Delegates to the informal meetings preceding SB-12
continued discussions on: mechanisms; land use, land-use
change and forestry; compliance; FCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9 and
Protocol Article 3.14 (adverse effects); and guidelines under
Protocol Articles 5 (methodological issues), 7 (communication
of information) and 8 (review of information).
INFORMAL MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS
MECHANISMS: Joint Implementation: BOLIVIA and SOUTH
AFRICA urged greater equilibrium between the rules relating to
CDM and JI. CANADA and JAPAN emphasized that JI is subject to
the rigor of guidelines under Protocol Articles 5, 7 and 8.
CHINA suggested that JI be subject to CDM requirements, and
sought clarity on who should pay for this. The EU and
SWITZERLAND said their submissions on baselines for CDM
applied to JI. SOUTH AFRICA said its submission on monitoring,
reporting and verification for CDM also applied to JI.
Clean Development Mechanism: BOLIVIA, COLOMBIA, the US,
IRAN, HONDURAS and NORWAY supported the inclusion of sinks
projects in the CDM on the grounds that, inter alia:
nearly one-fifth of global emissions come from deforestation
and almost 90% of emissions from tropical countries are from
LULUCF activities. IRAN said that in light of the FCCC’s
comprehensive approach, the CDM should cover all six gases,
and all sources and sinks. The EU and SWITZERLAND opposed
sinks projects in the CDM, as it raised questions of
methodological uncertainty, non-permanence and leakage. The
SUDAN and SENEGAL said it was premature to decide on the
inclusion of sinks, as the IPCC report had just been released.
AOSIS, with COLOMBIA, said Protocol Article 6 (JI) and 12
(CDM) should be given equal treatment in the context of share
of proceeds for adaptation, as this would ensure real
additional funds for adaptation, sufficient funds for
administrative costs, and no additional transaction costs for
the CDM. NORWAY and the EU opposed a provision on share of
proceeds in Articles 6 and 17 (Emissions Trading). BOLIVIA
called for an analysis to determine if project-by-project or
regional/sectoral baselines would be appropriate. INDIA
supported project-by-project baselines. SWITZERLAND, the US
and NORWAY underscored the need for stakeholder participation
and transparency in the CDM. SAUDI ARABIA and AOSIS opposed
nuclear projects under CDM.
GUIDELINES UNDER PROTOCOL ARTICLES 5, 7 & 8: Subgroup
on Articles 5.2 (adjustments) and 8 (review of information):
Delegates exchanged views on the Draft Guidelines under
Article 7. On information submitted under Article 7.1
(inventory) delegates, inter alia, stressed that
information through registries would be available more
frequently than annually, and highlighted linkages with work
on mechanisms and LULUCF. On information submitted under
Article 7.2 (national communication), the EU, supported by
SAUDI ARABIA, proposed reporting on "demonstrable
progress." The US, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND and AUSTRALIA said
this issue was not a priority for COP-6 and could be dealt
with through the forthcoming national communications. When
considering the Draft Guidance on Methodologies for
Adjustments, the EU, with SWITZERLAND and SLOVAKIA, said the
trial period on inventory review would provide the IPCC with
the information on problems to be addressed. AUSTRALIA, the
US, and NEW ZEALAND highlighted the urgency of addressing
adjustment methodologies, in particular in relation to the
base-year inventory.
On Classification of Inventory Problems in the Guidelines
under Article 8, delegates continued consideration of the EU
proposal. They agreed on the following steps: identification
of a failure to use agreed methodologies and guidelines or to
produce a timely report; description/categorization of the
problem; and determination of whether or not the problem
triggers, an expedited procedure, or whether it is adjustable
or not. On adjustments, SLOVAKIA, the US, NEW ZEALAND and
CANADA said all inventory problems were adjustable, while the
EU said inventory problems of a specific threshold were not
adjustable.
Subgroup on Article 5.1 (national systems): Participants
discussed the second Draft Guidelines for National Systems
under Article 5.1 of the Kyoto Protocol. On Inventory
Management, CANADA noted the lack of reference to confidential
information, and JAPAN said the extent of, and access to,
confidential information is resolved under Article 8.
Delegates resolved the issue of reporting by making reference
to reporting requirements as they would be defined in the
guidelines under Article 7. The EU, supported by NORWAY,
proposed language on monitoring of emissions of legal entities
and/or projects under Articles 6 and 17. Co-Chair Plume said
it was a reporting issue and noted that relevant work on the
mechanisms was still at an early stage. The US opposed
specific reference to Articles 6 and 17, and noted a paragraph
leaving the door open for future linking through Article 7 and
relevant decisions by the COP or COP/MOP.
LULUCF: Co-Chair Thorgeirsson distributed a summary of
discussions on criteria and guiding principles for the
identification and selection of additional activities, and a
paper on possible elements for a draft decision. He said
delegates should prepare for COP-6 and beyond on the basis of
the information provided by the IPCC Special Report.
AOSIS, supported by several developing countries, expressed
concern that the informal meeting was going beyond the mandate
agreed at SBSTA-11 and, with the EU, objected to the
consideration of draft elements for a decision, noting that
many issues remain to be analyzed and discussed. Co-Chair
Thorgeirsson explained that the proposed elements are to serve
as a vision of issues necessary to make a decision. The US,
CANADA and AUSTRALIA said the meeting’s tasks include
preparing submissions due by 1 August 2000, and in this
context, discussing the elements of a draft decision of COP-6
provides guidance. AUSTRALIA circulated a paper with its
proposals for issues to be considered in the period before
COP-6. On initial steps, he suggested a dialogue with the IPCC
lead authors to enhance the understanding of the Special
Report.
On the IPCC report, BOLIVIA noted the absence of concrete
definitions of terms such as "forests," which were
relevant to other Protocol Articles and, opposed by POLAND,
proposed developing one universal definition.
COMPLIANCE: Delegates continued consideration of the
Co-Chairs’ Elements of a Compliance System for the Kyoto
Protocol. On Expedited Procedure for Cases Related to the
Kyoto Mechanisms, SOUTH AFRICA supported such a procedure and,
with CHINA, proposed the establishment of an eligibility
panel. With AUSTRALIA and JAPAN, the US said the overall
compliance procedure should be considered before the expedited
procedure. The EU, opposed by AUSTRALIA, said there should be
a pre-commitment review of elements pertaining to
participation in the mechanisms, and an annual review during
the commitment period. CHINA cautioned the compliance group
against prejudging the rules that will be developed in the
mechanisms group.
On Rules of Procedure for the Compliance Institution, the
US, with AUSTRALIA, the EU and CANADA, suggested focusing on
the elements needing agreement at COP-6, such as the
decision-making rule. Delegates expressed diverging views on
the need for two sets of rules for the possible two branches
of the compliance institution. On True-up Period, delegates
said the timing needed to be considered in detail. The EU and
the US suggested the end of the review. AUSTRALIA proposed the
end of the commitment period.
On Outcomes or Consequences of Non-Compliance or Potential
Non-Compliance, the EU said the consequences should create a
clear economic impact on that Party and aim at repairing the
overage. He added the concept of "compliance
reserve" and, opposed by AUSTRALIA and CANADA, supported
loss of access to mechanisms. NEW ZEALAND opposed financial
penalties and, with AUSTRALIA, a compliance fund. SOUTH
AFRICA, with the US, suggested creating a distinction between
various consequences based on the branch that would deal with
it. CHINA, with BRAZIL, opposed subtraction of excess tonnes
from a Party’s assigned amount for the subsequent commitment
period. With SAUDI ARABIA, he suggested adding a new title to
the Elements addressing the implications of Article 18
(non-compliance). SAUDI ARABIA said financial penalties were
the best way to proceed, while CANADA queried how these could
be enforced.
ADVERSE EFFECTS: Co-Chair Kjellén circulated a
compilation of countries’ preliminary written submissions on
FCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9 and Protocol Article 3.14, and
invited comments on ways to proceed. Several Parties
highlighted the relatively rapid progress of negotiations on
this issue. SAUDI ARABIA said he expected a negotiating text
for separate draft decisions on FCCC 4.8 and 4.9, and on
Protocol Article 3.14, by Monday 12 June. The EU, CANADA and
others requested additional time to consider the compilation.
The US noted that negotiations on this issue are keeping up
with or ahead of other issues in the lead-up to COP-6.
Co-Chair Kjellén said the aim was to consolidate the
document so as to work toward text for a decision at COP-6. On
its submissions on the adverse effects of climate change,
AUSTRALIA said his paper gives priority to: capacity building;
understanding the climate system; vulnerability; linkages
between science and policy; and response measures relating to,
inter alia, coastal and arid zones, vulnerable
high-risk areas, water resources, and institutional
strengthening. On the impacts of response measures, SOUTH
AFRICA said his country’s aim was to maintain its
coal-driven low cost energy sector and energy exports.
HONDURAS emphasized its vulnerability to landslides.
BURKINA FASO, for the AFRICA GROUP, underscored the
vulnerability of LDCs. On adaptation challenges, CANADA
highlighted: adopting an integrated and iterative approach;
building capacity for adaptation and assessment; and, with the
EU, improving information gathering and dissemination. EGYPT
proposed the establishment of a vulnerability index for
non-Annex I countries. With the US, he underlined the
importance of building developing country capacity on
vulnerability assessment.
IN THE CORRIDORS
Some participants have expressed concern over what they
feel is undue haste in these meetings to produce the basis for
negotiating texts, such as in the LULUCF, mechanisms and
adverse effects groups. While they applaud progress, they fear
that the urgency in the lead-up to COP-6 means negotiations
may be pushed more rapidly than they are prepared for at this
stage. Indeed, some delegates sense that these informal
meetings have reached the limits of their mandate.
