CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
Third session
Kyoto, 1-10 December 1997
Item 5 of the provisional agenda
FCCC/CP/1997/CRP.1
29 November 1997
ENGLISH ONLY
TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REVISED TEXT UNDER
NEGOTIATION
Note by the
secretariat
I. INTRODUCTION
- This technical review of the revised text under negotiation
(FCCC/CP/1997/2) has been prepared at the request of the Chairman
of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM). The Chairman
requested that it be made available to the Committee of the Whole
to assist in its task of finalizing the text of a protocol or
another legal instrument
- In conducting this technical review, the secretariat has
sought to suggest improvements or refinements to the revised text
under negotiation. These fall into the following broad categories:
(a) Drafting and editorial recommendations directed at increasing
the clarity of the text and ensuring consistency in terminology and
language;
(b) More substantive proposals aimed at safeguarding the
consistency and coherence of the text, and in particular at avoiding
contradictions, ambiguities or unintended loopholes in provisions;
and
(c) Commentary on the feasibility of certain institutional
provisions and suggestions for possible improvements.
- This technical review is applicable only to the English
language version of the revised text under negotiation.
Arrangements will be made by the Committee of the Whole at the
third session of the Conference of the Parties for a comprehensive
linguistic review of the final text of the protocol or another
legal instrument in order to ensure the consistency of the text
among the six official languages of the United Nations.
- The technical review has been prepared without prejudice to
the eventual outcome of negotiations. Commentary on Articles or
elements in the review do not imply any opinion regarding the
eventual inclusion or exclusion of such Articles or elements from
the final text.
UKY.97-
II. TECHNICAL REVIEW
A. Overall comments
Clarity of institutional
provisions
- The Kyoto instrument should have clear institutional
provisions. However, the revised text under negotiation is still
deficient in this respect. This arises in part from Article 14
which seeks a compromise between different positions on
institutional questions by providing for the Conference of the
Parties (COP) to the Convention to serve as the Meeting of the
Parties (MOP) to the Protocol. This merger of two approaches gives
rise to some ambiguity and potential questions of application.
Moreover, certain other Articles overlap in the functions of the
COP and the MOP, notably Article 8 on communication of information
and Article 9 on review of implementation. Specific queries are
raised in the discussion on individual Articles below.
Coherence
- The revised text under negotiation also contains some cases of
insufficient integration, and also potential overlap, between
related provisions appearing in different Articles. In this
regard, particular attention needs to be given to the coherence of
the various provisions requiring the establishment of systems or
mechanisms for the estimation, monitoring or verification of
emissions. Article 5.1 (on methodologies) refers to "a national
system for the estimation of anthropogenic emissions by sources
and removals by sinks", Article 6.1 (on emissions trading) speaks
of "a national mechanism for the certification and verification of
emission trades" and Article 7.3(a) (on joint implementation)
mentions "a national mechanism for the accounting, certification
and verification of ... greenhouse gas emissions". These
provisions appear to be additional to, and are currently not
linked in with, the annual inventories whose submission is
required under Article 8.1 (on communication of information).
Parties may wish to consider whether the intention is indeed for
separate systems to be set up. In the interests of institutional
economy, it would be appropriate to decide upon the establishment
of one integrated mechanism.
Deadlines
- The revised text under negotiation requires the MOP to adopt a
large number of substantive decisions at its first session after
entry into force of the Protocol (see Articles 5.1, 5.2, 7.3(h),
7.5, 8.4, 9.1(c) and 18). Parties may wish to review this list,
with a view to determining whether it might be possible to set a
more flexible deadline for the adoption of decisions on some of
these items.
Consistency of terminology
- Throughout the text, there is a lack of consistency in the
terminology used to refer to greenhouse gas emissions and their
removals. In order to avoid confusion, it would be
advisable to adhere as closely as possible to the language of the
Convention, that is: "anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals
by sinks".
- Another source of inconsistency is the variation in the use of
the expression "limitation and reduction" in the context of
emission commitments. Three versions occur: "limit and reduce",
"limit or reduce" and "limit and/or reduce". Except where the
context demands otherwise, it would be desirable to retain the
first version, "limit and reduce", which is derived from
"limitation and reduction" in the Berlin Mandate.
B. Specific comments relating to individual
Articles
Preamble
- The fifth preambular paragraph could be a source of ambiguity,
as "...its Article 3" could be interpreted as referring to
Article 3 of either the Protocol or the Convention. It should be
stated explicitly that the reference is to Article 3 of the
Convention.
Article 1
- As noted in paragraph 8 of this Article, the listing of terms
and their definitions may need to be completed. Although this must
await further negotiations, it could be helpful to identify at
this stage possible terms which may need to be defined. Such terms
are listed below:
(a) "Meeting of the Parties";
(b) "Emission budget";
(c) "Emission credit"; and
(d) "Joint implementation project".
Article 2
- Paragraph 1(a), Alternative A: The term "Maintenance of
..." might be more appropriate than "Providing ...", in relation
to "... a continuous balance ...".
- Paragraph 1(a), Alternative B: Subparagraph (i) mentions "...
greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas precursors not
controlled by the Montreal Protocol ...". This is the only
reference to greenhouse gas precursors anywhere in the text and
the rationale for its inclusion here is unclear. In the
Convention, precursors are mentioned in Article 1 (definitions),
but not in Article 4.2(e)(ii) or indeed in any other Article.
- Paragraph 1(a), Alternative B: Subparagraph (v) could be
clarified as follows: "..to ensure that a significant increase
in their share of its energy supply is realized".
Furthermore, the use of "its" in this subparagraph refers to "each
Party's". This specificity does not occur in other subparagraphs
of this Article. Is this intentional?
- Paragraph 1(a), Alternative B: The drafting of subparagraph
(vii) would be improved by the following change: "...through the
International Civil Aviation Organization and the International
Maritime Organization, respectively, and in particular work
towards introducing aviation fuel taxation".
- Paragraph 1(c): The phrase "... in accordance with Article
4.2(e)(i) of the Convention..." could be replaced with the
following, more accurate, wording: "... pursuant to Article
4.2(e)(i) of the Convention ...".
Article 3
- Parties may wish to consider whether the provisions of
paragraphs 3 and 4 adequately cover the situation of those Parties
included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a
market economy which have not yet indicated whether they wish to
choose a baseline other than 1990 for the implementation of their
commitments. Paragraph 3 refers only to those Parties whose base
year or period was established pursuant to decision 9/CP.2, whilst
paragraph 4 deals with flexibility in the implementation of
commitments "other than those in Article 3". A possible
solution may be to re-introduce in paragraph 3 the following
phrase which appeared in the consolidated negotiating text by the
Chairman (FCCC/AGBM/1997/7): "Any other Party included in Annex
I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy may
also notify the Meeting of the Parties that it intends to use a
historical base year or period other than 1990 for the
implementation of its commitments under this Article. The Meeting
of the Parties shall decide on the acceptance of such
notification".
- If paragraph 14 retains its present location, a link may need
to be made with the provisions of Article 18 (on compliance).
- The second sentence of paragraph 15 should be made consistent
with the first sentence, so that it reads: "Any amendment to the
list of greenhouse gases and source and sink categories in
Annex A..."
- Paragraphs 17 and 18 call for the COP to establish a
compensation fund and a clean development fund. It would be
helpful to explicitly state which body is to take this action -
the COP to the Convention or, were agreement to be
reached on the provisions currently elaborated in Article 14, the
MOP to the Protocol.
- The placement of paragraphs 17 and 18 needs to be reviewed in
light of footnotes 1, 4 and 13 in the revised text under
negotiation.
- Paragraph 18 (lines 3 and 5) makes use of the term "will". Is
this correct, or is the intended term "shall"?
Article 4
- The word "will" appears in paragraph 2 (line 1). Is this
correct, or is the intended term "shall"?
- Paragraph 3 refers to "the period mentioned in
Article 3". However, Article 3 as currently drafted includes two
budget periods. It may therefore be necessary to state either "the
first budget period mentioned in Article 3" or "the
budget period mentioned in
Article 3.7).
Article 5
- With respect to the reference in paragraph 1 to "a national
system ...", please see comments in paragraph 6 above.
Article 6
- With respect to the reference in paragraph 1 to "a national
mechanism ...", please see comments in paragraph 6 above.
- Paragraph 1 refers to "emissions allowed under Article 3". As
this term no longer appears in Article 3, it may be appropriate to
modify this sentence in paragraph 1 as follows "...any part of
its emission budget under Article 3". The same modification
could be applied to paragraph 2, so that it would read "...leading
to the transfer or acquisition, under this Article, of any part
of its emission budget" and also to paragraph 3(c), which
would now appear as follows: "...but may not transfer any part
of its emission budget...". Paragraph 5 could be similarly
modified: "...transfers and acquisitions of any part of an
emission budget may continue to be made, provided that such
transfers and acquisitions are not used by any Party..." with the
final sentence reading "...the provisions of this paragraph shall
apply only to transfers of any part of the emission budget
of that Party".
- The last line in paragraph 1 refers to "the certification and
verification of emission trades" whilst paragraph 4 refers to
"methodologies for verification and reporting". Is there a need
for consistency between these two references? If so, the final
sentence in paragraph 1 could read "... a national mechanism for
the certification, verification and reporting of emission
trades" and the final sentence in paragraph 4 could read:
"...including methodologies for certification, verification
and reporting".
Article 7
- Paragraph 1, line 2: The word "receive" could be replaced by
"acquire" in order to be consistent with the remainder of
the Article and the corresponding paragraph 10 in Article 3.
- It would be helpful to make the first sentence of this
paragraph fully consistent with the equivalent sentence in Article
6, paragraph 1 so that lines 2 and 3 would now read: "...from any
other Party included in Annex I [or acting under Article
10]...".
- There appears to be some inconsistency in terminology between
paragraph 1, which talks of "carbon dioxide equivalent emission
reductions" and the remainder of the Article, which refers to
"emission credits". It may be necessary to either use the same
terminology throughout, or to establish a clear link between the
terms "carbon dioxide equivalent emission reductions" and
"emission credits". A solution could be to redraft part of
paragraph 1 as follows: "... may acquire from any other
Party ... credit for the carbon dioxide equivalent emission
reductions resulting from joint implementation projects".
Alternatively, a definition could appear in Article 1.
- With respect to the reference in paragraph 3(a) to "a national
mechanism ...", please see comments in paragraph 6 above.
- The terms "accounting", "certification" and "verification"
variously used in paragraphs 3(a) and 5(b) could be ordered more
logically and made consistent so that all such references refer to
"certification, verification and accounting".
- Paragraph 3(c): The second sentence of this paragraph does not
specify that reductions in emissions by sources or enhancement of
removals by sinks through joint implementation projects should
apply to the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A. If this
is the intention, it may be necessary to introduce some
clarification on this point in this paragraph, and also where
similar instances occur in the Article.
- Throughout the Article, there appears to be some confusion on
terminology used to refer to removals by sinks, in the sense that
it is greenhouse gases that are removed, and not emissions. Some
suggested drafting changes are given below (these also take into
account the comment in paragraph 34 above):
(a) The last sentence of paragraph 3(c) could read: "... a
reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A
[or a removal by sinks of such greenhouse gases] that is
additional ...";
(b) The final part of paragraph 5(b) could read "... and
verification of reductions in emissions of the greenhouse gases
listed in Annex A [and of removals by sinks of such greenhouse
gases]; and
(c) Paragraph 5(d) could read "...actual reductions in
emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A [and
of removals by sinks of such greenhouse
gases].
- The second sentence in paragraph 3(g) mentions "accountability
methodologies". Is this correct, or is "accounting
methodologies" the intended term? In addition, this subparagraph
speaks of verification and accounting, but not of certification,
which is inconsistent with subparagraphs 3(a) and 5(b).
Furthermore, it is already understood that emission credits refer
to a reduction in emissions or a removal of greenhouse gases and
this does not need to be repeated here. If these considerations
are taken into account, the second sentence in paragraph 3(g)
could be redrafted as follows: "They shall be subject to stringent
certification, verification and accounting
methodologies".
- There is a degree of overlap between paragraphs 3(h) and 5,
both of which elaborate provisions for the MOP to adopt guidelines
for reporting on joint implementation projects. Paragraph 3(h)
could therefore be modified so as to read: "Parties shall report
on joint implementation projects in their national communications,
using guidelines to be adopted by the Meeting of the Parties
under paragraph 5 below".
- Paragraph 4 refers to the "receipt" of credits. In the
interests of linguistic consistency, the term "acquisition"
should be used instead.
- Paragraph 5: Subparagraphs (a) to (d) could perhaps be ordered
more logically so that (a) would be followed by (c), then (d) and
finally (b).
- In order to make paragraph 5(d) consistent with the remainder
of this Article, it may be clearer to use the term
"accounting" rather than "auditing".
- The drafting of paragraph 6 could be made more consistent with
the remainder of this Article by replacing the phrase "...to allow
joint implementation with Parties not included in Annex I..." with
the following phrase: "...to allow Parties not included in
Annex I [and not acting under Article 10] to participate in joint
implementation projects...". In addition, the term "rules" in
the final sentence should be replaced by "provisions", as
"rules" is not used anywhere else in the Article.
- The substance of paragraph 6 as it currently appears is
problematic, in that it states that non-Annex I Parties would be
allowed to participate in joint implementation projects "in
conformity with the rules of this Article". However, in paragraph
3(a), it is stated that Parties participating in joint
implementation projects "shall be in compliance with their
obligations under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of this Protocol",
Articles which only apply to Annex I Parties (or Parties acting
under Article 10). Further consideration would need to be given to
this problem. A possible solution which Parties may consider would
be to modify the last part of paragraph 6 so that it reads: "in
any sector of the economy, consistent with the provisions of
this Article and in accordance with decisions adopted for this
purpose by the Meeting of the Parties".
Article 8
- Please see comments in paragraph 6 above regarding annual
inventories mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article.
- Paragraph 1 as currently drafted requires Parties to
incorporate additional information relating to the Protocol in
their annual inventory "taking into account the relevant
decisions of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention".
This represents a revision of the consolidated negotiating text,
where paragraph 1 referred to the annual inventory of Parties
"submitted in accordance with the relevant decisions of
the Conference of the Parties to the Convention". Parties may wish
to consider retaining the previous formulation, as it is necessary
to specify that the annual inventories referred to in Article 8 of
the Protocol are the same as those which Parties are
currently submitting under the Convention. This would be in line
with paragraph 2, where it is made explicit that information for
the purposes of the Protocol is to be incorporated in national
communications "submitted under Article 12 of the
Convention". It is therefore clear that no new reporting
regime is being established.
- Parties may consider adding Article 12 to the list of Articles
in the last line of paragraph 2. This would be consistent with
Article 12.1(h).
- The last sentence of paragraph 3 states that the MOP shall
decide the "frequency of subsequent communications under this
Article". It would seem necessary, however, to clarify the
relationship between the submission of information under Article 8
of the Protocol and under Article 12 of the Convention, and
thereby ensure the integration of the two reporting provisions. To
this end, the last sentence of paragraph 3 could be redrafted as
follows: "The frequency of subsequent communications under this
Article shall be determined by the Meeting of the Parties,
taking into account the timetable for the submission of
national communications decided upon by the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention".
- The phrase "guidelines for the submission of national
communications" in paragraph 4 should be made consistent with the
language used in the relevant COP decisions (3/CP.1 and 9/CP.2),
that is "guidelines for the preparation of national
communications by Parties included in Annex I ".
- The final sentence in paragraph 4 mentions "the first budget
period". It may be helpful to clarify that the reference is to
"the first budget period mentioned in Article 3.7"
Article 9
- The word "including" in the second line of paragraph 1 could
wrongly imply that annual inventories form part of national
communications. It may therefore be advisable to replace
"including" with "and".
- The drafting of the chapeau to paragraph 1 would need some
attention:
(a) It states that reviews shall be conducted "...as part of
the review of communications...". It is unclear, however,
which "review of communications" is referred to;
(b) Reference is made to "...guidelines adopted for this purpose
by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention". However, no such
guidelines exist. There are, instead, decisions by the COP which set
out the tasks and procedures for the review of communications;
and
(c) There is overlap between the phrase "... in accordance with
guidelines to be adopted by the Meeting of the Parties, taking into
account guidelines adopted for this purpose by the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention", and paragraph 1(c) where it is stated
that "The Meeting of the Parties shall adopt ... guidelines ...
taking into account guidelines... adopted by the Conference of the
Parties to the Convention".
- In light of the above observations, Parties might consider the
following alternative language for the chapeau to paragraph 1:
"...shall be reviewed by expert review teams as part of the review
of communications conducted pursuant to the relevant decisions
of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention and in
accordance with guidelines adopted for this purpose by the Meeting
of the Parties under subparagraph (c) below". The final part
of subparagraph (c) could then read: "...taking into account
the relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention". This formulation would serve the purpose of clearly
indicating that the review of communications under the Protocol is
to be integrated with that under the Convention, as is the
intention in this Article.
- Paragraph 9.1(a) also makes reference to "guidelines adopted
for this purpose by the Conference of the Parties". It would be
more accurate to state "guidance provided for this purpose
by the Conference of the Parties".
- Paragraph 9.1(b) states that the reports of the expert review
teams shall be circulated to "all Parties". According to the
definition in Article 1, this means all Parties to the Protocol.
Such reports could also be circulated to all Parties to the
Convention, so that the sentence would then read: "Such reports
shall be circulated by the secretariat to all Parties and to
all Parties and signatories to the Convention".
- Paragraph 9.2(a) could be considered as insufficiently
comprehensive. The following formulation may be more appropriate:
"The national communications and annual inventories
submitted by Parties under Article 8 and the reports of the expert
reviews thereof conducted under this Article".
- There needs to be a linkage between the provisions of this
Article and those of Article 18 which deals with compliance.
Article 10
- Paragraph 1 of this Article states that "Any signatory or
Party to this Protocol not included in Annex I may, at any time,
notify the Depositary that it has opted to be bound by
this Article". This wording is problematic, however, as by
ratifying the Protocol, all Parties would be bound by all
Articles, including this one. More appropriate language could be
as follows: "Any signatory or Party to this Protocol not included
in Annex I may, at any time, notify the Depositary that it has
opted to undertake commitments under this Article".
- If this Article is to be adopted, the language used in
paragraph 2(b) should be in conformity with that in Article 3, so
as to read: "The level of limitation or reduction of net
aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of
greenhouse gases listed in Annex A it is ready to undertake".
Article 11
- There is some overlap between this Article and Article 14,
paragraphs 4 and 4(a) regarding the functions of the MOP.
Article 12
- Paragraph 1(b), Alternative B: Should the second last line
read "...and enhancement of removals by sinks..."?
Article 14
- The institutional arrangements proposed by this Article would
benefit from further definition. In particular, a clear statement
is needed regarding whether a new body is to be established, or
not. The text, as currently drafted, appears to combine the two
approaches, which creates legal ambiguity and also potential
difficulties in implementation. By way of illustration, the
intention of paragraph 1 appears to be that the COP to the
Convention would also serve the Protocol under a different name
(Meeting of the Parties) so that no new body would be
established. However, a number of provisions in the remainder
of the Article, and throughout the revised text under negotiation,
suggest that there is in fact to be a new or separate
body:
(a) The repetition in paragraph 4(a) to (m) of most of the
equivalent subparagraphs in Article 7.2 of the Convention would only
be relevant were a new body to be set up whose functions would need
to be defined. In this context, it should be noted that Article 7.2
of the Convention also covers "any related legal
instruments";
(b) Paragraph 4(k), in particular, seems to contradict paragraph
1. If no new body is to be created, there is no need for the adoption
of new rules of procedure or financial rules;
(c) The drafting of paragraph 4(m) implies that the COP and the
MOP are two separate entities, again in apparent conflict with
paragraph 1; and
(d) If no new body is to be created, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 as
currently drafted are not necessary.
- Paragraph 4 states that the MOP shall "...keep under regular
review the implementation of this Protocol...". Article 7.2 of the
Convention, however, states that the COP to the Convention shall
"...keep under regular review the implementation of the Convention
and any related legal instruments...". The linkage
between the review under paragraph 4 and that under Article 7.2 of
the Convention would therefore require further definition, so as
to avoid contradictory provisions.
- The list of functions of the MOP in paragraph 4 excludes only
that specified in Article 7.2(j) of the Convention ("Review
reports submitted by its subsidiary bodies and provide guidance to
them"). The rationale for this is unclear. Moreover, Article 14,
as currently drafted, deals only with any new subsidiary bodies
that may be established, and not with the relationship between the
MOP and the subsidiary bodies establishing under Articles 9 and 10
of the Convention.
- The list of functions in paragraph 4 could also be streamlined
by merging subparagraphs (i) and (j) into a single subparagraph
which would read: "Establish such subsidiary bodies as are
deemed necessary for the implementation of this Protocol and
elaborate their functions and terms of reference."
Furthermore, the word "shall" in subparagraph (m) could be deleted
as it is already covered in the chapeau.
- Paragraph 7 would establish a process for the admission of
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations parallel to
that laid down in the Convention and currently implemented by the
COP. Parties may wish to consider whether establishing such a
parallel system is necessary or desirable. If a separate body were
created, the Protocol could be silent on this point or provide for
use of the COP system which is, in any case, under review by the
Subsidiary Body for Implementation.
- If it is decided that the current formulation should be
retained, it may be advisable to include the following text:
"The Conference of the Parties shall, at its first session
after entry into force of this Protocol, decide upon modalities
for the conduct of business when it exercises its functions as the
Meeting of the Parties to this Protocol".
Article 15
- Paragraph 3: In view of the cost-effective integration of the
functions of the secretariat to be carried out in relation to the
Protocol and to the Convention (for example, for reviews of
national communications and inventories and support for the
subsidiary bodies), it may not be possible to distinguish all
costs related to the Protocol. The words "... are distinct ..."
could therefore be replaced by "... may be clearly and easily
distinguished from those of secretariat services to the
Convention, ...".
Article 16
- The first sentence of paragraph 2 could be deleted. As
currently drafted, it implies that Parties to the Convention would
participate as observers at sessions of the subsidiary
bodies dealing with matters under the Convention.
Moreover, it is not necessary, as the second sentence of the
paragraph suffices to make the intended point.
Article 17
- It may be necessary for a link to be established between the
provisions of this Article and those of Article 18, which deals
with compliance.
Article 18
- It may be necessary for a link to be established between this
Article and Articles 3.14, 9 and 17, which also deal with
compliance issues.
Article 21
- Paragraph 6: Should this read: "If the adoption of an annex,
or an amendment to an annex other than Annex A or B..."?
Article 22
- As currently drafted under this Article, the provisions
relating to attachments are indistinguishable from those relating
to amendments or to Annexes A and B. If such an approach is to be
maintained, and no streamlined procedures for the amendment of
attachments introduced, this Article could be deleted.
Article 27
- If the date of entry into force of the Protocol is to be
conditional upon ratification by States emitting a certain volume
of carbon dioxide in aggregate, it will be necessary for this
Article to provide an unambiguous definition of the source or
sources of emission data. As currently drafted, entry into force
depends, inter alia, upon the 1990 carbon dioxide
emission levels of all Parties to the Convention "as indicated in
their most recent national communications submitted under Article
12 of the Convention". However, Article 12 of the Convention only
specifies the timing of submissions from Annex I Parties; that of
non-Annex I Parties is required either within "three years after
entry into force ... or of the availability of financial
resources" or, in the case of least developed country Parties, "at
their discretion". Moreover, the guidelines for initial
communications by non-Annex I Parties do not require an inventory
for 1990.
- If it were decided to retain a carbon dioxide threshold, this
could either be limited to emissions by Annex I Parties, or admit
data from authoritative sources in cases where national
inventories are absent. It would also be necessary to specify that
data from the latest annual inventories of Annex I Parties, not
just from their national communications, would be valid for the
purposes of this Article.
- For the purposes of this Article as currently drafted, it is
the emissions of Parties in 1990 which are relevant. The words "by
that time" in the final sentence of paragraph 1 should therefore
be deleted.
Annex A
- This Annex currently includes an exhaustive list of
"sectors/source and sink categories" as contained in the revised
1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. If
it is decided that all these sectors/source and sink categories
should be covered by commitments under the Protocol, it would be
more expedient to simply state, in Article 3, that commitments
cover all sectors/source and sink categories contained in those
Guidelines. A list would be necessary only if there were to be
selective coverage of sectors/source and sink categories.
Annex B
- The criteria listed here require further definition. For
example, a base year or period for the measurement of all the
listed criteria would need to be established. In the case of
criterion (f), a time frame for the projection would also be
necessary. For those criteria involving gross domestic product,
that is (b), (c), (d) and (g), it would be necessary to specify
whether this would be on a market exchange rate or purchasing
power parity basis and an agreed source or sources identified. As
noted in footnote 22, criterion (e) in particular would require
clarification.
- There appears to be overlap between the criteria mentioned in
subparagraphs (d) and (g). One of the subparagraphs could be
deleted.
Attachment 1
- If a decision is taken to include a listing of the commitments
of Parties under
Article 3, either in an attachment or as an annex, Parties may
wish to consider how the commitments to be listed in such an
attachment would be expressed. The text as currently drafted is
silent on this point. Options include listing commitments as
percentages of emissions in a base year, or as volumes of emissions
in a budget period or target year, or both. The baseline emissions of
Parties could also be given.
- - - - - -