|
Parties elaborated in  Decision
1/CP.10 (2004), which built on
Decision 5/CP.7 (168 kB) (2001), ways to address the impact of the implementation of
response measures as referred to in Article 4.8 of the Convention and
Articles 2.3 and 3.14
of the Kyoto Protocol.
Article 4.8 - Decisions 1/CP.10 and 5/CP.7
At COP 14, December 2008, Parties considered the submissions on the Status of
implementation of Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Convention, decision 5/CP.7 and decision
1/CP.10 (FCCC/SBI/2008/MISC.9
and FCCC/SBI/2008/MISC.9/Add.1).
Submissions were received from 4 Parties and 4 relevant organizations.
These submissions fed into an assessment of work on the impacts of the implementation of response
measures (and the adverse effects of climate change). Terms of reference for the
assessment are in the SBSTA 28 Report, Annex III, FCCC/SBI/2008/8). A round table in Poznan
considered the outcome of the assessment, which provided Parties with a clearer picture of gaps and
needs in order to feed into the decision making progress.
Also received was the Progress on the implementation of decision 1/CP.10. Submission from Antigua and
Barbuda on behalf of the Group of 77 and China (FCCC/SBI/2008/MISC.10).
At SB 28, June 2008, Parties agreed to progress the implementation of decision
1/CP.10 and agreed on a set of specific activities up to COP 14 (December 2008) in Poznan,
Poland to address the impact of the implementation of response measures, article 4.8, decisions
5/CP.7 and 1/CP.10 (SBSTA 28 Report, paras 32-39, FCCC/SBI/2008/8). These include inter alia:
- Enhancing practical approaches to address economic diversification in the context of sustainable
development, including through exchanging information and experiences on best practices and lessons
learned;
- Enhancing capacity for the development and use of modelling in the context of assessing the
impact of the implementation of response measures, including through identifying organizations with
relevant expertise and the scope of current activities in this regard
- Encouraging Parties to provide, to the extent possible, information on their experiences and
concerns arising from the impact of the implementation of response measures, including through
national communications and other relevant documents;
- Promoting risk management approaches and other appropriate responses to the impact of the
implementation of response measures, building upon the practical experience of internationalm
regional and national organizations and the private sector, including through disseminating
information on best practices and lessons learned.
During the SB 28 meeting consideration was taken of submissions by Parties on the status of
implementation of Article 4.8 and decisions 5/CP.7 and 1/CP.10 (FCCC/SBI/2008/MISC.4).
Articles 2.3 and 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol
At SB 30, June 2009, the joint contact group resumed its
consideration of matters related to Article 2.3 and matters related to Article 3.14. Deliberations of
Parties were captured in a draft text. Parties agreed to resume consideration of these items at the
thirty first-sessions of the SBs, based on the draft text contained in the annex to the conclusions.
See FCCC/SBSTA/2009/L.10
(agenda item 9) and FCCC/SBI/2009/L.11
(agenda item 11).
At SB 29, December 2008, the joint contact group, established at
SB28, began its work to consider matters relating to Articles 2.3 and 3.14. There was an initial
exchange of views on efforts being made under the SBI and SBSTA on these matters and on opportunities
for further action. The SBI and the SBSTA agreed to continue these discussions at their thirtieth
session.
At SB 28, June 2008, a breakthrough by Parties to negotiate Articles 2.3
and 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol was reached and Parties agreed to establish a joint
contact group to consider matters relating to Articles 2.3 and 3.14. The group
commenced its work at the twenty-ninth session of the Subsidiary Bodies. See FCCC/SBSTA/2008/6
(agenda item 11) and FCCC/SBI/2008/8
(agenda item 10).
Further ongoing issues
As part of Decision 1/CP.10 (the Buenos Aires programme of work), expert meetings have discussed a range of
issues regarding the impact of the implementation of response measures.
At CMP 1 in Montreal, Parties decided to establish a process for the implementation of Article 3.14
of the Kyoto Protocol. This process included the exchange of information and the development of
methodologies on the assessment and minimization of adverse social, environmental and economic
impacts on developing country Parties. A workshop in 2006
discussed reporting methodologies. Parties have yet to decide on guidelines to help determine if
developed countries are striving to minimize adverse effects on international trade, and social,
environmental and economic impacts on other Parties, especially developing countries.
|
