|
Thursday,
7 December
Delegates met
in morning and evening Plenary sessions to consider Articles O (Conference
of the Parties), K (Financial resources and mechanisms), G (Information
exchange), F (Listing of chemicals in Annexes A, B and C), V (Entry
into force), W (Reservations), and Annex D (Information requirements
and screening criteria). Contact Groups on: Financial Resources
and Mechanisms; Byproducts: Prohibition and Restriction; and Wastes
also convened during the day.
|
Status
Reports from the Contact Groups:
Part one of the update from the Contact Group on Articles D1
and D2 (Prohibition and Restriction)
Right:
Co-Chair Peter Hinchcliffe (UK)
|
|
|
Part two of the update from the Contact Group on Articles D1
and D2 (Prohibition and Restriction)
Right:
Co-Chair Luis Almagro (Uruguay)
|
Update from the Contact Group on Article D3 (Byproducts)
Right: Co-Chair
Reiner Arndt (Germany)
|
|
ARTICLE
K (Finances)
|
|
|
Informal
consultations between the US (left) and the Russian Federation (center)
before the morning Plenary discussion on Article K |
|
FRANCE, on behalf of the EU, expressed disappointment
with the G-77/China's proposal (UNEP/POPS/INC.5/CRP.52). He highlighted
its failure to refer to: the GEF; support for CEITs; and previously-agreed
text. He expressed concern that the GEF's operational programme
would be frozen, and stressed further consideration of both the
earlier submission by the EU, JUSCANZ members, CEITs, and others
(UNEP/POPS/INC.5/CRP.2/Rev.1) and CRP.52 to achieve an effective,
realistic and practical outcome.
|
CANADA emphasized that CRP.52 omitted: the GEF; CEITs; a coordinated
framework; the Capacity Assistance Network; and an interim mechanism.
|
|
|
Many G-77/CHINA countries spoke in support of their proposal and emphasized,
inter alia that it: is neutral and balanced; strikes a middle ground;
is not new or a change of position; includes the Vevey attributes;
borrows from other conventions; is based on an established principle
of common but differentiated responsibilities; and does not exclude
existing mechanisms or interim arrangements. They stressed their proposal
should be the basis for negotiations.
COLOMBIA's
explanation of its support for CRP.52 |
BRAZIL
explained that CRP.52 made no reference to countries with economies
in transition because they are not members of the G77/China, and thus
the Group could not speak on their behalf. |
|
|
The US, with others supporting CRP.2/Rev.1, underscored working
with the elements of both proposals to achieve agreement. |
CHINA stressed
that CRP.52 used language contained in other conventions
|
|
|
In the afternoon, the Plenary Hall was reconfigured into a more intimate
setting for the Open Contact Group on Article K. Chair Buccini agreed
to chair the group focusing on CRP.2/Rev.1, CRP.52, and the Chair's
text, using the Vevey criteria as background |
|
|
|
|
|
ENB
writers Jonathan Krueger (left) and Richard Campbell (center)
in discussion with Jennifer Macmillan from the New Zealand delegation
before morning Plenary. |
In
the corridors...
With less than 48
hours remaining to complete negotiations, speculation mounted on the likelihood
of reaching full agreement on convention text. While some delegates have
expressed satisfaction with the progress made in certain contact groups,
and have voiced confidence that useful compromise will be reached on the
key sticking point of the precautionary principle, others continue to
voice concern on the likelihood of securing agreement on the financial
mechanism. Some participants have speculated on the impact of apparent
divisions within the G-77/China on the financial mechanism in facilitating
resolution on this issue. A number of commentators have suggested that
the recent failure of the climate COP-6 in the Netherlands - brought to
the attention of delegates by the display of NGO buttons warning "Don't
Repeat the Hague!" - could well be the telling incentive needed to ensure
convergence on the remaining contentious issues. Above: This message
brought to you by the WWF
|