The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) met in the
morning to consider Annex I and non-Annex I communications,
and the financial mechanism. The Joint Working Group on
Compliance (JWG) continued discussions on the Co-Chairs’
text. Contact groups met in afternoon and evening sessions to
consider: land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF);
adverse effects; the mechanisms; and guidelines under Protocol
Articles 5 (methodological issues), 7 (communication of
information) and 8 (review of information). Informal
consultations were held on capacity building in developing
countries, and on policies and measures. The Friends of the
Chair group on the technology transfer consultative process
also met.
SBI
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS: Delegates adopted the draft
conclusions on national communications of Annex I Parties.
They also adopted conclusions on the report of the first
meeting of the Consultative Group on Experts and on the
provision of financial support for non-Annex I Party national
communications.
FINANCIAL MECHANISM: On the financial mechanism,
delegates adopted draft conclusions, with minor amendments, on
the progress report on the GEF review of enabling activities
and its capacity building activities.
On additional guidance to the GEF on support to the IPCC,
the EU said that, whereas FCCC Parties should send signals to
the GEF that the proposed IPCC project could benefit the
process, it was not appropriate for them to prejudge the GEF
Council’s decision-making. He proposed replacing
"approval" with "consideration" in the
draft conclusions. SBI adopted the draft conclusions, as
amended.
JOINT WORKING GROUP ON COMPLIANCE
The JWG continued its consideration of the Co-Chairs’
Text. On Scope of Application, CHINA, supported by SAUDI
ARABIA and opposed by ARGENTINA and CHILE, suggested listing
the Annex I Parties’ commitments to which the compliance
system would apply, and said issues of compliance with other
commitments would be dealt with under the Multilateral
Consultative Process. On Establishment, Structure and
Functions, the US, with AUSTRALIA, said the text should
emphasize the two-branch structure. CANADA specified that the
outcomes of the facilitative branch would not be limited to
outcomes of a non-mandatory nature. On Structure, SAUDI
ARABIA, with SAMOA, said members should equally represent the
five UN regional groups. NEW ZEALAND sought greater
representation of Annex I Parties. On Functions, many
delegates opposed a screening function. The US urged automatic
application of mandatory outcomes. SAUDI ARABIA suggested that
the compliance body determine mandatory outcomes or
consequences only for Annex I Parties.
On Submission of Questions, several delegates stressed the
importance of Article 8 (review of information) Expert Review
Teams (ERTs) reports. SAUDI ARABIA, opposed by NEW ZEALAND,
supported a role for the COP/MOP. The US proposed that Parties
should be able to raise questions regarding another Party’s
implementation only with respect to the facilitative branch.
The EU proposed that the Secretariat also be able to refer
questions of compliance. On Preliminary Examination of
Questions, SAUDI ARABIA suggested that multiple cases on the
same type of issues should be referred to the subsidiary
bodies.
On Proceedings, several delegates stressed the importance
of integrating elements of the Annexes in the main text. On
Decision-Making, SAUDI ARABIA said decisions would be adopted
by consensus, and in case of failure, by a three-fourths
majority vote. On Avoidance of Conflict of Interest, CHINA
proposed that the member of the compliance body who is a
national of a Party involved in a matter shall not take part
in " the consideration of the matter." CANADA added
that this includes members having a direct or indirect
interest in the matter. On Sources of Information, the
G-77/CHINA, opposed by NEW ZEALAND, distinguished between
mandatory and non-mandatory sources. The US, with NEW ZEALAND,
suggested the possibility that NGOs submit information. He
said the Party concerned should have the opportunity to
respond to the information submitted. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION,
the US and SAMOA said the issue of confidentiality of
information might conflict with the principle of transparency
and needed further thought.
On COP/MOP, SWITZERLAND, with NEW ZEALAND, said it would
"take note" of the compliance body’s reports. On
Outcomes and Consequences, SAUDI ARABIA said the CDM should
not be addressed under the compliance system. With CHINA, he
added that references to "Party" with respect to
eligibility requirements should be prefaced by "Annex
I." BRAZIL, with SAMOA and the EU, suggested framing
"financial penalty" as a separate option. NEW
ZEALAND introduced an option permitting purchase at a penalty
rate, inter alia, from future commitment periods.
AUSTRALIA suggested adding that if an Article 4 (joint
fulfillment) Party becomes ineligible to use the mechanisms,
all other members of the agreement would lose access to the
mechanisms. On Other Provisions, the G-77/CHINA suggested
requesting the Secretariat to prepare possible options for the
adoption of procedures and mechanisms related to compliance.
On Annexes, Parties differed on the need to integrate them
into the main text.
CONTACT GROUPS AND INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS
LULUCF: Delegates discussed changes to the draft
conclusions. Noting the concern of many non-Annex I Parties
with regard to understanding the IPCC Special Report on LULUCF,
Co-Chair Thorgeirsson said an extra day had been reserved for
a briefing at the workshop in Poland in July. The G-77/CHINA
said this did not reflect their request for regional
workshops, and delegates agreed to an additional conclusion
inviting the SBSTA to encourage workshops. AUSTRALIA and the
EU said capacity building should be considered within the
broader context of SBSTA’s work.
Co-Chair Thorgeirsson highlighted the proposal to convene
an intersessional meeting between SB-13 and COP-6 to support
the negotiation process. He urged delegates to focus on
requirements for COP-6, noting that capacity building could be
achieved over a longer time period. AOSIS stressed the
importance of regional workshops and questioned the mandate
for an intersessional meeting.
AUSTRALIA called for a compilation of central textual
proposals to assist work at SBSTA-13. The EU distributed draft
conclusions requesting parties to provide textual proposals to
be presented with 1 August submissions and requesting the
Secretariat to prepare a synthesis according to specific
elements. CANADA, AOSIS and others proposed changes, and
discussions continued late into the night.
ADVERSE EFFECTS: Co-Chair Kjellén outlined a cluster
of issues to be addressed in drafting the text for negotiation
at SBSTA-13. SAUDI ARABIA urged that the consolidated text
form the basis for negotiations, and emphasized the need to
include all proposals. The EU suggested that the consolidated
text simply be a reflection of discussions that may form the
basis for later negotiation.
JAMAICA underlined the need for future workshops aimed at
concrete actions. The PHILIPPINES, with the US, supported
investigating connections between climate change and extreme
weather events, while NIGERIA stressed the need for
preparedness to cope with such events in developing countries.
The UK said identification of actions is only possible with an
understanding of the relationship between climate impacts and
other phenomena. The EU said scientific uncertainty should not
be a reason for inaction.
ARTICLES 5, 7 & 8: Delegates considered the draft
conclusions on Guidelines under Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the
Kyoto Protocol. Delegates agreed on the text, including
language highlighting agreement on the guidelines under
Article 5.1 (national systems) and the preparation of a draft
decision at SBSTA-13 to be adopted at COP-6. Delegates
considered the General Approach to Review of the Co-Chairs
Proposed Elements of Draft Guidelines under Article 8 of the
Kyoto Protocol and provided guidance to the Secretariat in its
elaboration of the text. The EU said the guidelines should
include the elements for review under the FCCC and the
Protocol, but would single out those parts of the guidelines
not applicable to Annex I Parties that are not Parties to the
Protocol. The G-77/CHINA suggested adding the objective of
ensuring that the compliance body has the information
necessary to carry out its functions. The EU said all ERTs
reports would be forwarded to the compliance body.
MECHANISMS: Delegates considered the draft consolidated
text on mechanisms. Deliberations focused on the nature of
discussions necessary at this stage. While AUSTRALIA, POLAND,
CANADA and the US favored bracketing text, the G-77/CHINA and
SAUDI ARABIA stressed that this was not a negotiation and
suggested instead that Parties focus only on
"inclusions" to the text. Delegates considered Part
One of the Consolidated Text on Mechanisms relating to JI and
indicated areas where specific written proposals would be
submitted and text added. Participants differed on the need
for, inter alia, the Executive Board, sinks in JI,
share of proceeds, and the appendix on supplementarity.
POLICIES AND MEASURES: Delegates considered draft
conclusions on policies and measures (P&Ms). The EU tabled
additional paragraphs on conclusions, including a proposed
Terms of Reference (ToR) for a possible workshop on P&Ms.
The G-77/ CHINA presented alternative text on ToR. On the
original draft conclusions, delegates agreed to, inter alia:
replace "best" with "good" practices; and
specify reference to paragraph (b) of Protocol Article 2.1.
The EU, POLAND, SWITZERLAND and the G-77/CHINA, opposed by
AUSTRALIA, CANADA, JAPAN and the US, urged that the ToR be
considered prior to COP-6. Delegates agreed to include, in
brackets, EU text encouraging parties to submit their views at
SBSTA-13 on ToR and on the timing of the process, and the
G-77/CHINA�s proposal to refer to holding a workshop in
"early" 2001.
CAPACITY BUILDING: This group considered the Chair�s
text on capacity building in developing countries. On the
principles outlined in the text, issues highlighted include
the need for country-driven capacity building, partnership
with developed countries, and financial resources.
On Strategy, delegates highlighted subregional or regional
approaches and the need to consider past and ongoing
activities. The G-77/CHINA proposed addressing financing and
implementation as separate sections. The NETHERLANDS suggested
accounting for capacity-building when planning the GEF�s
third replenishment. UGANDA said funding for capacity building
should be additional to ODA. On the role of the Secretariat,
delegates said it should avoid an operational role but act as
a facilitator.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: The Friends of the Chair continued
to consider actions required in relation to technology needs
and needs assessment, enabling assessment, and technology
information. The group also considered and agreed on the SBSTA
Chair�s draft conclusions.
IN THE CORRIDORS
Some participants were commenting on contrasting positions
emerging from certain EU members on nuclear technology under
the CDM. While one Party announced a strong "anti"
stance, another publicly indicated its support for allowing
nuclear technology within the CDM. Speculation among a number
of participants centered on how this might impact the eventual
elaboration of the EU�s position on this issue.
