The UN Climate Change Conference convened from 7-19
November 2016, in Marrakech, Morocco. It included the 22nd session of
the Conference of the Parties (COP 22) to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 12th session of the Conference
of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol (CMP 12), and, with the entry into force of the Paris
Agreement, the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as
the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA
1). Three subsidiary bodies (SBs) also met, the 45th sessions of the
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 45) and
Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 45), and the second part of the
first session of the
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA 1-2).
The UN Climate Change Conference brought together over 22,500
participants, including nearly 15,800 government officials, 5,400
representatives of UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental
organizations and civil society organizations, and 1,200 members
of the media.
Negotiations in Marrakech focused on matters relating to the entry
into force and the implementation of the Paris Agreement, including
under the COP, CMP, CMA, APA, SBI and SBSTA. During the first week, work
was concentrated under the APA, SBI and SBSTA,
which closed on Monday, 14 November, and Tuesday, 15 November.
During the second week, following the closure of the APA, SBI and
SBSTA, the CMA opened. The joint high-level segment under the COP, CMP
and CMA brought together over 70 heads of state and government, in
addition to ministers and heads of delegation to generate
political will. In addition, work continued under the COP and CMP. On
Thursday, 17 November, the Presidency read out the Marrakech Action
Proclamation for Our Climate and Sustainable Development to the COP
plenary.
Throughout the meeting informal consultations convened under the COP
on entry into force of the Paris Agreement and under the COP Presidency
on the convening of CMA 1. These informal consultations were conducted
back-to-back, engaging,
inter alia, on where to house “orphan issues,” the timing of
the next or resumed CMA session (2017 or 2018), and whether the
Adaptation Fund should serve the Paris Agreement.
Parties adopted 35 decisions, 25 under the COP, eight under the CMP and two under the CMA, that,
inter alia: provide guidance on the completion of the work
programme under the Paris Agreement and decide that the Adaptation Fund
should serve the Paris Agreement; advance the preparations for the entry
into force of the Paris Agreement and CMA; adopt
the terms of reference (ToR) for the Paris Committee on Capacity-
building (PCCB); approve the five-year workplan of the Warsaw
International Mechanism to address loss and damage associated with
impacts of climate change (WIM) Executive Committee (ExCom);
provide further guidance on the review of the WIM; enhance climate
technology development and transfer through the Technology Mechanism;
address long-term finance; provide guidance to the Green Climate Fund
(GCF) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF);
initiate a process to identify the information to be provided in
accordance with Paris Agreement Article 9.5 (biennial finance
communications by developed countries); continue and enhance the Lima
work programme on gender; improve the effectiveness of the
Doha work programme on Article 6 of the Convention (education, training
and public awareness); adopt the ToR for the third review of the
Adaptation Fund; and adopt a revised scale of contributions to the Trust
Fund for the core budget of the UNFCCC in 2016-2017.
LONG-TERM NEGOTIATIONS, 2005-2009: Convening in Montreal, Canada, in 2005, CMP 1 established the
Ad Hoc Working Group on Annex I Parties’ Further Commitments
under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) in accordance with Protocol Article
3.9, which mandated consideration of Annex I parties’ further
commitments at least seven years before the end of the
first commitment period.
In December 2007, COP 13 and CMP 3 in Bali, Indonesia, resulted in
agreement on the Bali Roadmap on long-term issues. COP 13 adopted the
Bali Action Plan (BAP) and established the
Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the
Convention (AWG-LCA), with a mandate to focus on mitigation, adaptation,
finance, technology, capacity building and a shared vision for
long-term cooperative action. Negotiations on Annex
I parties’ further commitments continued under the AWG-KP. The deadline
for concluding the two-track negotiations was 2009 in Copenhagen,
Denmark.
COPENHAGEN: The UN Climate Change Conference in
Copenhagen took place in December 2009. The high-profile event was
marked by disputes over transparency and process. Late in the evening of
18 December, these talks resulted in a political
agreement, the “Copenhagen Accord,” which was presented to the COP
plenary for adoption. After 13 hours of debate, delegates ultimately
agreed to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord and to extend the
mandates of the negotiating groups until COP 16 and CMP
6 in 2010. In 2010, over 140 countries indicated support for the Accord.
More than 80 countries also provided information on their national
mitigation targets or actions.
CANCUN: The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun,
Mexico, took place in December 2010, where parties adopted the Cancun
Agreements and agreed to consider the adequacy of the global long-term
goal during a 2013-2015 review. The Cancun Agreements
established several new institutions and processes, including the GCF,
the Cancun Adaptation Framework, the Adaptation Committee and the
Technology Mechanism, which includes the Technology Executive Committee
(TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network
(CTCN).
DURBAN: The UN Climate Change Conference in Durban,
South Africa, took place in November and December 2011. Among other
outcomes, parties agreed to launch the
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
(ADP) with a mandate “to develop a protocol, another legal instrument
or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to
all Parties” no later than 2015, to enter
into force in 2020. In addition, the ADP was mandated to explore actions
to close the pre-2020 ambition gap in relation to the below 2°C target.
DOHA: The UN Climate Change Conference in Doha,
Qatar, took place in November and December 2012. The conference resulted
in a package of decisions referred to as the “Doha Climate Gateway.”
These included amendments to the Kyoto Protocol
to establish its second commitment period (2013-2020), and agreement to
terminate the AWG-KP’s and AWG-LCA’s work and negotiations under the
BAP.
WARSAW: The UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, Poland, took place in November 2013. The meeting adopted an ADP decision that,
inter alia, invites parties to initiate or intensify domestic
preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions
(INDCs). Parties also adopted decisions establishing the WIM, and the
Warsaw Framework for REDD+.
LIMA: The UN Climate Change Conference in Lima,
Peru, took place in December 2014. COP 20 adopted the “Lima Call for
Climate Action,” which set in motion the negotiations towards the 2015
agreement by elaborating the elements of a draft
negotiating text and the process for submitting and synthesizing INDCs,
while also addressing pre-2020 ambition. Parties also adopted 19
decisions that,
inter alia, help operationalize the WIM, establish the Lima
work programme on gender and adopt the Lima Ministerial Declaration on
Education and Awareness-raising.
PARIS: The UN Climate Change Conference convened in
Paris, France, in November and December 2015 and culminated in the
adoption of the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Agreement sets
the goals of: keeping global average temperature
rise well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to
limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels; and
enhancing global adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and
reducing vulnerability to climate change.
The Agreement creates two five-year cycles. One cycle is for parties
to submit NDCs, each successive contribution representing a progression
from the previous contribution, reflecting common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities,
in the light of different national circumstances. By 2020, parties whose
NDCs contain a timeframe up to 2025 are requested to communicate a new
NDC and parties with an NDC timeframe up to 2030 are requested to
communicate or update these contributions. The
second cycle is a global stocktake of collective efforts, beginning in
2023, following a facilitative dialogue in 2018.
All parties are to report on their efforts using a common
transparency framework, with support provided for developing countries
to fulfill their reporting obligations. The Agreement establishes,
inter alia, a mechanism to contribute to the mitigation of GHG
emissions and support sustainable development and a technology framework
to provide overarching guidance to the Technology Mechanism.
PARIS AGREEMENT ENTRY INTO FORCE: The Paris
Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016, 30 days after the dual
entry into force requirement of ratification by at least 55 countries
representing at least 55% of global GHG emissions was
met. As of 19 November 2016, 111 countries have ratified the agreement.
Salaheddine Mezouar, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Morocco, was
elected as the COP 22/CMP 12 President by acclamation. Welcoming
delegates to the “red city,” he said the conference demonstrates a whole
continent’s commitment to climate action. Commending
countries on the rapid entry into force of the Paris Agreement, he
called for building on this dynamic to give tangible meaning to the
Agreement and to “finalize support mechanisms.”
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa emphasized that
achieving the aims of the Paris Agreement is not a given, noting the
need for: adaptation support; progress on the loss and damage mechanism;
and a level and predictability of finance that can
catalyze low-emission development.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair Hoesung Lee
relayed the IPCC’s “action-packed” work programme contributing to the
implementation of the Paris Agreement on the basis of science, including
the approval of the outline of the special report
on Global Warming of 1.5°C, as requested by the UNFCCC COP.
Highlighting Marrakech’s famous gardens, Mohammed Larbi Belcadi,
Mayor of Marrakech, relayed the city’s efforts to protect the
environment, including through green areas and energy efficiency
projects, as well as its commitment to a successful COP leading
to concrete solutions.
This report summarizes the negotiations under the COP, CMP, CMA, APA, SBI and SBSTA.
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES (COP 22)
On Monday, 7 November, COP 22 President Mezouar opened COP 22. A
summary of the joint COP 22/CMP 11 opening statements, which took place
on Tuesday, 8 November, are available at:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
The facilitative dialogue on enhancing ambition and support took
place on Friday, 11 November, and Wednesday, 16 November. Summaries of
the events are available at:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
On Wednesday, 16 November, the High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on
Climate Finance took place. A summary of the events is available at:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
On Thursday, 17 November, the High-Level Event on Accelerating
Climate Action took place. A summary of the event is available at:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: On Monday, 7 November,
following consultations, parties agreed to adopt the agenda
(FCCC/CP/2016/1 and Add.1), holding the agenda item on the second review
of the adequacy of Convention Articles 4.2 (a) and (b) (developed
countries’ mitigation) in abeyance. An item, requested by Turkey for
inclusion on access to support from the GCF and the CTCN under the Paris
Agreement by parties whose special circumstances are recognized by the
COP, was left pending under other matters.
Parties agreed to the organization of work, including for the
sessions of the SBs (FCCC/CP/2016/1, FCCC/SBSTA/2016/3, FCCC/SBI/2016/9
and FCCC/APA/2016/3). Parties requested the APA undertake the
preparatory work so that the Adaptation Fund may serve the
Paris Agreement and forward a recommendation to the CMP for
consideration no later than CMP 15.
The COP referred to the SBI the items and sub-items on: reporting
from and review of Annex I parties to the Convention; reporting from
non-Annex I parties to the Convention; capacity building under the
Convention; gender and climate change; audit report
and financial statements for 2015; and budget performance for the
biennium 2016-2017.
The COP referred to the SBSTA items on: report of the Adaptation
Committee; the implementation of the Buenos Aires programme of work on
adaptation and response measures (Decision 1/CP.10); and matters
relating to the least developed countries (LDCs).
The COP referred to the SBI and SBSTA joint items and sub-items on the WIM, and the joint annual report of the TEC and the CTCN.
Parties agreed to the accreditation of observer organizations (FCCC/CP/2016/3).
Parties agreed to apply the draft rules of procedure
(FCCC/CP/1996/2), with the exception of draft rule 42 on voting. On
Thursday, 17 November, parties agreed that consultations on the draft
rules of procedure would continue at COP 23.
Election of Officers Other than the President: On
Friday, 18 November, the COP elected members of the COP Bureau: SBSTA
Chair Carlos Fuller (Belize); SBI Chair Tomasz Chruszczow (Poland);
Hussein Alfa Nafo (Mali); Khalid Abuleif (Saudi Arabia);
Rajani Ranjan Rashmi (India); Walter Schuldt Espinel (Ecuador); Collin
Beck (Solomon Islands); and Helmut Hojesky (Austria). Rapporteur Georg
Børsting (Norway) and Vice-President Oleg Shamanov (Russian Federation)
will remain in office until their replacements
have been elected.
The COP also elected: the SBSTA Bureau, with Tibor Schaffhauser
(Hungary) as Vice-Chair remaining in office until his replacement has
been elected, and Aderito Santana (São Tomé and Príncipe) elected as
Rapporteur; and the SBI Bureau, with Zhihua Chen (China)
as Vice-Chair and Tuğba İçmeli (Turkey) as Rapporteur.
The COP also elected the members of the Adaptation Committee, the
Advisory Board of the CTCN, the TEC, the Standing Committee on Finance
(SCF), the PCCB and took note of the nominations for the Consultative
Group of Experts on National Communications from
non-Annex I parties to the Convention (CGE).
The COP also elected the members of the Adaptation Committee, the
Advisory Board of the CTCN and TEC, and took note of the nominations of
the CGE and the LDCs Expert Group (LEG).
Dates and Venues of Future Sessions: On Wednesday, 9
November, Saudi Arabia, for the Asia-Pacific Region, said Fiji had
offered to preside over COP 23, to be held at UNFCCC headquarters in
Bonn, noting the group’s final decision was pending.
COP 22 President Mezouar invited proposals for hosting COP 24. On
Friday, 18 November, the COP adopted its decision.
Fiji, as the host of COP 23/CMP 13, noted the commitment of his
country to do everything in its power to place climate change at the
“very top” of the development agenda. He reiterated his invitation to US
President-elect Donald Trump to visit Fiji, stressing
“you came to save us during World War II, it is time for you to save us
now,” referring to climate change.
Poland announced his country would host COP 24 in 2018.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/CP/2016/L.10), the COP,
inter alia, accepts with appreciation the offer by Fiji to host
COP 23 and CMP 13 from 6-17 November 2017, in Bonn, Germany, and
requests the Executive Secretary to make the necessary arrangements for
convening the sessions at the seat of the Secretariat.
The COP also decides to accept with appreciation the offer by Poland
to host COP 24 and CMP 14, from 3-14 December 2018, and requests the
Executive Secretary to negotiate and finalize a Host Country Agreement.
Adoption of the Report on Credentials: On Friday, 18 November, the COP adopted the report on credentials (FCCC/CP/2016/11).
REPORTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES: Report of the SBSTA: The COP took note of the SBSTA 44 report and the draft report of SBSTA 45 (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/2 and L.18).
Report of the SBI: The COP took note of the report of SBI 44 and the draft report of SBI 45 (FCCC/SBI/2016/8 and Add.1, and L.25).
Report of the APA: The COP took note of the reports
of APA 1 and APA 1-2 (FCCC/APA/2016/2 and L.5) and adopted the decision
(FCCC/APA/2016/L.4/Add.1).
PREPARATIONS FOR ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT AND CMA 1:
This item was introduced on Monday, 7 November and subsequently
discussed in informal consultations led by the COP Presidency, generally
in conjunction with informal consultations
convened under the auspices of the CMA Presidency. The COP adopted the
draft decision on Friday, 18 November.
During informal consultations, parties’ views diverged on whether to
have a decision from the CMA, and, in the event of a decision, whether
it should be short and procedural or substantive. Parties diverged on
whether to use the early versions of draft COP
or CMA decisions on this matter as the basis for negotiation. On Friday,
18 November, a draft was proposed that parties accepted as a basis for
negotiations. Regarding a possible decision, parties’ discussions
centered on: timing issues related to reconvening
CMA 1; addressing issues mandated under the Paris outcome without an
agenda item; and organizing the 2018 facilitative dialogue.
On when to reconvene CMA 1, parties favored either 2017 or 2018.
Those in favor of 2017, all of which were developing countries, stressed
that some decisions under the APA and other SBs could be ready in 2017
and should be promptly adopted. These countries
warned of reputational risks to delaying decisions until 2018, given the
political momentum around the Paris Agreement.
Developed and some developing countries in favor of reconvening CMA 1
in 2018, recalled that the 2001 Marrakech Accords required three years
of negotiations, and that the Accords were a “package” of rules. These
countries noted the reputational risks to
reconvening the CMA in 2017 without any decisions ready to adopt. One
group of developing country parties suggested reconvening in 2017 to
undertake a stocktaking exercise and adopt no decisions, which other
groups opposed.
On issues mandated under the Paris outcome without an agenda item,
both developed and developing countries identified such “orphan issues.”
During informal consultations, parties discussed the informal note put
forward by the COP Presidency that cited: common
time frames for NDCs; adjustment of NDCs; “enabling” the response
measures forum; recognition of adaptation efforts; guidance to the
operating entities of the Financial Mechanism; guidance to the LDCs Fund
(LDCF) and Special Climate Change Fund; new collective
goal on finance; ex ante finance information; and education, training and public awareness.
Some developed countries opposed listing orphan issues at this stage,
noting that the APA agenda includes an item on further matters related
to implementation of the Paris Agreement, which has a sub-item on
preparing for entry into force of the Paris Agreement.
Other developed countries stressed that the CMA should invite the COP to
continue to undertake any work related to the CMA’s work programme.
Other parties suggested a tiered approach that first mentions issues
mandated to CMA 1. Some developing country groups
urged addressing all orphan issues in a comprehensive manner to ensure
that all are addressed without delay, or prioritizing among issues,
while some developed countries noted that only two issues are mandated
by the Paris outcome for CMA 1, asking parties
to “renegotiate.”
The Adaptation Fund was the subject of discussion in this context.
Many developing countries suggested that a CMA decision be taken that
the Adaptation Fund “will,” “should” or “shall” serve the Paris
Agreement, while others recalled the Paris Agreement’s
wording that the Adaptation Fund “may” serve it.
On the 2018 facilitative dialogue, views diverged on whether, and
how, to provide guidance to the COP Presidencies, with some suggesting
submissions and many stressing the need for consultations with parties
and observers. Some parties suggested an agenda
item on this, which others opposed. One group proposed that the 2018
dialogue be based upon the 2016 facilitative dialogue on enhancing
ambition and support, which others opposed.
In the CMA plenary, Venezuela and India asked that a footnote be
added to the decision paragraph stating that the COP takes note of the
resolutions adopted at the 39th session of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Assembly to reflect their
reservations and concerns about ICAO 39’s resolutions. CMA President
Mezouar stated that these reservations would be taken note of. On
Saturday, 19 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: Decision FCCC/CP/2016/L.12 is comprised of six parts.
On the entry into force and signature of the Paris Agreement, the COP, inter alia,
congratulates parties that have ratified, accepted of approved the
Paris Agreement and invites those that have not done so to deposit their
instruments of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession, where appropriate, with the
depository as soon as possible.
On the completion of the work programme under the Paris Agreement, the COP,
inter alia:
On additional matters relating to the implementation of the Paris
Agreement, the COP takes note of the invitation of the CMA to request
the APA to continue its consideration of possible additional matters
relating to the implementation of the Paris Agreement
and the convening of CMA 1.
On the Adaptation Fund, the COP requests the APA in its consideration
of the necessary preparatory work on the Adaptation Fund to address the
governance and institutional arrangements, safeguards and operating
modalities for the Adaptation Fund to serve
the Paris Agreement. The COP invites parties to submit their views on
the governance and institutional arrangements, safeguards and operating
modalities for the Adaptation Fund to serve the Paris Agreement.
On the 2018 facilitative dialogue, the COP requests the COP 22
President, in collaboration with the incoming COP 23 President, to
undertake inclusive and transparent consultations with parties on the
organization of the facilitative dialogue referred to
in Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 20, including during the SB 46 and at COP
23, and to jointly report to COP 23 on the preparations for the
dialogue.
On enhanced action prior to 2020, the COP, inter alia:
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS BY PARTIES FOR AMENDMENTS OT THE
CONVENTION UNDER ARTICLE 15: Proposal from the Russian Federation to
Amend Convention Article 4.2(f): Parties first considered this
item (FCCC/CP/2011/5) on Wednesday, 9 November,
and agreed to informal consultations under the Presidency. On Thursday,
17 November, the COP agreed to continue consideration of this sub-item
at COP 23.
Proposal from Papua New Guinea and Mexico to Amend Convention Articles 7 and 18:
Parties first considered this item (FCCC/CP/2011/4/Rev.1) on
Wednesday, 9 November, and agreed to informal consultations under the
COP Presidency. On Thursday, 17 November, the COP agreed to continue
consideration of this sub-item at COP 23.
REPORT OF THE ADAPTATION COMMITTEE: This item
(FCCC/SB/2016/2) was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was
referred to SBSTA and SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item
are summarized under the SBI agenda item on the Adaptation
Committee (see page 25).
WIM: This item (FCCC/SB/2016/3) was first considered
on Wednesday, 9 November, and was referred to the SBSTA and SBI for
consideration. Discussions on this item are summarized under the SBI
agenda item on the WIM (see page 25).
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES: Joint Annual Report of the TEC and the CTCN:
This item (FCCC/SB/2016/1) was first considered on Wednesday, 9
November, and referred to the SBSTA and SBI for consideration.
Discussions on this item
are summarized under the SBI agenda item on the joint annual report of
the TEC and the CTCN (see page 26).
Linkages between the Technology Mechanism and the Financial Mechanism of the Convention:
This item (FCCC/CP/2014/6, SB/2016/1, CP/2016/7 and Add.1) was
first considered by the COP on Wednesday, 9 November. Parties agreed the
COP Presidency would conduct informal consultations. Informal
consultations, co-facilitated by El Hadji Mbaye Diagne
(Senegal) and Elfriede More (Austria), and informal informal
consultations also took place throughout the meeting.
During the informal consultations, parties considered, inter alia:
progress made; areas for enhanced cooperation; guidance to the GCF;
inviting developing countries to use support from the GCF Readiness and
Support Programme to implement Technology
Action Plans; and whether or not to conclude this agenda item.
On progress made, many parties appreciated: an SBI 44 in-session
workshop; GCF, GEF and TEC presence at one another’s meetings; and
annual meetings convened by the GCF to enhance cooperation with UNFCCC
bodies.
On areas for enhanced cooperation, parties discussed relaying progress in annual reports and creating a coordination mechanism.
On guidance to the GCF, parties discussed, inter alia, requesting the GCF to prioritize CTCN-supported projects.
A number of developed countries, opposed by a large group of
developing countries, advocated deleting a paragraph on this matter,
noting guidance to the GCF should be addressed under the respective COP
agenda sub-item. Parties eventually agreed to
this approach.
On inviting developing countries to use support from the GCF
Readiness and Support Programme to implement Technology Action Plans,
many parties, opposed by others, supported deleting a reference
to the Poznan strategic programme on technology transfer, since all its
funds have already been allocated. A GCF representative clarified that
matters related to the implementation of
Technology Action Plans “should be oriented to other modalities rather
than readiness under the GCF.”
On whether to conclude this agenda item, parties considered two text
options: concluding the agenda item and deciding that future
consideration of issues relating to this agenda item will be undertaken
under other relevant items; or agreeing to further consider
this matter at the “Xth” COP session.
Some groups of developing countries stressed the need to include
this agenda item on the next COP agenda to ensure the Technology
Mechanism is “tied to support.” Many developed countries preferred to
conclude this agenda item and hold an in-session workshop,
not in four years as previously proposed, but at the first SB session in
2018. Parties eventually agreed to continue consideration of this item
at COP 24.
On Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision
(FCCC/CP/2016/L.6), the COP, emphasizing the importance of financial
resources at all stages of the technology cycle, including at the early
stages, in order to enable parties to enhance their mitigation
and adaptation action, inter alia:
MATTERS RELATED TO FINANCE: Long-Term Climate Finance: This
item (FCCC/CP/2016/5) was first considered during the COP plenary on
Wednesday, 9 November and subsequently addressed in a contact group and
informal consultations held during the
first and second week, co-chaired by Georg Borsting (Norway) and Andres
Mogro (Ecuador).
Parties began their work during the first week with identifying
elements of a draft decision text, including through presentation of
written submissions by several groups of parties on Saturday, 12
November. Based on these exchanges, the Co-Chairs produced
a revised draft decision text on which delegates worked during the
second week of COP 22.
Parties focused on, inter alia: how to avoid a finance gap;
access to and delivery of finance; SCF recommendations and work on loss
and damage; and adaptation finance. India underscored the need to
identify sources within and outside the UNFCCC
and called for reviewing the ToR of the “financial bodies.” Mauritania
said the allocation of financial resources should be based on criteria
of justice and fairness.
Parties agreed on the usefulness of an in-session workshop and welcomed the SCF’s second biennial assessment. On thein-session workshop,
parties’ views differed on text requesting the Secretariat to conduct a
needs assessment programme for
developing countries and on workshop topics. Some preferred focusing on
developing countries’ access to climate finance and setting a new
quantified goal for finance, while others supported focusing on the role
of policies and enabling environments in mobilizing
finance at scale.
Agreeing to focus the 2017 workshop on long-term climate finance,
parties commented on the workshop’s scope, with the Philippines, for the
Group of 77 and China (G-77/China), calling for it to: be informed by
the High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on Climate
Finance; increase clarity on how to scale up climate finance; and, with
the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC),
consider how to advance adaptation finance. The European Union (EU) said
the workshop should “help understanding the
apparent gaps” in clarity. Canada noted submissions on strategies and
approaches that can increase clarity. Parties’ views differed on whether
to emphasize progress made or to highlight the adaptation finance gap.
Some parties suggested focusing not only on
needs but more specifically on how to: translate needs into projects;
address and obtain access to finance for the identified projects; and
realize enabling environments and policies to attract financial
resources at the scale necessary to support those actions.
Others stressed their opposition to referring to “bankable projects.”
Views further differed on how to work on scaling up finance support and ex ante information.
On scaling up, several groups stressed they wanted
to see “something robust on adaptation finance.” In addition, in a
paragraph on “urging developed countries to scale up their provision of
financial support to developing countries in line
with the latter’s increasing needs and priorities identified in a
country-driven manner,” one developing country group suggested adding
“as identified in adaptation communications where they exist,” and one
developing country party suggested replacing “financial
support” with “financial resources.” Other parties suggested deleting
the paragraph.
On ex ante information, several parties
sought deletion of all paragraphs under this section, suggesting “this
goes beyond the scope of the discussion under this agenda sub-item.”
On Friday, 18 November, the COP adopted the decision on long-term climate finance.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/CP/2016/L.11), the COP,
inter alia:
The COP also invites parties and relevant institutions to consider that:
Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) and Review of the Functions of the SCF:
This item (FCCC/CP/2016/8 and MISC.1) was first considered
during the COP plenary on Wednesday, 9 November, and subsequently
addressed in contact group meetings and informal consultations
co-chaired by Ngedikes Olai Uludong (Palau) and Delphine Eyraud
(France).
Parties began their work during the first week by commenting on the
draft decision, including: welcoming the report; acknowledging the
useful forum on loss and damage, which engaged with the private sector;
recognizing the SCF’s achievements in building
linkages with other bodies, such as the Technology Mechanism; and urging
the SCF to take into account alternative non-market approaches.
In addition, one group of parties noted the SCF would benefit from
engaging with the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and
the private sector in developing countries. Another group called for
clear timelines and outputs from this session on
how to advance facilitation of adaptation in developing countries. Some
countries noted the review of the functions as relevant regarding the
SCF’s transition to serving the Paris Agreement.
During the second week, parties worked on the Co-Chairs’ streamlined
draft decision text until it was ready, on Thursday, 17 November, to be
forwarded to the COP.
On Friday, 18 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/CP/2016/L.9/Rev.1), the COP,
inter alia:
The annex to the decision contains the summary and recommendations by
the SCF on the 2016 biennial assessment and overview of climate finance
flows, with sections on: context and mandates; challenges and
limitations; key findings; and recommendations. The
key findings: explicate methodological issues relating to MRV of public
and private climate finance; provide an overview of current climate
finance flows in 2013-2014; and, by way of assessment of climate finance
flows, offer insights into key questions of
interest in the context of the UNFCCC negotiations, including support
for adaptation and mitigation, levels of finance for different regions,
and how finance is delivered.
Report of the GCF to the COP and Guidance to the GCF:
This item (FCCC/CP/2016/7 and Add.1, 8, and INF.1) was first considered
during the COP plenary on Wednesday, 9 November, and subsequently
addressed in contact group meetings and informal
consultations co-chaired by Richard Muyungi (Tanzania) and Stefan
Schwager (Switzerland).
Parties began their work during the first week by commenting and
providing written submissions on the draft decision. The Co-Chairs
streamlined the draft decision several times, including on the basis of
progress reached during the second week during self-facilitated
drafting meetings among parties. On Wednesday, 16 November, the contact
group forwarded agreed draft text to the COP.
During the discussions, many welcomed the SCF’s report and draft
guidance, noting they provided a good basis and reflected progress made.
Parties further highlight various issues. The Philippines, for the
G-77/China, stressed the need to ensure that the
GCF continues to serve all developing countries in the Convention.
Egypt, for the African Group, suggested highlighting that the GCF is “an
institution to stay.” The Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs)
sought for ways to help the GCF Board with transforming
the pledges made by countries into finalized support.
Maldives, for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and South
Africa lamented that the procedures of accreditation remain too complex.
The US and New Zealand highlighted the important role of the private
sector in ensuring the Fund functions. Nicaragua
said private sector investments in general could be better directed to
renewable energy, energy efficiency, reforestation and avoidance of
deforestation.
On Friday, 18 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/CP/2016/L.5), the COP,
inter alia:
Report of the GEF to the COP and Guidance to the GEF:
This item (FCCC/CP/2016/6 and Add.1, 8, and INF.1) was first considered
during the COP plenary on Wednesday, 9 November, and subsequently
addressed in contact group meetings and informal
consultations co-chaired by Richard Muyungi (Tanzania) and Stefan
Schwager (Switzerland).
Parties began their work during the first week by providing written
submissions for and commenting on a Co-Chairs’ draft decision.
Throughout the second week, parties considered a streamlined Co-Chairs’
draft decision, including in informal informal consultations,
until reaching agreement on Thursday, 17 November, when the contact
group forwarded the draft text to the COP.
Parties’ views differed, inter alia, on a reference to
“welcoming the SCF 2016 Biennial Assessment as context for the provision
of guidance,” and various textual proposals, including: that the GEF,
in its deliberation on the strategy for the seventh
replenishment, take into account “any CMA decisions”; and “that all
requests for funding which meet GEF focal area strategies and standards
are duly and timely examined and responded.”
Parties also disagreed on several additions, including on inserting
after text on ensuring that “the support for the Capacity Building
Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) will be included in the seventh
replenishment,” the addition “as additional resources
to be set aside.”
Discussions also focused on a paragraph requesting the GEF to continue providing, in its annual reports, information on,
inter alia, financial support provided for the preparation of
national communications and Biennial Update Reports, with parties
disagreeing on references to: “non-Annex I parties”; “developing country
parties”; or “parties eligible for funding.”
On Friday, 18 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/CP/2016/L.7), the COP,
inter alia:
Sixth Review of the Financial Mechanism: This item
was first considered during the COP plenary on Wednesday, 9 November,
when parties agreed on the ToR for the sixth review, with a view to
finalizing the review at COP 23. The item was subsequently
addressed in contact group meetings and informal consultations
co-chaired by Rafael da Soler (Brazil) and Outi Honkatukia (Finland).
Parties accepted the ToR and made various comments on the draft text.
The Philippines, for the G-77/China, emphasized the need for coherence
of financing under the Convention and “enhanced support to enable
enhanced actions.” Canada suggested focusing on
areas of complementarity and on increased effectiveness of the Financial
Mechanism.
During the second week, parties continued negotiations, including
during informal informal meetings, on the Co-Chairs’ revised draft text
on updated guidelines for the review, with discussions focusing on
sources of information and criteria. On Wednesday,
16 November, the contact group agreed to: delete most textual additions
made to the draft text on guidelines; the procedural part of the
decision; and forward the draft decision to the COP.
On Friday, 18 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/CP/2016/L.4), the COP,
inter alia:
The annex of the decision contains the updated guidelines for the
sixth review of the Financial Mechanism, with sections on: objectives;
sources of information; and criteria.
Initiation of the Process to Identify the Information to be provided by Parties in Accordance with Paris Agreement Article 9.5:
This item was first considered during the COP plenary on Wednesday, 9
November, when parties agreed to initiate
the process. The item was subsequently addressed in contact group
meetings and informal consultations co-chaired by Rafael da Soler
(Brazil) and Outi Honkatukia (Finland).
During the first week, parties exchanged views, including on
mechanisms and parameters, which the Co-Chairs captured in a list.
During the second week, parties engaged further on several revised
Co-Chairs’ non-papers drafted on the basis of bilateral consultations
with parties and held several self-facilitated informal informal
meetings. On Wednesday, 16 November, the contact group agreed to the
draft decision text and forwarded it to the COP.
During discussions, many parties recognized the need for
predictability and use of qualitative and quantitative information. The
EU noted interlinkages with other agenda items, including submissions on
strategy approaches and roadmaps. The Philippines, for
the G-77/China, stressed that emphasis should be on country-driven
strategies and the needs and priorities of developing countries. Several
parties emphasized the need to provide more clarity on
ex ante information.
Several parties preferred not to discuss the timelines and frequency
of financial information to be communicated, suggesting the Paris
Agreement is clear on “biennial communications.” Others noted the text
lacks information on how timeframes will be used
in submissions. Several parties also stressed a clear distinction
between ex ante and
ex post information, noting obtaining the latter is more challenging.
Some parties called for focusing on process rather than information
and views among parties diverged on identifying the SCF as a “home” for
this issue once the agenda item is closed.
Parties’ views continued to differ on a non-exhaustive list of
elements with options under sections on: objectives and scope; existing
arrangements to build upon; linkages; next steps; and timeline and other
arrangements. They also differed on: the way forward;
the usefulness of a facilitated in-session workshop in conjunction with
SB 46; and a resulting Secretariat’s summary report for consideration at
COP 23.
On Friday, 18 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision
(FCCC/CP/2016/L.2), the COP recalls that developed country parties shall
biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative
information related to Paris Agreement Articles 9.1 (developed
country parties’ existing obligation to provide financial resources to
assist developing country parties with respect to mitigation and
adaptation) and 9.3 (developed country parties progress in their efforts
taking the lead in mobilizing climate finance),
including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources
to be provided to developing country parties, and that other parties
providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such
information on a voluntary basis.
The COP further: requests the Secretariat to organize a roundtable
discussion among parties on this matter in conjunction with SB 46 and to
prepare a summary report of the roundtable for consideration by COP 23;
and agrees to advance work on this matter
at COP 23, with a view to providing a recommendation on information to
be provided by parties in accordance with Paris Agreement Article 9.5
for consideration and adoption by CMA 1.
REPORTING FROM AND REVIEW OF ANNEX I PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION:
This item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was
referred to the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item are
summarized under the SBI agenda item on reporting from and review of
Annex I parties to the Convention (see page 22).
REPORTING FROM NON-ANNEX I PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION: This
item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was referred to
the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item are summarized
under the SBI agenda item on reporting
from non-Annex I parties to the Convention (see page 22).
CAPACITY-BUILDING UNDER THE CONVENTION: This item
was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was referred to the
SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item are summarized under the
SBI agenda item on capacity-building under
the Convention (see page 27).
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONVENTION ARTICLES 4.8 AND 4.9:
Implementation of the Buenos Aires Programme of Work on Adaptation and
Response Measures (Decision 1/CP.10):
This item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and
was referred to the SBSTA for consideration. Discussions on this item
are summarized under the SBSTA agenda item on the Buenos Aires programme
of work (see page 29).
Matters Relating to the LDCs: This item was first
considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was referred to the SBSTA for
consideration. Discussions on this item are summarized under the SBSTA
agenda item on the matters relating to the LDCs
(see page 24).
GENDER AND CLIMATE CHANGE: This item
(FCCC/CP/2016/4) was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was
referred to the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item are
summarized under the SBI agenda item on gender and climate change
(see page 29).
OTHER MATTERS REFERRED TO THE COP BY THE SBs: On
Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted decisions forwarded from SBI 44
contained in FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1 on: the outcome of the first round of
the international assessment and review (IAR)
process; the PCCB; improving the effectiveness of the Doha work
programme on Article 6 of the Convention; and financial and budgetary
matters.
The COP adopted a decision recommended by SBI 45 on national
adaptation plans (NAPs) (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.32/Add.1). Discussions on this
item are summarized under the SBI agenda item on NAPs (see page 24).
The COP also adopted a decision recommended by SBSTA 45 on
implementation of the Global Observing System for Climate
(FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.26/Add.1). Discussions on this item are summarized
under the SBSTA agenda item on research and systematic observation
(see page 32).
In addition, the COP adopted two recommendations by SBI 44
(FCCC/SBI/2016/8): concluding consideration of privileges and immunities
for individuals serving on constituted bodies established under the
Convention; and changing the submission deadline referred
to in Decision 4/CP.21, paragraph 12 (a) (on NAPs) to 4 October 2017.
Outcome of the First Round of the IAR Process: On Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision
(FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1), the COP: welcomes the implementation of the
first round of the IAR process; invites parties to submit their views on
the revision of the modalities and procedures for IAR on
the basis of this experience; and requests the SBI to revise the
modalities and procedures for IAR on the basis of this experience and
parties’ submissions, with a view to recommending revised modalities and
procedures for consideration and adoption at COP
23.
Paris Committee on Capacity-building:On Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1), the COP,
inter alia:
Improving the Effectiveness of the Doha Work Programme on Article 6 of the Convention:
On Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1), the COP,
inter alia, recognizes progress in planning, coordinating and
implementing climate change education, training, public awareness,
public participation and public access to information, as well as in
international cooperation on these matters, and encourages
parties to:
The COP also, inter alia:
Financial and Budgetary Matters: On Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision
(FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1), the COP, recalling Decision 12/CP.15, table 2,
in relation to the possible upgrading of the position of Assistant
Secretary-General (UNFCCC Executive Secretary) to
Under-Secretary-General
and the possible upgrading of one position from D-2 to Assistant
Secretary-General level:
ADMINISTRATIVE, FINANCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS: This item, and its associated sub-items, was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November.
Audit Report and Financial Statements for 2015: This
item was referred to the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this
item are summarized under the SBI agenda item on administrative,
financial and institutional matters (see page 30).
Budget Performance for the Biennium 2016-2017: This
item was referred to the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item
are summarized under the SBI agenda item on administrative, financial
and institutional matters (see page 30).
Decision-Making in the UNFCCC Process: This sub-item
was taken up by the COP plenary on Wednesday, 9 November. Paul
Watkinson (France) reported on consultations among parties in May 2016,
noting that, while all parties had emphasized the
importance of transparency and adherence to the rules of procedure,
parties’ views diverged on whether to conclude this agenda item at COP
22. The COP Presidency then consulted informally facilitated by Azoulay
Lahcen (Morocco).
In informal consultations, citing the importance of upholding the
draft rules of procedure for the legitimacy of the process, three
parties called for a draft decision, which one group opposed, saying
that the dialogue was useful but should not be codified.
On the way forward, one party observed the “exceptional workload” of the
SBs in May 2017 and suggested continuing the discussion at COP 23.
Parties agreed.
Final Outcome: In plenary on Thursday, 17 November, the COP agreed to continue consideration of this sub-item at COP 23.
Review of the Process Established by Decision 14/CP.1
relating to the Selection and Nomination of the Executive Secretary and
the Deputy Executive Secretary: On Wednesday, 9 November, COP
22 President Mezouar introduced this item (FCCC/CP/2016/INF.2).
Saudi Arabia suggested that parties review developments since the
original decision. Switzerland drew attention to the process of
appointment in the Convention on Biological Diversity, suggesting that
model, in which parties define eligibility criteria, could
be adopted. The COP Presidency then facilitated informal consultations.
In is closing plenary on Thursday, 17 November, the COP decided to
request SBI 46 to consider this matter, with a view to forwarding a
recommendation to COP 23.
OTHER MATTERS: Two items were considered under this agenda item.
On Wednesday, 9 November, COP 22 President Mezouar reported that on
the previous day he had started informal consultations on the sub-item
requested by Turkey on its special circumstances.
On Saturday, 19 November, Aziz Mekouar (Morocco) reported that
conclusions could not be reached and that consultations will continue on
this item. Turkey welcomed efforts in this regard, stressing their
motivation is to increase their capacity to take ambitious
action.
On Wednesday, 9 November, Bolivia and Ecuador requested that the COP
consider Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 136 (platform for local communities
and indigenous peoples to exchange experiences and share best practices
on mitigation and adaptation) and begin
work. Parties agreed to informal consultations on this issue, to be
conducted by the COP 22 Presidency. On Saturday, 19 November, COP 22
Vice President Khalid Abuleif (Saudi Arabia) proposed, and parties
agreed, to an incremental approach and that the SBSTA
undertake work on operationalization of the platform.
Ecuador, with Nicaragua, appreciated efforts on this item, and with
Bolivia welcomed the inputs of local communities and indigenous peoples.
Bolivia noted the lengthy negotiation process leading to this decision
and underscored the importance of operationalizing
the platform.
The EU welcomed the initiation of a step-by-step approach to
enhancing local communities’ and indigenous peoples’ participation in
the UNFCCC.
CLOSING SESSION: On Friday, 18 November, COP 22
President Mezouar reported on informal open-ended consultations on the
vulnerability of Africa. He noted that many countries had elaborated on
the continent’s specific vulnerability to the
adverse effects of climate change, and stressed the tangible value of
many initiatives shared during COP 22. He noted that conclusions on this
matter had not been reached and that consultations focusing on the
special needs and circumstances of Africa would
continue.
COP 22 President Mezouar invited the Global Climate Action Champions to report on their work.
Champion Hakima El Haité noted that the thematic events organized at
COP 22 had attracted over 5,600 participants and highlighted
“game-changing” announcements made by different actors to fast-track
Paris Agreement implementation.
Champion Laurence Tubiana highlighted the Marrakech Partnership for
Global Climate Action as a key outcome of COP 22 that will “bring the
objectives of the Convention and Paris Agreement out into the world”
through engagement with all stakeholders.
Closing Statements: On Saturday, 19 November, COP 22
President Mezouar highlighted “historic progress” on capacity building,
adaptation, loss and damage, finance, technology, gender issues and
education at COP 22 and stressed that strengthening
action well before 2020 “is not a choice, it is a duty.”
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Espinosa said COP 22 had proven to be a conference for implementation and joint action, citing,
inter alia, the presentation of the US$100 billion roadmap,
exceeding the US$80 million target for the Adaptation Fund in 2016,
pledges to NAPs and capacity building, and large-scale private
investments.
Thailand, for the G-77/China, regretted that, while the Paris
Agreement has entered into force, the Doha Amendment has not and
underscored this “unfinished business” must be urgently addressed. He
stressed that enhanced action requires enhanced support,
and called for scaling up finance, particularly adaptation finance.
The EU said that COP 22 shows that the world is ready to move ahead
and “drastically accelerate” work to establish a rules-based system fit
for purpose and turn the Paris Agreement into a fully-operational
agreement.
Switzerland, for the Environmental Integrity Group, underscored the
importance of short- and long-term action and commitment to successfully
completing the Paris Agreement rulebook in 2018.
The US, for the Umbrella Group, underlined that the momentum behind
the Paris Agreement “cannot and will not be stopped,” highlighting
responding markets and financial flows because this “makes sense for
sustainable economic development” and stressing that
the private sector, non-state parties, civil society and indigenous
peoples “all will drive the shift to solutions.”
Maldives, for AOSIS, highlighted the 2018 facilitative dialogue as a
key moment in history to bring collective ambition in line with science.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo, for the LDCs, urged ensuring
that urgency and ambition are “more than words for preambles and
statements.”
Saudi Arabia, for the Arab Group, commended the COP 22 presidency for
“leading complex negotiations towards satisfactory results, both for
all parties and for the implementation of the Paris Agreement.”
Nicaragua, for the Central American Integration System, emphasized
that the group’s vulnerable countries, in addition to dealing with the
effects of climate change are already assuming greater responsibilities
in transitioning to low-emission economies.
Emphasizing pre-2020 ambition as the foundation of post-2020 action,
Bolivia, for the LMDCs, said “the greatest goal of this century” must be
to eradicate unsustainable consumption and production patterns.
Mali, for the African Group, supported by many others, commended
outgoing Deputy Executive Secretary Richard Kinley and Dan Bondi Ogolla,
UNFCCC Secretariat, for their dedication and outstanding work.
Costa Rica, for AILAC, said although we took first steps in defining
the Paris Agreement rulebook we must accelerate our work to meet the
urgency of the global challenge of climate change.
China highlighted his country’s commitment to Paris Agreement implementation and building “eco-civilization.”
France noted the “historic” first CMA decision confirms the irreversible nature of the Paris Agreement.
Argentina, also for Brazil and Uruguay, highlighted ensuring food
security as a priority and urged remaining united “to overcome the
greatest challenge of our time.”
India stressed that the Convention, with its principles of equity and
common but differentiated responsibilities, continues to be the
political and legal basis for parties to enhance climate action and
international cooperation in the post-2020 period.
Indonesia highlighted the need to achieve pre-2020 targets and
maintaining the balance between mitigation, adaptation and means of
implementation (MOI) achieved in Paris.
Indigenous Peoples underscored their crucial role in finding climate
change solutions and looked forward to sharing experiences, knowledge
and best practices within the related platform established by the
decision on the Paris outcome.
Trade Unions called for ensuring, inter alia, economic diversification and transformation; a just transition of the workforce and decent work and quality jobs.
Women and Gender stressed the need for transforming economies to be
“gender just,” “nuclear free” and 100% based on renewable energy.
Youth NGOs called for roadmaps to end fossil fuels, guidance on the
carbon budget and building a climate just and sustainable future.
Business and Industry said businesses provide solutions to moving to
low-carbon economies, inside the UNFCCC and outside, including through
the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Climate Action Network (CAN) urged parties to ensure that civil
society can: strengthen ambition; provide expertise; and provide for
public accountability.
Cautioning that “private sector involvement is no substitute for
public finance,” Climate Justice Now! highlighted the need for
reallocating public financial resources from war and fossil fuel
subsidies towards addressing adaptation and loss and damage.
Local Governments and Municipal Authorities noted that strengthened local action requires greater access to finance.
Adoption of the Report of COP 22: UNFCCC Deputy
Executive Secretary Richard Kinley noted that budgetary provisions have
not been made for sessions held at the seat of the Secretariat. He noted
the Secretariat’s work on funding scenarios,
including on the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, which will
require an additional €1.9 million. He noted the need for an additional
€320,000 for implementation of gender-related activities in 2017.
The COP adopted the draft report of the session (FCCC/CP/2016/L.1).
Closure of the Session: On Saturday, 19 November,
the COP took note of the resolutions expressing gratitude to the
Government of Morocco and the people of Marrakech
(FCCC/CP/2016/L.8/Rev.1, FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/L.5/Rev.1,
FCCC/PA/CMA/2016/L.1/Rev.1).
The COP closed at 2:47 am.
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES SERVING AS THE MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL (CMP 12)
On Monday, 7 November, CMP 12 President Mezouar opened plenary. A
summary of the statements from the joint COP 22/CMP 12 opening, which
took place on Tuesday, 8 November, is available at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: On Monday, 7 November,
parties adopted the agenda (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/1) and agreed to the
organization of work, including the sessions of the SBs
(FCCC/SBSTA/2016/3 and FCCC/SBI/2016/9).
The CMP referred to the SBSTA the sub-item on matters relating to
Kyoto Protocol Article 2.3 (adverse effects of policies and measures).
The CMP referred to the SBI the items and sub-items on: national
communications (NCs); the annual compilation and accounting report for
the second commitment period for Annex B parties under the Kyoto
Protocol; capacity building under the Kyoto Protocol;
matters relating to Kyoto Protocol Article 3.14 (minimizing adverse
effects); audit report and financial statements for 2015; and budget
performance for the biennium 2016-2017.
Election of Replacement Officers: On Friday, 18
November, the CMP elected the members and alternate members to the
Adaptation Fund Board (AFB), Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee
(JISC), Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive
Board (EB), and Compliance Committee.
CMP 12 President Mezouar noted the COP Bureau members would also
serve as CMP Bureau members. He also noted that the list of nominations
is available on the UNFCCC website and urged parties to submit
nominations for the remaining vacant positions by 31 January
2017.
Approval of the Credentials Report: On Friday, 18
November, the CMP adopted the report on credentials
(FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/9), in addition to the credentials for Nauru and
Ukraine, as reported orally by CMP 12 President Mezouar.
Status of the Ratification of the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol:
On Wednesday, 9 November, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary
Richard Kinley reported that, as of Tuesday, 8 November, 72 parties had
ratified the amendment out of 144 required for entry into force. Parties
took note of the report. On Thursday, 17 November,
CMP President Mezouar informed that an additional ratification had been
received on Wednesday, 9 November, from Australia, bringing the total to
73. The CMP took note of the call made by CMP 12 President Mezouar for
all parties to accelerate their domestic
procedures to ratify the amendment.
REPORTS OF THE SBs: Report of the SBSTA: On
Thursday, 17 November, the CMP took note of the report of SBSTA 44 and
the draft report of SBSTA 45 (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/2 and L.18).
Report of the SBI: On Thursday, 17 November, the CMP
took note of the report of SBI 44 and the draft report of SBI 45
(FCCC/SBI/2016/8 and Add.1, and L.25).
MATTERS RELATING TO THE CDM: This item was first
considered on Wednesday, 9 November, when CDM EB Vice-Chair Frank Wolke
(Germany) presented the annual report (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/4), noting
efforts to improve the CDM, and invited voluntary
cancellation of certified emission reductions (CERs).
Parties agreed to a contact group co-chaired by Karoliina Anttonen
(Finland) and Hlobsile Sikhosana (Swaziland). In discussions, views
diverged on most issues, and the contact group decided to delete a large
portion of the draft text and forward the “clean”
draft decision to the CMP for consideration.
Parties’ views differed on most paragraphs of the draft and revised
draft decision sections on: general; baseline and monitoring
methodologies; registration of project activities and issuance of CERs;
regional and sub-regional distribution; the CDM Loan
Scheme; and resources for work on the CDM. Parties could not reach
agreement on,
inter alia: voluntary cancellation; international aviation
issues; references to the GCF; restrictive practices; length of
crediting periods; and relevance of the CDM in the context of Paris
Agreement Article 6 (cooperative approaches). Parties agreed
to delete references to the Paris Agreement.
Brazil stressed use of CERs in the context of ICAO’s Carbon
Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).
India called for consideration of small projects. The EU called for
exploring possibilities to reduce the cost of monitoring
by expanding the use of tiered projects. Saint Lucia, for AOSIS,
expressed hope for progress on the CER registry’s transparency, double
counting, and CDM loan schemes. Some parties underscored concerns with
the CDM, including the lack of demand for CERs and
ratifications of the Doha Amendment, and suggested that the SBSTA note,
rather than express satisfaction with, the CDM’s results.
Parties were able to agree on paragraphs: on the CDM EB report for
2015-2016; on progress of the CDM to date; and encouraging the EB to
continue its activities in response to Decision 6/CMP.11 paragraphs 7
and 8 (on exploring options for using the CDM as
a tool for other uses, and for the financing of the CDM through
international climate financing institutions).
On Thursday, 17 November, the CMP adopted a decision on guidelines on the CDM.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/L.4), the CMP,
inter alia:
The guidelines contain a general section and sections on: baseline
and monitoring methodologies; regional and sub-regional distribution;
the CDM Loan Scheme; and resources for work on the CDM. In its annex,
the decision provides an overview of the designation
of operational entities by CMP 12 and changes in the accreditation
status of entities during the EB’s reporting period (17 October 2015 to
17 September 2016).
MATTERS RELATING TO JOINT IMPLEMENTATION (JI): This
item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, when JISC Chair
Konrad Raeschke-Kessler (Germany) presented the JISC’s annual report
(FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/5). He noted activity under JI
virtually ceased at the end of the first Protocol commitment period and
thus, no new projects were created or emission reduction units (ERUs)
issued since the previous year’s report. On the review of the JI
guidelines, he said the JISC had forwarded recommendations
to SBI 44 and the SBI is recommending the CMP close the review and not
adopt revised guidelines for the time being.
Parties considered draft recommendations on the annual report of the
JISC in the contact group and in informal consultations co-chaired by
Dimitar Nikov (France) and Arthur Rolle (Bahamas).
The EU, Switzerland, China and New Zealand supported noting the
report. The EU stressed that virtual participation should count towards
quorum at JISC meetings, while Ukraine expressed concern, noting
technical and time zone constraints. Japan warned against
prejudging work undertaken on the creation of new mechanisms under the
Paris Agreement.
On Thursday, 17 November, the CMP adopted a decision on guidelines on the implementation of Kyoto Protocol Article 6.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/L.2), the CMP, decides that,
inter alia:
REPORT OF THE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE: This item (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/3) was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November.
Compliance Committee Co-Chair Gerhard Loibl (Austria) presented the
report, highlighting the Committee’s suggestion that the CMP consider
ways for Ukraine to formally demonstrate its first commitment period
compliance by requesting the Secretariat to make
the necessary arrangements to enable the country to retire its units for
compliance on an exceptional basis. Parties took note of the report and
agreed to informal consultations facilitated by Khalid Abuleif (Saudi
Arabia).
On Friday, 18 November, the CMP agreed to encourage the efforts of
Ukraine to formally demonstrate its compliance for its commitment under
Protocol Article 3.1 for the first commitment period, and to request the
Secretariat to make, on an exceptional basis,
the necessary arrangements enabling Ukraine to do so by CMP 13.
MATTERS RELATING TO THE ADAPTATION FUND: Report of the AFB: This
item (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/2) was first considered on Wednesday, 9
November, when Naresh Sharma, AFB, informed parties that the
predictability of the Fund’s financing “is not secure”
due to its reliance on voluntary contributions and the “meltdown” of the
carbon market. Bahamas, for the G-77/China, called for additional
support for the Fund.
Parties worked on a draft conclusion and a draft decision during
contact group meetings and informal consultations co-chaired by Herman
Sips (the Netherlands) and Patience Damptey (Ghana).
Bahamas, for the G-77/China, suggested, inter alia,
emphasizing the importance of addressing fundraising strategies and
recognizing the Adaptation Fund was established at COP 7. Parties’
requests also included references to: the status of available
funds, reporting on cash flows, and status of the active pipeline of
projects and programme proposals submitted to the Adaptation Fund;
fundraising strategies; and the AFB report’s addendum on added value of
the Adaptation Fund for the operationalization of
the Paris Agreement.
Egypt proposed including paragraph 53 (the overall evaluation of the
Adaptation Fund) of the report in the draft decision. Parties’ views
differed on this and several other proposals, including to “recognize
the need to revise the CDM” in order to increase
predictability and sustainability of the Adaptation Fund’s resources.
One developing country group suggested as an alternative option,
“recognizing the need for the Doha Amendment to enter into force” to
revive the carbon market. Another proposed welcoming
the efforts of the AFB to address the predictability and sustainability
of its resources, including through the resource mobilization strategy.
On Thursday, 17 November, the CMP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/L.3), the CMP:
REPORT ON THE HIGH-LEVEL MINISTERIAL ROUND TABLE ON INCREASED AMBITION OF KYOTO PROTOCOL COMMITMENTS:
This agenda item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November,
when parties agreed to informal consultations by Ismail Chekkori, CMP
12 Presidency.
On Thursday, 17 November, CMP 12 President Mezouar informed parties
that no consensus had been reached and that this item will be included
on the provisional agenda for CMP 13.
REPORTING FROM AND REVIEW OF ANNEX I PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION: NCs:
This item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was
referred to the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item are
summarized under the SBI agenda item on NCs (see page 22).
Final Compilation and Accounting Report for the Second Commitment Period for Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol:
This item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November. The
CMP took note of the information contained in the final compilation and
accounting report for the first commitment period for Annex B parties
under the Kyoto Protocol.
Annual Compilation and Accounting Report for the Second Commitment Period for Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol:
This item (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/6 and Add.1) was first considered on
Wednesday, 9 November, and was referred to the SBI for
consideration. Discussions on this item are summarized under the SBI
agenda item on the annual compilation and accounting report (see page
22).
CAPACITY BUILDING UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: This
item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was referred to
the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item are summarized under
the SBI agenda item on capacity building under
the Kyoto Protocol (see page 27).
MATTERS RELATING TO PROTOCOL ARTICLES 2.3 (ADVERSE EFFECTS OF
POLICIES AND MEASURES) AND 3.14 (MINIMIZING ADVERSE EFFECTS): Protocol
Article 2.3:
This item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and
was referred to the SBSTA for consideration. Discussions on this item
are summarized under the SBSTA agenda item on the impact of the
implementation of response measures (see page 33).
Protocol Article 3.14: This item was first
considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was referred to the SBI for
consideration. Discussions on this item are summarized under the SBI
agenda item on the impact of the implementation of response
measures (see page 29).
OTHER MATTERS REFERRED TO THE CMP BY THE SBs: On
Thursday, 17 November, the CMP adopted decisions forwarded from SBI 44
contained in FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1 on: financial and budgetary matters;
review of the JI guidelines; and the third review
of the Adaptation Fund.
The CMP also adopted a conclusion recommended by SBSTA 45 on carbon
capture and storage (CCS) in geological formations as CDM project
activities (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.19/Add.1). Discussions on this item are
summarized under the SBSTA agenda item on CCS in geological
formations as CDM project activities (see page 34).
In addition, the CMP adopted an action recommended by SBI 44
(FCCC/SBI/2016/8) on concluding consideration of privileges and
immunities for individuals serving on constituted bodies established
under the Protocol.
Financial and Budgetary Matters: On Thursday, 17 November, the CMP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision
(FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1), the CMP, having considered the proposed revised
staffing table for the biennium 2016-2017, endorses the decision taken
at COP 22 on the revised staffing table for this biennium
within its approved programme budget.
Review of the JI Guidelines: On Thursday, 17 November, the CMP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1), the CMP,
inter alia:
Third Review of the Adaptation Fund: On Thursday, 17 November, the CMP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/8/Add.1), the CMP,
inter alia:
ADMINISTRATIVE, FINANCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS: Audit Report and Financial Statements for 2015:
This item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and
was referred to the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item are
summarized under the SBI agenda item on administrative, financial and
institutional matters (see page 30).
Budget Performance for the Biennium 2016-2017: This
item was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November, and was referred to
the SBI for consideration. Discussions on this item are summarized under
the SBI agenda item on administrative, financial
and institutional matters (see page 30).
CLOSING SESSION: Joint closing statements are summarized under the COP closing statements (see page 11).
On Saturday, 19 November, the CMP adopted the report of the session
(FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/L.1). The CMP took note of resolutions expressing
gratitude to the Government of Morocco and the people of Marrakech
(FCCC/CP/2016/L.8/Rev.1, FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/L.5/Rev.1,
FCCC/PA/CMA/2016/L.1/Rev.1).
The CMP was gaveled to a close at 2:20 am.
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES SERVING AS THE MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE PARIS AGREEMENT (CMA 1)
On Tuesday morning, 15 November, CMA President Mezouar opened the
meeting, noting the “historic occasion” and describing the entry into
force of the Paris Agreement within less than a year after its adoption
as a testament to countries’ commitment to addressing
climate change. A summary of opening statements, delivered on Wednesday,
16 November, is available at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: On Wednesday, 16 November,
parties adopted the agenda and organization of work
(FCCC/PA/CMA/2016/1). Bolivia, for the LMDCs, indicated for the record
their understanding that the work to be undertaken on Agenda Item
3 (matters relating to the Paris Agreement), including its footnote, is
to be in the context of Paris Agreement Articles 2 (strengthening the
global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of
sustainable development and efforts to eradicate
poverty) and 3 (NDCs’ progression over time, while recognizing the need
to support developing countries).
Application of the Rules of Procedure of the COP:
This item was first considered under the APA. The APA, on Monday, 14
November, forwarded a draft decision to the COP, which was then
forwarded to the CMA for consideration. On Friday, 18
November, the CMA adopted the decision. This item is summarized under
the APA outcome (see page 20).
Election of Additional Officers: On Friday, 18
November, Paris Agreement parties elected Diego Pacheco (Bolivia) as an
additional Vice-President to the Bureau of COP 22, CMP 12 and CMA 1.
Approval of the Report on Credentials: On Friday, 18 November, the CMA adopted the report (FCCC/PA/CMA/2016/2).
MATTERS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT:
This item was first taken up on Wednesday, 16 November. These issues
were discussed in informal consultations held by the CMA 1 Presidency,
in conjunction with informal consultations
held by the COP 22 Presidency on preparations for the entry into force
of the Paris Agreement and CMA 1. The informal consultations are
summarized under that item of the COP (see page 4).
On Friday, 18 November, CMA President Mezouar invited, and parties
agreed, to adopt the decision. He additionally proposed forwarding
paragraph 83 of Decision 1/CP.21 (training, public awareness, public
participation and public access to information) and
Paris Agreement Article 4.10 (consideration of common timeframes for
NDCs) to SBI 46 for consideration.
Bolivia, supported by India, said he was not able to support the
proposal to forward a very specific, “mitigation-centric” issue for
further discussion by the SBI. He stressed issues should be considered
in a “comprehensive, single package” and called for
a balanced approach to “remaining issues.”
Brazil requested Bolivia reconsider his objection, noting that
paragraph 9 of the CMA decision (continuation of consideration of
possible additional matters under the APA) already addresses the issue
of additional matters in a comprehensive matter. Many
parties, including Mali, Costa Rica for AILAC, the US, Maldives for
AOSIS, the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the LDCs, and the EU
supported the Presidency’s proposal. Several noted the proposal is in
line with the Paris Agreement.
After informal consultations, Brazil requested the CMA 1 President to
ask parties if the proposal to begin consideration of these matters at
SBI 47 would be agreeable.
South Africa, for BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China),
stated that the group would endorse the proposal with the understanding
that pre-2020 issues will be given “equal preference at the next
session.”
The CMA agreed to Brazil’s proposal.
Final Outcome: The CMA’s three-part
decision is in document FCCC/PA/CMA/2016/L.3. On entry into force and
signature of the Paris Agreement, the CMA,
inter alia, congratulates parties to the Convention that have
ratified, accepted or approved the Paris Agreement and invites those
that have not done so to deposit their instruments of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession, where appropriate,
with the Depositary as soon as possible.
On completion of the work programme under the Paris Agreement, the CMA, inter alia:
On the Adaptation Fund, the CMA decides that the Adaptation Fund
should serve the Paris Agreement, following and consistent with
decisions to be taken at CMA 1-3 to be convened in conjunction with COP
24 and CMP 14 that address the governance and institutional
arrangements, safeguards and operating modalities of the Fund.
CLOSING SESSION: Joint closing statements are
summarized under the COP closing statements (see page 11). On Saturday,
19 November, the CMA adopted the report (FCCC/PA/CMA/2016/L.2). The CMA
took note of resolutions expressing gratitude to
the Government of Morocco and the people of Marrakech
(FCCC/CP/2016/L.8/Rev.1, FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/L.5/Rev.1 and
FCCC/PA/CMA/2016/L.1/Rev.1).
CMA 1 was suspended at 2:16 am.
COP 22, CMP 12 AND CMA 1 JOINT HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT
On Tuesday, 15 November, the King of Morocco Mohammed VI highlighted
COP 22 as a “decisive turning point” in the implementation of the Paris
Agreement.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon highlighted lessons learned during
his tenure on: the importance of multilateral solutions and political
leadership; the need to secure engagement of all actors; and the
important role of the UN in championing science and
advancing the moral case for action.
UN General Assembly President Peter Thomson, Fiji, called for
maintaining the momentum in addressing climate change, and not only for
future generations, as the impacts are felt today by all countries.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa called for including
indigenous peoples, youth, women and other groups in the transformation
towards a low-carbon and climate-resilient world.
Laurene Powell Jobs, Founder and Chair, Emerson Collective,
highlighted the stewardship of indigenous peoples in protecting the
planet, water and biodiversity, and called for treating them as
respected, equal partners.
Mariame Mouhoub, Youth Representative, Morocco, called on delegates
to see beyond their differences, work for a just ecological transition,
and build solidarity with the world’s most vulnerable.
Highlighting his country’s commitment to lead by example, President
François Hollande, France, stressed that the Paris Agreement is
“irreversible,” noting governments, businesses, the financial sector,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and citizens worldwide
are undertaking initiatives and finding concrete solutions. He
underscored that the US must respect its climate commitments, adding
that France would lead a dialogue with the new US President with respect
and determination. He stated that, “despite all our
differences, what unites us is what we have in common, our planet.”
The joint high-level segment continued from Tuesday, 15 November, to Thursday, 17 November. Webcasts are available at: http://unfccc.cloud.
MARRAKECH ACTION PROCLAMATION
The Marrakech Action Proclamation for Our Climate and Sustainable
Development (MAP) was an initiative of the Moroccan Presidency. Drafts
were informally circulated among groups of parties for comment. The
final drafts were distributed to groups under the
“silence procedure,” where, if no party responds to the draft within 24
hours it is assumed to be agreed. The silence was broken and subsequent
revisions were made with the relevant parties. Later, all parties were
consulted.
On Thursday, 17 November, Aziz Mekouar, COP Presidency, read the MAP during plenary.
Marrakech Action Proclamation: Heads of
state, government, and delegations, gathered in Marrakech, on African
soil, for the High-Level Segment of COP 22, CMP 12 and CMA 1, at the
gracious invitation of His Majesty the King of Morocco,
Mohammed VI, issue this proclamation to signal a shift towards a new era
of implementation and action on climate and sustainable development:
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (apa 1-2)
APA Co-Chair Sarah Baashan (Saudi Arabia) opened the meeting on
Monday, 7 November, noting that the early entry into force of the Paris
Agreement increases pressure on the APA to complete its work
expeditiously. A summary of the opening statements is available
at:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: Co-Chair Baashan indicated
that the agenda and organization of work (FCCC/APA/2016/3 and 2) adopted
for APA 1 still apply for APA 1-2. Regarding the request from the COP
to conduct the preparatory work so that the
Adaptation Fund may serve the Paris Agreement, parties agreed to
consider this under the agenda item on preparing for the convening of
CMA 1.
Election of Officers: Co-Chair Baashan noted this had been completed at APA 1-1.
CONTACT GROUP ON AGENDA ITEMS 3-8: The contact
group, co-chaired by APA Co-Chairs Baashan and Jo Tyndall (New Zealand)
convened for the first time on Tuesday, 8 November.
Throughout the week, parties considered progress made in informal
consultations on: the mitigation section of Decision 1/CP.21 (Paris
outcome); further guidance in relation to adaptation communications; the
transparency framework’s modalities, procedures
and guidelines (MPGs); the global stocktake; the committee to facilitate
implementation and promote compliance; and further matters related to
the Paris Agreement’s implementation. They also discussed how to capture
progress made and further work for the APA.
On capturing progress, Co-Chair Tyndall proposed, and parties agreed
to, three components: formal conclusions reflecting further work
required, possibly with an annexed decision on CMA-related work; notes
from the Co-Facilitators with factual summaries of
each item’s discussions; and a Co-Chairs’ note reflecting on outcomes
from informals.
On further work for the APA, Maldives, for AOSIS, suggested noting
that the APA will require additional time for work in 2017. Switzerland
and the US expressed their preference for suspending rather than closing
the APA session. Tuvalu, opposed by China
and the US, suggested not referring to the need to progress on all items
in a “balanced” manner, noting that some issues can be dealt with
quickly. Many parties supported the APA holding a “resumed” rather than a
“second” session in May 2017.
Parties agreed to a general call for submissions to advance the APA’s work beyond May 2017.
On the final draft conclusions text presented to the contact group, many parties called for, inter alia,
giving sufficient recognition to a draft decision proposed by the
G-77/China on the Adaptation Fund serving the Paris Agreement. Parties
agreed
to add language referring to this draft decision, and reflecting other
parties’ views that such a decision is premature.
FURTHER GUIDANCE IN RELATION TO THE MITIGATION SECTION OF DECISION 1/CP.21 (Paris Outcome):
This item (FCCC/APA/2016/INF.1) was first considered on Monday,
7 November. Parties agreed to informal consultations, co-facilitated by
Gertraud Wollansky (Austria) and Sin Liang Cheah (Singapore). The
informal consultations addressed the three agenda
sub-items jointly, on: features of NDCs, as specified in the Paris
outcome decision, paragraph 26; information to facilitate clarity,
transparency and understanding of NDCs, as specified in paragraph 28;
and accounting for parties’ NDCs, as specified in paragraph
31.
During informal consultations, parties focused on: possible linkages
between the three sub-items and with Paris Agreement Articles 6
(cooperative approaches) and 13 (transparency framework); guidance to be
developed; features of NDCs; accounting for parties’
NDCs, including building on existing arrangements under the Convention
and the Kyoto Protocol; information to facilitate clarity; and further
work.
On guidance to be developed, parties suggested, inter alia:
identifying under each sub-item sub-topics to be discussed; focusing on
general information common for all parties and information specific to
NDC type; and considering how to aggregate
the collective impact of NDCs. Many pointed to the Paris Agreement and
Decision 1/CP.21 as sources for guidance.
China, for the LMDCs, and Saudi Arabia, for the Arab Group, opposed
by New Zealand, highlighted the need to define the scope of NDCs and
reflect differentiation in the operational guidance as crosscutting
issues. The US underscored that guidance must recognize
that parties have a common path but different starting points and paces.
On features of NDCs, parties proposed, among other things:
elaboration of the features for each type of NDCs; clear, general,
durable and simple guidance; and flexibility for LDCs.
Bolivia for the G-77/China, Colombia for AILAC, the Arab Group, and
Australia stressed NDCs’ nationally determined nature. Kuwait
highlighted the need to consider the diversity of NDC types, which
Argentina noted as important for identifying the specific
information to be provided.
Brazil said the features should apply to future rounds of NDCs, which
would help parties and the Secretariat to organize and aggregate
information for the global stocktake.
On accounting for parties’ NDCs, many developing countries stressed
their need for flexibility. India called for “factoring in”
differentiation, and the Arab Group said methodologies and approaches in
developing countries should be nationally determined.
Kenya, for the African Group, and the EU called for guidance to promote
progression. Argentina suggested having “different layers of
accountability” for different NDC types.
The Arab Group and Iran, opposed by the US and Switzerland, stressed
the need to focus on the full scope of NDCs as defined in Paris
Agreement Article 3 (NDCs, including progression and support). The
LMDCs, opposed by the EU, proposed developing accounting
guidance for technology and capacity-building support. Many agreed that
Decision 1/CP.21 paragraph 31 (NDCs accounting guidance) provides the
basis for developing guidance.
On information to facilitate clarity, parties diverged on whether
information indicated in Decision 1/CP.21 paragraph 27 (information to
be provided by countries communicating their NDCs) is mandatory, and
whether to consider features and information simultaneously.
Brazil said some information specific to objectives should be
quantifiable, with others stressing flexibility for qualitative NDCs.
Saint Lucia, for the Caribbean Community, proposed identifying
information integral to determining NDCs’ aggregate effect.
A number of parties supported distinguishing between general
guidance, common for all parties, and specific guidance, arising from
different NDC types. The LMDCs advocated requiring a higher level of
detail from developed countries.
On further work, Maldives, for AOSIS, and others called for setting a
workplan through 2018. Many parties suggested inviting submissions,
possibly with guiding questions, and some proposed mandating technical
workshops or papers. Brazil proposed party-only
workshops and the US a “non-intrusive” facilitated sharing of views. The
Arab Group noted technical work would be premature.
New Zealand proposed submissions could address: the purpose of the
guidance; linkages between relevant Decision 1/CP.21 paragraphs; how to
build on submitted INDCs and NDCs, and guidance from Lima and Paris; and
ways to structure and progress work. Countries
agreed to have a roundtable, as proposed by AILAC and the LMDCs, instead
of workshops.
FURTHER GUIDANCE IN RELATION TO THE ADAPTATION COMMUNICATION, INCLUDING,
INTER ALIA, AS A COMPONENT OF NDCs: This item
(FCCC/APA/2016/INF.2) was first considered on Wednesday, 9 November.
Parties agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by Richard
Muyungi (Tanzania) and Beth Lavender (Canada) on the purpose,
elements, linkages, vehicles, flexibility of adaptation communications,
and further work.
On the purpose, many parties underlined the need to raise the profile
of adaptation and understand collective progress towards the global
adaptation goal. Argentina, for the G-77/China, stressed the need to
operationalize the global goal on adaptation. Colombia,
for AILAC, and Jamaica, for AOSIS, called for a streamlined purpose,
which AILAC said is to catalyze and enhance adaptation action. Sudan,
for the African Group, suggested separating the ideas of catalyzing and
enhancing adaptation action from issues related
to support.
On elements, several parties observed that the Paris Agreement refers
to priorities, implementation and support needs, and plans and actions.
Saudi Arabia, for the Arab Group, called for further reflection of the
financial and other costs of adaptation efforts
and actions, noting that some developing countries undertake adaptation
actions without MOI and this information could be useful. AOSIS called
for explicit reference to support provided.
On linkages, many highlighted the global stocktake’s relevance. The
G-77/China called for adaptation communications to inform the global
stocktake while New Zealand reminded that adaptation communications are
voluntary, and, therefore, could at best “contribute”
to a meaningful global stocktake. Norway and others observed links with
NAPs, which the Arab Group, said could be a starting point. The EU and
US noted linkages with the transparency framework.
On vehicles, the G-77/China, Norway, the EU and others said that
parties should be able to choose the most appropriate vehicle for their
communications. Mexico suggested regional adaptation communications and
reports could be a possibility. Ecuador, for
the LMDCs, supported using existing vehicles. AOSIS, supported by many
others, underscored the need to avoid reporting burdens.
On flexibility, Switzerland suggested that the APA should provide
minimal guidance. Japan said there may be utility in having some basic
information that helps each country. The US suggested an executive
summary format while the LMDCs opposed high-level
communications saying that such communications could undermine the goal
of increasing the profile of adaptation.
On further work, the LMDCs and Arab Group proposed the development of
a synthesis report on adaptation communications as a component of NDCs,
based on submissions by parties. New Zealand opposed, suggesting the
Secretariat synthesize parties’ submissions
on this item around common themes. The EU and Canada supported
requesting the Secretariat to develop a technical paper, containing a
compilation of existing guidance on adaptation communications.
Parties agreed to request the Secretariat to develop an information
note, to be followed by: new submissions; a synthesis report of
submissions; and a workshop.
MPGS FOR THE TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND SUPPORT:
This item (FCCC/APA/2016/INF.3) was first considered on Monday, 7
November. Parties agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by
Andrew Rakestraw (US) and Xiang Gao (China).
During informal consultations, parties considered framing questions
on: identifying the key elements of the MPGs for the transparency
framework; informing the MPGs from existing MRV arrangements and
reflecting flexibility for developing countries that need
it; and organizing work in 2017-2018.
On elements, Singapore, for the G-77/China, stressed that they should
be outlined along the lines of the “shalls” and “shoulds” of Paris
Agreement Article 13 (enhanced transparency framework). Many parties
advocated addressing all relevant elements of Paris
Agreement Article 13 and the decision. The EU noted general agreement in
parties’ pre-sessional submissions on three sets of guidelines to be
defined, for: reporting; technical expert review; and multilateral
consideration. The US suggested elements for reporting,
including a section on achievement of a party’s NDC in target years.
Bhutan, for the LDCs, called for reviews to take place at least once in
every five-year cycle.
On flexibility, New Zealand and Canada supported raising the issue of
flexibility in the context of each element of the guidelines.
Highlighting the bifurcated structure of the current MRV framework under
the Convention as a starting point, China, with Saudi
Arabia, for the Arab Group, and the Philippines, stressed that
differentiation should be embedded systematically in the structure of
the framework, not as a varying aspect of each element.
On a workplan for 2017-2018, some stressed that this would be the
most important outcome for COP 22 on this issue. While many agreed on
the need for a clearly outlined workplan, opinions varied on the need
for and type of further submissions, technical workshops
and/or technical papers.
Regarding the topics for submissions and workshops, several parties,
including China and Brazil, supported inviting parties to submit their
views on all elements of the MPGs. Others, including the EU and Peru,
for AILAC, supported focusing on reporting.
The Arab Group and Brazil suggested the topics of workshops would emerge
from the submissions. The LDCs, New Zealand, Norway, the US and Canada
suggested the Secretariat could prepare a synthesis report or other
paper as input to the workshop, while the Arab
Group considered this premature.
MATTERS RELATING TO THE GLOBAL STOCKTAKE: This item
(FCCC/APA/2016/INF.4) was first considered on Tuesday, 8 November.
Parties agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by Nagmeldin G.
Elhassan (Sudan) and Ilze Prūse (Latvia).
During informal consultations, parties shared their views on:
modalities; generic/overarching and specific sources of input; the
outcome of the global stocktake; and the way forward.
Onmodalities, many saw the process comprising a
technical and a political phase. Japan, supported by New Zealand,
suggested having clear outputs from each phase, such as a report from
the technical dialogue. Colombia, for AILAC, suggested
an ad hoc working group that would process the technical aspects to produce an output for the political phase.
Brazil suggested, inter alia, having one framing dialogue
for each element of the global stocktake’s scope during the
technical/analytical phase. Saudi Arabia, for the Arab Group, emphasized
that it is premature to determine that there will be two
phases. Iran, for the LMDCs, called for strengthening linkages between
action and support, and identifying potential barriers to
implementation.
Onsources of input, many agreed that the scientific
inputs should be mainly derived from the IPCC and called for
distinguishing between sources, such as the IPCC, and information. The
EU called for consideration of how to manage inputs.
Several parties suggested a non-exhaustive list of inputs, with many
stressing the importance of information on mobilization of support.
Several countries cautioned against attempting to agree to a specific
list, especially for the sake of durability.
Considering thescope of the global stocktake and its
inputs, many developing countries emphasized equity, with Bolivia
stressing a fair and equitable sharing of the global carbon budget,
taking into account a country’s historical responsibility,
ecological footprint and development and technological capacity. Solomon
Islands, for the LDCs, underscored the importance of the global
stocktake to determine “whether the Paris Agreement is sufficient for
dealing with runaway climate change.”
South Africa advocated a scope that is both forward and backward
looking. Some parties suggested there may be elements outside of
“adaptation, mitigation and MOI and support” that should be considered.
On outcomes, the LMDCs suggested fostering international cooperation
and AOSIS advocated integrating climate financing. AILAC and the EU
emphasized driving action and greater ambition.
Saudi Arabia, for the Arab Group, emphasized general
principles, referencing the purpose of the global stocktake and the
Convention. New Zealand cautioned against confounding “outcome” and
“output.”
On the way forward, Brazil suggested the need for an APA agenda item
on common timeframes. Additional proposals made included requesting a
Secretariat’s synthesis report and technical paper, and holding an
in-session technical workshop. Many said further
submissions guided by more targeted questions would be useful.
MODALITIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF THE COMMITTEE TO FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION AND PROMOTE COMPLIANCE:
This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties
agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by Janine Felson
(Belize) and Peter Horne (Australia).
In informal consultations, parties discussed: the scope and
functioning of the mechanism; national capabilities and circumstances;
triggers for action by the committee; the committee’s relationship with
existing arrangements and bodies; the participation
of concerned parties; and the way forward.
On the scope and functioning, many countries, underscored the need
for comprehensiveness and called for a general approach that facilitates
implementation rather than imposing penalties. Antigua and Barbuda, for
AOSIS, stated that, for legally-binding provisions,
the committee should focus on compliance and otherwise on facilitating
actions.
The EU stressed that the committee should be a single body with a
facilitative function that helps achieve compliance. Mali, for the
African Group, stressed that individual country assessments need to go
in parallel with the collective assessment of progress.
The US stressed the need to have effective accountability.
On national capacity, New Zealand suggested that all parties should
be equally accountable for implementing their NDCs. Iran for the LMDCs,
Chile for AILAC, and Mali for the African Group stressed the link
between countries’ capacities and their ability
to implement their commitments.
On triggers, most countries, including Iran, New Zealand, Brazil,
Pakistan and the US, highlighted the committee has to be self-triggered,
while other options were also proposed.
On the relationship with existing arrangements and bodies, parties
highlighted links to the Convention’s MOI mechanisms, and the Paris
Agreement’s transparency, capacity-building and global stocktake
mechanisms. The EU underscored that the operation of this
mechanism must be transparent and respect legal arrangements of other
processes.
On the participation of the concerned parties, all stressed that the involved countries should be fully included in the process.
On the way forward, countries agreed to submissions responding to the
Co-Facilitators’ questions, with many proposing specific deadlines.
Several parties supported specifying modalities and procedures required
for the effective operation of the committee,
elaborating elements that could be addressed through such modalities and
procedures, and addressing further work in the submissions. Some
suggested technical papers or synthesis reports be prepared by the
Secretariat or by the Co-Facilitators based on parties’
submissions. The US proposed, with many others, a workshop, opposed by
the LMDCs as premature. The Gambia, for the LDCs, urged the development
of a workplan at this session.
FURTHER MATTERS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT:
This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties agreed to
informal consultations, co-facilitated by APA Co-Chairs Baashan and
Tyndall.
The informal consultations jointly addressed the three agenda
sub-items on: preparing for the entry into force of the Paris Agreement;
preparing for the convening of CMA 1; taking stock of progress made by
the subsidiary and constituted bodies in relation
to their mandated work under the Paris Agreement and Section III of
Decision 1/CP.21, in order to promote and facilitate coordination and
coherence in the implementation of the work programme, and, if
appropriate, take action, which may include recommendations.
Regarding the request from the COP to conduct the preparatory work so
that the Adaptation Fund may serve the Paris Agreement, parties agreed
to consider this at APA 1-2 under the agenda item on preparing for the
convening of CMA 1.
On issues concerning the implementation of the Paris Agreement that
had not yet been raised, Brazil identified: common timeframes for NDCs;
recognition of developing countries’ adaptation efforts; initial
guidance to the operating entities of the Financial
Mechanism; and training, public awareness and participation. Parties
identified additional “orphan issues,” eventually creating a list of
nine possible matters not being addressed under Decision 1/CP.21’s work
programme.
The EU cautioned against duplication and said some of these items
could be addressed in the SBs or already have a “home” under the CMA.
Based on parties’ request, the Co-Chairs prepared an initial table of
these “orphan issues.” Parties considered whether to provide
recommendations to the COP on how or where such issues could be taken
up. Several developing countries and groups sought a
comprehensive arrangement for all the items in the Co-Chairs’ table,
opposed by others.
On preparing for the convening of CMA 1, parties were supportive of
taking a streamlined approach to: parties’ credentials; observer
organization admission; and election of Bureau officers.
On taking stock of progress, South Africa, supported by China and
Tuvalu, and opposed by the US, proposed consideration of modalities for
biennial communications of indicative support. Switzerland suggested
these modalities would fall under discussions on
biennial reports (BRs).
On the Adaptation Fund, parties considered: the key questions to be
addressed in order to complete the APA’s work; steps to be undertaken to
fulfill the mandate of the APA on this matter; and linkages to consider
in undertaking the APA’s work on this mandate.
A number of developing countries urged requesting the Adaptation Fund
to serve the Paris Agreement. Various developed countries, including
Australia, the EU, the US and Switzerland, for the Environmental
Integrity Group, suggested this question warrants
further discussion and requires consideration of, inter alia,
lessons learned. Developing countries stressed the Adaptation Fund is
already contributing to the operationalization of the Paris Agreement,
and supported a procedural decision on this
issue.
The US clarified concerns on: ensuring the governing structure
includes countries not party to the Kyoto Protocol; fitting the Fund
into the post-Paris financial architecture; evaluating the Fund’s
effectiveness; agreeing on all sources of funding; and reviewing
the safeguards policy.
The EU added that: the Fund is under CMP authority and no other
financial institution is under the CMA’s authority; the third review of
the Fund is not “business as usual”; and arrangements for the Fund’s
work must be examined. He called for agreeing on
a clear workplan with issues to be resolved, a timeline and an end date.
Tuvalu, for the LDCs, and Argentina stressed possible resolutions for
legal issues raised. The G-77/China suggested the CMA can make the
necessary arrangements quickly, by 2018 at the latest.
CLOSING SESSION: On Monday, 14 November, APA
Co-Chair Baashan presented, and parties adopted, conclusions
(FCCC/APA/2016/L.4 and Add.1). Parties recommended two draft decisions,
one to the COP and the other to the CMP. She explained that
the APA Co-Chairs intend to release their informal reflections note with
an overview of the outcomes of this resumed session, based on the views
that parties put forward at, and expressed through their submissions
for, this session. A summary of closing statements
is available at:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
The Secretariat reported on the preliminary administrative and
budgetary implications of decisions, informing that actions: under item 3
(further guidance in relation to the mitigation section of Decision
1/CP.21) will require €65,000; under item 4 (further
guidance in relation to the adaptation communication) will require
€65,000; under item 5 (MPGs for the transparency framework for action
and support) will require €427,000; and other mandated activities will
require an additional €557,000.
APA Rapporteur Anna Serzysko (Poland) presented, and parties adopted,
the report of APA 1-2 (FCCC/APA/2016/L.5). APA Co-Chair Tyndall
proposed, and parties agreed, to suspend the APA at 11:23 pm, and
reconvene in Bonn in May 2017.
Final Outcome:In their conclusions (FCCC/APA/2016/L.4), the APA Co-Chairs report that the APA,
inter alia:
On agenda item 3 (further guidance in relation to the mitigation
section of Decision 1/CP.21) and its sub-items, the APA Co-Chairs report
that the APA,
inter alia:
On agenda item 4 (further guidance in relation to the adaptation communication, including,
inter alia, as a component of NDCs, referred to in Paris Agreement Article 7.10 and 7.11), the APA:
On agenda item 5 (MPGs for the transparency framework for action and
support referred to in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement), the APA:
On agenda item 6 (matters relating to the global stocktake referred
to in Paris Agreement Article 14) and its sub-items, the APA:
On agenda item 7 (modalities and procedures for the effective
operation of the committee to facilitate implementation and promote
compliance referred to in Paris Agreement Article 15.2), the APA invites
parties to submit, by 30 March 2017, their views and
proposals, in which they are invited to:
In addition, the APA:
In its decision (FCCC/APA/2016/L.4/Add.1), the COP recommends that
the CMA adopt the draft decision contained in the annex on the rules of
procedure of the CMA.
In its decision (FCCC/APA/2016/L.4/Add.1), the CMA decides that when
applying the draft rules of procedure of the COP, pursuant to Paris
Agreement Article 16.5, it should be understood that:
Subsidiary Body for Implementation (sbi 45)
On Monday, 7 November, SBI Chair Tomasz Chruszczow (Poland) opened
SBI 45. A summary of opening statements made during the SBI plenary is
available at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: On Monday, 7 November,
parties adopted the agenda and organization of work (FCCC/SBI/2016/9),
with the sub-item on information contained in national communications
(NCs) from non-Annex I parties held in abeyance.
The SBI then opened individual agenda items, referring them to
contact groups, informal consultations, or consultations conducted by
the SBI Chair. The SBI adopted conclusions and recommended draft
decisions for consideration by the COP and CMP during their
closing plenaries.
Multilateral Assessment Working Group Session under the International Assessment and Review (IAR) Process:
On Saturday, 12 November, and Monday, 14 November, the second
round of multilateral assessment under the IAR process convened.
Webcasts of the events are available at:
http://unfccc.cloud.
Facilitative Sharing of Views under the International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) Process:
On Thursday, 10 November, the facilitative sharing of views
under the ICA process took place. Webcasts of the events are available
at:
http://unfccc.cloud.
Election of Officers Other than the Chair: On Monday, 14 November, the SBI elected Zhihua Chen (China) as SBI Vice-Chair and Tuğba İçmeli (Turkey) as SBI Rapporteur.
REPORTING FROM AND REVIEW OF ANNEX I PARTIES TO THE
CONVENTION: Status of Submission and Review of Second BRs from Annex I
Parties to the Convention:
On Monday, 7 November, the SBI took note of the status of
submission and review of second BRs from Annex I parties
(FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.9).
Compilation and Synthesis of Second BRs from Annex I Parties to the Convention:
This item (FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.10, Add.1 and Add.1/Corr.1) was first
considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties agreed to informal
consultations co-facilitated
by Anne Rasmussen (Samoa) and Helen Plume (New Zealand).
In informal consultations on the draft COP decision text,
Co-Facilitator Plume elaborated on the differences between options:
welcoming the compilation and synthesis of BR2s from Annex I parties;
containing specific information that draws from the compilation
and synthesis; and containing general information on the compilation and
synthesis.
Parties expressed support for the first and second options, but could
not agree. Explaining she had consulted with the SBI Chair on the way
forward, Co-Facilitator Plume noted there was no consensus on the matter
and that this sub-item would be forwarded
to SBI 46.
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted procedural conclusions. SBI
Chair Chruszczow said he would report to the COP that the SBI could not
reach substantive conclusions on this item.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.26), the SBI agrees to continue consideration of this item at SBI 46.
Revision of the “Guidelines for the Preparation of NCs by
Annex I Parties to the Convention, Part II: UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines
on NCs”:
This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November, and
subsequently in consultations led by the SBI Chair Chruszczow with
interested parties.
On Monday, 14 November, SBI Chair Chruszczow noted that the revised
guidelines are “nearly ready,” but “the outstanding issue” on paragraph
71 (on communication of the information in the guidelines), on
encouraging submitting an English translation, remained
unresolved.
Many parties expressed regret that the revised guidelines had not
been agreed. Several parties, including New Zealand, the US, Norway and
Switzerland, expressed their intention to voluntarily apply the revised
guidelines or consider including some of the
guidelines’ elements, in their NC7s.
The Russian Federation said applying the draft guiding principles
would not ensure transparency, consistency and comparability of NCs and
advocated applying only adopted principles. On Monday, 14 November, the
SBI adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions
(FCCC/SBI/2016/L.42), the SBI agrees to continue consideration of the
outstanding issue on the draft guidelines contained in document
FCCC/SBI/2016/8, Annex I, paragraph 71.
Report on National GHG Inventory Data from Annex I Parties to the Convention for the Period 1990-2014:
On Monday, 7 November, the SBI took note of the report (FCCC/SBI/2016/19).
Compilation and Accounting Reports for Annex B Parties under the Kyoto Protocol:
On Monday, 7 November, the SBI agreed to recommend that the CMP take
note of the annual compilation (FCCC/KP/CMP/2016/6 and Add.1).
REPORTING FROM NON-ANNEX I PARTIES: Work of the Consultative Group of Experts (CGE):
This item (FCCC/SBI/2016/15, 16 and 17) was first considered on
Monday, 7 November. Parties agreed to informal consultations
co-facilitated by Anne Rasmussen (Samoa) and Helen Plume (New Zealand).
In informal consultations, parties considered, inter alia, a draft COP decision on the review of the CGE, agreeing to “consider” rather than “initiate” a review at SBI 48.
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions and forwarded a
draft decision and draft conclusions for consideration by the COP. On
Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the decision and conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions
(FCCC/SBI/2016/L.28), the SBI takes note of the progress made by the CGE
in implementing its 2016 workplan, with regard to,
inter alia, training programmes, workshops and materials,
including e-learning courses, webinars and an online platform. The SBI
also takes note of the estimated budgetary implications of supporting
the implementation of the work of the CGE in 2017-2018
and invites multilateral programmes and organizations to collaborate
with the CGE, as appropriate, in the provision of support to non-Annex I
parties for preparing their NCs and Biennial Update Reports (BURs).
In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.28/Add.1), the COP:
In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.28/Add.2), the COP invites a
representative of non-Annex I parties not represented by the
constituencies referred to in Decision 3/CP.8, annex, paragraph 3, on
the membership of the CGE, to continue to participate in the
group’s work in an observer capacity.
Provision of Financial and Technical Support: This
item (FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.17 and INF.18, FCCC/CP/2016/6, Add.1 and Add.2)
was first considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties agreed to informal
consultations co-facilitated by Anne Rasmussen
(Samoa) and Helen Plume (New Zealand).
During informal consultations, parties discussed the
operationalization of the Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency
(CBIT), including that CBIT “efforts” will be included in the next GEF
replenishment, and recognized the challenges non-Annex I parties
face in submitting BURs.
On Friday, 11 December, the SBI adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.33), the SBI,
inter alia:
Summary Reports on the Technical Analysis of Non-Annex I Parties’ BURs:
On Monday, 7 November, the SBI took note of the summary reports
(FCCC/SBI/ICA/2015/TASR.1/AND, and FCCC/SBI/ICA/2016/TASR.1/ARG, COL,
CRI, LBN, MEX and PRY) finalized in the period 1 March-30 September
2016.
DEVELOPMENT OF MODALITIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATION
AND USE OF A PUBLIC REGISTRY REFERRED TO IN PARIS AGREEMENT ARTICLE
4.12:
This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties
agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by Madeleine Diouf Sarr
(Senegal) and Gertraud Wollansky (Austria).
During the informal consultations, parties differed primarily on the
workplan for this item going forward, with two groups of developing
countries calling for further exchange of views, while awaiting
finalization of the APA’s related work on NDCs. In addition,
one party urged for procedural conclusions only.
Some developing and developed countries advocated calling for party
submissions, while several developing countries opposed, saying this
would be premature, as the scope of work and procedural next steps
should be defined first.
On the Secretariat’s efforts to improve the interim registry, parties
debated a suggestion for the Secretariat to maintain and improve the
registry “on the basis of suggestions received from its users,”
ultimately preferring to state “as appropriate” instead.
On parties’ work at SBI 45, one group of developing countries opposed
referencing a public registry “for NDCs,” but in the case that
reference to “NDCs” was not deleted, preferred “NDCs referred to in
Article 3 of the Paris Agreement,” rather than “in Article
4” (mitigation).
On reflecting the linkages with other SBI and APA work, some
developed countries opposed referencing ensuring coherence and avoiding
duplication, and parties ultimately agreed to use language from the SBI
44 conclusions.
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.35), the SBI,
inter alia, takes note of the views exchanged by parties at the
session on the modalities and procedures for the operation and use of
the public registry as referred to in Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 29,
including on the linkages of its work under
this agenda item to the work under SBI 45 agenda item 6 (development of
modalities and procedures for the operation and use of a public registry
referred to in Paris Agreement Article 7.12), and to the work of the
APA.
The SBI also agrees to continue its consideration of this matter at SBI 46.
DEVELOPMENT OF MODALITIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATION
AND USE OF A PUBLIC REGISTRY REFERRED TO IN PARIS AGREEMENT ARTICLE
7.12:
This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties
agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by Madeleine Diouf Sarr
(Senegal) and Gertraud Wollansky (Austria).
During informal consultations, parties focused primarily on the
nature of this agenda item and the workplan going forward. Two
developing country groups supported procedural conclusions and, opposed
by several developed country parties, underlined their
preference that this agenda item be merged with SBI agenda item 5
(development of modalities and procedures for the operation and use of a
public registry referred to in Paris Agreement Article 4.12).
Many parties noted the interlinkages among adaptation, mitigation and
APA discussions, with some advocating postponing substantive
discussions on what the registry will look like until the APA’s work has
produced further guidance for adaptation communications.
One developed country party noted parties have flexibility to submit,
for instance, an NDC entirely about adaptation with mitigation
co-benefits, as well as the option of not submitting an adaptation
communication. One party said the SBI conclusions could
request the Secretariat to assess the cost and resource implications of
developing two registries.
Some parties, opposed by others, characterized requesting submissions
as “premature.” Unable to agree on intersessional work or next steps,
parties agreed to continue consideration of this matter at SBI 46.
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions
(FCCC/SBI/2016/L.36). Saudi Arabia recalled that the Co-Facilitators
were asked to report to the SBI Chair that, due to linkages between this
SBI agenda item and item 5, some parties had requested that
the two items be merged. SBI Chair Chruszczow noted the concern and said
it would be taken into account in the preparation of the next session’s
provisional agenda.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.36), the SBI,
inter alia, takes note of: the views expressed by parties
during the session on this matter, including on the existing or
potential linkages to SBI 45 agenda item 5; the continued work of the
Secretariat on the interim registry; the web page maintained
by the Secretariat on undertakings in adaptation planning; and the work
of the APA.
The SBI also agrees to continue its consideration of this matter at SBI 46.
MATTERS RELATING TO THE MECHANISMS UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: Review of the Modalities and Procedures for the CDM:
On Monday, 7 November, the SBI forwarded this item
(FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.16) to informal consultations co-facilitated by
Hlobsile Sikhosana-Shongwe (Swaziland) and Karoliina Anttonen (Finland).
During informal consultations, throughout the week, parties
considered a draft text provided by the Secretariat.
On CDM programmes of activities, one group of parties suggested
methodologies may be developed for programmes of activities, and
“top-down methodologies” be developed for underrepresented sectors.
Another group suggested text reflecting that micro-scale
activities under programmes of activities can apply micro-scale
additionality and may demonstrate the applicability of micro-scale
thresholds at the unit level. Several parties opposed these proposals.
On a proposal to encourage designated national authorities (DNAs) to
communicate relevant information on the CDM to the public, some parties
favored deletion, while others suggested further work.
On programmes of activities and roles of DNAs to supplement the CDM
modalities and procedures, parties could not reach an agreement and
engaged in lengthy discussions on postponing this agenda item.
Final Outcome: On Monday, 14 November, SBI Chair Chruszczow noted conclusions had not been reached and negotiations would continue at SBI 46.
Procedures, Mechanisms and Institutional Arrangements for Appeals against Decisions of the CDM Executive Board (EB):
On Monday, 7 November, the item was forwarded for informal
consultations co-facilitated by Karoliina Anttonen (Finland). On Friday,
11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.30), the SBI agrees to continue its consideration of this matter at SBI 50 on the basis of,
inter alia, the draft text contained in document FCCC/SBI/2012/33/Add.1.
Report of the Administrator of the International Transaction Log (ITL) under the Kyoto Protocol: On Monday, 7 November, the SBI took note of the report (FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.20).
MATTERS RELATING TO THE LDCs: On Monday, 7 November,
Abias Huongo, Chair of the LDCs Expert Group (LEG), presented on the
LEG’s activities, including the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Expo
organized in July 2016. This item (FCCC/SBI/2016/18)
was then forwarded to informal consultations co-facilitated by Mamadou
Honadia (Burkina Faso) and Jens Fugl (Denmark).
In informal consultations, parties agreed to conclude that the SBI
“urges” rather than “invites” additional contributions to the LDCs Fund
(LDCF) and other funds under the Financial Mechanism, as appropriate,
and on a number of other insertions.
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.31), the SBI welcomes,
inter alia: the report of the 30th meeting of the LEG; the
progress made by the LEG in supporting the LDCs in the continued
implementation of its rolling work programme for 2016-2017; the
successful NAP Expo held in July 2016; and the decision of the
GCF Board on expediting support for developing countries for the
formulation of NAPs.
The SBI urges additional contributions to the LDCF and other funds
under the Financial Mechanism, as appropriate, recognizing the
importance of the full implementation of National Adaptation Programmes
of Action (NAPAs) and successfully undertaking the process
to formulate and implement NAPs.
NAPs: On Monday, 7 November, this item
(FCCC/SBI/2016/18, FCCC/SB/2016/2, FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.11) was forwarded
to informal consultations co-facilitated by Mamadou Honadia (Burkina
Faso) and Jens Fugl (Denmark).
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions and forwarded a
draft decision for consideration by the COP. On Thursday, 17 November,
the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions
(FCCC/SBI/2016/L.32), the SBI welcomes the information paper on progress
in the process to formulate and implement NAPs and takes note of other
relevant documents for this session.
In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.32/Add.1) the COP, inter alia:
REPORT OF THE ADAPTATION COMMITTEE: This item
(FCCC/SB/2016/2) was first considered on Monday, 7 November, and
forwarded to joint SBSTA/SBI informal consultations co-facilitated by
Julio Cordano (Chile) and Gottfried von Gemmingen (Germany).
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI and SBSTA adopted the conclusions and
forwarded a draft decision to the COP for its consideration. On
Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In joint SBI/SBSTA conclusions (FCCC/SB/2016/L.4) the SBI and SBSTA forwarded a draft decision for consideration by the COP.
In its decision (FCCC/SB/2016/L.4), the COP, inter alia:
REPORT OF THE WIM EXCOM: This item (FCCC/SB/2016/3)
was first considered on Monday, 7 November, and subsequently in joint
SBSTA/SBI informal consultations co-facilitated by Beth Lavender
(Canada) and Alf Wills (South Africa).
In informal consultations, parties discussed the report of the WIM
Executive Committee (ExCom) and the review of the WIM separately and
agreed to have separate decisions for the issues.
Many parties welcomed the report of the WIM ExCom, and noted the
considerable work achieved by the WIM ExCom during its workplan.
Parties’ views diverged on encouraging submissions on possible
activities under each strategic workstream of the indicative
framework for the five-year workplan.
One developed country party suggested removing the paragraph while
two developing country groups proposed including views on the workstream
to enhance the mobilization and securing of financial support from
developed to developing countries in the submissions.
Another group suggested a synthesis report of these submissions.
Some parties noted that there is a placeholder for financial support
in the five-year rolling workplan, to which one developing country group
responded that the other placeholders are for items such as emerging
issues, which are different in nature from
the provision of financial support.
On the review of the WIM, parties agreed that the review should
consider the structure, effectiveness and mandate of the WIM as mandated
by COP 19. One group suggested assessing gaps, needs and challenges in
delivering on the mandate, and making recommendations
on how to strengthen work over the next five years. Some proposed also
reviewing the structure and mandate in the context of the WIM serving
the Paris Agreement, with one group suggesting separating the
“backward-looking” elements of the review from the “forward-looking”
elements that will consider the Paris Agreement.
On Tuesday, 15 November, the SBI adopted conclusions, and forwarded
two draft decisions for consideration by the COP. On Thursday, 17
November, the COP adopted both decisions.
Final Outcomes: In its decision (FCCC/SB/2016/L.8) on the WIM, the COP,
inter alia:
In its decision (FCCC/SB/2016/L.9), on review of the WIM, the COP recommends that:
The COP further recommends that the following activities may advance the work of the ExCom:
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES: On Monday,
7 November, the sub-items under this matter were forwarded to joint
SBI/SBSTA informal consultations, co-facilitated by Washington Zhakata
(Zimbabwe) and Elfriede More (Austria).
Joint Annual Report of the TEC and CTCN: This
sub-item (FCCC/SB/2016/1) was first considered on Monday, 7 November.
TEC Chair Duduzile Nhlengethwa-Masina (Swaziland) noted that the TEC has
identified several potential topics for future technical
expert meetings (TEMs). CTCN Advisory Board Chair Spencer Thomas
(Grenada) reported that the CTCN is engaged in a series of pilot
projects with the GEF.
Informal consultations focused, inter alia, on the outcomes
of informal informals on the important role of South-South cooperation
and triangular cooperation for adaptation, and near-term and sustainable
funding.
One party presented new consensus text regarding ongoing
consultations between the CTCN and the GCF and GEF. Parties agreed to
delete the paragraph on the important role of South-South cooperation
and triangular cooperation for adaptation.
On near-term and sustainable funding, parties agreed to text that
captures “sustainable funding,” deleting the term “near-term” funding,
and indicating that further “financial support” should be provided.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI adopted conclusions and forwarded a
draft decision to the COP for consideration. On Thursday, 17 November,
the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In joint SBI/SBSTA
conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.5), the SBI and SBSTA recommend a draft COP
decision on enhancing climate technology development and transfer
through the Technology Mechanism.
In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.5), the COP, inter alia,
welcomes the 2016 joint annual report of the TEC and CTCN and its key
messages and recommendations, and encourages the TEC and the CTCN to
continue collaboration to enhance coherence and
synergy in the Technology Mechanism’s work.
On the activities and performance of the TEC in 2016, the COP, inter alia:
invites parties and all relevant stakeholders working on technology
development and transfer to consider the key messages of the TEC when
implementing climate technology
action; and notes that strengthening linkages between the technology
needs assessments (TNAs), NDCs and NAPs processes would enhance their
effectiveness and responsiveness towards implementation.
On activities and performance of the CTCN in 2016, the COP, inter alia:
welcomes the increased demand for technical assistance and other
services of the CTCN and the increased engagement between the GCF and
the CTCN; notes that the CTCN faces challenges
regarding sustainable funding, and that further financial support should
be provided to it; and underlines the importance of strengthened
collaboration between the national designated authorities for the GCF,
the focal points for the GEF and the national designated
entities for technology development and transfer.
Scope and Modalities for the Periodic Assessment of the
Technology Mechanism in Relation to Supporting the Implementation of the
Paris Agreement: This sub-item was first considered on Thursday, 10 November.
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.27), the SBI agreed to continue its consideration of this matter at SBI 46.
Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer: This sub-item (FCCC/CP/2016/6) was first considered on Tuesday, 8 November.
In informal consultations, parties considered the GEF report on
progress made in carrying out the programme. Several parties welcomed
the restructured GEF report. Parties supported,
inter alia: encouraging the GEF to further develop reporting on
challenges and lessons learned; encouraging, or requesting, additional
information on the GEF’s collaboration with the CTCN; and requesting the
GEF to consider piloting Technology Action
Plans.
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.29), the SBI welcomes,
inter alia: the report of the GEF on the progress made in
carrying out the programme and the report’s new structure; and approval
by the GEF Council of 31 projects with technology transfer objectives
for mitigation and 10 projects for adaptation during
the GEF reporting period.
The SBI also encourages: the GEF to continue elaborating on the
challenges and lessons learned, the GEF and the CTCN to continue
enhancing their collaboration; and parties to enhance collaboration
between their GEF focal points and their national designated
entities for technology development and transfer, as well as to consider
ways to use their System for Transparent Allocation of Resources
allocation for piloting the implementation of the TNA results.
TOR FOR THE REVIEW OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE (SCF):
On Monday, 7 November, this item (FCCC/CP/2016/MISC.1) was
forwarded for informal consultations co-facilitated by Ngedikes Olai
Uludong (Palau) and Delphine Eyraud (France). During informal
consultations parties commented on draft decision text with
the annexed ToR for the review.
Many welcomed elements of the ToR, including: a focus on functioning
and effectiveness of the SCF; how the SCF can best serve the Paris
Agreement; and a reference to the sixth review of the Financial
Mechanism in 2017. Some parties opposed including issues
of mandate and governance.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI adopted conclusions and forwarded a
draft decision for consideration by the COP. On Thursday, 17 November,
the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.40), the SBI recommended a draft decision for consideration and adoption by COP 22.
In the decision, the COP (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.40), inter alia:
CAPACITY BUILDING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: The three
sub-items under this item were first considered on Monday, 7 November,
and subsequently discussed in back-to-back informal consultations
co-facilitated by Crispin d’Auvergne (Saint Lucia)
and Paul Watkinson (France).
Third Comprehensive Review of the Implementation of the Framework for Capacity Building under the Convention:
In the informal consultations on this sub-item (FCCC/SBI/2016/14)
parties considered draft conclusions on the third comprehensive
review under the Convention. Parties were not able to fully agree on a
paragraph “requesting” or “encouraging” the PCCB to “incorporate,” “take
into consideration” or “include” initiatives and measures under the
Convention and the Paris Agreement, and to “identify
existing reporting mandates” or “take into consideration ways to enhance
reporting” on capacity building.
Parties also disagreed on references to the Paris Agreement and to
provision of coordinated and monitored support in a paragraph inviting
the PCCB, in managing its 2016-2020 workplan, to,
inter alia, promote linkages with other constituted bodies
under the Convention. They further disagreed on paragraphs
urging/encouraging developing country parties and other parties to
provide support.
During the closing plenary on Monday, 14 November, the SBI adopted
conclusions and recommended a draft decision for consideration by the
COP. On Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions
(FCCC/SBI/2016/L.38), the SBI, having conducted the third comprehensive
review, recommends a draft decision for consideration and adoption by
COP 22.
In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.38), the COP, inter alia:
Third Comprehensive Review of the Implementation of the Framework for Capacity Building under the Kyoto Protocol:
Discussions under this sub-item (FCCC/SBI/2016/14) are
summarized under the sub-item on the third comprehensive review of the
implementation of the framework for capacity building under the
Convention.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI adopted conclusions and recommended a
draft decision for consideration by the CMP. On Friday, 18 November,
the CMP adopted the decision.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions
(FCCC/SBI/2016/L.39), the SBI, having conducted the third comprehensive
review, recommends a draft decision for consideration and adoption by
CMP 12.
In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.39), the CMP, inter alia:
PCCB: Discussions under this sub-item are summarized
under the sub-item on the third comprehensive review of the
implementation of the framework for capacity building under the
Convention.
On Friday, 11 November, the SBI adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.34), the SBI agrees:
IMPACT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE MEASURES: On
Monday, 7 November, this item and its associated sub-items were
forwarded to a joint SBI/SBSTA contact group, co-chaired by SBI Chair
Chruszczow and SBSTA Chair Fuller. Informal consultations
were co-facilitated by Andrei Marcu (Panama) and Nataliya Kushko
(Ukraine).
The SBI and SBSTA also convened the second meeting of the improved
forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures in
conjunction with the contact group.
Improved Forum and Work Programme: In informal consultations on this sub-item (FCCC/SB/2016/INF.2 and FCCC/TP/2016/7), parties discussed,
inter alia: referring to analysis and assessment of the impact
of response measures; addressing the socio-economic impact of response
measures; assessing response measures under the umbrella of sustainable
development; working together to identify
common ground for technical work; establishing an ad hoc technical expert group; and requesting international organizations to nominate two experts to this
expert group.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI and SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In joint SBI/SBSTA conclusions (FCCC/SB/2016/L.6), the SBI and SBSTA,
inter alia:
Modalities, Work Programme and Functions under the Paris
Agreement of the Forum on the Impact of the Implementation of Response
Measures:
During the contact group meetings and informal consultations on this sub-item, parties,
inter alia, heard presentations on the modalities, work
programme and functions of the forum on the impact of the implementation
of response measures under the Paris Agreement. Some parties called
for: a workshop for sharing experiences and case studies;
assessment of the impacts of response measures taken by developed
countries; and improving the functions of the forum by promoting
cooperation and “substantively improving support for understanding
building resilience.”
Others inquired why the current forum is insufficient as a platform
for sharing information and best practices, and noted that capacity
building is being operationalized under the PCCB.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI and SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In joint SBI/SBSTA
conclusions (FCCC/SB/2016/L.7), the SBI and SBSTA request preparation of
a reflections note on parties’ views relating to the modalities, work
programme and functions of the forum under the Paris
Agreement, with a view to facilitating further discussions at SB 46.
Matters Relating to Protocol Article 3.14 (Minimizing Adverse Effects):
This sub-item was considered jointly with the SBI sub-item on improved forum and work programme.
On Monday, 14 November, Chair Chruszczow noted that no
conclusion had been reached and that consideration of this sub-item
would continue at SBI 46.
Progress on the Implementation of Decision 1/CP.10 (Buenos Aires Programme of Work on Adaptation and Response Measures):
This sub-item was considered jointly with the SBI sub-item on improved forum and work programme.
On Monday, 14 November, Chair Chruszczow noted no conclusion
had been reached and that consideration of this sub-item would continue
at SBI 46.
GENDER AND CLIMATE CHANGE: This item
(FCCC/SBI/2016/10, MISC.2 and MISC.2/Add.1) was first considered on
Monday, 7 November, and subsequently discussed in informal consultations
co-facilitated by Winfred Lichima (Kenya) and Martin Hession
(EU).
In informal consultations, parties discussed a draft text put forward
by Costa Rica, for AILAC, based on informal informal consultations,
which,
inter alia, extended the Lima work programme on gender. The US
expressed concern regarding the number of actions tasked to the
Secretariat, noting the budgetary implications.
On Monday, 14 December, the SBI adopted conclusions and forwarded a
draft decision for consideration by the COP. On Thursday, 17 November,
the COP adopted its decision.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.37), the SBI agrees to forward a draft decision to the COP for consideration.
In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.37), the COP, inter alia,
decides to continue and enhance the Lima work programme on gender for a
period of three years and to undertake, at COP 25, a review of the work
programme, and sets out the following for
the work programme:
ADMINISTRATIVE, FINANCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS: These
items were first considered on Monday, 7 November. UNFCCC Executive
Secretary Espinosa highlighted concerns about the sustainability of the
Secretariat’s workload given a decline
in voluntary contributions and encouraged parties to pay their
contributions for 2017 as soon as possible. The agenda sub-items on
budget performance for the biennium 2016-2017, audit reports and
financial statements for 2015, and other financial matters were
forwarded for back-to-back discussions in a contact group chaired by
Kunihiko Shimada (Japan).
Budget Performance for the Biennium 2016-2017: This item
(FCCC/SBI/2016/13, INF.15 and INF.19) was first considered on
Monday, 7 November. During the contact group and informal consultations,
parties considered draft COP decision text on budget performance for
the biennium 2016-2017, audit reports and financial
statements for 2015, and other financial matters.
On budget performance, parties discussed, inter alia
¸
New Zealand ’s proposal to highlight outstanding core budget contributions as a
“significant problem
,”
and require the Secretariat to follow up with parties and report
back to SBI 46 with a proposal on ways to increase the predictability of
cash flows
.
Parties debated, inter alia: calling on parties to make
their contributions for 2017 in a timely manner; requesting the
Secretariat to follow up with countries with outstanding contributions
on why payment has not been made; urging “further contributions,”
“parties to further contribute” or “Annex II parties to further
contribute” to the Trust Fund for Participation in the UNFCCC Process;
expressing appreciation for contributions to the Trust Fund for
Supplementary Activities; and requesting the Secretariat
explore ways to increase the flexible use and prioritization of funds in
this Trust Fund.
New Zealand, opposed by Saudi Arabia, urged parties to accept a
paragraph on the revised scale of contributions for 2016-2017, given
that the Secretariat would otherwise lack sufficient funding for the
2017 programme of work.
On other financial matters, parties made suggestions on how to
include text from the document on improving the efficiency and
transparency of the UNFCCC budget process (FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.14).
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI adopted conclusions on all three
sub-items under administrative, financial and institutional matters, and
recommended draft decisions for consideration by the COP and CMP.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions
(FCCC/SBI/2016/L.41), the SBI recommends a draft decision for on
financial and budgetary matters for consideration and adoption by COP 22
and a draft decision on financial and budgetary matters
for consideration and adoption by CMP 12.
On Thursday, 17 November, the COP and CMP adopted the decisions. In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.41/Add.1), the COP,
inter alia:
In its decision (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.41/Add.2), the CMP, inter alia:
Audit Report and Financial Statements for 2015: This
sub-item (FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.12 and Add.1) was first considered on
Monday, 7 November. For a summary of the informal consultations, see the
sub-item on budget performance for the biennium
2016-2017.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI adopted conclusions and recommended
draft decisions for consideration by the COP and CMP. The COP and CMP
adopted the decisions on Thursday, 17 November.
Final Outcome: The outcome for this sub-item is summarized under the SBI sub-item on budget performance for biennium 2016-2017.
Other Financial Matters: This item
(FCCC/SBI/2016/INF.13 and INF.14) was first considered on Monday, 7
November. For a summary of the informal consultations, see the sub-item
on budget performance for the biennium 2016-2017.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBI adopted conclusions and recommended draft decisions for consideration by the COP and CMP.
Final Outcome: The outcome for this sub-item is summarized under the SBI sub-item on budget performance for biennium 2016-2017.
REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONVENTION ARTICLE 6 (EDUCATION, TRAINING AND PUBLIC AWARENESS):
On Monday, 7 November, the SBI took note of the information in the
reports on the Fourth Dialogue on Action for Climate
Empowerment (FCCC/SBI/2016/11) and the workshop to support the
implementation of the Doha work programme on Article 6 of the Convention
(FCCC/SBI/2016/12).
OTHER MATTERS: On Monday, 7 November, Palestine
highlighted difficulties in accessing GEF resources and requested that a
message be transferred to the COP on not excluding any non-Annex I
parties from accessing resources.
CLOSING SESSIONS: On Monday, 14 November, the
Secretariat reported on the budgetary and administrative implications of
decisions adopted at the meeting thus far, noting the need for an
additional €320,000 for implementation of gender-related
activities in 2017. A summary of the SBI closing statements can be found
at:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
On Tuesday, 15 November, the SBI adopted the report of the session (FCCC/SBI/2016/L.25).
SBI Chair Chruszczow closed SBI 45 at 10:20 am.
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE (SBSTA 45)
On Monday, 7 November, SBSTA Chair Carlos Fuller (Belize) opened
SBSTA 45. Parties adopted the agenda (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/3) and
organization of work. A summary of the opening statements from the SBSTA
plenary are available at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
The SBSTA then opened individual agenda items, referring them to
contact groups, informal consultations or consultations conducted by the
SBSTA Chair. The SBSTA adopted conclusions and recommended draft
decisions for consideration by the COP and CMP during
closing plenaries on Monday and Tuesday, 14 and 15 November.
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: Election of Officers Other Than the Chair:
Aderito Santana (São Tomé and Príncipe) was elected SBSTA rapporteur on
Monday, 14 November. SBSTA Vice-Chair Tibor Schaffhauser (Hungary) will
remain in office until his successor is nominated by his regional group.
NAIROBI WORK PROGRAMME: This item
(FCCC/SBSTA/2016/INF.10) was first addressed in the SBSTA plenary on
Monday, 7 November, and subsequently discussed in informal consultations
co-facilitated by Shereen D’Souza (US) and Ainun Nishat (Bangladesh).
In informal consultations, parties discussed how to move forward work
on climate change and health, and whether and how to include economic
diversification.
On climate change and health, one group of parties requested that the
Secretariat prepare a synthesis paper summarizing the gaps, needs and
challenges as identified by parties and observers in their submissions,
with a view to preparing recommendations at
SBSTA 46 for consideration by COP 23. He also suggested that the
Secretariat should organize a side event to facilitate the preparation
of recommendations on climate change and health.
On economic diversification, two groups of parties requested
including a reference in the draft conclusions, characterizing the
issues as a “critical thematic area” of the NWP. Co-Facilitator Nishat
noted that SBSTA 44 requested parties to pay attention
to the issues of economic diversification and invited submissions on the
issue for consideration at SBSTA 47. One group observed that other
issues included in the SBSTA 44 conclusions were also included in the
SBSTA 45 draft conclusions and urged reference
to economic diversification.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome:In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.22), the SBSTA,
inter alia:
REPORT OF THE ADAPTATION COMMITTEE: This item
(FCCC/SB/2016/2) was first considered in the SBSTA plenary on Monday, 7
November, and forwarded to joint SBSTA/SBI informal consultations
co-facilitated by Julio Cordano (Chile) and Gottfried
von Gemmingen (Germany). Discussions on this item are summarized under
the SBI agenda item on the report of the Adaptation Committee (see page
25).
REPORT OF THE EXCOM OF THE WIM: This item
(FCCC/SB/2016/3) was first considered in the SBSTA opening plenary on
Monday, 7 November, and subsequently in joint SBSTA/SBI informal
consultations co-facilitated by Beth Lavender (Canada) and Alf
Wills (South Africa). Discussions on this item are summarized under the
SBI agenda item on the report of the WIM ExCom (see page 25).
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES: Joint Annual Report of the TEC and CTCN:
This item (FCCC/SB/2016/1) was first discussed in the SBSTA
opening plenary on Monday, 7 November and subsequently in joint
SBI/SBSTA informal consultations on the development and transfer of
technologies co-facilitated by Washington Zhakata (Zimbabwe)
and Elfriede More (Austria). Discussions on this item are summarized
under the SBI agenda item on the development and transfer of
technologies (see page 26).
Technology Framework under Paris Agreement Article 10.4: This
item (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/INF.9, INF.9/Corr.1 and MISC.4) was first
considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties agreed to conduct informal
consultations, co-facilitated by Elfriede
More (Austria) and Washington Zhakata (Zimbabwe).
During informal consultations, parties discussed: the purpose of the
technology framework; the initial key themes for the technology
framework; an invitation for submissions from parties, observers and
other stakeholders; and agreement to continue the elaboration
of the technology framework at SBSTA 46.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.21), the SBSTA,
inter alia:
ISSUES RELATING TO AGRICULTURE: This item
(FCCC/SBSTA/2016/INF.5 and INF.6) was first taken up by the SBSTA
plenary on Monday, 7 November, and subsequently in informal
consultations co-facilitated by Emmanuel Dlamini (Swaziland) and Heikki
Granholm (Finland).
During informal consultations, parties tried to find common ground
between two draft decisions proposed by two different groups of parties.
Some parties noted that the draft decisions differed in how they
balance mitigation and adaptation. One party identified
several commonalities, including: recommending a COP decision; promoting
implementation; calling for workshops and submissions; citing the need
for a knowledge hub; and highlighting food security.
Given continued differences in opinion, one group suggested that the
document parties worked on in informal informals should be transmitted
to SBSTA 46 as a non-paper, mandating only parties to give input.
Another party stated the document should have no
status. Parties eventually agreed to forward draft procedural
conclusions to the SBSTA, with several groups and parties intervening to
express their disappointment at the lack of a substantive COP decision
on this item.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.23), the SBSTA agrees to continue its consideration of this agenda item at SBSTA 46.
MATTERS RELATING TO SCIENCE AND REVIEW: Research and Systematic Observation:
This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties
agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by Ann Gordon (Belize)
and Sylvain Mondon (France).
During informal consultations, parties discussed, inter alia,
the possibility of holding future Earth Information Days and the timing
of such events, with all parties underscoring the need for party inputs
to the event’s agenda. They agreed to invite
parties to consider inviting the Secretariat to organize similar events
at SBSTA 49 based on parties’ submissions.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions, following
minor changes, and forwarded a draft decision for consideration and
adoption by the COP. On Thursday, 17 November, the COP adopted the
decision.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.26), the SBSTA,
inter alia:
In its decision (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.26/Add.1), the COP, inter alia:
Advice on How the Assessments of the IPCC Can Inform the Global Stocktake Referred to in Paris Agreement Article 14: This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by Frank McGovern
(Ireland) and Patience Damptey (Mali).
During informal consultations, parties focused particularly on how to
provide tailored guidance to the IPCC without overstepping their
mandate.
On providing guidance, three developing countries called for
elaborating more carefully on what is needed from the IPCC, noting its
reports and assessments contain more than is necessary for the global
stocktake. They suggested inputs from the IPCC on: the
aggregate effect of NDCs in light of the 1.5°C limit; impacts on natural
systems; avoided impacts; scientific approaches to evaluate the
effectiveness of adaptation; scientific approaches to assessing climate
finance; and progress towards the global adaptation
goal.
In response, several developed and developing countries cautioned
this may be too prescriptive for the agenda item’s mandate to focus on
“how” the IPCC assessments can inform the stocktake. One added that
specific inputs will be decided by the IPCC in its
scoping process.
Responding to several countries’ support for requesting the IPCC to
align its assessment cycles with those of the global stocktake, many
countries noted the independence of the IPCC, adding that the Panel is
already considering how to align its work with
the Paris Agreement’s provisions.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.24), the SBSTA,
inter alia:
The SBSTA also provides the following advice on how the assessments
of the IPCC can inform the global stocktake, recognizing that
identification of the sources of input for the global stocktake will be
undertaken by the APA:
Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures: Improved Forum and Work Programme:
During the SBSTA opening plenary on Monday, 7 November, parties
agreed to establish a joint SBI/SBSTA contact group on this item
(FCCC/SB/2016/INF.2 and FCCC/TP/2016/7), co-chaired by SBI Chair
Chruszczow and SBSTA Chair Fuller. Informal consultations
were co-facilitated by Andrei Marcu (Panama) and Nataliya Kushko
(Ukraine). Discussions on this item are summarized under the SBI agenda
item on the impact of the implementation of response measures (see page
28).
Modalities, Work Programme and Functions under the Paris
Agreement of the Forum on the Impact of the Implementation of Response
Measures: This sub-item was considered jointly with the improved forum and work programme, summarized under the
SBI agenda item on the impact of the implementation of response measures (see page 28).
Matters Relating to Protocol Article 2.3 (Adverse Effects of Policies and Measures):
This sub-item was considered jointly with the improved forum
and work programme, summarized under the SBI agenda item on the impact
of the implementation of response measures (see page 28).
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES UNDER THE CONVENTION: GHG Data Interface:
This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November. Parties agreed to
conduct informal consultations, co-facilitated by Takeshi Enoki (Japan)
and Thapelo Letete (South Africa). The SBSTA could not reach agreement
and SBSTA 46 will continue consideration of
this sub-item.
Bunker Fuels: This item (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/MISC.5) was
first considered on Monday, 7 November. SBSTA Chair Fuller proposed,
and parties agreed, that he would conduct informal consultations.
ICAO highlighted the agreement on the CORSIA. The International
Maritime Organization (IMO) reported a new requirement for ships to
record and report data on their fuel oil consumption.
India, on behalf of many developing countries and coalitions,
stressed that mechanisms developed under ICAO and IMO should align with
the principles of the Convention and COP decisions. Japan said IMO and
ICAO are suitable forums to address emissions from
international aviation and shipping. The US and Singapore welcomed the
adoption of CORSIA and the IMO’s amendment of the MARPOL Convention on
fuel consumption by ships, with Singapore stressing the need to develop
long-term measures on shipping emissions.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.25), the SBSTA,
inter alia, takes note of the information received from and
results reported by the ICAO and IMO Secretariats, and invites the ICAO
and IMO Secretariats to continue to report, at future SBSTA sessions, on
their ongoing work on relevant issues.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: Land use,
land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) under Protocol Articles 3.3 and
3.4, and under the CDM:
The SBSTA first considered this item (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/INF.7) on
Monday, 7 November, and agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated
by Maya Hunt (New Zealand) and José Antonio Prado (Chile).
In informal consultations, a party distributed a non-paper with substantive conclusions,
inter alia, acknowledging that although the modalities for
afforestation and reforestation could be, or are, technically applicable
to certain revegetation activities, implementation of revegetation
project activities in the remaining time of the Protocol’s
second commitment period would be difficult.
Characterizing this as a “significant concession,” the party
expressed flexibility on closing the agenda item if substantive
conclusions were adopted that recognize certain revegetation activities,
to avoid this becoming a “zombie item.” Many supported the
non-paper as a basis for negotiations, with some developed countries
saying it would constitute a package that would include closing this
item, which several developing countries opposed.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.20), the SBSTA agrees to continue consideration of this issue at SBSTA 46.
CCS in Geological Formations as CDM Projects and Activities:
This item was first considered on Monday, 7 November. SBSTA Chair
Fuller proposed, and parties agreed, that he would conduct informal
consultations with interested parties.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions and forwarded a
draft decision to the CMP for consideration and adoption. On Thursday,
17 November, the CMP adopted its decision.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions
(FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.19), the SBSTA recommends a draft decision
(FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.19/Add.1) for consideration by CMP 12.
In its decision, the CMP, inter alia:
MATTERS RELATING TO PARIS AGREEMENT ARTICLE 6: All
three sub-items under this item were first considered on Monday, 7
November. Parties agreed to informal consultations co-facilitated by
Hugh Sealy (Maldives) and Kelley Kizzier (EU).
In informal consultations, parties discussed ideas for the work
programme and draft conclusions for all three sub-items. Several
developed countries, supported by two groups of developing countries,
suggested requesting focused submissions on the elements
of the guidance that would need to be developed, requesting a synthesis
of the submissions from the Secretariat and the convening of a workshop
on that basis.
While there was strong support for focused submissions, many
developing countries expressed hesitation at having the Secretariat
synthesize views or produce a technical paper. One group worried this
would eliminate ideas too early. Several developing countries
also rejected the idea of a workshop, with one cautioning it could lead
to parallel discussions.
Guidance on Cooperative Approaches Referred to in Paris Agreement Article 6.2:
In informal consultations, parties reacted to guiding questions
proposed by the Co-Facilitators on: options for ensuring environmental
integrity and sustainable development; functioning of the corresponding
adjustment; reach of the guidance; and managing
relationships between Paris Agreement Articles 6.2 and 6.4, and between
Articles 6.2 and 4.13 (accounting for NDCs). Several parties considered
the corresponding adjustment too technical an issue for discussion at
SBSTA 45.
On guidance for what can be transferred, many suggested keeping the
scope open. Others called for centralized governance and appropriate
institutions under the CMA.
On relationships, one party suggested that the exchange of
internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) should happen
under Paris Agreement Article 6.2, while ITMOs could be generated by any
mechanism, including that established by Article 6.4.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.28), the SBSTA,
inter alia:
Rules, Modalities and Procedures for the Mechanism Established by Paris Agreement Article 6.4:
In informal consultations, parties considered clarifying
questions from the Co-Facilitators on: the impact of all parties having
NDCs on the operation of a centralized mechanism; additionality;
governance; how to deliver overall mitigation; the sequencing
of the development of project rules and defining scopes of other
activities; and how to use the experiences from existing mechanisms.
On additionality, one party suggested that this provision is about
enabling new projects that would not have taken place without Article
6.4, not activities that are already planned within a country’s NDC.
Another highlighted that additionality is inherently
linked to environmental integrity.
Parties expressed strong support for centralized governance, and for
enhancing and building on experience from the CDM and JI. One party
noted interlinkages with the article’s other provisions, especially in
the context of not double counting units.
On sequencing, one party advocated prioritizing project-based rules and then building from there.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.29), the SBSTA,
inter alia:
Work Programme under the Framework for Non-Market Approaches Referred to in Paris Agreement Article 6.8:
In informal consultations, parties responded to guiding questions
relating to whether governance, quantification, accounting and
international
cooperation, respectively, are relevant for non-market approaches.
Some highlighted the importance of governance in the context of
tracking non-market approaches’ contributions to NDCs. Many parties
underlined that, where possible, quantification will be useful, with
some suggesting existing reporting channels and GHG inventories
can serve this purpose.
One party noted that accounting is not a necessity or obligation, but
that procedures and guidelines for voluntary use would be useful. Some
parties pointed to the possible synergies and overlaps with Paris
Agreement Articles 6.2 and 6.4, with one group
cautioning that these overlaps call for accounting to avoid
double-counting.
Parties expressed views on the national nature of non-market
approaches, with many pointing to areas where international cooperation
can augment national action.
On institutional arrangements, one group suggested the work programme
include workshops, with other parties suggesting: creating a
clearinghouse; grouping non-market approaches by type; and undertaking a
mapping exercise of approaches.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.30), the SBSTA,
inter alia:
MODALITIES FOR THE ACCOUNTING OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES PROVIDED
AND MOBILIZED THROUGH PUBLIC INTERVENTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARIS
AGREEMENT ARTICLE 9.7: This issue (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/MISC.3) was first considered by the SBSTA on Monday, 7 November,
where it was forwarded to a contact group, co-facilitated by Rafael da Soler (Brazil) and Outi Honkatukia (Finland).
In the contact group, parties discussed, inter alia, whether
the mandate of the group is limited to modalities for resources from
developed to developing countries only. The Philippines, for the
G-77/China, highlighted linkages with other issues,
including transparency and the global stocktake, and called for
examining definitions. Chile, for AILAC, called for defining public
financing.
On session outcomes, several countries supported a draft decision.
The EU and Switzerland, among others, stressed the need for clarity on
the way forward to COP 24. The US inquired about other possible vehicles
for capturing progress.
A summary of the in-session workshop on this issue is available at http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
During informal consultations, parties commented on the draft
conclusions and decision proposed by the Co-Chairs. Belize, for AOSIS,
supported by Costa Rica, Malawi and the Philippines, proposed
amendments, including,
inter alia, encouraging UN specialized funds and agencies to
support the development of modalities with wide participation by, and
through technical meetings among, experts; and ensuring that the
modalities are developed in time to be integrated into
the transparency framework.
On Monday, 14 November, the SBSTA adopted conclusions.
Final Outcome: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.27), the SBSTA,
inter alia:
REPORTS ON OTHER ACTIVITIES: On Monday, 7 November,
the SBSTA took note of the: Annual Report on the Technical Review of
Information Reported under the Convention by Annex I Parties in their
BRs and NCs (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/INF.8); Annual Report
on the Technical Review of GHG Inventories of Annex I Parties
(FCCC/SBSTA/2016/INF.11); and Annual Report on the Technical Review of
GHG Inventories and Other Information Reported by Annex I Parties as
Defined in Kyoto Protocol Article 1.7 (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/INF.12).
CLOSING SESSION: The SBSTA closing plenary took place on Monday and Tuesday, 14-15 November.
On Tuesday, 15 November, the Secretariat reported on the financial
and budgetary implications of the decisions taken, stating that an
additional €490,000 would be needed to organize the roundtable agreed by
parties on Paris Agreement Article 6 (cooperative
approaches). A summary of closing statements from SBSTA 45 is available
at:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/
The SBSTA adopted the draft report (FCCC/SBSTA/2016/L.18) of the session.
SBSTA Chair Fuller closed SBSTA 45 at 10:33 am.
In many ways, the world is politically and economically very
different than it was 15 years ago. The Paris Agreement has entered into
force, providing certainty to parties’ work on the rulebook and
eliminating the possibility that a small “gang” of countries
can demand concessions and weaken the treaty’s operational rules in
exchange for their ratifications. The US is no longer the world’s
largest emitter, meaning others can become climate leaders.
Economically, the price and capacity of renewable energy rival
fossil fuels in several developed and developing countries. Once China’s
national cap and trade system commences in March 2017, 60% of the
world’s gross domestic product will include a carbon price. During COP
22, 360 businesses, including global brands such
as Nike and Starbucks, urged US President-elect Donald Trump to power
the US economy with low-carbon energy. Today, governments, business
leaders and investors routinely make climate-friendly decisions for the
sake of their portfolios, if not the planet.
Occurring at the crest of this wave of momentum, COP 22 was perceived
to have two tasks, each with a different audience. To the outside
world, delegates had to demonstrate that the UNFCCC could contribute to
the momentum generated post-Paris by the actions
of non-state actors, as well as other international processes, including
the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol that phases out the
powerful greenhouse gas hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and the International
Civil Aviation Organization’s new offsetting
mechanism for carbon emissions from the international aviation sector.
Internally, delegates had considerable technical work at hand, to build a
foundation for the accelerated completion of the modalities, procedures
and guidelines that will make the Paris
Agreement implementable. This brief analysis considers the extent to
which COP 22 achieved these two tasks.
CARRYING THE MOMENTUM
After a historically rapid entry into force of the Paris Agreement,
many outside the process looked to COP 22 to maintain the momentum. Many
anticipated CMA 1 as a moment of celebration. Indeed, during the
pre-COP meeting, parties collectively worried that
connotations of terms such as “suspend” and “adjourn” would send the
signal that the UNFCCC is halting, rather than making progress.
It can be difficult to show significant progress when relatively
bland technical work is at hand. COP 22 rose to the challenge, by
creating a sense of urgency and accountability for the development of a
rulebook that will make the Paris Agreement implementable
from day one. The COP and CMA decisions both set 2018 as the deadline
for the rulebook. This was a year earlier than many envisaged when they
were in Paris, but a year later than coalitions such as the LDCs
believed necessary for some parts of the rulebook.
The LDCs advocated for adoption of decisions as they are ready, in order
to avoid separate parts of the rulebook from being tied together in a
package deal.
Parties also agreed to add to their workload by considering other
items, such as the Adaptation Fund’s role, as necessary components of
the post-Paris climate regime, if not its rulebook. While delegates
reached agreement on a fairly ambitious work programme
and timeline for technical work, most of the high-level signals of
commitment and energy came from outside the technical negotiations.
The Moroccan Presidency seemed determined to ensure that COP 22 would
not be overly mundane, especially following the charismatic Parisian
COP. Technical work concluded early in the second week, to the
consternation of some who felt that the
Ad Hoc Working Group for the Paris Agreement (APA) should enjoy the full two weeks of negotiating time that other
ad hoc working groups traditionally received. Concluding this
work, however, cleared the schedule for the many high-level events
planned by the Moroccan hosts.
The Presidency invited and hosted approximately 50 heads of state and
government during the high-level segment, and convened several other
high-level events, including on accelerating action and on climate
finance. The conference also strengthened the Global
Climate Action Agenda, which dates back to 2014 and is designed to
catalyze and showcase pre-2020 action by state and non-state actors. It
did so by launching the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action,
which aims at concretizing the Agenda and providing
a roadmap for action from 2017 to 2020.
Throughout the second week, quiet informal consultations on the
Presidency-led Marrakech Action Proclamation continued in the
background. Several delegates saw this political document as a
distraction, particularly as they continued to diminish its content
through multiple rounds of consultations and revisions from four pages
to a single page document essentially restating the least controversial
elements of the Paris Agreement. Many understood the Presidency’s desire
for an outcome beyond disparate announcements
and a technical work programme, yet some small delegations favored
technical work over ministerial engagements.
Following the US Presidential election, these high-level forums also
served as important platforms for states to signal their resolve to move
forward, preferably with the US still engaged in the multilateral
climate process. The election of Donald Trump,
who advocated stronger climate action in 2009 and also promised to
withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2016, cast a shadow of uncertainty
over the future of the Paris Agreement. The words “unstoppable” and
“irreversible” became common qualifiers to describe
climate action and momentum articulated by UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon, at his last COP, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa,
at her first COP, and US Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan
Pershing, at his 22nd, and hopefully not final, COP.
Fifteen years ago, the announcement by US President George W. Bush
that the US would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol dealt a blow to its
entry into force and subsequent effectiveness. This time, many
speculated that the rapid entry into force of the Paris
Agreement was a quietly coordinated effort to “Trump-proof” the Paris
Agreement since once the Agreement enters into force there is a
three-year waiting period for any country wishing to withdraw, followed
by a year before the withdrawal can take effect. Some
celebrated that the Paris Agreement is secure, but others wearily noted
that not withdrawing and actively engaging through implementation are
very different actions. The US delegation and US Secretary of State John
Kerry did their best to represent the Obama
Administration, while sharing others’ uncertainty of what lies ahead for
their country’s climate policy. Secretary of State Kerry had perhaps
the most political room to speak, underscoring that “no one person has
the right to make decisions on behalf of billions
based solely on ideology.”
While declarations for the US to “lead or get out of the way” rung
somewhat naïve in 2007, when the US signed on to negotiations for a
post-Kyoto agreement, as many recognized the necessity of the
involvement of the country that was then the world’s largest
emitter. At COP 22 the resolve had precisely that message. With all the
other significant emitters on board for the Paris Agreement, the
engagement of social and economic actors, and dedication of subnational
authorities, many ventured that the world could
move ahead with the transformation to a low-emissions world and leave
the US in the economy of the past.
COP 22 did much to ride and build the wave of momentum to show a
united, progressive front. Disappointing for developing countries,
however, was that this momentum was for post-2020 action, leaving, once
again, pre-2020 action as a second act to the showier
work of designing and operationalizing a new treaty. Many lamented that,
“despite the Paris Agreement entering into force, the Doha Amendment
from 2012 still has not.” An important part of the balance struck by the
Durban mandate in 2011 was that parties would
both negotiate a new agreement and enhance pre-2020 ambition under the
Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. For developing countries, this was a
promise still undelivered.
There were reasons to celebrate at COP 22, including the Paris
Agreement’s entry into force and many announcements of funding and
action by state and non-state actors. However, some delegates worried
that “lost in the festivities” was the fact that the current
pledges are inadequate to stay below 2°C and bridge the estimated
emissions gap of 12-14 gigatons (roughly equivalent to taking all cars
in Europe off the road for 12-14 years). Announcements of US$81 million
contributed to the Adaptation Fund, surpassing
its fundraising target for 2016, helped, but did not fully placate calls
to also close the finance gap and for equal treatment of pre-2020 and
post-2020 ambition and action.
WRITING THE RULEBOOK
With regard to the Paris Agreement rulebook, Marrakech made a fair
deal of progress. Important outcomes from the CMA included setting 2018
as the deadline for concluding the operationalization of the Agreement
and rescuing the so-called “orphan issues” that
had not yet been explicitly included on the agendas of the subsidiary
bodies. Many parties welcomed the specific mandates given to the SBI to
take up two of these orphan issues―common timeframes for NDCs and Paris
Agreement Article 12 (education, training
and public awareness)―in its second session in 2017.
Many also felt important clarity was provided on the preparations for
the 2018 facilitative dialogue to take stock of collective progress
towards the Paris Agreement’s long-term emissions goal and inform the
preparation of NDCs, through the COP’s request
to the COP 22 and 23 Presidents to undertake consultations on the
organization of this dialogue and report back to COP 23.
There was also progress under the APA during the first week of the
conference. Under the APA, informal consultations met six to seven times
on each of the substantive items, namely mitigation, adaptation,
transparency, global stocktake, implementation and
compliance, and further matters relating to implementation. The agreed
APA conclusions contain a reference to informal notes prepared by the
co-facilitators of each of these discussions, capturing views expressed
and, in some cases, guiding questions or elements
to structure further discussions. Parties also welcomed the clear work
programme set out in the APA conclusions for each item through May 2017,
which includes, among other things, calls for submissions, workshops
and a roundtable. For each substantive item,
parties left COP 22 with homework, which many felt would enable progress
to be made within, and across, all items in a balanced manner.
The SBI and SBSTA agreed on outcomes that advance both the
institutional framework of the UN climate regime and work on the Paris
Agreement rulebook, including the full operationalization of the Paris
Committee on Capacity-building, which will start work
in 2017, and agreement on a five-year rolling workplan for the Executive
Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on loss and
damage, and agreement for subsequent periodic reviews of the WIM, which
may become important as the mechanism shifts
to serve the Agreement after 2020.
Work under the two SBs also supported the development of the
post-2020 transparency framework for action and support in at least two
ways. First, meetings to analyze and review individual parties’
mitigation policies and measures convened under the two tracks
currently forming the UNFCCC transparency system established in Cancún:
the multilateral assessment and the facilitative sharing of views.
Second, parties also made progress in SBSTA discussions on accounting
modalities for information on “public climate finance,”
specifically support from developed countries provided and mobilized
through public interventions to developing countries. An in-session
workshop held on this item and a Co-Chairs’ reflections note will
provide inputs for a technical paper to take this work
forward.
Despite unquestionable progress made on technical work, some felt
Marrakech could have done more. A number of developed and developing
countries expressed disappointment that the APA did not continue its
discussions during the second week. However, as pointed
out by many observers, some developing countries clearly expressed in a
number of the APA’s informal sessions that they were not ready to “rush”
on the development of the rulebook, proposing instead submissions and
further discussions as their preferred way
forward. While many agreed that time could have been better
utilized―especially given the fact that most negotiators and technical
experts stayed on through the second week―a number of participants
recognized that this was perhaps the best possible outcome
given the differences in view on how quickly to proceed.
Discussions under, and beyond, the APA in Marrakech clearly
demonstrated that important political misalignments remain, particularly
with regard to the careful balance struck in the Paris Agreement
between its elements, the differentiation of responsibilities
and the attention given to the pre- and post-2020 eras. COP 22 confirmed
the expectations―and fears―of long-term observers that different
interpretations allowed by the constructive ambiguity of the Paris
Agreement would continue to affect the pace and sequencing
of work on its rulebook. In the APA discussions on mitigation, one
developing country group made it clear that it was not happy to proceed
further unless the discussions capture the “full scope of the NDCs” and
provide specific information on means of implementation―finance,
technology and capacity-building support. Seemingly straightforward,
technical discussions under the SBI whether to have one or two public
registries for countries’ NDCs and adaptation communications made little
progress due to calls to first advance work
under the APA on adaptation communications and NDCs.
A number of the “roadblocks” in advancing technical discussions on
the rulebook arguably derive from how the Paris Agreement resolved the
issues of differentiation between developed and developing countries,
and of how work in the pre-2020 period would be
advanced. This latter issue is essential to developing countries who
continue to worry about developed countries’ wanting to “delay”
fulfilling their obligations to the post-2020 era when all countries are
expected to make contributions to climate action.
During the closing plenary, South Africa, speaking for the BASIC
countries, stressed the need to “give equal preference to pre-2020
issues” at the next UNFCCC session, expressing concern that these issues
were not adequately dealt with in Marrakech.
A new discussion that emerged in Marrakech was that of the so-called
“orphan issues,” namely issues that were mandated in the Paris outcome
but lacked a “home” on the subsidiary bodies’ agendas. These included,
as per an APA Co-Chairs’ informal note, common
timeframes for NDCs, adjustment of existing NDCs, the response measures
forum, recognizing developing countries’ adaptation efforts, guidance
related to finance, setting a new collective goal on finance, developed
countries’ biennial finance communications,
and education, training and awareness, among others.
Discussed during the first week under an APA sub-item on preparing
for the convening of CMA 1, parties could not agree on which “orphan”
issues should be addressed (including whether only issues mandated for
CMA 1 should be included), which bodies should
carry out related work, and, finally, how to mandate further work. The
“orphans” became one of the final issues to be agreed before parties
could adopt the COP and CMA decisions on the Paris Agreement in
Marrakech, and was finally resolved by mandating the
APA to continue its consideration of “possible additional matters
relating to the implementation of the Paris Agreement and convening of
CMA 1.” This ambiguous wording, some suggested, may come back to haunt
countries at the next APA session.
MOVING FURTHER, FASTER, TOGETHER
A lesson from the past on the minds of many at COP 22 is that the
technical is often political. This year, expectations regarding progress
in Marrakech were, perhaps unfairly, heightened by the Paris
Agreement’s rapid entry into force and raised further
by the perceived need to send strong signals of unity and determination,
given the uncertainty caused by the US election results. Rising to this
call, delegates gave themselves only two years to complete work on the
rulebook, a task that for the Kyoto Protocol
required three years to realize and necessitated a resumed COP 6bis in 2001, given failure to reach consensus on a number of key political issues by the original deadline of 2000.
Another lesson learned is that at times of uncertainty the world
looks for leadership. At COP 7, amid the vacuum left by the US departure
from the Kyoto Protocol, parties bent over backwards to facilitate
ratifications by Canada, Japan and the Russian Federation,
and lauded EU leadership. With another possible leadership vacuum
emerging, many looked for signs of new leaders stepping forward. Some
looked to the big players, namely China and the EU, to carry on the
torch of climate action. Yet, as the COP concluded,
others nominated themselves, including the Climate Vulnerable Forum’s 48
members who pledged to be 100% renewable by 2050. One observer
suggested this was a sign of “leadership shifting to countries small in
size and big in ambition.” Moving ahead, delegates
will have to go, as expressed by Global Climate Champion Hakima El
Haité, “further, faster, together” in order to complete their dual tasks
of finalizing the rulebook while delivering on pre-2020 climate action.
Expert Meeting on Climate Change, Land Use and Food Security: This meeting will be co-hosted by the IPCC and the FAO.
dates: 23-25 January 2017 location: Rome, Italy
contact: Climate and Environment division (NRC) phone: +39-6-570 52714
email:
NRC-Director@fao.org www:
http://www.fao.org/nr/aboutnr/
29th Meeting of the AFB: The Adaptation Fund Board (AFB 29) will meet in Bonn, Germany.
dates: 14-17 March 2017 location: Bonn, Germany
contact: Adaptation Fund Board Secretariat phone:
+1-202-458-7347 fax: +1-202-522-3240 www:
https://www.adaptation-fund.
Expert Meeting on Mitigation, Sustainability and Climate Stabilization Scenarios:
The aims of the expert meeting include developing a dialogue between
different research communities, stimulating interdisciplinary research
activity that can
lead to literature for the AR6’s assessment, and engaging with experts
and stakeholders concerned with mitigation.
dates: late March 2017 location: Norway
contact: IPCC Secretariat phone: +41-22-730-8208/54/84
fax: +41-22-730-8025/13 email:
IPCC-Sec@wmo.int www:
http://www.ipcc.ch
International Symposium on Soil Organic Carbon: This
workshop is co-organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the UN (FAO), the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) of
the Global Soil Partnership, the Science-Policy
Interface (SPI) of the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD) and the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO).
dates: 4-6 April 2017 location: Rome, Italy
contact: Ronald Vargas, Global Soils Partnership email:
ronald.vargas@fao.org
www:
http://www.fao.org/global-
45th Session of the IPCC: The IPCC will meet to discuss,
inter alia, Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) products, the methodology
reports to refine the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories,
and the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
dates: 3-9 April 2017 (TBC) location: TBC
contact: IPCC Secretariat phone: +41-22-730-8208/54/84
fax: +41-22-730-8025/13 email:
IPCC-Sec@wmo.int www:
http://www.ipcc.ch
IPCC AR6 Scoping Meeting: During this meeting, members will discuss the outlines of AR6.
dates: 1-7 May 2017 location: TBD contact: IPCC Secretariat
phone: +41-22-730-8208/54/84 fax: +41-22-730-8025/13
email:
IPCC-Sec@wmo.int www:
http://www.ipcc.ch
UNFCCC SB 46: The SBSTA and SBI will convene for
their 46th sessions, in parallel with the 3rd meeting of the first
session of the APA in May 2017.
dates: 8-18 May 2017 location: Bonn, Germany
contact: UNFCCC Secretariat phone: +49-228 815-1000
fax: +49-228-815-1999 email: secretariat@unfccc.int
www: http://unfccc.int/
46th Session of the IPCC: The IPCC will meet to continue discussions to advance AR6 products.
dates: 4-10 September 2017 location: TBD
contact: IPCC Secretariat phone: +41-22-730-8208/54/84
fax: +41-22-730-8025/13 email:
IPCC-Sec@wmo.int www:
http://www.ipcc.ch
UNFCCC COP 23: During COP 23, parties will meet to, inter alia, continue preparations for entry into force of the Paris Agreement.
dates: 6-17 November 2017 location: Bonn, Germany (chaired by Fiji)
contact: UNFCCC Secretariat phone: +49-228 815-1000
fax: +49-228-815-1999 email: secretariat@unfccc.int
www: http://unfccc.int/
For additional meetings, see
http://sdg.iisd.org/
Summary of the Marrakech Climate Change Conference
Posted by Focus on Arts and Ecology on
- -
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UNFCCC
The international political response to climate change began with the
1992 adoption of the UNFCCC, which sets out a legal framework for
stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to
avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system.” The Convention, which entered into force on 21
March 1994, has 197 parties. In December 1997, delegates to COP 3 in
Kyoto, Japan, agreed to a protocol to the UNFCCC that committed
industrialized countries and countries in transition to
a market economy to achieve emissions reduction targets. These
countries, known as Annex I parties under the UNFCCC, agreed to reduce
their overall emissions of six GHGs by an average of 5% below 1990
levels in 2008-2012 (the first commitment period), with
specific targets varying from country to country. The Kyoto Protocol
entered into force on 16 February 2005 and now has 192 parties. In
December 2015, at COP 21 in Paris, France, parties agreed to the Paris
Agreement that specifies that countries will submit
progressively ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and
that aggregate progress on mitigation, adaptation and means of
implementation will be reviewed every five years in a global stocktake.
The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November
2016.
REPORT OF THE MARRAKECH CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE
On Monday, 7 November 2016, COP 21/CMP 11 President Ségolène Royal,
France, opened UN Climate Change Conference, reporting that 100
countries had ratified the Paris Agreement and appealing to remaining
parties to the UNFCCC to ratify before the end of 2016.
Describing COP 22 as an “African COP,” she called for climate justice
for the continent.
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MARRAKECH CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE
COP 22 delegates returned to the city where 15 years ago they adopted
the Marrakech Accords, the rulebook for the Kyoto Protocol, with a
similar task at hand. Marrakech again became the site of technical
negotiations aimed at operationalizing a treaty that
the world hopes can combat global climate change amid ever-more alarming
and certain evidence of its extent and effects. And, as before, US
domestic politics created uncertainty on the ability of a treaty still
in its infancy to achieve these necessary goals.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
Scoping of the IPCC Special Report on “Climate Change and Oceans and the Cryosphere”: During this meeting, members will discuss the outline of the special report.
dates: 6-9 December 2016 location: Monte Carlo, Monaco
contact: IPCC Secretariat phone: +41-22-730-8208/54/84
fax: +41-22-730-8025/13 email:
IPCC-Sec@wmo.int www:
http://www.ipcc.chPosted in
Ecology
Đăng nhận xét