CCCXG Global Forum March 2017 BG1 2018 Facilitative Dialogue: Taking stock of collective mitigation efforts by Helen Plume, notes

1. CCXG Global Forum March 2017
Breakout group 1: 2018 Facilitative Dialogue – Information needed to take stock of
collective mitigation efforts under Article 4.1.
1 What information is needed to take stock of collective mitigation efforts and
outcomes in the short, medium and long term?
2 What are the challenges associated with gathering this information in the context
of the facilitative dialogue?
• Emphasis on the collective nature of the Facilitative Dialogue – a focus on individual
mitigation efforts would be counter-productive.
• The biggest challenge is reconciling the apparent “contradictions” in the Paris Agreement
and decision – on the one hand Parties agreed to a Facilitative Dialogue that would take
stock of collective efforts, but on the other hand resolutely disagreed on aspects that
would facilitate the ability to actually carry out this taking of stock (e.g. standardised
information for the purpose of clarity, transparency and understanding of NDCs (CTU)).
• Parties have provided information in their iNDCs and now NDCs for many, but given the
nationally determined nature of these contributions and that Parties did not agree to any
standardised CTU information set, aggregation of the collective impact/collective effort
will be challenging, particularly regarding progress towards peaking of emissions.
Further guidance on this matter (part of the APA’s work programme) might assist with
future stocktaking processes under the Paris Agreement but will be too late for the
Facilitative Dialogue. However, perhaps the challenges encountered in preparing for the
Facilitative Dialogue could inform this part of the APA’s work programme? This also
means of course that the work currently mandated under the APA to develop the Global
Stocktake should ensure a degree of flexibility, to allow us to learn from experience (not
just from the 2018 Facilitative Dialogue, but also successive stocktakes)
• There is other information that Parties have provided as part of their reporting under the
UNFCCC that could be used in addition to the NDCs such as projections information in
biennial reports and national communications. This could assist towards gaining a
collective picture of mitigation outcomes in the medium term, but again this information is
incomplete as not all Parties report this type of information.
• Accepting that the information set provided by Parties is incomplete for the purposes of
the Facilitative Dialogue, and that it is too late to agree to and then seek further
information from Parties, it will be necessary to bring in information from other sources
e.g. from the IPCC 5th
Assessment Report and the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees
which is to be completed in 2018.
• Other groups have undertaken analysis that is relevant to an assessment of collective
effort in relation to progress towards the long-term global goal in Article 4.1 – useful to
have input from independent studies, and Parties should be open to this.
• Preparation of analytical input to the Facilitative Dialogue will be essential. Can’t just
“add up” what we have received from Parties.
Helen Plume
New Zealand
14 March 2017