On Thursday afternoon, the ADP closing plenary convened. During the day, informal consultations and contact groups took place under the SBSTA and ADP.
ADP CLOSING PLENARY
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL THE ELEMENTS OF DECISION 1/CP.17: During the ADP closing plenary in the afternoon, Co-Chair Mauskar reported “constructive work” under both workstreams and noted that parties had also reflected on progress made. He indicated that reports will be made available on the UNFCCC website, including: summary reports and take-home points by the Facilitators of ADP workshops; informal summaries by the ADP Co-Chairs on the roundtables and on the ADP special event; and a note on progress by the Co-Chairs based on discussions at the first and second parts of ADP 2. Co-Chair Mauskar also indicated that ADP roundtables and workshops will continue for the remainder of this year. Parties then adopted ADP conclusions (FCCC/ADP/2013/L.2).
ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: Election of officers: Co-Chair Mauskar announced Kishan Kumarsingh (Trinidad and Tobago) and Artur Runge-Metzger (EU) as the incoming ADP Co-Chairs and Isabel Di Carlo Quero (Venezuela) as the new Rapporteur.
CLOSING STATEMENTS: Fiji, for the G-77/CHINA, recognized progress achieved, but called for, inter alia: advancing in a more focused and party-driven mode in Warsaw, and following a balanced approach including mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation. He stressed the need for developed country leadership under Workstream 2. He welcomed the two technical papers to be prepared by the Secretariat to inform further work of the ADP.
On Workstream 1, the EU said the new agreement should be fair, comprehensive and legally-binding, as well as durable, dynamic and capable of evolving overtime. On Workstream 2, he stressed the need for: parties without pledges to undertake them; increasing ambition of existing pledges; and setting out the role of the UNFCCC for enhancing action.
On Workstream 1, Australia, for the UMBRELLA GROUP, called for, inter alia, up-front transparency measures to ensure predictability of commitments and a consultative process to consider ambition and fairness. On Workstream 2, he proposed looking at how mitigation potential can be captured by parties with diverse national circumstances and encouraging complementary work through international cooperative initiatives.
Switzerland, for the EIG, called for a decision in Warsaw outlining common understanding on the core elements of the 2015 agreement, including: each party’s mitigation commitment towards the 2°C target; modalities of such commitments; and timeframe for, and structure of, the new agreement. On Workstream 2, he called for parties who have not submitted their pledges to do so; urged further technical exchange on mitigation potential to create the basis for ministerial dialogue; and encouraged reforming fossil fuel subsidies.
Swaziland, for the AFRICAN GROUP, reaffirmed that the 2015 agreement is not intended to renegotiate the Convention but to define its implementation beyond 2020. He requested a revised technical paper on mitigation that should include information on: applicability of the Convention’s principles; benefits of adaptation and mitigation actions; means to address barriers; and means of implementation.
Warning against shifting the mitigation burden to developing countries, Nauru, for AOSIS, called for developed countries to examine and exploit untapped mitigation potential at home through new policies and strategies translating into more ambitious commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. She further called for comparably ambitious targets under the Convention by 2014 and a mechanism to address loss and damage, including in the context of the 2015 agreement.
Nepal, for the LDCs, called for: moving to more focused negotiations; the adoption of an effective protocol in 2015 that provides, inter alia, enhanced action on adaptation, a mechanism on loss and damage, and financial support.
Costa Rica, for SICA, supported: the establishment of one contact group to consider financing, adaptation, mitigation, capacity building and technology transfer; and an oversight and MRV mechanism for the provision of support by developed countries under the 2015 agreement.
Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, highlighted the need for: clarity on the level of finance to be provided by developed countries between 2013 and 2020; and addressing response measures.
Pakistan, for the LMDC, recalled that the ADP mandate is to enhance the Convention’s implementation; and said sectoral activities, such as on HFCs and energy, must not impose additional burdens on developing countries.
Chile, for AILAC, called for: a decision in Warsaw that structures the substance and elements of the 2015 agreement; a 2015 agreement with adaptation at its core; a robust compliance mechanism; and more work under the UNFCCC to contribute to closing the ambition gap.
Ecuador, for ALBA, stressed that work should focus on the Convention and CBDR, and said fairness should be the core of a new agreement, while noting different interpretations of the concept. Papua New Guinea, for the COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS, underlined the potential of REDD+ to contribute to closing the mitigation gap with new and additional financial and technical support.
SOUTH AFRICA underscored the need for a fair and equitable sharing of efforts, including equitable access to sustainable development, and called for common commitments on adaptation and means of implementation. UGANDA reminded parties that there are 930 days left to negotiate the 2015 agreement and called for a move toward negotiating text. BANGLADESH called for proposals on how specific rules should be applied to adaptation under a rules-based multilateral system, while MEXICO expressed interest in including HFCs under Workstream 2.
MEETING’S REPORT: Parties adopted the report for the first two parts of ADP 2 (FCCC/ADP/2013/L.1).
Co-Chair Mauskar indicated that the Co-Chairs had aimed to lay a solid foundation for the 2015 agreement and addressing pre-2020 ambition, stating that, in his view, such a foundation had been established. He concluded that “a ten-thousand-mile journey starts with one step and we have taken several, but the real difficulties start now.” Co-Chair Mauskar expressed confidence that with the new ADP Co-Chairs and with parties’ continuing constructive spirit, the outcome will be successful.
Co-Chair Dovland recalled that when starting their work, the Co-Chairs came up with the idea of proceeding through roundtables and workshops, and indicated that while this approach has served the ADP well, “time has come to move some activities to a more formal setting” and noted that there is “some repetition in the workshops and roundtables.” Thanking the Secretariat and the parties, Dovland noted that he is retiring from the process “for the third time,” saying he always misses the people involved, but is “getting tired of some of the finger-pointing around climate change.” He urged for a cooperative spirit and suspended ADP 2 at 6:09 pm.
TECHNOLOGY: During morning informal consultations and a contact group on development and transfer of technologies and implementation of the Technology Mechanism, parties considered revised draft conclusions paragraph-by-paragraph. Discussions focused on the SBSTA’s requests to the CTCN Advisory Board.
Parties agreed to forward the text to the SBSTA plenary for adoption.
METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE FOR REDD+: During the morning contact group on REDD+, parties agreed to forward conclusions to the SBSTA plenary.
The forwarded text contains annexes with outstanding elements on possible draft decisions on MRV and reference levels; and three draft decisions for consideration by COP 19 on: drivers of deforestation; timing and frequency of information on how safeguards are being addressed; and modalities for national forest monitoring systems.
Many parties expressed satisfaction with progress in Bonn, with many indicating that their expectations had been surpassed. Parties also highlighted that the text launches a process to address the two new tasks mandated in Doha on non-carbon benefits and non-market mechanisms.
NORWAY expressed concern over the missing linkage between the provision of information on safeguards and results-based finance. PAPUA NEW GUINEA and PANAMA said the REDD+ mechanism now has “more meat, but still needs a spine.” BRAZIL highlighted intersessional work on REDD+ before Warsaw and stressed that “instead of being remembered as the session that did not open, Bonn may be considered as the session that opened the path for impressive progress on REDD+ in Warsaw.”
MRV OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY NAMAs: The morning contact group on MRV of developing country NAMAs considered draft text on support and also discussed which elements to include in a draft decision or draft guidelines annexed to the conclusions.
South Africa, for the G-77/CHINA, called for support to interested parties for country-determined needs, while the US proposed supporting communications of information on domestic MRV. Due to time constraints, parties agreed to forward these options, together with language contained in the draft conclusions, to SBSTA 39.
On elements to include in a draft decision or draft conclusions, NEW ZEALAND, supported by SWITZERLAND, suggested placing sections on the purpose, principles and support of the guidelines in a draft decision. SAUDI ARABIA preferred including all sections in the draft guidelines. CHINA, supported by SOUTH AFRICA and SAUDI ARABIA, suggested changing the document title to “draft elements of draft guidelines” and indicating that parties may consider some of the elements as part of decision text or guidelines.
The text was then forwarded to the SBSTA for adoption.
AGRICULTURE: In the afternoon contact group on agriculture, several parties called for more time to continue negotiations, indicating that there was no consensus to annex a text to the draft conclusions.
AUSTRALIA suggested that if there was no agreement to annex a text, then parties could consider a workshop at COP 19 on areas of convergence, namely adaptation and co-benefits. Egypt, for the G-77/CHINA, proposed text to be inserted in the draft conclusions which called for an in-session workshop in Warsaw and for submissions on “adaptation and additional co-benefits,” to consider, inter alia, current state of scientific knowledge on agriculture and climate change, sustainable development, food security and diversity of agricultural systems. Many parties expressed support for this text, calling it a useful step forward. With the additional text, parties agreed to forward draft conclusions to the SBSTA for adoption.
IN THE CORRIDORS
On Thursday, the rain set in and a heavy, grey sky loomed over the Maritim as delegates made their way to the ADP closing plenary in the afternoon, lethargy etched on many faces.
Informal consultations to finalize ADP conclusions had been held earlier on Thrusday, and Co-Chair Dovland referenced these in the ADP closing plenary as taking “three hours for three lines.” Reportedly, a large number of parties feeling strongly about linkages between adaptation and mitigation urged for a technical paper on costs and benefits of adaptation based on existing science. Agreement was only reached on synthesizing submissions.
Emerging from the plenary, some were nevertheless optimistic about the ADP outcome “some time in the future,” but many admitted that they were worried that the negotiations were not adequately focused and progressing fast enough. One delegate predicted “choppy waters ahead,” while another seemed particularly concerned about the lack of progress on pre-2020 ambition. Yet, one negotiator observed that “the honeymoon period is ending and it’s time to work on the marriage.”
In a group with a rather lengthy courtship period, a REDD+ delegate, seemingly pleased with the outcome, declared: “We exceeded our expectations.” Another REDD+ negotiator confirmed, “We have ‘clean’ text on three issues and made progress on issues that could not be solved in Doha, as well as new tasks on non-carbon benefits and a non-market approach.” “We could have a REDD+ COP,” hoped another one, while acknowledging that it may be more difficult to balance progress made in Bonn with the tricky and old issue of finance.
ENB SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS: The Earth Negotiations Bulletin summary and analysis of the Bonn Climate Change Conference will be available on Monday, 17 June 2013 online at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb38/