Establishing a Work Programme: 2012

Throughout 2012, the AWG-LCA received over 20 submissions related to the FVA prior to its fifteenth session.²⁵⁸ Many of these did not address NMAs, including inter alia submissions by China, the Coalition for Rainforest Nations and a number of like-minded developing countries, Denmark and the European Commission on behalf of the EU and its Member Statesand supporters, Japan, the Russia Federation, Canada, Malaysia and the United States.²⁵⁹ The United States, in particular, noted its continued support for market mechanisms and offset mechanisms.²⁶⁰ While Gambia on behalf of the Least Developed

252 FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, para [1], [67].

253 FCCC/SBSTA/2013/MISC.12, p. 4.

254 FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, para [80].

255 Ibid, para [81].

256 Ibid, p. 55–66.

257 Howard 2017, p. 181.

258 FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.1;

FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.2; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.3;

FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.4; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.5;

FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.6; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.7.

259 FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4.

260 Ibid, p. 37.

Countries (LDCs) also did not directly address NMAs, they expressed concern about inadequate domestic reductions by developed countries, a matter which could be addressed through NMAs.²⁶¹ Some country Parties mention NMAs in passing, such as Australia and New Zealand who stated that MBMs resulted in the most cost-effective and efficient climate change mitigation, but that they could support NMAs if they did not interfere with the markets or “constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade”.²⁶² Switzerland on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) acknowledged that both NMAs and MBMs were necessary and provided examples of their experiences with both.²⁶³ In addition, they held that NMAs should safeguard environmental integrity and contribute to existing approaches to reduce GHG emissions.²⁶⁴

The strongest statements in favour of NMAs predominantly came from Bolivia and Ecuador and countries vulnerable to climate change. Nauru on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, for example, submitted that NMAs were efficient and possessed the potential to address concerns about environmental integrity, especially in situations where there was limited or unreliable data or the carbon market was being undermined via a surplus of cheap units.²⁶⁵ Ecuador put forward three submissions and held a workshop during this time, outlining details of the proposed net-avoided emissions mechanism and advocating for a FVA which balanced MBMs and NMAs.²⁶⁶ The net-avoided emissions concept continued to be positioned as a mechanism which could be market-based or non-market-based, with emphasis on its outcomes in terms of GHG emissions avoided and co-benefits.²⁶⁷ In addition, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and environmental integrity were highlighted as key net-avoided emissions elements.²⁶⁸ Bolivia put forward three NMAs, a JMAM, Mitigation Mechanism and Adaptation Mechanism, under the umbrella concept of a Climate Justice Entity. Underlying

261 FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.3, p. 4.

262 FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4, p. 26–27; see also FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.2, p. 12–16.

263 FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4, p. 33–34.

264 Ibid, p.34–36.

265 Ibid, p. 21.

266 FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.1; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.5, p. 4–5;

FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.2, p. 11.

267 Pacheco 2012.

268 Pacheco 2012; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.1; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.5, p. 4–5.

the Climate Justice Entity was a desire to ensure developed country Parties were accountable for the climate debt and that the way forward was shaped by equitable access to atmospheric space and development.²⁶⁹ The JMAM had previously been proposed by Bolivia and relates to non-market approaches to improve sustainable forest management.²⁷⁰ While little details of the exact functions of the Mitigation and Adaptation mechanism were provided, non-market transfers of finance and technology from developed to developing country Parties is a common feature of all the mechanisms.²⁷¹ A final submission just prior to the beginning of COP 18 was received from Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Malaysia, Mali, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Venezuela and was titled “Draft Decision on Establishment of Non-Market Mechanism”.²⁷² Similar to Bolivia’s earlier submission, it emphasised the role of developed countries providing financial and technological support to developing countries, sustainable developed and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.²⁷³ Specifically, it sought for the inclusion of the statement that NMAs are “important to enhance the cost-effectiveness … and to promote mitigation actions … and change guiding social values as a whole” and the establishment of a JMAM.²⁷⁴

COP 18 in Doha, Qatar from 26 November to 7 December 2012 saw similar discussions to COP 17, with developing country Parties seeking finance from developed country Parties, Bolivia objecting to market mechanisms and concerns about developing countries having their voices heard.²⁷⁵ At its conclusion, COP 18 finalised the AWG-LCA with an outcome report.²⁷⁶ Under the section on the FVA, it was acknowledged that NMAs may be developed and implemented and the matter was referred to SBSTA to undertake a work programme to elaborate on NMAs.²⁷⁷ In addition, the outcome incorporated concepts from the proposed net-avoided emissions mechanisms, noting that various approaches should either “achieve a

269 FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.2, p. 3–8.

270 Ibid, p. 3–8.

271 Ibid, p. 3–8.

272 FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.4/Add.6, p. 3–5.

273 Ibid, p. 3–4.

274 Ibid, p. 3–5.

275 Earth Negotiations Bulletin 2012, p. 8–11.

276 FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1, p. 3–18.

277 Ibid, para [41], [47].

net decrease and/or avoidance” of GHG emissions.²⁷⁸ The SBSTA was also requested to conduct a work programme for a FVA, which was considered by some Parties to incorporate NMAs, while several Parties approached NMAs and the FVA discussions jointly.²⁷⁹ Submissions were requested from Parties and observers in relation to the FVA and NMAs.²⁸⁰ Similar to the previous submissions, many Parties choose to focus on matters other than NMAs.²⁸¹ There was, however, a greater push for NMAs within the FVA context, particularly from developing countries with forestry resources. Countries of the Congo Basin gathered in the Central African Forestry Commission, which included Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, and Sao Tome and Principe, and the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, which included Bangladesh, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Gabon, Guyana, Honduras, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Panama and Papua New Guinea, recognised the potential for the use of NMAs, particularly in relation to net-avoided emissions and sustainable forest management.²⁸²

Bolivia, Nauru on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States and Saudi Arabia were the only country Parties to make specific submissions on NMAs. Saudi Arabia referred to the importance of NMAs in relation to cost-effectiveness, sustainable development and the historical responsibility of developed countries, while Nauru noted the potential for NMAs to address limitations of MBMs and called for equal discussion time for the two approaches.²⁸³ Consistent with its previous actions, Bolivia’s submissions on both the FVA and NMAs strongly pushed for the adoption of NMAs in all fields of the UNFCCC programme, particularly the JMAM.²⁸⁴ Bolivia’s submissions incorporate many different

278 FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1, para [42] [emphasis added]; Köhler and Michaelowa 2014, p. 57.

279 FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1, para [44].

280 Ibid, para [48].

281 See i.e., submissions from Norway, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Indonesia, Ireland and the European Commission on behalf of the European Union and its member States supported by Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia, and Japan in FCCC/SBSTA/2013/MISC.11.

282 FCCC/SBSTA/2013/MISC.11, p. 3–7, 13–17.

283 FCCC/SBSTA/2013/MISC.12, p. 16–21.

284 FCCC/SBSTA/2013/MISC.12, p 3–15; FCCC/SBSTA/2013/MISC.11, p. 8–12.

elements, including principles from Elinor Ostrom’s work relating to the environment as a public good,²⁸⁵ petition for a “a move from an anthropocentric vision of the earth to a cosmocentric understanding, in which human beings and nature are similar”,²⁸⁶ the co-benefits of NMAs²⁸⁷ and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.²⁸⁸ It also introduced new potential approaches, such as the creation of a dedicated window in the GCF for JMAM projects and the Management of Environmental Functions (MEF) as a mechanism based on the rights of Mother Earth which employed the JMAM as a main tool.²⁸⁹ Throughout the debate on NMAs, country Parties and UN bodies had made calls for more information in order to determine whether to incorporate them into the UNFCCC and how this might occur.²⁹⁰ While Bolivia’s submissions in relation to NMAs provide useful information in relation to the types of NMAs which could be adopted, they also demonstrate the lack of clarity and complexities in this area with the frequent introduction of new concepts and potential mechanisms.