by Lara Shirley
There has been a general breakdown of bigger negotiations into smaller contact groups, which are often closed.
In Finance, all agenda items were discussed. However, long term finance proved to be the most contentious. Philippines on behalf of the G77 stressed the importance of clarity in the pledged 100 billion per year by 2020 and urged scaling up of finance from the Fast Start Finance period that ended in 2012. The Republic of Korea proposed a workshop to hash out the political issues involved with determining what is to be done for finance between now and 2020. There was general consensus among G77 negotiators around the importance of long term finance. In the contact group, the USA officially stated that it is not willing to commit any new finance in Warsaw. This was met with much opposition by G77.
Compliance Committee: said joint implementation was a successful instrument to reduce greenhouse gases and should be taken as a tool in the future as (if) countries continue to reduce emissions. But joint implementation credits are weakening. There was a proposal for a unified accreditation system (linking it to FVA).
CDM: demand for units have decreased. Number of projects have dropped in comparison to 2005. CDM is at risk. Adaptation Fund Board recommended that GEF and GCF should use CDM as a tool to quantify mitigation (which would mean the CDM would be under COP as well as CMP in order to create demand, pushing the price of credits up).
Adaptation Fund: Since it is funded under CDM, parties recommended the CDM continue, but with projects in Africa and LDCs. The CDM should be reformed, especially to strengthen small-scale projects: many parties complained about transaction costs. Only Belize criticised CDM and said that Adaptation Fund should get predictable, sustainable and additional climate finance instead of markets/CDM. Kenya and Cote D’Ivoire said fundraising projects have failed and, similarly, that there should finance instead of markets.
Agriculture – no work programme/contact group for now.
Brazil proposal – countries will report back on positions on Friday and meet on Saturday to make a final decision.
Loss and damage (SBI)
The meeting was closed but the text has been issued to civil soceity. It’s a G77+China text supported by LDCs, AOSIS, African group and establishes a strong international mechanism. Now the text is being discussed in informals discussing it so it will probably get watered down.
REDD+: coordination of support, current and potential governance (SBSTA/SBI)
Some countries emphasised the importance of discussing the functions of international governance rather than national, since there are specific circumstances in different countries. Other countries discussed only the importance of national entities, without mentioning international ones.
Mexico and the Philippines suggested putting REDD+ under the GCF as this would mean REDD+ would also be coordinated by GCF – this also links into the finance discussion, opposing the introduction of the markets into REDD+. Norway stated that rather than creating new bodies, existing institutions could be adjusted to fill the current gaps.
Workstream 1: meetings were closed
Workstream 2: developing countries reiterating importance of finance, importance of pre-2020 mitigation action. Ambition has to be increased in adaptation, mitigation, finance, technology transfer, capacity building – means of implementation in general. Developed country parties, especially New Zealand, argued that we don’t need a mutually negotiated outcome/concrete actions or ambition, but that this instead is a platform to discuss and share ideas. China challenged the chair asking why wasn’t workstream 1 not open to observers.