From Lima to Paris: The Road Ahead to COP21/CMP11

This post was written by Vermont Law School COP20/CMP10 Observer Delegation members Archer Christian, Catherine Craig, Rebecca Davidson, Carla Santos, Cynthia Sirois, and Professor Tracy Bach.


From left to right: Cynthia Sirois, Tracy Bach, Catherine Craig, Archer Christian, Rebecca Davidson, and Carla Santos.

As the action in Lima comes to a close, the question becomes: What has COP20/CMP10 set into play for the negotiations in Paris next year? This COP was styled as an action-oriented one that would build on the “nuts and bolts” program of COP19 in Warsaw. In Lima, the Warsaw mandate tasked parties with further defining the elements of the new international agreement that would be codified in the Paris Agreement at COP21 and then take effect in 2020, as the Kyoto Protocol sunsetted. In doing so, Lima would mark the significant transition from the 1997 Protocol’s “binary approach” of internationally imposed greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation commitments on developed countries only, to an all-in, “bottom up” approach of nationally determined contributions that, when tallied, would achieve the internationally agreed climate stabilization goal set out in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992.

The Vermont Law School COP20/CMP10 Observer Delegation chronicled four critical parts of the Lima discussions, namely the next steps under the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM); preserving forest “sinks” by building on the Warsaw Framework for REDD+; refinements to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), one of the Kyoto Protocol’s “flexible mechanisms” that allows developed countries to fund GHG reduction projects in developing countries and credit those reductions against their own mitigation caps; and decisions of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), the fulcrum for pivoting from the existing treaty regime for mitigation targets to one that goes beyond mitigation goals and binds all Convention parties. Having blogged about our daily experiences at COP20/CMP10, this summary of these four, key components of the Lima talks reflects on the overall process and outcomes and what it means for la route à Paris and COP21/CMP11.

Beyond adaptation: Loss and Damage experienced now by the poorest countries

The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was established at COP19 last year to recognize and begin to address the particular needs of those countries most vulnerable to loss and damage. Millions of people around the globe will experience the kind of certain and permanent losses that surpass their ability to adapt to climate change. Earlier this year, Kiribati bought land in Fiji for its anticipated climate refugees, the first nation to do so. At COP19, the UNFCCC Parties gave themselves a deadline for finalizing the Mechanism’s Executive Committee and two-year workplan in Lima.

At COP20/CMP10, the December 5th SBSTA/SBI combined recommendation to the COP contained approval of the two-year workplan submitted by the interim Executive Committee before the COP and three different proposals for the makeup of the permanent Executive Committee. In the end, the Parties agreed to an Executive Committee composition of 10 non-Annex I Party members and 10 Annex I Party members. Eight of the non-Annex I Party members are stipulated in the decision: two each from the African, Asia-Pacific, and the Latin American and Caribbean States, and one each from Small Island Developing Sates and Least Developed Country Parties. The two remaining non-Annex 1 slots are not designated.

Interestingly, the final Executive Committee composition looks like a new equation for a UNFCCC mechanism. The related Adaptation Committee is made up of 16 members, with representatives of the 5 UN regional groups (2 each), SIDS (1), LDCs (1), Non-Annex I (2) and Annex I Parties (2).) Some observers wished for greater explicit LDC and AOSIS representation on the permanent WIM Executive Committee, despite the fact that the two undesignated non-Annex I seats could potentially go to these groups. At least the WIM work can now begin.

The larger question asked repeatedly in the final 36 hours of COP20/CMP10 was how deeply anchored the concept of loss and damage generally, or the WIM specifically, would be in the ADP decision that lays the groundwork for COP21’s Paris agreement. The absence of both in the draft ADP decision text published early Saturday morning (Dec. 13) caused most developing countries’ refusal to agree to that document. Despite the fact that loss and damage can be found in the “Elements for a draft negotiating text” referenced in the draft decision’s Annex, the multiple options for how it might be addressed range from deeply anchored to not included at all. In the end, the final text accepted by consensus in the wee hours of Sunday morning referred to progress on the WIM in the preamble only. With this section’s language having no legal force, Parties’ comments made after acceptance and included in the meeting’s official record made it clear that a Paris agreement is expected to and would have to go further.

The nitty gritty of using REDD+ to “sink” carbon in the world’s forests

The Warsaw Framework for REDD+ adopted at COP19/CMP9 included seven decisions that build on the Cancun Agreement on REDD+ established at COP16/CMP6. The REDD+ Framework includes decisions on national forest monitoring systems; safeguards; forest reference emission levels; measuring, reporting and verification (MRV); results-based financing; drivers of deforestation and forest degradation; and an information hub on the UNFCCC web platform for publishing results information. Importantly for COP20/CMP10, the safeguards decision required developing country parties to start providing summary information in their national communication, including via the web platform of the UNFCCC, after implementation of REDD+ activities begins.

At COP20/CMP10, with the $10 billion Green Climate Fund 2014 goal met, REDD+ projects are already lining up around the block for funding. The question remains whether safeguards and methodological guidelines will be put in place in order to protect the rights of forest communities who will be impacted by these projects. At COP 20, SBSTA made no progress on the Warsaw REDD+ framework on safeguards.   During SBSTA negotiations, the Philippines, Sudan, the EU, Bolivia and the US advocated for developing further guidance on safeguards, but Panama, on behalf of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, said that now is the time to implement REDD+, not to develop further guidelines.

Yet many side events at COP20/CMP10 highlighted the necessity of developing safeguards. During a side event, Looking Forward: REDD+ Post 2015,  Ms. Victoria Tauli Corpuz, the UN Special Rapporteur for Indigenous People, spoke of a dire need to create governance structures that would protect indigenous people during implementation of REDD+ projects. Notably, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) reported that REDD+ can lead to reduced access to natural resources and land tenure insecurity for locals.  CIFOR presented evidence that in order for REDD+ to offer non-carbon benefits, and indeed for it to accomplish its goal of curbing both deforestation and emissions, public participation should be integrated into the REDD+ framework under SBSTA, pursuant to principles of free, prior and informed consent.

Looking ahead to COP 21 in Paris, it is clear that REDD+ will continue to be a debated issue between indigenous people and project developers. Perhaps, because REDD+ is a market-based solution to climate change, it will always fall short of what is socially just. Regardless, REDD+ is moving forward on a global scale, and human rights advocates will continue to call for close monitoring of its interactions with local communities.

Cleaning up the CDM with an eye toward life post Kyoto Protocol

ADP Parties came to Lima with an important agenda: ensure that the clean development mechanism (CDM, for short) modalities and procedures were improved. However, little progress was made in the SBI and SBSTA meetings held during the first week – in fact, most of the mandates and analysis were further postponed to both subsidiary bodies’ forty-second and subsequent sessions (FCCC/SBI/2014/L.35, FCCC/SBI/2014/L.31, and FCCC/SBSTA/2014/L.24). The second week started with the CMP negotiations for a CDM draft decision. Besides providing further rules to key CDM issues, the CMP decision also aimed to guide the CDM Executive Board for the coming year. The CMP negotiations lasted three days, with many hours of long debates and tireless disagreements. Countries were clearly divided in two groups, even though some members often shifted from one side to another. Brazil and the European Union, one of the biggest CDM host countries and the biggest CDM regional market, respectively, expressed opposite opinions about several of the key issues, including voluntary cancellation of emission reductions units (CERs) and double-counting concerns.

Yet the negotiations concluded on Wednesday night. After the Parties finished the third read of the draft text, the CMP convened again at 9 pm. At that point 20 paragraphs were already agreed, several were agreed to be deleted, but other 23 paragraphs, with several alternatives, were still under consideration. After a long debate about what procedure should be adopted to help the negotiations move on, several Parties remind the Chair that a fourth read of the proposed text was not feasible or desirable. The Parties decided to delete all the paragraphs that were not agreed upon, leading to a final CMP decision regarding CDM. The final decision compiled a number of mandates for the CDM Executive Board to comply within the next year. In particular, the Parties requested further analysis on issues such as the revision of CDM’s baseline and monitoring methodologies, and their streamlining, registration of project activities that qualify as automatically additional, and alternatives methodologies to ensure environmental integrity. Besides the CDM Executive Board mandates, the Parties were able to agree on two issues: the adoption of a voluntary procedure for deregistration, and the flexibility regarding the verification timing for afforestation and reforestation projects.

While the CDM negotiations were intense, the uncertainty regarding CDM’s future was a clear ghost in the room. The CDM negotiations happened under the CMP, but the Doha Amendment – which established the emission reduction commitments for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – continues to not be in force. And without an emission reduction market, CDM has no future.

But CDM can once again gain force if Parties agree to an ambitious post-2020 agreement. Looking ahead, Brazil has proposed an “Advanced CDM” or simply CDM+ to the ADP. The new mechanism is explained in three simple paragraphs, and contains one main element: the possibility of voluntarily cancelled CDM CERs to be used to account for countries ’ nationally determined contributions (NDC) financial targets and pledges. Despite the lack of information regarding the proposed CDM+, several countries are already criticizing it. The European Union, for instance, used the expression “double-counting” of CERs continuously during this week’s negotiations, showing great dissatisfaction with the Brazilian proposal. While the double-counting language was not included in the final CMP decision regarding CDM, the issue will continue to surface in future negotiations if a CDM+ is considered in the new agreement.

ADP: Shifting to global peer pressure to mitigate GHG emissions through INDCs 

As was the case in Warsaw last year, final ADP decision-making was pushed to the last minute, of the last hour, of the last day of the COP20 in Lima. The ADP was originally scheduled to close on Thursday afternoon. Not for the first time at this COP, negotiators worked into the wee hours of the night on Friday hoping to come together on issues addressing how Parties will communicate their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), as was directed under paragraph 5 of Decision 1/CP.17 and how parties should contribute to closing the pre-2020 ambition gap. With a newly drafted decision in hand on Saturday morning (officially after the close of the COP), Parties still held clear differences on specific language and its implications.

The COP20 President, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, had taken a very active and open stance during the last few weeks, and many have complimented his efforts to promote clarity and transparency for all Parties. As the close of the meeting neared, and with the draft decision still far from being adopted, his guidance became stronger and more determined. Recalling that Lima had been called a tipping point for the new agreement, he pled with the delegations to “help me . . . don’t leave me alone. We need to help ourselves. We are representing the world, and we are representing what the world is seeking.”

As Parties gave their final interventions, all agreed that the draft decision was not ideal for anyone. However, a dichotomy emerged with some parties endorsing adoption of the decision as it stood subject to more negotiation in Geneva this February, while others drew the red line and declared the draft unacceptable as is. Switzerland on behalf of EIG and Chile on behalf of AILAC were willing to move forward with the current draft, along with the EU, US, Japan, Russian Federation, and New Zealand. Surprising some, Singapore, Belize, and the Marshall Islands also urged Parties to move forward with the current text. Noting that his country is running out of time and its very existence is in danger from sea level rise, the delegate from the Marshall Islands made a very compelling plea: “We cannot leave Lima with empty hands on road to a successful Paris agreement.” Yet parties such as Sudan on behalf of the Africa Group, Malaysia for the LMDCs, India, China and Tuvalu were not willing to compromise the vulnerable people that they represent, and asked the COP President to reconsider the draft. The delegate from Tuvalu, in particular, noted that we should not let this COP be the one where the world’s poorest are denied.

With no consensus on this text, the meeting continued for 10 more hours, shifting to intense, behind-closed-doors negotiations with COP President Pulgar-Vidal and ministers of Singapore and Norway empowered by him to speak with parties on his behalf.  Finally, just before midnight, the COP20/CMP10 final plenary convened, a new final draft decision text was presented, and the gavel was banged. Nonetheless, despite the COP’s consensus position, Tuvalu asked for the floor and spoke intensely and purposefully to register concerns about the need for stronger loss and damage inclusion (besides the WIM progress recognition in the text’s preamble). Many other parties laid out their specific concerns about missing references to the Convention’s principles, notably equity and common but differentiated responsibility and respective capacity (CBDRRC).  Likewise concern was expressed about the changes in external review of the promised INDCs, from well before COP21 convenes in Paris on November 20, 2015 to just a month before.  Behind these specifics lies continued disagreement by developing countries over differentiation and eliminating the so-called binary system of responsibility.

In this way, the route à Paris has been laid out as a bumpy one, littered with the potholes and frost heaves borne of unresolved applications of the major shift away from “top down” international climate change obligations (as embodied in the Kyoto Protocol) to nationally driven commitments.  This mistrust — often referred to as the ghost of Copenhagen —   lingered from the opening to the closing plenary statements. The barebones text adopted in the wee hours, now referred to as the Lima Accord, necessarily deferred detailed discussions to the regular meetings scheduled in 2015 leading up to the COP21 next December in Paris.

Myanmar and ASEAN Speak at COP20/CMP10

IMG_5410Today Hla Maung Thein (at left), Deputy Director of the Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry spoke at the Joint COP/CMP High Level Segment. During this portion of the COP, high level government officers, presidents and dignitaries take the podium to make a statement on the state of their nation as it relates to climate change. Although an environmental minister in Myanmar, Thein spoke today on behalf of ASEAN, the southeast Asia regional organization that Myanmar chairs this year. At a recent regional meeting in Nay Pyi Taw during November, member countries endorsed a Joint Statement on Climate Change.

Minister Thein asked the UNFCCC to recognize the grave position of ASEAN states, which are prone to increasing natural disasters. Thein relayed Myanmar’s uniquely vulnerable position in climate change (in fact, the UN has ranked Myanmar as the most at-risk country for natural disasters in the Asia Pacific.) In particular Myanmar is plagued by floods and cyclones, which worsen annually due to climate change.

Regarding solutions, Minister Thein spoke to the importance of universal participation in the confrontation of climate change, and of common but differentiated responsibilities, emphasizing the importance of INDCs.  Renewable energy and clean energy development were also mentioned as ways to address the problem. On behalf of ASEAN, he welcomed the Warsaw Framework on REDD+, and reiterated the need for sustainable financing mechanisms and technology transfers. Specifically, TheinIMG_5385 encouraged developed countries to accelerate their contributions to the Green Climate Fund in a way that is effective, predictable and easy to access.

In a speech the evening before, Hrin Nei Thiam (at right), the Director General of the Department of Meteorology and Hydrology, and  head of the Myanmar Delegation, addressed the High Level Segment on the impact of climate change in Myanmar. Regarding green development, Hrin Nei Thiam touted the potential of the Green Climate Fund and other financing sources to support the implementation of REDD+. Further, Thiam addressed the importance of mechanisms such as loss and damage to address the current, significant impact of climate change on Myanmar.

The Vermont Law School Observer Delegation is pleased to work with the Myanmar State Party Delegation this year at COP20/CMP10.

What does the future hold for Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism?

UntitledOn my first day at COP 20 / CMP 10, I had the opportunity to watch CDM’s draft decision discussions – thanks to the European Union, which defended observers’ opportunity to watch the session. It was five hours of long discussions and little progress. Despite the particularities of many of the debated paragraphs, there was only one ghost in the room: the uncertain future of CDM in the post-2020 agreement.

CDM was a mechanism created in a time when international environmental agreements were drafted for two, distinct worlds: developed and developing countries. But since 1997, much has changed.  With China’s GHG emissions surpassing the United States’ emissions by far, the post-2020 agreement will no longer be able to give amnesty to developing countries that are also large emitters.

But how will CDM adapt to a world divided into developed, developing, and least developed countries?

During this second week of COP20/CMP10, Parties continue to discuss improvements to CDM’s accounting system, modalities and procedures.  But it is noticeable how little effort is truly invested in moving the discussions forward.  The lack of certainty regarding CDM’s future, especially for developing countries that host a great number of CDM projects, casts a long shadow on these negotiations, producing a lack of commitment to really improving CDM’s rules.

UNFCCC Elections Website for COP & CMP Bodies

The COP20 in Lima, Peru, has many moving parts – another one to watch is the nominations that are now open and listed on the UNFCCC website.  This site provides multiple documents which are up-to-date this week.  Listed are the positions up for nomination, any nominations which have already been made and the country or bloc with which the nominee is associated.  These bodies perform essential roles within the COP and CMP and all nominations must be submitted by Friday, Dec. 5th.  Chairs and coordinators continue to consult amongst their groups and constituencies about nominations.

Bodies for nomination include:  logo_images

  • The Bureau of the COP 20 and the CMP 10;
  • The Bureau of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA);
  • The Bureau of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI);
  • The Bureau of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP);
  • The Adaptation Committee (AC);
  • The Adaptation Fund Board (AFB);
  • The Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN);
  • The Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention (CGE);
  • The Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM EB);
  • The Compliance Committee;
  • The Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC);
  • The Standing Committee on Finance (SCF);
  • The Technology Executive Committee (TEC).



A social COP

IMG_5244Tonight, after a third, long day attending negotiation sessions and side events at the venue, notetaking and briefing the Myanmar delegation, and blogging about it all, we cleaned up the apartment, put out plates of cheese and salty snacks, and welcomed university delegaIMG_5247tions to our home away from home.  This “tradition” started last year when Beth Martin of the Washington University School of Law and I met and decided to introduce our students.  One thing led to another and before we knew it, 30-some students were piled into our 2-bedroom apartment!

This yeIMG_5246ar’s gathering included a wide range of students and professors, educational institutions, and observer delegation activities.  Our JD and masters students welcomed undergraduate and graduate students from Wash U, Scripps, Lehigh, University of Manchester, Oslo University, and the University of Michigan,IMG_5245 along with two members of Singapore’s youth delegation.  Students talked about their work at COP20/CMP10, including staffing exhibit booths on great rivers and climate change, making presentations on ocean acidification at a side event, doing doctoral research on political dynamics, and attending a variety of side events.

And the next day, among the some 11,000 attendees at this year’s COP, we kept bumping into one another.

Law for the Community and the World: VLS at COP20

Today’s work by the VLS delegation at COP20/CMP10 walked the talk of the law school’s motto, Lex Pro Urbe et Orbe.

The 10 delegation students are engaged in a service learning project with the Myanmar State Party IMG_5233Delegation, one of around 50 Least Developed Country (LDC) parties who have signed the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.  LDC delegations are typically very small.  For example, while delegations like China, the EU, and the US each numbered over 100 members at COP19, Myanmar’s delegation counted only two.  To effectively engage in the negotiations literally requires being in at least three places at once.  Exhibit A: Today’s ADP contact group split into two concurrent sessions on adaptation and finance, while at the same time sessions took place in the SBI, SBSTA, and joint SBSTA/SBI – not to mention a half dozen side events.

To build capacity, the VLS delegation is supporting Myanmar in three key ways.  First, we are tracking negotiation sessions on topics of interest (ADP, LDM, CDM, REDD+), taking notes when this small UNFCCC state party delegation cannot attend and thereby multiplying its presence at COP20.  We are then briefing Myanmar on these meetings both in writing and orally.  In addition, we prepared two rounds of pre-COP briefing memos.  The first set focused on COP process and procedure, to help Myanmar more effectively navigate the UNFCCC negotiations. The second set presented research and analysis on these four issues of interest, to help this LDC delegation prepare for the COP20/CMP10 negotiation.


Shaula (center) briefs Myanmar delegates on LDM issues.

Today our first-week team’s LDM expert, Shaula Eakins, briefed the delegation on the first two days of negotiations and side events on point.  Likewise Whitney Beckham, the first-week team’s expert on ADP Workstream 2, briefed our Myanmar colleagues on opportunities for funding under the Green Climate Fund (GCF).  In this way, students learn while serving and serve while learning – and extend the reach of VLS beyond our Vermont and U.S. borders.

No Need to Re-Invent the Wheel

At today’s side event forum, hosted by the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), panel members called for governments to stand behind the CDM. Comprised of Executive Board members of the CDM, renowned representatives from the Parties and the private sector, World Bank and Green Climate Fund (GCF) the message was clear, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. “We need to work with what we have,” said Phillip Hauser of the GCF.

Despite current funding issues, panelists made the case that governments already have a powerful tool in the CDM that they can use now. Following the central message from the 81st meeting of the CDM Executive Board, panelists urged governments to release the full potential of CDM for strong climate action. “We urge countries in Lima [ ]and in Paris next year to renew their commitment to the CDM,” said CDM Executive Board Chair Hugh Sealy. “This is one of the most effective instruments governments have created under the United Nations Climate Change Convention. It drives and encourages emission reductions, climate finance, technology transfer, capacity building, sustainable development, and adaptation—everything that countries themselves are asking for from the new Paris agreement,” he said. Countries need to set a strong market signal to ensure the stability of the CDM. “They can do this by increasing their demand for Certified Emission Credits (CERs) before 2020, by recognizing the value that the CDM can add to emerging emission trading systems, and by recognizing the mechanism’s obvious value in the international response to climate change after the new agreement takes force in 2020,” he said.

Acknowledging that the CDM is far from perfect, Sealy said that the “learning by doing” mantra has provided valuable insight into building on the success of the market mechanism. As the largest, most widely recognized baseline and crediting mechanism in the world, the CDM has the potential to reduce 2.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by the end of 2020. Over the past nine years, the CDM has reduced over 1.5 gigatonnes of emissions and saved $3.6 billion in Kyoto Protocol compliance costs. In addition, the CDM has encouraged $138 billion in climate finance, leveraging privately 10 times the amount of public investment. Compatibility---Wind-And-Agricultural-Farming450px copy

However, despite the success of the CDM, the demand for CDM is plummeting. This year saw a continuing decline in the size of the CDM program, which had about a tenth of the number of registered projects in the preceding reporting periods, said Dirk Forrister, President of International Trading Association.  As Sealy explained, the demand from traditional markets (especially the European Union Emission Trading System) has contracted severely, with the spot price of a secondary CDM CER crashing from over 30 USD in 2008 to around USD 0.30 in 2014. Investment in new CDM projects is almost non-existent and significant hemorrhaging in the private sector is occurring. The price drop in CERs has lead to a decreased incentive to continue projects and develop capacity. Ultimately, “all this jeopardized the long-term partnerships of the UNFCCC Parties and the private sector, in the midst of a growing need for global climate action.

Increased demand is the key to addressing the CDM’s current challenge, said Sealy. The CDM is too valuable to discard, especially now that we have figured out most of the kinks, said Forrister.

Welcome to Day 1 of COP20/CMP10

The VLS COP20/CMP10 observer delegation is on the ground in Lima, Peru.

We arrived in time to spend Sunday settling into our Miraflores apartment and neighborhood; travel to the COP venue across town on the COP20 transit system; get our credentials and take a team photo; and meet with our service learning partner, the Myanmar State Party Delegation.

VLS Week 1 Delegation (L to R): BJ Schulte, Taylor Curtis, Shaula Eakins, Macarena Vassallo, Whitney Beckham, Tracy Bach

VLS Week 1 Delegation (L to R): BJ Schulte, Taylor Curtis, Shaula Eakins, Macarena Vassallo, Whitney Beckham, Tracy Bach

Today, Day 1 of the COP/CMP, the delegation hit the ground running.  We all attended the COP20 opening plenary session, which began with speeches by the outgoing COP19 President, Marcin Korolec of Poland; incoming COP20 President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal of Peru; Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Lima Mayor Ms. Susana Villarán de la Puente; and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres.  Each speaker sounded themes inherent to their work.  Pachauri underscored the AR5’s alarming finding that even at 2 degrees Celsius, we will still have a “serious problem” with sea level rise. Villarán de la Puente encouraged changes in energy usage and exhorted cities to “fly the flag of a sustainable future.”  COP20 President Pulgar-Vidal hit the desired high notes of his presidency: having a transparent negotiation process, building trust among the parties, and ensuring a high level of dialogue between state parties and civil society organizations.  He concluded with “it’s time to act, time to get to work.”IMG_5212

So too with the VLS delegation’s work!  We’ll blog about each day’s key take aways on the ADP (Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform) Workstream 1 and 2 negotiations en route to Paris, the loss and damage mechanism (LDM), REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Delegation members tracked their issues today at the SBI (Subsidiary Body on Implementation) and SBSTA (Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice) opening plenaries, as well as attended a variety of side events.  We’ll post more on point later tonight.