Outcomes of the UNFCCC meeting in Bonn June 2014

Download Report

Transcript Outcomes of the UNFCCC meeting in Bonn June 2014

UNFCCC Negotiations - Bonn, June 2014
Lunchtime presentation
Jake Werksman, DG Climate Action
[email protected]
Context: towards the 2015 Agreement
A new international climate agreement applicable to all
to keep global average temperature increase below 2°C
Bonn inter-sessionals:
March, June, October
Design of the elements:
mitigation, adaptation,
finance, technology
development and transfer,
capacity-building and
transparency of action
and support
Lima 2014:
decision on
elements of
the 2015
2011: launch
of new
INDCs (Intended
nationally determined
2013: call for
by March
Paris 2015:
adoption of
Pre-2020 action
Bonn, June 2014: main outcomes
Intended nationally determined
contributions (INDCs):
Elements of
the 2015 Agreement:
Implementation agenda:
Will Parties be ready
by Q1 2015? What will
contributions look like?
How will the agreement
address mitigation,
adaptation, finance,
technology, capacitybuilding, transparency?
Pre-2020 climate action:
EU, US, China clear
Other major economies
preparing; international
support available
Elements to be
decided in Lima
Consensus that all must
contribute emission
reductions; discussions on
adaptation and finance
Emerging consensus on
ambitious mitigation
commitments from the
outset, on a mechanism to
continue increasing ambition
exchanges on land use and
urban environment
following up on energy
efficiency and renewables in
Consensus that upfront
information requirements
must be agreed in Lima;
wide agreement on an
assessment phase
Can we close the
"ambition gap"?
Way forward: expand
current technical work to
new areas?
Challenges: adaptation,
finance, rules base – and
negotiating process
EU continued intensive outreach
Follow-up to previously
taken decisions – also
relevant to the development
and implementation of the 2015
Steady progress on
technology, agriculture…
Little progress on: reform
of Clean Development
Mechanism, Executive
Committee of Loss and
Damage Mechanism
Concern as Kyoto Protocol
accounting rules for
second commitment period
not finalised
Intended contributions
INDCs: state of play of domestic
Will a critical mass of INDCs be ready by March 2015 & "well in advance" of Paris?
Warsaw decided that all Parties should come forward with INDCs
well before Paris, and by the first quarter of 2015 for those Parties
"ready to do so" – Bonn session took stock of where we are
EU, US, China clear frontrunners
Other major economies confirmed they are preparing, but have not
yet committed March 2015 (Japan, Korea, Brazil, Mexico, New
Zealand, South Africa…)
Many developing countries request capacity-building support,
which is ongoing and readily available
Canada and Australia are laggards among developed countries
Next steps:
Continue to build pressure and political momentum so that many
countries keep up with EU, US and China
Intended contributions
Scope of INDCs
What is an "intended contribution" – should it cover emissions reductions,
adaptation, support to other countries?
All Parties seem to accept INDCs should cover mitigation
However, for some:
• Parties can also come forward with adaptation and financial and other
support in INDCs if they want (US, Umbrella Group, Singapore); or
• INDCs should also have that wider scope for all Parties
(progressive South American countries, "like-minded" developing
countries, Africa Group)
The EU cannot share this view – it conditions mitigation action on
availability of guaranteed financing to developing countries, adds
complexity to the process and departs from what was agreed in Warsaw
A revised draft decision will be produced ahead of October session
Next steps:
Secure a common understanding on the scope of INDCs among
Intended contributions
Upfront information,
a "template" for INDCs
Will upfront information requirements apply to mitigation only? Or also adaptation
and means of implementation?
Parties must decide on upfront information requirements by Lima to ensure
that INDCs are transparent, clear and understandable
Essential to know e.g. type of INDC (e.g. absolute target, intensity target);
coverage (e.g. in terms of sectors and gases); metrics and methodologies Parties
use to estimate the emissions reductions impact of their INDCs
Problems with extending requirements beyond mitigation to adaptation and
support for other countries – some Parties are asking for this ("like-minded"
developing countries, Africa Group)
Some Parties are arguing that upfront information should be different for
developed and developing countries ("like-minded" developing countries, Africa
Group) while most others say differentiation should be based on type of INDC
(EU, US, developed "Umbrella Group", progressive Latin Americans, small island
Next steps:
Continue working towards a decision in Lima
Intended contributions
An assessment phase for INDCs
How to ensure INDCs are individually fair and collectively sufficient?
The timing and upfront information requirements for INDCs are important so
that INDCs can be collectively assessed before Paris to check whether:
• They add up to enough effort to keep average temperature increase
below 2°C (or 1.5°C) compared to pre-industrial levels
• INDCs are individually fair
An increasing number of Parties agree there should be such an
international process
Certain Parties would like to see such process apply not only to mitigation but
also to adaptation and/or finance – unclear how this could function
"Like-minded" developing countries reluctant towards such a process
Next steps:
Continue promoting such an assessment phase
Elements of 2015 Agreement
Elements of the 2015 Agreement
How can the new Agreement address emission reductions and their review,
adaptation to climate change, financial support, technology, capacity-building and
Emerging consensus that the 2015 Agreement must contain:
• Ambitious mitigation commitments from the outset
• A mechanism to "ratchet up" ambition
No consensus on the first commitment period – but notion of 20202025 appears to be gaining traction
Adaptation: idea of qualitative global climate resilience goal
attracted support, Parties have doubts on a quantitative goal
Process challenges ahead as hardline "like-minded" developing
countries put brakes on next steps
Next steps:
Consider EU submission on draft elements of 2015 Agreement
Elements of 2015 Agreement
Climate finance & the 2015 Agreement
Delivering on existing commitments is key for building trust – challenges: how to
provide demonstrate that climate finance is being scaled up? how to include
climate finance in the 2015 Agreement in a way that reassures recipient countries,
and is realistic for donors?
Common understanding that elements on finance will be part of the
2015 Agreement, including through mobilisation of public and private
finance flows; enabling environments; mainstreaming; monitoring,
reporting and verification
Early and substantial capitalization of Green Climate Fund and
announcement of public climate finance for 2015 (and 2016) would help
reassure recipient countries
Key challenges: greater clarity and predictability on pathways towards
meeting USD 100 billion goal by 2020; progress on pathways towards
would positively influence negotiations on the 2015 Agreement
Next steps:
Keep on providing reassurances that finance will continue – outreach to
finance leaders in the EU Member States
Engage further on design of finance elements of the new Agreement
Elements of 2015 Agreement
Adaptation in the 2015 Agreement
Adaptation needs to be a key pillar in the 2015 Agreement – but how do we
address the clear need for it without detracting from mitigation as key goal?
Areas of convergence: synergies between mitigation and adaptation
(the more mitigation, the less adaptation); seeing adaptation in the
context of sustainable climate resilient development planning; building on
existing institutions; coherence/cooperation between actors in-outside
Areas of controversy: Proposals for a "global goal on adaptation"
that would calculate and allocate costs under different temperature
scenarios; adaptation as part of "INDCs" and UFI process; support for
adaptation action
Next steps:
• Continue proactive discussions on how to best anchor adaptation in the new
Agreement to achieve sustainable, climate-resilient development
• Continue discussions on INDC and upfront information process whether it
makes sense for adaptation
Enhanced pre-2020 ambition
Pre-2020 mitigation ambition
How to recognise, catalyse, promote new mitigation actions, by means of pledges
and initiatives? How can we build political momentum for ambitious mitigation by
2020 and beyond?
Ministerial day showcased ongoing pre-2020 action (EU, China, US,
many G20). Ministers call on each other to enhance their actions at
the UN SG Leaders' Summit in September.
For developing and developed countries (incl. China), Technical meetings
(urban, land sector, energy) and the Cities forum are useful to share
experiences and opportunities for international cooperation.
US, EU, Small Islands, Latin America, Africa want to: share/accelerate
policies/initiatives, task existing institutions (Technology, Finance), further
involve cities, investors, Ministers by Lima and Paris.
"Like-minded" and Brazil, South Africa, India, China (BASIC) countries insist
on developed countries enhancing their support and pledges by Lima.
Next steps:
• Make real some actions/initiatives for Climate Summit, Lima, Paris. Encourage
institutions inside and outside the Convention to link up.
• Role post 2015?
Implementation agenda
Subsidiary Bodies: main outcomes
How far has work on implementation of existing decisions progressed? What are
the main outcomes and what is envisaged for further work in Lima?
• Good progress: technology, response measures, nationally
appropriate mitigation action, review of the 2C goal
• Limited progress requiring further work in Lima: science input to
inform policy, capacity building, adaptation, transparency
• No progress on Clean the Development Mechanism, but discussions
reoriented towards the markets’ role beyond 2015
• Warsaw Mechanism for Loss and Damage from climate change:
political aspect in Lima
Next steps:
• Keep discussions under the subsidiary bodies at technical level and ensure
delivery on implementation of key aspects
• Implementation agenda to contribute to the development and
implementation of the 2015 Agreement
Implementation agenda
Mitigation action on forests (REDD+)
In developing countries, land use (agriculture and land degradation) and land use change (deforestation)
represent up to 90% of emissions and roughly 50% of the mitigation potential. REDD+ is a performancebased mitigation mechanism for forests, a blueprint for incentivizing mitigation and adaptation in the
whole land sector and a catalyst for sustainable rural development (incl. biodiversity and livelihoods).
Parties disagree on whether or not the REDD+ rulebook on forestry
accounting in developing countries, as adopted in Warsaw, provides
adequate guidance and support for implementation, while enabling the
broadest participation of countries.
Those who fear they would not benefit are thus looking for alternative
approaches: e.g. ex-ante financing and adaptation performance.
Implementation is just starting. The EU thinks the REDD+ rulebook
as it is could accommodate their concerns and would rather focus on
delivering instead of negotiating further. But African Group, LDC and
ALBA countries are building momentum for a new deal in Lima.
This could complicate discussions on the role of land post-2020.
Next steps:
Give evidence that REDD+ implementation can deliver both mitigation and
adaptation benefits as well as new livelihood opportunities
Implementation agenda
How can agriculture be addressed under the UNFCCC? What is the role of
agriculture in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation?
Agriculture is a significant source of GHG emissions
Scientific and technical assessment of mitigation and adaptation in
agriculture can positively contribute to future climate change policy
In Bonn, a 2-year work plan was agreed to conduct work on
mitigation and adaptation related issues (4 in-session workshops plus
submission of views by parties) such as:
effects of extreme weather events
risks and vulnerabilities of agricultural systems
sustainable agricultural practices
identification of adaptations measures and possible co-benefits such as mitigation
Next steps:
2 workshops planned on risks and vulnerabilities of agricultural systems during
in Bonn in 2015. EU needs to prepare submissions on the topic and input for
Implementation agenda
Carbon markets
How can carbon market be reformed before 2020? What kind of markets
framework is needed in the 2015 Agreement?
Bonn session rebooted faltering discussion on market related
accounting and the new market mechanism; reoriented this discussion
toward the 2015 agreement by making an explicit, though without
prejudice link, to the discussion on the agreement
The EU insists on certain building blocks for the agreement – on
accounting for international transfers, and how to address ambition “net
mitigation” in the market mechanism
The EU wishes to reform the Clean Development Mechanism under
Kyoto Protocol to encourage more emissions reductions in developing
countries, but discussions were blocked
Next steps:
• Focus discussion on markets toward minimum rules which deliver greater
• Engage key countries in our vision of the international framework for markets
Implementation agenda
Adaptation implementation agenda
National Adaptation Plans, Nairobi Work Programme, Warsaw Mechanism for "Loss
and Damage" - can we make them have tangible impact on the ground?
Parties confirmed the national adaptation planning process as the
backbone of countries efforts to mainstream adaptation in all part of the
development planning and implementation – and for building capacity
Operationalising the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and
damage: controversies over procedures and composition of the Executive
Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to
climate change agreed on additional activities (webinars) in areas of
ecosystems, human settlements, water resources, health, including timing
of implementation of such activities; also request to better link NWP with
Next steps:
• Continue constructive discussion on the final composition of the Loss and
damage mechanism
• Further consider the revision of guidelines for the NAPs process
Implementation agenda
Capacity-building & technology transfer
How can we ensure countries, especially developing countries, have sufficient
administrative capacity to design policies to move to a low carbon, climate-resilient
development pathway and stimulate innovation?
Capacity-building: Agreement on importance, but disagreement about
approach to take: crosscutting issue or need for a dedicated Committee?
Successful 3rd Durban Forum on Capacity Building demonstrated
support activities across different UNFCCC, regional and national bodies.
A web-based Capacity Building Portal was launched that provides
overview on UN organizations in 50+ developing countries.
Technology transfer: Agreement about the importance of the existing
Technology Mechanism, but disagreement about the provision of financing
for technology projects and the licensing of intellectual property rights to
developing countries.
Next steps:
Continue to support capacity building / technology transfer as an integrated part
of all support programs, and back the further development of existing institutions
(Durban Forum, web-based capacity building portal…)
Implementation agenda
International Assessment and Review of
developed countries' biennial reports
The IAR in December 2014 will allow, for the first time, a multilateral assessment
of individual Parties' progress towards their 2020 targets.
Slow progress at technical level on other issues related to reporting and review.
Multilateral Assessment (MA)
Each developed country party will be multilaterally assessed on basis of
its emissions, assumptions, conditions and methodologies and the
progress towards the achievement of its 2020 target
The MA will be a process of high political importance as all Parties to the
UNFCCC , including developing countries, will have the possibility to ask
questions to each Annex 1 Party
EU and ~10 MS will undergo this process in 2014
Agenda items related to reporting and review
Lack of substantive progress in Bonn; decisions needed in Lima
Next steps:
• Need for coordination at EU level to ensure a coordinated approach to the
multilateral assessment session in Lima
• Potentially further submissions on the review/reporting guidelines
Implementation agenda
Kyoto Protocol
Finalisation of the rules to implement the second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol in Lima is essential for ratification since these rules are the "nuts and
bolts" of the accounting system for the second commitment period
First commitment period: Parties now agreed on 10 August 2015 as the date
of completion of the expert review process that also sets the start date of the
additional period for fulfilling commitments under the first commitment period,
which will be postponed if the review process is not finished
Second commitment period: due to an issue affecting Ukraine, Belarus and
Kazakhstan, finalisation of accounting and reporting rules, agreed in Warsaw
but not formally adopted, made no progress
The question does not affect the EU as such, but holding up progress does:
Rules must be adopted by Lima, otherwise the EU may be unable to ratify
the second commitment period as we would not know what rules would apply
The outcome of Warsaw will continue being used as a basis for the work in Lima
and preparations for implementation
Next steps:
Continue discussions on the accounting modalities with a view to finalization of few
outstanding provisions, and formal adoption of all the rules (agreed in Warsaw) in Lima
EU priorities for Lima and Paris
Lima 2014
• Upfront information requirements defined so INDCs are understandable and comparable
• Clarity on international process in 2015 to assess fairness & collective adequacy of INDCs
• Further progress on how adaptation and financial and other support are to be reflected
in the 2015 Agreement
• First draft negotiating text available
Paris 2015
• Addressing mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity-building,
transparency of action and support in a comprehensive way
• Inclusion in the 2015 Agreement of a long-term goal consistent with science
(keeping global average temperature increase below 2°C vs. pre-industrial levels)
• Nationally determined contributions to be included in the form of mitigation commitments
that are legally binding
• Further strengthen multilateral rules through monitoring, reporting and verification,
accounting and compliance
• Mechanism to regularly consider global level of ambition
so Parties can raise their own ambition if wished and necessary
• Catalyse real action by all types of stakeholders, building on pre-2020 experience
Major upcoming meetings this year
11-12 Jul
Major Economies Forum, Paris
13-15 Jul
Petersberg Ministerial Dialogue
19-20 Sep TBC
Major Economies Forum, New York
23 Sep
Leaders’ Summit on Climate Change, New York
20-25 Oct
Ad-Hoc Durban Platform inter-sessional meeting, Bonn
4-7 Nov
Pre-COP, Venezuela
15-16 Nov
G20 Leaders’ Summit, Brisbane
1-12 Dec
COP20 climate summit, Lima
Climate also high on agenda of summits
Thank you!
Following slides for DG CLIMA
internal use
CLIMA internal
Key players (1)
Small Island States (AOSIS): Constructive but demanding allies of the
EU. Focus on adaptation, finance and in particular emission reductions
Least developed countries: Ambitious but remain not very vocal.
African group: Increasingly close to the "like-minded" position, with
major substantive difference on the need for an assessment phase.
Progressive Latin Americans (AILAC): Assertive and constructive –
but also demanding (i.e. adaptation and loss and damage).
Constructive discussions on adaptation/finance to be followed up.
Developed "Umbrella group", Environmental Integrity Group:
positions close to the EU's.
US now at the progressive end of the spectrum.
Russia remains a concern, though broader geopolitical issues did not affect
the June session.
CLIMA internal
Key players (2)
"Like-minded" developing countries: Philippines, Malaysia, Bolivia,
Venezuela, Saudi-Arabia, India, China; Focus on maintaining strict NorthSouth divide ("firewall") - opposed to EU stances on many issues.
In Bonn, put procedural brakes on negotiations, but did not gain wider
traction – and did not block progress in the end.
However, last intervention from China indicates process concerns have to
be taken seriously.
BASIC: Close coordination among China, India, Brazil.
South Africa: Particular position within BASICs, ready to engage
constructively on substance, strong interest in pre-2020 action.
Constructive bilateral discussions with EU on finance.
China and Brazil: Insistence on keeping the binary differentiation
between developed and developing countries.
At the same time, ambitious domestic action in China, and promise of an
"action target" next year that will "convince the international community
of China's engagement."
Encouraging progress with Brazil on markets.
CLIMA internal
INDCs: fact-finding outreach to G20
Confirmed that preparations now underway by all G20 and MEF
BUT only US, EU, Mexico and Russia officially committed to Q1 2015.
China and India are likely.
INDC form is likely to mirror existing Copenhagen pledges (NB - China
may move to absolute target, after a potential peak emissions year)
Scope of contributions – wide variation, with Umbrella Group focused
on mitigation only; others want adaptation, finance, tech transfer
No major economies expected to announce their INDC at UNSG
Climate Leaders’ Summit, but many can "commit to commit"