Briefing Note on the Open-Ended Informal High Level Consultations at Scheveningen (The Hague)
The Netherlands, 27 - 28 June, 2001

Written by Lisa Schipper  lisa@iisd.org
Edited by Malena Sell  malena@iisd.org
Organized by Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI, Director, IISD Reporting Services kimo@iisd.org

NB: The following material has been acquired through discussions with participants in the corridors, and should not be considered first-hand information.

---------------------

Open-Ended Informal High Level Consultations chaired by UNFCCC COP-6 President Jan Pronk (the Netherlands) were held at the Steigenberger Kurhaus Hotel in Scheveningen, near The Hague, the Netherlands on Wednesday, 27 and Thursday, 28 June 2001. The aim of the Consultations was to provide an opportunity for Parties to present to the President their views on his new proposed consolidated negotiating text, and in particular for Parties to indicate whether these texts constituted a balanced package with sufficient "wins" for all Parties, as well as to allow Parties to provide recommendations regarding the organisation of work during the resumed COP-6, scheduled for 16-27 July in Bonn. 

The Parties met in two Plenary sessions each day from approximately 9.30 am to 5.30 pm, which were preceded and followed by meetings of and between the negotiating groups. All meetings during the Consultations were closed to NGOs and the press. In contrast to the High Level Informal Consultations held by President Pronk in New York on 20-21 April 2001, the Consultations in Scheveningen were open to all Parties to attend. A press briefing by President Pronk was held on Thursday afternoon at 8.30 pm. 

The Consultations were preceded by two days of preparatory consultations of the G-77/China, and one day of consultations of Annex I Parties. Between 350 and 370 delegates from between 115 and 130 Parties participated, including a number of ministers and deputy ministers. 

THE CONSULTATIONS

In June 2001 President Pronk launched a new consolidated negotiating text that represents a newer version of his "Pronk Paper" circulated in the final days of consultations at The Hague during COP-6 in November 2000. President Pronk said in the press briefing that as a result of extensive discussion with Parties, the goal for the new text was to serve as a "knife" to "cut brackets" from the old texts used as a basis for negotiation during COP-6, which contain approximately 2500 brackets and total 285 pages. The Consultations loosely followed the "crunch issues" and the different "boxes" that Pronk had presented at COP-6, but did not discuss text on guidelines under Kyoto Protocol Articles 5 (methodological issues), 7 (communication of information) and 8 (review of information), activities implemented jointly or impacts of single projects. 

On Wednesday, participants heard general statements addressing Parties' views on the new consolidated negotiating text in the morning, and discussed financial issues, in particular those relating to adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building and Convention Article 4.8 and 4.9 (adverse effects), during the remainder of the day. On Thursday, Parties discussed mechanisms, land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), compliance, and governance. Discussions on procedural matters during COP-6 Part II in Bonn were addressed throughout the Consultations, with diverging views being expressed, and culminated in a COP Bureau meeting late on Thursday to resolve the structure for the July meetings. 

In the corridors, while some participants expressed the opinion that it did not appear that positions had shifted since The Hague, others underscored that the gap between positions had possibly widened, and there were signs of entrenchment by some Parties, in particular on the subjects of LULUCF, sinks in the CDM and the use of nuclear power to meet commitments. Concern was expressed over the lack of consensus and hardened positions on LULUCF, with certain Latin American Parties and members of the Umbrella Group in support of certain parts of Pronk's proposed text on this issue, and others, including the EU and other G-77/China Parties opposed to it. The funding issue also appeared to be a potential barrier that could create problems in Bonn. Further rumblings were caused by Japan's ambiguity regarding their intentions for ratifying the Protocol, although Pronk confirmed that no Parties had stated that they would follow the US and reject the Protocol. 

Participants also expressed hope that President Pronk would take a stronger leadership role, and provide more guidance, rather than encouraging excessive discussion among Parties on difficult subjects. In the press briefing, President Pronk said that much remained to be done on a political level before agreement would be reached, and stressed the wide distance between positions on several issues. 

PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND GENERAL CONCERNS 

Two procedural issues of concern were highlighted during the two days of consultations. On the structure of COP-6 Part II, Parties disagreed and spent several hours discussing how to proceed during the July meetings. On the question of how to use the new text proposed by President Pronk, Parties also had divergent views, although no one officially denounced the efforts of the President as inadequate for moving forward. Two further issues surfaced as important during the upcoming meetings: the US proposal for how they will participate in the July negotiations, having confirmed on several occasions that they have no intention to ratify the Protocol; and the implications of this position on the mixture of the Protocol and Convention in the new text, compounded by the general problem of making agreements under the Convention, particularly the availability of funds, dependent on the entry into force of the Protocol. 

THE STRUCTURE OF COP-6 PART II

One of the aims of the Consultations was to reach an agreement on how to proceed during COP-6 Part II in Bonn. Pronk had proposed two days of subsidiary body sessions, followed by the resumed COP-6 starting with a high level segment of three to four days attended by ministers, leaving the second week for negotiations on the texts. The G-77/China had announced a preference for placing the high level segment either at the end, or at the beginning of the second week, and said that Pronk's suggested formula recalled the failed structure in The Hague. Annex I Parties insisted that it was not possible to change the schedule of ministers at such late notice. The disagreement fuelled discussions into the evening on Thursday and were inconclusive, leaving the COP Bureau to resolve the issue. In the press briefing, Pronk announced that the final decision was to hold continued informal consultations in the first three days, 16-18 July. The conference will then open on Thursday afternoon, 19 July, with the high level segment scheduled to begin that evening. President Pronk expressed his hope that the high level segment, which will run until Sunday evening, will conclude with a declaration, which will then be turned into legal text during the second week of the conference. 

THE USE OF THE NEGOTIATING TEXT 

In the press briefing, President Pronk confirmed that no Parties had said that the new text could not be used as a basis for discussion, and said that it had been referred to during the Consultations as a "good tool". He said there were divergent views on the role of the new text in the upcoming negotiations. In the corridors, participants underscored the lack of ownership of the text on the part of the G-77/China, and suggested that the new text was the result of consultations with mainly Annex I Parties. It was also suggested that the LULUCF text had been designed specifically to placate specific Annex I Parties.  On the whole, responses to the new text were positive rather than negative, including from G-77/China Parties. 

PARTICIPATION OF THE US IN BONN

The US opening statement on Wednesday morning aimed to clarify their participation in further negotiations. While underscoring that they have no intention to ratify the Protocol, and therefore will not participate in negotiations on this document, they emphasised that they would participate in all discussions relating to their commitments under the Convention. They would also participate in discussion on the Protocol if these might lead to outcomes affecting US trade, or if other international legal instruments might be violated. They also expressed concern about "rumblings" of possible taxes being imposed by certain Parties on those Parties not intending to ratify the Protocol. 

THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEW TEXT 

One issue that was continually highlighted by participants in the corridors, was the manner in which the new text proposed by President Pronk mixed elements of the Protocol and the Convention. This concerned the G-77/China, particularly as the proposed funding bodies are in some cases dependent on funds generated by activities that cannot be implemented until the entry into force of the Protocol. This was also an issue for the US, who would under this scenario not be able to meet their obligations under the Convention without taking into account Protocol obligations. 

FINANCIAL ISSUES 

The discussion on financial issues addressed the procedure for allocating resources outlined in the new text. The funds are to be established for the purpose of funding adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building, activities under Article 4.8 and 4.9 and related to LDCs, with a proposed total input of US$ 1 billion from all Annex I Parties. Contributions are calculated based on individual percentages of the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions from Annex I Parties in 1990. Parties reacted to several aspects of this, including that without the ratification of the Protocol by the US, the remaining Parties were averse to meeting the proposed total amount, which would require them to contribute an additional amount of approximately US$ 350 million. Developing countries underscored that the total proposed amount was in any case too low to assist them sufficiently, while several Annex I Parties said the amount was too high. No one supported the proposed climate resources committee. 

Russia announced that they were disinclined to contribute at all, and suggested an alternative basis for calculation based on per capita emissions. Parties from EIT countries indicated that they would only be willing to finance adaptation and capacity building in EIT countries. The US highlighted their disagreement with the proposed governance of these bodies. A number of Parties expressed some support for an adaptation fund, and for providing guidance to the GEF to make resources available for Stage III adaptation activities. However, some Parties also highlighted their lack of support for the adaptation fund. 

A number of Annex I Parties expressed that funding should only be made available through the GEF. G-77/China Parties did not hold the same view. 

MECHANISMS AND COMPLIANCE

Parties in support of sinks in the CDM restated their positions. G-77/China restated their position that Annex I Parties should not be allowed to employ mechanisms unless they had reported, under Protocol Articles 5, 7 and 8, provision of funding and support for activities under UNFCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9. Some Annex I Parties expressed their lack of support for the proposed new text on mechanisms. 

The G-77/China supported compliance being handled by the enforcement branch. Some members of the Umbrella Group emphasised that Parties should not be punished for non-compliance, and said compliance was "punitive rather than environmentally restorative". 

LULUCF 

Many Parties were not in favour of President Pronk's text on LULUCF. Some members of the Umbrella Group, including Switzerland, Japan and Canada did express their support. Japan expressed ambiguity over how content they were with this text, however. The text proposes that a certain country meeting specific outlined criteria would be exempt from applying the proposed new discount rate of 85% for the first commitment period. In the corridors, participants suggested that individual exceptions of this nature might be the only way forward on this difficult issue where views diverge significantly. 

OUTCOME 

President Pronk said in the press conference that no new text will be prepared, and no meetings will be held before the resumed COP-6 beginning on 16 July. He also expressed his conditional hope that negotiations would lead to a conclusion in Bonn. He said he was "a bit" more optimistic about the upcoming COP-6 Part II at the end of the two day Consultations than he had been before these meetings. He underscored that a package approach was the only way forward, and denied rumours that only financial issues would be addressed in Bonn, leaving the other issues to be discussed at COP-7 in Marrakech scheduled for 27 October to 9 November 2001. 

With the most pressing issue, that of the procedure at COP-6 Part II resolved, participants were numerous in expressing their fears for the meetings. While Parties appeared not to be willing to co-operate more than at COP-6 on specific issues, several delegates expressed in the corridors that there was a general sense that Parties were eager to reach an agreement of some sort.