Briefings from Bonn-6

The Focus of Discussions shifts to Ghana

AWGKP Contact Group on Emissions Trading and Project Based Mechanisms

The AWGKP meet to consider ‘possible improvements top emission trading and the project based mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol as means may be available to Annex-I Parties to reach their emission reduction targets; and identification of ways to enhance effectiveness of these means and their contribution to sustainable development’¹. In this connection, the discussion focused on commitment period specific issues. The Parties agreed on possible application of important issues like representation of Parties at the CDM Executive Board, privileges and immunities to the CDM board, provision of penalty for poorly performing Designated Operational Entities (DOEs), making robust and objective baseline settings, and introduction of improved measures for testing environmental and social impacts, simplification of modalities for the small scale activities. It is interesting to note that the Parties agreed mostly on those issues related to the efficiency, supervisory role and effectiveness of the CDM Board.

The Contact Group meeting today classified some items to be taken up for detailed discussion in Ghana. It has been observed that most of the items to be taken up in detailed in Ghana are related to sustainable development, co-benefits, and technology transfer. The specific issues like defining alternative accounting rules for afforestation and reforestation projects, limiting CDM activity to bilateral CDM projects, introduction of multiple factors for determining CERs, figure in the list.

Apart from the above classification of issues the group decided to earmark the list of undecided issues. The Parties put on hold a number of decisions related to the accessibility aspect of the CDM under the Agenda Item 3(a) of the AWGKP. These include differential treatment of Parties under the CDM, improvement of accessibility to CDM projects by certain host Parties are some of the issues figuring in the list. The indecision on the issues might be a threat to the future of tech-transfer arrangements under the CDM.

AWGKP Contact Group on LULUCF

It was the last of the meetings at Bonn for the Contact Group. The discussions focussed on the Draft Text on 3(b) and the Draft Text released after Joint Contact Group on 3(a) and 3(b). The Chair proposed for the deletion of Option 1 and proceeding with Option 2². This has been opposed by South Africa, Tuvalu, and Switzerland. The Parties requested the Chair for reasons behind such deletion. However, it was strongly observed by the parties that the above mentioned provisions are regarded as the pillars of environmental integrity. Therefore they should remain under the present form.

The discussions then moved on to the paragraph 2 where extensive deliberations were done on the changes in legal requirements under the activity based approach based on 3.3 and 3.4. Tuvalu remarked that it would consider that 16/CMP.1 should apply beyond the commitment period and that this will automatically carry over to the second commitment period. The chair remarked that they will be providing a finally revised text before the end of this session and Tuvalu’s concern as a note.

Discussing Paragraph 1 of the Annex included in the Draft Text³ the chair added the sentence on ‘maximising the reduction in GHGs by afforestation’, while clarifying that this was meant for discussion only and was not a proposal. Switzerland remarked that it did not understand the need for the word ‘afforestation’ which was narrow and instead the word ‘sustainability’ should be used. The chair replied that it was for the sake of focus as sustainability is too broad a word. Other issues were discussed including non-permanence and India commented that there is an inherent contradiction between long term mitigation and non permanence. The chair remarked that non permanence is addressed through ongoing mechanisms and the issue here is about long term sustainable management of forests. Brazil commented that it did not want to see creation of additional activities under Article 3.4.

Japan noted that this Annex provides a full range of options and issues that have combined proposals from each party. Tuvalu reacted by saying that the word ‘full range’ has implications as it prevents the parties from considering other elements. South Africa commented that in the Annex, references to the statements of parties are desirable. There were some other observations and the chair clarified that the mandate and preferences were provided in the Para 1 of the Text and the Annex is a list of items proposed by the Parties for further work. Some new proposals on the legal aspects of Paragraph 2 were discussed. Some changes and cross changes were made on this aspect which will be available in a new draft.

Contact group on arrangements for intergovernmental meetings

The Contact Group meeting on SBI was held today wherein the Co-Chairs of the group presented the draft text⁴ on conclusions on Agenda Item 13(a)-(c) on arrangements of intergovernmental meetings. The co-chair asked the delegations to put forth their views and comments on the conclusions given in the text if any changes are required. Paragraphs 1 to 5 were adopted unanimously as given in the text. India suggested that paragraph 6 be restricted to meetings other than COP/CMP meetings. Paragraph 6 was revised and adopted accordingly. The reference to “the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan” in paragraph 7 was replaced by the words “COP 14/ CMP 4” on the suggestion of the US and was adopted accordingly

On Paragraph 8, G-77 proposed that the Contact Group meet on this clause again keeping in view that G-77/China will be holding a meeting later in the day to formulate their views on this paragraph and accordingly decide on the modalities of this paragraph in a more positive manner. A suggestion also came that it would be good to discuss the contents of this paragraph after the meeting with Polish Minister.

Paragraphs 9 to 12 were adopted unanimously. However, a new paragraph was added after paragraph 12 on the suggestion of Australia, which reads as:

The SBI recommended that in scheduling meetings, including workshops and pre-sessionals, every effort should be made to avoid three week blocks.

On paragraph 13, the G-77 proposed to hold the future meetings in 2009 at World UN Centres to cut down on the cost. India sought clarification on differential cost pricing of hosting the meetings in Bonn or any other UN Centre with specific reference to Bangkok, Geneva and New York. India stressed on the fact that holding a meeting in Bangkok would reduce the cost of travelling and accommodation of developing country parties. However, the EU endorsed UNFCCC’s statement that meetings should be held in Bonn as otherwise cost of travel and accommodation of office staff would be too high. No agreement could be reached on this clause and it was decided that this and other pending matters in the draft will be taken up by the Contact Group in its next session on the basis of a revised draft text.

Contact Group on Development & Transfer of Technologies

The Chair presented the second revised draft text⁵ of SBI on Agenda Item 6 on Development and transfer of technologies, in the Contact Group meeting today. The draft text was adopted unanimously without any modifications.

¹ Draft Tex, Version: 11^th June, 2008, 17.00Hrs.
² Option 1, para 3 according to which the AWG agreed that the principles to govern the treatment of LULUCF contained in decision 16/CMP.1 should continue to apply while Option 2, para 3 acknowledged that further discussions on this issue should take into account the principles that govern the treatment of LULUCF, as set out in the decision 16/CMP.1.)
³Version: 10^th June, 2008, 18.00hrs
⁴ Draft text on SBI 28 Agenda Item 13 (a)-(c), version of 10 June 2008 @ 07:00 hrs
⁵ Draft Text on SBI 28 Agenda Item 6, version of 11 June 2008 @ 12:00 hrs