1. The G77 and China acknowledges the hard work and full commitment to success at this COP which was demonstrated by the tireless efforts of the Polish Presidency, as well as ably supported by the UNFCCC Secretariat to whom all we wish to express our appreciation. We also note the significant progress made at this session towards addressing the divergences which existed with regard to the text which we are about to approve. Nonetheless, and despite our best efforts to influence this process and push it into a more co-operative mode, one which is not based solely on stating positions and fighting for them - but also on actually listening to the concerns of others, we did not succeed in that.

2. We say this because finally, and as we look at, and assess the overall package, rather than just the individual components in isolation, we do not see the balance we have consistently called for. Instead, we see a mitigation centric regime in the making, with the urgent adaptation needs of developing countries relegated to second class status, along with consistent resistance to meaningfully reflect the factual differentiation between developed and developing countries, as well as a diluted overall support package.

3. Unfortunately, and despite our best efforts to influence this process and push it into a more co-operative mode, one which is not based solely on starting positions - but also on actually listening to the concerns of others, we did not succeed in that.

4. We say this because finally, and as we attempted to look at, and assess the overall package, rather than just the individual components in isolation, we do not see the balance we have consistently called for. Instead, we see a blatantly mitigation centric regime in the making, with the urgent adaptation needs of developing countries relegated to second class status.

5. We are now clearly creating a regime which chose, consciously, to ignore or at least ignore the very real, factual principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. This principle is not a tactical negotiating tool. It is a reflection of a reality on the ground. It is a translation of the stark differences between countries with regard to historical and current responsibilities and their differences in capacities and their access to technologies and their urgent developmental needs and priorities and needs to pull their populations out of abject poverty.

6. Mr. Chairman, we made these remarks out of concern for the prospects of success of our collective efforts over the past years. The record will show that over the past years and since assuming our responsibility as Chair of the G77 and China, we have NEVER not highlighted the fact that we want an outcome at Katowice, BUT not just any outcome! We want an outcome that can be accepted and embraced and implemented in good faith by all.

7. With that in mind, we are truly fearful for this regime. We all know that this agreement is defined by its "Nationally Determined Character"! It is therefore and in effect a rather fragile regime highly dependent on the goodwill of the parties. If that good will is dissipated and eroded due to the prevalence of short-term obsession with narrow gains and short-sighted approaches related to competitiveness then our new regime will have very little chance of survival.

8. This causes us much concern. We are keenly aware of the existential threats posed by the negative impacts of climate change! Our peoples particularly the poor and most vulnerable are suffering from them daily. We are equally aware that as things stand we remain on a dangerous path to higher increases in global temperature increases and therefore more, not less, needs to be done. We worry that even the perception of imbalance along with the outright rejection of the principle of equity will potentially push many countries to implement this agreement at the lowest possible level. Combine that with clear attempts to backslide, by some, on existing commitments and you have what can only be seen as an extremely worrying picture.

9. Yet the opportunity is still before us. In implementing the outcomes of this COP with regard to the Paris Agreement, we must recall the aforementioned principles of CBDR and equity. We must not gloss over the real differences between developed and developing countries both in responsibility and capability. Texts that simply deny this cannot alter the reality.

10. The stakes are too high for us all to continue on an adversarial path. We need to find a way to do this together. With the elevated threat, and the increasing awareness of the gravity of the issue not only by states but also by non-state actors. We have a good chance of shifting course of taking advantage of a new spirit of advances in technology drops in some prices of inspiring commitment from youth movements around the world of small business investing in climate related micro projects of big business sometimes realizing the value of being more climate friendly and the list goes on…

11. State parties on their part must rise to the occasion. On our part, we will continue to demonstrate full commitment to doing our fair share of the lifting. We have our legitimate development goals but will always strive to show as much ambition as possible when it comes to curbing emissions. We do not see this as a zero-sum equation. Indeed, the opposite should be the case. There is a path that allows us all to benefit. We hope that in the years to come we can find that path and follow it for the benefit of all.