- If you are not yet a Down To Earth subscriber, please click here to subscribe: Subscription
- If you are an existing Down To Earth subscriber, please log in to download digital archives.
According to India, the progress report was mitigation-centric and did not capture the range and depth of discussions held during deliberations
India and other developing countries raised objections to the mode of work conducted under Adhoc Working Group on Paris Agreement (APA) for formulating rules and modalities for mitigation, global stocktake, adaptation communication, new market mechanism and other aspects. On November 10, all the co-facilitators dealing with different items reported on the progress happened so far under each item.
The work of forming rules and modalities has started under each agenda item but India, along with other developing countries, was not happy with the progress report that was conveyed to the co-chairs of the APA, Sara Bashaan and Jo Tyndall.
Focus on mitigation limits the Paris Agreement
India expressed its concerns saying that the progress report was mitigation-centric and did not capture the range and depth of discussions held during the deliberations. It argued that the Paris Agreement is based on equity, therefore, “when we agree to operationalise the Paris Agreement” with respect to its provisions and elements, “we have to operationalise equity under each element”.
India requested that the report should be reflective and balanced. The view was supported by other developing countries who also felt that focus on mitigation limits the Paris Agreement and stress should be also on other elements including adaptation and means of implementation. They put forth that Paris Agreement is built on a balanced approach and this should be sustained.
On adaptation communication, it was agreed that lot of issues remain to be resolved, including tracking adaptation and assessment of adaptation communication. The Parties were invited to make submissions and workshop was scheduled for June 2017 on the same agenda item.
On transparency framework, there was general consensus on having a robust transparency framework, but there were differences on structure of this framework and on the issue of flexibility.
A non-paper was brought out on the issue of global stocktake. It encapsulated the views of the Parties. Issues for further consideration in the non-paper were categorised into three parts. The first part was related to input of the global stocktake and what all should feed into it. In the second part, the non-paper was about how the global stocktake should be conducted and organised. It included elements like assessment of progress, responsibility of conducting the global stocktake, how to address linkages and how to link it with other processes.
The third category of questions dealt with the outcomes of global stocktake and what would be the form and format of the outcome, who would be the audience of the outcome and how would it be used to raise ambition among the Parties. The non-paper is expected to be the starting point for negotiations under this item.
Developing countries were not happy with the process of work undertaken. According to them, it was not reflective and equity seemed to be absent from the agenda. The developed countries, however, expressed satisfaction with the process of work and welcomed the progress which, it said, was balanced and reflective. The APA further discussed how to capture progress under each agenda item in its closing plenary that is scheduled to take place on November 14.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.