Options for housing TEMs, co-champions and high level events

Legal assistance paper

All reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information at the time the advice was produced. However, the materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and may have been superseded by more recent developments. They do not constitute formal legal advice or create a lawyer- client relationship. To the extent permitted any liability is excluded. Those consulting the database may wish to contact LRI for clarifications and an updated analysis.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Date produced: 24/10/2015

Since Durban, the institutional home for Workstream 2 has been the ADP, but as it is scheduled to close in Paris, a new home will need to be found. What are the options (drawing on precedents under the process as much as possible) and their pros and cons for various institutional arrangements of three components of Workstream 2? Can you suggest options for housing institutional innovations under Workstream 2 such as TEMs (Technical Expert Meetings), Co-champions and pre-defined annual high level events?

Summary:

By Decision 1/CP.20, Parties requested the Secretariat to continue to organise a series of in-session technical expert meetings, which are to take place between 2015 and 2020. Notwithstanding workstream 2 completing in Paris, the COP has given the secretariat a mandate to continue to organise these meetings. We see no reason why a new institutional home is required for these meetings as their structure is already established.

The decision taken in Paris with respect to workstream 2 can include requests to the secretariat to continue to convene other meetings or events and can appoint champions and require them to report back to the COP on a periodic basis.  The terms of the decision can impose future obligations on Parties and the secretariat which will need to be complied with, regardless of whether workstream 2 is active or not.

With respect to the appointment of Champions, we would expect that they would be given a mandate by the Parties and would report to the COP. In our view the likely institutional home for the Champions would be under the COP and therefore a standing agenda item would be included for post-Paris meetings for these reports.

 For pre-defined high level events, we consider the institutional arrangements for these to be similar to the current TEMs.  In other words, a Decision of the COP requesting the secretariat to convene the events is all that is required to facilitate the meetings. As such, no further institutional home is required.

Advice:

Workstream 2 captures issues related to the exploration of actions to close the pre-2020 ambition gap. There are currently two groups within workstream 2 reviewing (a) implementation of Parties mitigation actions and (b) a Technical Examination Process (TEP) which is currently focussed on mitigation although many developing country parties are calling for it to apply to adaptation.

In discussing how to enhance ambition, AOSIS has proposed the appointment of three co-champions to raise political visibility, connecting political cooperation and technical work and continuing the work of the COP Presidency to enhance ambition. There has also been some discussion regarding the need for engagement with high level stakeholders.

TEMs

By Decision 1/CP.20, Parties requested the Secretariat to continue to organise a series of in-session technical expert meetings (TEMs), which are to take place between 2015 and 2020. The TEMs are being considered as a forum to support the TEP. The current working text for the spin-off group on workstream 2 included bracketed text at para 8(h) and (i) on the communication of information to the TEMs on progress made in facilitating implementation opportunities previously identified in the TEMs.  It is possible that the TEMs could have an enhanced role to disseminate information regarding progress on mitigation, technology and adaptation.

Notwithstanding workstream 2 completing in Paris, the COP has given the secretariat a mandate to continue to organise these meetings. We see no reason why a new institutional home is required for these meetings as their structure is already established.

High level engagement and champions

The current working text for the spin-off group on workstream 2 includes bracketed text at para 30 proposes the convening of high level events or dialogues in conjunction with future COP meetings to strengthen high-level engagement on enhanced implementation. Para 31 of the working text also includes a bracketed reference to the appointment of high level champions and proposes what the role of those champions would be (e.g. engagement with Parties and the Executive Secretary and guiding or coordinating with the secretariat on the arrangements for high level meetings and TEMs).

As with the TEM, the decision taken in Paris with respect to workstream 2 can include requests to the secretariat to continue to convene other meetings or events and can appoint champions and require them to report back to the COP on a periodic basis.  The terms of the decision can impose future obligations on Parties and the secretariat which will need to be complied with, regardless of whether workstream 2 is active or not.

For pre-defined high level events, we consider the institutional arrangements for these to be similar to the current TEMs.  In other words, a Decision of the COP requesting the secretariat to convene the events is all that is required to facilitate the meetings. As such, no further institutional home is required.

With respect to the appointment of Champions, we would expect that they would be given a mandate by the Parties and would report to the COP. In our view the likely institutional home for the Champions would be under the COP and therefore a standing agenda item would be included for post-Paris meetings for these reports.