Daily report for 15 February 1995

11th Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC/FCCC)


In opening the session, INC Chair Raúl Estrada-Oyuela announced that AOSISnominated Samoa as a COP Vice Chair.

AGENDA ITEM 2 " ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FIRST SESSION OFTHE COP: Delegates adopted draft decision A/AC.237/L.25. The Committee"sreport to the COP will also reflect that: the Committee noted the agreement betweenthe Interim Secretariat and Germany for the COP; heads of organizations have beeninvited to speak; and the Committee has requested the Secretariat to draft theprovisional agenda for COP-1.

AGENDA ITEM 5(b) " FINANCIAL RULES OF THE COP AND ITSSUBSIDIARY BODIES: Regarding the draft budget outline(A/AC.237/79/Add.3), the Russian Federation thought consultations with the ACABQwould be useful. The EU, Japan and Australia expressed doubts about bringing thismatter before the ACABQ. Australia and New Zealand supported setting asideSecretariat funds for the IPCC. The Executive Secretary said that consultations areunderway on the type of services the IPCC is expected to deliver and that theSecretariat would possibly contribute 10-15% of the IPCC budget.

The Chair later introduced document A/AC.237/L.26 on financial rules. The G-77 andChina agreed with the draft decision, but reserved the right to revisit the paragraphs oncontributions and funds. Japan and the US asked questions about paragraphs 7, 8 and9 concerning the voluntary nature of contributions. Kiribati, Ethiopia and Kuwaitexpressed concern over the minimum contribution stated in paragraph 7(a). ThePlenary will recommend the financial rules to the COP with the proviso that allcomments will be recorded in the report.

AGENDA ITEM 5(a) " INSTITUTIONAL LINKAGES: The Chair askeddelegates to comment on A/AC.237/79/Add.1, Add.5 and Add.6. The EU supportedthe recommendation that the Secretariat should be attached to the UN without beingincorporated into any department or programme. Australia supported a partnershipbetween UNEP, UNDP and the DPCSD, but asked for assurance of Secretariatautonomy. The Chair suggested recommending that the COP request the Secretary-General to propose a concrete arrangement for the administrative management of theSecretariat.


AGENDA ITEM 7(b) " REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OFCOMMITMENTS: Working Group I reviewed the draft proposal on adequacyof commitments. China said that Annex I Parties have yet to fulfill their currentcommitments and thus the Group could not consider the Co-Chair"s draft proposal. TheEU wanted to discuss the draft text while Kuwait wanted to bracket it. Iran said thatthe different views should be reflected. The US suggested amending the title to read"Review of the adequacy of Article 4.2(a) and (b)." In the Preamble, on the tasks ofthe subsidiary bodies, Iran, Uruguay and India suggested deleting references to theIPCC Chair"s statement and the annotated literature. Canada wanted to retain thereferences, but they were deleted. Malaysia, supported by the EU, proposed anamendment recognizing that the commitments of Annex I Parties under Article 4.2(a)and (b) are inadequate, which Kuwait opposed. Switzerland suggested a reference tothe 1994 IPCC Special Report"s conclusion that the stabilization of CO2 emissions at1990 levels will not lead to stabilization at any time during the next two centuries.Australia added that the commitments do not deal with the post-2000 period and applyonly to Annex I Parties, but Malaysia, Brazil, Argentina, US, the EU and Naurudisagreed.

China, supported by Korea and Brazil, objected to Germany"s proposed newcategorization of some developing countries. New Zealand said the draft text onlynotes the proposals by Germany and AOSIS, and does not indicate agreement. Brazilsuggested that the text only note that the proposals were presented. Trinidad andTobago said the submission of the AOSIS draft protocol must be registered. Germanysaid the two protocols deserved reference.

China proposed: "Many countries emphasize that the full implementation of existingcommitments under the Convention is the most important step that developed countryParties should take at this stage." Australia, supported by the US, felt that this was notconsistent with the rest of the document since it was a selective representation ofviews. The Chair suggested amending China"s proposal to read, "Emphasizing that...."The EU, supported by the US, suggested replacing "the most important" with "is anessential." Kuwait and Mali disagreed. Debate also ensued on whether referenceshould be made "in particular" to Annex I Parties.

In the afternoon, Trinidad and Tobago suggested additional language for paragraph1(iv), on comments made at INC-11, referring to statements by a majority of Annex IParties acknowledging the inadequacy of their commitments. France argued againstincluding opinions that lacked consensus.

In paragraph 1(iv)(b), which recommends that the COP establish a follow-up process,Iran, supported by Venezuela, recommended replacing "establish" a follow-up processwith "continue." Trinidad and Tobago recommended: "initiate a negotiating processaimed at adopting a protocol containing" specific emissions targets and concluding notlater than COP-II. China, supported by Poland and Korea, requested deleting "establisha process" and the second sentence referring to the modalities and schedule of theprocess. Several OECD countries supported the Co-Chairs" text as drafted. Australiasaid the Trinidad and Tobago proposal was unacceptable because it assumed the aimof negotiations was a protocol that had not been discussed. Canada suggested"establish a negotiating process aimed at taking appropriate action towards meeting theultimate objective of the Convention." The US suggested "establish and elaborate aprocess...."

China, supported by Iran, Uganda and Kuwait, said paragraph 1(c), urging Parties tocontribute to the process, should be deleted because it referred to an undefined processin paragraph 1(b). China, Brazil and Malaysia wanted to delete paragraph 1(d),establishing a consultative mechanism with international business, because it is beyondthe intergovernmental scope of the Convention. The US and New Zealand supportedretaining the paragraph. The Netherlands suggested "consider ways to improvecommunication between the Convention bodies and the business community." Kenyasaid 1(d) was not related to adequacy. The Chair said the question would be placedinto ongoing consultations on linkages between subsidiary bodies and the outsidecommunity.

On Paragraph 2, recommending a compilation of documents submitted by Parties byend of the meeting, China changed "submitted" to "transmitted." The US asked toextend the deadline for submission, but the Secretariat said the 17 February deadlinewas necessary to prepare for COP-1.

AGENDA ITEM 7(c) "CRITERIA FOR JOINT IMPLEMENTATION:Working Group I began reviewing the Co-Chairs" draft text on the criteria for jointimplementation at 8:20 pm. The Philippines, on behalf of the G-77 and China,presented its proposals stating that they were "end-of-the-line" positions.

The G-77 and China proposal retains the first two paragraphs on joint implementationdiscussions and Article 4.2(d), mandating the COP to take decisions regarding criteriafor joint implementation, but eliminates the third paragraph, which refers to relevantdocumentation. The US questioned this deletion and said that no compromise had beendemonstrated in G-77 text. Australia and US asked for time to consult, while the EUpreferred to discuss the points of divergence between the two drafts.

Paragraph 4, on national policies and mitigation measures applicable only to Annex IParties, was retained as paragraph 3 of the G-77 proposal. Paragraph 4 of the G-77proposal emphasizes that according to the Convention, only Annex I Parties haveobligations to limit greenhouse gas emissions and developing countries have no suchobligation, and footnotes preambular paragraph 3 of the Convention. The US amendedthe paragraph and added a reference to Article 4.2(b) in place of "greenhouse gasemissions." The G-77 and China objected. The Co-Chair said that both amendmentswill be reflected but the US preferred bracketing the G-77 text. The Chair cautionedthat brackets be used only as a last option. Australia suggested referring to theprovisions of Article 4.2(a). Norway also reserved on the G-77 text. Senegal askedhow progress could be made with everything pending.

The G-77 proposal deleted paragraph 5 (no shifting of emission limitationscommitments to non-Annex I Parties) and paragraph 6 (JI shall not be used tointroduce new obligations for non-Annex I Parties) of the Co-Chairs" draft. The EUwanted to retain it.

Entrenched positions resulted in gridlock. When the interpreters left at 10:30 pm,delegates attempted to "negotiate" in English. It was uncertain if negotiations wouldcontinue past midnight.

The following is a summary of the points of divergence between the Co-Chairs" draftand the G-77 proposal. Paragraph 5 of the G-77 proposal acknowledges that jointactivities to address climate change undertaken between developed country Parties anddeveloping country Parties are different from joint implementation, and incorporatesparagraph 8 (promotion of sustainable development objectives, technology cooperation,transfer, etc.) and paragraph 9 (financing of JI activities to be independent from andadditional to obligations of Annex II Parties) of the Co-Chairs" draft. Paragraph 1(b) ofthe G-77 proposal now includes the following criteria: joint implementation isapplicable to Annex I Parties only; no credits will be obtained by developed countryParties during the pilot phase; and criteria for joint implementation, according toArticle 4.2(d), will be developed at COP-1. Paragraph 2 is the same in both drafts.


Working Group II completed its work Wednesday afternoon by adopting three draftdecisions.

AGENDA ITEM 8 " ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FINANCIALMECHANISM: The Co-Chair invited comments on the draft decisions inA/AC.237/WG.II/L.10 on modalities, A/AC.237/WG.II/L.11 on policy guidance, andA/AC.237/WG.II/L.13 on temporary arrangements between the GEF and theCommittee.

A/AC.237/WG.II/L.10: The Co-Chair suggested inserting "keeping in mindcomments by delegations" in paragraph 2, which recalls the INC mandate to preparefor COP-1. The G-77 said the phrase was inadequate because the draft referred to document A/AC.237/87 without mentioning the proposed G-77 amendments, andsuggested inserting "as amended" after the reference. However, the EU, the US andthe UK did not want to accord "amendment" status to the G-77 proposals since therehad been no substantive debate. The Group adopted the draft and agreed to note thedelegations" comments.

A/AC.237/WG.II/L.11: The Co-Chair stated that most paragraphs in thisdecision had already been agreed upon. Delegates agreed on paragraphs 1-6. Indiasuggested adding a reference to Articles 4.3, 4.5 and 4.7 in paragraph 7 to emphasizethe importance of technology transfer, but the UK and the US did not want toreference any articles. The Russian Federation suggested a reference to developingcountries and countries with economies in transition, but the G-77 objected. Chinarequested that the Secretariat develop a list of technology transferable free of charge,but the EU, the UK, the US, Russia, Germany and Australia objected, stating that theydid not disagree with the idea but with the timing. The Group agreed to delete theportion of paragraph 8 recommending that the COP continue preparing guidelines onformat and content of communications for non-Annex 1 Parties.

A/AC.237/WG.II/L.13: The Co-Chair introduced A/AC.237/WG.II/L.13,which gives guidance to the GEF. He highlighted paragraph 2, on the maintenance ofinterim arrangements, and paragraph 3, on the modalities for the functioning ofoperational linkages between the COP and the GEF. Delegates adopted L.13, providedits structure is modified to be consistent with L.11.

AGENDA ITEM 9 " PROVISION TO DEVELOPING COUNTRYPARTIES OF TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT: Delegatesadopted a six-paragraph addition to paragraph 70 of the draft report of the Committee.The first five paragraphs summarize the discussion on this item and the sixthparagraph requests the Interim Secretariat to continue to facilitate the provision oftechnical and financial support.


The OPEC countries are actively lobbying for an amendment to the Rules ofProcedure on the composition of the Bureau. Their proposed amendment for Rule 22(Officers) would add a member of the Bureau from the oil exporting developingcountries, to complement the member from the small island developing States.Although this amendment lacks consensus, some delegates fear that it will not bewithdrawn and, as a result, the final compromise might have negative implications fortheir group.


PLENARY: The Plenary will have to reach agreement on all outstandingissues today, including the Rules of Procedure and the location of the PermanentSecretariat.

Further information