Presented by the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
[ Linkages Home ][ Send Feedback ]
HIGHLIGHTS
FROM THE THIRD CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE
3 DECEMBER 1997
Delegates to the
Third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) met
in morning and afternoon Plenary sessions to
consider the report of the Global Environment
Facility (GEF), technology transfer, review of
the implementation of the Convention, and
amendments to the Convention. Negotiating groups
on quantified emission limitation and reduction
objectives (QELROs) and FCCC Article 4.1
(commitments) continued their discussions.
PLENARY
GEF Chair Mohamed
El-Ashry introduced the GEF report, which updates
previous information on efforts to implement the
guidance provided by previous COP meetings and
includes a complete listing of GEF-financed
climate change projects. He recalled that some
Parties had said the GEF procedures were not
"user friendly," and noted the adoption
of further streamlined procedures for the
preparation of projects for enabling activities.
GEF has provided support to 85 climate change
projects addressing the needs of 114 countries at
a cost of US$63 million. He highlighted Annex A
of the report, which describes problems
encountered in applying the concept of agreed
full incremental costs. He also noted consensus
among donors on a replenishment target of US$2.75
billion.
The EU expressed
disappointment that delegates had not agreed to
establish GEF as the permanent financial
mechanism this year. He commended the agreed
level of financial support for climate change
activities. CHINA noted that efforts to advance
existing commitments are handicapped by a lack of
resources and called for a substantial increase
in the GEF replenishment. He called for an
expeditious approval process for funding and
noted that developing countries face enormous
difficulties in undertaking GHG inventories.
URUGUAY indicated
that it had been able to submit its first
national communication on GHG sources and sinks
because of GEF financing. The CENTRAL AFRICAN
REPUBLIC said that the report should be more
detailed and include difficulties encountered by
Parties in obtaining GEF resources to prepare
national communications. SWITZERLAND, supported
by the US, said that GEF should be established as
the permanent FCCC financial mechanism. The
G-77/CHINA referred to the provision of financial
resources and the transfer of technology as
fundamental to implementation of the Convention
by non-Annex I Parties. He pointed out that both
were developed countries’ obligations under
the Convention and should not be used to push
developing countries to accept new commitments or
to accept a market-based approach under the
protocol. The PHILIPPINES mentioned experiencing
problems with implementing agencies and said that
they should be more aware of decisions taken by
the GEF Council. INDIA, BHUTAN, BANGLADESH and
KIRIBATI highlighted the importance of obtaining
GEF financing for national communications. The US
said GEF had made an effort to meet the needs of
FCCC Parties and expressed disappointment at the
fact that the review of the financial mechanism
had not concluded. He also pointed to the need
for finding innovative sources of financing
involving the private sector.
The COP President
introduced a discussion on the development and
transfer of technologies. CHINA, supported by
INDIA and IRAN, observed two tendencies:
developed countries are only interested in
transfer of technical information, while
developing countries deem technology transfer on
non-commercial and preferential terms most
important; and some countries emphasize market
mechanisms. She called for action from developed
countries consistent with Agenda 21, the FCCC and
previous COP resolutions, and recommended that
that the issue be taken up as a separate item at
COP-4. SOUTH AFRICA said access to technology and
transfer of technical know-how would play a
crucial role in meeting the energy implications
of moving towards sustainable development. JAPAN
outlined the Kyoto Initiative to strengthen
assistance for developing countries in their
efforts to combat global warming, to be operated
through the national Official Development
Assistance program. The program will offer
concessional loans to promote training,
cooperation on energy-saving technology, new and
renewable energy sources, forest conservation and
aforestation, and will establish information
networks and workshops. INDIA, supported by IRAN,
called for the operationalization of the FCCC
provisions relating to state-of-the-art
environmentally sound technologies (EST), with
supporting provisions in the new legal
instrument. He also called for a streamlining of
the activities of the SBI and SBSTA.
AUSTRALIA said
the bulk of ESTs are privately developed and
owned. Governments can create enabling conditions
for technology development and recipient
countries must have appropriate policies for
successful transfers. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA said
his country was in consultation with the UNEP,
UNDP and the Commission on Sustainable
Development with a view to scheduling an expert
group meeting on technology transfer in Seoul in
February 1998. The outcome will be reported to
the 1998 session of the CSD. ZIMBABWE outlined
her country’s difficulties with basic
economic development and the financial impact of
El Niņo. She said technology transfer had become
a critical issue. IRAN identified obstacles
facing developing countries seeking transfers of
technology at their own expense due to
restrictions imposed by developed countries. He
said developed country governments who shift
responsibilities for transfers to the private
sector are contradicting the spirit of Agenda 21.
The Chair
introduced discussion of Agenda Sub-Item 3(d),
Second review of the adequacy of Article 4.2(a)
and (b). The first review was undertaken at
COP-1. After judging these commitments inadequate
COP-1 undertook the Berlin Mandate process.
Article 4.2(d) calls for a second review before
1999. SBI-6 requested the Secretariat to make
preparations for COP-3 to include the review in
the agenda for COP-4. AOSIS, with CHINA and
ZIMBABWE, stated that deliberation of this item
is premature given that it is unclear what the
actions taken under the Berlin Mandate process
will accomplish. He predicted that the visible
effects of climate change will have to become
devastating before the Annex I countries pushing
mediocre proposals take real action.
CHINA said the
lack of national communications also makes it
premature to review adequacy of commitments. The
US pointed out that the review must take account
of the Kyoto outcome, and asked that the nature
of the review be clarified. He objected to a de
novo review process if the outcome of Kyoto is
successful. CHINA disagreed, saying that the
review is independent of the outcome in Kyoto and
noting the Article 4.2(d) deadline of December
1998. CANADA expressed uncertainty as to what the
review would accomplish. Delegates decided that
necessary preparations should be made to place
the review of Articles 4.2(a) and (b) on the
Agenda of COP-4.
On Item 3(e),
Review of information and possible decisions
under Article 4.2(f), delegates agreed on the
proposal that Croatia, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia replace Czechoslovakia in Annex I.
Delegates debated at length a proposal by
Azerbaijan and Pakistan to delete Turkey from
Annex I and Annex II. IRAN, TURKEY and KUWAIT
supported the proposal. The EU and AUSTRALIA
maintained that Turkey should indicate
willingness to undertake Protocol obligations
under Article 10 before its deletion from the
Annexes. The US suggested continuing
consideration of this proposal and other OECD
members’ relationship to Annex I at COP-4.
TURKEY noted that questions remain unanswered on
the Protocol’s proposed Article 10 and
requested that ministers discuss the matter on 10
December. The Chair proposed that Luis Herrera
(Venezuela) undertake consultations on these
amendments.
Delegates
considered proposed amendments to the Convention
and its Annexes (FCCC/SBI/1997/15). The EU
presented a proposal to amend Article 17 to state
that Parties shall make every effort to agree on
any proposed protocol by consensus and if no
agreement is reached, the protocol shall be
adopted by a 3/4 majority. This amendment would
be applied provisionally, pending its entry into
force in accordance with Article 15.
The EU said
objections to the protocol may remain at the end
of COP-3 and a decision-making procedure would be
needed. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION emphasized that
voting is not the way to adopt an important
international instrument. VENEZUELA said the
amendment and its provisional application must be
considered separately. Sergio Alejandro Zelaya
Bonilla (Honduras) will conduct informal
consultations.
Under Kuwait's
proposed amendment, Parties shall provide
financial resources, including the transfer of
technology, as the COP may decide they are needed
by the developing country Parties. Kuwait said
the developing countries can only lower emissions
through technology, but resources made available
to date have been inadequate. The EU, supported
by the US and JAPAN, said donors should not place
their resources in the hands of the COP. SAUDI
ARABIA said the amendment came in reaction to the
EU proposal, which upsets the Convention's
"delicate balance." NIGERIA said
linkages between the two proposals must be
considered. Bakary Kante (Senegal) will conduct
informal consultations.
Following a
proposal by CROATIA, delegates discussed the
status of Yugoslavia in relation to the
Convention.
COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE
QELROs: The
negotiating group on QELROs met in the morning
and briefly discussed articles on economies in
transition, joint implementation and emissions
trading. The debate focused on voluntary
commitments for non-Annex I Parties, where a
divergence of views persisted. The Chair alluded
to the fact that the text of the Article on
voluntary commitments had originally been
submitted by AOSIS countries, and therefore, by
members of the G-77/China. A representative of
AOSIS clarified that the proposal had been made
at an early stage of negotiations when the
scenario was different, and stated its support
for the G- 77/China position. The developing
countries reiterated their opposition to new
commitments for non-Annex I Parties. The informal
group on sinks continued its consultations on the
Chair’s draft text and was to report to the
QELROs group in the evening. A Japanese proposal
establishing three different categories of Annex
I countries was considered in informal
consultations on differentiation. There were also
informal discussions on a
“three-plus-three” gas coverage
proposal, which would divide six gases into two
baskets. The first basket (CO2, CH4 and N2O)
would be subject to QELROs immediately, while
proposals for formulating QELROs for the second
basket (HFCs, PFCs and SF6) would be debated at
COP-4.
ARTICLE 4.1:The
negotiating group on commitments under Article
4.1 met in the afternoon to discuss a Chair's
draft text. Delegates agreed not to discuss three
reformulated paragraphs in the draft, covering
national and regional programmes for GHG
inventories and mitigation and adaptation
measures, actions to address climate change, and
reporting, after a group of countries said it
preferred to base discussions on the prior
version of those paragraphs.
A developed
country called for deletion of bracketed text on
[financial and fiscal] incentives for technology
transfer. A regional group suggested combining
the first two sentences of separate options on
technology transfer and deleting the remaining
text of both. Some Parties expressed concern over
text on removing barriers to investment in
technology transfer. A group of countries
suggested adding the phrase "developed
country Parties shall" to paragraphs
regarding technology transfer, but some developed
countries objected.
In a paragraph on
procedures through which governments could take
climate change considerations into account in
relevant decisions, a group of countries objected
to a phrase extending the recommendation to
multilateral development banks. A group of
countries suggested deleting a paragraph on
indicators for assessment of climate change
impacts and responses, but a developed country
wanted to retain the paragraph.
IN THE
CORRIDORS
Formulae for
differentiation have begun to proliferate, with
at least two suggestions that would form a number
of groups or categories among Annex I parties. A
Japanese delegate said Japan's proposal for three
categories is under active consideration. The
proposers have, however, distanced themselves
from suggestions that their proposal would set a
reduction target for the US at 3.5 % and for the
EU at 7.5 %. The EU has indicated that it will
not settle for a higher target than the US. The
EU's position on differentiation is that Parties
should follow the EU "bubble" example
and form burden sharing groups. For example, a
number of EU spokespersons have suggested that
the US could join its NAFTA partners. The US has
not yet detailed its preferred approach to
differentiation.
THINGS TO LOOK
FOR TODAY
COW:
Delegates will meet in negotiating groups.
Consult the journal for rooms and times.
|
