The Honorable Stuart E. Eizenstat I again urge that the U.S. delegation insist on retaining the existing Producers on line-by-line approval for the Synthesis Report and that the questions not be approved in their present form until there is more opportunity to examine them. Finally, I understand that there have been Japanese media article reports about a U.S. proposal for "sharing quotas" and, in exchange, the Unites States and Japan would provide Pacific Rim countries with "environmental, technical, and financial assistance." Please provide the details of the U.S. proposal, including its costs for the U.S. and the authority for offering and implementing such a proposal. Is this proposal consistent with your commitments that the Administration not implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate advice and consent to ratification? I request your response by October 9, 1998 to the above matters, together with a detailed summary of the actions taken by the IPCC and its Working Groups and its Bureau beginning September 28th. Of course, I expect the responses to my earlier letters, which are long overdue, before the IPCC session begins. Sincerely, F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR FISAlw Enclosure Enclosure to September 18, 1998 Letter from Science Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. to the Honorable Stuart E. Eizenstat EXAMPLES OF CHANGES, DELETIONS AND INSERTIONS MADE TO IPCC PROCEDURES THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED BY STRIKE-OUTS AND DOUBLE UNDERLINES IN IPCC DOCUMENT (IPCC-XIV/DOC_5) CIRCULATED TO IPCC MEMBERS 1. Page 1, para. number 6: lines 42-45. Sentences on lines 42 and 44 are new insertions to old Appendix A "Principles Governing IPCC Work", which is proposed to be inserted at beginning of document. 2. Page 5, lines 28 and 29: a new sentence has been inserted that is not in the current Procedures. 3. Page 6, lines 15 and 28 and Page 7, line 42: The words "countries and participating organizations" have been deleted and the words "governments, organizations with relevant expertise❞ have been substituted without strike-outs and double-underlinings. 4. Page 6, lines 33-36: the sentence beginning on line 33 is new and there is no doubleunderlining. 5. Page 7, lines 6-8: the sentence beginning on line 6 is new and there is no double-underlining. 6. Page 7, lines 42-44: the sentence that begins on line 42 is new and there is no double underlining. 7. Page 8, line 23: the following sentence was deleted and there is are no strike-outs: "If time allows, a revised draft incorporating comments, 8. Page 8, lines 29-30: the words "who provided comments during the first review" are stricken with a line. However, they do not appear in the current Procedures. 9. Page 8, lines 39-40: this sentence is new and it is not double-underlined. 10. Page 9, lines 35-36: the word "signifies" has been deleted from current Procedures and the words" "is aimed at ensuring" have been substituted. There are no strike-outs or doubleunderlinings. 11. Page 10, lines 10-23: these paragraphs are all new. The current paragraphs are not shown COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hearing on The Road from Kyoto-—Part 3: State Department Overview Thursday, March 5, 1998 Post-Hearing Questions The Honorable Stuary E. Eizenstat Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs Additional Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Chairman Sensenbrenner Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Proposed Change of IPCC “Procedures” to IPCC “Guidelines" Q1. Al. The Congressman noted that “.....the proposed change of the word ‘Procedures' to 'Guidelines' suggests that the document (Appendix A of IPCC-XIV/Doc. 5) is not intended to be ‘legally binding' on the IPCC and its Working Groups, but merely an 'Aim' that could be ignored or waived by the IPCC Chairman, the IPCC Bureau, or others and they could do so without IPCC approval ... (s)uch a change will immediately suggest a weakening of the standards for developing IPCC reports..." He urged “the U.S. delegation, at the IPCC, (to) insist that the term 'Procedures' be retained when, and if, this document is considered by the IPCC." At the XIV Plenary of the IPCC in Vienna, the U.S. delegation noted its objection to the proposed change of the title of the IPCC "Procedures" to "Guidelines”. The representatives of the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia raised a counter objection in support of the change. Ultimately, the IPCC Panel accepted the U.S. position to reject the proposal, thus retaining the title of Appendix A as "Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports." Changes Made to the Existing 1993 IPCC Procedures Q2. A2. The Congressman noted that the statement, “(p)roposed deletions to the existing Principles and Procedures are shown by strike-outs and proposed insertions by double underlines” is incorrect, and “that there are a number of changes made to the 'existing' 1993 Procedures that are not shown by strike-outs or doubleunderlines." He urged that "the U.S. delegation should oppose consideration of such a document when the IPCC convenes under its proposed agenda to address these Procedures." The U.S. delegation noted the difficulty in adequately evaluating proposed changes in the principles and procedures documents due to the fact that the text did not reflect changes from the existing principles and procedures as approved at the IX IPCC Plenary in Geneva, 29-30 June 1993. Mr. Warrilow, Chair of the Ad Hoc Group on Procedures, apologized for this unfortunate clerical error but noted that it was not possible to produce a revised document while the Panel was meeting in Vienna. The Panel therefore agreed to table the discussion for future consideration. IPCC Chairman, Dr. Watson, announced that a revised draft of the Procedures will be submitted to governments for their review and comment. He assured the Panel that the revised draft will clearly indicate all proposed changes to be made in the existing Procedures, and that all comments will be collated and available to all governments before the next IPCC Plenary session. This issue will be taken up at the next IPCC Plenary to be held in April 1999. The venue has yet to be decided. Involvement In and Input to the IPCC from the Private Sector Q3. The Congressman noted “that the IPCC and its past and present Chairmen have been saying that they wanted more involvement and input from the private sector... (yet) the existing Procedures and the proposals for the writing team for the Synthesis Report ... (fail to indicate) how the IPCC plans to achieve this objective." He asks for an explanation. A3. The Congressman is correct in his observation that, historically, the private sector's participation in IPCC process has been minimal. Currently, the private sector is involved with the IPCC on several different levels. Representatives of the private sector, including those with academic posts and research positions in not-for-profit institutions have been nominated to contribute to the IPCC working groups or special reports, as either authors or reviewers. An example of this type of communication and exchange was evident in the recent efforts by the U.S. Technical Support Unit (TSU) of the IPCC Working Group II to canvass the aviation industry. A staff member at Dupont served as the coordinator in contacting industry professionals and inviting them to review and comment on the draft copy of the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Several corporate representatives have submitted their comments directly to the IPCC Secretariat who, in turn, will forward these on to the lead authors to aid in their revisions. Appendix B of IPCC document [IPCC-XIV)/Doc. 3 (27-VIII-1998)] entitled "The IPCC Third Assessment Report Decision Paper" presents the IPCC's commitment to promote the participation of experts from industry, academia, and environmental organizations. This section is repeated below: 10. Promoting the Participation of Experts from Business/Industry/Finance. Development and Environmental Organizations (i) The IPCC agrees that non-government experts, including those from business, industry, finance and development and environmental organizations, with relevant expertise, should be involved in the preparation and review of the Third Assessment Report; (ii) The IPCC agrees that its Bureau and the TSUs assist the IPCC Secretary in identifying those experts; (iii) The IPCC agrees that it will be critical to have balance, including geographic balance, within and between experts from various nongovernmental organizations. These experts will act in their personnel capacity, bring to bear their scientific, technological and economic expertise Policy-oriented environmental and industry-sponsored representatives meet with State Department staff in the Office of Global Change on an informal basis and have the opportunity to express their comments and concerns which are conveyed to the IPCC Secretariat or others as appropriate. Private sector representatives may also attend all IPCC meetings with the exception of the Bureau meetings, and are free to participate in IPCC Plenary and Working Group meetings. The IPCC is a scientific body and a hallmark of that scientific character or "culture" is fostering open communication and allowing interested parties to contribute. The need to include the private sector constituency has been brought to the attention of the IPCC. Members of the IPCC are sensitive to the need and will make a concerted effort to encourage such participation as evident in the decision paper as referenced above. |