manufacturing at all, but in transportation and buildings, sectors which, by their very nature, are severely limited in their ability to relocate to other countries.

Evaluating how the Kyoto Protocol could affect competitiveness of a few specific manufacturing industries -- especially those that are energy-intensive, such as aluminum and chemicals is complex. However, the modest energy price effects associated with permit prices of $14/ton to $23/ton would likely have little impact on competitiveness.

-

Further, there is no reason to expect that mitigating climate change would necessarily have a negative effect on the trade balance. Indeed, the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would likely decrease oil exports to the United States, benefitting the trade balance. In short, we believe that the reason we need developing country participation is primarily because the problem is global and cost-effective solutions are essential, rather than to avoid adverse effects on competitiveness.

Next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Plenary and List(s) of Key Policy-Relevant Questions and Key Policy-Relevant Scientific Questions

Q36.

It is my understanding that at the last Plenary meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Parties agreed that: (1) the next Assessment Report would once again include a Synthesis Report (Report) for policy makers; (2) the Report will be prepared by a country team composed by the IPCC Bureau; (3) the Report is not a scientific document, but a governmental document; (4) the Report "will address a broad range of key policy-relevant questions"; and (5) the IPCC Chairman and the Working Group Chairs will develop a list of “key policyrelevant scientific questions” that is to be circulated to governments for comment and for IPCC approval at its next plenary.

Q36.1 Is my understanding as stated above correct, and if not, what is the correct information?

A36.1 At the IPCC's 13th Plenary Session in the Maldives in September 1997, the Parties agreed that the next Assessment Report would include a synthesis report. The synthesis report will be prepared by a drafting team composed of the IPCC Chair, the Co-Chairs of the IPCC'S three working groups and additional experts. The report will be a scientific document in that it will synthesize and integrate policyrelevant scientific and technical information contained in the three working group reports. The report will address a broad range of key policy-relevant questions. These policy relevant questions will be agreed by governments this fall at the IPCC's 14th Plenary Session) based on a list submitted by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was compiled from submissions by Parties (governments) to the Convention. Once adopted by the IPCC plenary, the list of policy-relevant questions will be changed only with the agreement of the IPCC plenary.

Q36.2 What is the schedule for the next IPCC plenary?

A36.2 The IPCC's 14th Plenary Session will take place in Vienna, Austria, from October 1-3, 1998; it will be preceded by a meeting of the IPCC's Bureau on September 28, and by meetings of the IPCC's three working groups on September 29-30.

Q36.3 Is the list of the "broad range of key policy-relevant questions" to be addressed by the Report and the list of "key policy-relevant scientific questions" to be developed by the IPCC Chairman and the Working Group Chairs the same list or are they separate lists?

A36.3 There is only one list of policy-relevant questions. That list will be agreed by governments at the IPCC's 14th Plenary, based on a list submitted by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was itself compiled from

OMM

WMO

Q36.4 What is the status of the list(s)?

A36.4 Please see response to question 36.1 and 36.3 above.

Q36.5 Please provide a copy of (1) the list(s) when received, and (2) your comments thereon when submitted.

A36.5 A copy of the list developed by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and adopted at the October 1997 SBSTA meeting in Bonn, that has been forwarded to the IPCC for consideration at its 14th Plenary is attached. Satisfied that the list identified a full range of policy-relevant questions, the United States produced no written comments on it. (The relevant document, "TAR Synthesis Report," IPCC-XIV/Doc. 8 (25-VIII-1998), Submitted by the Chairman, August 24, 1998, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourteenth Session, Vienna, 1-3 October 1998 follows.)

1.

2.

3.

4.

4a.

IPCC Synthesis Report

Proposal by

Robert T. Watson

Chairman of the IPCC

This paper contains five sections:

philosophy - already approved in the Maldives;

structure - already approved in the Maldives;

approval process - partly approved in the Maldives;

writing team composition - partly approved in the Maldives;

development process - approved in the Maldives;

suggested outline/policy relevant scientific questions to be reviewed and approved.

The Panel is requested to make three decisions:

approval process for the longer paper;

structure of the report;

approval of policy relevant scientific questions.

The IPCC Bureau must approve the composition of the writing team.

Philosophy

The Synthesis Report will be written in a non-technical style suitable for policymakers and will address a broad range of key policy-relevant scientific questions that are of greatest interest and importance to policymakers, in particular, the Conference of Parties to the FCCC and its two subsidiary bodies, SBI and SBSTA (decision 4.1).

4b.

The Synthesis Report should synthesize/integrate material contained within the assessment reports of the three Working Groups (decision 4.4).

4c. The Working Groups will be asked to include assessment information relevant to those key policy-relevant scientific questions in their contributions to the TAR and to bring forward the key points in their Summaries for Policymakers (decision 4.3).

5a. The Synthesis Report should consist of a short SPM and a longer report (decision 4.5).

6.

6a.

Approval Process

The SPM of the Synthesis Report will undergo a simultaneous expert/government review, and then be approved line by line by the IPCC (decision 4.6). The adoption process for the longer portion of the Synthesis Report was deferred in the Maldives.

School 1:

The longer report would be subjected to an expert/government review
and then be accepted by the IPCC;

School 2:

The longer report would be subjected to an expert/government review
and then line-by-line approval by the IPCC.

6c. Many of you will remember that Bert Bolin and I both favoured the first approach. Our argument was that it would not be feasible to approve a 30-50 page report line-by-line by the IPCC sitting in a plenary session, and that a 30-50 page report was needed to answer the policy-relevant scientific questions identified by governments and SBSTA.

6d. If we cannot come to agreement on one of the above options, I would like to suggest three possible options, remembering that the scope of the Synthesis Report, i.e., policyrelevant scientific questions, will be approved by the IPCC, and that the Synthesis Report should synthesize/integrate material contained within the assessment reports of the three Working Groups, which will include approved SPMs and accepted underlying reports. Approach 1: The approval process for the longer report has three elements: (i) an expert/government review; (ii) acceptance by the IPCC; and (iii) the SPM would have an Annex for any dissenting views by governments.

Approach 2: The approval process for the longer report has three elements: (i) an expert/ government review; (ii) approval by the IPCC Bureau, similar to the Technical Papers; and (iii) acceptance by the IPCC.

Approach 3: The approval process for the longer report has four elements: (i) an expert/ government review; (ii) approval by the IPCC Bureau, similar to the Technical Papers; (iii) acceptance by the IPCC; and (iv) the SPM would have an Annex for any dissenting views by governments not represented on the Bureau.

6e.

Approaches 2 and 3 give a very important role to the IPCC Bureau, which is in my opinion an appropriate role given that it was elected by the IPCC and is a geographically representative body.

6f. I have polled the IPCC Bureau and the majority believes that we should either adopt School 1 or Approaches 1 or 3.

7. Writing Team Composition

7a.

The IPCC Chair will chair a geographically balanced writing team for the Synthesis Report, with the writing team composition being agreed by the IPCC Bureau (decision 4.7).

7b. The following two options will be presented to the IPCC Bureau for their consideration. The IPCC will be informed of their decision.