TWN Update No. 21: ADP: Call for balanced progress in workstreams

7/28/2019 TWN Update No. 21: ADP: Call for balanced progress in workstreams

1/8

122

ADP: Call for balanced progress in workstreams

Bonn, 14 June (Hilary Chiew and Meena Raman)Developing countries called for balance in theprogress of issues under the Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on the Durban Platform for Enhanced

Actions (ADP) for the realisation of the 2015agreement.

The ADP process under the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) isbeing conducted in two workstreams, with

workstream 1 (WS1) focusing on the agreementto be concluded by 2015, and workstream 2(WS2) addressing the pre-2020 ambition.

Developing countries said that a successfuloutcome in WS2 in addressing theimplementation gaps and increasing the pre-2020ambition lays the basis for achieving future

success under WS1 under the new agreement.This was viewed as being absolutely essential tobuild trust in the negotiations for the WS1outcome.

These views were expressed by developingcountries in a stock-taking informal plenary ofthe ADP held on 12 June, where the Co-chairsinvited Parties to share their reflections onprogress made under the two workstream roundtables and workshops during the ongoing Bonnsession.

During the session, in relation to discussionsunder WS2, as regards the process, India did not

want to see concrete decisions in Warsawwithout a structured and Party-drivennegotiations, which it said has not started yet.(The 19th meeting of the UNFCCC Conferenceof Parties will take place at the end of this year in

Warsaw, Poland.)

India, China and Saudi Arabia also registeredstrong objections to the proposed transfer of

hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs) which is agreenhouse gas (GHG) to the MontrealProtocol on ozone depleting substances. India,

using a rich analogy, said it did not want otherorganisations to pluck low hanging fruits fromthe UNFCCC, saying that one can pluck low-hanging fruits if it is in ones garden; but if we dothat in someone elses, its called theft and ifothers start plucking from our garden, that is

also theft. China questioned if Parties are goingto be left with no GHGs to mitigate.

(A major concern is that the UNFCCCfundamental principle of common butdifferentiated responsibilities is not in theMontreal Protocol.)

Chairing the first session first, Co-chair of theADP, Harald Dovland (Norway) said insightsfrom Parties will help him and his other co-chair,

Jayant Mauskar (India) in preparing a report

under their own responsibilities. Parties hadrequested the Co-chairs to prepare handovernotes for in-coming co-chairs, capturing the

work done during this second part of the secondsession of the ADP.

The informal plenary began by collecting viewson the progress of WS1.

Refe lc t ions on Workstream 1 (WS1)Speaking for the LMDC (Like-MindedDeveloping Countries in Climate Change),

the Philippines called for the launch of a moreformal and focused process on the mandate ofDurban and Doha (the 2011 and 2012 UNFCCCCOP meetings). It emphasised that the grouphad engaged in the ADP roundtables and

workshops in the April and June sessions in thebelief that these would assist Parties inexchanging important views analytically andconceptually so as to advance mutualunderstanding and clarify issues mandated by(decisions) 1/CP17 and 2/CP18.

It called for focus on these existing and agreedcommon ground elements from Durban andDoha and to strike a balanced treatment among


2/8

TWN Bonn Update No. 21 14 June 2013

2

and between these elements - mitigation,adaptation, financing, technology transfer,capacity building, transparency of support andaction, and an emphasis on ensuring thatadaptation is a core area. Parties should continueto build on these as integral, comprehensive,holistic, and interlinked components of the

outcome of the ADP by 2015. However, theroundtables and workshops have not alwaysfocused on the core issues and have in fact dealt

with new concepts and models for multilateralclimate change actions that take us farther thanthe issues identified in Durban and Doha. Theymove us away from the Convention and what weneed in 2015, said the Philippines.

It added that these informal roundtablesmay have been useful in fostering informal

dialogue and discussion among Parties but theycannot be the means through which conclusionsfrom the ADP Co-chairs that shape the form orcontent of the 2015 agreement can be derivedfor use as the basis for our future negotiations. Italso did not see the need for the technical paperby the secretariat (produced for WS2) to befurther revised.

The Philippines proposed a new call forsubmissions from Parties be made on theelements and key issues to be focused on by the

ADP in 2014 in relation to the pillars of theConvention, and that all submissions are thenmade into a compilation for the consideration ofthe Parties. It also strongly supported a statusnote on 'linkages' (referring to linkages with theon-going processes under the variousinstitutional arrangements and subsidiary bodieson the various pillars).

In this context, it suggested to structure thenegotiations based on the four pillars of the

Convention and focusing on how to enhanceaction on these pillars for the pre- and post-2020periods. A formal, structured, open,participatory, and Party-driven negotiatingprocess is needed in order for the ADP to beable to capture its conclusions from thediscussions of this (Bonn) session. Thenegotiating approach, pace, and procedural andsubstantive progress of all issues and theirelements must be appropriately sequenced andbalanced, based on the four pillars of the

Convention. It stressed that there must also bebalance in the progress between WS1 and WS2,as the success of the work in WS 1 depends onthe increased ambition that should be the resultin WS2. Nevertheless, it believed that progress of

the work should be captured. In this regard, itrequested the Co-chairs to ensure that theprogress over the last several months is captured.

On how to proceed from Bonn to Warsaw andbeyond, and in the light of the difficult situation

we have found ourselves in the Subsidiary Body

on Implementation (SBI) (referring to the failureof the SBI to adopt its agenda and proceed withwork, following an agenda fight over a proposalby the Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine),it wished to seek the assurance regarding thepreservation of the agenda of the ADP as Partiesmove from this session to the next, and from thecurrent Co-chairs to the incoming Co-chairs.

China said its position is very clear in that thework of the ADP, including WS1 and WS2, is toachieve balance on the four pillars of the ADP

and stressed that Parties are not here to rewriteor to reinterpret but to implement theConvention with clear mandate from the Dohaand Durban decisions.

India agreed that there is need to move to amore focused and structured work of the ADPand build on the round tables and workshops.

The mandates of Durban and Doha provides thecontext and the pillars for such a focuseddiscussion namely mitigation, adaptation,

finance, technology development and transfer,capacity building and transparency of actions andsupport. It underlined the need to balance workbetween the WS1 and WS2. Such a balance isinherent in the overall balance. On WS1, Indiasaid that the more it heard, the more it wasconvinced that if we truly need both workstreams and the 2015 structure to take off in amanner which truly reflects CBDR (common butdifferentiated responsibilities), much more needsto be done in the pre-2020 period by way of

Annex I ambition. If not, work stream I willmerely become a vehicle for transferring Annex Icommitments to developing countries. We needhigher ambition under the KP (Kyoto Protocol)and comparable targets for non-KP Annex IParties and call on them to show leadership.

India is convinced that the 2015 structure cannotbe based solely on respective capabilities. Muchof the discussions here seem to be veeringtowards this aspect and we cannot subscribe toit. We need to underline the UNFCCC

principles, it stressed.

It also heard suggestions of a two-step processor a hybrid approach etc. It did not share these

views. In fact, such approaches go against the


3/8


3

Convention. It militates against a common butdifferentiated structure we are building for thefuture. Article 3 (of the UNFCCC) provides theresponsibilities from which commitments flow in

Article 4. It underlined the need to focus onmeans of implementation and the importance of'scaled up, new and additional and adequate and

predictable provision of finance to developingcountries' rather than invent new words forfinancing.

On transfer of technology, we need to accesstechnology and address barriers to transfer oftechnology including IPRs (intellectual propertyrights) and work out innovative approaches fortechnology transfer and payment of royaltiesprobably under the GCF.

India said that SBI's inability to start work has

seriously impacted the future work of ourConvention, including for the Warsaw COP. Itfurther said the GCF (Green Climate Fund), the

Adaptation Framework and the TechnologyMechanism work had not reached the levelexpected and this reflects the limited andabsence of actions. We do not want a lowthreshold for increasing actions but we need onethat we can be proud of in the pre-2020 period,it said.

Saudi Arabia said it looked forward to anagreement that builds on the Conventionsprinciples and provisions, stressing that thisplatform must assure a balanced outcome takinginto account the over-riding needs of developingcountries to achieve sustainable development inaccordance to their national circumstances.

Singapore referred to three clusters ofcommonality: The first cluster - the importanceof acknowledging national circumstances; thatactions will have to be nationally determined; and

that these would exist in a broader framework ofinternational rules that strengthen the multilateralsystem. The second cluster - the new 2015agreement which is applicable to all; every Party

would make contributions to the global effort inaccordance with Article 4.1; universalparticipation that is supported by all. The thirdcluster give balanced treatment to mitigationand adaptation, also finance, technology transferand capacity building.

It outlined areas for further work: (i) how toreflect and address the leadership role ofdeveloped countries in the new agreement,

which developed countries have acknowledged;(ii) how do we enhance the importance of

existing institutions and strengthen linkagesbetween new institutions and the new agreementsuch that there is no duplication; (iii) how do wecapture modalities that will provide ground ruleson which Parties can formulate their owncontribution. Need for clarity on modalities andground rules before they can come forward on

their global effort with the clear understandingwith the modalities; (iv) on the notion of ex anteclarity, which is supposed to accompany actionsby Parties, it said several ideas were floated onprocesses, procedures or steps. Singapore askedhow do we ensure rules that facilitate universalapplication in incentivizing national action ratherthan penalizing participation in the process.

Cuba wanted to see the ADP moving into aformal negotiating setting soon and reminded

that the work is operating under the mandate ofthe Conventions principles and provisions andnational circumstances will be respected.

Malaysia believed that conceptual and analyticaldiscussions have been useful. Through thesediscussions, it noted that there is generalconcurrence that the 2015 agreement should bebased on the principles, provisions and annexesof the Convention and that no furtherreinterpretation is needed. We have also heardhow in furthering our discussions, we should be

strictly guided by the elements contained indecisions from Durban and Doha, it said.

It also noted strong views that the processproceeds in a balanced and comprehensivemanner across both workstreams and across allelements, adding that it will be critical that the

ADP agenda that has served us well during thesetwo sessions remain unchanged as we continueour work under the new Co-chairs in Warsaw.

Nicaragua asserted that there will only be

progress in the ADP if the principles of theConvention, in particular equity and CBDR, arerespected and guide the process. It said theremust be a complete balance of the enhancedactions of the four pillars. Financial provision, itadded, is a must, otherwise the work of the ADPis just a conversation. It called for balancebetween the two workstreams and the process toproceed in a formal manner.

Nepal for the Least Developed Countries(LDCs) said there is need to ensure that the

work of the ADP should be guided by science toachieve the objectives of the Convention. Thediscussion in Warsaw should begin compiling the

views of the 2015 agreement.


4/8


4

Nauru for the Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS) said there is need to discuss the keypillars of mitigation, adaptation, finance andtechnology transfer as well as the linkagesbetween existing institutions and the work in the

workstreams.

Australia said we need a collaborative approachand the responsibilities must be based on scienceand hoped that the application of the CBDR andequity principles will advance and not hold backthe work. It understood the characteristics of the2015 agreement to be one of global participation,is fair and dynamic. Mitigation is key andadaptation will have its place. It would like to seethe idea of a hybrid approach (in addressingmitigation actions) to be elaborated further.

The European Union noted the importance of

upfront clarification of mitigation commitmentsand whether the pledges are fair and collectivelyambitious enough. It suggested that the Co-chairs prioritise issues based on what they hadheard and welcomed submissions on adaptationand the means of implementation. Parties mustbe specific in what they are asking as these willfeed into the ministerial dialogue at Warsaw.

Japan stressed the importance of the agreementto apply to all and contribution of Parties should

be considered fair by others; mitigation andtransparency should be the elements of theagreement as well as ex ante clarification,common accounting rules and ex postreview.

Norway said Parties need to build on existinginstitutions and how the new agreement can add

value to them. It said progress was made on howmitigation commitments can be approachedbased on national circumstances and be exploredthrough an international consultative process

with transparency. There is need to define the

timeframe of the commitment and how to frameadaptation in a more concrete way.

Switzerland reckoned that commonunderstanding was emerging on the need forbroad participation, fair differentiation andbenefits of a rules-based approach. While Partiesmay not be able to arrive at a formula, it washelpful to understand each other and what otherssee as indicators of fair differentiation.

Turkey said the design of the climate change

regime for post-2020 should be based on thethree pillars of ambition, participation andimplementation. It said while the principles ofthe Convention must be fully and correctly

applied, they should change with time, addingthat emissions cap should consider thedynamism and differences of responsibilities.

Chile for the Independent Alliance of LatinAmerican and the Caribbean (AILAC) saidbalance is needed for broad consensus and can

be reached with striking balance betweennational circumstances, a rules-based regime andcomparability of efforts.

The United States said the mode of work wasuseful to formulate key ideas. On substance, it

wanted an agreement, which is ambitious,dictated by science, is applicable to all, and willlast for a long time. Mitigation is the core of theagreement and adaptation needs to have ananchor. On mitigation, it reiterated the need fornationally determined actions with rules,

transparency in accounting and an MRV(measurement, reporting and verification) system

which is flexible. It said that the application ofprinciples of the Convention must evolve overtime and be current.

Among the suggestions for further work, itproposed the following: (i) on the differentaspects of the outcome, some could be reflectedin the agreement and others in implementingdecisions; (ii) the timing for putting forward

contributions to make the agreement effective;and (iii) the exploration of rules that areapplicable to all.

The Republic of Korea said for mitigation, theguiding principles are to ensure broad anduniversal participation within a rules-basedregime. At Warsaw, Parties should discuss thetype of commitments, commitment period andnature of commitments. It said there must beclear strategy on low emissions development andaddressing the insufficient means of

implementation. The operationalisation of theGCF will give positive signal and be a test of theseriousness of the 2015 agreement.

New Zealand said there were potential areas ofcommon ground. Parties were not renegotiatingthe Convention but there is difference of viewabout what we are reinterpreting. We are notreinterpreting the principles but about how wegive effect to them in the new agreement. That isan important distinction, it said. Mitigation is acritical part of the agreement. While adaptation isimportant, mitigation and adaptation are likely tobe reflected differently. Finance will continue toflow, it added.


5/8


5

On the design of the new agreement, there weremany common ideas on a hybrid approach,combining a top down and a bottom upapproach. There were, however, differentconcepts on what such a hybrid approach means.In reference to nationally determinedcommitments or actions, it said there would be a

process for consultation before inscription.Parties need to understand and comparecommitments with upfront information, whichare rules-based.

New Zealand said that there should also beflexibility in the new agreement to deal withparticular national circumstances. It was of the

view that flexibility should not be withoutconstraints and a rules-based framework isneeded. On what the agreement should seek to

do, universal participation is the first andforemost priority. It heard many views on Partiescontributing with their capabilities and nationalcircumstances.

Ambition, said New Zealand, was a commontheme to give effect to the objective of theConvention. The agreement should set thedirection of travel and is not a two way street.

There needed to be a process to update andimprove contribution over time.

It said Parties differed on how fairness is to beachieved in the new agreement. There isdisagreement if fairness should be defined inadvance. On the form of the agreement, it mustbe durable, and evolve over time. An emergingcommonality was for a core legal agreement thatis supported by implementing decisions Thereshould not be a duplication of existingarrangements. Further work was needed on whatthe linkages to the existing arrangements lookslike. It said that Parties had not addressed

mechanisms needed to deliver undertakings andthere is need for an incentive based approachrather than one that is punitive, said NewZealand.

Reflec t ions on Workstream (WS2) This session was chaired by Mauskar (India) andhe invited Parties to indicate progress and where

work is needed and what are the actions to betaken in Warsaw and beyond.

Venezuela for the LMDC said increasing the

mitigation ambition in the pre-2020 period is anextremely important component of the work ofthe ADP. A successful outcome in WS2 infulfilling the implementation gaps and increasing

pre-2020 ambition lays the basis for achievingfuture success in WS1. Increasing the pre-2020ambition shall primarily be achieved through theimplementation of the second commitmentperiod (CP2) of the Kyoto Protocol and theoutcome of the Bali Action Plan. The pre-2020ambition must be addressed in a comprehensive

manner, covering mitigation, adaptation andfinance, technology transfer, and capacitybuilding.

It regretted that Annex1 Parties did not show thehigh ambition in terms of their emissionreduction targets that science requires of them.

The follow-up from Doha in this regard is mostcritical for ramping up the targets both under theKP and for comparability of efforts for the non-KP Annex 1 Parties. This clearly highlights the

importance of the linkage between the work ofthe subsidiary bodies and the ADP, saidVenezuela.

It expressed concerns and found unacceptableproposals, which sought to discuss a selective listof issues as sectoral activities under WS2, someof which imply imposing additional burdens ondeveloping countries, contrary to theConvention. Developed countries must increasetheir mitigation ambition mainly through theirdomestic efforts. Any international or regional

initiatives must not introduce any new oradditional commitments for developingcountries.

Venezuela said that for developing countries,their contribution to global mitigation efforts isnow far greater than that of developed countries.However, such efforts have been largely self-funded. In this regard, there should be a clearroadmap for developed countries to fulfil theirfinancial support in the period of 2013 to 2020 in

order to meet the goal of providing US$100billion per year by 2020, and barriers totechnology transfer, especially IPRs, must beaddressed. The early and full operationalisation,during the pre-2020 period, of the mechanismsfor the provision of support includingparticularly the actual delivery of such support todeveloping countries in measurable, reportable,and verifiable ways, will be essential. It isimportant to recognise that WS 2 is not aboutshifting the responsibility of the developed

countries to the developing countries and fromAnnex 1 to Non-Annex 1.

Venezuela stressed that it is equally important tounderstand that if the developed countries had


6/8


6

lived up to their commitments under theConvention, we would not need to discuss anyaction under WS2 since the ambition gap wouldhave been closed, not just in mitigation but alsoin adaptation and means of implementation. Ifthe Annex 1 countries had lived up to therequirement of pledges of 40% emission

reduction as required for by science, themitigation gap would have been closed. Thisdiscussion is not taking place in a vacuum. It istaking place in the back drop of the fact thatdeveloping counties are doing more thandeveloped countries in the pre-2020 period.Consequently, any attempt to ask greatermitigation action by developing countries shouldbe preceded by the developed countries meetingtheir commitments and bridging the gap.

For a 'practical and result-oriented' approach, theAnnex 1 Parties should immediately ratchet uptheir ambition and conditionalities on theirpledges removed. Annex 1 Parties in the CP2 ofKP are urged to ramp up their ambitions as well.

There have been suggestions on some specificsectors for raising this ambition gap. At theoutset, it should be in conformity with CBDR.Further, Venezuela called for sensitivity whensectors especially HFCs, agriculture and energyare selected.

On why proposals are made to remove HFCsfrom the UNFCCC to the Montreal Protocol,

Venezuela said that it was so because the CBDRprinciple does not apply to the MontrealProtocol. Consequently, developing countries

would be forced to take phasing out targetsaffecting our industry adversely. Further, there isno commercially reliable technology available. Itcould not accept this proposal. It also called forcaution on mitigation issues dealing withagriculture and energy, where we should be

sensitive to the vulnerabilities of countries asrecognised in the Convention about countriesdependent on fossil fuels, as well as the millions

who depend on agriculture for their livelihoodand undertake subsistence farming.

China said WS2 was useful to discuss themitigation gap and means of implementation andit is where developed countries can show theirleadership. In response to the suggestion to seekexternal assistance, it asserted that the

Convention covers every aspect of climatechange and in that sense, everything related toclimate change is covered and nothing isoutside. In the KP, it said there is languagedefining issues that can be handled by other

international bodies. It was deeply concernedthat some GHGs may be dealt with by otherinternational bodies. It questioned if this had todo with a lack of a financial mechanism. It was

worried that while Parties are talking aboutenhancing actions but things are happening inthe opposite direction.

India underlined the need for balance betweenWS1and WS2 and the need for greater effort byAnnex I countries under pre-2020 for ameaningful launch of the post-2020arrangements. For India, WS2 is about fulfilmentof the commitments of the developed countries,of raising ambitions under the KP and forcomparable efforts for Annex 1 Parties outsideof the KP. It called for the leadership ofdeveloped countries.

On the process, it did not want to see concretedecisions on WS2 issues in Warsaw withoutstructured and Party-driven negotiations. This, itsaid, has not started yet.

India also did not want other organisations topluck low hanging fruits from the UNFCCC,referring to the proposal by developed countriesto transfer HFCs to the Montreal Protocol. Itsaid one can pluck low-hanging fruits if it is inones garden but if we do that in someone elses,

its called theft and if others start plucking fromour garden, that is also theft. It reminded Partiesthat UNFCCC is about integrity and we have toabide by high ethics and make sure that theft isnot committed in the developing countriesgarden.

HFCs are ironically to replace HCFCs; they arenot ozone depleting substances. It has an impacton industries and has socio-economic impacts,used in air-conditioners, used in treatment ofasthma and other diseases. It asked why HFCs

cannot be phased out under the UNFCCC. Indiaexpressed appreciation on the clarification ofChina on the recent China-US agreement and thereassurance that it is being dealt with under theConvention. It is strange to say that do it underthe Montreal Protocol and account for it in theUNFCCC as this only serves the interest of

Annex 1 Parties. When there are nocommercially viable alternatives, we still do thisunder the UNFCCC or we cannot come toconclusions in Warsaw.

On energy and agriculture too, it agreed with theLMDC. In respect of agriculture we should becareful not to ignore the millions in alldeveloping countries, who depend on it for their


7/8


7

livelihood and living and undertake subsistenceagriculture. India said there was a suggestionhaving a technical paper on sectoral ambitionand this is premature. Greater clarity is firstneeded on the context to be addressed beforethere is a technical paper. It said Parties have tocooperate on this subject, otherwise, it is

extremely unrealistic to think that it can beresolved in Warsaw.

Brazil said WS2 is absolutely key to build trustfor the negotiation we are going to have in WS1.It said there is some truth in that the UNFCCCParties are equipped to negotiate but not toimplement as shown by the poor mitigation,adaptation, finance and technology transfer.

It agreed that WS2 is not an exercise to transferadditional responsibilities to developing

countries, stressing that the solution is not whatdeveloping countries are going to do butdeveloped countries have to take the lead. Butthis is something we do not see at the level thatis essential to build the trust to lead us to do ourenhanced actions and it is better to incentivisethan to penalise. It expressed concerns that manydeveloping countries are not ready for some ofthe ideas raised regarding WS1 because we donot see progress in WS2. It further said Warsawshould show important progress in the trust-

building process and should not rush on WS1 ifwe are not capable of doing what is needed inWS2.

Echoing Brazil, Saudi Arabia said the work hereshould not be a negotiation exercise but is aboutimplementation and enhancement of what wealready have and it is tied closely to the urgentimplementation of the CP2, no later than 2014.It said actions in WS2 should be Party-drivenand not sector-driven with regards to agriculture

and energy. It felt that there are still lots ofdiscussion to be had and therefore it ispremature to take a decision in Warsaw on WS2.

Indonesia said there are compelling views fromdeveloping countries calling for enhancementand urgent implementation of actions withleadership of developed countries which is notonly needed for trust-building for the pre-2020agreement but also for integrity.

Nepal for the LDCs said closing the 8 to 13gigatonne gap is still possible using currenttechnology; hence, all countries have animportant role in this but the developedcountries have the critical leadership role.

Nauru for AOSIS said Parties spent too muchtime exploring the options instead ofimplementing them. Referring to its proposal onfocusing mitigation in the field of energyefficiency, renewable energy and carbon captureand storage, it said the model can be used toreview mitigation in other areas as well. It

recognised that energy alone cannot address themitigation gap but it is a good start.

The Philippines stressed that WS2 is the basisfor whatever new agreement that we will have. Itis not a new Convention but it is implementationof the Convention itself at last. It pointed outthat Article 4.1 of the Convention which laid outthe commitment did not mention respectivecapabilities but only CBDR and the only thing

we need to do is to finance adaptation and not to

put new responsibilities on adaptation ondeveloping countries, and expressed concern thatthe GCF is forcing through private sectorinvolvement to profit from investment indeveloping countries. It sees the means ofimplementation as fully integrated in the core ofthe agreement and not a side decoration.

Malaysia noted that first of all, time is not onour side. Enhancing ambition during the pre-2020 period is grounded in the work under thesecond commitment period of the KP, and the

as-yet incomplete work under the Bali ActionPlan. On the former, ratification, leadership bydeveloped countries is needed. On the latter,Malaysia is of the view that the informal andconceptual mode of work employed thus farshould give way to more structured formaldiscussions on how to enhance mitigation actionin developing countries through the provision offinance and the transfer of technology inaccordance with the principle of CBDR underthe Convention. We have heard that while

developing countries are already implementingactions on a voluntary basis, even more could beaccomplished through the provision of muchneeded means of implementation. It noted thehopeful and constructive paper put forward by

AOSIS and the technical and high-level approachthat has been proposed.

The work under WS2 will send a strong signal tothe work under WS1, Malaysia said. Urgency isneeded to ensure that the CP2 targets of the KP

and comparable emissions reductions by non-KPparties contribute significantly to closing theemissions gap, and reassure developing countriesthat any pledges they make will be backed by


8/8


8

sufficient, predictable and additional finance andaccess to relevant mitigation technologies.

Iran said the WS2 work must capture theprinciple of CBDR of the Convention and the

ADP should pave the way for theimplementation of these elements and the

balance between mitigation and adaptationactions. It further said the adverse effect ofunilateral measures from the implementation ofresponse measures by developed countries ondeveloping countries and the problem of IPR asa barrier to technology transfer should beaddressed in the new agreement.

Argentina expressed concern over the sectoralissues. For example, it said the energy sector isessential to development and povertyeradication. It needs to assure access to energy

service where 1.4 billion people do not haveaccess, therefore, mitigation in sectoral issues willbe premature at this stage. On unilateralmeasures, it said we are here to enhanceimplementation of Article 3.5 of the Convention,

which eschewed the use of trade protectionismdisguised as mitigation measures.

The European Union supported the AOSISproposal on the theme and technical paperleading to its being updated for a technology

workshop in Warsaw and the ministerial dialogueto provide clear direction for 2015. On the CP2of the KP, it said the EU is already workingintensely to ratify as soon as the legislativeprocesses allow it. It said the group exceeded itstarget in the first commitment period and willraise its commitment but it is not enough and

will have to find ways for all Parties to reducetheir emissions.

Japan said there are many ideas and a number ofinitiatives inside and outside of the UNFCCCand Parties should therefore focus on concreteactions so that we will be able to have concreteoutcomes in Warsaw. On the issue of HFCs,renewable energy and energy efficiency, Partiesshould present submissions on best practices and

elaborate their proposal for COP 19 and theSecretariat should provide a technical paper onthem.

Australia realised that closing the gap requiredall to collaborate not only on existing sources butalso those that will lock us in a dangerouspathway.

Switzerland said it is clear that WS2 will onlydeliver if we engaged in a constructive andcooperative manner but taking a finger-pointing

approach of the shortcomings of others will notbring us forward. It wanted a technical paper tohelp focus on the work. It said developingcommon understanding of mitigation potential isthe best basis for ministerial dialogue at COP19.

In conclusion, Co-chair Dovland said the out-going co-chairs will prepare a note on ideas and

views expressed at the informal plenary. He saidthere seems to be a lot of misunderstanding onthe HFCs issue and recommended Parties to

discuss this matter in their bilateral contacts,which could pave the road for a constructive wayforward. In reference to views on ratification ofthe CP2 of the KP, he said 140 ratifications areneeded for the CP2 to enter into force.

TWN Update No. 21: ADP: Call for balanced progress in workstreams

Documents

Transcript of TWN Update No. 21: ADP: Call for balanced progress in workstreams