Earth Negotiations Bulletin
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations
Download PDF version
French version
French version
French version
Back to IISD coverage
Volume 12 Number 603 - Friday, 24 October 2014
Thursday, 23 October 2014

The contact group on ADP item 3 addressed workstream 1 (2015 agreement), with a focus on intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), throughout the day. A briefing on cooperation and support for domestic preparations for INDCs was held at lunchtime. In the afternoon, a follow up to the technical expert meetings (TEMs) on unlocking mitigation opportunities through renewable energy deployment, energy efficiency, urban environment and land-use improvements in the pre-2020 period, and an ADP stocktaking meeting took place.


INDCs: Co-Chair Kumarsingh urged parties to negotiate, adding that important questions must be addressed before an INDC decision can be reached in Lima.

The REPUBLIC OF KOREA, Saint Lucia, for CARICOM, SWITZERLAND and TONGA welcomed the Co-Chairs’ draft text as a basis for discussions. ECUADOR and ALGERIA suggested negotiating on the basis of the conference room paper (CRP) submitted by the LMDCs. SOUTH AFRICA called for referencing work on the elements of the 2015 agreement in the INDC decision.

Nauru, for AOSIS, called for prompt submission of INDCs. JAPAN opposed introducing new timelines.

SWITZERLAND and PALAU opposed binary differentiation between Annex I and non-Annex I parties. COLOMBIA suggested referring to respective capabilities. BRAZIL, SOUTH AFRICA, COLOMBIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO and PALAU cautioned against backsliding, with BRAZIL suggesting a “concentric” approach to differentiation.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO called for ensuring an “upward spiral of ambition” for meeting the 2°C goal. JORDAN, the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO and ALGERIA suggested differentiating between INDCs by developed and developing countries. IRAN, AOSIS, NIGERIA and JORDAN urged developed countries to take the lead.

The REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested that INDCs be accompanied by information on mitigation applicable to all parties, and additional information reflecting national circumstances. GHANA, the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, TANZANIA, JORDAN, NIGERIA, TIMOR-LESTE, ECUADOR, NICARAGUA, ALGERIA and BRAZIL said INDCs should include mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation (MOI). EL SALVADOR called for developed countries’ INDCs to include sufficient and predictable public finance.

SWITZERLAND and the US argued that including adaptation in the INDCs would delay their submission. TUVALU asked for adaptation to be treated “adequately” and for inclusion of loss and damage in the agreement. TIMOR-LESTE suggested LDCs could put forward qualitative mitigation contributions. TANZANIA, Cuba, for ALBA, and IRAN stressed respecting the Warsaw mandate.

CARICOM, the US, SINGAPORE, COOK ISLANDS and SWITZERLAND, opposed by EL SALVADOR, called for INDCs to focus on mitigation. The GAMBIA stressed mitigation co-benefits of adaptation. SOLOMON ISLANDS said negotiating MOI in the context of INDCs would build confidence. TUVALU stressed the need to link the “express train on mitigation INDCs” and the “all-stops finance train.”

SOUTH AFRICA, COLOMBIA, AOSIS and TONGA highlighted that an assessment process is key. TONGA added that parties and experts should be able to ask clarifications about INDCs, and VENEZUELA suggested a platform to MRV INDCs. AOSIS called for assessing whether ambition is in line with the 1.5 or 2°C limit. PALAU emphasized that the review of aggregate INDCs should allow countries to increase their ambition.

EL SALVADOR and CARICOM, opposed by JAPAN, suggested the Secretariat draft a report assessing the adequacy and transparency of INDCs. COLOMBIA suggested the Secretariat compile and communicate INDCs, with review by an external body. ALGERIA said the Secretariat should compile INDCs from developed and developing countries in two separate documents. BRAZIL suggested INDCs be submitted in cycles, as part of a continuous ambition building exercise. JORDAN opposed an INDC review.

COLOMBIA, CARICOM and SWITZERLAND, opposed by TANZANIA, supported adopting an INDC decision in Lima.

Lamenting “positioning” by parties, Co-Chair Kumarsingh suspended the discussion, noting the lack of significant progress on the INDCs despite some proposals and clarity on selected issues.


Co-Chair Runge-Metzger welcomed focused exchanges on adaptation, finance, workstream 2 and INDCs. He listed outstanding issues, and informed the Co-Chairs would capture views on workstream 2 and INDCs in new iterations of the draft decisions.

Australia, for the UMBRELLA GROUP, Costa Rica, for AILAC, the EU, Saint Lucia, for CARICOM, and the GAMBIA welcomed the Co-Chairs’ guidance and the transparency of the process. Egypt, for the LMDCs, suggested starting negotiating text based on the CRPs presented at the previous ADP meeting, adding that the ADP mandate does not allow the Co-Chairs to introduce text.

Bolivia, for the G-77/CHINA, expressed concern on the lack of progress in drafting text, suggesting that the Lima outcomes of the ADP be constructed by and based on input from parties. Switzerland, for the EIG, said discussions had been “slow but rich and deep,” pointing to some areas of convergence. Nepal, for the LDCs, said discussions had been helpful, urging advances on the draft INDC decision. The EU expressed disappointment with delays in addressing various agenda items and called for a more concise text on the elements of the 2015 agreement. AILAC and the EU outlined some emerging consensus, including on adaptation and building on existing institutions.

On INDCs, the LMDCs said the Warsaw mandate does not include negotiating “cycles” of INDCs or long-term mitigation. SAUDI ARABIA suggested INDCs be driven by national circumstances and their scope be decided in Paris. Sudan, for the AFRICAN GROUP, said finance INDCs from developed countries are an essential deliverable by March 2015.

On workstream 2, the UMBRELLA GROUP welcomed the TEMs while noting work remains in order to ensure that they catalyze mitigation on the ground. The EU noted convergence on how to carry TEMs forward after 2015. Nauru, for AOSIS, looked forward to elaborating text on workstream 2. The LDCs stressed the TEMs’ usefulness and called on developed countries to fulfil their pre-2020 obligations.

On the way forward, the UMBRELLA GROUP and the EU called on the Co-Chairs to prepare new iterations of the draft decisions on workstream 2 and INDCs. The EIG invited the Co-Chairs to submit a new iteration of the text on the elements of the agreement for Lima. The AFRICAN GROUP called for a single outcome on workstream 1 in Lima. The EU suggested urgently addressing legal issues related to the agreement. CARICOM called for discussing the legal form of the agreement, the principle of no backsliding and adaptation.

The DOMINICAN REPUBLIC highlighted a submission by 23 countries on integrating education and awareness raising in the 2015 agreement. The HOLY SEE said states have a moral imperative to act to protect the climate, which is a global public good. PERU cautioned delegates that time is running out and called for determination to build a solid foundation in Lima.

Various countries supported holding an additional meeting before April 2015 and another in the second part of the year.

Juan Hoffmaister, Bolivia, reported on constructive discussions in the informal consultations on adaptation, which focused on the global goal, noting the request by parties to continue them until the end of the meeting.

Co-Chair Runge-Metzger concluded by underlining: agreement to hold two ADP meetings in 2015, with one in February; that the Co-Chairs’ non-paper be streamlined; lack of consensus on negotiating with text on the screen; and the need to work more efficiently and get to textual negotiations.


Halldór Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC Secretariat, facilitated a debriefing by organizations and support institutions involved in TEMs. 

The International Energy Agency, the International Renewable Energy Agency, the UN Environment Programme and the Technical University of Denmark Partnership, the Sustainable Energy for All, and the Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport reported progress on accelerating action on energy efficiency, renewable energy and transport, emphasizing: opportunities for support; public-private partnerships; and systemic approaches. Delegates asked for clarifications on, inter alia: enhancing energy efficiency and renewable energy in developed countries; a TEM on transport; and continuity in support for energy efficiency programmes in developing countries.

ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, the World Bank and UN-Habitat highlighted progress on action in cities, including: the launch of the Compact of Mayors at the UN Climate Summit; city mitigation and adaptation plans; and financial support. Delegates discussed: conditionalities imposed on developing countries by financial institutions; the need to distinguish between “green” and “brown” investment; and a vision for the 2015 agreement.

The Global Environment Facility and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) highlighted how they can contribute to raising pre-2020 ambition, with the GCF emphasizing the importance of the initial pledging session in November 2014 and calling on parties to contribute. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN and the World Bank highlighted a variety of new initiatives emerging from the UN Climate Summit, including the New York Declaration on Forests. They noted the TEMs provide an opportunity to develop initiatives, outline work happening on the ground and identify challenges that must be addressed moving forward.

The Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network discussed how their work is responding to the TEMs, particularly on energy-efficiency, with the TEC underlining the need for clear guidance from parties.


As the halfway mark of ADP 2-6 passed, delegates’ thoughts turned into progress achieved so far: whether areas of convergence had emerged and if discussions were progressing fast enough. Although some underscored the usefulness of discussions, the long list of issues still waiting to be addressed by Saturday night left many wondering, as ADP Co-Chair Kumarsingh questioned, if parties “know what they are doing” and “what they want to achieve.”

One area where divergence clearly emerged was that of INDCs. Whereas most delegates agreed the world has changed since the adoption of the Convention, interpretations of what this means were situated on a long spectrum, between what some labelled as the “one-size-fits-all” and “bifurcated” approaches.

At the same time, a number of parties made explicit efforts to bring the opposite sides closer to each other. A suggestion by Brazil on a “concentric” differentiation created a small buzz, with many interested in exploring how to operationalize it. The briefing on cooperative activities to build capacity for preparing INDCs was also welcomed by many as a useful space for sharing information.

All in all, with the long, autumn shades accompanying delegates on their way to evening coordination meetings, even the festival of light, Diwali, celebrated on Thursday as noted by Co-Chair Kumarsingh, was unable to fully lighten the mood, and some were already looking forward to the Lima spring to “illuminate their thinking.”

^ up to top
Back to IISD coverage
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <> is written and edited by Alice Bisiaux, LLM, Mari Luomi, Ph.D., Annalisa Savaresi, Ph.D., and Anna Schulz. The Digital Editor is Brad Vincelette. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMATE) and the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)). General Support for the Bulletin during 2014 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Specific funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources and Aramco. 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 <>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA. The ENB team at the Bonn Climate Change Conference - October 2014 can be contacted by e-mail at <>.
| Back to IISD RS "Linkages" | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to IISD RS |
© 2014, IISD. All rights reserved.