9 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2015
    1. To this end the CMA shall establish a cooperative mechanism to address the adverse impacts of the implementation of response measures on developing country Parties, as included in decision

      On cooperative mechanisms, Catherine McKenna (Canada) reported that parties considered guiding principles, including, inter alia: environmental integrity; avoiding double counting; and the voluntary nature of such approaches. On mechanisms to support sustainable development (Article 3ter), she reported some parties stressed that such mechanisms would need to be durable over time, while others said they should not be part of the agreement.

    2. The purpose of the REDD-plus mechanism shall be to incentivize the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to promote conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries, while enhancing the non-carbon benefits derived as a result of the multiple functions of forests, including alleviating poverty and building ecosystem resilience.

      On forests, Henri Djombo (the Congo) reported a shared view that the Paris outcome could send a strong signal to facilitate sustainable forest management.

    3. An international mechanism to address loss and damage is hereby defined under this agreement/protocol and shall be bound by the principles and provisions of the Convention, in particular common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. The purpose of the mechanism shall be to promote and support the development and implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, inter alia, extreme events and slow onset events, in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. The international mechanism on loss and damage shall draw upon, further develop and elaborate on the work of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage pursuant to relevant COP decisions, including the development of modalities and procedures for the mechanism’s operation and support. It can involve, as appropriate, existing bodies and expert groups under the Convention, as well as relevant organizations and expert bodies outside the Convention, and be informed by relevant precedents in international law.

      Åsa Romson (Sweden) highlighted cross-cutting issues needing resolution, including references to a temperature goal, vulnerability and CBDR. On loss and damage, she noted ongoing discussions on institutional arrangements, saying there was no convergence.

    4. [The [global goal][long-term vision] for adaptation shall be the basis for, inter alia:

      On adaptation, and loss and damage, René Orellana (Bolivia) highlighted landing zones on: a clear goal for adaptation, with a link to Convention Article 2 (objective); recognition of the link between mitigation and adaptation; and a communication process that is flexible and does not further burden developing countries.

    5. Article 11 (facilitating implementation and compliance)http://cop21.okfnlabs.org/agreement/#article-11-facilitating-implementation-and-compliance

      On workstream 2, Pa Jarju Ousman (the Gambia) highlighted emerging convergence on mirroring the mitigation TEP’s institutional arrangements for an adaptation TEP, with a key role for the Adaptation Committee. On accelerating implementation, he noted divergence of views.

    6. Differentiated efforts Option 1: In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention, developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I shall undertake quantified economy-wide absolute emission reduction and limitation commitments/targets, which are comparable, measurable, reportable and verifiable, cover all greenhouse gases and are implemented domestically without any conditions. 3bis. In accordance with Article 4, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7, of the Convention, developing country Parties should undertake diversified enhanced mitigation actions/efforts in a measurable, reportable, and verifiable manner, in the context of sustainable development and supported and enabled by the provision of adequate finance, technology and capacity-building by developed country Parties. Option 2: Option (a): Each Party that has previously [communicated] [implemented] absolute economy-wide emissions reduction or limitation targets should continue to do so and all Parties should aim to do so over time. Option (b): Developed country Parties [and other Parties [in a position][that determine] to do so] should take the lead in mitigation efforts, including by [communicating] [and implementing] absolute economy-wide emissions reduction [or limitation] targets and all other Parties should aim to do so over time. 3bis [Developed country Parties should continue to take the lead].2

      On differentiation, Vivian Balakrishnan (Singapore) noted that “parties are not yet ready to place their final positions on the table,” saying the co-facilitators would work with the Presidency and Secretariat to crystallize existing fault lines in the text.

    7. Hold the increase in the global average temperature [below 1.5 °C] [or] [well] [below 2 °C] above preindustrial levels by ensuring deep cuts in global greenhouse gas [net] emissions;

      Tine Sundtoft (Norway) presented messages, including that, inter alia: most parties are willing to reflect a 1.5°C temperature limit in the purpose of the agreement, with accompanying provisions related to sustainable development, MOI, equity and food security; the two options identified on a global mitigation goal are a goal with quantitative elements for different time periods and a long-term qualitative goal; and there is support for a comprehensive and facilitative global stocktake, and a five-year cycle for successive communications.

    8. Hold the increase in the global average temperature [below 1.5 °C] [or] [well] [below 2 °C] above preindustrial levels by ensuring deep cuts in global greenhouse gas [net] emissions;

      On ambition, Tine Sundtoft (Norway) outlined the questions posed to parties, including on how to: frame a possible reference to a 1.5 °C limit; identify an acceptable long-term goal for mitigation over different timeframes; have a common “global moment” every five years for taking stock and informing future nationally-determined efforts on mitigation, adaptation and support; and provide reassurances that the global stocktake would not impinge on national determination of commitments.

      James Fletcher (Saint Lucia) said that, while several developed and developing country parties indicated willingness to refer to a 1.5 °C limit, others reaffirmed the temperature limit in the Cancun Agreements. He said there is general interest to express a collective long-term goal for mitigation, which could be expressed in quantitative or qualitative terms, such as a transformation to carbon neutrality or decarbonization. He also reported convergence on a common “global moment” every five years to take stock and review aggregate progress, and provide an opportunity to confirm or raise targets, but without an obligation to do so.

    9. [Each Party’s [intended] nationally determined contribution will represent a progression in the light of Parties’ differentiated responsibilities and commitments under the Convention.] [The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement this Agreement will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments on the provision of finance, technology development and transfer and capacity-building.]

      On differentiation, Vivian Balakrishnan (Singapore) characterized the INDCs as an “innovation” allowing all parties to operationalize their diverse starting points and make continuous improvements over time. He said that assurances of no backsliding and that developed countries would continue to take the lead “resonated strongly.”