 To invite Peter Stjansson, who is the chair of the Nord Work Group for Global Time Negotiations, to give your reflection on the report that you have hopefully just received. Thank you, and thank you for inviting me. I'm pleased to be here and power with the right fruits of my predecessors. I've been chair of the Nord for two months, and this is one of the most interesting things that we're doing. I'm also a strong interest in coincidences. And I went back to my archives when I was preparing for this speech because there was something there. I mean, I don't know whether you are aware, but this month is the 20th anniversary of the assessment or the in-depth review process of the Secretary of the UNFCC process. And I found the first report, which is actually this one, which is a report from an in-depth review visit that took place, can you guess where? Here, between 20 years ago in March. And that was actually the very first. It was a model, it was a few months ahead of everybody else, because the Secretary wanted to do a test case and the Swedes volunteered, and they went through it, and then they learned from it, and they built the whole exercise based on this particular thing. I'll come back to that later on. But first, a few more words about NORC. I mean, this is, as Harro said, I mean, this is linked to ambition. And NORC has a quite wide range of work under it. I mean, you mentioned that you have been involved in at least one other project, which is more understanding a group of negotiating countries, basic. That's one sort of outreach that we do. I mean, we're trying to understand, for example, in Africa, we have a project now where others are involved, we have others being involved in this room, in projects on equity, in the upcoming, or in a whole regime. And we're trying to highlight issues and study issues where the Nordic countries have a specific competence or a specific interest. Ambition is one of them, that's probably not unique to the Nordic countries, but it's one of them. Equity is another. We have a parallel project coming out these days on the county, quite important. We have a lot of resources on the land use sector and of course, because we have most of us, not the Danes, but most of us have many trees, at least per capita. I think we have a few thousand each in Norway, when you define it in a specific way. And this is an area of competence where we think the Nordics have something to contribute. Where we have studies, seminars, workshops, etc., to feed into the broader process. We also have taken quite a strong interest in flexible mechanisms, which are widely used by some countries under the Kyoto Protocol, and where many of the Nordic countries have been quite active over some time and also pursued that in the Kyoto regime. And we're also quite strong on financial issues under this cooperation in the Nordic situation. So we are among the bigger donors in the world, and we take an interest in how that money is brought up and how it should be spent and better ways of spending it. We are, in addition to this, I mean, as a group, we are actively working, well, our heads of delegations are working towards other groups to try to understand them during negotiations. We discuss specific issues with those who want to discuss with us, and we've been quite active over the last specifically two, three years. The Nordic cooperation sometimes goes like this, but now we're quite active, I would say, and that has to do with other types of developments like the EU and other things. Now the Nordics have really found each other again, and it's quite some enthusiasm in the negotiations to work as a group and work towards the other groups to try to find solutions. Yeah. So this work fits well within our work program, and I'm happy that we now have landed that report. As I said, I've taken interest in coincidences, so I was asked to come here. I wondered, well, okay, it's because I'm Nordic. Well, if you look at this Swedish report, it has five names on the prompt page, including my own. Because I worked for the Climate Change Secretary 20 years ago, and what I did work on is exactly setting up the review process under recognition. And I was coordinating this particular review of Swedens, which was the model for the whole thing. So I'm very thankful that you pay so much attention to what is done under that process in your report, and that you recognize that it will have a role, or should have a role in the future. One of two words on how we thought around that process at the time, because I think that's quite valid still. I mean, we decided that we would go out and we would visit because we thought that understanding the different situations in the different countries is quite important. And in the negotiations all countries are claiming that we are so special that we have to be especially treated. And that's probably very much true, because there are no other Swedens in the world, or Norway, or Iceland, or Zimbabwe, for that matter. And I think it's quite important that there is better understanding of what sort of differences would have to be accommodated in a common framework, like an agreement is. I mean, what is the difference on energy structure? What is the difference in economic development on agriculture, in forestry, all of these issues? And in fact, many of these came through in this first report. Even if, as you said, we are aware to discuss more procedural issues, we were able to dive into some of the substantive discussions that Sweden had at the time. And I think that is still something which is possible. I mean, I participated in the review of the United States last year, and it was still true there that we could discuss with them and understand what sort of development parts they were seeing and what were the assumptions behind it. And we were also allowed to write a report, of course, and draw out the substance of that, even though we had to concentrate and all our recommendations would have to be around, whether in time, yes, the U.S. where, the Swedes where, Norway was not, but my own country. Did we follow all the guidelines fully or just partly? I mean, these types of things, they are easy to address and they don't cost much for a team to say, well, this is factual and you either delivered on before 1st January or you didn't, but you can also write the story again in Sweden, 20 years ago, nuclear was an issue. It may still be an issue. Face out was a big issue at the time. So you had an energy commission coming up. It was fully possible to discuss that and reflect it in this report. At that time, forestry was an issue. Forestry is still an issue. It was possible to discuss these things in the report, among these experts and put it here. So it is possible to convey messages of substance even if you have a procedural impact to what you're doing. Also, when we composed the teams for this process, we were quite conscious that this is more of a fact-finding trust-building, confidence-building exercise than anything else. So we needed a balance. We started off with choosing someone from the US, Bill Hohenstein, who is a forestry expert and is still active in the field doing forestry. We chose a Brazilian because they have always been very active in these processes and taking a strong interest. So we chose someone I just shared an office with. Some of you may know him. Medias is still very active. He may be the real father of the CDM. He's still in the CDM Executive Board. He's been chaired. He designed with some others the second period of the Kyoto Protocol. He was also quite instrumental in setting up or in the negotiations on the first Kyoto Protocol and up to Marrakesh. So I mean, he stayed on. The third expert we had was Katya Simeoneva, in fact in charge of the whole assessment and the review process in the Secretary. She came in completely by coincidence for this team because somebody else fell out and they just had to find someone in Eastern Europe and they found her and it was paying off somehow. The last one on the team, she will write the notes for the President in Paris. So Katya Simeoneva, as she always did in the last 15 years. So what he writes, he will have written. So what he reads in the end, she might have written. There are some coincidences. There are some lines here that are surprising sometimes. Okay, on the review process and on the INDCs themselves. It's quite serious stuff to produce an INDC and even more serious to transform it into an NDC, the final result which will be in an instrument under the new agreement. And we went through probably the second to last step of that in Norway at three o'clock this morning. I wasn't there, I was here, fortunately. Before that we had a one year process of preparation. In the EU I think it's been more. In the EU we succeeded in sending it a few weeks ago now. Switzerland even before. But these are tough processes. It involves all ministries. It often involves consultation with stakeholders, industry, NGOs, others. It often, not always, involves parliaments. Our hurdle last night was in parliament. It needs to be signed off by the government. That's the last thing that will probably happen tomorrow if it didn't happen today. I had contact with them. And this is not something that you easily change through a review process and assessment process like what we've seen Harald describing. It takes time and it takes understanding and it is the change. You mentioned fairness. All of us are challenged to describe how this is fair. And those who have been working on it, we are trying our best. And I think we will have to see what all the other countries are coming up with and try to understand what they're coming up with before we see any sort of adjustments. But there are possibilities for adjustment. There's at least 40%. And in the communication from the commission at least, there is indication that maybe the 40 is not carved in stone forever. And anyway, we're working towards an agreement which will have a revision process. You mentioned cycles of maybe five years or so. So these things will move, but they will move on the basis of knowledge. Yeah. When it comes to how much better can this be, I mean, I recognize a number of the issues that you've talked about. Pay attention to the reporting and resource intensiveness. We are spending a lot of resources on reporting or communicating. Actually, we're not calling it reporting or the convention because that was too hard to work in the early 90s, so we're calling it national communications. That says something about the importance of this and the sensitivities around it. We are, I mean, we finished our national communication early last year. We had a review last year, took a lot of resources. We had our sixth in-depth review report of Norway, which also, I mean, pulled up from our side, takes resources, writing it from the team takes much more resources. This is just one part of the review process. I mean, you have inventories every year, and the inventories are submitted with some extra information too, so that's already there. They're all scrutinized by technical review teams, experts every year. There are compilation and synthesis information of these reports. Those are reports, not communications. So that the parties get figures on how it is developing. We have the in-depth reviews. You focused on mitigation. Actually, the in-depth reviews always address all the issues of the communications and even research and development and observation of meteorological data and things like that. But also, all means implementation, like money. So when I was in the U.S. last year and doing the review, one of my colleagues on the team, she's called, her name is Emma Cruz. She used to be state secretary in Brazil, but she was back as bureaucrat. And back on the team, and she scrutinized the U.S. figures on means of implementation, on ODA and on climate related finance. Not only the figures, but the way they did things and had meetings with all the relevant authorities. So these things are already going on, and they can be built upon. And I can assure you that there are many people who really take a strong interest in reviewing also those figures and not only mitigation actions and the mission's failures. Let's see how much... Yeah, just one word or few words on the actual indices that we've seen so far. I think, I mean, when we went to Lima, we had a naive hope that there would be an exact review. We were working on it even in Lima, but it came clear that it wasn't possible. And for some practical and some reasons of principle, some countries went too keen on it. But a practical issue is that the submission time will be all the way up to Paris. I mean, like you illustrated, so there won't be much time to have scrutiny and certainly not equal scrutiny to each of the countries. So I mean, those who deliver early, like you, will attribute themselves to a lot of analysis. Those who are late, there will not be enough time. So fairness of this process will be an issue. So maybe we were a little bit too naive, but still, I mean, the challenge is there and it's quite important to understand what countries bring in to Paris to get a good balance of the agreement and also get a good understanding of how the INDCs turn into NDCs and whether they change or not during that period. And there are limits to what the UN process will do to this. I mean, the Secretary, it has been asked to come up with a synthesis report. They have done this for 20 years, so they know how to do this, but it will have limited analysis on substantive items. So I think efforts by analytical organizations to address these things will be quite welcome. And I'm pretty sure that there are many quite eager institutions out there that want to do things with finance, maybe sometimes even without finance, and also you'll see the NGOs will do this and this will feed into our process and enhance the understanding. So on the actual INDCs submitted, only the first two or three raise quite important issues like, for example, Switzerland says we can do this much without using international flexible mechanisms, 30 or 35% cut, but we can do 50 if we are allowed to use international mechanisms. So that's one issue. EU says no net use of international mechanisms. I can't recall the phrasing correctly, but it's about that. We have signal that we want to have joint fulfillment from the Norway side, so that's the same type of statement as the EU will have. So that's one issue. I mean, what do people assume on mechanisms on a net basis? Will anyone be seeing themselves as sellers, for example? Another issue is the UCF, and we have in the two submissions so far two different approaches. EU saying, well, we'll think about this. We don't really know yet. Maybe I'm not a fan of... But they need more time to think through the UCF and agree on how to put it into their contribution. Switzerland says, give the rules. US, we know that... We think we know that they will be quite close to what they announced when they announced they bring with China. And that's the third approach. That's the so-called net approach. So they subtract the figure from the UCF sector in their base year, which is probably because that's an entire... It's a third issue. Base year's both different. And they subtract in the target year. So that would have changed our figures, for example, dramatically, because we have so many trees per capita, and the dynamics of the trees are such that half of our emissions could be seen as absorbed by the forest. So there are many issues coming up only from these, and then we will probably have other agencies specifying more. Like you mentioned, China may be coming out with a percentage of renewables as part of this. What does it mean? What does peaking mean? I mean, there is a lot of need for assessments on this and trying to spread the understanding what does it actually mean and how is it fair and how should it be perceived. Okay, I think I spoke long enough. So thank you very much.