The Dynamic Contribution Cycle, designed during the 2014 ecbi Oxford Seminar to maximise space for future ambition in the Paris Agreement, revisited in light of recent developments and submissions to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
European Capacity Building Initiative
Policy Briefs and Notes
The IPCC’s special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C recently highlighted the importance of early action against climate change. In this context, pre-2020 ambition becomes ever more critical. As the 2020 deadline approaches, this policy brief considers whether pre-2020 pledges on mitigation and climate finance have been met. It also provides an overview of the history of the pre-2020 negotiations; plans for upcoming sessions; key issues under discussion; and a set of key questions and recommendations for climate negotiators.
The 2015 Paris Agreement was negotiated piece by piece, rather than as a whole document. As a result, although several pieces of the Agreement are closely related and even overlap, not all the linkages between them are logical or, at least as yet, coherent. Identifying and addressing the links between these different complex elements is essential for the overall coherence and effectiveness of the Paris outcome. This paper identifies links and gaps between the major elements of the Agreement.
This discussion note finds that the rolling ‘updated 5 + indicative 5’ cycle with synchronised updating of the Dynamic Contribution Cycle which, as reflected in the submissions, has been receiving traction, is by far the best procedural bet for enhancing collective NDC ambition.
This policy brief gives an account of how Article 6 of the Paris Agreement came into being, focussing in particular on the role of Brazil and the EU in the run up to Paris. It then seeks to clarify the basic concepts involved in the Article 6 debate, and proposes ways in which opposing positions on the opertionalisation of the market mechanisms can be reconciled.
To meaningfully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of ‘common time frames’, clarity is necessary on which common time frames one is referring to. In the context of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), there are essentially two possible interpretations of that phrase: a material one, and a procedural one. The material interpretation is about time intervals associated with the NDCs – to be precise, about target periods and implementation periods. The procedural interpretation is about timetables for communicating and updating NDCs. Both types of time frames might benefit ambition through a harmonisation. Since the debate on target and implementation periods is chiefly centred around the market-based collaborative approaches of Article 6, it is probably best not to bring it into the Article 4.10 debate. That debate, particularly in the context of how common time frames could help enhance NDC ambition, is therefore best focused on the procedural side of things. This Note highlights some of the problems with the NDC communication and updating process, as currently defined in paragraphs 23 and 24 of Decision 1/CP.21. It also summarises the advantages, for enhancing NDC ambition, of combining the two paragraphs into a common procedural time frame that has become known as the Dynamic Contribution Cycle. In practical terms, such a combination could be achieved in very simple terms, by: Requesting all Parties in 2025 to update their 2030 NDC and communicate an indicative 2035 NDC, and to do so every five years thereafter.
The Adaptation Communications can play a central role in identifying national needs and enabling international follow-up, while informing future action, driving ambition, and contributing information for the global stocktake. However, Parties to the Paris Agreement face a difficult balancing act while developing further guidance for the Communications, as they strive to make them useful and effective on one hand, and avoid placing an additional burden on countries (particularly those with limited capacity) on the other. This policy brief considers the challenges in light of the discussions that have taken place so far, most recently in Bonn in November 2017.
This Discussion Note considers how the idea of climate finance contributions from sub-nationals has evolved since the Paris Conference in 2015, and how it can be taken to the next level at the Global Climate Action Summit in September 2018.
A brief on the need to balance flexibility and utility while develolping the guidance for Adaptation Communications at COP23 and beyond.
The 2018 Facilitative Dialogue, now called the Talanoa Dialogue, will address three questions: where are we now; where do we need to be; and how do we get there. It will include a preparatory phase and a political element. That much is clear, but key issues remain to be resolved. How will preparatory phase will feed into the political element? How can non-Party stakeholders engage effectively? What should the inputs and outputs of the Dialogue be? How can the Dialogue – which is a collective process – contribute to enhancing the climate ambition of individual Parties? This policy brief considers these issues, and offers suggestions for the way ahead.