1

Technical paper

Summary of the Bangkok Climate Change Talks

(03 April – 09 April 2011)

Prepared by: Daniela Stoycheva- climate change policy advisor UNDP BRC

Bratislava, Slovakia, 12 April 2011

2

Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................3

1. Pre-sessional Workshops: ......................................................................................................3

1.1. Workshop on assumptions and conditions related to the attainment of quantified economy-

wide reduction target by developed country Parties- (Workshop on Annex I mitigation targets) ...3

1.2. Workshop on nationally appropriate mitigation actions submitted by developing country

Parties, underlying assumptions, and any support needed for implementation of these actions -

(Workshop on NAMAs) ..............................................................................................................4

1.3. Expert workshop on the technology mechanism - (Technology workshop) .........................6

2. Sessions of the Ad-hoc Working Groups ................................................................................7

2.1. The AWG-LCA 14 (work programme) ..............................................................................7

2.2. The AWG-KP 16 (work programme) ................................................................................9

3

Introduction

The sixteenth session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I

Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP16) and the fourteenth session of the Ad hoc

Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA14), as well as three workshops

pursuant to the Cancun Agreements, took place from Sunday, 3 April through Friday, 8 April in

Bangkok, Thailand.

The talks concluded after two days of workshops followed by four days of negotiations.

About 2,000 participants from 175 countries, including government delegates, representatives

from business and industry, environmental organisations and research institutions, attended the

Bangkok climate talks, the first round of negotiations after the 16 COP/6CMP in Cancun,

Mexico.

The work towards a comprehensive and balanced outcome at the UN Climate Change

Conference in Durban at the end of the year is carried out under the two Ad-hoc Working groups

which main tasks are:

AWG-KP: the resolution of key issues concerning the commitments of the developed

countries under the Kyoto Protocol; in particular, overcoming the danger that there will

be no legally binding limitations on emissions for any countries after the end of the first

commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (avoiding gap between first and second

commitment period)

AWG-LCA: delivering on the Cancun Agreements to ensure that the institutions and

frameworks required therein are in place in 2012 in accordance with the deadlines set out

Additional meetings of the AWGs and SBs (subsidiary bodies) are planned for late September,

early October this year, place to be chosen (so far between Nairobi and Bangkok).

1. Pre-sessional Workshops:

1.1. Workshop on assumptions and conditions related to the attainment of quantified economy-

wide reduction target by developed country Parties, as requested by decision 1/CP.16 – held

on 3 April 2011 - (Workshop on Annex I mitigation targets)

This workshop was the first of the series of workshops on mitigation targets of developed

countries mandated by the Cancun Agreements (paragraph 38 of 1/CP.16)

The developed countries (EU, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, US, Russia, Poland, Japan,

Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, France, Iceland and UK) delivered the message that they

will fulfill their commitments for the first commitment period, already have the necessary

policies and measures in place for meeting their future targets, and majority of them

explained why their higher range of pledges are conditional (global agreement, including all

major economies, rules on LULUCF, use of offsets). Japan assured the audience that it will

continue to pay serious attention to the climate change even though after the recent disaster

they have to reconsider all their policies. US presentation was devoted mostly to the domestic

action and legislation to be adopted, yet it is not known when it may be in place. It stressed

4

that current administration is committed to the 17% target reduction in 2020 compared to

2005, however the final target of the US will be formally announced to the Secretariat only

when the relevant legislation is enacted. The issue of decoupling of GDP growth from GHG

emission growth was also presented by most of the developed countries and later discussed

during the Q&A session, pointing out by some developing countries that decoupling is

possible only after certain level of development is achieved.

Four presentations from developing countries (Brazil, Micronesia, India, Bolivia) have

stressed that conversion of pledges to quantified emission limitations and reduction

objectives (QELROs) should be clarified and be based on one single base year, issue of

supplementarity be considered (need for clarity on domestic effort), comparability and

ambition should be assessed top down based on the internationally adopted rigorous rules.

Bolivia was advocating that with current pledges the burden is transferred to developing

countries. Many developing countries in their statements from the floor and St. Lucia (for a

the Alliance of Small Island States – AOSIS) in its presentation emphasized the need to

increase the ambition of developed countries targets so to close the gap between current

pledges and those required by science.

In the discussion, many issues have been raised: the role of LULUCF, management of

offsets, projections based on uncertainty regarding future rules, importance of proper

accounting.

Despite of numerous presentations workshop did not provide a broader view neither on

aggregate emission reductions of Annex I Parties and methodologies of their calculations nor

on the ways how to raise the level of ambition to close the gap.

More information could be found on: http://unfccc.int/conference_programme/items/5884.php

Written report of the workshop is going to be prepared by the facilitators.

1.2. Workshop on nationally appropriate mitigation actions submitted by developing country

Parties, underlying assumptions, and any support needed for implementation of these

actions, as requested by decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 51 - held on 4 April 2011 -

(Workshop on NAMAs)

During a second day`s workshop a number of presentations of countries and groups of

countries provided better understanding on the diversity of the nationally appropriate

mitigation actions (NAMAs) submitted by developing country and their on the ground

actions. There were as well explanations on some underlying assumptions on preparation of

NAMAs, and finance, technology and capacity-building support needed for their

implementation. There was a clear consensus amongst the participants that the objective of

the workshop (the first “round” of such workshops) was met.

Some common driving paradigms for the development of NAMAs were pointed out, such as

voluntarily submitted; sustainable development as a guiding principle together with the

5

economic growth; poverty eradication; importance of agriculture sector, mix of public

finance and carbon finance and the need for international support.

The submitted NAMAs of non-Annex I parties so far are in a different form – from absolute

numbers of reduction from a base year, percentage of deviation from the business as usual

(BAU), energy intensity, carbon intensity, absolute numbers of tones of CO2eqv reduced,

measures in sectors, to individual projects. (Relevant document:

FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1) This makes difficult to make calculations on the possible

aggregate emission reductions or those in some cases of an individual country.

Presentations (Mexico, China, Ghana, India, Republic of Korea, Peru, AOSIS, Singapore,

South Africa, Australia, Marshall Islands, Bangladesh, Brazil) identified enormous diversity

in actions (from simple measures as cook stoves to economy wide low-emission development

strategies and plans, including economic instruments as emission trading schemes), as well as

identified broad diversion in national circumstances. Significant part of the presented

NAMAs was announced to be domestically implemented (considering the fact that some of

the countries are advanced developing countries). It was stressed that with international

support developing countries will be able to deliver more emission reductions. (Presentations

are available at: http://unfccc.int/meetings/awg/items/5928.php)

Some common barriers were identified, such as lack of initial finance, assess to finance,

human capacity, expertise in methodological issues, socio-economic problems, institutional

problems. There was a discussion if common guidelines (on BAU, MRV, reporting) are

needed (with some flexibility for different groups of countries) or given the wide diversity of

national circumstances it will be left to the countries to decide. Some parties proposed

common guidelines to be developed also for construction of baseline scenarios for Business-

as-usual development, however, this was strongly opposed by some other parties,

emphasizing that the national conditions and assumptions are so divers that common

guidelines could not bring any value added to the process.

As methodological problems for NAMAs development were outlined: setting BAU,

methodologies to quantify emission, costing of the measures, identifying domestically

implemented NAMAs and supported ones, technology needs, format of NAMAs, use of

approaches – top down and bottom up, or a mix of two, lack of reliable inventory data.

All the presenters stressed the need to involve at an early stage all the relevant stakeholder,

and importantly ministries of finance and planning. All the NAMAs were reported to be

broadly discussed.

There were brief discussions on the registry, matching mechanism, interactions between

NAMAs and carbon mechanisms, methodological issues, what is considered as a

international support (South Africa wants to see bills in economy-wide investments, not only

feasibility studies). It was mentioned that in some cases there is an overlap of the activities of

the donors in identifying NAMAs in the same country.

6

It was decided that a written report will be produced for the workshop to be sent to the AWG

LCA and SBI, and in terms of future work: more workshops are needed considering;

workshops should be more focused on specific themes and better guided, directing better

presentations with some preliminary questions (more focus on BAU, registry, domestically

and internationally supported NAMAs), stakeholder participation (involving countries, which

have NAMAs, but without pledges; more experts and observer organizations), translation in

other than English UN languages. Financing of such workshops and time frames (how they

correlate to the negotiation process) are problematic at the moment.

Although the workshop was found very useful and fruitful, it might be said that issues more

of relevance for the negotiations (registry, domestic vs. international support, and

methodological issues) were not broadly discussed and without proposals to be brought to the

formal sessions. The issue of language was also raised by francophone countries asking for

interpretation and translation of the workshops results so to enable full participation also for

those for who English is not mother tongue. The Secretariat promised to search for available

fund to provide interpreting services for future workshops, however, they also pointed out

that the current budget does not include any intersessional meetings, or additional workshops.

Countries from the region could consider delivering a presentation at a future NAMA

workshop, showing their experience and expertise in the area.

1.3. Expert workshop on the technology mechanism as requested by decision 1/CP.16,

paragraph 129 – held on 4 and 5 April 20011- (Technology workshop)

The workshop was very practical and dynamic with participants presenting their ideas and

exchanging views on how to achieve a fully operational Technology Mechanism by 2012. This

means to work hard this year to define:

the terms of reference and governance structure for the Climate Technology Centre and

Network

the criteria and selection procedure for the host of the Climate Technology Centre and

Network

the linkages between the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology

Centre and Network to ensure coherence, and the reporting lines of these two bodies

within the Convention

how we are going to finance the Technology Mechanism

how the Technology Mechanism is going to interact with other parts of the international

climate change architecture in the most efficient and effective way

The workshop showed high level of convergence among Parties on many aspects of the

design of the Climate Technology Centre and Network. The workshop also helped to

identify those issues where further dialogue among Parties is needed in order to achieve

an agreed outcome in Durban, such as terms of reference, governance structure and procedure

for proposals and criteria for selecting a host for CTCN.

7

Many participants emphasised the need for a prompt start to Technology Mechanism.

Participants suggested that the CTCN could start small and be flexible so that it can grow over

time in response to the needs from developing countries.

All participants emphasised that the Technology Mechanism must engage the private sector at

many levels, and leverage its expertise and resources to accelerate and scale up technology

development and transfer.

There will be a written report from the workshop prepared by the facilitators. More information

at: http://unfccc.int/meetings/awg/items/5928.php

2. Sessions of the Ad-hoc Working Groups

2.1. The AWG-LCA 14 (work programme)

As a main outcome of Bangkok climate change negotiations could be considered the agreed

agenda (FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/L.1), which presents a road map for this year's UN climate

change negotiations up to Durban, South Africa at the end of 2011.

It became apparent early on in the session that there were critical differences in opinion about

what needs to be achieved this year, and the process that needs to be followed to get there.

Two opposing views came forward:

that the Cancun Agreements narrowed the focus for this year and provided us with a path

forward towards developing the frameworks for the key aspects that need to be brought

together for agreement in Durban later this year;

that the Cancun Agreements provide agreement on the way forward for only some

aspects of the breadth of the work of the AWG-LCA as defined in the Bali Action Plan,

and as such the agenda for this year needs to be broadly inclusive of the other matters

referred to the AWG-LCA in Bali so as to have a comprehensive package agreed in

Durban.

The provisional agenda proposed by the chair of the AWG-LCA reflects the former view. It was

added to on five occasions before the meeting, and even more agenda items were proposed from

the floor at the beginning of the meeting.

This draft agenda was (perhaps unsurprisingly) not acceptable to many developing countries,

leading to the G77and China (a group representing some 131 developing countries) proposing an

alternative agenda. This proposal was a brief statement reflecting the broader authorities of the

AWG-LCA as laid down in the Bali Action Plan, rather than the narrower developments in

Cancun.

A number of parties, including Switzerland on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Group,

Norway and Japan, and many others expressed the view that the G77 proposal was too broad,

fragmented, and would dilute efforts to achieve what is required by the end of the year, a

comprehensive agreement in Durban. The USA was the most strongly opposed to the G77

proposal. Tajikistan, Egypt, Republic of Congo, Venezuela, Tuvalu, Chile, Kuwait, Bolivia,

China and many other developing countries supported their proposal advocating that is broader

than Cancun Agreements and thus it does not exclude any items from potential discussion later

on this year. As the views were not compatible on having more or less comprehensive agenda,

8

the informal consultations and coordination took place for almost the rest of the time in

Bangkok.

Towards the end of negotiations for the evening on the agenda, there was increasing support for

a compromise position. The European Union in particular noted that the agenda should not treat

the Cancun Agreements as a ceiling that should form the basis of what is worked upon

throughout this year, but rather it should be a floor upon which to build a more comprehensive

agreement. Mr. Runge-Metzger said: “We had the agenda fight because there are some who see

the Cancun agreement as the end of the road, but for us it was a step forward because otherwise

it would be meaningless. We needed to give that reassurance to developing countries.”

At the end, as a compromise proposal based on consultations new provisional agenda has been

presented by the Chair (FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/L.1). This proposal was adopted by parties at the

stocktaking plenary on the 8 April. The final agenda is mainly based on the G&&&China

proposal with few amendments.

The substantive items of the provisional agenda are as follows:

“3. Preparation of a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of

the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session to enable the full, effective and sustained

implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action now, up to and beyond

2012, pursuant to the results of the thirteenth and sixteenth sessions of the Conference of the

Parties and recognizing that the work of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative

Action under the Convention includes both implementation tasks and issues that are still to be

concluded:

3.1 A Shared Vision for long-term cooperative action;

3.2 Enhanced action on mitigation:

3.2.1 Nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions by developed country Parties;

3.2.2. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties;

3.2.3. Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from

deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation,

sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing

countries;

3.2.4. Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector specific actions, in order to enhance the

implementation of Article 4.1.c of the Convention;

3.2.5. Various approaches, including opportunities for using markets, to enhance the cost

effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions, bearing in mind different circumstances of

developed and developing countries;

3.2.6. Economic and social consequences of response measures;

3.3. Enhanced action on adaptation;

3.4. Finance;

3.5. Technology development and transfer;

3.6. Capacity-building.

4. Review: further definition of its scope and development of its modalities.

9

5. Continued discussion of legal options with the aim of completing an agreed outcome based on

decision 1/CP.13, the work done at the sixteenth session of the Conference of the Parties and

proposals made by Parties under Article 17 of the Convention.

6. Other matters:

(a) Parties included in Annex I to the Convention undergoing the process of transition to a

market economy;

(b) Parties included in Annex I to the Convention whose special circumstances are recognized by

the Conference of the Parties.”

It could be easily observed that the above agenda is quite general, do not include issues of an

interest for the USA (MRV), and might need additional negotiating time, to clarify the content of

each item.

Hopefully it still contains the issues of concern for the EITs and Turkey. However the necessary

preparation should take place in order those countries to achieve their goals.

The previously submitted NAMAs and economy-wide emission reduction targets from the

countries in the region of Eastern Europe and CIS are in the Annex 1 to this document. The

Annex is based on the document prepared by the UNFCCC Secretariat “Compilation of

information on nationally appropriate mitigation actions to be implemented by Parties not

included in Annex I to the Convention” (FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1) and for Annex I

“Compilation of economy-wide emission reduction targets to be implemented by Parties

included in Annex I to the Convention” (FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1).

2.2. The AWG-KP 16 (work programme)

There was a disappointment that the talks could not reach a resolution on many issues, especially

the future of the Kyoto Protocol that has proved to be weak even at Cancun last December. The

first round of emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol is due to expire at the

end of 2012, and in order not to have a gap, at the latest second commitment period should be

agreed in Durban.

Just as the chair gaveled the AWG-KP agenda Tuvalu objected. Tuvalu was of the view that

there should be one thing on the agenda only, namely ensuring that there should not be a gap

between the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and any subsequent commitments by

developed country parties under the Kyoto Protocol. The agenda was still approved while noting

the objection of Tuvalu. Tuvalu's suggestion was not breaking off into small technical groups

(spin off groups) but rather to obtain political commitment on the Second Commitment period

(SCP).

There was a call to the developed countries to express their positions towards the second

commitment period.

Of all the developed countries, only the European Union noted its willingness to agree to a

second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol and restated its pledge. However chief EU

negotiator Arthur Runge-Metzger said Europe could not deal with climate change on its own.

“Ideally, we would like a single legal framework, but it looks as if that‟s impossible. So we want

other countries to do something, whether under Kyoto or some other way.”

10

The Umbrella group (Australia, Norway, Canada, Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine)

stressed that the work of the AWG-KP should be considered alongside that of the AWG-LCA,

meaning basically that agreeing to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol is

contingent upon agreements reached by all parties to commit to a framework for further action

under the UNFCCC and outside of the Kyoto Protocol.

Japan and Russia reiterated in Bangkok that they would not agree to a “second commitment

period” under Kyoto, although both countries said they would be willing to consider

participating in a wider global deal involving major developing countries, such as China and

India.

The US position is even stronger: not only will it never sign up for a Kyoto SCP, but it doesn‟t

even see the need for a binding international agreement, as President Obama‟s climate change

envoy Todd Stern made very clear in New York on Wednesday night.

Many developing countries expressed their view with the statement that discussions surrounding

a second Kyoto commitment period under the AWG-KP should not be contingent upon

developments in the AWG-LCA. The delegate from Saudi Arabia summed it up with the

Shakespearian phrase "to KP or not to KP, this is not a question".

Developed countries continue to argue that taking new pledges makes little sense if others,

especially advanced developing countries, do not take steps to curb emissions growth.

Quite a lot of time was allocated to the so called rules. The commitment of the developed Parties

as well as the possibility to reach the necessary global emission reduction depend on the rules

under which their numbers are calculated (this includes LULUCF rules, use of emission trading

and mechanisms, list of gases, banking of AAUs). The developed countries were arguing that

they cannot make final announcement of their pledges before the rules are known and that if

rules defined later that may undermine the environmental integrity of the Kyoto protocol (the

way it happened with the Marrakech Accords). Developing countries were of the view that the

current rules could be applied.

To facilitate the discussions the chair prepared a set of questions by the chair and questions

posed by the Parties (see below). From the questions posed by the Parties only question 1a (i)

and (ii) received time for discussions. Answers to those and the rest will be further sought in

Bonn.

The questions presented by the chair were:

Amendments to the Protocol pursuant to its Article 3.9 (“Numbers”)

o How do the decisions adopted in Cancun contribute to reaching an agreement on

the second commitment period? What is a practical way forward to achieve

clarity?

o What is needed to achieve clarity on the conversion of pledges to quantified

economy-wide limitation or reduction commitments?

o What steps are needed to raise the level of ambition in the targets proposed by

Annex I Parties? Will the global goal under the Convention assist in this regard?

11

o What can help resolve the question of whether commitments or rules should come

first?

LULUCF

o What is the quantitative impact of different LULUCF rules and modalities on the

level of Annex I emission reduction targets? To what extent can the choice of

rules lead to greater ambition?

Emission trading and the mechanisms

o Supplementarity: What are the objectives that would be achieved through

introducing quantified limits on the use of flexible mechanisms?

o Share of proceeds: In light of the decisions taken in Cancun how should this issue

best be handled in order to achieve progress in Durban?

Basket of methodological issues

o What is needed to decide on the list of gases and associated metrics for the second

commitment period?

Potential consequences

o What are the implications for the AWG-KP of the workprogramme on response

measures under the SBI and SBSTA? ?

Questions posed by Parties

1a. Considering the outcome in Cancun and the implementation of 1/CMP.6:

i. What pre-conditions have been met by the Cancun outcome that will enable your

country (in particular Annex I Parties) to adopt a second commitment period of

the Kyoto Protocol?

ii. What further pre-conditions are necessary for your country (in particular Annex I

Parties) to adopt a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol?

1b. What is necessary for these pre-conditions identified in questions 1a.ii to be met before

Durban?

1c. In your country`s perspective, what are the fundamental technical issues that need to be

resolved before Durban?

2. How do we get the political clarity needed by June?

3. LULUCF: Should there be a cap on LULUCF crediting? Yes or No?

12

4. Should we place a limit on carry-over? Yes of No?

5. Basket: Are we included new gases? Yes or No?

6. Pledge to QELROs: Length of the second commitment period? Is it 5 or 8 yrs?

7. Mechanisms: Should we have suplemmentarity criteria?

8. What rules are working with? The context needs to be made clear – within KP or not?

9. If ideal conditions are met for the rules – what would be the process to confirm

commitment in Durban?

10. Without a second or third commitment period, is there any meaning for the Kyoto

Protocol? What is the legal meaning of the Protocol in the absence of a commitment

period?

13

Annex 1: Table on the compilation of the mitigation measures submitted countries from the EE and CIS

under the AWG-LCA and the SBs before the meeting in Bangkok

Non Annex I NAMAs to be implemented by non Annex I - FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1

Armenia 18. Armenia communicated the following NAMAs:

(a) The implementation of the National Programme on Energy Saving and Renewable Energy of the

Republic of Armenia (2007), which aims to:

(i) Increase energy production from renewable sources;

(ii) Modernize thermal power plants;

(iii) Improve energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy;

(iv) Improve energy efficiency in buildings and construction;

(v) Decrease the loss of methane (CH4) during gas transportation and from gas delivery systems;

(b) In the transport sector, expand the use of electrical transport and increase the share of natural gas in

fuel used for motorized transport;

(c) Decrease CH4 emissions from solid municipal waste and wastewater;

(d) Restore degraded forests, reduce deforestation, sustain soil CO2 content and ensure its increase,

and promote afforestation.

19. Armenia stated that its communication is made under the explicit understanding that the preamble

of the Copenhagen Accord contains a reference to decision 1/CP.15, on the Ad Hoc Working Group

on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWGLCA),

and decision 1/CMP.5, on the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties

under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), which requests the continuance of the two-track negotiating

process.

Azerbaijan No submission

Albania No submission

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

No submission

Georgia Georgia communicated the following NAMAs:

(a) To establish NAMAs in the context of sustainable development and to

achieve a measurable, reportable and verifiable deviation from the baseline (below „business as usual‟

levels);

(b) To establish the baseline or reference case against which the action shall be measured, reported and

verified;

(c) To develop a low-carbon growth plan and low-carbon strategy, in particular through the use of

renewable energy investments and global cooperation;

(d) To support the CDM as one of the most important means for further cooperation in the field of

NAMAs, since the CDM holds the potential to lead to significant investments, better environmental

performance, job creation and poverty alleviation.

68. Georgia also communicated that all mitigation actions implemented by Georgia will be voluntary

and supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable

and verifiable manner, through existing mechanisms, the Technology Mechanism, and other

mechanisms established by the Copenhagen Accord.

Kazakhstan No submission

Kyrgyzstan No submission

FYR of

Macedonia

158. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia communicated the following NAMAs, derived

from its second national communication:

(a) GHG emission reductions in the electric power sector:

(i) The harmonization and implementation of European Union legislation on energy and climate:

• Energy and climate package;

• The liberalization of energy markets (electricity and gas);

(ii) Ensuring stability in the energy supply with investment activities for building new large-scale

hydroelectric power plants:

• Boskov Most hydroelectric power plant;

• Galiste hydroelectric power plant;

• Cebren hydroelectric power plant;

(iii) Ensuring stability in the energy supply with investment activities for building new thermal gas

14

power plants:

• Skopje CHP (230 MW);

• CC GAS (200–300 MW);

(iv) Increasing the share of renewable energy in the energy sector:

• Small-scale hydroelectric power plants;

• Wind power plants;

• Biomass electricity and PV panels;

(v) The improvement of energy efficiency:

• Building plants for the production of CHP;

• Measures for reducing losses in the transmission and distribution of

electricity;

• Measures taken by electricity consumers (e.g. the introduction of more

energy-efficient lamps, electric appliances);

(b) GHG emission reductions in the industrial energy transformation and heating sector:

(i) Reducing the use of carbon-intensive fuels:

• The replacement of coal with liquid or gaseous fuels; the replacement

of liquid fuels with gaseous fuels;

(ii) The improvement of energy efficiency and energy savings:

• The improvement of the energy efficiency of boiler plants with

permanent maintenance;

• The replacement of old equipment in boiler rooms with regular

revitalization work;

• The installation of measurement–regulation equipment and automatic

control systems;

• Better insulation, maintaining clean heat-exchanging surfaces;

• The utilization of heat content in flue gases;

• The reduction of losses in fluid transportation systems;

• The heat insulation of pipelines for the transport of water, steam,

fuels, etc.;

• The reduction of specific energy consumption in industry through the

introduction of up-to-date technologies and processes;

• The improvement of the performance of the thermal cycle;

• The improvement of standards for the construction of buildings, better

insulation and the use of high-quality materials;

(iii) Increasing the contribution of renewable energy sources in the country‟s energy balance:

• The utilization of waste biomass as an energy source and as a raw

material for the production of briquettes and pellets;

• The installation of dozens of boiler units using waste biomass in the

agro-industry complex, the industry sector and households;

• The rehabilitation, revitalization and expansion of the Geoterma-

Kochani geothermal system;

• The revitalization of other systems using geothermal energy;

• The introduction of solar energy systems for heating and hot water supply (in hotels, hospitals,

schools, public buildings, health resorts, etc.);

(iv) Awareness-raising of the final consumers:

• The reduction of energy consumption in households through energy saving measures;

• The reduction of electricity use for heating;

• The introduction of measurement equipment and charging in

accordance with consumption;

(c) GHG emission reductions in the transport sector:

(i) The improvement of the overall efficiency of the transport sector and the energy efficiency of

vehicles:

• The revitalization, extension and better maintenance of the road and

railway infrastructure;

• Extending the electrification of the railway network;

• The modernization of the vehicle fleet;

• Encouraging the wider use of alternative fuels and other power systems (LPG, CNG, biodiesel,

15

hybrid vehicles, etc.);

(ii) The improvement of public urban and intercity transport systems:

• The improvement of the planning, organization and control of traffic;

• Measures for the regulation of traffic in central urban areas;

• The modernization of transport equipment for the public;

• The synchronization of road signalization in towns;

• The introduction of automated pay toll charging;

• The introduction of electric modes of transport (i.e. tramways);

• Railway transport – the electrification of the railway network;

(iii) The harmonization of the national legislation regarding the transport sector, in accordance with

European Union directives:

• Energy and climate package (biofuels);

• The regulation of fuel quality in accordance with the European Union

requirements;

(d) GHG emission reductions in the waste sector:

(i) GHG emission reductions at existing landfills, including the installation of CH4 recovery and

flaring systems at some selected landfills;

(ii) The improvement of possibilities for efficient CH4 recovery:

• The construction of regional solid waste disposal sites;

(iii) The reduction of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions:

• The implementation of legal measures for the restriction of economic

activities, including the uncontrolled burning of waste;

• Raising public awareness with regard to restrictions on the

uncontrolled burning of waste;

(iv) The reduction of CH4 emissions from wastewater:

• The expansion of the wastewater treatment plant network;

(e) GHG emission reductions in the agriculture and forestry sectors:

(i) Enabling favourable preconditions for GHG emission reductions (laws, bylaws, institutional

measures, support measures):

• The transposition and implementation of the European Union

Common Agricultural Policy legislation;

• The completion of institutional and legal reforms in the irrigation

sector;

• Increasing institutional and individual capacities for the application of

available European Union funds;

• The development of a system for the application of good agricultural

practices;

• Financial support in order to motivate farmers to use mitigation

technologies;

(ii) The introduction/development of GHG mitigation technologies in

agriculture:

• The installation of CH4 recovery and flaring systems at selected farms;

• A research support programme for the development of new mitigation

technologies and the transfer of existing ones;

• A programme for the introduction of practices that harness the

potential of the agriculture sector for the use of renewable energy and carbon sequestration;

(f) Programmatic CDM projects:

(i) Strengthening the national and local capacities for carbon financing:

• Training with regard to the CDM potential in the agriculture sector;

• Training with regard to the preparation of CDM documentation;

(ii) Education (of experts/farmers/decision makers) with regard to the application of mitigation

measures/technologies in the agriculture sector:

• Upgrading the current curricula and syllabus with climate change

mitigation issues;

• Training farmers with regard to the adoption of new technologies;

• Familiarizing the public and institutions with the problems of climate

change mitigation;

16

(iii) The implementation of the national strategic documents in the forestry sector:

• Forestation and reforestation;

• Prevention measures against fires;

• The prevention of illegal felling.

Montenegro No submission

Moldova 151. The Republic of Moldova communicated that it would reduce its total national GHG emissions

by no less than 25 per cent compared with the base year (1990) level by 2020 through the

implementation of global economic mechanisms focused on climate change mitigation, in accordance

with the principles and provisions of the Convention.

Serbia No submission

Tajikistan 157. Tajikistan communicated the following NAMAs:

(a) The preparation of a GHG inventory;

(b) The improvement of energy-efficient technologies in buildings and

constructions;

(c) Support for:

• Mitigation measures;

(d) Projects on capacity-building and technology transfer;

(e) The development of low-carbon growth through the introduction of renewable energy sources.

Turkey No submission

Turkmenistan No submission

Uzbekistan No submission

Annex I Economy-wide emission reduction targets to

be implemented by Annex I Parties - FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1

Belarus 6. Belarus communicated a target of a 5–10 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 1990

levels, which is premised on: the existence of and access of Belarus to the flexibility mechanisms

under the Kyoto Protocol; the intensification of technology transfer, capacity-building and enhancing

the experience of Belarus, taking into consideration the special conditions of the Annex I Parties

undergoing the process of transition to a market economy; as well as there being clarity on the use of

new rules and modalities for land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

Russian

Federation

23. The Russian Federation communicated a target within the range of a 15–25 per cent emission

reduction by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. The range of its GHG emission reductions will depend

on the following conditions:

(a) Appropriate accounting of the potential of Russia‟s forestry sector in the context of its contribution

to meeting the obligations of anthropogenic emission reductions;

(b) The undertaking by all major emitters of the legally binding obligations to reduce anthropogenic

GHG emissions.

Ukraine 25. Ukraine communicated a target of a 20 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 1990

levels and associated itself with the Copenhagen Accord under the following conditions:

(a) That developed countries have an agreed position on the quantified emission reduction targets of

Annex I Parties;

(b) That Ukraine maintains its status as a country with an economy in transition and the relevant

preferences arising from such status;

(c) That the existing flexibility mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol are kept;

(d) That 1990 is kept as the single base year for calculating Parties‟

commitments;

(e) That the provisions of Article 3, paragraph 13, of the Kyoto Protocol are used for the calculation of

the quantified emission reductions of the Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol for the relevant

commitment period.

Turkey No submission