Delegates converged in Bonn for the tenth part of the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP 2-10) with the scent of summer in the air.
However, with only ten negotiating days scheduled before the start of COP 21, many acknowledged that time was of the essence, and pressure was on to significantly increase the pace of negotiations.
Delegates converged in Bonn for the tenth part of the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP 2-10) with the scent of summer in the air. However, with only ten negotiating days scheduled before the start of COP 21, many acknowledged that time was of the essence, and pressure was on to significantly increase the pace of negotiations.
This policy update provides an overview of ADP 2-10, which took place from 31 August – 4 September 2015 in Bonn, Germany. It focuses on the mandate given by Parties to the ADP Co-Chairs at the end of the meeting to prepare a negotiating text, and highlights the disconnect between the technical and political negotiations related to climate change.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF ADP 2-10
ADP 2-10 was the penultimate meeting of the ADP scheduled before the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In their scenario note (ADP.2015.4.InformalNote) of 24 July 2015, ADP Co-Chairs Ahmed Djoghlaf (Algeria) and Daniel Reifsnyder (US) had identified the objective of the Bonn session as the production of a clearer understanding and articulation of the elements of the Paris package with regard to workstream 1 (2015 agreement) and workstream 2 (pre-2020 ambition), including by the development of bridging proposals and the crystallization of options for further negotiation.
The work at ADP 2-10 was guided by a “Tool,” prepared by the ADP Co-Chairs, based on the streamlined and consolidated text of 11 June, which resulted from the efforts of parties at ADP 2-9 to streamline the Geneva negotiating text (GNT). The Tool also reorganizes the GNT and places the various paragraphs in three parts: part 1 (elements for the agreement); part 2 (decision text); and part 3 (elements that require further clarification by parties). It does so without omitting or deleting any option or position of parties. At ADP 2-10, Parties also worked on a document prepared by the Co-Chairs containing elements for a draft decision on ADP workstream 2 (pre-2020 ambition).
Delegates worked throughout the week on the Tool in facilitated groups and “spin-offs,” or informal meetings of the facilitated groups. The groups considered placement of the various paragraphs in the Tool, engaged in conceptual discussions on key issues, and in some cases started developing textual proposals. Progress was extremely slow, and some time was wasted during the first part of the week in procedural debates, in particular on the mandate and mode of work of the spin-off groups. In some groups, however, some progress was achieved with some Parties and groups of Parties submitting textual proposals for discussion, clarifying concepts and positions, and identifying key aspects for the deal. Nonetheless, such momentum was not uniform across all areas, nor did it not represent final “landing zones” – or language upon which consensus was emerging.
On the final day of ADP 2-10, Parties agreed that the ADP Co-Chairs would prepare, with the assistance of the Co-Facilitators of the facilitated groups and the Secretariat, a “non-paper” constituting negotiating text, taking into consideration the views and positions of parties. This non-paper will serve as the basis for work during ADP 2-11, scheduled to take place in October 2015. Co-Chair Djoghlaf also indicated that negotiations would take place in an open-ended drafting group with spin-offs as necessary. The non-paper is to be made available during the first week of October 2015.
THE CO-CHAIRS’ FORMIDABLE TASK
The mandate given to the ADP Co-Chairs to prepare a negotiating text is one of the key outcomes of ADP 2-10, and it was swiftly adopted, to the surprise of many. The G-77/China was the only group to intervene in the final contact group where the mandate was discussed, and when it did so, it was not to question that mandate. It was to convey the frustration of small delegations with the number of spin-off and facilitated groups, and the difficulty of addressing cross-cutting issues in this setting.
These issues are among the reasons why the Co-Chairs were mandated to produce a negotiating text. At the June and August ADP sessions, parties addressed various sections of the GNT in separate groups. This setting sought to enable first a streamlining of the section, and eventually the identification of clear options. The utility of negotiating in small groups focusing on one area of the text became clearly limited at ADP 2-10, as cross-cutting issues came up more frequently in the discussions. For example:
The limits of the facilitated groups setting are also linked to the fact that at the end of COP 21, negotiators will be asked to agree on a “package”. At this stage of the negotiations, a single negotiating group is now essential to make the relationship among the possible components of this package more visible.
The fact that parties mandated the Co-Chairs to prepare the next version of the text was expected. However, until Friday afternoon, it was unclear to what extent parties would limit the freedom of the Co-Chairs.
In this regard, Co-Chairs Djoghlaf and Reifsnyder were given a rather broad mandate, which reflects an encouraging level of trust from the Parties in their Co-Chairs’ ability to guide their work. Nonetheless, the latter are now faced with a formidable task. In less than a month, they have to deliver a negotiating text that offers textual proposals in areas where there is convergence, and that identifies options for political decision where views are polarized.
A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL
ADP 2-10 was preceded by ministerial consultations in July 2015, organized by the incoming French Presidency, which focused on differentiation and ambition. The French Presidency reported on these consultations at the opening of ADP 2-10, noting good progress in identifying options for consensus in these thorny areas. However, various delegates in Bonn were heard lamenting that the technical progress was very disconnected from the political level. Indeed, if any progress had been made in July, it did not surface during ADP 2-10.
The French Presidency has outlined a timeline of ministerial encounters before Paris. It remains to be seen if any progress in fora outside the UNFCCC will manage to make its way to the technical negotiators, but several high level events will take place before the October meeting of the ADP. Another informal ministerial consultation took place from 6-7 September in Paris, to discuss issues related to adaptation, loss and damage, and means of implementation. In addition, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will host a meeting of Heads of State on the sidelines of the UN Sustainable Development Summit, which will convene in New York from 25-27 September 2015, and finance ministers are to discuss climate finance and possibly to agree to a “finance package” on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings in Lima, Peru, from 9-11 October 2015.
NEXT STOP: BONN
In a few weeks, climate negotiators will meet again at the World Conference Center Bonn and consider the non-paper they requested the Co-Chairs to produce. All eyes will be on negotiators to see if they are able to bridge two gaps. The first is the gap between the GNT, which is a compilation of options, and the desired concise negotiating text presenting clear options for COP 21. The second, which is related to the first, is the gap between the technical and political discussions. The ADP’s next session and the way the parties will receive the Co-Chairs’ non-paper will be key step on the road to Paris.