🚀 go-pugleaf

## Nachricht vom 31.07.97 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : K.THIELKING@P-KTHI.cl.sub.de
## Ersteller: larris@igc.apc.org


                          ECO NEWSLETTER

                           AGBM7 - BONN
                          NGO NEWSLETTER

                               AGBM7

                            July 31, 1997
                             ISSUE #3

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.            Editorial: Don't Take the Bait!
2.            Conference Reports
3.            South Cuts Faster Than North?
4.            The Plot Thickens...
5.            Good News: Help May Be Coming!
6.            Ludwig
7.            Contacts
8.            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.

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

Editorial

Don't Take the Bait!

Since COP1 in Berlin, US "brown" industry have pursued a cynical
strategy aimed at polarizing these negotiations along North-South
lines. They have attempted to persuade developing countries that
their economies will suffer as a result of industrialized country
actions to reduce emissions. Meanwhile, they are spending
millions of dollars to persuade industrialized country citizens
and policymakers that binding emissions limits will shift
hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to -- you guessed it
-- developing countries.

The centerpiece of the industry strategy is an effort to force
the United States to take positions that will alienate the
developing world, and thus prevent any agreement in Kyoto.
Industry lobbying persuaded the U.S. Senate to pass a non-binding
resolution last week calling on the Clinton Administration not to
sign any agreement that doesn't involve developing country
commitments. While developing countries will have to eventually
join in a global emissions limitation framework if the treaty's
ultimate objective is to be achieved, the industry campaign is
not intended to further effective developing country
participation, but to block any action to reduce industrialized
country emissions.

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. delegation will respond to
this resolution by stepping up its push for near-term "evolution"
mechanisms in the Kyoto proposal, or even worse, by trying to
reopen the Berlin Mandate. It also remains to be seen whether
major developing countries like China and Brazil will toughen
their stance on the range of issues involved in advancing
developing country commitments under the current climate treaty.

Either move would feed the destructive cycle of action and
reaction that remains the fossil fuel industry's best hope for a
stalemate in Kyoto. Both the United States and developing
countries should resist falling into this trap.

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

Conference Reports

SBI Tuesday

The sixth session of SBI turned out to be highly strung with the
recent brawl over the "consideration process" of non-Annex I
national communications. As of date, only 2 countries-Jordan and
Argentina- have completed their communications. Tanzania, on
behalf of G77 and China expressed concern over the GEF's
'not-so-speedy' approval of proposals for national communications
citing it as one of the main reasons for the limited work done so
far in this area. It highlighted the principle of differentiation
(referring to Annex I and non-Annex I comitments), as a premise
in meeting reporting requirements, which was later on corrupted
by Australia hailing 'differentiation as the cornerstone of this
convention' (obviously referring only to Annex I commitements!)
The US, Canada and Australia all called for the 'timely
submission' of communications and formulation of guidelines for a
review process of non-Annex I communications ('not as detailed
and extensive' says the US). To our surprise this spurred strong,
emotional reactions from developing countries, particularly from
China, India and the Philippines. China was strongly against any
uniform assessment of Annex I and non-Annex I national
communications; against any pressure for deadlines; and more
importantly against any form of in-depth-review (IDR). It pointed
out that the discussion should center around the "consideration
process" aimed at "merely assessing the aggregated effect of
steps taken by all parties through the consideration of
information included in the communications". There should be no
value judgement or any kind of evaluation. In short, they said
the consideration process should not be confused with the review
process.

Malaysia and India rightly pointed out that the reason for the
delay in preparations of national communications is basically the
lack of financial and technical assistance. They called for a
stop to 'finger-pointing' over who has and hasn't done what and
rather create an "enabling activities environment". (rightly so!)

We view this burst of emotions from developing countries as
directly related to recent developments in the US calling for new
commitments from developing countries. The concerns of developing
countries over the lack of financial and technical assistance for
enabling activities is very much valid and links up with our call
for Annex I and II parties to fulfill their obligations on
technology transfer and support for the funding mechanism.

Discussion on the GEF was linked to the earlier discussion on
process and preparation of national communications. The US and EU
are already calling for an early decision to designate GEF as the
permanent financial mechanism by COP-3. (with EU saying 'subject
to a review process'). Developing countries aren't united on this
issue but it was stressed that the GEF's 'performance' is
critical to the decision of availing a permanent status. The
litany of woes around the 'slow project approval and processing';
GEF operating on its own without 'guidance'; stringent criteria
for projects etc... attests to this concern. GEF replenishment (a
substantial increase!) was also stressed. An open-ended contact
group to discuss issues concerning the review of the financial
mechanism has been set up. Canada's proposal on MDBs consistency
is worth noting in the context of mainstreaming climate in
overall financial flows, including private sector investments.

Finally while we are very much aware of the GEF's 'prompt start'
in preparing its 'high-level' delegation to the Kyoto field trip,
we first want to see a comprehensive evaluation of the GEF pilot
phase taking into account developing countries' concerns and
actual experiences before jumping into any decision appointing it
as the permanent financial mechanism.

SBSTA Wednesday Morning

The meeting began with the consideration of interim reports of
the two informal groups on division of work between SBSTA and
SBI. On methodological issues the group reported on the
priorities of the tasks: greenhouse gas inventories, projections
of GHG emissions and sinks, methods for evaluating and monitoring
effectiveness and effects of specific policies and measures and
for assessing adaptation strategies and technologies.

Saudi Arabia's began discussion by proposing the group
discontinue its work, which should be done instead by the
yet-to-be-established ITAPs (not very soon, in other words!).

Next came cooperation with relevant international organizations.
First four intergovernmental organizations reported on their
activities including their link with the FCCC. The IOC pointed
out that the skeptics arguments need to be answered. UNEP, later
supported by Zimbabwe and China regretted that their proposal for
a climate awareness program had not been accepted by the GEF. The
IPCC gave a detailed outline on their future work. The Third
Assessment Report (TAR) will be finished late 2000/early 2001.
The IPCC structure will be modified slightly -- WG 1 remains
largely unchanged, WG 2 will deal with impacts and adaptation
(including human health) and will bring together for the first
time natural, social and economic sciences and will have more
regional and cross-sectoral aspects. WG 3 will mainly be on
mitigation, this time analyzed through technological, social and
economic sciences.

A highly policy-relevant synthesis report will be edited in
addition to the normal report and the policy makers' summary. For
the TAR, the chairman-elect of IPCC, Dr. Watson, wanted an
increase of participation of experts from developing countries as
well as including much more technical work which appeared in
languages other than English. Bob Watson strongly emphasized a
much greater need for work on impacts, which has nearly
disappeared. Switzerland asked for SBSTA to translate the IPCC
results into policymakers' language. The US and the EU wanted a
focus on the synthesis report and wanted a list of questions the
synthesis report should answer to be elaborated by Parties by the
end of the year. China seemed to want the lowest common
scientific denominator by urging IPCC to synthesize different
opinions. On the other hand it desired more clarity by wanting
the technical reports to reflect the fulfilment of Articles 4.2
(a) and (b) of Annex I countries. The Marshall Islands and Samoa
laudably reminded Parties of the need for the IPCC to stay
independent and urged the investigation of socio-economic aspects
of inaction. Zambia wanted the links between environment and
trade to be studied and the role of GATT/WTO explored. Australia
would be grateful if ICAO and IMO made comments -- a point which
later was reflected in the draft conclusions.

A short discussion began on ITAPs (intergovernmental technical
advisory panels) and a roster of experts. While the US felt that
ITAPs may not be necessary, the EU wanted to postpone conclusions
on ITAPs until the roster of experts experiences were clear.
Several developing countries highlighted the need for the ITAPs
to be established ASAP to help with the issue of technology
transfer.

SBSTA Wednesday Afternoon

Discussions on technology transfer resumed at SBSTA late in the
afternoon with Mr. Chairman warning the US not to take more than
30 minutes in its intervention. The US of course managed to
outline its proposals in moving financial institutions towards
pro-climate activities within this budget period. After several
other interventions on MDB's consistency, technology information
centres and the private sector role, this agenda item was closed
with the recommendation that secretariat continue its
informational work (are we sure it was not prepared by the World
Bank?) on technology transfer issues.

Chairman then moved towards the adoption of the skeletal report
of the work of SBSTA. The contact groups on methodologies and on
division of labour, despite a long afternoon lag, failed to come
to an agreement. But significantly, they have agreed to negotiate
so they could come to some form of an agreement. The contact
group on division of labour between SBSTA and SBI, now popularly
known as the "Ping-Pong Committee", pledged to arrive at a
consensus by Thursday as long as its team members don't get
invited to other tournaments (i.e. a contact group). The other
informal group on AIJ methodologies likewise failed to come to an
agreement. (Chairman elect is getting more and more worried that
agenda items are being shelved to the last meeting day on
Tuesday.)

There was a long, unnecessary exchange of text on a non-paper on
cooperation with international organizations. The US and Canada
were keen on including strong language on the TAR's synthesis
report and key policy issues. But Saudi Arabia of course had to
object to the use of the word 'policy' and to avoid being too
specific (gearing up for AGBM eh? c'mon guys this is a non-paper!)

Perhaps the most interesting part of the session is a surprise
brawl over the draft report of the contact group on
methodologies. As we expected, it outlined the priorities for
work on methodologies focusing on inventories, projection,
mitigation, impacts and adaptation. After a not so discreet
shoving of papers by my corporate friends around the almost empty
Maritim Hall, our friendly OPEC friends asked for more time to
study the draft text which came through 4 informal sessions of
the said group. G77 and China also wanted more time to deliberate
on the draft text which clearly irked the EU, in particular
Germany as it noted that there were a lot of non-Annex I
countries who participated in the meetings. Chairman elect then
said, "well Germany, once you join the group of 77 and China, you
will understand why these things happen!" Bear in mind colleagues
that stalling on this issue again is costing the developing world
a lot.

SBI Wednesday Afternoon

NGOs received a round of support yesterday in SBI during the
discussion on the NGO Consultative Mechanism. After listening to
the interventions from 4 NGO groupings (yes we supposedly only
have 3 constituencies, but once again NARUC showed up 5 minutes
before showtime and asked to make a statement on behalf of 'local
authorities'. Who is NARUC? Good question.) Parties explained
their views on this crucial issue. It is fair to say that the
Secretariat's proposal for a Business Consultative Mechanism fell
flat on its face, with the only supporter being, well, business.
Surprise, surprise. Many delegates, including Malaysia and Benin,
stated their strong belief that accreditation to the Convention
should be linked with support for the objective of the
Convention. Many also strongly endorsed allowing NGOs to make
interventions in all of the Conventions' bodies, including the
COP. And certainly not to go unnoticed is the impassioned
intervention from Senegal calling on all delegates to take this
issue seriously and involve NGOs as much as possible. What's
next? Well, a contact group, of course -- in October -- to
continue the discussion... We look forward to it.

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

South Cuts Faster than North?

by Kilaparti Ramakrishna and Linda Jacobsen, Woods Hole Research
Center

One dominant theme as we move towards Kyoto is that action by
industrialized nations alone will not put us on the road to safe
concentrations of greenhouse gases; that we need action by the
developing countries as well. While a number of Annex I countries
have joined this bandwagon, none is more strident in its advocacy
than the United States. Under Secretary of State Timothy Wirth in
his testimony on July 15 to the US Congress said that the list of
developed country Parties established by the Convention's Annex I
in 1992 no longer reflects current realities. He called for a new
Annex to enable developing countries, on a voluntary basis, to
take on binding greenhouse gas emissions obligations. Put simply
in Wirth's words, "no one should be exempt; we emit the most, so
we have to act first; but others have to phase in over time".
Also called the policy of "evolution", the suggestion implicit in
this demand is that the developing countries are proceeding with
rank impunity to add greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere
since they are not currently under an obligation to reduce or do
anything to effect reductions of their ghg emissions. But this is
a myth.

While the emissions from the developing countries are increasing,
as most acknowledge they should, the increases are not as steep
as projected not so long ago. Several studies make this point
eloquently. A study prepared by the Environmental Defense Fund
and the Woods Hole Research Center in mid-1996 identified several
measures that the developing countries have voluntarily
undertaken in the field of energy conservation, promoting energy
efficiency through various incentive structures and elimination
or reduction of subsidies with direct consequences on ghg
reductions. The Japanese Environmental Agency in collaboration
with the Woods Hole Research Center and the World Resources
Institute organized an international conference on opportunities
and problems of early actions for climate protection in Kyoto
during March 30-31 this year. It concluded that enough developing
countries are taking measures to reduce their ghg emissions to
warrant rewards to the countries and companies participating in
this exercise so that more countries and companies could be
persuaded to join. A recent analysis by Walter Reid of the World
Resources Institute and Jose Goldemberg of Brazil (former
Brazilian Environment Minister) documents how, since 1990,
several large developing countries have aggressively pursued a
variety of emissions limitation strategies including price reform
and promotion of efficiency and renewable energy. They concluded
that "developing countries may be achieving equivalent or greater
CO2 emissions savings than OECD countries in absolute terms and,
since they are starting from a lower baseline, significantly
greater savings as a percentage of their emissions".

Furthermore, the guidelines adopted for the preparation of
national communications from developing countries also seek
information on such actions by these countries. If the
industrialized countries had come through with financial support
as they agreed to in article 12 of the Convention in helping
developing countries prepare their national communications, we
will have a verifiable source of such data from developing
countries. As we have seen in the previous three days and as
evidenced in the submission of only two national communications
from developing countries, the rich countries are once again
remiss in fulfilling their obligations under the convention. All
this begs the question, who are the leaders and who are the
laggards?

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

The Plot Thickens...

On July 25, 1997 the United States passed a non-binding Senate
Resolution, otherwise known as the Byrd Resolution, unanimously,
by a vote of 95-0. Although all Senators voted for the Byrd
Resolution, there is by no means consensus in the Senate as to
what the Byrd Resolution actually means. In essence, there are
three main blocks of Senators' views reflected in this one
non-binding resolution. One group does not believe that climate
change is even a problem, claims that the science is inconclusive
and contradictory, and is worried about "any treaty that would
bind our Nation's economy to control by some U.N. multilateral
entity," to quote one Senator. This group questions the
classification of India, Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil as
developing countries and calls for them to take on binding,
specific emissions reduction commitments now. The second group,
which includes Senator Byrd, the main sponsor of the resolution,
recognizes that "climate change is a looming threat to the global
environment" and believe that each country must "make unique and
binding contributions of a pace and kind consistent with their
industrialization." The third group is actively worried about
global climate change and believes the United States and other
industrialized countries "have a responsibility to take the first
steps to clean up the problem which we have created" by adopting
a protocol in Kyoto that includes a binding reduction target.
While recognizing the Convention's "common but differentiated"
principle, these Senators believe that to solve this problem in
the long-term, all countries must act to reduce GHG emissions.

How did this Resolution come into being and how does it impact
the US position?

In recent months, industry opponents of action on global warming
have seized on a new argument in their efforts to undermine US
support for binding emissions reduction commitments by
industrialized countries. Because such commitments will not
initially apply to major developing nations like China and India,
they charge, US competitiveness in the global marketplace will
suffer as energy-intensive industries move production -- and jobs
-- overseas, and the environment won't benefit because cuts in
emissions by the US and other industrialized countries will be
more than offset by growth in developing country emissions. This
argument has proven very effective on Capitol Hill where industry
have aligned themselves with Senators from states with large
fossil fuel interests in an effort to use the Senate to push the
Administration to press developing countries further than ever
before in the negotiations. One need only hear US Undersecretary
of State Tim Wirth's support for "the thrust of the Byrd
resolution"... and his statement that it indeed "strengthens our
hand" in the negotiations, to see the industry strategy in
action. Put this together with the conversation between Don
Perqman and a Nigerian delegate earlier this week in which
Peerlmun was overheard gleefully chuckling that if developing
countries just dig in and reactito the Senate Resolution and the
Clinton Administration's rhetoric by insisting on no new
commitments, "We can kill this thing" -- meaning the Kyoto
Protocol -- and the circle is complete.

Industry-stoked fears that a Kyoto Protocol will cause a "giant
sucking sound" as millions of jobs flee the US to developing
countries that have no emissions limits are without merit. First
of all, two-thirds of US emissions of carbon dioxide are from
energy used in residential and commercial buildings and the
transportation sector (this includes both direct fuel use and the
power plant emissions associated with electricity used in these
sectors). Obviously, building and transportation services can't
be exported. The remaining one-third of US CO2 emissions comes
from industry. However, detailed analysis has shown that the
competitiveness risk is limited to a handful of energy-intensive
industries representing about 3 percent of manufacturing
shipments and jobs, and even this risk can be avoided through
appropriate design of domestic policies.

It should be noted that this relatively limited competitiveness
issue is independent of whether developing countries take on
binding emissions limits or not, as these industries face greater
competition from Japan and Europe, rather than China and India.
Most importantly, the industry campaign is not designed to
persuade China and India to take on binding commitments, but to
block any meaningful action to reduce emissions here at home.

This is, however, only part of the recent story in the US.

On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, President
Clinton stated last week: "I believe the science demands that we
face this challenge now. I'm positive that we owe it to our
children. And I hope that we can find the wisdom and the skill to
do democracy's work in the next few months, to build the
consensus necessary to actually make action, as opposed to
rhetoric, possible." The administration is gearing up an
intensive public outreach effort to educate Americans about the
risks of global warming -- and the clean energy and
transportation technology solutions to the problem. This will
include public appearances by the President, Vice President Gore,
and appropriate Cabinet officials, as well as a major White House
Conference on climate change this fall. This effort will have to
continue well beyond Kyoto if it is to succeed in ultimately
persuading the Senate to ratify a meaningful climate treaty, but
at last, the administration is directly countering the fossil
fuel lobby's aggressive disinformation campaign.

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

Good News: Help may be coming!

Reporting is the core of the Convention, and any modifications or
additions to it. Without accurate and timely reports from Parties
the entire regime is going nowhere. Any commitments, new or old,
will be meaningless without the means of assessing whether they
are implemented.

This is probably the sole topic upon which almost all Parties
agree and yet almost all Parties are late in reporting and when
they do submit communications they are almost invariably
incomplete. In the case of developing country Parties this is
currently due largely to inadequate technical and financial
resources that the established Convention mechanisms are poor at
providing, certainly in a timely manner.

Help, however, may be at hand. In its half forgotten (often
wholly forgotten) corner of the Convention process, AG13 has been
quietly building an assistance mechanism, instead of the expected
non-compliance mechanism. At the last meeting in Bad Godesberg,
China took up the EU on its insistence it wanted an assistance
mechanism and proposed that the multilateral consultative process
assist the Parties, and especially the developing ones, in
compiling and communicating information on implementation
(Article 12.7 code for reporting).

At this week's meeting the Chinese and EU positions converged
rapidly and, given a little more time, a really useful process
looks like being agreed. If nothing else, it has been good to see
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, the EU, China, Iran,
Russia and many others all heading in the same direction and
genuinely helping each other on a matter of central importance to
the Convention. A bit more of the same spirit applied elsewhere
might work wonders.

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

Ludwig

Isn't it sporting of Australia? ...emphasising how much they
value having NGOs on their delegation... when Aussie NGOs have
very publicly boycotted such representation in disgust at their
government's policies... Or perhaps the delegate just didn't
notice they weren't there...

More seriously, Ludwig understands that his account of "The" Don
Peerlyman's conversation earlier this week is being denied, and
is naturally hurt by such a suggestion of lack of sincerity.
Ludwig is prepared to offer an affidavit... or would Don perhaps
like to take a lie detector test? Come to think of it, there are
one or two other questions we might like to ask him at the same
time...

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

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

Assistance from: Alden Meyer; Jennifer Morgan; Athina Ronquillo;
Delia Villagrasa; Manfred Treber; John Lanchbery; Gary Cook;
Linda Jacobsen; Kilaparti Ramakrishna; Sabri Zain.

Published by: The Climate Action Network.

THANKS

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

With resources contributed by: APC Networks and EuroFax.