The week of informal meetings preceding the formal
thirteenth sessions of the subsidiary bodies (SB-13) of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) began on Monday,
4 September, with an initial briefing by the Chairs of the
subsidiary bodies and the Executive Secretary of the FCCC
Secretariat. Following this, informal meetings were convened
to consider: guidelines under Protocol Articles 5
(methodological issues), 7 (communication of information) and
8 (review of information); the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms; and
land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).
These informal meetings, which are being held from 4-9
September in Lyon, France, immediately precede SB-13, which
will take place from 11-15 September. Delegates to SB-13 and
the informal meetings will work toward fulfilling the Buenos
Aires Plan of Action (BAPA) adopted at the Fourth Conference
of the Parties in November 1998. Under the BAPA, Parties set a
two-year deadline for strengthening FCCC implementation and
preparing for the future entry into force of the Kyoto
Protocol. The Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP-6),
scheduled to take place from 13-24 November 2000, in The
Hague, the Netherlands, will mark the culmination of this
two-year process.
SB-13 will aim to make progress on negotiations covering a
range of topics necessary for a comprehensive agreement to be
reached at COP-6, including: the Protocol mechanisms;
implementation of FCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9 and matters
relating to Article 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol (adverse
effects); compliance under the Protocol; best practices in
policies and measures (P&Ms) among Parties included in
Annex I to the FCCC; LULUCF; guidelines under Protocol
Articles 5, 7 and 8; and the development and transfer of
technologies.
INITIAL BRIEFING
Harald Dovland (Norway), Chair of the Subsidiary Body for
Scientific and Technological Advice, welcomed participants.
Noting that only 10 weeks remain before COP-6, he said this
week’s meetings would aim to advance progress on text on all
issues. He observed that informal consultations and meetings
had been held since SB-12 on several key issues, including:
adverse effects, technology transfer, the mechanisms,
compliance, and LULUCF. In addition, submissions from Parties
had been received relating to LULUCF, capacity building, and
guidelines under Protocol Articles 5, 7 and 8. He noted that
these consultations and submissions had assisted in the
development of negotiating text.
FCCC Executive Secretary Michael Zammit Cutajar thanked the
French government and city of Lyon for hosting SB-13. He
expressed regret at the passing away of two prominent figures
in climate change negotiations: Jean Ripert of France, who
chaired the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that
resulted in the adoption of the FCCC in 1992; and Shukong
Zhong, Special Advisor on Environmental Issues in China’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. NIGERIA, on behalf of the
G-77/CHINA, conveyed the Group’s condolences. On logistical
matters, he expressed concern at the late availability and
distribution of documents, which affected developing country
preparation and participation. He said all official documents
for COP-6 should be available well in advance of the meeting.
He noted that the lack of interpretation would disadvantage
representatives of non-English speaking countries and stressed
the need to achieve a balanced package of agreements that
reflects the priorities of all Parties.
INFORMAL MEETINGS
MECHANISMS: Chair Kok Kee Chow (Malaysia) introduced
the consolidated text on principles, modalities, rules and
guidelines on Mechanisms. INDIA, speaking for the G-77/ CHINA,
called for progress on other elements of the BAPA, highlighted
the need for conformity with the FCCC’s emphasis on equity
and common but differentiated responsibilities, and emphasized
issues relating to the nature and scope of the mechanisms and
supplementarity.
The Secretariat gave a presentation on the proposed CDM
Reference Manual and on accreditation. He suggested that the
Manual would contain chapters on baseline methodologies,
monitoring, the project design document, accreditation body
requirements and Operational Entity requirements. He said the
Operational Entities could use the Manual to understand, inter
alia, the accreditation criteria and process; validation,
verification and certification process; and approved
methodologies to validate/ register project activities. On
accreditation, he outlined options for institutional
arrangements, including a single worldwide accreditation body,
a federation/association of accreditation bodies, and
mutual/multilateral recognition agreements. He identified
issues for consideration, such as the use of existing
accreditation structures, financing of accreditation bodies
and process, and appeal processes for designated Operational
Entities.
BRAZIL, with COLOMBIA, SOUTH AFRICA, CHINA and MOROCCO,
said decisions on baselines should be taken by a
politically-appointed body, such as the Executive Board. SAUDI
ARABIA highlighted the political nature of CDM-related
decisions, urged that decisions on baselines be undertaken by
the COP/ MOP, and expressed reservations about the need for a
Reference Manual. COLOMBIA noted the possible tendency to
exaggerate baselines, and urged provision for the
de-certification of Operational Entities. CHINA, with the US,
expressed preference for a single worldwide accreditation
body.
The REPUBLIC OF KOREA highlighted the issue of
additionality and questioned whether the Manual would be a
compilation of COP/MOP and Executive Board decisions, or would
include technical advice. The US supported the Manual serving
as a repository of decisions, while FRANCE, for the EU, urged
that it be of a technical nature. The US agreed that decisions
on baselines and related issues should be made with the
approval of the Board or an appointed expert group serving
under it.
SAUDI ARABIA and NORWAY cautioned against delaying
necessary decisions on the CDM. The EU suggested that the role
of the Board lies in the accreditation and random checking of
Operational Entities.
MOROCCO highlighted the interaction between the three
mechanisms. INDIA sought clarity on the nature of the
Certificate on Emissions Reductions. The PHILIPPINES expressed
concern with agreeing on the form of the Reference Manual
before agreeing on the substance of its content. She sought
clarity on the certification of project activities and
emissions reduction. MAURITANIA sought clarity on the roles of
the host country and the Operational Entity, and stressed the
need for the host country to play the "driving role"
in the process.
In a further session on the mechanisms, the INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS ORGANISATION, INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION FORUM and
DET NORSKE VERITAS outlined their views on accreditation and
conformity assessment. NGO representatives highlighted the
need to include public participation in the CDM and JI, and to
promote a "positive list" of non-contentious,
credible renewable energy and demand-side technologies for the
CDM. Business representatives stressed, inter alia, the
need for non-bureaucratic mechanisms, and for translating
environmental objectives into business criteria
GUIDELINES UNDER PROTOCOL ARTICLES 5, 7 & 8: Co-Chairs
Helen Plume (New Zealand) and Festus Luboyera (South Africa)
outlined the group’s work, which includes elaboration of
guidelines under Articles 7 and 8, guidance under Article 5.2
(adjustments) and four related draft decisions. They stressed
the need to focus on what can be achieved prior to COP-6,
noting that some issues will be further elaborated at a later
stage as they depend on the work of other groups, such as on
LULUCF, adverse effects and the mechanisms. The US suggested
starting with guidelines under Article 7, as this would also
progress those under Article 8. The EU and US agreed to
develop a common text on Article 5.2 as a basis for further
negotiation.
Participants then began consideration of the draft
guidelines under Article 8. The EU said the expert review team
(ERT) should use relevant information to
"substantiate" rather than "verify"
information provided by Annex I Parties. A number of
participants preferred replacing the term "shall"
with "may" when referring to the tasks of the ERT.
On the paragraphs addressing provision of additional
information to the ERT and confidentiality, the US, proposed
moving the two paragraphs to the section on review of
inventories, where they were more relevant. The EU said the
paragraphs were related to other guidelines and preferred
their inclusion in a general section. SAUDI ARABIA, speaking
for the G-77/CHINA, said the paragraphs were applicable to all
elements of reporting and should be retained.
The EU proposed elaborating confidential information to
include "confidential business or military
information" as referred to in similar paragraphs of the
Montreal Protocol. AUSTRALIA, with NEW ZEALAND, said that the
Montreal Protocol language may not be appropriate and
preferred referring to national security. NIGERIA asked
whether any confidential information would be given, as it was
not clear from the guidelines. The US said this issue should
be dealt with in the context of inventories and called for
procedures on how the ERT will deal with confidential data.
Regarding timeframes, the US said they should not be
aspirational deadlines but should be fixed and firm. The EU
proposed referring to review cycles, noting that there are
specific reviews that all require timeframes. SWITZERLAND
suggested defining a period of time in which the compliance of
a Party should be assessed.
LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY: Co-Chair
Halldor Thorgeirsson (Iceland) summarized outcomes from the
workshop held in Poznan, Poland, in July, prior to the
deadline for Party submissions on LULUCF on 1 August. He
outlined the work programme for the informal consultations and
said he expected these to lead toward a negotiating text. He
asked delegates to: provide clarifications on their
submissions; highlight their priorities; and indicate
opportunities for streamlining ideas. BRAZIL, for the
G-77/CHINA, stressed that he would not be prepared to discuss
LULUCF issues before Wednesday. He said the consultations were
moving beyond the mandated methodological issues, and that a
draft resolution could not be made on the basis of the
submissions. TUVALU underscored the need to consider the data
contained in the 1 August submissions, rather than focusing
solely on the synthesis of the textual proposals.
AUSTRALIA, with the US, supported working toward a draft
decision. Co-Chair Thorgeirsson introduced the consolidated
synthesis of proposals made by Parties on methodological
issues related to LULUCF that contains material on: proposed
definitions and accounting approaches related to afforestation,
reforestation and deforestation under Article 3.3; how and
which additional human-induced activities might be included
under Article 3.4 including modalities, rules and guidelines
related to these activities and their accounting;
methodologies for measuring and reporting in relation to
Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities; overall accounting approaches
in relation to the requirements of Article 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7;
reversibility, natural effects and accounting interlinkages;
and other issues. He explained that the proposals had not been
merged, simply organized under descriptive headings.
IN THE CORRIDORS
On an unremarkable opening day, a number of observers
suggested that delegates had made a comfortable if slow-paced
start, resuming from where they had left-off at SB-12 and
subsequent consultations. Several delegates expressed concern
at this apparent lack of urgency, given that COP-6 is now
close. The strong position taken by the G-77/China over
logistical considerations that might impact developing country
participation caused some to question how much will be
achieved prior to COP-6.
