Delegates to the informal meetings preceding SB-12 met to
discuss: Protocol Article 3.14 (adverse effects); technology
transfer; compliance; guidelines under Protocol Articles 5
(methodological issues), 7 (communication of information) and
8 (review of information); and capacity building. They also
convened for a briefing on the IPCC Special Report on Land
Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry.
INFORMAL MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
ADVERSE EFFECTS: Participants discussed Protocol
Article 3.14 and outlined possible actions to minimize the
adverse effects of climate change and/or impacts of response
measures.
Actions to minimize the impacts of response measures: SAUDI
ARABIA said Annex I Parties should: eliminate tax distortions
and remove subsidies; discourage nuclear energy; support wider
use of CO2 sequestration technologies; help with economic
diversification; and provide compensation where adverse
effects are demonstrated. The US recalled a recent OPEC study
indicating that joint action by OPEC members alone could be
sufficient to counteract any possible impact of response
measures on revenue flows. With AUSTRALIA, he noted efforts by
some oil-producing countries to set aside oil revenues to help
mitigate the impacts of response measures. VENEZUELA cautioned
against attempts to shift commitments under Article 3.14 away
from Annex I Parties. ZIMBABWE said income from Annex I
Parties’ carbon taxes could be used to support technology
transfer, while SOUTH AFRICA added that the revenue could fund
relevant research.
Actions to minimize the impacts of climate change: The US
and UK said implementing the Protocol is the most important
step. AUSTRALIA supported a Protocol with a full, competitive
and transparent emissions trading regime and a CDM regime that
includes sinks. NIGERIA and VENEZUELA said the mechanisms
would be insufficient to ameliorate the impacts of climate
change. SENEGAL called for immediate financial and technical
support to implement adaptation measures. BANGLADESH, BURKINA
FASO and the SUDAN stressed the need for early warning systems
and disaster preparedness. JAMAICA and BURKINA FASO
highlighted the special needs of least developed countries.
Future decisions and processes: On future decisions on FCCC
Article 4.8 and 4.9 and Protocol Article 3.14, SWITZERLAND
said it preferred one decision on both, while SAUDI ARABIA,
CHINA and other developing countries supported separate
consideration and decisions, as Article 3.14 relates only to
responsibilities of Annex I Parties.
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY: Chair
Dovland noted that three regional workshops had been held to
advance understanding of technology needs, generate ideas on
enhancing technology transfer, and consider elements of a
framework for technology development and transfer.
Reporting on the African workshop, Peter Zhou (Botswana)
outlined technology transfer barriers including the lack of
climate change policies, weak legal and regulatory frameworks,
inadequate finance and problems with structural adjustment
programmes. He noted the need to, inter alia: create strategic
partnerships between governments, the private sector, and
donors; provide easier access to financing
environmentally-sound technologies (ESTs) and local
technologies; and enhance skills to support decision making.
Mahendra Kumar (Samoa), reporting on the Asia-Pacific
workshop, said technology needs assessments should be
country-driven and transparent, involving multi-stakeholder
participation. He noted the limited attention paid to
adaptation technologies. Sheik Mohamed Khan (Guyana) said the
Latin America and Caribbean workshop stressed the need to,
inter alia: build indigenous capacities to assimilate and
absorb climate-friendly technologies; improve access to
technology information; involve smaller countries in capacity
building initiatives; and overcome political barriers that
result in low prioritization of technology issues.
In the ensuing discussion, issues raised included the need
for a focus on technology transfer for adaptation and a global
advisory institution to assist countries handling unsuitable
technology. Ogunlade Davidson, IPCC, outlined the IPCC Special
Report on Methodological and Technological Issues in
Technology Transfer. He stressed that technology transfer for
climate change should always be viewed in the FCCC’s
context, and underscored the need for rapid technology
innovation and broad transfer of EST for mitigation and
adaptation. The FCCC Secretariat introduced the climate
technology website (http://www.icfconsulting.com/ unfccc/climate.nsf)
and the project inventory database pilot initiative.
COMPLIANCE: Delegates considered the Co-Chairs’
Elements of a Compliance System for the Kyoto Protocol. On
Objective, AUSTRALIA, with CANADA, sought to limit the
compliance system to Annex I Parties’ commitments. The EU
suggested adding the objective of enforcing compliance.
On Nature and Principles, delegates expressed mixed views
on whether or not to include them explicitly. SAUDI ARABIA and
CHINA, opposed by AUSTRALIA and CANADA, proposed specifying
that the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities applied between Annex I and non-Annex I
Parties. SOUTH AFRICA, opposed by the US, proposed adding the
"precautionary approach."
On Scope of Application, AUSTRALIA suggested specifying the
provisions on Annex I Parties’ obligations to which the
system would apply. CANADA, the US, the EU and SWITZERLAND
supported the concept whereby the system applies to all
commitments. On Functions of a Compliance Institution, SAUDI
ARABIA proposed adding that all compliance and non-compliance
issues pertaining to project activities under Article 12 (CDM)
shall be addressed by the CDM’s Executive Board. Supported
by NEW ZEALAND, the US said the text should specify that the
compliance system is supplementary to all compliance aspects
under the Protocol. AUSTRALIA and the EU suggested an
additional function of determining whether or not a Party is
in compliance with Article 3.1.
On Referral, the US, SOUTH AFRICA and SWITZERLAND, opposed
by SAUDI ARABIA, favored a role for reports by expert review
teams (ERTs). The US, SWITZERLAND, NEW ZEALAND, CHILE and
BRAZIL opposed a role for the COP/ MOP. The UK, opposed by
several delegates, supported a role for the Secretariat.
On Screening, SWITZERLAND stressed the need to identify
criteria and, in order to help delegates get a clear view of
the flow of information under the review and compliance
processes, to prepare a flow chart. SOUTH AFRICA, with the UK,
identified two screening processes: the channeling of a case
to the proper forum and assessing if a case is unfounded or de
minimis. With the US and the UK, but opposed by CHILE and
SAUDI ARABIA, she said the former task could be performed by
the Secretariat. She added that the latter task required a
substantive assessment of a case that, if undertaken by a
separate entity, could duplicate the work of the compliance
institution.
IPCC SPECIAL REPORT: IPCC Chair Robert Watson
presented the major findings of the IPCC Special Report on
Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), which were
then elaborated by the lead authors. On the global carbon
cycle, Bert Bolin said ecosystem models indicate that
additional terrestrial uptake of atmospheric CO2 arising from
indirect anthropogenic effects is likely to be maintained for
several decades in the forest ecosystems, but may gradually
diminish. Robert Watson underscored that defining
afforestation, reforestation and deforestation will be
critical, as this will determine the amount of land falling
under Article 3.3 and treatment of the harvesting-regeneration
cycle. On carbon accounting, he presented land-based and
activity-based approaches, noting that in the former case it
is difficult to factor out human-induced activities, while the
latter poses a risk of double counting. Bernard Schlamadinger
outlined three different accounting approaches applied to the
FAO definitional scenario as well as the IPCC scenario to
illustrate the effect of different approaches under Article
3.3.
On Article 3.4, Robert Scholes noted that the magnitude of
additional activities could be substantial compared to Article
3.1 obligations, and distinguished between changes in
management and in land cover. He highlighted verifiability and
associated non-climate impacts and benefits as key issues for
the COP.
Jayant Sathaye noted that LULUCF project experience is
being gained through AIJ activities. He discussed concerns
with LULUCF projects, notably permanence, baselines,
additionality, carbon leakage, monitoring and verification and
implementation of sustainability conditions. N.H Ravindranath
highlighted provisions for LULUCF in current IPCC guidelines,
and how they might be revised to accommodate requirements of
the Protocol, including additional activities under Article
3.4 and project-based activities. Peter Frumhoff said a system
of criteria and indicators could be useful to compare
sustainable development impacts across LULUCF alternatives. He
said potential for synergies with other multilateral
environmental agreements exist, and that several factors,
inter alia, institutional and technical capacity, community
participation and technology transfer, are critical to
strengthening the sustainable development impacts of LULUCF
activities.
In the ensuing discussion, a number of delegates noted
uncertainties in the research, while several sought
clarification on technical issues. Participants also raised
issues related to: sustainable development and a relevant
framework; avoiding deforestation in tropical regions;
consistent ground and atmospheric definitions; the effect of
climate on photosynthetic potential in tropical regions; the
potential for sinks activities to account for a significant
proportion of Annex I Parties’ Protocol obligations; and
questions relating to a full carbon accounting system.
CAPACITY BUILDING: Chair Ashe said the meeting aimed
at developing a draft framework for capacity building, with
the first session focussing on economies in transition (EITs).
The RUSSIAN FEDERATION asked about timeframes for capacity
building. CANADA urged EITs to integrate capacity building
into national planning processes, and to share their
experiences. Various US agencies outlined their capacity
building activities for EITs. The EU highlighted the need for
institutional capacity on inventories and on Protocol Articles
5 and 7. ROMANIA emphasized the importance of capacity
building for inventories, JI, and institutional and regulatory
frameworks, and suggested reference to "capacity
development." HUNGARY urged greater efforts to harmonize
capacity building actions for EITs. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE and
CANADA emphasized that capacity building should be
sustainable. EGYPT suggested expanding capacity building to
other stakeholders and maximizing the use of regional
institutions. The US underlined the fact that EITs have
commitments to reduce emissions and suggested using the
Protocol mechanisms to support capacity building. Noting the
existing technical and scientific capacity in EITs,
SWITZERLAND underlined the need for political support. NIGERIA
noted the need to build capacity in negotiating skills and
outlined recent initiatives.
GUIDELINES UNDER PROTOCOL ARTICLES 5, 7 & 8:
Subgroup on Articles 5.2 (adjustments) and 8 (review of
information): Co-Chair James Penman (UK) asked the Secretariat
to prepare new Draft Guidelines under Protocol Article 8,
based on the structure of an EU proposal containing: General
Approach, National Inventory Submissions, Information on
Assigned Amounts, National Systems, National Registries, and
National Communications and Other Commitments. The group then
continued its consideration of Part II of the guidelines. On
Classification of Inventory Problems, the EU presented its
non-paper providing for, inter alia, categories of problems
triggering an expedited procedure. The EU explained that under
this procedure: the ERTs would notify both the Party under
review and the compliance committee about a problem; the
problems triggering an expedited procedure would be assessable
during the initial check of inventories; and temporary
measures would apply until the problem was solved.
Subgroup on Article 5.1 (national systems): This
subgroup received a partial redraft of the second Draft
Guidelines for National Systems under Protocol Article 5.1.
Several delegates expressed their views on reporting with
regard to national systems, and on links to Article 7.
Delegates also approved minor technical changes to
sub-paragraphs on Inventory Preparation.
