Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)

Volume 12 Number 637 | Thursday, 11 June 2015


Bonn Climate Change Conference

Wednesday, 10 June 2015 | Bonn, Germany


Languages: EN (HTML/PDF) FR (HTML/PDF) AR (HTML/PDF) JA (HTML/PDF)
Visit our IISD/ENB Meeting Coverage from Bonn, Germany at: http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb42/

The Bonn Climate Change Conference continued on Wednesday, 10 June. Facilitated groups under the ADP convened on: workstream 2 (pre-2020 ambition), general/objective, and implementation and compliance in the morning; mitigation and finance in the afternoon; and procedural and institutional provisions, and workstream 2 in the evening.

Contact groups and informal consultations took place under the SBI and SBSTA throughout the day.

ADP

FACILITATED GROUPS: General/Objective: Co-facilitator Diann Black-Layne facilitated the session, inviting comments on the co-facilitators’ table “mapping the section,” with topics and the paragraphs they are addressed in.

The US, with AUSTRALIA, suggested reflecting that some parties do not see the need for this section.

Many parties said the section should be concise. BRAZIL added it should set out legal obligations with details to be clarified in other sections. TUVALU advocated for a general objectives section and setting out objectives in other sections.

Many parties requested a column on linkages to other sections in the Geneva text, and inclusion of sub-paragraph references.

A number of parties called for a balanced approach, including enhanced adaptation action and MOI, with TUVALU calling for setting out short- and long-term goals on GHG concentrations and temperature stabilization.

The EU noted the table does not include a just transition to low GHG economies, and, with INDIA, gender equality. CHINA suggested using the terms “differentiated commitments/contributions.” The US preferred retaining “commitments/contributions/action.”

On general principles, SUDAN highlighted CBDR, leadership by developed countries and special circumstances. MALAYSIA and INDIA emphasized MOI in the context of equity and historical responsibility. BOLIVIA cautioned against implying transfer of responsibilities to non-state actors, and called for referencing the global carbon budget and Mother Earth.

The co-facilitators will capture parties’ inputs and inform the ADP Co-Chairs of discussions.

Implementation and Compliance: Co-facilitator Sarah Baashan introduced a table synthesizing parties’ proposals for unpacking the section, based on the 4 June version of the streamlined and consolidated text.

Many parties thanked the co-facilitators for their effort, with the EU and US suggesting the co-facilitators consolidate the proposals in one column. NEW ZEALAND noted the table shows commonalities that indicate space for taking the text forward.

The EU, Colombia, for AILAC, and NORWAY suggested the 8 June version of the streamlined and consolidated text be used to move discussions forward. VENEZUELA called for addressing legal form first.

Parties discussed elements to be included in the 2015 agreement versus decisions, and operationalization and differentiation.

Many countries identified the establishment of a compliance arrangement/committee/body as an element for the core agreement, adding the section can be short.

The US, EU, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA and AILAC supported a facilitative compliance mechanism, applicable to all. NORWAY suggested a mechanism with two branches to cover legal obligations and non-legally binding elements.

Sudan, for the AFRICAN GROUP, CHINA, MALAYSIA and INDIA supported differentiation in the section, with CHINA calling for a compliance arrangement for developed countries and facilitative implementation for developing countries.

Parties agreed that the co-facilitators would create a consolidated table.

Workstream 2: Co-facilitator Aya Yoshida opened the session, asking for parties’ views on the co-facilitators’ input document circulated on Tuesday evening, 9 June.

Mali, for the G-77/CHINA, requested restructuring the document, with sections in the following order: preamble; accelerated implementation process; TEP; and review.

The G-77/CHINA, Colombia, for AILAC, and Bangladesh, for the LDCs, noted missing elements, such as indigenous peoples’ knowledge and practices, economic diversification co-benefits and response measures. CHINA, with SOUTH AFRICA, said action under workstream 2 will be the foundation for the post-2020 agreement.

Noting the recent submissions from the G-77/China and EIG on workstream 2, the US, the EU and AUSTRALIA called for time to fully discuss them. Many developing countries supported using the input document as the basis of work going forward, calling for a revision based on party input prior to the evening session.

The EU, with the US, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, AUSTRALIA and CANADA, opposed using the input document as the basis for further discussions, saying many of its elements are outside the mandate of workstream 2. Many developing country parties stressed all elements that can enhance climate change ambition pre-2020 are within the mandate.

Discussions continued in the evening facilitated group.

Mitigation: Co-facilitator Franz Perrez invited comments on an updated “technical tool” for clarifying the section.

Several parties welcomed the tool as a step forward and identified linkages to other sections of the text. Many noted that some issues could fit under multiple headings. Numerous parties supported Brazil’s proposal to clarify options on differentiation.

INDIA asked for another iteration of the co-facilitators’ proposal before it is forwarded to the ADP Co-Chairs. Perrez explained parties’ comments would be reported to the Co-Chairs.

He then asked delegates to identify elements of the text that could go into decisions and the agreement.

Several parties, including CHINA, Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, SOUTH AFRICA and Chile, for AILAC, noted it is premature to discuss placement. CHINA expressed reservations on various criteria that could be used to address the issue of placement. AILAC emphasized the agreement should include, inter alia, principles, a long-term temperature goal and commitments.

Many parties agreed that paragraphs containing evolving elements should be in COP decisions. TUVALU noted the need to differentiate between COP decisions to be taken prior to the entry into force of the agreement and those taken thereafter.

SWITZERLAND suggested that decisions will be required for operationalizing the agreement and addressing issues that are to be tackled before the entry into force of the agreement. AUSTRALIA also suggested addressing interim arrangements and how they fit into decisions.

NORWAY and BRAZIL suggested markets be anchored in the agreement, while details on markets be expressed in decisions. Many suggested launching a work programme for adopting decisions to operationalize the agreement. The EU emphasized that mitigation commitments should be in the agreement.

The US suggested carbon neutrality, low-emission development strategies and the long-term temperature goal should be treated in decisions. SAINT LUCIA, supported by AILAC, opposed, stressing the long-term temperature goal should be in the agreement.

NEW ZEALAND stressed that regardless of whether parties would like to see a durable agreement or not, durable elements need to be addressed in the agreement. He underscored that all parties must be transparent in reporting on the delivery of their commitments to build trust.

Perrez explained the co-facilitators’ proposal will be issued as an output document and that all inputs from parties will be conveyed to the ADP Co-Chairs.

Time Frames: Co-facilitator George Wamukoya presented the co-facilitators’ technical suggestions, which were developed in response to parties’ call for a discussion tool for this section. He underlined that parties had a “very useful” exchange on concepts around the themes and sub-headings of the section, which served as a basis for the technical suggestions.

He outlined the paragraphs in the two options contained in the consolidated text, and parties agreed to forward it to the ADP Co-Chairs as input to prepare a streamlined text before the next ADP session.

Finance: Co-facilitator Georg Børsting presented a streamlined text, amended based on discussions on Tuesday, 9 June. He proposed, and parties agreed, to present the text to the ADP Co-Chairs. Parties then engaged in a conceptual discussion to provide additional input for the Co-Chairs, as proposed by Bolivia, for the G-77/CHINA.

The G-77/CHINA, Ecuador, for the LMDCs, and other countries described finance as an enabler for ambition, with the G-77/CHINA suggesting Convention Article 4.7 (implementation of developing countries’ commitments) is key to addressing CBDR. BRAZIL said the agreement should enhance current obligations while finding “creative ways to indicate that there will be actions from everyone.”

NEW ZEALAND called for ensuring the agreement delivers effective outcomes. The EU said the finance text should build on the Convention while “capturing the world as it is.”

On the scale and sources of finance, the G-77/CHINA said clarity on scale is required to determine how developing countries will be able to contribute to the agreement. Belize, for AOSIS, called for a goal for climate finance that will keep temperature increase below 1.5°C. Many developing countries called for adequate and predictable support.

The EU stressed sending a signal to the private sector on the need to “shift the trillions” to low-carbon, climate-resilient development. NAURU suggested having a basic commitment for all parties to provide sources for domestic action. CANADA stressed the need to maximize financial flows globally, noting discussions on contributions and actions should precede those on scale and sources.

INDIA and Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, stressed public sources as the main source. MEXICO identified need for all sources. Switzerland, for the EIG, noted different circumstances need different instruments and sources.

Many countries, including Malawi, for the LDCs, NEW ZEALAND and the US, supported recognizing the specific circumstances of SIDS and LDCs, including through direct access and readiness support.

SUBSIDIARY BODIES

CONTACT GROUPS: 2013-2015 Review (SBI/SBSTA): The contact group, chaired by Leon Charles (Grenada), considered elements for draft conclusions, which note, inter alia: the contributions of the IPCC and other experts to the fourth SED session; initiation of consideration of findings from the 2013-2015 review; parties’ submissions; appreciation to the SED co-facilitators and the Secretariat; the SED’s final factual report; and an encouragement to parties to continue to take note of the 2013-2015 review as they engage in the ADP.

SAUDI ARABIA and CHINA opposed non-procedural paragraphs. As no consensus emerged, parties agreed to two paragraphs noting that the SBs began considering the SED report and parties’ submissions, and agreeing to continue consideration of this matter at SB 43. Parties agreed to forward these conclusions to SBI and SBSTA for consideration.

Response Measures (SBI/SBSTA): Co-facilitator Eduardo Calvo informed participants that informal consultations resulted in recommendations for draft conclusions. SBI Chair Amena Yauvoli noted the result enables parties to move forward on this issue. SBSTA Chair Lidia Wojtal expressed the hope that the spirit of flexibility and compromise will continue. Parties agreed to forward the draft conclusions for the SBI and SBSTA’s consideration.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Despite clear blue skies in Bonn, the morning opened with muddy discussions on the mandates of various negotiating groups. Delegates debated at length whether the mandate of the 2013-2015 review includes making substantial recommendations to the COP, whereas the ADP negotiations on pre-2020 ambition also became bogged down in divergence over the scope of the group’s work.

ADP negotiations on the new agreement trudged along on the streamlining and clustering of the text, and in the evening, some expressed moderate optimism on progress made. Many others, nevertheless, lamented that, after nine days of hard work, it had hardly been possible to achieve clarification of options and negotiate on the text.

With only one day to go, one seasoned observer wondered what the Bonn outcome would look like and, more importantly, how the success of this session should be measured. While most agreed the yardstick “could not be page numbers,” they also felt there was still a long way to go to turn the Geneva text into that of the Paris Agreement.

ENB SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS: The Earth Negotiations Bulletin summary and analysis of the Bonn Climate Change Conference will be available on Sunday, 14 June 2015, online at: http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb42/