Savaresi, Annalisa

English

Edinburgh Research Explorer

     Edinburgh Research Explorer                                      Durban Platform - First StepsCitation for published version:Savaresi, A 2013, 'Durban Platform - First Steps' Environmental Policy and Law, vol 43, no. 3, pp. 127-29.Link:Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research ExplorerDocument Version:Publisher final version (usually the publisher pdf)Published In:Environmental Policy and LawPublisher Rights Statement:© Savaresi, A. (2013). Durban Platform - First Steps. Environmental Policy and Law, 43(3), 127-29.General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Take down policyThe University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorercontent complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright pleasecontact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately andinvestigate your claim.Download date: 20. Feb. 2015EnvironmEntal Policy and law, 43/3 (2013) 1270378-777X/13/$27.50 © 2013 IOS Pressand generalities. That said, however, they seem to have reached a productive stage. One has only to worry about the short time remaining; the lack of coordination among related processes; and the possibility that these processes will follow other recent negotiations in allowing pressure to meet a deadline to prompt inappropriate or insufficiently considered action and/or the adoption of bland documents with little import, as an alternative to continuing negotiation where progress is blocked by divergent positions. (TRY)Notes1  UN Conference on Sustainable Development. 2012. “The Future We Want”. Endorsed by the UNGA in Resolution 66/288. Available online at http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture. See, especially para. 84 on the establishment of the HLPF. See also “UNGA Decision on the OWG”. UN Doc A/67/555, adopted 22 January 2013, regarding the composition of the OWG, as negotiated at length in OWG-1 (infra, note 5).2  A/Res/67/203.3  See page 145 in this issue.4  EPL 43(2), at 71.5  EPL 43(2), at 72.6  Not having attended or received access to sessions of either process, the author relies on, analyses and summarises the following reports: Regarding the HLPF: the HLPF’s official UN website at http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1556; “Talking points of the co-facilitators at the open-ended informal meeting on HLPF held on Friday, 1st March 2013”, online at http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=255&nr=3419&menu=1556; “Sustainable development: implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development: Report of the Second Committee”, UN Doc A/67/437/Add.1; UNGA. “Lessons learned from the Commission on Sustainable Development: Report of the Secretary-General”. 26 Feb 2013. UN Doc A/67/757, online at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/757&Lang=E; and the following reports of the news service of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): “States Hold Second Meeting on Format, Organizational Aspects of HLPF”, online at http://uncsd.iisd.org/news/states-hold-second-meeting-on-format-organizational-aspects-of-hlpf/; “UNGA Holds Third Informal Consultation on HLPF”, online at http://uncsd.iisd.org/news/unga-holds-third-informal-consultation-on-hlpf/#more-193759; “Experts Provide Input on HLPF”, online at http://uncsd.iisd.org/news/experts-provide-input-on-hlpf/#more-195485; and “UNGA Informals Consider ‘Hybrid Option’ for HLPF”, online at http://uncsd.iisd.org/news/unga-informals-consider-hybrid-option-for-hlpf/. Regarding the OWG on SDGs: The Working Group’s website at http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1549; “Co-Chairs’ Summary Bullet Points from OWG-2”, online at http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1826bullet2.pdf; and the International Institute for Sustainable Development reports “Summary of the Second Session of the UN General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals: 17–19 April 2013”; “Summary of the Third Session of the UN General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals: 22–24 May 2013”, Linkages 32(2), online at http://www.iisd.ca/sdgs/owg2/; Linkages 32(3) online at http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb3203e.pdf. The author could find no online report or discussion of the OWG-2, apart from the Co-Chairs’ Summary bullet points, listed above.The reader is encouraged to turn to these sources and contact with persons who attended the meetings, for more detailed understanding.7  IISD. “States Hold Second Meeting on Format, Organizational Aspects of HLPF”, ibid.8  “Talking points of the co-facilitators at the open-ended informal meeting on HLPF held on Friday, 1st March 2013”, supra, note 6.9  “Ibid..10  Now finalised as “Lessons learned from the Commission on Sustainable Development: Report of the Secretary-General”. 26 Feb 2013. UN Doc A/67/757. Online at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/757&Lang=E. 11  See infra, note 14.12  EPL 43(2), at 62.13  IISD. “UNGA Holds Third Informal Consultation on HLPF”, supra, note 6.14  IISD. “Experts Provide Input on HLPF”, ibid. 15  IISD. “UNGA Informals Consider ‘Hybrid Option’ for HLPF”, ibid.16  IISD. “Summary of the Third Session of the UN General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals: 22-24 May 2013”, ibid.17  “Co-Chairs’ Summary Bullet Points from OWG-2”, ibid.18  Other more focused MDGs mentioned food and nutrition in the context of child welfare (MDG-3), and the needs of small-scale farmers (MDG-1) and women (MDG-4).19  The five goals are as follows: “1. 100% access to adequate food all year round; 2. Zero stunted children less than 2 years; 3. All food systems are sustainable; 4. 100% increase in smallholder productivity and income; [and] 5. Zero loss or waste of food”.20  The MDGs are listed and discussed online at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/.Durban Platform– First Steps –by Annalisa Savaresi*The Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held a meeting dubbed the “first part of the second session of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP)” in Bonn, 29 April–3 May 2013. The ADP is the sole body negotiating the future of the climate regime, since the 2012 conclusion of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). At that point, the ADP was given the mandate to develop “a protocol, another legal instrument or a legal outcome” applicable to “all Parties”, to be adopted by 2015 and implemented from 2020.1 The platform has potentially opened the way to a new geometry of commitments, based upon a “clean slate UNFCCC* Research and Teaching Fellow, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; and regular contributor to EPL.on differentiation” among Parties.2 At this point, however, the adoption of a legally binding agreement that includes emission reduction commitments for all Parties remains but one of the possible outcomes opened up by the new negotiation scenario. Since its first meeting in 2012, the ADP has operated under two separate workstreams: one addressing the elements and modalities of the 2015 agreement, and the other on enhancing the level of ambition for the pre-2020 period. The first workstream, inheriting the unfinished work of the AWG-LCA, has been tasked to address mitigation; adaptation; finance; technology development and transfer; capacity building; and the transparency of action and support. During CoP-18’s debates last December, this workstream was characterised by the resurgence of old divisions, especially on differentiation and the interpretation of the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibilities, which is embedded in EnvironmEntal Policy and law, 43/3 (2013)1280378-777X/13/$27.50 © 2013 IOS Pressthe UNFCCC. In preparation for ADP-2, Parties’ and observers’ submissions were invited on other issues, such as the application of the principles of the Convention; experiences and lessons learned from other processes; the scope, structure and design of the new agreement; and ways of defining and reflecting the Parties’ undertakings.3 Under the second workstream, Parties and observers were asked to make submissions on options to enhance climate-change-related ambition before 2020, including application of the principles of the Convention; mitigation and adaptation benefits; barriers and ways to overcome them; incentives for action; finance; technology; and capacity building to support implementation.4 The Secretariat received a sizeable number of submissions under both workstreams.5 As agreed in Doha,6 the addition of an April session as the first part of ADP-2 was intended to expedite the drafting of a negotiating text to be considered “no later than” CoP-20 (2014), with a view to making a draft text available “before May 2015”.7 Limited progress, however, was made at the April session, with the AWG-LCA ghost looming in the room, as delegates aired familiar views over differentiation, including the resurrection of a Brazilian proposal originally offered in 1997, which would allocate mitigation action based on historical contributions to temperature increases, rather than emission flows.8 The following review summarises the debate during the first part of ADP-2, as well as issues for discussion awaiting delegates when the session resumes in June. Workstream I: Gestation of a Post-2015 AgreementDiscussions under Workstream I were held in the course of one workshop (consisting of expert presentations on the scope, structure and design of the 2015 agreement) and a series of roundtables, in which delegates debated measures to enhance adaptation and mitigation, as well as means of implementation and transparency of action and support. Discussions continued to be weighed down by the re-emergence of the very contentious issues that afflicted the AWG-LCA, with several delegates re-expressing entrenched positions on issues such as the Parties’ common-but-differentiated responsibilities, the transfer of technology, finance and capacity building. Some developed-country Parties (such as Australia, Japan and the US) expressed support for the adoption of a “spectrum of mitigation commitments” for all countries, by which they would give countries flexibility to tailor efforts to their national circumstances within an international rules-based system. By contrast, developing countries were increasingly divided between the intransigent position of those expecting to continue along the path traced by the Kyoto Protocol (including the group known as the Like-minded Developing Countries), and those suggesting that all Parties should make mitigation commitments that are proportionate to their capacity (Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean). Parties appeared largely to agree on the fact that the principles of the UNFCCC should apply to the 2015 instrument, but still displayed significant divergence as to how those principles should be interpreted. Parties also shared the view that adaptation is to be an integral part of the new instrument, closely linked to mitigation, and that enhanced national action needs to be facilitated by transfers of finance, technology and capacity building. Agreement also appeared general on the need to adopt processes for consulting, adjusting, assessing action, and ensuring transparency and accountability; and on the importance of regular review of overall results based on science. In preparation for the second part of the ADP-2 session (to be held in June), the Co-chairs asked that delegates not further discuss elements identified as common grounds, but rather focus on the format for enhanced action, including various types of commitment (specifically, how bottom-up/top-down approaches can be combined); how to enhance finance, technology transfer and capacity building; how the 2015 agreement can add to and be linked to extant arrangements; and more effective ways of sharing information. Workstream II: Still Struggling to Raise AmbitionsUnder Workstream II, discussions were held in two workshops, featuring expert presentations on low-emission development and land-based mitigation opportunities; as well as a series of roundtables, which featured debates about catalysing action and building a practical, results-oriented approach to increasing pre-2020 ambition.The workshop format gave Parties an opportunity to showcase success stories, in dialogue with experts. The most debated issues included REDD+ and other land-based mitigation approaches; the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies and hydrofluorocarbons; renewable energy; and energy efficiency. In this connection, developing countries lamented the lack of progress in the ratification of last December’s Kyoto Protocol amendment, which revises out the annexes to the Protocol, setting out its Parties’ emission reduction commitments. To date, the amendment has not received its first ratification, although the European Union and its partner countries have declared that they intend to implement their commitments under that amendment as of 1 January 2013. Parties appeared to be largely aligned concerning the needs to increase the number of countries making mitigation pledges, to raise the level of ambition in extant pledges, and to reap opportunities associated with complementary initiatives. Several delegates underscored the necessity of providing developing countries with access to means of implementation and of making the requisite technology affordable, recognising that insufficient means of implementation; high capital costs; insufficient anchoring of climate change strategies in domestic policies; and the lack of political engagement are the main challenges to implementation. In preparation for the resumed ADP-2 session in June, the Co-chairs invited Parties to discuss renewable energy and energy efficiency; land-use opportunities; climate financing and the promotion of climate-friendly investment; the role of international cooperative initiatives in enhancing national action; and the enhancement of access to means of implementation and political engagement. EnvironmEntal Policy and law, 43/3 (2013) 1290378-777X/13/$27.50 © 2013 IOS PressThe Resumed ADP-2 Session ADP-2 reconvened from 3–14 June (to be covered in EPL4-5), alongside meetings of the other UNFCCC subsidiary bodies. As noted above, in an effort to move the debate forward, the ADP Co-chairs had asked that delegates refrain from further discussions of common ground at that time, focusing instead on issues in need of further consideration. Significantly, however, in advance of the meeting, delegates had not yet agreed that they were ready to establish contact groups on such issues, an action that would normally precede the commencement of textual negotiations. The issue of whether to launch contact groups and move closer to full negotiation mode was left open until the second session of ADP-2, when the ADP-2 Co-chairs were expected to present a proposal on the issue. UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, has informed delegates that at present no funding has been made available for the proposed additional session of the ADP, which had been planned for September 2013. This indicates that the second part of ADP-2 may be the only remaining opportunity for the ADP, in its struggles to garner the political momentum necessary to the achievement of its objective.So far, the ADP, as a negotiation platform, has not significantly departed from the firewall that characterised the Bali Action Plan and ultimately justified its demise. On the contrary, the resurrection of the above-mentioned Brazilian proposal9 may be regarded as a sign of the fact that the Parties’ entrenched divisions die hard. These divisions were evident also in the delegates’ bickering concerning the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol amendment, given that it was not realistic to expect that amendment to be widely ratified within so few months after its adoption. The resumed sessions of ADP-2 in June found Parties still very much at the starting blocks. It remains to be seen whether the process will manage to deliver where the AWG-LCA failed, or will just turn into another false start.Notes1 Decision 1/CP.17, at 2 and 4. UN Doc FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, at 2-3.2 Rajamani, L. 2011. “Decoding the Durban Platform”.  EJIL: Talk! 14 December 2011.3 Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. “Planning of work. Draft conclusions proposed by the Co-Chairs”, 7 December 2012. UN Doc FCCC/ADP/2012/L.4, paras 8 and 13.4 Ibid., at para. 15.5 See http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/7398.php.6 Ibid.7 Decision 2/CP.18. “Advancing the Durban Platform”, UN Doc FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1, at 9.8 See FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.1/Add.3, available at http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/?screen=detail&FLD0=dC&VAL0=FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.1/Add.3. The Proposal was also the subject of a dedicated work by the SBSTA, see FCCC/SBSTA/2008/6, available at http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600004843.9 Ibid.Synergistic Sessions of the Three Agreements– Continuing Work and Coordination –Three years after the groundbreaking meeting in which they adopted simultaneous decisions to operate synergistically, the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention); the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC Convention); and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Convention) held simultaneously their 11th, 6th and 6th Conferences of Parties (CoPs), respectively, back-to-back with their second collective gathering entitled “extraordinary meetings of the Conferences of the Parties” (ExCoPs-2), all taking place 28 April–10 May 2013 in Geneva, Switzerland.1 The sessions were guided by the three conventions’ CoP Presidents: Franz Perrez (Switzerland), Basel Convention; Magdalena Balicka (Poland), PIC Convention; and Osvaldo Patricio Álvarez Basel Convention/CoP-11Rotterdam Convention/CoP-6Stockholm Convention/CoP-6ExCoPs-2(Chile), POPs Convention.Predictably, given its unique and innovative nature, the process by which these three separate conventions are operating synergistically provided a focus for much of the work of the joint and separate meetings, while the individual conventions’ CoPs were also able to continue with their mandated tasks. The two conventions that do not yet have them (PIC and POPs) considered the adoption of compliance mechanisms (ultimately choosing not to take such an action yet). All three adopted listing decisions, guidelines and/or other technical resolutions of importance. UNEP opened the synergistic meeting process under the theme “Sustainable Synergies”, recognising the long-term nature of the goals underlying the collaborative approach to the three conventions. The decisions and sessions of the four bodies interacted closely, closing and reopening throughout the overall meeting. The following report will divide the discussions 

Durban Platform - First Steps

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer