|
|||||||||||
|
Vol.
12 No. 309 COP
12 AND COP/MOP 2 highlights: On
Tuesday, the Ad
Hoc
Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto
Protocol (AWG) convened throughout the day for an in-session workshop
focused on the scientific basis for further Annex I commitments, and on
Annex I parties’ emissions trends and mitigation potential. In addition,
SBSTA convened in the morning to consider emissions from deforestation in
developing countries, research and systematic observation, methodological
issues under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, and various other matters. SBI
met in the afternoon to take up issues relating to the UNFCCC’s
financial mechanism, education and public awareness, capacity building,
and the adverse impacts of climate change and response measures (UNFCCC
Article 4.8 and 4.9). AWG
WORKSHOP SCIENTIFIC
BASIS FOR FURTHER ANNEX I COMMITMENTS:
On the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations, Bert Metz,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), reviewed scenarios set
out in the Panel’s Third Assessment Report. He said the forthcoming
Fourth Assessment Report will deal with climate sensitivity, stabilization
calculations for all greenhouse gases, new mitigation options, and
stabilization targets below those set out in the Third Assessment Report. Artur
Runge-Metzger, European Commission, described the EU’s agreed policy of
aiming to limit global temperature rise to 2°C Celsius, based on a
stabilization of concentrations at 450ppm. He said this would mean
emissions reductions of between 60-80% by 2050 for industrialized
countries, assuming US participation. Harald
Dovland, Environment Ministry of Norway, noted that Norway also had a
long-term “aspirational goal” of 2°C. On future policies, he
highlighted recommendations from the Norwegian Commission on Low
Emissions, and a focus on renewable energy, pioneering and developing
carbon dioxide capture and storage, and awareness raising campaigns. Mutsuyoshi
Nishimura, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, emphasized the UNFCCC
objective of stabilizing emissions. He said the next commitment period
should achieve stabilization through an effective framework that adds new
tools and strategies to the “Kyoto toolbox.” He urged “fairness and
equity on burden sharing” among countries if the process is not to
collapse. SAUDI ARABIA said many Annex I countries had not shown
leadership. Nishimura replied that Japan is “deadly serious” about
climate change. José
Domingos Gonzalez Miguez, Brazil’s Ministry of Science and Technology,
presented the Brazilian proposal emphasizing historical responsibility and
shifting the focus from emissions to temperature increase. FINLAND
suggested the AWG look into differentiation methodologies and not just
historical responsibility, while CANADA said such responsibility is
“nuanced.” AWG Chair Zammit Cutajar wondered if current discussions on
further emissions reductions by Annex I countries should consider this
broader historical approach. ANNEX
I PARTIES’ EMISSION TRENDS AND MITIGATION POTENTIAL:
Sergey
Kononov, UNFCCC Secretariat, noted increasing emissions for Annex I
parties, highlighted the relevance of LULUCF for some parties’ emissions
profiles, and underscored the high growth rate for emissions in transport.
Alf
Wills, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa,
underlined the significance of using cumulative emissions data as the
basis for an equitable approach to determining future commitments and
providing space for developing countries to achieve their sustainable
development goals. NORWAY observed that emissions reduction targets for
developing countries were not discussed during the workshop. Adrian
Macey and Hayden Montgomery, New Zealand, presented on mitigation of
methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, noting that
mitigation options are limited and calling for increased international
research efforts. Mutsuyoshi
Nishimura highlighted Japan’s energy efficiency and decoupling of
emissions from growth in GDP. He emphasized the importance of policies and
measures other than the market to drive technological innovation. Artur
Runge-Metzger underlined that offsetting emissions through the CDM cannot
solve the climate problem. He pointed to the limited global emissions
stabilization impact if all Annex I parties were to achieve all their
reductions through domestic action, given the proposed 2°C
target for temperature rise. During
the subsequent discussion, TUVALU
noted the need to include all major emitters and sectors, and consider the
cost of adaptation. SOUTH AFRICA said the question of equity needs to be
addressed at a fundamental level. NEW ZEALAND underscored the theme of
equity, questioned assumptions about curbing the growth in emissions, and
highlighted the sectoral approach. SBSTA INDONESIA
and the GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT CENTRE pointed to the role of peatlands in the
carbon cycle, and NEPAL stressed community forestry. Hernan Carlino
(Argentina) and Audun Rosland (Norway) will co-chair a contact group. RESEARCH
AND SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION:
The Global Climate Observation System (GCOS) presented on revising
reporting guidelines (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/MISC.12) and a regional workshop
programme (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/MISC.13). The Committee on Earth Observation
Satellites (CEOS) presented on the coordinated response to the GCOS
implementation plan (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/MISC.14). AUSTRALIA, NORWAY and the
EU supported improving satellite observation systems. SWITZERLAND stressed
the continued need for in-situ
observations to calibrate satellites and input to models. Stefan Rösner
(Germany) and Soobaraj Nayroo Sok Appadu (Mauritius) will co-chair a
contact group. METHODOLOGICAL
ISSUES UNDER THE CONVENTION:
The Secretariat presented a technical review of and updated guidelines on
greenhouse gas inventories (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/INF.6; FCCC/SBSTA/2006/9).
Chair Kumarsingh reminded parties that greenhouse gas inventories will be
reviewed in 2007 and proposed preparing draft decisions.
METHODOLOGICAL
ISSUES UNDER THE PROTOCOL:
Implications
of awarding CDM credits to new HCFC-22 facilities for the destruction of
HFC-23:
The Secretariat presented on this issue (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/MISC.11).
ARGENTINA and the EU welcomed the decision by Montreal Protocol parties to
assess measures to reduce production of HCFCs and to consider the
influence of the CDM on HCFC-22 production in consultation with the UNFCCC
Secretariat, IPCC and CDM Executive Board. Lambert Schneider (Germany)
will conduct informal consultations. Issues
relating to greenhouse gas inventories: The
Secretariat presented results from a training programme for review experts
under Protocol Article 8 on review of national communications (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/INF.7).
Chair Kumarsingh suggested parties begin a review of Protocol Article 7.1
(annual inventories) on a voluntary basis, especially Decision 26/CMP.1
(timing and scope of review). Draft conclusions will be prepared. PROTOCOL
ARTICLE 2.3: The
EU noted that Article 2.3 (adverse effects of policies and measures) was
addressed under other agenda items. JAPAN proposed integrating the item
with discussions on Protocol Article 3.14 (adverse effects). Saudi Arabia,
for the G-77/CHINA, said they are separate issues. GHANA said the issue is
not just an OPEC issue and should be considered broadly, including how
policies and measures in developed countries will affect trade. Chair
Kumarsingh will consult informally. BUNKER
FUELS: The
International
Maritime Organization (IMO) reported on its work on emissions from
international shipping. He informed participants of a new amendment to the
London Protocol to allow carbon sequestration in seabed geological
formations. KUWAIT, with SAUDI ARABIA and opposed by the EU, JAPAN, NORWAY
and others, proposed removing this agenda item. CHINA said any decision
should strictly follow Protocol Article 2.2 (Annex I targets and the
Montreal Protocol) and only apply to Annex I parties. IMO proposed
establishing a benchmark for maritime emissions. Chair Kumarsingh will
consult informally. SBI Third
review of the financial mechanism: The
EU, US and SWITZERLAND said the GEF is performing effectively and welcomed
its fourth replenishment. The Philippines, for the G-77/CHINA, expressed
concerns over the GEF’s performance and its resource allocation
framework (RAF). CHINA said the GEF implementing and executing agencies’
performance should be assessed, and the REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested
examining the impacts of GEF funds on emissions reductions. Bangladesh,
for LDCs, urged inclusion of a vulnerability index in the RAF. Report
of the GEF: In
its report (FCCC/CP/2006/3), the GEF highlighted climate change as the
fourth replenishment’s highest-ever allocation. The G-77/CHINA requested
that the GEF also report on predictable and available funding for
implementation. ZAMBIA said RAF indicative allocations disadvantage most
developing countries. MICRONESIA said the RAF indicator on emissions
reduction potential penalizes SIDS. The EU stressed the RAF’s mid-term
review. The US encouraged the GEF to further consider, inter
alia,
carbon capture and storage technologies, while TUVALU said such
technologies may present a disincentive for renewable energy projects.
EGYPT called for GEF funding for biofuels. Additional
guidance to the GEF: The
Secretariat briefed delegates (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/INF.1). CHINA supported
further streamlining GEF procedures on the project cycle, enhanced country
ownership of projects, and increased GEF support for adaptation and
technology transfer. Tina Guthrie (Canada) and Osita Anaedu (Nigeria) will
co-chair a contact group on the financial mechanism. UNFCCC
ARTICLE 6:
On Article 6 (education, training and public awareness), the Secretariat
presented a synthesis report on four regional workshops (FCCC/SBI/2006/17)
and parties� views on advancing work on CC:iNet � the prototype
information network clearinghouse (FCCC/SBI/2006/MISC.15). UNEP reported
on relevant Article 6 activities. Many parties commended these reports.
SWITZERLAND advised pursuing synergies between capacity building and
Article 6. Informal consultations will be conducted by Marie Jaudet
(France). UNFCCC
ARTICLE 4.8 AND 4.9: The
Secretariat briefed participants on intersessional meetings (FCCC/SBI/2006/13,
FCCC/SBI/2006/18 and
FCCC/SBI/2006/19) and GHANA highlighted a recent
African workshop on adaptation. The EU noted more regional meetings
scheduled for 2007 and anticipated further action at COP 13. Angela
Churie-Kallhauge (Sweden) and Samuel Adejuwon (Nigeria) will co-chair a
contact group on climate change response measures. Matters
relating to LDCs:
The Secretariat and LDC Expert Group (LEG) Chair Bubu Pateh Jallow
reported on LDC issues and progress on NAPAs (FCCC/SBI/2006/23). The EU
stressed the LEG�s role in NAPA preparation, monitoring NAPA
implementation, and developing best practice standards for adaptation
measures. SIERRA LEONE, TANZANIA and MOZAMBIQUE stressed the importance of
NAPA preparation and implementation. Chair Becker will prepare draft
conclusions. CAPACITY
BUILDING UNDER THE CONVENTION: The
Secretariat reported on capacity building implementation, GEF�s capacity
building performance indicators and monitoring (FCCC/SBI/2006/5;
FCCC/SBI/2006/16;
FCCC/SBI/2006/22) and on parties� views on regular monitoring of
activities (FCCC/SBI/2006/MISC.4, Corr.1 and Add.1). Tanzania, for the
G-77/CHINA and supported by JAPAN, the US and EU, highlighted the
importance of reaching consensus on this issue and stressed the use of
existing reporting mechanisms in monitoring of capacity building. Crispin
d�Auvergne (Saint Lucia) and Helmut Hojesky (Austria) will co-chair a
contact group. IN
THE BREEZEWAYS The Russian proposal on long-term commitments also generated discussion. Informal talks on Tuesday apparently did not lead to a breakthrough, with the current discussions being described by one observer as �more of an agenda fight.� However, early reports suggest the proposal is likely to be part of the so-called �multi-track process� on post-2012 issues for some time.
|
