The centrepiece of the Bali COP was been the agreement to launch the new Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperation (AWGLCA). This agreement is seen by some on the developed countries side as a breakthrough in the strategy to move away from existing agreements, and in particular an opportunity to reduce or nullify differentiation between developed and developing countries and to make poor countries shoulder a larger share of global efforts to mitigate climate change.

On the other hand, the objective of developing countries was to maintain the emphasis placed in initial agreements on equity and to safeguard the burden distribution agreed on the basis of equity principles.

How can the Bali agreement be evaluated from that perspective?

On the positive side:

• The agreement reaffirms that the purpose of the process is the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. Any outcome of the AWGLCA must be in full conformity with the Convention.


• The agreement reaffirms the priority given to economic and social development and poverty eradication and recalls Convention principles, in particular that of common but differentiated capabilities and respective capabilities.


• Differentiation between obligations of developed and developing countries is largely safeguarded, particularly in the crucial area of mitigation.


• Both chairs identified for conducting the process are from non-Annex I Parties, notwithstanding paragraph 5 of the decision.

• The new process was not rooted in any agreed provision (indeed it went against the understanding made at the outset of the Dialogue the it would not lead to negotiations) and provides an opportunity to change things to the detriment of developing countries.


• The terminology in the new agreement tries to blur the differentiation between developed and developing countries and to link progress in the AWG to progress in the AWGLCA:


• The agreed name of Ad hoc working group seeks to place the AWGLCA on the same footing as the AWG negotiating commitments for Annex I Parties in the second commitment period, provided for in KP Art 3.9. The Dialogue chairs report had already suggested that “some degree of synchronicity” was needed between the two processes. Now, some talk of holding meetings of the two processes “in tandem”.This is baseless, The AWG has a clearly defined work programme while the AWGLCA only starts to develop its work programme in Bangkok.The AWG has to finish in time for the second commitment period to be organized, while the AWGLCA only begins to explore a "shared vision".


• The agreement also attempts to use parallel language to describe respective obligations of developed and developing countries.


• Obligations are ascribed to “developed country Parties” and “developing country Parties” for which there are no agreed definitions or lists, instead of “Parties included (or not included) in Annex I”, which are listed by the Convention.


• The language addressing the crucial area of financial support is vague and does not specify that support is to be provided by Annex II Parties. The financial mechanism of the Convention is not even mentioned. (By contrast, Art 4.3 clearly states that “The developed country Parties included in Annex II shall provide new and additional financial resources…, including for the transfer of technology, to meet the agreed full incremental costs of implementing measures” [covered by Art.4.1and agreed between a developing country Party and the financial mechanism]).


• The confusing language describing obligations of developed countries regarding adaptation and transfer of technology in this agreement is a setback compared with the clear commitments outlined in Art. 4.4 ("assist particularly vulnerable developing countries in meeting costs of adaptation")and 4.5.("take all practicable steps to promote ,facilitate and finance..")of the Convention.


• The time frame envisaged for the AWGLTC (conclusion in 2009) may be too short for a policy change in the US.