Sosa: What is the subject of this chat?

Jose-Romero: Scientific and political reasons to agree a convention on Climate Change and its protocol.

Osvaldo: Which is the initial action by the international community? Is it the Second World Climate Conference or the so-called Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee?

Jose-Romero:.I would say that the nature of the two entities is different. The Conference was a scientific event and the Intergovernmental Committee aimed at negotiating a convention.

Raul-Estrada: The second world conference was scientific & political, and the ministerial segment of the Conference recommended the UN general assembly to offer an invitation for a process to negotiate the Convention.

Sosa: There seems to be a lot of mistrust in the press about there being real scientific evidence. Do you feel that the public feels the same way?

Jose-Romero: Well, the public reacts according to the information it gets and also common experience. 1997 was the hottest year on record, so the public has now directly experienced what climate change might bring.

Sosa: The hottest year on record, but the second-hottest was not 96 but in the late 19th century, or at least long ago...

Jose-Romero: But there is a strong correlation between the atmospheric concentration of CO² and the use of fossil fuels, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, so the potential human induced climate change is a real threat

Sosa: Fair enough

Osvaldo: Is there any possibility that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol could give origin to geo-political problems? If so, which would be the most important of these?

Jose-Romero: Not with any great force, if all the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol are implemented in an equitable way. Some specific needs of developing countries should be taken into account particularly as regards the threats of climate change.

Raul-Estrada: Climate had changed before, but those changes were produced by natural causes, not by anthropogenic actions, and they evolved over centuries. We are now facing a problem created by human beings, which can evolve in a short time. If that happens, social and political instability could occur and then political, geopolitical and demographic problems could appear. Don't you think desertification in northern Mexico is related to the migration tendencies in that area?

Osvaldo: If there are still uncertainties, then there is a clear need to monitor the atmosphere and the oceans. Why is it that the funding agencies drag their feet when this question arises?

Sosa: Maybe people are skeptical about our ability to deal with the problem.

Osvaldo: What needs to be done to ensure that adequate funding is provided in particular to third world countries to enable scientists to provide global coverage?

Jose-Romero: As regards funding for monitoring of climate change, its true that we rely upon national funding not international funding so far. However, we can really adopt measures to deal with problems, especially in sectors like energy or transport, although social acceptability is a real barrier to progress on this score

Sosa: It's true that so far we don't have magic solutions for the energy sector and that we rely heavily upon fossil fuels.

Jose-Romero: That's a good reason to foster research and development in the energy field.

Osvaldo: Wasn’t GEF originally implemented, amongst other things, to support this kind of monitoring activity?

Jose-Romero: I'm not sure GEF is a position to finance monitoring.

Osvaldo: Actually GEF was intended to support at least the original setup of the necessary equipment.

Jose-Romero: The operational strategy of GEF probably has provision for that, but its not clear how it can be implemented. Unfortunately I don't have the operational strategy here, but I'm sure that discussion should take place again particularly amongst donor countries

Raul-Estrada: The main problem with GEF is the limited funding, and the grouping of countries in areas

Osvaldo: How do you think that, as mentioned in the UNFCCC, external assistance could be provided to developing countries?

Raul-Estrada: Contributions to GEF by the industrial Annex I countries are not plentiful enough to cover the needs, and the so called donor countries condition their contributions to the contribution of the others.

Jose-Romero: It's clear assistance should be provided in terms of technology and new means to address the mitigation of climate change and then the adverse impacts of climate change. We have concluded negotiations for the second replenishment of GEF, at more or less the same level as GEF I.

Osvaldo: How much is that?

Jose-Romero: I should add here that the conclusion of these negotiations demonstrate somehow the goodwill of Annex one countries in fulfilling their commitments and the convention, and the GEF funding is more or less 2-3 billion dollars.

Sosa: Should I understand that you are blaming lack scientific monitoring for lagging political support? I would have thought the problem is rather deeper than that.

Osvaldo: I think that while science is only one aspect of the issue it still is a significant one. The success of the Montrea’ Protocol and its amendments was ensured by the scientific research and involvement.

Raul-Estrada: Where the private banks are concerned, developed countries provide money in tens of billions of dollars, to be sure that the financial sector is not affected, but when we go over to environment, criteria are different.

Sosa: Changing the gas in your fridge is easier than giving up your Mercedes!

Jose-Romero: It’s true, environmental concerns do not receive the attention they deserve, nevertheless, I should add that GEF has a very high fund raising effect.

Jose-Romero: It is also true the scope of the Montreal Protocol is narrow, and hence implementation is easier, in the case of the climate convention, we are addressing all sectors and all activities related to CO2 emissions, and that's an intrinsic difficulty we have to overcome

Osvaldo: Consequently, all the more need to include the scientific component as a strong component. Maybe a lot of money would be spent mitigating something that does not need to be mitigated.

Jose-Romero: Yes, the Montreal Protocol is a very scientific driven process, as is the case of the climate convention, allow me to remind you that the IPCC is our scientific reference.

Raul-Estrada: Jose, We need a GEF able to help developing countries finance energy and transport projects in developing countries, providing the financial support for that part of the required investments which will not have a commercial return in the short and medium term.

Sosa: Wow! And what are they getting in return?

Jose-Romero: Yes, not only the USA, but even amongst other Annex 1 countries there is concern simply because their efforts will not be sufficient to overcome climate change. One very interesting function of GEF is fund raising, as GEF covers only the incremental costs of the projects, and the private sector should really be the main investor if we want to have a sustainable flow of money to developing countries.

Raul-Estrada: It was agreed that industrial countries shall take the lead in the mitigation effort and then developing countries will join in.

Jose-Romero: Yes its true that developed countries should take the lead, and I think they are doing so...The synthesis of the second national communications indicate that more and more Annex 1 countries are taking climate change considerations into their policies, particularly their economic policies.

Osvaldo: Even if the process currently observed by the scientists is climate variability, would you say that the Convention would still have been useful because it can lead us to a better use of the resources available in the planet?

Sosa: Now we're getting to the bottom line!

Jose-Romero: Yes absolutely, on the basis of the precautionary principle many no-regret measures can be adopted conducting us toward sustainable development and that is very valuable.

Raul-Estrada: It was also agreed developing countries commitments will be fulfilled when the industrial countries fulfill their commitments on financial and technological support, and we are still debating that point.

Osvaldo: Even from the point of view of science a better understanding of the climate system atmosphere-ocean-land use etc will be reached in this effort.

Raul-Estrada: On top of what Jose Romero said, the fact is that developing countries are increasing their energy efficiency and that way, they limit their emissions, but that is not recognized by industrial countries.

Jose-Romero: Annex 1 countries are fulfilling their commitments. Allow me to mention, again the replenishment of GEF, and also to say the private sector has received the Kyoto signal and it is taking environment protection considerations into account more and more. Many developing countries have made substantial efforts in the energy sector, and these are not accepted in the developed countries as they double the price of energy. We recognize these efforts and we are also making efforts, allow me to mention the Swiss example: the government has proposed a law which is now in the parliament which foresees a reduction of 10% of CO2 emissions by 2010, compared to 1990 levels. That's already somehow the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol before we have even ratified it.

b The main commitment of industrial countries was to return to their 1990 level of emissions, by the end of the century. In the year 2000, the USA is going to be at least 15% above its 1990 emissions. Switzerland is doing well, like the UK Germany and the Czech Republic, but what about the others?

Jose-Romero: It's true many Annex 1 countries have increased their emissions, but you know that it will take a few years to implement measures

Vivanco: Not all developed countries are making an effort, or an equal effort, are they?

Estrada: Well we hope the good example will be imitated. It’s been a pleasure exchanging views with you, let's get on with the negotiations.