![\"IMG-8840\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/IMG-8840.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI arrived just in time to hear the start of some horse-trading. These notes are scrappy because it’s hard to grasp all the references and undercurrents. The discussion was focused on paragraph 6 of the document in question. My somewhat facetious translations are in brackets.<\/p>\n
SOUTH AFRICA (speaking for African Group of Nations; delegations tip their name cards on end to show their desire to speak) NORWAY CoCHAIR Three agenda items (two discussed other negotiating groups) focus on the same issue.\u00a0Therefore the language used here might be useful. I<\/span>n moving forward, we request Canada to work with Africa\u00a0<\/span>on the very correct language we think would be useful to use move forward. We are\u00a0<\/span>bombarding with you (Africa) with a lot of admin, but this is extremely important for you as you have said. (Can we take this out of committee, please, and let the opponents tackle the issue directly?<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n SOUTH AFRICA We are willing to have a\u00a0conversation with parties about this agreed language,\u00a0<\/span>why our partners have such opposition to this agreed language. It is\u00a0<\/span>very difficult to engage with lots of silence in this room. (JUSCANZ is obstructing progress and not acknowledging their bad behavior.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n USA CoCHAIR SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH AFRICA CoCHAIR USA CoCHAIR SOUTH AFRICA CoCHAIR (looking around) PAKISTAN CoCHAIR BHUTAN CoCHAIR (after more whispered consultation) SOUTH AFRICA LIBERIA CoCHAIR *************<\/p>\n After lunch and\u00a0a meeting on GEF guidance (see <\/em>other post), the GCF guidance discussion picked up\u00a0again:<\/em><\/p>\n The Secretariat passed out a three-page document for consideration (to everyone in the room, even observers). See below.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n EU <\/span> CHAIR SOUTH AFRICA (picking up on\u00a0the discontent<\/em>) CHAIR EU (picking up name card and banging hand on it as a means of interrupting the Chair<\/em>) CHAIR (The Chair has “the power of the pen:” by asking AGN to develop new text, he may have leapfrogged over what others consider an acceptable process.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n NORWAY I do not think that these two alternative \u00b6s will be acceptable in this guidance: they would not be accepted by people working on guidance for the SCF.<\/span><\/p>\n SOUTH AFRICA We are back to where we left off, with brackets on 3 and 4.<\/p>\n In the briefing with the APA co-chairs, Sara referenced “the dreaded drafting exercise.” I left that briefing to go listen in on some detailed negotiation around bracketed text about the GCF. The session had started as a closed “inf inf” (informal informal, as opposed to an informal, which is sometimes open, or a contact group) … Continue reading The dreaded drafting exercise–a brief glimpse<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/837"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=837"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/837\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1009,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/837\/revisions\/1009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a><\/p>\n
\nWe retained the right to bring back the brackets of paragraphs 3 and 4 if our negotiating partners are not willing to consider the issues here. (If you all want to make progress more generally, give me some agreement here.<\/em>)<\/p>\n
\nIt is important that when we are uncovering text that we should aim for harmonization. (Uncovering text = removing brackets. We have to bear in mind the work of other groups, too.<\/em>)<\/p>\n
\nSuggestions that there was better language than what we have here\u2026\u00a0<\/span>[long whispered conversation with co-chair and secretary] W<\/span>e understand the concerns of each of you.\u00a0<\/span>I was very happy with the proposal brought by Norway.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWe need to have this discussion in public, so that we\u00a0understand why Australia, Canada, Switzerland have spoken out against the language. We\u00a0<\/span>agree with Norway that there is a need for coherence. I am late for a HODs (heads of delegation meeting). We are not suggesting three different paragraphs. W<\/span>hat we have here is a very specific mandate: we\u00a0<\/span>would like to see mandate acted upon….<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWe are concerned about the characterization that we are trying not to follow the language. The l<\/span>anguage is improperly constructing bodies. This n<\/span>eeds to be solved at a higher level. N<\/span>obody is saying let\u2019s not address it, but l<\/span>et\u2019s not give instruction to the SCF (Standing Committee on Finance). (Unfair! We’re just saying it’s not our job to tell the SCF what to do.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\nEveryone wants to operationalize. This is just a m<\/span>atter of clarifying some of guidance. We r<\/span>eiterate our request to our three colleagues. We h<\/span>ear Norway, repeated by the US now\u2014it’s a matter of getting language in best places:\u00a0<\/span>where it falls, how we give the guidance. We\u00a0<\/span>request once again to see if you can sit and get better language than that,\u00a0<\/span>if you agree. I<\/span>f you don\u2019t agree, we will bracket\u00a0paragraphs 3 and 4. (Can you please work this out over lunch?!<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\nIt’s maybe better if you and Stefan (other co-chair) meet with\u00a0<\/span>acf and ltf\u00a0(? chairs of other committees), just the four of you and you bring us a proposal. Y<\/span>ou understand the issues from this group;\u00a0<\/span>we are ready to be consulted by the four of you.\u00a0<\/span>I think it’s better that it sits somewhere else. (Africa is telling the chair what to do. Whoa. Also saying, it’s not going to be productive to try to solve this among ourselves over lunch–and besides, I have this other meeting.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/a>EU
\nThis is an interesting [?]. We would like to suggest a gentleman’s agreement that if an interesting proposal comes out of this, that we agree to move forward. (Africa is the one being an obstacle here: can we agree to a limit on how much more of this will happen?<\/em>)<\/p>\n
\nWe want to clarify for our friends in the EU that we have n<\/span>o substantive disagreement to \u00b64. We think it’s important to s<\/span>top unilateral veto power of some parties moving forward. (I think this is aimed at the US and its power to block funding to states it considers enemies or invalid actors. In other words, let us remind you that we are not the bad guys here.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\nLet us move to paragraph 10.<\/p>\n
\nFor the US, this tone is unacceptable. We suggest changing “urges” to “invites.” (The US doesn’t like any language that suggests constraint on national sovereignty.<\/em>)<\/p>\n
\nIs this acceptable?<\/p>\n
\nWe’ll have to come back to you.<\/p>\n
\nThe rest of us accept. Africa?<\/p>\n
\nOur preference would be to remain with the existing language.<\/p>\n
\nOK, you can join the party.<\/p>\n
\nThe current language emphasizes the urgency of the situation. This seems appropriate.<\/p>\n
\nWe have in principle agreed everything except two paragraphs in brackets. On paragraph 6 we will consult with\u00a0co-chairs of other agenda items\u00a0<\/span>between 1 & 2 pm with colleagues in room 22. We will invite some of you. On paragraph\u00a0<\/span>10 we invited 4 parties (US, South Africa, Bhutan, Pakistan) to come up with agreed language. I<\/span>f we have no agreement on \u00b66, we will have to bracket 3 and 4.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>At COP22 the same language (in paragraph 10) was agreed: the\u00a0<\/span>situation has not changed since Marrakech.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Those who haven\u2019t come through with first pledges, we urge them to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nWe have to end here.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>What text are we considering, precisely: new text on the screens or the paper version?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWhat is in front of you.
\n<\/span>(There is some general muttering<\/em>.)<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>We said that we would go back to bracketing 3 and 4 if\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>So let us begin with…<\/span><\/p>\n
\nRichard, WHEN did you propose to go and develop something? It was when we were not in the room. (Ooh, he’s mad. Interrupting the chair and calling another party out by <\/em>first name. Breach of decorum.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThis was not\u00a0the intent but it was a request for the African Group to develop a compromise. <\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>With these two paragraphs I really have trouble understanding why these should have been part of GCF guidance. I can\u2019t see why we are discussing them in this room. Perhaps not everyone in this room is aware of the language in the Standing Committee on Finance (and then she read it out–I couldn\u2019t keep up): the SCR (Standing Committee on Finance) \u00b610 also requests in collaboration with [someone] to explore ways and means either to assess the needs of developing countries or assist developing countries in assessing their needs and priorities …adaptation\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Responding to something that you don\u2019t know the context of is often unproductive. In this regard, it is unfortunate that Norway launched into this issue.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"