|
Vol. 12 No. 190
Monday, 15 April 2002
SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP OF THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP
OF EXPERTS ON NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM NON-ANNEX I PARTIES:
10-11 APRIL 2002
The workshop of the Consultative Group of Experts
(CGE) on national communications from non-Annex I Parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was
held from 10-11 April 2002 in Bonn, Germany. More than 40 delegates
attended the session, including expert representatives of
governments and intergovernmental organizations.
The objective of the CGE is to improve national
communications from non-Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC. During the
workshop, participants met in plenary sessions to hear reports from
the CGE task groups on greenhouse gas inventories, vulnerability and
adaptation assessment (V&A) and research and systematic observation
(RSO), and education, training and public awareness (ETPA), as well
as the crosscutting issues of information and networking, national
circumstances and planning, and financial and technical support. The
group also heard presentations on the problems and constraints
facing some non-Annex I Parties in relation to the preparation of
their national communications.
Participants convened in four Working Group
sessions on Wednesday afternoon, 10 April, and Thursday, 11 April,
focusing on greenhouse gas inventories, V&A and RSO, abatement, and
ETPA. These Working Groups considered new issues that have emerged
since the last CGE workshop held in Panama in March 2001, relating
to transfer of technology, capacity building, financial and
technical support, and information and networking. The Working
Groups prepared conclusions, which were presented in a plenary
session on Thursday afternoon,11 April. Participants then discussed
the draft revised guidelines for the preparation of national
communications from non-Annex I Parties, concluding on Friday, 12
April. These discussions were closed, and are not included in this
report. The conclusions from the workshop will be compiled by the
UNFCCC Secretariat into an informational document to be considered
by the UNFCCC subsidiary bodies at their next sessions in June 2002.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UNFCCC AND THE CGE
Climate change is considered one of the most
serious threats to the sustainability of the world's environment,
human health and well-being, and the global economy. Mainstream
scientists agree that the Earth's climate is being affected by the
build-up of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, caused by
human activities. A majority of scientists believe that prompt
precautionary action is necessary.
UNFCCC: The international political response
to climate change took shape with the development of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Adopted in
1992, the UNFCCC sets out a framework for action aimed at
stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a
level that would prevent human-induced actions from leading to
"dangerous interference" with the climate system. The UNFCCC entered
into force on 21 March 1994. It now has 186 Parties.
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS: The UNFCCC
stipulated that Parties must report on the actions they take or are
planning in order to implement the UNFCCC. Consistent with the
principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," the
content and timetable for submitting these reports – or "national
communications" – varies depending on whether the country is an
Annex I (developed or economy-in-transition) Party to the Convention
or a non-Annex I (developing country) Party. Non-Annex I Parties
have a more flexible timetable for preparing and submitting their
national communications. Most non-Annex I Parties must submit their
first national communications within three years of the Convention's
entry into force for that Party, although the least developed
countries (LDCs) can make their initial communication "at their
discretion." Non-Annex I Parties are also eligible for some
financial and technical assistance from the Global Environment
Facility (GEF). In addition, some other donors and agencies have
assisted non-Annex I Parties in preparing their national
communications.
Further work on non-Annex I Parties' national
communications was completed at the Second Conference of the Parties
(COP-2), held in Geneva in July 1996. At COP-2 delegates agreed on
the substance that should be contained in national communications,
and set out guidelines for such communications (as contained in the
Annex to decision 10/CP.2).
THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP OF EXPERTS (CGE): At
COP-5, held in late 1999 in Bonn, Parties initiated a process to
review the reporting guidelines agreed at COP-2 and to improve the
preparation of non-Annex I national communications. To facilitate
this process, the COP established a Consultative Group of Experts on
national communications from non-Annex I Parties (CGE). The COP
decided that the CGE should be composed of five experts from each of
the developing country regions (Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and
Latin America and the Caribbean), six experts from Annex I Parties,
and three experts from organizations with relevant experience. The
CGE has met four times to date. In addition, three regional
workshops have taken place, and a fourth, interregional workshop,
was held in March 2001.
The work and mandate of the CGE and the process
of reviewing the reporting guidelines have been taken up during
recent meetings of the COP's Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI),
most recently during COP-7, held in late 2002 in Marrakech, Morocco.
At COP-7, delegates agreed to continue the process of reviewing the
guidelines in accordance with decision 8/CP.5, with a view to
improving these guidelines at COP-8. They also agreed that the
UNFCCC Secretariat should prepare some draft guidelines as well as
background information on national communications from non-Annex I
Parties submitted as of 31 December 2001, and that these should be
considered during an intersessional workshop prior to SB-16, will
take place in June 2002 (FCCC/CP/2001/L.20).
REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP
Martha Perdomo, Manager, Non-Annex I
Implementation Sub-Programme, UNFCCC Secretariat, opened the
workshop on Wednesday morning, 10 April. She welcomed participants
and thanked the Netherlands, US, Switzerland, Germany as well as
Uruguay for providing financial and other support necessary for the
meeting to take place. She presented some background information on
the development of the national communications process, noting that
COP-2 had provided guidance for the more than 174 first and second
national communications from non-Annex I countries submitted to
date. She stressed that the process has been one of learning by
doing, with the number of submissions growing from year to year. In
this context, she noted that the first compilation and synthesis of
non-Annex I Parties' national communications prepared by the UNFCCC
Secretariat had comprised 10 submissions, whereas the fourth
compilation currently underway will include 85 submissions. She drew
attention to the COP-7 decision mandating the organization of two
workshops, and said the current workshop was the first of these.
CGE Chair Philip Weech (Bahamas) welcomed
participants and stressed that the purpose of the workshop was to
exchange experiences and information, including from the subregional
and local levels. He highlighted the mandate of the CGE, as provided
for in decision 8/ CP.5, which includes: exchanging experiences;
considering the need for financial and technical resources;
considering information in non-Annex I national communications;
reviewing existing activities and programmes to support the
preparation of national communications; identifying difficulties in
the preparation of national communications; identifying analytical
and methodological issues with a view to improving the quality of
national communications; examining national communications with a
view to overcoming difficulties in the use of methodologies and
guidelines; and encouraging expert interaction.
CGE TASK GROUP REPORTS
On Wednesday, 10 April, participants heard
presentations of the CGE task group reports on greenhouse gas
inventories; vulnerability and adaptation assessment (V&A) and
research and systematic observation (RSO); abatement; education,
training and public awareness (ETPA); and crosscutting issues. These
presentations focused on those national communications submitted
following the Panama workshop in March 2001, and before 31 December
2001.
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES: Ayité-lo Ajavon
(Togo), Coordinator of the CGE Task Group on greenhouse gas
inventories, presented findings relating to inventories of emissions
and removals from 26 of the newly-submitted national communications.
On methodological issues, he said all Parties had followed the 1995
and the revised 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Guidelines to compile their inventories, although some Parties had
employed national methodologies for certain sectors. He observed
that all Parties had presented emissions estimates for the three
main gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O), and
that some had also done so for the ozone precursors. Nearly all
Parties had reported inventories in accordance with the UNFCCC
Guidelines, and most had provided more information than requested.
He indicated that uncertainty was addressed qualitatively by ten
Parties, quantitatively by two, and both qualitatively and
quantitatively by one Party.
On data acquisition, databases and networking, he
noted that activity data was generally referenced. He noted that
IPCC default emission factors were used, although Parties had
indicated that these do not reflect national circumstances. He
observed that some Parties had developed emission factors, which
express emission quantity per unit of activity, for certain sectors
to fit national circumstances. On institutional issues, Parties had
identified a number of areas for improvement, including activity
data and emission factors. Parties had also noted the need for
financial and technical assistance to improve their inventories.
Ajavon then described the results compiled from
newly-submitted national communications. For CO2, he said
fuel combustion in the energy sector was the largest contributor
reported. For CH4, agriculture and waste were the most
significant sources of emissions, while for N2O,
agriculture and fuel combustion were the primary contributors. He
stressed that for most Parties, CO2 was the primary gas,
with CH4 or N2O being most important in a few
exceptional cases. He summarized the results by noting that energy,
agriculture and land use change and forestry (LUCF) were the most
important sources of greenhouse gas emissions, with removal by sinks
from LUCF in most Parties offsetting emissions from these sectors.
VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION ASSESSMENT, AND
RESEARCH AND SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION: Isabelle Niang-Diop
(Senegal), Coordinator of the CGE Task Group on V&A and RSO,
reported on findings from the last 28 national communications
submitted. She observed that the time-horizons of several scenarios
were for 2020 and 2050, rather than for 2050 and 2100, noting that
this might accommodate decision makers who are more interested in
short-term horizons. She indicated that the number of sectors
considered had increased to ten, including human settlements, which
were considered as part of the coastal zone assessment. On
adaptation, she noted that most countries had presented a list of
adaptation options for two extreme and opposite scenarios, making it
difficult to create an adaptation strategy. She said that
constraints had not been reported extensively, but that these
appeared to include limited data, availability of models, and
funding. On needs, countries had identified: additional research;
the expansion of studies within each sector; capacity building;
technology transfer; better techniques for collecting and analyzing
data; and the strengthening of institutions in charge of climate
change issues. She concluded by observing that no progress had been
made on integrated impact assessments, or in an-alysis, costing, and
prioritization of adaptation options, and drew attention to serious
concerns about potential damages linked to extreme events, in
particular those relating to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
Participants discussed the use of models, and the
link between the experience gained in identifying adaptation
measures and the design of LDC National Adaptation Programmes of
Action (NAPAs). Delegates was noted that, for the purpose of NAPAs,
little could be learned from the V&A part of the national
communications process.
ABATEMENT: Lorraine Lotter (South Africa),
Coordinator of the CGE Task Group on abatement, spoke on abatement
reporting. She recalled that reporting on abatement options is
voluntary and remarked such reporting has been limited. On
methodological issues, she stressed that reporting guidelines are
limited, but that abatement analysis should consider the potential
social and environmental impacts along with economic consequences.
On recent national communications, she said constraints curtailing
reporting included lack of funding and technical expertise,
inadequate institutions and the absence of public and political
support. She suggested a balance be found between the voluntary
nature of reporting on abatement options and the need for such
reporting to attract potential investors in the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC. She stressed
that reporting can help prioritize potential projects, enhance the
negotiating strength of Parties when engaging potential CDM
partners, and increase public awareness.
In the ensuing discussion, Fiji remarked that
creating greenhouse gas inventories is a constraint to reporting on
abatement options, adding that linking abatement options reporting
to CDM work would stimulate abatement options analysis in countries
that have neglected it to date. Brazil and Kenya expressed concerns
about such a linkage, while Switzerland remarked that a linkage
could facilitate funding applications for second national
communications.
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND PUBLIC AWARENESS:
George Manful, Programme Officer, Implementation Programme, UNFCCC
Secretariat, discussed education, training and networking. He
remarked that reporting on this issue was varied and that drawing a
distinction between ongoing activities and those that are yet to be
implemented is difficult. On education, he noted some success in
integrating climate change issues into educational programmes,
particularly at the university level. On training, he remarked that
training scientific, technical, and managerial personnel is critical
to implementing the UNFCCC, but that the focus and magnitude of
existing training programmes is unclear. He explained that training
activities were an important part of preparing national
communications, and that training a critical mass of experts would
give Parties the capacity to initiate climate change projects. He
noted the need for more financial support.
In the ensuing discussion, one delegate suggested
that a universal set of education and training materials be created
and translated into various national languages. Participants agreed
that such materials could be useful if adapted to address national
circumstances.
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES: Brian Challenger
(Antigua and Barbuda), Coordinator of the CGE Task Group on
cross-cutting issues, spoke on the issues of information and
networking, and financial and technical support. He said networking
at the national level often takes place through national climate
change coordinating committees composed of various actors including
government, the private sector, NGOs and scientific institutions. He
also provided examples of regional and subregional networking. On
financial and technical support, he described his analysis of
recently submitted national communications, noting that one
constraint appeared to be the lack of a template for presenting
countries' needs. He explained that most countries had identified
capacity building as a priority, and that sustainable energy
production and adaptation had emerged as significant needs. He
supported creating a template for reporting of needs and constraints
in terms of financial and technical support in order to enhance
consistency, transparency and comparability.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers noted that
good examples with regard to cross-cutting issues can be identified
within the national communications submitted, but that guidance
should not be too prescriptive, given that each country's unique
situations and circumstances.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND
CONSTRAINTS
On Wednesday, 10 April, participants considered
reports by a number of countries on their experiences in preparing
national communications, focusing on problems and constraints.
ALBANIA: Ermira Fida, National Coordinator
for Climate Change Enabling Activity, Climate Change Unit, Albanian
Ministry of Environment, presented on the first national
communication of Albania, which is now in its final drafting stage.
Regarding the greenhouse gas inventory, she noted weaknesses such as
the lack of cooperation between institutions and the lack of legal
obligations for reporting, leading to problems in accessing data
without a fee. She drew attention to problems with the UNDP/GEF
National Execution (NEX) project structure, which she described as
inflexible. She also highlighted various technical problems,
including a lack of disaggregated data and uncertain or fragmented
data in some sectors such as transport and LUCF. A lack of trained
experts and individuals with previous experience also presented a
serious challenge. In addition, Fida noted similar problems with
regard to the abatement analysis, stressing the lack of scenarios,
guidelines and models. On vulnerability assessment, she drew
attention to a lack of regular monitoring, and difficulties in
developing baseline scenarios due to unreliable data prior to 1990.
She said better software was necessary to assist, inter alia,
in simulating extreme events and in developing socioeconomic
scenarios. On ETPA, she indicated that awareness is low in Albania,
and said this represents a constraint. In response to a question
from the Netherlands, she said the Albanian national adaptation
programme of action is submitted as part of the national
communication, and is also integrated in the national sustainable
development plan.
BRAZIL: In his presentation, Jose Miguez,
Coordinator on Global Change, Brazilian Ministry of Science and
Technology, addressed the issue of project management during the
preparation of the national communication of Brazil from the
perspective of the project coordinator. He underscored a variety of
elements required for success, including keeping the project on
schedule and within a budget, and ensuring high quality of the end
project. On meeting project deadlines, he noted delays in initiating
the project due to disagreements with the GEF, among other factors.
On the budget, he underscored that funding from the GEF had been
half the amount requested, and that additional funding had come from
national entities. He stressed the need for specific emission
factors, for instance for sugar cane ethanol used as fuel, cattle
nourished on different types of feed, and for the 200 different
forest types in Brazil. He said obtaining activity data from private
companies was difficult. He also noted that social and economic
development and poverty eradication are priorities in Brazil, not
climate change. On project control, he outlined problems with
contracts, difficulty with communication among participants, and a
lack of financial resources, authority, and alternatives. He
explained that the three different clients, the Ministry of Science
and Technology, the UNFCCC, and UNDP/GEF had different expectations
with regard to the end product.
On current status, he said Brazil employed a
multi-institutional, multi-stakeholder team spanning 100
institutions and 500 professionals, and indicated that the national
communication will be submitted during 2002.
FIJI: Mahendra Kumar, Associate Professor of
Physics, School of Pure & Applied Sciences at the University of the
South Pacific, remarked on the problems and constraints Fiji is
encountering while preparing its first national communication. On
institutional constraints, he explained that awareness among
decision makers is weak, guidance from outside experts is limited
and support for the national climate change coordinator is
insufficient. On human resource constraints, he noted a lack of
qualified personnel, inadequate training opportunities, and high
turnover. On financial constraints, he remarked on insufficient
funds for hiring external consultants and for providing a financial
incentive for climate change team members to complete their work. He
said technical constraints include lack of data or access to data,
and lack of appropriate methodology for V&A. Problems unique to Fiji
include the year-long political crisis that began in May 2000, the
bureaucracy's lengthy approval process for hiring outside
consultants, the low status of the climate change coordinator within
the bureaucracy, and the government's treatment of climate change as
a stand-alone issue.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Gwendoline Sissiou, Climate
Change Coordinator, Greenhouse Unit, Papua New Guinea Office of
Environment and Conservation, described the preparation of the
initial national communication, which was the first project
supported by UNDP/GEF NEX. She identified the institutional
arrangement as a constraint, including lack of clarity over the
roles of, and cooperation between, the executing agency, the
implementing agency, and UNDP. She also suggested that the
arrangement had hindered the use of available trained personnel and
experts outside the government, and said the national technical
committee members were not paid, and were therefore not willing to
work. She also observed that climate change was not regarded as a
government priority and that awareness was low.
On technical constraints, she identified a lack
of adequate data and problems related to accessing data. She also
drew attention to a lack of resources, methods and tools for V&A, as
well as for RSO. On mitigation, she highlighted the lack of
information on emission factors and mitigation options, and said
awareness with regard to climate change was low among government
officials as well as the general public. She concluded by noting
that, due to the institutional constraints in the project, more
emphasis should be placed on subcontracting experts, and expressed
the hope that work would improve as awareness increases. She also
suggested that improved working relations between the government and
UNDP would be of value.
IRAN: Mohammad Soltanich, National Project
Manager, Iranian Climate Change Office, presented on problems and
constraints related to preparing Iran's initial national
communication. On institutional arrangements, he highlighted that
government and non-governmental groups had had no prior experience
with such work, and that the orientation process took some time. He
indicated that the work involved eight ministries, the Department of
Environment, research and educational institutions and the country's
meteorology agency. He noted that the project was difficult to
manage, since it involved 50 people. He outlined problems with
coordination and said the collection of activity data had been
difficult because most of the necessary information was not part of
national statistics. He stressed that environmental impact
assessments, required by law in Iran for all projects, could also
provide an opportunity for carrying out climate change assessments,
a concept with which most policy-makers are unfamiliar.
On technical problems and constraints related to
preparing national inventories, he noted the many inconsistencies
and contradictions in the activity data, and the lack of national
emission factors as two constraints. On V&A, he underscored good
studies on water resources in Iran.
Regarding abatement options, he informed
delegates that climate change was not a concern in national
development plans, but that some plans were consistent with
recommendations on climate change actions. On education, training,
and public awareness, he said organizing workshops had been
time-consuming. He drew attention to a lack of formal education on
climate change in Iran, noting that only limited research projects
have been carried out on climate change science, mitigation, and
V&A. He suggested a regional research and educational center be
established in the Middle East. On availability of resources, he
outlined problems with equipment and logistics, lack of human
resources, problems with timely payment of salaries, and access to
international experts. He concluded by noting that Iran is prepared
to submit its national communication, and has received GEF top-up
funds to continue into phase two of the project.
SOUTH AFRICA: Lorraine Lotter, Executive
Director, Chemical & Allied Industries Association, South Africa,
spoke on the difficulties South Africa encountered while preparing
its national communication. The problems and constraints included
slow funding approval from GEF, poor accessibility of relevant
information, lack of prioritization of climate change issues,
inadequate coordination among government departments, lack of
specific climate change expertise, and reluctance among individuals
to submit poor quality data. She identified several strategies
undertaken to overcome these difficulties, including increasing the
political commitment to climate change, improving government
coordination, linking climate change to sustainable development,
extending existing expertise in fields relevant to climate change,
and allowing for a review of the draft communication by all
government departments. She remarked that government departments and
the National Committee on Climate Change, a multi-stakeholder group,
have reviewed and approved the final draft of the national
communication, and that it will be submitted shortly. She noted that
current initiatives following on from preparing the national
communication include using the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) to raise awareness, and drafting a CDM investment
strategy and a climate change response strategy.
PARAGUAY: Lilian Portillo, Director, Climate
Change Programme, Environment Secretariat of Paraguay, described the
experiences and institutional arrangements for dealing with climate
change in Paraguay. Noting that the country had just submitted its
national communication, she provided a brief overview of problems
and constraints. She indicated that on a technical level, the
country lacked reliable data and data accessibility, and that
insufficient data existed to enable an evaluation of different
emissions scenarios. She stressed the need for deeper study in
sectors such as forestry, agriculture and human settlements, and
suggested that there was not enough political support for climate
change work and that the political climate was unstable. She drew
attention to a lack of stakeholder involvement and insufficient
funding for analysis in areas including water resources and
vulnerable ecosystems. She highlighted the lack of coordination
between institutions and the absence of clearly defined roles,
leading to overlaps and unnecessary competition for resources. She
concluded by calling for: better coordination between institutions
to optimize the use of resources and capacities; continuity of
initiatives regardless of political changes; evaluation of the
national climate change initiatives; and development of a national
compliance and enforcement programme.
WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
Participants attending the CGE workshop divided
into four Working Groups on the afternoon of Wednesday, 10 April,
and continued to work in these groups throughout Thursday morning,
11 April, reconvening in Plenary on Thursday afternoon. In his
introduction to the Working Group sessions, CGE Chair Philip Weech
said each Working Group would be coordinated by a CGE member and
facilitated by the Secretariat, and indicated that each group should
also select a rapporteur. He said the Working Groups would consider
the CGE group reports from the Panama workshop, as well as the third
compilation and synthesis report of non-Annex I national
communications, in order to make a judgment as to whether the
conclusions of the Panama report remained valid in light of the
experience gained. He also suggested that the groups take up the
matter of difficulties and constraints. He said the results of these
discussions would be noted by the rapporteurs and produced as an
informational document for the next session of the UNFCCC subsidiary
bodies, in June 2002.
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES WORKING GROUP:
Ayité-lo Ajavon (Togo) chaired the Working Group on greenhouse gas
inventories. The Working Group considered conclusions from the
Panama workshop, relating to:
-
institutional issues – preparation and
reporting of inventories;
-
technical issues – collection of activity data
and development of local and/or regional emissions factors;
-
methodological issues – revised 1996 IPCC
Guidelines;
-
use of the UNFCCC Guidelines;
-
financial and technological needs and
constraints; and
-
recommendations relating to all of the above.
In their consideration of the conclusions of the
Panama workshop, delegates took into account analyses of greenhouse
gas inventories based on non-Annex I national communications since
the Panama workshop, prepared by the Secretariat in the form of
matrices displaying different issues contained in the reports on a
country-by-country basis to allow inter-country comparison, as well
as the presentations they heard earlier in the day.
Providing general comments, the UNFCCC
Secretariat and others noted that there was little contained in the
new national communications that would contradict the conclusions
from the Panama workshop, although more detail could be added from
these new reports. Brazil stressed that the situation in each
country is unique and cautioned against making very specific
recommendations, while Chair Ajavon called for flexibility and a
contextual understanding of the needs of different countries. Many
delegates urged a substantive discussion rather than a focus on
textual details.
On institutional issues relating to the
preparation and reporting of inventories, some delegates supported
defining the resources countries need in order to collect the
necessary activity data for estimating greenhouse gas emissions,
stressing that these resources are human, technical and financial.
On technical details relating to the collection
of activity data and development of local and/or regional emission
factors, Iran called for more information on the source and method
of calculation of the IPCC emission factors to allow countries to
evaluate the certainty and appropriateness of the default figures.
Ghana pointed to deviations between developed and developing
countries in terms of typical emission factors and called for the
development of emission factors more appropriate to national
circumstances in non-Annex I countries. The IPCC cautioned that
information additional to that already provided would be difficult
to produce, but said it is doing what it can to improve the figures.
Chair Ajavon said that as the emission factors always contain a
degree of uncertainty it is better to use national or regional
rather than default figures where possible. Chile supported adding
reference to country-specific issues, such as the need for data on
the fishing industry in Peru or steppe fires in Mongolia.
On recommendations under this topic, the IPCC
clarified that developing a database on emission factors, as
recommended at the Panama workshop, referred to an IPCC database. He
noted that only one such database currently exists, but said the
intention was to regionalize it at a later date. Iran and others
called for a recommendation for regional projects to develop
regional emission factors that are technology specific. China
emphasized that activity data cannot be required when countries do
not have the capacity for producing it. Brazil noted that it is up
to each country to define the extent of its capacity in this regard,
and said this should not be externally imposed.
On methodological issues relating to the revised
1996 IPCC Guidelines, delegates proposed including new examples
drawn from the national communications submitted since the Panama
workshop. However, they indicated that in all other respects, the
Panama workshop conclusions could be considered still valid.
Regarding methodological issues related to the energy sector in
non-Annex I countries, Iran proposed adding "coal" to "gas and oil"
in a comment noting that specific conditions of fugitive methane
emissions are not taken into account in the IPCC Guidelines. He also
proposed reference to both "hot and cold flaring" rather than just
flaring. Uruguay said it should be noted that not all countries use
both the sectoral and default approaches, and that even if they do,
some do not compare them. In response to a comment from Colombia,
the UNFCCC Secretariat noted that the IPCC is currently working to
improve the Guidelines with regard to the forestry and land use
sector. Some delegates shared their experiences with the use of the
guidelines in this sector. The Secretariat proposed that a paragraph
should be added on encouraging Parties to develop methods for
specific sectors and industries for inclusion in the next revision
of the IPCC Guidelines for preparing inventories.
On the use of the UNFCCC Guidelines for preparing
national communications, the Secretariat noted that the analysis of
their use would have to be updated to include the national
communications submitted since the Panama workshop. He said,
however, that he did not foresee any substantive changes to the
Panama conclusions. Ghana asked that there be more elaboration on
when Parties should use the "not available" and "not obtainable"
notation keys when preparing their national communications.
V&A AND RSO WORKING GROUP: This working group
was chaired by coordinator Isabelle Niang-Diop (Senegal). After
initial discussion on the relevant documents, participants agreed to
work from the recommendations on V&A and RSO outlined in the report
of the Panama workshop (FCCC/SBI/2001/INF.1), adding new
recommendations and adjusting existing ones. On Wednesday afternoon,
each participant was asked to provide comments on the presentations
heard earlier in the day, as well as to raise particular points for
any further recommendations. Delegates highlighted the lack of
models adapted to national circumstances, particularly for water
resources, and difficulty in using the MAGICC/SCENGEN scenario
software. Countries noted institutional and bureaucratic problems
with executing and funding agencies, including:
-
limited funding;
-
differing approaches between UNFCCC and GEF;
-
difficulty of communication between governments
and UNDP;
-
lack of communication between UNDP as executing
agency and GEF as funding agency;
-
competitive initiatives between the World Bank
and the GEF; and
-
lack of understanding of the topic of climate
change within the UNDP country office.
Change of national government, internal political
problems, and lack of support or understanding of climate change by
the government were also noted as constraints.
Participants observed that lack of national
capacity left assessments deficient, and asked whether international
consultants, or time and effort spent on building local capacity,
should be used. Related to this, participants said training centers
on V&A should be strengthened or, where they did not exist and were
necessary, established. Delegates also noted that institutional
problems between implementing agencies and governments leading to
delays often resulted in less time for training of local staff, and
a tendency to hire international experts.
In other comments, the weakness of the adaptation
sections was attributed to problems with the methodology for
identifying adaptation measures, and the importance of identifying
no-regret adaptation measures was stressed. Discussants also noted
that extreme events and impacts linked to El Niño and other climatic
phenomena deserved greater attention in the context of climate
variability as a result of climate change.
On Thursday morning, participants reconvened in
the working group, identifying recommendations for each of the
following: institutional arrangements; education, training and
research; technical issues; research and systematic observation;
methodological issues; and financial and technological needs and
constraints.
On institutional arrangements, Morocco stressed
that focal points should not only be considered as one person, but
rather as an institution. Colombia and Belize agreed that if the
focal point is an institution, the likelihood of permanence is
greater. Discussants noted that there are several types of focal
points in each country, including political focal points, technical
focal points, national communication focal points, as well as IPCC
focal points and GEF focal points.
On education, training and research, Belize said
the experiences of preparing the first national communications
should be shared among similar countries to facilitate the
preparation of the second national communications. Regarding courses
on V&A, Malaysia questioned their practicality. Participants agreed
that introducing concepts and skills within existing curricula would
ensure capacity building. Fiji said that regional or subregional
centers for training would be more practical and require training
fewer instructors.
On technical issues, participants addressed the
use and challenges of providing a baseline scenario assuming no
climate change, in addition to the scenario assuming climate change,
noting that the comparison would indicate impacts of climate change.
It was stressed that distinguishing climate change from other
environmental changes is very difficult, and that in many countries
the baseline is already affected by climate change. Limited
understanding of climate change and climate variability and the
difference between these also contributed to making this task
difficult, as did lack of data.
On research and systematic observation, Belize
recommended encouraging the use and identification of climate change
indicators, such as coral reefs. Development of models and research
addressing ENSO, and communication of such research to groups
working on climate change was noted.
On methodological issues, Chair Niang-Diop
suggested that adaptation options were not well addressed, and that
this is a weakness of national communications. She raised questions
of how to address adaptation strategies, how best to cost the
options, and how to integrate these into national development
strategies. Colombia asked whether participants felt that the
methodological tools for assessing adaptation, such as the IPCC
guidelines or UNEP handbook, were sufficient. The Netherlands
suggested that fewer tools would make the work easier, referring to
work in the LDC Expert Group where this approach is being taken for
the development of NAPAs. He said the constraint was not the number
of tools, but rather the lack of capacity to apply them. Discussants
stressed the importance of socioeconomic scenarios for identifying
adaptation options, and recalled that no-regrets adaptation options
are the priority.
In discussing financial and technological needs
and constraints, Colombia stressed that the amount of funding
provided by the GEF for preparing national communications was
inadequate, and said her country had invested national funds
totaling more than this amount to implement V&A. Bilateral or
multilateral agencies were suggested as alternative funders for such
work. The Secretariat noted that in providing additional guidance to
the GEF, COP-7 had included a provision for strengthening vulnerable
countries in Stage I adaptation activities, and that this could be
used to carry out further V&A studies (decision 6/CP.7). Several
other initiatives providing countries with opportunities to carry
out additional V&A studies, beyond the framework of the national
communications, were noted, including the UNEP/GEF Scientific and
Technical Advisory Panel to the GEF (STAP) and other GEF
initiatives.
Participants also addressed the role of the
national communications in providing input for Stage II and III
adaptation activities. Stage I activities include the preparation of
national communications, while Stage II activities identify
priorities, and Stage III activities involve the implementation of
adaptation measures. It was agreed that national communications
identify desirable adaptation options, and in some cases may provide
funders with concrete lists of activities that can be implemented.
The US questioned the relationship between national communications
and implementation of actual projects under the framework of Stage
III. Colombia said national communications can promote funding from
sources besides the GEF. The Netherlands added that the exercise of
preparing a national communication implies a later move toward
Stages II and III. Morocco stressed that the V&A process should be
continuous, but said that within the framework of the GEF funding
for such projects was not possible, for instance for studying V&A of
coastal zones and fisheries. The US asked how the national
communications process could be broadened to include such additional
studies. Participants observed that the funds could be partitioned
among the different sections of the national communications at the
prerogative of the country, but that the exercise of creating a
greenhouse gas inventory was generally very costly, and V&A was
consequently underfunded. Participants agreed to recommend that
funding should be increased to allow for more comprehensive V&A
studies.
ABATEMENT WORKING GROUP: Editor's Note:
This Working Group met in parallel with the other three groups. For
reasons of resource limitations, the discussions were not covered by
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin. However, the conclusions
reached by this group are reported in the section on Working Group
conclusions.
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND PUBLIC AWARENESS (ETPA)
WORKING GROUP: Brian Challenger (Antigua and Barbuda) chaired
the ETPA Working Group. The Group discussed: the difficulties in
interpreting the information provided in national communications;
the education, training and public awareness needed for preparing
national communications; the need to foster interdisciplinary
educational programmes; general training issues; and how public
awareness programmes should target key decision-makers and place
climate change in the context of other environmental challenges. The
Group was guided by the recent CGE report (FCCC/SBI/2001/15),
including information and analyses of non-Annex I communications and
recommendations for the future, information provided in recent
national communications, and the presentation on ETPA from Wednesday
morning.
On interpreting national communications, the
Secretariat, with Chair Challenger and Switzerland, noted that
Parties often fail to distinguish between ongoing and planned
programmes, between general environmental awareness and specific
awareness of climate change, and between educating the general
public and training key decision-makers.
On preparing national communications,
Switzerland, with the Secretariat, characterized a lack of
education, training and public awareness as a major impediment to
preparing national communications. The Secretariat noted that public
awareness helps national coordinators who are preparing national
communications to garner political and technical support. Chair
Challenger remarked that continuing these programmes after a
national communication has been completed will facilitate the
preparation of future national communications.
On education, the Secretariat observed that some
national communications had emphasized a lack of interdisciplinary
input into discussions on environmental issues. The Cook Islands
stated that this can lead to a lack of coordination among government
departments because officials fail to recognize the range of issues
related to climate change. The Secretariat noted that a number of
countries had stressed the need to improve institutional cooperation
between the universities and other research institutions in teaching
on climate change.
On training, the Secretariat, with Switzerland,
noted that several Parties had stressed the importance of keeping
policy makers up-to-date with the latest information on climate
change. Chair Challenger highlighted that international meetings can
be used to train government officials. The Cook Islands stressed
that international meetings are particularly important for training
officials from States without universities or other institutions
that provide guidance on writing national communications. Chair
Challenger remarked on the difficulty of training a critical mass of
experts to guide the process of preparing national communications.
Georgia said that while some EIT countries have a critical mass of
experts, they are unable to finance participation of experts in the
climate change process. Switzerland stated that linking training
programmes to specific climate change projects could enhance their
effectiveness.
On public awareness programmes, Chair Challenger
noted that some countries have emphasized community level awareness.
Switzerland observed that in many cases sensitization training of a
small portion of the population is sufficient. Chair Challenger also
suggested that training key decision-makers properly requires sound
scientific understanding of the implications climate change has for
different sectors, and that this scientific understanding is lacking
in non-Annex I Parties. The Secretariat emphasized the need to build
climate change concerns into the mandates of existing institutions
so that these concerns are reflected in their activities. Swaziland,
with the Cook Islands and Chair Challenger, stated that information
on climate change should be promoted as part of a larger package of
environmental and sustainable development concerns.
WORKING GROUP SESSION CONCLUSIONS
Workshop participants met in a closing plenary
session on Thursday afternoon, 11 April, to hear reports on the
conclusions of the four working groups.
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES: Philip Acquah,
rapporteur from the group on national inventories, presented the
results of the discussions in his group. He said the group had
considered the conclusions from the Panama workshop
paragraph-by-paragraph. On institutional issues for the preparation
and reporting of inventories, the group had decided to clarify the
mutual reinforcement between the preparation of inventories and
national sustainable development plans, and had noted that the GEF
has funded only two regional projects aimed at improving non-Annex I
countries' capacities with regard to developing activity data and
local and regional emission factors. The group added a
recommendation that technical coordinators with a clear mandate and
resources for performing their functions should be designated for
the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories. This recommendation
was based on the presentations describing the difficulties
experienced with the UNDP/GEF NEX projects.
On technical and methodological issues related to
the collection of activity data and development of local and/or
regional emission factors, Acquah said the group had noted the need
to strengthen data collection and the use of national expertise to
develop projects for relevant country specific data.
On financial and technological needs and
constraints, he presented the group's proposal that support should
be provided for further UNDP/GEF regional and subregional projects
aimed at improving countries' ability to choose, process and archive
activity data, and at developing local and regional emission
factors, as appropriate.
In the ensuing discussion, Chile added that data
collection should be enhanced for country-specific sectors such as
the fish processing industry in Peru and the sugar cane industry in
Cuba. Belize stressed the importance of developing emission factors
for small aircraft, which would be worldwide rather than country
specific. The US supported the idea of developing unique country
specific source categories using national expertise and then
publishing the methodology for inclusion in the IPCC database.
Malaysia stressed that non-Annex I countries should not be burdened
with new commitments, as in the case of explaining the gaps between
the use of sectoral and reference approaches for estimating
emissions.
V&A AND RSO: Mahendra Kumar (Fiji), speaking
as rapporteur of this Working Group, outlined the recommendations
identified by the group. He noted the institutional difficulties
affecting the preparation and completion of the V&A reports,
highlighting participants' suggestions that these difficulties were
relevant to the entire national communication process, and their
agreement of the need to include text on this in the chapeau of the
document, so as to address all sections of the national
communications. Regarding institutional arrangements, he explained
that the group had recommended greater efficiency by the focal
point, and had argued that the focal point should be seen as an
institution rather than an individual. On education, training, and
research, he said the group had recommended encouraging
organizations to provide additional methodologies for impact
assessments and/ or for studies on coastal zones, fisheries, human
settlements, desertification, forestry and other ecosystems. He also
noted the recommendation to share experiences between countries with
similar national circumstances. On technical issues, he noted the
discussion in the group addressing the difficulty in noting
distinction in national communications between impacts from climate
change and impacts from other forces, and the recommendation that
countries provide more detailed baseline scenarios.
On RSO, he highlighted the need for: particular
attention to be given to monitoring climate change indicators; the
development of national research on climate change, including
scenarios, modeling, socioeconomic and integrated assessments, and
impacts of climate change on large scale oceanographic circulation
like ENSO and extreme events; and better communication and
information from the research community. On methodological issues,
he underscored the discussion on providing a description of
scenarios with and without climate change. He noted that
socioeconomic scenarios are useful if linked to climate change
scenarios. He said the group had agreed that systematic formulation
of adaptation is often lacking, without cost-estimation and
cost-efficiency analysis. Similarly, there is a need for better
tools to formulate adaptation strategies, and emphasis should be
given to no-regret options. In conclusion, on financial and
technological needs and constraints, he noted that the level of
funding for national communications needs to be increased
significantly to allow for more comprehensive V&A studies. This
includes funding for pilot and/or demonstration projects, as well as
actual projects.
ABATEMENT: Vute Wangwacharakul (Thailand),
who chaired this working group, presented the issues and problems
and recommendations from the group. He highlighted participants'
comments that issues and problems included the lack of distinction
made between the supply- and demand-side options in the energy
sector. He also noted statements that institutional factors and lack
of project management were serious constraints.
He outlined various recommendations, including
that Parties should be encouraged to consider linkages between
inventories and possible abatement options. He highlighted proposals
that baselines should be constructed, and that guidelines should
include advice to report on the status of options. In addition, he
drew attention to the group's recommendation that implementing
agencies should include appropriate sequencing of activities, and
that local implementing agencies should be able to provide technical
support. Finally, he noted support for cross-sectoral coordination
among sectors in the identification of abatement options, since this
is practical for attracting funding.
On financial and technological needs and
constraints, he indicated that these should be incorporated into the
implementation of the relevant COP-7 decisions. He reported the
group's recommendation that the CGE evaluate the TTClear website
(technology transfer information clearinghouse website), and asked
Parties to provide feedback on it. He noted concern regarding the
discontinuation of the UNDP/GEF National Communications Support
Programme (NCSP), and recommended an alternative programme. Finally,
he recommended speedy implementation of the additional guidance
on financial resources to the financial entity, as well as the
special climate change fund addressing energy, transport, industry,
agriculture, forestry and waste management.
The Secretariat noted that no official
confirmation of the discontinuation of the NCSP has been given, and
said that many decisions from COP-7 included reference to such an
entity, implying that it may resurface in some form.
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND PUBLIC AWARENESS:
Diane McFadzien (Cook Islands), ETPA Working Group rapporteur,
presented the group's draft recommendations. These included
providing financial and technical support for the following
activities:
-
integrating climate change into environmental
and sustainable development education initiatives, in both formal
and non-formal education systems and at all levels;
-
increasing environmental awareness among
stakeholders involved in preparing national sustainable
development and environmental plans;
-
increasing the awareness of climate change
issues among decision makers involved in preparing national
communications; and
-
providing targeted training to policy and
decision makers so that they may appreciate the relevance of
climate change to the effective implementation of policies and
programmes across all sectors of society.
CLOSING REMARKS: Following the presentations
from the working groups, CGE Chair Weech drew the workshop to a
close at 5:40 pm, thanking participants for their hard work and
applauding the success of the workshop.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR BEFORE COP-8
THE BEIJING FORUM FOR NEW AND EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: This Forum is
scheduled to take place from 15-17 April 2002, in Beijing, China.
The purpose of the meeting is to promote the role of
business-science partnership in utilizing new and emerging
technologies for sustainable development. For more information,
contact: UN DESA; tel: +1-212-963-8798; e-mail:
makk@un.org; Internet:
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/calendar/meeting.docs/beijing.pdf
ASIA BIO-FUELS 2002 CONFERENCE: This meeting
will be held from 22-23 April 2002, in Singapore. It will address
the development of bio-fuels projects in Asia, including case
studies, analysis of the economic and social benefits from bio-fuels
application, and evaluation of technology options for fast track
project implementation. For more information, contact: Juliana Lim;
tel: +65-732-1970; fax: +65-733-5087; e-mail:
juliana.lim@ibcasia.com.sg; Internet:
http://www.ibc-asia.com/biofuels.htm
UPCOMING CLIMATE CHANGE WORKSHOPS: A number
of climate change workshops will be held prior to the 16th session
of the UNFCCC subsidiary bodies. These include the following:
-
Expert meeting on methodologies for technology
needs assessments, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 23 - 25 April 2002;
-
Workshop on the status of modelling activities
to assess the adverse effects of climate change and impacts of
response measures, Bonn, Germany, 16 - 18 May 2002;
-
Workshop on cleaner or less greenhouse
gas-emitting energy, Whistler, Canada, 7 - 8 May 2002;
-
Workshop to develop a work programme on
activities related to Article 6 of the Convention, (Date and venue
to be confirmed);
-
Pre-sessional consultations on registries,
Bonn, Germany, 2 - 3 June 2002; and
-
Pre-sessional workshop on the draft revised
uniform reporting format for activities implemented jointly, Bonn,
Germany, 2 - 3 June 2002.
For more information, contact: UNFCCC
Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:
secretariat@unfccc.int;
Internet: http://www.unfccc.int
CONFERENCE ON EU AND GERMAN CLIMATE POLICY -
CHALLENGES BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL:
This meeting will be held from 6-8 May 2002, in Hamburg, Germany.
Organized by the Hamburg Institute of International Economics, the
conference will focus on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in
the EU, challenges with regard to EU national climate strategies,
internal EU emissions trading, integration of EU accession
countries, the role of the Kyoto mechanisms, and EU strategies for
achieving entry into force. For more information, contact: Axel
Michaelowa, Hamburg Institute of International Economics; tel:
+49-404-283-4309; fax: +49-404-283-4451; e-mail:
michaelowa@hwwa.de;
Internet:
http://www.hwwa.de/climate.htm
CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE VARIABILITY
AND CHANGE AND THEIR HEALTH EFFECTS IN THE CARIBBEAN: This
conference will take place from 21-25 May 2002. in Bridgetown,
Barbados. The conference is being sponsored by the Pan-American
Health Organization and the WHO under the auspices of the
Interagency Network on Climate and Human Health. Participants will
consider climate variability and climate change, linkages between
climate and human health, and public health policies and strategies
for adaptation to climate variability and change. For more
information, contact the Pan-American Health Organization, tel:
+1-(246) 426-3860; fax: +1-(246) 436-9779; e-mail:
cpcadmin@cpc.paho.org;
Internet: http://www.cpc.paho.org
FOURTH SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR
THE WSSD: PrepCom IV will take place from 24 May - 7 June 2002,
in Bali, Indonesia. Regional group consultations are scheduled for
24 May and informal-informals for 25-26 May. PrepCom IV will also
include Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues and a Ministerial Segment, and
is expected to complete the document on review of Agenda 21, with
recommendations for further action, and develop a concise political
document, to be submitted to the WSSD. For more information,
contact: Mr. Andrey Vasilyev, DESA; tel: +1-212-963-5949; fax:
+1-212-963-4260; e-mail:
vasilyev@un.org; Major groups contact: Ms. Zehra Aydin-Sipos,
DESA; tel: +1-212-963-8811; fax: +1-212-963-1267; e-mail:
aydin@un.org; Internet:
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
16TH SESSION OF THE UNFCCC SUBSIDIARY BODIES:
SB-16 will take place in Bonn, Germany, from 3-14 June 2002. For
more information, contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel:
+49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:
secretariat@unfccc.int;
Internet: http://www.unfccc.int
WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: The
World Summit on Sustainable Development will take place from 26
August - 4 September 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa. For more
information, contact: Mr. Andrey Vasilyev, DESA; tel:
+1-212-963-5949; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail:
vasilyev@un.org; Major groups
contact: Ms. Zehra Aydin-Sipos, DESA; tel: +1-212-963-8811; fax:
+1-212-963-1267; e-mail: aydin@un.org;
Internet:
http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/
EIGHTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNFCCC:
COP-8 is scheduled to take place from 23 October - 1 November
2002, in New Delhi, India. For more information contact: UNFCCC
Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:
secretariat@unfccc.int;
Internet: http://www.unfccc.int/ |
