🚀 go-pugleaf

## Nachricht vom 29.07.97 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : K.THIELKING@P-KTHI.cl.sub.de
## Ersteller: larris@igc.apc.org


                          ECO NEWSLETTER

                           AGBM7 - BONN
                          NGO NEWSLETTER

                               AGBM7

                          July 29, 1997
                             ISSUE #2

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.            Ludwig
2.            NGO Intervention on Consultation
3.            Conference Reports
4.            Contacts
5.            Credits

Eco has been published by Non-Governmental Environmental Groups
at major international conferences since the Stockholm
Environment Conference in 1972. This issue is produced
co-operatively by CAN groups attending the climate negotiations
in Bonn, July-August 1997.

******************************************************************

Ludwig

In preparation for the crucial discussions at COP3, Ludwig has
begun testing his electronic eavesdropping equipment, disguised
as a couch outside yesterday's session. How fortunate that the
first 'customer' was our old friend Don Peerljman, lobbyist for
the rich and notorious, whose distinctive nasal grunts make a
good test for the prototype. Firing off at the most distinguished
delegate from Nigeria, he was exercising his usual discretion on
the subject of Executive Secretary Michael Zammit Cutajar, who,
according to Don, is a representative of that terror of US
amateur militia groups -- World Government (so watch out for
black helicopters over the Maritim). Still more heinous, however,
Michael is apparently "biased", as he, along with other members
of the Secretariat, is guilty of "believing in the Objectives of
the Convention".

******************************************************************

NGO Intervention on Consultation

The following is the text of the NGO statement delivered to this
afternoon's meeting.

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Delegates and NGOs:

On behalf of Climate Action Network, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to intervene on this important issue of
Mechanisms for Consultations with Non-Governmental Organizations.
We look forward to working with you, the Secretariat and the
Parties to create a living Convention in which all stakeholders
are able to participate in a meaningful, dynamic manner now and
long into the future. I will outline below our ideas for how to
move this issue forward in a constructive manner.

Principles

The Note by the Executive Secretary raises a number of
interesting questions in the discussion about NGO participation
in the Convention process. We would like to open the dialogue on
a number of core issues. The truth is that we currently have a
Convention with many observers who we really do not know. Due to
lack of specific information on the participants, we are not
clear on what their specific interest is in participating in the
process.

In order to get a clearer picture, we call for increased
transparency in the accreditation and registration process.
Specifically, each accredited observer should fill out a
questionnaire that asks for information on their membership and
the regions in which it is active, their funding sources and
assets, how many people work in the NGO's office and, in the case
of business NGOs, what types of business activities the group is
active in. This would allow us to begin to understand who is
already participating and who, perhaps, we may wish to involve
more fully in the future. This picture could be later
supplemented by requesting each accredited NGO to submit a report
or completed questionnaire on its activities in relation to the
Convention every 3 years . The Secretariat could facilitate this
process.

We would also request the Secretariat to explore other
Conventions regarding requirements that an NGO support the
objective and the implementation of those Conventions before it
is granted accredited status. This would seem a consistent and
logical requirement in order to obtain observer status in the
Climate Convention. Indeed, governments that have ratified the
Convention bind themselves to working toward the objective of the
Convention, why should observers be given any different
treatment? The current accreditation process should be reviewed
with the objective of the Convention in mind.

When we look into the future of an operational Climate
Convention, we envision wider participation than we have today.
In order to build a foundation for inclusion of further
constituencies, we should ascertain who they are and who they
could be. We therefore ask the Secretariat to assess
participation up to this point, with an eye to the future to
allow flexibility to include additional constituencies, and
propose a list of various constituencies for consideration. As a
matter of principle, any participation mechanism should provide
geographically-balanced input. For example, it could be
recommended that each constituency ensure that it has
participation from all of the UN-specified regions. This would
begin to address the extreme geographic imbalance of accredited
NGOs reflected in the Secretariat's document.

Improvement of Existing Mechanisms

In our view, the single most important thing to improve the
relationship between NGOs and the FCCC process would be to move
towards a more dynamic exchange between Parties and NGOs during
the meetings of the subsidiary bodies, the AGBM, and the COP. We
draw on the experience of the Montreal Protocol, the IPCC, the
Biodiversity Convention and the GEF. NGOs should, at the
discretion of the Chair, be able to intervene on specific agenda
items -- among Party interventions -- in order that their
viewpoints become part of the debate, not just after-the-fact
statements. SBSTA has begun this process with positive results.
The other bodies should therefore follow suit. This naturally
requires access to the floor of all Convention meetings.
Disruptive activities in the past from other constituencies
should not have the effect of excluding access for everyone else.

Access by NGOs to documentation

It goes without saying that all NGOs should have access to
documentation in a timely, effective manner. To reduce costs, a
choice could be given as to whether hard copy or electronic
copies are delivered.

Participation by NGOs in national processes

NGOs should be included in the drafting of national
communications, the indepth review process and capacity building
activities. These elements should be included in the revision of
national communication and indepth review guidelines. The SBI
should also encourage Parties to implement this on the national
level.

Possible New Mechanisms

The principle of parity is paramount not only in the Framework
Convention on Climate on Climate Change but throughout the entire
UN system. It is therefore beyond our comprehension why a
mechanism for only business NGOs, which allows only them to
submit their views in an unfiltered manner to the Parties, is
currently part of the Secretariat document. We would like to
believe this element of the paper is an unnoticed error and will
be deleted immediately.

We could rather envision a process by which the Secretariat,
Parties or the Chairperson of a body to the Convention ask for
NGO input on specific issues, perhaps through an internet list
server. Accredited NGOs could then respond to this request
electronically which could then be placed on the UNFCCC website.
This would provide for the inclusion of unfiltered views for each
NGO in an egalitarian manner. Anything else is, honestly,
unacceptable.

Policy Dialogue Forums

In short, we would welcome some form of policy dialogue forums if
a few elements were added.

* The agenda should be set in direct consultation with NGOs to
ensure focus on issues they ascertain as paramount.

* Minutes to the meeting should be distributed by the Secretariat
to the Parties in a suitable format such as a misc or inf.
document and taken note of in the conclusions of the subsidiary
bodies.

* The Trust Fund for Supplementary Activities should be utilized
to ensure developing country NGO participation in the forums.

* The Secretariat should consider holding regional consultations,
thus reaching new constituencies not able to come to Bonn.

Such forums would create an opportunity for NGOs and Parties to
have a dialogue on timely and tough issues on a more formal
basis. This has been most effective in other Conventions (e.g.
the Global Biodiversity Forum). These forums could take place
before the Conference of the Parties or when relevant meetings
occur, and offer an opportunity for increased participation in
Convention processes.

Mr. Chairman, we all have an opportunity to build a base for a
well-functioning, inclusive Convention. We look forward to
working with you on this mission.

******************************************************************

Conference Reports

SBSTA

SBSTA began Monday morning (after six attempts!) by electing Mr.
Sok Appadu from Mauritius as Vice-Chairman and Mr. Gomez from
Colombia a Rapporteur.

Annex 1 national communications are apparently coming in at a
glacial pace: only five of them on time, with more than half (due
on April 15) still to come. Only two non-Annex I communications
(Jordan and Argentine) have yet been delivered.

Two informal contact groups were set up, an open ended one on
methodological issues such as the different work of SBSTA and
other intergovernmental bodies. The EU wanted to concentrate on
policies and measure (adequacy and projections of their overall
effects) and emission reduction potentials. The US and Japan
wanted more work on inventories and projections, with, in the
same breath, the US complaining about the budget needed to do
this essential work.

The second contact group on division of labor between SBSTA and
SBI, comprised members of both groups. Some Parties seemed to be
pushing for the SBSTA's policy advice role to be reduced. This
seems strange in view of the importance of this function,
especially now that new science is transmitted to AGBM policy
makers through SBSTA. Several developing countries rightly
pointed to the need to accelerate the debate on technology
transfer, the present lack of which is a breach of Convention
commitments. Canada tried to dodge the subject by asking for
clearer definition of tech transfer is (if you don't know by now,
you haven't done it! Breach of commitments, guys!)

The afternoon session once more spent much unproductive time
discussing activities implemented jointly (AIJ). The US, backed
by New Zealand, predictably affirmed that failure to discuss
crediting was already harming the JI process, with the US also
suggesting that without JI there would be no significant tech
transfer (blackmail?). The EU wanted independent monitoring,
while the US found its own monitoring quite sufficient.

China and Russia said more experience was needed before decisions
could be made, and the Chair agreed. Zimbabwe proposed some
useful criteria for projects, while Samoa and China pointed out
that the existing projects are not representative and cannot
therefore be used as examples for a global regime. As the debate
came to no conclusion a contact group was formed to try to reach
a compromise.

SBI

After a very late start, the SBI spent most of the first session
reviewing the two-year budget for the Secretariat. Executive
Secretary Michael Zammit Cutajar presented a combined budget of
$21.5 million for 1998-99. The Secretariat's budget, reduced
since presented in February, is still markedly higher than the
1997 budget. Although the Secretariat attempted to modify the
budget to address concerns of the parties expressed during SBI-5,
many parties expressed concerns over both the size of the budget
and what needs it failed to address. China rightly highlighted
the omission of funding for COP-4 from the budget. The EU
expressed its concern over the size of the proposed budget,
claiming that it called for a 50% increase in funding during a
time where the number of meetings to be supported by the
Secretariat would be significantly less during the next budget
period. However, the Executive Secretary said that this budget
"reflects what the Secretariat has been mandated to produce." He
also reported that the participation fund was chronically short
of money and that they don't even have cash in hand for October.
Some Parties eligible for the fund have not yet contributed to
the budget for 1997, and still some have not even done so for
1996. Several Parties stated that they needed an opportunity to
consult after haven taken more time to look at the documents.

To wind up the morning session, the Secretariat presented a
proposal on reducing the volume of documentation. This proposal
contains a number of measures for reducing the costs and burden
of handling documentation by the Secretariat. In an attempt to
further reduce the cost of disseminating documentation, Australia
suggested that Parties be given the option of receiving official
documentation only by electronic means. Switzerland added a
request that all documents be posted on the Secretariat's WWW
page in both French and English.

Discussions continued in the afternoon, as the Executive
Secretary gave a more colorful presentation during an informal
session. Despite this multimedia event, several parties, notably
the US and the EU, again expressed reservations over the size and
the allocation of funds for the Secretariat. However, in their
zeal to reduce the size of the budget, both the Parties and the
Secretariat should not be overzealous in cutting essential
elements such as the methodological work -- the bread and butter
of the Convention.

******************************************************************

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For enquiries and response to ECO:

Eco can be contacted at:

ECO Editorial Office
Gustav-Stresemann Institut
Langer Grabenweg 68
53175 Bonn
Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 228-373080
Fax: +49 (0) 228-8107197
email: asieghart@gn.apc.org

ECO is available electronically via the following routes:
  World Wide Web      http://www.igc.apc.org/climate/Eco.html
  anonymous ftp       ftp://ftp.igc.apc.org/pub/ECO
  gopher              gopher://gopher.igc.apc.org:70/11/environment/climate
  APC networks        conferences <climate.news> and <climate.forum>
  Usenet              newsgroup sci.environment
  email               by request to larris@igc.apc.org

For information about ECO on WWW or adobe Acrobat files, contact 
Richard Elen, email: relen@igc.apc.org

For information about electronic mail, conference distribution, ftp,
and gopher availability of ECO, contact: Lelani Arris, 
email: larris@igc.apc.org.

A glossary of terms used in ECO can be obtained via anonymous ftp (see
above) or by email from larris@igc.apc.org.

******************************************************************

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Editorial/Production: Alister Sieghart, Elderon Bartholomew

World Wide Web Edition: Richard Elen

Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet

North American Distribution: Wes Dowling & EESI

Published by: The Climate Action Network.

THANKS

The Climate Action Network would like to thank the Environment
Ministries of Germany and the Netherlands, who have provided
funding for Eco.