Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response p. 15 8A. a Answer: Yes. At the February 1996 SBSTA session, presentations were made on the IPCC SAR to the SBSTA 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 WHAT - even 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. 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. Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response p. 16 Answer: A copy of the IPCC budget for the years 1996 and 1997, as adopted by the IPCC at its 11th 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. 9C. 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. 9D. 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. 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 Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response p. 17 next plenary session, if the three-year term ended between such sessions. At the IPCC's 11th Plenary in Rome in December 1995, the Panel decided that the term of office of the current IPCC Bureau should be extended until a new Bureau is elected in time to prepare for and complete the IPCC Third Assessment Report, and that elections for a new Bureau should be held no later than 1997. It is anticipated that the election of a new IPCC Chairman will take place at the IPCC's 12th Plenary in Geneva in September 1996; a nine-member Search Committee was created at the March 1996 IPCC Bureau meeting to identify a new IPCC Chair, with the expectation that the chair will take office at the IPCC's 13th Plenary in the fall of 1997. The Search Committee will consist of IPCC Chair Bert Bolin (Sweden), UNEP Executive Director Liz Dowdeswell, WMO Secretary General Patrick Obasi and six regional representatives drawn from the current IPCC Bureau. Members of the IPCC Bureau are elected from among candidates proposed by national governments; voting is normally by consensus. 10B. WHO ARE THE US CANDIDATES? Answer: The current U.S. Co-Chair of the IPCC's Working 11. ACCORDING TO COP DECISION 6/ CP.1, SBSTA IS TO BE THE LINK 11A. HOW WILL SBSTA CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS AND IN WHAT TIMEFRAME? 11B. WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES? Answer (11a, b): In undertaking its work, the SBSTA can rely on several existing national and international organizations and intergovernmental bodies, including the IPCC and the FCCC Secretariat. For example, in the presentations of the IPCC SAR, it is anticipated that a member or members of the IPCC Bureau will make the report. These bodies can, in turn, rely on experts seconded from governments to undertake those tasks deemed essential by the Parties. While the timeframe and work load is ambitious, the SBSTA Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response P. 18 agree that the tasks before them are of sufficient urgency to warrant immediate action. Ultimately, it will be Parties to the Convention which will determine the priorities for the work program of the SBSTA -- and which will second experts as necessary to assure the work program is completed. The conclusions from the second session of the SBSTA indicate the priorities to which Parties have agreed, and list tasks (including work products and timeframes for delivery) that have been requested of the IPCC, of the FCCC Secretariat, and those which require input directly from Parties. 11C. THE US SAID REVIEW OF NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS IS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY. DOES SBSTA AGREE? Answer: The SBSTA, in its workplan, includes these reviews among its top priorities. 11D. WHAT IS THE TIMETABLE FOR THAT NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS REVIEW? Answer: The review of national communications is proceeding in two parts: the first part, which was completed last year, was a comparative review of all national communication submitted up to that time (a copy is attached); an update, containing additional material on communications submitted since that time, will be available at COP 2. The second part is a series of in-depth reviews of each national communication, and includes country visits to document material that undergirds individual reports. The U.S. in-depth review was initiated in the Spring of 1995 and completed in the Fall of 1995. A copy of the final text is attached. As of the March FCCC Subsidiary Body meetings, the FCCC Secretariat had completed 5 in-depth reviews. 12. THE COP AUTHORIZED SBSTA TO ESTABLISH (WITH SUBSEQUENT COP APPROVAL) TWO INTERGOVERNMENTAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANELS TO PROVIDE ADVICE ON TECHNOLOGIES AND METHODOLOGIES. THE US AUGUST STATEMENT IN GENEVA SAID THAT IT WAS "CRITICAL" THAT THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL ON METHODOLOGIES BE ESTABLISHED "AS SOON AS POSSIBLE" AND THAT IT COULD CONSIST OF 20 EXPERTS. AT THE SAME TIME, THE US SAID THE ADVISORY PANEL ON TECHNOLOGIES WAS NOT AS URGENT. THE US SAID IT SHOULD HAVE A STEERING GROUP OF ONLY 10 SUCH EXPERTS, PLUS A SUBSTRUCTURE OF EXPERTS. 12A. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE US IDEAS FOR THE ACTIVITIES AND PURPOSE OF EACH OF THESE PANELS IN THE AGBM PROCESS AND THE Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response P. 19 Answer: We have urged that these panels not be established in response to the short terms needs of the AGBM, but rather that they should be established to respond to the longer term needs of the convention for technical advice in the development and use of various methodologies and for similar technical advice with respect to the long term potential of a broad spectrum of technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies in March of 1996, no agreement was reached on the establishment of the Technical Advisory Panels. At the session, Parties agreed to submit information on what areas of expertise the panels should include, but not to provide information on the names of experts or additional ideas on the structure of the bodies. The issue will be taken up for further consideration at the next sessions of the SBSTA in July 1996. 12B. WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR SUGGESTION OF THE NUMBER OF EXPERTS FOR EACH PANEL? Answer: When the U.S. delegation made its August statement, it believed that the work of the panel on methodologies could be undertaken by a certain number of experts appointed to serve on the panel, and that such experts could largely deal with methodological issues among themselves, without recourse to the advice of a broader number of outside experts. The U.S. delegation accordingly proposed that 20 experts be appointed to this panel, believing that this would be large enough to accommodate the various kinds of expertise needed and to find an appropriate balance of regional interests among the Parties, yet small enough to function efficiently. On the other hand, the U.S. delegation believed that the work of the panel on technologies would be considerably broader and would need to involve a large number of outside experts. Accordingly, the U.S. delegation proposed that only 10 experts be appointed to this panel, believing that 10 members would be sufficient to find an appropriate balance of regional interests among the Parties and to function efficiently, but too small actually to perform its tasks without recourse to a broader substructure of technical experts. In other words, by proposing a smaller panel on technologies, the U.S. delegation hoped to ensure appropriate recourse to a broader spectrum of outside technical experts. The issue remains unresolved in the SBSTA, and will be further considered at the next session in July 1996 12C. HOW DO THE NUMBERS AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THE US TO HAVE |