twn · 2019-09-05 · lll contents 1. the climate talks in bonn – what to expect 1 2. parties...

L

TWNThird World Network

Third World Network

BONN CLIMATE NEWS UPDATES

(June 2019)

LL

BONN CLIMATE NEWS UPDATES (JUNE 2019)is published by

Third World Network131 Jalan Macalister

10400 Penang, MalaysiaWebsite: www.twn.my

© Third World Network 2019

Cover design: Lim Jee Yuan

Printed by Jutaprint2 Solok Sungei Pinang 3, Sg. Pinang

11600 Penang, Malaysia

ISBN: 978-967-0747-36-1

LLL

CONTENTS

1. The Climate Talks in Bonn – What to Expect 1

2. Parties Outline Priorities for Climate Talks 5

3. Negotiations on Market and Non-market Mechanisms to Resume after Suspension 8

4. Parties Begin Work on ‘Unresolved Issues’ over Market/Non-market Mechanisms 11

5. Developing Countries Express Concerns over Arrangements for UNFCCC Meetings 13

6. Developed Countries Push for Changes to Adaptation Fund 17

7. Disagreements over Review of Achievements under the UNFCCC 19

8. Parties Unable to Agree on Advancing Work on Market/Non-market Approaches 21

9. Controversy over the IPCC’s 15°C Special Report (SR1.5) 24

10. Parties Agree to Further Consideration of Draft Texts on Market/Non-market Approaches 27

11. Developing Countries Concerned by Shift of Focus from UNFCCC to Paris Agreement 30

Update No. Title of Paper Page

LY

NOTE

This is a collection of 11 articles prepared by the Third World Network for and during the recentUnited Nations Climate Change Talks – the fiftieth sessions of the two subsidiary bodies under theUN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 50)and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 50) – in Bonn, Germanyfrom 17 to 27 June 2019.

1

TWNBonn News Update 1

The Climate Talks in Bonn – What to Expect


www.twn.my Published by 17 June 2019Third World Network

Bonn, 17 June (Meena Raman) – As students, youthand environmental activists around the world stagedrecent protests and continue to do so demandingfor urgent and greater climate action on the part ofgovernments in combatting climate change, Par-ties under the United Nations Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the KyotoProtocol (KP) and the Paris Agreement (PA) willmeet at the usual intersessional meeting takingplace from 17-27 June 2019 in Bonn, Germany.

The two Subsidiary Bodies, the SubsidiaryBody for Implementation (SBI) and the SubsidiaryBody for Scientific and Technological Advice(SBSTA), will meet to consider and decide on vari-ous issues, including a few unfinished items deal-ing with the PA implementation as well as in doingfurther work on the decisions taken under the‘Katowice Climate Package’ (which are the deci-sions adopted in Katowice, Poland last year on therules for the implementation of the PA). The Junesession marks the 50th session of the SubsidiaryBodies.

In a ‘reflections note’ for Parties, the Chairof the SBSTA, Paul Watkinson (from France), askedgovernments to consider that when the first ses-sion of the SBSTA was convened in 1995, theweekly carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in theatmosphere were about 359 ppm and that the aver-age daily concentration on 11 May 2019 was 415ppm, ‘for the first time in human history’. The notealso states that ‘global emissions continue to rise’and that ‘this leaves a significant gap in the effortneeded to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C’.

To amplify the message, the SBSTA Chairstated that he would ask the UNFCCC secretariat‘to put the Keeling Curve showing the evolutionof global CO2 concentrations on the screen’ whenthe SBSTA convenes*.

While emissions continue to grow, the DohaAmendment to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) whichgives effect to the second commitment period (2CPfrom 2013 to 2020) has yet to come into effect,and is not likely to do so anytime soon, given thelack of political will to do so, especially by majordeveloped countries.

As of 8 May, only 128 Parties have ratifiedthe Doha Amendment, while 144 are required forit to enter into force. Some developed countriessuch as Canada, Japan, the United States (US) andRussia have indicated that they will not be Partiesto the Amendment, contrary to what was agreed toin Doha in 2012, that then paved the way for thenegotiations on the PA.

Parties had agreed in Doha to amend the KPto ensure that developed countries who are Partiesto the KP will undertake aggregate emission cutsthat would be at least 18% below 1990 levels un-der the 2CP. They also agreed that developed coun-tries will revisit their emission reduction commit-ments by the end of 2014, with a view to increas-ing their ambition.

The lack of a 2CP essentially means that de-veloped countries are off the hook again in revis-ing and raising their pre-2020 emission cuts, andcontinue to delay the closing of the emissions gapby 2020 needed to limit temperature rise to wellbelow 2°C/1.5°C.

* According to Wikipedia, ‘the Keeling Curve is a graph of the accumulation of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere based oncontinuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii from 1958 to the present day.’

2

Some of the key issues to be discussed at theJune talks are the following:

Article 6 of the PA

Article 6 of the PA generally deals with whatis known as cooperative approaches among Par-ties, which include the use of market and non-mar-ket mechanisms. Parties had agreed that rules forthe implementation of the mechanisms would beadopted last year.

However, negotiations in this regard haveproved difficult, contentious and complex, withParties having different understandings on how themechanisms are to be implemented. Hence, therules, modalities and procedures to be applied inthe implementation of Article 6 were not part ofthe package of decisions adopted in Katowice lastyear, and remain an unfinished agenda item thatwill be a major focus of the talks in Bonn, with theexpectation that the rules will be finalised for adop-tion at the 25th session of the Conference of Par-ties to the UNFCCC (COP 25) in Santiago, Chile,in December this year.

Under Article 6(1), it was agreed that Partiescan ‘choose to pursue voluntary cooperation in theimplementation of their nationally determined con-tributions (NDCs) to allow for higher ambition intheir mitigation and adaptation actions and to pro-mote sustainable development and environmentalintegrity’.

Article 6(2) of the PA allows Parties to en-gage ‘on a voluntary basis in cooperative ap-proaches that involve the use of internationallytransferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs)’ towardstheir NDCs, that promote sustainable development,ensure environmental integrity, transparency andavoid double counting.

The reference to ITMOs has allowed theopening of the door for the establishment of an in-ternational carbon market, despite years of lack ofconsensus on this among Parties in the negotiationsunder the COP since 2010.

The EU has been a major proponent of this,along with Japan and other members of the Um-brella Group, while countries such as Bolivia andVenezuela have strongly resisted such mechanisms,primarily because they allow for offsets, i.e. wheredeveloped countries can transfer their mitigationactions to be undertaken by developing countriesby paying for them, with the consequent emissionreductions in developing countries being countedas the emission reductions of developed countries.

In the context of NDCs, where developingcountries have an obligation to undertake their own

emission reductions, the use of ITMOs has raisedissues, including on whether there should be limitsto the quantity of ITMOs that can be used by aParty towards its NDC.

Under Article 6(4), another mechanism hasbeen agreed to in order to ‘contribute to the miti-gation of greenhouse gas emissions and supportsustainable development’. Some Parties view thismechanism as an expansion of the Clean Develop-ment Mechanism under the KP. Brazil has been amajor proponent of this ‘sustainable developmentmechanism’.

Article 6(8) of the PA deals with non-marketapproaches and states that ‘Parties recognize theimportance of integrated, holistic and balancednon-market approaches being available to Partiesto assist in the implementation of their NDCs…including through, inter alia, mitigation, adapta-tion, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, as appropriate…’. Further, the SBSTAwas mandated to undertake a work programme toconsider how to enhance linkages and create syn-ergy between inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, fi-nance, technology transfer and capacity-buildingand how to facilitate the implementation and coor-dination of non-market approaches.

Some developing countries, led primarily byBolivia, are major proponents of the non-marketapproaches, as a counter to the market-based ap-proaches.

There will certainly be push to ensure a bal-anced outcome in relation to the mechanisms un-der Articles 6(2) and 6(4) as well as 6(8). A majorchallenge for developing countries is to arrive atcooperative approaches that are able to reflect thediversity of NDCs and account for future coopera-tive arrangements.

Negotiations on Article 6 are expected to startbased on the draft decision texts which were de-veloped in Katowice last year. There were two textsthat were developed in Katowice – one was a textforwarded by the SBSTA to the COP at the firstweek of negotiations and another which was de-veloped by the Polish COP Presidency which wasput forward on 14 December 2018.

Parties in Bonn are expected to discuss howthey will move forward given the two draft deci-sion texts on the table. The SBSTA Chair in hisreflections note hopes that the work in Bonn willdeliver ‘a next version of the textual basis for ne-gotiations, with a limited number of options…’ thatcan provide ‘a solid foundation’ for the delivery ofdecisions that operationalise Article 6 in Chile laterthis year.

3

NDCs – common time frames

In Katowice, it was agreed that Parties ‘shallapply common time frames to their NDCs to beimplemented from 2031 onward’. The SBI wastasked to consider this matter at its present sessionin Bonn. This issue was the subject of intense ne-gotiations in Katowice, with developed countriespushing for a common time frame for the NDCs ofall Parties, while some developing countries wereof the view that countries should have the flexibil-ity of deciding whether to have a five-year or a 10-year time frame.

Presently, in relation to the first NDCs, mostcountries have a 10-year time frame, while onlytwo countries (the United States and Marshall Is-lands) have a five-year time frame. Hence, the talksin this regard can be expected to be contentiousover what the time frame ought to be.

Enhanced Transparency Framework

Under Article 13(1) of the PA, Parties agreedto the establishment of an enhanced transparencyframework (ETF) for action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into account developingcountry Parties’ different capacities.

In Katowice, the modalities, procedures andguidelines (MPGs) for the ETF were adopted,which provide comprehensive requirements regard-ing the information that must be reported by Par-ties in relation to their NDC implementation andhow this information would be considered.

It was also decided that Parties shall submittheir first biennial transparency report (BTR) andnational inventory report (NIR), in accordance withthe MPGs, at the latest by 31 December 2024.

This replaces the current biennial reports(BRs) for developed countries and biennial updatereports (BURs) for developing countries under theConvention. Parties had also agreed that the BTRs,the technical expert review and the facilitativemultilateral consideration of progress are preparedand conducted in accordance with the MPGs andshall replace the BRs, BURs, the international as-sessment and review (for developed countries) andinternational consultation and analysis (for devel-oping countries), following the submissions of thefinal BRs/BURs in 2022/2024 respectively.

The Conference of Parties meeting as theParties to the PA (CMA) requested the SBSTA toundertake further technical work on a number ofissues in relation to how the information to be re-ported and reviewed should be organised and pre-

sented, and how programmes for the training ofexperts taking part in reviews should be elaborated.The task of the SBSTA is to produce the opera-tional tools for Parties to be able to implement theagreed ETF, which comprises common reportingtables and common tabular formats.

A key issue in developing these common re-porting tables and formats would be on how theflexibility provided to developing countries thatneed it could be reflected in the different outlines.

Loss and damage

An important agenda item under the SBI andSBSTA relates to the development of the terms ofreference (TOR) for the 2019 review of the War-saw International Mechanism for Loss and Dam-age associated with climate change impacts (WIM).

The WIM was established at COP19 in 2013in Warsaw, Poland, to address loss and damageassociated with impacts of climate change, includ-ing extreme events and slow-onset events. Theimplementation of the functions of the Loss andDamage Mechanism is guided by the ExecutiveCommittee (known as the Excom), that acts underthe guidance of the COP.

In 2016 at COP 22, it was agreed that therebe a process to periodically review the WIM, whichwill take place in December 2019. The SubsidiaryBodies at the June talks are tasked with finalisingthe TOR for the review.

COP 22 also recommended the preparationof a technical paper on loss and damage finance asan input for the next review. The technical papercan be found at https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tp201 9_1_advance.pdf and reviews ex-isting sources of financial support relevant for ad-dressing loss and damage. This paper is relevant inenabling progress in fulfilling one of the functionsof the WIM that relates to enhancing action andsupport, including finance, to address loss and dam-age which has thus far been inadequately addressed.

The issue of finance to address loss and dam-age is expected to be highly contentious betweendeveloped and developing countries.

Adaptation Fund

In Katowice, the CMA decided that the Ad-aptation Fund (AF) shall serve the PA effective 1January 2019. The SBI is tasked to consider themembership of the AF Board, which will comprisemembers from developed and developing countrieswho are Parties to the PA.

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tp2019_1_advance.pdf

IGC

Highlight

4

1.5°C Special Report

At COP 24, world media coverage of theKatowice talks was mainly on how governmentscould not welcome the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC)’s 1.5°C Special Report(SR), given objections raised by the US, Russia,Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The US said explicitlythat it could not endorse the findings of the report.In the decision adopted in the final hours, the COPonly managed to ‘welcome the timely completion’of the SR.

The COP also requested the SBSTA to con-sider the SR with a view to strengthening the sci-entific knowledge on the 1.5°C goal, including inthe context of the preparation of the IPCC’s SixthAssessment Report (AR6) and the implementationof the Convention and the PA.

Given how the SR was mired in controversylast year, how Parties consider this matter at thisSBSTA session will be indeed interesting to watch.

Forum on response measures

The impacts of implementation of responsemeasures is understood as the effects arising fromthe implementation of mitigation policies and ac-tions taken by Parties under the Convention, theKP and the PA, and how these mitigation policies/actions could have impacts on countries, particu-larly developing countries, including cross-borderimpacts. COP 17 (in 2011) established a forum onthe impact of the implementation of response mea-sures.

Decisions were adopted in Katowice to re-launch the work of the forum on the impact of theimplementation on response measures. The deci-sions identified four areas for the work programmeviz. (a) economic diversification and transforma-tion; (b) just transition of the workforce and thecreation of decent work and quality jobs; (c) as-sessing and analysing the impacts of the implemen-tation of response measures and; (d) facilitating the

development of tools and methodologies to assessthe impacts of the implementation of responsemeasures.

The decisions also provided for the creationof the Katowice Committee of Experts on the Im-pacts of the Implementation of Response Measures(KCI) to support the work programme of the fo-rum. The forum is expected to develop and recom-mend in June a six-year workplan in line. The firstmeeting of the KCI will be convened on 13-14 June.

Opposition from developed countries, espe-cially from the US, can be expected in operation-alising the decisions adopted in Katowice in thisregard.

UN Secretary-General’s Summit

At COP 24, Parties welcomed the UN Secre-tary- General’s initiative to convene a Climate Sum-mit, to be held in September this year in New York.

A special briefing on the Summit along theside-lines of the climate talks will be held on 21June, and is expected to draw much attention fromParties as to what is being planned at the Summitand what outcomes are intended. In fact, soon af-ter the Bonn talks, a meeting is being convened inAbu Dhabi from 30 June to 1 July by the UN andthe government of the United Arab Emirates in re-lation to the Summit.

A major concern of developing countries thatis expected to be raised along the side-lines of theBonn session is on whether the Summit will bemitigation- centric or if it will also focus attentionon adaptation as well as on the means of imple-mentation for developing countries.

Conclusion

The above are just some of the main issuesthat will occupy delegates at the Bonn session, be-fore Parties meet once again in Santiago, Chile forthe next session of the Subsidiary Bodies and COP25 which will take place 2-13 December 2019.

5



Parties Outline Priorities for Climate Talks

Bonn, 18 June (Evelyn Teh) – The climate talks inBonn, Germany have kicked off on 17 June withthe convening of the 50th sessions of theUNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Implementation(SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific andTechnological Advice (SBSTA), which are sched-uled to complete their work on 27 June.

At the joint-plenary session of the SubsidiaryBodies, Parties outlined their priorities for the ses-sion. Among the work to be undertaken are mat-ters that were not completed at the 24th session ofthe Conference of Parties (COP 24) to the UNFCCCin Katowice, Poland, held last year.

Speaking for the Group of 77 and China,Ambassador Ammar Hijazi, from the Ministryof Foreign Affairs of the State of Palestine, stressedthat ‘the latest heat waves and severe temperaturefluctuations, as well as droughts and floods, thathave hit many parts of the world during the pastfew weeks are only a reminder that the devastatingeffects of climate change are real and sudden’.

The Ambassador also reiterated that pre-2020action is the foundation for the post-2020 phase ofthe climate regime, adding that the Doha Amend-ment to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) is one crucial el-ement of the pre- 2020 effort. The Group was con-cerned that ‘a significant number of ratificationsof the Doha Amendment are still pending’ andcalled on those Parties that have not yet done so to‘ratify it as a matter of urgency’.

At this SB50 session, the G77 representativesaid that it was of utmost importance that Partiesstrive for greater balance in the work in accom-plishing those items that we were not able to con-clude at COP24.

He also called for urgency and ambition inthe mobilisation, provision and accessibility of fi-nancial resources from developed to developingcountries with adequate, new, additional and pre-

dictable finance resources, particularly through theGreen Climate Fund (GCF). The G77 representa-tive noted with concern the shortfalls in the pledgesby some developed countries to the GCF under theinitial resource mobilisation (IRM) and called ondeveloped countries to scale up their contributionsto the GCF so as to at least double the contribu-tions from the IRM period, and result in an ambi-tious expected first replenishment by the end of2019. He also stressed the need to depoliticise theflow of international resources by all financialmechanisms under the Convention and its ParisAgreement (PA).

The G77 representative said that the work onthe terms of reference (TOR) for the review of theWarsaw Implementation Mechanism on Loss andDamage (WIM) was of great importance, and thatthe review must result in a WIM that is able to avert,minimise, and address issues of loss and damagethrough facilitated access to functional and opera-tional support in line with the principles of the Con-vention and the PA.

He also said that it was imperative to urgentlyscale up action and support for adaptation, whichis a critical priority for developing countries, andstressed that by doing so the much-needed balancein the process would be restored.

In his closing remarks, the G77 representa-tive said that at this session, and going towardsCOP25 in Chile, ‘we have a new opportunity toright our course and ensure that all of the elementsthat had been so finely balanced under the Con-vention and its PA get reflected and implementedin a balanced way in terms of the finalization oftheir operational modalities to scale up action andambition’. This, he said, means that the founda-tional principles of common but differentiated re-sponsibilities (CBDR) and equity must be reflected,and that the real differences between developed and

6

developing countries in terms of both histori-cal responsibility and capability are fully taken intoaccount.

Iran, speaking on behalf of the Like MindedDeveloping Countries (LMDC), also underscoredthe need to treat adaptation with the same urgencyand importance as mitigation; and in the fulfilmentof the commitments by the developed countries toprovide means of implementation to developingcountries.

On the issue of common time frames for thenationally determined contributions (NDCs), itstressed that there should be full recognition thatParties, in particular developing countries, will havedifferent national circumstances that may requirethe application of different time frames.

As regards Article 6 (on voluntary coopera-tive approaches), the LMDC said that the purposeof the provision is to allow Parties to implementtheir NDCs as they define them. In this regard, itsaid that there should be no limitations on NDCtypes, projects, or metrics, adding that ‘the spiritof Article 6 is cooperative efforts and not exclu-sive approaches’. It also said that the approachesshould be ‘bottom up and nationally driven’.

The LMDC also welcomed the outcome ofthe work undertaken by the Facilitative WorkingGroup of the Local Communities and IndigenousPeople’s Platform (LCIPP) and added that the par-ticipation of observers from indigenous peoples andlocal communities should rightly be ‘consideredas contributors rather than just observers’, and that‘it is the first time in the history of the UNFCCCprocess that the indigenous peoples and local com-munities’ views are directly reflected in a workplanthat is directly related to them’.

Egypt, speaking on behalf of the AfricaGroup, said that in the last months, the Africancontinent has witnessed climate-induced extremeevents which have displaced thousands of peopleand resulted in deaths, has witnessed desert stormsand heatwaves which have affected livelihoods andagricultural productivity. It has also affected live-stock, water, crops, wildlife, and the energy sector.It recalled the cyclones in Southern Africa, whichseverely affected Mozambique and alsoneighbouring countries, Malawi and Zimbabwe. ‘InMozambique, three million people are affected,with estimated US$1.4 billion in total damage, andUS$1.4 billion in losses. The recovery and recon-struction cost is estimated to be US$2.9 billion. InMalawi, devastating floods have affected the livesof 870,000 people,’ it added.

Egypt welcomed the doubling of pledges bysome Parties to the GCF, like Germany of theircontributions, but expressed concerns with thegrowing appetite of some contributing Parties toshift from grants to loans for the replenishment andconditionality becoming a major requirement forsupport. It said further that the group expects thereplenishment process to conclude with a doublingof the resources provided in the IRM period and insecuring the grant-based instruments and resourcesfor developing countries particularly for adapta-tion.

On the broader finance architecture, it wasconcerned with limitation of other sources of fi-nance like the Climate Investment Funds at a timewhen the Global Environment Facility climate al-location is reduced by 40% and the GCF has a short-fall of US$3 billion.

On adaptation, the Africa Group was appre-hensive with the lack of prioritisation on the fur-ther work from the Katowice outcome, and the slowprogress of the adaptation discussion in the Adap-tation Committee and absence of adaptation ele-ments in the agenda of the Subsidiary Bodies.

Belize, on behalf of the Alliance of SmallIsland States (AOSIS), envisioned 2019 as the yearof ambition, which encapsulates enhanced mitiga-tion, adaptation, loss and damage and finance. Itsaid that the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C findsthat rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, en-ergy, industry, buildings, transport and cities arerequired to reduce emissions by about 45% by 2030and achieve net zero by around 2050 if there is anychance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, be-yond which is likely to trigger climatic, environ-mental, and ecological tipping points and thresh-olds from which the world would not be able toreverse or recover. This, it said, implies the facili-tation of feasible, yet faster, socio-technical transi-tions, the deployment of multi-sectoral mitigationmeasures and the fostering of ambitious interna-tional cooperation and transformative policy envi-ronments in the short term that target both energysupply and demand. It called on the internationalcommunity to deliver by 2020 new or updatedNDCs.

It also stressed that the GCF replenishmentprocess must also deliver adequate finances, in linewith the best-available science, and that new con-ditions and criteria are not imposed for developingcountries to access these much-needed funds.

Bhutan on behalf of the Least DevelopedCountries (LDCs) referred to the IPCC Special

7

Report on 1.5°C and expressed disappointment thatParties did not unanimously agree to welcome thereport last year. It added that as a global commu-nity come together to create a safe and prosperousfuture for all, Parties should submit new and moreambitious NDCs by March 2020 that representcountries’ fair shares to achieve the pathways con-sistent with 1.5°C.

The LDCs identified the issue of loss anddamage as being very important and looked for-ward to finalising the terms of reference for an ef-fective review of the WIM to ensure a review thatbuilds a stronger and more effective WIM, so thatthe focus of its work can be on supporting con-crete actions on the ground that protect poor andvulnerable countries.

It also wanted to see robust rules for marketsunder Article 6 that maintain environmental integ-rity and result in real overall mitigation in globalemissions. Amongst other things, it said that it wascritical that emission reductions cannot be doublecounted and that perverse incentives are not cre-ated for unambitious reduction targets. On the Ad-aptation Fund, the arrangement of membership ofthe Adaptation Fund Board should urgently befinalised to ensure smooth transition with no ma-jor governance changes, added Bhutan.

Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Arab Groupreferred to Article 6 and reiterated the importanceof allowing all Parties to participate within a coop-erative approach if they so wish. It said that thegoal was to allow Parties to cooperate to imple-ment their NDCs, which are bottom up.

Brazil, on behalf of itself, South Africa, In-dia and China (BASIC), hoped that the talks wouldenhance the WIM and its Executive Committeeso as to enhance capabilities on addressing currentand future climatic risks.

Other developing country groupings who alsodelivered statements included the Bolivarian Al-liance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBAGroup) and the Coalition for Rainforest Nations.

Switzerland for the Environmental Integ-rity Group (EIG) also expressed the importanceof completing the work on Article 6, which musthelp deliver the NDCs, and that can only happen ifdouble counting is avoided and sustainable devel-opment is ensured. It also said that there was a needto focus on the review of the WIM.

Australia for the Umbrella Group under-lined that COP24 was a significant milestone. Ithighlighted the need to move forward on Article 6of the PA, so that there is an outcome that ensuresmarkets with environmental integrity. It also lookedforward to the UN Secretary-General’s ClimateSummit in New York in September this year to buildand maintain climate actions and highlight theambition of Parties.

The European Union said that COP24 wassuccessful in making the PA come to life and op-erational. On the road to Santiago, Chile (COP 25),it stressed the need to reach agreement on Article6, which has to ensure rules to avoid double count-ing and maintain environmental integrity.

Edited by Meena Raman

8



Negotiations on Market and Non-market Mechanisms to Resumeafter Suspension

Bonn, 19 June (TWN) – Negotiations to work outthe operational details of the market and non-mar-ket mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agree-ment (PA) could not be launched as scheduled on18 June, the second day of the ongoing climate talksin Bonn.

The day was filled with confusion and it tookover three-and-a-half hours of informal consulta-tions by the Chair of the UNFCCC’s SubsidiaryBody for Scientific and Technological Advice(SBSTA) with heads of delegations to resolve theissue of launching work on the Article 6 issue,which will now begin on 19 June.

(Article 6 of the PA deals with cooperativeapproaches among Parties, which include the useof market and non-market mechanisms. Partieswere unable to arrive at an agreement on the op-erational details and rules to be applied in the imple-mentation of Article 6 at the 24th session of theConference of the Parties (COP 24) held inKatowice, Poland last year. COP 24 had adopted apackage of decisions on the rules to implement thePA, except matters related to Article 6. Therefore,a key focus of Parties in the ongoing Bonn sessionis on Article 6.)

Confusion arose when SBSTA Chair (PaulWatkinson from France) convened a contact groupin the morning of 18 June to discuss matters re-lated to Article 6 under agenda item 11.

While the contact group was meeting, infor-mal consultations under agenda item 10(b) of theSBSTA on the enhanced transparency framework(ETF - dealing with the reporting of informationon climate actions taken and support provided) werealso going on in parallel. The ETF agenda on item10(b) was dealing with ‘common tabular formatsfor the electronic reporting of the information nec-essary to track progress made in implementing and

achieving nationally determined contributions(NDC) under Article 4 of the PA’, and includedmatters relating to Article 6.

Some developing countries were concernedthat proceeding with discussions on matters relatedto Article 6 under the ETF agenda was not appro-priate as Parties have yet to reach agreement onwhat the Article 6 mechanisms look like and whatprinciples and rules should be applied. They there-fore objected to the continuation of work on Ar-ticle 6 in the contact group, and requested that dis-cussions on the ETF agenda item 10(b) also be sus-pended until a resolution could be found on how totake matters forward.

Discussions under both the agenda items[item 11 and item 10(b)] were then suspended andthe SBSTA Chair called for informal consultationswith heads of delegations to resolve the impasse.A way forward was eventually found which iselaborated further below.

The major bone of contention was around thedecision adopted in Katowice last year (under para-graph 77(d) of decision 18 of the Conference ofParties meeting as the Parties to the PA [CMA]) on‘modalities, procedures and guidelines for the trans-parency framework…’. (Paragraph 77(d) relates toParties being mandated to provide information re-lated to Article 6 to track progress in implement-ing and achieving their NDCs.)

(Paragraph 77 (d) of the decision states asfollows:

77. ‘Each Party shall provide the informa-tion… in a structured summary to track progressmade in implementing and achieving its NDC un-der Article 4, including:

(d) Each Party that participates in coopera-tive approaches that involve the use of internation-ally transferred mitigation outcomes towards an

9

NDC under Article 4, or authorizes the use of miti-gation outcomes for international mitigation pur-poses other than achievement of its NDC, shall alsoprovide the following information in the structuredsummary consistently with relevant decisionsadopted by the CMA on Article 6:(i) The annual level of anthropogenic emissions

by sources and removals by sinks covered bythe NDC on an annual basis reported bienni-ally;

(ii) An emissions balance reflecting the level ofanthropogenic emissions by sources and re-movals by sinks covered by its NDC adjustedon the basis of corresponding adjustments un-dertaken by effecting an addition for inter-nationally transferred mitigation outcomesfirst-transferred/transferred and a subtrac-tion for internationally transferred mitigationoutcomes used/acquired, consistent with de-cisions adopted by the CMA on Article 6;

(iii) Any other information consistent with deci-sions adopted by the CMA on reporting un-der Article 6;

(iv) Information on how each cooperative ap-proach promotes sustainable development;and ensures environmental integrity andtransparency, including in governance; andapplies robust accounting to ensure inter aliathe avoidance of double counting, consistentwith decisions adopted by the CMA on Ar-ticle 6.)’During the informal consultations organised

by the SBSTA Chair to resolve the impasse, sourcessaid that groups of Parties could be seen discussingin huddles. The consultations ended around 8 pm.It seems that despite arguments from developingcountries explaining their position, developedcountries led by the United States (US) wantedassurance that Parties would get down to discussingparagraph 77(d) in the ongoing session and did notwant the issue to be sidelined.

Developing countries from the Like-MindedDeveloping Countries (LMDC), Africa Groupand Arab Group of countries proposed that dis-cussions on the ETF agenda item 10(b) be sus-pended till negotiations on Article 6 are concluded.They explained that they were concerned that workin the transparency group would prejudice the ne-gotiations on Article 6. They wanted the assurancethat nothing should prejudice the negotiations onthe rules of implementation in relation to Article 6.Some negotiators from these groups also explainedthat paragraph 77(d) had terms such as ‘correspond-ing adjustments’ and ‘internationally transferred

mitigation outcomes (ITMOs)’, which were stillpending agreement under the negotiations.

They also expressed alarm that discussing thetransparency framework of a subject that was noteven agreed to yet ‘was like putting the cart beforea horse’. Speaking to TWN, a developing countrynegotiator lamented that the Article 6 mechanismsare not in place yet. ‘Terms such as ITMOs do nothave definitions. We will have to negotiate andarrive at a common understanding of ITMOs andeverything else under Article 6. How can we com-mit to providing information on something we havenot even agreed on?’ questioned the delegate.

Sources also revealed that developed coun-tries led by the US, Australia and Switzerlandwere of the view that Parties had the mandate todiscuss both the transparency framework and Ar-ticle 6 and therefore they were not in a position toaccept any proposal to suspend discussions on anymatter related to the transparency framework. TheUS wanted to discuss paragraph 77(d) and to sharetheir views and make submissions on it, added thesources further.

Explaining the politics behind the issue, aseasoned developing country observer told TWNthat there could be concerns among some develop-ing countries that developed countries wanted toadvance work on the market mechanisms throughthe transparency framework reporting, if the de-veloped countries could not get what they wantedin the ongoing negotiations under Article 6.

Following the huddles, Parties agreed on away forward. Sources said that the SBSTA Chairsaid that according to his understanding, there wasagreement to proceed with work on Article 6 andthe transparency framework agenda, with the as-surances that issues not related to Article 6 areprioritised and paragraph 77(d) of the CMA deci-sion is not prioritised as Parties work through theissues under agenda item 10(b). The SBSTA Chairalso said that no discussions are conclusive unlessParties so agree.

It was also decided that discussions on Ar-ticle 6 and paragraph 77(d) would not overlap andthis would allow experts to participate in both thediscussions if they so wished. The Chair invitedParties to bring to his attention any concern thatParties may have in response to which the Chairwould find a way to respond to the concerns ofParties.

The SBSTA Chair also said that he wouldguide the co-facilitators to conduct work accord-ingly and that it was a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’.

10

It is expected that the SBSTA Chair willorganise another contact group on 19 June to launchwork on Article 6 (given its earlier suspension).Work on agenda item 10 as a whole on the ETFwould also move forward, with the understandingthat those items not related to Article 6 would beprioritised under the agenda item.

Sources also said that the US ‘reluctantly’agreed to the assurances of the SBSTA Chair andsaid that they would have to revisit the mode ofwork in the session depending on the progress ofwork.

(SBSTA agenda item 10 is on the ETF and istitled ‘methodological issues under the PA’, withfive sub-components on: common reporting tables/common tabular formats for the electronic report-ing of information on national inventory reports ofgreenhouse gases; information necessary to trackprogress made in implementing and achieving

NDCs; information on financial, technology devel-opment and transfer and capacity building supportprovided and mobilised; outlines of the biennialtransparency report, national inventory documentand technical expert review report and trainingprogrammes for technical experts participating inthe technical expert review.)

The second day of the Bonn talks also sawwork begin in contact groups and informal consul-tations on several matters which included work onthe ETF; terms of reference for the 2019 review ofthe Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss andDamage, matters relating to the Adaptation Fund;scope of the next periodic review of the long-termglobal goal under the Convention and of overallprogress towards achieving it; and the programmebudget for the biennium 2020-2021 of the Secre-tariat.

11



Parties Begin Work on ‘Unresolved Issues’ overMarket/Non-market Mechanisms

Bonn, 20 June (Prerna Bomzan) – Work to developthe operational details of the market and non-mar-ket mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agree-ment (PA) was launched on 19 June, at the resumedfirst meeting of the contact group organised by theChair of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Sci-entific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), at theBonn climate talks.

Among the tasks identified was to begin workby identifying the issues that are ‘unresolved’, be-fore moving into the development of a negotiatingtext.

(The negotiating text for the discussions isan issue, as there are two texts that were devel-oped in Katowice, Poland last year, at theUNFCCC’s 24th meeting of the Conference ofParties (COP 24) – one was a text forwarded bythe SBSTA to the COP (of 8 December) and an-other which was developed by the Polish COPPresidency which was put forward on 14 Decem-ber 2018.)

At the contact group meeting on 19 June,SBSTA Chair (Paul Watkinson from France)proposed the mode of work as follows:

• The contact group will meet at least two moretimes to track progress and it will be respon-sible for preparing the formal conclusions.Substantive negotiations on all three agendaitems under Article 6 (i.e. on the internationaltransfer of mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) un-der Article 6.2; the sustainable developmentmechanism under Article 6.4 and the frame-work for non-market approaches under Ar-ticle 6.8) including the development of nego-tiating text will be managed by informal con-sultations and Parties would decide whetherspin-offs are required for ‘unresolved’ issues.Also, no ‘parallel’ discussions would take

place to allow for ‘inclusiveness’, taking noteof small delegations.

• The first report on progress made would bepresented in the second meeting of the con-tact group later in the week and the informalconsultations are expected to finalise workby 6 pm on 25 June, to allow the closing ofthe contact group in its third meeting on 26June.

• Further, to ensure transparency in the nego-tiation process, the SBSTA Chair invited Par-ties to allow the informal consultations to beopen to observers with the understanding thatthey would be closed for ‘sensitive’ issues atthe request of Parties.

Following the contact group meeting, at thefirst informal consultations, the co-facilitators HughSealy (Barbados) and Peer Stiansen (Norway) pro-posed the working modalities as follows: first stepis to aim at ‘stabilising’ the draft negotiating text;second step is to ‘identify unresolved issues’ thatneed to be addressed in this session and in ‘moreinformal setting in spin-off groups’; third step is tolaunch the spin-offs and report back; fourth step isto address the unresolved issues in informal con-sultations and capture progress made in the nextversion of the text. Further, considering the con-cerns of small delegations, no parallel spin-offswould be organised but ‘sequentially’ in ‘non-ne-gotiation hours’. Parties were then invited to presenttheir opening statements.

Saudi Arabia speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) raised a‘point of order’, and raised concerns over what is-sues would remain at informal consultations andwhat issues would go to the spin-offs. Further, italso pointed out its concerns over the schedulingof informals and spin-offs given already ‘six hours’

12

of informals and going beyond non-negotiationhours after 6 pm.

Egypt for the Arab Group echoed similarconcerns. It further sought clarification on what wasmeant by the ‘stabilisation’ of the draft negotiatingtext, given the two versions of the texts on the table.

Brazil expressed similar concerns on the‘stabilising of the draft negotiation text’, as a firststep, stressing that Parties had to ‘tackle the issuesfirst before we tackle any text’. It underscored that“there is no understanding that we have given youthe mandate to produce a text’ and that there are‘risks of undermining the confidence to tackle thesubstantive issues’. It stressed the need to reach a‘collective understanding of the challenges andprogress made’ and then to discuss on how to moveforward on the negotiating text.

Saudi Arabia for the LMDC echoed Egyptand Brazil and made clear that ‘there is no man-date to produce texts’ and that ‘Parties need to have“all-inclusive” discussions on how we will beginto formulate the text’.

Senegal for the Africa Group stated that itwill not ‘prejudge’ the need for spin-offs and if aconsolidated text is decided then ‘all options of boththe texts’ should be considered as well as ‘approvedby all Parties before substantive discussions’.

India also sought clarification on what wasmeant by the ‘stabilisation’ of texts.

Belize for the Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS) as well as Costa Rica for the Indepen-dent Alliance of Latin America and the Carib-bean (AILAC) welcomed the proposal for spin-off groups and a ‘stabilised text’, while Tuvalu forthe Least Developed Countries (LDCs) stated thatalthough the approach of ‘stabilising the text’ wasacceptable, ‘we need to find a way of nuancing thatin an appropriate manner’.

Canada and Australia welcomed both spin-offs and a stabilised text while the European Union(EU), New Zealand and Switzerland for the En-vironmental Integrity Group (EIG) also sup-ported the idea of a ‘stabilised text’. The UnitedStates said that although concerns have been raisedabout a consolidated text, it could support the pro-posal.

At the end of the first informal consultations,given too many concerns around the approach fora stabilised text, the co-facilitators acknowledgedthat ‘for now, we do not have a mandate’ and in-

formed that in the second informal consultationsin the afternoon, the unresolved issues would betaken up collectively.

At the second informal consultations heldlater, the co-facilitators stated the objective of gath-ering all unresolved issues in a list of 10-20 issuesin order to unlock those issues in the third infor-mal consultations the following day. Spin-offswould be organised with Parties’ consent whichwould ultimately lead to another iteration for thedraft negotiating text.

Saudi Arabia for the LMDC did not want alimit to be placed on the number of issues as thiswas ‘not conducive to a Party-driven outcome’. Itfurther said that ‘discussions should be open asmuch as possible’ and that the issues to be resolvedcould be based on the 14 December version of thetext, underlining that it would bring other issueson the table if the other version of the text wasconsidered.

Egypt for the Africa Group also listed itsissues based on the 14 December version of thetext as well as India, who pointed out additionalissues to that of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The EU proposed that ‘fundamental disagree-ments need to be clustered’.

At the end of the session, after hearing state-ments from Parties, the co-facilitators came up witha list of 14 clusters of unresolved issues across theArticle 6-related agenda items. Five of the clustersof issues will be discussed in the third informalconsultations on 20 June, with a duration of onehour for each cluster of issues.

Some of the unresolved issues include thedefinition of ITMOs; linkages between ITMOsunder Article 6.2 and the sustainable developmentmechanism under Article 6.4; governance and over-sight; nationally determined contributions (NDCs)and types of NDCs; reporting, review, recordingand tracking and sequencing with NDCs account-ing; share of proceeds; response measures, etc.

The next informal consultations will considerthe following five issues: the governance issuesaround the non-market approaches under Article6.8 and the sustainable development mechanismunder Article 6.4; the design of activities underArticle 6.4; what are ITMOs under Article 6.2 andall NDC types and metrics under Article 6.2.


13



Developing Countries Express Concerns over Arrangements forUNFCCC Meetings

Bonn, 21 June (TWN) – Agendas of the nextUNFCCC session, frequency of forthcoming meet-ings of the Conference of the Parties (COPs) andparticipation of non-Party stakeholders in the pro-cess have proved contentious in discussions underthe agenda item on ‘Arrangements for Intergov-ernmental Meetings (AIM)’ under the UNFCCC’sSubsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI).

These issues were discussed in informal con-sultations over 19-20 June during the ongoing cli-mate talks in Bonn, Germany, and Parties will con-tinue to deliberate on these matters further in sub-sequent consultations.

In relation to the proposed agenda for the nextUNFCCC session to be held in Santiago, Chile inDecember this year, some developing countriesexpressed surprise that the issue of adaptation wasdropped from the items to be included in the provi-sional agenda of the Conference of the Parties serv-ing as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agree-ment (CMA) and at proposals by the Secretariat toeither remove or conclude on agenda items that didnot enjoy consensus among Parties for the sake ofefficiency. (See further details below.)

On the frequency of COPs, some developedcountries were of the view that the meetings shouldnot be held annually after a given timeframe, sincethe focus of work was on in-country implementa-tion of the Paris Agreement (PA) and its workprogramme (PAWP). Developing countries on theother hand underlined the urgency for climate ac-tion and the need to maintain the political momen-tum of the intergovernmental process through theannual meetings.

On the participation of non-Party stakehold-ers, while some developed countries highlightedthe importance of providing space to non-Partystakeholders to promote their contributions in help-ing achieve the PA goals, developing countriesexpressed the view that while the participation ofnon-Party stakeholders was welcome, there shouldbe no doubt that it is the Parties who have legalobligations to undertake actions and should there-fore have the final say in the decisions they take.

Agenda of the next UNFCCC session

The next UNFCCC session is to be held from2-13 December, where three of the governing bod-ies will meet, viz. the COP, the CMA and the Con-ference of the Parties serving as the meeting of theParties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), along withthe two subsidiary bodies – the Subsidiary Bodyfor Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)and SBI.

Discussions in relation to the agendas of thegoverning bodies became contentious with propos-als from the Secretariat to improve the efficiencyof the process1.

According to the note by the Executive Sec-retary, ‘With most elements of the PAWP now hav-ing been adopted, the CMA will need to develop anew agenda for its second session. The secretariatsuggests that this could also be an opportunity toupdate the agendas of the COP and the CMP sothat they better address the outcomes of the Parisand Katowice Conferences that relate to work un-der the COP and under the CMP with a view todeveloping agendas that are relevant, well struc-tured, concise and forward-looking.’

1 Document FCCC/SBI/2019/6 (Page 6)

14

The Secretariat in its note also proposed thefollowing criteria to increase ‘efficiency’:

• ‘removing items that are traditionally referredorally to the subsidiary bodies and are stand-ing items on their agendas;

• exploring ways to conclude the considerationof items that have been held in abeyance forseveral years;

• exploring ways to conclude the considerationof items that have repeatedly failed to reacha consensus on an outcome; and

• not including items that have not had mattersfor consideration at recent sessions’.

During the discussions on the issue, the Eu-ropean Union (EU) said that there was scope forstreamlining the agendas and encouraged the Sec-retariat and the COP Presidency to make furtheradvances in the area. The EU also encouraged theSecretariat to pursue its ideas.

Egypt for the Africa Group wondered whatwas driving such proposals as ‘removing or con-cluding items that did not reach consensus’. It saidthat this was not the appropriate way to proceed,adding that just because Parties could not agree onsomething, did not mean those Parties who hadproposed the agenda items could be by-passed.Egypt said that there were rules that dictated whenan agenda item could be reviewed or deleted andthese rules should be followed.

Egypt also referred to the items proposed forthe CMA provisional agenda (that was annexed tothe note by the Executive Secretary) and expressedsurprise that the issue of adaptation had been omit-ted from the agenda entirely, and asked if the issuewas being omitted entirely from the Conventionand the PA altogether. It proposed that the CMAagenda follow the structure of the PA (which in-cludes adaptation).

(According to the Executive Secretariat’snote, the possible elements of the proposed provi-sional agenda of the CMA include: opening of thesession; organisational matters; reports of subsid-iary bodies; public registries under the PA; theWarsaw International Mechanism for Loss andDamage; matters relating to finance; developmentand transfer of technologies; capacity-buildingunder the PA; report of the forum on the impact ofthe implementation of response measures; coop-erative implementation under the PA [relating tothe Article 6 market mechanisms and non-market

approaches]; administrative, financial and institu-tional matters; the special needs and special cir-cumstances of Africa under the PA; the high-levelsegment; and other matters.)

China also expressed caution over the remov-ing of agenda items without the consensus of Par-ties. Saudi Arabia said it was not in a position tosupport removal of items from the agendas.

Frequency of COPs and governing bodies

Ahead of the Bonn session, the UNFCCCSecretariat had also prepared a synthesis report onthe submissions of Parties on the ‘views on the fre-quency and location of sessions of the governingbodies after 2020 and their budgetary and otherimplications’2.

According to the synthesis report, Switzer-land in its submission noted that with the adoptionof the PAWP, climate change processes had reacheda level of ‘maturity’ that was similar to other envi-ronmental agreements that meet on a ‘biennial ortriennial cycle’. Switzerland also stated that ‘thefrequency of COP sessions needs to be consistentwith the new regime while taking into account thecycles established by the PA’. (Emphasis added.)

(Several developing countries expressed con-cern to TWN that the term ‘new regime’ was mis-leading and should not be used, as everything thatwas being done under the PA was to enhance theimplementation of the Convention and there wasno ‘new regime’.)

Switzerland’s proposal, as reflected in thesynthesis report, includes different options such asCOPs being held twice or thrice in five years, start-ing in 2028, with a leader’s event every five yearscoinciding with the global stocktake (to assess thecollective progress of Parties in implementing thePA goals).

The synthesis report also states that accord-ing to some Parties, making the cycle of the COPsessions less frequent than annual ‘would ensurean effective process while avoiding unnecessaryburdens on Parties and the secretariat’.

The synthesis report also notes that the Inde-pendent Alliance of Latin America and the Car-ibbean (AILAC) held the view that considerationof the frequency of sessions should be postponeduntil 2028 and called on the Secretariat to prepare‘an information note on the implications of anychange in the frequency of COP sessions on ful-filling the mandates and commitments of Parties

2 Document FCCC/SBI/2019/INF.1

15

under the PA and the outcomes of its workprogramme’.

The Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS) held the view that discussions on the fre-quency of meetings could be postponed until after2030, ‘given the critical importance of the 2020-2030 period’, the synthesis report stated.

Egypt for the Africa Group in its submis-sion3 said that the COP shall be held once everyyear unless the COP decides otherwise. The AfricaGroup in their submission stated that ‘notwithstand-ing the agreement on substantial parts of the PAWPin COP 24, much work remains to be done for thePA to become fully operational’. The group rec-ommended that Parties should continue with thecurrent approach of annual sessions.

Referring to the submissions, Parties had aninteresting exchange during the Bonn session.

Egypt referred to the forthcoming UN-Sec-retary General (UN-SG) Summit on Climate Ac-tion in September 2019 in New York, and said thatthe UN-SG Summit was a result of the outcomesof Paris and Katowice under the UNFCCC, stress-ing that it was not UN-SG summits that led to theoutcomes. It said that the UNFCCC is the coremultilateral process that deals with climate changeand discussions on decreasing its frequency wouldsend out a wrong message to the world that theUNFCCC is no longer relevant. The challenge ofclimate change has not ended by adopting the PA,Egypt said, and added that much remains to bedone.

The Maldives for the AOSIS provided ex-amples of mandates from the various decisionsadopted lasting up to 2030, and added that themomentum of the intergovernmental process needsto be maintained given the scale of the challengeat hand. The Maldives referred to the Special Re-port on 1.5°C (1.5 SR) by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) to underscore theurgency of climate action and for the need to en-gage in the issue.

Costa Rica for the AILAC said that it wascritical to ensure that the commitments of Partiesunder the PA and PAWP are not undermined andalso referred to the 1.5 SR to say that ambition mustbe scaled up over the next 10 years to ensure thatthe PA’s objectives are met. Costa Rica added thatfrequency was instrumental to keep the politicalmomentum ongoing. Referring to their submission,it said that the discussion on frequency must bedeferred until 2028.

China said that the frequency of further ses-sions was closely related to governance mattersunder the UNFCCC and the PA. It reminded Par-ties that when the PA and the PAWP were negoti-ated, the assumption was that COP would conveneevery year and if the frequency was changed, itwould impact several processes. To increase effi-ciency, China suggested having shortened durationsof meetings and said maybe it could be a week-long COP instead of the duration lasting two weeks.

According to the EU, given the divergencesof views on the topic of frequency, there should bein-depth discussions on the issue, adding that itwould be important to discuss ways in which theUNFCCC process could be improved to better fitwith enhanced ambition and implementation. TheEU said Parties should think about making theambition cycle the driving issue in the scheduleand time allocation of meetings. It added furtherthat at certain moments, Parties would need stron-ger political involvement, which should be consid-ered as well.

The United States encouraged Parties tothink about increasing the ‘efficiency’ of the pro-cess, and added that while Parties may discuss theissue further, they were unlikely to reach consen-sus on it.

Switzerland referred to its submission in itsintervention and said that while annual COPs hadplayed an integral role in providing guidance, fol-lowing the adoption of the PAWP, the focus wouldturn to technical work and implementation in eachcountry and that post-2020, one must have a‘broader perspective’. It said that it agreed withthe AILAC and AOSIS that climate action and am-bition must be rapidly scaled up, but having yearlymeetings would not measure effectiveness and low-ering the frequency would reduce the financialburden on Parties and the Secretariat.

Participation of observers

In relation to participation of observers andnon-Party stakeholders, the EU said an outward-looking approach or encouraging more special ses-sions where international organisations get a spaceto promote their contributions in helping to achievethe PA goals would be very useful. It also calledfor the involvement of non-Party stakeholders, es-pecially youth, in the process.

3 Document FCCC/SBI/2019/INF.1/Add.1

16

Egypt for the Africa Group said it was notagainst having different stakeholders in the pro-cess and welcomed non-Party stakeholders’ engage-ment, but that should not undermine the fact thatthe UNFCCC is a Party-driven process where Par-ties undertake legal obligations through decisions.Since decisions are the legal obligation of Parties,they should have the final say in the decisions, itelaborated further.

China said that while it welcomed the en-gagement of non-Party stakeholders in the process,it should be recognised that the process is inter-governmental, and this should be preserved. It alsocalled for effective, balanced participation and saidthat Parties should think about enhancing the par-ticipation of non-Party stakeholders from develop-ing countries to strike a balance in their participa-tion. Saudi Arabia expressed similar sentimentsas China and Egypt.


17



Developed Countries Push for Changes to Adaptation Fund

24 June, Bonn (TWN) – Discussions over thecomposition of the Adaptation Fund (AF) Boardand eligibility of Parties to the Board have becomecontentious at the ongoing climate talks in Bonn,Germany. This was due to the proposals bydeveloped countries, including the United States(US), to change the composition of the AF Board.

Developing countries were united that theydo not envisage any change in the composition ofthe AF Board now. The exchange happened in aseries of informal consultations under the ongoingtalks of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body forImplementation (SBI).

(In a decision adopted in December 2018 inKatowice, Poland, [para 4 of decision 1/CMP] theSBI was tasked to consider the membership of theAF Board and to forward a recommendation to theConference of the Parties serving as the meetingof the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) for itsconsideration at its session later this year.)

During the discussions, several developingcountry groupings under the G77 and China saidthat the decision adopted in Katowice had madeclear that developing and developed countries thatare Parties to the Paris Agreement (PA) are eligiblefor membership on the AF Board and therefore,there was no need to discuss the matter further.They stressed that under the SBI, they were nottasked to reconfigure the number of members orchange the composition of the Board. They alsosaid that they would like to maintain the currentcomposition of the Board as is, while adding thatthe AF was very dear to developing countriesbecause of its specific focus on adaptation and theFund’s unique direct access modalities.

Developed countries, led by the EuropeanUnion, Switzerland and Norway, however,referred to past decisions (viz. decision 1/CMP.3),which outlined the composition of the Board and

had references to the annexes to the Convention.They said that this needed to be changed, giventhat the PA does not refer to Annex I and Non-Annex I, but uses the terms developed anddeveloping countries. Further, they proposed, intheir submissions, that the composition be changedto 18 members (from the current 16 members), andinclude representatives from Eastern Europe andWestern European groups.

These proposals were reflected in an informalnote by the co-facilitators for the informalconsultations, Amjad Abdulla (Maldives) andFiona Gilbert (Australia).

(Decision 1/CMP.3 decided that the AF Boardshall have 16 members, representing Parties to theKyoto Protocol [KP], taking into account fair andbalanced representation among these groups andwould include two representatives from each ofthe five United Nations regional groups; onerepresentative of the Small Island DevelopingStates [SIDS]; one representative of the LeastDeveloped Country Parties; two otherrepresentatives from the Parties included in AnnexI to the Convention [Annex I Parties]; two otherrepresentatives from the Parties not included inAnnex I to the Convention [non-Annex I Parties].)

Further, developed countries also said thatwhen the Fund exclusively serves the PA, thecomposition would have to be adjusted. As anoutcome of the Bonn session, they wanted the draftconclusions to also reflect that when the AF servesthe PA exclusively, the issue of changing thecomposition of the Board be taken up by theConference of the Parties serving as the meetingof the Parties to the PA (CMA). Some developedcountries also said that the rules of procedure ofthe AF need to be amended.

The AF currently serves both the KP and thePA. In Poland last year, it was decided that the AF

18

shall exclusively serve the PA and shall no longerserve the KP, once the share of proceeds underArticle 6.4 of the PA becomes available.

(Negotiations on the share of proceeds arecurrently ongoing in Bonn. Article 6.4 establishesa mechanism to contribute to the mitigation ofgreenhouse gas emissions and support sustainabledevelopment for use by Parties on a voluntarybasis. Article 6 of the PA deals with cooperativeapproaches among Parties, which include the useof market and non-market mechanisms. Partieswere unable to arrive at an agreement on theoperational details and rules to be applied in theimplementation of Article 6 in Poland last year.)

In response to developed countries’ calls forthe SBI draft conclusions to reflect that the AFserves the PA exclusively and for amendments tothe Board’s composition, developing counties saidthat there was no hurry to do so. They said therewas no need for a recommendation on the AFserving the PA exclusively when the CMP hadalready decided on this, which was linked to shareof proceeds from the Article 6.4 mechanism, whichwas still under negotiations.

On proposals to amend the rules of procedure,developing countries said that the AF Board wasalready considering issues in relation to rules ofprocedure; hence, it was not necessary to provideany recommendations to that effect.

(The decision from Katowice [in para 6 ofdecision 1/CMP.14] requests the AF Board toconsider the rules of procedure of the Board, thearrangements of the AF with respect to the PA andany other matter so as to ensure the AF serves the

PA smoothly and to make recommendations to theCMP at its next session, in December 2019.)

According to a senior developing countrydelegate who spoke to TWN, the proposals raisedby developed countries have to do with the situationof the US, which was not on the AF Board as itwas not a Party to the KP, and wants to get involvedin the AF under the PA and change the structure ofthe Fund.

Divergences also arose on the next steps inrelation to whether the co-facilitators’ proposeddraft conclusions should refer to an informal noteprepared by co-facilitators which captures theviews expressed by Parties on eligibility,amendments to the AF Board rules of procedure,possible changes to the Board composition, andan option of no recommendation to be forwardedand for the next SBI session to continuediscussions.

The views expressed by Parties include thatof the US as well, which has an observer status inthe KP. Some developing countries sought legalclarification of whether the US’s views could beincluded in the submission and added that not allthe views were reflected in the informal note.

The Africa Group, Least DevelopedCountries, India and China were againstincluding the informal note in the draft conclusions,whereas Switzerland, Japan and Norway werein favour of including the informal note.

Since there was no consensus, the next stepsare likely to be decided either in additional informalconsultations or at the closing plenary of the SBIon 27 June, which is the last day of the Bonn talks.

19



Disagreements over Review of Achievements under the UNFCCC

Bonn, 26 June (TWN) – Disagreements betweendeveloped and developing countries arose over theneed to review the progress on achievements un-der the UNFCCC, at the Bonn climate talks. Thetalks, which began on 17 June, are scheduled toend on 27 June.

Developing countries led by the G77 andChina wanted a review of the overall progress andimplementation of actions of Parties in the pre-2020period under the Convention and the Kyoto Proto-col, covering mitigation and adaptation actions aswell as the provision of support to developing coun-tries and to address the implementation gaps.

Developed countries on the other hand op-posed the need for a review, as they said that amechanism was already in place under the globalstocktake (GST) of the Paris Agreement (PA),which will take place in 2023. (The GST will fo-cus on the collective progress of Parties in imple-menting the PA in the post-2020 time frame.)

These disagreements emerged at the informalconsultations under the agenda item related to the‘scope of the next periodic review of the long-termglobal goal under the Convention and of overallprogress towards achieving it’, which is handledjointly by the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Sci-entific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) andSubsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI).

With no agreement on the scope of the peri-odic review, Parties agreed to forward draft proce-dural conclusions to the Chairs of the SubsidiaryBodies, to consider the issue further at its next ses-sion to be held in December this year in Chile.

(In 2010, Parties had agreed on a long-termglobal goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions soas to hold the increase in global average tempera-ture below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. TheUNFCCC’s Conference of Parties [COP] also de-cided to periodically review: (i) the adequacy of

the long-term global goal in the light of the ulti-mate objective of the Convention, and (ii) the over-all progress toward achieving the long-term globalgoal, including a consideration of the implementa-tion of the commitments under the Convention.)

(The first periodic review was the 2013-2015review. It led to the decision in Paris in 2015 onthe new long-term global goal ‘that the goal is tohold the increase in the global average tempera-ture to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levelsand to pursue efforts to limit the temperature in-crease to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recog-nizing that this would significantly reduce the risksand impacts of climate change’ [which was alsoreflected in the PA] and that ‘in the light of theoverall progress made towards achieving the long-term global goal, including consideration of theimplementation of the commitments under theConvention, Parties should act urgently and ambi-tiously under the Convention while recognizing thetechnological, economic and institutional chal-lenges’.)

(In 2017, at the 23rd meeting of the UNFCCC[COP 23], Parties requested the Subsidiary Bodiesto resume their consideration of this matter at thecurrent climate talks, with a view to forwarding arecommendation to COP 25, to be held later thisyear and for this to also take into account the rel-evant work on the GST.)

A key divergence at the present Bonn talkswas around whether the periodic review itselfshould continue. While several developed coun-tries proposed that there was no need to continuewith the periodic review, developing countries ar-gued that the scope of the agenda item was not aboutnegotiating the mandate of the long-term goal re-view, but it was about defining the scope of thesecond periodic review as mandated under theConvention.

20

Several divergences emerged during thecourse of the discussions in informal consulta-tions on the issue, which were captured in a docu-ment referenced as a footnote to the proposed draftconclusions.

The G77 and China were united in their de-mand to flesh out the scope of the periodic reviewand provided a proposal that stressed that the sec-ond periodic review should focus on the followingmatters:• ‘Overall progress and implementation in the

period up to 2020 in relation to the imple-mentation of the mitigation pledges made byParties included in Annex I to the Conven-tion, including the commitments under theKyoto Protocol;

• The nationally appropriate mitigation actionscommunicated by Parties not included inAnnex I to the Convention under decision 1/CP.16;

• The implementation of adaptation actions andthe provision of support for adaptation in de-veloping countries;

• The fulfillment of existing commitments un-der the Convention with respect to the provi-sion of the means of implementation to de-veloping countries, and addressing any imple-mentation gaps in this regard.’The proposal also said that the second peri-

odic review shall not duplicate work with, norprejudice the outcomes of, the GST and it shouldstart in 2020 and conclude by 2022.

However, the United States, New Zealand,Canada, Australia and the European Union (EU)said that there was no need for the review giventhe GST mechanism in place under the PA.

This was reflected in the proposals by devel-oped countries that the scope of the second peri-odic review was no longer relevant. They calledfor the SBSTA and SBI to recommend that the re-view be closed, ‘to avoid duplication of work andensure the effectiveness and efficiency of relevantprocesses under the Convention and the PA, includ-ing the adoption of decision regarding the GST’.

Several developed countries were of the viewthat with existing processes such as the pre-2020stocktake (stock-taking of the efforts in the pre-2020 time frame under the Convention), the an-nual forum of the Standing Committee on Finance,the work on long- term climate finance and forth-coming processes such as the GST in place, there

was no need for the periodic review and that if ittook place, it should not duplicate existing pro-cesses.

Developing countries led by the Like MindedDeveloping Countries (LMDC) responded thatnon-duplication of work should not result in theabsence of a balanced review that treats only whatis left over from other review processes already inplace. ‘While separate, component processes un-der the Convention may contribute to the review,they cannot over-ride the need for all elements un-der the Convention to be integral aspects of thereview,’ said India for the LMDC.

The LMDC also said that the ‘retreat in glo-bal climate action signaled by the desire of indi-vidual Parties to exit from various agreements andcommitments and its consequences in the lack ofadequate mitigation efforts must find its due placein the review’, in an obvious reference to the USwhich has notified that it will exit the PA.

On the differences between the periodic re-view and the GST, developing countries said thatwhile the GST process begins in 2023 and has aperiodicity of five years, the review under the Con-vention takes place after every assessment of theIPCC or seven years from the previous review.

They also said that the possibility of over-shoot scenarios did not unambiguously lie withinthe scope of the PA, whereas it is readily accom-modated under the Convention, and therefore theperiodic review must continue.

However, no agreement could be reached, andParties agreed to continue the consideration of thismatter at the next session (in Chile later this year),with a view to forwarding a recommendation forconsideration by COP 25. This was reflected in thedraft procedural conclusions agreed to during in-formal consultations on 25 June.

In the draft conclusions agreed, Parties de-cided to recall relevant decisions on the scope ofthe next periodic review; noted that Parties ex-changed their views on the matter at this session.The draft conclusions also take note of past deci-sions including on the GST.

With the Bonn climate talks scheduled to endon 27 June, negotiations on some issues such ascommon time frames and technology-related issueshave concluded. However, several other issues suchas Article 6, terms of reference for the Warsaw In-ternational Mechanism on Loss and Damage, andthe IPCC 1.5°C Special Report, are ongoing.

21



Parties Unable to Agree on Advancing Work onMarket/Non-market Approaches

Bonn, 27 June (Prerna Bomzan) – Agreement onthe way forward on advancing work on the negoti-ating texts on market mechanisms and non-marketapproaches under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement(PA) could not be reached on the penultimate dayof the Bonn climate talks, which are scheduled toend today, 27 June.

A contact group presided over by the Chairof the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Scientificand Technological Advice (SBSTA) has beenscheduled morning of the final day for two hoursin an effort to make further progress.

Many Parties had requested for more time toread and consider the iteration of the negotiatingtexts on Article 6 when the contact group was con-vened evening of Wednesday, 26 June.

SBSTA Chair (Paul Watkinson fromFrance) convened the contact group meeting to‘discuss the outcomes of work’ carried out in thecurrent session and to ‘agree on the conclusions’to be adopted at the SBSTA plenary on the con-cluding day.

Following a flurry of interventions by Par-ties, SBSTA Chair Watkinson noted the clear needfor Parties to read the texts proposed (given thatthe documents had just been made available be-fore the contact group met). He appreciated that‘many groups were not ready to engage on the draftconclusions’ and announced a contact group meet-ing in the morning of Thursday, hoping to ‘find avery positive way forward’. He also wanted Par-ties to consider the draft conclusions that he hadproposed.

The contact group also heard the report fromthe co-facilitators who had conducted the informalconsultations on the matter. One of the co-facilita-tors, Peer Stiansen (Norway), reported that the‘new iteration’ (which was a second iteration) of

texts of all three items under Article 6 (i.e. on theinternational transfer of mitigation outcomes(ITMOs) under Article 6.2; the sustainable devel-opment mechanism under Article 6.4 and the frame-work for non-market approaches under Article 6.8)had been released just before the convening of thecontact group.

Stiansen clarified about the ‘two versions’ ofeach text, one being a ‘clean’ text while the othercontained ‘highlighted changes’ and hoped that theyhad ‘managed to reflect’ views and proposals fromParties. He further elaborated that views had beencaptured in the form of ‘options’ and ‘narratives’with a lot of ‘brackets’ (not agreed) and that they‘did not remove’ text from the last version, whileonly removing those text based on the ‘direction’of Parties during the informal consultations.

(The texts prepared contained draft decisionsto be adopted by the Conference of Parties to thePA [CMA] and annexes which detail the guidanceon cooperative approaches under Article 6.2[ITMOs]; the rules, modalities and procedures forthe Article 6.4 mechanism [sustainable develop-ment mechanism] and the work programme for non-market approaches under Article 6.8.)

(The annex for the ITMOs include mattersrelating to the definition of ITMOs, governance,responsibilities of the participating countries, track-ing of ITMOs, corresponding adjustments, multi-year and single-year nationally determined contri-butions [NDCs], reporting, review, safeguards andlimits, share of proceeds for adaptation, and ad-dressing the negative social and economic impacts,etc. In relation to the sustainable developmentmechanism, the annex rules cover matters such asthe definition of the mechanism, the supervisorybody, governance and functions, the responsibili-ties of participating countries, the activity design,

22

safeguards and limits, the share of proceeds foradaptation and addressing the negative impacts ofthe mechanism. As regards the non-market ap-proaches [NMA], the text covers elements relat-ing to the principles, the framework for the NMA,governance, modalities and activities of the workprogramme.)

Following the co-facilitator’s report, SBSTAChair Watkinson hoped that views had been cap-tured on an ‘accurate basis’ and then drew the at-tention of Parties to the ‘draft conclusions’ that hehad produced. He proposed to briefly walk throughthe conclusions with a view to forwarding them tothe SBSTA plenary for adoption.

Saudi Arabia speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) made apoint of order and firmly expressed that it was ‘notprepared’ to engage on the draft conclusions sinceParties have not got the chance to reflect on thenew text. It also questioned the ‘status’ of the draftconclusions.

Watkinson responded that he understood thatParties need time to reflect on the text, nonethe-less, he asked them to ‘allow’ him to walk throughand explain the conclusions. He would then ‘openthe floor’ for discussion for ‘next steps’.

Tuvalu for the Least Developed Countries(LDCs) said that the approach was ‘reasonable’.

Watkinson then explained that the proposedconclusions only have ‘three’ paragraphs with thethird as ‘placeholder’. In the first paragraph, the‘content is very clear’ on the work carried out acrossthe three items (on Article 6); the second paragraphcontained the ‘mandate’ given by relevant decisionswith footnotes linked to those documents and thethird paragraph represents a placeholder for ‘man-dating intersessional, if any’. Further, this place-holder is ‘bracketed’ because some Parties sup-ported it while others did not.

Saudi Arabia for the LMDC took the flooragain and reiterated that the group was not readyto engage on the draft conclusions as that wouldlead to ‘prejudging any possible discussions’ onthe three texts. It requested for more time to gothrough the texts and to understand it comprehen-sively and reflect on it, adding that ‘we need coor-dination with our delegation and our groups’.

Egypt for the Arab Group echoed similarconcerns of receiving the texts ‘just few minutesago’, further saying ‘we are not going to engage’unless ‘having enough time to go through the sec-ond iteration (of the texts) which has no status’.

Tuvalu for the LDCs also came back statingthat there was ‘value in intersessional work to re-solve some more technical work and reflect on thetexts with options’. ‘There are some political is-sues but also technical issues,’ it added.

South Korea supported Tuvalu and suggestedthe need for ‘technical papers’ and ‘maybe a Party-driven process on some focused workshop’.

Belize for the Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS) also supported intersessional work as itwould ‘benefit focused attention’.

Brazil sought clarification on the ‘mode ofwork’ on whether to ‘engage or postpone discus-sions’. It stated that ‘we cannot support the draftconclusions’ and its ‘format’ as there has been a‘change in the way we have been working’, with‘different sets of conclusions’ for the three items.‘We do not see any room for any intersessionalwork,’ it added, as there was already a ‘very goodunderstanding on views’.

Senegal for the Africa Group supportedintersessional work and expressed ‘flexibility’ inthe mode of that technical work.

Saudi Arabia for the LMDC again requestedfor the floor, expressing ‘surprise’ that ‘there wasno concern that the three texts have just come out’and ‘nobody was interested in reflecting on themand giving opinions’. It reaffirmed that ‘for us it isimportant to preserve the work’ and ‘by ignoringthis and discussing draft conclusions is very con-cerning to us’.

Costa Rica for the Independent Alliance ofLatin America and the Caribbean (AILAC)stated that it was ‘flexible’ on whether to have oneor three sets of conclusions. It also agreed on thetechnical intersessional work and was ‘happy tosupport moving forward’.

The European Union said that the draft con-clusions were a ‘package of decisions’ and that thishad been the case since the beginning and it was‘open to a single set of conclusions’ as well as fora technical paper and intersessional work.

India aligned with Saudi Arabia and saidthat unless Parties see the texts, it was not possibleto agree to the conclusions. It was also not in favourof intersessional work. Iran also could not sup-port intersessional work. Similar sentiments wereexpressed by Algeria, Bolivia, Kuwait, Ecuadorand the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Switzerland for the Environmental Integ-rity Group (EIG) also supported intersessionalwork in order to ‘enhance common understanding

23

for better preparations for Santiago’, referring tothe year-end talks in Chile. Mexico echoed Swit-zerland on the intersessional work.

Senegal for the Africa Group proposed hav-ing further discussions on the last day of the meet-ing to advance further work.

Australia supported that ‘many Parties aresaying putting the cart before the horse’ in termsof the latest iteration of the text.

Norway echoed Switzerland, Mexico and theEU while Japan also supported a single-set of con-

clusions and emphasised on technical intersessionalwork along with a technical paper.

The rules for the implementation of Article 6was an outstanding item under the PA WorkProgramme that could not be agreed to in Katowice,Poland last year. Parties will reconvene morningof Thursday, 27 June, to see if any agreement canbe reached on the way forward on the matter inBonn.


24


www.twn.my Published by 2 July 2019Third World Network

Controversy over the IPCC’s 1.5°C Special Report (SR1.5)

Penang, 2 July (TWN) — The issue of the 1.5°CSpecial Report (SR1.5) by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) became highlycontentious at the recently concluded climate talksin Bonn, Germany.

The failure to arrive at substantial conclusionson the SR1.5 report hogged media headlines whichreported on the Bonn talks. Below is a report ofwhat actually transpired at the talks on the matter.

The talks were held from 17-27 June and theissue was discussed in the UNFCCC’s SubsidiaryBody for Scientific and Technological Advice(SBSTA) under a sub-agenda item titled ‘Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Re-port on Global Warming of 1.5°C’. The sub-agendaitem was under the agenda item on ‘Matters relat-ing to science and review’.

The contentious issues included whether theissue should be discussed as a separate agenda item;what substance from the report should be capturedin draft conclusions; and what further work shouldbe done related to 1.5°C.

‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’

Ahead of the SBSTA opening on 17 June, theSBSTA Chair, Paul Watkinson (France), con-vened closed-door consultations with Parties wherehe apprised them that there were objections to theinclusion of the sub-agenda item on the SR1.5 inthe agenda. He sought a resolution on the matter toensure that the SBSTA agenda would be adopted‘smoothly’, sources said.

Repeating the mandate from the 24th sessionof the UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties (COP24) held in Poland in last year, he said that COP 24through its decision (1/CP.24) had requested theSBSTA ‘to consider’ (emphasis added) SR1.5‘with a view to strengthening scientific knowledgeon the 1.5°C goal, including in the context of the

preparation of the Sixth Assessment Report [AR6]of the IPCC and the implementation of the Con-vention and the Paris Agreement (PA)’.

During the meeting Parties deliberated onwhether ‘to consider’ meant creating a separateagenda item on the issue, sources said.

According to Saudi Arabia, considerationcould be an event or discussions under an existingagenda item rather than creating a new agenda item.

Switzerland and the European Union (EU)said that they were in favour of discussions undera separate agenda item, which in their view wouldnot be a permanent new agenda item. They sug-gested that the issue could perhaps conclude at theJune Bonn session.

The Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS), Least Developed Countries (LDCs)and the Independent Alliance of Latin Americaand the Caribbean (AILAC) spoke on the im-portance of the report and of discussing it under aseparate agenda item, and said they looked for sub-stantive conclusions at the Bonn session.

Saudi Arabia responded that they were in-terested in having time and space to discuss thereport and that they had not had the time and spaceto voice their views about the report. It agreed withthe approach of wanting to start and close discus-sions at the Bonn session.

Australia said it saw procedural conclusionsemerging at the end of the Bonn session. TheUnited States (US) said it was happy to have dis-cussions and to work on a substantive conclusion,adding that if Parties were unable to achieve con-sensus, the agenda item itself would conclude andat the minimum, they would have procedural con-clusions. The matter should not move to the nextsession, said the US.

The consultations with the SBSTA Chair thusconcluded with a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ that theissue would see substantive exchanges among Par-

25

ties and the matter would conclude at the Bonnsession. In relation to the conclusions, the SBSTAChair said conclusions would depend on the dis-cussions during the session and encouraged Par-ties to reach substantive conclusions but if therewas no agreement among Parties, there would beprocedural conclusions.

Discussions on the issue

Thus, with the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ as thebackdrop, Parties discussed the SR1.5 spread overseven informal consultations, co-facilitated byAnnela Anger-Kraavi (Estonia) and LadislausChag’a (Tanzania).

The informal consultations saw an exchangeof substantive views among Parties, several proce-dural difficulties in relation to when to draft con-clusions and engage in informal-informal settings,besides several divergent views on how to capturethe discussions in the draft conclusions.

Saudi Arabia highlighted several knowledgegaps of the SR1.5 and said that these should bereflected in the draft conclusions. It quoted theknowledge gaps from the report in areas such asthe availability of information; lack of adequateresearch to analyse projected differences in impactsof 1.5°C and 2°C warming; and intersection of cli-mate change with development pathways amongseveral other issues.

Canada suggested that while the knowledgegaps were reflected in the level of confidence withthe findings in the SR1.5, it hoped to see ‘morecomprehensive addressing’ of the issues raised bySaudi Arabia. New Zealand wanted the conclu-sions to reflect that the report had enhanced theunderstanding of countries and that countries wereusing the findings of the report.

The EU said the report was quite useful, andencouraged the scientific community to address thegaps, while outlining that the discussion be cap-tured in the draft conclusions. It said that it agreedwith the challenges highlighted by Saudi Arabiabut that the SR1.5 is a building block and that fur-ther reports such as the Special Report on Landand Oceans and the AR6 of the IPCC are due, andthis should be reflected in the conclusions.

Costa Rica said while it understands the limi-tation of scientific research, the SR1.5 had usedthe ‘best available science’.

Saint Kitts and Nevis for the AOSIS thankedSaudi Arabia for pointing out the knowledge gapsand added that the gaps were proof that the reportshould be discussed further. St Kitts and Nevis al-

luded to a proposal jointly tabled by the AOSIS,LDCs and AILAC, which highlighted the impor-tance of the SR1.5, underscored the urgency of cli-mate action and included future work in relation tothe SR1.5 in the form of workshops to further in-crease understanding of the SR1.5.

The LDCs and AILAC backed St Kitts andNevis in their interventions and underlined the im-portance of messages from the SR1.5. Ethiopia forthe LDCs stressed that one should not question thelimitations of the report and that the AR6 of theIPCC would address the limitations.

Draft conclusions

Following substantive discussions amongParties, the co-facilitators presented a version ofthe draft conclusions on 25 June, which was fur-ther revised following comments by Parties. Therevised version, released on 26 June, had 16 para-graphs. During the informal consultations, the co-facilitators proposed that Parties go through thedraft conclusions paragraph by paragraph.

The first four paragraphs were procedural innature. The fifth paragraph noted that the SR1.5had increased Parties’ collective understanding ofglobal warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial lev-els and paragraph 6 referred to the SR1.5 and tooknote of the level of greenhouse gas emissions in2030 to hold the increase in global average tem-perature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Para-graphs 7 to 10 highlighted the knowledge gaps,methodological challenges and the need tostrengthen scientific knowledge. Paragraphs 11-15spoke to forthcoming reports by the IPCC, futurework in the form of workshops and for the secre-tariat to prepare a summary report of workshops.Paragraph 16, in line with the gentlemen’s agree-ment, said that the work under the sub-item hadbeen completed.

During the discussions, after having gonethrough the first six paragraphs, the EU said it hadsent texts to the Secretariat which streamlined para-graphs 7-16 and requested the text to be shown onthe screen. The EU was supported by the AOSIS,AILAC, LDCs, Argentina, Japan, the US, Aus-tralia, Norway, Canada and Mexico which spokefor the Environment Integrity Group (EIG). StKitts and Nevis for the AOSIS further said thatthey had had ‘informal conversations’ and agreedwith the EU to streamline the text.

Saudi Arabia, however, refused to see anytext that was a result of consultations and discus-sions that they were not aware or been a part of. It

26

requested the co-facilitators to not deviate from theagreed mode of work and to continue proceedingparagraph by paragraph. It also said that paragraphs7 to10 on knowledge gaps and the shortcomings ofthe report spoke to the heart of the discussion theyhad had.

Zimbabwe also suggested Parties carry onthe mode of work as agreed.

India referred to the EU’s last-minute pro-posal as a ‘bolt from the blue’ and said that ‘Par-ties are suddenly aligning with the EU as if the EUis getting isolated and it needs support’. India re-quested Parties to ‘not indulge’ in processes thatwould lead to disruption and called for a balancedand informed decision on the issue. It also sug-gested that wherever Parties wanted text to beadded, they could add to the conclusions as theywent along each of the paragraphs.

However, Parties ran out of time at the ses-sion, and with the draft conclusions left unresolved,the SBSTA Chair consulted with Parties on 27 June,the final day of the Bonn Climate talks, on the wayforward.

The resolution

On 27 June, the SBSTA Chair proposed pro-cedural draft conclusions to Parties in closed-doorconsultations. According to sources, the AOSISwere unwilling to go ahead with the proposals andsaid that they did not fulfil the mandate as Partieshad spent considerable time on procedure ratherthan substance. Sources said that the discussion washeated, with some Parties threatening to break thegentlemen’s agreement.

However, there were several groups that sup-ported the Chair’s proposal, some willingly, andothers grudgingly. Russia, the EU, the US, SaudiArabia, Norway, India and Iran supported theproposal. The LDCs said they could go along withthe Chair’s proposal, with some changes.

Following further consultations, Partiesagreed on the following draft conclusions, whichthey later adopted in the closing plenary of theSBSTA.

‘1. The SBSTA considered the IPCC SpecialReport on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5).

2. The SBSTA recalled decision 1/CP.24,paragraphs 24-29, and noted Parties’ engagementand exchange of views on the SR1.5 at this ses-sion.

3. The SBSTA expressed its appreciation andgratitude to the IPCC and the scientific commu-nity for responding to the invitation of the COPand providing the SR1.5, which reflects the bestavailable science.

4. The SBSTA thanked the Chairs of theSBSTA and the IPCC for the SBSTA-IPCC specialevent titled “Unpacking the new scientific knowl-edge and key findings in the SR1.5” held at COP24 and noted the summary report that they pre-pared on the event.

5. The SBSTA noted the views expressed onhow to strengthen scientific knowledge on globalwarming of 1.5°C and agreed that its work underthis agenda sub-item has been completed.’

Several Parties though expressed their disap-pointment on not arriving at substantive conclu-sions on the issue of the SR1.5 in their statementsmade at the closing Joint Plenary of the SBSTAand Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI).

27



Parties Agree to Further Consideration of Draft Texts on Market/Non-market Approaches

Kathmandu, 2 July (Prerna Bomzan) – Parties haveagreed to further continue the consideration of draftdecision texts on matters related to the market andnon-market mechanisms under Article 6 of the ParisAgreement (PA) in conclusions adopted on 27 June,at the plenary of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Bodyfor Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA),on the final day of the Bonn climate talks. Thiswas on the understanding that the proposed deci-sion texts have yet to have any consensus.

Following interventions by Parties during thefinal contact group meeting, in the final conclu-sions that were adopted at the SBSTA, Partiesagreed to the consideration of the draft decisiontexts on this matter at its next session, ‘with a viewto recommending a draft decision for considerationand adoption by the Conference of the Parties serv-ing as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agree-ment (PA) at its second session’ which will be heldin December 2019, in Santiago, Chile.

Three separate sets of draft conclusions oneach of the three items under Article 6 (i.e. on theinternational transfer of mitigation outcomes[ITMOs] under Article 6.2; the sustainable devel-opment mechanism under Article 6.4 and the frame-work for non-market approaches under Article 6.8)were proposed for consideration by the SBSTAChair Paul Watkinson (France) at the fourth andfinal contact group meeting morning of 27 June.

Each of the draft conclusions contained threeparagraphs: the first para recognised the work car-ried out at the Bonn session; the second stated thatthere is agreement to continue consideration of thedraft decision text (to advance further negotiationson the matter) at the next session of the SBSTA inDecember 2019 (with the decision text referencedin a footnote) and the third para provided a place-holder for intersessional work (i.e. for a technical

paper and workshop) within brackets, due to dif-ferent views of Parties on the matter.

There was no consensus on the conduct ofintersessional work on the matter, leading to nomandate for any intersessional work in the finalconclusions adopted.

Below is a report of what transpired duringthe final contact group session.

Watkinson opened the floor for commentsto the proposed three draft conclusions as well asto the three draft decision texts (produced at thethird contact group on 26 June where Parties hadrequested more time to reflect on the new drafttexts).

China said that it could go along with thefirst two paragraphs of the draft conclusions as wellas with the ‘current [decision] texts’ as there was‘still possibility to revise them’. It supported theproposal for a technical paper but did not think aworkshop was necessary.

Brazil said that the texts were a good basisfor future deliberations, although it had concernsabout different parts of the texts, in particular onArticle 6.4 with the ‘framing’ of ‘evolution of ideas’(referring to a new phrase/concept used by co-fa-cilitators in the session to advance work). It alsoexpressed ‘concerns about the intersessional work’.

Tuvalu for the Least Developed Countries(LDCs) said the decision texts showed ‘goodprogress’. It also saw the value in havingintersessional work and ‘encouraged’ Parties tohold the workshop in Tuvalu.

Senegal for the Africa Group said it had‘some comments’ on the proposed decision textsbut agreed that there was ‘good basis’ for furtherwork. It also supported the need for intersessionalwork on a ‘technical paper’, and was open towhether a workshop was appropriate.

28

Saudi Arabia (in its national capacity) saidthat it had questions on the ‘content’ and ‘status’of the decision texts and sought clarification onhow ‘comments’ could be ‘addressed’.

Watkinson responded that ‘some editing’needed to be done as well as work on some of theissues like ‘fully capturing every bracket’. In termsof the status, he said that ‘this is what represents aconsensus and the content is for Parties to negoti-ate’ when they are in Santiago, Chile.

India said it understood the ‘limitations’ ofthe process and hoped to come back and work onthe texts in the ‘best possible manner’. It also saidit could not support any proposal for a technicalpaper or any assessment of work done by Partiesby the secretariat.

Bolivia expressed concerns that it had hopedfor a rich discussion of Article 6.8 (framework fornon-market approaches) as more Parties werespeaking up to support a robust framework with astrong permanent governance at least as those forArticles 6.2 and 6.4, but regretted that discussions‘moved very quickly’ to other sub-items. It addedthat during the Articles 6.2 and 6.4 discussions,some Parties had the chance to ‘modify the draftdecision texts’ and to even introduce what wascalled an ‘evolution of ideas’, which it said was ‘aconcept heard for the first time during these nego-tiations’. It lamented that ‘the Article 6.8 decisiontexts would have benefitted from a similar treat-ment’. Bolivia stated further that it was not readyto refer to the outcome on Article 6.8 as ‘draft de-cision text’ and proposed to use the term ‘informalnote’. It also did not support the proposal forintersessional work and hoped that the same amountof time would be allocated for all the three Articlesduring COP25 in Santiago.

Ecuador shared the views stated by Boliviaand was concerned that Article 6.8 was ‘not allo-cated the same amount of time and interest’, andcalled for ‘balance in the negotiations’. It also couldnot accept proposals for intersessional work.

Belize for the Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS) said that the ‘group will benefit certainlyfrom a technical paper’ as well as it was ‘happy fora workshop’. Costa Rica for the Independent Al-liance of Latin America and the Caribbean(AILAC) said the text was a ‘solid basis for work’and it supported ‘intersessional work’, and also‘Tuvalu’s offer’. Kenya also supported ‘furthertechnical work’ saying a technical paper would ‘addvalue’ and it was ‘open to Tuvalu’s suggestion’.

Egypt for the Arab Group made commentson ‘typo mistakes’ and ‘sequencing of options’ in-

cluding ‘use of brackets’ in the draft decision textsbut considered it as a ‘good input’ for Santiago. Itstressed that there was no need for intersessionalwork as ‘we already have a good understanding ofParties’ views and have already engaged in sub-stantive discussions’.

Iran said that the decision texts need ‘fur-ther work and elaboration’ in COP25 and also didnot support any intersessional meetings as not allParties could participate in that process.

Australia supported the proposal forintersessional work and expressed ‘disappointment’as a ‘general observation’ on the decision texts. Itlamented that the ‘approach’ taken was of ‘specificproposals of particular Parties’ and started provid-ing specific substantive comments in detail.Watkinson made a point of order requesting Aus-tralia not to comment or discuss in detail the deci-sion texts.

Egypt for the Arab Group took the flooragain seeking ‘clarity on the mode of work’ andobjected to ‘technical points and substantive com-ments’ since Parties had agreed to move forwardon the decision texts.

Watkinson urged Parties to focus on the draftconclusions and important messages that Partieswanted to give on the draft texts for further con-sideration in Santiago. He also urged Parties ‘notto go into details of the texts line by line’ and re-quested Australia to ‘focus on the way forward’.‘This is not a consensus document,’ he added andthere was a ‘lot of work to do’.

India also took the floor again underscoringthat ‘we are not discussing the decision texts’.Singapore said that the text ‘needs more work’ andit was ‘happy to take it to Santiago’.

Saudi Arabia for the Like-Minded Devel-oping Countries (LMDC) aligned with Egypt,Iran, Bolivia and India and questioned the ‘modeof work’ given ‘textual proposals by one Party’ andexpressed concerns over the phrase ‘evolution ofideas’ which has been ‘coming up lately’ as to ‘howthis evolving or evolved ideas will actually affectthe comprehensiveness of the text as well as futureiterations of the text’. It also stressed on the needfor ‘a balanced approach across overall agendaitems’ and did not support technical work as ‘theseactivities need to be inclusive’. Given that all Par-ties could not participate in these activities, therewould be ‘a misrepresentation of views and this isour concern’, it explained further.

Norway said that it was ‘clear’ that the draftdecision texts are ‘not consensus documents’. Itsupported intersessional work and particularly be-

29

lieved that ‘technical papers will be useful’. NewZealand supported ‘this text going forward’ and‘need for intersessional work’. It aligned with Bo-livia on Article 6.8 and urged Parties to turn theirattention to this issue.

The United States supported the ‘proposedway forward’. Canada said ‘we support your wayforward to bring these texts forward recognisingthat we do not agree to the texts’. Japan supportedthe texts as ‘good basis’ although there were ‘manythings to discuss’.

Saudi Arabia for the LMDC said ‘if we areto forward these texts with no status to Santiago,then it would be acceptable to us’. It reiterated itsconcern for intersessional technical work andstressed that ‘anything produced at this point wasnot produced by Parties actually’.

Switzerland for the Environmental Integ-rity Group (EIG) agreed with Saudi Arabia as thetexts have ‘no consensus’.

The European Union said it had ‘general andspecific concerns and we need to resolve them todeliver the mandate agreed to in Paris’. It said thatthe texts were a ‘fair picture’, ‘not much of evolu-tion but of reflections’ of ideas. It added that therewere fundamental issues before us and supportedfurther technical work.

Following these extensive interventions, theSBSTA Chair Watkinson after hearing ‘divergentviews’ on intersessional work said that there was‘no consensus’ and therefore suggested that thedraft conclusions ‘do not include intersessionalwork’.

He also said that draft decision texts ‘do notrepresent a consensus among Parties’, and assuredParties that there would be no further iteration ofthe texts (prior to the meeting in Chile). He alsoclarified that the only editing that would be takeninto account are such as ‘brackets are correctly in-serted’ and ‘accurate representation of inputs ofParties’.

Following this agreement on a ‘no consen-sus’ draft decision texts, the draft conclusions for-warded to the SBSTA plenary were duly adopted.

Further work to craft the rules of implemen-tation for the Article 6 mechanisms/approaches willbe undertaken at the next SBSTA session in Chile,end of this year. Whether and how an agreementwill be reached remains to be seen.


30



Developing Countries Concerned by Shift of Focus from UNFCCCto Paris Agreement

Penang, 3 July (Evelyn Teh) – At the joint closingplenary of the 50th meetings of the UNFCCC’sSubsidiary Bodies on 27 June 2019 in Bonn (Ger-many), which marked the end of the two-weekintersession climate talks, developing countries, ledby the G77 and China, expressed concerns overthe stance of developed countries to ‘leave behind’the Convention and shift their focus on the ParisAgreement (PA).

They also expressed unhappiness over refer-ences to a ‘new regime’ having been establishedunder the PA, which several developing countrygroupings were quick to counter, especially theLike-minded Developing Countries (LMDC).

The meetings of the Subsidiary Body forImplementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body forScientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) thatbegan work on 17 June, concluded on 27 June withthe adoption of conclusions on various agendaitems across the two bodies.

The final joint closing plenary session wasconvened by SBI Chair Emmanuel Dlamini(Eswatini) and the SBSTA Chair Paul Watkinson(France) and saw the delivery of statements bygroupings of Parties.

The key issues that were referred to in thestatements included matters relating to Article 6 ofthe PA on market/non-market approaches, the termsof reference for the review of the Warsaw Interna-tional Mechanism (WIM) for Loss and Damageassociated with climate change impacts, and theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)’s Special Report on 1.5°C (SR1.5).

Palestine, speaking for the G77 and China,highlighted several challenges experienced at thissession which it hoped will not be repeated at the25th meeting of the UNFCCC’s Conference ofParties (COP25) and the next session of the SBs inSantiago, Chile to be held in December this year.

Palestine said that the positions of developedcountries on many of the agenda items seemed toindicate a distinct willingness to focus on the PAand to leave the Convention behind. This, itstressed, was ‘not consistent with the letter and thespirit of the PA and the foundation of the Conven-tion’, adding that ‘the Convention and the Agree-ment are intrinsically linked and are both impor-tant in fostering ambitious action that ensures thatwe do not cross irreversible climate thresholds be-fore it is too late’.

The G77 also expressed concerns over issuesof ‘transparency and inclusivity’ in the process. Akey element, it said, was that on many of the nego-tiating sessions on the various agenda items, therewere conflicts in the schedule of meetings onagenda items which were related. It said that ‘muchmore needs to be done by the Chairs and the Sec-retariat to avoid such scheduling conflicts’. TheGroup further stressed the importance of ‘balance’in the process, that ‘applies to both procedure andsubstance’ and expects ‘balanced treatment fromthe Chairs and the Secretariat when it comes toworking with Parties’ as well as ‘when it comes tothe prioritization of issues or agenda items so thatthe issues of interest to the Group are also givenpriority’.

Iran, speaking for the Like-minded Devel-oping Countries (LMDC), emphasised that theConvention remains the foundation of the multi-lateral climate regime and that therefore, it wasessential that the activities mandated under theConvention are given effect and with the sameimportance as that of the PA. ‘This is the only wayin which those Parties who have not joined, or mightleave the PA but remain Parties to the Convention,will remain bound with and accountable to the restof us for their climate actions,’ added the groupfurther. It also reminded Parties that the regime

31

under the PA was therefore not ‘new’ but rather ‘isan enhanced continuation of the current regimeunder the Convention’.

The LMDC said that it had pushed hard atthis session ‘on issues relating to the provision ofclimate finance and technology to developing coun-tries, as well as measurement, reporting and verifi-cation arrangements under the Convention,…through calling for a balanced 2020-2021 bud-get that gives equal play to adaptation and meansof implementation, or in the negotiations on thetransparency modalities for support, or in the ne-gotiation to ensure that Parties to the Conventionbut not Parties to the PA continue to fulfill theirreporting obligation under the Convention’. It alsosaid that it had continued to insist ‘on the impor-tance of flexibility, as a reflection of CBDR (theprinciple of common but differentiated responsi-bility between developed and developing countries)and as agreed at Katowice (in Poland last year) andin the PA, to be made operational for developingcountries in the transparency modalities’.

The LMDC also stressed that it had ‘pushedback, together with the rest of the G77 and China,against attempts from developed country Partiesto do away with the second periodic review – akey process under the Convention that allows for aholistic, integrated and systemic review of the im-pact of our actions under the Convention’.

(Developing countries wanted a review of theoverall progress and implementation of actions ofParties in the pre-2020 period under the Conven-tion and the Kyoto Protocol, covering mitigationand adaptation actions as well as the provision ofsupport to developing countries and to address theimplementation gaps. Developed countries on theother hand opposed the need for a review, as theysaid that a mechanism was already in place underthe global stocktake [GST] of the PA, which willtake place in 2023. The GST will focus on the col-lective progress of Parties in implementing the PAin the post-2020 time frame. With no agreementon the scope of the periodic review, Parties agreedto procedural conclusions to consider the issue fur-ther at its next session to be held in December thisyear.)

Referring to the pre-2020 stocktake sessionto be held at COP 25, the LMDC said that devel-oped countries must act expeditiously and respon-sibly to close the pre-2020 implementation gapsso that there is no transfer of burden to developingcountries in the post-2020 period.

Egypt speaking for the Africa Groupstressed the importance of adaptation and financematters to the group and called for the scaling up

of climate action and support. It reminded Partiesnot to forget the pre-2020 commitments, especiallyon the finance goal (of mobilising US$100 billionper year by 2020) and also expressed concernsabout efforts to diminish the role of the Conven-tion. On the review of the WIM, it hoped for themechanism to be enhanced to address the impactsof loss and damage. It also acknowledged that whileParties worked hard to finalise the appointment ofthe Adaptation Fund Board, there were efforts tochange the composition of the Board members,which it regretted. Egypt also hoped that the COPin Chile will highlight the centrality of the 25-yearclimate regime under the Convention.

(On the issue of the Adaptation Fund Board,no conclusion was reached on the matter, given thedivergent views of Parties and this issue will con-tinue to be considered at COP 25.)

Belize for the Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS) expressed satisfaction over the terms ofreference for the review of the WIM and wantedsubstantive work to be undertaken at COP 25 inthis regard. While it was satisfied that the conclu-sions on the programme budget for the Secretariatfor the biennium 2020-21, it was concerned thatthe core budget did not cover all the mandated ac-tivities and that critical activities were contingenton voluntary funding. In relation to Article 6 of thePA on the market/non-market mechanisms, Belizesaid that markets can play an important role but itmust not be at the expense of environmental integ-rity and not undermine what the nationally deter-mined contributions (NDCs) deliver on the aggre-gate.

In relation to the IPCC SR1.5, Belize la-mented that ‘disregarding or disqualifying the bestavailable science is tantamount to climatedenialism’ and stressed that Parties ‘must not per-mit even a whiff of denialism in this multilateralprocess’. It said that the SR must be used tooperationalise the PA.

Bhutan for the Least Developed Countries(LDCs) was hopeful that the terms of referencefor the review of the WIM provided clear guid-ance for enhancing the mechanism. In reference tothe SR1.5, it said that the actions of Parties need tobe based on the best available science, which wasnon-negotiable. ‘For the LDCs, questioning thescience and negotiating the SR was negotiating onour survival,’ added Bhutan further. On the bien-nium budget, it said that the important work of theconstituted bodies should not be impacted.

Costa Rica, for the Independent Alliance ofLatin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), saidthat Parties have shifted from negotiations to ac-

32

tions in the implementation of the PA. It added thatthe UNFCCC was created in response to the warn-ing from science and as work progressed, it wasimportant to keep abreast with the latest scien-tific information, adding that Parties had an en-hanced understanding of the SR1.5 and that thelanguage of temperature overshoot must play a keyrole in their plans and strategies.

Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Arab Groupstressed the importance of respecting the principlesof the UNFCCC, namely the principle of equityand CBDR. The group hoped to see a balanced andfair process at COP 25 that includes all the issuesfrom the PA. It also expressed deep concerns thatno agreement was reached in relation to the workof the forum on the impact of the implementationon response measures, which, it said, would leadto hampering the work of the forum and theKatowice Expert Committee. The Arab Group alsostated the importance of finance, technology trans-fer and capacity building from the developed coun-tries to developing countries, to enable the latter toachieve their NDCs, cautioning that refraining fromproviding such a support will have negative im-pacts on developing countries, who are dealing withclimate change impacts, sustainable developmentand combating poverty.

Argentina for Brazil, Argentina and Uru-guay (ABU) said that the SR1.5 has enhanced ourknowledge on global warming. However, the groupstated that it was also important to note the gapsidentified in the scientific knowledge which mayhamper the ability to inform decision-making atnational, regional and international levels. It hopedthat the scientific and systematic observation com-munity will take these gaps into consideration, es-pecially in terms of the support for developingcountries, as well as in addressing the barriers toaccess technologies.

Brazil, speaking for the BASIC (Brazil,South Africa, India and China), stressed the im-portance of ensuring funds for the Financial Mecha-nism of the UNFCCC, including the replenishmentof the Green Climate Fund. It also called for theestablishment of a more ambitious long-term fi-nance goal as a crucial signal that must be given toinvestors, both public and private, in order to matchthe urgency of climate change. It also said that de-veloping countries require means of implementa-tion to empower them to contribute their best ef-forts, and expected developed countries to take thelead.

The European Union (EU) said that it wasencouraged by the overall progress at the Bonn talksand on the key issues. It said that on Article 6 ofthe PA, the discussions were challenging on sub-stance but noted that Parties have taken forwarda decision to advance further work. On the WIM,it acknowledged success on the terms of referencethat allowed Parties to undertake an effective re-view of the mechanism. The EU also expressed dis-appointment on the lack of agreement on responsemeasures. On the budget, it said that the EU willagree on significant increases to the budget of theSecretariat. It also expressed full support that ‘sci-ence is not negotiable’ and that the IPCC had giventhe UNFCCC an SR1.5 that was highly relevantand which has already been used by many Parties.It added that 2019 was a critical year to increasedomestic commitments in climate action in linewith the PA.

Australia for the Umbrella Group said thatnegotiations under Article 6 of the PA on marketsand non-market approaches saw ‘solid progress’and that there were also ‘some good outcomes’ in-cluding on the terms of reference for the WIM. Asregards the work done on Article 6, it said the draftdecision texts reflect the full range of views ofParties and looked forward to finalising the deci-sions in this regard at COP 25. It also appreciatedthe SR1.5 and noted the ‘importance of science’. Italso looked forward to the UN Secretary-General’sClimate Summit initiative (in September 2019 tobe held in New York) ‘to build and maintain mo-mentum’ on climate actions.

Mexico for the Environmental IntegrityGroup (EIG) expressed deep concerns over thediscussions on the SR1.5 and the ‘unnecessary de-bate to accept scientific evidence’, adding that ‘sci-ence is not negotiable’ and gave strong support forthe dedicated work of the IPCC. It was also gladover the agreement on the terms of review of theWIM.

In his closing remarks, the SBSTA Chair PaulWatkinson once again had the Keeling Curveflashed on the big screen before the plenary clo-sure (as he had done on the first day when the talksbegan) and reiterated that ‘we must listen to sci-ence – that is the message that I extract from yourstatements this evening’.

(According to Wikipedia, ‘the Keeling Curveis a graph of the accumulation of CO2 in the Earth’satmosphere based on continuous measurementstaken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the islandof Hawaii from 1958 to the present day’.)


twn · 2019-09-05 · lll contents 1. the climate talks in bonn – what to expect 1 2. parties...

Documents