’t distributed or published), read several times for some (the G77 chair) and others (the co chairs), with a worried and moody look of the co-chairs, the new terms are clearly specified for the new document that seems to be named as a technical document attached to the base text of the former link, which will be the base of negotiations from now on, say Paris. It will be published on the UNFCCC website at the beginning of November.

c)   Spin off meetings in Paris will be open to the observer organizations.

..............................

I will finish this post today mainly with some references to the different interventions that I think, especially at this time, show which is the current situation:

Malaysia, in the name of the mentioned LMDC, explicitly said that the text was “party driven”, and the credibility of the process was restored. But they liked to make clear their concern about some attempts to marginalize, at the Paris agreement, the principles of the framework convention. This has been, in essence, the most important orientation change in the new base text after the restored presence of the LMDC in the negotiation arena.

Summarizing subgroup interventions of the G77+China, as well as other delegations, we could say that “THE CURRENT TEXT IS PROPERTY OF THE PARTS AND THE NEGOTIATION HAS NOT STARTED YET”.

In the middle of the final non-formal plenary, Mexico, in an excited speech, referred to the arrival on their shores of the Hurricane Patricia (which at that time was expected to be very scary). In all subsequent interventions everybody showed their solidarity with Mexico. But I noticed that in one intervention (I won’t mention which one) it was emphasized that precisely now, we were better able to adapt to climate change.

The French intervention nearly at the end of the final formal plenary, was committed to everything previously approved and categorically stated that there was not, nor had been nor would there be a plan B. At the same time, however, they affirmed collective responsibility of all parties and their negotiators throughout the process and their results.

Might France be getting rid of their responsibility for a good final in Paris?

A few minutes before the end of the non-formal plenary, an intervention by Russia showed a great concern for the results of the process. According to them, the current text was impossible to negotiate with the two weeks of time we had in Paris. That’s why we should be thinking in a “Paris bis”.

- Josep Xercavins Valls, Professor Technical University of Catalonia. Director of GGCC: Group Governance Climate Change

Final note on the GGCC STH of the UPC.-

There could be some readers who wonder what I am doing following this process so closely. That is, to beat boredom linked to natural aging that makes me to go to international meetings to afterwards draft a paper that, most likely, will reach a few dozen people? A little weird, certainly. But all this is better understood when you know that the paper recently finished a few lines above is also part of a project that, at least personally, means I can better put myself on the political scene for the next step (now just Paris –or it might be also “Paris bis”? -). So all these papers are possible for the following reason:

In May 2014, in a public seminary organized by my friend and colleague Pepe Antequera and myself, we considered (and openly proposed): "From Rio 92 to Paris 2015. Knowing and affecting the international negotiations on climate change."

As a result of that seminar, with the aim and objective mentioned the "Governance Group on Climate Change GGCC" was born, within the Singular Research Group at the UPC (Polytechnic University of Catalonia) in "Sustainability, Technology and Humanism, STH". The GGCC would also have a leg "outside" within the WDGpa "World Democratic Governance project association."

Well, under the direction of professor Olga Alcaraz (olga.alcaraz@upc.edu) and mine (josep.xercavins@upc.edu) GGCC ended up taking an acting essential part and in all cases and different levels of work and participation from other professors of the UPC, professors at the UB and the UAB, and students (and former students) from many different levels of EUETIB at UPC and the Ramon Llull University, and external collaborators of the mentioned singular research group of the UPC. Altogether, about thirty people have participated and worked there, always voluntarily. Voluntarism has been the basis of the entire project. And we ended up leading to the COP 21 meeting in Paris (30 November to 11 December).

At this moment, and within the text that will reach Paris, there is a pending sentence in the final negotiation (as almost the whole text) saying:

Article 3 (Mitigation). 1. Collective long-term goal. Option 1: [Parties aim [to achieve the global temperature goal] .... [according to the Global Carbon Budget distribution based on Climate Justice] .... 

Well, I think we can say, humbly yet very rigorously, that this sentence is there, largely because we have managed to influence the international climate negotiations, having created among other more political elements, a "Group of States Friends for strong Mitigation, distributing the Global Carbon budget on Climate Justice criteria," which is the GGCC secretariat. We do not throw the rooftops, we are very aware that it is very difficult to finish that sentence being in a hypothetical final agreed text, but will continue to work to get it!

This is not the place nor the time nor the space to go into detail. Especially in relation to all academic research conducted on two key concepts mentioned: Global Carbon Budget and Climate Justice. The interested reader can find all the scientific publications made during the last year and a half and all materials, activities and political actions undertaken primarily during the last four weeks of negotiations in Bonn (two in June, one in September and the last week) on the following website (in its English version):

http://sth.upc.edu/ggcc-bonn-2015?set_language=en