Delegates to the informal meetings preceding SB-13 met in a
Plenary session to take stock of progress. They also met to
consider: the mechanisms; FCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9 and
Protocol Article 3.14 (adverse effects); compliance; capacity
building; technology transfer; land use, land-use change and
forestry (LULUCF); policies and measures (P&Ms); and
guidelines under Protocol Articles 5 (methodological issues),
7 (communication of information) and 8 (review of
information).
PLENARY
Delegates met in Plenary to hear brief progress reports
from the Chairs of the informal groups. SBI Chair Ashe thanked
delegates and the Chairs of the groups for their positive
work. The G-77/ CHINA expressed the hope that further areas of
convergence would continue to emerge during SB-13, and
stressed the need for a balanced package of decisions at
COP-6. The US said he was "somewhat concerned" at
the slow pace of progress in some groups, and called for
concentrated efforts to keep the process on track.
INFORMAL MEETINGS
ADVERSE EFFECTS: Participants considered the section of
the Co-Chairs’ text on the impact of implementation of
response measures. On technological development and economic
diversification, the US suggested including specific reference
to support for least developed countries. On the issue of
future workshops, delegates stressed the need for these to be
clearly focused. SAMOA, supported by the EU, BELIZE, and
JAMAICA, questioned the utility of vulnerability indices,
while EGYPT supported them.
On the section on Protocol Article 3.14, the US, with the
EU and several other developed countries, noted that it dealt
primarily with the impact of response measures, and suggested
merging it with the previous section that directly addressed
this issue. The G-77/CHINA, SAUDI ARABIA, and a number of
other developing countries repeated their proposal for two
separate draft decisions, one on FCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9, and
one on Protocol Article 3.14. BELIZE, speaking for AOSIS, said
these paragraphs did not address its concerns. AUSTRALIA,
POLAND, the US, EU and other Annex I Parties expressed
reservations on a paragraph inviting Annex I Parties to
provide information on, inter alia, existing market
imperfections and subsidies in the energy sector. SAUDI ARABIA
said the paragraph should be retained.
MECHANISMS: Parties commenced discussion on the
consolidated text. The G-77/CHINA supported separate decisions
with individual chapeaus on the three mechanisms, while
CANADA, the EU and other Annex I countries supported three
decisions under one chapeau. The G-77/CHINA, opposed by
CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, the EU and US, advocated extending the
rigors of the CDM to JI. The G-77/CHINA stressed the need to
address the nature and scope of the mechanisms. CANADA, while
accepting the centrality of FCCC Article 3 (Principles),
cautioned against going too far into the nature and scope. The
EU cautioned against defining new principles. The G-77/ CHINA,
opposed by the US, urged that the adaptation fund draw from
all three mechanisms.
Parties then reviewed the draft decision on guidelines for
implementation of Protocol Article 6 (JI). SAMOA, for AOSIS,
opposed by NORWAY, POLAND and CANADA, proposed removing
reference to these being "guidelines." The US,
opposed by AOSIS, proposed that revision to the guidelines be
taken by consensus. Parties were unable to agree on whether to
retain text relating to equity, comprehensiveness,
transparency, climate change effectiveness, fungibility, and
sharing of proceeds.
PROTOCOL ARTICLES 5, 7 & 8: Delegates continued
discussing guidelines under Article 7.1 (inclusion of
supplementary information in annual inventories). The US,
opposed by the EU and AUSTRALIA, proposed deleting the section
on adjustments in accordance with Article 5.2 (adjustments),
maintaining that reporting should be the responsibility of the
review team, not the Party. SAMOA noted the work on the
concept of a true-up period in the compliance group, and said
the group on Articles 5,7,and 8 should consider technical
constraints on its length.
On consideration of Article 7.2 (inclusion of supplementary
information in national communications), the US, NORWAY, SAUDI
ARABIA and GERMANY questioned the timing for the submission of
national communications and where this should be treated. On
national registries, the US identified the importance of the
discussions on the mechanisms for the work in this group.
SAUDI ARABIA suggested that the national communications of
Annex I Parties include an evaluation of the extent to which
individual CDM projects have assisted non-Annex I Parties to
achieve sustainable development. NORWAY, supported by NEW
ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA and the US, said this was not realistic.
COMPLIANCE: Delegates continued deliberation on the
Co-Chairs’ proposals. On submission of questions to the
compliance body, the G-77/CHINA said questions of compliance
could be raised by a Party with respect to itself or another
Party. The US said a Party should be able to refer questions
with respect to another Party’s compliance only to the
facilitation branch. AUSTRALIA suggested that apart from the
questions raised in the expert review teams’ (ERT) reports,
questions could be raised by a Party only with regard to
itself. The G-77/CHINA emphasized the role of the ERTs and
suggested that the relationship between the COP and ERTs be
taken into account. The EU, opposed by CHINA, supported a role
for the FCCC Secretariat. SAUDI ARABIA, supported by the US,
highlighted the need to reflect Protocol Article 8(3) (ERTs to
report to the COP/MOP) in the provision.
On the preliminary examination of questions, the G-77/CHINA
said the functions it envisaged at this stage were to ensure
that the question is supported by sufficient information and
is not de minimis, and to direct the case to a
particular branch. She said this task should be undertaken by
a plenary of the compliance committee. The UK said the
screening process should simply be an organizational stage to
ensure that the relevant branch receives the case. He
suggested creating a bureau of the compliance committee
consisting of two members, representing the enforcement and
facilitative branches, to perform this function. The RUSSIAN
FEDERATION suggested that all questions should go
automatically to the facilitation branch. The US said there
should be two functions, one related to allocation and the
other to substance. The allocation function would be performed
by a bureau of the compliance institution, and the substantive
screening, which would be necessary only for cases referred to
the enforcement branch, would be undertaken by the enforcement
branch.
CAPACITY BUILDING: Participants began consideration of
the revised Chair’s text on capacity building in developing
countries. In response to the G-77/CHINA’s query on timing
for consideration of a draft decision on capacity building,
Chair Ashe drew attention to decision 10/CP.5, which calls for
Parties to synthesize elements of a draft framework for
capacity building at SB-12 for consideration at SB-13. He
noted that a contact group would be set up during SB-13 to
start deliberations on a draft decision. The EU, the US and
CANADA stressed the need to ensure consistency with the
capacity building aspects of other discussions on technology
transfer and adaptation.
On purposes, the EU asked what review process would be
established. The G-77/China inquired what the basis for such a
review would be and if this would constitute an additional
reporting requirement. AUSTRALIA said capacity building should
be designed to facilitate monitoring and implementation.
On demonstration projects, the G-77/CHINA said these were
not critical in identifying needs and stressed that sufficient
information had already been submitted. The EU said that while
demonstration projects could be useful, lessons should be
drawn from existing activities. He underscored the importance
of a results-based approach. AUSTRALIA highlighted the need
for an appropriate enabling environment for capacity building.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: Participants considered the
sections on technology information and enabling environments
in the draft text on a framework to facilitate development and
transfer of technology. They heard presentations by the FCCC
Secretariat on a possible framework for a technology transfer
system, and by the Climate Technology Initiative on its
website.
The G-77/CHINA underscored Parties’ obligation to submit
information on how they are implementing their commitments.
Regarding gathering information on technology needs and
availability, she raised the question of how Parties
facilitate access to technologies and what the conditions of
access are. KENYA suggested that countries that have submitted
national communications be facilitated to conduct their
technology needs assessments noting that the second national
communication may not take place until 2006. With the
G-77/CHINA, she noted with concern that GEF is allocating
funds to technology needs assessments instead of national
communications.
NEW ZEALAND supported the concept, in principle, of a
clearinghouse and emphasized the use of existing institutions.
The US highlighted limitations with one-stop shops and
supported the establishment of an international, rather than
regional and sub-regional, clearinghouse. CHINA, PERU, and
MALAYSIA urged moving ahead by focusing on practical measures.
LULUCF: Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho, Brazilian Space
Agency, outlined the implications of different approaches to
including LULUCF on the ability of Parties to mitigate climate
change as required under the Protocol. He noted the current
temporary uptake of carbon in the biosphere due to natural
effects, and said that under a full carbon accounting
approach, Annex I countries would be allowed to emit more than
under a business-as-usual scenario. Delegates then continued
discussing the compilation text of country-specific data and
information as submitted by Parties. The EU noted the gaps in
existing data, stressing that data was a crucial input to the
negotiating process. AUSTRALIA noted that Annex I countries
had the capacity to make adequate carbon measurements, and
that the quality was continually improving. Co-Chair
Thorgeirsson then summarized the work carried out thus far,
and identified key unresolved issues, including: separating
human-induced effects from natural uptake of carbon; the
package of eligible additional activities under Article 3.4;
and limitations of credits and debits.
POLICIES AND MEASURES: Co-Chair Richard Muyungi
(Tanzania) introduced draft conclusions and elements for a
draft decision on "best practices" in policies and
measures (P&Ms). The G-77/CHINA asked the Co-Chair to
postpone discussion on the draft text pending internal
G-77/CHINA consideration. Parties made general comments
related to, inter alia: continuing work into the
future; avoiding reference to issues under discussion in other
groups; and ensuring that the outcome is focused on helping to
implement the provisions of Protocol Article 2 (P&Ms).
IN THE CORRIDORS
Delegates have been commenting on the irony of the timing
of the crippling French transport strike. Attendance at some
of the sessions was affected on Thursday, and there was
speculation on the possible impact of the strike on the
arrival of key delegates, and on the already slow pace of the
deliberations. Several observers suggested that the strike
begs the question: is the public really prepared to pay for
climate policies?
