Texte intégral
Merci à Christiana Figueres, je partage tout à fait l'ensemble des remarques qu'elle vient de faire.
Je suis venu cet après-midi à Bonn parce qu'il faut avancer pour réussir à Paris. Vous savez que le texte se négocie ici, dans le groupe qu'on appelle ADP. Un texte avait été élaboré à l'initiative des deux co-présidents, un texte court, concis qui tranchait d'ailleurs avec le texte précédent qui était plutôt le résultat des agrégats d'éléments préexistants. Ce texte a été envoyé aux différents participants il y a quelques jours et, hier, il y a eu une discussion au sein du groupe ADP. Il a été proposé, en particulier par le groupe dit des «77», qu'un certain nombre d'amendements significatifs soient apportés au texte, de sorte que c'est un nouveau texte qui, maintenant, est négocié.
C'est un nouveau texte dans la mesure où, même s'il garde la structure qui était positive de l'ancien texte, il apporte des modifications sur la question de la différenciation, sur le préambule, sur la question des finances, sur la question des plannings de révision et on pourrait ajouter d'autres questions.
Il est plus long que le précédent pour le moment car il représente 34 pages au total : 20 pages lui-même et, ensuite, il y a les décisions. Ce texte va être discuté toute cette semaine au sein de groupes de travail qui ont été décidés par les participants à l'ADP. Notre souhait, mon souhait pour bien préparer Paris, c'est qu'à la fin de la semaine, nous ayons un texte qui garde la structure du précédent mais dont le contenu sera nécessairement différent et où un certain nombre d'options auront été levées et des choix auront été faits.
J'ai eu l'occasion de discuter pendant une heure avec l'ensemble des délégués de l'ADP. De manière très élégante, le groupe des «77» qui devait avoir une réunion à cette heure-là a accepté, et même proposé, de différer sa réunion pour que nous puissions en discuter tous ensemble. Il y a eu beaucoup de questions, beaucoup d'échanges - quand je dis «nous», c'est à la fois mon collègue du Pérou et moi-même. Ensuite, j'ai discuté à la fois avec Christiana Figueres, notre directrice exécutive, avec les deux co-présidents, le président américain, le président algérien, pour voir comment ils concevaient la fin de la semaine. Et puis, il y a la période qui va nous séparer, à la fin de la semaine, de la réunion de Paris.
Cette semaine est donc importante. Il y a eu des modifications significatives dans le texte, venant surtout - pour dire les choses ainsi - des pays en voie de développement, notamment du groupe des «77» ; ce qui fait que le texte qui maintenant est présenté, est vraiment approprié par tous les membres du groupe ADP. Je souhaite donc qu'à la fin de la semaine, le texte ait pu être examiné de près, qu'un certain nombre d'éléments aient été enlevés et qu'à partir de ce travail, nous puissions être saisis - puisque c'est la procédure -, au début de la réunion de Paris, d'un texte qui permette d'achever les derniers arguments.
Entre temps, il y aura eu une série de réunions. Dans le mécanisme même du texte, je réunirai ce que l'on appelle, d'une formule familière, une pré-COP à Paris entre le 8 et le 10 novembre, avec près d'une centaine de ministres - mais qui est ouverte à tous ceux qui le souhaitent -, où nous réexaminerons un certain nombre de questions complexes qui demandent, bien sûr, à être très précisément analysées. Il y aura également toute une série d'importantes réunions internationales : la réunion du G20, qui aura lieu à Antalya en Turquie à la mi-novembre ; toute une série de réunions en Amérique du Sud ; à la fin du mois de novembre, la réunion des pays du Commonwealth à Malte, où le président français a été invité pour discuter de la COP. Il y aura encore d'autres réunions parce qu'à l'approche de la COP21, évidemment, les réunions se multiplient.
Je porte, tout comme Christiana Figueres, un sentiment positif sur l'environnement général de la COP. Bien sûr, il reste beaucoup de travail à faire mais quand on regarde le nombre et l'étendue des contributions nationales - les INDC -, quand on regarde aussi l'implication croissante des villes, des régions, des entreprises et des sociétés civiles dans la préparation de la COP - en particulier l'inscription dans le site NAZCA qui fait le recensement d'engagements et de toute une série d'initiatives -, quand on regarde les prises de position des uns et des autres, je pense que le climat, sans mauvais jeu de mot, est positif à l'approche de cette COP. Il reste évidemment beaucoup de travail à faire, en particulier le travail qui repose sur l'approfondissement du texte qui doit être mené ici. Voilà en ce qui concerne la présidence française.
Nous allons continuer dans notre attitude d'écoute, d'ambition pour la COP et de compromis. Il faut, comme vous le savez, qu'à la fin de la conférence de Paris, les décisions prises soient acceptées par les uns et par les autres. Donc, notre rôle, mon rôle est de faciliter ce compromis tout en gardant le niveau d'ambition élevé.
Q - Republicans in Congress in the U.S. have been fighting climate regulations at home. Most presidential candidates have said that they would roll back climate regulations. There are efforts for Senate resolutions that could hurt U.S. action in Paris and our Senate Majority Leader said that leaders should be worried about getting into an agreement with the United States, and so my question, Sir, is: are you worried about getting into an agreement with the U.S.? Do you think that the U.S. will remain a partner in a climate deal in Paris?
R - An agreement without the U.S. would not make much sense. Why? First because the U.S. is among the two main emitters around the world and second because of the role that the U.S. is playing. And therefore the will of everybody throughout the world who wants an agreement, is for this agreement to include the U.S. Obviously the political situation has to be taken into consideration, but I have no doubt about the will of President Obama and up to now he has been able to take a series of decisions which are going in the right direction. I have no doubt that it will be possible to move forward on the same line. Now, obviously we have to find the proper way from a purely legal viewpoint in order to make it possible, but I am pretty confident that the sense of responsibility will prevail.
Q - To get back on track to the two degrees goal, how do you see the wording in the agreement on a mechanism to review a ratcheted up ambition? How regularly it should be done? How it should be done?
R - It is a point which is dealt with in the different contributions and amendments. We will see what the decisions will be. Obviously it is a very important point. Why? Because without anticipating the official report, which will be given by Christiana Figueres about the calculation of INDCs, it is very likely that, fortunately, we shall be far away from 4/5/6 degrees, which were being suggested by the IPCC. And at the same time, some elements which have been given to us - but once more, Christiana Figueres will provide the official answer and calculation- . Many answers say right now, stemming from the INDC, that it will be difficult to reach 2 degrees. Therefore, if you are fortunately not in the 4/5/6 area, but at the same time not yet at 2 degrees, the conclusion is rather easy to determine: we have to coin a system, a mechanism in Paris, included hopefully in the agreement, which will describe how we can move from 3 degrees, if it is 3 degrees, to 2 degrees or even to 1.5; there is a growing consensus for an every-5-years system but it has not yet been decided. I imagine that it will be a point which will be discussed. There are other elements of discussion but this question is obviously one of the main questions which must be dealt with.
Q - A question on climate finance if I may: You have mentioned the OECD report. I was wondering if you can tell us what signal Paris needs to give to provide not just about the hundred billion in 2020 but what will happen to climate finance after that, because I think that is a key concern of developing countries.
R - There are two points: 2020 before 2020, and 2020 after 2020.
About before 2020 and 2020: first I must emphasize the importance of the OECD report because is the first time that there has been an evaluation of where we are - not today, because the date is, as you know, 2014. But before that, there were discussions with figures which had not been documented. Therefore, this time there are figures on a very serious basis: 62 billion of dollars in 2014 divided into bilateral, multilateral, public and private. It will help us describe the path towards 2020 and the 100 billion of dollars. There can be discussions about methodology and they are welcome, but all in all the ministers of finance and the heads of multilateral institutions, who were in Lima, welcomed the fact that it was a very serious study. I think that it will be useful, that before the opening of the Paris conference, there could be a sort of new assessment of where we are. On these figures there are some critics; I remember in particular that the head of the African Development Bank said: «be careful, the figures, OK, they are there, but they show that in particular the adaptation element for poor countries is very small» and therefore it indicates that we have to make new efforts and among these efforts, I have been struck by the fact that in Lima some countries, not as many as we may wish, but some countries have delivered new commitments, as well as many multilateral institutions. It is already much more than 62 billion of dollars because of these new elements.
Now about the post 2020: I have seen that in the amendments that have been brought to the text, there are different elements which have been written about this. I don't know what will be the final outcome because it is one point which must be discussed here. Some countries are saying well, we have to be more precise, some countries are saying the figures must be improved upon. Afterwards, it will be a matter for discussion but I cannot tell you exactly what will be the final outcome, but obviously it will be a very important element and when I say that, I am not only speaking about finance, I am also speaking about technology. These are the two points which will help to achieve success in Paris.
Paris is not only a matter of having commitments about the 2 degrees or the 1.5 degrees: it is very important that we also agree on how countries - and especially developing countries - can get there. The question of technology and finance comes in here: between today and the COP 21, there will be new elements - for instance the famous Green Climate Fund will take its first decisions. This will show on a concrete basis that it is not a trivial discussion, these are practical decisions and from what I know, the board of the Green Climate Fund will take decisions within a couple of weeks on some countries, some projects which will be financed.
Q - I wanted to ask you a question about the UK in relation to the INDCs that you have spoken of repeatedly. Of course a lot of them include quite dramatic shifts in renewable energy investment and reduction in fossil fuel subsidies. The UK this week has been criticized by a senior UN environment scientist Professor Jaquelin McGlade for doing the opposite, for cutting back quite dramatically on renewable energies subsidies while maintaining fossil fuel subsidies. It is obviously a very important member of the EU and I wonder if you think that it poses any sort of problem for the message the EU is trying to champion here in these climate talks that lead up to Paris.
R - Well, I am not here to «name and shame», but as far as I know, the proposals and commitments which have been taken by the EU are among the most ambitious. Obviously one could always expect a better figure, and we can discuss what is exactly in the figures, but it could apply to any country. But I think that it is widely acknowledged that the EU is among the bodies/organizations/continents which have made special efforts. It does not mean that it is enough, because it is never enough. But I think that quite a great effort has been made by the EU and as far as I remember in the wording of the EU there are the words: «at least 40 percent» which mean that under certain circumstances and certain decisions it can be better than that.
Q - Monsieur Fabius you have invited world leaders to come to the summit for the opening. How many replies have you got? How many do you expect? Will we see the leaders of the United States, China, India, Russia on that Monday?
R - The French President and myself have invited the heads of state or the heads of government to the opening and I will not get into a detailed list, but our understanding is that a large number of leaderswill attend.
Q - I would like to talk about the role of developing countries. A lot of developing countries' delegates have told me at the start here that they felt that the text was unbalanced, and there were all the additions that came in yesterday and the issue today about whether civil society is going to be allowed in some of these working groups. A lot of the developing countries' work depends on the information of the civil society and so on. Is there going to be some special steps to make sure that developing countries feel or are more included or that their priorities are paid more attention to? Or do you think that the process will take care of itself in that regard, that they will speak up and that they can fend for themselves
R - As far as I understand your question, they were not satisfied with the text and they have proposed changes. Now it is a new text and everybody will discuss it. In particular the representative from South Africa said: «OK, now there is a new basis for negotiation». One of the points that the co-chairs said to us, was that they have the feeling that this is now the text of the EDP, whereas before some people were saying: «well it's the text coming from the co-chairs». But remember, it was a very difficult exercise because you go from 83 pages to 20 pages and therefore there has been a reaction, but to a certain extent it is a positive one because now we have a text with different options and there are working groups and they will say: «OK we have come this far», regarding, for instance, loss and damage issues, that is our view and obviously it is an absolute necessity if we want to come to an agreement in Paris
Q - What about the civil society observers
R - I was not there, but I understand that it has been said that it was an international negotiation. It has been said that so far this part of the discussion will be submitted to the agreement of the different countries and I think the Japanese delegate was interviewed from what I have been told, it was decided at that stage to be only the parties. Now, I don't know exactly how it will develop, but it is what has been said to me. So, you know, it is second hand.
Q - Could I go back to the question of the ratcheting mechanism? and whether you think it is going to be enough if we are going to get to the 2 degrees goal eventually, to have this stock taken with an aggregated review of the INDC? If there needs to be some sort of mechanism in the text to look at INDCs in a more individual way and on what individual countries have proposed?
R - There are a lot of questions and the working group will examine that. You can say: what is a periodicity? You can say: does it need to be always new backslidings? Does it apply to everybody or only to Northern countries? When? To what extent? Well you can imagine a lot of questions and I am fully confident that the working group will make a proposal.
Q - Mr Fabius, you said that you hope some issues would be resolved here in Bonn and there will be key political questions left for Paris. Could you elaborate a little bit on which issues you think could be resolved here before Paris and also what length of text are you expecting to come out of Bonn? Somewhere between 20 and 40 pages or less than 34 pages? Just as an indication...
R - My answer will be simple: never have an issue, solve the largest. The text? the shortest possible.
Source http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr, le 27 octobre 2015
Je suis venu cet après-midi à Bonn parce qu'il faut avancer pour réussir à Paris. Vous savez que le texte se négocie ici, dans le groupe qu'on appelle ADP. Un texte avait été élaboré à l'initiative des deux co-présidents, un texte court, concis qui tranchait d'ailleurs avec le texte précédent qui était plutôt le résultat des agrégats d'éléments préexistants. Ce texte a été envoyé aux différents participants il y a quelques jours et, hier, il y a eu une discussion au sein du groupe ADP. Il a été proposé, en particulier par le groupe dit des «77», qu'un certain nombre d'amendements significatifs soient apportés au texte, de sorte que c'est un nouveau texte qui, maintenant, est négocié.
C'est un nouveau texte dans la mesure où, même s'il garde la structure qui était positive de l'ancien texte, il apporte des modifications sur la question de la différenciation, sur le préambule, sur la question des finances, sur la question des plannings de révision et on pourrait ajouter d'autres questions.
Il est plus long que le précédent pour le moment car il représente 34 pages au total : 20 pages lui-même et, ensuite, il y a les décisions. Ce texte va être discuté toute cette semaine au sein de groupes de travail qui ont été décidés par les participants à l'ADP. Notre souhait, mon souhait pour bien préparer Paris, c'est qu'à la fin de la semaine, nous ayons un texte qui garde la structure du précédent mais dont le contenu sera nécessairement différent et où un certain nombre d'options auront été levées et des choix auront été faits.
J'ai eu l'occasion de discuter pendant une heure avec l'ensemble des délégués de l'ADP. De manière très élégante, le groupe des «77» qui devait avoir une réunion à cette heure-là a accepté, et même proposé, de différer sa réunion pour que nous puissions en discuter tous ensemble. Il y a eu beaucoup de questions, beaucoup d'échanges - quand je dis «nous», c'est à la fois mon collègue du Pérou et moi-même. Ensuite, j'ai discuté à la fois avec Christiana Figueres, notre directrice exécutive, avec les deux co-présidents, le président américain, le président algérien, pour voir comment ils concevaient la fin de la semaine. Et puis, il y a la période qui va nous séparer, à la fin de la semaine, de la réunion de Paris.
Cette semaine est donc importante. Il y a eu des modifications significatives dans le texte, venant surtout - pour dire les choses ainsi - des pays en voie de développement, notamment du groupe des «77» ; ce qui fait que le texte qui maintenant est présenté, est vraiment approprié par tous les membres du groupe ADP. Je souhaite donc qu'à la fin de la semaine, le texte ait pu être examiné de près, qu'un certain nombre d'éléments aient été enlevés et qu'à partir de ce travail, nous puissions être saisis - puisque c'est la procédure -, au début de la réunion de Paris, d'un texte qui permette d'achever les derniers arguments.
Entre temps, il y aura eu une série de réunions. Dans le mécanisme même du texte, je réunirai ce que l'on appelle, d'une formule familière, une pré-COP à Paris entre le 8 et le 10 novembre, avec près d'une centaine de ministres - mais qui est ouverte à tous ceux qui le souhaitent -, où nous réexaminerons un certain nombre de questions complexes qui demandent, bien sûr, à être très précisément analysées. Il y aura également toute une série d'importantes réunions internationales : la réunion du G20, qui aura lieu à Antalya en Turquie à la mi-novembre ; toute une série de réunions en Amérique du Sud ; à la fin du mois de novembre, la réunion des pays du Commonwealth à Malte, où le président français a été invité pour discuter de la COP. Il y aura encore d'autres réunions parce qu'à l'approche de la COP21, évidemment, les réunions se multiplient.
Je porte, tout comme Christiana Figueres, un sentiment positif sur l'environnement général de la COP. Bien sûr, il reste beaucoup de travail à faire mais quand on regarde le nombre et l'étendue des contributions nationales - les INDC -, quand on regarde aussi l'implication croissante des villes, des régions, des entreprises et des sociétés civiles dans la préparation de la COP - en particulier l'inscription dans le site NAZCA qui fait le recensement d'engagements et de toute une série d'initiatives -, quand on regarde les prises de position des uns et des autres, je pense que le climat, sans mauvais jeu de mot, est positif à l'approche de cette COP. Il reste évidemment beaucoup de travail à faire, en particulier le travail qui repose sur l'approfondissement du texte qui doit être mené ici. Voilà en ce qui concerne la présidence française.
Nous allons continuer dans notre attitude d'écoute, d'ambition pour la COP et de compromis. Il faut, comme vous le savez, qu'à la fin de la conférence de Paris, les décisions prises soient acceptées par les uns et par les autres. Donc, notre rôle, mon rôle est de faciliter ce compromis tout en gardant le niveau d'ambition élevé.
Q - Republicans in Congress in the U.S. have been fighting climate regulations at home. Most presidential candidates have said that they would roll back climate regulations. There are efforts for Senate resolutions that could hurt U.S. action in Paris and our Senate Majority Leader said that leaders should be worried about getting into an agreement with the United States, and so my question, Sir, is: are you worried about getting into an agreement with the U.S.? Do you think that the U.S. will remain a partner in a climate deal in Paris?
R - An agreement without the U.S. would not make much sense. Why? First because the U.S. is among the two main emitters around the world and second because of the role that the U.S. is playing. And therefore the will of everybody throughout the world who wants an agreement, is for this agreement to include the U.S. Obviously the political situation has to be taken into consideration, but I have no doubt about the will of President Obama and up to now he has been able to take a series of decisions which are going in the right direction. I have no doubt that it will be possible to move forward on the same line. Now, obviously we have to find the proper way from a purely legal viewpoint in order to make it possible, but I am pretty confident that the sense of responsibility will prevail.
Q - To get back on track to the two degrees goal, how do you see the wording in the agreement on a mechanism to review a ratcheted up ambition? How regularly it should be done? How it should be done?
R - It is a point which is dealt with in the different contributions and amendments. We will see what the decisions will be. Obviously it is a very important point. Why? Because without anticipating the official report, which will be given by Christiana Figueres about the calculation of INDCs, it is very likely that, fortunately, we shall be far away from 4/5/6 degrees, which were being suggested by the IPCC. And at the same time, some elements which have been given to us - but once more, Christiana Figueres will provide the official answer and calculation- . Many answers say right now, stemming from the INDC, that it will be difficult to reach 2 degrees. Therefore, if you are fortunately not in the 4/5/6 area, but at the same time not yet at 2 degrees, the conclusion is rather easy to determine: we have to coin a system, a mechanism in Paris, included hopefully in the agreement, which will describe how we can move from 3 degrees, if it is 3 degrees, to 2 degrees or even to 1.5; there is a growing consensus for an every-5-years system but it has not yet been decided. I imagine that it will be a point which will be discussed. There are other elements of discussion but this question is obviously one of the main questions which must be dealt with.
Q - A question on climate finance if I may: You have mentioned the OECD report. I was wondering if you can tell us what signal Paris needs to give to provide not just about the hundred billion in 2020 but what will happen to climate finance after that, because I think that is a key concern of developing countries.
R - There are two points: 2020 before 2020, and 2020 after 2020.
About before 2020 and 2020: first I must emphasize the importance of the OECD report because is the first time that there has been an evaluation of where we are - not today, because the date is, as you know, 2014. But before that, there were discussions with figures which had not been documented. Therefore, this time there are figures on a very serious basis: 62 billion of dollars in 2014 divided into bilateral, multilateral, public and private. It will help us describe the path towards 2020 and the 100 billion of dollars. There can be discussions about methodology and they are welcome, but all in all the ministers of finance and the heads of multilateral institutions, who were in Lima, welcomed the fact that it was a very serious study. I think that it will be useful, that before the opening of the Paris conference, there could be a sort of new assessment of where we are. On these figures there are some critics; I remember in particular that the head of the African Development Bank said: «be careful, the figures, OK, they are there, but they show that in particular the adaptation element for poor countries is very small» and therefore it indicates that we have to make new efforts and among these efforts, I have been struck by the fact that in Lima some countries, not as many as we may wish, but some countries have delivered new commitments, as well as many multilateral institutions. It is already much more than 62 billion of dollars because of these new elements.
Now about the post 2020: I have seen that in the amendments that have been brought to the text, there are different elements which have been written about this. I don't know what will be the final outcome because it is one point which must be discussed here. Some countries are saying well, we have to be more precise, some countries are saying the figures must be improved upon. Afterwards, it will be a matter for discussion but I cannot tell you exactly what will be the final outcome, but obviously it will be a very important element and when I say that, I am not only speaking about finance, I am also speaking about technology. These are the two points which will help to achieve success in Paris.
Paris is not only a matter of having commitments about the 2 degrees or the 1.5 degrees: it is very important that we also agree on how countries - and especially developing countries - can get there. The question of technology and finance comes in here: between today and the COP 21, there will be new elements - for instance the famous Green Climate Fund will take its first decisions. This will show on a concrete basis that it is not a trivial discussion, these are practical decisions and from what I know, the board of the Green Climate Fund will take decisions within a couple of weeks on some countries, some projects which will be financed.
Q - I wanted to ask you a question about the UK in relation to the INDCs that you have spoken of repeatedly. Of course a lot of them include quite dramatic shifts in renewable energy investment and reduction in fossil fuel subsidies. The UK this week has been criticized by a senior UN environment scientist Professor Jaquelin McGlade for doing the opposite, for cutting back quite dramatically on renewable energies subsidies while maintaining fossil fuel subsidies. It is obviously a very important member of the EU and I wonder if you think that it poses any sort of problem for the message the EU is trying to champion here in these climate talks that lead up to Paris.
R - Well, I am not here to «name and shame», but as far as I know, the proposals and commitments which have been taken by the EU are among the most ambitious. Obviously one could always expect a better figure, and we can discuss what is exactly in the figures, but it could apply to any country. But I think that it is widely acknowledged that the EU is among the bodies/organizations/continents which have made special efforts. It does not mean that it is enough, because it is never enough. But I think that quite a great effort has been made by the EU and as far as I remember in the wording of the EU there are the words: «at least 40 percent» which mean that under certain circumstances and certain decisions it can be better than that.
Q - Monsieur Fabius you have invited world leaders to come to the summit for the opening. How many replies have you got? How many do you expect? Will we see the leaders of the United States, China, India, Russia on that Monday?
R - The French President and myself have invited the heads of state or the heads of government to the opening and I will not get into a detailed list, but our understanding is that a large number of leaderswill attend.
Q - I would like to talk about the role of developing countries. A lot of developing countries' delegates have told me at the start here that they felt that the text was unbalanced, and there were all the additions that came in yesterday and the issue today about whether civil society is going to be allowed in some of these working groups. A lot of the developing countries' work depends on the information of the civil society and so on. Is there going to be some special steps to make sure that developing countries feel or are more included or that their priorities are paid more attention to? Or do you think that the process will take care of itself in that regard, that they will speak up and that they can fend for themselves
R - As far as I understand your question, they were not satisfied with the text and they have proposed changes. Now it is a new text and everybody will discuss it. In particular the representative from South Africa said: «OK, now there is a new basis for negotiation». One of the points that the co-chairs said to us, was that they have the feeling that this is now the text of the EDP, whereas before some people were saying: «well it's the text coming from the co-chairs». But remember, it was a very difficult exercise because you go from 83 pages to 20 pages and therefore there has been a reaction, but to a certain extent it is a positive one because now we have a text with different options and there are working groups and they will say: «OK we have come this far», regarding, for instance, loss and damage issues, that is our view and obviously it is an absolute necessity if we want to come to an agreement in Paris
Q - What about the civil society observers
R - I was not there, but I understand that it has been said that it was an international negotiation. It has been said that so far this part of the discussion will be submitted to the agreement of the different countries and I think the Japanese delegate was interviewed from what I have been told, it was decided at that stage to be only the parties. Now, I don't know exactly how it will develop, but it is what has been said to me. So, you know, it is second hand.
Q - Could I go back to the question of the ratcheting mechanism? and whether you think it is going to be enough if we are going to get to the 2 degrees goal eventually, to have this stock taken with an aggregated review of the INDC? If there needs to be some sort of mechanism in the text to look at INDCs in a more individual way and on what individual countries have proposed?
R - There are a lot of questions and the working group will examine that. You can say: what is a periodicity? You can say: does it need to be always new backslidings? Does it apply to everybody or only to Northern countries? When? To what extent? Well you can imagine a lot of questions and I am fully confident that the working group will make a proposal.
Q - Mr Fabius, you said that you hope some issues would be resolved here in Bonn and there will be key political questions left for Paris. Could you elaborate a little bit on which issues you think could be resolved here before Paris and also what length of text are you expecting to come out of Bonn? Somewhere between 20 and 40 pages or less than 34 pages? Just as an indication...
R - My answer will be simple: never have an issue, solve the largest. The text? the shortest possible.
Source http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr, le 27 octobre 2015