Climate
Action
Lunchtime presentation
Jake Werksman, DG Climate Action jacob.werksman@ec.europa.eu

A new international climate agreement applicable to all to keep global average temperature increase below 2°C
Durban
2011: launch of new process
Bonn inter-sessionals:
March, June, October
Lima 2014: decision on elements of the 2015
Agreement
INDCs (Intended nationally determined contributions)
Design of the elements: mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, capacity-building and transparency of action and support
Pre-2020 action
Warsaw
2013: call for intended contributions by March
2015
Paris 2015: adoption of the
Agreement
2015
Agreement
Climate
Action

1 2 3 4
Intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs):
Will Parties be ready by Q1 2015? What will contributions look like?
Elements of the 2015 Agreement:
How will the agreement address mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacitybuilding, transparency?
Pre-2020 climate action:
Can we close the
"ambition gap"?
Implementation agenda:
Follow-up to previously
taken decisions – also relevant to the development and implementation of the 2015
Agreement
EU, US, China clear frontrunners.
Other major economies preparing; international support available
Elements to be decided in Lima
Multi-stakeholder exchanges on land use and urban environment following up on energy efficiency and renewables in
March
Steady progress on technology, agriculture…
Consensus that all must contribute emission
reductions; discussions on adaptation and finance ongoing
Emerging consensus on ambitious mitigation
commitments from the outset, on a mechanism to continue increasing ambition
Little progress on: reform of Clean Development
Mechanism, Executive
Committee of Loss and
Damage Mechanism
Consensus that upfront information requirements must be agreed in Lima; wide agreement on an assessment phase
Challenges: adaptation, finance, rules base – and negotiating process
Way forward: expand current technical work to new areas?
Concern as Kyoto Protocol
accounting rules for second commitment period not finalised
EU continued intensive outreach
Climate
Action

1 Intended contributions
Will a critical mass of INDCs be ready by March 2015 & "well in advance" of Paris?
• Warsaw decided that all Parties should come forward with INDCs
well before Paris, and by the first quarter of 2015 for those Parties
"ready to do so" – Bonn session took stock of where we are
• EU, US, China clear frontrunners
• Other major economies confirmed they are preparing, but have not yet committed March 2015 (Japan, Korea, Brazil, Mexico, New
Zealand, South Africa…)
• Many developing countries request capacity-building support, which is ongoing and readily available
• Canada and Australia are laggards among developed countries
Next steps:
Continue to build pressure and political momentum so that many countries keep up with EU, US and China
Climate
Action

1 Intended contributions
What is an "intended contribution" – should it cover emissions reductions, adaptation, support to other countries?
• All Parties seem to accept INDCs should cover mitigation
• However, for some:
• Parties can also come forward with adaptation and financial and other support in INDCs if they want (US, Umbrella Group, Singapore); or
• INDCs should also have that wider scope for all Parties
(progressive South American countries, "like-minded" developing countries, Africa Group)
• The EU cannot share this view – it conditions mitigation action on availability of guaranteed financing to developing countries, adds complexity to the process and departs from what was agreed in Warsaw
• A revised draft decision will be produced ahead of October session
Next steps:
Secure a common understanding on the scope of INDCs among
Parties
Climate
Action

1 Intended contributions
Will upfront information requirements apply to mitigation only? Or also adaptation and means of implementation?
• Parties must decide on upfront information requirements by Lima to ensure that INDCs are transparent, clear and understandable
• Essential to know e.g. type of INDC (e.g. absolute target, intensity target);
coverage (e.g. in terms of sectors and gases); metrics and methodologies Parties use to estimate the emissions reductions impact of their INDCs
• Problems with extending requirements beyond mitigation to adaptation and
support for other countries – some Parties are asking for this ("like-minded" developing countries, Africa Group)
• Some Parties are arguing that upfront information should be different for
developed and developing countries ("like-minded" developing countries, Africa
Group) while most others say differentiation should be based on type of INDC
(EU, US, developed "Umbrella Group", progressive Latin Americans, small island states)
Next steps: Continue working towards a decision in Lima
Climate
Action

1 Intended contributions
How to ensure INDCs are individually fair and collectively sufficient?
• The timing and upfront information requirements for INDCs are important so that INDCs can be collectively assessed before Paris to check whether:
• They add up to enough effort to keep average temperature increase below 2 ° C (or 1.5
° C) compared to pre-industrial levels
• INDCs are individually fair
• An increasing number of Parties agree there should be such an international process
• Certain Parties would like to see such process apply not only to mitigation but also to adaptation and/or finance – unclear how this could function
• "Like-minded" developing countries reluctant towards such a process
Next steps: Continue promoting such an assessment phase
Climate
Action

2
Elements of 2015 Agreement
How can the new Agreement address emission reductions and their review, adaptation to climate change, financial support, technology, capacity-building and transparency?
• Emerging consensus that the 2015 Agreement must contain:
• Ambitious mitigation commitments from the outset
• A mechanism to "ratchet up" ambition
• No consensus on the first commitment period – but notion of 2020-
2025 appears to be gaining traction
• Adaptation: idea of qualitative global climate resilience goal attracted support, Parties have doubts on a quantitative goal
• Process challenges ahead as hardline "like-minded" developing countries put brakes on next steps
Next steps: Consider EU submission on draft elements of 2015 Agreement
Climate
Action

2
Elements of 2015 Agreement
Delivering on existing commitments is key for building trust – challenges: how to provide demonstrate that climate finance is being scaled up? how to include climate finance in the 2015 Agreement in a way that reassures recipient countries, and is realistic for donors?
• Common understanding that elements on finance will be part of the
2015 Agreement, including through mobilisation of public and private
finance flows; enabling environments; mainstreaming; monitoring, reporting and verification
• Early and substantial capitalization of Green Climate Fund and announcement of public climate finance for 2015 (and 2016) would help reassure recipient countries
• Key challenges: greater clarity and predictability on pathways towards meeting USD 100 billion goal by 2020; progress on pathways towards would positively influence negotiations on the 2015 Agreement
Next steps:
• Keep on providing reassurances that finance will continue – outreach to finance leaders in the EU Member States
• Engage further on design of finance elements of the new Agreement
Climate
Action

2
Elements of 2015 Agreement
Adaptation needs to be a key pillar in the 2015 Agreement – but how do we address the clear need for it without detracting from mitigation as key goal?
• Areas of convergence: synergies between mitigation and adaptation
(the more mitigation, the less adaptation); seeing adaptation in the context of sustainable climate resilient development planning; building on existing institutions; coherence/cooperation between actors in-outside
UNFCCC;
• Areas of controversy: Proposals for a "global goal on adaptation" that would calculate and allocate costs under different temperature scenarios; adaptation as part of "INDCs" and UFI process; support for adaptation action
Next steps:
• Continue proactive discussions on how to best anchor adaptation in the new
Agreement to achieve sustainable, climate-resilient development
• Continue discussions on INDC and upfront information process whether it makes sense for adaptation
Climate
Action

3
Enhanced pre-2020 ambition
How to recognise, catalyse, promote new mitigation actions, by means of pledges and initiatives? How can we build political momentum for ambitious mitigation by
2020 and beyond?
• Ministerial day showcased ongoing pre-2020 action (EU, China, US, many G20). Ministers call on each other to enhance their actions at the UN SG Leaders' Summit in September.
• For developing and developed countries (incl. China), Technical meetings
(urban, land sector, energy) and the Cities forum are useful to share experiences and opportunities for international cooperation.
• US, EU, Small Islands, Latin America, Africa want to: share/accelerate policies/initiatives, task existing institutions (Technology, Finance), further involve cities, investors, Ministers by Lima and Paris.
• "Like-minded" and Brazil, South Africa, India, China (BASIC) countries insist on developed countries enhancing their support and pledges by Lima.
Next steps:
• Make real some actions/initiatives for Climate Summit, Lima, Paris. Encourage institutions inside and outside the Convention to link up.
• Role post 2015?
Climate
Action

4 Implementation agenda
How far has work on implementation of existing decisions progressed? What are the main outcomes and what is envisaged for further work in Lima?
•

•
•
•
Next steps:
• Keep discussions under the subsidiary bodies at technical level and ensure delivery on implementation of key aspects
• Implementation agenda to contribute to the development and implementation of the 2015 Agreement
Climate
Action

4 Implementation agenda
In developing countries, land use (agriculture and land degradation) and land use change (deforestation) represent up to 90% of emissions and roughly 50% of the mitigation potential. REDD+ is a performancebased mitigation mechanism for forests, a blueprint for incentivizing mitigation and adaptation in the whole land sector and a catalyst for sustainable rural development (incl. biodiversity and livelihoods).
• Parties disagree on whether or not the REDD+ rulebook on forestry
accounting in developing countries, as adopted in Warsaw, provides adequate guidance and support for implementation, while enabling the broadest participation of countries.
• Those who fear they would not benefit are thus looking for alternative
approaches: e.g. ex-ante financing and adaptation performance.
• Implementation is just starting. The EU thinks the REDD+ rulebook as it is could accommodate their concerns and would rather focus on delivering instead of negotiating further. But African Group, LDC and
ALBA countries are building momentum for a new deal in Lima.
• This could complicate discussions on the role of land post-2020.
Next steps:
Give evidence that REDD+ implementation can deliver both mitigation and adaptation benefits as well as new livelihood opportunities
Climate
Action

4 Implementation agenda
How can agriculture be addressed under the UNFCCC? What is the role of agriculture in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation?
• Agriculture is a significant source of GHG emissions
• Scientific and technical assessment of mitigation and adaptation in agriculture can positively contribute to future climate change policy
• In Bonn, a 2-year work plan was agreed to conduct work on mitigation and adaptation related issues (4 in-session workshops plus submission of views by parties) such as:
• effects of extreme weather events
• risks and vulnerabilities of agricultural systems
• sustainable agricultural practices
• identification of adaptations measures and possible co-benefits such as mitigation
Next steps:
2 workshops planned on risks and vulnerabilities of agricultural systems during in Bonn in 2015. EU needs to prepare submissions on the topic and input for discussion
Climate
Action

4 Implementation agenda
How can carbon market be reformed before 2020? What kind of markets framework is needed in the 2015 Agreement?
• Bonn session rebooted faltering discussion on market related
accounting and the new market mechanism; reoriented this discussion toward the 2015 agreement by making an explicit, though without prejudice link, to the discussion on the agreement
• The EU insists on certain building blocks for the agreement – on accounting for international transfers, and how to address ambition “net mitigation” in the market mechanism
• The EU wishes to reform the Clean Development Mechanism under
Kyoto Protocol to encourage more emissions reductions in developing countries, but discussions were blocked
Next steps:
• Focus discussion on markets toward minimum rules which deliver greater ambition
• Engage key countries in our vision of the international framework for markets
Climate
Action

4 Implementation agenda
National Adaptation Plans, Nairobi Work Programme, Warsaw Mechanism for "Loss and Damage" - can we make them have tangible impact on the ground?
• Parties confirmed the national adaptation planning process as the backbone of countries efforts to mainstream adaptation in all part of the development planning and implementation – and for building capacity
• Operationalising the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and
damage: controversies over procedures and composition of the Executive
Committee
• Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change agreed on additional activities (webinars) in areas of ecosystems, human settlements, water resources, health, including timing of implementation of such activities; also request to better link NWP with
Adaptation
Next steps:
• Continue constructive discussion on the final composition of the Loss and damage mechanism
• Further consider the revision of guidelines for the NAPs process
Climate
Action

4 Implementation agenda
How can we ensure countries, especially developing countries, have sufficient administrative capacity to design policies to move to a low carbon, climate-resilient development pathway and stimulate innovation?
• Capacity-building: Agreement on importance, but disagreement about approach to take: crosscutting issue or need for a dedicated Committee?
• Successful 3 rd Durban Forum on Capacity Building demonstrated support activities across different UNFCCC, regional and national bodies.
• A web-based Capacity Building Portal was launched that provides overview on UN organizations in 50+ developing countries.
• Technology transfer: Agreement about the importance of the existing
Technology Mechanism, but disagreement about the provision of financing for technology projects and the licensing of intellectual property rights to developing countries.
Next steps:
Continue to support capacity building / technology transfer as an integrated part of all support programs, and back the further development of existing institutions
(Durban Forum, web-based capacity building portal…)
Climate
Action

4 Implementation agenda
The IAR in December 2014 will allow, for the first time, a multilateral assessment of individual Parties' progress towards their 2020 targets.
Slow progress at technical level on other issues related to reporting and review.
• Multilateral Assessment (MA)
Each developed country party will be multilaterally assessed on basis of its emissions, assumptions, conditions and methodologies and the progress towards the achievement of its 2020 target
The MA will be a process of high political importance as all Parties to the
UNFCCC , including developing countries, will have the possibility to ask questions to each Annex 1 Party
EU and ~10 MS will undergo this process in 2014
• Agenda items related to reporting and review
Lack of substantive progress in Bonn; decisions needed in Lima
Next steps:
• Need for coordination at EU level to ensure a coordinated approach to the multilateral assessment session in Lima
• Potentially further submissions on the review/reporting guidelines
Climate
Action

4 Implementation agenda
Finalisation of the rules to implement the second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol in Lima is essential for ratification since these rules are the "nuts and bolts" of the accounting system for the second commitment period
• First commitment period: Parties now agreed on 10 August 2015 as the date of completion of the expert review process that also sets the start date of the additional period for fulfilling commitments under the first commitment period, which will be postponed if the review process is not finished
• Second commitment period: due to an issue affecting Ukraine, Belarus and
Kazakhstan, finalisation of accounting and reporting rules, agreed in Warsaw but not formally adopted, made no progress
• The question does not affect the EU as such, but holding up progress does:
Rules must be adopted by Lima, otherwise the EU may be unable to ratify the second commitment period as we would not know what rules would apply
• The outcome of Warsaw will continue being used as a basis for the work in Lima and preparations for implementation
Next steps:
Continue discussions on the accounting modalities with a view to finalization of few outstanding provisions, and formal adoption of all the rules (agreed in Warsaw) in Lima
Climate
Action

Lima 2014
• Upfront information requirements defined so INDCs are understandable and comparable
• Clarity on international process in 2015 to assess fairness & collective adequacy of INDCs
• Further progress on how adaptation and financial and other support are to be reflected in the 2015 Agreement
• First draft negotiating text available
Paris 2015
• Addressing mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity-building,
transparency of action and support in a comprehensive way
• Inclusion in the 2015 Agreement of a long-term goal consistent with science
(keeping global average temperature increase below 2°C vs. pre-industrial levels)
• Nationally determined contributions to be included in the form of mitigation commitments that are legally binding
• Further strengthen multilateral rules through monitoring, reporting and verification, accounting and compliance
• Mechanism to regularly consider global level of ambition so Parties can raise their own ambition if wished and necessary
• Catalyse real action by all types of stakeholders, building on pre-2020 experience
Climate
Action

11-12 Jul Major Economies Forum, Paris
13-15 Jul
19-20 Sep TBC
23 Sep
20-25 Oct
4-7 Nov
15-16 Nov
1-12 Dec
Petersberg Ministerial Dialogue
Major Economies Forum, New York
Leaders’ Summit on Climate Change, New York
Ad-Hoc Durban Platform inter-sessional meeting, Bonn
Pre-COP, Venezuela
G20 Leaders’ Summit, Brisbane
COP20 climate summit, Lima
Climate also high on agenda of summits
Climate
Action

Climate
Action

Climate
Action

5 Outreach CLIMA internal
• Small Island States (AOSIS): Constructive but demanding allies of the
EU. Focus on adaptation, finance and in particular emission reductions pre-2020.
• Least developed countries: Ambitious but remain not very vocal.
• African group: Increasingly close to the "like-minded" position, with major substantive difference on the need for an assessment phase.
• Progressive Latin Americans (AILAC): Assertive and constructive – but also demanding (i.e. adaptation and loss and damage).
Constructive discussions on adaptation/finance to be followed up.
• Developed "Umbrella group", Environmental Integrity Group: positions close to the EU's.
US now at the progressive end of the spectrum.
Russia remains a concern, though broader geopolitical issues did not affect the June session.
Climate
Action

5 Outreach CLIMA internal
• "Like-minded" developing countries: Philippines, Malaysia, Bolivia,
Venezuela, Saudi-Arabia, India, China; Focus on maintaining strict North-
South divide ("firewall") - opposed to EU stances on many issues.
In Bonn, put procedural brakes on negotiations, but did not gain wider traction – and did not block progress in the end.
However, last intervention from China indicates process concerns have to be taken seriously.
• BASIC: Close coordination among China, India, Brazil.
• South Africa: Particular position within BASICs, ready to engage constructively on substance, strong interest in pre-2020 action.
Constructive bilateral discussions with EU on finance.
• China and Brazil: Insistence on keeping the binary differentiation between developed and developing countries.
At the same time, ambitious domestic action in China, and promise of an
"action target" next year that will "convince the international community of China's engagement."
Encouraging progress with Brazil on markets.
Climate
Action

5 Outreach CLIMA internal
• Confirmed that preparations now underway by all G20 and MEF
Parties
• BUT only US, EU, Mexico and Russia officially committed to Q1 2015.
China and India are likely.
• INDC form is likely to mirror existing Copenhagen pledges (NB - China may move to absolute target, after a potential peak emissions year)
• Scope of contributions – wide variation, with Umbrella Group focused on mitigation only; others want adaptation, finance, tech transfer
• No major economies expected to announce their INDC at UNSG
Climate Leaders’ Summit, but many can "commit to commit"
Climate
Action