ECO NEWSLETTER CLIMATE TALKS GENEVA - AUGUST 1993 NGO NEWSLETTER INC 8 August 18, 1993 ISSUE #3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .1 Fairness on Emissions Demanded .2 East Germany - Lost Chance or Blueprint for the Future? .3 A Workshop on Implementation Review .4 Leman .5 SOS from Small Island States .6 Reality Check .7 The Elephant in the Room (Editorial) .8 Working Group I Report .9 Working Group II Report .10 Ambassador Hurst Interviewed .11 Contacts .12 Credits ECO has been published by Non-Governmental Environmental Groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environment Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by Climate Action Network members attending the Climate Talks in Geneva, August, 1993. ****************************************************************** Fairness on Emissions Demanded Joint efforts by countries to meet the goals of the climate change treaty should not proceed until nations agree on how to divide up worldwide allocations for emitting greenhouse gases, according to testimony presented on August 3 by Atiq Rahman, director of the Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies, to a subcommittee of the US Congress's Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. According to Rahman, joint implementation must not move forward until the issue of emissions entitlements has been resolved, and the most significant issue regarding joint implementation of the Climate Convention is how allowances for greenhouse gas emissions are allocated among countries. Rahman went on to assert that greenhouse gas emissions rights should be distributed on a per capita basis, resting his argument on two principles: all human beings are equal; and global resources such as the atmosphere and oceans belong to all people equally. "Under this formula, industrialized countries will have probably exceeded their allocations To maintain current emissions levels, they would have to purchase rights to emit from the developing countries," which have a much smaller per capita emissions rate than nations such as the United States. "If in the not-too-distant future the global leadership can have the courage and the wisdom to adopt this framework, it would move the North-South debate from the concepts of present-day aid and charity toward true international cooperation," Rahman said. This situation would provide, he added, "mutual respect and dignity and the correct and legitimate share of the planetary resources that belong to all." The hearing was being held to examine the GEF, which is about to be restructured, and Rahman emphasised that it is important to make the most of the rare opportunity to make major changes to an international institution, and establish the primacy of the Climate Convention over the GEF. ****************************************************************** E. Germany - Lost Chance or Blueprint for the Future? by Sascha Muller-Kraenner, DNR Germany's national report, presented to the INC Monday, states that CO2 emissions in East Germany have been reduced by around 50% since 1987. This has been due to 'economic restructuring', raising the question as to whether reduction will continue following economic recovery. East Germany differs from other economies in transition as the federal government has invested hugely in rebuilding the economy's infrastructure. This investment shows no sign of diminishing, three years after re-unification To achieve sustainable growth, East Germany needs efficient energy production and supply; ecological modernization of industry and building stock; and effective public transport which will also link it to central and eastern Europe. There is a clear choice: the money invested today can either be used to make the same mistakes as the western market economies or the opportunity can be seized to create a real blueprint for sustainable development. ****************************************************************** A Workshop on Implementation Review Establishing effective implementation review systems is a key factor in ensuring that international conventions achieve their objectives. Yesterday a workshop was held on the development of implementation review and verification processes in the Climate Convention. Owen Greene, of VERTIC and Bradford University in the UK, began by emphasising the importance of establishing structures for reviewing each national report, particularly those from developed states, so as to improve their reliability and to monitor the extent to which each country is fulfilling its commitments. There is a danger that this task may be neglected, as attention is focussed on the other important duties of the INC. The Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) therefore needs to examine national reports, taking into account information from other sources, and to be able to request further information from relevant national authorities. This should be a routine technical process, and the SBI should have the resources to commission external expertise where necessary. When weaknesses are identified, the parties should have the opportunity to revise their reports. This review process should be as open as possible. There was discussion of the significance of 'joint implementation' measures for implementation review. Without clear guidelines, widespread use of such measures could undermine the effectiveness of the review process. To prevent this, information relating to any joint implementation projects should be reported separately. Where a developed country wants 'credit' for its part in reducing emissions in another country, it should have to provide clear and specific information to show that it really deserves such credit. This also raised questions about the 'comprehensive' approach. As the IPCC has made clear, uncertainties about emissions or removals are much larger in some sectors than others. Implementation of commitments should therefore be reviewed separately for each sector. In other Conventions, some governments have been reluctant to establish effective implementation review processes, but this risks reducing the effectiveness of the agreements. In the case of climate change, all parties have an interest in encouraging their fellow participants to implement their obligations fully. Developing countries are naturally interested in effective reviews of the measures taken by developed states. At present, the key is to establish appropriate structures for the future. This is likely to remain an important issue for some time to come. VERTIC and Bradford University hope to arrange similar meetings at future INC sessions. ****************************************************************** Leman Leman had been hoping to spend the morning recovering quietly from the after-effects of the Secretariat's reception, using the normally soporific ambience of Working Group 1 for a couple of hours of well-earned sleep. He was rudely awakened, however, by the violent outbursts emanating from the Global Climate Coalition in response to the intervention from Nauru. Leman formally requests that the gentlemen take their (extremely) strong language to a more appropriate location - down a coal mine perhaps? ****************************************************************** SOS from Small Island States Introducing a dose of reality into an otherwise academic debate, Antigua & Barbuda reminded delegates today of the plight of small island states if urgent action is not taken to reduce greenhouse gases. Ambassador Lionel Hurst noted poignantly that the lengthy and technical discussions of the INC were at risk of losing sight of the reason for the gathering. Hurst spoke of the mission of Prime Minister Bikenibeu Paeniu (Tuvalu) to the recent G7 in Tokyo, at which Paeniu called for urgent action to stave off climate change. Quoting from a report of the event, Hurst reiterated "Industrialized countries' dependence on fossil fuels will lead to cultural genocide for small island nations. We are not prepared to stand by and let this happen." Hurst noted that the contribution to climate change of such small island states is zero, while the impact of climate change will literally reduce them to zero. Stressing that no methodology adopted by Tuvalu or Antigua & Barbuda will in any way affect the outcome of climate change, he stated "It is up to industrialized nations, and especially the large industrialized nations, to reduce the emissions that threaten to completely destroy the small country which I inhabit". * See interview - page 3 ****************************************************************** Reality Check * Besides the GEF, what other operating entities for the financial mechanism is the INC considering? * How will the Conference of the Parties assert its control or influence over the GEF to meet the objectives of the Climate Convention? What will be the role of its subsidiary bodies? * Will the INC have anything substantive to say on restructuring the GEF? Does the Climate Convention have any control over its financial mechanism or does it kowtow to the World Bank? * How will the financial mechanism fund adaptation to meet the obligations required by the Convention? * When will the INC stop deferring to the GEF and define incremental costs? * How will the INC assess the quality of the GEF's 'independent' evaluation? * How many islands will be submerged while diplomats debate whether help should be provided to save human lives? ****************************************************************** The Elephant In The Room There is a strong, almost desperate desire of delegates at this and past INC sessions to find ways to avoid confronting the central issue posed by climate change: the need dramatically to reduce anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption. This desire is given voice in several ways-scientific uncertainty, comprehensive approach, net emissions crediting sinks against sources, joint implementation, etc., etc. But as Joe Louis, the famous US heavyweight boxer, used to say, "you can run, but you can't hide." One by one, the diversionary smokescreens are losing their potency. As IPCC Chair Bert Bolin has made abundantly clear over the last two days, the recent spate of pollyannish articles in the popular press, assuring us that the scientists' predictions of substantial negative impacts from greenhouse warming are greatly exaggerated, are based more on a handful of highly vocal "greenhouse skeptics" than they are on the broad mainstream of climate scientists. As to the hope that carbon sinks will save us from the fuelish folly of our ways, Professor Bolin is equally blunt: "Forests are both sources and sinks for greenhouse gases," he reminds us. As the article Sinking the Climate in yesterday's Eco explored in great detail, ecosystems that we have counted on as net greenhouse sinks may already be sources of significant emissions. The comprehensive approach provides little solace for the "carbon cowards," either. For when the emissions of CFCs and other gases already being reduced under the Montreal Protocol are put to one side, carbon dioxide represents some 70% of remaining anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Not much room to hide there. And joint implementation, while offering a potential long-term contribution, is no panacea. Virtually every observer expects total developing country emissions to increase over the coming decades, even with aggressive financial and technological assistance. The substantial reduction in global emissions needed to meet the overall objective of the climate convention must therefore ultimately come from the industrialized countries. Which brings us on to the elephant in the room that everyone pretends not to notice-the necessity for a rapid transition away from the world's current near-total reliance on inefficient use of polluting fossil fuels to power our economies. When Working Group I turns to the topic of joint implementation later this week, the discussion ought to be expanded to include "joint implementation" of industrial country efficiency standards for cars, motors, appliances, and other energy-using equipment; OECD-wide implementation of energy taxes, the removal of subsidies to fossil fuels and other fiscal measures to reduce energy use; and a coordinated strategy rapidly to deploy substantial quantities of greenhouse-friendly renewable energy technologies. The energy elephant is not going to go away - and it's growing like Topsy. The sooner we acknowledge the elephant's existence - and move to tame it - the better off we'll all be. ****************************************************************** Working Group I The frustration of the first victims of climate change-the developing countries-became evident during yesterday afternoon's session of Working Group I. The morning session had focussed largely on technicalities relating to the paper prepared by the Secretariat on methodologies, with industrialized country experts serving their own self-interests. The mood of the meeting in the afternoon was much more charged, when Antigua and Barbuda's Ambassador John Hurst brought the harsh reality of climate change back into the debate. He spoke of the fear of impending "cultural genocide" of small island states while developed nations ambled slowly through detailed technical analysis. Prof. Bolin of the IPCC said that while he had great sympathy with the feelings expressed by Antigua and Barbuda, it was the role of the IPCC to maintain a technical, scientific viewpoint. This was in addition to his comment during the session that "forests are not necessarily natural sinks", as well as confirming that HFCs will be considered by the IPCC. Uruguay commented that Antigua and Barbuda's intervention was not entirely apocalyptic but perfectly realistic. Their delegate noted that the IPCC work is not an academic exercise detached from reality, but necessary to guide policy-making, especially for developing nations. "We don't have tomorrow to wait for!" Uruguay stated in response to a patronizing French dismissal of their concerns that action was called for as early as the 1st World Climate Conference in 1979. "We developing countries do not dominate the scenarios: we have a feeling of impotence here, but developed nations cannot expect us to spectate while they talk about things which affect us." Dr Jeremy Leggett of Greenpeace made an NGO intervention to raise concerns about the lack of discussion of the worst-case analysis-that the possibility of natural feedback processes could snowball into an runaway greenhouse effect. He also mentioned the "whiffs of panic" now surfacing in the multi-billion-dollar insurance industry, after recent catastrophic losses from natural disasters. ****************************************************************** Working Group II Discussions of the funding mechanism paper prepared by the INC Secretariat, "Policies, Program Priorities, and Eligibility Criteria", did little to overcome the differing perspectives of developing and developed countries. A number of developing countries expressed concerns with the OECD countries insistence on prioritizing funding for mitigation measures over adaptation measures. The US argued that adaptation measures would have only national benefits, not global benefits, and therefore would not be eligible for GEF funding under the GEF's mandate. China argued on the other hand that adaptation measures have eventually a global impact. The Cote du Ivorie delegate expressed surprise at the US position. "Adaptation is required in developing countries to limit the deleterious effects of climate disasters which those countries have had little input in creating. Therefore," he said, "a balanced and objective approach has to include adaptation as well as a global approach." The underlying issue of the adequacy of funds from OECD countries drove the discussion on eligibility for funding. France, the EC and others argued that funds should only go to a subset of particularly needy developing countries as defined by criteria such as per capita income. The opposite view was presented by Norway, which stated, "It is not the countries which are the beneficiaries of the funds, as in the traditional sense [of development funds], but the global environment which will be the beneficiary." The obvious conclusion that it is not appropriate to limit the provision of funds for incremental costs to some subset of developing countries. A number of developing countries addressed the issue of adequacy and predictability of funding. Without clear commitments by Annex II countries, planning and discussion of funding priorities would be difficult. The Swiss did propose that consideration be given to a multilateral eco-tax of some sort be established as a way to develop new sources of funds, but did not receive any statements of support from other OECD countries. Hungary called for the formation of a "unique" financial mechanism which will acquire and oversee the distribution of funds. Hungary pointed out that the GEF would seem to be in many ways in direct contradiction to the terms of Article 11 of the convention itself, which clearly defines a mechanism for the provision of financial resources for a variety of purposes including mitigation. "It is fundamental to give priority to projects which lead to mitigation of greenhouse gases, and we must also include adaptation as well. We've been discussing the prioritization of funding for projects in terms of global impact. Many times these adaptation projects avert damage, and therefore shouldn't be termed in the framework of global impact. Hazard management is a matter of global concern." ****************************************************************** Ambassador Hurst Interviewed Eco had the opportunity yesterday to have an extended conversation with Ambassador Lionel Hurst, from Antigua and Barbuda and Vice-Chair of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). The Ambassador had just made an exciting intervention in WG I which occupied the session for the rest of the day. We began by asking the Ambassador what his assessment was of the last (first) CSD meeting. Hurst replied that the attendance of so many ministers gave the CSD a standing not usually accorded a UN Commission. Most came without prepared statements, and the unique aspect of the meeting was that the ministers reacted to their colleagues. Ambassador Hurst felt that the meeting represented significant progress on the road to "achieving watchdog status". Personally, the Ambassador indicated that several small island states plan on using the CSD as a "bully pulpit" to restate their view that the behavior of the developed nations-and particularly their consumption patterns-amounted to "environmental vandalism". But what can the CSD really do if it has no enforcement power? we asked. Ambassador Hurst noted Vanuatu's Ambassador Robert van Lierop's comment that the CSD is "our security council" and went on to explain this view. Small island states would like to see the CSD play the same role for the environment that the security council plays in the UN system; as "it becomes more evident that the environment is undergoing changes to the detriment of mankind" this role will be critical. The Ambassador then gave his own view that the security council restructuring should include a small island state as a permanent member. They are the only states who hold "a different view from the propertied states", he said. The security council "needs states which can express "moral indignation". Asked what his thoughts were on the NGO role of the CSD, the Ambassador agreed that NGOs play an important role, because they are not hobbled by the same "diplomatique" constraints that governments usually are. As such, their interventions were an important part of the process. Eco next raised the question of the GEF and asked Ambassador Hurst's opinion of the restructuring and the issues of transparency and observer participation. The Ambassador noted that though most decisions in the GEF process were the result of negotiation, the outcome "doesn't really represent where we want these issues to be. We would like to see them responsive to the interests and ideas of recipients." Transparency, he said, was very important as a means to accomplish this end-the GEF will respond if the press is brought in. We asked what the relationship was between the CSD and the Climate Convention, and the Ambassador responded that "Every bureaucrat has his own kind of bailiwick." The goal should be to further the objective of both institutions. Hopefully, he noted, the convention process would be expressed in the work of the CSD. While it will be an uphill battle to make these institutions work together, it is a battle which should begin soon. He then went on to indicate, when prodded about specific areas such as energy in Agenda 21 and technology cooperation, that the constraints on the UN budget might actually facilitate communication, by forcing personnel on both the CSD and the FCCC secretariats to serve both institutions in a dual capacity. "Necessity of course is the mother of invention, and we can hope for a closer linkage due to need". Eco asked about protocols to the Climate Convention. Could we expect to see a push to make this discussion a priority? The Ambassador replied with a parable about his house in Antigua. The architect and the engineer were so technical that he didn't even recognize his house! The so-called experts often lose sight of the larger objective. Ambassador Hurst chided the academic nature of the day's debate in the working groups, and concluded that "We have to make enough noise so that people remember the objective of the convention. Otherwise we are simply switching deck-chairs on the Titanic as it goes down." He said that the small island states will make the effort to push the committee to discuss protocols, but he was uncertain of success because their leverage was limited. Eco concluded the interview by asking what role the Ambassador saw for the Caribbean Environment Program (CEP) The Ambassador praised the helpfulness of the scientists, and the importance of the actions of some of the scientists who are committed to change by pressing their governments to take action. In conclusion, he revealed that it was in fact the scientists of the CEP who generated the idea for AOSIS. ****************************************************************** FOR MORE INFORMATION: For enquiries and response to ECO: Eco can be contacted at: Hotel de Longchamp, 7 rue Butini, 1201 Geneva . Tel: +41 22 731 9228. Fax: +41 22 738 0007 PLEASE NOTE CHANGED REVERSE POLL FAX NUMBERS BELOW! Dial-a-Fax Service: "Reverse poll" dial to +44 374 506 517 (outside UK) or 0336 413706 (inside UK) to receive the latest copy of ECO. See your fax manual for 'Reverse poll dialing' or call +44 374 506506 for a recorded guidance message. The 336 number is a 'premium' line in the UK only, charged at UKL 0.36/minute cheap rate and UKL 0.48/minute at all other times -- a proportion of this charge supports the ECO project. International calls are not charged any premium, and are therefore sponsored by the equipment suppliers. Every issue of ECO will be posted in full to the en.climate and climate.news conferences on the APC networks, and the Usenet news group sci.environment. It will also be available via anonymous ftp from IGC.APC.ORG (192.82.108.1), subdirectory /pub/ECO. Binary PageMaker files are also available via Applelink, on the APC conference climate.news, and via ftp from IGC.ORG For information about electronic mail, conference, and ftp distribution of ECO, contact E-mail coordinator, Lelani Arris APC Networks/Internet/Fidonet - larris@igc.apc.org Bitnet - larris%igc.org@stanford For information about Pagemaker files via Applelink, contact ECO staff: applelink:UK.REGION1. For information about Pagemaker files via APC, contact Media Natura ECO staff, email: cta@gn.apc.org ****************************************************************** CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Editorial & Production Managers: Alister Sieghart and Richard Elen Production Assistant: Andrew Gettelman Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet North American Distribution: Wes Dowling & EESI Assistance from: Arjette Stevens, Beth Zilbert, Lyn Goldsworthy, Deborah Good, Karan Capoor, Toni Vidan, Steve Kretzmann, Scott Hajost, Atiq Rahman, Kalle Hesstvedt, Bill Barclay, Jasmin Callosa, Grace Akumu and Alex Wood. Published by: Media Natura, Tel: +44 71 240 4963, for the Climate Action Network. The Climate Action Network would like to thank the following, who have provided funds and facilities for Eco: Environmental & Energy Study Institute * Environmental Defense Fund * National Wildlife Federation * World Resources Institute * World Wide Fund for Nature * Natural Resources Defense Council * Climate Network Europe * Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain * Union of Concerned Scientists * Greenpeace International * Rockefeller Brothers Fund Special thanks to: Hotel Longchamps * UN Nongovernmental Liaison Service with resources donated by: Aldus UK, Apple Computer, Creative Technology Associates, Computers Unlimited, Dial-a-Fax, EcoNet, Industrade AG, Microsoft, Shades & Characters Ltd. ****************************************************************** PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS NEWSLETTER!! We are interested in tracking ECO electronic distribution. If you find this newsletter of value, please return the following report. Thank you for your help!! ****************************************************************** ECO NEWSLETTER - GENEVA AUGUST 1993 (INC 8) How did you get the newsletter? _________e-mail _________________________________address _________conference or list _____________________name _________ftp or other file server _______________location Have you used the information in reports or newsletters? (please specify) Did you distribute it to others? (please list) Return to: ****************************************************************** Lelani Arris * Project Director EcoNet: larris * GAIN Sustainable Transport Internet/Fidonet: larris@igc.apc.org * & Energy Project (STEP) BITNET: larris%igc.org@stanford * Box 42 Telephone: 604-968-4380 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0 Fax: 604-968-4390 * Canada ******************************************************************