Thread by @TennantReed

#COP25 SBSTA Contact Group on Article 6 (trade in carbon, market and nonmarket approaches) about to begin. Packed house

Chair of SBSTA intro:
Not much time, need to get to work ASAP.
Climate situation is urgent in light of IPCC SRs. Art 6 must be operationalised from 2020; unfinished biz from Katowice.
Progress at June SB50 consolidated, but not enough. Many unresolved issues in text 6.2 6.4 6.8

Chair: BAU will not get us there. Approach now: organize negotiation through SBSTA Art 6 contact group. This will send conclusions to SBSTA plenary. But will also establish informal consultations with developed/developing paired facilitators. Also bilats and informal informal.

Chair: will ask facilitators to come up with next text iteration by tomorrow morning and further draft later in week.
Art 6 work is linked to para 77/d of 18/CMA/1 - transparency. reflections note sets out approach to this - discussions on this issue won’t coincide with Art 6

Chair: transparency outcomes won’t prejudge Art 6 outcome.
SBSTA must deliver to CMA Monday a set of 3 draft texts as clean as possible with limited issues for Presidency to resolve.
Chair Will work closely with Presidency.
Need advanced text with few and clear options.

Chair: otherwise risk is no outcome. Heads of State, Government, delegations express desire to reach outcome on Art 6.
Need to focus on what’s needed to be operational in 2020. Not every detail needs resolution now.

Chair: essential decisions for operationalisation are our task here.
Chair met with Heads of delegation, received strong support for the above approach.
Party-driven process. Transparency and inclusion demands all parties be involved throughout.

Chair: we share a goal and we will meet it together.
Proposal: informal consultations cofscilitated by Barbados and Norway. Informal consultations will start today and complete by 1pm Sat 7 Dec.
Work unlikely to produce fully clean draft text, but will send questions to Presidenc

Chair: observers - propose to keep negotiating meetings open to observers. Informal consultations should also be open, unless parties request they be closed.
NOBODY OBJECTED so the above approach was adopted.

Chair: first meeting of informal consultstions will follow immediately after this contact group.
Turkey requested floor: urgent issues under 6.2 6.4 and 6.8. Endorsed clear transparent rules and no distinctions between parties on rules applying. Tech allows monitoring transaction

Turkey: can improve on CDM JI voluntary markets and not repeat mistakes. Transferring existing activities to new mechanisms may damage ambition.

Tuvalu: reminds that rules built here apply to parties to Paris Agreement.

Senegal on behalf of African Group: thanks, agree to approach, highlights benefit of bringing outcomes from bilats and other consultations into the formal contact groups for transparency.

Turkey again: nothing is decided yet about eligibility (presumably of existing projects for transfer to new mechanisms)

Chair closed contact group and after a short delay the cofacilitators (CFs) opened the informal consultations.
CFs: no requests from parties to close, so the session remains open to observers for now

CFs: we’ll provide first text iteration tomorrow and second iteration of text by very late Friday 7 December. Informal consultations every day until the weekend. CFs have met informally with all delegations. Not much movement yet but Parties working hard together too.

CFs: aim is to produce text that focuses negotiation and open space for discussion on landing zones- by cleaning up options and presenting difficult political issues clearly. Also want to improve text flow, remove redundancies.

CFs: a work plan to follow a successful decision will be needed for more detail, but this should not be a dustbin for difficult issues.

CFs: informals will reflect back feedback from bilaterals in between.
Today’s informal should cover:
Approach
Landing zones for agreement
*Not* speeches on positions.

CFs invite input on 6.8 (governance) then 6.4 (new mechanisms) then 6.2 (cooperative approaches) and open the floor.

EU: streamlining text: Bonn Option A is v similar to Option D - could combine. Work Program options A and B are v similar too.

Egypt: basis for any removals/streamlining should be clear, not dropping any key positions.
6.8: work program activities need to highlight leveraging cobenefits. Welcomes work on Options B and C, more inclusive.
Next iteration should say a party providing means shares in outcome

CFs: next iteration won’t include any new concepts, but second one could.

Japan: nonmarket approaches are valuable part of Art 6 package. Need to see real content. Good to discuss in bilats etc what we can do this year and next.

Saudi Arabia: LMDCs consider 6.8 a key item to conclude along 6.2 and 6.8. Concerned about risk key positions are dropped.
6.8 key to developing countries, addressed adaptation and means as well as mitigation. Linkage to forum on response measures

Saudi: don’t want Art 6 to be standalone. Options B and C on framework are good. Program of activities Option D is good.
Applauds Egypt’s comments.

Tuvalu for LDCs: 6.8 - LDCs prefer permanent arrangement. “Open ended working group” is problematic, has broader UN context. Prefers Option B.
Para 7 and 13 in Option B look v similar. Doesn’t fit - either have SBSTA arrangement, or separate body, or defer decision (bad)

CF: “permanent” is a problematic word in UN system, suggest use of alternative words. Tuvalu agreed.

Senegal: dynamic process needs an entity to consider it continuously, not just an agenda item in an existing body.

United States: text with clearer options would help resolve issues.

CFs: if parties want additions to work program activities, they can be included in second iteration.

Thailand: Option B should be jointly chaired by SBI and SBSTA because nonmarket holistic approach needs more than methodology - finance, technology etc.
CFs invite reactions to this proposal.

India: asks if any arrangement can be jointly chaired by SBI and SBSTA.
CFs say this is allowed and quite commonplace.

EU: work program - suggests adding “as appropriate” to various elements

Iraq: supports Egypt and Saudi - need to develop registry of needs.

South Africa: can EU explain “as appropriate”, as we don’t want to make text vaguer.

Japan: governance has 4 options. A and D are similar, could streamline. B provides clear option. C should also remain.

CFs move the discussion on to 6.4 (new mechanism) and recite a long list of issues to discuss.

Egypt: overarching issues for 6.2 and 6.4:
Inclusive voluntary participation noting diversity of NDCs and incorporating all metrics inc non-GHG.
6.2 6.4 need balance - no disadvantage to using 6.4.
Share of proceeds needed from each to fund adaptation etc.

Egypt: need to avoid discriminatory unilateral measures.
Don’t need to single out some principles of Paris - if one then all.
Negative impacts of response measures needs a link.

Egypt: 6.4 specifics - like option A on progressive share of proceeds.
Transition from KP: must be approved by host party, transition for methodology and activities. With units, need process to address concerns but transition must be approved by host parties.

Egypt: don’t support corresponding adjustment for first transfer of units from registry.
Overall Mitigation: support voluntary cancellation of 6.4 reductions as a compromise.
Safeguards and limits per 6.2 must avoid unilateral measures.
Some safeguards are actually principles.

Egypt: response measures negative impact - guidance should allow parties to address impacts.
Supervisory body to support response measures forum.

Egypt: activity design - keep reference to full spectrum of outcomes.
39 C&D - support ‘no text’ option.

CFs: ask parties to focus comments on places where they have moved, are familiar with existing positions.

Brazil: (gives a long preamble about how they will be focussed)
Work programs need to be focussed and time-bound.
Supervisory body: well structured section. Cautious about delegating substantive work to this body, should revisit date of establishment and work to be given.

Brazil: streamlining: text is repetitive. Suggests a piece for deletion. References to accounting and corresponding adjustment often prejudge how accounting takes place especially 28g - could streamline

Brazil: baselines - text needs cleaning up, and clarification questions. Para 29 and 36.

It’s very early in the week for much movement from positions.

CFs: it is possible that the supervisory body could be established here, that would need decisions on what it might do.
Asks if Brazil wants a text option for not establishing this year; Brazil says handlable through brackets.

EU: we want to implement Paris not undermine it. 6.4: baseline section is long and could be streamlined, but needs strong option for baseline fitted against benchmark.
Transition: some options depend on work elsewhere.

EU: supervisory body could design its own rules of procedure (as in CDM). But methodological review/revision is a core job.

Senegal: need clear definition on remaining provisions of 6.4 to be adopted next year.
Share of proceeds is in many options; we support 5%, but could specify mix of monetary and %.
Transition: don’t support transition of pre2020 units including AAUs, wherever they came from

Senegal: avoid gap between end of CDM and 6.4 mechanism.

Costa Rica: wants clear options.

Belize for AOSIS: no pre2020 units to be used. No double counting. Section 9 text is most prone to confusion. “Discounting” reference could be replaced with “cancellation”.
Reference to “first transfer” may not be needed - focus on “issuance”.

Belize: corresponding adjustments is a laden term but we need a reference to the concept.
Safeguards: need operational language. Quantitative restrictions need option text.

Saudi: don’t need corresponding adjustment on activities outside scope of NDC.
Participation responsibilities - long list needs to narrow without adding burdens to developing countries.
Issues across 6.2 and 6.4: supplementarity is key. Guidance shld avoid unilateral measures

Saudi: don’t single out individual principles in text. All principles important.
Support share of proceeds in 6.2 and 6.4
Don’t support automatic cancellation.
Link to forum on response measures.

Saudi: Art 6 facilitated cooperation. Reporting should not be burdensome. Info should feed into Art 13 review, not be reviewed alone.
Transition: should be no barrier to transitioning existing activities into Art 6. Otherwise would damage trust.

New Zealand: corresponding adjustments is important, including for voluntary and mandatory cancellations. Suggests some streamline options.

Bhutan: 6.4 needs max inclusiveness; definitions need to allow all parties to participate in market.

Australia: section 6 activity cycle: Option B is fully in Option C so one can be eliminated. On methodology, A and B are similar. Authorization C could be in section 5. Issuance options b and D are almost identical

Australia: transition of pre2029 units and options to streamline. States that Art 6 relates to international transfers of units - domestic use of units was settled at Katowice.

Japan: corresponding adjustments under 6.4 are critical.
Suggests various simplification options.

China: text needs ‘no decision’ options for some issues.
CFs will reflect on this.

India: support Saudi comments. Text needs streamlining.
Baseline text should not be limited in terms of technologies.
Cancellation - there should be none, nor discounting.

Tuvalu: decision text should not put off difficult decisions - eg par 7G, par8
CFs say they could have a go at making text for operationalising issues not already addressed, but this will grow the text. Would need to do for first iteration, not Friday.

Bahrain: support Egypt, Saudi, China. Wants balanced text.

CFs close discussion of 6.4 and turn to 6.2.

Korea: Art 6 should be applied alongside other Arts eg 4, 13.
Cancellation is a thorny issue.
This should be party-driven mechanism with minimal top-down mechanisms.
Reflect heterogeneity of NDCs.
Initial Madrid guidance should be regularly reviewed.

Korea: Corresponding adjustment needs flexibility - no one method can be perfect. Menu of approaches needed, to be chosen by parties. 5 options needed.
Expect selection of accounting methods should meet all principles, including EO th special supplementary measures

Korea: We can’t narrow down methods to less than 9. Each has limitations and is hard to anticipate workings. This need plenty of options.

USA: 6.2: can refine sections on corresponding adjustments, can narrow menu in Option B.
Not all paragraphs are actually options, some are supplementary/ supporting
Could refine points at which adjustment takes place

Senegal for G77+China : Paris 6.1: cooperation should allow for higher ambition. Equitable treatment between 6.2 and 6.4 demands share of proceeds in both.

Egypt: support Senegal/G77+China on 6.2.
6.2 guidance is about support not just mitigation.
Corro adjustment - need to maintain options.
Safeguards and limits: need to avoid unilateral measures.
Addressing negative impacts: should allow parties to do so. Share info yearly.

Egypt: single year/multi year - single should have menu of approaches. No need to narrow approaches yet.
Corresponding adjustments not needed on ITMOs outside a party’s NDC, so no text options are needed.

Egypt: reporting and review - avoid redundant publication with Art 13.
Share of proceeds on both 6.4?and 6.2.
Corresponding adjustment irrelevant on transfer of ITMOs outside NDCs.
Overall mitigation: balanced treatment w 6.4 through voluntary cancellation.

Brazil: look carefully at technical work proposed, reserve our position.
Streamlining careful of consistent terminology with mandate given.
Corresponding adjustment: need progress on sequencing of reports, disclosure in registries.

Brazil: 6.3 must address minimum infrastructure for functions, transparency, accountability.
Single year/multi - supports limited set of methods. Needs time to focus on resolving.
Par26 option C uses “may” - needs stronger verb.

Brazil: safeguards needs careful look and implications for single year.

Japan: can make progress on non-GHG metrics this week. Can enhance these through further work.
More work on corro adjustment: next iteration should combine A and B options. C and D are distinct

Saudi: supports Egypt and Senegal on 6.2. Work program should be specific and time-bound.
Appreciate flex on multiple metrics from other parties.

Senegal for African Group supports G77+China on share of proceeds in 6.2 and 6.4.
Art 13 - 6.2 guidance superseding Art 13 decision - this option should remain.

EU: 6.2 corro adjustment text does need tidying up. There is a relationship with safeguards.
Inside/outside NDC text can be streamlined.

Costa Rica: review cycle text has progressed but needs tidying.

Belize: (fast and barely audible, especially given a fiesta of coughing around the room)
Supports 5% share of proceeds

Canada: definitions should not be operative. Item 1(a)5 should use actual language of Paris

India: no additional conditionalities should be added.

Iran: inconsistent language in text in 6.2. Remove Convention language from text.

Australia: s3 responsibilities can be tidied - par 7d duplicates par 9.
Corro adjustments - support Japan streamlining.
Suggests other streamline options.

Tuvalu for LDCs: text for 6.2 should say work program should assist LDCs to participate.

Iraq for Arab Group - supports Egypt.
Mitigation should focus on definition of ITMOs.

At this point the CFs closed the informal consultation and set off for a long night of consolidating and streamlining text for clear options.