Background
The 2.10 meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Actions (ADP) under the UNFCCC took place in Bonn, Germany from 31 August to 4 September 2015. This meeting was based on the ADP Co-Chairs (Daniel Reifsnyder-USA and Ahmed Djoghlaf-Algeria) tool derived from the Geneva text. In the ADP 2.9 session held in Bonn from 1-11 June 2015, the parties had given the mandate to the Co-Chairs to present a tool without compromising the Geneva text. The Co-Chairs presented the tool and issued on 24 July containing three parts - Part 1 comprises provisions that are by nature “appropriate for inclusion in an agreement”; Part 2 contains provisions that are appropriate for inclusion in a decision; and Part 3 contains “provisions whose placement require further clarity among Parties in relation to the draft agreement or draft decision”
Process of ADP2.10 Meeting
The ADP 2.10 session under Workstream II and I proceeded in a very slow pace. The co-chairs put the facilitated groups to work from the very beginning and subsequently created spin-off groups under them. There was a strong call from many developing countries to initiate the drafting of the text based on the tool. They also raised the issue of moving many elements from part 3 to part 1. However, this did not happen and most of the discussions were directed towards enhancing the conceptual understanding on various issues in the spin-off groups. Most of the time was spent discussing the elements presented in the tool and parties opinion on it.
Similar methodology and approach was used for all the elements such as – Adaptation and Loss and Damage, Mitigation (differentiation, non-markets), Technology Development and Transfer, Finance, Capacity Building Transparency of Actions and Support, timeframe among other things under the new agreement. There was also focused group discussion on Workstream II (pre 2020 actions). Over the week, confusion reigned over how the discussion outputs would be captured by the co-chairs, as there were no written reports. Parties continued to stress their own former positions as in previous meetings. One of the parties succinctly put it“ we spent about 75 per cent of the time on story telling so still confused were we are going.”
Workstream I
- Workstream I was on the main focus of the ADP 2.10 discussion as it constrains the post 2020 agreement elements. There were many diverging view among parties under all the elements. This is expected to make the upcoming negotiations tough as usual.
o General Objectives: There were discussions on whether the objectives should come under the preamble or on separate section. Many parties agreed that the section 2 of the convention should fall under this section. Different opinion exists among parties on the issues like temperature goal; principles, etc. should they be under the objective or preamble.
o Mitigation: Mitigation saw lots of discussion under how to address differentiation, concept of joint implementation, non-market based approach, etc under the new agreement. The spin off groups had lengthy discussions and divergence of views on the mentioned issues. Other issues such as operationalization of the long-term goal, accounting rules, a registry or annex, joint mitigation and adaptation actions, sector-specific actions, and response measures were also discussed prompting divers interest from parties.
o Adaptation and Loss and Damage: General discussion saw the need to integrate adaptation in the national development planning. Most of the parties also emphasised on the need to enhance existing institutions. Developing countries raised the issue of low treatment of loss and damage. The need for a long-term vision, funding for adaptation and linkage between the temperature goal and adaptation were also raised. In the early days, the adaptation and loss and damage discussion were merged but later the issue were discussed separately. Under loss and damage discussions, the LDCs proposed the institutional arrangements, including a displacement facility and a technical panel. Financing for loss and damaged was also raised.
o Finance: Finance facilitation group discussed various sections under finance element, such as, obligations and commitments; scale of resources; sources; and MRV. Many parties also raised the issue of institutional arrangements between existing funds and the new agreement. Protracted discussions and debate took place in the finance group in order to understand the conceptual aspect of each section. Not much progress was made and the contentious issue remains. The phrase ‘in a position to do so” was also strongly contested by some developing countries.
o Technology Development and Transfer: In the technology development and transfer discussion many developing countries requested for establishing a linkage between the technology section and finance. Some also requested for commitments from developed countries to help developing countries address barriers and facilitate the deployment of technology. Some developing countries asked for further work on periodic assessments of institutional arrangements through COP decisions.
o Capacity Building: In the capacity building discussion, many developing countries called for the establishment of a new capacity-building mechanism however, many developed countries opposed the idea. Some developing countries raised the issue of how to fill the capacity building gap in the implementation of new agreement.
o Transparency of actions and Support: Many parties stressed the importance of discussing accountability of actions and support for developing country. They asked for the linkage between support and transparency of action. Transparency of mitigation action; transparency of adaptation action; MRV of support; and information on support provided and received were all considered to be important.
o Timeframe and process: Under this element, issues of scope, timing, communication of commitments or contributions, stocktaking, and housing of commitments were discussed. There were diverse opinions whether the mitigation and adaptation should be treated separately or together. Many parties were for a five-year commitment period of mitigation cycle backed by finance but some had other ideas. Some called for a five-year cycle for a global review of mitigation contribution.
- There was a lot of discussion around all the elements but with very few converging elements. The co-chairs will have to work hard to put it in the text.
Workstream II
- In the facilitated group discussion, Parties continued to stress the views on the importance of workstream II and its implementation backed by sufficient finance and technology.
- Developing countries stress the need to meet the KP commitment and Bali Action Plan and to enhance the action on mitigation efforts.
- Developed countries stress on how the role-played by non-state actors and other stakeholders would be captured under the current discussion.
- Developed countries also pushed for all parties to be under the similar condition of MRV for the highest mitigation efforts. Different views are present on this and the debate continues.
- Developing countries called for the check of double counting of mitigation actions by the developed countries parties in the pre 2020 actions.
- Parties are willing to continue the technical examination process for mitigation options.
- Developed and developing countries continue to have differences on various aspects such as commitments, MRV, institutional arrangements among other things.
- Co-chairs will provide parties with opportunity to input and make submission to improve the current drat and based on the inputs received co-chairs will present a new draft version for consideration.
Conclusions
The ADP2.10 was a slow process trying to understand each others thinking on various elements. Not much was achieved in Bonn in terms of actual text moving ahead and negotiating. Not having a text-based negotiation also disappointed many parties. However, the co-chairs have managed to get themselves the mandate to draft a new negotiating text by October. It will be interesting to see how the co-chairs have managed to capture the outcome of ADP2.10 meeting and reflect in the next draft negotiating text.
