TWN Bonn Update No. 17
12 June 2013
of the SBI to begin rapidly, but in order to startits work, it needs to have a clear agenda whichtakes into account the concerns of Parties. Theefforts made have unfortunately not led to aresult which might be mutually acceptable. In thecourse of the informal consultations under the‘friends of the chair’, it came to an understanding that the matter it was raising was an importantone, on which discussions and negotiations needto take place. It could not understand why theitem it raised could not be clearly set out on theagenda and expressed deep regret. It could not work on the basis of such a provisional agendaand issued a warning that such an approach in2015 could run the risk that there will be aprovisional result and an agreement withprovisional commitments. It stated that theapproach proposed by the Chair did not suitRussia and objected to the adoption of theagenda.
also objected to the adoption of theagenda without the inclusion of the RBUproposal. It said that the matter was an extremely important one and it was looking to the future when Parties are on the threshold of a new global agreement and did not want it to be withshortcomings. It did not want the path of pastmistakes.
also objected to the adoptionof the agenda in the format suggested, saying that it wanted greater transparency and that there was a lack of clear rules of procedure.
speaking for the
G77 and China
agreed with the manner proposed by the Chair stressing that agenda item 19 is deleted and the issuesraised be addressed under agenda item 17.Several developing countries supported the G77and China, as well as developing country groupings which included the Least DevelopedCountries, Africa Group and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
also supported theproposal by the Chair with the assurances givenas the way forward. In response to Russia that it was difficult to work on the basis of provisionalagendas, it said that Parties have worked in this way before. It said that that the Chair had alsosaid that he would establish a contact group onthe RBU proposal and it could not understand why the agenda could not be adopted. The
also concurred with theChair’s statement and wanted a discussion of thisissue as soon as possible through a contact grouponce the agenda is adopted. The
also supported the Chair’sproposal and that this would allow the matter tobe discussed through a contact group.
while supporting the G77/China, saidthat it supported the adoption of the agenda onthe understanding that issues raised by RBU would be addressed in context of agenda item17. It raised a concern that Parties had notgotten into the stage of organisation of work as what was being considered was the matter of theadoption of the agenda. It will come back to theissue when the organisation of work is discussed.
Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada andNorway
all supported the proposal by the Chairas a way forward.
in support of the G77/China saidthat under the UNFCCC rules, any Party caninclude an agenda item in the SBI. The RBUproposal is within the rules of procedure. At thesame time, the rules of procedure also make itclear that there has to be a consensus for theinclusion of any agenda item. It is alsoabundantly clear that there is no consensus onthe RBU proposal to be included as agenda item19 or to amend agenda item 17 to explicitly reference this in the title of the agenda item. Thenew agenda item rule is a good rule, forotherwise, every Party can add additional items atevery item and at every body of the UNFCCC. When there is no consensus for its inclusion, wehave 2 options, said Singapore: (i) for theproposal to be rejected in absence of consensus;or (ii) the proposed agenda item is held pending or in abeyance while consultations continue and we allow the work to proceed on all agreeditems. That is the practice we adopted in Durban(referring to the Indian proposal to include 3new agenda items to the COP agenda). It saidthat the RBU have not accepted both coursesand Parties have not been able to begin work inthe last 8 days.Singapore said the RBU want an explicitreference on agenda item 17. It said that allsovereign states should be treated equally. InDurban, Parties allowed work to proceed whilethey had consultations by another party (India).It stressed the need for consistency and that if exemptions are made, then every Party willdemand the same exception in the future.
also supported the G77/China andrecalled the Durban precedent and said thatParties had found a way forward on the issues in