"Differentiation" heats up in Poznan | Centre for Science and Environment


"Differentiation" heats up in Poznan

 
 
 
Poznan, December 10, 2008

Meeting in the contact group on the Long Term Cooperative actions, countries push and resist the moves to divide developing countries – the salami approach

Developing countries are firmly opposed to the move by the developed countries to divide them into different groups based on economic status or emissions in the new climate regime post 2012.

Japan and Turkey called for a redefinition of “developed” and “developing countries” under the Bali Action Plan (BAP), suggesting various criteria and parameters for such differentiation including that of GDP per capita and share of world emissions. Japan in particular advocated the graduation of some countries into Annex 1 from Non-Annex 1.

In response, Brazil speaking for G-77 and China firmly rejected any proposal directed towards differentiating between non-Annex I parties. India said that differentiation does not have any space in the BAP and is contrary to the Convention. It said that developing countries have a wide spectrum of diversity. The BAP talks about nationally appropriate mitigation actions for developing countries, recognising this spectrum of diversity and national circumstances.

China said that the work of the contact group is guided by principles of the Convention and the BAP. There is a very clear mandate in the BAP to focus on implementation of the Convention in the areas of mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance. It said that some Parties are trying to divert the attention from focusing on the mandate to implement the Convention to introducing extraneous issues.

There should not be any renegotiation of the Convention and any attempt to revise the Convention or redefine 'developed' and 'developing countries' and its sub-divisions is not constructive, but destructive. It also countered the developed countries assertions on the changes in the economic and emissions in the developing countries since 1992 in its own frank and distinctive style. It said that if there have been changes, then several matters remain unchanged.

The historical responsibility of some Parties in producing GHG emissions has not changed. These emissions are the major cause of climate change. There has been no change as regards the implementation of the Convention. Since 1992, there has been little progress in technology transfer and provision of financial resources to developing countries.

There has been no change as regards emissions from Annex 1 countries where emissions are still increasing from 1990 to 2005. There has been a lack of implementation of the Convention and therefore there is a need to focus on this and to elaborate on this rather than in redefining who is developed and developing, emphasized China.

 
 
CoP19
CoP19/Warsaw
CoP18
Doha, Qatar
CoP9
Milan, Italy
CoP17
Durban, South Africa
CoP8
New Delhi, India
CoP16
Cancun, Mexico
CoP7
Marrakech, Morocco
CoP15
Copenhagen, Denmark
CoP6
The Hague, Netherlands
CoP14
Bonn/Poznan
CoP5
CoP5 Bonn, Germany
CoP13
Bali, Indonesia
CoP4
Buenos Aires, Argentina
CoP12
Nairobi, Kenya
CoP3
Kyoto, Japan
CoP11
Montreal, Canada CMP 1
CoP2
Geneva, Switzerland
CoP10
Buenos Aires, Argentina
CoP1
Berlin, Germany
 

Uthra Radhakrishnan
Email: uthra@cseindia.org
Tel: +91 11 29955124