TWN_update17

7/28/2019 TWN_update17

1/5

122

UNFCCC body SBI in crisis; unable to do work

Bonn, 12 June (Meena Raman) The 38thsession of the UNFCCCs Subsidiary Body onImplementation (SBI) is in crisis, as it could notadopt its agenda, nor launch its work after 8 dayssince its first meeting held last Monday, 3 June.

The Chair of the SBI, Mr. Tomasz Chruszczow

(Poland) convened a formal plenary meeting ataround 12.45 pm on Tuesday, 11 June, and aftera 3-hour exchange, adjourned the meeting andinformed Parties that the SBI will reconvene onFriday, 14 June, to close its session.

During the 11 June meeting, Chruszczowproposed a solution that included the reading ofa Chairmans statement, the deletion of anagenda item proposed by Russia, Belarus andUkraine but creating a contact group todiscuss the proposed issue under an existingagenda item. However, the Chairs proposal wasrejected by the three countries. An appeal to theChair by the G77 chair to gavel through hisproposal nevertheless was also not taken up bythe Chair.

After a short break, the Chair announced he wasclosing the meeting, and implied he would nolonger hold further consultations or meetings totry to resolve the issue but only convene a formalclosing meeting on Friday. Therefore, the SBI

would not have conducted any substantive workduring this two-week climate conference underthe UNFCCC.

This has thrown the SBI and the UNFCCC intoa crisis of procedure and possibly of credibility.

The SBI is a vital component of the UNFCCCstructure, as it makes decisions on a wide rangeof important issues on implementing theConventions provisions and objectives, and isthus seen as a key action arm of the UNFCCC.

The loss of two weeks of its work, with manyhundreds of delegates and observers gathered inBonn in frustration, is a blow to the globalclimate negotiations.

The 11 June meeting also saw the Russian chiefdelegate present a lengthy explanation of theissues that his country was seeking to highlight the problems arising from the Conference ofParties and its presiding officials not followingproper procedures. He portrayed this as

contributing to the crumbling of credibility ofthe UNFCCC, using the analogy of thecrumbling of ice sheets in the Arctic and themelting of glaciers caused by global warming.

The Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine(RBU) had objected to the adoption of theagenda as proposed by the SBI Chair. Theagenda could not be adopted due to wranglingover a proposal by the RBU to include a newagenda item.

The three Parties wanted to include an item onthe provisional agenda for the 38th SBI sessionon procedural and legal issues relating todecision-making by the Conference of Parties(COP) and the COP serving as the meeting ofthe Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), which

was reflected as agenda item 19 in thesupplementary provisional agenda.

When the SBI plenary was convened on 11 June,the Chair reminded Parties that they wereconsidering agenda item 2(a) of the

supplementary provisional agenda, which was theadoption of the agenda.

Chruszczow reminded Parties that the agendahad yet to be adopted and as a consequence, theSBI was not able to commence work and 8 dayshad been lost. He recalled that on Monday, 3

June, the 38th session was opened. He said thatwhen considering agenda item 2(a), Parties wereunable to agree to its adoption due todisagreement over agenda item 19.Consequently, no work was launched, he added.

The SBI Chair said further that upon suspension,a heads of delegation meeting was called. No


2/5

TWN Bonn Update No. 17 12 June 2013

2

agreement was achieved and on 4 June, an SBIplenary was convened but Parties were stillunable to arrive at a solution to the impasse, hesaid.

Following this, Chruszczow said bilateralinformal consultations were held to consider

how a solution might be found but there was noagreement on the solution. On Wednesday, 5June, the SBI Chair said that he and his Vice-chair sought to bring mutual understanding toallow the SBI work to commence, but acompromise was beyond reach.

He stated that a short stock-taking plenary wasconvened to inform Parties about the status ofthe consultations. On Thursday, 6 June, he saidbilateral consultations continued and someconvergence began to show that the issue raised

by the RBU was important and could bediscussed under agenda item 17 of the agenda(on arrangements for intergovernmentalmatters). The Chair said that informal open-ended consultations were convened to allowParties to further explore matters.

On Friday, 7 June, following 3 days ofconsultations, a plenary session was convened totake stock of matters, he added. There was anelaboration and clarification by the RBU on the

substance of their proposal. Parties expressedreadiness to discuss the substance of the issueunder agenda item 17, he added further.

According to the SBI Chair, what appeared to bedivisive was that the RBU wanted explicitinscription of their proposal on the agenda item,

while a majority of Parties wanted to provide anassurance in that regard without amendments toagenda item 17, and for agenda item 19 to bedeleted. He said that this reassurance was to beprovided by the Chair by a statement which

would be reflected in the report of the session.

The Chair said that on Friday, 7 June, Partiesentered into an informal meeting in a friends ofthe chair setting, to find options, paving the wayfor the adoption of the agenda while taking intoaccount the RBU proposal. He invited Parties toprovide submissions on the matter and gotresponses from the G77 and China and theEnvironmental Integrity Group (EIG).

On Saturday, 8 June, Chruszczow said the

friends of the chair reconvened and discussedpossible texts of the statement to be read by theSBI Chair before the adoption of the agenda.

The purpose of the statement was a way to

provide assurance to the RBU that theirproposal would be captured under agenda item17, without direct reference in the title of theagenda. He added that the text was based on thetwo submissions of the G77/China and the EIGand referred to the submission by the RBU toinclude their proposal, on the understanding that

the text would be incorporated in the report ofthe SBI session. The RBU said that this wasuseful, but it could not be considered theirpreferred option. The Chair explained furtherthat on 10 June, the friends of the chair wasconvened and in the afternoon, consultations

were held.

Based on these consultations and deliberations,he proposed the following way forward as asolution box:

1.There will be a statement to be read by theChair as proposed by Parties at the SBI meeting;

2.The text of the statement will be incorporatedin the report of the 38th session of the SBI;

3.The agenda of the SBI as contained in thesupplementary provisional agenda would beadopted with agenda item 19 deleted;

4.After the agenda is adopted, the SBI Chair willpropose the setting up of a contact group onagenda item 17, including the agenda item asproposed by the RBU. The contact group will bechaired by both the SBI Chair and Vice-Chairand will be convened at the earliest time.

The Chair said there was no other solution. Hethen read out his statement as follows:

The May/June session of the SBI hastraditionally provided Parties with anopportunity to consider how theirintergovernmental process is functioning and toexchange views on relevant matters, includingproviding guidance to presiding officers and theSecretariat. The guiding principles of openness,transparency and inclusiveness will continue toinfluence the organisation of work and the workof presiding officers. The SBI will now proceedto adopt its agenda with the understanding thatthe submissions of Belarus, the RussianFederation and Ukraine, entitled Procedural andlegal issues relating to decision-making by theCOP/CMP will be addressed under agendaitem 17 of the supplementary provisional agendaand that agenda item 19 will, consequently, standdeleted.

In response, the Russian Federationunderscored that it too is interested in the work


3/5


3

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 thefriends 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 suit

Russia and objected to the adoption of theagenda.

Ukraine also objected to the adoption of theagenda without the inclusion of the RBUproposal. It said that the matter was an extremelyimportant one and it was looking to the future

when Parties are on the threshold of a newglobal agreement and did not want it to be withshortcomings. It did not want the path of pastmistakes. Belarus also objected to the adoption

of the agenda in the format suggested, sayingthat it wanted greater transparency and that therewas a lack of clear rules of procedure.

Fiji speaking for the G77 and China agreedwith the manner proposed by the Chair stressingthat 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 countrygroupings which included the Least DevelopedCountries, Africa Group and the Alliance of

Small Island States (AOSIS).

Switzerland for the EIG 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 European Union also concurred with theChairs statement and wanted a discussion of thisissue as soon as possible through a contact grouponce the agenda is adopted.

The United States also supported the Chairsproposal and that this would allow the matter tobe discussed through a contact group.

China, 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.

Singapore in support of the G77/China said

that 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 explicitlyreference this in the title of the agenda item. Thenew agenda item rule is a good rule, for

otherwise, 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 pendingor 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 said

that 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 ifexemptions are made, then every Party willdemand the same exception in the future.

India also supported the G77/China andrecalled the Durban precedent and said thatParties had found a way forward on the issues in


4/5


4

a meaningful way. It also agreed with China thatParties were on the issue of the adoption of theagenda and not yet on the organisation of work.

Gambia appealed to the RBU to show someflexibility.

The SBI Chair then said that he had heard clear

objections from the RBU and also recalled theDurban precedent. He once again proposed forthe adoption of the approach he specified in thesolution box. Russia reiterated its objection, asdid Ukraine and Belarus.

Tuvalu said an amicable way forward wasneeded and Parties could not be buried inprocedural matters and there was need to makeprogress in addressing climate change.

The SBI Chair said that Parties had heard one

more time the rejection of the compromisedsolution box. The rules of procedure were clearand all substantial decisions have to be taken byconsensus. There is no procedure for voting. It

was beyond the Chair, he said, and gave a hugesigh. He said that this body was unable to arriveat consensus.

Fiji said it felt the gravity of the situation andagreed that the rules did not permit a vote. Itthen suggested that the Chair use the principleof necessity to gavel the way forward, as it wasimportant for him to save the countries of the

world. The suggestion by Fiji was met withapplause.

The SBI Chair called for a 15-minute break. Thesession then resumed with Russia speaking for along time, saying that the UNFCCC process wassick and a haunted house that needed thelight of transparency.

Russia said that the time has come to look in asober fashion, the situation we are in at thismoment. It said that the UNFCCC process is ina difficult situation and that the process is sick.

There were constant problems with proceduralmatters and Parties were forced to resolveproblems in circumstances of haste,apprehension and anxiety. This, it said, is not ahealthy atmosphere. This is why the RBU haveconsidered it necessary to examine the matter ofhow decisions are taken.

What is happening now is simply a confirmation

that we are giving rise to undesirable precedent,it added. The process is under a country-drivenone and emotions must be set aside. Matters arenot resolved by emotions. The Chair of the COPcarries his or her functions under the authority

of the COP and the same applies to subsidiarybodies. Whatever emotions arise, decisions onmatter of substance cannot be a Chairsprerogative and it is the exclusive right of Parties.

Russia said that it is important to take historyinto account on the process and referred the

landmarks in The Hague, Copenhagen, Cancun,Durban and Doha. It asked if rules ofprocedures were going to be violated, referringto the invocation of the principle of necessity,

which is outside any legal context. It stressed theimportance of transparency. It did not want tohave to look at footnotes and explanatory notes,referring to the agenda proposal. It said that it

was being viewed as blocking the process but itwas those who did not want to reflect matters,which are timely and important who are the

blockers.It went back to recent history of the Conventionand Kyoto Protocol (KP) and said that KP cameinto effect because of Russia. It reiterated theneed for transparency in the UNFCCC process.It recalled that the rules of procedure haveremained un-adopted. It added that it would notbe a bad thing to work together as a matter ofurgency towards adoption of the draft rules ofprocedure.

It said that the UNFCCC process was meltingor thawing as were the glaciers in the Arctic. Itreferred to the first commitment period of theKP which was not ratified by the US. AnotherParty, Canada, has left it and that Parties hadreasons to act. In relation to the secondcommitment period, Russia said there wereproblems, including for Japan and New Zealand(all of whom did not commit to the secondcommitment period). In the Doha conference,countries were questioning about their

participation in the process. It said that theUNFCCC is a haunted house, where the lightneeds to be turned on and that istransparency. It reiterated its objection on theadoption of the agenda.

The SBI Chair then said there was no consensusto support his proposal and there is no way tolaunch the SBI work. He then recalled theConventions objective and said that there wasno other process than this to address climatechange. He said that necessity could not be used

to gavel a decision as transparency, inclusivenessand ownership were important. It was for Partiesto save the world, he added.

The UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana


5/5


5

Figueres also spoke and agreed that the finalhours of COP 18/CMP 8 in Doha were held in acontext, which could have been avoided. TheDoha Gateway was important but whathappened was not unique. It is the sovereignright of all Parties to be heard, she said. She saidthat Parties were willing to have discussions on

decision-making, including in a formal setting.

She urged Parties not to lose sight of the purposeof collective and urgent action in pursuit of theultimate objective of the Convention. She askedif Parties are assuming their responsibility.

The SBI Chair then announced that the meetingwill reconvene on Friday, 14 June, only to close

the 38th session.

TWN_update17

Documents

Transcript of TWN_update17