IISD: Bonn Climate Change Conference - May 2017
The Bonn Climate Change Conference continued on Monday. Informal consultations met throughout the day to discuss issues under the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA), the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).
Among mandated events, the facilitative sharing of views (FSV) and workshop on long-term finance met throughout the day, and the 5th Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) Dialogue met in the afternoon to exchange views on climate education.
The Bonn Climate Change Conference continued on Monday. Throughout the day, informal consultations and mandated events convened.
PARIS AGREEMENT ARTICLE 6.2 (ITMOs): Co-Facilitator Hugh Sealy (Maldives) invited further comments on the compilation list of elements. On overarching principles, a party asked to include transparency. Various parties supported the inclusion of robust accounting and, opposed by a group of parties, progression and higher ambition. A party urged consideration of both negative and positive economic and social impacts of ITMOs. Some asked to include linkages between Paris Agreement Articles 6.2 and 6.8 (non-market approaches). A group of parties identified the Adaptation Fund as the recipient of the share of proceeds. The Co-Facilitators will issue a new iteration of the text.
On further work, Co-Facilitator Kelley Kizzier (EU) proposed, and parties agreed, to hold discussions on technical intersessional work needed, followed by a discussion on conclusions.
PARIS AGREEMENT ARTICLE 6 (COOPERATIVE APPROACHES): In the afternoon, Co-Facilitator Kelley Kizzier (EU) asked parties to focus on intersessional work needed before SBSTA 47. Parties generally agreed on the need for a new round of submissions, while they diverged on whether to provide guidance to focus the submissions. A group of parties identified areas for further work, including: corresponding adjustments; overall mitigation; and identification of synergistic approaches under Agreement Article 6.8 (non-market approaches). Several parties expressed discomfort in recognizing the list of elements identified by the Co-Facilitators as the basis for further work, including for submissions, while others worried that work done at the session would be lost if it were not captured in some form. Parties diverged on inviting stakeholders’ submissions. A number of parties supported organizing an in-session roundtable, with a few emphasizing that party participation should not be limited. Some parties argued that technical or synthesis papers were “premature” given the divergent views that still exist on conceptual issues. Others said close coordination with discussions on NDC guidance was needed. Parties will review the second iteration of the list of elements on Tuesday, 16 May, and consider ways forward.
MATTERS RELATING TO SCIENCE AND REVIEW: Research and systematic observation: Co-Facilitator Christiane Textor (Germany) introduced revised draft conclusions based on informal informal consultations. Discussions focused on a bracketed paragraph noting the importance of the scientific community and the IPCC’s work in relation to a number of bulleted issues. On a bullet referring to the consideration of the gender dimension, indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge, parties agreed to compromise language referring to “the human” instead of the “gender” dimension, which was opposed by one party. Parties also agreed to amend bracketed text referring to scientific information relevant to the COP 22 and 23 Presidencies’ consultations on the 2018 Facilitative Dialogue by using language from the relevant COP 22 decision on these consultations. Parties agreed to the draft conclusions with these and other minor amendments.
PARIS AGREEMENT TECHNOLOGY FRAMEWORK: Elfriede More (Austria) co-facilitated. Parties commented on draft conclusions.
Some parties, opposed by one other, noted need for continuing elaboration on the framework’s principles at future sessions. Some developed countries, opposed by other parties, suggested instead referring to “guiding values.”
On the framework’s structure, several developing countries sought emphasis on: promotion of technology development and transfer; new or updated functions to increase ambition; and roles played by stakeholders in various phases of the technology cycle.
On the framework reflecting guidance provided to the Technology Mechanism and nationally-designated entities, some parties suggested considering the cross-cutting nature of the themes agreed to at SBSTA 45 and their relation to the technology cycle. One party, opposed by others, proposed deletion of the number of themes and of “transformational change.”
Several parties suggested referencing the Co-Facilitators’ non-papers to capture progress made at this session without prejudging future discussions. The Co-Facilitators will revise the draft conclusions.
NAIROBI WORK PROGRAMME: Co-Facilitator Beth Lavender (Canada) invited parties to further consider a draft conclusions text. On inviting submissions, a party asked to add language to further improve the NWP’s relevance and effectiveness. Parties agreed on text that refers to the potential contribution of the NWP to the advancement of the SDGs. On improving the effectiveness of the Focal Point Forum, parties agreed on informing future activities to be undertaken in a manner that supports the implementation of the Paris Agreement. On the invitation of support, parties considered the need to include explicit reference to experts from developing countries. Parties agreed to the draft conclusions with these amendments.
MANDATED EVENTS: Facilitated sharing of views (FSV): The FSV convened throughout the day. India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Mauritania, Montenegro, Morocco, the Republic of Moldova, Thailand and Uruguay presented their biennial update reports. Questions to India focused on the 81% increase in solar capacity achieved in 2016 over 2015. Parties also asked India about its short-term capacity-building needs and whether using multiple IPCC guidelines proved an additional burden, or provided flexibility. Parties asked Indonesia, inter alia: if costs of technical support in the forestry sector were assessed; about inter-annual variability in the LULUCF sector; and about the role of the CDM in meeting mitigation targets.