Distr.
GENERAL
FCCC/SBSTA/1999/5
7 May 1999
Original: ENGLISH
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Tenth session
Bonn, 31 May - 11 June 1999
Item 5 (a) of the provisional agenda
Paragraphs Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1 - 4 2
A. Mandate 1 2
B. Scope of the note 2 - 3 2
C. Possible action by the SBSTA 4 2
II. POLICY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES 5 - 11 3
A. Background 5 - 7 3
B. Approach 8 - 11 3
GE.99-
1. At its fourth session, the Conference of the Parties (COP), by its decision 9/CP.4, requested the secretariat to compile, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) at its tenth session, a list of policy and procedural issues associated with Article 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, based on existing submissions by Parties and any further submissions by Parties provided to the secretariat by 1 March 1999 on these issues (FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.1).
2. This note responds to the above mandate by proposing a list of policy and procedural issues(1) associated with Article 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, a decision-making process is outlined that may assist Parties in addressing these policy and procedural issues by the sixth session of the Conference of the Parties, and subsequent sessions of the subsidiary bodies.
3. In preparing this document, account was taken of submissions from Parties which are contained in documents FCCC/SBSTA/1999/MISC.2 and FCCC/SBSTA/1999/MISC.2/Add.1. Where Parties identified similar issues, the secretariat has tried to integrate them while maintaining their essence.
4. The SBSTA may wish to consider the framework for decision-making and the list of policy and procedural issues associated with Article 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol contained in this note. It may wish to further elaborate a process to facilitate decision-making by the sixth session of the COP. In that context, the SBSTA may wish to provide guidance to the secretariat related to any preparatory activities needed between SBSTA 10 and COP 6.
5. Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol provides a way to consider net changes in emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured in terms of verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period. These net changes are to be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner, and reviewed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol.
6. Article 3.4 of the Protocol requires each Party included in Annex I to provide, for consideration by the SBSTA, data to establish its level of carbon stocks in 1990, and to enable an estimate to be made of its changes in carbon stocks in subsequent years.
7. It provides for the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (COP/MOP) to decide how and which human-induced activities resulting in changes in emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the agricultural soils and the land-use change and forestry categories can be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amounts for Annex I Parties. In its deliberations to reach a decision, the COP/MOP shall take into account uncertainties, transparency in reporting, verifiability, the methodological work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the advice provided by the SBSTA. A decision on additional activities is to be applied in the second and subsequent commitment periods, but Parties may choose to apply the decision to the first commitment period, provided that the activities have taken place since 1990.
8. In this note, a process is outlined by which progress may be made towards the preparation of decisions related to Article 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol by the Conference of the Parties at its sixth session. This process is presented as a framework for decision-making (see figure 1). Within this framework, relevant issues can be considered by Parties in the period between SBSTA 10 and COP 6, and after COP 6. The process of decision-making can be adapted as new insights and/or the need for additional work arise. However, the items incorporated into the framework appear to be some of the more important ones needing to be addressed to facilitate decision-making by COP 6.
9. This note, including the framework for decision-making, was prepared with the understanding that the IPCC Special Report on land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), to be available by SBSTA 12, will provide important information that will feed into the process of decision-making. It is also understood that reporting guidelines related to LULUCF will need to be integrated with guidelines under Articles 5 and 7 of the Kyoto Protocol, and that information and methods will be reviewed in accordance with Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, it takes account of the need for consistency with other Articles of the Kyoto Protocol.
10. Some of the key policy and procedural issues that need to be addressed in a decision-making process are grouped into five categories, namely:
(a) Clarification of definitions;
(b) Eligibility of additional activities;
(c) Rules governing the use of approved activities;
(d) Inventory and reporting guidelines;
(e) Miscellaneous.
11. Some of the issues may need to be addressed before COP 6. These are listed in table 1. Other issues which could possibly be considered after COP 6 are listed in table 2.
Figure 1. Framework for decision-making
This figure is not available in html format
Table 1. Policy and procedural issues proposed for consideration before the sixth session of the Conference of the Parties
A. Clarification
of definitions(2)
1) How should the boundary
between human and natural phenomena be determined? And
should natural processes, occurring as a result of
management decisions, be counted or not (the decision to
intervene in, or withdraw from, management can directly lead
to changes in stock)?
2) How should the boundary
between direct and indirect be determined?
3) Which, if any, policies
and programmes resulting in human-induced activities should
be included under Article 3.3 and 3.4? 4) What is the
relationship between additional activities approved under
Article 3.4 and the second sentence of Article 3.7?
B. Eligibility
of additional activities
1) Should activities under
consideration be in conformity with the relevant clauses of
the Convention (e.g. Articles 3.3, 3.4, and 4.1.d) and those
of the Kyoto Protocol (e.g. Article 2.1 (a) (ii) and
2.1 (a) (iii))?
2) Should activities under
Article 3.3 and 3.4 be in conformity with other conventions,
such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the
Convention to Combat Desertification, and other
international agreements related to forests? If so, how
should these agreements be applied?
3) Should levels of
uncertainty(3)
be a criterion for the inclusion of additional activities
under Article 3.4? And if so, should these levels of
uncertainty be different from those associated with Article
3.3 or other sources?
4) What specific information
on uncertainties and verifiability is required to determine
whether an additional activity should be included under
Article 3.4?
5) What other criteria
should be applied to guide a decision-making process in
relation to Article 3.3 and 3.4?
C. Rules
governing the use of approved
activities(4)
1) For what purpose do we
need information on stock levels in 1990 in the context of
Article 3.3 and 3.4? What stocks and/or carbon pools
should be included in that information?
2) Some types of data
relevant to the base year are likely to be collected in
retrospect. Should activity data, information on the
measurement of stocks and changes to stocks be reported
prior to the commitment period or should reporting begin
during the commitment period?
3) Should Parties monitor
all increases and decreases in activities/practices, or is
the measurement of stock sufficient?
4) Can Parties choose which
activities they include in the first commitment period or do
they need to include all approved additional
activities?
5) Can a Party use a certain
additional activity in the first commitment period without
reporting on associated carbon stocks for its base year? Or
should it submit data on the base year situation
retrospectively before it can apply the decision in the
first commitment period? If so, when?
Table 2. Policy and procedural issues proposed for consideration after the sixth session of the Conference of the Parties
A. Inventory and
reporting guidelines
2) Assuming that all
lands and land-uses will not be included under Article
3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, what additional
reporting should be required so as to prepare for
discussion on a second budget period?
3) Should separate
guidelines be developed that indicate how Parties should
deal with the various levels of uncertainty or should
uncertainty be incorporated into guidelines under
Articles 5 and 7 of the Kyoto Protocol? 4) Should activity data be
reported between 1990-2008? Should activity data be reported
for individual years between 2008-2012 to monitor changes or
is the net total for the 5 years sufficient?
5) How should changes in GHG
emissions from, and removals by, additional activities be
reported: one by one, per activity, per category, or as a
list of specific practices?
6) How should information on
methods be reported? What supplementary information should
be reported under Article 7 of the Kyoto Protocol? How
should monitoring and verification guidance be developed to
allow information to be reviewed according to Article 8 of
the Kyoto Protocol?
7) Should transparency in
reporting be taken to mean that the assumptions and methods
of analysis should be replicable by international experts
using information provided in annual inventories and/or the
national communications?
B.
Miscellaneous
1) Should Parties be
required to demonstrate that "reported" activities do not
adversely affect other lands and land-uses?
2) Should the changes in
greenhouse gas emissions by sources or removals by sinks to
be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amount, be
recalculated as a result of future refinements of methods,
considering that changes to methods in LULUCF are more
likely to occur compared to other parts of the inventory? If
so, what procedures should be applied?
3) Should uncertainties be
considered in a broader context (Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the
Kyoto Protocol)?
4) How can activities not
included in the IPCC Special Report be given
consideration?
5) How should verifiability
be interpreted in relation to the first sentence of Article
3.4? (What procedures do we need in order to verify
information on levels of stocks in 1990 and changes to those
stocks in subsequent years?)
1. The wording "policy and procedural issues" in the context of this mandate, has been interpreted as follows. Policies set definite courses, embracing general principles and goals, to guide and determine present and future decisions. Procedures facilitate the manner in which to proceed to accomplish the goals set by the policies. Procedures may also be developed to implement given policies.
2. Account should be taken of the IPCC Special Report, which will include a chapter on definitions, and which should be available prior to SBSTA 12.
3. Uncertainty can be associated with different aspects of the additional activities, for instance: estimation methodologies, activity data, scientific understanding, institutional accountability, long-term stability of sinks.
4. It may be appropriate to consider some of these questions in the preparation of revised UNFCCC inventory and reporting guidelines subsequent to COP 6.