Climate change

Global Forum on the Environment and Climate Change - organised by the Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG) - September 2016

 

The CCXG Global Forum on the Environment and Climate Change was held on 13-14 September 2016 at the OECD Conference Centre in Paris. This Forum brought together approximately 200 delegates from a wide range of developed and developing countries, as well as representatives from business, inter-governmental organisations, research organisations, environmental NGOs and other relevant institutions. Two sessions of the Forum were organised in partnership with University of Cape Town (UCT) and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). The theme was transparency, and the issues discussed included transparency of mitigation and support.

The Forum provided a neutral space outside of the UNFCCC negotiations for participants to develop a shared understanding of the transparency-related provisions in the Paris Agreement and how these might be implemented. The Forum was also an opportunity for delegates to have an objective discussion of the priorities and timeline for related work to be undertaken by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement and other subsidiary bodies under the UNFCCC.

Summary slides

 

Agenda, presentations and final list of participants

 

DAY 1 -  Tuesday 13 September 2016

9:30 – 09:45 Welcoming remarks

Chair: Jacob Werksman
Facilitators: Jacob Werksman, Chair of the Climate Change Expert Group

9:45 – 11:00 plenary: Building institutions and capacity for transparency of mitigation and finance 

In-country capacity is needed to monitor and report climate information. This session shared lessons on the types of institutional developments and capacities that can help countries to improve the transparency of their mitigation actions and support needs or uses. Existing experience at the national and international level with integrating capacity building as part of climate projects will be highlighted, as will lessons on the impact that this has had on countries’ capacity for monitoring and reporting relevant information.

Speakers


Discussion question: Based on experience within varying national contexts, how can UNFCCC bodies and mechanisms best support the development of domestic institutions and capacities that enhance transparency?

 

11:30 – 13:00 Breakout Group 1: Accounting for NDCs under the Paris Agreement: what is it for, when will it be undertaken?

Co-facilitators: Brian Mantlana, South Africa and Helen Plume, New Zealand

The Paris Agreement states that Parties “shall account” for their NDCs, and in doing so Parties shall promote environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency, and avoid double counting. This session discussed what accounting for NDCs means under the Paris Agreement given the diverse range of NDC types, when during the NDC cycle it could be undertaken, and links between accounting for NDCs under Article 4 and the enhanced transparency framework under Article 13.

 

Speakers

Discussion questions:

    1. What does it mean to “account for NDCs” under the Paris Agreement, given the diverse range of NDC types? At what point(s) during the NDC cycle could it be undertaken?
    2. What are the links between accounting under Article 4 and the enhanced transparency framework under Article 13?

     

    11:30 – 13:00 Breakout Group A: Domestic institutions and capacities for monitoring climate finance

    Co-facilitators: Diann Black-Layne, Antigua and Barbuda, and Tomonori Sudo, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

    Being able to monitor climate finance flows – whether inflows or outflows, domestic or international – requires setting up tracking systems and a significant degree of institutional co-ordination. This session seeked to gather experiences with how domestic institutions and capacities relevant to monitoring climate finance flows have been developed in different country contexts.

    Speakers

     

    Discussion questions:

      1. What institutional arrangements and practices have facilitated data collection at the national level on climate finance, including climate finance received?
      2. What are the capacity implications of such arrangements and practices, and how can these be addressed?

       

      14:30 – 16:00 Breakout Group 2: Guidance for accounting: emissions intensity goals, and goals relative to BAU emissions levels under Article 4

      Co-facilitators: Brian Mantlana, South Africa and Helen Plume, New Zealand

      Decision 1/CP.21 requests the APA to elaborate guidance for accounting for NDCs, which shall be applied to second and subsequent NDCs (and may be voluntarily used for first NDCs). Many different types of INDCs have been proposed to date. In particular, many countries have communicated emission reduction goals relative to BAU baselines or emission intensity goals. This session discussed possible elements of guidance for accounting for these NDC types. 

       

      Speakers

       

      Discussion questions:

        1. What specific guidance for accounting would be needed for emission intensity goals?
        2. What does “methodological consistency” on baselines mean, in the context of the communication and implementation of NDCs?

         

        14:30 – 16:00 Breakout Group B: Tracking the use, impact and estimated results of support received – current practices and challenges

        Co-facilitators: Diann Black-Layne, Antigua and Barbuda and Tomonori Sudo, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

        The Ad-hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement is to develop modalities, procedures and guidelines for the enhanced transparency framework. In doing so, the Paris Agreement requests that it consider enhancing the reporting by developing countries on support received, “including the use, impact and estimated results thereof”. To better understand what such reporting might entail, speakers shared current practices and experiences with tracking the use, impact and estimated results of climate support. 

        Speakers

         

        Discussion questions:

          1. How are different countries tracking where climate finance is used?
          2. What are the different approaches to identifying or estimating the impacts and results of this climate finance?

           

          16:30 – 18:00 Breakout Group 3: Long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies, organised in partnership with University of Cape Town (UCT)

          Facilitator: Harald Winkler, UCT

          The Paris Agreement encourages all countries to formulate long-term low GHG emission development strategies. A related decision invites these strategies to be developed by countries then submitted to the UNFCCC by 2020. These strategies provide an opportunity to develop forward-looking national economic development plans or strategies that encompass low-emission growth. This session explored approaches to long-term low GHG planning as a tool to align long-term goals with actions put forward in future rounds of NDCs, and to help advance national climate change and development policy in a more co-ordinated, coherent and strategic manner.

          Speakers

           

          Discussion questions:

          1. How can methodologies for long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies deliver robust outputs and compelling narratives, and create a positive vision for each country?
          2. How might long-term strategies inform other more near-term plans, including those focused on climate (e.g. NDCs) and development (e.g. energy, environment or other national development plans)?

           

          16:30 – 18:00 Breakout Group C: Tracking progress with NDCs requiring support 

          Facilitator: Marcelo Rocha, Fábrica Éthica Brasil

          At least two-thirds of submitted INDCs indicate they will require international support either to be implemented, or so that more ambitious actions or a greater level of GHG emissions reductions can be achieved. In some INDCs to date, the requirement for support can be explicit and specific, and in others it can be generic. Speakers shared their views on whether and how tracking progress with (I)NDCs requiring support (whether fully or partly) may or may not require different monitoring processes at a domestic level, or different reporting provisions in the context of the Paris Agreement transparency framework.

          Speakers

           

          Discussion questions:

          1. Does the conditionality contained in some INDCs influence how Parties monitor their progress, and if so, how?
          2. What impact, if any, would this have on reporting on progress under the Paris Agreement transparency framework?

           

          DAY 2 -  Wednesday 14 September 2016

          9:30 – 11:00 Breakout Group 4: Transparency of mitigation action: Tracking progress toward NDCs 

          Co-facilitators: Gilberto Arias, Energeia Network and Harry Vreuls, Netherlands

          Article 13 of the Paris Agreement outlines an enhanced transparency framework for action and support that shall build on and eventually supersede the existing MRV system. This session discussed lessons from experience with reporting and review under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol that could help inform the development of modalities, procedures and guidelines for the enhanced transparency framework for mitigation.

          Speakers

           

          Discussion questions:

          1.  

            In which areas is further guidance most needed for reporting on mitigation?
          2. Given past experience, how can technical expert review and multilateral consideration of progress be made most useful for the Party concerned?

           

          9:30 –11:00 Breakout Group D: Transparency of finance provided and mobilised – lessons from experience to date 

          Co-facilitators: Andrés Mogro, Ecuador and Jens Fugl, Denmark

          The Paris Agreement stipulates that developed countries shall report information on climate finance provided and mobilised. Other countries are encouraged to do so. To date, there has been significantly more experience with tracking and reporting information on publicly-provided climate finance than with climate finance that has been mobilised by public interventions. This session highlighted gaps and challenges in the reporting of climate finance provided and mobilised, and discussed possible ways to overcome such challenges.

          Speakers

           

          Discussion questions:

          1.  

            What are the challenges in monitoring and reporting climate finance provided and mobilised?
          2. Could collective reporting help overcome some of these challenges, and if so, what are the implications for communicating information to the UNFCCC?

           

          11:30 –13:00 Breakout Group 5Transparency of mitigation – providing flexibility in the enhanced transparency framework, organised in partnership with The Energy Research Institute (TERI)

          Co-facilitators: Gilberto Arias, Energeia Network and Harry Vreuls, Netherlands

          The enhanced transparency framework under Article 13 is to have built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’ different capacities and builds upon collective experience. This session discussed the nature of this built-in flexibility, building on experience with reporting and review under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

          Speakers

           

          Discussion questions:

          1. How can we provide flexibility in terms of scope, frequency and level of detail of reporting, while accommodating diverse country conditions and improving comparability among NDCs?
          2. How can we provide flexibility in terms of the scope of technical review (e.g. desk reviews or in-country reviews) and multilateral consideration?

           

          11:30 –13:00 Breakout Group ETransparency of finance received – lessons from experience to date 

          Co-facilitators: Andrés Mogro, Ecuador and Jens Fugl, Denmark

          Article 13.10 of the Paris Agreement encourages developing countries to report information on climate finance needed and received. This is a challenging task, as climate finance can be received by multiple actors, and not necessarily channelled through the national government. This session highlighted different approaches that countries have taken when collecting and reporting on climate finance received, and highlight key challenges in doing so. 

          Speakers

           

          Discussion questions:

          1.  

            What approaches have countries taken when reporting in their biennial update reports on climate finance received?
          2. What are the major challenges faced, and can these be addressed to facilitate enhanced reporting in the future?

           

          14:30 – 15:30 Plenary: Facilitators’ key takeaways from breakout groups

          Facilitator: Jacob Werksman, Chair of the Climate Change Expert Group

          Facilitators shared their three key takeaways from each breakout group discussion, allowing participants to gain insights from sessions they were unable to attend.

          Speakers

          • Brian Mantlana and Helen Plume
          • Harald Winkler
          • Gilberto Arias and Harry Vreuls
          • Diann Black-Layne and Tomonori Sudo
          • Marcelo Rocha
          • Andrés Mogro and Jens Fugl

           

          15:30 – 16:30 Plenary: The 2018 facilitative dialogue and the global stocktake

          Facilitator: Jacob Werksman, Chair of the Climate Change Expert Group

          Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 20, establishes a “facilitative dialogue among Parties in 2018 to take stock of collective efforts of Parties”, in relation to the long-term mitigation goal referred to in Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement (i.e. a global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, and a balance between emissions and removals in the second half of this century). The facilitative dialogue aims to inform the preparation of NDCs under Article 4. Article 14 of the Paris Agreement establishes a global stocktake of the implementation of the Agreement, to assess the collective progress towards achieving its purpose and long-term goals. The first stocktake is to take place in 2023, and every five years thereafter. Participants shared their views on the possible aims and outputs of these processes, and any possible links between them. 

          Speakers

          • Nicole Wilke, Germany
          • Leon Charles, Grenada
          • Katherine Storey, Australia

           

          Discussion questions:

          1. What should be the aims of the 2018 facilitative dialogue? What, if any, outputs should result from it?
          2. Is there a link between the 2018 facilitative dialogue and the global stocktake planned for 2023? If so, what is its nature? 

           

          17:00 – 18:00 Closing PlenaryHow to move forward work on transparency at COP 22 in Marrakech 

          Facilitator: Jacob Werksman, Chair of the Climate Change Expert Group

          Speakers from the current and upcoming COP Presidencies shared their thoughts on the concrete steps at COP22 and beyond that could facilitate progress with work to develop the enhanced transparency framework under the Paris Agreement.

          Speakers

          • Mohamed Nbou, Morocco
          • Paul Watkinson, France

           

          Discussion questions:

          1. Within the UNFCCC process, what steps do Parties envisage to move forward work on the enhanced transparency framework? What are the key elements and issues that might affect the timing and the process of developing modalities, procedures and guidelines under Article 13?
          2. Outside of the UNFCCC process, what concrete actions can Parties and non-Parties take to facilitate progress with work to develop the enhanced transparency framework? 

           

          Find out more about the work of the Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG)

           

          Related Documents