|Poznan, December 9, 2008
A day in the life of a “Contact group on enhanced action on mitigation and its associated means of implementation” at the Poznan CoP
The question is how the industrialised world will reduce its emissions, but the discussion is on how the developing world will cut. The repartee in the conference, brought to your without editing
Barbados: On behalf of small island nations and LDC. We want developing countries to work on nationally appropriate mitigation actions, complemented by finance and technology support by developed countries. The money for finance and technology support can come from auctioning of AAU in the developed world. Wants indicators for actions in the developing countries, like national renewable energy targets, which could be measurable, reportable and verifiable.
Pakistan: We have agreed to NAMA, but not to any deviation from any trajectory.
Venezuela: Unless and until the developed countries cut emissions domestically how can you talk about emission cuts in the developed world?
India: MRV is only for those projects, which are supported by the developed world. We are not in support of any MRV, which extends over all domestic action. By financial support we mean, grant support and not normal commercial flow.
Papua New Guinea: The registry of national action is an important idea and we support the South African proposal.
Brazil: MRV is different for annex 1 and non-annex 1, which is made clear in the Bali action plan – section 1b (i) and 1b (ii). The registry is a useful idea because it has capacity to match, the MRV with financial and technology support.
Namibia: We support the South African proposal.
Bolivia: We oppose all kind of carbon trading mechanism. We want developed countries to reduce emissions domestically.
France (in response to Indian intervention): We want your domestic reduction to be recognised internationally. That is why, we want MRV for domestic action.