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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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.