2Context: towards the 2015 Agreement A new international climate agreement applicable to all to keep global average temperature increase below 2°CDurban 2011: launch of new processWarsaw 2013: call for intended contributions by March 2015Lima 2014: decision on elements of the 2015 AgreementParis 2015: adoption of the AgreementProcessContent2015 AgreementINDCs (Intended nationally determined contributions)Design of the elements: mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, capacity-building and transparency of action and supportPre-2020 actionBonn inter-sessionals: March, June, October
3Bonn, June 2014: main outcomes 34Intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs):Will Parties be ready by Q1 2015? What will contributions look like?EU, US, China clear frontrunners. Other major economies preparing; international support availableConsensus that all must contribute emission reductions; discussions on adaptation and finance ongoingConsensus that upfront information requirements must be agreed in Lima; wide agreement on an assessment phaseElements of the 2015 Agreement:How will the agreement address mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity-building, transparency?Elements to be decided in LimaEmerging consensus on ambitious mitigation commitments from the outset, on a mechanism to continue increasing ambitionChallenges: adaptation, finance, rules base – and negotiating processPre-2020 climate action:Can we close the "ambition gap"?Multi-stakeholder exchanges on land use and urban environment following up on energy efficiency and renewables in MarchWay forward: expand current technical work to new areas?Implementation agenda:Follow-up to previously taken decisions – also relevant to the development and implementation of the 2015 AgreementSteady progress on technology, agriculture…Little progress on: reform of Clean Development Mechanism, Executive Committee of Loss and Damage MechanismConcern as Kyoto Protocol accounting rules for second commitment period not finalisedEU continued intensive outreach
4INDCs: state of play of domestic preparations 1Intended contributionsINDCs: state of play of domestic preparationsWill a critical mass of INDCs be ready by March 2015 & "well in advance" of Paris?Warsaw decided that all Parties should come forward with INDCs well before Paris, and by the first quarter of 2015 for those Parties "ready to do so" – Bonn session took stock of where we areEU, US, China clear frontrunnersOther major economies confirmed they are preparing, but have not yet committed March 2015 (Japan, Korea, Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa…)Many developing countries request capacity-building support, which is ongoing and readily availableCanada and Australia are laggards among developed countriesNext steps:Continue to build pressure and political momentum so that many countries keep up with EU, US and China
51Intended contributionsScope of INDCsWhat is an "intended contribution" – should it cover emissions reductions, adaptation, support to other countries?All Parties seem to accept INDCs should cover mitigationHowever, for some:Parties can also come forward with adaptation and financial and other support in INDCs if they want (US, Umbrella Group, Singapore); orINDCs should also have that wider scope for all Parties (progressive South American countries, "like-minded" developing countries, Africa Group)The EU cannot share this view – it conditions mitigation action on availability of guaranteed financing to developing countries, adds complexity to the process and departs from what was agreed in WarsawA revised draft decision will be produced ahead of October sessionNext steps:Secure a common understanding on the scope of INDCs among Parties
6Upfront information, a "template" for INDCs 1Intended contributionsUpfront information, a "template" for INDCsWill upfront information requirements apply to mitigation only? Or also adaptation and means of implementation?Parties must decide on upfront information requirements by Lima to ensure that INDCs are transparent, clear and understandableEssential to know e.g. type of INDC (e.g. absolute target, intensity target); coverage (e.g. in terms of sectors and gases); metrics and methodologies Parties use to estimate the emissions reductions impact of their INDCsProblems with extending requirements beyond mitigation to adaptation and support for other countries – some Parties are asking for this ("like-minded" developing countries, Africa Group)Some Parties are arguing that upfront information should be different for developed and developing countries ("like-minded" developing countries, Africa Group) while most others say differentiation should be based on type of INDC (EU, US, developed "Umbrella Group", progressive Latin Americans, small island states)Next steps:Continue working towards a decision in Lima
7An assessment phase for INDCs 1Intended contributionsAn assessment phase for INDCsHow to ensure INDCs are individually fair and collectively sufficient?The timing and upfront information requirements for INDCs are important so that INDCs can be collectively assessed before Paris to check whether:They add up to enough effort to keep average temperature increase below 2°C (or 1.5°C) compared to pre-industrial levelsINDCs are individually fairAn increasing number of Parties agree there should be such an international processCertain Parties would like to see such process apply not only to mitigation but also to adaptation and/or finance – unclear how this could function"Like-minded" developing countries reluctant towards such a processNext steps:Continue promoting such an assessment phase
8Elements of the 2015 Agreement Elements of 2015 AgreementElements of the 2015 AgreementHow can the new Agreement address emission reductions and their review, adaptation to climate change, financial support, technology, capacity-building and transparency?Emerging consensus that the 2015 Agreement must contain:Ambitious mitigation commitments from the outsetA mechanism to "ratchet up" ambitionNo consensus on the first commitment period – but notion of appears to be gaining tractionAdaptation: idea of qualitative global climate resilience goal attracted support, Parties have doubts on a quantitative goalProcess challenges ahead as hardline "like-minded" developing countries put brakes on next stepsNext steps:Consider EU submission on draft elements of 2015 Agreement
9Climate finance & the 2015 Agreement Elements of 2015 AgreementClimate finance & the 2015 AgreementDelivering on existing commitments is key for building trust – challenges: how to provide demonstrate that climate finance is being scaled up? how to include climate finance in the 2015 Agreement in a way that reassures recipient countries, and is realistic for donors?Common understanding that elements on finance will be part of the 2015 Agreement, including through mobilisation of public and private finance flows; enabling environments; mainstreaming; monitoring, reporting and verificationEarly and substantial capitalization of Green Climate Fund and announcement of public climate finance for 2015 (and 2016) would help reassure recipient countriesKey challenges: greater clarity and predictability on pathways towards meeting USD 100 billion goal by 2020; progress on pathways towards would positively influence negotiations on the 2015 AgreementNext steps:Keep on providing reassurances that finance will continue – outreach to finance leaders in the EU Member StatesEngage further on design of finance elements of the new Agreement
10Adaptation in the 2015 Agreement Elements of 2015 AgreementAdaptation in the 2015 AgreementAdaptation needs to be a key pillar in the 2015 Agreement – but how do we address the clear need for it without detracting from mitigation as key goal?Areas of convergence: synergies between mitigation and adaptation (the more mitigation, the less adaptation); seeing adaptation in the context of sustainable climate resilient development planning; building on existing institutions; coherence/cooperation between actors in-outside UNFCCC;Areas of controversy: Proposals for a "global goal on adaptation" that would calculate and allocate costs under different temperature scenarios; adaptation as part of "INDCs" and UFI process; support for adaptation actionNext steps:Continue proactive discussions on how to best anchor adaptation in the new Agreement to achieve sustainable, climate-resilient developmentContinue discussions on INDC and upfront information process whether it makes sense for adaptation
11Pre-2020 mitigation ambition 3Enhanced pre-2020 ambitionPre-2020 mitigation ambitionHow to recognise, catalyse, promote new mitigation actions, by means of pledges and initiatives? How can we build political momentum for ambitious mitigation by 2020 and beyond?Ministerial day showcased ongoing pre-2020 action (EU, China, US, many G20). Ministers call on each other to enhance their actions at the UN SG Leaders' Summit in September.For developing and developed countries (incl. China), Technical meetings (urban, land sector, energy) and the Cities forum are useful to share experiences and opportunities for international cooperation.US, EU, Small Islands, Latin America, Africa want to: share/accelerate policies/initiatives, task existing institutions (Technology, Finance), further involve cities, investors, Ministers by Lima and Paris."Like-minded" and Brazil, South Africa, India, China (BASIC) countries insist on developed countries enhancing their support and pledges by Lima.Next steps:Make real some actions/initiatives for Climate Summit, Lima, Paris. Encourage institutions inside and outside the Convention to link up.Role post 2015?
12Subsidiary Bodies: main outcomes 4Implementation agendaSubsidiary Bodies: main outcomesHow far has work on implementation of existing decisions progressed? What are the main outcomes and what is envisaged for further work in Lima?Good progress: technology, response measures, nationally appropriate mitigation action, review of the 2C goalLimited progress requiring further work in Lima: science input to inform policy, capacity building, adaptation, transparencyNo progress on Clean the Development Mechanism, but discussions reoriented towards the markets’ role beyond 2015Warsaw Mechanism for Loss and Damage from climate change: political aspect in LimaNext steps:Keep discussions under the subsidiary bodies at technical level and ensure delivery on implementation of key aspectsImplementation agenda to contribute to the development and implementation of the 2015 Agreement
13Mitigation action on forests (REDD+) 4Implementation agendaMitigation action on forests (REDD+)In developing countries, land use (agriculture and land degradation) and land use change (deforestation) represent up to 90% of emissions and roughly 50% of the mitigation potential. REDD+ is a performance-based mitigation mechanism for forests, a blueprint for incentivizing mitigation and adaptation in the whole land sector and a catalyst for sustainable rural development (incl. biodiversity and livelihoods).Parties disagree on whether or not the REDD+ rulebook on forestry accounting in developing countries, as adopted in Warsaw, provides adequate guidance and support for implementation, while enabling the broadest participation of countries.Those who fear they would not benefit are thus looking for alternative approaches: e.g. ex-ante financing and adaptation performance.Implementation is just starting. The EU thinks the REDD+ rulebook as it is could accommodate their concerns and would rather focus on delivering instead of negotiating further. But African Group, LDC and ALBA countries are building momentum for a new deal in Lima.This could complicate discussions on the role of land post-2020.Next steps:Give evidence that REDD+ implementation can deliver both mitigation and adaptation benefits as well as new livelihood opportunities
14Agriculture 4 Agriculture is a significant source of GHG emissions Implementation agendaAgricultureHow can agriculture be addressed under the UNFCCC? What is the role of agriculture in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation?Agriculture is a significant source of GHG emissionsScientific and technical assessment of mitigation and adaptation in agriculture can positively contribute to future climate change policyIn Bonn, a 2-year work plan was agreed to conduct work on mitigation and adaptation related issues (4 in-session workshops plus submission of views by parties) such as:effects of extreme weather eventsrisks and vulnerabilities of agricultural systemssustainable agricultural practicesidentification of adaptations measures and possible co-benefits such as mitigationNext steps:2 workshops planned on risks and vulnerabilities of agricultural systems during in Bonn in EU needs to prepare submissions on the topic and input for discussion
154Implementation agendaCarbon marketsHow can carbon market be reformed before 2020? What kind of markets framework is needed in the 2015 Agreement?Bonn session rebooted faltering discussion on market related accounting and the new market mechanism; reoriented this discussion toward the 2015 agreement by making an explicit, though without prejudice link, to the discussion on the agreementThe EU insists on certain building blocks for the agreement – on accounting for international transfers, and how to address ambition “net mitigation” in the market mechanismThe EU wishes to reform the Clean Development Mechanism under Kyoto Protocol to encourage more emissions reductions in developing countries, but discussions were blockedNext steps:Focus discussion on markets toward minimum rules which deliver greater ambitionEngage key countries in our vision of the international framework for markets
16Adaptation implementation agenda 4Implementation agendaAdaptation implementation agendaNational Adaptation Plans, Nairobi Work Programme, Warsaw Mechanism for "Loss and Damage" - can we make them have tangible impact on the ground?Parties confirmed the national adaptation planning process as the backbone of countries efforts to mainstream adaptation in all part of the development planning and implementation – and for building capacityOperationalising the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and damage: controversies over procedures and composition of the Executive CommitteeNairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change agreed on additional activities (webinars) in areas of ecosystems, human settlements, water resources, health, including timing of implementation of such activities; also request to better link NWP with AdaptationNext steps:Continue constructive discussion on the final composition of the Loss and damage mechanismFurther consider the revision of guidelines for the NAPs process
17Capacity-building & technology transfer 4Implementation agendaCapacity-building & technology transferHow can we ensure countries, especially developing countries, have sufficient administrative capacity to design policies to move to a low carbon, climate-resilient development pathway and stimulate innovation?Capacity-building: Agreement on importance, but disagreement about approach to take: crosscutting issue or need for a dedicated Committee?Successful 3rd Durban Forum on Capacity Building demonstrated support activities across different UNFCCC, regional and national bodies.A web-based Capacity Building Portal was launched that provides overview on UN organizations in 50+ developing countries.Technology transfer: Agreement about the importance of the existing Technology Mechanism, but disagreement about the provision of financing for technology projects and the licensing of intellectual property rights to developing countries.Next steps:Continue to support capacity building / technology transfer as an integrated part of all support programs, and back the further development of existing institutions (Durban Forum, web-based capacity building portal…)
184Implementation agendaInternational Assessment and Review of developed countries' biennial reportsThe IAR in December 2014 will allow, for the first time, a multilateral assessment of individual Parties' progress towards their 2020 targets.Slow progress at technical level on other issues related to reporting and review.Multilateral Assessment (MA)Each developed country party will be multilaterally assessed on basis of its emissions, assumptions, conditions and methodologies and the progress towards the achievement of its 2020 targetThe MA will be a process of high political importance as all Parties to the UNFCCC , including developing countries, will have the possibility to ask questions to each Annex 1 PartyEU and ~10 MS will undergo this process in 2014Agenda items related to reporting and reviewLack of substantive progress in Bonn; decisions needed in LimaNext steps:Need for coordination at EU level to ensure a coordinated approach to the multilateral assessment session in LimaPotentially further submissions on the review/reporting guidelines
194Implementation agendaKyoto ProtocolFinalisation of the rules to implement the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in Lima is essential for ratification since these rules are the "nuts and bolts" of the accounting system for the second commitment periodFirst commitment period: Parties now agreed on 10 August 2015 as the date of completion of the expert review process that also sets the start date of the additional period for fulfilling commitments under the first commitment period, which will be postponed if the review process is not finishedSecond commitment period: due to an issue affecting Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, finalisation of accounting and reporting rules, agreed in Warsaw but not formally adopted, made no progressThe question does not affect the EU as such, but holding up progress does: Rules must be adopted by Lima, otherwise the EU may be unable to ratify the second commitment period as we would not know what rules would applyThe outcome of Warsaw will continue being used as a basis for the work in Lima and preparations for implementationNext steps:Continue discussions on the accounting modalities with a view to finalization of few outstanding provisions, and formal adoption of all the rules (agreed in Warsaw) in Lima
20EU priorities for Lima and Paris Upfront information requirements defined so INDCs are understandable and comparableClarity on international process in 2015 to assess fairness & collective adequacy of INDCsFurther progress on how adaptation and financial and other support are to be reflected in the 2015 AgreementFirst draft negotiating text availableParis 2015Addressing mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity-building, transparency of action and support in a comprehensive wayInclusion in the 2015 Agreement of a long-term goal consistent with science (keeping global average temperature increase below 2°C vs. pre-industrial levels)Nationally determined contributions to be included in the form of mitigation commitments that are legally bindingFurther strengthen multilateral rules through monitoring, reporting and verification, accounting and complianceMechanism to regularly consider global level of ambition so Parties can raise their own ambition if wished and necessaryCatalyse real action by all types of stakeholders, building on pre-2020 experience
21Major upcoming meetings this year 11-12 JulMajor Economies Forum, Paris13-15 JulPetersberg Ministerial Dialogue19-20 Sep TBCMajor Economies Forum, New York23 SepLeaders’ Summit on Climate Change, New York20-25 OctAd-Hoc Durban Platform inter-sessional meeting, Bonn4-7 NovPre-COP, Venezuela15-16 NovG20 Leaders’ Summit, Brisbane1-12 DecCOP20 climate summit, LimaClimate also high on agenda of summits
245OutreachCLIMA internalKey players (1)Small Island States (AOSIS): Constructive but demanding allies of the EU. Focus on adaptation, finance and in particular emission reductions pre-2020.Least developed countries: Ambitious but remain not very vocal.African group: Increasingly close to the "like-minded" position, with major substantive difference on the need for an assessment phase.Progressive Latin Americans (AILAC): Assertive and constructive – but also demanding (i.e. adaptation and loss and damage). Constructive discussions on adaptation/finance to be followed up.Developed "Umbrella group", Environmental Integrity Group: positions close to the EU's. US now at the progressive end of the spectrum. Russia remains a concern, though broader geopolitical issues did not affect the June session.
255OutreachCLIMA internalKey players (2)"Like-minded" developing countries: Philippines, Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Saudi-Arabia, India, China; Focus on maintaining strict North-South divide ("firewall") - opposed to EU stances on many issues. In Bonn, put procedural brakes on negotiations, but did not gain wider traction – and did not block progress in the end. However, last intervention from China indicates process concerns have to be taken seriously.BASIC: Close coordination among China, India, Brazil.South Africa: Particular position within BASICs, ready to engage constructively on substance, strong interest in pre-2020 action. Constructive bilateral discussions with EU on finance.China and Brazil: Insistence on keeping the binary differentiation between developed and developing countries. At the same time, ambitious domestic action in China, and promise of an "action target" next year that will "convince the international community of China's engagement." Encouraging progress with Brazil on markets.
26INDCs: fact-finding outreach to G20 5OutreachCLIMA internalINDCs: fact-finding outreach to G20Confirmed that preparations now underway by all G20 and MEF PartiesBUT only US, EU, Mexico and Russia officially committed to Q China and India are likely.INDC form is likely to mirror existing Copenhagen pledges (NB - China may move to absolute target, after a potential peak emissions year)Scope of contributions – wide variation, with Umbrella Group focused on mitigation only; others want adaptation, finance, tech transferNo major economies expected to announce their INDC at UNSG Climate Leaders’ Summit, but many can "commit to commit"