December 4, 2010
Thank you very much, President.
|Ambassador Pablo Solon|
Very quickly, some examples of what we mean: in this text, two degrees Celsius is still considered as an option, when clearly, various parties have proposed 1.5 and 1 degrees Celsius. We do not understand why this option continues to be chosen without first moving to a process of negotiation.
A crucial topic for the Bolivian delegation was contained in a paragraph establishing that any action related to climate change must preserve, respect, and guarantee human rights, a paragraph that continues to be eliminated despite the fact that it is in the negotiating text. We think that this is unacceptable.
Similarly, in the part regarding shared vision, in relation to the declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, there continues to be a great omission. The proposal that we should also consider the impacts of war and the industry of war on climate change has also been eliminated from the text once again.
In the chapter on “various approaches” known as 1b5, the assertion that we are all in favor of the creation of new carbon market mechanisms is presented without brackets as though it were an agreed-upon option, when clearly, the delegation of Bolivia has expressed that it is against this.
An while we are forced to discuss carbon markets, the proposal of Bolivia that in these different approaches we should also consider the creation of a declaration on the rights of Mother Earth has been eliminated once again.
In relation to the topic of intellectual property in the chapter on technology transfer, we do not find any reference, and in the process of discussion this week we have made various alternatives to find a point of compromise, but none of that is present. It would seem that we are going to create a center for technology transfer that will in no way consider the issue of intellectual property, which obviously has an impact the topic.
The most serious thing, in mitigation, as the delegation of Brazil has expressed is the position of a great number of developing countries, is that we do not find reflected why here it is put forth that if we accept commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, we must accept at the same time a process of discussion on another binding agreement on the topic. This would never reflect the position of Bolivia and a group of other delegations.
We are going to put forth more observations, but this is simply to demonstrate that, for Bolivia, this is not a balanced text. It is the opinion of the president of the working group on Long-term Cooperative Action.
But clearly, it is not the text of negotiation of the parties, because the parties are not reflected here. And even if we are small countries, we all have the same rights.
Therefore, we ask that we return once again to a process of negotiation among parties on the basis of the text of negotiation /14, which is the text that contains all the positions of the parties, because in this text, the proposal of Bolivia is not reflected.
We believe, President, with all due respect, that we have to negotiate among states, and that we cannot continue to negotiate through the facilitators, or through the president of Long-term Cooperative Action.
This is a negotiation among states, and the time is now, a week after the negotiation has begun, for us to negotiate among states.
The facilitators, the president of the working group, have the right to present options to aid an approach between parties. But it is the parties that must discuss and negotiate their proposals.
Lastly, to finish up, we also have to analyze this document in light of what is happening in KP. Because for us, it is fundamental, and we have said it before, that in order for balance to exist, there has to be a second period of commitments in the working group on the Kyoto Protocol.
Thank you very much.