• Join IISDRS on FB
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 586 - Thursday, 14 November 2013
WARSAW HIGHLIGHTS
Wednesday, 13 November 2013

In the morning, the COP plenary convened. The CMP and SBSTA plenaries took place in the afternoon. Throughout the day, a number of contact groups, informal consultations, workshops and other events convened under the COP, SBI, SBSTA and ADP. These included: second meeting of the structured expert dialogue on the 2013-2015 Review; ADP workshop on lessons learned from relevant experiences of other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); ADP open-ended consultations on elements of the 2015 agreement; ADP open-ended consultations on workstream 2; a SBSTA/SBI contact group on the 2013-2015 Review; and a COP contact group on issues related to finance.

COP PLENARY

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: Dates and Venue of Future Sessions: PERU offered to host COP 20/CMP 10 from 1 to 12 December 2014 in Lima. FRANCE offered to host COP 21/CMP 11 from 30 November to 11 December 2015 in Paris. COP President Korolec will consult with parties on offers to host future sessions.

MATTERS RELATING TO FINANCE: Work Programme on Long-term Finance (LTF): LTF Programme Co-Chair Mark Storey (Sweden) reported on the extended work programme on LTF (FCCC/CP/2013/7), highlighting the need for transparency in the definition and tracking of LTF, and calling for identifying ways of scaling up private finance for adaptation.

The Philippines, for the G-77/CHINA, said a successful outcome in 2015 depends on progress on predictability, accountability and sustainability of LTF. Egypt, for the AFRICAN GROUP, underlined that the level of action on climate change is related to the level of support provided to developing countries, stressing the gap in adaptation finance. MALDIVES encouraged developed countries to develop a burden-sharing agreement to reach the US$100 billion annual goal. Colombia, for AILAC, urged: clarity and predictability in the provision of finance; clarity in the scale of resources to be mobilized; and sufficient funding for the Adaptation Fund (AF).

The EU indicated that it has fulfilled and reported on LTF obligations. The REPUBLIC of KOREA suggested setting up a working group on LTF to start a political dialogue on this issue.

Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF): SCF Co-Chairs Diann Black-Layne (Antigua and Barbuda) and Stefan Schwager (Switzerland) introduced the report (FCCC/CP/2013/8). The G-77/CHINA and the AFRICAN GROUP called for work on the MRV of support. BOLIVIA called for attention to forests.

Green Climate Fund (GCF): Former GCF Co-Chair Zaheer Fakir (South Africa) presented the GCF report (FCCC/CP/2013/6). He said Manfred Konukiewitz (Germany) and Jose Maria Clemente Sarte Salceda (the Philippines) have been elected as the new GCF Co-Chairs.

 The G-77/CHINA, Maldives, for AOSIS, ZAMBIA, BRAZIL and others called for a rapid and substantial operationalization and capitalization of the GCF. The G-77/CHINA underscored that the Fund’s Private Sector Facility (PSF) will be country-driven and pursue sustainable development. The AFRICAN GROUP called for an initial mobilization, a replenishment process, and focusing on adaptation finance. INDIA called for balancing mitigation and adaptation funding.

Arrangements between the GCF and the COP: COP President Korolec noted that the COP had requested the SCF and GCF Board to develop arrangements between the COP and the GCF. The G-77/CHINA emphasized that: the GCF must be guided by the COP and be accountable to it; and the need to provide guidance on issues, such as eligibility criteria, as soon as possible.

Report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF): The GEF presented its annual report (FCCC/CP/2013/3 and Add.1) and an update on the status of resources (FCCC/SBI/2013/INF.9).

On views and recommendations from parties on elements to be taken into account in developing guidance to the GEF (FCCC/CP/2013/MISC.4), the G-77/CHINA expressed support for the GEF’s work and requested that the GEF develop a strategy for its replenishment, considering its role in the evolving financial architecture, including the GCF. Highlighting support to technology development and transfer, UGANDA indicated that more resources need to be raised to address developing countries’ adaptation and mitigation needs.

Fifth Review of the Financial Mechanism: On this issue (FCCC/CP/2013/8 & FCCC/CP/2013/INF.2), the G-77/CHINA emphasized that the Convention’s financial mechanism should remain in place for any new agreement, stressing the need to ensure predictability and accessibility, as well as balance in the use of financial resources.

Kamel Djemouai (Algeria) and Herman Sips (the Netherlands) will co-chair a contact group on this and previous agenda sub-items on finance.

Report on the Work Programme on Results-based Finance for the Full Implementation of Activities in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70 (REDD+): Christina Voigt (Norway) presented the report on two workshops of the work programme on results-based finance (FCCC/CP/2013/5).

BRAZIL emphasized the need to highlight the relationship between this and other negotiation tracks. Remarking that so far REDD+ finance has been disbursed mostly through multilateral and bilateral channels, the G-77/CHINA said REDD+ finance should be under the authority of the COP and part of an overall financing scheme.

Agus Sari (Indonesia) and Christina Voigt (Norway) will co-chair a contact group on results-based finance for REDD+.

PROPOSAL FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO AMEND CONVENTION ARTICLE 4.2(f): Informal consultations will be facilitated by Iwona Rummel-Bulska (Poland).

PROPOSAL FROM PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND MEXICO TO AMEND CONVENTION ARTICLES 7 AND 18: Informal consultations will be facilitated by Iwona Rummel-Bulska (Poland).

PARTIES’ PROPOSALS UNDER CONVENTION ARTICLE 17: The item will be taken up during the closing plenary.

DECISION-MAKING IN THE UNFCCC PROCESS: COP President Korolec noted that this item will be addressed separately from the adoption of the rules of procedure, and the proposal from Papua New Guinea and Mexico to amend Convention Articles 7 and 18. He emphasized that no agenda item has a special status in a party-driven process.

Informal consultations will be facilitated by Gabriel Quijandria Acosta (Peru) and Beata Jaczewska (Poland). Fiji, for the G-77/CHINA, requested that the informal consultations be open-ended and cautioned against duplication, prejudice and overlap.

CMP PLENARY

REPORT OF THE COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE: Compliance Committee Co-Chair Khalid Abuleif (Saudi Arabia) presented the Committee’s annual report (FCCC/KP/CMP/2013/3). Ilhomjon Rajabov (Tajikistan) and Ida Kärnström (Sweden) will consult informally.

JOINT IMPLEMENTATION (JI): Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC) Chair Derrick Oderson (St. Kitts and Nevis) introduced the JISC annual report (FCCC/KP/CMP/2013/4 and Corr.1). Noting that JI remains at a critical juncture, he lamented low demand for credits and uncertainty over the future.

Yaw Osafo (Ghana) and Dimitar Nikov (France) will co-chair a contact group.

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM): On the CDM Executive Board (EB) report (FCCC/KP/CMP/2013/5, Parts I and II), CDM EB Chair Peer Stiansen (Norway) called for parties to define the expected role of the CDM in the new regime.

South Africa, for the AFRICAN GROUP, lamented the low level of ambition in emission reduction targets, and called for CDM reform. ZAMBIA said the reform should address, inter alia: transparency; accountability; simplified methodologies; and transaction costs.

The EU called for international cooperation to further enhance the CDM’s effectiveness, environmental integrity and governance.

The WORLD BANK recommended using the review of CDM modalities as an opportunity for fundamental reforms. CAN called for: reforming additionality requirements; excluding large-scale projects; and establishing a monitoring mechanism and procedures for engagment with local communities.

Giza Gaspar Martins (Angola) and Marko Berglund (Finland) will co-chair a contact group.

ADAPTATION FUND:  Adaptation Fund Board (AFB) Chair Hans Olav Ibrekk introduced the report of the Adaptation Fund Board (FCCC/KP/CMP/2013/2).

Many parties underscored the need for predictable, adequate and sustainable funding. BELIZE described the gap between the US$16.5 million raised compared to the expected fundraising target of US$100 million as “a major blow” to the LDCs.” EGYPT highlighted the AF as the main source of adaptation support with direct access and called for a focus on replenishment options. CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW! emphasized NAPs should be seen as investment, not as cost, and explained underfunding is the result of unreliability of the market. YOUTH lamented that rich countries have avoided their moral obligation to provide funding.

Suzanty Sitorus (Indonesia) and Ana Fornells de Frutos (Spain) will co-chair a contact group.

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: Status of Ratification of the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol: The Secretariat explained that the Doha Amendment requires 144 ratifications to enter into force and that the depository has received instruments of acceptance from Barbados, Mauritius and the United Arab Emirates.

The EU stressed its intention to ratify the Doha Amendment as soon as possible and noted that over 110 other parties will also need to ratify. NORWAY informed that its parliament will soon consider a ratification proposal. Expressing disappointment with the status of ratification, CHINA announced its intention to ratify the Doha Amendment by the end of 2014.

OTHER MATTERS: Fiji, for the G-77/CHINA, requested a briefing by the Secretariat on organizing a high-level ministerial roundtable in Bonn in June 2014 to consider information relating to Annex I quantified emission reduction commitments and intentions to increase ambition. The Secretariat will arrange an informal briefing.

ADP

ELEMENTS OF THE 2015 AGREEMENT (adaptation): During the ADP’s morning informal consultations on adaptation, the Secretariat introduced a synthesis of submissions on the costs, benefits and opportunities for adaptation (FCCC/TP/2013/10).

Many parties indicated that the 2015 agreement should: reflect the urgency of adaptation to signal to international institutions, donor countries and private sector the need for partnerships; recognize parties’ ongoing adaptation efforts; contain a holistic review component assessing national and global actions and needs; and strengthen the financial mechanism. Stressing transparency as key to building confidence, one party urged finalizing MRV arrangements and clarifying further pledges in Warsaw.

ELEMENTS OF THE 2015 AGREEMENT (mitigation): The ADP morning informal consultations continued with mitigation.

A number of parties agreed on the importance to ensure broad participation in the 2015 agreement. Some stressed that mitigation commitments must be differentiated in accordance with CBDR, and that enhanced mitigation by developing countries depends on the provision of means of implementation.

Calls were made for agreement in Warsaw on launching national consultations on mitigation pledges. Parties also discussed the process for defining mitigation commitments, including ex ante assessment of pledges, with some calling for common rules and stressing that the assessment must be based on science. Some parties identified the need to balance the flexibility of nationally-determined commitments and the rigidity of commonly agreed rules to ensure environmental integrity.

Suggestions were made to create “an upward spiral of ambition” with facilitative engagement to compare commitments among countries. It was also proposed that the 2015 agreement be flexible and adjustable to developments in science and capabilities. One party stressed that commitments must be fulfilled by domestic means, without relying on offsets.

Parties discussed historical responsibilities, with some proposing to mandate the IPCC to develop a methodology, while others indicated that a focus on historical responsibilities will not ensure achievement of the 2 °C goal.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE OF OTHER MEAs: The ADP workshop on relevant experience of other MEAs took place in the afternoon. Co-Chair Kumarsingh identified the workshop as an opportunity to identify concrete arrangements to enhance pre-2020 ambition under workstream 2.

Secretary-General John Scanlon, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), highlighted that: the CITES includes clear obligations; the rules allow for voting, which has been used; and national authorities are the “engine room” of implementation.

Jorge Ocaña, UNEP Chemicals, highlighted National Implementation Plans under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). He said lessons learned could be from the creation of national action plans and provision of support through the Convention’s financial mechanism, the Secretariat and implementation agencies.

Megumi Seki, Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, emphasized that the Protocol is one of the most successful MEAs with universal membership; offers sufficient incentives for all countries to join in; and is supported by industry. She added that the Protocol’s success hinges on science-based broadening of the scope for action, and confidence and trust among parties.

In discussions, parties addressed: enabling parties to opt out of new obligations; relationship between UNEP and the CITES Secretariat; application of the precautionary principle under the Montreal Protocol; differentiation between developed and developing countries’ obligations; addressing GHGs under the Montreal Protocol; provisions concerning participation, especially of non-parties; and the impact of obligations on non-parties.

WAY FORWARD ON WORKSTREAM 2: During open-ended consultations in the afternoon that were open to observers Co-Chair Runge-Metzger asked parties to focus on a workstream 2 outcome and concrete actions to raise ambition. The Secretariat presented a technical paper on mitigation benefits of actions, initiatives and options to enhance ambition (FCCC/TP/2013/8 and Add.s 1&2).

Nauru, for AOSIS, proposed a process focused on renewable energy and energy efficiency involving submissions, technical papers and expert workshops. Nepal, for the LDCs, called for implementation of pledges, expanding their scope and tightening the rules, and stressed means of implementation as essential to workstream 2.

Malaysia, for the G-77/CHINA, said enhanced Annex I commitments should be the first step and called for, inter alia, ratifying the Doha Amendment, and establishing a mechanism matching mitigation and adaptation proposals with finance and technology. CHINA called for: an outcome that recognizes elements beyond mitigation; and work programmes on the adequacy of financial support and IPRs. INDIA emphasized that the Montreal Protocol addresses ozone depleting substances, not HFCs.

AUSTRALIA urged all parties to make pledges and noted the need to focus on HFCs. The EU suggested: further technical work to draw on the experience of other bodies and further workshops; opportunities for ministers to show leadership in other processes, including the Montreal Protocol; and promoting the UNFCCC’s catalytic role.

Colombia, for AILAC, noted the need for emissions to peak in 2015, calling for, inter alia, increased ambition on REDD+ and a ministerial session in June 2014.

SBSTA PLENARY

The SBSTA plenary convened briefly in the evening. SBSTA Chair Muyungi reported on his informal consultations on issues relating to agriculture and other matters. The latter focused on Brazil’s proposal requesting the IPCC to develop a reference methodology for calculating historical emissions. 

On agriculture, the SBSTA agreed on conclusions that acknowledge the exchange during the in-session workshop. It also agreed to consider, at SBSTA 40, the Secretariat’s report on the workshop and submissions by parties and observer organizations.

On other matters, Fiji, for the G-77/CHINA, requested recording its endorsement of the Brazilian proposal and that the issue be considered in a contact group. Noting lack of consensus on the way forward, SBSTA Chair Muyungi invited parties to continue consulting informally.

CONTACT GROUPS, WORKSHOPS AND OTHER MEETINGS

STRUCTURED EXPERT DIALOGUE ON THE 2013-2015 REVIEW: In the afternoon, the second meeting of the structured expert dialogue on the 2013-2015 Review continued, co-facilitated by Andreas Fischlin (Switzerland) and Zou Ji (China).

Corinne Le Quéré, IPCC, noted that the largest contribution to total radiative forcing is the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), adding that fossil fuels and cement production currently account for about 90% of total CO2 emissions.

Reto Knutti, IPCC, stressed that cumulative carbon determines warming, which is largely independent of the emissions profile. He said most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if CO2 emissions are stopped.

In the discussion, participants addressed: the saturation of sinks; the fact that high uncertainty in projected temperature increases implies a lower carbon budget; assessment of the risk of carbon cycle feedbacks; adaptation costs; and action on short-lived GHGs.

TEC Chair Antonio Pflüger presented an overview of the evolution and enhancement of institutional arrangements on technology transfer.

SCF Co-Chair Diann Black-Layne underscored that although the amount of climate finance has increased, it is inadequate to meet the 2°C target.

Robert Dixon, the GEF, provided an overview of GEF climate change investments in adaptation, mitigation and enabling activities.

In the discussion, participants addressed: financial difficulties of the AF and its direct access modalities; the possibility of applying aspects of the AF to the GCF; and the upcoming operationalization of the CTCN.

2013-2015 REVIEW: The SBI/SBSTA contact group on the 2013-2015 Review met in the morning, co-chaired by Gertraud Wollansky (Austria) and Leon Charles (Vanuatu). Delegates discussed: conclusions from SBSTA 39; how to inform the ADP’s work; and the structure of the final report.

On SBSTA conclusions, many delegates expressed support for procedural conclusions. BOTSWANA and SOUTH AFRICA suggested that the conclusions reflect that the Review consider all elements discussed under the ADP, including adaptation, technology transfer and finance. The PHILIPPINES, BRAZIL and other developing countries underscored the need for balanced input by developed and developing country experts.

On informing the ADP’s work, many countries cautioned against duplicating efforts. Trinidad and Tobago, for AOSIS, suggested a “phased” approach that considers the ADP’s progress and a forum to transmit the work of this contact group to the ADP. The US and SWITZERLAND highlighted the value of ongoing dialogue within delegations in sharing information.

 On the final report, the EU suggested it might not be possible to agree to an “elaborate” synthesis report, whereas AOSIS said a compilation report would be “setting the standard too low.” Delegates’ views differed as to whether to proceed with the preparation of draft text or bullet points for the conclusions. Informal consultations will be held.

ISSUES RELATING TO FINANCE (COP): In the evening contact group on issues related to finance, parties exchanged views on prioritization and sequencing of sub-items.

The Philippines, for the G-77/CHINA, suggested sequencing from easier to more difficult and said the Group will try to provide text soon. The EU proposed having “a clear starting and landing point,” and the US stated it looks forward to the high-level ministerial dialogue on finance. Many parties agreed that the sub-item on arrangements between the GEF and the COP is the least contentious one, while LTF is the most difficult one. Many developing countries, including Colombia, for AILAC, and SAUDI ARABIA, stressed LTF as a priority. Discussions on the sub-items, based on their alphabetical order on the COP agenda, will continue in informal consultations on Thursday.

IN THE CORRIDORS

On Wednesday, delegates settled into familiar routines. Several seemed pleased with the way the new ADP Co-Chairs were leading the discussions and starting with adaptation. One delegate branded the style as “a good balance between guiding us toward an outcome, while staying inclusive.” Yet, many noted that statements in today’s open-ended consultations struck familiar notes, “creating a cacophony of views.” Yet, as Co-Chair Runge-Metzger reminded, “it’s only Wednesday.” NGOs in particular welcomed China’s way of “stirring it up,” as a delegate put it, by raising a point of order to allow observers into the ADP’s open-ended consultations on both workstreams.

Discussions on finance under the COP also left some with a sense of déjà-vu. Despite former GCF Co-Chair Zaheer Fakir’s poetic invocation of Victor Hugo in the COP plenary, saying “nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come,” in reference to the GCF’s implementation, differences crept into the contact group on finance. Replaying the refrain from Doha that this COP is a “finance COP,” developing countries stressed their expectations for tangible deliverables. A developed country suggested no big, new finance commitments would be forthcoming, calling Warsaw an “implementation COP,” prompting a developing country party to ask what there would be to implement, “empty funds?”

#COP4Haiyan Solidarity Operation: Look for the Twitterstorm to be launched on Thursday by youth delegates to raise funds for the Philippines: #COP4Haiyan.

^ 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, Alice Bisiaux, Elena Kosolapova, Ph.D., Kati Kulovesi, Ph.D., Mari Luomi, Ph.D., and Annalisa Savaresi, Ph.D. The Digital Editor is Francis Dejon. 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 Wallonia, 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 Warsaw Climate Change Conference - November 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.