Earth Negotiations Bulletin
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations
Download PDF version
French version
French version
French version
Back to IISD coverage
Volume 12 Number 600 - Tuesday, 21 October 2014
BONN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE
Monday, 20 October 2014

The opening plenary of ADP 2-6 took place in the morning and afternoon. The contact group on ADP item 3 was held in the afternoon, addressing workstream 2 (pre-2020 ambition). In the evening, the UNFCCC Secretariat held an information event on the UN Climate Summit, which took place on 23 September in New York, US.

OPENING PLENARY

Welcoming delegates, ADP Co-Chair Kishan Kumarsingh (Trinidad and Tobago) expressed concern over the delayed beginning of the session, urging delegates to observe the schedule. He recalled that the draft 2015 agreement should be ready by early April 2015 in order to be translated into all UN languages by May. Calling for a “bridge-building session,” he invited delegates to compromise, adding that “sticking to positions is not negotiation.”

Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Minister of the Environment, Peru, and COP 20/CMP 10 President-Designate, invited delegates to “work simultaneously” on: information for intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs); the elements of the draft negotiating text; and a careful review of the draft decision on workstream 2.

Noting that the UN Climate Summit brought unprecedented public mobilization, Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, told delegates “the eyes of the world turn to you,” calling on them to “build bridges” and “chart a path” towards a solution to climate change that is equitable and globally responsible.

Dan Bondi Ogolla, UNFCCC Secretariat, provided an overview of a questions and answers note by the Secretariat on legal aspects of the 2015 agreement.

Co-Chair Kumarsingh said parties should finalize the draft decisions on information for INDCs and pre-2020 ambition at this meeting, and agree on additional negotiating time in 2015.

Bolivia, for the G-77/CHINA, stated that the elements identified in Decision 1/CP.17 must be treated equally in the 2015 agreement, adding that the ADP Co-Chairs’ non-paper on elements for a draft negotiating text is “not perfect,” but could be “a useful starting point.”

The EU called for ADP 2-6 to focus on defining: the role of INDCs in operationalizing differentiation; monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) rules; a cycle for increasing post-2020 ambition; and aspects of adaptation and means of implementation (MOI) in the 2015 agreement.

Australia, for the UMBRELLA GROUP, said the meeting should delineate the elements of the 2015 agreement and identify what can be elaborated in subsequent decisions. He emphasized a practical, educational and cooperative focus for the Technical Expert Meetings (TEMs).

Switzerland, for the ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP (EIG), expressed support for working on the basis of the Co-Chairs’ draft decisions and non-paper, highlighted EIG members’ contributions to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and expressed the group’s commitment to timely communication of INDCs.

Sudan, for the AFRICAN GROUP, stated that INDCs and elements of the 2015 agreement are aspects of the same mandate, expressing concern over the presentation of two separate documents.

Nauru, for the ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS), called for including a mechanism on loss and damage in the 2015 agreement, and said ADP 2-6 should clarify that the COP 21 outcome will be a legally-binding protocol under the Convention and keep warming below 1.5°C.

Nepal, for the LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs), called for ADP 2-6 to organize elements of a post-2015 agreement and advance discussions on INDCs, including their legal form and treatment. He said workstream 2 should build on the UN Climate Summit’s momentum.

Venezuela, for the BOLIVARIAN ALLIANCE FOR THE PEOPLES OF OUR AMERICA (ALBA), Argentina and El Salvador, called for Annex I countries’ leadership on mitigation, and provision of finance and technology transfer.

Ecuador, for the LIKE-MINDED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LMDCs), called for an open, inclusive and transparent process based on inputs from parties. He welcomed the Co-Chairs’ non-paper on elements for the 2015 agreement as a starting point for negotiations, but said the draft decision on INDCs goes beyond the Warsaw mandate, which refers to the identification of information to be provided by parties.

Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, suggested agreeing on the core elements of the 2015 agreement as quickly as possible and addressing information required for INDCs. He called for distinguishing between developed countries’ compulsory actions and developing countries’ voluntary actions.

South Africa, for BRAZIL, SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA and CHINA (BASIC), noted that increased pre-2020 ambition by developed countries, including full capitalization of the GCF, will build trust in the post-2020 process. She emphasized that the 2015 agreement must allow for progressive enhancement of contributions.

Belize, for the CENTRAL AMERICAN INTEGRATION SYSTEM, said adaptation, loss and damage, and the REDD+ framework must be anchored in the 2015 agreement. She called for establishing a contact group to consider legal aspects of the 2015 agreement.

Costa Rica, for the INDEPENDENT ALLIANCE OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (AILAC), commended the Co-Chairs for their “bold and effective” work and said AILAC would “continue to build bridges.”

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs) underlined the need for all sectors of the economy to be enlisted in mitigation and adaptation.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES said the Co-Chairs’ draft text on pre-2020 ambition provides starting points for an action plan for cities and subnational authorities.

FARMERS’ NGOs called for a work programme on agriculture under the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice, covering food security, mitigation and adaptation.

RESEARCH AND INDEPENDENT NGOs emphasized the importance of a negotiating process that is evidence-based and grounded in sound science.

WOMEN AND GENDER urged delegates to take into account the rights, needs and expertise of men and women alike in the 2015 agreement.

Warning delegates that the climate window “is closing before our eyes,” YOUTH NGOs urged parties to commit to the highest level of ambition they can.

Climate Action Network, for ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs (ENGOs), called for an INDC text that is detailed and comprehensive enough to put the world back onto “a climate-safe trajectory.” Climate Justice Now, for ENGOs, lamented restrictions on the number of civil society representatives at COP 20 and urged delegates to address all elements in a new climate deal.

CONTACT GROUP ON ADP ITEM 3

Opening the contact group, ADP Co-Chair Artur Runge-Metzger (EU) invited delegates to focus discussions on: using the draft decision on accelerating the implementation of enhanced pre-2020 climate action as the basis for negotiation; improving the TEMs; engagement of non-state actors; and continuing workstream 2 after 2015.

Nauru, for AOSIS, and CHILE supported starting negotiations based on the Co-Chairs’ draft decision. VENEZUELA called for distinguishing between national and multilateral actions. JORDAN said the draft does not focus on developed countries’ ambition. NEW ZEALAND said the draft is a useful first step, despite being too lengthy. TANZANIA called for referring to adaptation and reflecting developed countries’ commitment to provide US$100 billion by 2020. CHINA and SAUDI ARABIA questioned the need for a decision at this point.

AOSIS said work under workstream 2 should continue until the mitigation gap is closed. MEXICO, the EU, CHILE, TUVALU and NORWAY supported continuing workstream 2 after 2015. NORWAY suggested considering fora for increased mitigation ambition after 2015, pointing to the Subsidiary Body on Implementation and Technology Executive Committee (TEC) as examples.

Many supported continuing the TEMs after 2015. AOSIS suggested improvements to the TEMs, including by providing advanced information, producing a technical paper after each TEM, and focusing on barriers to implementation. MEXICO, AOSIS and TUVALU suggested considering regional TEMs.

Colombia, for AILAC, called for improving the TEMs’ planning and follow-up. The US called for the TEC to manage the agenda and proceedings of the TEMs and, with AOSIS, to provide meeting details three months in advance. JAPAN called for TEMs to make the best use of the TEC and Climate Technology Centre and Network.

The EU said TEMs should focus on facilitating action, and called for exploring how a web-based presence would add value to existing tools. SAUDI ARABIA said TEMs should address adaptation. IRAN said they should address the Bali Action Plan (BAP). INDIA expressed concern that TEMs are shifting the onus of mitigation away from Annex I parties.

AUSTRALIA said the success of the TEMs should be measured by examining national absorption of policies, and called for TEMs on enabling environments for implementing durable policies. Supported by the US and CANADA, he called for a facilitative session to focus on countries that have not yet made pre-2020 commitments. The US called for a review of the TEMs in 2016 to ensure continued relevance. NEW ZEALAND called for using existing mechanisms and frameworks.

The EU, CHILE, AILAC and AOSIS supported ministerial engagement under workstream 2. AILAC proposed that high-level engagement address: a summary of the TEMs; UN Climate Summit follow-up; and new announcements. The EU suggested additional engagement with the private sector and civil society. CHILE, MEXICO, MALI and AOSIS welcomed workstream 2 as a tool to engage with non-state actors. While noting the important role of non-state actors, TANZANIA stressed the need to avoid mixing actions by parties and those by others.

VENEZUELA emphasized enabling environments at the international level. AOSIS called for the BAP’s fulfillment. AILAC, emphasized the importance of enhancing MOI and strengthening MRV systems in the context of workstream 2. JORDAN suggested launching a review of the adequacy of financial support. CHINA called for launching a 2015-2020 work programme to review achievement of pre-2020 commitments.

IN THE CORRIDORS

As June’s greenery gave way to crisp autumn air, ADP 2-6 delegates arrived at the lofty World Conference Center Bonn for their first day of work with many commenting positively on the informal consultations organized by the incoming COP 20 Presidency from 1-3 October 2014, in Lima, Peru. They noted that the style of the Peruvian Presidency bodes well for a transparent and ambitious COP. Others felt energized by the UN Climate Summit, with one delegate expressing hope that the ADP builds on the momentum generated.

This optimism was short-lived, however, as the mood in the plenary soon seemed to return to a “negotiations as usual” mode. The one and a half hour delay to the start of the session was, according to one delegate, a sign of bad old habits kicking in at a time when “there is little time and so much to do.”

A few delegates commented that meeting the 2015 deadline seems all the more challenging, with agreement within country groups becoming more difficult, as illustrated by the lack of new submissions under workstream 1 by a number of key coalitions. Discussions at ADP 2-6 over the week will show if parties are able to seize, as one delegate put it, the “glimmer of hope” generated by the informal consultations in Lima and the UN Climate Summit.

^ up to top
Back to IISD coverage
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Alice Bisiaux, LLM, Mari Luomi, Ph.D., Annalisa Savaresi, Ph.D., and Anna Schulz. The Digital Editor is Brad Vincelette. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMATE) and the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)). General Support for the Bulletin during 2014 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Specific funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources and Aramco. Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA. The ENB team at the Bonn Climate Change Conference - October 2014 can be contacted by e-mail at <alice@iisd.org>.
| Back to IISD RS "Linkages" | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to IISD RS |
© 2014, IISD. All rights reserved.