(Pablo Solón) After two weeks of hard work, we are deeply disappointed by the second version of the text produced under your responsibility.  We expected to see a text that would include options that had been excluded in the first version of your text in order to start a paragraph-by-paragraph negotiation. That is the reason we again presented a summarized version of the April 26 Submission which includes the main proposals of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth.

But now we see that not only does the new text not include proposals from Bolivia and the social movements of 140 countries that met in Cochabamba, but it also eliminates some suggestions from my country and the G77 that were still in the negotiating text.

There is no longer a reference to 1 degree Celsius or equitable allocation of the atmospheric space. Neither does there exist a reference to full respect for human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of climate migrants and the rights of Mother Earth. Absent as well is our proposal for 50% emissions reductions for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol by 2017 based on 1990 levels, in a domestic manner and without reliance on market mechanisms or offsetting.

No reference is made to 300 ppm, and the issue of strengthening enforcement mechanisms and considering the proposal for a Climate Justice Tribunal.

While the positions of developing countries were eliminated or weakened, the positions of those who want to kill the Kyoto Protocol were included and strengthened. The text does not respect the mandate of Bali and is not in accordance with the framework of the principles of the Convention.

To summarize, the second revision of the text drafted under your responsibility has become a Copenhagen Accord Plus.

Chair, with all due respect, what makes you think that those who have not adopted the Copenhagen Accord in December are going to negotiate on the basis of the Copenhagen Accord Plus?

Chair, your role is similar to that of a referee in a football game. You must ensure that the rules apply equally to both teams and cannot favor one. We feel that, before beginning negotiations, you have taken out five of our best players and allow the other team to play with 15 players.

Chair, with all due respect, it is up to you to facilitate the negotiation but not to define it. We expected a text with options for the parties to negotiate, not a text that is left alone with the options of a single party.

Chair, your second attempt to produce a text that will facilitate the negotiations has become a text which complicates the negotiations. Do not waste the third chance you have to present a text that truly reflects the positions of all parties. Listen to all, especially those who most suffer the impacts of climate change and are the least responsible for creating this serious threat. Listen to the peoples. Listen to Mother Earth.

Chair, the Plurinational State of Bolivia wants to negotiate. Let us play this match with our full team of 11 players.

(see the new text of Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention Tenth Session Bonn, 1-11 June 2010 in this link:  http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/lca/application/pdf/awg-lca_advance_draft_of_a_revised_text.pdf)