8-9 May 2014 - Mexico City, Mexico
Chair's Summary: Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate
The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) held a meeting Mexico City, Mexico, May 8-9, 2014. It was attended by ministers and officials from the 17 major economies, with ministers and officials from Greece (as Presidency of the European Union), Peru, Poland, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore participating in the session. The co-Chairs of the ADP and representative(s) from the UNFCCC Secretariat also attended.
Participants emphasized the need to act, noting widely heard calls for urgency. Participants also noted the role of the MEF as a driver for ambitious and urgent action.
Participants received an update on the work on the MEF Action Agenda. At the request of the MEF, the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC) has undertaken technical work on possible metrics for progress on buildings performance and efficiency, and on identifying particular areas that could benefit from international cooperation. IPEEC will produce a short report in June, and Participants will consider that report and how to proceed with the Action Agenda at the July MEF meeting.
Participants discussed how to address mitigation in the 2015 agreement. They focused initially on their intended nationally determined mitigation contributions, including where various Participants stand in their domestic formulation of such contributions, when they anticipate putting them forward, and what upfront information should accompany them to make them transparent and understandable. The co-presenters laid out substantially overlapping views on these issues, which were echoed in turn by many other Participants. All Participants indicated that domestic processes were underway to develop their nationally determined mitigation contributions. There was a widely shared view that, in order to have a successful outcome in Paris it was important for MEF Participants to come forward with such contributions as far in advance of the Paris COP as possible. Many Participants indicated they would be ready to submit their contributions by the end of the first quarter of 2015.
There was substantial convergence on the types of information that would make sense to include with contributions in order to promote clarity and understanding. This information could include commitment type, coverage of gasses and sectors, and relevant assumptions related to land use, markets and equity and ambition. Many Participants also spoke of the importance of up front information being provided with enough time before Paris to allow for a process to collectively review intended mitigation contributions. Such a process would be designed primarily to increase understanding of and confidence in each other's proposals and be done in a non-confrontational manner, respectful of sovereignty. Such a process could also provide a means of understanding the aggregate level of ambition and for encouraging each other to do more.
Participants also focused on potential agreed rules (and building in flexibility to those rules) that might apply to nationally determined mitigation contributions; for example, there was widespread support for a common end year for contributions.
Participants took up the issue of differentiation in the 2015 agreement. All considered it a key issue in the negotiations. Reacting to the presenter’s questions, Participants discussed several issues, including whether the "self-differentiation" that arises from nationally determined mitigation contributions in line with Parties' varying national circumstances will adequately reflect differentiation and, if not, what the pros and cons of additional options would be. Participants expressed strongly held views on this key issue but consider the MEF a useful forum for gaining a deeper understanding of each other’s views and for bridging gaps.
There was strong consensus among participants on the importance of adaptation, both domestically and with respect to its role in the 2015 agreement. In response to a robust opening presentation, they discussed what the Paris agreement should do to promote adaptation and climate resilience, in particular elements that go beyond the existing Convention. Participants raised various options, including, for example, raising adaptation’s political profile, enhanced individual steps (such as National Adaptation Plans), enhanced cooperative steps (such as in technology and scientific aspects), enhanced roles for (and usefulness of) existing institutions, and development of an adaptation reference tool, recognizing the wide variety of Parties’ adaptation situations/issues.
Participants raised other issues to include in the conversation such as technology cooperation, and actions regarding short lived climate pollutants.
Finally, working backwards from expectations for a successful outcome in Paris, participants shared specific views regarding the steps that need to be taken on the road to Lima, in Lima, and between Lima and Paris.
Participants agreed to follow up these discussions, as well as take up other issues, at their next meeting, to be convened in July of 2014 in Paris, France.