With the end of the first week of the Sharm El-Sheikh Climate Change Conference nearing, co-facilitators across many negotiation rooms reminded delegates of the need to conclude consideration of the items set to be forwarded to the closing plenaries of the Subsidiary Bodies (SBs), scheduled for the next day.
Please, download the Document here below:
enb12812e.pdf (449.9 KiB)
enb12812f.pdf (449.9 KiB)
Guidance to the Green Climate Fund; Guidance to the Global Environment Facility: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Toru Sugio (Japan) and Richard Muyungi (Tanzania) invited parties to reflect on a compilation of submissions received from parties on guidance to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), starting with guidance from the COP. Sugio explained that a compilation of submissions on guidance for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) was being prepared. Many countries noted they had not yet received the GCF compilation, while others noted it had 125 paragraphs and was convoluted. Agreeing with the assessment, Sugio explained that parties had not yet provided the co-facilitators a mandate to prepare draft text. All parties agreed to mandate the co-facilitators to streamline the text, making specific suggestions on how to do this and highlighting their priority issues and “red lines.”
On suggestions for streamlining, parties requested removing: duplication; repetition in areas where guidance already exists; and elements contradicting the GCF Governing Instrument. A developing country group pointed out that parties’ understanding of what constitutes a contradiction with the Governing Instrument varies, with a developed country suggesting the co-facilitators focus on paragraphs most likely to achieve consensus.
On priorities and red lines, many developed countries called for keeping the guidance at a high, strategic level and avoiding micromanaging the GCF Board, including on issues already decided or under consideration, or preempting the quantity of the second GCF replenishment. Countries called for inclusion of, inter alia, gender considerations, access policies, complementarity with other institutions, and REDD+. One developing country group cautioned against including guidance that reinterprets the UNFCCC or its principles. A developing country opposed language on just transitions. Several developed countries called for GCF-related elements discussed under other items, including loss and damage and national adaptation plans, to be centralized under this item.
On a compilation of submissions for CMA guidance, parties provided the co-facilitators a similar streamlining mandate. They disagreed on whether and how to include guidance relating to Paris Agreement Article 2.1(c) (on consistency of finance flows). Muyungi explained that compilations of GEF guidance submissions would be available on Saturday morning, 12 November, and the co-facilitators would endeavor to provide draft text for both entities by the end of the first week.
Matters Relating to Funding Arrangements Responding to Loss and Damage Associated with the Adverse Effects of Climate Change, Including a Focus on Addressing Loss and Damage: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitator Julio Cordano (Chile) noted that parties had made important progress in sharing general expectations, and invited a focus on: elements for the outcome from COP 27/CMA 4; timeline for work through 2024; potential work under the SBs; and the role of the Glasgow Dialogue on loss and damage.
On elements for the outcome, developing countries listed, inter alia: acknowledgement of the gap between needs and support; new, additional, and adequate financing; and creating an operational entity and “a series of conversations to develop the details of this entity.”
On the timeline and work for the SBs, a developed country suggested mandating the SBI to implement the work programme under this item and report on its progress, and that a decision be taken at the COP/CMA in 2024. Another developed country suggested mandating SB discussions on this item.
On the role of the Glasgow Dialogue, developed countries made various suggestions, including: considering the current loss and damage support landscape, including how relevant institutions can provide support, coordinating these actors, and identifying gaps and ways to address these gaps; and mapping potential sources of funding. They proposed technical papers, further workshops, national and regional meetings, ministerial roundtables, submissions, inputs from initiatives being established in and outside the UNFCCC, and special and annual reports to the COP/CMA. One developed country said that form should follow function, calling for “time to get it right” while recognizing the urgency of the matter.
Developing countries observed that developed countries’ proposals seemed to contradict the sense of urgency they proclaimed, noting that discussions have been ongoing for more than a decade and calling for a political decision to create a fund for loss and damage.
Informal consultations will continue on Saturday, 12 November.
Report of the Adaptation Fund Board: In informal consultations, co-facilitated by Diann Black-Layne (Antigua and Barbuda) and Eva Schreuder (Netherlands), parties diverged on whether to welcome and name parties that had made pledges, regardless of whether they had signed contribution agreements, or welcome all announced pledges but note those still outstanding. Calling this an accountability issue, a developing country group, supported by others, preferred either the latter option or, as an alternative, simply omitting the names of parties with announced but outstanding pledges. They also exchanged views on whether to specify a preference for pledges to the Fund to be “multi-annual” and an invitation for voluntary contributions from non-party stakeholders. On text relating to opportunities for streamlining processes, a developed country proposed adding “project approval” to the scope. A developing country group opposed, noting accreditation and project approval processes are very different and including the latter would be inappropriate. The co-facilitators will circulate revised text.
Fourth Review of the Adaptation Fund: In informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Black-Layne and Schreuder described changes to the draft text compared to the previous iteration, including: adding, in a preambular paragraph, a reference to the importance of share of proceeds; and noting that the previous resource mobilization strategy is the first to refer to funding by subnational governments, the private sector, and charitable foundations.
Parties strongly diverged on the level of participation accorded to countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement but not the Kyoto Protocol in the decision-making discussions on this agenda item. The Secretariat’s legal advisor confirmed several developing country groups’ and countries’ interpretation that non-parties cannot participate in decision making and therefore cannot make interventions on CMP decision text to be forwarded to the SBI plenary unless the interventions are channeled through parties.
Parties also debated whether to: include references to Decision 1/CMA.3 paragraph 18, on doubling developed countries’ provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing countries; and note “with deep concern” the continued issues related to the sustainability, adequacy, and predictability of financial contributions to the Fund. On the upcoming fifth review of the Fund, after lengthy exchanges, parties agreed to request the SBI to report back to “its governing bodies” at COP 31 (2026) without specifying which bodies these are.
Other outstanding points could not be addressed and the co-facilitators noted they will forward the draft text incorporating agreed amendments to the SBI Chair.
Matters Relating to the Clean Development Mechanism Registry: In informal consultations, co-facilitated by Kate Hancock (Australia) and Sonam Tashi (Bhutan), parties reviewed co-facilitators’ draft text on this item, issued on Wednesday, 9 November.
In addition to editorial suggestions, comments focused on two paragraphs. On a paragraph clarifying that only certified emission reductions (CERs) held in permanent holding accounts may be transferred to the Article 6.4 mechanism registry, one developing country group viewed that CERs from pending accounts should also be eligible. Parties agreed to delete this paragraph.
On a sub-paragraph on transfer requests requiring approval from the host party of the CER-generating activity, parties discussed whether host parties should “approve” or “inform,” which entity should play this role, and whether they should also approve the CERs’ use. Hancock proposed additional language to clarify the approving authority and CERs’ use toward nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
Noting a lack of consensus on this sub-paragraph, the co-facilitators informed parties they will prepare a new text iteration to reflect consensus on other paragraphs and consult the SBI Chair on the way forward.
Reporting and Review Pursuant to Article 13 of the Paris Agreement: Provision of financial and technical support to developing countries for reporting and capacity-building: In informal consultations, co-facilitated by Tian Wang (China) and Helen Plume (New Zealand), parties considered draft conclusions, engaging in textual negotiations on a number of paragraphs.
A developing country group called for the SBI to urge the GEF to at least double the resources it provides for biennial transparency reports and provide no less than USD 1 million per country. Several developed countries pointed to lengthy negotiations on the GEF’s eight replenishment and noted the matter should be taken up in the negotiations on guidance to the GEF.
Several developed countries cautioned against preempting the outcome of the continued consideration of challenges that developing countries face in implementing the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) at SBI 58 and opposed references to a long-term workplan. Parties converged on specifying this be done with a view to facilitating the development of sustainable institutional capacity of developing countries, particularly least developed countries and small island developing states, to meet their obligations under Paris Agreement Article 13 (on transparency).
Other amendments related to noting capacity gaps in establishing and enhancing reporting systems, and noting existing support provided through multilateral and bilateral channels.
The co-facilitators said they will forward the draft text incorporating agreed amendments to the SBI Chair.
Guidance on Cooperative Approaches Referred to in Article 6.2: Co-Facilitators Kuki Soejachmoen (Indonesia) and Peer Stiansen (Norway) introduced new draft text containing draft procedural SBSTA conclusions and a bracketed draft CMA decision containing guidance on the Article 6.2 cooperative approaches. Many parties noted they had not had the opportunity to consider the text and suggested holding informal informals on the draft CMA decision to try and achieve further convergence.
Discussions continued in informal informals.
Find out more...
For more Information, please, download the Document here below: