You are viewing our old site. See the new one here

ENB:12:39 [Next] . [Previous] . [Contents]

SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE (SBSTA)

The SBSTA was established by COP-1 to link scientific, technical and technological assessments, information provided by competent international bodies, and the policy- oriented needs of the COP.

SBSTA-1 was held in Geneva from 28-30 August 1995. Delegates confronted technically and politically complex issues, including: scientific assessments, national communications from Annex I Parties, methodologies, first communications from non- Annex I Parties, and AIJ under the pilot phase. The SBSTA was supposed to establish intergovernmental technical advisory panels on technologies (TAP-T) and methodologies (TAP-M), however, it did not have time to consider all of these issues. Among the more contentious issues were definition of SBSTA’s relationship with the IPCC, the terms of reference and composition of the TAPs and the elaboration of guidelines for national communications from non-Annex I Parties. Delegates successfully identified areas for cooperation with the IPCC, agreed on a division of labor with the SBI on technology transfer issues, and requested the Secretariat to organize a workshop on non- governmental inputs. No progress was made on the formation of the TAPs and delegates had to resume this discussion at SBSTA-2.

SBSTA-2, held in Geneva from 27 February-4 March 1996, considered scientific assessment and cooperation, including the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR), reporting by Annex I and non-Annex I Parties, AIJ and the Technical Advisory Panels (TAPs). The main result was that Parties documented that they could not yet agree on how to absorb or respond to scientific predictions of climate change. Although initial discussions gave the impression that SBSTA-2 would greet the IPCC’s predictions with less resistance than in previous FCCC negotiations, oil producers and other developing countries ultimately blocked consensus on specific conclusions about the SAR. Weekend negotiations resulted in a fragile agreement on language defining the divergence of opinion. Three paragraphs in the SBSTA’s report list points of contention, alternately highlighting the urgency and uncertainty in the IPCC report of a “discernible human influence” on climate change. One line of the SBSTA’s conclusions tells the story of the TAPs: at this stage the SBSTA could not agree on modalities.

At SBSTA-3, held from 9-16 July 1996, delegates discussed the SAR and sent an unfinished draft decision with brackets (FCCC/CP/1996/L.11) to the COP for resolution. The draft decision provides advice on how the SAR can be used for implementation. Decisions were adopted in conjunction with the SBI on Communications from Annex I Parties (FCCC/CP/1996/L.13 and Add. 1) and on Communications from non-Annex I Parties (FCCC/CP/1996/L.12). The SBI and the SBSTA also agreed on a decision on AIJ (FCCC/CP/1996/L.7). Progress was made on a roster of experts and technical panels and the SBSTA also agreed to reconsider NGO consultation mechanisms and cooperation with the IPCC.

[Return to start of article]