go to IISDnet

Twelfth Session of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC
Bonn, Germany; 5 - 16 June 2000

<< Back to main page <<


Version française

Wednesday, 7 June:

Delegates to the informal meetings preceding SB-12 met to discuss: Protocol Article 3.14 (adverse effects); technology transfer; compliance; guidelines under Protocol Articles 5 (methodological issues), 7 (communication of information) and 8 (review of information); and capacity building. They also convened for a briefing on the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).

Informal meeting on development and transfer of technology
Ogunlade Davidson, IPCC, outlined the IPCC Special Report on Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer. He stressed that technology transfer for climate change should always be viewed in the FCCC's context, and underscored the need for rapid technology innovation and broad transfer of EST for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC's special report can be downloaded at http://www.ipcc.ch/
Reporting on the African workshop, Peter Zhou (Botswana) [center] outlined technology transfer barriers including the lack of climate change policies, weak legal and regulatory frameworks, inadequate finance and problems with structural adjustment programmes. He noted the need to, inter alia: create strategic partnerships between governments, the private sector, and donors; provide easier access to financing environmentally-sound technologies (ESTs) and local technologies; and enhance skills to support decision making.
Mahendra Kumar (Samoa), reporting on the Asia-Pacific workshop, said technology needs assessments should be country-driven and transparent, involving multi-stakeholder participation. He noted the limited attention paid to adaptation technologies.
Sheik Mohamed Khan (Guyana) said the Latin America and Caribbean workshop stressed the need to, inter alia: build indigenous capacities to assimilate and absorb climate-friendly technologies; improve access to technology information; involve smaller countries in capacity building initiatives; and overcome political barriers that result in low prioritization of technology issues.

Informal meeting on compliance

Delegates considered the Co-Chairs' Elements of a Compliance System for the Kyoto Protocol.

Co-chairs T. N. Slade (Samoa) [left] and Dovland [right]

Briefing on the IPCC Special Report on LULUCF

IPCC Chair Robert Watson presented the major findings of the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), which were then elaborated upon by the lead authors.

The IPCC's special report can be downloaded at http://www.ipcc.ch/

Setting the stage for the presentation of the IPCC special report on Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, IPCC Chair Dr. Robert Watson asserts that in the interests of a strong compliance regime, it will be critical to establish proper accounting systems, with accurate and standardized definitions.

Dr. Robert Watson discussed the details and complications surrounding the need to establish viable and consistent definitions, accounting, and methods. Current definitions employed were not specifically designed for Kyoto purposes and may not be of use in climate change policy.  In fact, the application of these definitions and methods may compromise the strength of the compliance system. Examples include the need to distinguish terms such as deforestation, afforestation, reforestation, harvesting, regeneration, etc., and the need to establish gauges and thresholds for measuring these definitions.

Dr. Bernard Schlamadinger discussed Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol, presenting 3 case-studies of different carbon accounting systems applied to the FAO definitional scenario, and illustrating the variance in results of these accounting systems.
Dr. Bert Bolin emphasizes that anthropomorphic activities have upset the balance in the global carbon cycle, most noticeably in the last 150 years.  He estimates that emissions from land-use and land-use change have contributed some 20% to global carbon emissions resulting from human activities.

Dr. Robert Scholes [above left] spoke on Article 3.4, noting the magnitude of additional activities could be substantial compared to Article 3. obligations.  Scholes distinguished between changes in management and land cover, highlighted verifiability, and associated non-climate impacts and benefits as key issues for the COP.

Dr. Jayant Sathaye [right] noted that LULUCF project experience is being gained through AIJ activities, and discussed concerns with projects, their permanence,  baselines, additionality, carbon leakage, monitoring and verification and implementation of sustainability conditions.

Interview with Jacob Werksman

Jacob Werksman (Samoa) comments on the importance of this week's informal meetings on compliance, citing the high political-economic stakes involved in flexibility mechanisms. For AOSIS countries, two key issues in compliance are (i) the ability of the regime to, from the outset, review and assess Parties' preparedness to engage in emissions trading (involving proper accounting systems), and (ii) the ability of this regime to evaluate compliance and impose meaningful consequences.

RealAudio of the interview

<< Back to ENB SB-12 main page <<

� 2000, IISD. All rights reserved.

| Linkages home | E-Mail |