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. WHAT IS THE TIMETABLE FOR THAT NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS 11D. 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 Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response P. 20 Answer: If two panels are established, and if each panel numbers between 10 and 20 members, it is likely that the United States, which is currently one of 148 Parties to the convention, would be able to name at least one expert to one of the two panels. 12D. THE US SAID THAT EXPERTS SHOULD BE NOMINATED BY GOVERNMENTS, BUT THEY COULD COME FROM INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT. AS YOU KNOW, "EXPERTS" OFTEN HAVE DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW ON "SCIENTIFIC", "TECHNICAL", OR "ECONOMIC" ISSUES, AND MOST HAVE POLICY PREFERENCES. 12D(i) WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AN "EXPERT" FOR THE PANELS AND ANY SUBSTRUCTURE? Answer: An expert would bring specific technical skills, knowledge and experience to the work of the panel and any substructure. 12D(ii) WHAT CRITERIA WOULD BE USED BY THE US IN SELECTING SUCH EXPERTS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED, TO ENSURE A BALANCE OF VIEWS ON ISSUES AND POLICIES, AND TO AVOID POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROBLEMS? Answer: To establish their qualifications, we would consider the background (academic and work-related) of candidates; to establish points of view, we would consider their reputations among their peers; to avoid conflicts of interest, we would inform interested candidates of their responsibilities if selected; and urge them to consider any potential conflicts when allowing their names to be put forward. 12D(iii) WHAT IS, IN YOUR VIEW, THE FUNCTION OF THE SUBSTRUCTURE PANELS? Answer: A substructure under the panel on technologies would enable the panel itself to serve as a kind of steering group, while providing it the ability to consult a necessarily broad spectrum of experts with specific knowledge of technologies in particular fields of endeavor. 12D(iv) WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE SUBSTRUCTURE, THE NUMBER OF EXPERTS REQUIRED, AND THE CRITERIA FOR SELECTION? Answer: Whether a specific substructure is established or Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response p. 21 to consult a very large number of experts across many sectors. We would rather not restrict the number of experts whose advice is sought with respect to technologies in any particular sector; instead, we would like to encourage as many experts as possible to participate in the work of the convention. The criteria for selection should be "proven technical expertise", as well as willingness and ability to serve. 13. AN INSIDE EPA ARTICLE OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 QUOTES AN ENVIRONMENTALIST AS SAYING THAT "GLOBAL WARMING WILL CONTINUE UNTIL LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ALSO TAKE STEPS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS." HOWEVER, THE BERLIN MANDATE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE EXPECTED GROWTH IN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM THESE COUNTRIES. IT MERELY REAFFIRMS THAT THESE COUNTRIES ARE OBLIGATED TO CARRY OUT COMMITMENTS THEY PLEDGED TO IMPLEMENT WHEN THEY RATIFIED THE CONVENTION, WHILE EXPRESSLY STATING THAT THE AGBM PROCESS MAY NOT INTRODUCE ANY NEW COMMITMENTS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. 13A. WHY DID THE US AGREE TO AN AGBM PROCESS THAT FAILS TO PROVIDE FOR DISCUSSION AND NEGOTIATION OF NEW COMMITMENTS AT ANY TIME BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO DEAL WITH THIS GROWTH? Answer: The AGBM process is designed to produce a next step under the convention that will lead to progress toward its ultimate objective; reaching that objective is likely to require quite a number of steps over time. Under the present convention, developing countries have at least three years longer to produce their first national communications concerning the actions that they are taking to mitigate and adapt to climate change than developed countries. The earliest of these developing country communications will thus not be available until 1997. On the other hand, the initial "aim" accepted by developed countries in Article 4.2(a) and (b) extends only to the year 2000, and these countries, in particular, which now account for nearly 60 percent of current global emissions of greenhouse gases, believed it was necessary to begin considering how to deal with their own emissions in the years post 2000. Finally, the language of the Berlin Mandate indicates that developing countries must continue to advance the implementation of their commitments. Inasmuch as these commitments include obligations to take policies and measures, to report on actions and to take climate change considerations into account, where feasible, in their relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions, the United States assumes that significant advances will be made by all Parties including developing country Parties - in next Rohrabacher: October 19, 1996 Response p. 22 13B. WHAT STEPS, IF ANY, ARE THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES COMMITTED TO TAKE UNDER THE CONVENTION TO REDUCE EMISSIONS AND IN WHAT TIMEFRAME? Answer: Developing countries, like all countries that are party to the convention, are committed to taking all of the actions envisioned by Article 4.1 of the convention. In addition, developing countries are also committed to taking the actions envisioned by Article 12.1 of the convention. (A copy of each is attached.) 13C. ARE THOSE COMMITMENTS CONTINGENT UNDER THE CONVENTION ON ANNEX I COUNTRIES PROVIDING MONEY AND TECHNOLOGIES AS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SEEM TO CONTEND? Answer: Article 4.7 of the convention provides, "The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties." The United States regards Article 4.7 as a statement of fact, not as a condition precedent. 13D. WHAT SPECIFIC DECISION SHOULD THE AGBM TAKE THAT WOULD RESULT IN ADVANCING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY COMMITMENTS? Answer: This issue is under active consideration within the AGBM. A copy of the U.S. intervention on this issue from AGBM-3 in Geneva in March 1996 is attached; it provides our most recent position on this issue. 13E. PLEASE PROVIDE A TABLE IN MILLION METRIC TONS COMPARING ESTIMATES IN WHICH THE US HAS CONFIDENCE, BASED ON ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER REPORTS, OF TOTAL WORLD GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WITH EMISSIONS FROM THE FORMER SOVIET BLOC, THE US, AND OTHER OECD COUNTRIES, CHINA, INDIA, AND OTHER DEVELOPING NATIONS FOR THE YEARS 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2025 AND 2100. Answer: Numerous estimates or scenarios of future emissions of greenhouse gases over various time horizons have been developed in recent years. While many of these estimates have provided important insights to those concerned with the 23-558 96-11 |