Contact groups met throughout the day to consider: the
mechanisms; land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF);
technology transfer; adverse effects; capacity building; 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. A special
meeting on LULUCF and the CDM was also held.
CONTACT GROUPS AND INFORMAL MEETINGS
MECHANISMS: Parties continued deliberations on the
consolidated text, focusing on emissions trading. Regarding
the draft decision, the EU, JAPAN and NORWAY questioned the
need for text in the decision on principles. The G-77/CHINA,
with BRAZIL, SAMOA and JAMAICA, and opposed by the US and
CANADA, said assigned amounts (AAs) were fixed. The EU added
that FCCC Article 3 (commitments) referred to "assigned
amounts" not "initial assigned amounts". Chair
Chow made a presentation on AAs that addressed, inter alia:
the character of an AAs; what could be transferred and
acquired; and an AAs’ linkage with Protocol Articles 5, 7
and 8. SAMOA questioned whether parts of AAs (PAAs) could be
held by allocated legal entities or only by sovereign states.
She suggested that the issue of legal entities participating
in emissions trading be addressed in the Appendix on domestic
systems. She added that if legal entities were allowed to
participate, the process must be transparent. NEW ZEALAND,
with the US, said these were Party issues, and noted his
support for full transparency. AUSTRALIA added that
appropriate safeguards would be built into Articles 5, 7 and 8
and the provisions on registries.
On the modalities of operation, the G-77/CHINA, opposed by
CANADA, questioned whether Parties could transfer PAAs that
remained unused because of factors other than P&Ms, such
as economic recession. CANADA, opposed by the G-77/CHINA and
EU, suggested withdrawing the appendix on elaborating
guidelines on national systems relating to AA units and/or
PAAs. On the share of proceeds, the US proposed that this be
addressed by the group on guidelines. On registries, the
G-77/CHINA noted that this issue could be addressed within
each of the Articles on mechanisms. COLOMBIA highlighted a
policy document submitted by various Latin American Parties
aimed at promoting more effective CDM mechanisms.
LULUCF: The contact group considered draft SBSTA
conclusions. Delegates questioned the status of the documents
noted in the conclusions, and how they would be developed by
the Co-Chairs based on input by Parties. TUVALU said it would
be premature to have conclusions on text that had yet to be
discussed by the group.
Parties then continued consideration of Eligibility based
on the Co-Chairs’ text on elements related to Article 3.3
and 3.4. Several Parties drew attention to their submissions
on the Co-Chairs’ text as compiled in the new miscellaneous
document. On Accounting, SWITZERLAND, for the ENVIRONMENTAL
INTEGRITY GROUP, supported full carbon accounting. AUSTRALIA
suggested specific provisions to deal with perverse incentives
to deforest and impediments to new forestation activity prior
to the first commitment period. Regarding text on carbon
pools, TUVALU and the EU opposed inclusion of harvested wood
products, while NORWAY supported their inclusion but noted
that the issue would be discussed at SBSTA-14. SWITZERLAND,
with the EU, TUVALU and NORWAY, and opposed by JAPAN, said
natural uptake must be separated from human-induced effects.
The EU highlighted the link between this issue and limited
crediting during the first commitment period. On limitation of
debits and credits, JAPAN said the option of no limitation of
credits should be retained.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: Delegates discussed the Co-Chairs’
draft conclusions, noting that limited progress had been made
in elaborating the elements for a draft framework to enhance
the implementation of FCCC Article 4.5 (technology transfer).
The G-77/CHINA sought a reference to its proposal for a
draft decision due to be discussed during the second half of
SB-13. The US, EU and CANADA objected, as they had not yet
seen the document. MALAYSIA said the reference could be made
without a recommendation on how it would be addressed. The
G-77/China proposal was distributed to the group.
Resuming discussions on the Co-Chairs’ draft conclusions,
the G-77/CHINA proposed deleting a paragraph inviting the
SBSTA Chair, with the assistance of the Secretariat, to
provide additional reports on the outcome of the regional
workshop, noting the limited time at COP-6 for negotiations.
She questioned the purpose of additional information and its
input to the discussions. The UK said the workshop would
inform negotiators new to the process. MALAYSIA noted that the
SBSTA Chair had the discretion to decide if and when to
organize informal meetings.
Co-Chair Cooper requested the US, G-77/China, and EU to
consult informally to seek agreement on the outstanding
paragraphs of the draft conclusions.
PROTOCOL ARTICLES 5, 7 & 8: Co-Chair Plume
introduced Part IV of the guidelines under Article 8, Review
of National Systems, based on submissions from the EU and
Australia. She noted the conclusions forwarded from the
contact group for adoption at the SBSTA plenary, and said they
included as addenda four draft decisions for the COP and
COP/MOP on Articles 5.1, 5.2, 7 and 8, and draft guidelines
under Articles 7 and 8. She highlighted the informal
consultations to be held in Bonn in October, and invited
Parties to submit views on the guidelines under Articles 5.2,
7 and 8 to the Secretariat before 29 September. Co-Chair Plume
thanked delegates for their work and closed the contact group.
ADVERSE EFFECTS: Participants met to consider sections
of the Co-Chairs’ revised text on Protocol Article 3.14 and
the impact of response measures under FCCC Article 4.8 and
4.9. On Article 3.14, SAUDI ARABIA, supported by several other
developing countries, said it referred only to actions by
Annex I Parties and indicated that it was inappropriate to
suggest that non-Annex I Parties had obligations under this
Article. The US supported references to non-Annex I Parties,
as Article 3.14 did not specify whether actions to be
considered by the COP/MOP under this Article were exclusively
those of Annex I Parties.
On the impact of implementation of response measures,
JAPAN, supported by the US but opposed by CHINA, stressed that
non-Annex II Parties able to support developing countries
should be encouraged to do so. Text on the process of
information analysis was bracketed. The G-77/CHINA, KUWAIT and
VENEZUELA stressed the importance of technological development
relating to fossil fuels for diversification of economies in
oil exporting developing countries.
CAPACITY BUILDING: Economies in Transition (EITs): Delegates
met to discuss the draft framework for capacity building in
EITs and a proposed draft decision, which had been revised
following informal consultations conducted by Slovenia. A
number of paragraphs in the draft framework were bracketed,
including several references to the Protocol. Co-Chair Ashe
said Parties’ comments and amendments would be taken into
consideration when reviewing the framework and draft decision.
Developing Countries: VANUATU, on behalf of the LDCs,
urged explicit reference to the group’s submissions in the
revised text as a separate section, to ensure that it provides
for the needs of the LDCs. Due to the lack of time,
consideration of the framework for capacity building in
developing countries was deferred to the next contact group
meeting.
JOINT WORKING GROUP ON COMPLIANCE
Parties discussed sections in the Co-Chairs’ text
addressing general provisions, outcomes and consequences, and
other provisions. On general provisions, Parties differed on
the need for text on principles, and agreed that the text on
functions was superfluous, given subsequent elaboration of
functions. On adoption, JAPAN said COP-6 could recommend that
the COP/MOP adopt a decision. The EU presented two options:
adoption of a decision by COP-6 that would have immediate
interim effect, accompanied by a recommendation to COP/MOP-1
to adopt an identical instrument; and adoption of a legal
instrument that would enter into force at the same time as the
Protocol. Parties supported different options based on their
positions on the need for binding consequences.
On consequences of non-compliance, the G-77/CHINA expressed
interest in the EU proposal on financial penalties linked to a
compliance fund. The EU emphasized the role of P&Ms in
compliance action plans and, opposed by AUSTRALIA and CHILE,
advocated an open-ended list of facilitation consequences. The
US said the facilitation branch should not apply mandatory
outcomes. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION highlighted concerns relating
to, inter alia: publication of potential
non-compliance, initiation by the facilitation branch of the
enforcement procedure; and the calculation of excess tonnes to
be deducted from a Party’s assigned amount. SWITZERLAND, for
the ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP, supported the following
consequences: a compliance action plan, restrictions on the
use of mechanisms, and a compliance fund. AUSTRALIA opposed
financial penalties and the issuing of cautions.
SPECIAL SESSION ON LULUCF AND THE CDM
In a special session, delegates considered the issue of
including LULUCF projects within the CDM. BRAZIL, PERU, CHILE,
COLOMBIA, NEW ZEALAND, COSTA RICA, BOLIVIA, AUSTRALIA, the US,
JAPAN, URUGUAY, CANADA, NORWAY and the ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY
GROUP argued in favor of its inclusion, citing a variety of
motivations and preconditions. The EU, TUVALU, SAMOA, CHINA
and JAMAICA urged that the CDM exclude provision for sinks.
Concerns with the inclusion of LULUCF CDM projects
included: uncertainty; leakage; non-permanence; methodological
issues in determining baselines; the potential for promoting
inappropriate forestry; geographic and inter-generational
inequity; and the potential size of LULUCF CDM credits
enabling avoidance of emissions reductions.
Arguments in favor of CDM projects included: their
potential contribution to sustainable development in
developing countries, and the importance of carbon
sequestration. Proponents of LULUCF projects argued that many
of the technical concerns are not unique to sinks projects,
and that they may be addressed through appropriate project
design. They suggested that the key distinguishing feature of
sinks projects is permanence, and argued that this may be
addressed, citing a recent position paper by Colombia.
Preconditions for LULUCF CDM projects included: agreeing on
sound methodologies for baselines and accounting; ensuring
coherence with international conventions relating to
biodiversity, forests, and wetlands; protection of the rights
and concerns of indigenous people; ensuring that first-time
methodologies for baseline crediting for sinks are approved by
the Executive Board; and agreeing on CDM rules to address
leakage and permanence.
IN THE CORRIDORS
Some observers expressed concern Thursday regarding the
process used in formulating and presenting some conclusions
and decisions in the contact groups. They alleged that some
text that had not been discussed previously was "slipped
in surreptitiously," while in other cases Parties�
submissions appeared to have been "conveniently
ignored." However, others noted that it was an arduous
task to cope with the various group texts and proposals
emerging.
