 "Revised Paris package out: Differentiation remains unresolved")
The French presidency of the climate change negotiations brought out a revised version of the Paris package — a core agreement and a decision — on Wednesday that would decide how the world would fight climate change.
The version, much smaller than the previous iteration of 48 pages, stood at 29 pages with the differences captured between 366 brackets and 47 options.
The most difficult issues — that of differentiation permeating through the 29 pages, finance and loss and damage — were left untouched for the moment by French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and his team. This gave rise to indications that the next 24 hours would see intense talks and vehement arguments.
At the time of writing this report, countries were engaged in careful, line-by-line analysis of the 29 pages within their respective groups.
India, after an independent preliminary reading, had joined the Like Minded Developing Countries group, which includes China, to review the draft collectively. This would be followed by the larger umbrella group of developing countries, the G77+China, collectively taking positions on the clauses — a difficult task, considering several small island countries and others have again formed an opportunistic last-moment coalition with the EU.
A senior negotiator for the Africa group said while some African countries were also part of this alliance, it did not reflect the views of the total Africa Group of Nations — the forum through which all the countries in the continent negotiate. “This ‘Act alliance’ with the EU is primarily meant for the purpose of trade negotiations,” he said.
One of the negotiators from the Like Minded Developing Countries group, speaking minutes after the bloc had begun analysis of the revised draft, said: “At a cursory glance, we find all our options as well as those of other country parties’ options reflected in the text. But, let me repeat, this is a cursory glance at the proposals before we go through the document word-by-word.”
At this stage, the negotiators would also have to look at the balance of content between the core agreement and the decision. The core agreement, which is likely to get a fancier name by the end, is a more durable and legally stricter regime than the decision that the conference of parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change takes.
The conference of parties refers to the collective of 196 countries. Detailing of the contents of the agreement is done in the decision.
“This is the time when we have to look at not the elements in isolation but reach each paragraph in context of both the draft documents before us,” an African negotiator said.
Sanjay Vashisth, Director of Climate Action Network South Asia, said: “The new draft negotiation text fails to narrow down options on crunch issues, especially on climate finance and on differentiation across key elements. In the next 24 hours, ministers need to engage and ensure that they retain ambition while being accountable to the most vulnerable peoples.”
The version, much smaller than the previous iteration of 48 pages, stood at 29 pages with the differences captured between 366 brackets and 47 options.
Read more from our special coverage on "CLIMATE CHANGE TALKS"
The most difficult issues — that of differentiation permeating through the 29 pages, finance and loss and damage — were left untouched for the moment by French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and his team. This gave rise to indications that the next 24 hours would see intense talks and vehement arguments.
At the time of writing this report, countries were engaged in careful, line-by-line analysis of the 29 pages within their respective groups.
India, after an independent preliminary reading, had joined the Like Minded Developing Countries group, which includes China, to review the draft collectively. This would be followed by the larger umbrella group of developing countries, the G77+China, collectively taking positions on the clauses — a difficult task, considering several small island countries and others have again formed an opportunistic last-moment coalition with the EU.
A senior negotiator for the Africa group said while some African countries were also part of this alliance, it did not reflect the views of the total Africa Group of Nations — the forum through which all the countries in the continent negotiate. “This ‘Act alliance’ with the EU is primarily meant for the purpose of trade negotiations,” he said.
One of the negotiators from the Like Minded Developing Countries group, speaking minutes after the bloc had begun analysis of the revised draft, said: “At a cursory glance, we find all our options as well as those of other country parties’ options reflected in the text. But, let me repeat, this is a cursory glance at the proposals before we go through the document word-by-word.”
At this stage, the negotiators would also have to look at the balance of content between the core agreement and the decision. The core agreement, which is likely to get a fancier name by the end, is a more durable and legally stricter regime than the decision that the conference of parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change takes.
The conference of parties refers to the collective of 196 countries. Detailing of the contents of the agreement is done in the decision.
“This is the time when we have to look at not the elements in isolation but reach each paragraph in context of both the draft documents before us,” an African negotiator said.
Sanjay Vashisth, Director of Climate Action Network South Asia, said: “The new draft negotiation text fails to narrow down options on crunch issues, especially on climate finance and on differentiation across key elements. In the next 24 hours, ministers need to engage and ensure that they retain ambition while being accountable to the most vulnerable peoples.”