Summary of Week 1 (May 31st – June 5th 2021):

 UNFCCC – Meeting of Subsidiary Bodies May – June 2021 (SB52) [virtual]

1. Key Information

SBSTA Chair Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu

Scenario Notes

SBI Chair Marianne Karlsen

Scenario Notes

Progress to be captured in informal notes, decision-making only to go ahead in person in Glasgow.

2.     SBI – Provision of financial and technical support

Sub-item 4(c) of the DPA

Objective:

• This agenda item addresses financial and technical support provided to developing countries to implement the existing MRV arrangements under the Convention and the enhanced transparency framework (ETF) under the PA. The sub-item covers funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for the preparation of national communications (NCs) and BURs, as well as biennial transparency reports.
• From SBI 46 (May 2017) to SBI 51 (December 2019), Parties were unable to agree on a text for this agenda item and adopted only procedural conclusions. The key issue concerns equitable and efficient access to financial and technical support from the GEF for the preparation and submission of NCs and BURs. Aim to reach agreement at COP26.

Main Issues discussed:

• The GEF updated participants on the support provided recently, and on plans for supporting countries for reporting under the enhanced transparency framework of the Paris Agreement.
• Current support provided to help developing countries complete their national reports
• Developing countries cited several challenges in accessing support, and called for enhanced support to meet their scaled-up PA reporting obligations.
• There were also calls for improving support efficiency: it can take several years from project application to implementation
• Brazil called for common definition and accounting methodologies on global climate finance

Areas of convergence:

• the importance of supporting reporting under the Paris Agreement
• Importance of speeding up the time lag between planing, application and implementation

Areas of divergence:

• On which agenda item to discuss supporting reporting under the PA. There were also disagreements on the scope of this agenda item (ie BTRs should not be discussed under this agenda item)

3.     SBI – Item 5 Common time frames for nationally determined contributions

Context: Art.4.10 PA mandates CMA to consider common timeframes for NDCs at its 1st session. At COP 24, Parties agreed that common time frames would apply for the NDCs to be implemented from 2031 onward. Since then, Parties’ discussions in SBI sessions produced 10 options for consideration, but these were lost when Parties were unable to reach conclusions at COP 25.

Objective:  how can the agreement on common time frames be aligned with the five-year cycle of the global stocktake, while catering to each Party’s unique circumstances, to reflect the highest possible ambition. Key first step is to consolidate options. To help discussions SBI chair prepared an informal note in advance of the session: https://unfccc.int/documents/276871

Main Issues discussed:

• Approach to negotiations
• Narrowing or clarifying the options for common time frames
• Groups and parties reiterated their views on 5-year, 10-year and 5+5-year timeframes

4.     SBI and SBSTA – Koronivia joint work on agriculture

Item 8 of the DPA

Context: In line with Koronivia road map, approved at SB48, Parties took part in six mandated workshops during SB 49–SB 51 and the Climate Dialogues

Objective – Consideration of reports from workshops on:

• Improved nutrient use and manure management towards sustainable and resilient agricultural systems;
• Improved livestock management systems, including agro-pastoral production systems and others; and
• Socioeconomic and food security dimensions of climate change in the agricultural sector

Main Issues discussed:

• Way forward; consider workshop reports and how and when to discuss which elements from the workshop reports need to be put forward; several parties (AGN, LDCs) highlighted challenge of identifying elements that can feed into COP decision in (short) time available
• Parties will not be able to reach formal conclusions on workshop reports but discussions should be captured in informal notes to move forward on this agenda
• Also need to discuss the future of the Koronivia road map

Areas of convergence:

• Parties noted that the reports were well-written and helpful.
• Many noted insufficient time to consider the reports within scheduled informal consultation slots and requested additional time
• Proposal for parties and sub-groups to submit their views on key elements of importance from each report, to serve as input for the co-facilitators to prepare a basis for more substantive discussions
• The reports are not being negotiated, but rather states are invited to give inputs on the conclusions formulated in those reports.

Areas of divergence:

• Whether speaking about the future of the Koronivia road map falls within the scope of the mandate for this session
• Importance of sticking to procedure outlined in the road map, or “fast-tracking to allow for decision-making”

Next Steps

• Two more informal consultations had been originally scheduled.
• Co-facilitators proposed (all agreed): parties have 48 hrs to present written inputs on the workshop reports to the secretariat via email. Co-facilitator will present a proposal based on those inputs. That document will form basis of discussion for the next informal consultation scheduled for Tuesday 0.35am CEST. After that parties will need to provide input by Wednesday midnight. Based on those inputs, co-facilitators will present a proposal by Thursday 8pm CEST.
• Co-facilitator will also ask the secretariat for more informal meetings.

5.     SBI – Item 11 Matters relating to least developed countries

Context: Review the mandate of the least developed countries expert group (LEG) pursuant to the decision taken at COP 21(19/CP.21), in particular to review at COP 26 the LEG´s progress, need for continuation, and terms of reference. Parties were invited to engage in the informal consultations, reflecting on the information contained in the reports prepared to inform the review of the mandate of the LEG, the outcomes of the information events organized by the LEG in June 2020 and on 4 May 2021 and the technical dialogue.

Main Issues discussed:

• LEG chair reported on the stock taking meeting held in February 2020.
• Many expressed support for LEG who plays a key role in supporting LDCs
• clarifying the allocation of responsibilities between the LEG and other constituted bodies;
• streamlining the LEG´s work plan;
• Role of LEG in the formulation and implementation of NAPs
• extending the LEG’s membership
• How to include issues of social inclusion in the the LEG’s work

Areas of convergence:

• Ongoing topic of conversation should be how those who need it can benefit from LEG’s work.

Areas of divergence:

• A proposal (by LDC) was made in favor of a ten-year extension of the LEG´s mandate to allow for long-term vision. Other (eg.US) supported five-ear which would allow for more frequent re-evaluation

Next Steps: second session on June 12th at 00.30 CEST; third session on June 16th at 6.35 0 8.00 CEST

6.     SBI – National Adaptation Plans

Item 12 of the DPA

Mandate: by Decision 7/CP.25, para 11, COP 25 requested the SBI, at its fifty-third session, to discuss information from the reports of the Adaptation Committee and the LEG, including on gaps and needs and the implementation of NAPs, and to take further action as appropriate.

Objectives: as outlined in the SBI Chair’s scenario notes: engage in conversations in relevant information from the 2020 Adaptation report, reports on the 37th, 38th and 39th meetings of the LEG, the 2020 report on progress in the process to formulate and implement NAPs, and the reports of the Green Climate Fund and the GEF to COP, including gaps and needs and the implementation of NAPs, and identify possible further actions related to the process to formulate and implement NAPs.

Main Issues discussed:

• the reports on gaps and needs to help countries formulate and implement NAPs
• ways to assess progress in adaptation, particularly to assist the Global Stocktake’s efforts to assess global adaptation action in 2025.
• need to support (financially and with technical tools) the implementation of NAPS, not only their formulation
• the need for coordination among the many organizations and activities relating to NAPs.
• Impact of the pandemic on planning for and implementing adaptation actions.

Next Steps

• Two more time slots for informal consultations. 

7.     SBI – Alignment between processes pertaining to the review of the CTCN and the periodic assessment

Sub-item 13(b) of the DPA, referred to in para 69 of decision 1/CP.21

Objective:

• Invitation to deliberate options for aligning the independent review of the CTCN and the periodic assessment of the technology mechanism, with the aim to reach an agreement on this at CMA 3.

Main Issues discussed:

• Discussion informed by a note by the Secretariat on possible options and their implications for aligning the independent review of the CTCN and the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism.
• General preference for maintaining stand-alone processes, but aligning their timing. Some parties are concerned that processes and institutions initially established under the Convention are now being gradually moved under the Paris Agreement.
• Further clarity is needed on what alignment could mean beyond adjustments to timing.

8.     SBI – Review of the Adaptation Fund

Sub-item 14(b) of the DPA

Mandate: CMP13 requested the SBI to initiate the fourth review of the AF, in accordance w/ the terms of reference contained in the annex to decision 1/CMP.12 and to report back to the governing body to be convened in conjunction w/ COP27.

Informal note prepared by the SBI chair in advance of the session, which includes the terms of reference (ToR) of the third AF review and submissions by parties and observers: https://unfccc.int/documents/276850

Main Issues discussed:

• Process to initiate the fourth review of the AF
• Suitability of the ToR from the third review
• Adequacy, scalability and predictability of adaptation finance
• whether the review should be only backward looking
• how quickly the review could be initiated, with several delegations calling for concluding the review at COP 26.

Areas of convergence:

• Suitability of the TOR from the third review as a basis for the fourth review
• The AF’s resources need to be reflective of the needs of developing countries.

Areas of divergence:

• Possible references to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA), with several groups noting the AF now serves the Paris Agreement, while others argue that the Fund is still under the authority of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP).
• Scope of the review: whether review is to be a backward looking exercise or forward looking

Next Steps

• Progress made will be captured in an informal note by the SBI chair.
• 2 more informal consultations on this topic.
• Next session will be about the ToR specifically, but views on process and timeline are also welcomed.

9.     SBI – Matters related to capacity building

Sub-item 15(a) of the DPA

Context/Mandate: COP 23 completed the fourth review of the implementation under the Convention of the framework for capacity-building in countries with economies in transition (EIT) established under decision 3/CP.7 and requested the SBI to initiate the fifth review with a view to it being completed at COP 26. The SBI Chair held Information consultations on this matter on 5 May 2021 to exchange initial views with Parties on how to efficiently advance work during the session.

Informal consultations on item 15 (a): Parties agreed to use previous exercises as a basis for their work on the 5^th review. Some delegates called for the need to streamline the process and to avoid duplications. During the ensuing debate, Parties exchanged views about the meaning of the word streamlining but a final consensus was not reached.  As the debate was not able to dissipate uncertainties, the co-facilitators invited Parties to make submissions on this topic by Friday, June 4 at 18:00 CEST. The co-facilitators will then compile them and present an informal, non-binding note in advance of the second informal consultation, with the aim of making progress in the discussion.

Next steps: the second consultation is scheduled for Tuesday, June 8, 03:00 CEST. The co-facilitators will issue an informal note ahead of the session which can be found here.

Sub-item 15 (b) of the DPA

Context/Mandate: CMP 12 completed the third review of the implementation of the framework for capacity-building in developing countries under the Kyoto Protocol and decided (decision 4/CMP.12, paragraph 6) that the SBI would initiate the fourth review with a view to it being completed at CMP 17 (November 2021). CMP 13 completed the fourth review of the implementation of the framework for capacity-building in countries with economies in transition under the Kyoto Protocol and requested (decision 4/CMP.13, paragraph 4) the SBI to initiate the fifth review with a view to it being completed at CMP 16. The SBI Chair held Information consultations on this matter on 5 May 2021 to exchange initial views with Parties on how to efficiently advance work during the session.

Informal consultations on item 15 (b): As far as the 5^th review of the implementation of the framework for capacity-building in countries with economies in transition under the KP — comparatively to what was discussed under item 15 (a) (see above) — Parties agreed to make further submissions on this topic to the co-facilitators by Friday, June 4 at 18:00 CEST.

As far as the 4^th review of the implementation of the framework for capacity-building in developing countries under the KP is concerned, Parties agreed on conducting the reviews using, and building upon, the results and the lessons learned from the 4^th comprehensive review of the implementation of the capacity-building framework for developing countries completed under the Convention. To this end, Parties gave the co-facilitators a mandate to develop a proposal for draft text on the basis of the 4^th review under the convention to be distributed ahead of the second informal consultation.

Next steps: the second consultation on item 15 (b) will take place on Monday June 7, at 23:00 CEST. 

10.  SBI – Review of the Doha Work Programme

Sub-item 18(a) of the DPA

Mandate: By decision 15/CP.18 para 1-2 eight-year Doha work programme was adopted. Decision 15/CP.25, para 1; COP25 requested SBI to launch review at SB52 and to consider future work to enhance the implementation of Art 6 of Convention and Art 12 of PA, and to prepare draft decision for consideration and adoption at COP26

Objective:

• Exchange views on the review of the Doha work programme, which was adopted in 2012.
• Consider the Secretariat synthesis report on progress and effectiveness, emerging gaps, needs and recommendations in implementing the Doha work programme and in relation to ACE; the information note presenting options and ways on future work to enhance the implementation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 12, PA  following the review of the Doha work programme; and the summary report of the 8th Dialogue on ACE.

Main Issues discussed:

• Review, report and monitoring of partner activities’ effectiveness was flagged as an issue of concern by some
• Some delegates noted that reporting should be voluntary (Arab group) and in accordance with respective capabilities (India)
• Linkages between capacity-building and ACE
• Flexible approach and country-driven nature of ACE activities, appointment of ACE national focal points

Areas of convergence:

• Value of the Doha work-programme
• Need to maintain a flexible and country-driven approach
• Importance of role of national focal points for ACE and general consensus that increased communication between national focal points can be beneficial
• Need for balance between six elements of ACE: education, training, public awareness, public access to information, public participation and international cooperation thereon.

Areas of divergence:

• On modalities (timeframe and nature of review/reporting)

11.  SBSTA – Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change

Item 3 of the DPA

Objective:

• Initiate discussion on modalities of the stocktake of the operational and institutional modalities of the NWP;
• Review and provide feedback on progress in implementing activities under the NWP since SBSTA50
• Provide additional guidance on how to strengthen the role of the NWP in addressing knowledge gaps in countries and supporting the work of the constituted bodies that are relevant to the implementation of the Paris Agreement

Main Issues discussed:

• Brief presentation by the Secretariat: main objectives of the NWP, lessons learnt, supporting constituted bodies, adaptation portal, monitoring, evaluation and learning, indicative workplan 2021-2022
• Brief intervention on behalf of the Adaptation Committee
• 3 brief interventions by long-term partners: all spoke positively about the collaboration
• Translation of the NWP products in a variety of languages to make them accessible to broader audience
• Strengthening engagement in Latin America, ensuring NWP supports all developing countries
• How can NWP knowledge products become more user-friendly and useful to partners?

Areas of convergence:

• Appreciation of the work of NWP
• Positively noted the collaboration with the Adaptation Committee

Next Steps

• Two more sessions on this topic will follow.
• States requested more time to consider the most recent 2021 report.

12.  SB – Matters relating to the forum on the impact of response measures serving the Convention, the KP and the PA

Item 11 of the DPA

FCCC/CP/2019/13/Add.1, annex II

Objective: Consultations to take stock of progress and provide further guidance to the KCI and the Response Measures forum on advancing implementation of the workplan of the forum

Areas of divergence: on whether to hold a session of the Katowice Committee of Experts of the impacts of the implementation of response measures (KCI) prior to COP 26 to make up for a KCI session missed in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic; Developing country parties proposed that the response measures forum address trade measures such as carbon border tax adjustments, while developed countries said this was not within the scope of the forum’s work plan.

13.  SBSTA – Item 14 Transparency Opening

Context:: The SBSTA began its consideration of methodological issues under the Paris Agreement in June 2019 with a view to completing this work by CMA 3, as per decision 18/CMA.1. Information to be reported is already defined in the MPGs. Focus should therefore be on how it is to be reported.

For background information, please see https://unfccc.int/SBSTA_transparency#eq-2

Main Issues discussed:

• State parties only, transparency sessions will be closed to observers.
• linkages between transparency and Article 6 (market and non-market mechanisms);
• building capacity for developing countries to fulfil transparency requirements;
• and the role of the Consultative Group of Experts.

Areas of convergence:

• Negotiations at this session should result in an informal note – several groups indicated that this should include draft tables
• A number of groups were in favour of additional informal workshops, dialogues and intersessional work to ensure the work is completed

Areas of divergence: [no significant disagreements]

Next Steps

• Final meeting on this agenda item on June 16.
• Informal note by chair should reflect all views, and has no legal standing.

14.  SBSTA – Common tabular formats for support under Articles 9 – 11 of the Paris Agreement

*session closed to observers

Context/mandate: Exchange of views on common tabular formats to report on financial, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building support provided and mobilized, as well as support needed and received

Main Issues discussed:

• Centered on the design of tables, their columns and the way to fill these in
• Options include yes/no boxes or filling in numeric information
• Options for reporting in inflows and outflows of finance in multilateral channels, such as multilateral development banks
• Need to differentiate between information related to inflow and outflow and thus avoid double-counting
• Other issues that were raised include: challenges related to reporting on outflows; presenting information in both grant-equivalent and face-value amounts; and methodologies for determining climate specificity.

15.  SBSTA – Common tabular formats for tracking NDC progress

*closed to observers

Main Issues discussed:

• Proper way to reflect linkages with the on-going negotiations under Article 6
• The visual tool, specifically a common tabular format for the structured summary

Areas of divergence:

• The way forward; Diverging interpretation of the item’s mandate
• Development of a tabular option without concurrently developing a non-tabular one
• Holding informal informals or spending additional time in informal consultations on this item

16.  SBSTA – Enabling ambition in Article 6 instruments

Item 15 of the DPA

Guiding Questions:

• Build general understanding and address specific challenges not covered by later topic for consultation, that have been addressed during earlier expert dialogues.
• Session focuses on design elements that allow instruments to enable increasing ambition over time
• 6.2 – what aspects of the reporting, review and accounting cycle can enable further ambition and are those aspects sufficiently robust?How else can the guidance move in that direction?
• 6.4 – what aspects of mechanism and design need addressing in order to enable further ambition in the mechanism, whilst also enabling draft participation
• 6.8 – how can the work programme for markets enable ambition for NDCs?

Main Issues discussed:

• Designing elements that would allow the Article 6 instruments to enable increasing ambition over time
• Main focus: Art 6.2 (internationally transferred mitigation outcomes) , Art 6.4 (central mechanism for trading credits from emission reductions) and Art 6.8 (non-market approaches)
• Reporting, review, accounting cycle of Art 6.2 cooperative approaches
• Art 6.4 mechanisms and activity design
• Art 6.8 work programme for non-market approaches could enable further ambition in NDCs

Areas of convergence:

• Importance of transparency to avoid double-counting
• Importance of capacity-building

Areas of divergence:

• Timeline w/ regards to operationalization
• Art 6’s interaction/relationships w/ NDCs

Next Steps

• Invitation to subscribe to email circulation. Requests can be sent to Paris-Agreement_Article-6@unfccc.int
• SBSTA Chair to produce concise informal summary documents to capture discussions (no legal status)

17.  SBSTA – Transition of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) activities to Art 6.4 mechanism

Context and mandate: As described in the SBSTA Chair’s scenario notes, consultations on Article 6 are following the format of informal technical expert dialogues with the aim of advancing work and resolving issues during the session. All the information regarding article 6 can be found in the cooperative implementation website of the UNFCCC. Each informal consultation covers one of the unresolved issues and consultations are structured around guiding questions that are published in advance on the UNFCCC website. At the end of each consultation, the co-chairs will draft summaries of the discussions focusing on providing possible solutions, without producing negotiation text. The summaries have no legal status.

Guiding Questions:

1.     Which actors need to take which steps to enable eligible CDM activities to transition to the 6.4 mechanism?

2.     By what deadlines should CDM activity transition be completed?

3.     Which rules of the 6.4 mechanism could apply to transitioned activities immediately upon transition?

4.     Which accompanying decisions might be needed by the CMP to facilitate CDM activity transition?

Informal consultations: The discussion showed that there are divergent views on the transition of CDM activities to art. 6.4 mechanism of the Paris Agreement (PA). The majority of the Parties that took the floor indicated that the transition of CDM activities to the 6.4 mechanism should move ahead as it represents an opportunity to deliver higher ambition in mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote environmental integrity. They addressed the guiding questions proposed by the SBSTA chair and indicated a variety of opinions on the actors to be involved to enable the transition, the deadline by which to complete the process, and the rules to be applied during the transition. The Parties that are in favor of a transition seemed to converge on the point that both the CMA and the CMP will have a central role to play and will need to make formal decisions to enable the transition. They also converged on some general principles such as the need to outline a smooth and transparent process, to avoid burdening the system, and build trust in stakeholders. Some Parties, however, did not support any form of transition of CDM activities under art. 6.4 mechanism. Among them, some delegations nonetheless showed openness to engage in a balanced dialogue and noted that the acceptance of a transition is linked to the credibility of the overall package negotiated under art. 6. 

Next Steps: An informal summary of the discussion will be drafted under the authority of the SBSTA Chair. This document will be published on the cooperative implementation website. 

18.  SBSTA – Implementing overall mitigation in global emissions in the mechanisms (Art.6)

Context and mandate: As described in the SBSTA Chair’s scenario notes, consultations on Article 6 are following the format of informal technical expert dialogues with the aim of advancing work and resolve issues during the session. All the information regarding article 6 can be found in the cooperative implementation website of the UNFCCC. Each informal consultation covers one of the unresolved issues and consultations are structured around guiding questions that are published in advance on the UNFCCC website. At the end of each consultation, the co-chairs will draft summaries of the discussions focusing on providing possible solutions, without producing negotiation text. The summaries have no legal status.

Guiding Questions:

• What is/are the optimal method(s) for implementing overall mitigation of global emissions?
• How can the impact of OMGE be aggregated and reported (e.g. for the global stocktake)?

Informal consultations: These highlighted that there are still disagreements on this issue. Firstly, Parties disagree on whether OMGE can be achieved by cancelling credits. Some Parties oppose the cancellation of units and would instead prefer to identify technical solutions to introduce alternative voluntary measures selected by parties to achieve OMGE. Other Parties agreed that OMGE can be achieved by cancelling units, however, there is no agreement on whether this should be voluntary or mandatory or be accompanied by corresponding adjustments to nationally determined contributions (NDCs).  Countries also disagreed on whether OMGE should apply to Article 6.2 (cooperative approaches) as well as Article 6.4 (the mechanism). During the discussion, some Parties supported the idea of mandating a technical paper to identify the quantitative implications and the ambition of every policy proposal on the table. In doing so, Parties will be able to make an informed decision during COP 26.

Next Steps: An informal summary of the discussion will be drafted under the authority of the SBSTA Chair. This document will be published on the cooperative implementation website. The next session on art. 6 will take place on Tuesday June 8 at 00:30 CEST and will discuss the use of Kyoto Protocol units towards NDCs.