1. Barcelona 4 weeks before:

2. Headlines 1  Time is short, no guarantee for success: Fully- fledged treaty put in question  US looks for exceptional treatment  Major DCs do not change position in UNFCCC  Strong G77 rhetoric on keeping Kyoto  Vulnerable DCs are worried.  Stakeholders more vocal:  Trade Unions: Just transition  NGOs: 1.5  C, 350 ppm

3. Headlines 2  Consolidation yes, compromises no!  KP track got blocked temporarily  LCA text further consolidated but no real negotiations  NON papers will be forwarded to COP 15 covering each important item with clearer options  But decisions will remain difficult  Ministerial part will be crucial at COP 15

4. AWG KP I  Achieved limits under the Kyoto Protocol alone  Need to discuss holistically issues under the two tracks in Copenhagen  No new pledges, overall level of ambition insufficient  (max -17% including EU -30% and USA) compared to what is required by science (25-40% reduction)  The African Group decided to block negotiations during whole of Tuesday  After 24 hours, resumed negotiations focusing on commitments by developed countries  No real change of gear, mistrust growing  Increasing anti-(carbon)-market rhetoric

5. AWG KP II  Progress on:  Number and duration of commitment periods (likely outcomes: one 5-year period or one 8-year period)  New ideas on the starting level of commitments  Base year 1990 accepted by most parties  Other issues only clarification of options, e.g.:  Standardised baselines for CDM  Improving regional distribution  Some convergence on force majeure clause for natural disturbances of forests

6. AWG LCA Shared vision for Long Term Cooperative Action  Very little progress with respect to Bangkok  Issues to be decided in Copenhagen:  Temperature level (1.5  C, 2  C?),  Global action by 2050 (-50% to -80%, from 1990?)  Developed country targets in 2020 (from 25% to at least 45%, vs 1990?) and 2050 (from 80% to at least 95%, vs 1990?)  Global peaking (by 2013, by 2020, next 10-20 years?)  How to review progress over time?

7. AWG LCA Mitigation actions - commitments Developed countries - Targets  EU focuses on the inclusion of ‘Kyoto Acquis’, e.g. binding national reduction targets (QELROs) and common accounting; but no real engagement from the US  US maintains that its domestic actions and legislation should be considered sufficient in the context of a future agreement  Developing countries vehemently oppose the idea of a single agreement that includes Kyoto developed countries  US exceptionalism?

8. AWG LCA Mitigation actions - commitments Developing countries – Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)  EU focuses on the need to put all NAMAs in the context of Low Carbon Growth Plans, address the full life cycle of all NAMAs, including the need for a technical analysis of all NAMAs, accounting of the outcomes of all NAMAs (including inventories) and the need to facilitate matching of support with actions  US focuses on creating a system that puts developing country NAMAs on similar footing as developed country ‘domestically’ defined reduction target, main focus on major developing countries

9. AWG LCA Mitigation actions - commitments Developing countries: NAMAs  Developing countries resist specific rules for unsupported NAMAs, more willingness to include rules on how to account for supported actions.  Low Emission Growth Plans and requirements for technical analysis for NAMAs opposed by DCs, arguing it raises hurdles.  Facilitating matching functions also opposed by DCs because seen as a ‘threat’ to the idea of direct access  Major developing countries did not come forward with concrete proposals for own actions!

10. AWG LCA Finance Focussed on three key questions that will go to Copenhagen:  New institutions and funds? EU does not defend the idea of a new fund, introduced text on High Level Forum/Body to overview all financial flows Fund proposals were consolidated, including US and new Japanese proposals.  Need for function to facilitate matching action and support? Australia, US and the EU worked together to consolidate views. Strong opposition from G77 who finds matching is irrelevant for the UNFCCC. Matching to be done in funds!  Who pays? Only developed countries or also developing countries? EU joined forces with Mexico, Singapore, Israel and the USA in calling for all parties except LDCs to contribute

11. AWG LCA Adaptation  New text, identifying clearer options for decision  Existing vs new institutions  Nature of UNFCCC action: facilitating or supporting  Prioritisation: LDCs, SIDS, vulnerable African countries?  How & whether to address loss, damage and compensation  Response measures linking : in or out?  Consensus emerging on integration, country driven adaptation, urgency of action.  Progress depends also on progress in finance, technology etc.

12. AWG LCA New sectoral carbon market mechanisms  Controversial subject! Support rather informal than public  Concerns raised:  Choice of mechanism should be left to host country  Scope should not be limited to sectors, free choice  For the EU it is key to establish new carbon market mechanisms with the following principles:  sector-based,  credits/units earned from threshold below policy baseline

13. AWG-LCA Technology transfer Capacity building  Most problematic parts technology text remain G77 requests on IPR and funding  Growing consensus on the need for a technology mechanism/platform but no agreement on purpose, principles and structure  EU introduces text to link technology to the life cycle of NAMAs and actions for adaptation  Capacity building debate focuses on the degree of support for DC and how to deliver, how to monitor and the question of a need for new institutions

14. AWG LCA – Deforestation Response measures  Deforestation text (REDD) is streamlined, includes three stages  Readiness  Starting implementation  Introduce performance based mechanism  Copenhagen needs to decide how this performance based mechanism should be funded and what its scope would be  Potential adverse economic and social impacts of mitigation policies, mostly raised by OPEC countries. Addressed both under AWG LCA as AWG KP and also inserted in texts on adaptation and technology  G77, mainly OPEC, wants a permanent institution to address this. Developed countries focus on the need for solid information and reporting of observed impacts.

15. AWG-LCA HFCs Bunker Fuels  EU proposal on a HFC arrangement. Not really discussed this session due to parallel meeting under the Montreal Protocol in Egypt.  Bunker fuels:  EU introduced its global targets (aviation -10% vs 2005, maritime -20% vs 2005)  Proposals and interest in revenue raising from African countries (e.g. Nigeria)  New common proposal from USA, Canada, Norway and Japan but weak on guidance from UNFCCC with delegation to IMO/ICAO

16. Next steps  Chances to reach fully fledged Treaty in Copenhagen are minimal  Denmark steps up efforts  Bilateral and multi-lateral Summits  Next meetings:  Informal Ministerial Prep Meeting, 16-17 November, Copenhagen  MEF?  Heads of State?  Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, 7-18 December