<enb@iisd.org>EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN 

                                             
   PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT (IISD) (info@iisd.ca)


            Linkages WWW site: http://enb.iisd.org

            
                  Written and Edited by:
            Paola Bettelli (pbettelli@iisd.org)                      
              Chad Carpenter (chadc@iisd.org)
              Angela Churie (churie@l.kth.se)                      
     Lavanya Rajamani (lavanya.rajamani@hertford.ox.ac.uk)
           Chris Spence (spencechris@hotmail.com)
       Juliette Voinov (cedrickohler@email.msn.com)



                   WWW Content Editor: 
          Peter Doran (pfdoran@ecology.u-net.com) 


                 Digital Engineering by:
              Andrei Henry (andrei@iisd.org)
             Leila Mead (leila@interport.net), 
             Kenneth M. Tong (k8o@interlog.com) 
              Richard Stokes (rstokes@iisd.ca)
                     

                   Electronic posting by:
               Kevin Cooney (kcooney@iisd.org)

                                 
                           Editor
             Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. (pam@iisd.org)

                       Managing Editor
        Langston James Goree VI "Kimo" (kimo@iisd.org)
             
  
Vol. 12 No. 123
Monday, 8 November 1999


SUMMARY OF THE FIFTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE FRAMEWORK 
CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 

25 OCTOBER – 5 NOVEMBER 1999

The Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-5) to the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) met 
in Bonn, Germany, from 25 October - 5 November 1999. With over 
3000 participants in attendance and 165 Parties represented, 
delegates continued their work toward fulfilling the Buenos Aires 
Plan of Action (BAPA) adopted at the Fourth Conference of the 
Parties (COP-4) in November 1998. Under the BAPA, Parties set a 
two-year deadline for strengthening FCCC implementation and 
preparing for the future entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. 

During the course of COP-5, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation 
(SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological 
Advice (SBSTA) were assisted in their work by eight contact 
groups, a joint SBI/SBSTA working group and numerous informal 
consultations. During its last two days, COP-5 adopted 32 draft 
decisions and conclusions. on, inter alia, the review of the 
implementation of commitments and other FCCC provisions and 
preparations for the first session of the COP serving as the 
Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP-1). Ninety-three 
ministers and other heads of delegation addressed COP-5 during a 
high-level segment held from 2 - 3 November. Delegates completed 
their work ahead of schedule and generated an "unexpected mood of 
optimism" in the lead-up to COP-6. After a faltering COP in Buenos 
Aires, the process recovered vital momentum and began to gather 
determination and support for a self-imposed deadline for entry 
into force of the Protocol by 2002. 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FCCC AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

The FCCC was adopted on 9 May 1992, and was opened for signature 
at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992. 
The FCCC entered into force on 21 March 1994, 90 days after 
receipt of the 50th ratification. To date, 180 countries have 
ratified the Convention. 

COP-1: The First Conference of the Parties to the FCCC (COP-1) 
took place in Berlin from 28 March - 7 April 1995. In addition to 
addressing a number of important issues related to the future of 
the FCCC, delegates reached agreement on what many believed to be 
the central issue before COP-1 – adequacy of commitments, the 
"Berlin Mandate." Delegates agreed to establish an open-ended Ad 
Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM) to begin a process toward 
appropriate action for the period beyond 2000, including the 
strengthening of the commitments of Annex I Parties through the 
adoption of a protocol or other legal instrument. COP-1 also 
requested the Secretariat to make arrangements for sessions of the 
subsidiary bodies on scientific and technological advice (SBSTA) 
and implementation (SBI). SBSTA serves as the link between the 
information provided by competent international bodies, and the 
policy-oriented needs of the COP. SBI was created to develop 
recommendations to assist the COP in the review and assessment of 
the implementation of the FCCC and in the preparation and 
implementation of its decisions. 

AD HOC GROUP ON ARTICLE 13: The Ad Hoc Group on Article 13 
(resolution of questions regarding implementation) was set up to 
consider the establishment of a multilateral consultative process 
(MCP) available to Parties to resolve questions on implementation. 
At its fifth session, Parties agreed that the MCP should be 
advisory rather than supervisory in nature and AG13 should 
complete its work by COP-4. 

AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE/COP-2: The AGBM met eight times 
between August 1995 and COP-3 in December 1997. During the first 
three sessions, delegates focused on analyzing and assessing 
possible policies and measures to strengthen the commitments of 
Annex I Parties, how Annex I countries might distribute or share 
new commitments and whether commitments should take the form of an 
amendment or protocol. AGBM-4, which coincided with COP-2 in 
Geneva in July 1996, completed its in-depth analysis of the likely 
elements of a protocol, and Parties appeared ready to prepare a 
negotiating text. At AGBM-5, which met in December 1996, delegates 
recognized the need to decide whether or not to allow mechanisms 
that would provide Annex I Parties with flexibility in meeting 
quantified emissions limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs). 

As the protocol was drafted during the sixth and seventh sessions 
of the AGBM, in March and August 1997, respectively, delegates 
"streamlined" a framework compilation text by merging or 
eliminating some overlapping provisions within the myriad of 
proposals. Much of the discussion centered on a proposal from the 
EU for a 15% emissions cut for a "basket" of three greenhouse 
gases (GHGs) by the year 2010 compared to 1990 levels. In October 
1997, as AGBM-8 began, US President Bill Clinton included a call 
for "meaningful participation" by developing countries in the 
negotiating position he announced in Washington. The insistence on 
G-77/China involvement was linked to the level of ambition 
acceptable by the US and, in response, the G-77/China distanced 
themselves from attempts to draw developing countries into 
agreeing to anything that could be interpreted as new commitments. 

COP-3: The Third Conference of the Parties (COP-3) was held from 
1-11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. Over 10,000 participants, 
including representatives from governments, IGOs, NGOs and the 
media, attended the Conference, which included a high-level 
segment featuring statements from over 125 ministers. Following a 
week and a half of intense formal and informal negotiations, 
including a session that began on the final evening and lasted 
into the following day, Parties to the FCCC adopted the Kyoto 
Protocol on 11 December. In the Kyoto Protocol, Annex I Parties to 
the FCCC agreed to commitments with a view to reducing their 
overall emissions of six GHGs by at least 5% below 1990 levels 
between 2008 and 2012. The Protocol also established emissions 
trading and "joint implementation" (JI) between developed 
countries, and a "clean development mechanism" (CDM) to encourage 
joint emissions reduction projects between developed and 
developing countries. The Protocol will enter into force 90 days 
after it is ratified by 55 States, including Annex I Parties 
representing at least 55% per cent of total carbon dioxide 
emissions by Annex I Parties for 1990. As of 25 October 1999, 84 
FCCC Parties had signed the Kyoto Protocol and 16 had ratified it.

POST-KYOTO SUBSIDIARY BODIES MEETINGS: The subsidiary bodies of 
the FCCC met from 2-12 June 1998 in Bonn. SBSTA-8 agreed to draft 
conclusions on, inter alia, cooperation with relevant 
international organizations, methodological issues, and education 
and training. SBI-8 reached conclusions on, inter alia, Annex I 
and non-Annex I national communications, the financial mechanism 
and the second review of adequacy of Annex I Parties' commitments. 
At its sixth session, AG13 concluded its work on the functions of 
the MCP. After joint SBI/SBSTA consideration and extensive contact 
group debates on the flexibility mechanisms, delegates could only 
agree to a compilation document containing proposals from the G-
77/China, the EU and the US on the issues for discussion and 
framework for implementation. 

COP-4: The Fourth Conference of the Parties (COP-4) was held from 
2-13 November 1998 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, with over 5,000 
participants in attendance. During the two-week meeting, delegates 
deliberated decisions for the COP during SBI-9 and SBSTA-9. Issues 
related to the Kyoto Protocol were considered in joint SBI/SBSTA 
sessions. A high-level segment, which heard statements from over 
100 ministers and heads of delegation, was convened on Thursday, 
12 November. Following hours of high-level "closed door" 
negotiations and a final plenary session that concluded early 
Saturday morning, delegates adopted the Buenos Aires Plan of 
Action (BAPA). Under the BAPA, the Parties declared their 
determination to strengthen the implementation of the FCCC and 
prepare for the future entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. The 
Plan contains the Parties' resolution to demonstrate substantial 
progress on: the financial mechanism; the development and transfer 
of technology; the implementation of FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9 
(adverse effects), as well as Protocol Articles 2.3 and 3.14 
(adverse effects); AIJ; the Protocol mechanisms; and preparations 
for COP/MOP-1. 

SBI-10 AND SBSTA-10: The FCCC subsidiary bodies held their tenth 
sessions in Bonn, Germany, from 31 May - 11 June 1999, and began 
the process of fulfilling the BAPA. SBSTA considered topics such 
as Annex I communications, methodological issues and the 
development and transfer of technology. SBI discussed, inter alia, 
administrative and financial matters and non-Annex I 
communications. SBI and SBSTA jointly considered the mechanisms of 
the Kyoto Protocol, AIJ and compliance. A joint SBI/SBSTA Working 
Group on compliance (JWG) discussed identification of compliance-
related elements, including gaps and suitable forums to address 
them; design of a compliance system; and consequences of non-
compliance. 

REPORT OF COP-5

COP-4 President Maria Julia Alsogaray (Argentina) opened COP-5 on 
Monday, 25 October 1999, and emphasized the need for political 
will to fulfill the BAPA and allow for the Protocol to enter into 
force by Rio+10 in 2002. 

Jan Szyszko, Poland's Minister of Environmental Protection, 
Natural Resources and Forestry, was then elected President of COP-
5. He said the operation of the Protocol mechanisms, compliance, 
and guidance to COP/MOP-1 should be resolved by COP-6. He noted 
the need to identify alternatives that lower implementation-
related costs for developing countries. 

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder noted that, despite the 
establishment of the FCCC, there have been setbacks in the climate 
process, including the inability of most industrialized countries 
to reduce their CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. He 
said the Protocol should enter into force in time for Rio+10 in 
2002 and urged Parties to implement their pledges in international 
fora. 

FCCC Executive Secretary Michael Zammit Cutajar, on behalf of UN 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, stressed the need for urgent action 
if the Kyoto commitments are to be met. He called for sensitivity 
to the needs of vulnerable countries and financial empowerment of 
developing countries. Assuring the COP of UN support, he said the 
global community wished to see the CDM activated after COP-6 and 
the Protocol ratified by 2002.

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Following the opening statements, the COP 
adopted its agenda (FCCC/CP/1999/1) with the exception of item 5 
relating to the second review of the adequacy of commitments under 
FCCC Article 4.2(a) and (b) (policies and measures by Annex I 
Parties), following objections to the title by the G-77/CHINA, who 
preferred to substitute it with the "review of adequacy of 
implementation of FCCC Articles 4.2(a) and (b)." It also adopted 
the proposed organization of its work (FCCC/CP/1999/1/Add.1).

On Friday, 5 November, President Szyszko reported that no 
agreement had been reached during informal consultations convened 
to resolve item 5. The COP adopted the agenda including item 5 as 
it stood, and recorded the amendment proposed by the G-77/CHINA in 
a footnote. President Szyszko said this item would be taken up by 
COP-6 in accordance with the provisional rules of procedure, and 
gaveled the adoption of this decision. The Alliance of Small 
Island States (AOSIS) expressed concern about this decision and 
said there was no excuse for the COP not to carry out this review. 
The EU made a distinction between FCCC Article 4.2(d) (review of 
the adequacy of commitments), which is the way forward for the COP 
to operate a review of Article 4.2(a) and (b) on a regular basis, 
and FCCC Article 7.2 (review of FCCC implementation), which covers 
the review of implementation of the current commitments. She added 
that the IPCC Third Assessment Report should serve as the basis 
for assessing the level of GHG that would prevent dangerous 
anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the time 
frame to reach stabilization of GHG in the atmosphere at that 
level.

STATUS OF RATIFICATION: Delegates considered the status of 
ratification of the FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol in Plenary, noting 
that 179 States and one regional economic integration organization 
were Parties to the FCCC, and that 16 of these had ratified or 
acceded to the Kyoto Protocol. 

RULES OF PROCEDURE: President Szyszko noted during the opening 
Plenary that Parties had yet to reach a consensus on the rules of 
procedure. The COP decided to apply the draft rules 
(FCCC/CP/1996/2) used in previous sessions, with the exception of 
draft rule 42 (voting). President Szyzsko reported back to the COP 
on Thursday, 4 November, that, despite informal consultations, 
consensus on the rules had not been achieved. Delegates agreed to 
defer the issue to COP-6.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS: The COP elected its Bureau members. The Vice 
Presidents elected were: Liu Zhenmin (China), Papa Cham (the 
Gambia), Yvo de Boer (Netherlands), Tuiloma Neroni Slade (Samoa), 
Mohammad Salem Al-Sabban (Saudi Arabia), Philip Gwage (Uganda), 
and Olexander Bielov (Ukraine). The COP elected Antonio José 
Vallim Guerreiro (Brazil) as Rapporteur, John Ashe (Antigua and 
Barbuda) as Chair of SBI and Harald Dovland (Norway) as Chair of 
SBSTA. 

ADMISSION OF OBSERVERS AND ORGANIZATION OF WORK: COP-5 admitted as 
observers two IGOs and 36 NGOs (FCCC/CP/1999/4 and Add.1).

DATE AND VENUE OF COP-6: The date and venue of COP-6 was 
considered by the SBI on Wednesday, 27 October, and Monday, 1 
November. During SBI discussions, the G-77/CHINA proposed holding 
COP-6 in November 2000, while the US, with CANADA, AUSTRALIA and 
NEW ZEALAND, preferred early 2001. The COP adopted a decision 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.9) on Thursday, 4 November, that accepts the 
Netherlands' offer to host COP-6, and decides that the meeting 
will be held in The Hague from 13 - 24 November 2000.

CALENDAR OF MEETINGS, 2000 - 2003: The calendar of meetings for 
FCCC bodies for 2000-2003 (FCCC/CP/1999/L.12) was adopted by the 
COP on Thursday, 4 November, following recommendation to the COP 
by SBI on Monday, 1 November. The calendar sets three sessional 
periods for 2000: 12-16 June and 11-15 September, each preceded by 
week-long informal meetings, followed by COP-6 in November. Two 
sessional periods are scheduled for each of the following years to 
2003.

REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION 

ANNEX I COMMUNICATIONS: Guidelines for the Preparation of National 
Communications from Annex I Parties: This item was considered by 
SBI and SBSTA and referred to a joint working group. SBI and SBSTA 
adopted draft conclusions on Monday, 1 November, and the COP 
adopted a decision on Thursday 4, November. 

SBSTA considered this sub-item on Monday, 25 October. The EU noted 
the need to include indicators such as emissions per capita or 
emissions per unit of output. Regarding the draft guidance for 
reporting on global climate observation systems, the EU, with 
MONGOLIA, recommended that Annex I Parties prepare a separate 
report and include in their national communications a summary 
based on general reporting requirements. AUSTRALIA suggested that 
projections of the effect of policies and measures on future 
trends of GHG emissions and removals be developed by sector. The 
MARSHALL ISLANDS and JAMAICA supported detailed and rigorous 
reporting. The US said the quantity and level of detail should 
balance needs for comparability, transparency and practicality. A 
joint SBI-SBSTA contact group chaired by Jim Penman (UK) and Mark 
Mwandosya (Tanzania) was established to consider Part II of the 
guidelines.

On Wednesday, 27 October, SBI decided to consider the guidelines 
for the preparation of national communications from Annex I 
Parties after SBSTA had arrived at conclusions on the revisions to 
Part II of the guidelines. 

The joint contact group met from 26-29 October. Delegates agreed 
to delete the section on coverage and the EU submitted a proposal 
to restructure the section on national circumstances. On the 
selection of policies and measures, the group agreed on the 
differentiation of policies "adopted," "implemented" and at a 
"planning stage," for reporting purposes and called for 
definitions of these terms. 

On the projections and the total effect of policies and measures, 
delegates invited the Chair to settle the terminology of 
projections "without measures," since these were unusual terms 
compared to "business as usual," and misleading, as they seemed to 
exclude consideration of policies and measures implemented prior 
to the starting point of the projection. On financial resources, 
issues raised included whether to provide details of measures or 
detailed information of the activities undertaken to implement 
Annex I commitments and how to format the reports. 

On Saturday, 30 October, the joint contact group concluded its 
work and agreed to forward the Chair's draft conclusions 
containing a draft decision on Part II of the guidelines on 
national communications to the SBSTA.

SBSTA considered the draft conclusions on Monday, 1 November, and 
amended a paragraph calling on Parties to report on significant 
technology transfer success stories, to also include reference to 
failures. On the same day, SBI agreed to recommend the draft 
decision for adoption by COP-5.

COP-5 adopted the draft decision on Part II of the guidelines 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.3) and the addendum containing the guidelines 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.3/Add.1) on Thursday, 4 November. In the decision, 
the COP, inter alia: decides that Part II of the guidelines should 
be used for the preparation of third national communications; 
requests Annex I Parties to provide a detailed report on their 
activities in relation to systematic observation; and urges Annex 
II Parties to assist Parties with economies in transition (EITs) 
with technical aspects in preparing national communications. 

The COP also adopted the draft decision recommended by SB-10, on 
Part I (annual inventories) of the FCCC guidelines for the 
preparation of national communications by Annex I Parties 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.2) together with an addendum containing the 
guidelines (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/6/Add.1). In the decision, the COP, 
inter alia: decides that Part I of the guidelines should be used 
beginning in the year 2000; and decides that these guidelines 
shall be considered by SBSTA-15 with a view to a decision for 
consideration by COP-7. 

Guidelines for the Technical Reviews of GHG Inventories: The SBI 
considered this sub-item on Monday, 25 October, and agreed that it 
should be considered by the joint contact group on national 
communications from Annex I Parties. On Wednesday, 27 October, the 
joint contact group decided to refer consideration of the 
technical review guidelines to a smaller group.

On Saturday, 30 October, the joint contact group considered and 
adopted the SBI draft conclusions on these guidelines, including a 
draft decision to which the guidelines are annexed. On Thursday, 4 
November, the COP adopted the draft decision recommended by SBI 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.11) and the addendum containing the guidelines 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.11/Add.1) after CHINA amended the text to state 
that the purpose of the technical review is to assist "Annex I 
Parties" instead of "all Parties" in gaining experience relevant 
to the preparation of guidelines related to Protocol Articles 5 
(methodology), 7 (communication) and 8 (review of information). 
The objective of these guidelines is, inter alia, to promote 
consistency in the review of annual GHG inventories of Annex I 
Parties and to establish a process for a thorough and 
comprehensive technical assessment of inventories.

NON-ANNEX I COMMUNICATIONS: On Monday, 25 October, SBI considered 
non-Annex I communications. A contact group, chaired by Mohamed 
Mahmoud Ould el Ghaouth (Mauritania), met several times from 26 
October - 1 November. The COP considered and adopted the draft 
conclusions recommended by SBI on Thursday, 4 November. 

On obstacles to producing non-Annex I communications, the G-
77/CHINA called for provision of adequate financial resources, 
technical assistance and capacity building to support non-Annex I 
Parties in collecting data and identifying national emissions 
factors and methodologies for adaptation assessment. The EU, 
opposed by CHINA, said the Global Environment Facility (GEF) had 
provided most non-Annex I Parties with funding for national 
communications. UZBEKISTAN noted that constraints included lack of 
research and data on emissions factors. IRAN noted that countries 
have needs determined by their unique circumstances.

On the advantages of producing non-Annex I communications, the G-
77/CHINA said that despite difficulties in identifying significant 
trends, the synthesis of initial non-Annex I communications was a 
first step in considering information related to FCCC 
implementation by non-Annex I Parties. The EU, CANADA and 
MICRONESIA noted the usefulness of the compilation and synthesis 
report in better understanding the difficulties faced by non-Annex 
I Parties. 

The G-77/CHINA opposed changing the guidelines for non-Annex I 
communications, as many non-Annex I countries have not finalized 
their first communications. AOSIS noted the need to modify IPCC 
guidelines for small island developing States (SIDS) because they 
are not always applicable to their special circumstances. Since 
many countries had expressed an interest in initiating second 
national communications, the EU said guidelines should be 
reviewed. SWITZERLAND said there is a need for one unified 
reporting format for all FCCC Parties and for the use of IPCC 
guidelines. 

The G-77/CHINA called for the involvement of non-Annex I Party 
experts in preparing non-Annex I communications. The EU and others 
highlighted the need for expert review and consideration of non-
Annex I communications. AOSIS opposed technical assessment 
processes for individual national communications. The REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA added that expert review teams should focus on identifying 
solutions to obstacles in preparing communications.

On the timing of second national communications, the G-77/ CHINA 
noted that there is a differentiated timetable under the FCCC for 
submission of national communications by Annex I and non-Annex I 
Parties. She said submissions of non-Annex I Parties' 
communications were contingent on the availability of financial 
resources. The US, supported by CANADA and SWITZERLAND and opposed 
by CHINA, said the revision of guidelines was fundamental to 
improving second national communications. 

On Tuesday, 26 October, the contact group discussed proposals 
submitted by the EU and the G-77/China. The G-77/CHINA, opposed by 
the EU and others, said its proposal should serve as the basis for 
the group's discussions. Some delegates proposed identification of 
common elements between the two proposals. The G-77/CHINA, 
supported by others, drew attention to contentious elements, 
including technical assessments of non-Annex I communications 
contained in the EU proposal. She questioned the purpose, nature 
and usefulness of these assessments. The EU and others said the 
purpose of technical assessments is to improve non-Annex I 
communications. The group agreed to work on a Co-Chairs' 
compilation text. 

On Monday, 1 November, SBI considered and adopted the draft 
recommendations on matters related to consideration of non-Annex I 
communications, which includes the terms of reference of the 
consultative group of experts (CGE) on non-Annex I national 
communications. INDIA and CHINA proposed deletion of a paragraph 
that calls on the CGE to consider steps taken or envisaged by the 
Party to implement the FCCC. The recommendations were adopted 
without amendment. Delegates also adopted the Chair's draft 
conclusions on the provision of financial and technical support 
for non-Annex I national communications.

COP-5 adopted the decision on other matters related to non-Annex I 
communications (FCCC/CP/1999/L.10/Add.1/Rev.1) on Thursday, 4 
November. The decision states, inter alia: 

*  the consideration of non-Annex I communications shall be 
carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of decision 
12/CP.4 (non-Annex I communications); 

*  the guidelines for the preparation of initial non-Annex I 
communications contained in decision 10/CP.2 (non-Annex I 
communications), together with guidance provided to the GEF, shall 
continue to be valid for all initial communications; and 

*  the COP agrees to begin a process of reviewing the guidelines 
for the preparation of national communications with the aim of 
improving them by COP-7. 

The COP also decides to: 

*  establish a CGE on non-Annex I communications with the 
objective of improving these communications, as set out in an 
annex; 

*  reconsider at COP-7 the terms of reference of the CGE; and

*  request the FCCC Secretariat to facilitate the work of the 
consultative group. 

The CGE terms of reference attached to the decision state that, 
inter alia: the CGE will have the aim to improve the preparation 
process of non-Annex I communications; the CGE will be composed of 
experts, five of whom will be drawn from Africa, five from Asia, 
five from Latin America and the Caribbean, and six from Annex I 
Parties; and up to three experts from organizations with relevant 
experience will be selected by the Secretariat. The group is 
mandated to, inter alia: exchange experiences and information on 
the preparation of non-Annex I communications; identify non-Annex 
I Parties' technical and financial needs and the difficulties they 
face; and facilitate and support the preparation of their national 
communications.

The COP also adopted a draft decision on the first compilation and 
synthesis of initial communications from non-Annex I Parties 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.10) forwarded by SBI-10. This decision requests: 
non-Annex I Parties which have not submitted their initial 
communications within three years of entry into force of the FCCC, 
to do so as soon as possible; the Secretariat to prepare the 
second compilation and synthesis of initial non-Annex I 
communications, and to make that report available to SB-14 with a 
view to its consideration by COP-6; and the Secretariat to report 
on problems encountered in using the guidelines for the 
preparation of initial communications by non-Annex I Parties with 
a view to enhancing further their comparability and focus. The 
decision also concludes that, inter alia, non-Annex I Parties are 
fulfilling their commitments under FCCC Article 4.1(a) (comparable 
methodologies) and following the FCCC guidelines. It points to the 
need to maintain and enhance national capacity in non-Annex I 
Parties in order to prepare initial communications. 

CAPACITY BUILDING: This agenda item was considered in a joint 
SBI/SBSTA session on 26 October and in a contact group that met 
four times from 27-30 October. The contact group considered the 
Co-Chairs' proposal for a draft decision on capacity building that 
was based on a G-77/China proposal and incorporated submissions 
from the EU and other Annex I Parties. 

Many delegates welcomed the G-77/CHINA proposal for a draft 
decision on capacity building (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/MISC.9) for 
developing countries, which contains a list of developing country 
needs, as a basis for adopting a decision at COP-5. The G-77/China 
draft decision called on the COP to, inter alia: conduct capacity 
building activities in and for developing countries; provide the 
necessary financial and technical support to strengthen national 
focal points; promote climate-related research and studies; and 
promote capacity building of national institutions and expertise. 
It further requests the Secretariat to, inter alia, prepare a plan 
to facilitate capacity building for developing countries. It 
underscored the importance of workshops being undertaken with the 
participation of developing countries. 

In discussing the G-77/China proposal, delegates highlighted, 
inter alia: the inclusion of EITs in capacity-building activities 
(EU, KAZAKHSTAN); that capacity building be "for," "by" and "in" 
developing countries (the PHILIPPINES); the need for a coordinated 
response among existing efforts in capacity building (CANADA); the 
lack of utility in holding short workshops, as developing 
countries need continuous ones (CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC); and the 
identification of non-Annex I Parties' needs by analyzing their 
national communications (EU). AUSTRALIA, CANADA, JAPAN and 
UZBEKISTAN said that capacity building was necessary to take full 
advantage of the CDM.

Regarding the process of capacity building, a number of developing 
countries said it should be country driven rather than agency 
driven and must follow the guidance of the COP. 

The meeting decided to continue the deliberations in a contact 
group co-chaired by SBI Chair John Ashe and Dan Reifsnyder (US). 
The contact group discussed whether: to use the draft as a basis 
for negotiation; if EITs should be included in the draft decision; 
and whether capacity building is a prerequisite for meaningful 
developing country participation. 

On Wednesday 3 November, the joint SBI/SBSTA agreed to recommend 
COP-5 to adopt the Co-Chairs' two proposals for draft decisions on 
capacity building for developing countries and for EITs. The 
MARSHALL ISLANDS expressed its reservation on the request to the 
Secretariat to coordinate with bilateral and multilateral 
institutions in preparing the elements of a draft framework for 
capacity building activities, since this would be a top-down 
approach. The COP adopted these draft decisions on 4 November.

The decision for capacity building in developing countries 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.19), inter alia: recognizes the constraints in 
developing countries to implementing the Convention and, in 
particular, the special capacity-building needs of the least 
developed countries (LDCs) and SIDS; emphasizes that capacity 
building is a continuous process; and states that capacity 
building for developing countries must be country-driven, 
reflecting national initiatives and priorities. COP-5 decided 
that: financial and technical support for capacity building in 
developing countries should be provided through the financial 
mechanism and bilateral and multilateral agencies; existing 
capacity building activities and programmes should be 
comprehensively assessed to determine their effectiveness and 
identify gaps and weaknesses in ongoing efforts; and developing 
countries' special needs should be further elaborated. The 
decision outlines issues to be considered in the assessment, 
including ways and means for capacity building to strengthen FCCC 
national focal points, build expertise and strengthen 
institutions, and conduct training, seminars and exchange 
programmes for the personnel of developing country institutions.

The decision on capacity building for EITs (FCCC/CP/1999/L.20) 
states that, inter alia: financial and technical support for 
capacity building in EITs should be provided through bilateral and 
multilateral channels and the private sector; existing programmes 
and activities should be comprehensively assessed to determine 
their effectiveness and identify gaps and weaknesses; and the 
special needs of EITs should be elaborated. 

Both decisions further invite concerned Parties to identify their 
needs and priorities for capacity building, and request the 
Secretariat to compile and synthesize the information and, based 
on the information and in consultation with the Parties, develop a 
draft framework for capacity-building activities.

DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES: Consultative Process: 
This agenda item was considered by SBSTA on Wednesday, 27 October. 
Delegates expressed appreciation of the African regional workshop 
organized as part of the consultative process to advance the 
understanding of technology transfer under the Convention.

Bert Metz, IPCC Working Group III Co-Chair, outlined the special 
report on technology transfer, which stresses that effective 
transfer of environmentally-sound technologies (ESTs) requires an 
integrated approach based on networking among stakeholders within 
a sustainable development framework. He said actions to enhance 
technology transfer are specific to sectors, national 
circumstances and stakeholders.

Several Parties said technology transfer should be driven by the 
private sector. AUSTRALIA, the US and the EU highlighted the 
potential role of the CDM in technology transfer. The PHILIPPINES, 
with SAUDI ARABIA and CHINA, stressed that technology transfer was 
a commitment under the FCCC and opposed linking it to the CDM. 
CHINA said technology transfer under the Protocol should be 
additional to that under the FCCC. The PHILIPPINES called for 
information on technology transfer activities in Annex I 
communications. AOSIS stressed addressing adaptation technologies. 
SWITZERLAND underscored consideration of specific national 
circumstances. 

The COP adopted SBSTA's draft conclusions and a decision 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.5) on Thursday, 4 November. The COP decided to, 
inter alia, extend the consultative process until COP-6 and invite 
non-Annex I Parties to report on their technology needs in their 
national communications. It also called on Annex II Parties to 
report on technology transfer activities. 

Ways and Means of Limiting Hydrofluorocarbons and 
Perfluorocarbons: On Thursday, 28 October, delegates considered 
the report on the meeting of the IPCC and the Montreal Protocol's 
Technical and Economic Assessment Panel on ways and means of 
limiting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). 
The meeting highlighted, inter alia: the complexity of links 
between ozone depletion and climate change mitigation activities; 
the multiplicity of solutions required to address these global 
change issues; and the desirability of solutions tailored to 
regional or national needs.

GREENPEACE called for action to avoid dumping potentially harmful 
technologies in developing countries. ARGENTINA and others called 
for attention to the medical use of HFCs in metered dose inhalers. 

Following informal consultations conducted by Andrej Kranjc 
(Slovenia), COP-5 adopted a decision on the relationship between 
efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and efforts to 
safeguard the global climate system on Thursday, 4 November. In 
this decision (FCCC/CP/1999/L.6), the COP: invites each Party to 
give consideration to the information available on the ways and 
means of limiting emissions of HFCs and PFCs taking into account, 
inter alia, health, medical, environmental and safety 
considerations, energy efficiency and associate emissions in CO2 
equivalent and technical and economic considerations; requests the 
IPCC to take into account this information in the TAR; and 
requests SBSTA to further consider aspects of this issue at its 
first session following COP-6.

Coastal Adaptation Technologies: On Thursday, 28 October, SBSTA 
considered the technical paper on coastal adaptation technologies 
and submissions by Parties regarding options to accelerate and 
sustain the development and transfer of coastal adaptation 
technologies. AOSIS stressed SIDS' vulnerability and underscored 
the need to develop long-term approaches to adaptation in the 
Convention's context. He noted that financial and human resources 
limitations have stifled progress in adaptation and highlighted 
the potential of the CDM in this regard. 

COP-5 endorsed the SBSTA conclusions (FCCC/1999/SBSTA/L.21), 
which: note the need to develop endogenous capacities, 
technologies and know-how to enable Parties to evaluate and 
implement appropriate adaptation strategies; recognize that such 
technologies are important to countries vulnerable to sea-level 
rise; and state that further work on such technologies, including 
their transfer, should be considered as part of the transfer of 
technology consultative process.

Other Matters Relating to Development and Transfer of Technology: 
On Thursday, 28 October, the FCCC Secretariat reported to SBSTA on 
its cooperative activities aimed at improving the climate data 
from reporting systems. In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/L.18), 
SBSTA called on the Secretariat to continue its collaboration with 
the OECD's Development Assistance Committee to provide 
comprehensive data. 

ADVERSE EFFECTS: On Tuesday, 26 October, a joint SBI/SBSTA session 
considered matters related to FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9 and 
Protocol Article 3.14 (adverse effects). 

Chair Kok Kee Chow (Malaysia) reported on a workshop on 
implementation of FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9 held from 21-24 
September 1999 in Bonn. Many delegates said the workshop was a 
useful exercise. The G-77/CHINA said it had highlighted the need 
for another workshop prior to COP-6. 

Regarding information gaps on adverse effects, the MARSHALL 
ISLANDS called for more robust research on policies and measures 
in Annex I countries. AUSTRALIA, with CANADA and the GAMBIA, said 
the absence of information on the effect of policies and measures 
should not be an obstacle to meeting the needs of the truly 
vulnerable. SENEGAL called for evaluation of vulnerability in 
Africa by COP-6. 

On the impact of response measures on the economies of oil 
producing and other countries, SAUDI ARABIA referred to recent 
studies suggesting oil producing countries will suffer 
economically from response measures and, with KUWAIT and LIBYA, 
said developed countries should remove market distortions in the 
energy sector. The US said there was uncertainty over the impact 
of implementation of response measures. JAPAN and the MARSHALL 
ISLANDS said consideration of compensation was unacceptable, since 
it is not provided for in the FCCC or the Protocol. A contact 
group co-chaired by Bo Kjéllen (Sweden) and Mohammad Reza Salamat 
(Iran) was convened on this issue. The group met several times 
from 27 October to 4 November. 

Co-Chair Salamat presented the Co-Chairs' draft decision on 
Saturday, 30 October, and on Tuesday, 2 November, the group 
considered the draft text. Divergence of views focused on: whether 
to "establish" or "continue" a process for the further 
implementation of FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9; what the process was 
about; whether it should be assessed by the Parties "annually," 
"periodically," "on a "regular basis" or "by COP-6 and subsequent 
COPs, as appropriate;" whether there should be one or two 
workshops in 2000; and what topics the workshop[s] should address. 
A proposal requesting Annex I Parties to report on initial actions 
undertaken to implement FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9 was discussed. 
Some delegates considered that non-Annex I Parties should also be 
requested to report on these actions.

The COP adopted the a draft decision on FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9 
and Protocol Article 3.14 (FCCC/CP/1999/L.22) on Thursday, 4 
November. The decision recognizes that the identification of 
initial actions necessary to address the adverse effects of 
climate change and/or the impact of the implementation of response 
measures needs to be based on sufficient information and analysis 
within a clearly defined process. The COP decided that the process 
of implementation of FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9, as established by 
decisions 3/CP.3 and 5/CP.4, should, inter alia, continue and 
gather information on initial actions needed to address the 
specific needs and concerns of developing countries and LDCs 
arising from climate change and/or the impact of the 
implementation of response measures, as well as identify what 
actions are necessary under the Convention relating to funding, 
insurance and transfer of technology to meet the specific needs 
and concerns of developing countries and LDCs. It further decides 
that SB-12 shall continue consideration of the implementation of 
FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9, including consideration of the extent 
of developing countries' efforts to diversify their national 
economies and of how the international community could best 
support such efforts. The COP decided to organize two workshops 
under the guidance of the SB Chairs: one on the consideration of 
initial actions needed to meet developing countries' and LDCs' 
specific needs and concerns arising from the adverse effects of 
climate change; and another workshop on the methodological 
approaches and actions that are necessary to address the impact of 
the implementation of response measures on, inter alia, terms of 
trade, international capital flows and development efforts. The 
two workshops shall be organized in two consecutive but equal time 
periods, before 31 March 2000.

ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY (AIJ): Delegates discussed issues 
related to AIJ under the pilot phase, first in a joint SBI/SBSTA 
session and later in five sessions of a joint SBSTA/SBI contact 
group chaired by Yvo de Boer (Netherlands). Delegates considered 
draft decisions submitted by the Chair, the EU and the G-77/China. 

In the joint SBI/SBSTA session on Tuesday, 26 October, the G-
77/CHINA underlined the imbalance of the geographical distribution 
of pilot projects and urged extension of the pilot phase. JAPAN, 
supported by the EU, said the experience gained is sufficient for 
a comprehensive review. With POLAND, he stressed that an AIJ 
project should be eligible under JI or the CDM if it meets the 
criteria for eligibility and if the Parties involved agree to do 
so. The US proposed exploring the eligibility of AIJ projects 
under the CDM or JI. AOSIS and others opposed linking AIJ to the 
Protocol mechanisms. BOTSWANA said introducing crediting would 
confuse the process. The EU and SWITZERLAND, opposed by AOSIS, 
BOTSWANA and IRAN, proposed that AIJ be credited retroactively. 
AOSIS drew attention to the inaccuracies, under-reporting and 
procedural complications that make it inappropriate to credit 
retroactively. The US identified the lack of crediting and 
capacity in the host countries and high transaction costs for 
small projects as barriers in the pilot phase. SWITZERLAND and 
AUSTRALIA said that without credit, industries would be cautious 
about AIJ. IRAN noted the absence of criteria for assessing and 
elaborating the benefits of AIJ projects and said these were 
subject to different interpretations. He called for a continuation 
of the pilot phase without preconditions or credits. The REPUBLIC 
OF KOREA said that since most AIJ projects are financed through 
official funds like ODA and the GEF, credit certification should 
be treated carefully. The AFRICAN GROUP underscored the need to 
involve local communities in the design and execution of such 
projects. 

Discussion in the contact group centered on, inter alia, whether: 
to continue the review beyond this session; to continue the pilot 
phase and, if so, in what form; the group should take decisions or 
make recommendations about the eligibility of AIJ to become CDM or 
JI; and the issue of eligibility should be discussed by the 
contact group on mechanisms. 

On Friday, 29 October, Chair de Boer presented a proposal for a 
draft decision on AIJ that he said took into account the 
differences of opinion expressed. The EU also introduced its draft 
proposal that sought to stop the non-credited pilot phase and 
start an AIJ phase with possible crediting, subject to decision-
making in the negotiation on the mechanisms. On Saturday, 30 
October, the G-77/CHINA tabled its proposed draft decision whereby 
the COP decides to conclude the review process and take a 
conclusive decision on the pilot phase and the progression beyond 
that at COP-6. This draft decision included bracketed text on the 
eligibility of AIJ under CDM and JI. After lengthy deliberations 
both in the contact group and in informal consultations, Parties 
agreed to a decision that the COP adopted on Thursday, 4 November. 
The decision (FCCC/CP/1999/L.13), inter alia: concludes the review 
process; continues the AIJ pilot phase beyond the end of the 
present decade, without prejudice to future decisions; and 
requires Parties to provide proposals to improve the draft revised 
uniform reporting format, and the Secretariat to prepare a draft 
revision for SB-13. 

OTHER MATTERS: Research and Systematic Observation: SBSTA 
considered research and systematic observation on 27-28 October. 
The Global Climate Observation System (GCOS) reported on progress 
in enhancing global observatory systems and noted that 
deficiencies are a result of inadequate equipment, poor 
infrastructure and insufficient funding. The GEF pledged 
additional funds to build observational capacity for certain 
developing countries. Following subsequent informal consultations 
conducted by Susan Barrell (Australia), and SBSTA consideration, 
the COP adopted a draft decision (FCCC/CP/1999/L.4) on Thursday, 4 
November. The decision, inter alia: recognizes the need to 
identify priority capacity-building needs relating to 
participation in systematic observation; invites the GCOS 
Secretariat, in consultation with relevant bodies, to organize 
regional workshops; invites the GCOS Secretariat to continue to 
assist in establishing an intergovernmental process to identify 
priorities for action to improve global observing systems, and to 
report back at SBSTA-12; adopts the FCCC reporting guidelines on 
global climate observing systems; and invites Parties to report on 
systematic observation in accordance with these guidelines, in 
conjunction with national communications for Annex I Parties, and 
on a voluntary basis for non-Annex I Parties. COP-5 also adopted 
the addendum containing the guidelines (FCCC/CP/1999/L.4/Add.1). 

Proposal by Brazil: On Wednesday, 27 October, SBSTA considered the 
scientific and methodological aspects of the proposal from Brazil, 
which attempts to allocate responsibilities among different GHG 
emitters based on their actions as measured by the increase in 
global temperatures, rather than by emissions. Several delegates 
supported the concept of differentiated responsibilities, while a 
number noted that further scientific analysis would be useful. The 
EU and PERU, opposed by MALAYSIA, said the issue should be 
considered as part of IPCC's TAR. Following informal 
consultations, SBSTA adopted draft conclusions on this matter, and 
on Thursday, 4 November, COP-5 took note of the draft conclusions 
(FCCC/SBSTA/1999/L.13/Rev.1). The conclusions state that SBSTA, 
inter alia, takes note of a revised version of the proposal by 
Brazil and decides to consider any new information on this issue 
at subsequent sessions, as appropriate. 

Cooperation with the IPCC: Following consideration by SBSTA, 
during which delegates debated the GEF's funding role in relation 
to the IPCC, the COP adopted a draft decision on cooperation with 
the IPCC (FCCC/CP/1999/L.18) on Thursday, 4 November. The 
decision: expresses the COP's appreciation to the IPCC for its 
high quality work; notes with concern the IPCC's urgent appeal for 
additional resources; urges Parties and other organizations to 
contribute financial support to enable the IPCC to complete its 
TAR and special reports; and invites SBI-12 to consider the matter 
of support for the IPCC, in the context of recommending additional 
guidance to the GEF.

Emissions from International Transportation: On Thursday, 4 
November, COP-5 adopted a draft decision on emissions based on 
fuel sold to ships and aircraft engaged in international transport 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.17). The decision emerged following discussions in 
SBSTA and extensive informal consultations conducted over several 
days by José Romero (Switzerland). The final decision, inter alia, 
expresses its appreciation for and welcomes the Special Report on 
Aviation and the Global Atmosphere and requests the SBSTA to 
continue its work on methodological issues relevant to this 
matter.

PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE LISTS IN ANNEXES I AND II TO THE CONVENTION

COP-5 considered proposals to amend FCCC Annex I and II relating 
to Turkey and Kazakhstan. Delegates to COP-5 first considered the 
proposal by Pakistan and Azerbaijan to delete the name of Turkey 
from Annexes I and II of the FCCC in Plenary on Wednesday, 27 
October. The US, MEXICO and GEORGIA supported the proposal. The 
MARSHALL ISLANDS expressed concern about the precedent it would 
set. On Friday, 1 November, President Szyszko announced to the COP 
that, in spite of informal consultations undertaken during 
previous days, Parties' positions had not changed and consensus 
remained elusive. The COP decided to defer consideration of this 
matter to COP-6.

Delegates also considered a proposal from Kazakhstan to be 
included in the list in FCCC Annex I. Several Annex I Parties 
welcomed the proposal, while several non-Annex I Parties said 
further information was needed on Kazakhstan's ability to fulfill 
Annex I commitments. In spite of informal consultations on the 
proposal, consensus was not achieved, and on its final day, the 
COP requested COP-6 to take up the matter. 

PREPARATIONS FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE 
PARTIES SERVING AS THE MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE KYOTO 
PROTOCOL (COP/MOP-1)

On Thursday, 4 November, delegates adopted in Plenary a decision 
proposed by President Szyszko on implementation of the BAPA 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.14), based on the views expressed during the high-
level segment. Szyszko said this decision reflected the will of 
the COP to engage in intensified negotiations in order to 
implement the BAPA. SAUDI ARABIA said he could not accept 
negotiations taking place outside the FCCC bodies and opposed the 
appointment of facilitators. 

The decision: requests the subsidiary bodies to intensify the 
preparatory work required to enable it to take decisions at COP-6 
on issues included in the BAPA; requests the President, with the 
Bureau's assistance, to provide guidance to the subsidiary bodies, 
take all necessary steps to intensify the negotiating process on 
all issues, and recommend an effective organization of the work of 
COP-6; and invites all Parties to contribute substantially and, as 
appropriate, financially, to the preparatory work, including 
supporting adequate participation of developing countries, 
particularly LDCs and SIDS. 

LULUCF: On Monday, 25 October, SBSTA initiated consideration of 
land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). IPCC Chair Robert 
Watson presented provisional findings from the Special Report on 
LULUCF. He said key decisions should be made with respect to 
definitions, the accounting system, monitoring and reporting 
systems and inventory guidelines, before the Protocol could be 
implemented. The G-77/CHINA said any consideration of the LULUCF 
process should begin after the release of the IPCC Special Report. 
AUSTRALIA stressed that the key question is not "whether" but 
"how" additional sink activities could be included in the 
Protocol. CANADA said the decision-making framework should be 
based on consistency between the provisions of the Protocol. 

Regarding additional activities, the US said there should be 
transparency in reporting and verifiability. The EU said the IPCC 
Special Report and country specific data should provide the basis 
for future discussions and decisions. 

A contact group, co-chaired by Halldor Thorgeirsson (Iceland) and 
Philip Gwage (Uganda), was convened to consider LULUCF-related 
issues. The group met several times between 27 October and 1 
November. Differing views were expressed on, inter alia: the 
sequence of activities in the lead-up to SBSTA-12 and how they 
inter-relate; presentation and transmission of the IPCC Special 
Report to SBSTA-12; timing for submissions and consideration of 
criteria and guiding principles for data on additional activities; 
timing for submissions and proposals for definitions on activities 
under Article 3.3; and timing for and types of country-specific 
data. The group decided to base its discussions on draft 
conclusions that contained a work programme proposed by the G-
77/CHINA. The group read through the text and established a 
drafting group to work on it. 

On Monday, 1 November, the contact group agreed on the draft 
conclusions, which were then adopted by SBSTA on Wednesday, 3 
November 1999. The COP adopted the draft decision 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.16) on Thursday, 4 November, endorsing a work 
programme and elements of a decision-making framework to address 
LULUCF with a view to COP-6 recommending that COP/MOP-1 adopt 
draft decisions on Protocol Articles 3.3 (net changes in emissions 
and removals) and 3.4 (additional human-induced activities 
relating to changes in emissions and removals).

The work programme calls for, inter alia: 

*  consideration of the IPCC Special Report on LULUCF at SBSTA-12, 
with an in-depth report at that session; 

*  the convening of a special side event on the IPCC Special 
Report; 

*  further consideration of the initial criteria and guiding 
principles for the identification and selection of activities 
under Protocol Article 3.4; 

*  submissions from Parties by 1 August 2000 with views or 
proposals for definitions, on activities under Protocol Article 
3.3, for consideration by SBSTA-13; 

*  submissions from Parties on the methodologies that they intend 
to use to measure and report on net changes in GHGs resulting from 
these activities, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks, 
resulting from activities under Protocol Article 3.3; 

*  submissions by Annex I Parties of preliminary data and 
information as specified in the first sentence of Article  3.4; 
and 

*  submissions by Parties as to how and which human-induced 
activities will be included under Protocol Article 3.4, on 
modalities, rules and guidelines related to these activities for 
consideration by SBSTA-13. 

Submissions by Annex I Parties on Article 3.4 should include a 
list of additional activities that each individual Party is 
proposing for inclusion and national data and an assessment of 
changes in GHG emissions and removals, associated with each 
activity each Party is proposing to include.

MECHANISMS: Delegates discussed issues related to the Protocol 
mechanisms initially in a joint SBI/SBSTA session and later in a 
contact group chaired by Kok Kee Chow (Malaysia), which met six 
times. Discussions centered on the revised synthesis of proposals 
by Parties on principles, modalities, rules and guidelines on the 
protocol mechanisms (FCCC/SB/1999/8 and Add.1). 

In a joint SBI/SBSTA session on Tuesday, 26 October, Chair Chow 
introduced the revised synthesis of proposals by Parties on 
principles, modalities, rules and guidelines on Protocol 
mechanisms and noted that they could form the basis for a draft 
negotiating text. UZBEKISTAN, with the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, sought 
clear definitions of core concepts. The G-77/CHINA said a CDM 
decision must precede decisions on other mechanisms. The US 
supported parallel progress on the mechanisms with priority given 
to the CDM.  CHINA opposed taking a single decision on all 
mechanisms since this was not supported by the Protocol. He 
recommended that there be three distinct decisions. SAUDI ARABIA 
stressed that progress on this issue is conditional on progress on 
other equally important issues. AOSIS highlighted the need for the 
mechanisms to be based on sound environmental principles. He added 
that AOSIS would not permit mechanisms that allow Annex I Parties 
to offload domestic responsibilities.

The EU said a ceiling on the use of mechanisms has to be defined. 
With NORWAY and SWITZERLAND, he suggested refining the synthesis 
into a draft negotiating text. The joint SBI-SBSTA session charged 
the contact group with the task of revising and consolidating 
Parties' views into a draft negotiating text and agreeing on a 
work plan in the lead-up to COP-6. 

Work Plan up to COP-6: On a possible work plan up to COP-6, the EU 
and the US sought intensification of the process, in particular 
through technical workshops. CHINA, INDONESIA and IRAN highlighted 
the need to convene intersessional meetings to strengthen 
intergovernmental work. JAPAN and CANADA said both technical 
workshops and intersessional meetings should be held prior to COP-
6. The G-77/CHINA and others highlighted the need for transparency 
in the process and adequate developing country expert 
participation in the technical workshops. SUDAN said Parties 
needed time to review the information and findings of technical 
workshops. 

On working towards a draft negotiating text, the G-77/CHINA said 
this was premature, since Parties were still at the stage of 
making submissions, noting convergence/divergence and synthesizing 
views. He defined a draft negotiating text as "the penultimate 
stage in the text that the COP will finally adopt." JAPAN, the US 
and AUSTRALIA defined it as a living document that would go 
through several drafts. Chair Chow noted that the text would be a 
living document synthesizing the views of all Parties to 
facilitate the negotiating process.

Clean Development Mechanism: On the project cycle of the CDM, the 
G-77/CHINA stressed the need to address the CDM's driving force, 
nature and scope. Several Parties agreed that the host country is 
the best judge of its sustainable development needs. SOUTH AFRICA, 
the SUDAN, BOLIVIA, MEXICO and MAURITANIA proposed including in 
the CDM the concept of emissions avoidance. BOLIVIA proposed 
including forest protection initiatives under emissions avoidance. 
MEXICO said he looked forward to using the CDM to supplement 
national efforts to shift from slash-and-burn techniques, which 
are responsible for loss of forest cover, to sustainable 
technologies that would have a positive impact on climate change. 
MAURITANIA objected to the inclusion of forest protection within 
the CDM, as Parties would seek to protect their forests regardless 
of its inclusion. IRAN said the CDM should include projects 
related to both sinks and sources. On the issue of baselines for 
emissions avoidance projects, NEW ZEALAND suggested that, to 
minimize transaction costs, the commercial contract-bidding 
process should be used to identify the baseline. The EU said the 
baselines should be determined on a project-by-project basis. 
MOROCCO stressed the need to certify that reduced or avoided 
emissions are real, measurable and contribute to sustainable 
development in the host country. With SWITZERLAND, she said CDM 
projects should be subjected to rigorous impact assessment studies 
that take into account the socio-economic aspects of the host 
country.

On the financing of CDM projects, Chair Chow queried whether the 
funding will be bilateral, multilateral or unilateral; if ODA and 
the FCCC's financial mechanisms could fund CDM activities; or if 
CDM funds will be managed by the Executive Board, so as to ensure 
equitable distribution. JAPAN asked whether unilaterally-funded 
projects were consistent with the concept of CDM. The REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA said unilateral funding for CDM would provide incentives for 
non-Annex I Parties to implement measures to reduce GHGs. COLOMBIA 
said that as long as CDM projects demonstrate additionality and 
lead to real and measurable long-term reductions, there should be 
flexibility in financing the projects. Regarding the use of ODA 
and GEF funds, the G-77/CHINA emphasized that CDM funding should 
be additional to ODA and other financial commitments. JAPAN said 
there were no provisions requiring financial additionality and 
none that preclude the use of ODA as a source of funding. He said 
the CDM should be mainly funded by the private sector. 

On CDM project monitoring, MAURITANIA said monitoring and 
reporting should not burden the host country. BOLIVIA suggested 
that Parties monitor their own projects and "learn by doing." 
NORWAY and AUSTRALIA said that project participants, the host 
Party or a designated legal entity should monitor. The EU said 
operational entities should perform certification and 
verification, which is dependent on monitoring. 

Joint Implementation: On JI, Chair Chow asked whether the host 
country or an independent entity should validate the project 
proposal. JAPAN responded that each Party should decide on its own 
and added that creating unnecessary bureaucracies would discourage 
Annex I Parties from entering into JI. On project verification, 
NEW ZEALAND suggested that individual Parties determine the level 
of verification that they desire, as the countries involved in JI 
have both a target and an incentive for ensuring the credibility 
of projects. He added that under JI the question of additionality 
is different from the CDM, as the Party would have to give up or 
cancel some of its assigned amount. CANADA, with the US, noted 
that the review of additionality for JI projects would be under 
Article 8 (review of information). The EU questioned how 
additionality could be ensured if Parties did not comply with 
Protocol Articles 5 (methodological issues) and 7 (communication 
of information).

Emissions Trading: On the project cycle of emissions trading, 
AOSIS sought the establishment of a common set of principles 
across all the mechanisms, including the principles of 
environmental integrity and additionality. The US said the 
integrity of the emissions trading system would be founded on 
monitoring and reporting under Protocol Articles 5 and 7 and the 
existence of registries. The G-77/CHINA said the nature and scope 
of emissions trading must be determined before operational details 
are worked out. He added that the postulate "you cannot sell what 
you do not own" should circumscribe the nature and scope of 
emissions trading. The US and others noted the need to develop 
cost-effective mechanisms. The EU stressed the need for the 
mechanisms to be underwritten by strong monitoring and reporting 
requirements. SWITZERLAND suggested a "post-verification model" 
wherein emission reduction units could not be transferred until 
they have been certified to be excess Assigned Amount Units 
(AAUs). 

On fungibility, the US said Protocol Articles 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 
(QELROs) explain how AAUs, Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) 
and Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) can be transferred from Party 
to Party. The G-77/CHINA said that while AAUs derive from past 
emissions and are retrospective, CERs derive from the future and 
are prospective. FRANCE said while trading in CERs is safe, 
trading in AAUs could be unsafe if the country transferring them 
ran into compliance trouble at the end of its budget period. 
Noting that CDM focuses on sustainable development, SRI LANKA said 
its objective is different from that of the other mechanisms. 
AOSIS added that this could lead to a difference in value between 
the CERs and AAUs. He underscored the need to consider whether 
there would be a discount to neutralize the disadvantage to the 
CDM if fungibility is accepted. 

On liability, NEW ZEALAND highlighted the need to consider cost 
effectiveness and the objectives of the FCCC. He said that 
liability rules would increase costs and therefore reduce funding 
available to meet FCCC objectives. 

On bookkeeping, delegates discussed whether there should be single 
centralized registry for all three mechanisms or a separate 
registry for each of the mechanisms. SRI LANKA highlighted the 
differences between the mechanisms and suggested that there be 
different registries. CANADA said it was open to the notion of a 
core set of guidelines for the creation of national registries, 
noting that one central registry could be problematic. The EU 
added that national registries are critical to the system and 
inquired about the need to link the national system to the 
international one.

Decision on Mechanisms: On Wednesday, November 4, the COP adopted 
a decision, recommended by SBI/SBSTA, on mechanisms pursuant to 
Articles 6,12 and 17 of the Protocol (FCCC/CP/1999/L.15). The 
decision requests the SBI/SBSTA Chairs to, inter alia, revise the 
synthesis of Parties' proposals based on further submissions, 
consolidate the text, and take it forward, prior to COP-6, as a 
basis for further negotiations. It also requests the Chairs to 
convene intersessional meetings and workshops in preparation for 
COP-6.

COMPLIANCE: The joint SBI/SBSTA considered procedures and 
mechanisms on compliance under the Protocol on Tuesday, 26 
October. Espen Rønneberg (Marshall Islands), Co-Chair of the Joint 
Working Group on compliance (JWG) with Harald Dovland (Norway), 
reported on the informal exchange of views on compliance held in 
Vienna from 6-7 October 1999. 

The JWG met five times between Tuesday, 26 October, and Wednesday, 
3 November. Delegates heard five diagrammatic submissions 
illustrating a compliance system. The US said its design for the 
compliance system is focused on Protocol Article 3 (GHG reduction 
and limitation commitments) and provides for both facilitative and 
enforcement functions. She said the goal of enforcement is to 
ensure compliance through binding consequences that are known in 
advance. In presenting its preliminary views, JAPAN proposed a 
single compliance body and outlined steps ranging from 
technical/financial assistance to a series of recommendations such 
as strengthening of reporting requirements. These are to be 
exhausted before the entry into force of consequences. The EU 
explained that its compliance committee would have a facilitative 
branch and an enforcement branch, with a possible referral from 
the former to the latter. Issues would be channeled automatically 
to the branches.

SAMOA stressed two features of the AOSIS diagram: avoidance of 
polarization between the facilitative and enforcement functions, 
since they overlap, and an eligibility committee responsible for 
the determination of mechanism eligibility. He added that an ad 
hoc appeal body would hear quasi-judicial appeals on the 
imposition of binding penalties. AUSTRALIA said its compliance 
procedure focused on Protocol Article 3. She highlighted that 
facilitation would be available on any issue relating to the 
target and that the outcome of the compliance procedure would be a 
COP/ MOP decision applying the negative consensus rule.

On the design of a compliance system, a number of delegates 
underlined that it should promote compliance, prevent non-
compliance as well as address cases of non-compliance. A number of 
developing countries, opposed by NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, CANADA 
and the US, said the principle of common but differentiated 
responsibilities should apply. 

Regarding coverage, delegates differed on whether the system 
should address compliance with all the Protocol commitments or 
focus on compliance with Protocol Article 3 (QELROs). They also 
discussed whether compliance with the mechanisms' provisions 
should be addressed under a separate compliance regime.

Regarding the functions of a compliance system, there was a common 
understanding that these would encompass a facilitative as well as 
an enforcement element. The US said "different sets of people" 
would exercise these functions, and the EU suggested one body with 
two distinctive branches. JAPAN and SWITZERLAND proposed a single 
body exercising its facilitative and enforcement functions in a 
graduated manner. 

On the eligibility to raise issues, many delegates agreed that a 
Party could raise an issue about its own compliance, and that a 
Party or group of Parties could raise an issue about another 
Party's compliance. The EU, CANADA, CHINA, JAPAN, IRAN, SOUTH 
AFRICA and the US opposed a triggering role for the Secretariat. 
Delegates emphasized its information-gathering function and the 
need for it to preserve objectivity and neutrality. 

Regarding the Expert Review Teams (ERTs), the EU said the ERTs' 
reports would be automatically submitted to the compliance 
committee through the Secretariat. CANADA said the reports would 
be the factual basis that determined the need for further steps. 
CHINA, with IRAN, KUWAIT, BRAZIL and ARGENTINA, said it was 
inappropriate to give ERTs, a simple fact finding body, a 
triggering role. The US and AUSTRALIA suggested guidelines for a 
possible referral to the compliance body. 

On the role of the COP/MOP, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION and CHINA, 
opposed by SOUTH AFRICA, proposed that it have a triggering role 
as well as the competence to decide on the findings of the 
compliance body. SWITZERLAND suggested that the COP/MOP, among 
others, have a triggering role on the basis of Protocol Article 
8.6 (implementation of the Protocol). BRAZIL suggested that the 
COP/MOP only take note of the compliance body report. 

On sources of information, SAMOA suggested any source the 
compliance body deemed appropriate, while IRAN said Parties should 
be the only source. The EU, with BRAZIL, stressed the need to 
ensure confidentiality of information submitted in confidence by 
Parties. SOUTH AFRICA and SAUDI ARABIA called for clear rules for 
information gathering. AUSTRALIA and the US said the defending 
party should be able to rebut evidence against it. 

On the structure of a compliance body, a number of delegates said 
it should be a standing body in order to allow consistency and 
continuity in its practice, as well as to build confidence in its 
work. They suggested that the body be small, composed of 
scientific, technical and legal experts appointed by governments 
yet acting in their personal capacity. They added that the 
composition of the body should ensure equitable geographic 
distribution. POLAND said there should be an equal number of 
Protocol Annex B and non-Annex B Parties, and AUSTRALIA, supported 
by the US, added that the composition would depend on the article 
under review. SWITZERLAND, with SOUTH AFRICA, said it should be 
possible to call on outside experts. He added that additional 
Annex I Parties' experts should be called on when considering 
Protocol Article 3. A number of delegates, opposed by SAUDI 
ARABIA, stressed the need for the body to have its own rules of 
procedure. The EU said these rules should be adopted by the body 
itself, while KUWAIT, BRAZIL and CHINA said the COP/MOP should 
adopt these rules.

On the relationship with Protocol Article 19 (dispute settlement), 
several Parties said these two procedures should be kept separate. 
NEW ZEALAND said the Article 19 process could be the basis for a 
final appeal procedure. The UK responded that a bilateral appeal 
could not flow from a multilateral process. He highlighted the 
need to determine whether the compliance system or the dispute 
settlement process would take precedence where the two are in 
action simultaneously.

On the consequences of non-compliance, a number of delegates 
emphasized that knowing the consequences in advance would ensure 
predictability and deter non-compliance. Several delegates 
suggested an indicative list of consequences that would be applied 
gradually, taking into account the cause, type, degree and 
frequency of non-compliance. They opposed the US suggestion for 
automatic sanctions. JAPAN said the cost of sanctions should be 
lower than the cost of withdrawal from the Protocol. The US, NEW 
ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA and CANADA said a possible sanction could be 
the subtraction of excess emissions from the levels permitted 
during the subsequent period, with a penalty rate applied. 
SWITZERLAND, BRAZIL and IRAN supported financial penalties as a 
last resort. AUSTRALIA said the Party concerned should have the 
option to choose from a menu of consequences.

Delegates then considered, in formal and informal sessions, the 
draft report of the JWG on its work during the joint SBI/SBSTA 
session as well as the draft decision on the future work of the 
JWG annexed to this report. Discussions focused on the level of 
ambition of the JWG, in particular whether it should "complete its 
work" at COP-6, as proposed by the EU, the US and others, or "make 
substantial progress" at COP-6, as supported by SAUDI ARABIA, 
KUWAIT, UAE and others. The JWG adopted the draft report, taking 
note of the views expressed. 

The JWG report was considered by the joint SBI/SBSTA on Wednesday, 
3 November. IRAN requested SAUDI ARABIA to join the consensus 
regarding the level of ambition of the JWG. SAUDI ARABIA noted 
that since the joint SBI/SBSTA had recommended for adoption the 
draft decision on adverse effects, he would join the consensus. 

On Thursday, 4 November, the COP endorsed the JWG conclusions 
(FCCC/SB/1999/CRP.7) that, inter alia:

*  note that much work remains to be done and the JWG must 
intensify its efforts and move towards negotiation;

*  invite Parties to submit any further proposals on compliance by 
31 January 2000; 

*  confirm that a workshop on matters relating to a compliance 
system will be convened in March 2000; and

*  request the Co-Chairs to further develop the elements of 
procedures and mechanisms relating to a compliance system for in-
depth consideration at forthcoming meetings of the JWG and serve 
as a basis for negotiation of a compliance system at SB-12.

The COP then adopted the draft decision on the future work of the 
JWG (FCCC/CP/1999/L.21). In this decision, the COP, inter alia:

*  decides that the JWG shall continue its work; and 

*  requests the JWG to complete its work and report on its 
findings to COP-6 so as to enable the COP to adopt a decision on a 
compliance system under the Protocol at its sixth session.

SINGLE PROJECT EMISSIONS: On Wednesday, 27 October, SBSTA 
considered the impact of single projects on emissions in the 
commitment period. ICELAND said single projects, such as a large 
industrial plant, have a greater proportional impact on emissions 
in smaller countries, affecting their ability to meet emissions 
targets. He called for a conclusive decision on this issue at COP-
6. CANADA expressed reservations on the issue and opposed the 
draft decision tabled by Iceland at COP-4 in its current form. 

On Thursday, 4 November, COP-5 endorsed SBSTA conclusions 
resulting from informal consultations conducted by Ole Plougmann 
(Denmark) on the impact of single projects on emissions in the 
commitment period (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/L.17). In these conclusions 
SBSTA decides to consider this issue further at SBSTA-13 with a 
view to recommending a decision for adoption by COP-6. 

NATIONAL SYSTEMS, ADJUSTMENTS AND GUIDELINES: The agenda item on 
national systems, adjustments and guidelines under Protocol 
Articles 5 (methodology), 7 (communications) and 8 (review of 
information) was considered by SBSTA on Monday, 25 October. Taka 
Hiraishi, Vice-Chair of the IPCC Inventories Task Force, reported 
on the ongoing work on uncertainties and good practice in 
inventory preparation. 

Regarding guidelines for national systems, the EU, with JAPAN, 
said they should be flexible in order to reflect differing 
national circumstances. The US highlighted the need to incorporate 
IPCC work relating to good practices. AUSTRALIA proposed 
including, inter alia, quality assurance and quality control 
procedures, links between national systems and emissions trading 
systems, and links with the transfer and acquisition of AAUs. 
SWITZERLAND said guidelines should include criteria for national 
enforcement systems to comply with relevant guidelines, and the 
establishment and treatment of data related to Protocol 
mechanisms.

Regarding adjustments, CANADA noted the lack of clarity in what an 
adjustment would be. With NEW ZEALAND, he expressed support for a 
technical review process of inventories, noting that this is 
fundamental to the development of an adjustment process. AUSTRALIA 
said adjustments are intended as an element of the Protocol's 
compliance system. The EU and JAPAN stated that further discussion 
on technical aspects should only occur after the completion of the 
IPCC's work on good practice. Following requests by some Parties, 
the Chair convened a contact group chaired by Helen Plume (New 
Zealand) to consider the issue further. 

The contact group met three times from 29 October - 1 November to 
consider the Chair's draft conclusions and an annex setting out a 
preliminary list of basic elements for national systems under 
Protocol Article 5.1 (national systems for GHG emissions and 
removals). 

On Thursday, 4 November, the COP endorsed the SBSTA conclusions on 
national systems, adjustments and guidelines 
(FCCC/SBSTA/1999/L.14), whereby SBSTA is encouraged to complete by 
COP-6 its work on guidelines under Protocol Articles 5, 7 and 8. 
In its conclusions, SBSTA, inter alia: requests that any 
compliance-related aspects of the Article 8 review process be 
taken up by the joint working group on compliance; recalls a 
decision at SBSTA-10 calling on the Secretariat to organize a 
workshop on national systems and issues relating to adjustments 
and provide a report at SBSTA-12; agrees to consider the basic 
elements of national systems outlined in the annex to the 
conclusion as the basis for further work; and encourages Annex I 
Parties to support efforts of those Annex I Parties undergoing the 
process of transition to a market economy to develop and 
consolidate their national systems through appropriate bilateral 
and multilateral mechanisms.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MATTERS

PROGRAMME BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM 2000-2001: COP-5 adopted a draft 
decision recommended by SBI-11 approving the programme budget for 
the biennium 2000-2001 (FCCC/CP/1999/L.7) on Thursday, 4 November. 
The final decision, inter alia: approves the programme budget for 
2000-2001, amounting to US$25,286,000; approves a contingency fund 
in case the UN General Assembly decides not to provide resources 
for these activities in the regular UN budget; requests the 
Executive Secretary to report to COP-6 on the income and budget 
performance, and propose any adjustments that might be needed; and 
authorizes the Executive Secretary to incur additional expenses to 
offset part of the costs of activities arising from the 
preparatory process leading to COP-6.

INCOME AND BUDGET PERFORMANCE IN THE BIENNIUM 1998-1999: On 
Thursday, 4 November, COP-5 adopted the draft decision on income 
and budget performance in the biennium 1998-1999 and arrangements 
for administrative support (FCCC/CP/1999/L.8). The decision 
followed a recommendation from SBI, which considered the matter on 
Wednesday, 27 October, and Monday, 1 November. The decision, inter 
alia: expresses concern at the trend towards late payment by some 
Parties; and requests the Executive Secretary to continue 
discussions with the UN on achieving a more efficient approach 
toward administrative arrangements, and report at SBI-12 on 
progress made in implementing new administrative arrangements. 

INSTITUTIONAL LINKAGE OF THE FCCC SECRETARIAT TO THE UN: COP-5 
endorsed draft conclusions recommended by SBI-11 on the 
institutional linkage of the FCCC Secretariat to the UN 
(FCCC/SBI/1999/L.11). The conclusions state that consideration of 
the international juridical personality of the Secretariat should 
be deferred to 2001 and taken-up in conjunction with the review of 
the institutional linkage of the FCCC Secretariat to the UN, which 
will be completed by 31 December of that year. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT: COP-5 endorsed the 
SBI-11 Chair's draft conclusions on implementation of the 
Headquarters Agreement. The conclusions state that, in a meeting 
with a representative of the German Government, the FCCC Executive 
Secretary noted the need for additional staff to accommodate 
growing levels of activity and staff, and pointed to the need for 
access to improved and affordable conference facilities. It notes 
that the German representative indicated his government's 
willingness to find mutually satisfactory solutions to these 
issues.

OTHER MATTERS

In a Plenary session held on Monday, 25 October, President Szyszko 
recalled that Parties had decided at COP-4 to review at COP-5 
outstanding issues relating to the establishment of a multilateral 
consultative committee. He proposed that COP-5 Vice-President 
Slade hold informal consultations. On Thursday, 4 November, Vice-
President Slade reported that consensus had not been achieved. 
Delegates agreed to defer consideration of the matter to COP-6.

REPORTS OF SUBSIDIARY BODIES

SBSTA: SBSTA-11, chaired by Harald Dovland (Norway), held 14 
meetings between Monday, 25 October, and Wednesday, 3 November, 
including three joint SBI/SBSTA sessions. SBSTA considered 14 
agenda items, including, inter alia: organizational matters, 
implementation of FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9 and consideration of 
Protocol Articles 2.3 and 3.14 (adverse effects); AIJ; mechanisms; 
capacity building; Annex I communications; non-Annex I 
communications; and methodological issues, including LULUCF. Draft 
conclusions on these items were considered by the COP, and can be 
found under the relevant sections of this report. 

The following issues were also considered by SBSTA: "best 
practices" in policies and measures; cooperation with relevant 
international organizations; impacts and adaptation assessment 
methods; the estimation of emissions of carbon dioxide from forest 
harvesting and wood products; and the roster of experts nominated 
by Parties. SBSTA conclusions on these issues were noted by the 
COP as part of the SBSTA report.

"Best Practices" in Policies and Measures: On Wednesday, 27 
October, SBSTA Chair Dovland (Norway) announced that Denmark will 
host a workshop in April 2000 on "best practices" in policies and 
measures. The EU said the upcoming workshop should consider, inter 
alia, defining "best practices" and assessing the extent to which 
international cooperation may enhance effectiveness of policies 
and measures. AUSTRALIA preferred reference to "good" rather than 
"best" practices and, with JAPAN and the US, said policies and 
measures should reflect national circumstances. SAUDI ARABIA said 
the workshop should also address "wrong practices." Following 
informal consultations conducted by Chair Dovland, SBSTA adopted 
the Chair's draft conclusions on "best practices" in policies and 
measures (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/CRP.10) on Thursday, 4 November. In 
these conclusions, SBSTA, inter alia: accepts the offer of Denmark 
in collaboration with France to host a workshop to assess best 
practices in Policies and measures; and decides to consider the 
report of the workshop at SBSTA-12, and report the results to COP-
6.

Cooperation with Relevant International Organizations: On Monday, 
1 November, SBSTA adopted draft conclusions on cooperation with 
relevant international organizations relating to United Nations 
bodies (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/L.19); and other conventions 
(FCCC/SBSTA/1999/L.20). The conclusions on cooperation with UN 
bodies note a project proposal prepared by the Secretariat in 
conjunction with UNEP, UNCTAD, UNIDO and UNDP, request the 
Secretariat to take account of all relevant COP decisions in 
relation to the project, and invite the WHO to report to SBSTA-12 
on its activities related to the risk to human health from climate 
change, in order to identify how cooperation could be 
strengthened. 

In its conclusions on cooperation with other relevant 
international organizations, SBSTA requests the Secretariat to 
explore possible ways of strengthening cooperation with other 
conventions on issues of common interest.

Roster of Experts Nominated by Parties: After consideration of the 
matter on Thursday, 28 October, SBSTA adopted the Chair's draft 
conclusions relating to the roster of experts nominated by Parties 
(FCCC/SBSTA/1999/ L.16) on Monday, 1 November. The draft 
conclusions state that SBSTA: concludes that the rosters should be 
integrated into one roster; requests the Secretariat to design a 
unified roster; invites Parties to nominate additional experts; 
and encourages Parties to make additional nominations to meet the 
special needs of the technical review process for GHG inventories 
submitted by Annex I Parties, which begins in 2000.

Other Issues: SBSTA also adopted conclusions on information on 
impacts and adaptation assessment methods (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/L.12); 
and the estimation of emissions of carbon dioxide from forest 
harvesting and wood products (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/CRP.6). The 
conclusions on impacts and adaptation methods state that SBSTA, 
inter alia: notes the information on the Secretariat web site 
related to decision tools, methodologies to evaluate impacts and 
adaptation strategies; requests the Secretariat to utilize experts 
on the roster on methodologies to review information submitted by 
Parties and organizations; and requests the Secretariat to prepare 
a progress report for SBSTA-12.

The conclusions on wood products state that SBSTA invites Parties 
to submit their views on approaches for estimating and accounting 
for emissions of carbon dioxide from forest harvesting and wood 
products by 12 March 2001, for consideration by SBSTA-14.

Report on SBSTA-11: Delegates to SBSTA adopted the draft report of 
SBSTA-11 (FCCC/SBSTA/1999/L.11) outlining its work and outcomes, 
on Wednesday, 3 November. The COP took note of the report on 
Thursday, 4 November.

SBI: SBI-11 held nine meetings between Monday, 25 October, and 
Wednesday, 3 November, including three joint SBI/SBSTA sessions, 
and was chaired by John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda). SBI considered 
14 agenda items, including, inter alia: organizational matters, 
implementation of FCCC Articles 4.8 and 4.9 and consideration of 
Protocol Articles 2.3 and 3.14 (adverse effects); AIJ; mechanisms, 
capacity building; Annex I communications; non-Annex I 
communications; and arrangements for intergovernmental meetings. 
Draft conclusions on these items were considered by the COP, and 
can be found under the relevant sections of this report. 

Annual Inventories of National GHG Data for 1996: On Wednesday, 27 
October, SBI considered the report on Annex I Parties' GHG 
inventory data for 1990-1997. The US, with POLAND, stressed that 
timeliness and completeness of submissions were critical in 
providing a basis for COP action. The EU noted that its future 
national systems would fulfill quality and time requirements, and 
expressed concern about the continuous increase in GHG emissions 
since 1990. Chair Ashe said he would prepare draft conclusions for 
SBI's consideration. On Monday, 1 November, SBI adopted Chair 
Ashe's draft conclusions on GHG inventory data for 1996 
(FCCC/SBI/1999/L.9) that, inter alia: note further efforts are 
required to ensure adherence to the guidelines for preparation of 
national communications by Annex I Parties; and invite Parties 
experiencing difficulties with submitting GHG inventories in a 
timely manner to provide a submission to the Secretariat 
describing the nature of these difficulties.

Report on SBI-11: Delegates to SBI adopted the draft report of 
SBI-11 (FCCC/SBI/1999/L.11) outlining its work and outcomes on 
Wednesday, 3 November. The COP took note of the report on 
Thursday, 4 November.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

From 2-4 November, ministers and heads of delegation met in a 
high-level segment. On Tuesday, 2 November, 93 ministers and other 
heads of delegations presented policy statements. On Wednesday, 3 
November, there was an exchange of views among participants 
organized around two themes: progress made in dealing with climate 
change, and promoting implementation of the BAPA and early entry 
into force of the Kyoto Protocol. 

After COP-5 President Jan Szyszko opened the high-level segment, 
UNEP Executive Director Klaus Töpfer said developed countries need 
to address their consumption and production patterns, stressing 
that technologies were available to reach the Protocol target. He 
said ratification by 2002 was achievable. 

FCCC Executive Secretary Michael Zammit Cutajar said that for 
there to be successful negotiations based on the BAPA: leading 
industrial economies should engage in early domestic action; the 
CDM should be made the cornerstone of a North-South compact at 
COP-6; the bottlenecks in the delivery and consideration of non-
Annex I Parties' national communications should be addressed; a 
credible regime prohibiting targets from being achieved solely 
through "hot air" and "sinks" must be developed; and the Protocol 
must enter into force by 2002.

POLICY STATEMENTS: Following the opening addresses, delegates 
heard ministers and heads of delegation deliver policy statements. 
The following is a summary of the key themes discussed during this 
session. 

Protocol Ratification: Numerous Parties supported the Protocol's 
entry into force by Rio+10 in 2002 including, inter alia: 
BULGARIA, CARICOM, the EU, FRANCE, GERMANY, HAITI, IRELAND, ITALY, 
JAPAN, SPAIN, SWEDEN, and the UK. The EU said more ambitious 
emissions reduction commitments than those agreed to at Kyoto were 
needed. 

Mechanisms: Many Parties said the mechanisms should be 
supplementary to domestic action. The EU proposed setting a 
ceiling on the use of the mechanisms. Several Parties supported 
the prompt adoption of principles and modalities, rules and 
guidelines for the mechanisms. The G-77/CHINA said differences in 
the nature, scope, purpose of and participation in the three 
mechanisms should be determined first. The US called for the 
mechanisms to be designed cost effectively and developing 
countries to participate meaningfully. 

CDM: The G-77/CHINA indicated that the host government should 
determine whether a particular project meets its sustainable 
development objectives. Several Parties said nuclear energy 
projects should not be eligible under the CDM or JI. A number of 
developing country Parties said the eradication of poverty 
continues to be their overriding priority and said the GEF should 
continue to finance projects that are not eligible under the CDM. 
The AFRICAN GROUP said issues of afforestation, reforestation and 
the preservation/reclamation of wetlands should feature highly 
among CDM projects. 

Compliance: Many Parties called for an effective and strong 
compliance system. The G-77/CHINA called for a comprehensive, 
efficient and fair compliance system. The EU called for a revised 
negotiating text for a decision to be adopted at COP-6. 

AIJ: The G-77/CHINA supported the continuation of the pilot phase 
and, with ZAMBIA, highlighted the imbalance in the geographical 
distribution of AIJ projects. 

Development and Transfer of Technology: The G-77/CHINA indicated 
that developing countries are constrained by lack of: necessary 
technologies and "know-how"; appropriate institutions and 
financial resources; and regular fora to exchange ideas and build 
positions. Several developing Parties said the transfer of 
environmentally-sound technologies (ESTs) is the only way to 
guarantee that developing countries will develop in a sustainable 
manner. 

Sinks/LULUCF: AUSTRALIA and others said the inclusion of sinks 
could lower the cost of abatement action and thereby contribute to 
a better outcome. AOSIS was concerned that the inclusion of land-
use change in national inventories may allow countries to 
recalculate their inventories and "erase" the bulk of what was 
achieved at Kyoto. 

Adverse Effects: The G-77/CHINA, NEPAL and others said developing 
countries are the most affected by climate change, and Annex I 
countries must implement their commitments relating to provision 
of financial resources and technology transfer. Several developing 
country Parties stressed the need to operationalize FCCC Articles 
4.8 and 4.9 and Protocol Article 3.14 (adverse effects).

Participation/Voluntary Commitments: Many Parties noted the need 
for global participation. AOSIS and others stated that, at the 
appropriate time, it will be necessary for all countries to 
participate formally in the effort to reduce GHG emissions. 
ARGENTINA announced its adoption of a voluntary target to reduce 
its GHG emissions and stated that it does not intend to abandon 
its status as a non-Annex I Party. She said their target would be 
to achieve a 2 to 10% reduction below a "business-as-usual" 
scenario in the 2008-2012 period. KAZAKHSTAN said it intended to 
join FCCC Annex I. JAPAN, the US, AUSTRALIA and others welcomed 
the initiatives by Kazakhstan and Argentina. The EU said a 
possible way of making all countries limit their GHG emissions is 
to agree on increasing global participation after the first 
commitment period. CHINA and INDIA said Annex I countries have the 
main responsibility. CHINA said it would not undertake commitments 
until it achieves a "medium development level."

Domestic Action: Many Parties said domestic policies and measures 
should be the main means to fulfill the Kyoto targets. The G-
77/CHINA and AOSIS expressed disappointment at recent emissions 
data revealing that many Annex I Parties are significantly 
exceeding 1990 levels. The EU said industrialized countries must 
take the lead in reducing their GHG emissions.

Capacity Building: The G-77/CHINA, the AFRICAN GROUP and others 
said capacity building is necessary to ensure meaningful 
participation from developing countries. BANGLADESH called on 
Parties to earmark funds from the GEF for LDCs. GERMANY urged 
donor countries to provide the financial means to sustain the 
operations of the GEF.

Non-Annex I Communications: The G-77/CHINA highlighted 
insufficient financial resources to meet the "agreed full costs" 
in the preparation of non-Annex I communications.

In addition, Parties highlighted the need for: a financial 
mechanism to assist SIDS in achieving adaptive capacity; strong 
leadership from Annex I countries in taking responsibility for 
action on climate change; and a meeting to explore the needs of 
EITs. 

EXCHANGE OF VIEWS: On Wednesday, 3 November, delegates met to 
exchange views during morning and afternoon sessions.

Progress Made: During the morning session, delegates exchanged 
views on progress made in dealing with climate change and on 
lessons and challenges. Several developing country Parties 
stressed the need for technology transfer, capacity building, 
financial resources and adaptation to address climate change. Some 
Parties urged an increased focus on renewable energy. BHUTAN and 
BANGLADESH called for special attention to LDCs' needs. NEW 
ZEALAND underscored the need for greater attention to GHGs other 
than CO2.


INDONESIA emphasized the importance of making benefit assessments, 
not just cost assessments, of the Protocol. He called for the 
Protocol's entry into force by 2002. SWITZERLAND, JAPAN and the 
NETHERLANDS urged Parties not to wait for ratification before 
starting to implement actions to address climate change.

On lessons learned, FINLAND, with CANADA, underscored good working 
relationships between all partners and stakeholders in 
implementing climate change policies. She added that there is a 
need to set the framework and rules for market operations. Some 
Parties called for the involvement of the private sector. The 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION said experience has shown that reducing 
emissions has been less costly than expected and has led to 
greater benefits. With SWITZERLAND and HUNGARY, she emphasized the 
need for increased domestic action and called for continuation of 
AIJ and a smooth transition in the future to the CDM and JI.

MALAYSIA and MEXICO sought consistency in policies between 
different environmental fora. BULGARIA called for a meeting to 
address the specific features of EITs before COP-6. GERMANY said 
addressing climate change could create new jobs. IRAN highlighted 
the need for confidence-building between developed and developing 
countries through concrete practical cooperation. CHINA said 
attempts by some Parties to get developing countries to 
"meaningfully participate" were destroying confidence-building 
efforts between developing and developed countries.

The Way Forward: During the afternoon session, delegates exchanged 
views on the way forward in relation to promoting implementation 
of the BAPA and the early entry into force of the Protocol. 

On outcomes from COP-5, the UK, supported by KAZAKHSTAN and the 
US, and opposed by SAUDI ARABIA, proposed a Bonn Declaration 
reaffirming the political will to complete the BAPA by COP-6. 
KUWAIT said this proposal was premature.

On preparations for COP-6, many Parties called for intensified 
efforts and for the role of the President to be strengthened in 
order to achieve success at COP-6. ARGENTINA, supported by FINLAND 
and BENIN, said innovative approaches were needed, and called for 
the establishment of small task forces in the run-up to COP-6. She 
said traditional groupings among countries to develop common 
positions may no longer be appropriate.

JAPAN, supported by KAZAKHSTAN, BOTSWANA, the US, CANADA, BENIN, 
ICELAND, HONDURAS and SOUTH AFRICA, suggested that President 
Szyszko be empowered to appoint a special facilitator to assist 
negotiations and help Parties realize the BAPA by COP-6. AUSTRALIA 
proposed establishing a Committee of the Whole (COW), chaired by a 
facilitator vested with the authority by President Szyszko. 

CHINA, with SAUDI ARABIA, VENEZUELA, KUWAIT, INDONESIA, and LIBYA, 
opposed the proposals to establish new groups or mechanisms to 
assist progress toward COP-6, stressing that the existing FCCC 
bodies and structures should be employed to this end. CHINA, 
supported by KUWAIT and others, said a facilitator would not be 
able to visit and confer with all Parties. NORWAY said ministers 
should be engaged in the process between the COPs. 

On Thursday, 4 November, President Szyszko offered his personal 
impressions of the high-level segment. He stated that the 
discussions had been frank and open, and said he sensed a new 
spirit market by political commitment and a strong willingness to 
move the process forward. He noted unanimity on the need to 
intensify negotiations in the lead-up to COP-6. 

OTHER PLENARY STATEMENTS

On Tuesday, 2 November, delegates met in a Plenary session to hear 
statements by observer States, IGOs, NGOs and UN bodies. On 
progress made in climate change negotiations, PALAU said it was 
disappointed at the lack of progress being made at COP-5. OPEC 
said implementing the Protocol would lead to dramatic economic 
losses for OPEC Parties, and called for equitable distribution of 
the costs of climate change mitigation. FRANCISCAN INTERNATIONAL 
and CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK - EUROPE (CAN-E), called for the entry 
into force of the Protocol by Rio+10.

Regarding the Protocol mechanisms, the WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT urged an early definition of mechanisms' 
governing structure and recommended that existing trade and 
investment frameworks be used. CAN-E said the CDM and JI should 
exclude nuclear power, clean coal and large hydro schemes. UNDP 
offered capacity-building assistance for CDM and JI. UNIDO said it 
was committed to the CDM's success in Africa. CAN–SOUTHEAST ASIA 
said trying to link AIJ to CDM would create another loophole 
permitting Parties to renege on their commitments. The WORLD BANK 
noted that its programmes on AIJ had provided useful lessons for 
both North and South, and expressed willingness to expand it to 
cover countries that had been less well served by the pilot phase. 
FRANCISCAN INTERNATIONAL said JI should be used to promote clean 
development and opposed nuclear energy as an option. The NUCLEAR 
ENERGY FORUM said the choice of nuclear energy must be based on 
each country's circumstances.

On the development and transfer of technologies, the BUSINESS 
COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY highlighted the need to encourage 
private sector participation. 

On interlinkages, the CONVENTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION, the 
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, and the RAMSAR CONVENTION ON 
WETLANDS noted synergies and the potential for further cooperation 
between the FCCC and their respective conventions. 

Special Scientific Segment: In a special scientific Plenary 
segment, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) indicated 
that the atmospheric concentration of human-induced GHGs and the 
mean surface temperature of the earth would continue to increase, 
and noted that the expected recovery of stratospheric ozone will 
lead to the strengthening of GHG atmospheric concentrations. The 
IPCC said it is not a question of whether the earth's climate will 
change, but rather when, where and by how much. UNEP emphasized 
domestic action and urged Parties to ratify the Protocol to ensure 
entry into force by 2002. 

CLOSING PLENARY

In its closing Plenary on Friday, 5 November, the COP adopted the 
report of its work with a minor amendment by the G-77/CHINA and 
authorized Rapporteur Guerreiro to finalize the report 
(FCCC/CP/1999/L.1). Michael Zammit Cutajar said the unexpected 
mood of optimism and the orderly and productive conduct of 
business was encouraging to the Secretariat as they prepared to 
face "the Y2K problem" of helping produce a successful outcome at 
COP-6.

The G-77/CHINA, supported by SAUDI ARABIA and the EU, highlighted 
the cordial and businesslike atmosphere at COP-5. She said the 
group has shown flexibility in the negotiations and look forward 
to working with the same spirit at future meetings. The EU said 
COP-5 had achieved results that will pave the way to COP-6. 

CHINA noted the meaningful participation of the G-77/CHINA in the 
negotiation process. He commented on the spirit of understanding 
that prevailed at COP-5 and said it should extend to COP-6. He 
added that no extraneous controversial matters should be brought 
up at COP-6. The AFRICAN GROUP noted the early finish of the COP 
with approbation. He expressed gratitude to the Annex I countries 
that had shown a flexible attitude at COP-5. KAZAKHSTAN and SYRIA 
thanked the host country for its hospitality. In his closing 
remarks, President Szyszko said COP-5 had taken an important step 
towards fulfilling the BAPA, and closed the conference at 1:00 pm. 

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF COP-5: 

THE HARE AND THE TORTOISE

The Fifth Conference of the Parties completed its work ahead of 
schedule and generated an "unexpected mood of optimism" among 
delegates and observers. After a faltering COP in Buenos Aires, 
followed by a year of grim "drum beats" of speculation in many 
capitals about the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, the process 
recovered vital momentum and began to gather determination and 
support for a self-imposed deadline for entry into force by 2002. 
An innovative exchange of views involving ministers launched a 
year of intensive high-level engagement in the process leading up 
to COP-6. The 2002 deadline, the 10th anniversary of the Earth 
Summit (UNCED), provides the Parties and civil society with a 
compelling set of reasons to succeed. As the fabled tortoise once 
taught the hare, momentum and pace do not always deliver the 
price. The integrity and credibility of the Protocol will be the 
prize that endures, one that demands perseverance and vigilance 
along the way.

This brief analysis will address three of the questions posed by 
the FCCC Executive Secretary, Michael Zammit Cutajar, in a 
briefing paper issued before the start of COP-5. Our three 
questions are: 

*  Has COP-5 pulled together the "big picture" and clarified the 
various strands of work and decisions required?

*  Has COP-5 enabled different interest groups to define specific 
components of success at COP-6 and secured their political 
commitment? 

*  Are there indications that COP-5 has sent a signal to the world 
about a change of pace and a sharpening of focus?

These questions are based on a recognition that COP-5's success or 
otherwise would be judged by its contribution to preparations for 
COP-6, when far reaching decisions mandated by the Buenos Aires 
Action Plan will have to be made regarding a volatile mix of 
political and so-called technical issues. 

THE "BIG PICTURE" AND CLARIFICATION OF OUTSTANDING DECISIONS 
REQUIRED 

At a COP-5 briefing, Zammit Cutajar described information as the 
lifeblood of the FCCC and Kyoto Protocol. Information will be key 
to the integrity of the enabling decisions mandated under the 
Buenos Aires Action Plan. Two developments underlined his point. 
The IPCC special side event on land-use, land-use change and 
forestry (LULUCF) provided the first opportunity for many 
delegations to engage in a frank exchange on the absence of 
country-specific data for baselines and consideration of 
"additional activities" (Protocol Article 3.4). At another side 
event, the University of Wageningen (Netherlands) presented a 
powerful tool to allow Parties to assess the likely impact on the 
Kyoto targets if potential new sinks are allowed. The Climate 
Action Network believes that the overall impact of the additional 
activities could create a more significant loophole than "hot 
air."

Information will be key to the integrity of the enabling decisions 
mandated under the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. The obvious 
danger, which appeared to lurk in some corners of the negotiation 
process in the run-up to COP-5, was the politically-motivated 
temptation to build carefully constructed "designer gaps" into 
important reporting guidelines and scientific data requirements. 
Delegations and NGOs agreed that some of the Parties' notable work 
at COP-5 vindicated the importance of rigor in their approaches to 
the provision of information. There was also a drawing back from 
any temptation to pre-empt the availability of scientific advice 
from the IPCC on the complex set of decisions to be taken on sinks 
and "additional activities" under the LULUCF, a classic example of 
a negotiating area where the division between "technical" and 
"political" issues breaks down. Any attempt to reconstruct or 
force the division between the technical and political in this 
regime can only be described as a politically-motivated strategy 
in itself. 

Regarding some of the key issues, we shall attempt a first take on 
the direction of the COP-5 debates, bearing in mind the question 
of how well the Parties managed to pull together the "big picture" 
by clarifying the various strands of work and decision-making to 
come. 

Compliance: One observer described the US approach to compliance 
as its "only green position," such is its commitment to a robust 
and rigorous system. Ultimately the credibility of the compliance 
system will be bound to the types of consequences and sanctions 
envisaged, and to the overall rigor of the Protocol mechanisms and 
their capacity to bring about real reductions in GHG emissions.

Annex I Communications: The adoption of the guidelines for the 
preparation of Annex I communications and the guidelines for the 
technical review of GHG inventories was seen as one of the 
achievements COP-5, a first step toward a more rigorous analysis 
of inventories. Debate on Part II of the guidelines for the 
preparation of national communications by Annex I Parties 
reflected tensions over emphasis on domestic versus offshore or 
least cost fulfillment of national commitments. 

Non-Annex I Communications: Another achievement was the decision 
on non-Annex I Communications. A decision to create a consultative 
group of experts, consisting of members predominately from non-
Annex I Parties, will reduce some developing countries' anxieties 
that data will be used to press for target setting and ranking of 
performance, resulting in an imposition of new conditionalities 
for access to GEF funding. 

LULUCF: Observers expressed relief that Parties demonstrated a 
preparedness to produce data for the IPCC report on additional 
sink-related activities. This will add to the transparency 
required if future budgets are to be calculated on the basis of 
additional activities. Parties also agreed on a framework and 
timeline for how IPCC and related workshops and country data will 
be integrated. 

AIJ Under the Pilot Phase: This issue, the only one which required 
a final resolution at COP-5, exposed the fissures developing 
within the G-77/China on issues related to the mechanisms and 
conflicting perceptions regarding possible gains to be realized. 


Mechanisms: Delegates engaged in a "brainstorming" session on 
project cycles and basic operations. Although they did not 
"negotiate" the synthesis of Parties' proposals, some difficult 
issues, such as fungibility, were discussed for the first time. 
Delegates agreed that the synthesis will serve as the basis for 
future sessions. 

Capacity Building and Technology Transfer: The COP set up a 
process for serious consideration of these issues, which often 
seem to have a tenuous relationship with economic realities. The 
importance of progress must be seen within the emerging view 
within Annex I Parties that confidence building must form part of 
any package requiring the non-Annex I Parties' cooperation and the 
long-term viability of the FCCC. 

KEEPING INTEREST GROUPS ON BOARD: OVERCOMING OPEC'S PERVERSE 
IMPACTS AND HONORING THE GLOBAL COMPACT 

Each negotiating stage in the FCCC and Protocol process demands 
that diverse interest groups within and across Annex I and non-
Annex I countries can define specific components of success, or 
the prospects of success at COP-6. In turn, the conditions for 
their continued commitment to the overall integrity of the process 
is assured. There is no greater test for the process than the 
balance that must be struck between the objectives of the FCCC and 
the Protocol and the interests of the oil producing States, 
notably OPEC. This balance also illustrates the tensions and 
volatility of the G-77/China vis à vis its engagement with the 
process. The obstructive role played by Saudi Arabia and other 
OPEC interests at COP-5 was the subject of some speculation. The 
OPEC position seems to be based on the fear that ratification and 
implementation of the Protocol will have a significant impact on 
oil consumption. An example was the Saudi Arabian delegation's use 
of its position as G-77/China coordinator on the bunker fuel issue 
to pursue its own interests as an oil producing country at the 
expense of the wider group. Members of the delegation failed to 
respond to repeated attempts to have them participate in the 
intensive informal negotiations. When they finally did, elements 
in a draft decision addressing the ICAO and IMO were gutted. 
Within the G-77/China, however, many Parties are challenging the 
Saudis' attempts to usurp some of the Group's negotiating 
positions for its own ends.

One of the significant outcomes from COP-4 was a concerted 
attempt, driven at the time by the EU and now taken up by other 
Annex I Parties, to honor the spirit of the global compact that 
remains the foundation of the post-UNCED agenda. Work on the 
consultative process on technology transfer, capacity building, 
the continuing AIJ pilot phase and the design of the CDM will 
provide opportunities for Annex I Parties to honor this commitment 
and lay the foundations for a constructive engagement with key 
non-Annex I Parties with a view to addressing the question of 
wider participation. Some NGOs will be pressing the EU to play a 
greater role in establishing this dialogue, accompanied by serious 
attempts to address the adaptation concerns of some developing 
Parties. Given their vulnerability to global warming, adaptation 
is an issue of particular interest to AOSIS, who is pressing for a 
Protocol that brings real and measurable GHG reductions.

A NEW PACE AND FOCUS: SENDING A POWERFUL SIGNAL TO THE WORLD

The twin decisions to convene COP-6 in the year 2000 (rather than 
delay it until 2001) and intensify the work programme during the 
intersessional period will help to set a lively pace for 
negotiations on outstanding issues and sharpen the focus of 
debates. Additional subsidiary body meetings and intensive high-
level exchanges will be reminiscent of those that characterized 
the period leading up to Kyoto. 

The NGO campaign calling for the Protocol's entry into force by 
the tenth anniversary of the Earth Summit in 2002 has also taken 
hold. The NGO community plays a central role in the negotiations, 
working for transparency and rigor in the process and providing a 
"user friendly" point of access for civil society. A sharper focus 
for NGO work will be provided by a call for a European Leadership 
initiative launched by Hermann Ott (Wuppertal Institute) and 
Sebastian Oberthúr (Ecologic) at COP-5, calling for an EU and 
Japanese-led coalition to achieve early entry into force of the 
Protocol. NGOs have also worked hard to encourage Parties to 
exclude the nuclear option from consideration under the JI and CDM 
mechanisms.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE A TORTOISE TO ARRIVE IN THE HAGUE? 

There was a palpable sense of renewed optimism at COP-5's close, 
encouraged by a determination to inject a quicker pace into the 
process of fulfilling the BAPA mandate at COP-6. As the tortoise 
once taught the fabled hare, however, speed is not the only 
requirement for success. For each question clarified at COP-5, 
others were deferred or not raised at all. For each attempt to 
keep interest groups, such as OPEC, on board, there will be new 
fissures for laggards to exploit in pursuit of delay and 
obfuscation. For every powerful signal of political intent, there 
will be outbursts of systemic inertia in political capitals, no 
more so than when Washington becomes a well-lit stage for the 
numbing spectacle of a Presidential election. From the humble 
tortoise we might learn that success must also be guided by pace, 
concentration, and perseverance, backed up by a steady nerve and 
rock solid defenses to help endure the inevitable arrival of 
extreme events along the way.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR before cop-6

CLEAN ENERGY PARTNERSHIPS – DEVELOPING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS: This 
meeting will be held in Seattle, Washington, USA, from 14-16 
November 1999, and is sponsored by the US Agency for International 
Development (USAID). The conference will focus on renewable and 
energy efficiency projects in AID countries and the Pacific 
Northwest. For information, contact: Linda VerNooy; tel: +1-206-
217-9644, ext. 217.

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON INITIATIVES FOR GHG REDUCTION: This 
conference will be held from 15-16 November 1999, in Tokyo, Japan. 
For more information, contact: Ms. Mari Komatsu; tel: +81-3-3277-
0546; e-mail: komari@mri.co.jp.

WORKSHOP ON THE NEW REPORTING GUIDELINES ON NATIONAL INVENTORIES 
AND OPTIONS TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF THE ANNEX I PARTIES WITH 
ECONOMIES IN TRANSITION IN PREPARING GHG INVENTORIES: This 
workshop, organized by CC:TRAIN and sponsored by Switzerland, will 
be held from 30 November - 2 December 1999 in Geneva. For more 
information, contact: CC:TRAIN Secretariat; tel: +41-22-917-8532; 
fax: +41-22-917-8047; e-mail: cctrain@unitar.org; Internet: 
http://www.unitar.org/cctrain/.

VIENNA CONVENTION AND MONTREAL PROTOCOL: The 5th COP to the Vienna 
Convention and the 11th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 
Protocol will be held in Beijing from 29 November - 3 December 
1999.  For more information, contact: the Ozone Secretariat; tel: 
+254-2-62-1234; fax: +254-2-62-3601; e-mail: ozoneinfo@unep.org; 
Internet: http://www.unep.org/ozone/.

4TH INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (IEA) INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON 
NATURAL GAS: This meeting will be held from 6-7 December 1999 in 
Cancun, Mexico. For more information, contact: IEA, 9 rue de la 
Federation, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France; tel: +33-01-40-576-554; 
fax: +33-01-40-576-559; e-mail: info@iea.org; Internet: 
http://www.iea.org/.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY: The GEF Council will meet from 8-10 
December 1999 in Washington, DC. For more information, contact: 
the GEF Secretariat; tel: +1-202-473-0508; fax: +1-202-522-3240 or 
+1-202-522-3245; Internet: http://www.gefweb.org/.

US-AFRICA ENERGY MINISTERS CONFERENCE: This conference will be 
held in Tucson, Arizona, USA, from 13-15 December 1999. For more 
information, contact: Jayne Brady; tel. +1-202-586-5806; or Mary 
Okoye; tel: +1-520-791-4204; Internet: 
http://www.africaenergy.org/.

WORKSHOP ON VOLUNTARY APPROACHES – "HOT AIR OR A KEY TO HIGHER 
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN INDUSTRY?": This international meeting will 
be held on 26 January 2000 in Brussels and will focus on the 
prospects and limits of voluntary approaches to reduce energy 
consumption and GHG emissions in industry. For more information, 
contact: Stephan Ramesohl, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, 
Environment and Energy, Energy Division, Doeppersberg 19, Postfach 
10 04 80, D-42004 Wuppertal, Germany; tel: +49-202-2492-255; fax: 
+49-202-2492-198; e-mail: stephan.ramesohl@wupperinst.org; 
Internet: http://www.wupperinst.org/.

WORLD CLEAN ENERGY CONFERENCE: The international clean energy 
forum will be held in Geneva from 24-28 January 2000. The 
international technology and trade exhibition on clean energy will 
in Geneva from 25-29 January 2000. For more information, contact: 
Clean Energy 2000, Rue de Varembe 3, PO Box 200, CH 1211 Geneva 
20; tel: +41-22- 910-3006, fax: +41-22-910-3014; e-mail: 
conference@cleanenergy2000.com; Internet: 
http://www.cleanenergy2000.com/.

AD HOC OPEN-ENDED GROUP OF EXPERTS ON ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT: The Ad-Hoc Open-Ended Group of Experts on Energy and 
Sustainable Development of the UN Commission on Sustainable 
Development will be held from 6-10 March 2000 in New York. For 
more information, contact: Leticia Silverio, Coordinator, Division 
for Sustainable Development, 2 UN Plaza - Rm. DC2-2202, New York, 
NY 10017, USA; tel: +1-212-963-4670; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: 
silveriol@un.org/; Internet: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev. 

PACIFIC ISLANDS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE: This meeting will be 
held from 3-7 April 2000 in Rarotonga, Cook Islands. The theme of 
the meeting, organized by the South Pacific Regional Environment 
Programme (SPREP) is "Improving the understanding of and 
responding to climate change and sea-level rise." For more 
information, contact: SPREP; fax: +685-202 31; e-mail: 
kaluwin@sprep.org.ws; Internet: http://www.sprep.org.ws/.

WORKSHOP ON BEST PRACTICES: This meeting, jointly organized by 
France and Denmark, will be held from 11-13 April 2000 in 
Copenhagen. For more information, contact: Pierre Palat, Mission 
Interministerielle de l'Effet de Serre (MIES), France; tel: +33-1-
42-75-8763; fax: +33-1-47-53-7634; e-mail: 
pierre.palat@mies.premier-ministre.gouv.fr; or Peter Helmer Steen, 
Danish Energy Agency, Denmark; tel: +45-33-92-67-00; e-mail: 
PHS@ENS.DK.

11TH GLOBAL WARMING INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND EXPO: This 
meeting, "GW11 - Kyoto Compliance Review Year 2000 Conference," 
will be held from 25-28 April 2000 in Boston, USA. For more 
information, contact Prof. Sinyan Shen; tel: +1-630-910-1551; fax: 
+1-630-910-1561; Internet: http://www.GlobalWarming.Net/. 

12TH SESSION OF THE FCCC SUBSIDIARY BODIES: SB-12 will be held in 
Bonn, Germany, from 12-16 June 2000, preceded by one week of 
informal meetings, including workshops. For more information, 
contact: the FCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-
228-815-1999; e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.de; Internet: 
http://www.unfccc.de/.

13TH SESSION OF THE FCCC SUBSIDIARY BODIES: SB-13 will be held in 
Bonn, Germany, from 11-15 September 2000, preceded by one week of 
informal meetings, including workshops. For more information, 
contact the FCCC Secretariat.

6TH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE FCCC: COP-6 will be held in 
The Hague, the Netherlands, from 13-24 November 2000. For more 
information, contact the FCCC Secretariat.






This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (enb@iisd.org) is 
written and edited by Paola Bettelli (pbettelli@iisd.org), Chad 
Carpenter (chadc@iisd.org), Angela Churie (churie@l.kth.se), 
Lavanya Rajamani (lavanya.rajamani@hertford.ox.ac.uk), Chris 
Spence (spencechris@hotmail.com) and Juliette Voinov 
(cedrickohler@msn.com). The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. 
(pam@iisd.org) and the Managing Editor is Langston James "Kimo" 
Goree (kimo@iisd.org). The WWW Content Editor is Peter Doran 
(pfdoran@ecology.u-net.com). Digital engineering by Andrei Henry 
(andrei@iisd.org), Kenneth M. Tong (k8o@interlog.com) and Richard 
Stokes (rstokes@iisd.ca). Photography by Leila Mead 
(leila@interport.net). French translation by Mongi Gadhoum 
(mongi.gadoum@enb.intl.tn). Logistics coordinated by P.J. 
Goldfeder (pjgold14@aol.com). The Sustaining Donors of the 
Bulletin are the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the 
Government of Canada (through CIDA), the United States (through 
USAID), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape, 
the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) 
and the European Commission (DG-XI). General Support for the 
Bulletin during 1999 is provided by the German Federal Ministry of 
Environment (BMU) and the German Federal Ministry of Development 
Cooperation (BMZ), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the 
Ministries of Environment and Foreign Affairs of Austria, the 
Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Environment of Norway, the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Environment of 
Finland, the Government of Sweden, the United Nations Development 
Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the 
Ministry for the Environment in Iceland. Specific funding for this 
meeting has been provided by the UNFCCC Secretariat. The Bulletin 
can be contacted by e-mail at (enb@iisd.org) and at tel: 212- 
644-0204; fax: 212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted by e-mail at 
(info@iisd.ca) and at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, 
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada. The opinions expressed in the 
Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not 
necessarily reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts 
from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial 
publications only and only with appropriate academic citation. For 
permission to use this material in commercial publications, 
contact the Managing Editor. Electronic versions are sent to e-
mail distribution lists and can be found on the Linkages WWW 
server at http://enb.iisd.org/. The satellite image by The 
Living Earth, Inc., at http://www.livingearth.com. For information 
on the ENB, send e-mail to (enb@iisd.org).





To unsubscribe please email kcooney@iisd.org