7/28/2019 TWN_update12

1/4

122

Review: Developed countries determined to narrowscope

Bonn, 9 June (Hilary Chiew) Parties clashedover the scope of the 2013-2015 Review andthe source of scientific information at the first

workshop on the review on 5 June.

Developing countries stressed that the review

should not focus only on the adequacy of the2C long-term global goal (LTGG) but also onan assessment of the overall progress thatincludes the implementation of the commitmentsunder the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. Developedcountries, however, refused to consider thelatter, describing the inclusion of discussion onthe means of implementation as duplicating the

work undertaken elsewhere under theConvention.

[Decision 1/CP.18 adopted by the Conferenceof Parties (COP) in Doha in 2012 defined thescope of the review in paragraph 79:

Decides that the review should periodically assess, inaccordance with the relevant principles and provisions ofthe Convention, the following:

(a) The adequacy of the long-term global goal in the lightof the ultimate objective of the Convention;

(b) Overall progress made towards achieving the long-term

global goal, inc luding a consideration of theimplementation of the commitments under theConvention ; (Emphasis added).]Parties also have different views on the source ofscientific information for the 2013-2015 Review.Developing countries argued that inputs fromsources other than the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) should be acceptable

while developed countries raised concern of therobustness of non-IPCC inputs.

The goal of the 5 June workshop jointlyconvened by the Subsidiary Body for

Implementation (SBI) and Subsidiary Body forScientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)under the Structured Expert Dialogue is toincrease the understanding of existing scientificknowledge and how it could be used to address

the two themes of the review: the adequacy ofthe LTGG in the light of the ultimate objectiveof the Convention; and overall progress madetowards achieving the LTGG, including aconsideration of the implementation of thecommitments under the Convention.

(The Doha COP set up a joint contact group ofthe SBI and SBSTA to assist the COP inconducting the review, with support from expertconsideration of inputs from workshops, etc. tostart at the 38th session of the two subsidiary

bodies, through a structured expert dialogueunder the guidance of the SBI and SBSTA. The38th session is ongoing in Bonn from 3 to 14

June.)

Earlier, SBSTA Chair Richard Muyungi(Tanzania) informed that the secretariat hadreceived six submissions from Parties on thematter which have been taken into account inthe planning of the workshop.

He also said the non-Annex 1 (developing

countries) Parties had selected Professor Zou Jiof China to be the co-facilitator for theStructured Expert Dialogue but there was nonomination from Annex 1 Parties.

The two themes of the workshop were decidedbased on the Doha outcome (through decision1/CP.18), where it was agreed that the Reviewshould periodically assess in accordance with therelevant principles and provisions of theConvention the two aspects in paragraph 79.

Theme 1 aimed to present and discuss possibleways to assess the adequacy of the LTGG by

7/28/2019 TWN_update12

2/4

TWN Bonn Update No. 12 10 June 2013

2

using various sources of information. This partof the workshop started with introductorypresentations by experts providing the status ofthe global climate; overview of the contributionof each working group and of the synthesisreport of the IPCC assessment reports and theirpossible use in the review; and the 2C target and

associated climate risks.

Theme 2 explored the possible use of relevantinformation for the review based on thediscussions that have been carried out to date onemission reduction commitments toward theLTGG and on means of implementation. Thispart of the workshop started with introductorypresentations summarizing the previousdiscussions under the Ad Hoc Working Groupon Long-term Cooperative Action under the

Convention (AWG-LCA), the Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on the Durban Platform for EnhancedAction (ADP) and the subsidiary bodies on thelevel of ambition and on means ofimplementation.

Parties then intervened with 3 guided questions.

In its presentation under Theme 2, China saidthe Review provides opportunities to learn frompast lessons in addressing climate change andthat it could provide useful input to the ADP

mandate. It said many institutions wereestablished after Cancun (COP 17) and there is aneed for them to perform their functions in acoherent manner.

China stressed that the Review should not belimited to scientific information but should alsobe based on the knowledge of theimplementation. The principles of the Reviewcan never be overestimated particularly in theplanning stage.

We do not want it to be a finger-pointingexercise, stressed China, adding that oneimportant aspect is that it is not a review of theConvention but Parties need to assess what havebeen done, learn the lessons and move forward.

It said China shared the concerns of manydeveloping countries of limiting the Review tojust the LTGG of 2C, emphasising the need toinclude the broader discussion on mitigation,adaptation, finance, technology transfer andcapacity-building. It also wanted to assess the

adequacy of Annex 1 mitigation as required byscience and historical responsibility and thesocio-economic impacts from the

implementation of response measures bydeveloped countries.

It emphasised that the Review is a Party-drivenprocess that should provide balance andcomprehensiveness.

On the information sources for the Review, it

said comprehensive and balanced informationshould not just be scientific knowledge but realpractice and that the IPCC is not the only sourceof information.

The Philippines presented that it would like tosee the link of the Review to the central role ofthe UNFCCC with a view towards assessing ifthe 2C goal is adequate and if Parties can meetthe objectives of Article 2 of the Convention.

(Article 2 reads: The ultimate objective of this

Convention and any related legal instruments that theConference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, inaccordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention,stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerousanthropogenic interference with the climate system.Such alevel should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient toallow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, toensure that food production is not threatened and toenable economic development to proceed in a sustainablemanner.)

It said Parties should therefore look at all theelements that should go into the framework ofthe Review and look at gaps, incentives andbarriers.

It said Parties need to assess if the 2C target isenough or should be stronger, adequacy of theadaptation cost, assistance by Annex 1 Parties,comparability of the adequacy, support forindigenous technologies and how developingcountries are doing their part. It should also

include assessment of the implementation ofArticle 2 and implementation of thecommitments of Parties.

New Zealand representing Australia,Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway andthe United States said the Review process is

very important in this transition period whenParties can take stock, look to the past and makesure to take a robust policy for the future wherethe greatest challenge is to keep temperature riseto 2C or lower.

Besides holding temperature increase below 2C,it said other relevant considerations includeaggregate greenhouse gas, aggregate mitigation

7/28/2019 TWN_update12

3/4

TWN Bonn Update No. 12 10 June 2013

3

commitment of Parties, the evolving economiccircumstances and capabilities of Parties.

It said the Review is a clear platform forreinforcing science in addressing climate changeand that it must enjoy the trust of Parties.

Towards this end, it said the IPCC 5th

Assessment Report is the foundation for theReview which should not be undermined.

It warned against inclusion of input that are notrobust and that reports must be objective andprovide a balanced conclusion.

The United States responded that it would liketo start the Review now and start it correct. Itnoted its view that Parties made the Reviewnarrow in scope so that it is not all things to allpeople.

It is concerned to hear that we do in fact want toreview the Convention itself, asking China andthe Philippines how they see that the proposalthey had made about broadening the scope doesnot contradict their assertion that the Review isnot about reviewing the Convention.

It also expressed concern over Parties stressingthe distinction between Annex 1 (A1) and non-

Annex (NA1) Parties, adding that the USrecognised that it must do more but again asChina said pointing the finger is not going to getus there.

The European Union said the 2C is the globalgoal and it is important for Parties to maintainthe global picture and that Parties do notduplicate the work undertaken elsewhere underthe Convention.

Agreeing with the EU on maintaining the globalpicture,Japan asked China how do Parties avoidthe risk of including information that may nothave the scientific robustness.

New Zealand said the workshop is to kick-offthe 2-year process. As this is a fact-findingprocess, finger-pointing is not useful.

It also said the Review needs to be based onrobust information that can be trusted by allParties, stressing that IPCC is the foundation ofthe Review.

In reply, China said the Doha decision is clearthat the Review is not about the Convention but

about the implementation of the Convention andcommitments of Annex 2 Parties in terms offinance and technology transfer. The

differentiation of A1 and NA1 is the foundationof the Convention.

The Philippines acknowledged that it isimportant to focus on the global picture but thepicture is made up of different pictures. It agreedthat Parties should not duplicate their work but it

is important to get inputs from other processesto feed into the Review.

Referring to paragraph 79 of Decision 1/CP.18,it said it is clear that it is not asking for a reviewof the Convention which would mean to look atthe principles and provisions but the scope ofthe review clearly provides for differentiationbetween A1 and NA1.

What we said here is perfectly consistent withwhat we said in Doha, it stressed.

Brazil agreed with China that the Review is notlimited to the scientific aspect as the Dohadecision includes implementation ofcommitments under the Convention of whichthe principle of common but differentiatedresponsibilities is the most important. It said theLTGG is not considered in isolation andappreciated the Philippines presentation as aninteresting approach to be considered for theReview.

It said China and the Philippines had putconcrete question about the need for the Reviewto take a holistic approach. It also questioned theabsence of expert presentations for Theme 2.

Botswana speaking for the African Groupsaid when Parties look at progress, they wouldalso want assessment of the provision of themeans of implementation. It said developingcountries abilities to contribute is incumbent onthe means of implementation.

It was supported by Saudi Arabia andEthiopia.

Earlier under the discussion of Theme 1, Chinaexpressed its concern over limiting informationsources to the IPCC assessment reports. Itpointed out that due to the IPCC deadline forpublications to be used as raw materials in theassessment reports, this will exclude many mostupdated materials which may provide criticalinformation for the analysis and assessment ofscientific aspects of climate change.

Furthermore, many publications that are not inthe English language and do not go through thepeer review process, most of which from

7/28/2019 TWN_update12

4/4

TWN Bonn Update No. 12 10 June 2013

4

developing countries, can hardly contribute tothe IPCC assessment process. Therefore, Partiesshould address critical information fromdeveloping countries here in the review process.

It said IPCC is one of the important inputs tothe review, but definitely not the only source.

The information source of review should becomprehensive, flexible and balanced.

In considering not to duplicate the workundertaken by IPCC and not reopening thefindings of IPCC, as well as the commonunderstanding of not referencing the conclusionsof IPCC AR5 before it is released, Parties shouldfocus on the information other than IPCC at thisstage to ensure the efficiency and effectivenessof the review process.

With regard to the adequacy of 2

goal, Partiesmay need to do some technical work on theinformation regarding the context of the LTGG,

such as social and economic consequences of theLTGG, the impact on developing countries andthe incremental mitigation and adaptation costsof the developing countries due to the adverseeffect of the 2 temperature rise. It suggestedlooking into the materials at the regional andnational level, like national communications,national progress reports on climate change,taking full account of the material fromdeveloping countries institutions.

Theme 1 saw the presentations from the WorldMeteorological Organisation, the IPCC andHadley Centre.

In closing, Prof Zou Ji said an informal summaryof the workshop for possible consideration bythe joint Contact Group of SBI and SBSTA willbe prepared.