Linkages home
Mobile access to this event's ENB reports and more!
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations
Download PDF version
French version
French version
Back to IISD coverage
Volume 12 Number 578 - Thursday, 13 June 2013
BONN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE
Wednesday, 12 June 2013

On Wednesday morning, the ADP informal plenary convened. During the day, contact groups and informal consultations took place under the SBSTA and ADP.

ADP INFORMAL PLENARY

During the morning informal plenary, Andreas Fischlin (Switzerland) reported on the Structured Expert Dialogue on the 2013-15 Review and SBSTA Chair Muyungi provided an overview of work on response measures. Parties then reflected on progress and areas requiring further work under the two ADP workstreams.

On Workstream 1, AUSTRALIA called for, inter alia, further elaboration of: a hybrid model comprising nationally determined commitments to be taken within an internationally agreed, rules-based framework; measures to promote ambition in line with science and equity; a mechanism to periodically revisit commitments; and provision for enabling and supporting actions. The EU called on parties to specify what they want concerning adaptation and means of implementation. She noted the need for submissions before Warsaw on key issues and invited the Co-Chairs to capture priority areas in a paper reflecting parties’ ideas. 

JAPAN emphasized the need to clarify common accounting rules and consider the ex post review. He said further elaboration is also needed on: the timeframe for commitments and the relationship between commitments and rules; ex ante and ex post consultations; and how adaptation will be framed in the new agreement.

The Philippines, for the LMDC, called for a focused process under the ADP with negotiations structured around the four pillars of the Convention.

NORWAY proposed further work on: defining mitigation commitments and timeframe; rules for transparency and accounting; and how to frame adaptation in the new agreement. SWITZERLAND outlined areas where common understanding is emerging on mitigation, including: national determination of mitigation actions with international guidance; benefits of a rules-based approach; and a two-step process whereby parties pledge mitigation actions, and then undertake an international consultative process before finalizing pledges. On a              COP 19 decision on mitigation, he urged that all “should commit to commit.” He also called for: a common understanding of modalities of mitigation commitments; continuing the exchange of views on fair differentiation; and elaborating elements of a process to “anchor” commitments.

INDIA underscored that progress on a 2015 agreement necessitates an increase in Annex I ambition. He underlined that the agreement must be based on differentiated responsibilities, emphasizing that discussions on a dynamic interpretation of CBDR and post-2015 structure, such as two-step or hybrid processes, need to refocus on the Convention’s principles. TURKEY stated that the Convention’s principles must be fully applied, but that the context in which they are applied has changed, and a new agreement should formulate differentiated responsibilities and commitments in an appropriate manner. Chile, for AILAC, called for creative thinking and proposals on, inter alia: means of implementation; compliance and incentives; and ex ante and ex post review processes to ensure the necessary dynamism for enhancing ambition and participation.

SAUDI ARABIA stressed the need for an agreement that does not renegotiate the Convention. She highlighted linkages with the 2013-15 Review and response measures, and said work to understand social and economic impacts of response measures is essential. SINGAPORE highlighted areas for further work, including on: leadership role of developed countries; how to enhance the implementation of decisions and strengthen linkages and performance of existing institutions; how to clarify actions put forward by parties; and how to ensure that the rules facilitate universal participation. CUBA stressed that work must be structured around decisions taken in Durban and Doha, the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol.

The US noted agreement on, inter alia: addressing mitigation through nationally determined contributions with rules that provide for transparent MRV but are flexible enough to be applicable to all; and that support will continue in the post-2020 period. He suggested further work on, among other things, rules that can be applicable to all and evolve with experiences gained. 

NEW ZEALAND noted common views on: a hybrid bottom-up and top-down approach, but differences on the details; willingness to understand and compare nationally determined contributions; and the need for flexibility and fairness, although differences remain on how that can be achieved. She suggested further discussing a mechanism to ensure that parties implement their commitments. Nauru, for AOSIS, highlighted linkages between Workstreams 1 and 2, and means of implementation. She called for further work on linkages between existing institutions.

On Workstream 2, parties highlighted areas of convergence and those requiring further work, including in Warsaw.

 Among areas for further work, the EU identified land use, energy efficiency, renewables, carbon sequestration and sustainable development. She called for action on HFCs under the UNFCCC and Montreal Protocol.

Nauru, for the G-77/CHINA, proposed: targeted energy efficiency measures; a practical and action-oriented process to identify the most effective and scalable options for mitigation; harvesting mitigation potential in areas other than energy; and drawing upon the work taking place in other fora. She cautioned against shifting the mitigation burden from developed to developing countries, and urged developed countries to increase ambition, provide means of implementation to developing countries and support the existing institutions. She highlighted the UN Secretary General’s 2014 Leaders Summit as an opportunity to harvest mitigation potential.

BRAZIL, supported by the PHILIPPINES, emphasized Workstream 2 as key to building trust and making progress under Workstream 1. He indicated that the GCF is “not at the level we expected” and that developed countries’ leadership is not adequate. He highlighted the importance of coherence with the UN Sustainable Development Agenda and development of sustainable development goals, which could strengthen the work under Workstream 2.

Nepal, for the LDCs, emphasized developed country leadership and called for: information on increasing the ambition of pledges; addressing barriers to enabling action; review of targets under the Kyoto Protocol; implementation of pledges by Annex I parties not participating in the second commitment period; removal of conditionalities; and submission and implementation of NAMAs by developing countries.   

Expressing support for the Brazilian proposal, the PHILIPPINES highlighted progress under Workstream 2 as the basis for a new agreement under Workstream 1, and described the 2015 agreement as implementing the Convention and not a “new convention.” She called for provision of means of implementation and addressing lifestyles based on wasteful consumption.

Chile, for AILAC, called for further work on enhancing the role of the existing institutions in order to create a suitable environment for increasing pledges and moving to their upper end; and identified the need to also address sectors other than energy.

JAPAN called for a focus on concrete actions, including on HFCs, renewable energy and energy efficiency. AUSTRALIA highlighted the energy sector as an area warranting technical work. Calling pledges “critical,” he said more work is required on conditions to encourage more pledges and enhance the existing ones.

SWITZERLAND called for, inter alia: developing a common understanding of mitigation potential as the “best basis” for a ministerial roundtable; creating space for new pledges; and stimulating actions outside the UNFCCC, including addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol.

The FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA clarified that the proposal to phase out HFCs under the Montreal Protocol would not remove HFCs from the Kyoto Protocol basket of gases or limit parties’ ability to address HFCs under the UNFCCC. She said the proposal recommends phasing out HFC production first in developed country parties, stressing that the proposal seeks to complement efforts to address the emerging HFC problem.

Venezuela, for LMDC, stated that moving HFCs under the Montreal Protocol would adversely affect developing countries. CHINA expressed concern about GHGs being addressed under other international bodies. SAUDI ARABIA and INDIA supported China, stressing that HFCs should be considered under the UNFCCC.

Venezuela, for LMDC, urged Annex I parties to, inter alia: ratify the Kyoto Protocol amendment as soon as possible; increase commitments through domestic action; remove conditionalities; and provide full financing to mitigation projects in developing countries without seeking emission credits in return. She also called for flexibilities in the IPR regime. SAUDI ARABIA stated that Workstream 2 should be party-driven and include all sectors, gases, emissions and sinks, and said it is premature to take a decision on Workstream 2 at COP 19.

MALAYSIA stated that with means of implementation, more could be accomplished by developing countries. BANGLADESH stressed the need to reduce gaps and raise ambition in adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building.

 INDIA, with ARGENTINA, indicated that a technical paper on raising mitigation ambition and sectoral issues would be premature without clarity on which sectoral issues should be addressed. ARGENTINA identified several sectors as crucial to poverty eradication, including agriculture, energy and transport.

 IRAN called for respecting the outcomes of previous UNFCCC sessions and other relevant UN bodies’ meetings, highlighting paragraph 26 of the Rio+20 outcome document on countries refraining from unilateral economic, financial or trade measures violating international law.

SBSTA CONTACT GROUPS

FRAMEWORK FOR VARIOUS APPROACHES (FVA): During the morning contact group, parties made minor amendments to draft conclusions before agreeing to forward the text to the SBSTA with the understanding that agreement on the timing of a workshop on FVA is pending.

BOLIVIA, supported by Saint Lucia, for AOSIS, and VENEZUELA, stressed that initial work should focus on the framework’s purpose and scope. The DOMINICAN REPUBLIC called for submissions on how the framework could help address national circumstances and common challenges. Many parties underlined the need for: open workshops, agreement on the timing of workshops and ways to ensure broad participation of developing countries.

BRAZIL stressed that conclusions on the FVA, non-market approaches and new market-based mechanisms should be seen as a package.

NON-MARKET-BASED APPROACHES: In the morning contact group, parties decided to forward the draft conclusions to the SBSTA, with the understanding that agreement on the timing of a workshop on non-market-based approaches is pending.

NEW MARKET-BASED MECHANISM: In the morning contact group, parties decided to forward the draft conclusions to the SBSTA, with the understanding that agreement on the timing of a workshop on the new market-based mechanism is pending.

IN THE CORRIDORS

With two days left, the ADP and SBSTA started wrapping up their work in Bonn. Delegates met throughout the day, but the largest congregations were around the coffee bar to, as one delegate joked, “provide an injection of needed inspiration,” to speed up the preparation of conclusions for the SBSTA closing plenary on Friday. Meanwhile, all was quiet on the SBI front.

Under the ADP, parties began to reflect on the way forward. After the informal plenary, one delegate worried that there was “little articulation of the package of decisions necessary at COP 19.”  Some also voiced concern that in light of Tuesday’s events, it “may be difficult to justify sending delegates to climate meetings if no formal negotiations take place.”  Others wondered about the focus of COP 19, with one delegate rattling off the many ideas for COP 19: “finance COP, loss and damage COP, implementation COP; it seems Warsaw could be many things to many people,” evidenced by a lengthening wish list with five months left to go.

 

^ up to top
Back to IISD coverage
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Jennifer Allan, Beate Antonich, Asheline Appleton, Elena Kosolapova, Ph.D., Kati Kulovesi, Ph.D., and Eugenia Recio. The Digital Editor is Leila Mead. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donor of the Bulletin is the European Commission (DG-ENV). General Support for the Bulletin during 2013 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Belgium Walloon Region, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie / Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA. The ENB Team at the Bonn Climate Change Conference - June 2013 can be contacted by e-mail at <kati@iisd.org>.
| Back to IISD RS "Linkages" | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to IISD RS |
© 2013, IISD. All rights reserved.