ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 9 19. Since my previous letter on October 19,1995, regarding the IPCC and related matters, an IPCC discussion paper entitled "The Future of the IPCC (IPCC -X/DOC.5)" has come to my attention, along with an IPCC discussion paper for IPCC Working Group II on "Future IPCC Working Group II Activities during 1996 and 1997". To my knowledge, neither paper was requested by COP-I or any of the Subsidiary Bodies. I understand the second paper was prepared by the Working Group II Technical Support Unit located in Washington, DC. I also understand that both papers discuss a process for so-called "quick" response to requests, and both suggest that these activities are likely to be costly to the Parties and particularly the U.S. Finally, I understand that both papers are part of the provisional agenda for the IPCC Rome meeting beginning December 11, 1995. Please explain the status of each discussion paper. 20. Please explain the status of the Working Group II Technical Support Unit and its funding for fiscal year 1995 and 1996, including the source or sources of these funds. 21. I understand that the Working Group II discussion paper under one project indicates that the Bureau could provide technical papers that "would constitute clarification, interpretation, or elaboration of the material in the SAR" in response to specific needs of the COP or its Subsidiary Bodies. Such papers would be written by the Bureau of the Working Groups or by "specially commissioned writing teams that would include but not be limited to lead authors of the SAR" and each paper would take 6-12 months. And it suggests, but does not spell out, "an expedited review and acceptance approval mechanism" for the papers. I also understand that, on the other hand, the second paper proposes that the IPCC 'assess particular topics in response to the needs" of the Convention to requests from sponsoring bodies, and to scientific or technical questions arising in the literature. a. b. C. Could this be interpreted as an effort by the Technical Support Unit and the Working Groups to find work to do and to perpetuate themselves until 1998 when the third assessment is scheduled to begin, and if not, why not? What is the actual or perceived need or the desire for a segment or segments of the IPCC to engage in 1996 and 1997 in clarifications, interpretations, or elaborations of the SAR after the SAR has gone through the review and acceptance process by lead authors, reviewers, and governments prior to its adoption in IPCC Plenary Session in Rome next month? On what basis could these Working Groups provide such interpretations, etc.? d. What would be the cost and who would pay that cost? e. What is the capability of the Bureau from the standpoint of expertise to ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher November 30, 1995 Page 10 22. 23. f. Who and how would such writing teams be selected? 9. h. i. j. k. What is the "expedited" process to be employed, would the process be open and transparent, and how would present IPCC procedures have to be modified? Would the Working Groups have to meet to adopt these papers? How would such a process mirror the process for the SAR so as to ensure fairness, total consistency with the SAR, and be politically and universally acceptable to the Parties and the public? Would the requests have to come from the COP and/or Subsidiary Bodies or could the Chairmen of the COP or the Subsidiary Bodies initiate them without approval of the Parties in meetings of the COP or the Subsidiary Bodies? What is the U.S. position on these papers or any similar proposal? Does the I understand that an analysis and assessment of the Alliance of Small Islands States draft protocol by the Department of Energy is completed or nearly complete. Please a copy of the results. I understand that an October 30, 1995, draft document entitled the "Establishment of Intergovernmental Technical Advisory Panels" calls for technical advisory panels to implement a "programme of work" attached to the draft. The panel is to be composed of twenty members, ten from the five U.N. regional groups, five from Annex I Parties, and five from non-Annex I Parties. a. Why is such a panel needed, especially in 1996 or 1997? b. C. d. e. Would the meetings of this panel be open and transparent or closed? Please identify the five regions and indicate how many Panel members in total are likely to be from developing countries. I also understand that the U.S. is not supportive of this proposal. Is that correct, and is so, what does the U.S. support and why? Please explain the origin of this program of work, the deadlines, and the product to be produced. f. What is the purpose to be achieved by each item in the program? 9. How would this panel carry out each of the items of the program? Would they ATTACHMENT-Questions Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher Page 11 24. h. How would such a process mirror the process for the SAR so as to ensure fairness, total consistency with the SAR, and be politically and universally acceptable to the Parties and the public? I understand that in its October 31, 1995, statement at the AGBM meeting in Geneva, the U.S. called for "an informal session" next February and recommended at least two presentations to be coordinated through the Secretariat. 25. 26. b. C. Has the IPCC agreed to making these presentations? Please explain the nature of the analytical presentation that I understand the I understand that the conclusions of the last AGBM meeting are not those of the Parties, but of the Chairman and that the Chairman is apparently deciding what constitutes "consensus" under the arrangements of COP-I. The Chairman's conclusions, among other things, calls for a narrowing down of the range of policies and measures under consideration. That conclusion appears to be inconsistent with the U.S. Statement on Policies and Measures of October 31 which, among other things, calls for a menu of options. And, I also understand that the U.S. did not object. Are my understandings accurate, and if so, why was no objection raised by the U.S.? I understand that the U.S. made a number of requests and recommendations at the second AGBM. a. Please list them and explain their status. b. C. Will all these requests and recommendations be addressed fully by the The delegation, in its October 30 statement, made several requests and recommendations in particular. Please apply them to the U.S. and provide your responses to each, particularly those under the heading "Features of the Legal Instrument". Attachments of the Department of State to Representative Dana Rohrabachers' Questions of November 30, 1995 United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 APR 3 1996 Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1995, in which you asked a number of questions about the IPCC, AGBM, and related matters. We apologize for the delay in our response. Per your request, we have composed comprehensive answers to all of your questions on behalf of ourselves, the Department of Energy, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. compiling our responses we have consulted with other agencies, both domestic and international. In We hope this will be helpful to you and the members of the Subcommittee. If you have any questions relating to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Barvard Larkin Barbara Larkin Acting Assistant Secretary Enclosures: As stated. The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, |