Today’s outcome in Bali, while clearly falling far short of the ambition that will be required to tackle climate change, nonetheless provides a basis for negotiations that will hopefully lead to a meaningful international agreement in 2009.

While we don’t have an unambiguous reference regarding the US contribution to the necessary emissions reductions from developed countries by 2020 (25-40% as the UN IPCC has stated), the US administration has not succeeded in derailing efforts to get an international agreement on climate change within a UN framework. The G77/China group as a whole showed remarkable leadership in making the first move towards developing country contributions to mitigation, even in the absence of firm commitments from the US to play its part and assume its responsibility. They were right to seek a fairer balance between the mitigation commitments between world’s largest emitter and developing countries.

It also became clear that civil society and public opinion needs to keep up the pressure on the governments of the US, Japan, Canada and to some extent Australia in order for those countries to assume more responsible roles in these negotiations. We need an ambitious, science based, agreement by 2009 if we are to limit temperature rises to a tolerable level

In addition to the international climate negotiations, the next months will be crucial for determining EU policies on greenhouse gas emissions reductions. To be able to persuade other countries to take responsibility for tackling climate change, the EU must show real leadership by putting in place policies that actually deliver the necessary emissions reductions in Europe. No time to waste!

Yesterday, negotiations continued on the different elements of the Bali Roadmap. The main negotiations concern the 'Convention track', i.e. the framework and guidance that the Bali COP decision gives to the negotiations over the next two years. All key issues remain in play.

The EU has stuck to its position that IPCC scientific advice should explicitly guide the negotiations over the next two years (i.e. a reduction of 25-40% greenhouse gas emissions for industrialised countries by 2020 and well below 2000 by 2050 as a global target). The EU agrees with G77 (developing countries) and China that the approach must distinguish between developed and developing countries.

The US administration is becoming more isolated and there are signs that it might shift its position, but how far is not clear. The US delegation last night made a new proposal for a text based on a voluntary approach! Although it is positive the US is re-engaging in discussions, this proposal has thankfully not gathered much support.

A possible face-saving solution is being mooted to drop explicit reference to the UN IPCC short-term reduction targets from the Convention track decision (under which the negotiations for US and developing countries will be conducted) but maintaining an indirect reference (although not explicit). This could be done by linking the sections on developed country climate change mitigation efforts to a comparable level and character of effort as in the Kyoto track outcomes.

What would happen to long term targets under this scenario is also unclear. It would be difficult for developing countries to accept a prospective cap on their emissions (long-term) when the US administration is not prepared to recognise the IPCC science and agree to short-term reductions for developed countries.

Either way, it is clear that the elephant in the room at these negotiations (as Al Gore described it) is the US administration. If Bali fails, we all know who to blame.

In the opening plenary, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reminded delegates that the world expects the launch of negotiations in Bali towards securing a comprehensive agreement in 2009. The G-77/CHINA developing country block, emphasised that the UN Convention and Protocol should remain the central multilateral platform for addressing action on climate change and cautioned against a less equitable post-2012 arrangement - indirectly referring to the Bush major emitters initiative.

The majority of Parties seem to want a real Bali Roadmap which can guide negotiations to a result that has a chance of addressing the gravity of climate urgency. A new version of the COP decision text retains the key elements, with a sufficiently ambitious preamble (25-40% reductions by 2020, peak and decline within 10-15 years and global emissions to be cut to well below half of 2000 levels), as well as 2009 end date for negotiations.

The US continues to try and fudge this ambition however, and obstruct the setting of short-term global targets. In the US plenary statement, Paula Dobriansky said that a future agreement should include “a long-term global emissions goal and national plans that set out measurable mid-term goals”, i.e. leaving it up to individual countries to set short-mid term targets (2020).

Behind the scenes, the US, ably supported by Canada, Japan and Saudi Arabia, is leading a wreckage team in the negotiations. Some in the corridors are suggesting that the US would not mind a failure of the Bali meeting (hijacking the agenda from UN framework to enable them to set up their own major emitters forum) and that it is trying to annoy the developing countries to a point that they cause the negotiations to breakdown - doing the dirty work for the US. The US has even proposed text on mitigation actions for themselves which is weaker than what is proposed for developing countries!

Meetings today will be crucial for the potential success or failure of the Bali meeting. Fingers crossed!

24 hours ago it seemed like we were almost there, based on the draft texts on the table, however now we seem to be back to square one. The discussion on the draft decision on the Convention track (i.e. under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change) where future US and developing country commitments would be negotiated, resulted in proposals for wholesale changes to the text.

The US opposed any reference to quantified emissions reductions and comparable efforts with outcomes of negotiations between Kyoto Protocol Parties or to mentioning the reduction range 24-40% by 2020. This has driven G77/China back to their hardline position opposing any developing country commitments. The President of the COP has called for ministerial discussions and work at technical level is expected to follow if the high level discussions lead to any opening. At the moment there is no new text available.

The situation is not unprecedented - it has happened before that at the eve of ministers' arrival, talks stall and regress, and moves ahead can only be achieved with the high level pressure. The US is saying one thing in public and doing something quite different behind the scenes. Still, it remains to be seen if the US is prepared to take the blame for ultimately blocking agreement. The EU has lost some developing country support for not taking technology transfer issues seriously enough to deliver results in this meeting. What these difficulties mean for the next 2 years - as regards achieving an agreement that actually could put us on track to limit temperature increases to 2°C - is quite frightening.

Most of the draft component texts of the "Bali Roadmap" under construction remain pretty acceptable, but are still far from being agreed.
The EP delegation held many interesting meetings today, including one with Achim Steiner, executive director of the UNEP. Steiner emphasised powerfully to the MEPs that the current situation is one of legacy and applying of polluter pays principle. I.e. current warming is due to historical emissions of the industrialised countries. He warned of framing climate policy as a Chinese problem, or turning China into perpetrator in public debate. We should be careful of turning climate policy into a geoeconomical weapon.

He stressed the historical equity dimension and the economic self interests that China has been legitimately pursuing - as US did in rejecting Kyoto Protocol commitments. Steiner regretted that the mitigation path would already be easier had the industrialised world accepted to help fund the incremental cost of China adopting better technology in the past 10 years instead of locking large investments into old technology.

Steiner emphasised the role of technology transfer but pointed out that it is not same as abandoning intellectual property rights. He asked why EU with a tradition of public subsidy policies cannot ensure that publicly partfunded technology be made availabe to developing countries cheaper or possibly with mandatory licencing. He also thought that it was in the interest of EU to actively pursue technology cooperation with China, which he was convinced would dominate the market for renewable technologies within 10 years.

Goals and milestones are needed from the Bali meeting, Steiner said, but calling for same binding commitments for industrialised and developing countries would be a lose - lose scenario. Industrialised countries have not earned with track record on mitigation the right to ask developing countries to take similar targets. He also highlighted the policies and measures already taken in countries such as China, Brazil and India, which for most part go unnoticed by northern media. However he maintained that differentiated commitments must not pervert the absolute goals based on science.

On deforestation, Steiner mentioned the immediate threefold benefits of fast funding for avoiding deforestation, namely, for biodiversity, for development goals and being "low hanging fruit" for mitigation.

Steiner cautioned against "falling into a GMO reflex" in biofuels debate. He believed current governance failures should not be ruling our response to the technologies which he thought could also provide for sustainable income for developing countries. He spoke in favour of multilateral sustainability criteria, which he believed could be concluded within a year if political will for a formal process was present. Steiner was also optimistic of the opportunities of CDM to provide for a vehicle for clean technologies transfer to developing countries.

Am Rande der Konferenz waren Montag Gespräche mit Nichtregierungsorganisationen und Gobal Greens geplant. (By the way: Es müsste mal geklärt werden, wo und was hier eigentlich nicht am Rande ist).
In Indonesien haben einige Mitglieder großer indonesischer Umweltgruppen gerade beschlossen, eine grüne Partei zu gründen. Damit sie offiziell als Partei anerkannt werden, müssen sie in einem Viertel der Distrikte jeweils 50 Mitglieder haben. Insgesamt brauchen sie 50.000 Mitglieder bevor es überhaupt richtig losgehen kann.
Es ist erstaunlich und bewunderswert, wie motiviert diese Sysiphosaufgabe angegangen wird. Parallel zum Aufbau der Partei arbeiten die meisten der Aktivisten in Umweltgruppen. Die Auseinandersetzung um die Abholzung des Regenwaldes, Tropenholzexport, Monokulturen für Palmöl und der Kampf für Landbesitz für Kleinbauern sind bestimmende Themen.

Viel Aufmerksamkeit hat auch eine neue lokal sehr starke Initiative gegen den Bau eines Atomkraftwerkes in Ujung Lemah Abang auf einer der vielen indonesischen Inseln. Eine große Gruppe von Einwohnern von Jepara war gestern hier, um auf das Problem aufmerksam zu machen. Der für die Gemeinde zuständige islamische Geistliche erklärte uns die Fatwa gegen das Muria Atomkraftwerk. Nach Abwägung aller Argumente wurde beschlossen, dass der Bau des AKW HARAM (verboten) sei. Was eine solche Entscheidung letztlich bedeutet, kann ich nicht beurteilen. Aber offensichtlich nicht das Ende der Planung.

Die Bürger von Jepara wollen jetzt, dass ich zu Ihnen komme und setzen viel zu große Hoffnungen auf den Einfluss, den Grüne Europaabgeordnete haben. Unsere Miss Harms fühlt eine wachsende Kluft zwischen Wünschen und Möglichkeiten. Um hier etwas zu erreichen müsste ich am besten eng mit den australischen Grünen zusammenarbeiten. Überrascht hat mich, dass für die indonesischen Atomkraftgegner aus Jepara Gorleben ein Begriff ist. Der islamische Geistliche, der mir gestern die Fatwa erläuterte, will gern Kontakt zu den Pastoren und Kirchenleuten, die in Deutschland gegen Atomenergie arbeiten.

Die erste offizielle politische Begegnung der Delegation des Europäischen Parlamentes hat heute morgen stattgefunden. Wir waren neugierig. Nicht nur, weil er der letzte Präsidentschaftskandidat gegen George Bush war. Er gilt als einer der engagiertesten Klimapolitiker unter den Demokraten. Hier in Bali scheint sich ja eine Lösung für die Einbeziehung der Entwicklungs- und Schwellenänder in den Kyoto-Prozess abzuzeichnen. Aber während es für Chinas Beteiligung grosses Lob gibt, gibt es zu den USA nur Fragen. Wo verhandeln wir die USA, wenn sie weiter ausserhalb des Protokolls bleiben? Ist es überhaupt möglich, den UNO-Prozess zum Klimaschutz fortzusetzen, wenn die USA einen Sonderweg gehen? Auch nach dem Gespräch mit Kerry ist weiter offen, ob sich die USA je an einem multilateralen verbindlichen Klimaabkommen beteiligen. Sicher ist, dass es in den USA mehr Anstrengungen für eine neue Energiepolitik geben wird. Die aktuellen Abstimmungen einer Energy und einer Climate Bill in Senat und Kongress zeigen das. Sicher ist auch, dass schon in etlichen Bundesstaaten und grossen Städten der USA Klimapolitik gemacht wird. Das wird weiter gehen. Aber auch Kerry zögert, sein Land in eine UNO-Strategie einzubinden. Der härteste Punkt mit ihm war aber, dass er die Idee der Pro Kopf Emissionsrechte schlicht für Unsinn hält. Geld sollen die Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländer bekommen aber auf keinen Fall Sonderrechte.

John Kerry ist heute hier der einzige Parlamentarier aus den USA. Es seien gerade die Abstimmungen zu Energy- und Climate Bill, die eine grössere Delegation verhindern. Trotzdem bizarr. Wieviel Ernst und wieviel Wahlkampf in John Kerrys Ankündigung stecken, dass mit einem demokratischen Präsidenten alles gut wird beim Klimaschutz, werden wir noch sehen. Leider wird auch im nächsten Winter die UNO-Klimakonferenz noch ohne Beteiligung einer neuen US-Regierung arbeiten müssen. Gewählt wird der Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten schon vor dem Gipfel in Posen, aber eine neue Regierung wird es noch nicht geben.

The MEPs who are already in Bali had a meeting with senator John Kerry on Monday morning.

Kerry had come to Bali to convince other nations that the policy of President Bush does not represent the whole USA. More than half of US citizens and 50 % of the US economy are in states, which have state level emission limits. He assured us that the thinking and policy of USA are changing. For example the Environment Commitee of the Senate just a couple of days ago supported a CO2 cap and trade law for USA.

He said several very positive things, there must be and end date for negotiations on Post 2012 climate framework, no later than 2009, and the scheme must be mandatory. The advice of science must be followed, global warming needs to be limited below 2 degrees compares to pre-industrial time.

Kerry also thanked EU for keeping the international climate process alive, for ratifying Kyoto and encouraging others to do so, even with the absence of USA.

But disapppointing was his refusal to discuss the equity issue, the historical burden of the present day rich countries. He did not really answer the question put by Satu Hassi on how China and other developing countries should be compensated for taking emission limits, anyway the emissions per capita in China are one third of those in EU and a smaller fraction of emissions in USA. He just said that " this is not a per capita issue" .

Later on Monday we heard from the Green Senator Christine Milne from Australia that the new Australian government has refused to stop a massive logging project in ancient forests of Tasmania. Scientists have estimated that there is 1400 tons of carbon per hectare in the forest of the Styx Valley, and logging will bring 60 % of that carbon in the atmosphere. 200 000 ha is given to a new pulp factory. Environmentalists have demanded cancelling of the permission, because in the environmental impact assessment the CO2 emissions are not taken into aacount. The new Australian government has refused to reconsider the permission.

The logging machines have been sent to Tasmania on the same day, when the new minister for environment came to Bali, to convince Indonesia to protect their tropical forests.

Ein Sonntag zwischen Landung und Akkreditierung. Der Ort heisst Nusa Dua. Die Hotels sind nicht Hotels sondern Resorts und Spa. Die Pools sind riesig. Die Liegestühle sind Liegebetten mit mehr Aussicht aufs Meer.
Aber alles ist leer. Wo sind die Gäste? Die Gäste sind bei der Konferenz. Die Gäste verhandeln. Wir versuchen Fuss zu fassen. Wir treffen Eingeweihte, sogar Unterhändler. Wir hören von ersten Erfolgen. Die Chinesen werden gelobt. Sie seien so konstruktiv. Und wieder seien es die Saudis, die blockieren. Auch Malaysia stelle sich quer. Und Indien sei ein ganz schwieriger Fall........

Neu ist in dieser UNO-Klimakonferenz die starke Präsenz der NGOs aus Asien. Die seien viel fundamentalistischer. "They are very grassroot and very left and are against all market mechanism." Emissionshandel nein danke.

Die Europäer erscheinen am Ende der ersten Woche sehr erleichtert. Erleichtert weil die Entwicklungsländer sich bewegen. Erleichtert weil die USA nicht blockieren. Erleichtert, weil sich trotz der Schwüle der Tage klarere Inhalte für die Fortsetzung der Verhandlungen formulieren lassen.

Noch ist allerdings offen, mit welcher Formel man die Klimaziele gerecht auf Industrieländer, Schwellenländer und Entwicklungsländer verteilen könnte. Schon jetzt stehen die grossen Themen für das nächste Verhandlungsjahr fest: Mitigation, Adaptation,Technology, Financial Instruments. Und in Posen in Polen soll dann nächstes Jahr die nächste UNO-Konferenz alles zusammenbinden.....

Es ist schwer, in die Sprache der Verhandlungen zu wechseln. Es fällt auch schwer, die Dringlichkeit der Klimapolitik hier zu erkennen.
Das feuchte Klima entspannt die Verhandlungen. Ich werde stündlich langsamer. Und der UNO-Verhandlungsprozesess läuft ja eh im Schneckentempo. Immerhin. Das Jahr 2050 haben wir weiter fest im Blick.

Given the urgency of the climate situation (as the UN climate panel - IPCC - has clearly shown) we need a concerted global response now...So, can we expect that the Bali conference will lead to worldwide action? Yes and no...
No, because the central point on the agenda is to discuss international efforts to tackle climate change after 2012, i.e. to find a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The goal in Bali is "only" to agree to start talking, when to finish talking, and what to talk about...
Yes, because a successful Bali conference is the only way to ensure concrete and robust international action will be taken to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change. The goal of Bali is to create a "Bali mandate", including a 25-40% range of greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020 (from their 1990 levels) as a basis for negotiations on new Annex I commitments after 2012.
Yes also, because this climate summit will once again increase the pressure on one of the world's main polluters and now (since Australia just ratified the Kyoto Protocol) the only developed nation that has not conceded mandatory targets and a timetable to tackle its huge greenhouse gas emissions: the US.
The focus must be on getting negotiations going. However, it is important to underline the urgency of the situation and the bottom line that the major polluters, including China and the US, must be part of a post 2012-agreement.
Hopefully, Bali will be remembered as the moment when the world finally began to take climate change seriously and agreed to make a global effort to combat it...