HIGHLIGHTS OF FCCC COP-2: FRIDAY, 12 JULY 1996
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The Subsidiary Body on Implementation reconvened Friday morning to further consider Agenda Item 3(a) (communications from Annex I Parties). AOSIS regretted that only four Annex I Parties will reach 1990 levels in light of the SAR. Developed countries are playing a ‘deadly losing game.’ The impact of the Communications Synthesis (FCCC/CP/1996/13) is to discredit the initial goal in favor of limiting future goals to whatever national economic circumstances permit. The EU noted its concern that only six out of twenty-one in- depth review reports have been finalized. The US noted the Secretariat’s concern about time and resources needed for in-depth reviews. It is imperative that second communications be submitted by April 1997.
Under Agenda item 2(b) (guidelines for communications from non-Annex I Parties), the Chair reported that a SBSTA contact group is approaching consensus. The G-77/CHINA said he has presented a position paper to the subsidiary bodies. Draft decisions were approved on Agenda items 7(a) (permanent secretariat) and 7(b) (income and budget performance).
The meeting then turned to Agenda Item 5 (technology transfer). The Secretariat introduced its reports, terms of technology transfer (FCCC/CP/1996/11) and private sector activities (FCCC/SBSTA/1996/4 - Add.2). The G-77/CHINA highlighted Article 4.7 (technology transfer), suggesting a meeting on technology adaptation. Supported by MALAYSIA, he stated that Annex I data was not comparable to Annex II data.
The EU, supported by the US, suggested the Secretariat focus on voluntary private sector technology transfer and on enabling conditions for its transfer. The US recommended reporting this in Annex I communications. CHINA stated that Annex II communications under-emphasize technology transfer. BANGLADESH underlined the needs of LDCs. The MARSHALL ISLANDS highlighted technology adaptation. CHINA and EGYPT underscored a governmental role.
The Chair stated that he would confer with SBSTA to discuss whether SBI should consider AIJ issues. The meeting adjourned and a contact group on communication with the GEF met, chaired by John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda). A contact group on Annex I national communications also met, chaired by John Drexhage (Canada).
AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE INFORMAL ROUND TABLES
POLICIES AND MEASURES
The session considered proposals for a protocol on policies and measures to implement FCCC. Debate centered on the pros and cons of mandatory policies and measures and their market driven alternatives. The US said while Parties generally agree it is necessary to move forward, no single set of policies and measures could apply to all countries given diverging circumstances. He sought an individual approach, noting the value of monitoring and reporting. The EU stated that a coordinated/mandatory approach would enhance progress by reducing participants’ opportunity costs. He suggested categorization of policy measures and Party selection. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION called for categorization and prioritization.
EGYPT supported the establishment of lists from which Parties could chose. INDIA said reduction targets must be set before flexible policies and measures can be devised. SAUDI ARABIA called for enhanced transparency and equity in policy development.
The CZECH REPUBLIC sought assistance to countries with economies in transition because their growth potential is substantial. URUGUAY called for solidarity and noted that the COP continues to ‘discuss the sex of angels’ while some countries are suffering the effects of inaction. The SIERRA CLUB stressed renewable energy projects rather than revenue intensive ones, coordinated fuel standards for vehicles and emissions targets. AUSTRALIA stated that the range of measures must be comprehensive and cautioned against selective sectoral processes in the absence of established criteria. NORWAY stressed sustainable production and consumption patterns and called on Parties to support lifestyle changes. SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN supported a cooperative approach, particularly in addressing economic concerns, while the UK favored an individualistic one. KENYA recommended that policies and measures be market-driven.
QELROs: An afternoon Round Table considered Quantified Emissions Limitations and Reduction Objectives (QELROs) with discussants from Germany, Japan, Samoa, the Russian Federation, the Philippines, and ABARE Commodity Forecasting and Economic Policy Research. Supporters of targets proposed new GHG reduction targets of 10% to 20% by 2005, and 15-20% by 2010, noted non-compliance with existing objectives by developed countries, and suggested a purely cost-benefit approach will lead to further inaction. Others questioned the feasibility of a uniform reduction target or suggested that the SAR demonstrates it is too early to judge limits and levels of reduction without an assessment of costs and benefits.
On the scientific or political basis of QELROs discussants said negotiations are influenced and not determined by science. The IPCC has left judgment to policy makers for this reason. Others cited IPCC projections to suggest that decision making is political and said everyday political or economic decision making is based on incomplete information.
On legally binding objectives, discussants preferred, inter alia
Considering differentiation among Annex I Parties, all discussants agreed that recognizing differentiation and equity was essential to achieving QELROs. One called for flat rate reduction, however most recognized differentiated effects on national economies as a result of climate policy. Given the complexity of modelling these effects, one discussant suggested having Parties establish baseline emissions then calculate agreed percentage reductions on a Party-by-Party basis. A proposal to combine the two strategies, commencing with a flat rate reduction to meet short term objectives, followed by a global emissions trading regime, was met with some enthusiasm.
PLENARY
The Plenary considered Agenda Item 3(b) (other statements). IRAN announced its ratification of the FCCC. He said the SAR confirms that it is not scientifically possible to link climate change and GHGs. TURKEY explained that it had not signed the FCCC because its status as a developed or developing country is uncertain. SOUTH AFRICA said ratification has been slow and it has begun an inventory of internal emissions. UNIDO described technical assistance on inventories of technology and support for a SBSTA workshop.
OPEC stated that the IPCC ‘broke the rules’ by implying consensus among scientists in its conclusions. He called for full compensation for any economic damage arising from the implementation of the FCCC. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS urged the Parties to encourage participation of all stakeholders and proceed cautiously on any new aims that would place undue cost burdens on utility customers. BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE suggested that Parties disseminate information on energy efficiency, and consider new approaches to emissions trading. A BUSINESS NGO representative stated that business and industry involvement and all-Party participation are critical to implementation.
A LOCAL AUTHORITIES representative said that local authorities are taking action because they are seeing drastic changes in weather patterns and rising disease. CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK said the Parties should negotiate a protocol containing a mechanism for progressively increasing commitments. CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK SOUTHEAST ASIA said COP- 2 should start negotiations on a protocol and reduce the amount of resources spent on ‘diversionary’ issues like AIJ. WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES said climate change represents an ethical and spiritual challenge. The Plenary also considered Agenda Item 9 (Special Session of the GA) and decided that SBI-4 should make a contribution to the Special Session on Agenda 21.
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
The Chair presented the SBSTA and SBI Chairs’ draft recommendations on Agenda Item 5(d) (activities implemented jointly). SAUDI ARABIA objected to the conclusion allowing Parties to submit views on the reporting format by September, noting this would be onerous for both developing countries and the Secretariat. Several delegates including BURKINA FASO, ARGENTINA, the CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC and KUWAIT noted that the text was available only in English and asked that it be made available in French and at least one other language before consideration. The Chair proposed that the conclusions be reconsidered on Monday.
The Chair reported on Agenda Item 6 (development and transfer of technology), noting that the issue is a shared responsibility of SBSTA and SBI, and that SBI will continue to take SBSTA’s views on the subject through an open-ended joint working group. Draft recommendations on Agenda Item 4(a) (Annex I communications) were also distributed and will be considered on Monday when they are also available in English. On the roster of experts, the G-77/CHINA noted the need to include experts from developing countries and sought full transparency. He said experts should be strictly technical as opposed to political.
IN THE CORRIDORS
NGO reaction varied to news that the Ministerial Round Table will remain closed to observers and the press. Some business NGOs expressed mild concern that the Round Table, which will be opened to all heads of delegations regardless of rank, will result in a de facto Plenary with no opportunity for outside input. Many environmental NGOs said they had not sought entry, in hopes a closed door session would produce tangible progress. Some NGOs of both camps voiced concern on setting a precedent.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY
SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
SBSTA will meet at 11:00 a.m. Check the board for room assignments.
AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE
A Round Table discussion on impacts of Annex I measures on developing countries will be held at 10:00 a.m. in room XXVI.
SUBSIDIARY BODY ON IMPLEMENTATION
SBI contact groups will meet on technology transfer (10:00 a.m., chaired by Manuel Dengo, Costa Rica), GEF communications (11:00 a.m., John Ashe, Antigua and Barbuda) and Annex I communications (3:00 a.m., John Drexhage, Canada). Check the board for room assignments.
- Improve this page Edit on Github Help and instructions
-
Donate
If you have found this useful and would like to support our work please consider making a small donation.