Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Answer: Under the procedures adopted by the IPCC for the production of "Technical Papers" there will be two opportunities for expert and government review, but they will not require line-by-line approval of governments. The IPCC chose not to require line-by-line government approval of "Technical Papers" for several reasons, including: 1) the narrower focus of "Technical Papers" than other IPCC outputs (i.e., special reports and full assessment reports); 2) the fact that technical papers will be based on already reviewed material; 3) the significant cost of convening plenary sessions of all governments participating in the work of the IPCC in order to obtain line-by-line government approval, and the need to keep costs down; and 4) the time required to obtain line-by-line government approval, and the desire to be more responsive to the needs of the Convention.

5.J. I UNDERSTOOD THAT IPCC REPORTS BENEFITTED FROM PEER
REVIEW AND THE REQUIREMENT OF LINE-BY-LINE GOVERNMENT
APPROVAL. HOW WILL SOUND SCIENCE BE ASSURED IN A FIELD WITH SO
MANY UNCERTAINTIES?

Answer: It is certainly correct that IPCC reports have benefitted from expert and government review. For this reason, the IPCC chose to provide for expert and government review even in the narrower "Technical Papers" it may produce henceforth. However, for such "Technical Papers," the IPCC decided that the cost of line-by-line government approval -- whether in terms of the expense of holding full plenary meetings or in terms of the time required -- was not justified, particularly given the nature of such "Technical Papers", i.e., they will be based upon previous IPCC reports which have undergone line-by-line approval of governments.

6.

AT THE AUGUST MEETING IN GENEVA, SBSTA SUPPORTED THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE IPCC AND IDENTIFIED A PRELIMINARY LIST OF AREAS WHERE THE IPCC COULD ASSIST SBSTA IN PROVIDING TIMELY INFORMATION AND ADVICE ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ISSUES. SBSTA APPARENTLY ALSO ENVISAGED THE NEED FOR IPCC SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVICE ON SPECIAL EMERGING PROJECTS WITHIN SHORT PERIODS LIKE ONE YEAR OR SO. SBSTA, HOWEVER, DID NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFY ITS SHORT- AND LONG-TERM REQUIREMENTS, BUT AGREED TO A CONSULTATIVE MECHANISM BETWEEN THE OFFICERS OF SBSTA AND THE IPCC.

6A. WHICH OF THE ITEMS ON SBSTA'S PRELIMINARY LIST WOULD

Rohrabacher:

October 19, 1996 Response

p. 13

Answer: It is not clear that any of these items would require IPCC restructuring or modification, particularly since the IPCC adopted new procedures for the production of "Technical Papers" at its lith Plenary Session in Rome in December 1995. However, some items on the SBSTA's preliminary list may be more appropriately treated in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report than in special reports or technical papers -- and a decision to this end was made at the SBSTA session in Geneva in March 1996. As noted, it is possible that the IPCC may yet consider a number of restructuring proposals in the context of beginning work on this Third Assessment Report, which is anticipated for the year 2000 or 2001.

6B. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE SBSTA/IPCC CONSULTATIVE MECHANISM?

Answer: The consultative mechanism, as noted, involves coordination among officers of the convention's subsidiary bodies (SBSTA, SBI and AGBM) as well as officers of the IPCC (i.e., the Chair and the Co-Chairs of the IPCC working groups). A first meeting took place in September 1995 in Geneva. A second meeting took place on February 25, 1996, also in Geneva. The mechanism is thus active and of

between the IPCC and the Convention and avoiding duplication and overlap.

7. IN GENEVA IN AUGUST, AUS STATEMENT CALLED ON THE IPCC TO DEVELOP A WORK PLAN FOR THE FEBRUARY 1996 MEETING OF SBSTA FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:

"THE NEED IS TO EVALUATE AND ASSESS FUTURE EFFECTS OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND PROTOCOLS. THIS WOULD NECESSARILY
INCLUDE, AMONG OTHER OPTIONS, THE EFFECTS OF TARGETS AND
TIMETABLES, ON AN INCREMENTAL BASIS, OVER THE NEXT 25-30
YEARS, WITH BENCHMARKS, FOR EXAMPLE, AT 2005, 2010, 2015,
2020 AND 2025. THIS WOULD INVOLVE BOTH TOP-DOWN AND
BOTTOM-UP APPROACHES. SOME EVALUATIONS WOULD INVOLVE
INTERACTION AMONG TOP-DOWN MODELERS CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN
ASSESSING, ON AN INTEGRATED BASIS, THE LIKELY PROJECTIONS OF
CHANGES RESULTING FROMTARGETS AND TIMETABLES AS WELL AS
OTHER APPROACHES. WE ENVISION BOTTOM-UP ASSESSMENTS
UTILIZING SECTOR MODELS AND OTHER METHODS. THESE SECTORS
COULD BE ALONG THE LINES THAT WE HAVE PRECIOUSLY RELATED IN
OUR INTERVENTION ON INPUTS. THE IPCC HAS THE CAPABILITY TO
ENGAGE EXPERTS IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIMEFRAME TO DEVELOP A
MODERATELY LARGE NUMBER OF ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS THAT
WOULD THEN BECOME THE BASIS FOR A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

[blocks in formation]

7A.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THIS US WORK PLAN PROPOSAL?

Answer: The IPCC, at its plenary session from December 11-15, 1995 in Rome, discussed its future work, and recommended a series of near-term work efforts. Subsequently, the FCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, meeting from February 27-March 1, 1996 in Geneva, made additional recommendations for work that would be undertaken by the IPCC. A copy of this work program is attached. We do note that much of the analytical work that underlies the options now being considered has already been done - and is covered in the detailed materials of working Groups II and III in the IPCC's Second Assessment Report.

7B. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE AND TIMING OF THE WORK PLAN AND WHY IS THIS A FUNCTION OF THE IPCC?

Answer: The intent of undertaking analytic work of this sort is to establish the various benefits and costs of taking action to mitigate or adapt to climate change including considering the costs of the "no action" case. Much of this work has already been undertaken by the IPCC.

70.

WHAT IS THE IPCC'S CAPABILITY TO ENGAGE EXPERTS?

Answer: The IPCC regularly solicits and incorporates work of some of the world's most renowned experts in its reports; it can be expected to continue with this practice in its future work.

7D. DURING THE AGBM PROCESS OR COP-2, IS THE US PLANNING TO
ADVOCATE OR SUPPORT HARD OR SOFT TARGETS AND TIMETABLES OF ANY
KIND OR ECONOMIC-SECTOR APPROACHES IN ITS PROTOCOL
NEGOTIATIONS? IF SO, IS THE US SEEKING TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR
THEM THROUGH THE USE OF AN EXPEDITED PROCESS?

Answer: The United States has not yet made a decision with respect to the nature of commitments appropriate for next steps under a protocol or other legal instrument. Part of the intent of the analytic phase is to determine the range of options, including the benefits and costs of various alternative approaches.

8. THE PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE SBSTA AND THE AGBM ARE THE

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

8A. IS SBSTA ORGANIZED TO PROVIDE BY NEXT MARCH "RELEVANT ADVICE" TO THE AGBM ABOUT THE SAR?

Answer: Yes. At the February 1996 SBSTA session, presentations were made on the IPCC SAR to the SBSTA - a presentation that was coordinated by the SBSTA co-chairs, but offered by IPCC lead authors and working Group chairs. A copy of the SBSTA conclusions with respect to this agenda item, as well as the report of the session with a chairman's summary of the discussion, is attached.

8B. THE SECRETARIAT WAS REQUESTED TO PREPARE A DOCUMENT IDENTIFYING ISSUES AND INPUT'S FOR SBSTA'S CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE RELEVANT FOR THE AGBM. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT DOCUMENT?

Answer: A number of documents were circulated by the FCCC Secretariat prior to the February SBSTA session; this was one of those documents, and a copy is attached.

8C. THE US ALSO STATES A BELIEF THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES ARISING FROM THE SAR "THAT WILL NEED TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO BE USEFUL TO THE AGBM." SINCE THE SAR IS NOT YET FINAL, SUCH A BELIEF BY THE US SEEMS PREMATURE. WHAT ARE THOSE ISSUES AND WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THIS VIEW?

Answer: The United States received, as did each government involved in the IPCC process, advance copies of the texts of the SAR. On the basis of these texts it was possible to indicate the kinds of material that were not covered -if the specific language was changed in later iterations of the report. For example, IPCC Working Group II examines the impacts of and possible response options to climate change, However, the report speaks in general terms and does not attempt to provide a value judgment on whether certain measures may be more appropriately undertaken as "common measures" or whether they may be adopted unilaterally for equal effectiveness. Should the FCCC Parties choose to include a menu of measures in a protocol or other legal instrument, the need for such information may prove germane.

even

9. COP-1 APPROVED A CONVENTION BUDGET FOR 1996 AND 1997 OF OVER $18.6 MILLION. THE SECRETARIAT SAID A PORTION OF THAT BUDGET WILL BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE IPCC.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Answer: A copy of the IPCC budget for the years 1996 and 1997, as adopted by the IPCC at its lith Plenary Session in Rome in December 1995, is attached. A copy of the IPCC budget for the years 1994 and 1995 is also attached.

9B. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF ALL IPCC FUNDS, ESPECIALLY ANY CONTRIBUTED BY THE US IN THOSE YEARS.

Answer: A table listing all contributions to the IPCC, including US contributions, for the years 1994 through 1995 is attached.

90.

WHAT IS THE CONVENTION CONTRIBUTION?

Answer: The Convention has not yet contributed any funds to the IPCC. The Convention budget for the 1996-97 biennium, adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its First Session in Berlin in April 1995, envisioned a contribution of $310,000 annually in 1996 and 1997 by the Convention to the IPCC to defray the cost of work that may be performed by the IPCC for the Convention, e.g., continuing work on methodologies for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions, and other tasks requested of the IPCC in the form of technical papers during the SBSTA and AGBM sessions of March/April 1996.

9.

WHY IS THIS CONVENTION CONTRIBUTION NEEDED?

Answer: Any such contribution to the IPCC by the convention would be to help meet the costs to the IPCC of specific work performed on behalf of the Convention. It would be needed because the IPCC's own budget for its scientific and technical assessment activities has not (prior to 1996) envisioned the performance of specific tasks on behalf of the Convention.

10. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE IPCC CHAIRMAN AND THE CHAIRMEN OF THE WORKING GROUPS MAY SOON LEAVE THEIR POSTS.

10A. WHAT IS THEIR TERM AND WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING SUCCESSORS?

Answer: At the IPCC's 8th Plenary in Harare in November 1992, the IPCC elected its Bureau (including the IPCC Chair and the Co-Chairs of the three IPCC working groups) for a three-year term. At the time, however, the IPCC also

« PreviousContinue »