« PreviousContinue »
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 FCCCIAGBM/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 3 - 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
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
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
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 bearing 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 writtea 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.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
FOR MR. GUERRERO
1. Dr. Michaels suggested in his testimony that ctimate 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 wteo participated in the forum?
The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.
Dear Mr. Brown:
I have enclosed our response to the two additional questions you posed in your January 18, 1996 letter pertaining to the Committee's November hearing on global climate change models. I appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance on this matter.