![\"3DD09DE8-398F-456F-84D3-4C6D2A3DD0CC\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/3DD09DE8-398F-456F-84D3-4C6D2A3DD0CC.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Urging is another word the US tends not to like:<\/p>\n This was the language on the projection screens at the start of the meeting:\u00a0 CoCHAIR What you see on the screen is the last text…<\/p>\n IRAN CoCHAIR PALESTINE CoCHAIR JAPAN EU IRAN Palestine and Japan are demonstrating flexibility. Iran is taking aim at later paragraphs that\u00a0are a source of significant conflict between the US and most other countries.<\/em><\/p>\n CoCHAIR Let\u2019s move on. Some suggested that Parties could agree on absolute amounts instead of percentages. Could you express yourselves on that? EU?<\/p>\n EU CHAIR EU CHAIR IRAN CoCHAIR SWITZERLAND CHAIR SOUTH AFRICA EU CHAIR IRAN CHAIR Here is the lead negotiator for Australia, in black, leaning forward on her phone: many of the delegates really are very very young. There’s a lot of consultation going on via text and\/or WhatsApp.<\/em><\/p>\n CHAIR They don’t kick us out, maybe because there is then some progress made on paragraph 4: substitute “projected” for “potential.” Everyone agrees that the current version of paragraph 6 micromanages the GEF, offering an inappropriate level of guidance. (The EU was particularly strongly opposed.) ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA <\/em>offers a different version of paragraph 6, offering a way for new national entities to be certified to apply for funding from GEF. The US is relatively welcoming to this new wording\u00a0but suggests this idea is covered in its new version of paragraph 9. Liz and the ANTIGUA rep have a quick huddle. ANTIGUA’s not ready to let go of his language for paragraph 6 yet.<\/em><\/p>\n Paragraph 9 is a stylistic mess, but 10 and 11 are the real minefield for the negotiation–a red line for the USA.\u00a0The US is proposing to strike the first long\u00a0stretch in brackets and substitute the second shorter stretch in brackets.<\/p>\n CoCHAIR asks the US to read out the proposed language on paragraph 9. IRAN ARGENTINA LIBERIA PALESTINE EU (arguing against the first bracket<\/em>.) I am speaking in name of 38 countries who all together are biggest donors to GEF. (You people need to listen to us if you want our money<\/em>.)<\/span><\/p>\n LIBERIA CHAIR “Consider<\/em> improving its access modalities, based on its own experience, and continue to monitor the geographic and thematic coverage, as well as the effectiveness, efficiency, and engagement of the Global Environment Facility Partnership.” (This cuts out a lot of the detail of the first bracket and replaces the specificity with “based on its own experience.”<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n IRAN LIBERIA In the climate finance landscape, national agencies are very important. The u<\/span>ltimate goal of trying to help them should include giving them tools and means to access them.\u00a0<\/span>In Liberia I work with many national agencies and the point of trying to\u00a0<\/span>work with national agencies cannot be overemphasized: it is important.<\/span><\/p>\n CHAIR USA CHAIR IRAN (IRAN\u00a0made a reference to China requesting these paragraphs and another reference to the “d<\/em>iligence and cooperation of our colleagues here.”<\/em>) I think Palestine reversed earlier support for the change, without rationale, but I can’t be sure. Maybe he got a text from someone.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n CHAIR (after a little kerfuffle with EU about skipping over paragraphs 7 and 8, which had no\u00a0<\/em>brackets) The final open contact group on GEF (Global Environment Facility) guidance happened after lunch Tuesday.\u00a0 Some context: Iran believes it can’t get funding because the US blocks it.\u00a0South Africa is speaking for the African Group of Nations, which itself is part of the G77 and China (in other words, most\u00a0developing nations).\u00a0China is not present in … Continue reading Negotiating guidance for GEF: diplomacy in action<\/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\/881"}],"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=881"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/881\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":920,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/881\/revisions\/920"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.swarthmore.edu\/cop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Introduction<\/em>: It\u2019s not done until it\u2019s done. We will go through the text as far as we can, knowing that the whole decision is in the brackets until it\u2019s done. If we can lift the [more local] brackets, that\u2019s a good thing: finding common ground.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nYou just said the whole text is still in brackets. We request you keep old text until\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>This <\/span>is<\/span><\/i> the old text.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWe may use the \u201cTakes note,\u201d so we can remove brackets for the first paragraph.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWe have a proposal to change \u201cwelcomes” to “takes note”\u2014the rest of paragraph one will stay as is. We can live with that? Good. <\/span>Paragraph 2.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWe can agree with \u201cnote\u201d as long as don\u2019t delete \u201cwith concern\u201d in \u00b62.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWe would like to keep \u201cwelcomes.\u201d\u00a0(Is the US blocking “welcomes” here or is a developing country unhappy with the low level of replenishment?<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\nIf Japan is proposing to link paragraph 1 and 2, we propose a linkage between 1 and 2 and 10 and 11.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>We know everything is connected to everything, but let\u2019s take it piece by piece. Let me give you some thoughts from the past. After replenishments, contributions are still welcome. In the last round, some developing countries contributed and increased their contributions. From the chair\u2019s perspective, \u201cwelcoming\u201d is appropriate. (The chair is pushing both sides: China and others who have some money could contribute to the fund too; but as chair, he’s holding to the majority view on “welcomes.” US, look for a little flexibility.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>We would be ok with \u201crecognizes with concern,\u201d but would do full stop\u2026 <\/span><\/p>\n
\n…or just take out the brackets…<\/span><\/p>\n
\nAnd the text with it.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Of course the text with it. (The Chair accidentally suggested that the EU would agree with\u00a0the point it wanted removed\u00a0from the text<\/em>.)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Percentage: why can\u2019t we keep the\u00a0percentage?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nOther views? (Presumably<\/em>, everyone already knows why the EU is proposing to remove the percentages, so the chair doesn’t want to dive into that question himself.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>We are also willing to have not the percentage but figures as a\u00a0compromise. We propose to retain \u201cwelcomes.\u201d If the numbers are absolute amounts, \u201cwith concern\u201d should go away.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>All right. We are not making much progress. Paragraph 3. (<\/span>He\u2019s just trying to get through the text to see if there\u2019s anything people are willing to agree on. So far, there\u2019s not.<\/span><\/i>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\nWe are happy with \u201cwelcome.\u201d We need to delete \u201coverall financial package\u201d from paragraph one. It\u2019s misleading to have the figure. In paragraph three, we understand that the percentages may be questioned. If we take out 46 %, we should add the word \u201csignificant.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
\nNeither numbers nor percentages are correct\u2014the figure depends on the exchange rate, the time you compare numbers (at the beginning or end of the replenishment)…<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>You are opposed to numbers because these are misleading. We have a proposal from South Africa to capture the numbers with the word \u201csignificant.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
\nSince we are starting with \u201crecognizes with concern,\u201d we have to say what we have concern about. We <\/span>have to include the percentage for assessment tool, to give a dry sense of what we are concerned <\/span>about<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>I remind you\u2014this is looking back at GEF 7 (replenishment): this is all just commenting on water under the bridge. Everybody younger than me in the room, which is everyone, should follow the example of looking forward. We\u2019ll park it for the time being. (Many of these points seem valid to me, but I agree most with the chair that it’s time to get moving and\u00a0find some agreement. South Africa’s compromise seems like one way to do that.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nPara 3. (Whispered consultatio<\/em>n) The Secretary is proposing becoming an inf inf (informal informal, closed to outside observers<\/em>) to work.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/em>Is that acceptable?<\/p>\n
\nAt this time we do not accept.<\/p>\n
\nWe are more comfortable with the original language.<\/p>\n
\nWe h<\/span>ave to consult with our groups\u2014it is very important to have access\u00a0for national agencies.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>We like the new language.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\nBiodiversity, desertification, chemicals, etc. GEF has to follow this guidance for all of them. If we agree to this,\u00a0<\/span>GEF will have nothing for Stockholm. We have to look at the bigger picture.\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>GEF has a very complex portfolio and scope. We are working on f<\/span>inding a way to meet the goals of Paris agreement. The b<\/span>est way for us to have maximum impact is the GCF (Green Climate Fund).\u00a0<\/span>How did this session (on GEF) find its way into the text?\u00a0GEF needs to find a way to see how best it can develop a business model to speak to national agencies in\u00a0developing countries. I am c<\/span>onsulting with my constituency. (Guidance to GEF is part of this agreement because GEF will fund the writing of reports mandated by the Paris Agreement, and this is the only mechanism for telling GEF that it needs to take on this new job. But LIBERIA is right that there’s some confusion about what this conversation is expecting of GEF–if I’m following correctly, which is a big if.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Get a response within the remaining time, please. We will park it for now. (whispers.) I p<\/span>ropose a compromise:<\/span><\/p>\n
\nI am trying to be naive and accommodate your good suggestion, however, Mr. CoChair, very frankly, the proposal you made is not a statement of the fact because the fact is that we haven\u2019t seen any improvement in policies to be applied or actions to be taken. Therefore we are not able to accommodate your suggestion. We propose to keep the sentence as it is.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>I just noticed in the section it says <\/span>within<\/span><\/i>\u00a0small island developing states! Why LDC\u2019s are not mentioned here? We want to bring LDCs in.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>I was just trying to keep it short and clear. Please add\u00a0<\/span>LDCs.\u00a0<\/span>Para 10.<\/p>\n
\nAs I think we all know, GEF guidance here is intended to apply only to\u00a0policy, programming, and eligibility, and should certainly not guarantee or secure funding in any way…<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>This is an unacceptable red line to US.\u00a0<\/span>Who needs para 10?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>I am sorry I can\u2019t go along with my colleagues from the US. The point of COP is to make sure all parties have access to GEF. We have highlighted the importance of making GEF transparent and central as per our common understanding. But GEF has not been able to fulfill finances and resources to all parties.\u00a0<\/span>Unfortunately, there are other influences on the GEF process to block access to funding developing countries. <\/span>Paragraphs 10 and 11 are not a proposal from this delegation.<\/p>\n
\nWe have come to the end. We will submit this text with what we have now to presidency to give to ministers. Thank you all for your efforts on this one.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"