🚀 go-pugleaf

## Nachricht vom 07.08.97 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : K.THIELKING@P-KTHI.cl.sub.de
## Ersteller: larris@igc.apc.org


                          ECO NEWSLETTER

                           AGBM7 - BONN
                          NGO NEWSLETTER

                               AGBM7

                          August 7, 1997
                             ISSUE #8

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.            On the Precipice
2.            Longings and Briefings
3.            Dear Friend...
4.            Editorial
5.            Giving Teeth to the Compliance Mechanism
6.            Missing Inaction
7.            Ludwig
8.            Isn't Life Strange?
9.            Resistance is Futile
10.           Business Opportunities Identified
11.           NGO Additions
12.           Contacts
13.           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.

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

On the Precipice

This AGBM, with its closed sessions, has been a unique experience
for the many NGOs in attendance. Still, one does not have to be
inside the closed doors to realize that the negotiations towards
the Kyoto protocol are in a sorry state. On the key issue of
QELROs, for example, delegates have just now agreed on how to
structure the text and where to place the numerous brackets.
There has been virtually no movement towards resolving the
numerous issues dividing countries in these negotiations.

Some say this is to be expected at this stage of the process.
However, very well-informed sources worry that if the
negotiations are in a similar state in October, the sheer
complexity of the issues and logistical requirements will make a
protocol ready for signature in Kyoto simply impossible. Of
course, there are ten weeks until AGBM 8, and a number of key
intersessional meetings where informal discussions can move the
process forward. But time is running short.

There are many countries who will have to take the blame in case
this is the reality we face in December. Countries who let narrow
national interests become the enemy of global good -- and several
fossil fuel producers and exporters fall into this category --
will have to carry much of the responsibility. The United States,
with its failure to propose any emissions reduction target, and
its attempts to bend, if not break, the terms of the Berlin
Mandate, is playing with fire.

Still, Japan, as the host of the Kyoto Climate Summit, is in a
particularly responsible position. Nothing less than Japan's
credibility is at stake.

Japan's prime minister, Mr. Hashimoto, agreed to the need for
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions at both the Denver
Economic Summit and the Special Assembly of the United Nations in
June. But you wouldn't know it by listening to the Japanese
delegation at these negotiations. In fact, what we have heard is
the exact opposite: "No real reductions are possible." Japan has
joined the US in attacking the European Union4s emissions
reduction proposals as "physically impossible," without offering
any analysis to buttress such an assault.

Should the current drift in the negotiations be allowed to
continue, there are two possible outcomes. The first is that,
aware of the global attention which will be focused on Kyoto in
December, countries rush to agree a "least common denominator"
protocol that is entirely inadequate to the task at hand. The
world would have to live with the consequences of such a protocol
for a long time, and the climate system is put at risk of serious
destabilization. The second scenario is no protocol text at all.
Not only would this be a catastrophe for the climate, it would be
a major embarrassment for the Japanese government which bears the
responsibility for a successful outcome in Kyoto.

It is clear to everybody that wearing two hats -- representing
one's national interests, while accommodating the varied
interests in this process -- is a hard thing to do. Still, this
is a responsibility Japan has placed on itself. It is a
responsibility that others have proven able to meet; Brazil's
performance at the Rio Earth Summit is one example that comes to
mind. It is a responsibility that Japan must meet; what is at
stake is nothing less than the future of the global environment.

While every country must do its part, it largely falls on Japan
to determine whether the Kyoto Climate Summit will be a
noteworthy success or a historic failure. The choice is in your
hands, Prime Minister Hashimoto.

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

Longings and Briefings

Yesterday, at his briefing, Chairman Estrada indicated that there
would be no new objectives in the protocol. Does this mean that
there will be no mention of a maximum acceptable concentration,
temperature or sea level rise? We hope not. Such guidelines are
in the spirit of the Berlin Mandate and many Parties believe that
they would be helpful to the world at large in understanding what
the protocol is intended to achieve.

Possible future changes in scientific findings and forecasts are
not reason for excluding such objectives. On the contrary, they
are a reason for including provisions for regular reviews of
science and adequacy of commitments, and flexible decision making
structures.

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

Dear Friend...

In situations like this, many Parties find they have problems
that they may find difficult to discuss. Eco's resident neurosis
specialist is here to help...

Dear Friend of the Chair, Whenever I try to reach a position, I
always find I have too much flexibility. What can I do?

You're not alone: many others have difficulty being firm when
they need to be. Try relaxing and concentrating on the objective

Dear Friend of the Chair, I'm worried that my measures are
inadequate.

Don't worry, it's not size that counts, it's effectiveness. Ever
wondered why Bill Gates called his company Microsoft?

Dear Friend of the Chair, For some time all I've been able to
think about are implements, mechanisms and especially compliance.
Now I find myself seriously considering entry into force.

You are obviously a lawyer. You should seek professional help
before you cause serious harm.

Dear Friend of the Chair, For many years I have had a problem
with embarrassing emissions, often in public. Everyone laughs at
me. I have been advised to reduce the amount of oil in my diet,
but I can't seem to stop.

Clearly you have an addictive personality. I would suggest you
take the pledge, and embark on a thorough rehabilitation
programme. One day at a time...

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

Editorial

As climate negotiators, campaigners and lobbyists start to see
the sunlight again, there is one thing upon which we can all
agree: the AGBM process is going nowhere fast and may in fact be
going nowhere at all. After interminable hours spent ensuring the
proper placement of brackets in the twenty-five page QELROs text,
delegates were only able to complete their review of the first
page and a half in yesterday's session. And this despite
suspending the rights of observer groups, in the ostensible
interest of achieving progress.

Some of this is, of course, due to those who merely wish to
thwart the process, but much of it is due to Parties hanging on
to positions that were never likely to get support and now,
clearly, never will. A majority of Parties want an agreement,
including many of those who refuse to dance together for fear of
what their usual partners might think.

There is now only one AGBM session (i.e. five days of
negotiations) remaining in which to ready an agreement for the
Kyoto Climate Summit. NOW is the time to start consolidating the
great rafts of unconsolidated text that are floating about,
weighing down the chances of reaching an acceptable deal.

Our message is blunt. Get together at intersessionals, sort out
the substantive issues and negotiate on them. Merge similar
proposals. If you're an OECD country outside the EU, put forward
your emissions reduction proposal -- it's impossible for your
partners to negotiate if they don't know where you stand.

There is still time in which to reach agreement on a meaningful
Kyoto Protocol, but only if the dross is eliminated, the
remaining cards are put on the table, and the truly disruptive
and unhelpful factions are isolated.

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

Giving Teeth to The Compliance Mechanism

As the negotiations draw to a close, it becomes plainly visible
that without a transparent and effective compliance mechanism the
Protocol would not work. Furthermore, it is of utmost importance
that the structure of the instrument provides incentives for
compliance. The proposed trading mechanism provides such a
structure and -- as a beneficial side-effect -- could be
elaborated in a way that links performance to benefits expected
from trading.

Brazil has advanced an important proposal, to include in the
Protocol a compliance mechanism that is directly proportional to
the violation. Delegations should give this concept serious
consideration. The initial proposal frames proportional
punishment in terms of monetary penalties. But what to do about
the risk that if a dollar-per-ton penalty is set too low,
budget-busters might simply choose to emit now and pay later?

One possibility would be to frame the penalty in emissions terms.
Consider what forces might be put into play, for example, if
Parties knew in advance that non-compliance would be penalized by
an automatic discount on the ton-value of emissions that the
non-complying Party is selling to others. This would encourage
prospective buyers to look for "quality" tons from Parties that
are most likely to be in compliance. Buyers wouldn't want to risk
buying emission tons that would later be devalued. And earners of
emissions reductions in each nation would urge their national
governments to crack down on those whose failure to meet domestic
emissions reduction obligations threatens to push the whole
nation out of compliance and devalue reductions dutifully earned.
That would give the compliance mechanism real teeth.

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

Missing Inaction

by Kelly Sims, Ozone Action and Hermann Ott, Wuppertal Institute

The Review of Commitments is missing in action. No contact group
seems to be taking responsibility for this very important issue.
While at the beginning of AGBM7 there were several textual
proposals in the Chairman's Negotiating Text, it now appears that
each non-group is passing the buck. What little text remains has
been erroneously placed in the section of the QELROs text on
review of information, implementation and compliance. Reviewing
the adequacy of commitments with respect to the objective of the
Protocol should not be associated in any way with the issue of
compliance.

Confident that the Parties will find the text, along with some
common sense, here are a few comments and guiding principles.
Commitments must be reviewed regularly to enable the regime to
adjust dynamically to unforeseen events. These reviews must be
based on the best available scientific and technological
information and assessment of climate change and its adverse
impacts. And, most importantly, these reviews must lead to action
in accordance with the Protocol's objectives and the
precautionary principle. The first review should take place no
later than one year after entry into force of the Protocol and
thereafter at regular intervals, at least every three years.

The EU, AOSIS, Canadian and Japanese proposals are a decent
start. Rather indecently, the US seems to have forgotten the
Geneva Ministerial Declaration; it's not enough just to review,
you may need to revise. The Swiss proposal inappropriately defers
the entire issue to the first meeting of the Parties to the
Protocol. Ironically, while Australia has provided the only
detailed provisions on the review of commitments, they pervert
the concept of dynamic and progressive development by linking
their potential non-compliance with a review of their
commitments. This sounds like introducing an adjustable
speed-limit for those who would like to drive as fast as they
want. Seriously, this is not a question of review, but exactly
the kind of situation a non-compliance procedure is supposed to
address.

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

Ludwig

Ludwig was dining out Tuesday night, and found himself next to
some of the US Senate staffers who have come to share with us
their deep store of wisdom. Being an inquisitive type, Ludwig
took note of their discussion; though this wasn't particularly
difficult, as they weren't behaving with the quiet restraint so
typical of Americans. Actually, the conversation was fairly
predictable -- make sure there's no Kyoto Protocol, only a
mandate process, make sure developing countries are locked in,
etc. etc. -- until it got to the end, that is. At this point, in
their gleeful enthusiasm for the rough-and-tumble of reasoned
debate (and displaying a rare sensitivity to their German hosts),
they started to speculate on how to blow up the Maritim Hotel,
coming down eventually in favour of C4, a plastic explosive [no
he's not making this up -- Ed.]. Ludwig asks: what is official US
policy on relations with states whose government operatives plan
terrorist actions?

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

Isn't life strange?

Paragraph 26.4 of the new QELROs text proposes that if any Party
fails to report its inventory, the commitments of all Parties
vanish ... reminding your correspondent of certain personal
relationships, perhaps best forgotten...

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

Resistance is Futile

Eco understands that there have been some severe shenanigans
going on within the G-77. As some will know, their spokesman in
the Policies and Measures non-group was none other than our old
friend Dr Al-Saban of Saudi Arabia. He was of course mandated to
deliver the G-77's consensus position to the non-group's
non-session, but it appears that somehow this position managed to
get "Borged" on the way to the meeting-room. Undergoing a bionic
transformation at the hands of the industry drones orbiting the
corridors, what actually got presented was a position from Saudi
Arabia and those who wish to engulf the Kyoto process. Despite
the large number of other meetings going on, there were one or
two other G-77 members present, who objected most strongly to
this. They attempted to have him removed from his position, but
there weren't enough of them. Eco feels though, as Dr Al-Saban is
surely an honourable man, he will realise how badly his
credibility will be damaged if he fails to offer to resign
voluntarily.

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

Business Opportunities Identified

A meaningful Kyoto outcome will send a strong signal to the
private sector that there are strong investment opportunities
from both an ecological and economic perspective.

Already there is a call for major partners in the construction
industry to significantly upscale a successful energy efficiency
housing project in South Africa -- as outlined by Dr Lilia Abron.
Dr Abron, an environmental engineer, presented project results at
a workshop organised by the International Institute for Energy
Conservation on cost effective energy efficiency opportunities in
developing countries. The 200 unit housing project successfully
cut fossil fuel use, saved trees, benefited public health and
created jobs. It could be applied many times over for the South
African government's goal to build 1 million low-cost units by
the year 2000 -- already business partners are needed for the
next projects being discussed.

The scale of the opportunity was also made clear in the
presentation of a successful high-efficiency residential lighting
programme funded by a Brazilian utility. The presentation by Dr
Gilberto de Martino Jannuzzi -- Executive Director of the Office
of Technology Transfer at Brazil's State University of Campinas
showed that this could be a template for a 8.1 million CFL
programme.

This workshop followed yesterday's seminars by the Business
Council for Sustainable Energy, the Cogeneration Alliance and the
European Wind Energy Association all presenting the strategic
business opportunities stemming from agreement on binding
emissions targets at Kyoto.

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

NGO Additions

The following, from Germanwatch, were inadvertently left off
yesterday's list of ENGO participants. We would also like to
offer them a special thank you for their support here in Bonn.

Christoph Bals, Doerte Bernhardt, Katja Manike, Klaus Milke,
Stephanie Peitzker, Manfred Treber and Julia Cuber.

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

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; Dan Lashof; Annie Petsonk; John
Lanchbery; Stephan Singer; Kelly Sims; Bill Hare; Don Pearlman
(sic); Ruth Khalastchi; Merylyn McKenzie Hedger; Hermann Ott;
Kalle Hesstvedt; Kyoko Kawasaka.

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.