KEMENTERIAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP

REPUBLIK INDONESIA

On
Wednesday, the COP/MOP
resumed initial consideration of its agenda and the AWG-LCA
concluded the workshop on a shared vision. The AWG-KP held a workshop on
mitigation potential and SBI Chair Asadi convened a round table on adverse
effects and response measures. Contact groups were held on technology transfer,
non-Annex I communications, REDD, the Nairobi Work Programme, the financial
mechanism, decision 1/CP.10 (adaptation and response measures), and the second
review of the Protocol under Article 9.

COP/MOP 4

CDM: On this issue (FCCC/KP/CMP/2008/4
and FCCC/AWG/2008/3), CHINA,
JAPAN
and others lamented delays in CDM project registration and an increase in
review requests by the CDM Executive Board. CHINA
and SOUTH AFRICA supported
simplifying accreditation of Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) and CHINA and
others called for more transparency.

ALGERIA, ZAMBIA,
SENEGAL, BENIN and
others urged considering distribution of CDM projects and methodological
issues. TANZANIA identified
the need for African DOEs and CAMBODIA
suggested simplifying requirements for LDCs. SOUTH AFRICA
supported guidance on post-2012 CDM projects. BINGOs called for an independent
review of the CDM and institutional improvements. ENGOs highlighted concerns
over additionality and sustainable development. Christiana Figueres (Costa Rica) and Georg Børsting (Norway) will
co-chair a contact group.

ISSUES RELATING TO
JOINT IMPLEMENTATION:
On this topic (FCCC/KP/CMP/2008/3
and FCCC/KP/AWG/2008/3), a contact group was established,
co-chaired by William Agyemang-Bonsu (Ghana)
and Pedro Barata (Portugal).

ADAPTATION FUND
BOARD:
On the
report of the Adaptation Fund Board (FCCC/KP/CMP/2008/2), the AFRICAN GROUP, G-77/CHINA, AOSIS
and others called for rapid operationalization of the Fund and URUGUAY and CUBA
urged a decision in Poznań.
Many parties underlined insufficient funds and the need to deal with monetization
of CERs.

TUVALU proposed giving the Fund a legal
personality. The Bahamas,
for AOSIS, supported Tuvalu’s
concerns about a conflict of interest if the trustee were able to sell CERs as
well as buy them.

The G-77/CHINA stressed the
COP/MOP’s authority over the Fund and direct access to resources. JAPAN suggested
a COP/MOP
decision on eligibility of economies in transition for these funds. A contact
group will be co-chaired by Karsten Sach (Germany)
and Surya Sethi (India).

ARTICLE 9 REVIEW: The second review of the Protocol
under Article 9 (FCCC/KP/CMP/2008/6, INFs.1-3,
MISCs.      1-3, FCCC/SBI/2008/8 and Add.1, and
FCCC/TP/2008/6) was taken up briefly on Wednesday morning with plenary
statements scheduled to continue on Thursday afternoon. BRAZIL called
for a concise review and stressed the importance of reaching a decision on
extending the share of proceeds at this session, while the EU said resources
for adaptation should be seen in the broader context of the AWG-LCA
discussions. Ana Maria Kleymeyer (Argentina)
and Adrian Macey (New
Zealand
) will co-chair a contact group.

AWG-LCA WORKSHOP ON A SHARED VISION

Delegates continued their
discussions, with many interventions focusing on mitigation action by developed
countries, as well as linkages between a shared vision and the objective and
principles of the Convention. The provision of adequate financial resources and
technology transfer, and prioritizing adaptation, were also emphasized.

South Africa, for the AFRICAN GROUP, noted that
a shared vision should address all elements of the Bali Action Plan. The EU
highlighted that a shared vision requires efforts by all parties.

The US said a
shared vision should be optimistic, pragmatic and reflect evolving scientific
and economic realities. ICELAND
supported efforts to globalize the carbon market. BOLIVIA said the financing
provisions should be on a par with developed countries’ spending to rescue
financial institutions during the current financial crisis. SINGAPORE and SAUDI ARABIA emphasized national
circumstances. EGYPT, TANZANIA and GUATEMALA called for special
attention to the most vulnerable countries.

AWG-KP WORKSHOP ON MITIGATION POTENTIALS

The Secretariat presented
the updated technical paper (FCCC/2008/TP/10). Former IPCC Working Group III
Co-Chair Bert Metz highlighted how assumptions about emission reductions by
Annex I countries affect action by non-Annex I countries for different
stabilization scenarios. He explained that 25-40% reductions by Annex I
countries by 2020 would mean 15-30% deviation from the baseline for non-Annex I
countries to achieve 450 ppm, and 0-20% deviation for 550 ppm.

Barbara Buchner,
International Energy Agency, said the reference scenario without new policies
is unsustainable and would result in 750 ppm and a 6ºC temperature rise. She
identified the need for “an enormous energy transformation