Countries meet in Bonn for the first time after the Katowice package was agreed at COP24 in Poland last year. The so-called Rulebook left some open issues to be discussed, which will be the main topics for this year’s COP25 in Chile. Here is how they progressed in the Bonn intersessional:
Last year at COP24 countries did not agree on how to “consider” the latest science of the IPCC – its Special Report on 1.5 – in the scientific body of the climate negotiations.
During this Bonn session, this has been one of the biggest and most covered fights. Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia, amongst others, continuously and persistently blocked the efforts to include the latest climate science into the negotiations.
All the iterations of the negotiation text watered down more and more its ambition, and in the end the final text only thanks the scientists for their work and takes note of the discussion.
This outcome spurred a lot of reactions within other countries and civil society. The Environmental Integrity Group wore “Science is not negotiable” t-shirts into the closing plenary, and the Youth Constituency also repeated this message in many languages.
Market mechanism (or Article 6) is the only chapter under the Katowice Agreements that was left empty. Last year, countries could not agree on issues like how to avoid double counting at the last minute of the negotiations, and the whole discussion was postponed.
As of the end of the Bonn negotiations, the text is more organised, but it still contains all possible options discussed by the countries. The sticky issues, like safeguards or double counting, remain on the table.
Brazil has been pushing a lot to have Clean Development Mechanism credits move from the Kyoto to the Paris regime, which is strongly opposed by the NGOs.
Last year in Poland countries agreed that they would implement “common timeframes” from 2030 onwards. That means that, for now, they can keep their climate plans (or NDCs) as they are, which are designed for ten or five years of implementation.
Now countries have to find a way to homogenise this, and from 2030 onwards have a common structure: either they all submit their climate plans every five years, or every ten, or they find a solution in between.
The text did not progress as much in this June session. It started by having 4 possible options, and it ended up with 6. Countries also failed to define when do they want to make a final decision: setting a deadline as early as possible would grant enough time to prepare the next round of submissions.
Warsaw International Mechanism of Loss and Damage
This year in Chile will be the first time negotiators get to make a formal review of the last 5 years of the Warsaw International Mechanism. This year negotiators are due to review the workplan, which broadly initiated a series of annual meetings, an Executive Committee, and a series of studies that could help negotiators better understand how they can help countries deal with losses and damages created by climate.
In this Bonn session, countries were able to design the Terms of Reference, which includes six sections relating to mandate, objective, scope, inputs and sources of information, modalities, and expected output.
One of the most contentious issues was for developing countries to be able to discuss finance for Loss and Damage. The agreed text includes “resourcing” as something the parties can consider, opening the door to making that possible. Countries were also very careful not to discuss or include in the ToR any issues related to the governance of the WIM.
Furthermore, all parties will be able to submit their views on the review via written submissions until the 16th October, for them to be considered at COP25.
Katowice forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures
The KCI forum met for the first time in this Bonn intersessional. They were able to have a first draft of the rules of procedure of the forum, and produced a list of activities to be included in the 6-year workplan. The work is not yet finalised, and will be concluded at COP25.
The transparency chapter of the Paris Rulebook was closed at the last COP24. However, there was still an issue to be defined: the reporting tables for specific transparency issues, such as reporting on greenhouse gas emissions or the progress made to achieve NDCs.
In Bonn, countries have been discussing how will these tables look like. Two main issues have been raised during the last weeks: the need for flexibility within those tables, so we adapt to the capacity of developing countries, and the need for capacity building to those countries.