SBI returned to Agenda Item 4, financial and technical cooperation (FCCC/CP/1996/8 & 9 and FCCC/SBI/1996/10). The G-77/CHINA called for harmonization of GEF strategies with those of FCCC, specifically: more flexible processes; clarifying incremental cost; removing conditionalities from GEF replenishment negotiations; and eliminating criteria of cost-effectiveness and avoiding duplication in funding for national communications. He later submitted a revised draft on the item.
Several developed country delegations endorsed the Chairs text on the financial mechanism. SWITZERLAND and CANADA called for expedited funding for national communications. FRANCE suggested that Parties submit complaints about GEF performance for review at future COP sessions. KENYA said many African countries are experiencing excessive delays and linkage of projects to operational conditions not required by FCCC.
MICRONESIA said small island States need the GEF to prioritize enabling activities and to be more responsive. JAPAN opposed the draft MOU approved by the GEF Council. KUWAIT said the COP is the supreme body as affirmed in Article 11.1 of the FCCC and not the GEF Council. CHINA said the GEF should accelerate project approval. The US conceded delays in developing guidelines on enabling activities but opposed the suggestion that cost effectiveness should not be a criteria. He discouraged micromanagement of the GEF. AUSTRALIA supported streamlining efforts. MEXICO supported the MOU and Annex. TUNISIA reported delays in GEF funding approval. The Chair noted a GEF Council undertaking to accelerate decision making. He invited Parties to refer draft decisions to an informal group chaired by John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda).
The Chair then introduced Agenda item 3 (national communications), including the second compilation of first national communications from Annex I Parties (FCCC/CP/ 1996/12 and Add.1) and emission inventories and projections for 2000 (Add.2) and the reporting schedule (FCCC/CP/1996/13). The G-77/CHINA expressed concern that few developed countries would reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION called for expanded analysis of GHG emissions. The EU, supported by AUSTRALIA, said the documents are the principal source to assess progress. The US called for GHG emissions significantly below 1990 levels and policies beyond no-regrets actions.
[Return to start of article]