United States Statement on Advancing Article 4.1 Commitments
Third Session of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate
March 7, 1996

Mr. Chairman;

I would like to take this opportunity to convey our thoughts on this very important aspect of the Berlin Mandate: advancing the implementation of the Parties' existing commitments under-Article 41 to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. I note that the Secretariat has once again prepared several useful documents relevant to this discussion and I would like to thank the Secretariat for its valuable and timely work in this

area.

At the second session of the AGBM, we heard presentations from a number of parties emphasizing the positive and diverse activities they are undertaking to implement their existing commitments under Article 4.1. We listened with interest to these presentations and were impressed with the wide array of activities. We are pleased that our cooperative work with many other countries through the U.S. Country Studies Program has played a valued role in their programs and activities addressing climate change.

As the Secretariat has noted in document FCCC/AGBM/1996/1/Add.1, advancing the implementation of Parties' commitments under Article 4.1 entails more than reporting on their current activities.

The United States believes there is a tremendous potential for all countries, including developing countries, to further their objectives for economic development and growth and to protect the earth's climate system at the same time. The IPCC Second Assessment Report concluded that there is a range of policies and actions to mitigate greenhouse gases that are appropriate, feasible, and cost-effective for all Parties. The IPCC report→→ noted that many opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at little or no cost, or even at a profit, are available to developed and developing countries alike. By seizing these opportunities, all countries can, and must, contribute to changing the path of dramatic emissions growth that the world currently faces.

Finding and seizing these opportunities are, we believe, at the heart of the obligation of all countries to advance the implementation of existing commitments under Article 4.1.

There is much scope for developed and developing countries to work together in this endeavor. Through the Country Studies program, which I have already mentioned, the United States has been able to provide developing countries and countries with economies in transition with technical and financial help to understand the sources of greenhouse gas emissions and identify attractive options to reduce them. Through this process, and similar efforts by other countries, a number of countries have built invaluable planning capacities and technical capabilities for dealing with climate change. A few examples may help illustrate the breadth and significance of these opportunities:

Improved refrigerator designs consume less energy while eliminating ozone-destroying CFCs. More efficient refrigerators translate directly into reduced pressure on scarce capital for expansion of power production and transmission capacity. And with power demands reduced, the path of greenhouse gas emissions growth can be reduced. Design codes and product standards for buildings, appliances and other equipment may also be useful to developing countries.

Nutritional supplements can improve the health and productivity of cattle -- and reduce their methane

Methane gas can be profitably recovered from coal beds before coal is mined, recovering fuel and reducing accident risks while preventing greenhouse emissions.

Countries can also improve conditions for economic development, climate protection and overall environmental quality by identifying and eliminating market imperfections, barriers to technological development and diffusion, administrative inefficiencies and constraints, and legal instabilities. Such actions lay the foundation for a cost-effective and comprehensive long-term strategy for addressing the climate change problem.

The United States believes that all parties have the opportunity to learn from one another in carrying out their Article 4.1 commitments. The open exchange of experiences and information is critical to understanding, and overcoming barriers and identifying win-win solutions. To this end, we support the proposal of the G-77 and China for additional workshops as a valuable contribution to this process. There may also be value in additional meetings, perhaps on a regional basis, on opportunities to adopt best practices and other means to promote economic growth and climate protection at the same time.

We would also like to suggest that consideration be given to the possibility of using the multilateral consultative process yet to be defined under Article 13 as a vehicle for facilitating the implementation of commitments for all parties. Such a process could draw upon the expertise of a range of technical experts from both developed and developing countries. The experts would provide advice and guidance on an asneeded basis to assist parties with questions, concerns and problems relating to the full range of commitments: national inventories, assessment of mitigation and adaptation options, development of climate response strategies and programs and preparation of national communications.

An additional component of the AGBM's work to advance the implementation of Article 4.1 must be a firm commitment to an ongoing workprogram on technology. We fully support the decisions of the SBSTA and SBI on thèse matters and urge that the Secretariat's valuable work in this area serve as a initial step in a multipronged effort on technology.

Advancing the implementation of existing commitments will be a long-term process for all parties. We see it. not as an objective, in and of itself, but rather as a foundation laying exercise. What we are seeking to do, at-a national and global level is to lay the groundwork for a long-term strategy to meet the threat of climate change. The successful implementation of such as strategy is the key to our sustainable development:

OLAND USE CHANGES ENERGY USE METHANE

lote: Land use changes data not available for FSU/E. Europe nor for the OECD, except the U.S. ource: World Resources 1994-1995, World Resource Institute

• GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS SOURCES VARY WIDELY BY REGION (1991 Example)

In the OECD Area, energy-related emissions are the predominant GHG emissions source. - In other regions, land-use changes and methane emissions have greater significance. - Efforts towards mitigation may need to have a varying emphasis in different regions.