International

Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. Through analysis and dialogue, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions is working with governments and stakeholders to identify practical and effective options for the post-2012 international climate framework. Read more

 

Toward 2015: An International Climate Dialogue

Image: 
Text: 
The Toward 2015 dialogue brings together officials from more than 20 countries for informal discussions on options for a new global climate agreement next year in Paris. Co-Chairs Valli Moosa and Harald Dovland share insights on how the agreement can deliver both broad participation and strong ambition.
Text Location: 
Bottom

Countries' Views on a Paris Agreement

Image: 
Text: 
A new C2ES guide makes it easier to explore and compare countries’ views on key issues in the international climate talks. The guide provides excerpts from parties’ submissions and links to the full documents. (Image courtesy UNFCCC, via Flickr, trimmed to fit this space)
Text Location: 
Bottom

Parties’ Submissions to the UNFCCC Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform

Photo courtesy of The Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), an IISD service.

Parties’ Submissions to the UNFCCC Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform

As of  October 10, 2014

Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are negotiating a new global climate agreement to be concluded in late 2015 in Paris. The negotiations are taking place within the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). This page provides excerpts from parties’ formal submissions to the ADP on select issues relating to the design of a 2015 agreement, with links to the full submissions.

STRUCTURE OF AGREEMENT/PACKAGE

LULUCF/REDD

SHARED/LONG-TERM VISION (GUIDING ELEMENTS)

LEGAL FORM

FINANCEUPDATING COMMITMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS
LINKAGES/INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

TECHNOLOGY

PERIODIC REVIEW
DIFFERENTIATION

CAPACITY BUILDING

PRE-PARIS PROCESS
MITIGATION COMMITMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONSTRANSPARENCY/MRVEX-ANTE INFORMATION/UP-FRONT INFORMATION FOR INDCs
ADAPTATIONCOMPLIANCE 

LOSS AND DAMAGE

MARKET MECHANISMS 

 

 STRUCTURE OF AGREEMENT/PACKAGE

Africa Group

May 31, 2014 (Elements)        

  • “Definitions to minimise ambiguity on terms reflected in the agreement

  • Preamble, covering the context and legal basis of the agreement, including recognition of progress made to date as reflected on previous decisions

  • General aggregate commitments, reflecting global objectives as agreed/to be agreed, including mechanisms for ensuring fair and adequate contributions to the global effort

  • Record of specific commitments by Parties in line with their Convention obligations, including mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, capacity- building and transparency of action and support, , as envisaged in paragraph 5 of Decision 1/CP.17.

  • Elaboration of how operational mechanisms for finance, adaptation, and mitigation, technology development and transfer, transparency of action and support, and capacity- building, including those under the Convention – will support the delivery on the agreed general and specific commitments. 

  • Definition of accountability, compliance provisions as well as review process for the implementation of general and specific commitments, including adequacy of the operational mechanisms

  • Agreement on other considerations, including adoption, amendment, entry into force, reservation and options.” (pps. 1-2, May Elements)

Note: The rest of the submission elaborates further on the elements.

AILAC

September 24, 2014

C) Structure of the text of the Agreement and conceptual content

“23. In AILAC’s view, the 2015 Agreement should include nine (9) sections. Their conceptual content is described in the following paragraphs.

24. The 2015 Agreement will be part of a broader package Agreement, which will include both the Agreement itself and accompanying COP decisions on specific matters that do not require inclusion in the legally binding Agreement, but are fundamental for providing the appropriate balance. This submission focuses exclusively on the 2015 Agreement and its contents.” (p8)

FIRST: PREAMBLE.

SECOND: ADAPTATION

THIRD: MITIGATION

FOURTH: MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION.

FIFTH: LOSS AND DAMAGE.

SIXTH: CONTRIBUTIONS.

SEVENTH: TRANSPARENCY OF ACTION AND SUPPORT.

EIGHT: COMPLIANCE.

NINTH: LEGAL CLAUSES. (p9-18)

“60. The 2015 Agreement should include an annex that establishes how the committed country contributions system will work. This annex should be based on the defined legal architecture and take into account the agreed process for defining contributions and for their subsequent revisions.

61. The 2015 Agreement must explicitly mandate each Party to inscribe a country contribution document in a Repository to be held by the Agreement’s depository.

62. Through the 2015 Agreement, Parties commit to implement the targets, actions, efforts, or other, that are contained in their respective country contribution document, according to the principle of CBDR-RC.

63. The country contribution documents shall include the minimum ex-ante information requirements agreed by the COP, and be subject to the agreed ex-ante assessment process before their inscription in the Repository.” (p15)

Australia

May 28, 2014

  •  “A framework to define and record post-2020 commitments: the core of this would be commitments by all countries to make nationally determined contributions to reducing global emissions from 2020;

  • A rule-based transparency and accountability framework;

  • Links to existing international institutional infrastructure that will operate together with the 2015 agreement, and avoid unnecessary duplication of work or institutions;

  • Provisions for the agreement instrument to be durable and not require regular renegotiation.” (p. 1)

Canada

June 6, 2014  “a package consisting of the core agreement” “accompanied by a series of COP decisions, as well as Parties’ intended nationally determined contributions…” “The accompanying COP decisions will further elaborate upon and support the implementation of the core agreement. Such decisions may include details of a technical nature, including clarity concerning the rules underpinning contributions for the post-2020 period”(p1)

EU

March 3, 2014

May 29, 2014

  • “could be broadly organised around: (i) objectives; (ii) mitigation and related MRV & accounting; (iii) market mechanisms; (iv) adaptation; (v) means of implementation; (vi) transparency of support; (vii) regular mitigation assessment and simplified adjustment; (viii) compliance.” (p2, March)

  • “…will be part of a wider 2015 package that includes a series of accompanying COP decisions. Provisions should only be included in the 2015 Agreement itself if doing so is necessary to make them operational and effective;” (p. 2, March)

“The 2015 Agreement should:  

  1. set  out  a  long  term  goal  that,  in  line  with  the  findings  of  the  IPCC,  ensures  an aggregate emission pathway consistent with having at least a likely chance of ensuring that the 2°C objective is achieved 

  2. contain mitigation commitments from all Parties that are legally binding and provide the framework in which Parties will fulfil those commitments  

  3. further strengthen the multilateral rules?based regime through provisions on MRV, accounting and compliance 

  4. set out a mechanism to regularly consider the level of global ambition represented by mitigation commitments in order for Parties to raise their own ambition in a timely manner should they wish to do so and if necessary to stay on track to achieve the below 2°C objective

  5. catalyse real action by all types of stakeholders, taking into account results from ADP Workstream 2” (p. 3, May)

Japan

May 14, 2014 “The 2015 agreement should consist of two parts, a simple core agreement and relevant COP decisions. The simple core agreement should be durable. The main elements of the simple core agreement are as follows: a) Each party is obliged to submit its intended nationally determined contribution (NDC); b) Each Party is subject to an effective transparency mechanism namely “Ex-ante consultation” and “Ex-post international evaluation and review of the performance”; c) Each Party is encouraged to integrate adaptation into its national planning and development processes.” (p. 1)

Mexico

May 29, 2014 Mitigation commitments “will be part of the 2015 package in the form of an Annex per Party.” (p. 2)

New Zealand

March 12 2014 New Zealand sees the 2015 outcome as a package. This package is likely to be made up of a concise, legally binding agreement supported by COP decisions, and a national schedule for each Party. Each schedule will be supplementary to the legally binding agreement and will detail the Party’s nationally determined commitment. This arrangement will be "applicable to all", consistent with the Durban mandate for Parties’ obligations to have the same legal force. (para. 5, March)

New Zealand has proposed that nationally determined commitments should sit in national schedules supplementary to, and outside the legally binding agreement. We think this will be effective, because it provides Parties greater flexibility to make ambitious commitments and raise ambition over time. We also think it appropriate because a Party’s commitment will be nationally, not internationally, determined and implemented. Moreover, proposed contributions will specify dates and numbers that are likely to require amendment over time as ambition is ramped up. Including these details in the legally binding agreement would require international agreement to effect any subsequent change. This may bring with it a need to renegotiate and re-ratify the agreement every few years, and uncertainty while those negotiations proceed. This is impractical and will compromise the effectiveness and the durability of the agreement. (para. 9, March)

Status of schedules: Agreement that national schedules are necessary to and sit alongside the legal agreement but are not part of it.

Final clauses: For example: Agreement that entry into force provisions that ensure appropriate participation; and amendment procedures that enable Parties to readily update their commitments.” (p7, October, Elements)

Russia

April 30, 2014 “The new international legal instrument should be supported by the existing subsidiary bodies and institutional framework of the UNFCCC/KP to avoid duplication. Rather than reinvent the wheel, it would be best to utilize those building blocks of the current regime which have proved effective (modifying them, need be).” (p. 2)

“The instrument should contain the minimum requisite elements to lay out the architecture and ‘philosophy’ of the regime. It should be bolstered, however, by detailed, thematic implementation rules in the form of decisions of the UNFCCC COP.” (p. 3)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)   “a package of commitments, targets, actions, efforts, etc. in the areas of mitigation and adaptation and the provision of means of implementation” (p. 1) “Parties need to determine whether mitigation contributions for periods from 2030 will be inscribed in an annex to the agreement and its legal nature. Our view is that it should be an integral part of the 2015 agreement.” (p. 8)

United States

February 12 2014  “Third, the agreement will be a component of the larger package to be adopted in Paris.  The agreement per se should be built to last, for example, so that it does not have to be amended every time there are refinements to the details of reporting.  In addition, it will promote ambition if it is designed to remain sound in the context of changing scientific, economic, and technological circumstances.  As a result, the agreement should include provisions that, among other things, are sensible to include in an instrument of long duration.  Other provisions should be included in related instruments that are easy to modify overtime. This approach will have the added benefit of producing a concise agreement that is more easily negotiated and understood.” (pps. 1-2, February)

  • “The Paris outcome will involve several documents, including, at a minimum:
    • a core agreement;
    • related COP decisions; and
    • a compilation of nationally determined contributions received.” (p9, September)

Back to top

  LEGAL FORM

Africa Group

April 30, 2014   “a non-binding, principle-based reference framework that reflects relative fair efforts by Parties in responding to mitigation and adaption is necessary. The relative efforts should consider the combined mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology responsibility of a Party, against which nationally derived commitments can be assessed” (para. 7, April)

AILAC

March 10, 2014  “AILAC reiterates that in its view, the negotiations under the ADP should have as an outcome the definition of a new agreement that will be legally binding in nature. This legally binding agreement should aim at achieving the ultimate (objective of the Convention, and be based on science. In this light, AILAC stresses that all the components of the legally binding agreement should be granted equal relevance and should have the same legal nature.” (p. 1, March)

  1. Legal Architecture of the 2015 Agreement

“4. The 2015 Agreement should be under the UNFCCC and its principles. This implies that it is a ratifiable, legally binding instrument, which creates international obligations for the States that choose to join the Agreement through ratification, in accordance with their national provisions for the ratification of treaties.

5. The 2015 Agreement should be short, concise, durable, and include the common global vision to which all Parties will subscribe and aim to achieve with their collective efforts according to the principle of CBDR-RC. For this purpose, under each of its main substantive components (mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation) a long term goal should be included, setting the global direction towards which the international community needs to direct its efforts for each of these dimensions of the climate change challenge. These long-term goals may be expressed differently for each of the individual components of the Agreement. Yet, the inextricable linkages between them must also be acknowledged.

6. Additionally, the Agreement must serve as a catalyzer of action at the domestic level, incentivizing ambitious action, and providing a robust structure to support it; it should act as a powerful tool that helps Parties in their own efforts to contribute to the global endeavors to combat climate change.

7. For this purpose, the Agreement should be accompanied by the contributions that each Party will commit to implement. These should reflect the individual and/or joint actions that each country will commit to undertake, within its national context, and considering its respective capabilities, to the collective global goals included in the Agreement.

8. These contributions need to be anchored in the Agreement so that each country is legally bound to comply by implementing what it has included as its own contribution.

9. However, the architecture of the Agreement must be sufficiently flexible to: a) secure universal participation, b) allow for diversity and differentiation between types of contributions, c) allow countries to ratchet-up ambition over time, avoiding lengthy re-negotiations of the entire system and; d) to create an internationally legally binding obligation without requiring that country A ratifies the content of the country contribution document of country B.

10. For this, the contributions would be inscribed in individual country contribution documents, to which the Agreement will make an explicit reference stating that each country commits to implement what the country itself has set forth in its individual country contribution document. As a consequence, each ratifying country is legally bound to implement what it includes in its contribution document.” (p1-2, September)

“17. In other words, it permits countries to ratify an Agreement, which creates an internationally legally binding obligation, without requiring that country A ratifies the content of the country contribution document of country B. However, both countries are able to ratify the Agreement, which binds each of them, internationally, to comply with what they have set forth in their respective nationally determined contribution documents.

18. This proposed architecture needs to be underpinned by two fundamental principles (in addition to the principles included in the Convention, which are, of course, applicable): a general principle of non-backsliding, by which no country can either withdraw its contribution nor make a less ambitious than the previous one it had committed to, including existing commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol; and a principle of gradual scale-up, by which country contributions should increase in ambition every time the contribution period expires until the Convention’s and the 2015 Agreement’s objectives are reached.

19. This proposed architecture is inextricably linked to the structure of the text of the Agreement, its conceptual content, and to the process for determining and revising contributions, which are the subject of sections B) and C) below” (p4, September)

“80. The clauses on entry into force should take into account a double threshold that includes both a number of Parties ratifying, and a percentage of global emissions reductions covered by the ratifying Parties.

81. According to the Convention, the Depositary of any Protocol adopted in accordance to its Article 17, such as the 2015 Agreement, is the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In accordance to the proposed legal architecture of the Agreement, the additional task of managing the Repository of country contributions should be given to the Depositary of the UNFCCC.

82. No reservations should be allowed to the Agreement.” (p18, September)

Canada

June 6, 2014  “internationally legally binding” (p. 1)

China

March 6, 2014 “Its legal form will be determined by the substance as a result of the negotiations.” (p. 2, March)

EIG

June 5, 2014   “a legally binding instrument (LBI) containing enduring elements of the 2015 Agreement, COP decisions containing dynamic and technical elements , and the nationally determined contributions (n.d.c.) for the period from 2020.” (para. 1)

EU

March 3, 2014

May 29, 2014

  • should be a new Protocol under the Convention;” (p. 2, March)

  • “Internationally legally binding agreement” (p. 1, May)

Japan

May 14, 2014 “The legal nature of the 2015 agreement should be reflected taking into consideration universal participation and encouragement of ambitious actions.” (p. 1)

LDCs

March 17, 2014   “Seeking to establish a strong 2015 Agreement that will provide confidence and political momentum for an effective post-2020 regime, which will co-exist with the Kyoto Protocol. All the elements of the Durban Platform should be incorporated within the 2015 Agreement. This includes adaptation, mitigation, loss and damage, finance, technology, MRV and compliance, and capacity building. There may be additional elements still to be considered.” (p. 4, March)

Mexico

May 29, 2014 “Mexico advocates a Legally Binding Instrument (LBI) as the only legal form that will provide the necessary certainty to all Parties to take ambitious action and ensure the transition towards a low carbon society, as agreed in Durban, and that could have several meanings:

  • Legal force in the sense of producing legal effects as opposed to a strictly legally binding instrument as provided for in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).

  • We should address the issue more from an interpretative perspective. According to international law, treaties such as UNFCCC are to be interpreted in conformity with the ordinary meaning of their terms and within the context in which they operate. The context is made of both subsequent agreement and subsequent practice.

  • In this regard, we can find out that the vast amount of COP decisions are truly part of the interpretation, which has already been modified by several Parties with respect to the original agreement. Therefore, instead of discussing in abstract Mexico what kind of instrument we want, we should start identifying and compiling what has actually happened through the various COPs. This is a task that a group of legal experts could do under the guidance of the co-chairs of the ADP.” (pps. 7-8)

Russia

April 30, 2014  “It is paramount that a new instrument under the post-2020 climate regime be legally binding and set commitments not only for developed countries, but also measures to be taken by developing ones. While the substance of the climate actions to be taken by developed and developing countries may differ, they should be enshrined in a single international legal instrument. It is important to agree on the methodology for quantification and comparison of countries’ efforts, using, for example, C02 equivalents. The new instrument while preserving the positive experience and know-how of the Kyoto Protocol, must preclude flaws of the current climate regime. It must serve as the lasting foundation of an equitable, long-standing climate solution which is prudent in all concerns: scientific, environmental, economic and political.” (p. 1, April)

Back to top

  LINKAGES/INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Africa Group

May 31, 2014 (Elements) “1. Recall the various operational mechanisms under the Convention and their role in supporting the delivery of commitments by various Parties. These include the mechanisms for adaptation, finance, technology, capacity building, and the mitigation related instruments on markets, response measures, and transparency

2. Recall the ex-ante mechanism for the assessment of adequacy and fairness of contributions by Parties in B.4 above, including the necessary institutional arrangements for implementation” (p. 7)

Australia

May 28, 2014Links to existing international institutional infrastructure that will operate together with the 2015 agreement, and avoid unnecessary duplication of work or institutions;” (p. 2)

Canada

June 6, 2014 “Regarding adaptation, we believe that a common agreement to continue our work to enhance action on adaptation under the Convention, as provided under existing and relevant arrangements, in particular the Cancun Adaptation Framework, should form part of the core legal text, recognizing the important role of the Convention in this regard…The 2015 agreement should also encourage all Parties to develop strategies that support the integrated planning of adaptation actions. The agreement should acknowledge that adaptation should be based upon best available science and knowledge, build on experiences and lessons learned, be implemented largely as a result of integration within existing policies and programs and engage a wide range of decision makers in both the public and private sectors.” (p. 2)

Coalition for Rainforest Nations

June 4, 2014  “In order to achieve coherence, the REDD+ mechanism in the 2015 agreement should guide and eventually absorb and replace some existing multilateral initiatives on REDD+ outside the UNFCCC such as UN-REDD, FCPF, FIP, Interim REDD+ Partnership.”  (para. 21)

EIG

June 4, 2014  “The Adaptation component of the 2015 Agreement needs to build upon and effectively articulate existing arrangements for adaptation under the UNFCCC, including for the effective implementation of the Cancun Adaptation framework, the continuation and downscaling at regional, national and local levels of the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change, as well as the continuance of the Adaptation Fund and its effective integration to the financing sphere of the Agreement along with the Green Climate Fund.”  (p. 4)

Mexico

May 29, 2014 2015 agreement should:  “[n]ot be construed as a disruption of the current climate regime, but rather build upon, improve and effectively implement the existing framework and institutions, and guarantee a smooth transition and link between the pre-2020 and post-2020 action and ambition.” (p. 2)

New Zealand

March 12, 2014 “We agreed at Doha that the new agreement will sit under the Convention. Logically, we should not duplicate the rights and obligations created under the Convention. We should include such elements as necessary to give support to the structures and processes we already have in place under the Convention, including those dealing with adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building.” (para. 10)

Relationship with the Convention: Agreement the purpose of the new agreement is to achieve the objective of the Convention and the new agreement supports the enduring operation of the Convention in a dynamic environment.” (p6, October, Elements)

Institutions: Agreement that the Conference of the Parties, secretariat, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, Subsidiary Body for Implementation of the Convention will serve this agreement.

Agreement that finance, technology development and transfer and capacity building under the agreement will be delivered through

institutions and mechanisms operating under the Convention, in accordance with relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties.” (p7, October, Elements)

Russia

April 30, 2014 “The new international legal instrument should be supported by the existing subsidiary bodies and institutional framework of the UNFCCC/KP to avoid duplication.  Rather than reinvent the wheel, it would be best to utilize those building blocks of the current regime which have proved effective (modifying them, [if] need be).” (pps. 2-3)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)

“The use of the various adaptation tools (L&D, NAPs, AF, NWP, A&R support framework for regional and cooperative programmes etc.) created under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol should be utilised for the implementation of commitments under the 2015 agreement.”  (p. 3)

“The existing institutional arrangements with regard to the technology financial mechanism will be used for the implementation of this agreement.”  (p. 7)

“Facilitative institutional arrangement (recognition, recording and develop support programmes for cooperative agreements between the UNFCCC and other international bodies, e.g. ICAO, IMO, Montreal Protocol, FAO, Hyogo Framework of Action, etc. and within regions, between countries, sub-national and local authorities, sectors etc.).”  (p. 8)

United States

July 12, 2014 “There will need to be various provisions regarding institutions servicing the new agreement.  They could generally mirror the institutional provisions of the Kyoto Protocol with respect to the COP, secretariat, and subsidiary bodies (SBSTA and SBI).” (p. 10)

Back to top

 DIFFERENTIATION

Africa Group

April 30, 2014

May 31, 2014 (Elements)  “The Africa Group affirms the differentiated commitments provided for in Article 4 of the Convention, as such their reflection in the 2015 Agreement, where developed country Parties commit to quantified economy-wide emission reductions, whilst Annex II Parties commit to finance and technology transfer to support developing country action in respect of mitigation and adaptation. The commitments inscribed under the agreement should approximate fair efforts as reflected in the principle-based reference framework.”  (para. 8, April)

Preamble to 2015 agreement should make:  “[s]pecific reference to the guidance by science, equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, historical responsibility, whilst taking into account national circumstances” (p. 2, May Elements)

“The agreement should therefore result in a fair sharing of atmospheric space and resources, recognizing the historical use of such resources by Annex I Parties, and equally the global adaptation responsibility, and access to finance technology and capacity support”  (p. 3, May Elements)

AILAC

March 10, 2014 “The provisions on mitigation must take into account that universality of application applicable to all does not mean uniformity. In AILAC’s understanding the way to ensure equity is the implementation of a fair differentiation, where capacity and political will towards the highest level of ambition possible are at the core.

In this light, contributions should be nationally determined, based on each country’s national context, capabilities, responsibility and challenges. Support should be given to countries who need it most and who are willing to go beyond their capacity. Thus, differentiation must be between types of contributions. The agreement must put in place the right incentives so that all parties in a position to do so take action and become more ambitious.

AILAC reiterates that leadership on mitigation should come from developed country parties, in light of their historic responsibility and their capacity. Without prejudice of this leadership that all developed countries should take, AILAC countries are also leading in the measure of their own capabilities, and often beyond their responsibility for climate change. We wish to highlight the need for all parties to be ambitious in contributing to global efforts to combat climate change according to their own capacities, under the leadership of developed country parties.” (p. 4)

“9. All contributions are nationally determined; countries will determine what they can and want to put forward. The principles of sovereignty and CBDR-RC are inherent in this process.

10. The definition of INDCs should not impose an unfair burden on the most vulnerable countries, and should always take into account each country’s capabilities, and responsibility, including, in particular, historic responsibilities; INDCs should enhance collaboration and universal participation.” (p2, September)

Australia

May 28, 2014

  • “Climate change can only be effectively mitigated if all countries, and in particular major economies, take coordinated action to restrain emissions. The most important function of a 2015 agreement will be to establish a common playing field for all countries to take serious, coordinated action to reduce emissions. This action should be appropriate to their national circumstances and consistent with economic growth. Commitments by all countries to reduce or limit their emissions are needed to make a genuine impact globally, and avoid carbon leakage across boundaries.

  • A 2015 agreement must respect countries’ national prerogative to choose their domestic climate policies. It should foster policy settings under which businesses and private actors can make investment and innovation decisions for the future and help support economic growth.

  • Nationally determined contributions will allow countries to take action in a way that is fitted to their national circumstances, capacities and domestic policies. This will let countries set out their efforts under the Convention in a way that recognises all countries’ unique conditions. Using categories of countries fixed in 1992 as a basis for action from 2020 to 2030 and beyond is neither a politically or economically viable basis on which to continue structuring countries’ commitments.”  (p. 1)

Canada

June 6, 2014 “While the 2015 agreement will be applicable to all, Parties’ contributions under a new agreement will be differentiated to reflect unique national circumstances and capabilities. We recognize that Parties need to continue to grow their economies in order to achieve sustainable development while reducing emissions well into the future. Various domestic factors will shape Parties’ efforts to reduce emissions, including for example the structure of their economy, population growth, the cost of abatement, geography and climate.” (p. 3)

China

March 6, 2014  “The 2015 agreement shall be based and built on the structure and provisions of the Convention, in particular the provisions of Article 4 and 12 as per the Annexes, as well as the differentiation between developed and developing country Parties, with

developed country Parties taking the lead in greenhouse gas emission reduction and honouring their responsibility and obligation in providing technology and finance support to developing countries. The Annexes of the Convention shall continue to be relevant and applicable for the post-2020 period, as developed countries are responsible for the current and future concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because of their historical, current and future emissions, and developing countries have the right to equitable development opportunities and sustainable development.” (pps. 1-2, March)

“Contributions by Parties towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 shall be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 4 of the Convention. Developed country Parties shall make domestic preparations particularly for their commitments on providing finance, technology and capacity-building support to developing countries in addition to their mitigation commitments. Developing country Parties’ contributions will be in the context of sustainable development, consistent with their special circumstances and specific needs, and dependent on the adequate finance and technology support provided by developed country Parties.” (p. 2, March)

“The 2015 agreement shall be ‘applicable to all’ in the same manner as the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol are binding on and implemented fully in good faith by all Parties. Its legal form will be determined by the substance as a result of the negotiations. Commitments by developed country Parties on providing finance, technology and capacity-building support to developing country Parties shall be of the same legal bindingness as their mitigation commitments.” (p. 2, March)

Coalition for Rainforest Nations

June 4, 2014   “NDCs should be legally binding and applicable to all, and distinguish between Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.”  (¶ 12)

Support should be provided by Annex I Parties to non-Annex I Parties to prepare their NDCs and developing countries’ contributions/mitigation efforts should be conditional to support received from developed countries.” (para. 13)

EU

May 28, 2014 “7. An INDC should therefore represent what each Party considers is a fair and ambitious reflection of its responsibilities and capabilities. The kind of up front information that a Party should provide, as well as which elements of the common MRV and accounting rules base will apply to its mitigation commitment in the 2015 Agreement, should follow from the Party's choice of INDC.

8. In this way, INDCs operationalise common but differentiated responsibilities & respective capabilities and equity in a way that is dynamic, reflects evolving realities, and is fair to the Party concerned. This will ensure an equitable post?2020 regime.” (para. 7-8)

“In order to achieve the below 2°C objective:  

  • INDCs should reflect, in type and ambition, the responsibilities and capabilities of the Party concerned. Parties with the greatest responsibilities and capabilities should come forward with INDCs in the form of economy?wide absolute targets relative to a historical base year (economy?wide absolute targets) ? including those Parties that currently have such commitments pre 2020 to ensure that there is no backsliding. Whilst other types of commitment might be appropriate for Parties with fewer responsibilities and less capability, all Parties should aspire, over time, to eventually having economy?wide absolute targets because they provide the greatest certainty on emissions reductions while giving Parties flexibility on how to achieve those reductions” (p. 3)

Japan

May 14, 2014  “The 2015 agreement should be durable by appropriately reflecting current and future evolutions of the international community. Therefore, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) in Article 3.1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”) has to be interpreted in a dynamic context.”  (p. 1)

LMDCs

March 9, 2014

June 3, 2014

  • “Likewise, any enhanced action of developing countries must be accompanied by a corresponding equivalent in scaled-up provision of new and additional, adequate and predictable financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, as provided for the Article 4.3 of the Convention, and in accordance with its Article 4.7, and must be measured, verified and reported as has been agreed in the decisions adopted by the COP at its 19th session.” (p. 3, March)

  • “Applicability to all does not mean uniformity but differentiation in application according to the provisions and principles of the Convention. Universality does not mean uniformity. The current Annexes to the Convention must remain, as they are a reflection of responsibilities for historical emissions which caused the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which in turn must be stabilized for the achievement of the ultimate objective of the Convention.” (p. 3, March)

Developed country commitments

Developing country actions

1. Mitigation

1. Adaptation (including loss and damage)

2. Timely provision of finance to developing countries

2. Mitigation

3. Timely provision of technology to developing countries

3. Capacity-building

4. Timely provision of capacity-building to developing countries

4. Sustainable development

(p. 4, March)

 

“Any enhanced action of developing country Parties must be accompanied by a corresponding equivalent in a scaled-up provision of new and additional, adequate and predictable financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, as provided for in Article 4.3 of the Convention, and in accordance with its Article 4.7, and must be measured, verified and reported as has been agreed in the relevant COP decisions.” (para. 4, June)

“Annex I Parties, in accordance with Art. 3.1, should take the lead through emission reductions undertaken domestically. There must be comparability of efforts among all Annex I Parties with respect to their mitigation commitments, on the basis of common units such as timeframe, gases, base year, etc. that enable effective comparability. These efforts should be in the form of specific enhanced comparable quantified economy-wide limitation and reduction commitments (QELRCs) under Art. 4.2, to be in the context of a top-down, historical responsibility- and science-based aggregate Annex I target that go beyond the Kyoto Protocol 2nd commitment period targets for Annex I Kyoto Protocol Parties and the Cancun pledges of Annex I Parties who are not Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.” (¶12, June)

 

Mexico

May 29, 2014 2015 agreement should:  “[a]im for the participation of all Parties in accordance to their specific national circumstances.” (p. 1)

“Mitigation is a central component of the 2015 Agreement, and as such all Parties must take appropriate commitments of same international legal form and under same rules (e.g., same time periods, under same MRV provisions) at different depths according to the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR/RC) and equity, and commensurate to the scientific recommendations for reducing global GHG emissions.

  • These commitments should be communicated by Parties upon signature of the 2015 Agreement and will be part of the 2015 package in the form of an Annex per Party.

  • Developed Parties must take the lead with quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets.

  • Other Parties in the position to do so must follow the lead with quantified economy wide emission reduction targets.

  • Other Parties must adopt commitments that, according to their specific national circumstances, could take the form of:

    • Absolute limits on emissions.

    • Intensity-targets.

    • Deviation from business as usual (BAU).

    • Ensuring urban, rural and infrastructure planning processes and decisions that are consistent with low carbon emissions development plans and strategies.

    • Sectorial mitigation plans and strategies.

  • Least Developed Countries (LDCs) should take appropriate actions to engage in low-emissions development planning processes.

  • A dynamic framework must be developed in order to allow for the review and enhancement of commitments based on evolution of development level, capability level, scientific findings, and/or a Party’s decision to do so including as a result of processes that incentivises ambitious participation.”  (pps. 2-3)

New Zealand

March 14, 2014 “New Zealand advocates a simple rule set and that we avoid writing a fresh rule for each national circumstance. In this scenario, the default position would be for the rules to apply to all Parties, except to the extent a Party nationally determines it is not in a position to follow a particular rule – this is a form of “opting-out”. By contrast, in a scenario where national determination is the primary driver (i.e. a more bottom-up approach) there would be no default position that all rules apply to all Parties. A more bottom-up scenario would likely see Parties elect to apply a particular rule or rule-set – by ‘opting in’ where they see benefit in doing so. It is important to note that in neither scenario are opt-in and opt-out arrangements mutually exclusive. Parties may opt in to some components of the agreement and opt out of others.” (para. 20, March)

“Universality: Agreement to aim for and incentivise universal participation by taking account of national circumstances.” (p6, October, Elements)

Binary differentiation: application of Annexes to the Convention or other fixed categories of countries as the operational basis for determining obligations under the new agreement

8. New Zealand is deeply sceptical about using fixed categories of countries as the determining factor for who is required to do what under the new agreement. It is possible to leave the Annexes as they are, while using other mechanisms to deliver dynamic and nationally appropriate CBDR/RC. An agreement operationalised on the basis of a binary determination of who does what would discourage participation and ambition. On the contrary, we need the new agreement to incentivise mitigation by Parties in different circumstances, in ways that do not limit action by any Party.

9. National determination of contributions allows Parties to self-select the type and ambition of their mitigation contributions to suit their national circumstances. Different commitment types lend themselves to different transparency requirements – both ex ante and ex post the tabling of contributions. A common transparency framework can accommodate parties at different stages of development – the tiered approach of the IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, for example. An accounting menu, from which Parties select options best suited to their national circumstances will also align expectations of Parties with their circumstances. In respect of providing finance, categories of countries make little sense in the context of the magnitude of the task. All Parties in a position to do so should support the most vulnerable and least capable.

10. We note also the severe limitations categories fixed in 1992 for purposes of maximising action to take place from 2020 onward. Now we have agreed mitigation contributions should be nationally determined, it is incongruous to constrain mitigation options for some countries and not others. Only by moving away from categorisation toward bounded flexibility will we arrive at an effective rules-based regime that is genuinely applicable to all.” (p7-8, October, Elements)

Russia

April 30, 2014 “The new international legal instrument should adhere to all agreed principles of the UNFCCC, without giving deference to any particular one. Current global socio-economic development realities should be accounted for, while one-sided interpretation of the principles should be avoided. In the interest of the objectives of the new instrument, it is not acceptable to maintain the static division of countries as per the current UNFCCC categories. Categorization should be based on objective, scientific information shared by all countries. It also should be flexible, allowing for adjustments (where necessary) to be made to countries' commitments as their level of socio-economic development increases.” (pps. 1-2)

Singapore

May 22, 2014 “All Parties have a common obligation to submit a NDC as part of the 2015 global agreement, in accordance with Article 4.1 of the Convention.”  (para. 5(i))

“NDCs must be understood in the context of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and the specific national and regional

development priorities, objectives and circumstances , as enshrined in Article 4.1 of the Convention. Accordingly, the notion of NDCs implies that there will be diversity in types of contributions. While the type of contribution from each Party will vary, there is a common obligation for all Parties to put forward a NDC.” (para. 5(iii))

United States

February 12, 2014  “Second, regarding the principles of the Convention, including but not limited to common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR/RC), there is no question that they continue to apply to future efforts under the Convention.  The issue is their meaning as we contemplate the period immediately post?2020 and beyond.  With respect to  CBDR/RC in particular, we endorse the view that national efforts will be differentiated across a broad continuum of all Parties based on a range of factors, including circumstances, level of development, mitigation opportunities, capabilities, etc.  However, we would not support a bifurcated approach to the new agreement, particularly one based on groupings that may have made sense in 1992 but that are clearly not rational or workable in the post?2020 era.   There have been, and will continue to be, dramatic and dynamic shifts in countries' emissions and economic profiles that make such an approach untenable, environmentally and otherwise.”  (p. 1, February)

  • “Some have suggested that Annex I Parties and non-Annex I Parties accompany their INDCs with different types of clarifying information. While we support differentiation, as exemplified by our support for the self-differentiation inherent in nationally determined contributions, we do not think that it makes any sense for certain Parties to be clearer than others about their contributions. By virtue of contributions being nationally determined, there will be differentiation in terms of contributions themselves. But the clarity with which contributions are presented should be the same, i.e., the information should enable other Parties and the international community to understand the contribution in a transparent manner.”
  • “Further, as we have said on several occasions, we would not support a post-2020 agreement based on a 1992-era bifurcated approach. The only case in which we would be able to consider a bifurcated approach would be on the basis of categories that are updated, in line with evolving realities, not categories fixed in a time that will be nearly 30 years old when the new agreement comes into effect.” (p5, September)

Back to top

                            MITIGATION COMMITMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS

Africa Group

April 30, 2014

May 31, 2014 (Elements)

8 June 2014

Mitigation “The Africa Group affirms the differentiated commitments provided for in Article 4 of the Convention, as such their reflection in the 2015 Agreement, where developed country Parties commit to quantified economy-wide emission reductions, whilst Annex II Parties commit to finance and technology transfer to support developing country action in respect of mitigation and adaptation. The commitments inscribed under the agreement should approximate fair efforts as reflected in the principle-based reference framework.”  (para. 8, April)

  1. “Agree on the form, type, process of presenting and assessing commitments for developed country Parties in accordance with Articles 3.1, and 4.2, reflecting science- based, economy-wide, and comparable absolute emission reduction commitments and how they will be reflected in the agreement, with provisions for counting, accounting, and building on existing rules under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol

  2. Agree on the form, type, sequencing and consideration of commitments for developing country Parties in accordance with Articles 4.1 and 4.7, and how they will be reflected in the agreement, with provisions for counting, accounting, and building on existing rules under the Convention

  3. Building on the agreed outcome, and existing mechanisms under the Convention, agree on market and non-market mechanisms, LULUCF rules, implementation of REDD+, further guidance to the NAMA Registry, and a mechanism for Response Measures in order to enhance environmental integrity and understanding of effort under the agreement”  (p. 5, May, Elements)

Mitigation

  • “Differentiated approach across all mitigation elements (form of commitment, counting, accounting, adequacy and fairness, compliance) as per relevant Convention principles, provisions

  • Sequencing in the consideration of INDC after their presentation, especially for an adequacy and fairness process

  • Facilitative compliance with the option of redressing mitigation and means of implementation ‘numbers’” (June, Mitigation)

Relevant Convention Articles (June, Mitigation)

Annex I (Art. 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2

Non-Annex I Art. 4.1 and 4.7

On Form of commitment

  • Absolute and Economy wide emission reduction commitment (covering all sectors and gases)
  • Zero carbon emission pathways
  • Relative emission reduction, including through Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

On Counting methodologies

  • Use of the latest IPCC GHG Inventory Guidelines
  • IPCC GHG Inventory Guidelines as appropriate for developing countries

On Accounting approach

  • Market, how is double counting treated, avoiding both of tons being counted twice; and tons and finance for NAMAs being counted twice
  • Non-market options for delivery on contributions
  • Applicable LULUCF rules under the Convention, improving on KP rules
  • Framework for accounting and assessment of ICIs, consistent with targets and rules under Convention
  • Rules pertaining to offset and joint implementation mechanism
  • Market, how is double counting of tons avoided
  • Non-market options for delivery on contributions
  • Applicable LULUCF rules, drawing on REDD
  • Framework for accounting and assessment of ICIs
  • Rules pertaining to offset and joint implementation mechanism

On Adequacy and Fairness

  • Quantification of global carbon budget at the start of any commitment period to meet the agreed global goal
  • Individual consideration of contributions (individual assessment of each AI Party contribution in meeting the goal)
  • Party submission of its proposals for fairness indicators as part of a principle-based reference framework
  • Ex ante assessment for adequacy and fairness consideration, including minimum threshold for mitigation towards its Required Fair Effort
  • Assumptions made of level of contribution
  • Aggregate consideration of contributions (aggregate assessment of Total NAI Parties contribution)
  • Consideration of available support from AII Parties to NAI Parties
  • Consideration of NAI Parties additional ambition after ex-ante consideration of AII
  • Parties level of available support

Compliance arrangements

  • Facilitative compliance as in KP, IAR with the possibility to redress both finance and mitigation numbers in case of non compliance
  • ICA, and a summary document

 

AILAC

March 10, 2014  “The agreement must have a section on mitigation, which would address at least the following issues:

  • A reference to the global mitigation goal that needs to be achieved through efforts by all parties  according  to  the  concept  of  common  but  differentiated  responsibilities  and respective capabilities. 
  • A reference  to  the mechanism  to  determine  nationally  determined  contributions,  which should take a legally binding form, to ensure the new agreement is actually applicable to all and will enhance ambition at the national level in every country party, and through this, at the global level with the aim of achieving the common goal;
  • A reference  to  the  basic  information  that  needs  to  accompany  the  statement  of commitment  made  by  each  country  party,  in  order  to  make  commitments  comparable, and  to  ensure  that  their  format  allows  for  global  aggregation  in  order  to  ensure environmental integrity in the achievement of the common goal;
  • In general, the contributions should be:
    • Predictable
    • Comparable
    • Understandable
    • Provide  information  on  assumptions  that  underpin  the  commitments:  baseline year,  timeframe,  sectors  and  gases  covered,  emissions  factors,  methodology applied, use of markets, treatment of reduction units.
  • A process for anchoring nationally defined contributions in the agreement;
  • Provisions related to accounting and transparency of action;
  • Provisions  related  to  the  support,  including  finance, technology  transfer,  and  capacity building specifically for mitigation actions; and 
  • Provisions  related  to market and  non-market mechanisms and  their  role  in  the  national and global mitigation efforts, including on co-benefits of mitigation actions that go beyond GHG reductions.
  • A  review  mechanism of  contributions  should  be  included  and  allow  for  ambition  to  be updated on the basis of science in the light of any possible future gap to achieve the global goal of keeping the increase of global temperature below 2°C or 1.5°C.” (pps. 3-4, March)

“41. In AILAC’s view the 2015 Agreement includes a global mitigation goal to be achieved through efforts by all Parties according to science and the principles of equity and CBDR-RC, in line with the agreed temperature goal of keeping temperature rise below 2°C or 1.5ºC. According to the most recent scientific findings, this will require a low carbon and possibly a carbon neutral global economy close to the middle of the century to stay under the 2°C goal.

42. This can be accompanied by a call for universal action that follows the principles of CBDR-RC and equity, recognizing the commitments established under the Convention and the need for enhancing global efforts to address increasing emission levels. This should translate into a collective commitment, by all Parties, to mitigate GHG emissions, and undertake bold efforts to contribute to

 attaining the global mitigation goal. It also implies an explicit recognition that countries who are most responsible for climate change and most capable should take bold leadership in the global mitigation efforts.

43. In addition, at the core of the mitigation section, all Parties will commit to comply with their specific country contributions on mitigation as set forth in their respective country contribution documents. This would be included in the form of an anchor-text referring to the contributions in the Agreement, and should be written in order to create a durable and long-lasting legally binding commitment.

44. Mechanisms that allow Parties to increase their ambition and comply flexibly with their commitments, such as market and non-market mechanisms, should also be part of this section.

45. A reference to REDD+ as a useful mechanism for mitigation is also necessary, pursuant to the already established Warsaw REDD+ Framework.

46. In this section a link should be included to a rules-based system in terms of accounting that allows for the global aggregation of mitigation contributions and for their environmental integrity and avoids double counting. We expect that we can build upon existing systems, particularly the Kyoto Protocol rules and the REDD+ rules.” (p12-13, September, Architecture/Elements)

“5. AILAC has stated that the scope of INDCs should include contributions on mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation.

6. Yet, mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation should not be treated symmetrically. They are different in nature and this difference must be reflected in the way we treat them under the new agreement. Sections B and C below on information requirements and ex-ante process will reflect the difference in treatment across the three issues.

7. The definition of INDCs on issues other than mitigation should not be at the expense of the required mitigation ambition to achieve the 2ºC/1.5ºC goal.

8. In fact, the efforts that a party undertakes on one issue must not substitute or compensate for the efforts undertaken on other issues. In that sense, the efforts made by parties on adaptation and means of implementation do not substitute for or compensate for the efforts that they must undertake on mitigation.” (p2, September, INDCs)

Australia

May 28, 2014

“The Government is firmly committed to reducing Australia’s emissions to meet its target of five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. The Government is implementing a direct action plan, including an Emissions Reduction Fund, that will provide positive incentives for businesses and the community to improve practices, invest in new technologies and reduce emissions. The Government will review its position, considering further action and targets in 2015 as part of negotiations on the new global climate change agreement.  The review will consider the extent to which other nations, including the major economies and Australia’s major trading partners, are taking real and comparable actions to reduce emissions.” (p. 1, May)

“Climate change can only be effectively mitigated if all countries, and in particular major economies, take coordinated action to restrain emissions. The most important function of a 2015 agreement will be to establish a common playing field for all countries to take serious, coordinated action to reduce emissions. This action should be appropriate to their national circumstances and consistent with economic growth. Commitments by all countries to reduce or limit their emissions are needed to make a genuine impact globally, and avoid carbon leakage across boundaries.” (p. 1, May)

Canada

June 6, 2014

  • “To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, mitigation will need to be at the forefront of the 2015 agreement, with key provisions captured in the core legal text. Among these key provisions, the core legal text should lay out several obligations on mitigation that are common to all Parties, including the following:

  • A common legal obligation for all Parties to put forward a nationally-determined contribution to the global effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions, maintained in a national schedule that is supplementary to the core legal text;

  • A common obligation for each Party to periodically update its schedule, as well as update other matters that may be elaborated in its nationally-determined contribution to the global effort;

  • A common obligation that these contributions should be quantifiable and be accompanied by sufficient information to facilitate their clarity, transparency, and understanding;” (p. 1)

  • “Parties’ submissions should reflect their contribution to the global effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions, in line with the ultimate objective of the Convention.” (p. 3) 

China

March 6, 2014 “All Parties to enhance their commitments on mitigation in accordance with Article 4.1 of the Convention, including:

  • formulating, implementing, publishing and updating national and regional programmes on measures to mitigate climate change;
  • promoting and cooperating in the practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent greenhouse gas emissions in all relevant sectors;
  • promoting sustainable management, conservation and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases.

Mitigation by Developed Country Parties

  • Enhance the implementation of Article 4.1 and 4.2 and take the lead in mitigation;
  • Undertake commitments on economy-wide targets for absolute quantified emission reduction below their 1990 levels in accordance with their historical responsibilities and as required by science. Targets be internationally legally binding, comparable among all developed country Parties and cover all sectors and all greenhouse gases;
  • Targets to be reflected in an attachment to the agreement and relevant information to be communicated through a common template based on the common tabular format established under the Bali Action Plan.

Mitigation by Developing Country Parties

  • Enhanced mitigation actions in accordance with Article 4.1, 4.3 and 4.7 of the Convention, in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by finance, technology and capacity-building from developed country Parities;
  • A diversity of enhanced mitigation actions, including emission intensity targets, deviation from BAU and low-carbon strategies as well as related policies, plans, programmes and projects, in accordance with specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties as set out in Article 3.2 of the Convention;
  • Actions to be compiled in an attachment to the agreement and relevant information to be communicated through National Communications and BURs, in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention and the Agreed Outcome pursuant to the Bali Action Plan.” (p. 4-5, March)

EIG

June 5, 2014   “a) Information to be presented facilitating clarity, transparency and understanding of the i.n.d.c.

To enhance clarity and understanding of the mitigation contributions submitted by each Party, the following elements, inter alia, need to be included in the list of information regardless of the mitigation type:

  • Type of mitigation contribution;

  • Contribution period;

  • Reference (base year or end-period as appropriate);

  • Coverage of GHGs and sectors (if deviating from IPCC guidance);

  • Accounting approaches used in the land sector and in regard to any internationally transferable units (from market and/or non-market mechanisms, if used);

  • Quantified or quantifiable expected overall emission reductions and levels within the period and expected emissions or removals thereof through the land sector;

  • Major underlying assumptions applied to the mitigation contributions including any relevant information used for defining the reference; and

  • Any other relevant information

As for the above-mentioned ‘any other relevant information’, additional information could be provided depending on the type of mitigation contribution. For example, BAU target needs expected BAU emissions with the start year and GDP related target needs GDP projections. Therefore, once Parties define the level of the mitigation contribution that they intend to pursue under the 2015 agreement, then, they draw up basic ex- ante information together with additional tailor-made information.” (p. 2-3)

EU

March 3, 2014                

  • “All Parties should have legally binding mitigation commitments, in accordance with the principles of the Convention applied in a dynamic way, such that commitments are ambitious, fair and reflect the changed and changing responsibilities and capabilities of Parties;” (p. 2, March)

  • The 2015 Agreement “should contain mitigation commitments that are transparent, quantifiable, comparable, verifiable and ambitious, which means that up front information is essential. It is also essential that the collective level of ambition in the 2015 Agreement keeps us on track for achieving the below 2°C objective from the outset;” (p. 2, March)

Japan

May 14, 2014  “Mitigation should be put at the center of NDC, since all Parties should contribute to the global emission reduction of GHGs. All Parties should have the same international obligation to submit their intended NDCs in a common timeframe and in a way that allows comparing, evaluating and reviewing the performance and efforts of each Party and evaluating aggregated contributions to global emission reductions.” (pps. 1-2)

LDCs

March 17, 2014  “Indeed, for some countries, the future climate regime should require nothing less than targets for economy-wide emissions reductions, while for the most vulnerable countries it should allow options for other approaches. These approaches should be voluntary and be determined by countries themselves and could include climate resilient low emission policy development, sector-wide emissions reduction, and adopting specific policy measures. However, there should not be backsliding by any Party compared to the current regime, including comparable commitments from those developed countries that chose not to participate in the Kyoto Protocol.

The LDCs believe that developing country Parties have an important mitigation role, while respecting their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Possible types of targets that developing country Parties might propose include both result-based commitments focusing on different target dimensions and activity-based commitments, including:

GHG emission reduction targets

  • For developed countries: Absolute economy-wide emission targets
  • Options for developing countries:
    • Relative economy-wide emission targets
    • Absolute or relative sectoral targets              
    • Other quantifiable intermediate targets
  • Energy intensity targets
  • Renewable energy targets (e.g., capacity or share of electricity generation)
  • Area to be afforested
  • Other technology targets
    • Commitment to implement policies, such as emission price commitments
    • Technology-oriented agreements and
    • Commitment to implement individual actions, projects or programmes, policies and strategies

Such a range of targets could accommodate different capabilities and allow for adjustments over time. Developing country parties could also choose multiple types of targets, as for example already done by China. Regular review processes would be needed to provide durability for the future system to accommodate changing circumstances.” (pps. 4-5, March)

“The level of national mitigation commitments should ensure that the sum of actions    by all Parties meet the requirements defined by science, allowing for some degree of differentiation for developed countries, emerging economies, middle-income countries, the most vulnerable and the least developed countries based on agreed criteria.” (p. 5-6, March)

LMDCs

March 9. 2014

June 3, 2014

June 11, 2014

“Annex I Parties should have ‘nationally determined’ economy-wide, mitigation commitments (based on Art. 4.2, linked to meeting the Art. 2 objective of the Convention, and sufficient to show that they are taking the lead in reducing emissions) and Annex 2 Parties should continue to have commitments to provide the finance and technological support under Art. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7 to developing countries.  Therefore, Annex II parties should make their domestic preparations in particular on their commitments on finance and technology support to developing countries in addition to their commitments on emission reductions.”  (p. 4, March)

“The mitigation provisions should reflect the provisions of the Convention relating to mitigation, specifically the structure of Art. 4.1(b) and (c) and Art. 4.2. All Parties agree that Art. 4.1(b) and (c) implementation needs to be enhanced as a common responsibility, and that Art. 4.2 implementation needs to be enhanced by Annex 1 Parties as their differentiated responsibility. The Convention provisions should then be reflected in the 2015 agreed outcome as follows:

Annex I Parties

  • Enhanced mitigation commitments under Art. 4.2 by developed countries must be central to the post-2020 period. Annex I Parties, in accordance with Art. 3.1, should take the lead through emission reductions undertaken domestically so that it would not result in developing countries doing mitigation on behalf of developed countries.

  • There must be comparability of efforts among all Annex I Parties with respect to their mitigation commitments, on the basis of common units such as timeframe, gases, base year, etc. that enable effective comparability.

  • These efforts should be in the form of specific enhanced comparable quantified economy-wide limitation and reduction commitments (QELRCs) under Art. 4.1(b) and 4.2, to be in the context of a top-down, historical responsibility- and science-based aggregate Annex I target that go beyond the Kyoto Protocol 2nd commitment period targets for Annex I Kyoto Protocol Parties and the Cancun pledges of those who are not Annex I KP Parties.

Non-Annex I Parties

  • Enhanced mitigation actions should be determined nationally by non-Annex I Parties or should also manifest as adaptation co-benefits, and are subject to, enabled and supported by finance and technology from Annex II Parties under Art. 4.3, 4.5, 4.7 of the Convention. There will be variety and diversity in the type and content of actions or contributions (e.g. enhanced NAMAs) by non-Annex I Parties. Consequently, actions of non-Annex I Parties should be nationally determined in accordance with and appropriate to their specific needs and special circumstances as set out in Article 3.2 of the Convention, and taking into account Art. 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, provide a big part of the context for non-Annex I Parties’ enhanced actions on mitigation.

  • Furthermore, in addition to differentiation, there must appropriate sequencing in terms of mitigation under the Convention. Developed countries should take the lead on mitigation (as well as other pillar elements) under the Convention. Developing countries may follow with enhanced actions to implement the Convention on the basis of support from developed countries under Article 4.” (pps. 5-6, March)

“Annex I Parties, in accordance with Art. 3.1, should take the lead through emission reductions undertaken domestically. There must be comparability of efforts among all Annex I Parties with respect to their mitigation commitments, on the basis of common units such as timeframe, gases, base year, etc. that enable effective comparability. These efforts should be in the form of specific enhanced comparable quantified economy-wide limitation and reduction commitments (QELRCs) under Art. 4.2, to be in the context of a top-down, historical responsibility- and science-based aggregate Annex I target that go beyond the Kyoto Protocol 2nd commitment period targets for Annex I Kyoto Protocol Parties and the Cancun pledges of Annex I Parties who are not Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.” (para. 12, June 3)

“Enhanced mitigation actions, including net avoided emissions, shall be determined nationally by non-Annex I Parties, or should also manifest as adaptation co-benefits, where appropriate. These actions shall be subject to, enabled and supported by finance, development and transfer of technology, and capacity-building from Annex II Parties in accordance with Articles 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, and 11 of the Convention. Actions of non-Annex I Parties shall be nationally determined in accordance with their specific needs and special circumstances as stated in Article 3.2 of the Convention, and taking into account Articles 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, shall provide the context for non-Annex I Parties’ enhanced actions on mitigation.” (para. 13, June 13)

“Information relating to mitigation:

Developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I of the Convention

  • Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, paragraph 5, and its Annex I, paragraphs 2 to 12, using the relevant common tabular format for such information as provided for in the Annex to decision 19/CP.18

Parties not included in Annex I of the Convention (Developing country Parties)

  • Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, paragraphs 34 and 46, and its Annex III, paragraphs 3 to 13” (Annex, 11 June)

Mexico

May 29, 2014 2014 agreement should:  “[a]im for the participation of all Parties in accordance to their specific national circumstances.” (p. 1)

“Mitigation is a central component of the 2015 Agreement, and as such all Parties must take appropriate commitments of same international legal form and under same rules (e.g., same time periods, under same MRV provisions) at different depths according to the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR/RC) and equity, and commensurate to the scientific recommendations for reducing global GHG emissions.

  • These commitments should be communicated by Parties upon signature of the 2015 Agreement and will be part of the 2015 package in the form of an Annex per Party.

  • Developed Parties must take the lead with quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets.

  • Other Parties in the position to do so must follow the lead with quantified economy wide emission reduction targets.

  • Other Parties must adopt commitments that, according to their specific national circumstances, could take the form of:

    • Absolute limits on emissions.

    • Intensity-targets.

    • Deviation from business as usual (BAU).

    • Ensuring urban, rural and infrastructure planning processes and decisions that are consistent with low carbon emissions development plans and strategies.

    • Sectorial mitigation plans and strategies.

  • Least Developed Countries (LDCs) should take appropriate actions to engage in low-emissions development planning processes.

  • A dynamic framework must be developed in order to allow for the review and enhancement of commitments based on evolution of development level, capability level, scientific findings, and/or a Party’s decision to do so including as a result of processes that incentivises ambitious participation.”  (pps. 2-3)

New Zealand

March 12, 2014 “New Zealand sees mitigation as the central, though not the sole, element of the legally binding agreement. However, we fully expect it to contain anchors for other elements of the package. These can be developed separately by the Parties and agreed by way of COP decision.” (para. 6, March)

A central element to the agreement are “broad parameters for mitigation commitments (i.e. the default settings) and a provision allowing Parties to opt out of one or more of these parameters (within agreed limits);” (para. 8(a))

“Flexibility to opt out of agreed rules

1. If Parties agree a rule or norm that quantified commitments will cover all gases, that rule could build in flexibility for a Party to ‘opt out’ selected gases from their quantified commitment, subject to:

a. a minimum obligation that the Party’s commitment will cover CO2;

b. a requirement to have in place policies and measures to manage emissions of the excluded gas(es); and,

c. a requirement that the gas(es) excluded by the Party are covered by its GHG inventory reporting.

2. If Parties agree a norm or rule that quantified commitments must cover all sectors, that rule could build in flexibility for a Party to ‘opt out’ selected sectors, subject to:

a. a requirement that the sector(s) excluded by the Party are covered by its GHG inventory reporting;

b. and, if the sector(s) contributes more than x% of the global aggregate emissions from that sector, then also a requirement to have in place policies and measures to manage emissions from the excluded sector(s).” (p. 8, March)

“Objectives of INDCs

In Warsaw Parties agreed to submit intended nationally determined contributions ahead of  the Paris meeting because we have a collective and universal interest in understanding individual and aggregate mitigation efforts before we can conclude an agreement. Mitigation is central to the INDC process because collective mitigation action will determine the climate change impacts faced by Parties (and therefore what adaptation is needed), and certainty about others’ intended individual mitigation action will influence the individual mitigation  action Parties ultimately commit to. These objectives should drive the Lima COP’s decisions about up-front information requirements and the review process so as to ensure they will support efficient assessment and aggregation of the impact of intended mitigation actions.

2. The primacy of mitigation in the INDC process should be reflected in the up-front information provided. Other elements of the new agreement will be defined in separate parallel processes (see accompanying New Zealand submission on elements of a negotiating text). Given the content, legal form of, and rules underpinning the new agreement have yet to be finalised, Parties must look to make progress on INDCs in a way that does not prejudge the outcome of the decisions on these points. Issues such as the nature of adaptation obligations should therefore be determined by our collective adaptation objectives, and not as a by-product of a process to provide clarity about mitigation.

3. New Zealand recognises national determination of mitigation contributions as a major step forward in our efforts to secure an effective agreement. It is a natural consequence of national determination that mitigation contributions will be varied, and the information needed to provide clarity, transparency and understanding of them will vary too. There is no logic to determining up-front information requirements on any basis other than the nature of the contribution being explained. Proposals to differentiate up-front information according to a binary view of development status cannot promote clarity, transparency, and understanding of the estimated impacts of each contribution. These proposals prejudge the outcome of the negotiation in respect of differentiation and New Zealand cannot support them.” (p2-3, October, NDCs)

Collective obligations:

“To respect the principle of bounded flexibility whereby Parties agree broad parameters to apply to mitigation commitments (e.g.

quantification of emissions impact, time period (5 or 10 year cycles), metrics for conversion of gases, default requirement that commitments will cover all sectors and gases) and accept Parties may deviate from some of these parameters within agreed limits (for example, fixed time periods for transition, restrictions on excluding material emission sources, requirements to report excluded emissions in national GHG inventories).

To agree and apply a process for reviewing, updating and formalising the schedules that set out nationally determined mitigation commitments.” (p3, October, Elements)

Individual obligations:

“To table a nationally determined mitigation contribution that conforms to any parameters agreed for such contributions, with sufficient up-front information to facilitate transparency and understanding of the intended commitment.

To formalise that contribution in a national schedule, and to maintain a national schedule in place at all times by submitting a new national schedule before the previous schedule expires;

To provide information on measures that will assist in the implementation of nationally determined mitigation commitments.

To report on progress towards achievement of the commitment according to transparency arrangements agreed among the Parties.

To increase the ambition of mitigation commitments over time from the beginning of the agreement until its purpose is achieved, subject to force majeure.

To move toward alignment with agreed parameters over time if not aligned from beginning of agreement (and as national circumstances allow).” (p5, October, Elements)

"Conditionality of action: mitigation by some Parties being subject to provision of support by other Parties

11. New Zealand recalls that Parties have already agreed that the new agreement is applicable to all. This means that all countries will be expected to mitigate to the extent their national circumstances and respective capacities allow. As discussed above, the agreement can and should be designed to allow Parties to tailor their responsibilities to their circumstances without need for pre-conditions. Indeed, the effectiveness of the agreement depends on all Parties taking responsibility for their own contributions. We understand that any Party could mitigate and adapt more with greater resources available; however, in an agreement that is applicable to all it is unworkable for a country to claim all action must be contingent on receipt of resources from others. We believe the genuine limitations on Parties’ capacity to act can be accommodated by allowing Parties to determine their own contributions and by requiring all Parties in a position to do so to provide support – finance, capacity building, technology – to assist Parties in need.” (p8, October, Elements)

Norway

March 6, 2014 “We believe that the general concept for mitigation in the 2015 agreement should be:

  • Commitments for all Parties to limit and reduce GHG emissions 

  • Governed by common multilateral rules, with appropriate flexibility for implementation 

  • Differentiated according to national circumstances 

  • Contributing to the global effort.” (p. 1, March)

Preparing mitigation contributions and up front information

  • “Contributions should be developed according to national circumstances and in a way that is appropriate to Parties’ 

responsibilities and capabilities.  For Parties with lower capabilities and small emissions, contributions could be quantified at a later stage.” (p. 2, March)

  • “The guidance on information provided should include some common metrics for quantification, to be able to measure progress and sum up the overall effort. A ton of CO2?equivalent is the best way to measure mitigation efforts. It is an established and tested approach. If possible, both emissions by sources and removals by sinks should be specified.” (p. 2, March)

Based on national ownership

  • “The mitigation part of the 2015 agreement should be based on the common obligation of all Parties to reduce or limit emissions of greenhouse gases. This basic obligation should be the starting point for developing operational and quantified, comparable and predictable commitments in the agreement. The agreement should be designed in a way that allows for adjustment of the ambition levels.” (p. 2-3, March)

Quantified and quantifiable emission reductions

  • “Emission reduction or limitation commitments should as a main rule be quantified in the final agreement.   

  • The best case for the climate is if Parties that representing a significant proportion of global emissions all have economy?wide emission reduction or emission limitation commitments. We would expect all Parties with reasonable capacity and significant responsibility for global emissions, to develop their contributions in this format. For Parties that choose adifferent approach, it is important that all assumptions and methodologies are clear, and that the contribution can be fixed over the time period established for the commitment.

  • A stepwise or phased approach to step up mitigation efforts over time could be considered. In accordance with national circumstances and respective capabilities Parties could gradually increase the scope and depth of their mitigation efforts over time. 

  • Parties should put forward an emission reduction or limitation ambition unconditional of financial support. This does not mean that Parties cannot seek support, but it would reflect the responsibility of all Parties. Any other conditions should be limited and transparent, with clarity on what the unconditional offer would be.” (p. . 3, March)

Singapore

May 22, 2014 “All Parties must include a mitigation component in their NDCs. However, this does not preclude contributions beyond mitigation. In this regard, the NDCs must be consistent with Parties’ existing obligations under the Convention.” (para. 5(ii))

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)      

Common global commitment

“A long term global goal for emission reductions in the form of a global trajectory to reach 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 which, in order to be credible and fair, must be based on ambitious mid-term targets and actions and an equitable burden-sharing paradigm.” (p. 4)

Individual commitments for all Parties pursuant to Article 4.1 of the Convention

“To enhance the implementation of the provisions of Article 4.1(a) of the Convention:

  • Parties will formulate and implement mitigation commitments. These may include relative emission reduction commitments and actions. This might be expressed in the form of intensity targets (reducing carbon intensity of GDP) or sets of NAMAs;

  • All commitments, targets and actions will be measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV);

  • Rules related to targets or actions should include underlying assumptions and methodologies, sectors and gases covered, GWP values used, use of credits from a new market mechanism (to be agreed); and estimated mitigation outcomes; and

  • Developing countries should also indicate support needs for the implementation of NAMAs.” (p. 4)

Additional individual commitments for those Parties that have commitments under Article 4.2 of the Convention

“Building on the existing commitments under Article 4.2, developed country Parties shall undertake the following specific commitments in addition to the commitments of all Parties (above):

  • Absolute economy-wide emission reduction commitments or targets, against a 1990 base year (with flexibility for EITs). Mitigation commitments would take the form of QELROs, or QEERTs for multiple years defining a trajectory to 2030, with every year defined;

  • Zero carbon emissions pathways should peak by 2015, start declining rapidly up to 2030, and define a long-term goal of zero emissions for each Party in 2050. The commitments and targets should be comparable among developed countries; and

  • In addition to the common accounting rules for all Parties (above), developed countries shall also apply a common base year (1990; other years may also be reported for domestic audiences), treatment of LULUCF and carbon credits, expected reductions for the period 2020-2025/30; associated assumptions and conditions related to the ambition of the pledges and demonstrating progress towards QELROs/QEERTs. Lessons can also be learned from the Kyoto accounting rules enhancing comparability.” (p. 4, May, Elements)

Switzerland

March 4, 2014 “COMMITMENT TO COMMIT IN A QUANTIFIABLE AND UNCONDITIONAL MANNER – The 2015 Agreement is to include a commitment of all Parties to reduce or limit their greenhouse gas emissions and to formulate one or a set of commitments which are quantifiable in terms of greenhouse gases. The 2015 Agreement is further to clarify that commitments will be unconditional. The 2015 Agreement may also set out that Parties are not to regress from previous levels of effort in reducing or limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the 2015 Agreement is to clarify the legal nature of the commitments and provide for arrangements and the process from their presentation to their anchoring. Finally, as an enduring instrument, the 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt any further guidance on the arrangements and process from presentation to anchoring of Parties’ commitments and on the formulation of commitments, including on the timeframe and end year of commitments, on metrics used in the commitments and the format for presenting the commitments. The COP is to initiate, respectively, work regarding such further guidance [X] years prior to the end year of Parties’ previous commitments under the 2015 Agreement.” (p. 1, March)

“PULL TOWARDS QUANTIFIED ECONOMY WIDE EMISSION REDUCTION COMMITMENTS - The 2015 Agreement is to acknowledge that economy wide emission reduction commitments quantified in terms of greenhouse gases provide the highest level of clarity and predictability, and encourage Parties to move to such form of commitments as soon as possible.” (p. 1, March)

“REFLECT IMPORTANCE OF COVERAGE OF ALL SECTORS AND GASES CAUSING HIGH GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - The 2015 Agreement is to acknowledge the relevance that all Parties reflect in their commitments their sectors with significant greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gases with significant effect on the climate system, and emissions and reductions of greenhouse gases in the land sector.” (p. 2, March)

United States

February 12, 2014

  • “The mitigation section of the new agreement should contain six main elements.

  • First, each Party to the new agreement should be required to maintain a  schedule  (or whatever other term is chosen) that reflects its contribution to the global effort to limit/reduce GHG emissions:

  • Contributions should be nationally determined by the Party in question, taking into account the factors it considers relevant (e.g., national circumstances, capability, mitigation opportunities, level of development, etc.)

    • Initial contributions should relate to a common timeframe.

    • Contributions should be specific, i.e., go beyond the very general commitments contained in the Convention.

    • In general, contributions would be expected to be expressed in quantified terms or, if qualitative, to be quantifiable (either by the country or others) in terms of its anticipated effect on overall emissions.  For countries with limited capabilities and whose contributions to global emissions are not significant, it may be more appropriate for a contribution to be purely qualitative, such as a set of policies in the energy and/or land?use sector in the context of an overall analysis of opportunities available to reduce emissions.  In addition, some Parties may choose to supplement a quantified/quantifiable contribution with other measures that will have the effect of reducing emissions but that are not quantified or quantifiable, such as research and development investments.  

    • Schedules may include more than one mitigation contribution, for example, a hard cap in one sector with emissions that are easy to project, an intensity target in another sector, and policies in a third sector.

    • Mitigation efforts in the land sector, including REDD+, are an important contribution to overall ambition and would, as appropriate, be reflected in schedules.

    • External financing will continue after 2020, and we expect that Parties taking ambitious actions in the context of effective enabling environments will continue to attract support.  In addition, Parties would continue to report on mitigation measures they have taken or are taking that go beyond their schedules.  However, the general expectation should be that a Party’s listed contribution will not be conditional on external support. A Party would need to submit its schedule upon joining the agreement.

    • It would be desirable to develop a notional format for schedules, in order to facilitate understanding, as well as comparison, of contributions.  It could be part of the agreement (in an annex or appendix) or in a decision adopted before or at the same time as the new agreement.  (The United States proposed a notional format last fall.)

    • Schedules should be housed separately (for example, by the Secretariat), both because this will facilitate updating over time and because national schedules are not approved by other Parties in the same sense as either provisions of the agreement or decisions of the Parties.

    • Second, each Party should be required to accompany its schedule with information that helps ensure that it is readily understood.  In other words, contributions should not only be specific, but they need to be clear:

  • Per the Warsaw outcome, the FCCC parties will identify in the near term which types of information are necessary for  clarity, transparency, and understanding  in relation to the submission of intended nationally determined contributions.

  • The same types of information should apply to the submission of finalized nationally determined contributions that are submitted when countries join the agreement.

  • The accompanying information should include:

    • the relevant time period;

    • the base year/period;

    • the gases/sectors covered; and

    • the percentage of national emissions covered; and

    • the overall emissions reductions anticipated. 

  • If any of the following are applicable, they should also be included:

    • if the land sector is included, a specification of how the Party will account for all significant lands, activities, pools, and gases;  

    • if a Party intends to use market mechanisms, a description of the intended use (including source/type) and how it intends to avoid double?counting; 

    • for any emissions projection, BAU projection, or intensity target, a description of the methodology and assumptions(including key data sources).   

  • Third, each Party should be required to report periodically on its progress in implementing its schedule.  Reporting will enhance ambition by promoting accountability, by making countries take a hard look at their inventories and mitigation 

opportunities, by revealing best practices, and by enabling assessment of the aggregate global effort.  Reporting should be based on a single system with built?in flexibility.  In other words, all Parties should be expected to follow the same set of 

agreed guidelines, recognizing that such guidelines should provide for appropriate differentiation in light of capabilities and circumstances.  The requirement to report should be in the agreement itself; however, the guidelines should be contained in a decision of the Parties, given their expected level of detail and likely need for updating over time.  

  • Fourth, there should be provisions regarding certain aspects of accounting:

    • They would apply to all Parties. 

    • Land use accounting should include all significant land use sinks and sources.  It should also require a Party to take the same approach in the base year(s) and target year(s).  

    • Any use of market mechanisms must be accounted for so as to avoid double?counting. 

    • There should be no changes to baselines with respect to contributions employing BAU.   

    • Provisions should allow for appropriate flexibility.   

  • Fifth, the agreement should provide for Parties’ implementation of their schedules to be reviewed. Such reviews are  essential:  they will enable other Parties and the international community to know the extent to which schedules are being implemented; they will allow the Parties to assess the sufficiency of the global effort in the aggregate; and they will provide a powerful incentive for Parties to engage in meaningful implementation of their schedules.  Reviews should be based on a single system, with appropriate differentiation provided for based on capabilities and circumstances.  The details should be set forth in a decision.   
  • Finally, certain steps related to mitigation will have taken place before the agreement is concluded, including:

    • that FCCC Parties will have set forth their intended nationally determined contributions (those that are ready will have done so by the first quarter of 2015); 

    • that they will have accompanied their contributions with clarifying information;  

    • that there will have been an opportunity for others to analyze, and pose clarifying questions regarding, such contributions before they are finalized; and

    • that FCCC Parties will have had an opportunity, if they so choose, to adjust their contributions before finalizing them. 

Although these steps will have already taken place, and they will therefore not serve a purpose with respect to the first time period covered by the new agreement, the new agreement should nevertheless make reference to such steps.  The concepts reflected in such steps (i.e., putting forward intended contributions, allowing a period for analysis by others, etc.) will have continuing value for subsequent time periods covered by the agreement, even if the specific details are left to future decisions of the parties.  In addition, further consideration will need to be given to how the process of putting forward intended contributions and allowing for a period of analysis will work with respect to countries that enter the process after the agreement is concluded and enters into force.

There are important open questions concerning the legal nature of mitigation contributions.  The Durban mandate makes clear that we are pursuing an agreement with some kind of legal force but leaves for further discussion which elements of the agreement should have which kind of legal force.   The Warsaw outcome also leaves open the legal nature of mitigation ‘contributions.’

We assume that certain elements set forth above will be internationally legally binding, including that a Party maintain a specific commitment in a schedule, provide clarifying information, report on implementation, follow accounting provisions, and subject its implementation to review by others. 

A key question, however, concerns the  content  of a contribution.  Specifically, when a party to the new agreement sets forth its nationally determined contribution in its schedule, what is its legal nature? 

One option is for contributions to be internationally legally binding. Another option, put forward by some Parties, is for contributions not to be legally binding at the international level.  A third option is to meld the second option with an approach that emphasizes the importance of the domestic measures that underpin a Party's international contribution and the legal force that they have at the domestic level (e.g., laws, regulations, etc.).  Further consideration should be given to which of these, or other, options is likely to promote ambitious undertakings, serious domestic implementation, broad participation, and an agreement that can serve us in the long term.” (p. 2-7, February)

  • “In terms of mitigation, the Durban mandate called for a legal agreement of some sort but left open the legal nature of the individual provisions of such agreement. That leaves it to us to figure out the best combination of features to promote ambition, participation, and implementation. In our view, New Zealand has put forward an interesting approach -- one that would appear to promote ambition and participation, while also promoting accountability with respect to implementation. Accountability could be further bolstered:
    • by adding to the list of upfront clarifying information "existing and/or anticipated domestic measures, including those with legal force, that support implementation of the mitigation contribution;" and
    • by requiring that at least some part of each contribution must be unconditional, without prejudice to the ability of a Party to supplement the unconditional part with a conditional part (whether that second part is dependent upon the Party receiving external financial support or upon other Parties' taking particular action);
    • by supplementing the new, unified transparency system with the ability to review implementation, including through consideration of the Multilateral Consultative Process that was adopted by the COP (with the exception of its provisions on membership) under Article 13 of the Convention; and
    • through rules/norms addressing both clarity (up front information regarding contributions) and substance (e.g., regarding land use accounting).” (p8-9, September)

Back to top

ADAPTATION

African Group

May 31, 2014 Elements

May 31, 2014 INDCs

“The agreement should therefore result in a fair sharing of atmospheric space and resources, recognizing the historical use of such resources by Annex I Parties, and equally the global adaptation responsibility, and access to finance technology and capacity support.” (p. 3, May, Elements)

General aggregate commitments should include “a goal for adaptation recognizing the global nature of adaptation responsibility, including finance and technology support for adaptation.” (p. 3, May, Elements)

  • “Agree on how developing country commitments to adaptation in accordance with Article 4.1 will be reflected, building on existing mechanisms and processes for the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPAs), as well as an option for the recognition of such efforts towards the required global goal.
  • Agree on how developed country commitments in accordance with Article 4.1 should be reflected, further agree on how the obligation for adaptation support to developing countries by Annex II as set out in Articles 4.4, as well as Articles 4.3 and 4.5 relating to finance and technology, respectively, will be reflected in accordance with realizable temperature scenarios
  • Define and provide further guidance for the Nairobi Work Programme, Adaptation Committee, and the Cancun Adaptation Framework, Loss and Damage Mechanism on how to integrate these into the Agreement and operationalise the agreed commitments on adaptation” (p. 4-5, May, Elements)

Adaptation commitments (p. 3, INDCs)

 

Annex II

Non-Annex I

Form of commitment

  • Commitment to support, in line with aggregate mitigation ambition
  • Types of support, e.g. grants, bilateral funding, etc.
  • Delivery mechanism, channel for the support
  • Sectors and geographies covered by the various types of support
  • Guidelines for adaptation planning through NAPs/NAPAs, including,
    • Climate impacts, assumptions
    • Nationally determined adaptation options and costs
    • Programmes, projects per sector
    • Definition of adaptation needs
    • Guidelines for recognition of own adaptation efforts

Counting

  • MRV Guidelines for transparency

of the support (to be developed)

  • Guidelines on the use of IPCC and Regional downscaled models to understand climate impacts
  • World Bank project development guidelines
  • Conditional and unconditional contributions and voluntary option for recognition

Accounting

  • Source / type of finance & tech support,
  • Assumptions with regard to leveraged finance
  • NAP/NAPA guidelines

Assessment

  • Ex ante assessment of adaptation needs in relation to mitigation ambition
  • Contribution in relation to the global goal for adaptation
  • Preparedness and plans for adaptation action
  • Adaptation investments for recognition

Compliance-automatic adjustment of commitments

  • Facilitative framework to be developed under finance and technology mechanism
  • Sharing of best practice and experience
  • Facilitative framework for adaptation action for recognition
  •  

AILAC

March 10, 2014

Preamble:  “The recognition of the collective responsibility incumbent on all parties for both mitigation and adaptation, based on equity and sustainable development.” (p. 3, March)

“Adaptation is a matter of collective responsibility on addressing climate change, ensuring sustainable development and eradication poverty, and should be treated as such under the Convention and in the new agreement. Climate change impacts, and thus adaptation opportunities are central to development efforts in developing countries in several sectors such as health, culture, water, food security, biodiversity and ecosystem services, affecting the most vulnerable and causing migrations and climate refugees.

Contrary to what is commonly stated, adaptation is not only a local issue. Impacts and costs can be and should be assessed at local levels, but they can also be aggregated at national, regional, and global levels. Substantive, timely, and efficient investments in adaptation, as well as mitigation effort, are required to keep us within the adaptation context, when still possible, and not in a loss and damage setting.

There is an opportunity to further strengthen work on adaptation in the UNFCCC context, for instance an adaptation assessment framework must be established under the Convention. Also, and without prejudice of all institutional arrangements in place to support the LDCs, it is key that the focus on adaptation becomes broader, and includes all parties and not just developing countries. Within developing countries however, it is also important that more permanent and solid structures that support adaptation processes of non-LDC parties are established, without undermining the existing ones in place for LDCs. We need to ensure coherence within the adaptation instruments and modalities approved to date under different platforms under the Convention, and the new post-2020 instrument should contribute to better structuring adaptation elements, a key priority for highly vulnerable countries like ours.

Another opportunity for strengthening adaptation is further advancing on the metrics. (We need to agree on methodologies to make adaptation assessments. Although this discussion is already ongoing under loss & damage, it should be brought also into the adaptation discussions. Only by measuring it is possible to understand the global implications of adaptation. Methodologies and indicators are fundamental for adaptation processes and the Convention should support parties in identifying costs, impacts, vulnerability, and baselines to measure progress.  There should also be support for parties for sectoral and territorial adaptations options.

Means of implementation are fundamental for developing country parties to be able to assess adaptation needs, and formulate and implement NAPS. Adaptation has been heavily underfunded and public funds are needed to support and catalyze action, as well as enhanced financial, technical and scientific support. Involvement of the private sector is also decisive for adaptation efforts in all countries, but concrete options and opportunities are not well understood and the Secretariat should assist countries in advancing on this front, beyond involvement of the insurance sector.

The African Group’s proposal on the adaptation goal is interesting and AILAC is looking forwards to have more in depth discussions on the proposal and how it might be included in the new agreement.

The National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) provide the essential basis for all countries to undertake necessary steps to identify and assess vulnerabilities and exposures within and across sectors, identify options, and define both soft and hard adaptation responses.  For this purpose, there is a need for enhanced financial, technical and scientific support for countries to undertake these assessments, and formulate and implement NAPs. Clear support mechanisms for parties undertaking formulation or implementation of National Development Plans should be established.

The Nairobi Work Programme should be strengthened and elements included under the Programme should be built upon in the new agreement and mainstreamed into the broader adaptation discussions.”  (pps. 5-7, March)

“29. It is AILAC’s view that the 2015 Agreement must address adaptation comprehensively, giving adaptation a central and significant place in the climate change regime.

30. The Agreement should include an aspirational global goal on adaptation, which should include:

- A vision for a climate resilient world, setting a sense of direction to the international community for its adaptation efforts.

- The recognition of the global dimensions of the adaptation actions undertaken in every country.

- The recognition of the importance of undertaking global cooperative adaptation efforts for reducing the vulnerability of global common goods such as the oceans, among others.

- The undeniable relationship that exists between the level of mitigation ambition, the associated climate change impacts, the consequent adaptation needs and costs that arise, and losses and damages created by those impacts. With a higher level of mitigation ambition, the likelihood of staying within a 2°C or 1.5°C scenario is higher, and the related impacts and adaptation needs and costs, and the losses and damages suffered, will be lower. A lower level of mitigation ambition will result in higher temperature scenarios with increasingly high adaptation needs and costs, as well as greater losses and damages.

31. This global goal on adaptation should be accompanied by a universal call to increase the efforts to adapt to climate change impacts, in order to meet a global responsibility of moving towards a resilient planet. The current globalized world is deeply interconnected, and the resilience of societies, economies, and ecosystems are common global goods.

32. This universal call can be followed by a collective commitment by all Parties to contribute towards the global goal on adaptation.

33. The main vehicle to implement the collective commitment and to achieve the global goal on adaptation will be through the definition of country contributions on adaptation. This would be included in the form of an anchor-text referring to the contributions in the Agreement, and should be expressed in a manner that creates a long-term legally binding commitment.

34. Taking into account the particular nature of adaptation, having national contributions on adaptation would serve multiple purposes:

- To communicate how Parties will contribute to the global goal on adaptation.

- For the international community to further understand the actions to be undertaken by Parties in order to cooperate with each other to combat climate change.

- To foster national ambitious action on climate change.

- To recognize Parties’ efforts to combat climate change.

- To promote long term national adaptation action.

- To identify and quantify adaptation needs corresponding to specific climate change scenarios.

- To facilitate potential adaptation action as Parties distinguish adaptation contributions made with their own resources from distinct adaptation efforts they would carry out with support.

35. The inclusion of adaptation contributions as part of the INDC process and the Agreement should be an exercise that adds value to the current arrangements on adaptation, and helps countries in their own adaptation endeavors. It should not imply the imposition of additional or unfair burdens to the most vulnerable and should take into account each country’s capabilities and its intrinsic geographic exposure to climate impacts, enhancing collaboration and universal participation.

36. Adaptation contributions would not be subject to a symmetrical ex-ante assessment process as the contributions on mitigation.

37. Adaptation contributions would not be subject to the Agreement’s Compliance Mechanism.

38. A fundamental principle that should govern the adaptation contributions is that each country's efforts in this area should be independent of mitigation efforts: the level of effort in adaptation does substitute or compensate for the need to ambitious, universal national mitigation contributions. Adaptation action should not occur at the expense of mitigation action and ambition.

39. The 2015 Agreement should also include an explicit reference to the link between adaptation and the means of implementation. Developing and implementing adaptation plans at the national and local level will require substantive means of implementation. Developing countries, especially those who are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change will require enhanced and significantly scaled up means of implementation for addressing their adaptation needs. Developed countries, which are historically responsible and highly capable, need to scale up the provision of resources, technology and capacity building for implementing adaptation action in particularly vulnerable developing countries, including AILAC countries. For AILAC, the provision of resources, technology and capacity building must also to be tailored to the specific needs of middle income countries, who still harbor large vulnerable populations and have limited means to fund adaptation efforts with their own means.

40. The existing institutional arrangements for adaptation under the Convention should be significantly strengthened, in particular in terms of the science of adaptation, tools and metrics11 for assessing adaptation and adaptation finance. A link to these arrangements should be included in the Agreement, as to make them useful and meaningful for the post 2020 regime.” (p-12)

Bolivia

June 11, 2014  The general objective of [a Mechanism for Climate Resilience and Sustainable Development] is to promote mitigation actions together with adaptation co-benefits and sustainable development and poverty eradication for the protection of the integrity of Mother Earth, through the public support for reciprocal recognition of efforts of Parties fostering international assistance and cooperation between developed and developing countries in the context of a non-market-based approach. (p. 1)

“The main outcomes of the Mechanism will be related to the generation of mitigation actions jointly with adaptation co-benefits addressing issues of sustainable development and poverty eradication in a comprehensive manner. The mitigation and adaptation outcomes can be monitored through proxies, indicators and standards as appropriate.

The Mechanism is oriented to support developing country parties to enhance mitigation and adaptation actions depending on the financial and technological support they can obtain. Therefore, developing countries can prepare various levels of enhanced action (adaptation, mitigation, capacity building and sustainable development) in line with the various levels of support they can anticipate.” (p. 2)

Canada

June 6, 2014

“In accordance with current reporting measures, the transparency and accounting framework for the post-2020 period should also encompass reporting on adaptation and means of implementation.” (p. 2, June)

“Regarding adaptation, we believe that a common agreement to continue our work to enhance action on adaptation under the Convention, as provided under existing and relevant arrangements, in particular the Cancun Adaptation Framework, should form part of the core legal text, recognizing the important role of the Convention in this regard. We also believe that the work on Loss and Damage should continue to be anchored in the Cancun Adaptation Framework and be guided by the Warsaw International Mechanism. This work should be undertaken in the context of supporting Parties in their own national efforts to take appropriate actions to increase their resilience to and prepare for the adverse effects of climate change.

The 2015 agreement should also encourage all Parties to develop strategies that support the integrated planning of adaptation actions. The agreement should acknowledge that adaptation should be based upon best available science and knowledge, build on experiences and lessons learned, be implemented largely as a result of integration within existing policies and programs and engage a wide range of decision makers in both the public and private sectors.” (p. 2, June)

“The agriculture sector presents an opportunity to fully integrate short-lived climate pollutants and long-lived climate pollutants. It is also important because of the potential to integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation as well as sustainable development. For example, zero tillage methods can reduce emissions intensity, enhance carbon storage in soils, and reduce wind erosion, thereby improving environmental sustainability and agricultural productivity. This sector warrants international attention and Canada will continue to advocate for a more comprehensive and substantial program of scientific and technical work on agriculture under the UNFCCC. We encourage Parties to utilise the ADP discussion on pre-2020 ambition and the technical workshops as an avenue to foster the discussion on agriculture issues by sharing information and best practices.” (p. 6, June)

China

March 6, 2014

“C. Enhanced Action on Adaptation

  • All Parties to take enhanced actions on adaptation by formulating, implementing and updating national and regional programmes on measures to facilitate adequate adaptation as well as developing and elaborating appropriate and integrated plans for specific adaptation activities in different areas;
  • Developed country Parties to enhance the implementation of Article 4.4, 4.8 and 4.9 and increase their commitments on providing finance, technology and capacity-building support to developing countries to implement their projects, programmes, policies, plans and other activities related to adaptation in accordance with Article 4.3, 4.5 and 4.7 of the Convention;
  • Institutional arrangements resulting from the Bali process on adaptation to be further elaborated in order to support enhanced adaptation actions by developing country Parties through improving the collaboration between the adaptation mechanism and other arrangements under the Convention and through increasing the funding for adaptation under the GCF, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of small islands developing states, least developed countries and African countries.” (p. 5, March)

EIG

June 5, 2014   “Adaptation must be a major component of the 2015 Agreement and it should be addressed with the same level of priority as and, whenever possible, in synergy with mitigation. Adaptation will require significant changes to practices, processes and structures all over the world, thus we should seize the unique opportunity to translate the Convention’s provisions on adaptation into specific actions in the 2015 Agreement.

Particularly, the 2015 Agreement should incorporate the following aspects related to adaptation:

  • All Parties must develop and implement adaptation plans and strategies and ensure that adaptation is mainstreamed as part of the development planning processes occurring at national level and in coordination with local governments, as appropriate, in order to build resilience and minimize and cope with the adverse effects of climate change.
  • All Parties should cooperate in adaptation efforts to develop capacities, share knowledge and best practices and experience;
  • All Parties in a position to do so should provide financial and technical support, as well as knowledge exchange to those Parties most in need of such support and vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, in order to, inter alia:
    • Develop and strengthen local and social capabilities to address adaptation;
    • Foster development of methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability of people and ecosystems and progress in adaptation to climate change;
    • Pursue the establishment and well-functioning of adaptation knowledge platforms and networks at all levels;
    • Strive for a results-oriented approach facilitated by the monitoring and evaluation of adaptation outcomes;
    • Aim at incorporating an approach of sustainable management of ecosystems in adaptation planning;
    • Foster comprehensive risk management, including risk awareness and risk transfer solutions;
    • Establish, and where available, strengthen focused response mechanisms to extreme events.
  • The Adaptation component of the 2015 Agreement needs to build upon and effectively articulate existing arrangements for adaptation under the UNFCCC, including for the effective implementation of the Cancun Adaptation framework, the continuation and downscaling at regional, national and local levels of the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change, as well as the continuance of the Adaptation Fund and its effective integration to the financing sphere of the Agreement along with the Green Climate Fund.

Moreover, adaptation can only be successfully accomplished by involving those mostly impacted by climate change, therefore it is essential to engage stakeholders and local governments in adaptation planning and implementation, including communities and ensure a gender perspective. While this is a cross-cutting issue applicable to the rest of the elements of the 2015 Agreement, the EIG supports the involvement of local and non-State actors and a gender perspective in adaptation.” (p. 3-4, June)

EU

March 3, 2014 Scope of the 2015 agreement:  “It will be essential that national governments take the lead in designing and implementing ambitious climate policies as a basis for enhanced action and enhanced support, both in the areas of mitigation and adaptation.”  (p. 2, March)

“The EU recognises that adaptation will be an important part of the 2015 Agreement. Countries are already undertaking adaptation action pursuant to the provisions of the Convention. The 2015 Agreement will and should play a role in enhancing these actions in a dynamic and iterative manner to reduce countries´ vulnerability and to increase their readiness and preparedness, thereby building adaptive capacities consistent with national circumstances and priorities. In line with the Convention, the 2015 agreement should therefore reemphasise the commitment of all countries to undertake work to make progress towards a global objective of low carbon and climate resilient sustainable development.” (para. 6, March)

“To do this, the 2015 Agreement should contain provisions to undertake actions to enhance the national efforts of Parties to become climate-resilient in their national development planning. These provisions could include strengthening international cooperation and coordination, enhancing understanding and expertise, and facilitating the mobilisation of support to developing countries especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. In addition,

these provisions should facilitate the reporting and improved monitoring of the effectiveness of adaptation efforts at the national level. Parties could be encouraged to use their national communications to inform collective learning on adaptation between nations and the global level and further enhancement of efforts to achieve the objectives of the Convention and the 2015 Agreement.” (para. 7, March)

“The 2015 Agreement should consider ways to further enhance the mobilisation of climate finance. It will be essential that national governments take the lead in designing and implementing ambitious climate policies as a basis for enhanced action and enhanced support, both in the areas of mitigation and adaptation. Ambitious domestic climate strategies, policies and conducive regulatory frameworks will stimulate climate change actions and concrete viable projects. Climate finance should be used to shift development towards a low-emission climate resilient path.” (para. 8, March)

Japan

May 14, 2014 “Each Party is encouraged to integrate adaptation into its national planning and development processes.”  (p. 1, May)

  • “Adaptation is a global challenge, and an important component of the 2015 agreement. Countries have already conducted adaptation actions to the adverse effects of climate change, taking into consideration circumstances and priorities at each local level. To reduce countries’ vulnerability and strengthen their resilience to climate change impacts, the 2015 agreement should encourage all Parties, to integrate adaptation into national planning and development processes, to develop national adaptation strategies and plans, and to prioritize adaptation actions at the local level in view of vulnerable conditions.
  • The 2015 agreement should emphasize the importance of enhancing international cooperation among all Parties to share information and knowledge regarding the experience, lessons and good practices, including on integrating adaptation into national development strategies and plans as well as facilitating mobilization of support to developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, with a view to strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity. It is also important to strengthen and promote synergy with relevant institutions outside the Convention which have experience and knowledge relating adaptation projects, programs and policies. In addition, the 2015 agreement should encourage all Parties to review and improve the adaptation part in their national communications in order to further enhance the development process of national adaptation plans, and implementation and prioritization of adaptation actions.
  • The 2015 agreement should include the element for all Parties to monitor and report their effectiveness of adaptation efforts in the preparation and implementation of adaptation actions to climate change impacts, particularly regarding national adaptation strategies and plans, and international cooperation in a simple and cost-effective manner, as well as share such experience and lessons of the preparation and implementation of adaptation actions.” (p. 4, May)

LDCs

March 17, 2014

“[C]limate impacts on LDCs, SIDS, and Africa should form the benchmark for setting emission reduction levels and for building the architecture and modalities for adaptation and finance in the 2015 Agreement.” (p. 4, March)

“Adaptation should be supported in an effective manner taking into account the level of emissions reduction expected to be achieved through the implementation of the 2015 Agreement and associated level of temperature rise projected.” (p. 6, March)

“Such [MRV] mechanisms should generate new and additional revenue streams to support adaptation actions, low carbon development, and support regulatory frameworks in developing countries.” (p. 6, March)

The 2015 Agreement will not succeed without adequately addressing the needed means of implementation to be able to address mitigation and adaptation obligations of all parties. Means of implementation should, include finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity building to support effective and strong global climate actions while allowing developing countries to engage in climate resilient development. Clear rules should be put in place to ensure timely reporting and effective accounting of both actions and support provided.” (p. 6, March)

LMDCs

March 9, 2014

June 3, 2014 Draft decision  

June 11, 2014 CRP

“Non-Annex 1 Parties would have contributions in relation to adaptation (including loss and damage), mitigation actions subject to provision of support  from Annex 2 Parties, capacity building, implementation of relevant sustainable development actions (including food security).  Non-Annex I actions will be  nationally determined  and their ambition levels depend on the extent to finance, technology, and capacity building support by Annex II Parties – non-Annex I Parties can therefore list different scenarios or levels of action based on: no/low/medium/high level of Annex Parties’ support.  Each non-Annex I Party will have its own priority and options to choose the types of actions (adaptation, loss and damage, mitigation (including avoided emissions), sustainable development, food security, etc.) in accordance with their special circumstances and specific needs as well as development priorities.”  (p. 4, March)

“Enhanced mitigation actions should be determined nationally by non-Annex I Parties or should also manifest as adaptation co-benefits, and are subject to, enabled and supported by finance and technology from Annex I Parties under Art. 4.3, 4.5, 4.7 of the Convention. There will be variety and diversity in the type and content of actions or contributions (e.g. enhanced NAMAs) by non-Annex I Parties. Consequently, actions of non-Annex I Parties should be nationally determined in accordance with and appropriate to their specific needs and special circumstances as set out in Article 3.2 of the Convention, and taking into account Art. 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, provide a big part of the context for non-Annex I Parties’ enhanced actions on mitigation.” (p. 6, March)

“B. Enhanced Action on Adaptation

  • Adaptation is a key priority for developing countries. Art. 4.4 defines the basis for international cooperation in this regard, under which Annex II Parties committed to support the costs in developing countries to address the adverse effects of climate change, and enable developing countries to enhance their actions to adapt to climate change in order to achieve sustainable development.
  • A process to support the formulation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans in all interested developing countries must drive adaptation action, with the adequate support in accordance with Art. 4.4 of the Convention.
  • Existing adaptation-related institutions under the Convention should be strengthened and fully financed. This should include provisions that specifically commit Annex II Parties, through the Green Climate Fund, to deliver adequate and predictable funding for adaptation in developing countries, in particular for the implementation of the Cancun Adaptation Framework; and address the historical imbalance in the provision of financing between mitigation and adaptation by having a significant share of multilateral funding for adaptation flow through the Green Climate Fund. National and regional institutional arrangements need to be strengthened to address the specific context and needs of developing countries.
  • The need of a provision to reflect enhanced national and international actions on adaptation including economic diversification to build resilience taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, response measures and international trade.” (p. 6-7, March)

“Enhanced mitigation actions, including net avoided emissions, shall be determined nationally by non-Annex I Parties, or should also manifest as adaptation co-benefits, where appropriate. These actions shall be subject to, enabled and supported by finance, development and transfer of technology, and capacity-building from Annex II Parties in accordance with Articles 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, and 11 of the Convention. Actions of non-Annex I Parties shall be nationally determined in accordance with their specific needs and special circumstances as stated in Article 3.2 of the Convention, and taking into account Articles 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, shall provide the context for non-Annex I Parties’ enhanced actions on mitigation.” (¶13, June, Draft decision)

“18. Article 4.4 on the assistance on meeting the costs of adaptation to adverse effects of climate change to particularly vulnerable developing country Parties, as defined in paragraph 19 of the Preamble of the Convention, and further laid out in Article 4.8, constitutes the basis for enhanced action on adaptation for developing country Parties, as a key priority and a necessary foundation for any enhanced action on mitigation.

19. Enhanced action under Article. 4.4 shall focus on ensuring the provision of new and additional, adequate, predictable and accessible financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, by developed country Parties and Annex II Parties to meet the costs in developing countries of addressing the adverse effects of climate change, and to enable developing countries to enhance their actions to adapt to climate change in order to achieve sustainable development, as follows:

20. Adaptation action in developing country Parties should be on the basis of the formulation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans in all interested developing country Parties subject to the provision of new and additional, adequate predictable and accessible financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, from developed country Parties and Annex II Parties and to their National Adaptation Plans of Action for Least-developed country Parties, in accordance with relevant COP decisions,

21. Existing adaptation-related institutions under the Convention should be strengthened and fully financed. National and regional institutional arrangements should be supported and strengthened to address the specific context and needs of developing countries.

22. Establishment of an Adaptation Registry as a means for developing countries to present their cases and developed countries to present their support.

23. Developed country Parties and Annex II Parties shall deliver adequate and predictable funding for adaptation in developing countries, in particular for the implementation of the Cancun Adaptation Framework. Annex II Parties shall also address the historical imbalance in the provision of financing between mitigation and adaptation, by operationalizing its decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 100, that a significant share of new multilateral funding for adaptation shall flow through the Green Climate Fund.

24. Enhanced national and international actions on adaptation referred to in paragraph 14 of decision 1/CP.16 and by decision 24/CP.18, including by building resilience of socio- economic and ecological systems, including through economic diversification and sustainable management of natural resources, shall be provided with the necessary financing, development and transfer of technology and capacity-building by developed country Parties and Annex II Parties.” (p. 5, June)

“Information relating to adaptation:

Developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex II of the Convention

  • Information on financing to be provided to developing countries pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 4, of the Convention, similar to the information relevant to the implementation of decision 5/CP.17, paragraphs 21 and 32; decision 12/CP.18, paragraphs 3 and 5; and decision 18/CP.19, paragraphs 4 and 6

Developing country Parties

  • Information on the development and financing needs of National Adaptation Plans, similar to those identified in decision 5/CP.17” (p.3, June, CRP)

Mexico

May 29, 2014

“Adaptation must be a central component of the 2015 Agreement and it should be addressed with the same level of priority as and, whenever possible, in synergy with mitigation. Adaptation will require significant changes to practices, processes and structures all over the world, thus we should seize the unique opportunity to translate the Convention’s provisions on adaptation into specific actions in the 2015 Agreement. Moreover, Mexico strongly believes that adaptation actions should be part of the intended nationally determined contributions for the 2015 Agreement, in addition to mitigation, but not in lieu of emissions reductions.

Particularly, the 2015 Agreement should incorporate the following aspects related to adaptation:

  • All Parties must develop and implement adaptation plans and strategies and ensure that adaptation is mainstreamed as part of the development planning processes occurring at national level and in coordination with local governments, as appropriate, in order to build resilience and minimize and cope with the adverse effects of climate change.
  • All Parties should cooperate in adaptation efforts to develop capacities, share knowledge and best practices and experience.
  • Support, financial and technical, as well as knowledge exchange is provided to developing country Parties vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, especially the most vulnerable ones, in order to, inter alia:
    • Develop and strengthen local and social capabilities to address adaptation concerns.
    • Ensure availability of methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.
    • Pursue the establishment and well-functioning of adaptation knowledge platforms and networks at all levels.
    • Strive for a results-oriented approach facilitated by the monitoring and evaluation of adaptation outcomes.
    • Aim at incorporating an approach of sustainable management of ecosystems in adaptation planning.
    • Socialise risk through insurance-type mechanisms.
    • Establish focused response mechanisms to extreme events.
  • The Adaptation Mechanism of the 2015 Agreement needs to build upon and effectively articulate existing arrangements for adaptation under the UNFCCC, including for the effective implementation of the Cancun Adaptation framework, the continuation and downscaling the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change at national, regional and local levels, as well as the continuance of the Adaptation Fund and its effective integration to the financing sphere of the Agreement.

Moreover, adaptation can only be successfully accomplished by involving those mostly impacted by climate change, therefore it is essential to engage stakeholders in adaptation planning and implementation, including communities and ensure a gender perspective. While this is a cross-cutting issue applicable to the rest of the elements of the 2015 Agreement, Mexico strongly advocates the involvement of local and non-State actors and a gender perspective in adaptation.” (pps. 3-4)

New Zealand

March 12, 2014 “Given that adaptation is by its nature a country-driven process, New Zealand  suggests that the agreement should focus on enabling practical and effective adaptation  actions. The new agreement should reflect the importance of adaptation and encourage  Parties to take responsibility for their national adaptation planning, to share their experiences  and to cooperate in becoming more resilient.” (para. 11)

Collective obligations:

“To enhance action on adaptation including addressing loss and damage, through international cooperation and coherent consideration

of matters relating to adaptation under the Convention.

To enhance transparency of action on adaptation including reviewing effectiveness of action taken.

(All Parties in a position to do so) to assist vulnerable countries and those with least capacity to adapt to the challenges of climate change, through institutions and bodies under the UNFCCC and through bilateral and regional adaptation programmes.” (p3, October, Elements)

“Individual obligations:

To ensure resilience to the adverse effects of climate change by integrating policies to enhance adaptation into national planning and actions.” (p5, October, Elements)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 Design

May 30, 2014 INDCs

Common global commitment"

Article 2 of the Convention describes the GHG stabilisation levels as a means to an end of preventing dangerous climate change, and limiting temperature increase to 2 °C above preindustrial levels would limit (but not entirely avoid) climate impacts on food security, ability of ecosystems to naturally adapt, economic and sustainable development. In accordance with the ultimate objective of the Convention, the 2015 agreement should contain a common global commitment to reduce vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change to acceptable levels, in line with mitigation commitments. This common global commitment could take the form of a global adaptation goal that expressly confirms: that adaptation is a global responsibility despite the localised adaptation needs of countries and regions; that the levels of adaptation action required to reduce vulnerability to acceptable levels is linked to the levels of mitigation ambition; and that the necessary level of adaptation action will be met with adequate support that will be pursued through a Strategic Framework on Adaptation.

Individual commitments for all Parties with commitments under Article 4.1 of the Convention

Formulation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) by each Party; Commitment by Parties to governance that engages with sub-national and local authorities to enhance adaptation; and Adaptation costs need to be defined across the continuum from development to adaptation to residual damages and developing countries’ investments in adaptation should be recognised as a contribution to finance, and part of the overall financial goal.

Additional individual commitments for Parties with obligations under Article 4.2 of the Convention

The 2015 agreement should provide for enhanced access of finance, technology and capacity building support for adaptation in developing countries through existing institutions and mechanisms and in line with existing agreements and commitments. Support for adaptation should be commensurate with the scale of damage likely to be suffered by developing countries even in a 2 °C world, or the appropriate temperature scenario based on emission reduction commitments.

In particular, those Parties with additional obligations under Article 4.2 must contribute to:

  • the development of National Adaptation Plans for developing country Parties; and
  • the costs of implementation of NAPs in developing countries.

The implementation of priority needs of developing countries, as identified in their NAPs and NAPAs, must be a central element. However, we need to go further in their implementation, considering also sub-regional and regional adaptation programmes. Clear rules and procedures are needed to ensure that funding for adaptation is balanced with mitigation, in the short-, medium- and long-term. South Africa proposes that multilateral financing of adaptation be a cornerstone of the 2015 agreement. Financing risk management instruments (re-insurance, catastrophe bonds, escrow accounts, etc.) should be built into the 2015 agreement.

Provisions on governance

The Adaptation Committee should continue to provide guidance on adaptation. Its authority should be enhanced by providing a mandate.  The use of the various adaptation tools (L&D, NAPs, AF, NWP, A&R support framework for regional and cooperative programmes etc.) created under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol should be utilised for the implementation of commitments under the 2015 agreement.” (p. 2-3, May Design)

Adaptation commitments by all Parties (Art 4.1)

  • Projected impacts, including methodology used, assumptions and associated costs and indicative timeline
  • Adaptation Planning options, approaches and technology needs and adaptive capacity enhancements, and associated costs and indicative timeline
  • Programmes – Projects, including those identified in context of NAPs/NAPAs, finance and technology needs and value of action for recognition and investment – contribution (+) or requirement (-)
  • International cooperation, including cooperative actions, international and regional and investments to be contributed in $ or required in ($) and indicative timeline (Annex A, p8, May, INDCs)

Adaptation commitments (Art 4.4) [for consecutive years from 2020-2030]

  1. Support, to be provided in response to identified adaptation options, including means of implementation, investments, technology transfer and capacity building
  2. Project and programme assistance to be provided as set out in NAPs and NAPAs
  3. Support to be provided for international and regional initiatives (Annex A, p8-9, May, INDCs)

Switzerland

March 4, 2014

“COMMITMENT TO PREPARE FOR ADAPTATION ACTION - The 2015 Agreement is to include a commitment of all Parties to undertake appropriate efforts in preparing for integrated adaptation action to the adverse effects of climate change, according to the specific exposure to the adverse effects of climate change and respecting the capabilities, national circumstances and specific conditions of Parties. Further, as an enduring instrument, the 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to operationalize and review arrangements with voluntary participation to foster Parties’ efforts in preparing and implementing adaptation action.

  • The COP – building on the experience gained with the currently complemented arrangements on adaptation under the Convention - should review the existing institutional arrangements for adaptation under the Convention and continue to foster Parties’ efforts in preparing and implementing adaptation action, including in the areas of vulnerability and risk assessments with a multidisciplinary, multidimensional and multi-sectoral approach and integrated risk management approaches that prioritize preventive action, increase of resilience , involvement of the private sector, sharing of best practices and experiences, and capacity building.” (p. 3, March)

“REFLECT IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATED PLANNING OF ADAPATION ACTION - The 2015 Agreement should acknowledge the importance of integrated planning of adaptation actions, and encourage all Parties to develop national adaptation strategies and plans.” (p. 3, March)

“The COP – building on the experience gained with the currently complemented arrangements on adaptation under the Convention - should review the existing institutional arrangements for adaptation under the Convention and continue to facilitate cooperation between Parties in view of sharing of best practices, experiences, and capacity building.”  (p. 3, March)

“PROVISIONS TO REGULARLY REPORT AND SHARE PROGRESS AND EXPERIENCES - The 2015 Agreement is to include provisions for all Parties to regularly report, respecting the differentiated capabilities of Parties, on their efforts in preparing for adaptation action to the adverse effects of climate change and on their cooperation in view to enhance resilience and adaptive capacity to the adverse effects of climate change of all Parties and in particular of the most vulnerable. Further, as an enduring instrument, the 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt further guidance on such reporting and to further facilitate sharing of progress and experiences in the preparation and implementation of adaptation actions.

  • Reporting in adaptation should build on the gained experiences and not be burdensome. The COP should further facilitate sharing of progress and experiences in the preparation and implementation of adaptation actions, particularly in regard to adaptation strategies and plans, in international cooperation, involvement of the private sector, and capacity building.” (p. 4, March)

United States

February 12, 2014   “Adaptation will be an important component of the Paris outcome. 

While vulnerability to climate change differs across countries, communities, and even households, all Parties will continue to prepare themselves in the post?2020 era for the unavoidable impacts of climate change and to enhance resilience in the face of future climate uncertainties.

Adaptation actions are ultimately undertaken at the local level.  They will vary from location to location, and their benefits will be felt most directly at the local, rather than global (or even national), level.  Each Party will therefore continue developing and implementing its adaptation plans and policies in a manner that fits its circumstances and priorities. 

  • The agreement should underscore the importance of Parties enhancing their efforts to:
    • integrate adaptation into national planning and development processes in order to strengthen resilience to immediate, medium-, and long-term climate change impacts;
    • undertake assessments of climate change impacts and vulnerability;

    • prioritize action with respect to the people, places, ecosystems, and sectors that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts; 

    • understand the costs and benefits of adaptation at the local level; 

    • strengthen governance and enabling environments for adaptation; and  

    • monitor, report, evaluate, and learn from adaptation plans, policies, and programs. 

  • The agreement should also stress the importance of Parties' enhancing cooperation to address adaptation. 

  • Such cooperation includes efforts undertaken by the subsidiary bodies.   

  • The agreement should support and build on such efforts by further:

    • strengthening linkages with, and encouraging actions and support by, institutions and organizations outside the Convention (such as those at the regional, national, and sub?national levels, universities, civil society organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and the private sector), which can contribute much-needed expertise, capacity, and resources to advance work in the areas that Parties identify as critical;

    • supporting the synthesis of information and knowledge about good adaptation practices;  

    • supporting the provision of technical guidance on good adaptation practices, including on integrating adaptation into national and development planning and policies; and 

    • improving national communications so that they can more effectively capture and support national adaptation planning processes and, as a result, facilitate accountability and exchange of knowledge, lessons, and good practices.

  • Taken together, such elements will not only significantly enhance the management of climate risks, but will also send an important signal for bolder action by international organizations, sub?national entities, and the non-governmental community.” (p. 7-9, February)

  • “In terms of adaptation, the United States has discussed with many other Parties the importance of adaptation and how it can best be advanced through the agreement and beyond.”
  • “We understand that there is a need to go beyond traditional adaptation projects, which, for example, help farmers plant crops more suitable to changing rainfall patterns, or help communities and governments develop early warning flood systems. Actions like these are critical and must continue, but they need to be complemented with national adaptation planning (NAP) processes that advance wider-scale, longer-term climate resilience.”
  • “The 2015 agreement offers us an important opportunity to underscore the importance of all Parties enhancing their NAP processes. In so doing, we should build on the systematic progress already made on the NAP process under the Convention as well as with the Green Climate Fund.”
  • “For example, per guidance from the COP:
  • The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) Council has approved guidelines to make funding available for the preparation of the NAP process through LDCF and SCCF;
  • The GEF has established a Global Support Program for LDCs, which will provide one-on-one technical assistance to initiate the NAP process, deliver tools and training, and facilitate the exchange of lessons and knowledge;
  • The GEF also plans to establish a similar global support program through the SCCF for non-LDCs; and
  • The Adaptation Committee and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group are providing technical support and leadership on the NAP process to the Parties.”
  • We have also made significant headway in the GCF:
    • The governing instrument of the GCF clearly states that the Fund will support countries in pursuing approaches in accordance with their national adaptation plans; and
    • The GCF Board has agreed to aim for 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation, on a grant equivalent basis, as well as to establish a floor of 50% of the adaptation allocation for particularly vulnerable countries, including least developed countries (LDCs), small island developing States (SIDS), and African States.
  • In addition, bilateral agencies have taken concrete steps to help advance the NAP process in many countries. USAID, for example, has supported efforts by countries to integrate climate resilience into development plans in ways that share responsibilities for addressing climate risks across the government, rather than just assigning them to environment ministries, and prioritizes climate-related risks across the economy in a longer-term timeframe.
  • The work done to date has been extensive. Nevertheless, the United States sees a clear need to politically elevate and give further momentum to this progress on national adaptation planning and action.
  • Including adaptation as a core element of the agreement can focus national and international attention on the NAP process.
  • The agreement should provide an anchor for the existing adaptation framework, making it clear that the good work done to date is only the beginning and that Parties will build upon it going forward. It should affirm the critical importance of global cooperation and coordination on NAP processes and highlight the importance of all Parties:
    • assessing climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation options;
    • strengthening governance and enabling environments for adaptation; and
    • enhancing reporting, including through the National Communications, on what is being done, and whether it is working.
  • Finally, the agreement should call upon Parties to integrate climate resilience into national and development planning and action. Managing climate risks and advancing long-term climate resilience requires deliberate preparation and coordinated planning by national governments and across ministries.
  • Together with the elements outlined above, this will serve to raise the profile of adaptation action at all levels of government, giving additional impetus to the good work already underway. (p7-8, September)

Back to top

LOSS AND DAMAGE

AILAC

March 10, 2014 “The new agreement must build upon the Warsaw International Mechanism of Loss and Damage and its Work plan to ensure that the issue is given a central place under the new agreement. 

Efforts  should  be  directed  towards ensuring  that  the  Executive  Committee  of  the Mechanism  is  fully substantive and not bureaucratic, and focuses on developing countries’ vulnerability and the  identification of specific country needs.

Also, given the mandate provides for progress on coordination among existing Convention bodies and  coherence  between  different  approaches  to  address  loss  and  damage, special  attention should be given to enhance the technical capacities of financial institutions in developing countries so as to identify the gaps and needs in the actions that will be undertaken.” (p. 7, March)

“56. The 2015 Agreement should explicitly recognize that most countries are already experiencing loss and damage due to the effects of climate change.

57. The 2015 Agreement should recognize the undeniable relationship that exists between the level of mitigation ambition, the associated climate change impacts, the resulting adaptation needs and costs that arise, and losses and damages created by those impacts. With a higher level of mitigation ambition, the likeliness of staying within a 2ºC or 1.5ºC scenario is higher, and the related impacts and adaptation needs and costs, and the losses and damages suffered, will be lower. A lower level of mitigation ambition will result in higher temperature scenarios with increasingly high adaptation needs and costs, as well as greater losses and damages.

58. An explicit link between loss and damage and the means of Implementation is necessary. Means of implementation are required to cover the cost of losses and damages, as well as to identify constraints to adaptive capacities of vulnerable groups, sectors and regions. Every economic, social, political, and environmental context imposes certain constraints on the adaptive capacity of vulnerable populations and ecosystems. Beyond these limits is where loss and damage will be larger and more frequent, and the need for resources earmarked for humanitarian action will increase.

59. The Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage should continue working, and be strengthened.” (p14-15, September)

Canada

June 6, 2014 “We also believe that the work on Loss and Damage should continue to be anchored in the Cancun Adaptation Framework and be guided by  the Warsaw International Mechanism. This work should be undertaken in the context of supporting  Parties in their own national efforts to take appropriate actions to increase their resilience to and prepare for the adverse effects of climate change.” (p. 2)

LDCs

March 17, 2014 “Loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change should be part of the 2015 Agreement. The 2015 Agreement should provide for corresponding costs, including investment needs for risk assessment, risk management, insurance and compensation, including the associated overall costs and impacts of the residual damages (occurring in the form of loss and damage).” (p. 6, March)

LMDCs

March 9, 2014

June 3, 2014  

  • “Additional to but separate from adaptation-related provisions, there should be a provision that incorporates the Loss and Damage mechanism established at COP19 into the 2015 agreed outcome, and which provides for specific commitments from Annex II Parties to provide support for the financing and operationalization of this mechanism. Operational modalities and institutional arrangements for this mechanism should be made part of the 2015 agreed outcome, recognizing that addressing loss and damage is a challenge that is additional to adaptation.
  • Enhanced action to address loss and damage requires support for the efficient development and operationalization of approaches to address loss and damage from extreme weather events and slow onset events, including for the establishment of social safety nets and social protection programmes to address damage to or loss of livelihoods associated with the adverse effects of climate change.” (p. 7, March)

“25. There should be a provision that incorporates the Warsaw international mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with climate change impacts established at COP19 into the 2015 agreed outcome, in accordance with the result of the review under Decision 2/CP.19, paragraph 1. This mechanism provides for specific commitments from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to provide support for the financing and operationalization of this mechanism. Operational modalities and institutional arrangements for this mechanism should be made part of the 2015 agreed outcome, recognizing that addressing loss and damage is a challenge that is additional to, and in some cases more than, adaptation actions.

26. Enhanced action to address loss and damage requires support for the efficient development and operationalization of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, as well as the establishment of social safety nets and social protection programmes to address damage to or loss of livelihoods associated with the adverse effects of climate change.” (p. 6, June)

Back to top

LULUCF/REDD

AILAC

March 10, 2014 “We believe that the contribution of REDD+ to global climate change mitigation efforts is substantial and can be enhanced. REDD+ is a fundamental part of national climate change strategies and should be considered in the future post-2020 instruments in its proper dimension.

Considering that REDD+ has been designed on the basis of a voluntary and cooperative initiative between developed and developing countries and that the REDD mechanism architecture was defined by the Warsaw REDD+ framework, there is a window of opportunity to include this mechanism, both at pre- and post-2020 timeframes, in Workstream 1 and 2 of ADP. To achieve this goal, we believe that there is an urgent need to reach an agreement that provides sufficient, appropriate, transparent and predictable funding in the preR2020 timeframe to meet the expectations that have been generated.

The need for REDD+ to be in place before 2020 is also relevant to foster synergies with other Conventions and help countries meet their Aichi 2020 targets for the Convention of Biological Diversity. In the post 2020 timeframe, we believe this mechanism should be considered as a priority, with the appropriate modifications in a post-2020 world, so it can continue to contribute to global efforts to mitigate climate change. We hope that the spirit of constructiveness demonstrated during the REDD+ design process, continues to reflect the importance that forests have in global climate change mitigation efforts, while at the same time ensuring robust methodological frameworks to enhance environmental integrity.” (p. 5, March)

Canada

June 6, 2014 “The core legal text should also acknowledge that the land sector is an important part of global mitigation and adaptation efforts and countries, and encourage Parties to include the land sector as part of their nationally-determined contributions.”  (p. 1)

The Coalition for Rainforest Nations

June 4, 2014   “19. REDD+ should be fully integrated in the 2015 agreement as one of the its key elements and the outcome of the ADP should be adequately informed by the work of other subsidiary bodies under  the Convention, and build upon important results achieved through past COP decisions. The  Warsaw REDD+ Framework should therefore be at the foundation of a REDD+ mechanism in the  2015 agreement, including both the methodological, financial and institutional elements.20. While REDD+ is mature and some rainforest nations are already implementing REDD+ actions on the ground, REDD+ in the 2015 agreement should be fully supported by a wide broad  variety of financing sources, primarily from developed country Parties. Those sources should  include:

  • Public: Green Climate Fund, international financial institutions and bilateral funding
  • Private
    • Market
      • New market based mechanism including REDD+ in the 2015 climate agreement
      • Units earned under agreed national reference emission level, national MRV, environmental integrity
      • Link between the KP and the Convention
    • Market Linked: Public finance generated through markets, such as the auctioning of allowances
  • Non market

21. In order to achieve coherence, the REDD+ mechanism in the 2015 agreement should guide and

eventually absorb and replace some existing multilateral initiatives on REDD+ outside the UNFCCC such as UN-REDD, FCPF, FIP, Interim REDD+ Partnership.” (p. 2-3)

New Zealand

March 12, 2014    “Parties could agree guidelines or rules in relation to accounting methods that would provide incentives for the enhancement of land sector greenhouse gas sinks. A Party opting to include the land sector in its commitment in this way would be expected to apply agreed accounting methodologies for the land sector, such as rules or guidelines for how reference levels are constructed.” (p. 8, March)

Implementation

“Confirmation that mitigation objectives should be met without compromising food security, in a way that allows economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner and that allows ecosystems to adapt.

Recognition that in taking mitigation action in agriculture, forests and in respect of other land uses under the Agreement, Parties may need to accommodate multiple sustainable land management objectives, including food production.

Agreement that Parties applying removals by sinks and reservoirs to meet mitigation commitments should use methodologies agreed upon by the COP.

Agreement that Parties using carbon markets to help meet mitigation commitments should follow common minimum standards or guidelines.” (p6-7, October, Elements)

South Africa

May 30, 2014

(Elements)

May 30, 2014

(INDCs)                

“Detailed guidelines accounting of land use change and forestry under the Convention.   Use of existing mechanisms, including flexibility mechanisms, land-based tools (e.g. REDD+).”  (p. 5, Elements)

“South Africa proposes that the ADP initiate work to develop rules on LULUCF accounting for targets under the Convention.

The accounting for LULUCF is not sufficiently developed for the 2015 agreement in order to demonstrate progress in achieving targets under the Convention. More detailed rules on the role of LULUCF in demonstrating progress towards commitments have been developed under the Kyoto Protocol (in Article 3.3 and 3.4 and related decisions). Other Annex I Parties use inventory-based approaches. Under the Convention, rules for REDD+ have also been developed.

The IPCC good practice guidance is relevant in this regard and the established processes for SBSTA requests to the IPCC should continue to be used.

Regardless of whether land- or activity-based accounting is used, the rules must be detailed, comprehensive and accurate, while avoiding unnecessary complexity and ensuring that they can be effectively implemented, particularly by developing countries. The focus must be on actions to enhance removals by sinks, which must be reported in a transparent manner by all Parties. The IPCC provides guidance on accounting for emissions and reductions. Guidance on additional activities (e.g. wetlands) and sectors, particularly agriculture, is needed.” (p. 6, INDCs)

Back to top

FINANCE

Africa Group

April 30, 2014

May 31, 2014 (Elements)

June 10, 2014

(Finance) “In respect of finance, criteria based on mitigation and adaptation needs, as well as regional finance allocation should inform burden sharing arrangements by Annex II Parties; criteria and the MRV of finance and technology transfer is further viewed as an enabling element for a fair agreement in 2015.”  (para. 11, April)

  • “Recall the provisions of the convention, in particular Articles 4.3, 4.4, 4.7 with respect to agreed full incremental costs to be provided by Annex II Parties for developing country actions under Article 4.1, full costs for reporting, and costs for adaptation, recognising that the extent to which developing countries can fulfil their commitments depends on effective provision of finance and technology support as per Article 4.7,
  • Define and agree on the various instruments for providing support from developed countries, including assessment of adequacy, country needs assessments as well as the counting and accounting rules for the different types of financial commitments
  • Define and agree on quantified targets for provisions of finance related to the agreed temperature goal and based on different sound reports and country needs assessments, with a process for review of adequacy and predictability and sustainability, while providing clarity on the burden sharing process between developed countries
  • Provide further guidance to the operating entities of the Finance Mechanism under the Convention, Standing Committee on Finance, Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, and LDC Fund in respect of counting and accounting rules for obligatory support by developed countries and recognition of developing country contributions through cooperative actions.” (p. 6, May, Elements)

Enablers for Action

1. The African Group believes our discussions under the ADP will be enabled by the following:

a. Significant progress on pathways to meet the US$ 100 billion per year by 2020, noting that in 2014 the indicative level of resources to be provided by developed countries should be around US$ 32 billion; and

b. Our focus on the finance gap post the fast-start finance period (2010-2012) should focus initially on how to meet the US$ 100 billion per year by 2020, noting that in 2014 the indicative level of resources to be provided by developed countries should be around US$ 32 billion.

c. In order for developed countries to be on track to meet the 2020 finance goal would mean that by 2015, the indicative level of resources should reach the level of US$ 44 billion. The lack of a clear collective pathway to reach this goal is a major concern for developing countries.

d. As such the developing countries are proposing a mid-term target for 2016 between US$ 60-70 billion. The finance gap for the post 2020 period needs to focus on how to move from US$ 100 per year in 2020 to about US$ 600 per year by no later than 2030

General Approach

1. The objective of our deliberations is the operationalization of the criteria related to finance in the Convention and other relevant COP decisions, in particular those related to sustainability, adequacy, predictability and additionally of finance.

2. We need to urgently address the scale of finance in the context of the agreed goal of keeping the temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, while allowing for a regular review process of the availability of resources and dealing with issues of there predictability and adequacy.

3. We must promote country ownership through enhancing direct and facilitated access to resources, enhancing national needs assessments, while promoting continuous follow up of such assessments;

4. We must enhance the role of the current institutions namely the Standing Committee of Finance in assisting the COP on issues related to finance, in particular on the assessment of needs related to finance and reporting on the disbursement and evaluation and analysis of the financial flows;

5. It is important that the level of action by developing countries should be linked to the level of support provided by ANNEX II in line with Article 4.7, taking into consideration that any commitment in mitigation by developing countries should be balanced by a commitment on finance and technology transfer by developed countries..

6. Adaptation finance should be given a priority and fair share in line with its importance and priority for developing countries, in line with Article 4 of the Convention. 

Specific Proposals on the 2015 Agreement

Finance provided to developing countries should be fully in line with the Convention and the relevant decisions, mainly through:

1. Financial resources to be provided based on a quantified target that is inline with the 2/1.5 degrees goal and building on the estimates by WB and other studies;

2. It should be predictable, meaning sources to be clear and burden sharing between Annex II would be implemented;

3. It should be sustainable, meaning that at least a 5 years commitments by Annex II should be clarified by scale and timeline;

4. It should be adequate, and ensure country ownership, meaning that it should be based on the needs identified by the developing countries according to their priorities;

5. It should be NEW and Additional, meaning that it is different than current commitment of ODAs 0.7% of developed countries GDP;

6. It should be balanced, meaning that adaptation gets at least 50% of resources; and

7. It should be based on criteria, meaning that each continent gets it share in line with the challenges it is facing, so fair allocation to Africa should be ensured in line with its adaptation needs and mitigation potential.

8. It should be transparent and including an assessment of needs related to finance and mechanism for reporting on the disbursement and evaluation, and analysis of the financial flows.

Specific Proposals related to INDCs

1. We see the preparation of developing country INDCs in the context of Article 12, where full costs of such reporting should be covered at full cost, as such should be clearly provided for, and be part of the decision in Lima.

2. Countries must include information on scales, types and channels of climate finance they intend to provide as part of their fair share in the global effort.

3. There is a need to integrate Means of Implementation in all INDCs submitted by Parties, in doing so.

- Developed countries should provide upfront information on their INDC on their finance contribution: type, scale, pathway

- Developing countries should also present their means of implementation needs to achieve their INDC (June, Finance)

AILAC

March 10, 2014  “The new agreement will include a section on means of implementation that should include at least the following elements:

  • An overarching guiding objective that should be the foundation of all the provision of means of implementation, addressing the need to transition to a world where all investments are climate friendly investments, and where climate finance, technology and capacity stop competing against carbon-intensive actions;
  • Provisions on the national responsibility of all countries to mobilize and invest resources in climate friendly actions at the national level, and to mainstream climate change in national spending;
  • An explicit reference tohistoricalresponsibilityofdevelopedcountriesanditsrelationshipwith the provision of climate finance to developing countries for contributing to their mitigation and adaptation efforts;
  • A request to strengthen the existing provision of climate finance and enhance it significantly, to achieve the maximum level of ambition possible in the provision of means of implementation;
  • Specific reference to( the definition of nationally determined contributions on the provision of means of implementation that shall ensure that adaptation and mitigation action actually happen on the ground; these should be part of the overall process of defining the national contributions, and be subject to the same process of anchoring in the legally binding agreement
  • A reference to the areas there the mean of implementation should be directed to be transformative in the results of the action implemented through them;
  • Operational provisions related to the financial architecture of the Convention, the relationship of the compliance mechanism with the contributions of means of implementation, the MRV of support, among other operational issues.

The contributions on the provision of means of implementation need also to be defined as soon as possible; their definition should be in line with what will be agreed on the process for the definition of the nationally determined contributions in general.

The new legally binding agreement must ensure predictability in the medium and long term for the provision of the means of implementation, on the one hand, and on the other, provide all that is required for a transformation at scale in the way in which both public and private investments are made. Predictability and scale in the means of implementation are a fundamental requirement for this transition.

The agreement must address the issue of means of implementation in a holistic manner, including the provision of finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity building. All of these elements are necessary to implement action on the ground and can be part of the nationally defined contributions by parties.

National climate change strategies, both for adaptation and mitigation, will depend on transformation of production processes and service delivery; in this context access to state-of-the-art technologies and leapfrogging options must be privileged. At the same time, capacity needs to be built in-house, in order to create the appropriate environment that can provide for implementation of ambitious climate change action.

The exercise of defining contributions to means of implementation must take into account the needs of developing country parties, especially those who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and whose capacities are limited. The definition of the intended nationally determined contributions and further implementation of such contributions will require substantial provision of means of implementation.” (p7-8, March)

“47. The 2015 Agreement must address the issue of means of implementation (MoI) in a holistic manner, including the provision of finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity building.

48. The 2015 Agreement should include a global goal on MoI, to be achieved through efforts by all Parties in accordance with the principles of equity and CBDR-RC. This global goal should address the need to transition to a world where all investments are resilient and low in emissions, and where finance, technology and capacity that promote low-carbon and resilient actions prevail. This implies a transformation in the way in which both public and private investments are made. Predictability and scale in the means of implementation are fundamental requirements to enable low-carbon climate resilient development.

49. This should be complemented by a short-term quantified goal on the provision of finance, to be achieved by Annex II countries, which are most responsible for climate change and have higher capabilities, pursuant to their legal obligation under Article 4.3 of the Convention, and by any other countries with high capacity and in a position to do so. This quantified goal should be significantly higher than the existing goal of mobilizing USD$100 billion by 2020, refer to public sources of finance, be set for the same period as the period set for the revision of mitigation contributions, and be revised upwards following the same time intervals. It should be implemented through contributions to existing climate finance mechanisms such as the Adaptation Fund, the Green Climate Fund, among others.

50. The 2015 Agreement needs to also include a universal call for all countries to mobilize and invest resources in resilient and low-emission actions at the national level, and to mainstream climate change into their national fiscal accounts.

51. In addition, at the core of the MoI section, Parties will commit to implement their specific country contributions on means of implementation as set forth in their respective country contribution documents. This would be included in the form of an anchor-text referring to the contributions in the Agreement, and should be written in order to create a durable and long-lasting legally binding commitment.

52. As with contributions on other issues, each country shall determine its own contribution on MoI. Countries with low capability, low responsibility, and high needs have to receive substantial international resources to support the actions they will undertake to mitigate and adapt; their contribution to the MoI cannot imply an unfair or additional burden, but rather includes the actions that they can undertake nationally to further build their national capacity and enable a conversion of investments towards low-carbon and climate-resilient action, among others.

53. Developed countries, who have high capability and high historic responsibility and any other highly capable countries in a position to do so, are expected to provide international MoI, should take the lead, and should include substantive, quantified contributions on the provision of international climate finance in their respective country contributions documents, pursuant to the global aspirational goal and the global quantified goal on finance.

54. A fundamental principle that should govern the provision of means of implementation is that each country's efforts in this area should be independent of mitigation and adaptation efforts: the level of effort in providing means of implementation does not substitute or compensate for the necessary ambition in mitigation or adaptation.

55. A reference to REDD+ as a useful mechanism for mitigation, which requires sufficient means of implementation, is also necessary under this chapter, pursuant to the already established Warsaw REDD+ Framework.” (p13-14, September)

Canada

June 6, 2014 “In addition to reiterating that support provided is in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, the 2015 agreement should further acknowledge that countries seeking financing to achieve transformative mitigation and adaptation results have the responsibility to dedicate sufficient domestic resources for this purpose, to put in place the conditions to mobilize, attract and absorb climate-related investments, and to report transparently on results achieved with support.” (p3)

China

March 6, 2014                

  • “Developed countries to provide new, additional, adequate, predictable and sustained public funds to support developing country Parties in the post-2020 period to meet the agreed full costs or incremental costs of the preparation and implementation of their enhanced action, with a view to enhancing the implementation of Article 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention, with public funds as the main source and financing from the private sector supplementary;
  • The 100 billion US Dollars per year by 2020 to be the starting point for developed country Parties to scale-up their financial commitments for the post-2020 period, with a clear roadmap on scaling up financial support to be elaborated, including specific targets, timelines and identified sources;
  • Institutional arrangements resulting from the Bali process related to finance, especially for the GCF, to be further elaborated in order to enhance financial support to developing country Parties through adequate and secured funding by developed country Parties to the GCF with at least 1% of their GDP per year from 2020;
  • Commitments by developed country Parties on provisions of finance, technology and capacity-building support to developing country Parties, including relevant roadmap and targets, to be reflected in an attachment to the agreement, and relevant information to be communicated through a common template based on the common tabular format established under the Bali Action Plan.”
  • (pps. 6-7, March)

EIG

June 5, 2014   “(Financial Mechanism)

The 2015 Agreement should have provisions for the financial mechanism of the Convention to serve as the financial mechanism of the 2015 Agreement, including Green Climate Fund (GCF). For sustainable mobilization of finance, it is necessary to ensure a well-functioning and coordinated financial mechanism. In this regard, the role of the Standing Committee on Finance in advising the COP regarding coherence and coordination among various financial institutions needs to be further strengthened.

The GCF should deliver climate finance in post-2020 climate regime as a main operating entity of the financial mechanism of the 2015 Agreement and ensure effective, transparent, need-based and country-owned delivery of financial support including through mobilizing private sector finance and investments on a sufficient scale.

(Public and Private Sources of Finance)

The private sector will play a critical role for the scaled-up and additional provision of climate finance after 2020. Therefore, the 2015 Agreement should facilitate the leveraging of private finance by using public support through existing and emerging institutions and arrangements inside and outside the UNFCCC. However, still the public finance should remain a primary source for specific areas given limited potential for private investment in particular in the most vulnerable and least developed countries.” (p6-7)

Japan

May 14, 2014 “1. Means of implementation, namely Finance, Technology Development and Transfer and Capacity-building, are important components of the 2015 agreement. However, provisions of MOI should not be stipulated as legal obligations, because of its nature.

2. In order to ensure the continuity and avoid duplication of actions, the existing arrangements and institutions (Green Climate Fund(GCF), SCF, TEC, CTCN, Durban Forum on Capacity-building etc.) should be effectively utilized in the 2015 agreement taking into consideration the discussions and development within these bodies. Especially in terms of GCF, the experiences and input from the business world could be useful in realizing effective and efficient finance mechanisms.

3. In terms of climate finance, developed countries remain committed to and are making efforts toward the goal of mobilizing USD 100 billion per year by 2020. In addition, taking into account the magnitude of climate change which requires the efforts of all Parties, it is important to encourage all responsible and capable Parties to provide financial support. Particularly, scaled-up finance should be mobilized to better address the needs of the most vulnerable countries, such as SIDs(Small Island Developing States), African countries and LDCs, with a broader donor base in line with changing capabilities of the Parties since the inception of the Convention. What is needed is for all parties to prioritize low carbon growth and climate-resilient development in their development strategy.

4. It is crucial to further mobilize private finance for scaling up climate finance toward USD 100 billion per year by 2020. Both donor countries and recipient countries need to work together to achieve the goal. Donor countries should mitigate risk of the private sector by public intervention such as offering risk insurance and guarantee. Recipient countries should make efforts to improve their enabling environments to attract investments through such measures as policy formulation and development and implementation of laws with the cooperation of donor countries.

5. With those efforts, in the post 2020 world, climate finance will be mobilized more efficiently and effectively. Japan has made its utmost effort to play its part in the commitment promised by developed countries to provide USD 30 billion to developing countries in three years from 2010 to 2012 as fast-start finance. Japan has provided USD 16.8 billion of public and private finance, among which public finance amounted to USD 13.5 billion. Japan announced a new commitment to provide a total of 1,600 billion yen (approx. 16 billion USD) of public and private finance during the 3-year period between 2013 and 2015 last November. On the basis of its significant contribution stated above, Japan assures that finance will continue to flow.” (p. 5)

LDCs

March 17, 2014    “The 2015 Agreement will not succeed without adequately addressing the needed means of implementation to be able to address mitigation and adaptation obligations of all parties. Means of implementation should, include finance, technology

development and transfer, and capacity building to support effective and strong global climate actions while allowing developing countries to engage in climate resilient development. Clear rules should be put in place to ensure timely reporting

and effective accounting of both actions and support provided.” (p6, March)

LMDCs

March 9, 2014

June 3, 2014

  • June 11, 2014 (CRP) “In Warsaw, paragraph 4 of Decision 3/CP.17 recognized the importance of providing clarity on the level of financial support from developed country Parties to developing country Parties to enable the enhanced implementation of the Convention. The Standing Committee on Finance was also requested to move beyond biennial assessments to the measurement, reporting and verification of support provided to developing country Parties.
  • By 2015, the Convention's financial mechanism must be made more robust, with new, additional, adequate, sustained and predictable funding going towards its operating entities particularly the GC on a very significant scale at its initial capitalization by 2014, in accordance with the Warsaw decision on the GCF. In this regard, specific commitments from Annex II parties to provide clarity and a defined pathway for public climate financing to developing countries from developed countries with specific targets, timelines, and sources, as recognized under COP decision 3/CP.19, should be made operational.
  • This should include a clear aggregate Annex II public climate financing commitment of USD70 billion per year by 2016 rising to USD100 billion per year by 2020 as a floor of accounting, and leading to further increased commitments on the provision of financial support for the post-2020 period. Any burden sharing for the provision of climate finance, under the Convention, must be done among developed countries, as provided for in Art. 4.3 of the Convention.
  • Financing provided by Annex II Parties under the Convention pursuant to the 2015 agreed outcome should be channeled through the operating entities of the Convention’s financial mechanism. The levels of financing to be provided by Annex II Parties should be commensurate to the climate financing needs of non-Annex I Parties, and should have an increasing trend over time.
  • There are various options that could be considered for enhancing financing by Annex II Parties under the Convention as part of the 2015 agreed outcome. One option could be to have Annex II Parties list, in standardized format and currencies, specific amounts of climate financing by each country over a specified timeframe to be provided to the GCF; with the amounts to be subject to review by the COP every few years for adjustment based on the financing needs of developing countries. Another option is to have Annex II Parties be listed with percentages reflecting their required share of climate financing to be provided to the GCF over a specified timeframe, with the total amount of climate financing to be based on the financing needs of developing countries. ? It is important to develop a mechanism for the measurement, reporting and verification of support provided to developing country Parties. Parties have to address the need for accurate accounting of the provision of funds from Annex II Parties to developing countries and to ensure compliance by Annex II Parties with their financial obligations for mitigation, adaptation, transfer of technology and capacity building in a way that ensures robustness and transparency of the financial mechanism of the Convention. A proposal on MRV that is under work by the SCF may serve as starting point for the development of this mechanism.” (p. 7-8, March)

27. In Warsaw, paragraph 4 of Decision 3/CP.17 recognized the importance of providing clarity on the level of financial support from developed country Parties to developing country Parties to enable the enhanced implementation of the Convention. The Standing Committee on Finance was also requested to increase its work beyond biennial assessments to the measurement, reporting and verification of support provided to developing country Parties.

28. By 2015, the Convention's financial mechanism must be made more robust, with new, additional, adequate, sustained, accessible, and predictable funding provided through its financial mechanism, through the full operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and for an initial resource mobilization on a very significant scale by 2014, in accordance with the guidance provided in decision 4/CP.19 on the GCF. In this regard, the biennial submissions from developed country Parties on their updated strategies and approaches for scaling up climate finance from 2014 to 2020, including information on quantitative and qualitative elements of a pathway as contained in paragraph 10 of Decision 3/CP. 19, would be crucial to allow for the enhanced implementation of the Convention.

29. This should include a clear aggregate of developed country Parties’ public climate financing commitment of USD70 billion per year by 2016 rising to USD100 billion per year by 2020 as a floor of accounting, and leading to further increased commitments on the provision of financial support for the post-2020 period. Any burden sharing for the provision of climate finance, under the Convention, must be done among developed country Parties, as provided for in Art. 4.3 of the Convention.” (p6-7, June)

“Information relating to finance:

Developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex II of the Convention

  • Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, paragraph 48, and its Annex I, paragraphs 13 to 20, using the relevant common tabular format for such information as provided for in the Annex to decision 19/CP.18

Developing country Parties

  • Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, Annex III, paragraphs 14 to 16” (June, CRP)

Mexico

May 29, 2014

  • “There is an indelible link between the ability of developing Parties to embark on mitigation and adaptation action and the need for mobilizing and scaling up climate finance, including from new and additional sources. This is to say that all Parties should commit to take action on mitigation and adaptation according to their own resources first, and identify potential areas of improvement with incremental financial resources.
  • Therefore, financial commitments should be part of the intended nationally determined contributions of developed countries and countries in a position to do so.
  • Financial resources need to be mobilized from both private and public sources. To achieve this, the agreement should include commitments to mobilize public funds and means to facilitate and encourage private investment. In particular, the 2015 Agreement must provide definitions, respective roles, and give guidance on Mexico the mechanisms to achieve a useful balance of public and private sources. Provided that public funding has shown to be limited to address the global climate challenge, it is fundamental to ensure that public funds effectively catalyze private sector co-financing and co-investment through mechanisms that ensure reasonable returns and full transparency.
  • Institutional framework: the financial mechanism of the 2015 Agreement should be built based on improved existing institutions and funds, such as the Green Climate Fund, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Adaptation Fund, the LDC Fund, the Special Climate Change Fund, and the Long Term Finance Program, including the effective mechanism already in place reported as part of the Long Term Finance Program. The operation of such funds must be transparent, competitive, and rules-based, with operating criteria underpinning these rules that are compatible with the requirements of private investors in order to efficiently stimulate co-investment.
  • In addition, this mechanism should leverage the potential non-climate specific financing mechanisms and institutions, given the need to mobilize grants, loans and other support mechanisms such as guarantees, insurance and others.
  • Furthermore, development finance traditionally allocates a percentage of funds invested in specific projects to technical assistance. It must be recognized and acted upon that climate change adaptation and mitigation projects may require significantly more technical assistance as a proportion of the invested amount, since they often seek to open new markets and promote new patterns of investment, development, and consumption, which presents a greater challenge with regards to information and learning.” (p. 4-5)

New Zealand

October 8, 2014 (Elements)

Finance

Collective obligations:

“All Parties in a position to do so to provide climate finance in the post- 2020 period to support Parties, particularly those most in need, to meet their obligations under the agreement.

Parties that provide and receive climate finance to measure, report and verify flows of climate finance.

To ensure provision of climate finance is effective, and focused on building a partnership among governments, development partners, and the private sector to invest in a low carbon and climate resilient future, and:

  • encourages and supports recipient countries to set their own strategies for responding to climate change (“country ownership’);
  • aligns behind recipient countries’ identified priorities for responding to climate change;
  • is delivered in coordinated ways, using simplified procedures to avoid duplication, allow for flexibility, and ensure efficiency and transparency;
  • targets mitigation and adaptation results that are able to be measured, reported and verified; and
  • does not displace private-sector investment.” (p4-5, October, Elements)

Quantification of finance commitments: national finance targets, finance pathways and goals, fixed allocation between mitigation and adaptation

12. There is no question that some countries will require support to be able to meet their obligations under this agreement. But Parties’ ability to provide, and need to receive, finance will be dynamic over the lifetime of the agreement. In defining the finance element of the negotiation text, we should seek to ensure the agreement will maximise investment in the transformation to a low-carbon, climate resilient global economy. We should recognise that success in provision of financial support should be measured by the extent to which this transformation is achieved, not by the quantum of finance flows. Quantum is an indicator of effort, not of outcome.

13. As above, New Zealand is looking for a legal agreement that is effective and durable. For many countries, including New Zealand, legally binding undertakings on government expenditure cannot be given years in advance of the relevant budget cycle. An obligation to quantify finance contributions in the new agreement would be unworkable – and a barrier to participation.

14. The finance now flowing, and needed in the future, will be drawn from an increasingly diverse range of sources, much of which will be independent of government control and impossible to quantify as individual Party contributions. To divert effort into quantification, prescribing channels of finance, and restricting the nature of financed activities risks undermining the finance flows, inter-country collaboration, and Parties’ focus on the mitigation and adaptation action required to achieve the purpose of the agreement.” (p8-9, October, Elements)

Russia

April 30, 2014   “In terms of practicality, it would be best if the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC/KP serves as the financial mechanism for the new instrument.”  (p. 2)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)  “The 2015 agreement must contain common global commitments to:  (a) mobilise climate finance on the scale necessary to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and to support the implementation of developing country Parties’ individual commitments under this agreement.” (p. 5)

“Parties with commitment under Article 4.3 of the Convention have individual commitments to provide finance, including goals for scaled up means of implementation, in particular:

  •  Pathways to the long-term finance commitment by developed country Parties of mobilising US$100 billion per year by 2020
  • Agreement on an assessed contribution arrangement based on an agreed percentage formula (GDP, income or other) for calculating Annex I country contributions and differentiating developing country contributions
  • Agreement on a range of global policies and/or regulations governing the generation/sources of climate finance
  • Agreement on a no-incidence arrangement to safeguard economic development in developing countries
  • Systems to ensure predictability and delivery of climate finance, and national coordinating bodie[s]
  • Enhancing MRV of support drawing on the outcomes of the review by the COP of the function of the Standing Committee on Finance in 2015.”  (p. 5-6)

“The existing institutional arrangements with regard to the Convention’s financial mechanism will be used for the implementation of this agreement.

Enhance the utilisation of the Green Climate Fund, as an entity charged with the operation of the financial mechanism, including measurable, reportable and verifiable provision of finance;” (p. 6)

Switzerland

March 4, 2014  “COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE RESOURCES - The 2015 Agreement is to include a commitment of all Parties to provide, according to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, resources for climate action that are intended to implement the 2015 Agreement. (p. 4, March)

COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT - The 2015 Agreement is to include a commitment of all Parties in a position to do so, according to their evolving responsibilities and capabilities, to cooperate and to support countries in need, particularly the most vulnerable, according to their necessities and capabilities in climate action to implement the 2015 Agreement. Support is to be provided through a variety of instruments and inter alia through financial resources, technology development and transfer and capacity building. The 2015 Agreement is to acknowledge the need for adequacy and predictability of financial flows mobilized from various sources, public and private. The 2015 Agreement is to clarify the context of support, namely meaningful mitigation action and transparency of implementation.

  • The operating entities of the financial mechanism of the Convention as well as the financial architecture under the Convention have been considerably strengthened. The latter namely through the establishment of the standing committee on finance, increased means through the Fast Start Finance and the commitment of developed Parties to the goal of mobilizing USD 100 billion per year from 2020. The COP should adopt any further guidance in relation to the adequacy and predictability of financial flows.

REFLECT IMPORTANCE OF PRIVATE CLIMATE FRIENDLY INVESTMENTS AND MOBILIZATION THEREOF - The 2015 Agreement is to acknowledge the relevance of climate friendly private investments for low carbon economies and climate resilient societies. It is further to acknowledge the role of public interventions for the mobilization thereof.

  • The COP may adopt any further guidance.

PULL TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTS STIMULATING FINANCIAL FLOWS - 2015 Agreement is to include a commitment of all Parties to prepare for efficient and effective investment environments stimulating mobilization of private and public climate finance.

  • The COP may adopt any further guidance.

PROVISIONS TO REGULARLY REPORT ON PROVISION, RECEIPT AND USE OF SUPPORT - The 2015 Agreement is to include provisions common to all Parties, differentiated in depth of reporting, to regularly report on their provision, receipt and use of resources for climate action that are intended to implement the 2015 Agreement, on international cooperation and the support provided and mobilized through a variety of instruments and from various sources, including from the private

sector, on any support received, as well as on their efforts to prepare for efficient and effective investment environments stimulating mobilization of climate finance. The 2015 Agreement is further to include provisions for the reports of all Parties to be subject to common international review (verification). The 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt any further guidance in this regard.

  • Reporting under the 2015 Agreement should build on the experiences from the current reporting arrangements and complement them in all relevant aspects which are currently still underdeveloped.

FINANCIAL MECHANISM - The financial mechanism of the Convention is to serve as the financial mechanism of the 2015 Agreement. The 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt any further guidance to the operating entities of the financial mechanism following from the implementation of the 2015 Agreement.  (pps. 4-5, March)

United States

February 12, 2014

Parties.  In terms of purpose, it was largely aimed at mitigation.  In terms of magnitude, the scale was not extremely large.  

In terms of transparency, it was not always clear how much finance was flowing from whom to whom.   

  • Since that time, almost every aspect of funding has seen a change:
    • Institutions now  include  a  major  climate?dedicated  fund,  the  Green Climate Fund, as well as the Standing Committee and the CTC&N.    
    • “Climate finance has substantially evolved since the Convention's early days.  In terms of institutions, it largely involved the GEF.  In terms of sources, it largely involved grant?based public funding.  In terms of donors, it involved Annex II

    • Significantly more attention is now paid to private sources of funding, including ways in which public resources and policies can help mobilize such funding. The donor commitment expanded in Copenhagen/Cancun from Annex II Parties to developed countries more generally.  

    • Adaptation finance is now a major component of climate finance.   
    • The magnitude has greatly increased, including  fast start finance  between 2010?2012.    (At over $30  billion,  the  amount  delivered exceeded the commitment made; the United States alone provided $7.5 billion over that three?year period.)  Developed country Parties are also working  hard,  including  in  a coordinated  fashion,  to  meet  the Copenhagen  goal  of  collectively  mobilizing  $100  billion  in  climate finance per year by 2020.
    • They have intensified their efforts to use a strong core of public resources to mobilize private investment, working through  a  variety  of  institutions  including  development  finance institutions,  export  credit  agencies, bilateral  aid  agencies, multilateral development banks,  and multilateral  climate funds. (The Copenhagen goal  acknowledges  the  role  of  private  sector  finance  by  calling  for mobilization, rather than provision, of funds.) They have also laid the groundwork for an ambitious and wide?ranging set of efforts aimed at using public resources and smart public policies to catalyze low-carbon investment throughout the developing countries.  
    • Transparency has  greatly  increased  as   MRV   now  more specifically addresses  from whom, how much, over which time frame,  and  to whom.    The need for transparency on the receiving end, in terms of implementation, has  also increased  ??  with the  $100b  goal  expressly linked to such transparency, in addition to mitigation. 
    • Finally, significantly  more  attention  is  being  paid  to  the  creation  of enabling environments in recipient countries, i.e., the need to take steps to attract investment.   
  • These institutional and other advances in climate finance will continue to be relevant in the post-2020 period.

Indeed, we can expect even more re-shaping, with the increasing need to attend to the poorest and most vulnerable, with changing capabilities (affecting both the donor and recipient bases), with the need to maximize the impact of public sector resources by focusing on targeted forms of assistance that incentivize private sector engagement, with a necessary focus on  pull  as well as  push  (i.e., creating attractive investment environments), etc.” (pps. 9-10, February)   

Back to top

 TECHNOLOGY

Africa Group

May 31, 2014 (Elements)         Define and agree on “quantified goals for the associated finance and technology consistent with the temperature goal, taking into account both adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries, and based on the available studies, country needs assessments.”  (p. 3)

  1.  “Agree on developing country obligations as outlined in Article 4.1 to cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer of technologies, building on the Technology Needs Assessments and Technology Action Plans for mitigation and adaptation, and the recognition of such actions
  2. Agree on how developed country obligations to cooperate in the development, application, diffusion, and the transfer of technologies, including the specific obligations for transferring technologies in all relevant sectors as contemplated in Article 4.1 I, for promoting, facilitating and financing the transfer of and access to technologies by developing countries, and for enhancing endogenous capacities and technologies in developing countries, as contemplated in Article 4.5, will be reflected in the agreement including accounting for such provision.
  3. Define and provide further guidance to the Technology Executive Committee, and the Climate Technology Center and Networks (CTCN), including its Advisory Board will support the operationalization of these commitments and accounting.”  (p5-6)

China

March 6, 2014

  • “All Parties to enhance cooperation in order to promote the development, deployment, diffusion and transfer of technology;
  • Developed country Parties to promote, facilitate and finance the transfer of, or access to technologies and know-how to developing country Parties, by removing obstacles such as IPRs, and by supporting the research, development, demonstration and deployment of technologies as well as the strengthening of endogenous capacities in developing country Parties, with a view to enhancing the implementation of Article 4.1(c), 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention;
  • Institutional arrangements resulting from the Bali process on technology to be further elaborated in order to support developing countries through improving the collaboration between the technology mechanism and other arrangements under the Convention, including establishing an international mechanism on IPR and a window for technology development and transfer under the GCF.” (p5-6, March)

LMDCs

March 9, 2014

June 3, 2014

June 11, 2014 (CRP)   “Technology development and transfer from Annex II Parties to developing countries is a key enabling element under Art. 4.1(c) and 4.5 of the Convention for ensuring enhanced mitigation actions by developing countries. Effective and enhanced mitigation actions by developing countries depends in many ways on the effective provision of support, including finance, for technology development and transfer from Annex II Parties.

  • A provision should be incorporated to enhance action on technology development and transfer under Art. 4.5 of the Convention by having Annex II Parties pursue the removal of barriers, including intellectual property rights (IPRs) through the establishment of an international mechanism on IPRs, and provide financial support (through the GCF) for technology development and transfer to developing countries through a specific window for technology development and transfer under the GCF. Such enhanced action should apply to both mitigation and adaptation related technologies.
  • Existing technology-related mechanisms under the Convention (such as the TEC) should be strengthened with adequate staffing and financing, and Annex II countries should put in place the enabling environment in their own countries that will remove the barriers (such as cost and IPRs) to technology development and transfer and enable them to effectively implement their technology development and transfer obligations to developing countries under Art. 4.5
  • There should be a provision establishing operational modalities under the Convention through which Annex II Parties can commit financing and capacity building resources to support endogenous mitigation and adaptation technology development in developing countries. These modalities should incorporate financing from Annex II Parties to facilitate access to and transfer of environment-sound technologies from Annex II Parties to developing countries, and to promote endogenous technology engineering, development and diffusion in developing countries.
  • There should be a provision on R&D cooperation and Annex II financing of climate technology development, access, and diffusion in developing countries, particularly for endogenous technology development and diffusion.” (p8-9, March)

“33. Technology development and transfer from Annex II Parties to developing countries is a key enabling element under Art. 4.1(c) and 4.5 of the Convention for ensuring enhanced mitigation and adaptation actions by developing countries. Effective and enhanced climate change actions by developing country Parties depend on the effective provision of support, including finance, for technology development and transfer from developed country Parties.

34. A provision should be incorporated to enhance action on the development and transfer of technologies and know-how, including financing of transfer and access, under Art. 4.5 of the Convention, including by the removal of barriers, including those possible barriers arising from intellectual property rights (IPRs), through the establishment of an international mechanism on IPRs by developed country Parties and the provision of financial resources for technology development and transfer to developing countries through a specific window for technology development and transfer under the Green Climate Fund. Such enhanced action should apply to both mitigation and adaptation-related technologies, and capacity-building, in accordance with the Governing Instrument of the Green Climate Fund.

35. Existing technology-related mechanisms under the Convention (such as the Technology Executive Committee should be strengthened with adequate staffing and financing through the core budget of the Convention. Developed country Parties should put in place the enabling environment in their own countries that will remove the barriers, such as cost and IPRs, to technology development and transfer and enable them to effectively implement their technology development and transfer obligations to developing country Parties under Art. 4.5, and in relation to all relevant sectors, including the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management sectors under Article 4.1 (c ).

36. There should be a provision establishing operational modalities under the Convention through which developed country Parties can commit financing and capacity building resources to support endogenous capacities and technologies for mitigation and adaptation in developing country Parties. These modalities should incorporate financing to facilitate access to and finance the transfer of environmentally-sound technologies from developed country Parties to developing country Parties, and to promote endogenous technology engineering, development, application and diffusion, including transfer in developing country Parties.

37. There should be a provision on research and development of technology, including financing of climate technology development, access, diffusion, and transfer in developing country Parties particularly for the development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies.” (p7-8)

“Information relating to technology transfer:

Developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex II of the Convention

  • Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, paragraph 48, and its Annex I, paragraphs 13 to 15 and 21 to 22, using the relevant common tabular format for such information as provided for in the Annex to decision 19/CP.18

Developing country Parties

  • Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, Annex III, paragraphs 14 to 16” (June, CRP)

Mexico

May 29, 2014 The 2015 Agreement must:

  • Strengthen the Technology Mechanism and enhance its effectiveness by enabling it to:
    • Support in-depth country-level strategic identification and prioritization of technology families required, as a function of natural resource, human capital, industrial capabilities, development plans, export potential, and availability of funds, for both adaptation and mitigation.
    • Provide technical expertise to support Parties’ development of policies instruments, and capabilities that enable technology innovation, transfer and uptake across the whole process of technological development, (including technology ‘push’ and market ‘pull’ mechanisms).
    • Focus international public and private funds onto a portfolio of projects which represent the most compelling options for the creation of dynamic future markets.
    • Create enabling environments and foster to the exchange of technologies.
    • Explicitly emphasize the economic and social development benefits – such as local skilled jobs - achievable through a successful technology policy.
    • Create communication and feedback channels so that lessons learned in the technology development and transfer sphere can directly inform economic, regulatory, and tax policy, as well as the international climate finance mechanism.
    • Foster enabling environments in both developed and developing countries, by, inter alia, adopting appropriate policies that incentivize the development and deployment of clean technologies, being these under commercial or cooperative frameworks.
  • Foster enabling environments in both developed and developing countries, by, inter alia, adopting appropriate policies that incentivize the development and deployment of clean technologies, being these under commercial or cooperative frameworks.
  • This is an area that could be construed into incentives or drivers for Parties to raise their level of ambition in their mitigation action. (p5-6)

New Zealand

October 8, 2014 (Elements) “Confirmation that technology transfer and development is important to support Parties, particularly those most in need, to meet their obligations under the agreement.” (p7, October, Elements)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)

“The 2015 agreement must contain global commitments to:  (b) achieve the development and transfer of technology to developing countries to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and to support the implementation of developing country Parties’ individual commitments under this agreement.” (p5)\

“The commitment for the provision of support to developing countries for technology development and transfer must be reflective of the global commitments on mitigation and adaptation in pursuit of the ultimate objective as articulated in Article 2 of the Convention.  The Parties must agree on enabling policy and regulatory framework to facilitate access to technology. The 2015 Agreement must enhance the operation of the Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network.

Individual commitments for developing Parties under Article 4.1 of the Convention

  • The development of Technology Needs Assessments with the support of Annex I Parties; and
  • Commitment to develop national structures, strategies, systems and policies.

Additional individual commitments for Parties with obligations under Article 4.3 and 4.5 of the Convention

  • Commitment to assign and/or buyout a specific technology and license it to developing countries (humanitarian or preferential licensing), patent pools (joint licensing schemes) or programmes, agencies, entities or subsidiary bodies of the

United Nations at preferential rates;

  • Commitment to assign a specific technology and legally pledge not to assert the patent rights against users in specific developing countries using the technology for restricted specific uses of technologies and in specific geographical areas;
  • Acquiring a fully paid up license (no transfer of ownership to country) and making it available (sub-licensing) to developing countries (humanitarian or preferential licensing) or programmes, agencies, entities or subsidiary bodies of the United Nations at preferential rates;
  • Commitment to enhance developing country access to technology through multilateral institutions as a public good;
  • Commitment to a subsidy scheme that ensures partial subsidisation of a license (no transfer of ownership to country) and making it available (sub-licensing) to developing countries or programmes, agencies, entities or subsidiary bodies of theUnited Nations at preferential rates;
  • Commitment to an internationally agreed incentive scheme framework for technology transfer;
  • Commitment to provide technical support for the development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing country Parties;
  • Commitment to provide technical support for the deployment/dissemination of technology;
  • Support for research and development and strengthening the National Systems of Innovation for developing countries;
  • Commitment to enter into cooperative research and development agreements
  • Domestic policy commitments by developed countries to leverage their private sector support;
  • Commitment to make direct financial contributions for research and development for the development of environmentally sound technologies and know-how;
  • Commitment to a technology transfer financial facility through existing or new mechanisms that will support technology transfer vehicles or schemes that will accelerate the tilizeentionn of research to early stage technologies; and
  • Financial support for technology transfer and deployment by developed country Parties”  (p. 6-7)

Back to top

CAPACITY BUILDING

Africa Group

May 31, 2014 (Elements)

June 10, 2014 Capacity Building

  • “Recall Decision 1/CP.17 which identified capacity building as important element of the 2015 Agreement, and Decision 2/CP.7 which created a platform for exchange of views on how to address capacity needs of developing countries, provide for coherence between needs and implementation.
  • Define a mechanism for capacity building under the Convention, which includes institutional arrangements such as a Capacity Building Committee to provide normative guidance to the Convention on capacity related issues, as such informs other mechanisms under the Convention
  • Agree on measurement, reporting and verification of support received for capacity building against needs identified by Parties, and assessment of the effectiveness of implementing capacity building activities including clear performance indicators on an international level.”  (p6-7, May Elements)

“1. Our work on capacity building has progressed, particularly in decision 1/CP.17 which identified capacity building as important element of the 2015 agreement, and 2/CP.17 which created the Durban Forum which is a platform for exchange of views and lessons learned on capacity building. Our work is also guided by decision 2CP/7 on how to address capacity needs of developing countries.

2. Africa views capacity building as cross-cutting in nature, as such requires a more coordinated approach with a view of strengthening both the ability and effectiveness of specific adaptation and mitigation actions aimed at implementing objectives of the Convention, this is rationale for capacity building being treated as a stand-alone chapter.

3. The Africa Group is of the view that a clear linkage between capacity building and other mechanisms of the Convention such as Adaptation, Mitigation, Finance and Technology should be clearly defined in the 2015 Agreement.

4. The current exchange of experiences taking place through the Durban forum require further strengthening and the Africa Group proposes a permanent Capacity Building Committee, addressing,

a) Measurement, reporting and verification of support received for capacity building against needs identified by Parties, such that capacity is not a barrier to implementation beyond 2020

b) Provision for the critical assessment of implementation of the effectiveness of capacity building interventions

  • The institutional arrangements should be established at the earliest, and their operation should begin well ahead of 2020 to make sure that capacity gaps at all implementation levels: i.e. individual, institutional and enabling environment does not become a barrier during the implementation phase of the 2015 agreement.
  • We therefore support the establishment of a Capacity Building Committee under the Convention to facilitate effective implementation at national and regional levels; in line with the existing framework on capacity building for developing countries.” (June, Capacity Building)

Bolivia

June 11, 2014 “We suggest establishing a Mechanism for Climate Resilience and Sustainable Development in order to enhance mitigation and adaptation actions, and sustainable development in a more holistic, comprehensive and integrated way in the context of climate change, and in the context of strengthening the principles and provisions of the Convention equity and CBDR.

General objectives of the Mechanism

The general objective of the Mechanism is to promote mitigation actions together with adaptation co-benefits and sustainable development and poverty eradication for the protection of the integrity of Mother Earth, through the public support for reciprocal recognition of efforts of Parties fostering international assistance and cooperation between developed and developing countries in the context of a non-market-based approach.

International assistance and cooperation is understood in the context of articles 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 and article 11 of the Convention. This implies promoting the effective provision of public finance and technology transfer from Annex II parties to developing country parties through the financial mechanism of the Convention. This must be undertaken reaffirming the principle of sovereignty of States in international cooperation to address climate change. 2

Main outcomes of the Mechanism

The main outcomes of the Mechanism will be related to the generation of mitigation actions jointly with adaptation co-benefits addressing issues of sustainable development and poverty eradication in a comprehensive manner. The mitigation and adaptation outcomes can be monitored through proxies, indicators and standards as appropriate.

The Mechanism is oriented to support developing country parties to enhance mitigation and adaptation actions depending on the financial and technological support they can obtain. Therefore, developing countries can prepare various levels of enhanced action (adaptation, mitigation, capacity building and sustainable development) in line with the various levels of support they can anticipate.

Operational aspects of the Mechanism

The Mechanism will develop its work in a sectorial and programmatic approach considering all sectors of economy, and including energy, industry, human settlements and infrastructure, among others, in accordance with national circumstances and priorities of Parties.

The Mechanism will articulate different instruments and means of implementation, developed or under development in the Convention, to strengthen issues related to the provision of finance, technology transfer and capacity building from developed to developing country Parties.

For Bolivia this is a key instrument in order to promote ensuring the protection of the environmental integrity of Mother Earth whilst taking into account the holistic view of indigenous peoples about the community and nature, and ensuring the non-commodification of the environmental functions of Mother Earth.” (June)

China

March 6, 2014

  • “All Parties to enhance their action on capacity-building to address climate change, with a view to strengthening the implementation of Article 4.1(i), 5 and 6 of the Convention and the Agreed Outcome pursuant to the Bali Action Plan;
  • Developed countries to provide supports in all areas of capacity-building of developing countries, with a view to enhancing the implementation of Article 4.3 and 4.5 of the Convention;
  • Institutional arrangements resulting from the Bali process related to capacity building to be further elaborated in order to enhance the capacity of developing countries, through establishing an international mechanism on capacity building and a window for capacity-building under the GCF.” (p6, March)

LMDCs

March 9, 2014

June 3, 2014

June 11, 2014 (CRP)           

  • “Under the Convention, enhancing capacity building means that it must be effective and sustained over the long-term until developing countries have acquired the capacity to fully implement climate change actions under the Convention. It should not be focused only on mitigation or enhancing MRV of mitigation, but rather must be with respect to all actions that may be undertaken by developing countries under the Convention. Capacity-building to enable development of technologies must be enhanced. Capacity-building should result in enhancing the readiness of developing countries to implement the Convention. It should be demand-driven and based on the needs of developing countries, and be financed and supported by Annex II Parties.
  • Provisions to enhance action on capacity building in developing countries under the Convention should include:
    • Specific and quantified commitments from Annex II Parties to provide adequate and predictable financing and technology for capacity building for developing countries that require it, with the financing to be channeled through the GCF
    • Establishing an international capacity building mechanism to spur enhanced action on capacity building that would be funded by the GCF and whose operations are linked to the work of the TEC and CTCN and the adaptation institutions. Capacity building could focus on enhancing capacity of developing countries to implement mitigation and adaptation actions under the Convention, including human skills training for planning, implementation, and domestic institution building, and technology innovation and development of endogenous technology. There could also be an evaluation mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the delivery of capacity building to developing countries in supporting their implementation of the UNFCCC.” (p8, March)

“Information relating to capacity building:

Developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex II of the Convention

  1. Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, paragraph 48, and its Annex I, paragraphs 13 to 15 and 23, using the relevant common tabular format for such information as provided for in the Annex to decision 19/CP.18

Developing country Parties

  1. Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, Annex III, paragraphs 14 to 16.” (June, CRP)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)  “2015 agreement must contain global commitments to:  (c) enhance capacity in all areas of climate change action to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and to support the implementation of developing country Parties’ individual commitments under this agreement.” (p. 5)

“The framework for capacity-building and the further development of human and institutional capacity in developing countries should be enhanced.” (p. 7)

Back to top

TRANSPARENCY/MRV

Africa Group

May 31, 2014 (Elements)
1. Recall agreement on reporting systems already agreed under the Convention, including National Communications, Biennial Update Reports, the International Assessment and Review and the International Consultation and Analysis as a sound platform for transparency in the agreement through facilitative compliance.

2. Define and provide further guidance to the operational mechanisms of the Convention in accordance with Article 12.1 and 12.2 on transparency in a differentiated manner, including provisions of Article 12.3 on the assessment of finance, technology and capacity building support

3. Recall the periodic review starting in 2013-15 provides a basis from which a review mechanism under the 2015 Agreement should be premised, with the objective of assessing the adequacy of the long term global goal, as well as the progress towards achieving it

4. Define common accounting rules for all the Annex I Parties on their post-2020 emission reduction targets as well as on the commitments on finance and technology support by Annex II Parties.” (p7)

AILAC

March 10, 2014

“Transparency of action and support is cornerstone in the UNFCCC regime. It is a central element to build  confidence  and  trust  in  the  process,  among  parties,  and  in  the  international  community’s efforts to combat climate change. 

The new legally binding agreement should build upon existing transparency arrangements both for action and support, making the most of the progress that has already been achieved in this area.  However, the new regime must be adjusted and based directly on the gap that needs to be closed by the efforts to be made by all parties in order to achieve the Convention’s ultimate objective.

The agreement  should  include at  least  the  following elements  related  to  transparency  of action and support:

  • Elements necessary to guarantee ex-ante clarity on the nature of mitigation commitments by all parties; 
  • Specific  transparency  rules upon which the  nationally  determined  contributions  will  be based;
  • Specific transparency rules on sources of support, the scale of support, the channels and instruments used;
  • A unified MRV system for action and for support, which differentiates within it regarding the requirements on the basis of capacity; within the system, countries would evolve over time, as their capacity is enhanced, from the lower to the higher end of the transparency requirements;
  • A mechanism to periodically review nationally defined contributions (on all issues) based on science and respective capacities.” (p9, March)

“68. The 2015 Agreement should build upon the current MRV system in place. Transparency of action

69. On the MRV of action system, the current system based on the two mechanisms of ICA and IAR is a good basis for the future system. Both should tend to integrate into a single, dynamic system, which includes the provision of necessary support for countries to progressively enhance their data collection and analysis capacities.

70. Adequate common accounting provisions must be included, in order to ensure the robustness of the MRV system, and its usefulness to assess the progress towards the global goal on mitigation and the compliance of each country with its committed contributions. The accounting provisions should ensure:

- Certainty in the treatment of the land use sector

- That the methodologies used ensure environmental integrity

- That there is no double counting of emissions reductions

71. The MRV of action system should be entirely applicable to the content of the committed contributions, as inscribed in the country contribution documents.  Transparency on the provision of support

72. The MRV of support system is currently much less developed than that of the MRV of action. The 2015 Agreement should include a reference to an internationally agreed methodology for tracking financial flows, including information of donors and recipient countries.

73. An MRV system of financial flows should be based on a common agreed definition of climate finance, to avoid double counting of resources for development activities, mitigation and adaptation action, as well as public and private resources invested.

74. Finally, the 2015 Agreement needs to include an explicit link between the MRV of action and of support systems and the Compliance Mechanism. The MRV system should serve as a trigger for the Compliance Mechanism to enter into action when non-compliance becomes evident as an output of the MRV system.” (p16-17, September)

Australia

May 28, 2014

 “Nationally determined contributions should be supported by a rule-based architecture that promotes transparency, consistency and environmental integrity. This should comprise:

Basic common parameters that help promote consistent tracking of efforts: a common end date (such as 2030); use of metrics and methodologies from latest IPCC guidance;

A common measurement, reporting and verification framework, founded on regular preparation of national inventories, streamlined reporting and international review

-  Rules for land sector accounting that treat the land sector comparably to other sectors in making a contribution towards countries’ commitments; incentivise real abatement; recognise emissions and removals; and exclude non-anthropogenic emissions;

Rules for international market mechanisms that ensure environmental integrity and prevent double counting, if countries choose to use such mechanisms.”  (p2)

Canada

June 6, 2014  

“The core legal text should outline the commitments that will ensure transparency and that comparability of Parties’ progress toward their contributions remains as simple as possible, and allow for flexibility. Among the key provisions related to transparency and accounting, the core legal text should include the following:

• A commitment for all Parties to participate in a common transparency and accounting framework which would allow for visibility of Parties’ GHG emissions and action to address climate change;

• A commitment for all Parties to regularly report on their progress toward their nationally determined contributions in line with a common set of reporting guidelines;

• A commitment for all Parties to participate in regular review of this progress; and

• A commitment for Parties using market mechanisms to regularly report on the tracking of carbon units traded between Parties to ensure transparency of effort, in particular that they deliver real, permanent, additional and verified mitigation outcomes.

Specific details of this framework would need to be elaborated from 2016-2020, taking into account lessons learned through existing processes and provisions, in particular the submission of biennial reports and biennial update reports, and the process of international assessment and review and international consultation and analysis. In accordance with current reporting measures, the transparency and accounting framework for the post-2020 period should also encompass reporting on adaptation and means of implementation. The 2015 core agreement could mandate the COP to undertake work to develop guidelines for reporting and review provisions under this common framework.” (p. 2)

China

March 6, 2014

“According to Article 12 of the Convention and the Agreed Outcome pursuant to the Bali Action Plan on the issue of transparency, information provided by Parties shall be differentiated between developed and developing country Parties, and guided by relevant guidelines for National Communications.” (p. 2)

  • “All Parties to enhance the implementation of Article 4.1(a), 4.1(j) and 12.1 of the Convention after 2020, based on the arrangements resulting from the Bali process;
  • Developed country Parities to enhance the MRV of mitigation as well as the provisions of finance, technology and capacity-building support to developing country Parties based on the National Communication, BR and IAR as well as rules under the Kyoto Protocol, with a view to enhancing the implementation of Article 12.2 and 12.3 of the Convention. Common templates and common accounting rules to apply to all developed country Parties on their mitigation and provisions of finance, technology and capacity-building support to developing country Parties;
  • Supported by developed country Parties in term of finance, technology and capacity-building, developing country Parties to increase the transparency of their enhanced actions through National Communication, BUR, registry and ICA in a manner that is non-intrusive, non-punitive and respecting national sovereignty.” (p7, March)

Coalition for Rainforest Nations

June 4, 2014                        

“A common methodological framework for reporting of achieved mitigation goals should be included in the 2015 agreement and be based on good practices as per IPCC guidelines.”  (para. 15)

EIG

June 5, 2014   “A robust rules based system applicable to all Parties is of utmost importance for transparency, comparability and as driver of global ambition. To these aims, the 2015 Agreement must be based on one common set of rules for all Parties but at different depths in terms of type, stringency, and timing among other according to CBDR/RC and equity.

The following elements are crucial to a rules based system under the 2015 Agreement:

Core characteristics of contributions: the n.d.c. of all Parties are to be quantifiable, are to have the same end year, and their implementation is to be guaranteed by concrete and effective domestic laws, policies and measures.

Accounting rules applicable to all Parties: all Parties shall use in accounting emissions and removals towards their n.d.c. an agreed common set of metrics and methodologies and a common accounting framework for the land sector has to be built. Building on the experiences and approaches taken by Parties to date, the following common key rules need to be set for the post-2020 contributions:

- common principles for the land sector: comprehensive land sector approach to reporting and accounting for all lands, based on IPCC guidance, moving when capacity permits to 2006 guidelines, exploring quality standards and striving for comparability, constant improvement of methods, data collection and analysis including by moving higher from IPCC tier 1, transparency and thorough review processes, capacity building and support;

- core guidance on setting mitigation types such as “business as usual” (BAU) target, intensity target, etc.

- all sectors and gases with significant impact on the atmosphere (as agreed) are to be reflected in the contributions, including the categories of the land sector such as forests and agriculture;

- differentiated MRV requirements for different type of mitigation commitments or actions and for different capabilities of Parties

The 2015 Agreement further is to include provisions to improve accounting rules over time

Reporting rules applicable to all Parties: all Parties shall use for reporting their emissions and removals the same agreed set of guidelines. Respective UNFCCC guidelines are to be developed by 2020.” (p. 2, June)

EU

March 2, 2014

May 28, 2014

“17. In Warsaw all Parties recognised that fulfilling the ultimate objective of the Convention will require the strengthening of the multilateral rules based regime.

18. In that context it is essential that the 2015 Agreement contains a robust set of rules on MRV,  accounting (including in relation to the land sector as well as the use of market mechanisms) and compliance in order to promote transparency, comparability and confidence in the new regime. As there will be a variety of commitment types, rules will have to be adapted to different commitment types, taking into account countries' capabilities. The 2015 Agreement should also contain procedures to regularly revisit and enable Parties to raise the ambition of their own mitigation commitment in a timely manner in order to ensure that we collectively stay on track for below 2°C.

19. Such a rules based system will ensure that the 2015 Agreement serves to ensure mutual confidence that all Parties deliver on what they have promised to do, and that we collectively remain on track to deliver the below 2?C objective. As such a robust rules base in the 2015 Agreement is in the interest of all Parties.

20. Working towards a rules based 2015 Agreement must therefore also be a priority of the ADP in 2014.” (p5, March)

“15. Decision 1/CP19 emphasised the importance of strengthening the multilateral rules based regime in the context of the 2015 Agreement  ? which will be applicable to all Parties. The 2015 Agreement should therefore establish a legally?binding framework based on clear rules related to accounting and monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions, as well as a link to a system of compliance (the rules based regime).

16. The main objective of the rules based regime should be to create the basis for tracking progress towards the achievement of mitigation commitments in a way that creates transparency, enables comparability and avoids double counting of effort.  

17. In order to promote trust and confidence, the rules based regime must be fair and based on transparency and accountability. This can only be achieved through clear internationally agreed rules. Fairness would be achieved because the rules that apply to each Party should follow from the INDC it chooses and should reflect its capability and national circumstances.

18. Some rules should be common to all commitment types, such as the use of common metrics and methodologies, and a common approach to the length of commitment period. Certain commitment types should also have their own specific rules in order to reduce uncertainties and increase confidence in the level of ambition proposed. For example, rules for business as usual projections and reporting of GDP for emissions intensity based commitments.   

The rules based regime should be strengthened as follows:

  • At COP 21 the 2015 Agreement should establish:
    • the key elements and principles to ensure we have clear a rules base, such as in relation to: common metrics and methodologies; the obligation to report information and the basis for review; the approach to the length of commitment periods; and the land sector
    • the principles guiding the design of a compliance regime that will facilitate and encourage implementation of Parties' commitments  
  • Accompanying decisions at COP21 should set out the rules related to the accounting of emissions and removals in the land sector.  
  • Decisions at COP 21 should also set out work programmes for the further elaboration and implementation of the rules based regime, including for example in relation to the use of markets, and the details of the monitoring, reporting and verification. These work programmes should be completed as soon as possible after COP 21 to provide sufficient time for the full implementation of the 2015 Agreement from 2020.” (p5)

Japan

May 14, 2014  “With an effective transparency mechanism for ex-ante consultation as well as ex-post international evaluation and review of the performance, each Party is subject to an international review in a comparable manner which allows other Parties to estimate the progress in global emission reduction. Ex-ante consultation and ex-post international evaluation and review can be implemented in the following way, for example, as Japan proposed in its submission in September 2013.” (p2)

LDCs

17 March 2014

“The mechanisms put in place need to be designed and made operational in such a way that they produce real, verifiable, and additional emission reductions, ensure environmental integrity and are subject to international verification and oversight.

Such mechanisms should generate new and additional revenue streams to support adaptation actions, low carbon development, and support regulatory frameworks in developing countries. Therefore, a robust measuring, reporting, and verification system that includes a compliance mechanism is needed to ensure this can be delivered. International oversight is essential to better track implementation of commitments, including support provided and received through transparent,

consistent, comparable, complete and accurate accounting. A compliance regime is essential to enable all Parties, as well as the global community, the means to assess if the future regime will meet its obligations. Furthermore, the regime should not undermine or lower the MRV provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.” (p6, March)

LMDCs

March 9, 2014

June 3, 2014           

  • “Transparency of action and support will be a key element in the ADP outcome. Under the Convention, Art. 10.2(a), 10.2(b), 12.1 and 12.2 provide the basis for transparency in a manner that is differentiated between developed and developing countries.
  • Transparency institutional arrangements with respect to mitigation commitments have been built up under the Convention, including the system for national communications as well as BRs and IAR for developed countries aiming to enhance the comparability and implementation of their commitments and BURs and ICA for developing countries in a manner that is non-intrusive, non-punitive and respectful of national sovereignty (under paragraph 63 of Cancun Decision). Enhancing transparency of the implementation of Annex I Parties’ mitigation commitments should be on the basis of enhanced procedures for comparability (e.g. more frequent reporting, standardized format, common accounting framework with common base year and expressed in tons CO2eq, projections of emission trajectories/pathways). Transparency of non-Annex I Parties’ mitigation actions can be done in accordance with current procedures set up under 1/CP.16 and 2/CP.17, as these involve new procedures and mechanisms that should be given the opportunity to be fully implemented.
  • Enhancements are needed with respect to the transparency of the provision of support to developing countries, including financing and technology transfer. Provisions on the MRV of support provided by developed country Parties to developing countries should be an integral part of the 2015 agreed outcome.
  • There should be a provision to integrate the established mechanisms for the MRV of the provision of financing and technology from Annex II parties, including enhanced procedures for comparability (e.g. more frequent reporting, standardized format, common metrics including common currency). Such an MRV mechanism for the provision of support is a key element in ensuring that finance and technology commitments are being fulfilled by Annex II Parties and that there is a comparability of efforts between themselves with respect to the provision of support to developing countries under the Convention.” (p10, March)
  • “Transparency arrangements to be differentiated between developed and developing country Parties based on the Convention, with Annex I Parties to be subject to enhanced MRV for comparability and non-Annex I Parties use MRV procedures set up under Cancun and Durban
  • MRV of support provided by developed countries to developing countries to be further enhanced

40. Transparency of action and support will be a key element in the ADP outcome. Under the Convention, Articles 10.2(a), 10.2(b), 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 provide the basis for transparency in a manner that is differentiated between developed and developing country Parties.

41. Transparency institutional arrangements with respect to mitigation commitments have been built up under the Convention, including the system for national communications as well as BRs and IAR for developed countries aiming to enhance the comparability and implementation of their commitments and BURs and ICA for developing countries in a manner that is non-intrusive, non-punitive and respectful of national sovereignty (under paragraph 63 of Cancun Decision). Enhancing transparency of the implementation of Annex I Parties’ mitigation commitments should be on the basis of enhanced procedures for comparability (e.g. more frequent reporting, standardized format, common accounting framework with common base year and expressed in tons CO2eq, projections of emission trajectories/pathways). Transparency of non-Annex I Parties’ mitigation actions can be done in accordance with current procedures set up under Decisions 1/CP.16 and 2/CP.17, as these involve new procedures and mechanisms that should be given the opportunity to be fully implemented.

42. Enhancements are needed with respect to the transparency of the provision of support to developing countries, including financing and technology transfer. Provisions on the MRV of support provided by developed country Parties to developing countries should be an integral part of the 2015 agreed outcome.

43. There should be a provision to integrate the established mechanisms for the MRV of the provision of financing and technology from developed country Parties, including enhanced procedures for comparability (e.g. more frequent reporting, standardized format, common metrics including common currency). Such an MRV mechanism for the provision of support is a key element in ensuring that finance and technology commitments are being fulfilled by Annex II Parties and that there is a comparability of efforts between themselves with respect to the provision of support to developing countries under the Convention.” (p9, June)

Mexico

May 29, 2014 The agreement should “include ex ante clarity and comparability on the commitments adopted” (p1) and “[e]nhance transparency.” (p2)

“The 2015 Agreement should incorporate [transparency of action and support] as a thematic area, although it should be applicable to every other element.

  • Transparency is an obligation, but there is need to tailor the measurement, reporting and verification procedures to diverse commitments.
  • Building upon existing provisions for MRV, an improved set of accounting rules must be used by different sectors and under defined criteria.
  • MRV is essential to assess progress towards the overall objective of the Convention. However, there should be common and differentiated aspects for LDCs and SIDS.” (p7)

New Zealand

March 12, 2014  “Ultimately rules serve to encourage ambition, to ensure consistency and therefore comparability of effort, and to enable accurate assessment of collective progress toward the global goal. Wherever the balance is set between top-down and bottom-up drivers for the agreement, there must be boundaries on the flexibility allowed. Amongst these key caveats, we see the following as critical:

  • a requirement for full transparency – inventory reporting across all sectors, with the inbuilt flexibility the IPCC Guidelines provide; up-front information on where a Party departs from agreed rules for mitigation/reporting/accounting, explanation of why it is necessary to do so, the quantitative impact of the variance (if applicable), and whether it is time-bound;” (para. 21, March)

Transparency

“To agree and implement a universal transparency framework, including:

(1) National inventories to be prepared and submitted by all Parties following IPCC guidelines

(2) Reports on progress towards national mitigation commitments prepared and submitted, applying:

(i) common metrics for conversion of greenhouse gases, as adopted by the Parties,

(ii) land sector accounting approaches consistent with agreed principles for this purpose (see attached Annex);

iii) rules applicable to Parties that elect to participate in carbon market activity for purposes of meeting their mitigation commitment, as required to ensure units are generated and traded in ways consistent with the environmental integrity, transparency and effectiveness of the agreement (for example processes to ensure additionality and to prevent double counting);

(iv) rules to encourage over-achievement and to enable carry-over of surplus units/mitigation from one commitment cycle to the next; and

(3) International peer review of such reports, frequency of which could be differentiated according to global share of emissions.” (p4, October, Elements)

Accountability

“To implement all commitments made under this agreement and, as required, to cooperate with any mechanism agreed to assist Parties to maintain compliance.” (p4, October, Elements)

Norway

March 6, 2014

“An important added value of an international agreement is that it demonstrates participation by all and builds necessary trust that others are acting. In that regard, it is crucial that the agreement has scientifically sound and robust provisions for monitoring, reporting and verifying how Parties fulfil and meet their commitments.  

  • An added value of an international agreement is to have one common system. However, Parties will have different kinds of mitigation commitments, with different scope and depth. Therefore, there is a need for flexibility to allow for appropriate reporting and measurement of progress, according to the kind of mitigation commitment in question. 

  • There are three areas where common international approaches should be elaborated:

    • How to estimate and report emissions, to ensure that a ton is a ton. Here, we can build on the national greenhouse gas inventories and the current system, but develop it into one common rule set.

  • A common framework for how to account for emissions and removals from forest and land use. In our view, we should take an approach where all emissions and removals of GHG are treated as equally as possible based on the best available scientific knowledge, while being flexible, transparent and predictable.
  • Rules and frameworks to keep track of the use of market based mechanisms, and qualify international carbon credits used to meet commitments. The international setup must ensure that there is no double claiming of credits.” (p3-4, March)

Russia

April 30, 2014   “The new international legal instrument should be steadfastly based on clearly-defined rules: monitoring, reporting, verification and compliance. The use of market mechanisms might considerably increase climate efforts’ effectiveness.”  (p2)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)

May 30, 2014 (INDCs)                

“Individual commitments for all Parties pursuant to Article 4.1 of the Convention

To enhance the implementation of the provisions of Article 4.1(a) of the Convention:

  • All commitments, targets and actions will be measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV);
  • Rules related to targets or actions should include underlying assumptions and methodologies, sectors and gases covered, GWP values used, use of credits from a new market mechanism (to be agreed); and estimated mitigation outcomes;” (p4, Elements)

“Use of existing transparency provisions (national communications; biennial reports and biennial update reports; international assessment and review, and international consultation and analysis” (p5, Elements)

“The rules regarding accounting for ICIs, particularly the extent to which credit can be given for actions outside a country’s territory, should be made clear.” (p7, Elements)

“Accounting rules, including those relating to base year, sectors, sources and gases, length of commitment, type of commitment, should be included in the 2015 agreement, referencing existing decisions under the Convention. While the aim should be to move to common rules over time, flexibility should be given to developing countries to select from menus containing different options, with standardisation of how chosen options are applied.

Base years should not change through the period for which a commitment is set. Baselines or projections of business-as-usual, if they are used at all, can similarly not be changed during a budget period.

Minimum information also needs to be agreed for Parties’ intended nationally determined contributions on adaptation and means of implementation.” (p. 6, INDCs)

Switzerland

March 4, 2014

“PROVISIONS FOR COMMON ACCOUNTING APPROACHES - The 2015 Agreement is to include provisions for common approaches to be used by all Parties in accounting of greenhouse gas emissions towards their commitments, respecting the differentiated capabilities of Parties as necessary. The 2015 Agreement is to acknowledge the relevance of common accounting approaches to ensure environmental integrity by excluding double accounting of emission reductions and facilitating transparency and comparability. Further, as an enduring instrument, the 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt such common accounting approaches for all Parties, including in regard to inventory methodologies, global warming potentials and timeframes, sectors and gases covered, accounting of transferrable units and accounting in the land sector. Finally, the 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt further guidance, respecting the differentiated capabilities and national circumstances of Parties, including for setting the references of commitments, for establishing projections, for defining reference years, and for the use of non- GHG metrics in commitments, as necessary. The COP is to initiate such work [X] years prior to the end year of Parties’ previous commitments.

  • Given the ongoing domestic preparations for the contributions to be presented early 2015, any further guidance on common approaches in accounting relevant for these contributions needs to be adopted by COP20 (2014, Lima). Cognisant of the very little time remaining for such common approaches to be identified, the focus should lay on the very key elements for comparability and environmental integrity such as inventory methodologies, global warming potentials and timeframes and provisions ensuring no double accounting of transferrable units, and general provisions regarding coverage of sectors, including the land sector, and gases.

PROVISIONS FOR COMMON REGULAR REPORTING AND VERIFICATION - The 2015 Agreement is to include provisions common to all Parties, differentiated in depth of reporting, to regularly report on emissions by sources and removals by sink of all greenhouse gases as well as on progress in the implementation of their commitments and the effects thereof on greenhouse gas emissions. The 2015 Agreement is further to include provisions for the reports of all Parties to be subject to common international review (verification). The 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt and regularly revise reporting and review guidelines used by and applying to all Parties. The first set of above mentioned reporting and review guidelines should be adopted before 2020.

  • To build on the experiences from the ongoing biennial reports, biennial update reports and international assessment and review (IAR) and international consultation and analysis (ICA), work on guidelines for post-2020 should only be initiated in 2016/17 and the guidelines adopted before 2020.” (p2)

PROVISIONS TO REGULARLY REPORT AND SHARE PROGRESS AND EXPERIENCES - The 2015 Agreement is to include provisions for all Parties to regularly report, respecting the differentiated capabilities of Parties, on their efforts in preparing for adaptation action to the adverse effects of climate change and on their cooperation in view to enhance resilience and adaptive capacity to the adverse effects of climate change of all Parties and in particular of the most vulnerable. Further, as an enduring instrument, the 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt further guidance on such reporting and to further facilitate sharing of progress and experiences in the preparation and implementation of adaptation actions.

  • Reporting in adaptation should build on the gained experiences and not be burdensome. The COP should further facilitate sharing of progress and experiences in the preparation and implementation of adaptation actions, particularly in regard to adaptation strategies and plans, in international cooperation, involvement of the private sector, and capacity building. (p4)

Back to top

COMPLIANCE

AILAC

March 10, 2014 “Given that AILAC confirms its understanding that the new agreement will be legally binding, due attention must be given to the definition of a robust compliance mechanism.” (p9)

“75. The Compliance Mechanism should be embedded in the 2015 Agreement and should prioritize facilitative measures, in particular for developing country Parties, but could also include sanctions for recurring non-compliance with international obligations.

76. The establishment of a robust Compliance Mechanism will contribute to building trust amongst Parties and will help to avoid the creation of competitive advantages for the Parties in non-compliance.

77. The Mechanism should be non-confrontational, transparent, cost-effective and preventive in nature; it should also be simple, flexible, binding and oriented towards assisting Parties in implementing the provisions of the Agreement as well as enforcing them.

78. While compliance is not equivalent to MRV, and the two must be clearly distinguished, the outputs of the MRV system that is applicable to the actions covered by the Agreement should be an input and one of the options to trigger the Compliance Mechanism, amongst other possible triggers, such as the ex-post review process foreseen for committed country contributions.

79. The Compliance Mechanism should be applicable to all obligations under the Agreement, including the committed contributions on mitigation and on the provision of finance by Annex II Parties taking into account the principles of non-backsliding and gradual scale-up. Committed contributions on adaptation would not be subject to the Compliance Mechanism.” (p17, September)

Coalition for Rainforest Nations

June 4, 2014  “A robust and solid compliance mechanism should be established.”  (para. 18)

Mexico

May 29, 2014  “The 2015 Agreement should incorporate a compliance mechanism to allow for the periodic review of progress in the fulfillment of commitments, which should be of a facilitative nature and with the objective of assessing the incremental performance and effectiveness of measures with respect to scientific information and facilitate the up-scaling of efforts.”  (p2)

Russia

April 30, 2014 “The new international legal instrument should be steadfastly based on clearly-defined rules: monitoring, reporting, verification and compliance.” (p. 3)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)

“In 2030 Parties will be required to show compliance with their individual commitments, which will be subject to a compliance mechanism to be agreed by the Conference of the Parties.”  (p. 9)

Back to top

 MARKET MECHANISMS

Australia

May 28, 2014 “Rules for international market mechanisms that ensure environmental integrity and prevent double counting, if countries choose to use such mechanisms.” (p. 2)

Canada

June 6, 2014  “Furthermore, the agreement should stipulate that market mechanisms should meet standards of environmental integrity and avoid double-counting.” (p. 1)

New Zealand

March 12, 2014 An essential element to the new agreement is “confirmation of an optional right to use carbon markets;” (para. 8(d)) and “a common obligation to apply agreed accounting rules to national, sectoral or sub-sectoral targets and carbon market activity as required to ensure environmental integrity and effectiveness;” (para. 8(e))

“Flexibility to opt into agreed rules

1. If the right to use markets to fulfil commitments is reflected in a rule or norm, that rule could build in requirements to ensure:

a. Conformance to agreed minimum standards or guidelines that provide assurances of environmental integrity of units generated, with full transparency; and

b. Use of agreed transaction tracking procedures to ensure units are not double-counted.” (p. 8, March)

Norway

March 6, 2014

“The agreement should allow Parties to use international carbon credits to meet their commitments, under conditions that ensure no double claiming, real emission reductions and sound governance. 

Carbon markets can also be an effective instrument for providing international support to countries with limited capabilities.” (p. 4, March)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)

May 30, 2014 (INDCs)                

“New market-based mechanism.” (p. 5, Elements)

“A detailed set of rules for flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol has been developed. The development of rules for a new market mechanism (NMM) under the Framework for Various Approaches has been limited. Whether credits from other market mechanism outside of the Convention can be counted towards commitments has eluded agreement. If common accounting methodologies are not applied, much effort may be wasted in seeking to reconcile tons to tons in multiple different fora. A multilateral rules-based approach will be more efficient.

In relation to a NMM under the Convention, the rules need to clearly indicate what may be counted towards mitigation commitments, targets and actions. A multilateral rules-based system is essential to avoid double-counting: of tons between countries, and also of contributions to finance and mitigation. For all mechanisms, the clarity and transparency of information ex ante will be essential.

In relation to market mechanisms, the issues of banking of credits for use in future periods has been defined for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. Banking would need to be addressed under new mechanisms under the Convention. Proposals to recognise ‘early action’, whether from market mechanisms or not, will also need to address this issue.

Any use of international off-sets should be subject to a 10% supplementarity limit, to ensure environmental integrity through domestic action.” (p5, INDCs)

Back to top

 SHARED/LONG-TERM VISION (GUIDING ELEMENTS)

Africa Group

April 30, 2014

May 31, 2014 (Elements)        

“It is the Group’s view that a fair agreement should address both the mitigation and associated adaptation needs within a context of temperature increase that does not exceed 1.5°C by the end of this century. It is within the constraint of the temperature goal that, a global goal for emission reductions and a goal for adaptation must be defined, enabling the understanding of the associated finance and technology goals.  These goals will therefore comprise the general aggregate commitment by all Parties informed by science, bearing in mind that these actions should not result in the diversion of the developing countries resources from realizing their priorities in poverty eradication and in achieving sustainable development.” (para. 6, April)

“In the context of the ultimate objective of the Convention and Article 4.1, developing countries have a responsibility to act, with the extent to which they can fulfill their commitments depending on the degree to which developed countries fulfill their commitments, particularly to finance and technology transfer commitments where the time-bound delivery of the support shall be inscribed.”  (para. 9, April)

“1. In accordance with Article 2 of the Convention the agreement should address both the mitigation and associated adaptation needs in a context of agreed temperature goal that does not lead to dangerous anthropogenic interference

2. Affirm the agreed temperature goal of keeping temperature increase well below 1.5°C from pre-industrial levels, based on the review as contemplated in paragraph 4 and 138 of decision 1/CP.16” (p3, May)

AILAC

March 10, 2014                 

“In this context, the focus of the new legally binding agreement should be on options and actions that  all  countries  can  pursue  in  order  to  pursue  sustainable  development  pathways compatible with climate protection. The  climate-friendly economy  is about addressing development needs while  mitigating  GHG  emissions so  as  to  avoid  catastrophic  climate  change.  The  new  legally binding  agreement  should  set  the  conditions  for  a  global  economy  of  growth  that  is  climate sensitive: a  ‘Climate Global Economy’.” (p2)

“75. The Compliance Mechanism should be embedded in the 2015 Agreement and should prioritize facilitative measures, in particular for developing country Parties, but could also include sanctions for recurring non-compliance with international obligations.

76. The establishment of a robust Compliance Mechanism will contribute to building trust amongst Parties and will help to avoid the creation of competitive advantages for the Parties in non-compliance.

77. The Mechanism should be non-confrontational, transparent, cost-effective and preventive in nature; it should also be simple, flexible, binding and oriented towards assisting Parties in implementing the provisions of the Agreement as well as enforcing them.

78. While compliance is not equivalent to MRV, and the two must be clearly distinguished, the outputs of the MRV system that is applicable to the actions covered by the Agreement should be an input and one of the options to trigger the Compliance Mechanism, amongst other possible triggers, such as the ex-post review process foreseen for committed country contributions.

79. The Compliance Mechanism should be applicable to all obligations under the Agreement, including the committed contributions on mitigation and on the provision of finance by Annex II Parties taking into account the principles of non-backsliding and gradual scale-up. Committed contributions on adaptation would not be subject to the Compliance Mechanism.” (p17, September)

Coalition for Rainforest Nations

June 4, 2014

“The latest scientific information, including the findings of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), should be taken into consideration and the global greenhouse gas emissions commitment to be set at a level that would maintain global temperature well below 1.5C.” (para. 7)

EU

May 28, 2014

“However, the IPCC report also gives us hope. If we act collectively, urgently and at the global level we can achieve the below 2°C objective ? and do so in a manner that promotes sustainable economic growth, as well as co?benefits in areas such as air quality and human health, energy security and resilience, ecosystem impacts, and sufficiency of resources. Scenarios consistent with a likely chance of achieving the below 2?C objective require GHG emissions in 2050 to be 40% to 70% lower than levels in 2010, and with net emissions levels near zero, or below, in 2100.  (para. 2)

“In addition to INDCs it is essential that the process before COP21, as well as the substance of the  2015 Agreement, add value 

in a way that ensures we stay on track to meet the below 2°C objective.” (para. 9)

“In order to achieve the below 2°C objective:  

  • INDCs should reflect, in type and ambition, the responsibilities and capabilities of the Party concerned. Parties with the greatest responsibilities and capabilities should come forward with INDCs in the form of economy?wide absolute targets relative to a historical base year (economy?wide absolute targets) ? including those Parties that currently have such commitments pre 2020 to ensure that there is no backsliding. Whilst other types of commitment might be appropriate for Parties with fewer responsibilities and less capability, all Parties should aspire, over time, to eventually having economy?wide absolute targets because they provide the greatest certainty on emissions reductions while giving Parties flexibility on how to achieve those reductions
  • INDCs should be accompanied with up front information to ensure they are transparent, quantifiable and comparable
  • There should be an international process before COP 21 to consider how all submitted INDCs bring us closer to the below 2°C objective
  • INDCs should be included in the 2015 Agreement in the form of mitigation commitments that are legally binding  
  • The 2015 Agreement should:  
  • set out a long term goal that, in line with the findings of the IPCC, ensures an aggregate emission pathway consistent with having at least a likely chance of ensuring that the 2°C objective is achieved
  • contain mitigation commitments from all Parties that are legally binding and provide the framework in which Parties will fulfil those commitments  
  • further strengthen the multilateral rules?based regime through provisions on MRV, accounting and compliance
  • set out a mechanism to regularly consider the level of global ambition represented by mitigation commitments in order for Parties to raise their own ambition in a timely manner should they wish to do so and if necessary to stay on track to achieve the below 2°C objective
  • catalyse real action by all types of stakeholders, taking into account results from ADP Workstream 2” (p. 3)

Japan

May 14, 2014 “The 2015 agreement should be durable by appropriately reflecting current and future evolutions of the international community. Therefore, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) in Article 3.1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”) has to be interpreted in a dynamic context. Also, in the 2015 agreement, it is important to take into account a long-term perspective in pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as well as the latest scientific findings including the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.” (para. 2)

Mexico

May 29, 2014 “The 2015 Agreement should be informed by science and designed to deliver the objective of the Convention: stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to avoid dangerous climate change.

It also should provide adequate flexibility for national circumstances, be rules-based, include ex ante clarity and comparability on the commitments adopted, and incorporate a mechanism that allows for the evolution of its provisions and adapts to changing conditions, both in terms of scientific findings as well as in levels of development of countries, as a way to gradually increase the collective and individual level of ambition oriented to reach the above mentioned objective of the Convention.

Mexico proposes to entrust a group of legal experts to draw a list of instruments that have an evolutionary gene which works without being subject to the rigorous process of amendments that require parliamentary approval, such as in the areas of trade law, certain environmental agreements, and illicit drugs. One alternative could be annexes that can be updated on a regular basis.” (p. 1)

Norway

March 6, 2014

“Our starting point is that the 2015 agreement should be guided by the two degree target, and be based on the most recent  scientific knowledge. The agreement needs to build in a science?based approach and allow adjustments over time.”  (p1, March)

New Zealand

October 8, 2014 (Elements)

“Global goal – mitigation: Agreement to an aspirational global mitigation goal of ensuring any increase in global temperature due to climate change is below 2 degrees Celsius; and one or more complementary secondary goals (for example: reducing global CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050, global carbon neutrality phase out of fossil fuel subsidies).” (p6, October, Elements)

Global goal – adaptation: Agreement to an aspirational goal of ensuring preparedness for the unavoidable impacts of climate change and resilience in the face of future uncertainties about those impacts.” (p6, October, Elements)

Russia

April 30, 2014

“The common goal of all the Parties to the UNFCCC is to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels.

Due involvement of all countries (with no exception and, first and foremost, of major GHG-emitters) in a climate solution which takes into the realities of the 21st century is the strategic objective. The future climate regime should be comprehensive in nature, universal in its membership and should provide equal opportunity for the socio-economic development of all states, while not creating unfair competition for business.” (p1)

“The commitment period of the new instrument should be sufficiently long for countries to implement needed socio-economic measures and introduce relevant technologies: 10 years. The current base year of 1990 should be maintained as a baseline. This will foster continuity and consistency between the new climate regime and the UNFCCC/KP.” (p. 2)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)

“The objective of the 2015 agreement should be to strengthen the multilateral rules-based system by enhancing implementation of climate change action to achieve the objective in Article 2 of the Convention, i.e. the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

In order to achieve the objective of the Convention, the 2015 agreement should elaborate further commitments that would limit average global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to ensure that adaptation commitments are commensurate with the emission reduction commitments.” (p. 2)

“A long term global goal for emission reductions in the form of a global trajectory to reach 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 which, in order to be credible and fair, must be based on ambitious mid-term targets and actions and an equitable burden-sharing paradigm.” (p. 4)

“Zero carbon emissions pathways should peak by 2015, start declining rapidly up to 2030, and define a long-term goal of zero emissions for each Party in 2050.” (p. 4)

Back to top

UPDATING COMMITMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS

Africa Group

May 31, 2014 (Elements)        

Define “a process for regular update of those quantified commitments.” (p3)

“Agree and define an ex-ante mechanism to facilitate fairness and adequacy of contributions by various Parties in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities towards the achievement of the global goals, including to provisions of support provided by developed countries.”  (p4)

AILAC

September 24, 2014

“12. Once a process of ex-ante evaluation is realized (which may give place to adjustments in the contributions), the contribution of each country should be inscribed in a Repository of all country contributions, to be held by the Agreement’s depositary.” (p3)

EU

May 28, 2014 The 2015 agreement should “set out a mechanism to regularly consider the level of global ambition represented by mitigation commitments in order for Parties to raise their own ambition in a timely manner should they wish to do so and if necessary to  stay on track to achieve the below 2°C objective” (p3)

ADP must make urgent progress on “a mechanism in the 2015 Agreement to regularly revisit the collective level of ambition;” (p1)

Mexico

May 29, 2014                      

“It also should provide adequate flexibility for national circumstances, be rules-based, include ex ante clarity and comparability on the commitments adopted, and incorporate a mechanism that allows for the evolution of its provisions and adapts to changing conditions, both in terms of scientific findings as well as in levels of development of countries, as a way to gradually increase the collective and individual level of ambition oriented to reach the above mentioned objective of the Convention.” (p1)

New Zealand

March 12, 2014             

An element central to the agreement is “an obligation on each Party to increase the ambition of its commitment over time, and - where a Party has opted out of any of the broad parameters agreed for nationally determined commitments - to align with these parameters as national circumstances allow;” (para. 8(c))

Critical is “an expectation that each Party’s initial commitment will establish a benchmark, and that over time a Party will increase its commitment and, if a Party has utilised built-in flexibility, move toward full conformity with the rules or norms set out in the agreement as its national circumstances allow. This direction of travel is important for the effectiveness of the agreement. We would not contemplate countries moving backward except when required by force majeure.” (para. 21, March)

Russia

April 30, 2014                    

“The commitment period of the new instrument should be sufficiently long for countries to implement needed socio-economic measures and introduce relevant technologies: 10 years. The current base year of 1990 should be maintained as a baseline. This will foster continuity and consistency between the new climate regime and the UNFCCC/KP.” (p2)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (INDCs)                                      

“In preparation for this ex ante assessment, the secretariat should compile a technical paper on the aggregate effect of Parties’ contributions, the fairness of their relative efforts, the level of ambition and the gap. Parties’ intended nationally determined contributions (as provisionally inscribed) would then be referred to separate technical body that would examine the adequacy and fairness of the contributions. This information would be made public for transparency purposes and to aid understanding of the individual and collective efforts. This will be considered as part of an ex ante assessment process by Parties designed to allow for the scrutiny and comparison by peers and recommendations for adjustments in order to increase ambition in a consultative, non-threatening and non-prescriptive manner. It allows for collective evaluation to determine whether the package of contributions would be sufficient to address the gaps and it may help to ratchet up ambition. The assessment would be carried out through joint sessions of the subsidiary bodies in June 2016. The assessment process can call for expert input, and should also draw on the outcomes of the 2013-2015 Review. The subsidiary bodies shall report to the COP in 2016 on the outcome of the assessment, and forward draft recommendations to the COP for consideration.” (p4)

Switzerland

March 4, 2014                    

“PROVISIONS FOR DYNAMIC MECHANISM - The 2015 Agreement is to include provisions for regular review of the adequacy of global ambition in stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the ultimate objective of the Convention and in light of the latest scientific evidence. In this context, the 2015 Agreement is also to include provisions for arrangements to foster the highest possible mitigation action by all Parties, respecting the differentiated responsibilities, capabilities, needs, and national circumstances of Parties. Finally, the 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to undertake respective work and to facilitate exchange and collaboration between Parties for maximal mitigation action. The first review of the adequacy of global ambition should be initiated upon the anchoring of Parties’ commitments for the period from 2020 and, if necessary, arrangements to foster increase in ambition should be initiated as soon as possible.” (p. 3, March)

United States

September 17, 2014

  • “The core agreement should be built to last. That means that, in addition to providing for regular updating of mitigation contributions, it should be careful to include provisions that make sense for the long term. Detailed provisions, provisions that will likely require modification/refinement over time, and contributions for specific time periods should be part of the larger agreement but not the core.”
  • “Taking mitigation as an example:
    • the core agreement would provide for each Party to submit, upon joining the agreement, and to maintain thereafter, a schedule reflecting its mitigation contribution;
    • the schedules themselves would be reflected in a document maintained by the secretariat and updated over time as additional Parties joined the agreement and as new contributions were added for subsequent time periods; and
    • the core agreement would provide for mitigation contributions to be accompanied by certain upfront clarifying information, the details of which would be in a COP decision.” (p9-10)

Back to top

PERIODIC REVIEW

Africa Group

April 30, 2014

May 31, 2014 (Elements)        

“The periodic review starting in 2013-15 provides a basis from which a review mechanism under the 2015 Agreement should be premised, with the objective of assessing the adequacy of the long term global goal, as well as the progress towards achieving, hence general aggregate commitments under the 2015 Agreement. It is the Groups view that a principle-based reference framework provides a mechanism by which specific commitments by various Parties can be assessed, and deliver against emerging science.” (para. 13, April)

“Recall the periodic review starting in 2013-15 provides a basis from which a review mechanism under the 2015 Agreement should be premised, with the objective of assessing the adequacy of the long term global goal, as well as the progress towards achieving it.” (p. 8, Elements)

AILAC

September 24, 2014 (Architecture/Elements)

September 24, 2014 (INDCs)

“12. Once a process of ex-ante evaluation is realized (which may give place to adjustments in the contributions), the contribution of each country should be inscribed in a Repository of all country contributions, to be held by the Agreement’s depositary.

13. After this inscription, the country contributions should be subject to an ex-post review in order to monitor, report and verify their achievement and progress towards attaining global goals. Country contributions would be subject to the Convention’s and the 2015 Agreement’s MRV and transparency requirements. In the same manner, the compliance mechanism to be included in the text of the Agreement will verify compliance with the obligation as set forth in the treaty and in the country contribution document.

14. This means that when each contribution period has lapsed, the same process takes place: nationally defined contributions, ex-ante assessment process, inscription in the Repository of country contribution documents, and ex post review.

15. All this can happen without any need to re-negotiate the Agreement, nor to re-ratify the commitments in it, which will remain the same over time: a commitment to comply with what has been included in the country contribution document.

16. This system allows for:

i. Each country to nationally define its own contribution.

ii. The creation of a long-lasting commitment to be defined in a ratifiable Agreement that is durable over time.

iii. Countries to increase ambition by improving the content of their respective country contribution documents without requiring amendments to the text of the ratified Agreement each time the contribution period expires.” (p3-4)

Fifth step: During the contribution period, Parties report on their progress toward fulfilling their contributions in their National Communications, Biennial Reports and Biennial Update Reports, or any revised reporting system that is agreed in the future.

Sixth step: an ex-post revision process takes place, in order to evaluate each country’s progress towards the achievement of their committed contributions and the aggregate progress towards attaining the global goals established in the Convention and the 2015 Agreement.

Seventh step: Countries communicate their second round of INDCs for the subsequent period, and the same process described above takes place.

• After each contribution period has expired, the Compliance Mechanism would be triggered on the basis of the outputs of the MRV system and /or of the ex-post revision process. This Compliance Mechanism would only be applicable to the mitigation contributions. (p7)

“64. Contribution periods should be set for a specific timeframe, after which Parties shall modify their committed contributions upwards, for a subsequent timeframe. The modification of contributions should be subject to the general principles of non-backsliding and gradual scale-up.

65. Committed contributions will be subject to an ex-post revision process to evaluate their adequacy, which will evaluate each country’s achievement and the aggregate progress towards attaining the global goals set in the Convention and Agreement. The results of this ex-post revision process should be one of the triggers for the Compliance Mechanism to enter into action.

64. Contribution periods should be set for a specific timeframe, after which Parties shall modify their committed contributions upwards, for a subsequent timeframe. The modification of contributions should be subject to the general principles of non-backsliding and gradual scale-up.

65. Committed contributions will be subject to an ex-post revision process to evaluate their adequacy, which will evaluate each country’s achievement and the aggregate progress towards attaining the global goals set in the Convention and Agreement. The results of this ex-post revision process should be one of the triggers for the Compliance Mechanism to enter into action.” (p15-16, September, Architecture/Elements)

• “Fifth step: During the contribution period parties report on their progress toward fulfilling their contributions in their Biennial Reports, Biennial Update Reports and National Communications.

• Sixth step: an ex-post revision process takes place.

• Seventh step: Countries communicate their second round of INDCs for the subsequent period, and the same process described above takes place.” (p6, September, INDCs)

Canada

June 6, 2014                        

“A common obligation for each Party to periodically update its schedule, as well as update other matters that may be elaborated in its nationally-determined contribution to the global effort;”  (p1)

Coalition for Rainforest Nations

June 4, 2014

“A review process should be considered to allow increasing ambition over time.”  (para. 16)

EU

March 3, 2014

May 28, 2014

“The 2015 Agreement should also contain procedures to regularly revisit and enable Parties to raise the ambition of their own mitigation commitment in a timely manner in order to ensure that we collectively stay on track for below 2°C.” (para. 18, March)

“The 2015 agreement should set out a mechanism to regularly consider the level of global ambition represented by mitigation commitments in order for Parties to raise their own ambition in a timely manner should they wish to do so and if necessary to stay on track to achieve the below 2°C objective.” (p. 3, May)

Japan

May 14, 2014 “Effective and efficient international evaluation and review of each Party’s performance should be established based on experiences of and lessons from the existing MRV process introduced under the Cancun agreement, with a view to facilitating each Party’s fulfillment of its commitment. It can be implemented in the following way:

- Each Party submits a regular report. …simple and internationally common [format], taking into consideration lessons from BR/BUR and IAR/ICA processes. A technical assessment such as consistency with the format would be useful in order to facilitate the process. The regular report is open to the public on the UNFCCC website.

- Interested actors such as Parties, [Ios], private sectors, NGOs, can send questions or opinions on the performance and other information included in the above report.

- Review sessions are to be held at occasions including SBs to discuss performance and efforts of each Party in line with its commitment and its potential for emission reduction by making the best use of expertise and objective analysis by relevant experts outside UNFCCC (ex. [Ios] (ex. IEA, IPEEC, IRENA), international private organizations (ex. World Steel Association, ISO), international think-tanks, private sectors, NGOs). Frequency and depth of the ex-post international evaluation and review should be effective and equitable taking into consideration the impacts of GHG emissions of each Party on global warming.

On the occasion of revising commitments for the next phase, each Party is subject to an ex-ante consultation, taking into account the results of the previous international evaluation and review.”  (p2-3)

LDCs

March 17, 2014             

“Science to be the basis to assign a cap on the level of temperature rise

The LDCs are of the view that the 2015 Agreement, which encompasses all Parties, be based on the science of climate change as its foundation. Furthermore, climate impacts on LDCs, SIDS, and Africa should form the benchmark for setting emission

reduction levels and for building the architecture and modalities for adaptation and finance in the 2015 Agreement. Commitments should be made for only five years (2020-2024), with a clear process to define the subsequent five-year periods built into the 2015 Agreement and linked to IPCC assessments, which will also be placed on five-year cycle. Furthermore, as agreed under the Cancun Agreements, a periodic review should be undertaken to feed into the five-year commitment cycle. This should flow on from the 2013-2015 review and be firmly embedded in the scientific assessment of the adequacy of commitments in meeting the long-term global goal.” (p4, March)

Mexico

May 29, 2014

“The 2015 Agreement should incorporate a compliance mechanism to allow for the periodic review of progress in the fulfillment of commitments, which should be of a facilitative nature and with the objective of assessing the incremental performance and effectiveness of measures with respect to scientific information and facilitate the up-scaling of efforts.” (p2)

Norway

March 6, 2014                

“Once the agreement has taken effect, we believe it is necessary to have regular assessments of the overall progress made towards the two degree target, in light of new scientific knowledge. The agreement should thus have provisions for such a regular review or assessment.” (p4, March)

New Zealand

October 8, 2014 (Elements)

Mitigation

“At, or subsequent to the Paris meeting, the COP will need to decide details of a process to review and update schedules setting out future (including overdue) mitigation contributions.” (p3, October, Elements)

South Africa

May 30, 2014 (Elements)

May 30, 2014 (INDCs)                

“Timelines, e.g. 2020-2030, with mid-term reviews.”  (p. 4, Elements)

 “Review of Annex I national communications according to revised guidelines.” (p. 5, Elements)

“The implementation periods could be 10 years each.” (p. 8, Elements)

“The review of the adequacy of aggregate efforts will be based on science and equity. The review of the adequacy and fairness of these commitments will be done against the existing but strengthened MRV system, not only for mitigation, but also adaptation and means of implementation.

The review will also assess the ambition and fairness of individual commitments and their implementation in terms of historical responsibility, current capability and national circumstances, including developmental imperatives, such as poverty eradication and inequality.

Periodic evaluation of institutional arrangement (add-up, individual performance etc.).

Outcome of mid-term review shall inform the process of determining individual commitments for the post-2030 period.” (p. 9, Elements)

“The ex post assessment and review processes (which may be enhanced as needed) could tilize the existing reporting systems, rules and processes under the UNFCCC system. The 2015 agreement would include an adjustment procedure to ensure that the long-term aspirational goals are met.” (p. 5, INDCs)

Switzerland

March 4, 2014                

“PROVISIONS TO REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS AT END OF PERIOD - The 2015 Agreement is to include provisions common to all Parties for a review of the implementation of commitments following the end year of commitment. The 2015 Agreement is to provide the authority to the COP to adopt and regularly revise any further guidance and respective guidelines used by and applying to all Parties, respecting the different capabilities, responsibilities and circumstances of Parties. The COP is to initiate, respectively, work [X] years prior to the end year of Parties’ previous commitments.” (p3, March)

“PROVISIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT COMMITMENTS - The 2015 Agreement is to include provisions for subsequent climate commitments of all Parties over time. To this end, the 2015 Agreement is to provide the COP with the authority to initiate, [X] years prior to an end year of Parties’ previous commitments, a process to consider commitments for a subsequent time period.” (p3, March)

United States

September 17, 2014

End Date for INDCs

  • “We believe that there should be a common end date for both initial and subsequent contributions. Ambition will be enhanced if all Parties update at the same time -- that way, we all know that we will be under scrutiny and compared with others, so we will do our best.”
  • “A common cycle will also focus leader-level attention on both individual and collective emissions reduction efforts at the same time, which will help drive ambitious contributions and provide assurances to each Party that others are also taking strong action.”
  • “In terms of initial contributions, we hope that there can be a convergence on 2025 as the common end date.”
  • “We think 2025 is advantageous because of ambition. If the end date were 2030, which some have suggested, Parties might be unsure about how ambitious they could be -- and we might end up locking in ambition at a lower level than would have been possible had we first chosen 2025 and then made new contributions for 2030. Political will to take ambitious action is generally increasing over time, technology is advancing, and the costs of action are decreasing. We should design the system to capture as much increasing ambition as possible.” (p2)

Back to top

PRE-PARIS PROCESS

 

AILAC

September 24, 2014 (Architecture/Elements)

September 24, 2014 (INDCs)

“21. AILAC proposes the following steps for defining and inscribing the contributions in the country contribution documents, which would then become the content of the commitments included in the 2015 Agreement:

First step: ex-ante information requirements are agreed at COP20 in Lima, as mandated by COP19. Countries use these requirements to prepare contributions with common format and        minimum information requirements to be included in their country contribution documents.

Second step: Countries communicate their INDCs in country contribution documents to the UNFCCC in 2015 (those who are ready, during the first quarter of 2015; for other Parties, by August 2015). The UNFCCC Secretariat makes these documents public on the UNFCCC website as they are communicated by the Parties.

Third step: an ex-ante assessment process takes place.

- It should serve two purposes: first, to assess whether a party’s INDC is equitable and fair, and second, to assess whether the aggregate level of greenhouse gas reductions being contributed by Parties is adequate to achieve the global goal(s) on mitigation, including the below 2°C goal.

- This type of ex-ante assessment is only applicable to the contributions on mitigation in as much as these are aggregatable and susceptible to being evaluated against a global quantified goal. A different type of ex-ante assessment process would be applicable to the contributions on means of implementation.

- For AILAC, a decision needs to be taken by COP20 in Lima on this ex-ante assessment process, in order for this process to begin in the second quarter of 2015.

The assessment process would take place as follows:

- Timing: the assessment of contributions will take place in the subsequent quarter of the year in which the INDC was communicated (i.e. for those who present INDCs in the first quarter of 2015, the assessment process would take place during the second quarter; for

those who present in the second quarter, the assessment would take place in the third quarter, and so on).

- Modalities:

a. For the assessment of the adequacy of the INDCs, a mandate could be given to a Task Force of expert scientists selected from the roster of experts working in the IPCC working group III (with regional representation), or another technical expert group such as the United Nations Environment Program, to consider the presented INDCs in every given quarter of the year as a whole, and to produce a public report before the end of the subsequent quarter, on: i) the adequacy of the total aggregate mitigation effort in light of the 2°C global goal and the global goal on mitigation to be agreed under the 2015 Agreement; and ii) facilitative recommendations to countries on how to enhance their INDCs.

b. For the assessment of the fairness and equity of the INDCs, a mandate could be given to SBSTA, to consider the presented INDCs in every given quarter of the year, focusing on the criteria that each Party has included as a foundation for defining the fairness of their own contribution; the Secretariat could be given a mandate to publish a technical report before the end of the subsequent quarter, on SBSTA’s considerations.

- Outcome: the two reports described above are to be made public on the UNFCCC website, and communicated to the Parties whose INDCs have been subject to the assessment. Parties can decide to revise their proposed INDC before its inscription in the Repository, using the two reports as a significant input.

Fourth step: After the assessment the country contributions can be modified, if necessary, and inscribed in a public Repository of committed country contribution documents, to be held by the Agreement’s depositary, and before the approval of the Agreement by the Secretary General of the United Nations. The inscription should happen no later than three months after

the end of the ex-ante assessment of the country’s INDC. For the initial INDCs, the inscription should happen in time for the adoption of the 2015 Agreement, for those countries that have gone through the ex-ante assessment process prior to that date.” (p5-7, September, Architecture/Elements)

“28. For AILAC, a decision needs to be taken by COP20 in Lima on the ex-ante assessment process, in order for this process to start in the second quarter of 2015.

29. In its submission on the legal architecture and structure of the elements of the 2015 agreement, AILAC explained its views on the process for defining contributions, commitments, and their revision in the future. That process is summarized here:

First step: ex-ante information requirements are agreed by COP20 in Lima.

Second step: Countries communicate their INDCs in country contribution documents.

Third step: an ex-ante assessment process takes place for contributions on mitigation and means of implementation.

Fourth step: After the assessment the country contributions can be modified if necessary, and inscribed in a public repository of committed country contribution documents.” (p6, September, INDCs)

“30. The third step on the ex-ante assessment process is described below in detail.

31. Clarification must be made on the difference between adaptation, mitigation, and means of implementation contributions in terms of the ex-ante assessment. Each of the three issues should be treated according to their nature, and therefore the ex-ante assessment applies differently to each of them.

ADAPTATION

32. There should be no ex-ante assessment process for adaptation; in the long term, an ex-post consultative processes could be designed as a facilitative one, to support countries in strengthening their individual and collective understanding of progress made towards achieving greater resilience and effectiveness of adaptation actions.

MITIGATION

33. The process of ex-ante assessment of mitigation contributions should serve two purposes: first, to assess whether a Party’s INDC is equitable, and second, to assess whether the aggregate mitigation level of Parties’ contributions is adequate to achieve the global goals on mitigation.

34. This type of ex-ante assessment is therefore only applicable to contributions on mitigation.

35. The assessment process would take place as follows:

  • Timing: the assessment of contributions will take place in the subsequent quarter of the year in which the INDC was communicated (i.e. for those who present INDCs in the first quarter of 2015, the assessment takes place during the second quarter; for those who present in the second quarter, the assessment takes places in the third quarter, and so on).
  • Modalities:

a. For the assessment of the adequacy of the INDCs, a mandate could be given to a Task Force of expert scientists selected from the roster of experts working in the IPCC working group III (with regional representation) or another technical expert group    such as the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), to consider the INDCs presented throughout an entire year, and to produce a public report before the end of the subsequent quarter, on: i) the adequacy of the total aggregate mitigation effort in light of the 2ºC global goal and the global goal on mitigation to be agreed under the 2015 agreement; and ii) facilitative recommendations to countries on how to enhance their INDCs.

b. For the assessment of the equity of the INDCs, a mandate could be given to SBSTA, to consider the INDCs presented in every given quarter of the year, focusing on the criteria that each Party has included as a foundation for defining the fairness of their own contribution; the Secretariat could be given a mandate to publish a technical report before the end of the subsequent quarter, on SBSTA’s considerations.

c. In both the adequacy and the fairness and equity processes the respective bodies could receive inputs from non-State actors in written form as valuable information to be taken into account for the process.

  • Outcome: the two reports described above are to be made public at the UNFCCC website, and communicated to the Parties whose INDCs have been subject to the assessment. Parties can decide to revise their proposed INDCs before these are inscribed in the repository, using the two reports as a significant input.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

36. Contributions on means of implementation should also undergo an ex-ante assessment with four

purposes:

  • First, to evaluate the collective progress through all countries’ contributions on this issue towards the achievement of the global long-term goal on means of implementation to be defined under the 2015 Agreement;
  • Second, to assess the comparability of contributions by developed countries;
  • Third, to assess the adequacy of the aggregated quantified contributions of developed countries in light of the necessary pathway towards the achievement of the short-term collective quantified goal to be defined as part of the 2015 Agreement;
  • Fourth, to assess the fair share of the contributions of developed countries of the short-term collective quantified goal to be defined as part of the 2015 Agreement.

37. Given the difference in the nature of what is assessed and in the purpose of the assessment, this ex-ante assessment process is only applicable to the area of means of implementation.

38. The assessment process would take place as follows:

  • Timing: the assessment of contributions on means of implementation will take place in the subsequent quarter of the year in which the INDC was communicated (i.e. for those who present INDCs in the first quarter of 2015, the assessment takes place during the second quarter; for those who present in the second quarter, the assessment takes places in the third quarter, and so on).
  • Modalities:

d. A mandate could be given to the Standing Committee on Finance and the TechnologyExecutive Committee to form a Task Force for the INDC process.

e. A mandate could be given to the Task Force, to compile and assess the contributions on means of implementation presented in INDCs in every given quarter of the year, and produce a public report before the end of the subsequent quarter, on: i) the collective progress towards the achievement of the global long term goal on means of implementation to be defined under the 2015 agreement; ii) the adequacy of the individual contributions of developed country parties in light of the necessary trajectory to achieve the short-term collective quantified goal, their comparability       and their fair share; and iii) facilitative recommendations to countries on how to enhance their INDCs.

f. The Task Force could receive inputs from non-State actors in written form as valuable information to be taken into account for the process.

  • Outcome: the report described above is to be made public on the UNFCCC website, and communicated to the Parties whose INDCs have been subject to the assessment. Parties can decide to revise their proposed INDCs before these are inscribed in the repository, using the report as a significant input.” (p6-9, September, INDCs)

EU

March 3, 2014

May 28, 2014

“The EU sees the priorities for 2014 as being that:

  • all countries begin or speed up the process of developing meaningful mitigation commitments so that they come forward with meaningful proposed mitigation commitments well in advance of Paris and by the 1st quarter of 2015 at the latest for those that are ready to do so;
  • the requirements for  upfront information  are agreed to ensure that proposed mitigation commitments are transparent, quantifiable, comparable, verifiable and ambitious;
  • progress is made towards a collective view on how proposed commitments will be considered by the international community, both in terms of collective ambition in light of the below 2?C objective and fairness – including the possible role that indicators & criteria might play;
  • progress is made towards a rules based 2015 Agreement – in particular in relation to MRV, accounting and compliance;
  • further progress is made on how means of implementation and adaptation will be reflected in the 2015 Agreement, building on the work done in 2013;
  • a first draft negotiating text emerges by COP 20.” (p1, March)

“3. The urgency to act means that it is imperative that, as agreed in Durban, we adopt the 2015Agreement at COP21.  Warsaw set out a timetable to that end. Decision 1/CP19 invited all Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations of their INDCs; invited Parties to come forward with those INDCs well in advance of Paris and in the first quarter of 2015 for those Parties in a position to do so; and specified that the up front information requirements in relation to INDCs must be agreed by COP20 at the latest.

4. It is essential that all Parties stick to that agreed timetable. The EU will do so – we have started our domestic preparations and will come forward with our INDC in the first quarter of 2015. The EU expects all major and emerging economies, as well as other Parties that are ready, to also come forward in early 2015. The March session of the ADP highlighted the support and capacity building available to those Parties that need it to prepare their INDCs and we appreciate the UNFCCC Secretariat facilitating the coordination of this support.” (p2, May)

Japan

May 14, 2014 “Ex-ante consultation can be implemented in the following way, for example;

- Each Party submits its initial commitment to the Secretariat several months before an official submission. This would be open to the public on the UNFCCC website.

- Interested actors such as Parties, international organizations, private sectors, NGOs, make submissions in the form of questions or opinions to presented commitments on the UNFCCC website.

- Each Party examines its initial commitment, taking account of questions and opinions by others, and then decides its official commitment to submit to the Secretariat.” (p2)

Mexico

May 29, 2014  “[Mitigation] commitments should be communicated by Parties upon signature of the 2015 Agreement…”  (p2)

New Zealand

October 8, 2014 (NDCs)

October 8, 2014 (Elements)

“New Zealand proposes that the Lima COP:

  • Decides that the minimum up-front information requirements for all Parties comprise coverage of the contribution and metrics for its quantification (including baseline or base year); an estimate of the emissions impact of the contribution; and disclosure of the methodologies and assumptions used to estimate the emissions impact;
  • Invites Parties to use a template or checklist to submit their INDCs;
  • Acknowledges the need for a technical adjustment process should rules assumptions underpinning INDCs prove incorrect and have a material impact, for example on cost.” (p4)

Consultative process

12. New Zealand sees the aims of the consultative process as allowing Parties to arrive at a clear understanding of the contribution each other Party proposes to make and allowing aggregation of the collective impact of the contributions proposed. This understanding, together with a clearer picture of the landscape of rules that will be applied, is necessary to generate sufficient confidence to allow Parties to finalise their own contributions. Having agreed that contributions will be nationally determined, Parties should not use the process to re-determine the contributions to be made by others. Parties may, of course, choose to adjust their own contributions upwards, on the basis of the consultation, and such adjustments should be actively encouraged.

13. The process needs to be designed in a way that takes account of the available time. It will be necessary to use time efficiently inside and outside the UNFCCC and to prioritise attention to areas of greatest uncertainty. The consultative process should be conducted in a manner which is clear, transparent, pragmatic and streamlined. To this end, New Zealand suggests the process comprise the following steps:

1. Parties submit INDCs by March (or at the latest ahead of the June meeting), and these are published by the Secretariat on the UNFCCC website when received;

2. The Secretariat synthesises the information provided in an electronic format from which standardised core data for each Party can be extracted (or provides an online tool for Parties to complete setting out their own core data);

3. An aggregate calculation of emission reductions is made and published online by the Secretariat;

4. A written Q&A process is conducted via an online forum accessible to the public;

5. The aggregate data is discussed at the June session with a view to encouraging those Parties that have not yet submitted INDCs to do so as soon as possible, and identifying and overcoming barriers that may have prevented them from submitting;

6. Parties have an opportunity to engage bilaterally/regionally/plurilaterally outside and in the margins of the UNFCCC meetings to enhance their understanding of submitted INDCs;

7. Throughout the process Parties have an opportunity to revise INDCs upwards, including in response to the Q&A and direct consultation;

8. The Secretariat will update its synthesis of data received and maintain a running tally of the aggregate emission impact represented by proposed contributions.

14. At Paris, Parties’ INDCs will be recognised formally by the COP and become NDCs. This may be achieved, for example, by a noting COP decision. New Zealand suggests that Parties’ mitigation commitments for the first commitment cycle under the new agreement would be finalised on their submission to the Secretariat along with the Party’s instrument of ratification – indeed, submission of a finalised NDC would be required for ratification.” (p5)

“New Zealand proposes that the Lima COP request the Secretariat to:

  • compile, aggregate and synthesise the information submitted by Parties in their INDC, with a view to estimating the aggregate impact of proposed mitigation action, in an electronic format that allows standardised data about each Party or, alternatively, provides an online tool which Parties will complete for this purpose;
  • present Parties with this synthesis report at a session of the ADP, to be held after the first half of 2015 but prior to COP21 and update the report as required;
  • make arrangements for a review process that is transparent, pragmatic and efficient, for example by providing for online written Q&A that is accessible to the public.” (p6)

Collective obligations:

Adaptation

“The Paris COP will need to take a decision defining the adaptation framework for the new agreement, consolidating and coordinating existing institutions, including the Cancun Adaptation Framework and Nairobi Work Programme.” (p3, October, Elements)

Collective obligations:

Mitigation

“The Lima COP will need to decide the details of the process Parties will follow to table, review, finalise and formalise intended nationally determined mitigation commitments (see accompanying New Zealand submission on INDCs).

The Paris COP will need to take a decision adopting or noting the tabled INDCs.” (p3, October, Elements)

Collective obligations:

Accountability

“The Paris COP will need to take a decision setting out the details of a facilitative accountability mechanism to assist Parties to implement their commitments, This might provide for a common multilateral consultative process for peer review of progress against targets and establish an Implementation Committee, determine its composition and decision-making rules, provide that its scope encompasses conformance with transparency and markets rules and with implementation of NDCs, and define triggers for mobilising its facilitative action and effective early warning components.” (p4, October, Elements)

Collective obligations:

Finance

“The Paris COP will need to take a decision defining the finance mechanism for the new agreement, consolidating and coordinating

existing institutions and processes relating to climate finance for the new agreement, and underlining the importance of country ownership, alignment, coherence, coordination, transparency, a focus on results and enabling the engagement of the private sector.

 

The Paris COP may also promulgate a political declaration on climate finance, for example to shift [x%] of capital flows from brown to green investment by [2050].” (p5, October, Elements)

Individual obligations:

Mitigation

“The Lima COP will need to decide the up-front information requirements each Party must satisfy for the first commitment cycle, (and later COPs will make equivalent decisions for later cycles). This decision may additionally set common parameters for nationally determined mitigation contributions such as the commitment cycle, the common metric to be applied for conversion of gases, and a default position that mitigation contributions will be economy-wide unless a Party determines otherwise.

At, or subsequent to the Paris meeting, the COP will need to establish the transparency arrangements including:

  • detailed rules for the universal transparency system and the transition to that system;
  • accounting principles for the land sector and processes to operationalise those principles, such as expert reviews of any reference levels proposed for use by Parties;
  • rules for use of carbon markets to help meet commitments (see New Zealand submission to SBSTA of September 2014 on the  Framework for Various Approaches for further details); and
  • rules for accounting for progress against commitments, including management of carbon budgets.” (p5-6, October, Elements)

Institutions

“The Paris COP will need to take a decision confirming that the Technology Mechanism is the mechanism for technology transfer and

development under the new agreement.” (p7, October, Elements)

Russia

April 30, 2014

“The Russian Federation notes the need to guarantee that the negotiations for a new agreement will be conducted as per international legal standards and the work practices of the United Nations, in strict compliance with the procedural provisions of the UNFCCC, including the ‘six month rule’ (Article 15). They must be in the letter and spirit of the Rules of Procedure of the COP UNFCCC and its subsidiary bodies and those of MOP KP and its subsidiary bodies.

The recent practice of holding negotiations under almost force-majeure circumstances (whereby earlier missed chances are compensated by de-facto round-the-clock labour on the final stages of negotiations) is perverse. It hampers the development of viable solutions and can no longer [b]e accepted, especially when legally meaningful decisions are concerned.” (p3)

United States

September 17, 2014

Timing of INDC Submissions

  • “We need to work backwards from the premise of having nationally determined contributions on the table in Paris. In the absence of contributions in Paris, it would not be possible to adopt an agreement with confidence regarding other Parties' contributions and the collective level of effort.”
  • “The United States will put forward its intended contribution by the first quarter of 2015 and encourages contributions in the same timeframe from others in a position to make them.”
  • “For those that are not able to submit by March 31st, we would hope that as many submissions as possible could be made before the June ADP session. This would enable time at that session to consult on such contributions.” (p1-2)

Consultative Period

  • “Sufficient time should be dedicated at each UNFCCC session for Parties to present their contributions and respond to questions, including those seeking clarification. We do not see a need to develop a highly structured or engineered process. We would also see presentations by least developed countries as optional.”
  • “Important consultative work would likely take place outside the FCCC as well. We would expect that Parties, civil society, and independent analytic entities would analyze and publicly comment on intended contributions.” (p2-3)

INDC Decision

  • “In the U.S. view, the Lima decision will be an important step on the way to Paris, but it does not need to be extensive.” (p3)

October ADP Session

  • “We agree that many of the issues identified in the co-chairs' reflections note would be useful to consider at the October session, including enabling environments and the scope, nature, and sources of finance.”
  • “We are less supportive of certain other issues identified:
    • In our view, the transparency discussion should focus on how to create a unified, single system with appropriate flexibility.
    • The framing of the question regarding adaptation signals that the most urgent question is in regards to a global adaptation goal, rather than the more basic question of how adaptation should be reflected in the agreement, which in our view, has not received adequate attention.”
  • “The issue of setting forth new mitigation contributions over time is vitally important in relation to our long-term environmental objective. As noted above, the agreement should be built for the long term, with regular updating of mitigation contributions on a common cycle.”
  • “We do think a chart is a useful visual aid for thinking through what happens when. We have concerns with the particular draft attached to the reflections paper, including suggested perpetuation of a bifurcated transparency system post-2020 and linkage between such a system before 2020 and development of post-2020 contributions.”
  • “Two additional issues in need of consideration, particularly in order to better inform the Lima ‘elements’ text, are those of:
    • ‘where’ (i.e., which provisions should appear in the core agreement vs. in decisions or other instruments, and on the basis of which criteria); and
    • ‘when’ (i.e., which issues need to be resolved in Paris and which ones can be appropriately decided thereafter)” (p5-6)

Criteria for Deciding "When"

  • An appropriate balance will need to be struck between what is resolved in Paris and what can be left to a later date.
  • In the U.S. view, issues of material importance to a Party, i.e., ones that it reasonably needs to know before joining the agreement, should be resolved in Paris. We would not support an approach where, for example, binding rules applicable to a Party's contribution were left to the future.
  • On the other hand, it may be possible to leave more minor technical details until after Paris. (p10)

Back to top

 

Ex Ante Information/Up Front Information for INDCs

AILAC

March 10, 2014

September 24, 2014 (Architecture/Elements)

September 24, 2014 (INDCs)

Contributions should “[p]rovide information on assumptions that underpin the commitments: baseline year, timeframe, sectors and gases covered, emissions factors, methodology applied, use of markets, treatment of reduction units.” (p4, March)

“11. Each country’s contribution document will need to include all the up-front information requirements to be defined at COP20 in Lima. In this document, all countries should include information on their national level of ambition, and, for developing countries, information on additional ambition that they would be able to undertake both as nationally-funded efforts and subject to receiving international support.” (p3, September, Architecture/Elements)

“13. The different nature of the topics to be part of the INDCs translates into a need for differentiated ex-ante information requirements.

ADAPTATION

14. Having national contributions on adaptation serves multiple purposes and these purposes will shape the potential UFI. These purposes include:

1. To communicate how parties will contribute to the global goal on adaptation

2. To help the international community further understand the actions to be undertaken by parties, thereby facilitating collaborative efforts amongst countries.

3. To foster national ambitious action on climate change

4. To recognize parties’ efforts to combat climate change

5. To facilitate potential adaptation action as Parties distinguish adaptation contributions made with their own resources from additional adaptation efforts they would carry out with support.

15. At this juncture, AILAC does not foresee mandatory minimum information requirements for INDCs on adaptation; however, Parties can be invited to provide sufficient information on their planned adaptation actions, according to their national capacities.

16. Countries can also be invited to provide information on how their planned adaptation actions help progress towards the achievement of the global adaptation goal to be determined under the 2015 agreement.

17. Developed countries should also provide pathways for their provisions for climate finance for adaptation as part of their contributions on means of implementation - this point is further developed below under the section on means of implementation.

18. Information on the planned adaptation actions of Parties could include basic details of the scope of the national adaptation contribution, such as: the sectors or geographic areas, the policies included, and whether it is a National Adaptation Plan (or segment(s) of a NAP), a Local Adaptation Plan (or segment(s) of a LAP) or a National Adaptation Programme of Action (or segment(s) of a NAPA).

19. Whenever possible, the exercise of determining adaptation actions should take into account climate change scenarios and their foreseen projected impacts.

20. We do not foresee an ex-ante assessment process occurring beyond a natural collaborative understanding of other Parties’ adaptation efforts in order to explore forms of leveraging each other’s adaptation actions.

MITIGATION

21. It is fundamental to define clear mandatory minimum information requirements in order to make mitigation contributions transparent, comparable, and aggregatable at the global level.

22. To achieve this, countries should provide the following minimum information on each of their mitigation contributions:

  • Type of target (inter alia, fixed level below a baseline year, carbon budget, reduction in GHG intensity, reduction in emissions relative to BAU, program or policy);
  • Scope of the target (s) (inter alia, economy-wide, sectorial, territorial);
  • Timeframe (baseline year, time covered by the contribution trajectory of the target);
  • Gases covered;
  • Expected emissions reductions or removals;
  • Methodology used for accounting including, where applicable, the treatment of emissions and removals from the land sector;
  • Estimated use of international market mechanisms, including how they will ensure environmental integrity and avoid double counting of units.

23. In addition, for developing countries:

  • Identification of the level of ambition to be achieved through national actions, and the level of additional ambition that could be reached with international support.

24. Countries should also be invited to include information on how their mitigation contribution responds to the principle of equity and is based on the requirements defined by science in order to achieve the 2ºC global goal, including the indicators used.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

25. It is also necessary to define some general information requirements for contributions on means of implementation, which will help countries better communicate their efforts in this area, and clarify the basis upon which actions on adaptation and mitigation are made possible.

26. To achieve this, countries should provide the following information on their means of implementation contribution:

  • Policies and measures on how countries pan to progress on the pathway to achieving the collective global goal to be defined for the provision of means of implementation in the 2015 agreement;
  • Efforts to mobilize and provide means of implementation for domestic climate action, and/or efforts to enhance the national enabling environment for increasing the means of implementation for climate action;
  • Any information available on the international provision of any means of implementation (finance and/or technology transfer and/or capacity building), to be provided by developed countries and other countries in a position to do so.

27. In addition, developed countries and other countries in a position to do so should include information on:

  • Their respective short-term quantified goal on the provision of public finance, to be set for the same time period as the one set for the mitigation contributions, and to be revised upwards at the same time intervals;
  • The annual expected levels of climate finance that define the pathway towards achieving the short-term collective quantified goal to be defined as part of the 2015 agreement which should sustain and surpass the already agreed USD $ 100 billion goal, including the specific sources of the funds to be provided.
  • Detail on their future contributions to the GCF and GEF (grants and grant components of concessional loans); contributions to the Adaptation Fund, LCDF and SCCF; contributions to the Climate Investment Funds (CIF); contribution to other Trust Funds managed by Multilateral, Regional or National Development Banks; grants and grant components of concessional loans provided to developing countries by National Development Banks and Agencies (bilateral); climate-related ODA; other official flows (OOF); and data or estimates on private resources directly mobilized by public funds. (p2-6, September, INDCs)

“39. AILAC reinforces the importance of a decision at COP20 on INDCs, up front information, and the ex-ante assessment process, in order to foster our collective progress towards common global goals and the objective of the Convention.

40. Up-front information is important for understanding parties’ individual and aggregate role in meeting the Convention’s objective and for ensuring comparability of efforts. It will allow parties to identify needs and opportunities for collaboration and the realization of enhanced action, in response to the ADP’s core mandate.

41. Up-front information will provide the necessary signals to the private sector at the national and global levels, in order to foster ambitious national action on mitigation and adaptation, as well as to identify opportunities for using mechanisms such as markets, and other various approaches.

42. The Lima decisions on INDCs, up-front information and ex-ante assessment will provide the aspects of a top-down, rules-based approach that is indispensible to the long-term robustness, viability and effectiveness of the post 2020 regime.” (p9-10, September, INDCs)

EIG (2013)

(2014)                 

“Under the 2015 Agreement, all Parties shall submit ex ante information on their mitigation commitments, including the following elements, if relevant and available:

  • reference
  • information on any parameters used for defining the reference
  • assumptions underlying any parameters used for defining the mitigation commitment
  • information on accounting in the land sector and in relation to transferable mitigation outcomes within the accounting framework and on any deviation in accounting from IPCC sectors and gases
  • any other relevant parameter underlying the commitment;” (2013)

“Information to be presented facilitating clarity, transparency and understanding of the i.n.d.c.

The list of the information that Parties will provide when putting forward their mitigation contributions for the 2015 agreement should be defined and agreed as soon as possible, at COP20 at the latest.

To enhance clarity and understanding of the mitigation contributions submitted by each Party, the following elements, inter alia, need to be included in the list of information regardless of the mitigation type:

  • Type of mitigation contribution;
  • Contribution period;
  • Reference (base year or end-period as appropriate);
  • Coverage of GHGs and sectors (if deviating from IPCC guidance);
  • Accounting approaches used in the land sector and in regard to any internationally transferable units (from market and/or non-market mechanisms, if used);
  • Quantified or quantifiable expected overall emission reductions and levels within the period and expected emissions or removals thereof through the land sector;
  • Major underlying assumptions applied to the mitigation contributions including any relevant information used for defining the reference; and
  • Any other relevant information

As for the above-mentioned ‘any other relevant information’, additional information could be provided depending on the type of mitigation contribution. For example, BAU target needs expected BAU emissions with the start year and GDP related target needs GDP projections. Therefore, once Parties define the level of the mitigation contribution that they intend to pursue under the 2015 agreement, then, they draw up basic ex- ante information together with additional tailor-made information.” (p2-3, 2014)

EU

                     

LMDCs

June 11, 2014                 

“Information relating to mitigation:

Developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I of the Convention

  • Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, paragraph 5, and its Annex I, paragraphs 2 to 12, using the relevant common tabular format for such information as provided for in the Annex to decision 19/CP.18

Parties not included in Annex I of the Convention (Developing country Parties)

Information similar to those identified in decision 2/CP.17, paragraphs 34 and 46, and its Annex III, paragraphs 3 to 13 (Annex, 11 June)

New Zealand   

“The specific details necessary for understanding a country’s proposed contribution include:

  • Type of contribution (for example, absolute reduction target (economy-wide or sectoral), intensity target (economy-wide or sectoral) or a mix of target types);
  • Expected emission reductions, (expressed in absolute terms relative to a specified benchmark);
  • Time period over which the contribution will be achieved;
  • Base year, baseline or base period, as applicable, or methodologies to support the proposed target type, for example in calculating reductions relative to business-as-usual emission levels or emissions intensity targets;
  • Sectors covered if contribution is not economy-wide;
  • Gases covered;
  • Intention to participate in international carbon markets – as a buyer or seller, and the type of units that will be used and approach to be taken to avoid double-counting;
  • Intention to account for net changes in emissions and removals from direct human-induced land use change and forestry activities;
  • Assumptions and conditions associated with accounting for progress against the contribution, for example, land sector activity definitions and reporting and accounting methodologies to be applied; and
  • Policies and measures to be applied, if the nationally determined contribution includes programme-specific components (e.g. research and development).” (¶14)

Norway  

“As a minimum, the up front information should include the information asked for in the 2020 pledges, such as base year, scope (coverage of gases and sectors, percentage of national emissions covered), global warming potential values, the  role of land use, land-use change and forestry and of carbon credits. The up front information should provide clarity on assumptions and methodologies.” (p2)   

Russia (2014)                  

“It is important to agree on the general criteria applicable to country commitments (regulated gases, total volume of CO2 emissions, country's regulated emissions as a share of its total emissions, energy efficiency, etc.).” (p2)

“The only reasonable method is for each country to set its own commitments pursuant to its level of socio-economic development, natural and geographical characteristics, and financial and technical capacity. Land-use and forests should be duly accounted for when setting targets. Quantified targets as set by country should be accompanied by sufficient explanatory information to ensure countries' efforts are transparent and comparable.” (p2)

U.S.         

“The accompanying information should include:  

  • the relevant time period;  
  • the base year/period;  
  • the gases/sectors covered; and
  • the percentage of national emissions covered; 
  • and the overall emissions reductions anticipated. 

If any of the following are applicable, they should also be included:

  • if the land sector is included, a specification of how the Party will account for all significant lands, activities, pools, and gases;
  • if a Party intends to use market mechanisms, a description of the intended use (including source/type) and how it intendsto avoid double-counting;
  • for any emissions projection, BAU projection, or intensity target, a description of the methodology and assumptions (including key data sources)” (p. 4-5)

Back to top

 

 

How Climate Summit can build momentum for a global agreement

The last time so many world leaders gathered on the issue of climate change was nearly five years ago in Copenhagen. The hard lesson of that fractious summit: No one moment, and no one agreement, can deliver “the” answer.  We need to advance step by step, on multiple fronts, from the local to the global. And it will take time.

This reality is an important backdrop for the United Nations Climate Summit being convened in New York next week by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

More than 120 heads of state, including President Obama, are expected, and many will come prepared to announce concrete steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Many businesses and nonprofits, some partnering with governments, will also announce new initiatives.

These tangible outcomes will represent important progress in and of themselves. But the larger value of the summit is in focusing leaders on the profound challenges we face, raising consciousness across societies, and building momentum – in particular, toward the new global climate agreement due late next year in Paris.

Building Flexibility and Ambition into a 2015 Climate Agreement

Building Flexibility and Ambition into a 2015 Climate Agreement

June 2014

By Daniel Bodansky, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
and
Elliot Diringer, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Download the full report (PDF)

This paper explores options for a hybrid approach in the 2015 agreement, focusing in particular on mitigation efforts, rather than the broader array of issues under consideration in the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP), such as finance, technology, and adaptation. It looks at the rationales for a hybrid approach, ways to design hybridity into an international agreement, and how top-down and bottom-up approaches have figured in the UNFCCC’s evolution. Finally, the paper examines the types of top-down features that could complement nationally determined contributions to promote greater ambition, including a long-term goal as a benchmark for evaluating countries’ efforts, reporting and review procedures to promote transparency and accountability, and provisions for updating or initiating the next round of commitments. In so doing, it also considers cross-cutting issues such as timing, the overall structure of the agreement, the differentiation of countries’ obligations, and ways to make the 2015 agreement dynamic and, in turn, durable.

 

Daniel Bodansky
Elliot Diringer
0

Climate change poses national security risks at home and abroad

More than a dozen military leaders say the impacts of climate change threaten military readiness and response and will increase instability and conflict around the globe.

Their assessments are included in a recent report, National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change, by the CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board. The report’s authors – including 16 retired generals and admirals from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps – conclude that climate change impacts will act as threat multipliers and catalysts. Projected warming, changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and extreme weather events will pose risks to security within the U.S. and abroad.

At home, some of the threats are here and now. Many of the nation’s military installations are in coastal areas vulnerable to rising sea levels and storm surges. For example, the low-lying Hampton Roads area of Virginia is home to 29 military facilities. Sea level in the area is projected to rise 1.5 feet over the next 20-50 years and as much as 7.5 feet by the end of the century. One advisory board member, Brig. Gen. Gerald Galloway, stressed that “unless these threats are identified and addressed, they have the potential to disrupt day-to-day military operations, limit our ability to use our training areas and ranges, and put our installations at risk in the face of extreme weather events.”

Figure 1: Sea level rise projections for the Hampton Roads region, which is home to 29 different military facilities. Source: CNA, 2014

The Green Climate Fund gets ready for business

The Green Climate Fund could start accepting pledges to aid developing countries as early as September, in time for U.N. Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon’s climate leaders summit in New York.

At a meeting last month in Songdo, South Korea, the fund’s board resolved a number of key organizational issues, clearing the way for the fund to start its mission as a channel for finance from developed to developing nations for climate mitigation and adaptation.

Finance for developing countries is a perennial issue in international climate negotiations. Many are hoping developed countries will come forward with new financial pledges at the September summit to help build momentum for a new global climate agreement in 2015. Many developed countries had said they would not make pledges until the fund’s organizational issues were resolved.

The Green Climate Fund will be a principal channel for delivering the $100 billion a year that developed countries agreed in Copenhagen to mobilize by 2020. The board, which is made up of representatives from 24 countries, has been meeting since August 2012 to determine how the fund would be organized and would operate.

Bounded Flexibility: Designing a "Hybrid" Climate Agreement

Promoted in Energy Efficiency section: 
0
C2ES event in BonnBOUNDED FLEXIBILITY:DESIGNING A “HYBRID” CLIMATE AGREEMENT3 p.m.-4:30 p.m.Ministry of Environment, Room SOLAR

BOUNDED FLEXIBILITY:
DESIGNING A “HYBRID” CLIMATE AGREEMENT

CENTER FOR CLIMATE AND ENERGY SOLUTIONS (C2ES)

INSTITUT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE ET DES RELATIONS INTERNATIONALES (IDDRI)

Wednesday, June 11, 15:00 – 16:30
Ministry of Environment, Room SOLAR

An emerging paradigm for a 2015 agreement is a “hybrid” model blending top-down and bottom-up elements. Presentations and discussion will explore ways such an approach can provide the flexibility needed to achieve broad participation while also promoting strong ambition.

PRESENTERS:

DAN BODANSKY
Professor, Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law, Arizona University
(Presentation)

THOMAS SPENCER
Program Director for Energy and Climate, IDDRI
(Presentation)

ZOU JI
Deputy Director, National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Co-operation (NCSC), China

MODERATOR:

ELLIOT DIRINGER
Executive Vice President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)

Toward a 2015 Climate Agreement

Image: 
Text: 
Nations are working toward a new global climate change agreement, to be reached in late 2015 in Paris. C2ES examines key issues in the negotiations, which offer a critical opportunity to craft a broad, balanced and durable agreement strengthening the international climate effort. (Photo courtesy of UNFCCC, via Flickr, trimmed to fit this space).
Text Location: 
Bottom

International Negotiations: Toward a 2015 Climate Agreement

Delegates at the United Nations Famework Convention on Climate Change Bonn Climate Change Conference in March 2014. Image courtesy of the UNFCCC, via Flickr.

Nations are working toward a new global climate change agreement, to be reached in late 2015 in Paris.  These international negotiations offer governments a critical opportunity to craft a broad, balanced and durable agreement strengthening the international climate effort.

The talks are taking place under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty adopted in 1992 that includes virtually every nation on earth.  They will conclude at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris.

Launched in 2011 as the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, the negotiations are aiming for an agreement that has “legal force,” is “applicable to all,” and applies from 2020.  (See C2ES’s summary of COP 17 in Durban, South Africa.)  A decision at COP 19 in Warsaw urges countries to offer their “intended nationally determined contributions” to the new agreement well ahead of the Paris conference – for “those ready to do so,” by the first quarter of 2015. (See C2ES’s summary of COP 19.)

A new model international climate governance is emerging in the Durban Platform talks – one trying to blend “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches to achieve both broad participation and stronger action. C2ES’s Elliot Diringer explores the new hybrid approach taking shape, and prospects for Paris, in a recent article in Nature.

C2ES Resources:

These reports and policy briefs provide background on the Durban Platform talks and examine key issues:

The following provides a guide to governments’ negotiating positions:

Toward 2015: An International Climate Dialogue

C2ES is convening an informal dialogue among senior policymakers from more than 20 countries exploring options for a 2015 agreement. The dialogue is co-chaired by Valli Moosa, former environment minister for South Africa, and Harald Dovland of Norway, former co-chair of the Durban Platform talks.  (See the dialogue overview and participants.)

Other C2ES Resources:

Key Country Policies

Market-Based Climate Mitigation Policies in Emerging Economies

COP Summaries

Post-2012 International Climate Policy

Blog Posts:

How the UN Climate Summit in New York can build momentum toward a global agreement

A Crucial Meeting for the Green Climate Fund

Support for a Spectrum of Commitments to a 2015 Climate Agreement

Carbon trading in China: short-term experience, long-term wisdom

The Warsaw outcome: A hint of what’s to come

Efforts to limit aviation emissions advance at ICAO

UN climate talks: Fresh start or stuck in the past?

 

 

 

 

Syndicate content