ENB:12:23
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM ANNEX I PARTIES AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM NON-ANNEX I PARTIES: PROGRESS REPORT ON IN-DEPTH REVIEWS
The Chair suggested merging discussion on national communications from Annex I Parties with discussion on the brief progress report on in-depth reviews undertaken to date, as contained in FCCC/SB/1995/1. He asked delegates to focus on the procedural aspects of the following: scientific and technical aspects in the review, effectiveness of policies and measures, and the preparation of guidelines on national communications.
AUSTRALIA supported the Secretariat's progress report on in-depth reviews and encouraged the Secretariat to continue. She said that SBSTA 2 should consider a draft synthesis report and recommended a comprehensive approach to all GHG sources. SPAIN, on behalf of the EU, said that all EU members had submitted their national communications and the EU had presented a synthesis report at COP 1. The EU, supported by CANADA and JAPAN, supported the compilation of a synthesis report and the continuation of in-depth reviews. The US said that the SBSTA's ongoing review of national communications would provide key information on individual policies and measures. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, supported the inclusion of in-depth reviews of Annex I Parties' national communications as a standing item on the SBSTA's agenda. CHINA stated that Annex II Parties should include measures on the transfer of technology for consideration by SBSTA. ZIMBABWE noted that non-Annex I Parties do not have a fixed time to report and agreed that the process should be accelerated.
The INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AGENCY (IEA) stated that international statistics, including the work done by the UN Statistical Office, were available and SBSTA could use these to evaluate national communications. The Secretariat noted that each team of IPCC experts has at least one developing country member, adding that only 29 Parties had made nominations, and that the IPCC aims to involve as many Parties as possible. The Chair said there would be informal consultations on these items and all comments would be incorporated in a draft paper. The PHILIPPINES and AUSTRALIA noted that these issues will have to be revisited in Plenary.
ESTABLISHMENT OF TAP-T AND TAP-M
The Chair noted that this was an urgent matter for SBSTA to consider in the light of COP 1. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, on behalf of AOSIS, supported the nomination of 21-30 government experts in the TAPs. He recommended that the terms of office be "staggered" to promote continuity and noted that establishment of sub-committees should not be ruled out. The US said that regarding the organization of TAPs, it was not clear whether TAPs should work in parallel. He stated that since methodological issues were connected to Annex I Parties at least half of the experts in TAP-M should come from Annex I Parties. He said that TAP-M should consist of 20 experts and its meetings should be open to all IGOs and NGOs accredited to the COP. TAP-T should have an entirely different structure as there was the need to involve a greater number of experts. He proposed that TAP-T have a managerial steering group composed of about 10 experts nominated by governments. He added that private sector expertise was important.
SPAIN, on behalf of the EU, said that it would be very difficult to cover the wide range of technical and scientific issues with only 15 experts. He suggested that the number of permanent experts could be restricted and more external experts could be included. He said that these external experts should be selected by the SBSTA's bureau, based on nominations by the Parties. NEW ZEALAND said that the TAPs should be established as soon as possible, adding that geographic balance and experience must both be incorporated. She supported broadening the structure of the TAPs to include all technologies. PERU said that panels must be established at this session. He stated that greater weight should be given to the TAP-T, and suggested 25-30 experts, three-year terms, and funding for developing countries.
CANADA stated that panels should be composed of government-appointed experts. He said that TAP-M should not cover incremental costs or any financial issue and both TAPs should report to SBSTA 2. JAPAN said that the SBSTA should focus on technology identification, assessment and development, rather than technology transfer. He suggested devising a flexible approach without a fixed number of experts. CHINA said the panels would have to be intergovernmental in nature and be composed of 20 government-nominated experts. He recommended the selection of experts on the basis of regional consultations. The Chair said that if governments were to nominate and select the experts, these panels might not be created until the SBSTA 2. He once again asked delegates to propose specific mandates for the panels.
POLAND, supported by UZBEKISTAN, said that subgroups were useful and suggested that a deadline for nominating experts be presented at the AGBM 2. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION suggested various criteria for individual and collective measures including volume of emissions per capita, emissions per territory and emissions per GNP taking into consideration the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility." He supported the US on the membership of panels and said national experts could be provided to both TAPs. INDIA preferred open-ended membership, which should be limited according to the number of experts each country could send. He suggested that the terms of reference for the TAP-T mention "low-cost" or "cost-effective" technologies. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA suggested flexible membership and said that TAP-T should concentrate only on assessing technologies and not on their transfer. The Chair, noting the diverging views, said that open-ended membership and financing were "problematic."
SPAIN, on behalf of the EU, said that the panels should have different structures, with TAP-T as the smaller, ad hoc body and TAP-M as the larger body that draws from other fora. He said that SBSTA should develop a programme of work for TAP-T to meet according to the issues identified, and proposed that a compilation be prepared for SBSTA 2. SAUDI ARABIA, supported by KUWAIT, stated that the TAPs should be open-ended. He said that it was too early for the proposed level of detail on the terms of reference and added that the economic impacts of measures should included. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77, said that TAPs should be intergovernmental, with government-nominated members numbering no more than 15. She also expressed concern regarding the funding of the TAPs and said that the participation of developing countries must be ensured. ARGENTINA, supported by FIJI, suggested 20-member TAPs, appointed by governments, with geographic representation. He also said the Secretariat should begin collecting information on technology transfer.
FRANCE, supporting the EU, said that the TAP-M should develop common methodologies to assess cost-effectiveness and comparability of national policies. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, put forward an initial list of suggestions for the TAPs concerning timing, carbon cycles, associated impacts of climate change, assistance for the development of national capabilities and adaptation measures. The CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC said that the socio-economic impacts of climate change on developing countries need to be addressed. The IAEA suggested that competent IGOs be asked to nominate experts for both TAPs and said that IAEA would provide two experts at no cost. URUGUAY said that it was inappropriate to consider IGO participation in the panels at this stage. The Chair said that he would hold "pragmatic" consultations for a draft on TAPs that would be considered during Plenary.
DRAFT PROPOSAL ON TAPS: The Chair distributed a proposal on the establishment of Intergovernmental Technical Advisory Panels on 30 August 1995. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, said that due to the lack of time, the decisions should be "applied but not adopted," similar to the Rules of Procedure at COP 1. She said that there should be no differentiation, such as a steering committee, among the TAPs and that the TAPs should begin on an "equal footing," have the same number of members and terms of reference and be responsible only to the SBSTA. She reiterated the intention to revisit the issue. The Chair said that there would be separate documents for TAP-M and TAP-T with different terms of reference, but for now they would be in full symmetry.
The US disagreed with the G-77 and China, regarding the "equal footing" for the panels. He stated that Annex I Parties' assessments would be under review and subject to more obligations, and hence the composition of the panels should reflect this. He also stated that the TAPs should have one Co-Chair each drawn from Annex I and non-Annex I Parties. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, reiterated that acceptance was ad referendum. She said that the funding for developing country participation in the TAPs, and the reference to representatives of Parties attending as observers, should not be deleted. JAPAN said that the composition of the TAPs should take into account geographical consideration, expertise, the balance between Annex I and non-Annex I Parties and the nomination by the SBSTA's Bureau if regional coordinators could not agree, which the Chair said could be included. He said that there was no need to specify that Parties could attend as observers because the TAPs were open and this was the right of any Party. He said that membership for TAP-T could be flexible but because of the nature of the work, there was no need for the TAPs to be on an "equal footing."
The Chair said that perhaps consensus on substance was impossible at this stage and appealed for practical advice on inviting governments to nominate experts. SPAIN, on behalf of the EU, said that the TAPs should start work as soon as possible and supported the US proposal on different composition for the TAPs and that one of the Co-Chairs be from an Annex I Party. Regarding TAP-M, the EU supported economic assessments. She said that TAP-T should not evaluate the Convention's objectives but evaluate the basis for the SBI to carry out evaluations. The Chair said that the Secretariat could add an "option 3" with a lengthier term of office. The Chair suggested as a compromise of 10-15 member TAPs between the EU's five-member and the G-77 and China 20-30 member TAPs.
AUSTRALIA said that compromise might not be possible in the remaining 17 minutes. The Chair said letters inviting governmental nominations to the TAPs did not need an immediate resolution on the pending issue of membership. The PHILIPPINES, on behalf of the G-77 and China, reminded all delegates that the draft was being accepted ad referendum. AUSTRALIA inquired on what basis the invitations would be issued and asked whether the issue of the TAPs would be opened again during SBSTA 2. The Chair once again appealed for "solutions not questions." SWITZERLAND said that there was no use of forming panels only to disband them later and suggested that discussion on TAPs could be conducted in parallel with SBI 1. In the final four minutes, PERU supporting Switzerland, asked the Chair to continue informal consultations and requested the allocation of half an hour of SBI's meeting time for SBSTA Plenary. The SBI Chair, Mr. Mohamed M. Ould El Ghaouth (Mauritania), offered SBSTA the opportunity to hold informal consultations on Thursday and a Friday afternoon Plenary.