Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by noting that the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM) will meet twice more this year and two times next year prior to the Third Session of the Conference of the Parties. While my delegation has strongly supported analysis and assessment in the early stages of our negotiation, we are also very much aware that time is of the essence. We must move forward sensibly, but progressively – not only because we are required to do so under a decision taken last year in Berlin, but because the scientific evidence of climate change continues to mount. The Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now indicates that there is discernible human influence on the climate system. Over two thousand of the world's leading scientists have now concluded that recent trends can no longer be attributed solely to natural variability.

Clearly, there are still uncertainties, but it has become increasingly certain that we cannot seek refuge in scientific uncertainty. The stakes are simply too high the costs of inaction are too great. We must proceed resolutely on the course set in Berlin.

I make these observations about the urgency of our work because they may have a significant bearing on the choice of instrument we will use to adopt the results of our work next year. The United States urged strongly in Berlin, and we continue to urge, that the specific instrument chosen is only a vehicle we must ultimately choose a specific legal instrument that provides the swiftest, most efficient means of reaching our common objective. What is important in the first instance is defining an objective. We should then be in a position to choose the specific vehicle.

-

Need to Resolve Rules of Procedure

At present, whether a protocol or amendment offers the clearest advantages is not discernible. Our vision is clouded, in part, because of continuing uncertainty regarding the rules of procedure we will follow in adopting a protocol. To lift the fog, we urge that COP2 in July spare no effort to resolve this issue.

Possible Advantages of an Amendment

Meanwhile, however, we think it important to restate as clearly as possible the advantages we see in an amendment if only to ensure that this option continues to remain at hand. Mr. Chairman, let me underscore that the United States has not as yet taken a position to support one form of legal instrument over another. To attribute even a preference to us would be to misunderstand our position in and since Berlin -- that the choice of legal instrument will depend on the commitments it is intended to reflect. So let me say in the clearest terms that we are not opposed to a protocol per se..

With regard to an amendment, we note the following points:

་

The negotiation of an amendment could focus on a handful of convention provisions, as opposed to requiring negotiation of all the provisions that the creation of a separate legal

instrument entails; as such, needless controversy might be avoided, and considerable time might be saved.

An amendment would not raise complex issues concerning its relationship to the convention's institutions (e.g., Conference of the Parties, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, Subsidiary Body for Implementation); those institutions would simply apply. Such an approach would not only simplify the negotiation, but would be consistent with the worldwide trend toward streamlining of global institutions.

The rules governing the adoption of an amendment are already set forth in the convention and are not dependent on reaching further agreement on the rules of procedure.

If the convention is to function as a long-term vehicle for addressing climate change, it may be more appropriate to develop a series of amendments over time to one convention than to begin a proliferation of separate legal instruments.

Thus, we see a number of advantages to an amendment, and reiterate that the time has not yet come for us to settle on the specific legal instrument. I would note that the three-annex approach tabled by the European Union at our last session in November could fit as easily under an amendment as under a protocol - we saw nothing about the EU proposal that would confine it to a protocol. But again, Mr. Chairman, it may be that we will decide ultimately in favor of a protocol -- and we are convinced that a protocol could also meet our needs. Let us avoid a rush to judgment, however, until we have a clearer idea of the commitments we will adopt next year.

SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO FCCC/AGBM/1996/4

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the Secretariat has done an excellent job in its paper on "Possible Features of a Protocol or Another Legal Instrument" in setting forth the issues involved. We have a number of specific points related to that paper.

Paragraph 2 - The paper notes that it does not address the option of a completely separate legal instrument. To our understanding, a legally binding instrument would either be an amendment or a separate legal instrument. Thus, the notion of a "protocol" that is neither a de facto amendment nor a separate legal instrument is not clear to us. If other colleagues on the secretariat can cite examples of protocols that are neither separate legal instruments nor amendments, even if they are called "protocols," we would be interested in studying them.

Paragraph 3 - We completely agree with the secretariat's assumption that, in the interest of administrative efficiency and in light of budgetary constraints, we should avoid the establishment of new institutions in a protocol regime unless absolutely essential.

Paragraph 5 - In our view, it should go without saying that it is the Parties to an amendment or protocol that should have decision-making authority thereunder.

Paragraphs 7-10 -- We agree that a protocol would have to have its own COP.

Paragraph 11-We agree that the work program of the convention secretariat could be
expanded to serve a protocol regime or an amendment regime.

Paragraph 12 -- We are not convinced that the SBI, given the language of Article 10, could

serve a protocol; we agree, however, that the only basis on which the SBI might be instructed to do so is likely that found in Article 7.

Paragraph 16 - Under an amendment, the current Article 12 requirements to communicate
information might not require amendment or might require only modest amendment. For a
protocol, relevant Article 12 provisions would need either to be incorporated by reference
(perhaps with appropriate modifications) or spelled out de novo in the protocol obligations.

Paragraphs 17-18 - We agree that a consultative process developed for the convention would apply to an amendment, whereas the States negotiating a protocol would need affirmatively to decide whether to have such a process (either that developed for the convention or a different one) apply to a protocol.

Paragraph 19 - We agree with the secretariat's paper on the applicability of dispute settlement to an amendment or protocol.

Paragraph 20 - We may need to make clear in an amendment that only Parties to the
amendment will be able to take decisions concerning the amendment.

Paragraph 22 - The need to negotiate final clauses for a protocol, rarely a simple or speedy task, is an argument that tends to support an amendment, since these issues are already fixed for an amendment in the convention itself.

Mr. Chairman, we would like to again thank the secretariat for its fine work on this paper.

:

I want to express my appreciation for your participation in the Committee's recent hearing on Global Change modelling. Your testimony was of great value to me and to the Committee.

Enclosed, you will find some additional questions which are intended to clarify certain points raised in the hearing and develop additional information for the Committee's use. Your written responses will be included as part of the hearing record. I ask that you provide your responses by February 15. You may contact Dr. William S. Smith of my staff at 202/225-4439 if you have any questions regarding this request.

Once again, thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

GEORGE B. BROWN, JR.
Ranking Democratic Member

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

FOR MR. GUERRERO

1. Dr. Michaels suggested in his testimony that climate modelers have not been straightforward in disclosing the uncertainties in their models. Did the GAO find any indication that modelers have failed to appropriately disclose model uncertainties and potential weaknesses?

2. In your opinion, did the USGRP Modeling Forum fairly consider and discuss the views and criticisms of "skeptics" such as Dr. Michaels and Dr. Lindzen who participated in the forum?