The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) convened in
the morning to consider the venue of COP-7, administrative and
financial matters, Annex I and non-Annex I communications, and
the financial mechanism. Informal meetings were held to
discuss the GEF’s activities and additional guidance to the
GEF as the financial mechanism. Contact groups convened on:
policies and measures; compliance; the mechanisms; technology
transfer; adverse effects; land use, land-use change and
forestry (LULUCF); and guidelines under Protocol Articles 5
(methodological issues), 7 (communication of information) and
8 (review of information).
SBI
COP-7 VENUE: The SBI adopted a draft decision to be
submitted to COP-6 accepting Morocco’s offer to host COP-7.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MATTERS: On implementation
of the headquarters agreement, SBI Chair Ashe recalled
concerns relating to adequate office space and acquiring visas
and work permits. GERMANY said progress had been made to
resolve these issues, and a report will be presented at COP-6.
On the Secretariat’s report on the audited financial
report (1999) and interim financial performance (2000), FCCC
Executive Secretary Cutajar reported that the FCCC and CCD
Secretariats would establish a common administrative service,
and a report would be made available at COP-6. The SBI agreed
to defer consideration of possible options to respond to late
payments of contributions to COP-6.
ANNEX I COMMUNICATIONS: Participants considered the
report on national greenhouse gas inventory data from Annex I
Parties for 1990-1998. ARGENTINA noted successful measures
undertaken by the UK and Germany to reduce emissions and
highlighted continuing emissions increases in the US. He said
Annex I commitments must be met. The EU expressed satisfaction
with the number of Annex I Parties using the new reporting
format. He noted with concern the continuing emissions
increases in some countries.
NON-ANNEX I COMMUNICATIONS: URUGUAY thanked the GEF for
its assistance. On the role of the Consultative Group of
Experts (CGE), KENYA and VANUATU drew attention to the
financial shortfall facing the CGE. The PHILIPPINES said there
had been a waste of resources in relation to the CGE, and
called for a review of its terms of reference. CHINA urged
Annex II countries to provide adequate financial support to
CGE. The US said many Parties regarded the CGE as a useful
group, and supported its activities.
CONTACT GROUPS AND INFORMAL MEETINGS
GEF: Parties engaged in an informal question-and-answer
session with the GEF Chair/CEO, Mohamed El-Ashry. Responding
to KENYA’s comment on the difficulties in dealing with the
implementing agencies, El-Ashry said the GEF was trying to
improve the responsiveness of the implementing agencies. He
assured delegates that the GEF would act according to the
guidance received from the COP. On questions about whether the
GEF might reconsider its current focus on mitigation projects
in favor of other areas such as adaptation once the CDM is
introduced, El-Ashry noted the limited guidance provided by
the COP on adaptation activities, and added that the specifics
of the CDM had yet to be decided. However, he assured Parties
that the GEF would avoid duplication. El-Ashry said Parties
should communicate their concerns so that any problems can be
addressed.
FINANCIAL MECHANISM: Delegates met in informal
consultations to consider a proposed draft decision submitted
by the G-77/China containing additional guidance to the
operating entity of the financial mechanism. The PHILIPPINES,
speaking for the G-77/CHINA, outlined the proposal, aimed at
integrating decisions that refer to the GEF’s activities.
SBI Chair Ashe said discussions would continue this week, with
a view to elaborating final text at COP-6.
POLICIES AND MEASURES (P&Ms): Delegates considered
text on elements for a draft decision on "best
practices" in P&Ms. Text proposed by the US
acknowledging completion of the BAPA requirements on P&Ms
was accepted. On continuing information exchange, delegates
discussed revised text proposed by the US on "considering
ways" to facilitate cooperation on P&Ms under Article
2.1(b) (cooperation on P&Ms). The G-77/CHINA proposed
bracketing reference to sub-paragraphs 1 and b. VENEZUELA,
opposed by the US and CANADA, included reference to Protocol
Article 2.3 (adverse effects of P&Ms). The G-77/CHINA,
opposed by CANADA and JAPAN, urged limiting the scope of the
decision to Annex I Parties. The EU, opposed by CANADA, JAPAN
and AUSTRALIA, emphasized the establishment of a consultative
process to ensure continuity of information exchange.
On the nature of future activities, CANADA, the US and
JAPAN, opposed by the EU, proposed reference to "future
work" rather than "consultative process." JAPAN
and AUSTRALIA highlighted information exchange on cross-sectoral
issues.
PROTOCOL ARTICLES 5, 7 & 8: Co-Chair Plume
distributed revised draft conclusions, noting that they do not
specify whether separate decisions will be taken at COP-6 on
the guidelines under Articles 5,7 and 8. She highlighted the
proposal that an informal consultation on the matters be held.
On the draft decision text on Article 5.2 for COP-6 and that
for COP/MOP-1, SAUDI ARABIA, supported by TUVALU, PERU, CHINA
and BRAZIL, and opposed by the US and NEW ZEALAND, suggested
deleting references to activities under Protocol Article 3.3
and 3.4 at this stage, as outstanding issues are being
considered in the LULUCF group.
Delegates then discussed Part II of the guidelines under
Article 8. SAUDI ARABIA highlighted the G-77/CHINA’s
inability to participate fully in discussions, and added that
text should be open for comment later on. Delegates commented
both on structural issues and on more specific issues, placing
brackets on many paragraphs.
COMPLIANCE: The G-77/CHINA stressed the need for
equitable geographic distribution in the compliance committee.
She proposed text referencing common but differentiated
responsibility and suggested differentiation between Annex I
and non-Annex I Parties. The US, with CANADA, AUSTRALIA and
NEW ZEALAND, suggested that where members from one branch
participate in the work of the other, it be on a non-voting
basis. SAUDI ARABIA, with VENEZUELA, CHINA and QATAR, said the
enforcement branch’s mandate should include determination of
whether an Annex I Party is in non-compliance with FCCC
Article 3.14 (adverse effects). With the RUSSIAN FEDERATION
and VENEZUELA, but opposed by CANADA, AUSTRALIA and NEW
ZEALAND, he supported text referencing Protocol Article 18
(non-compliance) in the establishment of the compliance
committee. The EU, with JAPAN, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA
and the US, recommended that the options on the compliance
committee’s composition be kept open. With JAPAN and CANADA,
she said the enforcement branch should be able to impose
facilitative consequences. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION suggested
text referencing FCCC Article 4.6 (flexibility for EITs).
MECHANISMS: Delegates continued discussing the
consolidated text. On the draft decision on the CDM, JAPAN
said any requirements on financial additionality should not
result in diversion of ODA. The US emphasized that revisions
to the modalities, procedures and guidelines be made by
consensus. The G-77/ CHINA highlighted the need to distinguish
between additionality and baselines, and underlined reference
to funding additionality. The EU, opposed by the G-77/CHINA,
proposed that the COP invite the IPCC to prepare guidelines
for baselines. On the COP/ MOP rules, NORWAY and the US
emphasized that institutional responsibilities be part of the
COP-6 decision.
On the Executive Board (EB), NORWAY, CANADA, JAPAN and the
US, opposed by the G-77/CHINA, highlighted a role for the EB
in determining new baseline and monitoring methodologies. The
G-77/CHINA expressed concern that the EB has been gaining at
the cost of the COP/MOP. On accreditation, BRAZIL suggested
replacing a reference to the accreditation body with the EB.
SAUDI ARABIA highlighted the COP/MOP as the supreme authority.
On designated operational entities, the REPUBLIC OF KOREA,
opposed by NORWAY, introduced a reference to conflict of
interest. On participation, Parties disagreed on the need for
text relating to: projects proposed, developed, financed and
implemented by non-Annex I countries; conditions on non-Annex
I participation such as the fulfillment of commitments under
FCCC Article 12 (communication of information); and certain
eligibility criteria for transfers and acquisitions under
Protocol Article 3 (commitments).
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: The contact group met to consider
the Co-Chairs’ draft text on a framework for meaningful and
effective actions to enhance the implementation of FCCC
Article 4.5 (development and transfer of technology).
On Purposes, the G-77/CHINA proposed specifying that the
text shall serve as a framework for implementation of FCCC
Article 4.5 commitments, and stressed that the extent to which
developing countries can implement their commitments under the
FCCC depended on effective participation by developed
countries. SWITZERLAND said it should enhance implementation
of Article 4.5 by increasing the flow of environmentally-sound
technologies.
On the Overall Approach, the G-77/CHINA proposed Agenda 21
language on technology transfer, while the US preferred
language from FCCC Article 4.5. SWITZERLAND objected to a US
proposal to delete the term "equitable" in
describing the process of technology transfer, given the
diversity of characteristics of developing countries and
regions. On market-driven approaches, EL SALVADOR stressed the
need to reflect the involvement of governments.
ADVERSE EFFECTS: Participants met to consider the
revised draft text on FCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9 and Protocol
Article 3.14. On text relating to the provision of information
by least developed countries (LDCs) through sources other than
national communications, the G-77/CHINA stressed that many
developing countries had difficulties completing their
national communications, and that other relevant information
should also serve as the basis for determining their
adaptation activities. The EU, supported by the US, CANADA and
JAPAN, stressed the importance of the national communications
process, and highlighted the recognition of the special needs
and circumstances of LDCs in the FCCC. VANUATU, on behalf of
the LDCs, cited marginalization in the process, and requested
that their special needs be considered. BURKINA FASO
underscored the importance of establishing and strengthening
national and regional institutions for, inter alia,
research on climate change and its adverse effects.
LULUCF: BRAZIL, for the G-77/CHINA, presented basic
principles for Protocol Article 3.3 and 3.4 (additional
activities). He said that, inter alia: activities
should not change the Protocol�s global climate change
mitigation effect; forest conservation and rehabilitation of
degraded lands should be recognized as adaptation activities
and receive a share of the mechanisms� proceeds; a transfer
of commitments to a future commitment period should not be
allowed; carbon removed through LULUCF activities shall be
considered temporary; and the simple presence of carbon stocks
in national reservoirs shall not result in credits in line
with Article 5.2.
In response to the presentation, NEW ZEALAND called for
consistency with Protocol language, and said the issue of
share of proceeds for adaptation should be addressed later,
and elsewhere. The US noted that issues of permanence will be
addressed in Annex I countries because of inventory
requirements. BOLIVIA called for an operational link to the
CDM.
Co-Chair Gwage said the principles outlined by the
G-77/China would provide the basis for a preamble for a
decision on Article 3.3 and 3.4. The US commented that several
paragraphs of the text addressed Article 12 more directly than
Article 3.3 and 3.4.
