7 September 1999
ENGLISH ONLY
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Eleventh session
Bonn, 25 October - 5 November 1999
Item 7 of the provisional agenda
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Eleventh session
Bonn, 25 October - 5 November 1999
Item 7 of the provisional agenda
1. At their tenth sessions, the
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the
Subsidiary Body for Implementation considered the initial framework
for the plan for facilitating capacity-building related to the
mechanisms referred to in decision 7/CP.4 (FCCC/SB/1999/4). Parties
were invited to submit, by 31 July 1999, views on options for
coordination and orientation for a revised plan for facilitating
capacity-building, to be prepared by the secretariat for
consideration at the eleventh sessions of the subsidiary bodies
(FCCC/SBSTA/1999/6, para. 94 (b) (ii) and (c)). The revised plan is
contained in document FCCC/SB/1999/6.
2. Submissions(1)
have been received from six Parties. In accordance with the procedure
for miscellaneous documents, these submissions are attached and
reproduced in the language in which they were received and without
formal editing.
Paper No. Page
1. Australia 3
2. Finland (on behalf of the
European Community and its member States) 7
3. India 9
4. Switzerland 10
5. United States of America
13
6. Uzbekistan 15
Australia recognises that developing countries and economies in transition need to enhance their capacity to participate fully in, and maximise the benefits that accrue to them under, the Kyoto mechanisms. Appropriate capacity building is an essential foundation stone in fostering international collaboration on the climate change challenge and Australia encourages the provision of practical and effective assistance.
The broader capacity building needs of developing countries are addressed in a separate submission by Australia on Non-Annex I National Communications, which highlighted the importance to developing countries of improving their capacity in relation to the development of inventories. Australia sees that there are important links on capacity building in relation to the CDM and the development of developing country inventories in terms of methodologies and expertise.
Australia believes that capacity building will work best when the need is identified by the receiving Parties and involves their full endorsement and participation. - ie. when it is "demand driven" rather than being "imposed" by others. It is also important for individual Parties to have a choice of sources and delivery mechanisms so that "best fit" options may be selected for individual circumstances. These include assistance options through multilateral, regional, bilateral and national channels.
Capacity building elements for Clean Development Mechanism (Article 12).
Capacity building should aim to enable countries to be in a position to identify, attract, host and successfully complete clean development mechanism (CDM) in conjunction with cooperating Parties. Elements that make up effective capacity building for CDM include:
The need to raise awareness in non-Annex I countries and economies in transition of the relevance of CDM projects to their sustainable development objectives. It is important that potential host countries have a full and informed appreciation of how CDM projects might operate and of their potential benefits in order to participate effectively in the ongoing negotiations.
The need for capacity building to be suitably responsive to, and provide analysis of country-specific needs and choices relating to, CDM projects. Countries in different regions or circumstances will have different requirements and options relating to attracting and implementing projects.
The identification of constraints to the implementation of CDM projects and the means and policies to overcome these constraints, including strengthening of institutional capacity in potential host countries.
The delineation of opportunities for countries to participate in CDM projects by developing knowledge and institutional capacity in: quantifying the potential for greenhouse gas offsets against agreed baselines developing project pipelines; and developing policies and strategies with regard to establishing potential projects.
Capacity building elements for Article 6 projects.
Economies in transition (EITs) have similar capacity building needs to those of developing countries identified above. Their participation in negotiations and in Article 6 projects (so-called Joint Implementation) also needs to be facilitated and assisted.
Capacity building for emissions trading (Article 17)
Capacity building for EITs should not be restricted to CDM and Article 6 project activities. Much work needs to be undertaken to ensure that economies in transition have the institutional knowledge and information bases to develop policies and methodologies to facilitate their participation in emission trading regimes. Capacity building relating to emission trading will need to incorporate the following elements:
The identification and analysis of the specific needs of countries relating to emissions trading.
Assistance with national communications and systems, including the preparation of inventories and national registries.
Information dissemination relating to operation of trading systems and potential models for emission trading systems.
Provision of access to information resources and strengthening institutional capacity to enable policy development on emissions trading.
Options for delivery
Multilateral, regional, bilateral and national agencies may provide assistance in support of CDM and Article 6 capacity building.
Australia considers that the Global Environment Facility (GEF), as an entity operating the UNFCCC's financial mechanism, should play a role in developing the capacity of eligible countries in respect of the CDM and Article 6. Australia would support new guidance from COP/moP to require the GEF to fund and facilitate appropriate capacity building programs. Such GEF support could be delivered in conjunction with other competent international, regional and bilateral organisations.
Australian support for CDM and Article 6 capacity building
Australia's understanding is that the prime capacity building needs of countries wishing to host CDM or Article 6 projects are :-
enhancement of institutional capacity to manage the assessment and endorsement process for projects and to administer the agreed monitoring, verification and reporting requirements establishing the knowledge and information bases needed to facilitate projects through a better technical understanding of the methodologies involved in greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities, baseline determination, and greenhouse gas related measurements and assessments.
Accordingly, Australia has initiated a number of capacity building activities under the International Greenhouse Partnerships (IGP) Program that are aimed at helping enhance institutional capacity and building the knowledge and information bases for methodologies related to greenhouse gas mitigation.
As a first step, Australia is undertaking work to help increase understanding and institutional knowledge in relation to CDM and Article 6 project activities in certain countries by hosting awareness raising and technical workshops (Indonesia in July 1997, Mauritius in July 1998, South Pacific in July 1999, and in Viet Nam in September 1999) and undertaking missions to potential host countries. For instance, in conjunction with the Government's overseas aid program, the South Pacific and Viet Nam workshops both include sessions dedicated to identifying capacity building needs of individual nations in participating in CDM-type activities, exploring linkages between the CDM and sustainable development, and helping to develop strategies to fulfil those needs.
Secondly, Australia is conducting a series of technical training and development courses on greenhouse gas mitigation, project opportunities and methodologies. The first of these courses was held in Melbourne on 21-25 June 1999. This course covered greenhouse gas reduction opportunities, baseline definitions, emission monitoring and verification, and greenhouse gas reduction estimation. Workbooks on two sectors, renewable energy and fugitive emissions from primary energy production, were produced together with a range of other training material. The workbooks and training manuals developed for the courses are not intended to be prescriptive but rather to assist with guiding and informing future work in these areas.
Fifteen (15) developing countries participated (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Thailand, and Viet Nam). The course was very well received and provided a valuable opportunity to develop an understanding of the issues and offer some solutions to problems. A second course is scheduled to be held in the first half of next year. Workbooks on electricity and heat generation from fossil fuels, energy efficiency in industrial applications, and energy efficiency in commercial buildings will be prepared for this course.
Thirdly, all Australian AIJ projects funded under the International Greenhouse Partnerships (IGP) Program are required to provide capacity building elements within the host country, with the intent of enhancing the host's ability to participate in AIJ and future CDM/JI activities. From 1999-2000, capacity building activities will be incorporated into project proposals and jointly agreed between the designated national authority in the host country, the IGP Office, and the project participants.
Importantly, the Australian overseas aid program has allocated US$2 million to facilitate developing countries in the Asia Pacific region to explore the opportunities and benefits from participating in CDM. This support is being channelled through the World Bank's National Strategy Study (NSS) program. Each national study will analyse country-specific choices in addressing climate change, quantify the potential for greenhouse gas offsets, identify opportunities and barriers to participation, assess costs, and help develop policy options and strategies.
Through the activities described above, Australia is demonstrating its commitment to assist with capacity building that will enhance the ability of non-Annex I countries and economies in transition to participate fully in the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.
(on behalf of the European Community and its member States)
30 July 1999
(doc. FCCC/SB/1999/4)
Finland, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, takes note of the Secretariat=s proposal for facilitating capacity building under decision 7/CP. 4 and appreciates the efforts made to define an initial framework for systematically discussing capacity building related to the mechanisms and for identifying action to be taken.
The EU wishes to enhance the dialogue on facilitating capacity building in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition. The EU would also like to encourage these countries to come forward with their proposals and specify the proposals further. We believe that it is also important to make full use of the considerable expertise of existing institutions at international, regional, bilateral and national level. We would also like to invite both the non-governmental organizations and the private sector to participate in and contribute to capacity building activities regarding the mechanisms. Such a comprehensive approach should be able to lead to tailor-made solutions that respond to the specific circumstances and needs of each region and country.
The EU would like to contribute actively to a better co-ordination of capacity building activities. At present, the EU is collecting information on views and approaches, based on concrete experiences within the EU, regarding capacity building activities related to UNFCCC, and in particular to the Kyoto mechanisms. Based on this information and views the EU will present later a more comprehensive input on this theme.
The EU encourages other Parties to provide similar information. At the same time, Parties, in particular from developing countries and from countries with economies in transition, should be invited to provide further information on their priority needs regarding capacity building for the mechanisms. Taking also into account the discussions during the session of the subsidiary bodies in June this year, the EU would request the Secretariat to elaborate further on a plan for facilitating capacity building on the mechanisms.
With respect to the type of capacity building we should look at, the EU shares the view that capacity building prior to COP 6 should concentrate on awareness raising and on information regarding the design of options for the mechanisms. On the other hand, capacity building on the practical implementation of the mechanisms should build upon the rules for operation of the mechanisms which should be adopted at COP 6. Therefore, co-ordination efforts for the time being should concentrate on pre-COP 6 tasks. The EU will consider further whether workshops with participation from the private sector and non governmental organizations as well as brief, modular information kits might prove adequate instruments for capacity building on these issues.
Given the growing number of ongoing activities at the national, regional and global level, we believe that a more co-ordinated approach between different actors to capacity building would indeed be desirable. It should start as an overview of ongoing and planned activities in order to avoid the duplication of efforts and promote the effective use of scarce resources. Taking into account especially the accumulated experience of the GEF and the recently inaugurated strategic partnership initiative between GEF and UNDP, efforts should be made to clarify the division of labour between the relevant bodies and institutions.
The FCCC Secretariat has an important role to play here. In accordance with existing mandates, the Secretariat should collect, analyse and synthesise information on the ongoing capacity building activities on the mechanisms within UN-organizations, the World Bank, and as appropriate bilateral co-operation agencies and the private sector. The Secretariat should continue its efforts to assist in promoting the co-ordination among the actors and by providing inputs for their further work. While drawing on such information and inputs, regular capacity building activities should be implemented by the financial mechanism of the Convention and its Implementing Agencies. In this context, the EU would appreciate receiving further information about the Secretariat=s joint co-ordination exercise with UNCTAD, UNDP, UNEP and UNIDO, in particular about the planned workshops and about the proposals submitted to potential donors.
[...]
8. Capacity building of developing country Parties is required, in which there should be wide participation. A fund for capacity building should be established to be contributed to by developed country Parties. The context of capacity building should not be restrictive. Endogenous capacities of developing country Parties have to be built to enable wide participation in clean development mechanism (CDM) project activities. Capacity building must relate to activity for GHG reduction, adaptation activity and activity related to the impacts of climate change. Adequate knowledge and understanding about the impacts of climate change is required to enable preparation for adaptation.
[...]
20. Capacity-building (also refer para 8 above) should be incorporated in all CDM project activities for ensuring wider participation. This includes the build-up of endogenous expertise for identifying technology needs and helping enhance capacities for assimilation of technology. Developing country Parties also need to develop capacity in monitoring, reporting and verifying emissions, and in the design, implementation and evaluation of CDM project activities.
[...]
Eleventh session, Bonn, 25 October - 5 November 1999
Preliminary views on the "Plan for facilitating capacity-building" under decision 7/CP.4
In response to the invitation to Parties to submit views on elements to be included in the plan for facilitating capacity-building under decision 7/CP.4 (see FCCC/SB/1999/CRP.4, Switzerland present the following comments.
In our view, the initial framework for capacity building developed by the Secretariat is a useful step in the process of determining further capacity building needs related to the Kyoto mechanisms. However, the specific needs of the various actors will have to be elaborated in more detail. To do so will require inputs from developing countries and Parties with economies in transition and a survey of relevant ongoing capacity building initiatives.
At this stage, we will limit our submission to the recommended follow-up actions suggested in Section V of the Secretariat's paper:
· We believe that the scope suggested for pre-COP6 capacity building activities is too limited. In our view, there is also a need in this phase to ensure adequate capacity building to facilitate the establishment of domestic institutions, policies and procedures for project approval under CDM/JI and to provide capacity building support for the identification of potential JI/CDM projects.
· As we stated in our submission regarding the review of the AIJ pilot phase FCCC/SB/1999/MISC.1), we believe the Secretariat should produce an overview of past and ongoing capacity building initiatives related to AIJ and the Kyoto mechanisms and to identify the remaining capacity building needs for the pre- and post-COP6 time frames. The identification of needs will be an iterative process, beginning with the analysis of existing initiatives, preliminary information on outstanding needs and then further dialog with the potential host countries, perhaps in the form of a questionnaire or workshop. In order to ensure that the capacity building plan is „user"-driven, however, and that input from host countries is adequate, the Secretariat will first have to produce a more detailed analysis of the types of capacities needed, will have to review past and ongoing initiatives to build these capacities, and will have to make an initial attempt to identify the key gaps. This preliminary analysis could be refined in dialog with host countries (e.g. via informal consultations, submissions from Parties, questionnaire, workshop).
· We believe that the Secretariat should seek not only to facilitate co-ordination among the UN agencies, but also of other initiatives of IGOs, NGOs and governments. Maintaining an electronic data base of ongoing initiatives would enable those considering new activities to seek synergies with existing programs. To be effective, such a system would have to be regularly updated and should thus allow for electronic submission of new information.
· One proposal that we cannot support is the development of modular information kits on design options for the Kyoto mechanisms prior to COP6. Based on our experiences working with a variety of potential JI and CDM host countries during the AIJ pilot phase, we have seen that the effort of locating, synthesising and evaluating the various ideas on design options for the Kyoto mechanisms has, in itself, been a major contributor to capacity building each country. We think it would be contra-productive and politically difficult to develop standard kits on design options prior to COP6.
We believe that the „plan" to facilitate capacity building should be an instrument to co-ordinate the necessary activities, which will be undertaken by a wide range of actors. As a first step, the UNFCCC Secretariat should ensure that the capacity building needs of non-Annex I countries and Parties with economies in transition are better defined, taking a user-oriented, bottom-up approach. Our recent submission on the review of the AIJ pilot phase also addressed capacity-building needs. The relevant part of that submission is included here for information:
Contribution of projects to capacity-building and institutional strengthening needs of Parties, particularly for host country Parties
Capacity building is one of the five main foci of the Swiss AIJ Pilot Program and we have therefore gained some insight into this issue during the pilot phase. While we are happy to share our experiences, the views of the host Parties are essential to the review process.
During the pilot phase, we have been engaged in four broad types of capacity building: (i) support for CC:TRAIN and other relevant multilateral initiatives that broadly address climate change; (ii) support for specific AIJ capacity building activities of other countries/organisations (e.g. support for the Costa Rican Office for AIJ, capacity building workshops/ programs related to AIJ conducted by the Climate Network Africa); (iii) capacity building associated with AIJ projects and methodological work (e.g. collaboration with the Czech Republic in the context of a methodological analysis of baseline issues based on several project case studies); and (iv) our targeted capacity building initiative, the "Swiss-World Bank Collaborative Initiative on National AIJ/JI/CDM Strategy Studies" (which assists countries in analysing their national strategy towards JI or CDM, in assessing institutional needs and decision-making procedures and in identifying potential AIJ (or JI/CDM) projects).In our view, each of these types of capacity building - from efforts to raise general awareness of the climate change problem to assistance with identifying AIJ projects - has a role to play. However, each host country has different needs and priorities and it is therefore important for these Parties to make their needs clear. As we indicated at SB10, the design and implementation of the "Plan for capacity building related to the Kyoto mechanisms" should be demand-driven and based on the needs of individual Parties and should take into account needs identified during the review of the AIJ pilot phase. We therefore suggested that a modular approach might be appropriate and that the secretariat should maintain a database of ongoing capacity-building efforts that could be accessed via the UNFCCC web site, which would allow host county Parties to "shop" for those capacity-building services that they require.
In evaluating the "Swiss-World Bank Collaborative Initiative on National AIJ/JI/CDM Strategy Studies", we made an effort to solicit feedback from the first four host Parties that conducted studies under this program, namely the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, the Russian Federation and Uzbekistan. The enclosed Synthesis Study of the National AIJ/JI/CDM Strategy Studies Program, particularly Chapter 4.2 and Annex I, indicates some of the capacity-building needs associated with AIJ and the Kyoto mechanisms that were identified by the host country experts themselves, for example :
· Increased public environmental awareness and "climate literacy";
· Regular access to updated information on climate change, AIJ and JI/CDM opportunities by business/industry, municipalities, local authorities and NGOs, in particular in local languages;
· Improved knowledge regarding vulnerability to climate change; the limited financial resources for climate specific mitigation and/or adaptation policies; and the potential benefits of the Kyoto mechanisms;
· Specific expertise to identify, evaluate, implement, manage and monitor AIJ, JI and CDM projects (e.g. capacity for financial analysis of projects; managerial competence);
· Policy expertise to link strategies/plans with a realistic economic-financial analysis;
· Environmental expertise in the private sector and improved knowledge of technology options (costs, benefits);
· Infrastructure and know-how to conduct quantitative modelling studies (e.g. emission projections, estimations for trading potential).
· Design of efficient institutional arrangements.
The report also indicates to what extent the NSS Program has contributed to meeting these needs and where more support would be needed (see in particular Chapter 6 and Annex I). It is obvious that no single approach to capacity building can meet all of the needs identified above. Whereas the capacity building that is undertaken in the context of individual AIJ investment projects can provide some know-how transfer (often limited to training in the operation of the technology that was transferred), it is unrealistic to expect project-based assistance to respond to all needs, and such an approach would likely be highly inefficient, since private investors do not possess all of the know-how that is needed. A much better approach, in our view, would be for the UNFCCC secretariat to facilitate match-making between host countries (which have identified their specific capacity-building needs) and the full palette of institutions offering varying types of support.
The United States recognizes the importance of efforts to build and enhance the capacity of Parties to participate in the mechanisms. The Secretariat's paper on a framework for capacity building provides a useful basis for consideration of this important issue.
As the Secretariat has noted, there are many ongoing capacity building activities under the Convention and through partner organizations. Even those activities which do not specifically target the mechanisms promote the development of in-country expertise and institutions which will contribute to successful participation in the mechanisms. For instance:
· Activities to support the development of national communications of non-Annex I Parties, promote the establishment of national focal points and institutions on climate change. They also foster the development of technical expertise on greenhouse gas inventories, land-use and land-use change and forestry, and mitigation assessment. These in-house skills and institutions will enhance non-Annex I Parties' ability to evaluate and track CDM projects.
· Efforts underway to assist economies in transition to improve the quality of their national inventories will also provide the technical foundation for emissions trading.
· The technology consultative process and other technology cooperation programs promote the development of sound legal and investment conditions - conditions which will provide important incentives for project development under both CDM and JI.
The relevance of these and other existing activities to the implementation of the mechanisms suggests that an integrated approach to capacity building is needed. Rather than automatically creating new processes for capacity building for the mechanisms, such an approach should first focus on improving coordination and effectiveness of existing efforts, and promoting participation of a wide range of actors and constituencies, including governments, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector. Such an approach should also recognize the responsibility of individual Parties to promote conditions which are conducive to the development of technical capacity, and to identify and remove barriers to investment.
As a first step, additional information is needed on the scope of activities underway to support the development of the mechanisms. We suggest that SBSTA/SBI invite other international organizations and non-governmental organizations to provide information on their activities to the Secretariat as early as possible.
Secondly, more analysis is needed of the specific needs of developing countries and economies in transition. The in-depth review process for Annex I Parties and the process for consideration of national communications of non-Annex I Parties could be useful tools in this regard. For instance, the review process could be used to assess Annex I Parties' current inventory systems and identify the needs of economies in transition in light of the future measurement and reporting requirements of the Protocol and emissions trading. Similarly, the consideration of non-Annex I communications provides an opportunity to identify the needs of developing country Parties for participation in the CDM. Such consideration might identify technical needs, such as expertise required for the development and evaluation of project baselines, as well as institutional needs, such as establishment of national focal points or climate change offices. We also invite non-Annex I Parties and Parties with economies in transition to submit views on their particular needs or perceived barriers to participation in the mechanisms to the Secretariat by February 1st.
Thirdly, this information should be synthesized to enable identification of successful capacity building efforts and any related needs which are not being addressed through existing efforts. We request the Secretariat to prepare a report for consideration by the subsidiary bodies at their 12th session on this matter. This report should compile information on existing activities to support development and participation in the mechanisms, identify the specific needs of developing countries and economies in transition in this regard, and identify any areas where needs are not being met through existing activities. Finally, the report should present options for ways to better coordinate and facilitate efforts by Parties, international organizations, and others to fill these gaps.
With respect to the timing and focus of capacity-building efforts, the United States does not agree with the clear distinction between the pre and post-COP-6 capacity building activities envisaged in the Secretariat's paper. While there is an immediate need for education to improve the participation of Parties and constituents in the development of the mechanisms, the need for awareness-raising and education will continue and evolve for many years. Likewise, activities to support participation in the mechanisms will also enhance Parties' understanding of the mechanisms and promote awareness and involvement of other interest groups, such as environmental NGOs and the private sector.
Given this overlap, we do not believe that additional 'awareness-raising' workshops would provide significant value-added. Rather, Parties should be encouraged to take advantage of the numerous activities and workshops already planned by the FCCC and other organizations. Likewise, we urge other organizations which are undertaking activities related to the mechanisms to reach-out to non-governmental experts and organizations to enhance their participation in and awareness of the mechanisms.
Lastly, we note the Secretariat's suggestion to develop 'modular information kits.' While we fully support the need to make information as widely available as possible, we believe that this information should reflect the diverse range of views on the technical aspects and institutional rules of the mechanisms. For this reason, we do not believe that it is desirable or appropriate to develop standardized information kits at this time. Instead, we encourage the Secretariat to work with other UN organizations, and other interested parties, to promote the development and dissemination of information and technical materials from all sources. Additionally, the Secretariat should explore the creation of topic-specific electronic bulletin boards or discussion groups for exchange of information and views on the mechanisms. Electronic communication would be an efficient and cost-effective way to promote the involvement of a wide range of actors and experts, and could be instrumental for south-south capacity building.
The United States looks forward to hearing the views of other Parties on this important issue.
Facilitating capacity-building of the Parties for some areas of the UNFCCC including Kyoto mechanisms is a part of Buenos Aires Plan of Action aimed at meaningful and effective implementation decisions of Convention.
We suppose that in a base of Plan for facilitating capacity-building should be put integrated approach since the spheres of activity denoted in decision 7/CP.4 intersect and add each other frequently. For example, the issues of technology transfer are closely connected with project realization under Kyoto mechanisms.
Dissemination of information will play essential role in facilitating capacity-building: workshops, seminars holding; setting up national, regional information centers (e.g. Kyoto mechanisms + technology transfer). In this connection, it will be desirable if Secretariat can expand its activity on creating roster of experts on difference areas of Convention. The experts nominated by the Parties should be the most informed persons in their countries on Climate Convention issues, to have access to fresh information in this field and to prepare analyses on regulatory base for national governments and public.
Important part in facilitating capacity-building on Kyoto mechanisms will belong to national coordinating center. Experience of Uzbekistan obtained under the World Bank/Switzerland "Study on Uzbek National Strategy for GHG Emission Reduction" project is evidence that such national unite plays key role in attraction of investment for the CDM/JI projects by functioning as a "single window" for information on technical and process issue, national institutions and experts.
One of the effective ways in facilitating capacity-building is national and regional workshops. International organizations, programs and developed countries within implementation of Climate Convention obligations may be supported in training of the national experts. The present time, the most attention must be done to Kyoto mechanisms, the development and transfer of technologies. Lack of trained national experts will be the main barrier on the early stage of practical realization of Kyoto mechanisms.
1. In order to
make these submissions available on electronic systems, including
the World Wide Web, these contributions have been electronically
imported, scanned and/or retyped. The secretariat has made every
effort to ensure the correct reproduction of the texts as
submitted.
FCCC/SB/1999/MISC.11
GE.99-