Query: Can you outline the purpose and functions of the Forum and compare/contrast these with those of the Katowice Committee of Experts on the Impacts of the Implementation of Response Measures (KCI)? What are their respective current outputs/outcomes? Have the outputs/outcomes of the forum changed since the establishment of the KCI?

Advice:

1. Context

The impacts of the implementation of response measures are understood as the effects arising from the mitigation actions undertaken by countries to respond to climate change. Article 4 of the UNFCCC, Articles 2.3 and 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol and Article 4.15 of the Paris Agreement provide a basis for addressing the impact of the implementation of response measures.

Thus, according to the Paris Agreement (Article 4.15), countries shall take into consideration in the implementation of the commitments under the Agreement the concerns of countries with economies most affected by the impacts of response measures, particularly developing countries. The Kyoto Protocol obliges Annex I Parties (some developed countries) to strive to implement policies and measures in such a way as to minimize adverse effects, including social, environmental and economic impacts on other Parties.

The issue of response measures has also been addressed by the Conference of Parties’ decisions. For instance, it was recognized that the implementation of response measures to mitigate climate change taken by a Party may result in negative economic and social consequences for other Parties (1/CP.16, Section E, second preambular paragraph).

Forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures

At COP16, countries decided to provide a forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures (1/CP.16, para.93) ‘and to that end request[ed] the Chairs of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to convene such a forum […] with the objective of developing a work programme under the subsidiary bodies to address these impacts’. The purpose of the Forum is closely linked to the delivery of the work programme, further reflected in Decision 8/CP.17 which formally established the Forum and agreed the modalities for its operationalisation.

According to Decision 8/CP.17, paragraph 3, the primary functions of the Forum were twofold:

1. the implementation of the work programme on the impact of the implementation of response measures; and
2. the provision of a platform for Parties to share information, experiences, case studies, best practices and views.

In line with Decision 8/CP.17, the Forum convenes under a joint agenda item of the subsidiary bodies and operates in accordance with the procedures applicable to contact groups. Contact groups are established to conduct negotiations on specific agenda items and are open to participation by all Parties.[1] It was agreed that the Forum would initially meet ‘twice a year in conjunction with the sessions of the subsidiary bodies’.

At COP21 the Forum was improved after a review of its work  affirmed that more focused consideration of issues was needed (11/CP.21). In Decision 11/CP.21, paragraph 1, the COP added an additional function for the Forum, namely:

3) ‘to facilitate assessment and analysis of the impact of the implementation of response measures, with a view to recommending specific actions.’

Thus, the improved forum was mandated to focus on the provision of concrete examples, case studies and practices in order to enhance the capacity of parties to deal with the impact of the implementation of response measures. The Forum was also mandated to provide recommendations to the subsidiary bodies for their consideration relating to its primary purpose areas, with a view to then recommending those actions to the COP.

The Forum’s mode of work was further developed and institutionalized at COP21 when the Forum was acknowledged as a single platform that covers the work of the COP, CMP and CMA on all matters relating to the impact of the implementation of response measures. In addition, the modalities, work programme and functions of the Forum were adopted.

In Decision 7/CMA.1, paragraph 9, it was decided that the Forum shall develop and recommend a six-year workplan ‘taking into account relevant policy issues of concern to Parties’.

The Annex of Decision 7/CMA.1 further clarified and added functions to the Forum [emphasis added]:

‘(a) Provide a platform allowing Parties to share, in an interactive manner, information, experiences, case studies, best practices and views, and to facilitate assessment and analysis of the impact of the implementation of response measures, including the use and development of modelling tools and methodologies, with a view to recommending specific actions;

(b) Provide recommendations to the subsidiary bodies on the actions referred to in paragraph 1(a) above for their consideration, with a view to recommending those actions, as appropriate, to the Conference of the Parties, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement;

(c) Provide concrete examples, case studies and practices in order to enhance the capacity of Parties, in particular developing country Parties, to deal with the impact of the implementation of response measures;

(d) Address the effects of the implementation of response measures under the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement by enhancing cooperation among Parties, stakeholders, external organizations, experts and institutions, by enhancing the capacity and the understanding of Parties of the impacts of mitigation actions and by enabling the exchange of information, experience and best practices among Parties to raise their resilience to these impacts;

(e) Respond and take into consideration the relevant outcomes of different processes under the Paris Agreement;

(f) Promote action to minimize the adverse impacts and maximize the positive impacts of the implementation of response measures.’

The Forum’s functions and modalities were once again updated and harmonized – and with those of the Katowice Committee of Experts – in Decision 13/CP.28 Annex (full list of shared functions detailed below).

The Subsidiary Bodies were requested in Decision 13/CP.28 to ‘review the functions, work programme and modalities of the forum and its Katowice Committee on Impacts every five years, starting at their sixty-ninth sessions (2028)’ in order to improve efficiency.

Katowice Committee of Experts on the Impacts of the Implementation of Response Measures

The Katowice Committee of Experts on the Impacts of the Implementation of Response Measures (KCI) is a constituted body that was established in 2018 to support the Forum by undertaking technical work (7/CMA.1). The KCI comprises 14 members from Parties and intergovernmental organisations who serve in their expert capacity.[2]

The terms of reference of the KCI are set out in the Annex to Decision 7/CMA.1 and contain the following provisions:

‘(a) The KCI shall meet twice a year, for two days per meeting, in conjunction with the meetings of the subsidiary bodies;

(b) The KCI shall be composed of 14 members, with two members from each of the five United Nations regional groups, one member from the least developed countries, one member from the small island developing States and two members from relevant intergovernmental organizations;

(c) Members shall serve in their expert capacity and should have relevant qualifications and expertise in the technical and socioeconomic fields related to the areas of the work programme of the forum;

(d) Members identified in paragraph 4(b) above shall be nominated by their respective groups. The Chairs of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice shall be notified of these appointments;

(e) Members identified in paragraph 4(b) above shall serve a term of two years and shall be eligible to serve a maximum of two consecutive terms in office;

(f) The KCI shall elect, on a consensus basis, two members from among its members identified in paragraph 4(b) above to serve as Co-Chairs for a term of two years each, taking into account the need to ensure equitable geographical representation;

(g) If one of the Co-Chairs is temporarily unable to fulfil the obligations of the office, any other member designated by the KCI shall serve as Co-Chair;

(h) Meetings of the KCI shall be open to attendance, as observers, by all Parties and accredited observer organizations unless otherwise decided by the KCI;

(i) The KCI shall operate on the basis of consensus of its members;

(j) Members of the KCI shall prepare an annual report for the forum to consider with a view to making recommendations to the Conference of the Parties, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement.’

The KCI prepares case studies, technical papers, and compilations of concrete examples. An additional feature of the KCI is the possibility to invite representatives of international organizations, the private sector, academia and civil society to participate in meetings as expert advisers on specific issues.

The KCI has to report to the Forum annually. The Forum then considers this report with a view to making recommendations to the COP, the CMP, and the CMA. For instance, the 2023 Annual report contains possible recommendations (chapter III, FCCC/SB/2023/6) which are based on the activities carried out by the KCI within the workplan. These recommendations were further agreed by the Forum and adopted by the COP, the CMP, and the CMA (sections I–III, FCCC/CP/2023/L.14).

2. Comparing/contrasting the Forum and its KCI

The Forum aims to assist parties in fulfilling their respective commitments under the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Specifically, the Forum is designed to address the effects of the implementation of response measures by enhancing cooperation among Parties on understanding the impacts of mitigation actions and the exchange of information, experience, and best practices among Parties to raise their resilience to these impacts.

The establishment of the Forum has allowed for the issue of response measures to be discussed as a separate agenda item in a form of contact group but with a concrete work programme and 6-year workplan adopted in 2019 (4/CMA.2 and 4/CP.25).

The Forum and its KCI have a common work programme, modalities and functions, and implement the 6-year workplan jointly. The work programme comprises 4 work areas in order to address the concerns of all parties, particularly developing country parties:

1. economic diversification and transformation;
2. just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs;
3. assessing and analysing the impacts of the implementation of response measures;
4. facilitating and building capacity for the identification, development, customization and use of tools and methodologies to assess the impacts of the implementation of response measures.

The Forum and the KCI have nine functions:[3]

1. provide a platform allowing Parties to share information, experiences, case studies, best practices and views, and to facilitate assessment and analysis of the impact of the implementation of response measures, including the use and development of modelling tools and methodologies;
2. provide recommendations to the subsidiary bodies for their consideration, with a view to the subsidiary bodies recommending those actions to the COP, the CMP and the CMA;
3. promote action to minimize the adverse impacts and maximize the positive impacts of the implementation of response measures;
4. enhance the capacity of Parties to deal with the impacts of the implementation of response measures;
5. address the effects of the implementation of response measures under the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement by enhancing cooperation among Parties, stakeholders, external organizations, experts and institutions, by enhancing the capacity and the understanding of Parties regarding the impacts of mitigation actions and by enabling the exchange of information, experience and best practices among Parties to raise their resilience to these impacts;
6. respond to and take into consideration the relevant outcomes of different processes under the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement;
7. prepare information for the technical assessment component of the global stocktake related to the impacts of the implementation of response measures in line with the process outlined in decision 23/CMA.3, paragraphs 11–12;
8. regularly update the existing database of tools and methodologies suitable for assessing the impacts of the implementation of response measures, as needed and as appropriate;
9. share experience and best practices in providing detailed information, to the extent possible, on the assessment of economic and social impacts of response measures as provided in decision 18/CMA.1.[4]

Decisions 13/CP.28 and 19/CMA.5, Annex I, set out a non-exhaustive list of their shared modalities:

1. Building awareness and enhancing information-sharing through the exchange and sharing of experience and best practices;
2. Preparing technical papers, national, regional and sector-specific case studies, concrete examples and guidelines;
3. Receiving input from and facilitating collaboration with experts, practitioners and relevant organizations;
4. Organizing workshops.

In practice, among the main modalities/outputs of the KCI’s work (and in line with the workplan) are case studies, concrete examples, technical papers, preparing an annual report, etc. While the Forum serves as a platform for exchanging views with participation of relevant stakeholders, not limited to parties only, it uses the workshops and sharing of experience and best practices as key modalities which do not constitute formal negotiations.

In one instance, the KCI developed a database to accompany a technical paper to provide detailed information on some of the quantitative and qualitative tools and methodologies for modelling and assessing the impacts of the implementation of response measures. Building on this work, several regional workshops were held with support of the KCI and in collaboration with relevant organizations and stakeholders to facilitate the development, enhancement, customization and use of tools and methodologies for modelling and assessing the impacts of the implementation of response measures.[5]

The KCI annual reports reflect the work undertaken in line with the workplan. Taking into account the outcomes of the activities done, the KCI proposes possible recommendations to the Forum for consideration with a view to the Forum recommending actions to COP, CMP and CMA.

For example, as the output of implementing workplan activity 2, the KCI published a compilation of concrete examples of country-driven strategies and best practices on just transition of the workforce and creation of decent work and quality jobs and on economic diversification and transformation.[6] Such examples focused on challenges and opportunities from the implementation of low greenhouse gas emission policies and strategies towards the achievement of sustainable development. The work of the KCI in developing technical reports on just transition also fed into the First Dialogue under the UAE Just Transition Work Programme, including a report currently being finalized on guidelines and policy frameworks to promote just transition of the workforce, presented at SB60.[7]

On the basis of work undertaken, in its 2023 Annual report the KCI prepared possible recommendations which were considered by the Forum and then adopted by the governing bodies with regard to activity 2 of the workplan (13/CP.28 and 19/CMA.5, paragraphs 23-25). The governing bodies invited parties, observer organizations and non-party stakeholders to implement the recommendations (13/CP.28 and 19/CMA.5, paragraph 12).

These are illustrative examples of how the “research” activities of the KCI provide an information basis for the recommendations developed by the Forum. Since the establishment of the KCI, the Forum activities and the Forum-related decisions by the COP, CMA, CMP received additional expert support both directly from the work of the KCI itself and from stakeholders who contributed to the work areas of the Forum. This is reflected in the final recommendations approved by the governing bodies.

It is worth noting that the above does not mean that the scope of the Forum-related decisions should be limited to the KCI outputs only. For instance, at COP 28/CMA 5 it was decided to organize a two-day global dialogue on the impacts of the implementation of response measures in collaboration with relevant organizations and stakeholders (13/CP.28 and 19/CMA.5).

As a broader-sitting group, the Forum de facto provides an opportunity for all parties to discuss  issues arising from the domestic and cross-border impacts of mitigation actions. However, there is always a risk that the Forum may not effectively translate discussions into tangible actions or policy recommendations. Without clear mechanisms for follow-up and implementation of recommendations, the Forum’s progress could be limited. Parties could consider trying to address this in their next workplan.

3. Conclusion

The Forum and its KCI have many similarities. These include a common work programme, modalities and functions, and implementing the workplan jointly. This is not surprising given that the KCI was established to support the work of the Forum.

While the Forum is open to all country parties, the KCI is membership-based. These two different operating formats are complementary. The technical work that the KCI undertakes lays the groundwork for the Forum to fulfil its mandate in a more efficient manner. However, the Forum is not limited to only considering outputs from the KCI (and can depart from these) as it can engage and decide on whatever parties deem relevant.

While the Forum mainly provides a space for sharing knowledge and experience, there is wider potential for countries to address their obligations under the relevant articles of the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement within the agenda item on response measures.[8] However, there is always a risk that the Forum may not effectively translate discussions into tangible actions or policy recommendations. Without clear mechanisms for follow-up and implementation of recommendations, the Forum’s progress could be limited.

[1] Representatives of observer organizations may be invited to attend any open-ended contact group unless one third of the Parties present at the session object. Guide for presiding officers, revised in 2017: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/20170919_guideforpresidingofficers_final.pdf

[2] https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/bodies/constituted-bodies/katowice-committe/membership

[3] Functions of the Forum and the KCI were reviewed and updated at COP 28 / CMA 5 (13/CP.28 and 19/CMA.5).

[4] Each Party is encouraged to provide detailed information, to the extent possible, on the assessment of economic and social impacts of response measures.

[5] See, for example, information on the regional workshop for Asia Pacific on assessing the impacts of the implementation of response measures and developing climate policies for just transition and economic diversification, here. A list of all events on the impacts of the implementation of response measures is available here.

[6] KCI. 2023. Implementation of just transition and economic diversification strategies: a compilation of best practices from different countries. Bonn: UNFCCC. Available at https://unfccc.int/documents/624596.

[7] SB60 RM Forum II: Guidelines and policy frameworks to promote Just Transition within and across sectors (04/06/2024 – 15.00)

[8] Article 4 of the UNFCCC, Articles 2.3 and 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol and Article 4.15 of the Paris Agreement.