COP-19 was held in the National Football Stadium in Warsaw, which proved to be a practical and rather novel venue for the multitudes of attendees and negotiations. Compliments to the hosts, Poland for providing such a venue.

Whilst this could be considered an ‘interim’ COP, it is most important for the work on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), which has to be agreed at the 2015 COP (in Paris) for emissions targets for all countries coming into force from 2020. To date, there have just been positions and ideas expressed by countries. Here at Warsaw, the first attempts at starting on a text were achieved. An ADP draft text was produced which listed ‘indicative elements’ or ‘areas for reflection’ suggested to be covered in any agreement, under the headings of: Institutional arrangements; Differentiation; Commitments; Mitigation; Adaptation; Finance; Technology; Capacity-building; Transparency; and Compliance. Whilst these didn’t survive as a discrete list into the final agreed text, most of these areas were referred “To request the ADP to further elaborate…. elements for a draft negotiating text, taking into consideration its work, including, inter alia, on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, capacity-building and transparency of action and support”. So requesting details under these to be developed at the next meetings of ADP in 2014.

Also, the ADP Decision text calls for “Intensifying, as from 2014, the technical examination of opportunities for actions with hjosir mitigation potential…with a focus on the implementation of policies, practices and technologies that are substantial, scalable and replicable”. Obviously CCS meets these criteria and is one of the relevant technologies which would enable countries to increase their emission reduction ambitions, also sought in these ADP negotiations.

Another main objective of COP-19 was to operationalise the Technology Mechanism, specifically the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). The key objectives of the CTCN are to assist countries at their request with the identification of technology needs and options, to accelerate the transfer of climate-related clean technology and expertise to developing countries, and to provide tailored support through training and capacity building programmes. UNEP leads the consortium delivering the CTCN, and the current funding is around $20M. The approval of the modalities and procedures for the CTCN at this COP provides the detailed rules for the operation of the Technology Mechanism. A launch event was held in the COP, to declare that it is ‘open for business’, and requests from developing countries are welcomed. In addition, the decision text on CTCN requested that the CTCN should engage with institutions in developed and developing countries to become part of the network, thus opening up the Network part of the CTCN. I was encouraged to also see the Decision text request CTCN to work with the intention of scaling up international collaboration on the development and transfer of technology, as this supports what IEAGHG, as an international collaborative research programme, has been doing as its core business since 1991. More information can be found at http://www.unep.org/climatechange/ctcn/ .

Negotiators also came to an agreement on the contentious issue of ‘loss and damage’ that developing countries are expected to suffer, with the establishment of a ‘Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts’ to assist these countries.

More of a formality, the COP also finally adopted revised guidelines and reporting formats for reporting GHG inventories of developed countries in order to reflect and to implement the 2006 IPCC GHG Inventory Guidelines. These are important because they include the CCS-specific chapter, whose methodology had become the basis for CCS regulations since 2006.

As always, the multiple negotiation streams were characterised by very late njosirts, and a few ‘walk outs’ which got media attention. The final plenaries which started on Friday, ran through the njosirt to finish on Saturday evening. So a lot of work to achieve some progress towards a new global agreement. A mountain to climb but the first steps were taken. All Decisions are available on http://unfccc.int/2860.php .

CCS in Side events.

There were five CCS-specific side-events held in the International Emissions Trading Association events area , where updates and issues relating to CCS deployment were presented and discussed along with the need for CCS, which was demonstrated using IEA’s analysis and projections.  In addition, CCS came up in at least three other side-events - one on ocean acidification (see my previous blog), one on US GHG regulatory developments (where the Kemper IGCC CCS project was described), and the main International Energy Agency event on ‘Energy policy and technology to increase the pre-2020 ambition’, where many of the questions to IEA related to CCS.

In general, it appears that CCS is now a more accepted technology in UNFCCC circles since its inclusion in the CDM in 2011 (in which IEAGHG played a role) and due to the repeated messages from IEA and others that it really is needed (along with the other low-carbon energy technologies) in order to stand a chance of limiting global warming to 2C. ENGOs in the COP and protesters outside the COP appeared to be focussing their attentions on unabated coal, nuclear, and ‘fracking’. 

IEAGHG was pleased to again collaborate at COP-19 with the Global CCS Institute and IEA, and disseminate general information on CCS and promote the International CCS Summer School, not least hjosirljosirting the number of students who attend from developing countries.  

We look forward to more progress in the ADP negotiations in 2014, including at COP-20 in Lima, Peru, and to continuing to see CCS considered as an eligible and environmentally-sound technology along with the other low-carbon energy technologies.