Mitigated Ambition - Outcome on mitigation of the UN Climate Conference in Warsaw

8/13/2019 Mitigated Ambition - Outcome on mitigation of the UN Climate Conference in Warsaw

1/14

1

MITIGATED AMBITION

MITIGATION OUTOME OFTHE WARSAW CLIMATE CONFERENCE

9 December 2013, Ver. 2

Naoyuki Yamagishi1

WWF Japan

SUMMARY

The main forum for mitigation negotiation at the Warsaw Climate Conference was

the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). For

Workstream 1 and 2 (WS1 and WS2) under ADP, below are the main issues and their

results. This paper starts with WS2 because we put more emphasis on WS2 during this

COP.

Workstream 2

AOSIS proposal survived:One focus of WWF was AOSIS proposal inrelation to raising ambition through a technical process on renewables and

energy efficiency. Due to some parties concerns about focus on particular

sectors (notably by Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs)), the

language was weakened and the final COP decision and ADP conclusions

established a technical process with a special focus on actions with high

mitigation potential. Specifically, ADP managed to establish technical

expert meetings for ADP intersessionals in 2014, call for further submission

and updates to the technical paper. This was not exactly all we hoped for and

certainly has a risk of becoming just another round of technical discussion.

Nonetheless, it still has possibility to become a better process, if we play right.

General call for increasing ambition:The final COP decision text hassome paragraphs urging Parties to increase their ambition in

targets/actions. On developed country Party side, one paragraph urges each

developed country Party to revisit their targets. Another paragraph also

1This document was prepared in personal capacity and do not necessarily represent WWFs view.


2/14

2

urges each developed country Party to increase technology, finance and

capacity-building support. One developing country Party side, one

paragraph urges each developing country Party to, where appropriate,

consider further action, recognizing support is needed.

Workstream 1

Timeline for Paris got blurred:This was the most contentious issue inthe ADP text. The paragraph in the COP decision text invites (not a strong

word) Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparation of their intended

nationally determined contributions,without prejudice to the legal nature of

the contributions, and it is to be communicated well in advance to COP21.The word contributions became commitments at one point but got

changed back to contributions, without prejudice to the legal nature at the

end, due to the strong opposition from BASIC/LMDCs against the use of the

word commitments for developing countries. The phrase nationally

determined was often used throughout the negotiations this year but the

word intended was inserted to reflect an argument that those contributions

should be initial proposals in their nature before getting legally inscribed.

The timing was blurred as well in advance; no specific month and year was

identified. The text says by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to

do so in parentheses but this is weak in its timing itself. In addition, a

reference to the Ban Ki-moon Summit became a nearly notes, separated

from a paragraph referring to political engagement of Ministerial meeting in

June.

Lost review process:At one point, Co-chairs draft decision text had aparagraph to have parties define a process for the consideration of the

contributions by the first half of 2014. Together with a paragraph to have a

workshop on adequacy and equity, these paragraphs were expected to be a

basis for adequacy and equity review. The equity part was inserted largely

due to African Groups argument. However, this paragraph was opposed byIndia on behalf of LMDCs and it disappeared from the final decision text.

This is a big loss.

Murky template:Before the conference, a few parties proposed to have atemplate (e.g. NZ) for mitigation offers. The idea was captured in a subtle

way in decision text and the final text now requests ADP by COP20 to identify

the information that Parties will provide when putting forward their

contributions.

Informal elements:According to COP18 decision, elements of the 2015

deal is scheduled to be considered in COP20 for preparing a draft negotiation

text by May 2015. The dispute occurred about how to capture the progress of


3/14

3

discussion so far on paper at this COP. Co-chairs original draft decision text

included an indicative list of elements as an annex to COP decision. This was

opposed by both developed country parties and LMDCs. The Independent Alliance

of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC) countries and Least Developed

Countries (LDCs) were the ones who tried to capture the list in an official

document but, eventually, they lost. The annex disappeared in its entirety and it

will probably be included in Co-chairs informal note.

There are two broad areas of further work for WWF based on the above results. One

is to enhance the technical process on actions with high mitigation potential to lead to

concrete results which eventually raise ambition of parties in a significant way.

Currently, the established process is still very vague with respect of expected outcomes.

One task during the intersessionals in 2014 would be to make them concrete and to findways to get them implemented in a urgent manner.

The other area of work is to have a better timeline for Paris, especially in respect of

review of mitigation offers. The fact that the review did not get into the decision text

this time does not mean the window of opportunity to have review process got closed

completely. It will be crucial to, at COP20, set up proper review process for equity and

adequacy for its immediate implementation thereafter. Hence preparatory discussion

for that has to be pushed hard in intersessionals in the course of 2014.

INTRODUCTION

The atmosphere around mitigation was not well prepared in Warsaw. The Poland

presidency gave a negative context by setting up a coal summit in parallel to the COP

and Japan and Australia lowered their ambition during the first week when more

ambition was urgently needed.

Issues related to mitigation were mainly discussed under the Ad Hoc Working Group

on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). There were two workstreams; one

for the 2015 deal (post-2020) and the other is pre-2020 ambition.

Broadly speaking, there were three main issues. The first was how to raise pre-2020

ambition. The second was timeline of negotiations for Paris, especially the timing of

so-called mitigation offers. The third was the "elements" of the 2015 deal. The first was

discussed under Workstream 2 (WS2) and the latter two issues were discussed under

Workstream 1 (WS1) of ADP.


4/14

4

The discussion under ADP produced two documents. One is a COP decision2and the

other is ADP conclusions.3 The report below covers both documents.

1. WORKSTEAM 21-1.Raising ambition through renewables and energy efficiency

The 2013 edition of the UNEP Emission Gap Report states that "[e]ven if pledges are

fully implemented, the emissions gap in 2020 will be 812 GtCO2e per year"4Taking

concrete steps for closing the gigaton gap was one of the crucial tasks for the Warsaw

Conference.

Generally speaking, there were two ways to do this.

One is to do so by increasing parties emission reduction targets (actions). Possible

options include moving up to the higher end of the target if the target was expressed in

a range and simply increasing the target.

The other way is often called as International Cooperative Initiatives (ICIs).5 They

are not directly about targets but can contribute to closing the gap in one way or

another. Examples include reduction of HFC emissions, slashing fossil fuel subsidies,

reduction of short-lived climate forcers, additional actions on international bunkers,

etc.

Although it is desirable to achieve ambition increase through targets, this route has

been hindered by severe political difficulty and often gets stuck in deadlocks.

Hence WWF has put its emphasis on one particular item in ICIs, namely, launching

technical process with focus on renewables and energy efficiency. The idea

was originally proposed by AOSIS during the intersessionals in Bonn early 2013. WWF

adopted the idea, developed it further and made its own submission.6

2As of writing, the official report of COP is not yet available but the COP decision text is available asFurther advancing the Durban Platform athttp://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_adp.pdf.

3Conclusions as adopted by the ADP available athttp://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/adp_conclusions_as_adopted.pdf.

4UNEP (2013) The Emission Gap Report 2013. UNEP.

5Some would prefer complementary initiatives.

6WWF (2013) WWF Submission on Increasing pre-2020 Mitigation Ambition through scaled upRenewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Initiatives. Retrieved fromhttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/smsn/ngo/369.pdf


5/14

5

The gist of the AOSIS proposal was to launch a technical process under UNFCCC

with focus on RE and EE in order to gather best practices and facilitate implementation

of ambitious RE and EE initiatives across countries further. Preferably, we hoped to

have parties to agree to voluntarily enhance their RE and EE targets and actions (with

financial and technological support in case of developing countries) but, in our

conversation with delegates, we refrain from starting conversation with delegates with

talking about RE and EE targets because this seemed to be scaring them off

unnecessarily.

The original intension of the AOSIS was to bypass the political deadlocks that

conversation on targets typically falls into and then actually facilitate actions that lead

to raising ambition on the ground.

At the beginning of the Warsaw Conference, AOSIS laid out their proposal once again

to establish a technical process to identify opportunities in renewable and energy

efficiency.

Many developed countries liked the AOSIS proposal, probably because it was vague

enough. In the meantime, LMDCs showed uncomfortableness with the proposal. There

seemed to be a couple of reasons for this. One is that a few countries, such as Saudi

Arabia, did not like the focus on renewable energy. The other was that they

thoughtit would lead to shifting burden of raising ambition from developed

countries to developing countries.

As a result, the language got weakened. Paragraph 5(a) of the COP decision

established a process for the technical examination of opportunities for actions with

high mitigation potential, including those with adaptation and sustainable development

co-benefits.

In addition to this COP decision, ADP conclusions specified the process a bit further:

Call for submission by 30 March 2014. Technical expert meetings at the intersessionals of the ADP in 2014 to share

policies, practices and technologies and address the necessary finance,technology and capacity-building, with a special focus on actions with high

mitigation potential, with the participation of Parties, civil society, the private

sector and cities and other subnational authorities, where appropriate

Regular updates to the technical paper (FCCC/TP/2013/8 and Add.1 and 2.),including information on actions with high mitigation potential

These were not exactly all we hoped for and certainly have a risk of becoming just

another round of technical discussion and technical papers. Particularly, it is worrying

in respect of having no concrete envisaged outcomes of the process itself.


6/14

6

Nonetheless, it still has possibility to become a better process, if we can utilize the

process effectively in the course of 2014. Civil society is also invited to the expert

meetings, where appropriate. This will be discussed in the end of this paper.

1-2.The US proposal: Sharing experiences of cities?One additional interesting portion is the US proposal for having a forum for

subnational actions. This was proposed during the first week of the Warsaw

Conference. India and China showed concerns about this proposal by arguing that

NAMAs already include subnational actors and this process should be about parties. A

few developed country Parties like Canada and Australia supported the proposal.

Despite the opposition, the US proposal also managed to stay in the final text in aweakened form. It was originally proposed as a forum to allow subnational actors like

cities to share experiences and best practices. However, the language was weakened

and Paragraph 5(b) now reads sharing experiences was limited to among

Parties not directly among cities or other subnational actors.

Nonetheless, together with the AOSIS proposal, it might be usable to catalyse actions

on renewable and energy efficiency on the ground, which eventually leading up to

raising ambition.

1-3.General call for increasing ambitionDeveloping countries argued developed countries must raise ambition, not just in

relation to mitigation but also in relation to finance, technology and capacity building

support. This comprehensive approach (dubbed by China) to cover all

aspects of Paragraph 5 of Decision 1/CP.17 was one of the paramount asks

by LMDCs/BASIC countries at this COP.China also said that the ambition gap

would have not existed if developed countries had pledged ambitious targets from the

beginning. LMDC collectively argued that the COP decision should include references

to 40% reduction compared to 1990 by 2020 by developed country parties formitigation and 70 billion USD by 2017 as a pathway towards the long-term finance

goal of 100 billion USD by 2020.

By contrast, the Umbrella Group developed countries argued that there were about

100 parties which had not submitted their pledges under the Cancun agreements yet

and such countries include some middle-income developing countries. Hence, they

should be encouraged to do so for closing the gap.


7/14

7

Reflecting these disputes, the final COP decision text has some paragraphs urging

Parties to increase their ambition in targets/actions both for developed country parties

and developing country parties.

On developed country Party side, Paragraph 4(c) of the COP decision urgeseach

developed country Party to revisit their targets. Paragraph 4(e) also urges each

developed country Party toincrease technology, finance and capacity-building

support, but without any specific timelines or target figures.

On developing country Party side, Paragraph 4(a) urges each developing country

Party to,where appropriate, consider further action, recognizing support

is needed.

The lack of specificity on developed country side (e.g. 40% for an aggregated target /

70bn by 2017 for finance) was a major reason why LMDC were not happy and took

negative stances elsewhere, particularly in WS1 issues.

1-4.HFC Declaration?EU has been advocating for sending political signals to the Montreal Protocol process

so that the Montreal Protocol can work on phase down of production and consumption

of Hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs).7

The Montreal Protocol is about reducing Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) andHFCs were originally developed as an alternative to ODS (CFCs). However, HFCs also

happen to be very strong greenhouse gases and they need to be reduced from climate

change perspective. It was decided to cover HFCs as one of the GHGs. UNEP stated

that annual emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 3.5 to 8.8 GtCO2eq in

2050.8

Because HFCs are similar to CFCs in their production and usage, some started to

argue that the Montreal Protocol has been better situated to reduce production and

consumption of HFCs.9 Since the Montreal Protocol does not require measuring

emissions of HFCs, it would still be necessary for the climate regime to deal with the

emission (e.g. monitoring and bank issues) but, at least, reduction can be accelerated

by the Montreal Protocol. To let the Montreal Protocol to work on the substance that is

7EU (2013) A Proposed Decision Relating to Phasing Down of Hydrofluorocarbons under the MontrealProtocol. Retrieved fromhttp://unfccc.int/files/documentation/submissions_from_parties/adp/application/pdf/adp_eu_workstream_2_20130527.pdf.

8UNEP (2011)HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer.UNEP.

9Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) (2013) A Call to Action on HFCs. EIA. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eia-international.org/a-call-to-action-on-hfcs .


8/14

8

not under its original mandate, it was considered necessary for the climate regime to

send political signals to the Montreal side.

At the beginning, Co-chairs draft decision included a paragraph referring to thisissue. However, this was opposed by LMDC, most notably by India, and the

reference disappeared towards the end of the conference. Their major

concerns were availability of safe and economically and technologically feasible

alternatives and necessity for support for technology transfer. They also emphasized

that HFC should be treated under UNFCCC with the convention principles (e.g.

common but differentiated responsibility) applied.

The opposition by India was already known as of the June session and hence EU

was planning to have a joint declaration on HFC by ministerswho gathered at

this conference as sort of a back-up plan. Technically speaking, it would be possible to

issue a declaration signed by ministers as long as those ministers agree to it. EU

seemed have actually proposed a draft declaration text to other parties but, eventually,

they seem to have given it up at least for this COP.

2. WORKSTREAM 1

2-2.Timeline and review towards ParisThe Doha Conference in 2012 laid out a rough roadmap towards Paris. 2/CP.18 states

two things:

Elements for a draft negotiation text will be considered no later than atCOP20 in 2014.

A negotiation text will be made available before May 2015.The Warsaw Conference was expected to add further details to the schedule as well as

making progress on discussion on substances.

Throughout the course of this year, one issue came up, which was a timing of

mitigation offers. It seemed generally accepted that Parties have to present their

intended mitigation targets (often called as nationally determined targets/actions)

before those targets are actually fixed and inscribed in the new 2015 agreement and to

set up time for getting clarity and discussing those targets.

The idea of having ex-anteclarityof targets before official COP21 originally came

from USA but now it gained support from almost all developed countries and some


9/14

9

developing countries. This logically requires Parties to present their mitigation offers

some time before COP21. The question was exactly when.

There were three components in this issue as follows.

2-1-1. Timeline for Paris got blurredParagraph 2(b) of the COP decision turned out to be the most contentious paragraph

under the ADP discussion. In the agreed text, the paragraph invites Parties (not a

strong wording compared to requests, urges, or Parties decided) to initiate or

intensify domestic preparation of their intended nationally determined contributions,

without prejudice to the legal nature of the contributions, and it is to be

communicated well in advance to COP21.

There are three things that should be noted in relation to this paragraph.

First is about timing of mitigation offers. The wording well in advance is not

really clear in terms of exactly when Parties need to present their

mitigation offers. The text also says by the first quarter of 2015 by those

Parties ready to do so in parentheses but this is very weak in its timing

itself and weak in the way it is written. The specific time line was supported by

Dominican Republic, AILAC, LDCs, Canada, US and EU, though they seemed to differ

by when they prefer to have commitments (e.g. COP20 for some and by early 2015 for

others) and it was opposed by LMDCs / BASIC.

Second is about the wording contributions, without prejudice to the legal

nature of the contributions.This represents a dispute on differentiation of

countries. Developed countries generally preferred the word commitments and some

developing countries, especially LMDCs (towards the end of negotiation, the voice was

represented by BASIC), preferred actions. This is because there is no

differentiation between Annex I and Non-Annex I in the paragraph. LMDC/BASIC

argued for keeping the AI/NAI differentiation and using the same word commitments

was not acceptable to them. For example, LMDC stated in their submission during thesession that [m]itigation contributions should be determined nationally for

Non-Annex I parties.10 For developed countries, it was crucial to have the same

language without the AI/NAI differentiation and thus they preferredcommitments.

The word contributions was a compromised wording and the additional reservation

phrase without prejudice to the legal nature of the contributions was produced in the

huddle during the last hour of negotiations. Although some parties wanted to have

10Like-Minded Developing Countries on Climate Change (2013) LMDC views on identification of elementsin ADP Workstream 1 (18 November 2013) Retrieved fromhttp://unfccc.int/files/documentation/submissions_from_parties/adp/application/pdf/adp2-3_lmdc_workstream_1_20131118.pdf


10/14

10

more clear language, the phrase nationally determined was adopted and not disputed

much. However, the word intended was inserted to signal its initial nature of the

contributions.

Third is about the scope of the contributions. In Co-chairs original draft decision

text, the scope of commitments/contributions covered mitigation, adaptation, finance,

technology development and transfer and capacity-building, i.e. all the aspects of

Paragraph 5 of Decision 1/CP.17. This comprehensive approach was preferred by

developing country Parties but it was opposed by developed country Parties. The final

text dropped the reference to specific areas and it now reads in the context of

adopting a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with

legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties towards

achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2.The firstpart is a carbon-copy of the Durban agreement language but it is likely that Parties will

have different interpretations of the last bit of this sentence after towards. The

original wording was towards achieving the ultimateobjective of the Convention

but it was changed by BASICs suggestion to delete ultimate. It was probably because

the ultimate objective of the Convention is basically about stabilization of GHG

concentrations, and they might have thought it would be easier to cover all the aspects

by just saying objective. Developed country Parties will probably try to limit the

interpretation to mitigation commitments (contributions) but LMDCs/BASIC will

probably interpret this part as including all aspects of Paragraph 5 of Decision 1/CP.17.

In addition to the paragraph about the timeline, there was also a paragraph in

Co-chairs initial draft text thatcalls upon parties to intensify high-level

engagement towards the Ban Ki-moon Summit and ministerial dialogues

in June and December.The idea behind this was to use the Ban Ki-moon leaders

summit as either place for mitigation offer presentation or political push for

accelerating domestic processes for preparing mitigation commitments. Several parties

showed concerns about this and the language got significantly weakened. In the final

text, Paragraph 6 merely notes the summit while Paragraph 7 calls upon Parties

to intensify high-level engagement for June and December ministerial dialogues.

2-1-2. Review process got lostIn relation to having an ex-ante clarity process before COP21, Co-chairs second

draft decision text on November 20th had a paragraph to have parties define a

process for the consideration of the contributions by the first half of 2014.

It also said it was to be done individually and in aggregate, guided by the

principles of the Convention.


11/14

11

In addition, there were also one paragraph in Co-chairs proposal for draft

conclusions of ADP to organizea workshop to consider the methodological

issues of equity and adequacy. This was largely due to African Groups proposal

during the session.

These two components, consideration of the contributions and equity and

adequacy workshop,could be a basis for equity and adequacy review process

of Parties offers on commitments.

However, strangely enough, this paragraph was strongly opposed by India on behalf

of LMDCs and it disappeared from the final COP decision text and ADP conclusion text.

The exact reason for smashing review process is not known but there seemed to be four

major reasons for LMDCs reluctance to this issue.

First is the imbalance of progress in respect of WS1 and WS2. WS2 have not

produced any concrete outcome in terms of increasing ambition of developed countries

yet. There seems to be a general fear on developing countries side that the burden

derived from the lack of ambition in developed countries for 2020 will be shifted to

developing countries in the form of commitments in the 2015 agreement. This general

fear translates into general reluctance to have too many details in the process on the

2015 deal at this point, let alone the review process.

Second, BASIC countries have put particular emphasis on historical

responsibilitybefore and during the conference.11

They might have thought thegeneral discussion on equity and adequacy could lead to diversion from historical

responsibility.12

Third, there is still uncertainty about whether large developing countries can make

official mitigation offers by 2015. For example, Chinese leadership changed in

November 2012 (officially in March 2013) and a new set of policies are still in making.

It is simply uncertain if China can set up concrete targets for post-2020, even if the

country wants to.

Forth, there is a general opposition to the need for review process on

developing countries actions. In their submission during the session, LMDCs

stated:

11Third World Network (2013) Warsaw Climate Conference should be about implementation of decisionssay BASIC (TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Oct13/12), 30 October 2013), retrieved fromhttp://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2013/climate131012.htm and BASIC (2013)Statement by China on behalf of Brazil, India, South Africa and China at the opening plenary of theDurban Platform (12 November 2013), retrieved fromhttp://unfccc.int/files/documentation/submissions_from_parties/adp/application/pdf/adp2.3_basic_20131112.pdf

12Indrajit Bose and Uthra Radhakrishnan (2013) Power Game.Down To Earth. Retrieved fromhttp://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/world-gets-yellow-card?page=0,1 .


12/14

12

We do not see any role for a two-step process in the ex-ante process for review of

efforts of developing countries. Any framework which seeks to determine for

developing countries what they should contribute in any future regime is ab initio

not acceptable and goes against the principle of equity and common but

differentiated responsibilities based on historical responsibility.13

In any case, this is a big loss in a sense that we lose a process to check if parties

collective and individual efforts are enough as well as if they are equitable and fair.

This means the process now has a risk of becoming a pure pledge only

process without any assessment.

This is not the final verdict, though. There is a very small hook left in the text of

Paragraph 2(b) of the COP decision text. It says Parties are to communicate their

contributions well in advance of COP21 in a manner that facilitates the clarity,

transparency and understanding of the intended contributions. This is obviously not

enough but is better than nothing. What is more, technically speaking, it is still

possible to have a review process after COP20 if Parties are willing to do so

and have decisions on it at COP20.

2-1-3. Murky templateBefore the conference, a few parties proposed to have a template (e.g. NZ) for

mitigation offers. The proposal was to list up key items for mitigation offers (e.g. base

year, target year, coverage of GHGs, use of LULUCF, etc) that would help comparison

and aggregation in the review process.

The idea was captured in a subtle way in decision text and the final text now requests

ADP by COP20 to identify the information that Parties will provide when putting

forward their contributions.

The term information sounds less formal than template but it can be

strengthened in COP20 if Parties are willing to so. This is important in a sense to get

clarity of what Parties targets (contributions) actually mean in reality in a timely

manner. Without clarity, it is not possible to get what those targets mean in aggregate

for the atmosphere and what they mean to each other in terms of equity and fairness.

Another problematic implication this has is that, if the identification only happens

by COP20, this logically means that presentations of mitigation offers by Parties only

come later COP20, i.e. 2015.

13Like-Minded Developing Countries on Climate Change (2013) op cit.


13/14

13

Based on the above results from Warsaw, the timeline towards Paris now looks like

the following.

2-2. "Elements" of the 2015 Agreement

Another big issue was elements. According to COP18 decision, elements of the 2015

deal is scheduled to be considered in COP20 for preparing a draft negotiation text by

May 2015.14Hence the Warsaw conference was expected to have initial conversation on

possible elements.

There was general tension on the focus of the 2015 deal between developed and

developing countries. Developed countries want to make the 2015 deal

mitigation-centric while developing countries want to include all the major elements,not just mitigation but also adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building, in

the main part of the 2015. It is not that developed countries oppose to the inclusion of

those issues in the overall package of the 2015 deal but they want to exclude them from

the core legal part (e.g. a protocol) and to put them in COP decisions.

In Warsaw, the big fight was about whether having a preliminary list of issues in the

official document or not. Initially, Co-chairs draft decision text includedan

indicative list of issuesto be considered. This was opposed by LMDCs and

14Decision 2/CP18.


14/14

14

developed countries because they believe the list is too premature to include. The ones

who fought for its inclusion were AILAC and LDCs. They argued that Parties need to

capture the progress in an official document

The list of issues was first proposed as an annex to COP decision in Co-chairs first

draft but then it was downgraded to an annex to ADP conclusions. Finally, it

disappeared in the last hours of the negotiations.

LMDCs suggested to include the list in reflection notes of ADP Co-chairs, which was

not opposed by developed countries either. Hence, it will be probably included in

Co-chairs informal note or something similar in status.

TOWARDS COP20IN LIMA

There are two broad areas of further work for WWF based on the above results. One

is to enhance the technical process on actions with high mitigation

potentialto lead to concrete results which eventually raise ambition of parties in a

significant way. Currently, the established process is still very vaguewith respect of

expected outcomes. One task during the intersessionals in 2014 would be to make

them concrete.

For example, we can ask for making it a task for the technical expert meetings to

identify a list of a certain number of RE and EE initiatives that are particularly relevant

for enhancing targets and actions for pre-2020 as well as to identify how finance and

technology mechanisms can help implementation of them. The identification of

specific additional needs for finance and technological support could also be a task.

The other area of work is to have a better timeline for Paris,especially with

respect to review of mitigation offers. The fact that the review did not get

into the decision text this time does not mean the window of opportunity to

have it got closed completely. It will be crucial to, at COP20, set up proper review

process for equity and adequacy for its immediate implementation thereafter. Itshould be noted that getting mere ex-ante clarity is not enough; it has to

come with a process of giving parties guidance or encouragement to

change their targets based on the assessment of targets in terms of equity

and adequacy. Preparatory discussion for that has to be pushed hard in

intersessionals in the course of 2014 so that the review process can be done

immediately after Parties present their contributions.

Documents

Mitigated Ambition - Outcome on mitigation of the UN Climate Conference in Warsaw