You are on page 1of 14

Technical paper 1

United Nations Climate Change Sessions

(ADP 2.8)

Geneva, Switzerland, 08-13 February 2015

Prepared by: Daniela Carrington (formerly Stoycheva)




The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the UNDP

Summary ...................................................................................................................................................3
ADP meetings by the end of 2015 ............................................................................................................4
The way forward from Geneva to Bonn in June .......................................................................................4
ADP discussions .......................................................................................................................................5
The elements of the agreement (Workstream 1) .......................................................................................8
Preamble 8
Definitions 8

Mitigation 9
Adaptation 10


Technology Transfer 11
Capacity Building


Transparency of Action and Support 12

Facilitating Implementation and Compliance 13
Procedural and Institutional Provisions


Workstream 2 (pre-2020 mitigation ambition)........................................................................................13

Technical Examination Process (TEP)


This Technical Paper is prepared for the use of countries from Eastern Europe and CIS and
covers some outcomes of the ADP 2.8 from the perspectives of this region. It has to be consider
as a continuation of the previous technical papers on ADP, as here only some of the new
proposals are captured (the Parties whose proposals were already in the text did not rise them
again) and the analysis does not cover those proposals from the previous sessions.
The body tasked with developing the Paris agreement is the Ad Hoc Working Group on the
Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). In Geneva, the ADP held the eighth part of its
second session (ADP 2.8). The ADP session in Geneva, 8-13 February 2015, was attended by
over 1,300 participants, representing governments, observer organizations and the media, and
concluded successfully ahead of schedule with negotiators adopting the Geneva Text

document that will serves as the negotiating text for the Paris Agreement. The Paris Conference
is mandated to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force
under the Convention applicable to all parties, which will be implemented from 2020 onwards.
Based on the elements for a draft negotiating text annexed to Decision 1/CP.20 (Lima Call for
Climate Action), the negotiators went through the elements text (mitigation, adaptation +loss and
damage, finance, technology, capacity building, and transparency, including preamble,
definitions and objective) section-by-section, proposing additions in places where they felt their
views were not adequately reflected. The main objective was to ensure that the text fully reflects
parties positions. The revised text grew in length from 39 (the Lima elements) to 86 pages (the
Geneva text), which was the normal process of transforming the Co-Chairs text from Lima
into a party-owned text. The Geneva Text became the official negotiating text for the Paris
agreement. It contains all the positions of the parties with numerous options for each paragraph,
with the whole document and sections in square brackets. This 86-page text will be translated
into the six UN languages and disseminated to governments for their consideration in March
2015. This will be the text that Parties will discuss throughout the rest of this year, including in

ADP meetings to the end of 2015

Negotiators will meet again in Bonn on 3-14 June, 31 August- 04 September and 19-23 October
and in Paris on 30 November 11 December 2015. Parties will work to streamline the text in
order to transform it into an agreement (a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed
outcome with legal force) and possibly several decisions (which will operationalize parts of the
agreement). At this stage it is not clear which parts of the text will be in the agreement and which
will be in the decisions. The first steps will be to clean the text of repetitions and to try to merge
those proposals which are very similar, then to streamline it and shorten it. At some point it has
to be decided which parts of the text will constitute the agreement in its legal form and which
parts that are more technical and detailed will be parts of the respective decisions. With the
Geneva negotiating text, parties are able to comply with legal requirements for adopting a new
agreement, however, at some stage it should be defined whether the Paris agreement will be a
protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention
applicable to all parties. While divergent views remain on whether the Paris agreement will be a
new protocol, many envisage the possibility of a Paris package comprising both the Paris
agreement and a set of COP decisions.
Alongside the planned official negotiating sessions, there will be an informal meeting held in
Lima, Peru, in April that is meant to drive political momentum for the June session. Whilst it is
not an official negotiating session, it is hoped that Parties will be able to discuss their
perspectives on the text.
The way forward from Geneva to Bonn in June
Parties discussed how to approach streamlining at future ADP sessions. Many expressed support
for starting informal discussions in June. Many also proposed that, during the intersessional
period, the Secretariat identify duplications and convergences and other obvious places to start

Many expressed the view that they do not want to see a last minute agreement and for that there
is a need to change the pace and mode of work with the aim for Paris to produce a short text with
few options only, for the ministers to consider before adopting the agreement.
It was proposed to establish spin off groups to deal with specific issues (not a whole element),
but time bound, with not more than two groups held at the same time, to enable a general
exchange of views in large enough rooms that all parties may be represented.
It was proposed that topics for Technical Experts Meetings (TEMs) to be send to co-chairs,
covering areas with short term effects and greater mitigation potential.
The Co-Chairs will reflect on parties ideas in their scenario note for the June session.
ADP discussions
Besides inserting proposals in the text several specific discussions took place during the Geneva
The question of differentiation of the countries considering the new developments in the world,
the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
(CBDR&RC) and the existing Annexes under the Convention are areas of sharp differences in
the Geneva text. The parties have been debating differentiation for years with positions ranging
from a static interpretation of CBDR&RC under the current Annexes to an evolutionary one,
including the proposed by the USA for new Annexes X and Y. Another proposal on
differentiation comes from Ethiopia suggesting that the SBI and SBSTA review parties per
capita GHG emissions and GDP, and present draft decisions on revisions to Annex I and Annex
II based on a formula determining the global average of these figures and taking into account the
size of the partys population.
The Geneva text clearly shows that all options on differentiation remain on the table.
Differentiation is addressed in several sections of the text, from the preamble to the substantive
sections, and many approaches are suggested.
The issue of differentiation is a deal breaker and there is a need for more high level informal
consultations in order to come to a consensus on this issue. Once resolved it will then naturally
unlock other elements of the agreement, such as mitigation and finance.

Using the spare time after producing the Geneva text ahead of time, Parties discussed again the
issue on non-market and market mechanisms.
The ADP contact group exchanged views on markets and non-markets, in particular on
paragraph 23 of Section D.
The discussions on non-market and market mechanisms were mainly around what are the nonmarket approaches, to have market mechanisms in the new agreement or not, and if any what
type of new market based approaches.
The Warsaw Framework for REDD+ was given as an example for a typical non-market
mechanism that will not generate internationally transferable units. Education on climate change
was mentioned as well.
Brazil proposed a new economic mechanism, building on the Kyoto Protocol Articles 12 (Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM)) and 17 (International Emissions Trading (IET)) with the
transfer of units taking place in accordance with rules developed by the COP or the governing
body of the new agreement. The accounting relating to the mechanism would be separate from
national inventories. Absolute, economy-wide and quantified emission reduction targets will be
the eligibility criteria for participating in the emissions trading system on the basis of
supplementarity. This CDM+, combined with emissions trading schemes, should incorporate
current CDM modalities with necessary adaptations. Brazil proposed that projects under the
CDM+ cover projects in the aviation and maritime transport sectors. Another proposal was
cancellation of certified emissions reductions (CERs) that could be counted towards parties
finance commitments.
The EU considers having markets in a new post-2020 setting where all parties undertake
mitigation commitments but in the new agreement markets should not be the same as in the
Kyoto Protocol.
Japan suggested that in the post-2020 period, not only centralized market mechanisms
administered by the UN, but also mechanisms developed jointly by parties may be used. (Japan
is working on its Bilateral Offset Crediting Mechanism already. In order to achieve its long-term
emission reduction target following the Fukushima incident, Japan would rely more heavily on
international offsetting activities. Concurrent to vigorous proposals to reform the CDM, Japan is

also promoting an offset crediting scheme through bilateral agreements with developing
countries as a post-2012 market mechanism. Despite potential benefits, issues relating to the
accounting rules, environmental integrity and implications for carbon markets need further
consideration prior to international recognition.).
The USA envisaged that the 2015 agreement will approach markets differently from the Kyoto
Protocol, which was based on legally-binding commitments and transfers of units reflecting
assigned amounts. Suggesting that importing and applying elements from the Kyoto Protocol is
not a simple matter, and that there is a need to agree on how to use international markets in order
to avoid inconsistencies between bilateral mechanisms and noted lack of clarity on how markets
are designed and implemented.
Bolivia, as many times before, opposed market mechanisms in the new agreement, viewing them
as: transferring responsibilities to developing countries and the private sector; promoting
inefficient technologies; and increasing inequalities. Argentina opposed the inclusion of markets
in the 2015 agreement, in particular proposals on market mechanisms in relation to the land-use,
maritime transport and aviation sectors should be deleted.
China supported by Venezuela, indicated there is no reason for including a market mechanism in
the 2015 agreement. The Arab Group, supported by China, prefers waiting until the
commitments of developed countries are understood and agreed, and for the outcome of
discussions on markets under other bodies of the Convention before further discussing markets
in ADP.
Many countries highlighted that any use of a market mechanism should only be supplementary to
developed countries domestic actions.
Parties exchanged views on the structure of the 2015 agreement. Discussions focused on: what
the 2015 agreement should do: how it will advance the Convention; whether it will be a onetime agreement or an agreement evolving through successive sets of commitments; the role of
the bodies and mechanisms created since COP 15; how to address adaptation, mitigation and
means of implementation (MOI); and which issues should be included in the agreement and
which ones should be addressed through COP decisions.

The elements of the agreement (Workstream 1)

(Section A., 4 pages. Contains 2 options. Option 1 is a placeholder for the preamble and Option
2 includes multiple proposals for the preamble)
The AOSIS and the EU proposed acknowledging that climate change requires the widest
possible cooperation. A separate paragraph on gender and human rights is proposed. A proposal
for this agreement to contribute significantly to the achievement of the post-2015 development
The EU added references to different national circumstances wherever CBDR&RC appears.
Some developing countries proposed noting the historical responsibility with the largest share of
current global GHG emissions originates from developed countries and that emissions in
developing countries need to grow to meet their social and development needs.
The US proposed a placeholder for a new Annex X, to be agreed in Paris and updated regularly
based on criteria relating to evolving emissions and economic trends, and for a new Annex Y,
agreed based on capabilities and evolving economic circumstances. Saint Lucia proposed a
placeholder for a new Annex Z for countries falling outside of the proposed new annexes.
(Section B contains proposed definitions and placeholders for definitions)
Amongst the definitions are such terms as: governing body, Party, emission reductions,
Convention, present and voting, Subsidiary Body, Party included in Annex X, Party
included in Annex Y, Party in Annex Z/III, and other definitions, as needed.
(Section C., 4 pages. Includes several options, as well as structural suggestions for the section.
Proposals from having the section to omitting it, from one paragraph to a long section.)

Several parties suggested focusing Section C on the agreements overall objective only, while
others proposed in addition text on details of how to achieve this objective.
On the objective the AOSIS called for a reference to science on keeping the average temperature
increase below1.5C and proposed text on ensuring significant and rapid global GHG emission
reductions of at least 70-90% by 2050 with high ambition from all parties, interlinkages between
mitigation and adaptation, and addressing loss and damage.
The EU underscored the need to reach zero net emissions of CO2 and other long-lived GHGs by
the end of the century to ensure consistency with the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Discussion on the principle of CBDR&RC took place again with objections to evolving
common but differentiated responsibilities.
Many called for addressing adaptation with the same urgency as mitigation.
Text on gender equality was proposed, also on universal participation, human rights, and rights
of people with disabilities.
(Section D., 12 pages. It contains subheadings on: long-term and global aspects of mitigation;
commitments/contributions/actions on mitigation; institutional arrangements; reporting of
mitigation information; accounting rules; and a placeholder for a new platform for enhancing
mitigation ambition. Also contains structural suggestions.)
Mitigation remains a critical concern on the road to Paris. One of the key outputs from Lima was
agreement on the requirements and process of intended nationally determined contributions
Announcements of planned submission of INDCs came from EU (25 February), USA and China.
The USA and the EU have expressed concerns that the Paris agreement will not be sufficiently
ambitious to lead parties to a safe pathway towards the 2C target.











commitments/contributions and the time frames and cycles for the submission of
commitments. These apparently technical details are vital elements for ensuring what many have
called a dynamic agreement that allows mitigation ambition to be periodically reviewed and

strengthened after COP 21. Parties views on this matter radically diverged, from whether there
should be an ex ante and/or ex post review of parties mitigation commitments or contributions,
at the aggregate and at the individual level, and with or without differentiation between
developed and developing countries. The text also contains different options concerning the time
frame for the submission of new commitments, with most preferring five-year cycles but some
suggesting ten-year cycles.
Those countries from the ECIS region which are Parties included in Annex I undergoing the
process of transition to a market economy are positioned in the mitigation section when it comes
to achieve low greenhouse gas climate-resilient economies and societies, adaptation and to
increase the overall level of ambition, which will depend on the extent of financial, technology
and capacity-building support provided by developed country Parties.
There are also differences on compliance regime on the mitigation commitments. These include
a compliance committee consisting of an enforcement and a facilitative branch, as under the
Kyoto Protocol, to a proposal for an international climate justice tribunal. There are also parties
who do not see the need for a compliance mechanism in the Paris agreement.
Adaptation and loss and damage
(Section E., 13 pages. Includes: preference to separate adaptation from loss and damage,








commitments/contributions/actions/Commitments under Article 4 of the Convention on

adaptation; monitoring and evaluation/monitoring and evaluation for [Annex II Parties] [Annex
Y Parties] [all countries in a position to do so]; sharing information, knowledge and lessons
learned; institutional arrangements; and loss and damage)
There are still many options on institutions for adaptation, from using the existing institutions to
creating new ones. Developing countries propose the establishment of an adaptation mechanism
that integrates existing arrangements on adaptation. The LDCs proposed regional adaptation
centres and finance provided to an international clearinghouse and registry on adaptation. The
EU suggested promoting synergies with national, regional and international organizations to
support adaptation action.


In Geneva the focus was on the issue of loss and damage and being a part of the adaptation
chapter or a separate issue. The Warsaw Climate Change Conference established an international
mechanism on loss and damage in 2013. In Geneva the LDCs suggested text on the
establishment of a climate change displacement coordination facility, breaking new ground in
efforts to address what has arguably long been the elephant in the room at climate
negotiationsnamely the organized migration and planned relocation of populations that will be
forced to move as a result of climate change. Several parties, however, have long resisted
addressing this issue under the UNFCCC, and negotiations on loss and damage are likely to be
(Section G., 17 pages. Includes: two alternative section options. Option 1 is divided into eight
subsections on: guiding principles; anchoring institutions under the legal agreement; proposals
for decisions related to anchoring institutions under the agreement; addressing the scale of
resources; contributions under the legal agreement; sources of finance; a new subsection on
reporting; and a placeholder for a proposal to include a subsection on MRV of climate finance
that should also include a specific reference to a regular cycle of climate finance. Option 2: a
three-paragraph version containing alternatives for sources of finance, institutions in charge of
its disbursement, amounts and types of contribution, commitments for providing finance)
The text on finance contains numerous options concerning the sources of finance (private vs
On the institutions in charge of its disbursement, almost all countries want to see the existing
financial mechanism, with the newly created Green Climate Fund being the main financing
entity, to be the financial institution for the new agreement. Also here there is a range of views
on who is providing the financial support, an issue coming from the unresolved differentiation of
the countries, from quantitative commitments for Annex II Parties to financial contributions from
all parties in a position to do so.
Technology Transfer
(Section H., 4 pages. Includes four subsections entitled: long-term technology goal; general;
commitments; and institutional arrangements.)

Some new proposals from the developing countries came on: assessing the effectiveness and
adequacy of GCF technology funding; the GCF allocating funds to meet the full costs of
developing country access to environmentally sound technologies, linking technology to the
effective implementation of developing country INDCs, a long-term technology goal and
developed countries to prepare a list of technologies ready for transfer, a technology
framework to consider technology needs assessments, research and development and enabling
environments, technology originating from indigenous peoples and local communities.
Some developing countries have suggested that transfer of know how be added to the text
supporting technology transfer. This is widely believed to be a placeholder for intellectual
property rights (IPRs). Many developed countries argue that IPRs should not be included in the
agreement. India also proposed that the GCF allocate funds to meet the full costs of developing
countries to access environmentally sound technologies.
Capacity Building
(Section I., 4 pages, includes three subsections entitled: general; commitments; and institutional
AOSIS proposed the creation of a new capacity building mechanism, comprised of a
coordination centre that compiles information, analyzes gaps and trends, develops tools and
methodologies, matches available support with identified needs and coordinates and cooperates
with UNFCCC bodies and other relevant entities.
Transparency of Action and Support











commitments/contributions/other matters related to implementation and ambition and indicates

in a footnote that some parties considered it premature to discuss this section. Includes two
options. Option I: 4 subsections entitled: commitments /contributions/actions/scope of
implementation and ambition; ex ante consideration/further facilitation of transparency and
clarity/consultative process/period; formalization/finalization/reflection of enhanced action; and
strategic review of implementation/aggregate ambition assessment/enhanced ambition
mechanism. Option II contains only a paragraph 70 on a periodic review process.)

Some developed countries want to see this text together with mitigation and removing references
to monitoring and evaluation of adaptation.
Some developing countries (LMDCs) proposed a finance registry and for reporting on finance
using a common format, others proposed that the information on MOI by developed countries be
verified through a technical review process, followed by a multilateral assessment process and
conclusions with compliance consequences.
Facilitating Implementation and Compliance
(Section L., 3 pages. Contains 3 options for paragraph 88. It notes in a footnote that some
parties considered it premature to discuss this section.)
The AOSIS proposed text on a robust compliance system to facilitate enforcement. The LDCs
proposed a compliance committee with enforcement and facilitative branches.
The LMDCs suggested monitoring developed country compliance with emission reduction
commitments and the provision of MOI. Bolivia suggested the establishment of an international
climate justice tribunal.
Procedural and Institutional Provisions
(Section M., 6 pages. Includes two subsections entitled institutional arrangements and
procedural provisions/final clauses. A footnote indicates that some parties considered it
premature to discuss this section.)
Some of the proposals are: Developed countries prefer that all subsidiary bodies under the
Convention also serve the 2015 agreement. Mexico proposed that if every effort toward
consensus is exhausted, decisions can be made by a two-thirds majority vote of parties present
and voting, except in the case of issues related to finance, which would require a consensus, and
procedural issues, which would require a majority.

Workstream 2 (pre-2020 mitigation ambition)

Technical Examination Process (TEP)
Alongside the negotiations of the 2015 agreement, Parties continued the technical examination of
opportunities with high mitigation potential. A meeting was held in Geneva to reflect on the

results of the TEMs achieved in 2014, and to gather concrete ideas and suggestions for the
process in 2015. While a majority of the Parties acknowledged the importance of the TEP in
closing the ambition gap, there were some diverging views for how it could be strengthened
and how decisions could be taken.
Many developing countries insisted Parties ratify the second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol and increase levels of commitment and ambition. Developed countries commended the
TEP as effective and called for strengthening of information exchange, a summary for policy
makers and collecting good practice examples.
Proposals were also made to improve the Technical Expert Meetings (TEMs) that bring together
State and non-State actors and other international organizations as part of the TEP.
Recommendations included increasing involvement of the private sector, expanding thematic
areas to include adaptation and recognizing the social and economic value of voluntary
mitigation activities (co-benefits) linked to sustainable development priorities.
The USA, supported by the EU and Colombia, suggested a summary for policymakers. The EU
suggested focusing on areas with high mitigation potential and good practice examples. Regional
or sub-regional TEMs to focus on specific projects that can be replicated through support from
the GCF or bilateral cooperation were proposed.
It is likely that these meetings will continue at each ADP session, and many future thematic
areas were proposed, including renewable energy, energy efficiency in buildings, cities,
innovative finance, marine protection, land use, transport, food security and carbon, capture and
storage, adaptation and others.