Distr.
GENERAL
FCCC/SBSTA/1996/5
22 February 1996
ENGLISH ONLY
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Second session
Geneva, 27 February - 4 March 1996
Item 6 of the provisional agenda
1. The Conference of the Parties, at its first session (COP 1), by
its decision 5/CP.1,* decided that a framework for
reporting on activities implemented jointly under the pilot phase
should be established by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA), in coordination with the Subsidiary
Body for Implementation (SBI).
2. The SBSTA, at its first session, considered the issue and
requested the secretariat to prepare proposals on a reporting
framework, taking into consideration views expressed by Parties and
experience gained in activities implemented jointly, for
consideration at its future sessions (FCCC/SBSTA/1995/3, para. 31
(b)). Submissions by Parties were compiled by the secretariat in
response to the request made by the SBSTA, at its first session
(FCCC/SBSTA/1995/3, para. 31 (a)). Those submissions are available in
documents FCCC/SBSTA/1995/MISC.1 and
FCCC/SBSTA/1996/MISC.1.
__________________________
* For decisions adopted by the Conference of the
Parties at its first session, see document
FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1.
GE.96-
3. The present note aims at assisting Parties in establishing a
reporting framework for activities implemented jointly under the
pilot phase for which proposals by Parties are before the SBSTA. To
assist Parties in elaborating a reporting framework, this note,
starting from decision 5/CP.1, considers the purpose of the reporting
framework, draws attention to some options for its design and
suggests a process for establishing the framework and conducting
related methodological work.
4. In establishing a pilot phase for activities implemented
jointly, the COP decided to launch a process in which this form of
international cooperation for the implementation of the objective of
the Convention would be tested, the experience with it observed, and
information on this experience gathered, analysed and synthesized.
The COP therefore mandated the SBSTA to establish a reporting
framework in coordination with the SBI. Consistent with the
provisions of decision 5/CP.1, it is envisaged that the information
collected will enable the COP:
(a) To review, at its annual session, the progress of the pilot
phase on the basis of a synthesis report;
(b) To take appropriate decisions on the continuation of the pilot
phase;
(c) To take into consideration the need for a comprehensive review
of the pilot phase in order to take a conclusive decision on the
pilot phase and the progression beyond that, no later than the end of
the present decade.
5. In performing these tasks the COP will consider the criteria defined in
decision 5/CP.1, paragraph 1.
6. Information collected for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 4 above may range from basic information to identify activities implemented jointly and their essential results as regards greenhouse gas emissions to more comprehensive information covering numerous aspects of these activities. As reporting information will impose a cost on those who implement activities and on reporting Parties, it is important to avoid placing an excessive burden of such transaction costs on them. However, the very nature of the pilot phase implies careful observation in order to facilitate decision-making during this phase, while reporting requirements could possibly be reduced thereafter. Finding an appropriate balance between these concerns in determining the optimum level of detail necessary to inspire confidence in the reported information will be the task of the SBSTA in establishing a
reporting framework for the pilot phase. This action is needed at
an early date in order to make it possible to collect information on
activities under way and thus begin to build up
experience.
7. In designing a reporting framework, a number of issues need to
be addressed.
8. Some of the issues have to do with the reporting process. It is
recalled in that regard that the COP decided that during the pilot
phase the "... Parties ... are encouraged to report to the Conference
of the Parties through the secretariat using the framework thus
established. This reporting shall be distinct from the national
communications of Parties" (decision 5/CP.1, para. 2 (b)). The
following issues need to be considered:
(a) Who should report on a given activity? Each participating
Party separately or participating Parties jointly? In the latter case
the report could be submitted through, for example, the host
country;
(b) What should be the level of reporting? Should the report be at
the activity level or at a more aggregated level like that of a
national programme comprising several activities?
(c) When should information be reported (in view of the need to
monitor the different stages of implementation of activities
implemented jointly, and to avoid peaks of information
processing)?
9. Other issues are related to the criteria defined in decision
5/CP.1:
(a) "... activities implemented jointly should be
compatible with and supportive of national environment and
development priorities and strategies ..." (decision 5/CP.1,
para. 1 (b)), which could be considered in conjunction with the
provision that the reporting shall be on "... the national
economic, social and environmental impacts ..." (decision
5/CP.1, para. 2 (a)). The reporting framework needs to provide for a
Party to confirm that an activity is compatible with and supportive
of its national environment and development priorities and
strategies. Furthermore it needs to be decided which indicators for
national economic, social and environmental impacts should be
reported on. The recognition that activities implemented jointly
"... could contribute to the achievement of the objective of
the Convention and to the fulfilment of commitments of Annex II
Parties under Article 4.5 of the Convention" (decision
5/CP.1, preambular para. (b)) may indicate that transfer of
technology should be addressed in the reporting framework in this
context.
Activities implemented jointly should "... contribute to
cost-effectiveness in achieving global benefits..."
(decision 5/CP.1, para. 1 (b)). To meet this criterion, indicators
must be defined that will make the assessment of such a contribution
possible. A decision will be needed on what cost element and which
elements characterizing global benefits related to activities
implemented jointly should be reported.
Activities implemented jointly "... could be conducted in a comprehensive manner covering all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases" (decision 5/CP.1,
para. 1 (b)). This defines the scope of the activities that may be
reported on.
(b) "... all activities implemented jointly under this
pilot phase require prior acceptance, approval or endorsement by the
Governments of the Parties participating in these activities"
(decision 5/CP.1, para. 1 (c)).
The issues here are the form in which such acceptance, approval or
endorsement is reported and which national entity has the authority
to take such action.
(c) Activities implemented jointly "should bring about
real, measurable and long-term environmental benefits related to the
mitigation of climate change that would not have occurred in the
absence of such activities" (decision 5/CP.1, para. 1
(d)).
Bringing about real, measurable and long-term environmental benefits related to the mitigation of climate change is at the core of the Convention. The implicit reference to what would have occurred in the absence of the considered activity raises a number of issues including baselines and additionality. Determining the impact of an activity on greenhouse gas emission levels implies the definition of a baseline. Baselines are difficult to define, as what would have occurred in the absence of the considered activity cannot be determined with certainty. Some analysts therefore suggest that alternative baselines should be considered. Other issues are the review of baselines over time, the monitoring of real, measurable
long-term benefits over time and the frequency with which this is
done.
(d) "... the financing of activities implemented jointly
shall be additional to the financial obligations of Parties included
in Annex II to the Convention within the framework of the financial
mechanism as well as to current official development assistance (ODA)
flows" (decision 5/CP.1, para. 1 (e)).
This implies that detailed information on the financing structure
should be provided and that a clear definition by Parties on what
they consider to be ODA is required.
10. The SBSTA has before it proposals by Parties for a reporting
framework contained in the documents mentioned in paragraph 2 above.
Those proposals represent alternative approaches to issues raised in
paragraphs 8 and 9 above. The SBSTA may wish at this session to
decide on an initial framework based on those inputs so that
reporting can begin. In case the initial framework needs elaboration
in order to address more fully issues raised in paragraphs 8 and 9
above, the secretariat could be requested to prepare proposals in
that regard, for consideration by the SBSTA at its third session,
taking into account the views expressed by Parties. At that session,
the SBSTA could thus establish a reporting framework for the pilot
phase.
11. It is recalled that the SBSTA and the SBI, with the assistance
of the secretariat, are to prepare a synthesis report for
consideration by the COP. The first such report could be prepared for
the COP at its third session.
12. Collection of information in accordance with the reporting
framework should be supplemented by a process of study and analysis
in which a number of representative case studies could be prepared.
Such a process could address methodological issues referred to in
this note, as well as others that may emerge in the course of the
pilot phase. This work could be initiated after the third session of
the SBSTA and its progress would be reported to the SBI, consistent
with the division of labour between these subsidiary
bodies.
13. It is noted in this regard that a process is under way to
establish an intergovernmental technical advisory panel (ITAP). In
the annex to the draft decision of the SBSTA on the "Establishment of
an intergovernmental technical advisory panel", contained in the
report by the Chairman on his informal consultations
(FCCC/SBSTA/1996/2), one task refers to activities implemented
jointly. Once established, the panel could therefore contribute to
the implementation of the above-mentioned actions.