Read in: French

Report of main proceedings for 10 July 1996


The third day of the Second Conference of the Parties (COP-2) to the FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (FCCC) commenced with a meeting of the Ad HocGroup on Article 13 (AG-13) and a brief meeting of the Plenary to elect officers anddiscuss the agenda for the Ministerial Segment. The Subsidiary Body for Scientific andTechnological Advice (SBSTA) met all day, while the Subsidiary Body forImplementation (SBI) met in the afternoon, following an informal morning meeting onbudgetary matters.


The COP met in Plenary to discuss Agenda Items 4(d) and 4(f), election of officers otherthan the President, and the Ministerial Segment. The President reported that consultationson the rules of procedure would continue as new proposals have been introduced.Application of the draft rules will continue until a consensus is reached. The followingdelegates were elected: Alexander Bedritsky (Russian Federation), Rene CastroHernandez (Costa Rica), John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda), Anthony Clark (Canada),Cornelia Quennet-Thielen (Germany), Tuiloma Neroni Slade (Samoa), and Abbas Naqi(Kuwait) as vice-presidents, and Antonio La Via (Philippines) as Rapporteur. SAUDIARABIA and KUWAIT expressed concern about the COP’s failure to adopt rules ofprocedure and said that a compromise must be reached soon.

The upcoming ministerial segment will consist of three plenary sessions and one informalroundtable meeting to be chaired by Ruth Dreifuss (Switzerland). Plenary statements willbe limited to five minutes and entry to the roundtable will be restricted to heads ofdelegations at the ministerial level. SAUDIA ARABIA, supported by the REPUBLIC OFKOREA, the US, IRAN and BANGLADESH, objected to restricting the roundtable toministers, saying all heads of delegations should be welcome regardless of rank. To dootherwise would prejudice those delegations not able to send ministers. Increasedtransparency for the roundtable was also recommended. The President agreed to considerthe recommendations and report back to the COP.


The Ad Hoc Group on Article 13 met in the morning to discuss a multilateralconsultative process (MCP). Under Agenda item 3 (election of officers other than theChair), the Chair explained that the COP President is involved in discussions to agree on abalanced list for subsidiary bodies. Under item 4(a) (panel summary), the Chairrecommended that his report on a panel presentation become an annex to the Sessionreport. The US noted that elements are not listed in order of priority. Under item 4(b)(synthesis), participants adopted a synthesis of responses to a questionnaire on establishinga MCP under Article 13 (FCCC/AG13/1996/1) to be considered at the Group’s Decembersession. The EU regretted that substantive discussions will be postponed until then. Herecommended a draft decision extending the AG-13 mandate to COP-3 and a role inexamining ways to apply a MCP to a protocol in cooperation with AGBM. Under item4(c) (draft decisions), the Chair recommended draft decisions on the continuation of AG-13 and inviting the Group to report to COP-3. The Chair accepted a Saudi Arabiaproposal to replace a reference to the possible design of a MCP with one on reporting tothe COP as instructed.

The meeting then considered the Chair’s draft text on linkages between AG-13 andAGBM. The text stated that AGBM should take into account advice on a MCP, from AG-13, if it decides that such a process should apply to a “protocol”. Several delegationsobjected that referring to both a protocol and a MCP as part of this protocol prejudgedthe work of AGBM. Some delegations stated that other subsidiary bodies should beencouraged as well, though not required, to consult with AG-13 should they identify aneed for a MCP. Final wording of a redrafted text, as amended by SOUTH AFRICA andthe US, removes all reference to a protocol and asks the COP to decide that the AGBMmay, in its consideration of a MCP, seek such advice as may be deemed necessary fromAG-13.


SBI met formally to consider Agenda item 4 (financial and technical cooperation). TheSecretariat introduced the GEF Report to COP-2 (FCCC/CP/1996/8), which considers therelationship between the GEF and the COP. The Secretariat also introduced a draft Annexto the draft Memorandum of Understanding between the GEF and COP (MOU) ondetermination of necessary funding and its availability for implementation of the FCCC(FCCC/CP/1996/9).

The G-77/CHINA requested a postponement of discussion. The EU and the US welcomedthe GEF report, especially the operational strategy and its emphasis on enabling activities,and, along with POLAND, supported designation of the GEF as the permanent fundingmechanism. FRANCE cautioned that failure to approve the funding document mighthinder input from the COP to the next GEF replenishment. The Chair postponeddiscussion until Thursday.

Under Agenda Item 4(b) on Secretariat activities relating to technical and financial supportto the Parties (FCCC/SBI/1996/10), the Secretariat reported on an extended mandate onpreparing communications from non-Annex 1 Parties, including the Climate ConventionInformation Exchange Programme, training provision, and financial considerations. TheUS requested further information on the Secretariat’s cooperation with the UNDP, andencouraged close cooperation with the GEF Secretariat, other agencies and bilateraldonors.

The EU suggested a draft decision on the need for voluntary contributions to support theSecretariat’s activities. Under Agenda item 3(a), the Secretariat introduced a compilationof national communications from Annex 1 Parties (FCCC/CP/1996/12 and Adds.1 and 2)and a report on experiences and results of the review process on submission ofcommunications (FCCC/CP/1996/13). The SBI was invited to consider the report in detailand convey conclusions to the AGBM and COP-2. In-depth reviews are available fromJapan, Spain and Norway. Reports from Denmark and the Netherlands will be availablesoon.


Debate resumed on Agenda Item 4(a) (national communications from Annex I Parties).The G-77/CHINA, supported by COLOMBIA and INDIA, proposed Annex I partiescommunicate GHG emission limitations and commitments related to financial resourcesand technology transfer. ESTONIA, supported by LATVIA and the REPUBLIC OFKOREA, said guidelines should be revised with flexibility.

MOROCCO stated that Annex I Parties should also be required to report on capacitybuilding mechanisms and encouraged a paragraph by paragraph review of the document.NEW ZEALAND sought increased transparency in the reporting process and suggestedthe formation of a contact group to revise reporting guidelines.

The MARSHALL ISLANDS and MICRONESIA highlighted the need for informationrelated to technology transfer for adaptation. UZBEKISTAN said the guidelines shouldcontain more detail, including guidelines for emission control. NORWAY and CANADAsuggested introducing their proposals for technical revisions in a contact group. CHINAnoted that Annex I Parties are committed to assisting developing countries throughtechnology transfer and financial assistance, but this has not been highlighted in thedocuments revision.

The Secretariat introduced additional documents for the agenda item: methodologicalissues (FCCC/SBSTA/ 1996/9/Add.1) and electricity trade and bunker fuels (Add.2). TheChair noted he would convene a contact group on these issues. The RUSSIANFEDERATION drew attention to problems with net emissions and noted the absence of arecognized principle on accounting for timber exports. The EU stressed that allocationissues cannot be isolated from development of policies and measures for GHG emissions,and suggested that AGBM should elaborate policies and measures on bunker fuelemissions.

On Agenda Item 4(b) (national communications from non-Annex I Parties), the Chairproposed a contact group. He also formed a contact group for Annex I Partycommunications. For the Chair’s summary of deliberations on the SAR, he proposedconvening a “friends of the Chair" group.

SBSTA then considered Agenda Item 7 (mechanisms for consultations with NGOs). ThePresident introduced the relevant documents (FCCC/SBSTA/1996/11 andFCCC/SBSTA/1996/ Misc.2). The EU, supported by JAPAN, strongly supported the roleof NGOs and remained open to tailoring different mechanisms for different NGOconstituencies. The US said expanding access to only one type of NGO would beinappropriate and suggested strengthening existing channels. NEW ZEALAND urged thedevelopment of a special consultative mechanism for business NGOs as they will play avital role in implementation. CANADA supported a business consultative mechanism if itwill facilitate implementation and opposed open access to NGOs on the floor duringnegotiations.

CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK sought equitable participation among all NGOs,enhancement of existing consultative mechanisms and expanded access to the floor duringnegotiations. INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE supported thedevelopment of a business consultative mechanism, noting the importance of businessinput in implementation and acknowledging the need for transparency. The Presidenturged New Zealand to take the lead in forming a contact group to make recommendationsto SBSTA on the issue.

Delegates then considered activities implemented jointly under the pilot phase. TheSecretariat introduced an annual review of progress (FCCC/CP/1996/14 and Add.1). TheG-77/CHINA and the EU were not prepared to speak on the issue. CANADA saidSBSTA should not significantly change the reporting format at this session. She endorsedcontinuation at the pilot phase, with further assessment at COP-3. The US recommendedadoption of the Progress Report and Addendum as the first annual report on AIJ, andexpressed willingness to host the initial workshop on methodological issues as proposedby the Secretariat. She supported the formation of an AIJ forum, and suggested thatParties provide submissions for annual reports three months in advance. JAPAN suggestedstandard operational procedures for AIJ projects, monitoring and revision and supportedthe workshop on methodologies.

The REPUBLIC OF KOREA called for systematic improvement of AIJ to improveresearch and development capacity. The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OFREGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS stated that AIJ should be a permanentpart of the FCCC. SWITZERLAND described plans to finance pilot AIJ projects withAnnex II partners.


At an informal meeting of participants in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI),Parties agreed to review a Secretariat proposal to raise capital reserves from 8.3% to 15%at COP-3, as well as outstanding questions regarding relocation to Bonn, liaison points inNew York and Geneva, and the budget.


SUBSIDIARY BODY ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVICE: SBSTAwill reconvene at 11:00 a.m. in room XIX and meet again in the afternoon.

AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE: AGBM will convene at 3:00p.m. in room XX.

SUBSIDIARY BODY ON IMPLEMENTATION: SBI will convene at 10:00a.m. in room XX.

ACCT: There will be a meeting of Francophone countries, please check the boardfor further details.

Further information