Technical paper 1 United Nations Climate Change Conference Bangkok informal sessions 30 August-05 September 2012
Prepared by: Daniela Carrington (formerly Stoycheva) Climate change policy advisor UNDP, BRC Bratislava, Slovakia, September 2012
1
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the UNDP
1
Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Brief summary of the Bangkok 2012 informal sessions ......................................................................... 4 Ad hoc Working Group on Durban Platform (ADP) ............................................................................. 4 Ad hoc Working Group on further commitments for Annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWGKP) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 Ad hoc Working Group for long-term cooperative action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) ............. 8 Upcoming meetings............................................................................................................................ 10
2
Introduction From 30 August to 5 September 2012, in Bangkok, Thailand, informal sessions took place of the three Ad Hoc Working Groups: on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWGLCA), on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). Most delegates acknowledged that some progress had been made on all three tracks, although with varying degrees, but this may provide a basis for solutions in Doha. Additionally five workshops were conducted, this time without presentations, more in a discussion mode, which summary report are published at UNFCCC website and accessible here: Workshop on financing options for the full implementation of results-based actions relating to REDD-plus, including modalities and procedures for financing these results-based actions (30 August 2012); Workshop to further the understanding of the diversity of nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties, underlying assumptions, and any support needed for implementation of these actions (2 September 2012); Workshop on quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets by developed country Parties (2 September 2012); Workshop on a framework for various approaches (31 August 2012); Workshop on the new market-based mechanism (31 August 2012). The first dialogue amongst the Parties under the ADP started in the form of two roundtables. The first was on the vision and aspirations for results under the ADP, the second discussed how to enhance ambition. The AWG-KP discussions were again on resolving outstanding issues of the Second Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP), which resulted in a Vice-Chair’s non-paper on possible elements for a Doha decision adopting the Kyoto Protocol amendments, which possibly will avoid the gap between the two commitment periods. However, agreed solutions have not been found on the high-level policy issues, such as: the length of Second Commitment Period (SCP), access to the KP flexible mechanisms for the Annex I Parties which declared that they will not be part of the SCP; the carry-over issue; the aggregate emissions reduction targets for all Annex I KP Parties.
3
The AWG-LCA discussions were captured in an informal overview note by the Chair. However some expressed concerns that the note did not cover all the opinions expressed. The focus of the discussion was on what outcomes might be needed to conclude the group’s work in Doha. Advancements on key issues were notably more positive than expected and some negotiators said that the Doha conference is in a better position to succeed than before the meeting. “The investment in Bangkok has paid off,” Cristiana Figueres said. “Government negotiators have pushed forward key issues further than many had expected and raised the prospects for a next successful step in Doha.” Critics, however, point out that wide gaps still remain and that countries will have to do much more to achieve measureable progress on curbing climate change. There are still the same political issues to be resolved at Doha COP, mainly with regards to three big gaps: 1. The ambition gap – the mitigation pledges of both developed and developing countries are still not enough to assure the 2C target, neither after 2012 nor beyond 2020; 2. The financial gap – in general to cover the adaptation and mitigation needs, and in particular the fast start finance expires in 2012 and the GCF is still not operationalised and sourced; 3. The legal gap – to ensure that that there are no legal gaps between commitment periods of the KP as currently the second commitment period is due to start in 2013, but is still not agreed.
Brief summary of the Bangkok 2012 informal sessions Only some of the Bangkok informal sessions deliberations are covered below, as there has not been much progress since Bonn (May 2012) on many of the substantial issues and this session was informal. Also the focus of this paper is more on the topics of interest for the EE&CIS region. Ad hoc Working Group on Durban Platform (ADP) At COP 17/CMP 7 (December 2011) Parties agreed to establish the Ad hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) that will strive toward a “protocol, another 4
legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all parties.” The work of the group in Bangkok was organized in two roundtables based on two workstreams, where for the first time some open discussion took place on the vision, ambition, principles and work plan. Roundtable on vision for the ADP (Workstream 1): This roundtable addressed: vision for the main contours and elements of the ADP’s work and the work that is required between now and 2015, in particular in 2013, to achieve those results. During the discussions, many countries reaffirmed the primacy of the Convention in the work of the ADP and that in no way should the ADP’s work involve a rewriting of the Convention. There were continued arguments over the principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), with developing countries urging the avoidance of formulas or a “one size fits all” approach, and that mitigation actions should be nationally determined and not internationally imposed and underscored the need for technological and financial support. Many features of the future agreement were discussed, amongst them: universal means applicable to all; the need to evolve over time to promote increasing ambition as countries’ capabilities grow; providing incentives for taking action; the need for an effective, fair, realistic, flexible, science-based, legally-binding and rules-based multilateral regime that addresses “dynamic differentiation.” There were different proposals for aspects of the national circumstances of developing countries to be taken into account, such as population growth rate and density, energy mix, renewable energy endowment, etc. The EU in Bangkok stressed absolute economy-wide emission reduction targets be implemented for those “most capable” and insisted that developing countries should do as much as they can. Meanwhile, the US suggested that universal participation, access to new technologies, and linking climate policy to development, among other things, will encourage more action. The EU supported a new protocol in which all parties would take on commitments, and emphasized that the context in which the Convention principles are being applied has changed and that mitigation must be at the heart of the new agreement. The Russian Federation position is to take into 5
account the current realities and to remove the “notorious firewall� between developed and developing countries. Roundtable on ambition (Workstream 2): Participants addressed the mitigation gap and options and ways to increase the level of ambition. The ADP discussions also focused on ways to increase ambition in the short-term (up to 2020) and over the longer-term (post 2020). Over the past few months numerous suggestions have been tabled, ranging from eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and promoting energy efficiency to creating a global carbon market. Many Parties encouraged the developing countries to continue to put forward NAMAs. The LDCs and the EU supported convening a high-level forum before Doha, with the EU suggesting a focus on issues such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), bunker fuels, REDD+, fossil fuel subsidies and private-sector finance. Expected outcome in Doha: Decisions under the ADP will be part of a package deal, based on progress in the other AWGs. The efforts in Doha should focus on developing a work plan for ADP by 2015 (detailed plan for 2013), and not negotiating text. On the format of the negotiations it is not decided if contact groups on the two workstreams will be establishing or roundtables will continue. There might be ministerial roundtables and/or workshops in the pre-COP, to be held in the Republic of Korea in late October, and in Doha. Ad hoc Working Group on further commitments for Annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) The Kyoto Protocol is due to enter into a second commitment period (SCP) in January 2013, but with no finalized negotiations and some developed country abandoning it, the entering into force of the SCP has become uncertain. Negotiators still must establish the length of the second commitment period (5 or 8 years), resolve the question of whether the surplus of AAUs from the first commitment period can be carried forward into the second one, and agree on a legal form for implementing the second commitment period (considering some possible time gap in between the first and second period).
6
Developing countries expressed deep concern over the lack of progress in the KP talks in Bangkok. A group of developing countries issued a joint statement saying that they fear that Kyoto’s environmental integrity is “eroding before our eyes” and calling on developed countries to boost emissions commitments “without conditions.” On carry-over of surplus AAUs, Parties discussed the proposals to limit the carry-over surplus, consolidated into a new proposal by the G-77/China, in which 2.5% of the second commitment period is only allowed. Russia (supported by Ukraine and Belarus) pointed out that the carryover issue should be looked at from a more comprehensive perspective and that this proposal would penalize over-achievement. On eligibility for the market mechanisms, Parties discussed whether access to the Kyoto mechanisms should be possible for: only countries who apply provisional application; countries who have submitted their QELROs; countries that have indicated that they will join the second commitment period; all parties to the Kyoto Protocol; or all parties to the Convention. Most developing countries supported limiting access to the flexible mechanisms to countries who join the second commitment period, mainly for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), but this also means no access to Joint Implementation (JI) for Russia. On QELROs, Ukraine provided information on the assumptions behind its target of a 20% reduction by 2020 and work conducted to transform the target into a QELRO. In bilateral consultations, parties discussed the possible forthcoming QELRO submissions from Belarus and Kazakhstan (although Kazakhstan recently is reconsidering its participation in the SCP). The AWG-KP in Bangkok did, however, produce a draft document outlining potential decisions on the future of the treaty and exploring ways to resolve clashes over the length of the second commitment period. The chair of the working group for the Kyoto Protocol, Madeline Diouf, is now expected to produce a negotiating text ahead of the Doha summit. Expected outcome in Doha: agreed amendment of the Kyoto Protocol, with defined Annex B and length of the second commitment period and also how to implement it within the period before entering into force following the ratification by the Parties. 7
Ad hoc Working Group for long-term cooperative action under the Convention (AWGLCA) Negotiations under the LCA were mandated to wrap-up in 2012 (with selected outstanding issues to be taken up under the ADP if necessary) and the work on different Bali action plans(?) to continue under the newly established structures, but it is not yet clear if this will occur in Doha. Currently LCA work runs to more than 50 concurrent agenda items, which are at different stages of negotiation This work includes: Shared vision for long term cooperative actions; Nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions by developed country Parties; Nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions by developing country Parties (NAMAs); Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+); Sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions; Various approaches, including opportunities for using markets to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions (market and non-market approaches); Response measures; Adaptation; Finance; Technology development and transfer; Capacity building; Review of the long-term global goal; and Other matters— economies in transition and countries whose special circumstances have been recognized by the COP. Only a few aspects of some of the issues will be covered below as the rest remain unchanged from Bonn, or are not of primary concern for the EE&CIS region. Mid-term finance to 2020: with a slow start to the Green Climate Fund, developing countries concerns are that a financial gap may occur from 2013 to 2020. Developed countries reassured that they are budgeting already for CC financial support from 2013 and there will be no gap, however no numbers were put on the table. NAMAs: All the countries were satisfied with the progress made on adopting NAMA related decisions and the progress in NAMA development. Further discussions took place on understanding the diversity of NAMAs; development of guidelines for support of (?) MRV; submitting more NAMAs, and proposals for building the capacity of countries to prepare and
8
implement NAMAs. Many developing countries requested a guidebook to be developed on NAMA preparation. Registry: The registry matching NAMAs with support is supposed to be operational after Doha, however even now Parties may submit NAMAs to a dedicated UNFCCC website. The prototype registry
could
be
accessed
and
the
format
for
NAMAs
is
at
http://unfccc.int/cooperation_support/nama/items/6945.php. Additionally, UNEP developed the NAMA Idea Note (NINO) (something similar to PIN for the CDM), which could be found at http://namapipeline.org/Publications/LowCarbonDevelopmentStrategies_NAMAprimer.pdf New Market-based Mechanisms (NMM): So far the NMM are not defined, besides sectoral MM, others have not been discussed. In theory some procedures and modalities are supposed to be developed in Doha for the NMM. However with the slow progress of the negotiations on this issue and still some countries opposing market mechanisms as such, not much progress is expected in Doha. Two quite sensitive issues, namely international transport and response measures were discussed in Bangkok. International transport discussions under the LCA have focused on the regulation of the use of bunker fuels (used in maritime transport and aviation). Discussions focused on narrowing down the five options currently on the table. Options range from sets of criteria to be managed under the UNFCCC with associated principles, such as CBDR, to the US position that bunker emissions be managed under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) - the UN agencies tasked with regulating the respective industries. The issue of response measures - which deals with the social and economic impacts that countries could experience as a result of the measures other countries take to mitigate climate change, including those related to trade - continued to attract widely divergent views on whether a decision text should be prepared for Doha and which body should consider the issue of unilateral measures made by countries. Some proposals for a text on response measures say that unilateral measures are not allowed under any circumstance, while other proposals say that unilateral measures are allowed as long as they do “not constitute a means of arbitrary or 9
unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.” Parties seemed to agree that they should “cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system.” While developing countries want to have only technical discussions in the new forum on response measures - established in Durban - and leave the real decisions to the LCA or ADP, the EU says that it wants constructive solutions in the forum. Developing countries, however, say they doubt whether developed countries want to have discussions on unilateral measures at all. Australia and Singapore called for negotiations on response measures in the WTO. Looking forward, it is likely that Doha will give a clear mandate to the forum to discuss substance. Other matters: EIT and countries whose special circumstances have been recognized by the COP: Only informal consultation by the chair took place. Turkey drafted a proposal for a decision in Doha allowing it access to international financial, technological and capacity building support to implement more efficiently its Convention commitments. Expected outcome in Doha: possible finalization of the work of the AWG-LCA, with operationalizing all the structures under the Bali pillars (adaptation, mitigation, finance, capacity building), and transferring to ADP and SBs some unfinished business. Upcoming meetings The next step before COP 18 will be the “Pre-COP Ministerial Meeting” in Seoul from 21-23 October. The high-level meeting will set the political groundwork for Doha, which will take place from 26 November to 7 December.
10