1. ecbi european capacity building initiative
initiative européenne de renforcement des capacités
Mitigation and Transparency of Action
Session I (Mitigation)
Andrés Pirazzoli
Team Leader, AILAC Support Unit
for sustained capacity building in support of international climate change negotiations
pour un renforcement durable des capacités en appui aux négociations internationales sur les changements climatiques

2. Mitigation and Transparency of Action
A year ago, this Fellowship presented the UNFCCC Parties with the idea of a Dynamic Contribution Cycle (DCC);
At the core if its design, is a five-year cycle of three phases:
Ex-Post Reviews (confusing yes! Will explain!),
National Analyses, and
Ex-Ante Assessments, leading to periodic communications of intended contributions and inscriptions of contributions.
This would iterate as explain in figure One below

3. [A.1]  Initial national analysis leading to the communication of the INDCs for 2020-24 in early 2015.
[A.2]  2015: Finalizing of the Review of Adequacy : Initial Ex-ante Assessment of the communicated INDCs for
[A.3]  2018: Second national analysis, taking into account the outcomes of [A.2] of the initially communicated INDCs for 20-24, and national analysis of INDCs for Inscription of NDCs for and communication of INDCs for by the end of the year (or the beginning of 2019).
[A.4]   : Full Ex-Ante Assessment of INDCs for

4. Is the idea of a DCC currently agreeable?
Are parties comfortable with a 3 phase approach to Mitigation?
To climate action?
Communicate
Consider
Inscribe

5. ADP 2-10
General Discussions on elements for the mitigation section of the agreement covered:
operationalization of the long-term goal,
progression,
accounting rules,
quantification;,
market mechanisms,
international transport,
joint implementation,
a registry or annex,
joint mitigation and adaptation actions,
differentiation,
sector-specific actions,
non-market-based mechanisms, and
response measures.

6. ADP 2-10: did we make progress?
Initial three spin-off groups
clarifying provisions on non-market-based mechanisms, led by Bolivia;
addressing how differentiation could be formulated under individual efforts, led by South Africa; and
narrowing the joint implementation concept, led by Brazil.
Progress??
Lack of consensus
Differentiation is at core of the agreement and will only be solved by a political decision in further negotiations;
Brazil presented two draft paras on the preparation, communication and implementation of INDCs by parties, and on arrangements for INDCs.

7. Addtional 3 Spin Off Groups
response measures, led by the United Arab Emirates;
market mechanisms, led by Colombia; and
land use and REDD+, led by the United Kingdom.
Progress?
On response measures, a series of options ranging from no text to items for the agreement and/or decisions;
On markets, a diversity of terms, including economic mechanisms, market mechanisms, flexible mechanisms and cooperative mechanisms;
On land use and REDD+, some concerns with singling out specific sectors in the agreement and a call by some to balance REDD+ with other approaches.

8. Working document [Section D - Mitigation]
Version of 7 September reflects:
elements with broad support;
elements whose inclusion requires further consideration;
issues benefiting from further discussion to deepen understanding; and
an overview of discussions.

9. An effective Mitigation system should at least establish:
Long term goal – trajectory (signal);
legally binding mitigation comitments –whatever the verb is, with key features or characteristics that provide clarity and understanding;
cycles that enable progressively enhanced action
Transparency rules/principles;
Incentive based implememtation (looking at compliance preventively);