elni NEWS - Öko-Institut eV

20
1/2003 Environmental Law Network International
• Actions are required, with a sense of urgency,
to substantially increase the global share of renewable
energy sources.
• It stresses the need for Annex II developed
Parties to implement their financial obligations.
As the environmental NGOs stated that this declaration
just recycles the text of the Johannesburg Plan
of Implementation of Sustainable Development that
already called for greenhouse gas emission reductions,
ratification of the KP, provision of technical
and financial support and capacity building, ensuring
energy access and increasing share of renewable
energy resources. It just confirms that the world
community in order to achieve sustainable development
should implement climate change objectives.
This affirmation is balanced by the wording
stating that the implementation of climate change
objectives should depend on each country’s economic
and social features without impeding economic
growth, which is the overriding priority of
developing countries. This means that no additional
burden of emissions cuts on developing countries
are foreseeable in the next future until developed
countries have demonstrated tangible emission
reductions results.
Regarding future commitments as stated before,
there was a surprising reversal of roles by the EU
and the US, with the former pressing the question of
future steps and the later stating such a discussion
premature. The attempt of the EU to shape the
Delhi Declaration in order to initiate a formal process
on broadening future commitments faced massive
opposition from the G77/China supported by
the US. The EU, echoed by Australia, Canada and
Japan, specified that it was not talking about imposing
emission reduction targets on developing countries
but, rather starting a process for a more inclusive,
broader and balanced participation in a future
climate change regime. Within the G77/China, the
AOSIS group responded favourably to the inclusion
of such a request in the Delhi Declaration. However,
the OPEC countries, Brazil, China and India,
imposed their view within the G77/China.. Also, the
European attempt confronted with the Indian idea of
an adaptation protocol within the Delhi Declaration,
an idea that was opposed by AOSIS within the
G77/China, but the Indian presidency of the COP
kept pressing the issue of adaptation. Finally, the
Delhi Declaration, as a compromise, just refers to
the Third Assessment Report conclusions while no
concrete additional measures were taken on adaptation
as a result of this conflict. On this item, and in
order to weaken the OPEC voice within the
G77/China, the EU would have to convince the
Low Developing Countries and Brazil that it is in
their interests to be involved in such a process by
starting an active dialogue with them, and by fulfilling
their technology, capacity building and funding
obligations.
Funding
At COP 7, parties decided to replenish the Global
Environmental Fund (GEF) and to establish three
new funds, the Special Climate Change Fund and
the Least Developing Countries Fund, both under
the Convention, and the Adaptation Fund under the
KP, to assist developing countries in meeting their
Convention commitments, while some developed
countries will contribute up to $ 410 million. 5 Furthermore,
it was decided that additional guidance to
the GEF for managing these new funds should be
adopted. During COP 8, concerns were raised by
developing countries regarding the condition criteria
for GEF funding which delays disbursement of
funds for projects. They pressed for a greater effectiveness
of existing funds to implement adaptation
projects, the adoption of detailed guidance to the
GEF on two of the new funds for a prompt start
and, for regular contributions to the funds. It was
recognised that there was possible inconsistencies
between COP guidance to the GEF and GEF decisions
on funding modalities. However, developing
and developed parties could not agree on the priorities
for the guidance’ s modalities.
Concerning the Special Climate Change Fund, the
adoption of guidance is postponed to COP 9, and
GEF current operational procedures would apply
until adoption of additional guidance. The provisional
decision promotes complementarity of the
funds, but ensures financial separation from other
funds.
As regards the LDC Fund, parties agreed on additional
guidance that request a speedy release and
disbursement of funds to assist LDC in preparing
their national adaptation programs of action and the
organisation of four regional workshops on the
advancement of the preparation of their national
adaptation programs of action.
Parties requested that the UNFCCC and GEF secretariats
undertake a comprehensive assessment of
developing countries needs and submit a report at
the SBI-20 meeting (in summer 2003). It also requests
GEF to review its project cycle with a view
to making it simpler and more efficient and to initiate
its third review of financial mechanisms at the
next SBI-21.
5 Namely the EU, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.