On activities implemented jointly (AIJ) under the pilot phase, the Secretariat introduced the following documents: the Uniform Reporting Format (URF)(FCCC/SBSTA/1996/15); an update on AIJ (FCCC/SBSTA/1996/17); and methodological issues on AIJ projects (FCCC/SBSTA/1996/19).
The US, JAPAN and AUSTRALIA strongly supported AIJ. MAURITIUS, on behalf of the African Group, BELIZE and CHILE supported AIJ as a supplement to the FCCC. The PHILIPPINES noted misconceptions on AIJ and CHINA, MALAYSIA and INDIA noted the blurring of AIJ and JI. MALAYSIA, BELIZE, the PHILIPPINES, UGANDA, INDIA and CHILE opposed AIJ as a means of or conditionality for technology transfer or other bilateral assistance. INDIA requested a Secretariat report on the status of technology transfer.
The G-77/CHINA, supported by MAURITIUS, IRAN, ZIMBABWE, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOROCCO and the PHILIPPINES, called for AIJ to be consistent with national development plans and priorities, particularly in the development of a common reporting framework. ZIMBABWE emphasized the voluntary nature of AIJ. MOROCCO and ARGENTINA stressed the need for project approval by both partner governments. UGANDA underscored the good will of the business community and public awareness on climate issues.
UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT: Modifications to language in the Secretariats document on URF were requested. VENEZUELA highlighted: calculation of costs and benefits to the host countrys economy; comparison of effects on each partner country; and evaluation of AIJs potential to reduce emissions cost-effectively. CANADA highlighted non-environmental benefits and opposed the inclusion of confidential details in the tables. He suggested the use of narrative text in reports. CHINA, supported by the US, called for language rejecting credits for AIJ emissions reductions during the pilot phase. JAPAN proposed language on project implementation status and the provision of information from the sub-national level. The INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY called for the inclusion of data on technology used in AIJ projects in the URF.
AUSTRALIA, MICRONESIA and ARGENTINA differentiated projects under development from those being implemented. The EU and COSTA RICA favored approved third-party reviews and requested preparation of a workplan for AIJ reporting tasks. The US, COSTA RICA and MICRONESIA called for an electronic template for reporting, clear rules for participation and a schedule for submissions. In the discussions on the update, MALAYSIA warned against conversion of bilateral projects into AIJ projects and ZIMBABWE drew attention to two AIJ projects in his country and a future national workshop.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES: Some developing countries criticized the implicit assumption of benefits from AIJ in the Secretariats document. Supported by MAURITIUS, CHINA, IRAN, MALAYSIA, MOROCCO and ARGENTINA, the G- 77/CHINA called for deletion of references to modalities for crediting. The US felt that the pilot phase should assess all issues of AIJ, including credits. AUSTRALIA proposed criteria for AIJ including crediting, cost-effectiveness of projects and additionality.
The PHILIPPINES, UGANDA, INDIA, SWITZERLAND, MAURITIUS and the EU highlighted AIJ additionality to Annex II countries commitments. The G-77/CHINA stressed inclusion of financial additionality among methodological issues. The EU also underscored environmental additionality and monitoring and verification procedures. MAURITIUS, supported by MOROCCO and ZIMBABWE, welcomed AIJ contributions to capacity building in developing countries, if they adhere to national objectives, and asked the Secretariat to facilitate the initiation of AIJ projects to African countries. SWITZERLAND also called for identifying and meeting host countries needs.
INDIA noted the need to take financial considerations into account in discussing methodologies. CANADA stressed minimization of transaction costs. ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA called for methodologies to address adaptation issues. MICRONESIA called for methodologies to help countries determine emission reduction projections and supported SWITZERLANDs request that the Secretariat develop a directory related to AIJ work.
CONCLUSIONS: During the SBSTAs last session on Wednesday, 18 December, delegates discussed how to recognize agreements reached in a contact group on elements of the URF, while leaving open the possibility for further discussion of other elements and on methodologies. A draft conclusion on continuing this work was proposed. The conclusions, as amended, ask for a revision of the URF reflecting sections that were agreed in the contact group and leaving unchanged sections that could not be addressed. It invites Parties to submit views on the unresolved issues. AUSTRALIA and the US proposed language on convening a contact group during SBSTA-5 to further this work. ZIMBABWE proposed specifying the voluntary nature of AIJ, and CHINA proposed making specific reference to reports from Parties participating in the pilot phase of AIJ. The conclusions, as amended, were adopted.
[Return to start of article]