Tasks related to the framework for non-market approaches Scope of the item

At SBSTA 44, many Parties called for technical work and political discussions to develop common definitions and understanding of the key features of the Paris mechanism, as well as of relationships with other parts of the Paris Agreement, before starting detailed technical work on the rules.

While it is clear that the rules, modalities and procedures for the Paris mechanism with make use of past experience and lessons, it is less clear what these past experiences and lessons entail and how and to what extent they are applicable to the Paris mechanism. This will require extensive technical work as well as political negotiations.

At SBSTA 44, many Parties suggested that the rules, modalities and procedures for the mechanism would build extensively on the CDM modalities and procedures, and some also mentioned the relevance of JI guidelines. In fact, SBI 44 captured experience gained under the review of the JI guidelines in the form of draft revised JI modalities and procedures. These may be relevant for the Paris mechanism, given that both JI and the Paris mechanism operate in host countries with national mitigation targets. Some Parties emphasised the fundamentally different contexts in which the Paris mechanism is applied and other key differences compared to CDM, such as the overall mitigation, the scope beyond projects and the need to avoid double-counting.

They noted that even the features that the Paris mechanism has in common with the CDM, such as additionality, may need to be applied differently in new contexts. Thus, the modalities and procedures of the Paris mechanism may differ significantly, at least in some aspects, from those governing CDM and JI.

Links with other tasks

At SBSTA 44, Parties discussed the need to clarify the relationship between the Paris mechanism and other elements of the Paris Agreement, such as the link between Article 6.5 and provisions under Article 6.2 regarding avoidance of double-counting. Any methodological approaches and accounting provisions developed under the Paris mechanism need to be coordinated and consistent with the rest of the Paris Agreement, for example the provisions for transparency and accounting for NDCs under Article 13 and 4, respectively.

4.3 Tasks related to the framework for non-market approaches

Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement recognizes the importance of “integrated, holistic and balanced” non-market approaches being available to Parties to assist in the implementation of their NDCs. Article 6.9 defines a framework for such non-market approaches.

While Articles 6.2-6.7 are focused on mitigation, Articles 6.8-6.9 are broader in scope, covering both mitigation and adaptation, and concerning financing, technology transfer and capacity building. This is also explicitly restricted to non-market-based approaches.

Key features of the item

Non-market approaches referred to in Article 6.8:

 are integrated, holistic and balanced

 assist Parties in implementing their NDCs

o in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication o in a coordinated and effective manner

 shall aim to

o promote mitigation and adaptation ambition

o enhance public and private participation in the implementation of NDCs

o enable opportunities for coordination across instruments and relevant institutions.

At SBSTA 44, Bolivia as the main proponent of non-market approaches shared its vision of the framework as a new mechanism for providing more (public) support – in the form of financing, technology transfer and capacity building – for non-market approaches that target mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development in an integrated manner. Other Parties wanted to explore the current landscape of support in order to identify needs and gaps that the framework may help to address.

Parties discussed the need to define and narrow down the non-market approaches considered under the framework. According to Bolivia, a key feature of non-market approaches should be the provision of support based on Parties’ needs rather than results. By extension, market-based approaches – which are not mentioned in the Paris Agreement – would involve the international transfer of these results and their use towards other Parties’ NDCs.

Article 6.9

A framework for non-market approaches to sustainable development is hereby defined to promote the non-market approaches referred to in [Article 6.8].

Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 40

Also requests the [SBSTA] to undertake a work programme under the framework for non-market approaches to sustainable development referred to in [Article 6.8] with the objective of considering how to enhance linkages and create synergy between, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, and how to facilitate implementation and coordination of non-market approaches.

Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 41

Further requests the [SBSTA] to recommend a draft decision on the work programme referred to in Paragraph 40 above, taking into account the views of Parties, for consideration and adoption by the [CMA 1].

Scope of the tasks

The tasks associated with defining a framework for non-market approaches may include deciding on the nature, purpose, scope and functions of the framework. The SBSTA has been requested to undertake a work programme under the framework “with the objective of considering how to enhance linkages and create synergy between, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, financing, technology transfer and capacity building, and how to facilitate the implementation and coordination of non-market approaches”.

Deciding on the nature, purpose, scope and functions of the framework is largely political in nature, although the discussions could benefit from technical work on the range of available options and their implications and relationships with other instruments and institutions. The SBSTA work programme has the potential to be technical in nature, but at SBSTA 44, the political debate on the framework took place under the agenda item on the work programme.

At SBSTA 44, Parties discussed the framework and its relationship to the work programme. Some Parties considered that the objectives of the work programme reflected the key features of the framework, which should thus focus on enhancing linkages, creating synergies and facilitating implementation and coordination.

Bolivia focused on its vision of the framework which is much broader in scope that the scope of the work programme.

Links with other programmes

The scope of Articles 6.8 and 6.9 is broad and covers elements that have their own articles in the Paris Agreement, namely mitigation (Article 4), adaptation (Article 7), financing (Article 9), technology transfer (Article 10) and capacity building (Article 11). There is also a potential link to Article 5 which mentions joint mitigation and adaptation (JMA) approaches for the management for forests. To avoid overlap and duplication of work, Articles 6.8 and 6.9 could serve as a space for cross-cutting issues and coordination across these elements.