Contact groups met throughout the day to consider: adverse
effects; technology transfer; capacity building; land use,
land-use change and forestry (LULUCF); policies and measures;
the mechanisms; and guidelines under Protocol Articles 5
(methodological issues), 7 (communication of information) and
8 (review of information). The Joint Working Group on
Compliance convened to continue discussions on the Co-Chairs’
text. Informal consultations on guidance to the financial
mechanism were also held.
CONTACT GROUPS AND INFORMAL MEETINGS
PROTOCOL ARTICLES 5, 7 & 8: Delegates considered
draft SBSTA conclusions. On demonstrable progress, SAUDI
ARABIA, opposed by the EU, proposed deleting the paragraph
recognizing the first national communication submitted under
Article 7.2, stressing that the approach was too narrow.
SWITZERLAND suggested compromise language that was accepted by
the group. Delegates then considered Part II of the guidelines
under Article 8. Under Identification and Classification of
Problems by Expert Review Teams (ERTs), the US, opposed by the
EU, proposed moving the section on classification, stressing
that ERT’s should identify rather than classify problems. On
Timing, the US suggested setting strict deadlines for
submission of reports, while leaving broader issues flexible.
On Reporting, the US proposed integrating the paragraphs on
status reports, individual inventory review reports and
adjustment reports into earlier sections.
Parties considered New Zealand’s proposal on Part III of
the guidelines under Article 8. The G-77/CHINA proposed
bracketing the entire text. On the scope of the review,
GERMANY suggested that it cover cancellation of assigned
amount units, including cancellation with respect to LULUCF.
With SWITZERLAND, she asked why the section on reporting had
been deleted. Parties also briefly considered text on the
annual compilation and accounting of emissions inventories and
assigned amounts.
ADVERSE EFFECTS: Parties continued deliberations on
Vulnerability and Adaptation in the revised Co-Chairs’ draft
text on FCCC Article 4.8 and 4.9. Delegates stressed that lack
of agreement on the chapeau would have implications for
discussions on other paragraphs. CHINA underscored integrating
adaptation into sustainable development programmes, as this is
the ultimate objective of the FCCC, but stressed the right of
a sovereign state to design its own national policies. The US
cautioned against the implications of this for GEF funding
according to the three-stage process set out by decision
11/CP.1. The EU, supported by the US and CANADA, endorsed text
on pilot and/or demonstration projects, which supported the
concept of learning by doing. The G-77/CHINA preferred text on
immediate implementation of adaptation activities where
sufficient information is available.
On establishing a fund for climate-related disaster relief,
the EU cautioned against duplicating other organizations’
work. With the US, he highlighted that such a fund could add
complexity to the provision of funding due to the difficulty
in distinguishing between natural and human-induced climate
disasters.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: Delegates revisited amendments
proposed Tuesday by different Parties on Purposes and Overall
Approach in the draft framework for meaningful and effective
actions to enhance implementation of FCCC Article 4.5. On
Purposes, diverging views were expressed over whether the
framework "shall serve as the framework for" or
"enhance" Article 4.5 implementation.
Several Parties objected to reference to "state of the
art" technologies, stating that those are not always
economically viable. JAPAN proposed referring to technologies
that are "suitable to local needs," while the EU
suggested "technologies that are appropriate to the
situation in the respective country."
The REPUBLIC OF KOREA underscored the role of governments
in providing a regulatory framework for a market for ESTs. The
G-77/CHINA stressed putting into context the role of
governments and the private sector in removing barriers and
restrictions to technology transfer.
The US opposed the G-77/CHINA proposal to delete reference
to "integrated approaches" to technology transfer.
Noting continuing disagreement over large parts of the text,
Co-Chair Cooper proposed preparing draft conclusions noting
the decision to continue deliberations during the second half
of SBSTA-13.
POLICIES AND MEASURES (P&Ms): Delegates completed
discussions on the elements for a draft decision on best
practices in P&Ms. CANADA, the US, JAPAN and AUSTRALIA,
opposed by the EU, urged bracketing all references to the
"consultative process." The US and JAPAN bracketed
the list of activities aimed at improving the transparency,
effectiveness and comparability of P&Ms. JAPAN and the US,
opposed by the EU and G-77/ CHINA, advocated deleting the link
between P&Ms and demonstrable progress. JAPAN questioned
reference to measuring demonstrable progress by means of
criteria and quantitative parameters. The G-77/CHINA and SAUDI
ARABIA, opposed by CANADA and AUSTRALIA, proposed text on the
need to minimize the adverse effects of Annex I Parties.
On the contribution of international organizations to the
process, the G-77/CHINA and SAUDI ARABIA urged specific
reference to OPEC. HUNGARY and the EU proposed reference to
relevant international and intergovernmental organizations.
The US bracketed a request to the Secretariat to organize a
workshop and report its results to COP-7. The draft
conclusions were amended, with reference to Article 2.1 and
the consultative process being deleted.
CAPACITY BUILDING: Economies in transition (EITs): Delegates
considered the framework for capacity building in EITs and a
proposed draft decision on capacity building in EITs. SLOVENIA
introduced the draft decision that, inter alia, decides
to establish a process and create a framework for
capacity-building activities in EITs, urges Annex II Parties
to ensure financial support required for the implementation of
the capacity building process and further urges the GEF to
develop an operational strategy to implement the elements of a
framework process for capacity building. Following comments
and questions on the decision, Co-Chair Uosukainen requested
Slovenia to consult informally to seek agreement on the text.
Among the issues raised in discussing the draft framework
were the need to elaborate one formulation regarding
implementation of the FCCC and Protocol and to clarify how
information will be provided to enable the COP to review
progress in implementing the framework.
Developing countries: On text outlining a framework
relating to capacity building in developing countries, UGANDA,
speaking for the LDCs, said the group’s position had not
been reflected in the text. Participants agreed to continue
informal consultations in a smaller group.
LULUCF: Delegates provided their views on the Co-Chairs’
text on elements related to Protocol Article 3.3 and 3.4,
focusing on definitions for, inter alia: forest;
afforestation, reforestation and their distinctions;
deforestation; size of the assessment unit; and forest
management. SWITZERLAND submitted a written proposal on behalf
of the ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP.
Following discussions, Co-Chair Thorgeirsson noted support
by several Parties for the FAO forest definition with
Party-specific thresholds, and by some for definitions at the
international level, as determined by the COP. He recognized
that Parties did not find a separate definition of
"historic" with regards to afforestation and
reforestation useful. He said some Parties suggested removing
paragraphs distinguishing harvesting from deforestation, and
that the group would be considering the issue of degradation
further. He noted useful guidance received on the size of the
assessment unit, and welcomed discussion of forest management.
BOLIVIA, on behalf of several Latin American countries,
introduced a textual proposal that also relates to Article 12
(CDM). Delegates then addressed issues relating to eligibility
of activities.
MECHANISMS: Delegates considered the text on modalities
and procedures for a CDM. JAPAN, HONDURAS and several Latin
American Parties, opposed by TUVALU, proposed deleting the
list of requirements for project activities. The AFRICA GROUP
urged equitable geographic distribution of CDM projects. The
US highlighted elements in its written submission relating to,
inter alia: an "eligibility threshold" that
addressed difficulties with investment additionality;
standards for baselines; and crediting for sinks. The EU
emphasized its proposals on baselines and public participation
in the CDM. The G-77/CHINA highlighted additionality,
stressing that this is wider than baselines. The REPUBLIC OF
KOREA said baselines are the only practical criteria for
screening business-as-usual projects. CANADA highlighted
difficulties in implementing various forms of additionality
other than environmental additionality.
On the linkage between CDM and LULUCF, BRAZIL, with the
G-77/CHINA, argued that CDM discussions be contingent on
decisions in the LULUCF contact group, and objected to a
proposed presentation by the Secretariat on this issue, and to
a question-and-answer session by the Chair. AUSTRALIA, the US,
JAPAN, SWITZERLAND, and NEW ZEALAND expressed concern with
this objection. In closing discussions on the CDM, Chair Chow
expressed concern with the number of key issues on which
Parties had not given guidance.
FINANCIAL MECHANISM: Informal consultations were held
regarding a G-77/China proposal on providing additional
guidance to the GEF. The US, with CANADA and the EU, said the
proposal addressed issues currently under consideration in
other negotiating groups, such as discussions on Stage III
adaptation, and cautioned against moving beyond other related
negotiations. CANADA suggested initially considering parts of
the text relating to operational aspects of the financial
mechanism. The G-77/ CHINA said ongoing discussions in other
groups should not prevent guidance being given to the
financial mechanism.
JOINT WORKING GROUP ON COMPLIANCE
Delegates continued deliberations on the Co-Chairs� text.
On the submission of questions of implementation, BRAZIL, with
SAUDI ARABIA and EGYPT, bracketed text permitting the
compliance committee to receive questions indicated in
Protocol Article 8 ERT reports. AUSTRALIA, opposed by SAMOA,
bracketed text permitting one Party to raise questions with
respect to another. The G-77/CHINA, opposed by NEW ZEALAND,
supported a role for the COP/MOP in submitting questions
Regarding allocation of questions, SAUDI ARABIA, opposed by
SAMOA, suggested that guidelines be formulated to aid
allocation. The G-77/CHINA proposed that a plenary of the
compliance committee perform the allocation function.
On the preliminary examination of questions, the US
suggested that with respect to eligibility requirements under
the mechanisms the determination be made according to the
non-compliance criteria in Articles 5, 7 and 8. SAMOA asked
that the formulation not be limited to Articles 5, 7 and 8,
but leave room for other criteria developed in the mechanisms
group, such as on supplementarity. On sources of information,
the US, supported by NEW ZEALAND and SAMOA, suggested text
permitting outsider participation. On the expedited procedure
for the mechanisms, NEW ZEALAND, opposed by SAMOA, suggested
that its link to the appeal makes it credible. On appeal, the
EU, SAMOA and the FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA doubted the
necessity of an appeal, as it would delay the process and
merely afford Parties the opportunity to have their case heard
twice.
IN THE CORRIDORS
Some observers have detected a growing feeling of
frustration and unease as time for negotiation in Lyon starts
to run out. Wednesday�s stand-off in the mechanisms group on
whether to include LULUCF in the CDM, loss of momentum on the
technology transfer text, and an outcome in the P&Ms
meeting that some found disappointing, all contributed to a
sense of concern at the apparent lack of progress.
