ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section I: Transparency of Action & Support.

As I envisage it this new agreement will see all parties submit Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC's) that contain both an Adaptation Section and a Conditional/Additional Section. These will then be subjected to both an ex ante and an ex post peer review process.

As such the function of this system will do an awful lot to enhance transparency.

For example if a nation has received support to carry out the Conditional portion of it's INDC they will have to state where that support came from at the ex post review and you can be certain that there will be a corresponding INDC boasting about the Additional support it has provided.

All INDC's will then be reviewed by peer groups in a process intended to check whether promised actions are being fulfilled.

Therefore I think that this is a section that can be dramatically reduced although I would stop short of removing it entirely.

Paragraph 140 - Here Option 4 applies only to developed parties giving developing parties an opt out. This goes against the collective responsibility of the agreement meaning that I cannot even entertain it. Option 1 is far too vague giving little to no guidance to how the transparency mechanism will function. There is really little to choose between Options 2 & 3.

Therefore I would take the bulk of Option 2 provided it is streamlined as follows;

"A common transparency framework, applicable to all Parties taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and recognizing that Parties shall progressively enhance the level of transparency such that it is strengthened and more robust relative to the level currently existing under the Convention, shall promote transparency of action and support by providing information on the implementation of each Party’s commitments / contributions in an efficient and flexible manner, recognizing that Parties with the least capacity may need additional support to do so, in order to:

(a) - Enhance clarity, comparability, accountability and mutual trust and promote ambition / progressive enhancement amongst all parties;

In the spirit of collective responsibility I've changed this to apply to all parties within the context of CBDR.

(b) - Facilitate the tracking of progress in the implementation of commitments / contributions; 

(c) - Provide the clearest possible understanding of aggregate emissions relative to emission pathways consistent with limiting the global average temperature increase to below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels;

(d) - Ensure that commitments / actions and provision of support by all countries in a position to do so are implemented and complied with and verified through a robust verification system, and facilitate the comparison of MRV of all types of support received with the needs expressed and identified by countries;
 
In the spirit of collective responsibility I've changed this to apply to all parties within the context of CBDR. Parties in need of assistance can still express and identify that need because developing, developed or any other term we may use they are all countries.

(e) - Ensure the use of mitigation outcomes resulting from international/national market-based mechanisms in the accounting of each Party’s commitments / contributions;

"Ensure" is the stronger term then "facilitate" and it's important to include both national and international mechanisms because often a national mechanism will provide the basis for an international mechanism.

(f) - Avoid double counting;

(g) - Ensure the environmental integrity of this agreement;

(h) -  I have excluded this entirely because it creates opt-outs. With nations being given the freedom to set their own targets they shouldn't then be able to opt-out of those targets or the entire agreement will become not only a failure but also a joke.

(i) - Enhance transparency and accountability on finance, technology and capacity-building support provided between Parties through robust accounting rules and an MRV system."

Again this wording better reflects the collective responsibility.

I would also include from Option 3;

"(b) - Facilitate the clarity of progress made by Parties that include an adaptation component in their nationally determined contributions;

To ensure that Adaptation is covered along with mitigation and;

(c) - Ensure that support-related commitments are implemented, complied with and verified through a robust accounting, reporting and verification system;"

To ensure that Additional support is actually being translated into Conditional action.

Paragraph 141 - I consider this fine as is.

Paragraph 142 - Here Option 2 rather misses the point which is to further establish the core principles of how the transparency mechanism will function. Option 3 is actually relevant but I don't think provides enough detail. Option 1 provides probably provides too much detail so needs to be streamlined as follows;

"The transparency framework shall encompass MRV of emissions and removals including those related to support, and shall be based on agreed rules and existing MRV arrangements under the Convention and / be guided by the following:

(a) - The principles and provisions of the Convention;

This wording includes Article 12 of the convention.

(b) - Article 3 is also included in (a) so I would cut this as a repetition.

(c) -Taking into account the differing national circumstances / common but differentiated responsibilities / the unique circumstances / and respective capabilities of Parties.

Here I've gone for Option A because I feel including "national and regional development priorities" provides too much of an opt out while this version along with the principle of CBDR throughout the document still affords protection to less capable nations.

(d) -  The purpose of the agreement is to get all countries working towards a common standard by increasing their capacity. This provides too much of an opt out undermining that purpose. Therefore this needs to be removed.

(e) - I would replace this with the better wording of Option 3 (c);

"Avoiding imposing onerous burdens on particularly vulnerable developing country Parties, including the LDCs and SIDS, with respect to support received for adaptation, capacity-building, access to and development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies"

This provides the same protection just in a more coherent sentence

(f) - Recognizing that the transparency framework will evolve, building on existing decisions / experience of existing MRV arrangements

That's a purely grammatical change

(g) - This is the entire purpose of the agreement so including it as a clause here is needless and should be removed.

(h) - Ensuring transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency;

(i) -  This is covered better by (j) so should be removed as a duplication

(j) - Building countries’ capacities over time and institutionalizing reporting capacity;

(k) - Although I would like to include language highlighting that the burden on the Secretariat should be minimised in all areas under the agreement the purpose of the agreement is to sustainably increase the burden on nations. Therefore this should be removed as it contradicts the entire agreement.

(l) - The role of the existing arrangements including the KP have already been established. Therefore this should be removed as a duplication.

(m) -  This is already covered by (o) so should be removed as a duplication.

(n) - This is already covered by (e) so should be removed as a duplication.

(o) - Consistent with the level of support provided."

Paragraph 143 - This is already covered by an INDC design that includes the Adaptation section. Therefore this should be removed as an unnecessary duplication.

Paragraph 144 - This is already covered by the proceeding paragraphs in the section. Therefore it should be removed.

Paragraph 145 - This to has already been covered by the proceeding paragraphs in the section. Therefore it should be removed as a duplication to make the section far less chaotic.

Paragraph 146 -  This is fine as it is simply allowing for new institutional arrangements to be created should the need arise.

Paragraph 147 - As I pointed out above this is really covered by the INDC design. Therefore Option 3 is unnecessarily detailed without adding anything of value. Conversely Option 2 far too vague. So here I would adopt Option 1 simply to establish biennial communications.

Paragraph 148 -  Again this is really covered by the INDC design. However I'm happy for it to continue to be included because it's short and it doesn't contradict anything.

Paragraph 149 - I consider this to be fine provided it reads;

"In line with the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) All Parties shall use common methodologies and metrics agreed by the IPCC and adopted by the governing body to determine their greenhouse gas emissions and removals."

Although it mandates that all parties should use the accepted IPCC metrics and methods it gives a small degree a wriggle room for nations that are genuinely unable to meet that standard.

Paragraph 150 - I consider this to be fine provided it reads;

"All Parties in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities, to ensure transparency of support:

(a) - MRV of support provided to be enhanced on the basis of national communications, biennial reports, ex ante and ex post peer review,  IAR and Kyoto Protocol rules using common but differentiated templates and drawing on the work of the SBSTA on methodologies for the reporting of financial information by Annex I Parties;

That is to enshrine the role that the peer review process plays in enhancing transparency.

(b) - All Parties to provide information on support received and its use, recognizing the special circumstances of countries, ensuring that no onerous reporting burdens are imposed.

This reflects the collective nature of the agreement while protecting less capable nations from having burdens placed upon them that is not accompanied by additional support to meet that burden.

(c) - All Parties in a position to do so to provide biennial reports on adaptation support, indicating the level of support that they are providing, in particular to the LDCs, SIDS and countries in Africa, so as to inform a regular review by the governing body in line with science;

(d) - International financial institutions are invited to provide information on how their development assistance finance incorporates ‘climate proofing’ measures in all forms of support;

(e) - Each Party to provide information on support provided and received, in line with its national circumstances;

(f) - The level of financial support provided by All Parties for the purchase of intellectual property rights to access environmentally sound technologies and thus enhance their action to tackle climate change."

Paragraph 151 - Here Option 2 seems to have been written to provide assurance to the less capable nations of support. In it's repetition of that point it misses out other key areas. Option 4 is wholly insufficient because I agree that there needs to be a high degree of assurance. I don't think that Option 5 provides enough support while Option 3 could certainly provide more.

Therefore I would adopt Option 1 as striking the right balance provided it is streamlined to read;

"The governing body shall elaborate the rules related to transparency of action and support, including MRV, as well as related to accounting, in particular the rules on the use of market mechanisms, and to the land sector in relation to mitigation commitments / contributions, which:
 
(a). After gathering experience with the agreed transparency system and assessing whether improvement is needed, adjust / enhance / ensure the development of the existing MRV arrangements and accounting rules, building on the experience of existing MRV arrangements, to fit the objectives and purposes of the agreement;
 
(b). Ensure harmonization and coordination of existing data systems as well as methodological consistency and commonality in defining and tracking the commitments / contributions;

(c). Use common metrics and methodologies adopted by the IPCC and agreed by the COP for the estimation of GHG emissions and removals

Here I've chosen Option B because although parties really should adopt the best scientific advice from the IPCC they should also be given the opportunity to raise concerns about the practicality of that advice.

(d). Use common guidelines related to reference levels elaborating the modalities of how methodological consistency should be ensured and under which circumstances changes to reference levels may occur;
 
(e). Use common guidelines on national MRV arrangements taking into account the respective capabilities and different national circumstances of Parties;
 
(f). Recognize the importance of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from land-use change and forestry activities for understanding mitigation contributions and progress in achieving targets, commitments and implementing actions;

Under (f) I would strengthen the reporting of natural sinks and sources by including from Option 3 (f) the sub-points;

(i). Parties to include all major emission sources and sinks, pools and gases in their contribution;

(ii). For major sources and sinks, pools and gases that are not included, Parties to include an explanation for their exclusion, and to strive to include these over time.

(vii). Once a gas, sector, category, activity, area of land or pool is accounted towards a commitment, it shall continue to be accounted for in the future

(g). Recognize the use of market activities in relation to mitigation commitments if they meet standards, to be defined, that deliver real, permanent, additional and verified mitigation outcomes, avoid double accounting of effort, achieve a net decrease and/or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions and are in conformity with these standards;

Here I've used Option B but removed the references to the KP and the Convention to allow any market mechanisms that might be developed in the future to also be covered by the clause.

(h). Elaborate when Parties may change their baselines and related accounting approaches or methodologies;
 
(i). Recognize the importance of accounting of support for adaptation and means of implementation

(j). Use comparable accounting mechanisms for support on the basis of common templates / methodologies and common methodology for MRV for all countries in a position to do so

(k). Place greater emphasis on effectiveness of support and include better provisions for reporting on the use of international support and results achieved with support;

(l). With respect to the provision and receipt of finance:

(i). Include / enhance information, in accordance with previous decisions of the COP, on support provided and received, including on: delivery, use and impact, sources, scale, channels, instruments, and on South–South cooperation; 

(ii). Provide transparency on the levels of financing, on what financing is used for, which countries are benefiting, and whether funds are new and additional and outcomes achieved through accounting rules for: mitigation and adaptation actions and for financial support, as well as public and private resources invested; 

Here I've gone for the first option because it is simply better written and includes the same protections as the second option only within the collective spirit of the agreement.

(iii). Be enhanced on the basis of annual reporting on delivery of climate finance;

(iv). Address the need for a common agreed definition of climate finance and inconsistencies on climate finance data:
- Providing clarity on what type is most appropriate for what action;
- Building on the work done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Research Collaborative and the SCF on methods for measuring and tracking private climate finance -Building on the work of the SBSTA; 

(m). With respect to the monitoring and reporting of support on enhanced action on technology development and transfer:
 
(i). Facilitated by the TEC / Technology Mechanism;



"Facilitated" being the stronger term then (Overseen)

(ii). Develop common format and methodologies for technology support reporting;

(n). With respect to the effectiveness of capacity-building support:
 
(i). On the basis of the impact and knowledge created in [developing country Parties][Parties not included in annex X] against performance indicators at the national level and/or by a committee on capacity-building;
 
(ii). Be conducted against needs identified by Parties;



Again a developing party is still a party.
 
(iii). Include an assessment of the effectiveness of capacity-building activities on the basis of performance indicators at the international level;
 
(iv). Supported by the Durban Forum on capacity-building and the Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention."


At around 21:50 on 9/11/15 (UK date) I am accutely aware that there a 7 more paragraphs in this section. However I really need to consider the provisions over joint mitigation actions with a fresh set of eyes. So I will pick this up tomorrow. Possibly in a seperate post.