See more coverage of this event on the main IISD ENB website
We have launched a new website to better share our reports of global environmental negotiations.
As well as current coverage of new negotiations, you can find our original reports from this event by clicking here.
![]() |
|
Seventh
Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change Marrakesh, Morocco 29 October to 9 November 2001 |
||||
|
||||||
|
![]() |
Highlights for Wednesday, 31 October 2001
Delegates to the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the
UNFCCC met in the SBSTA to consider UNFCCC Article 6 (education, training
and public awareness), activities implemented jointly (AIJ), and other
matters. Negotiating groups on compliance and Protocol Articles 5
(methodological issues), 7 (communication of information) and 8 (review of
information) continued their work. In addition, informal consultations
were held on LDCs, the CDM, JI, the Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) on
non-Annex I communications, late payments of contributions to the UNFCCC,
and a letter from the Central Asia, Caucasus and Moldova Group on their
Status under the UNFCCC. |
|
||
SBSTA: UNFCCC ARTICLE 6 |
||
On Article 6, MALAYSIA and CHINA stressed the importance of a concrete implementation work programme. The US suggested that a workshop be held on the prioritization of activities and on setting a work programme. | ||
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY: | ||
![]() On the fifth synthesis report of AIJ under the pilot phase, the US provided proposals aimed at capturing the ongoing review of the pilot phase through continuing annual reports, revisiting elements for improvements, and looking at host party experiences of the pilot phase. Left photo: Delegates from the US and Saudi Arabia |
||
OTHER MATTERS: | ||
![]() |
||
|
||
NEGOTIATING GROUPS: | ||
PROTOCOL ARTICLES 5, 7 AND 8: | ||
The negotiating group on Articles 5, 7 and 8 took up the draft guidelines for the preparation of the information required under Article 7. On the reporting of supplementary information under Article 7.2 (inclusion of supplementary information in national communications), delegates disagreed over whether Parties should be "required" or "requested" to provide information on the use of mechanisms to supplement domestic action. | ||
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
COMPLIANCE: | ||
On submissions, AUSTRALIA (above), supported by the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, and opposed by a number of Parties, suggested the deletion of the possibility for a Party to submit a question of implementation with respect to another Party, explaining that it had the potential to create rifts among Parties or could eventually be used by a Party for "other reasons" and that the reports from expert review teams (ERTs) provided a thorough triggering process. | ||
![]() The EU highlighted that the Party-to-Party triggering option was useful for the effectiveness and balance of the compliance procedures. With IRAN (left), he said that if questions could be indicated in the reports of ERTs, sovereign states should also have the possibility to make submissions against another Party. |
||
![]() SAMOA stressed that procedures are non-adversarial, multilateral in nature and include due-process provisions. Left photo: Co-Chair Neroni Slade and the Secretariat during a session on Compliance. |
||
![]() |
||
JAPAN, opposed by CHINA, suggested that triggering against another Party could be limited to the facilitative branch. | ||
![]() |
||
FOSSIL OF THE DAY: | ||
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
© 2001, IISD. All rights reserved. |
|