Distr.
GENERAL
FCCC/AGBM/1996/8
7 October 1996
Original: ENGLISH
AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE
Fourth session
Geneva, 11 - 16 July 1996
Paragraphs Page
I. OPENING OF THE SESSION
(Agenda item 1) 1 - 3 3
II. ORGANIZATION OF WORK
(Agenda item 2) 4 - 9 3
A. Adoption of the agenda 4 3
B. Organization of the work of the session 5 - 7 4
C. Attendance 8 4
D. Documentation 9 5
III. STRENGTHENING THE COMMITMENTS IN
ARTICLE 4.2(A) AND (B)
(Agenda item 3) 10 - 23 5
GE.96-
Paragraphs Page
IV. CONTINUING TO ADVANCE THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF ARTICLE 4.1
(Agenda item 4) 24 8
V. POSSIBLE FEATURES OF A PROTOCOL OR ANOTHER
LEGAL INSTRUMENT
(Agenda item 5) 25 - 32 9
VI. TAKING STOCK AND INTENSIFYING EFFORTS:
REPORT TO THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
(Agenda item 6) 33 - 39 10
VII. REPORT ON THE SESSION
(Agenda item 7) 40 - 42 11
I. Reports from the Chairmen of the informal round tables
12
II. Documents before the Ad Hoc Group on the
Berlin Mandate at its fourth session 20
1. The fourth session of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate
(hereinafter referred to as "the AGBM") was held at the Palais des
Nations, Geneva from 11 to 16 July 1996.
2. The Chairman of the AGBM, Ambassador Raúl
Estrada-Oyuela, opened the session at the 1st meeting, on 11 July
1996. In welcoming the participants, Ambassador Estrada recalled that
Parties were now halfway through the time period for preparing a
protocol or another legal instrument. In this context, he expressed
concern at the lack of progress made by some Annex I Parties in
returning their emissions to 1990 levels and at the perception of
some Parties that commitments did not extend beyond the year 2000.
Ambassador Estrada re-affirmed that developing countries would not be
subject to additional commitments under the Berlin Mandate. He
observed that when developed countries accepted and complied with
adequate obligations, and when they had facilitated financial support
for developing countries to meet their commitments, the time would
possibly come when developing country Parties would be in a position
to enter into new obligations. In noting the variety of proposals
before the Group on policies and measures and quantified emission
limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs), the Chairman recalled
the option of considering criteria for differentiation between Annex
I Parties. The Chairman drew attention to the apparent preference in
the Group for a draft protocol, but noted that the continuing
divergence of views on the majority required for its adoption meant
that an amendment remained an option. He concluded by expressing his
hope that the Group was now ready to start negotiations.
3. Statements were made on behalf of environmental and
business/industry non-governmental organizations.
4. The AGBM, at its 1st meeting, on 11 July, adopted the following
agenda:
1. Opening of the session.
2. Organization of work:
(a) Adoption of the agenda;
(b) Organization of the work of the session.
3. Strengthening the commitments in Article 4.2(a) and
(b):
(a) Policies and measures;
(b) Quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives within
specified time-frames.
4. Continuing to advance the implementation of Article
4.1.
5. Possible features of a protocol or another legal
instrument.
6. Taking stock and intensifying efforts: report to the Conference
of the Parties.
7. Report on the session.
5. At the 1st meeting of the AGBM, on 11 July, the Chairman
recalled that there would be services available for seven meetings,
with interpretation from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The AGBM agreed to take up agenda items 3(a) and (b) together and to
proceed on the basis of the schedule of work proposed by the
Chairman.
6. The AGBM, at its third session, had requested the Chairman to
convene informal round tables on policies and measures and QELROs.
The round table on policies and measures, chaired by AGBM
Vice-Chairman Mr. Suphavit Piamphongsant, and the round table on
QELROs, chaired by AGBM Vice-Chairman Mr. Dan Reifsnyder, were held
on 12 July. A third round table, on the possible impacts on
developing country Parties of the new commitments to be negotiated
for Annex I Parties, was held on 15 July. The Chairman noted that he
had called on a member of the non-governmental community, Dr.
Kilaparti Ramakrishna, to chair the round table on possible
impacts.
7. The Chairman, after consultations with the Bureau, had
requested the secretariat to seek a legal opinion from the United
Nations Office of Legal Affairs on the meaning of Article 17.2 of the
Convention. The Chairman requested that this opinion be circulated to
members of the AGBM.
8. For attendance at the fourth session of the AGBM, see the
report of the Conference of the Parties on its second session, Part
One, chapter II, section J (FCCC/CP/1996/15).
9. The documents prepared for the AGBM at its fourth session are
listed in annex II below.
10. At its 2nd and 3rd meetings, on 15 and 16 March, the AGBM
considered item 3. As previously noted, items 3(a) and (b) of the
provisional agenda were considered together. The Group had before it
documents FCCC/AGBM/1996/5, FCCC/AGBM/1996/6, FCCC/AGBM/1996/7,
FCCC/AGBM/1996/MISC.1/Add.1-3, and FCCC/AGBM/1996/MISC.2 and Add.1.
Statements were made by representatives of 27 Parties, including one
speaking on behalf of the European Community and its member States,
and another speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States
(AOSIS).
11. The Chairman of the informal round tables on policies and
measures, Mr. Suphavit Piamphongsant (Thailand), and the Chairman of
the informal round table on QELROs, Mr. Dan Reifsnyder (United States
of America), reported on the results of the round tables at the
second meeting of the AGBM, on 15 July. The Chairman of the informal
round table on the possible impacts on developing country Parties of
the new commitments to be negotiated for Annex I Parties, Dr.
Kilaparti Ramakrishna, of The Woods Hole Research Centre, reported on
the results of the round table at the third meeting of the AGBM, on
16 July.
12. The Chairman of the Annex I Experts Group on the UNFCCC, Mr.
Ian Pickard (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland),
made a statement with regard to the work of that group.
13. On the basis of a proposal by the Chairman, the AGBM, at its
4th meeting, on 16 July, adopted the following
conclusions.
14. The AGBM expressed its appreciation to the Chairmen,
panellists and participants of the three round-table discussions on
(a) policies and measures, (b) QELROs, and (c) possible impacts on
developing country Parties of the new commitments to be negotiated
for Annex I Parties. The AGBM found the round tables to be very
useful, and took note of the reports of the Chairmen of the round
tables, included as annex I to this report.
15. The AGBM noted that the elaboration of policies and measures
and the development of QELROs were linked, and that the final product
of its work should reflect both policies and measures on the one hand
and QELROs on the other.
16. The AGBM renewed its discussion of approaches and criteria for
the elaboration of policies and measures. Two general approaches
continued to be the main subject of discussion:
(a) A "menu approach", under which the protocol or another legal
instrument could provide for a detailed listing of policies and
measures, from which Annex I Parties could choose on the basis of
their national circumstances. This approach could include appropriate
procedures for the communication and review of information;
and
(b) A mandatory approach, under which the new legal instrument
would require certain common and/or coordinated policies and
measures. One proposal was to develop separate annexes setting
forth:
(i) mandatory policies and measures,
(ii) coordinated policies and measures, and
(iii) optional policies and measures.
Some delegations argued that there was no set of policies and
measures appropriate for all Annex I Parties, and that Parties should
instead be allowed to choose those policies and measures best suited
to their national circumstances. Others contended that some desirable
policies and measures would not be undertaken by individual countries
unilaterally because of competitiveness concerns, and must be agreed
on internationally.
17. A number of criteria were identified for assessing policies
and measures, including: potential to limit greenhouse gas emissions
and enhance sinks; socio-economic and environmental costs and
benefits as well as impact on short- and long-term economic growth,
including on developing countries; political feasibility; and the
need for common or coordinated action. A number of informative
studies of policies and measures were brought to the attention of the
AGBM, including work done by the Annex I Experts Group, as well as
proposals from the European Community and its member States for
policies and measures to be included in a protocol or another legal
instrument.
18. The AGBM noted that a number of key issues must still be
addressed regarding QELROs. These issues include:
(a) The levels of emissions reductions, and criteria for their
choice;
(b) Whether QELROs should be legally binding or not;
(c) Whether multi-party or single-party obligations should be pursued;
(d) What should be the base and target years;
(e) The socio-economic and environmental costs and benefits for
all Parties, including developing country Parties; and
(f) The effect on atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations.
19. Several delegations said that the Second Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides
scientific support for establishing ambitious QELROs and that
significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels
would be necessary to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases at a safe level. Several
delegations supported the QELROs contained in the AOSIS protocol
proposal. Other delegations argued that further work was needed,
noting that considerable uncertainties remained regarding the costs
and impacts of emission reductions, and that the AGBM must develop
realistic, achievable and equitable objectives.
20. A number of delegations emphasized the importance of allowing
flexibility in the design and implementation of QELROs. Among the
mechanisms suggested to promote flexibility were the following: the
comprehensive approach, encompassing all sources and sinks of
greenhouse gases; long-range QELROs; QELROs focusing on cumulative
emissions over a number of years; and joint implementation and
tradeable emission permits among Annex I Parties only.
21. Many delegations expressed support in principle for
differentiation of commitments (possibly including the use of
different base years), in order to take account of differing national
circumstances and to ensure that QELROs would be equitable and
economically efficient. Some delegations, however, questioned whether
it would be practicable to agree on the criteria and modalities for
differentiation within the time-frame for negotiations set forth in
decision 1/CP.1(1), and suggested that
the AGBM should instead focus on uniform QELROs. A number of
delegations expressed support for a simplified approach to
differentiation, under which Annex I Parties would be divided into
several groups with different binding commitments for each group.
Other proposed approaches to differentiation included the
following:
(a) differential baseline years;
(b) emissions limitations adjusted for population growth and/or
emissions embodied in trade;
(c) differentiation to achieve equivalent welfare changes between
Parties;
(d) differentiation based on emissions per capita or per unit of
gross domestic product;
(e) differentiation based on the ratio between renewable energy
supply and total energy consumption;
(f) differentiation based on a Party's historical contribution to
the climate change problem;
(g) differentiation based on a Party's projected emission trends;
and
(h) market-based differentiation using joint implementation or
tradeable emission reduction obligations amongst Annex I
Parties.
The AGBM looked forward to further concrete proposals regarding
uniform QELROs, and possible criteria and modalities for
differentiation.
22. The importance of considering the possible impact on
developing country Parties of the new commitments to be negotiated
for Annex I Parties was emphasized by many delegations. Some
delegations argued that costs to developing countries of new
commitments by Annex I Parties would be high relative to the
benefits. The issue of burden sharing should be expanded to include
all Parties and to include options to minimize any potential negative
impacts on non-Annex I Parties. A number of informative studies on
the impacts on developing countries of measures by Annex I Parties
were highlighted. Many delegations noted that non-action was not an
option, and urged early action by Annex I Parties in order to avoid
negative economic, social and environmental impacts on developing
countries in the long term.
23. The AGBM agreed that there should be follow-up to consider
further the possible impacts on developing country Parties of new
commitments for Annex I Parties. The Chairman undertook to consult
with delegations about how this follow-up would be carried out before
and during the next session.
24. Consideration of this item was deferred until the fifth
session.
25. The AGBM considered this matter at its 1st meeting on 11 July
1996. The Group had before it documents FCCC/AGBM/1996/6,
FCCC/AGBM/1996/MISC.1/Add.1 and 2 and FCCC/AGBM/1996/MISC.2 and
Add.1. Statements were made by representatives of 16 Parties,
including one speaking on behalf of the European Community and its
member States and one speaking on behalf of AOSIS.
26. On the basis of a proposal by the Chairman, the AGBM at its
3rd meeting, on 16 July, adopted the following
conclusions.
27. Many delegations stressed that the form of the protocol or
another legal instrument to be adopted by the Conference of the
Parties at its third session should flow from its substance and that
the AGBM should therefore concentrate on the substantive provisions
of the agreement.
28. The AGBM reaffirmed the principle of institutional economy and
the need to avoid the proliferation of new bodies and mechanisms
under a protocol or another legal instrument. Accordingly, it agreed
that the new instrument should, to the greatest extent possible, be
served by the existing institutions and mechanisms of the Convention,
including in particular the Convention secretariat and possibly the
subsidiary bodies. There was also support for having a single process
for the communication and review of information. The AGBM expressed
interest in exploring the possibility of having a single Conference
of the Parties and a streamlined budgetary process for the Convention
and the new legal instrument, subject to the understanding that only
Parties to the new legal instrument would be able to vote on
decisions relating to that instrument.
29. Many Parties stated their preference that the form of the
instrument should be a protocol. Some delegations reaffirmed support
for the protocol outline and the use of annexes proposed by the
European Community, and some expressed support for the protocol
proposed by AOSIS. Several countries continued to reserve their
position about the form of a legal instrument pending decisions by
the Conference of the Parties regarding the rules of procedure and by
the AGBM concerning the substance of the new instrument.
30. It was stressed that the protocol or another legal instrument
should be a simple document which supplemented the Convention.
Several delegations reaffirmed their support for the inclusion of
legally-binding QELROs.
31. Several delegations stressed that the protocol or another
legal instrument should be open only to Parties to the Convention,
and observed that a regional instrument cannot provide a durable
solution to the global problem of climate change. Some delegations
also noted that the new legal instrument should have sufficient
flexibility to reflect differing national circumstances, possibly
through the inclusion of differentiated commitments.
32. A number of delegations emphasized that the new instrument
should be designed to evolve in the light of new developments and
scientific advice. This could involve, for example, the establishment
of a mechanism to review the provisions of the instrument and to make
any necessary decisions and adjustments. There was also mention of a
strengthened in-depth review process and of a mechanism to accumulate
experience in activities implemented jointly.
33. The AGBM considered this matter at its 3rd and 4th meetings on
16 July 1996. Statements were made by representatives of three
Parties, including one speaking on behalf of the European Community
and its member States.
34. On the basis of a proposal by the Chairman, the AGBM at its
4th meeting, on 16 July, adopted the following
conclusions.
35. The AGBM had made valuable progress over the past year in
advancing understanding of the options available for a protocol or
another legal instrument and of their implications. However, much
work still needed to be done and the AGBM must now intensify its
efforts to complete a new legal instrument in time for adoption by
the Conference of the Parties at its third session.
36. Thus far, the work of the AGBM had focused on analysis and
assessment, and this process would continue. The emphasis of the work
of the AGBM must now move progressively towards negotiation, as
mandated by decision 1/CP.1.
37. The AGBM invited Parties to submit further concrete proposals
on policies and measures, QELROs, and other possible features of a
protocol or another legal instrument, by 15 October
1996.
38. The Chairman undertook to produce, with the assistance of the
secretariat, a contribution to the fifth session that would
synthesize all proposals made to date, including those received up to
15 October 1996. He expressed the hope that this contribution would
provide a useful framework for discussion at the fifth session and
that it would be a step towards the development of a negotiating
text.
39. The AGBM welcomed the proposal of the Chairman that he make an
oral report to the Conference of the Parties at its second session on
the progress achieved in the AGBM. This report would be factual,
drawing on the reports of the AGBM at its first, second and third
sessions as well as on the conclusions adopted at this
session.
40. At the 3rd meeting, on 16 July, the Rapporteur presented the
first part of the draft report of the session (FCCC/AGBM/1996/L.2).
The AGBM considered and adopted the report.
41. At its 4th meeting, on 16 July, the AGBM requested the
Rapporteur, under the guidance of the Chairman and with the
assistance of the secretariat, to complete the report, taking into
account the discussions of the AGBM, the conclusions on agenda items
3, 4, 5 and 6 (FCCC/AGBM/1996/L.2/Add.1), and the need for editorial
adjustments.
42. The Chairman, after thanking all participants for their
constructive cooperation, declared the fourth session of the AGBM
closed.
I. Report by Mr. Suphavit Piamphongsant, Chairman,
informal round table on policies and measures
1. I am pleased to report on the results of the informal round
table on policies and measures, which was held on the morning of 12
July. At the opening of the round table, I invited initial comments
by the five panellists: Dr. J. Pershing, Science Officer, Office of
Global Change, Department of State, USA; Dr. B. Metz, Deputy
Director, Air and Energy Division, Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment, Netherlands; Professor M. Sadowski,
Head of the Climate Protection Centre, Institute of Environmental
Protection, Poland; Mr. I. Abdelgelil, Chairman, Organization for
Energy Conservation and Planning, Egypt; and Mr. V. Sharma, Joint
Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, India. Following
these initial comments, the floor was opened for comments and
questions by delegates and representatives of non-governmental
organizations.
2. There was broad agreement among participants that Parties
should have considerable flexibility in deciding which policies and
measures to adopt, based on their particular starting points,
economic structures and resource bases, and other national
circumstances. But although panellists agreed that policies and
measures should not be required internationally in cases where
national action is possible, they disagreed about whether national
action is in all cases adequate or whether some measures need to be
mandated internationally.
3. Supporters of the former view contended that the protocol or
another legal instrument should elaborate a menu of policies and
measures, from among which Parties may choose. In support of this
approach, it was suggested that no single set of policies and
measures is appropriate for all Annex I Parties. A menu approach
would allow Parties to meet the goals of the Convention in the manner
best suited to their national circumstances. One panellist emphasized
that it is most efficient for governments to establish general goals
and then allow the private sector and the market to decide how best
to achieve those goals.
4. Other participants contended that some desirable policies and
measures will not be taken by individual countries unilaterally (for
example, for competitiveness reasons), and must be agreed on
internationally. Therefore, a protocol or another legal instrument
should set forth a limited number of required or harmonized policies
and measures. One approach would be to include separate annexes
setting forth:
(a) A limited list of required policies and measures;
(b) A broader list of policies and measures that should be
harmonized; and
(c) A still broader list of policies and measures from among which
Parties may choose.
5. Participants generally agreed on a number of criteria for
selecting policies and measures, including their potential to limit
net greenhouse gas emissions, their economic cost, their political
feasibility, and the need for common or harmonized action (for
example, where competitiveness concerns may inhibit national action).
Among the possible priority areas for policies and measures,
participants mentioned:
- "no regrets" strategies
- renewable energy
- product standards (for example, for cars and
appliances)
- industrial sectors with high energy demand
- HFCs/PFCs
- the international air and marine transport sector
- economic/fiscal instruments (for example, to internalize the
external costs of road transport)
- reductions in subsidies (for example, coal)
- financing mechanisms for economies in transition.
6. While many of these focus on the energy sector, it was noted
that the Convention addresses climate change in a comprehensive
manner, encompassing all sources and sinks of all greenhouse gases;
therefore, policies and measures should not focus on a particular
sector or greenhouse gas to the exclusion of others. Reservations
were also voiced about the desirability and political feasibility of
carbon taxes.
7. Among the other points raised during the course of the round
table were the following:
Policies and measures to combat climate change should be
elaborated in a spirit of international solidarity and
cooperation;
In elaborating policies and measures for Annex I Parties,
consideration must be given to their impacts on non-Annex I Parties
and, in particular, their trade impacts. This was the subject of a
separate round table discussion on 15 July 1996;
Developing countries may wish to accede voluntarily to particular
policies and measures. In this connection, consideration should be
given to questions of finance and technology transfer;
The elaboration of policies and measures on the one hand and
QELROs on the other are closely linked;
Particular policies and measures may tend to support or undercut
one another. Such linkages and interactions need to be taken into
account;
If lists of policies and measures are to be included in the
protocol or another legal instrument to be adopted by COP 3, the
lists must be easily amendable, in order to take account of new
circumstances;
The elaboration of policies and measures should be undertaken
through a transparent, open process. In this regard, suggestions were
made that the work of the Annex I Expert Group should be made
available to all participants in the AGBM.
8. In concluding, I would like to emphasize that this report is
not a comprehensive summary of every point made during the round
table, but instead attempts to give a general flavour of the very
rich and constructive discussion that took place.
II. Report by Mr. Dan Reifsnyder, Chairman, informal round
table on quantified emission limitation and reduction
objectives
1. I am pleased to be able to report on the results of the
informal round table on QELROs. At the third session, the AGBM
welcomed the offer by the Chairman to convene the round table, with a
view to helping the fourth session achieve a more focused discussion
on QELROs. The round table was held on 12 July 1996, and was attended
by a large number of delegates and observers.
2. The round table benefitted from the input of six panellists:
Mr. V. Berdin, Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and
Environmental Monitoring; Ms. B. de Castro-Muller, Permanent Mission
of the Philippines to the United Nations, Geneva; Mr. B. Fisher,
Executive Director, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics; Mr. T. Shibata, Permanent Mission of Japan to the United
Nations, New York; Ms. C. Quennet-Thielen, Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany; and H.
E. Mr. T. Slade, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the
Independent State of Western Samoa to the United Nations, New
York.
3. The round table was organized around several key questions.
Each question was addressed in short presentations by panellists,
which were followed by general discussion. The first question asked
what should be the level or levels of emission limitation and
reduction? Panellists agreed on the need for Annex I
limitation and reduction efforts, reminding the round table of
existing proposals but noting the inherent difficulties. It was,
however, highlighted that even the best efforts of Annex I Parties
would not lead to a stabilization of global emissions. The discussion
acknowledged that the determination of eventual QELROs would, while
informed by science and economics, be politically based.
4. The second question raised was whether or not eventual
quantified objectives should be legally binding or non-legally
binding (e.g. "aims")? A number of panellists argued that
legally binding commitments would be more credible, could help build
confidence, could send desirable signals to the marketplace, and were
required for competitiveness reasons. Binding commitments could
coexist with flexibility, as is currently the case with Article 4.6
of the Convention. Other speakers favoured an indicative target,
which would be more easily negotiated than legally binding
commitments. An indicative target could potentially be combined with
a review mechanism or with legally binding policies and measures,
though caution was urged that any discussion of whether or not
commitments should be legally binding may be premature when the
quantified objectives themselves had yet to be determined. The final
determination on these matters will need to weigh:
- the advantages of achieving legally binding commitments, versus
the relative ease of adopting "aims";
- the level of the eventual target adopted, versus the level of
likely participation.
A final determination would also need to consider mechanisms for
the monitoring of compliance, and for enforcement.
5. The third question asked whether commitments should be
multi-Party obligations, single Party obligations, or a combination?
There was general agreement among panellists that single
party obligations were to be preferred. While a multi-Party approach
could be attractive in, for example, setting an overall objective for
Annex I Parties, it would ultimately have to be negotiated into
single party obligations.
6. Taking 1990 as the base year, panellists were asked to consider
what would be the most appropriate end year(s)?
There was discussion of the need for early action, which could be
linked with objectives covering the medium and longer term. Delay, it
was pointed out, could exacerbate the effects of climate change,
possibly requiring greater abatement efforts, and delay might also
send the wrong signals. It was pointed out that the selection of a
single base year might overemphasize circumstances particular to that
year.
7. The final topic elicited the most diverse views from both
panellists and the floor. Should differentiation among Annex
I Parties be pursued within the time-frame of the Berlin Mandate? If
so, how could the modalities be developed? Differentiation,
it was pointed out by several panellists, involved the determination
of relevant factors, selection of criteria, and the weighting of such
criteria. Negotiations on such factors could be difficult within the
available time-frame. On the other hand, the round table heard that
differentiation had the potential to achieve a more equitable and
efficient outcome than a flat rate approach. Some participants urged
that we aim beyond the current flat rate approach, even though highly
developed differentiation was unlikely to be adopted under the Berlin
Mandate.
8. The meeting heard several proposals for differentiation: energy
efficiency per unit of gross domestic product (GDP); the cost of GDP
foregone when undertaking abatement efforts; the marginal costs of
abatement; and a flat rate reduction effort combined with full
trading among Annex I Parties. It was also suggested that the
emphasis should be on a process for differentiation, not on a
particular outcome at this stage. Alternatively, the general basis
for differentiation could be agreed, and included in a protocol or
another legal instrument, with the details negotiated later. Other
approaches to differentiation could also be developed, including
activities implemented jointly and trading.
9. The round table aired a large number of important issues.
Rather than summarizing the discussion further, I would prefer -
perhaps somewhat provocatively - to convey my sense of the process
now. On the matters under consideration, the Berlin Mandate process
has identified the key issues. If we are to reach agreement on these
issues by next year, we need by December to table, then negotiate,
specific proposals.
10. In concluding, may I draw the AGBM's attention to the
questions which I used to structure the round table. While the
discussion was valuable in advancing our understanding on these
issues, I believe the questions remain salient, and worthy of further
consideration by all delegates and observers.
III. Report by Dr. Kilaparti
Ramakrishna,(2) Chairman, informal
round table on the possible impacts on developing country Parties of
the new commitments to be negotiated for Annex I
Parties
1. I am pleased to be able to report to you on the results of the
informal round table on the possible impacts on developing country
Parties of new commitments to be negotiated for Annex I Parties. The
round table was convened in response to the level of concern
expressed on this topic and the need, identified at AGBM 3, to
explore such issues further.
2. The discussion benefitted from the input of seven panellists:
Mr. Mohamed Al Sabban, Economic Adviser, Ministry of Petroleum and
Mineral Resources, Saudi Arabia; Mr. Evans King, Counsellor,
Permanent Mission of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to the
United Nations, New York; Dr. Antonio G. M. La Viña,
Under-Secretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs and Attached
Agencies, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Philippines; Dr. Luiz Gylvan Miera-Filho, President, Brazilian Space
Agency; Dr. Irving Mintzer, Senior Research Scholar, University of
Maryland, United States of America; Mr. Terry Thorn, Senior
Vice-President, Enron Corporation; and Mr. Rene Vossenaar, Chief,
Trade and Environment, International Trade Division, United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development.
3. You will note from this list that one of the distinguishing
features of this round table was participation of representatives
from the non-governmental community, including myself. I hope
delegates will agree with me that the inclusion of panellists from
the non-governmental community helped to enrich and enliven the
discussion.
4. The round table was structured around three key questions. To
help initiate a lively and constructive discussion, the panellists
were first invited to make short statements presenting some ideas on
the questions. They were then given the opportunity to respond to
each others' comments, before the floor was opened up for
discussion.
5. The first question asked "What would be the impact on
developing country Parties of possible new commitments for Annex I
Parties?". On this issue, I suggested that participants
consider both costs and benefits.
6. There was widespread consensus that developing countries would
be affected by action taken by Annex I Parties to tackle climate
change. There was, however, disagreement as to the extent of these
impacts, and whether they would be positive, negative or both. The
need to differentiate between long term and short term impacts was
also emphasized.
7. Some participants cited a number of studies pointing to the
costs which developing countries might have to bear as a result of
action by Annex I Parties to reduce their emissions. These included
loss of export revenue, especially for fossil fuel exporters,
increased barriers to trade and deterioration in the terms of trade,
and the spill-over effects of a possible slow down in global economic
activity. In addition, Annex I Parties may also suffer negative
effects as a result of shifts in the structure and location of
economic activity, which could in turn affect aid flows to and
imports from developing countries.
8. In contrast, other participants highlighted the potential
benefits for developing countries of action to tackle climate change.
Benefits mentioned included technological innovation and its transfer
to developing countries, leading to greater efficiency, lower costs
and reduced capital requirements. The positive effects of renewed
global economic growth based on low-emission activity was also noted.
Some speakers also mentioned that there may be additional side
benefits to policies addressing global climate change, particularly
in terms of positive impacts on local scale environmental problems
such as acid rain and air pollution.
9. A key theme emerging from the discussion was the high level of
uncertainty concerning the economic and social impacts of climate
change mitigation policies, not least because it is not yet clear
what new commitments will be adopted for Annex I Parties. On this
point, the relative merits and limitations of the use of models in
predicting these impacts were debated. In order to ensure more
productive debate in the context of uncertainty, some speakers
stressed the need to move away from general discussion to address
specific issues.
10. A number of participants emphasized the need to consider the
different situations of non Annex I Parties. Whilst some countries
may be able to diversify and respond to new opportunities, others may
be restricted by lack of natural resources and heavy dependency on
fossil fuels. Some speakers cautioned against overlooking the
specific needs of the least developed countries, and of Africa in
particular.
11. The second question broadened the discussion to ask "How can the economic and social impacts of action by Annex I Parties be weighed against the economic, social and environmental costs of inaction?"
12. In considering this issue, several participants noted the need
to consider not just economic costs, but also unquantifiable impacts
such as ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss and cultural
disruption.
13. Many speakers argued that, as developing countries are most
vulnerable to climate change, the short term costs they might face as
a result of Annex I emission reduction policies would be dwarfed by
the greater long term negative effect of Annex I inaction. Several
participants insisted that doing nothing was not an option. Some
participants disagreed, suggesting that both the short and long term
costs on developing countries of proposed action by Annex I Parties
would far outweigh the environmental benefits achieved.
14. The third question encouraged participants to look forwards
and asked simply "where do we go from here?" This
question generated a variety of proposals and led the discussion on
to wider related issues.
15. There was general consensus on the need to achieve equitable
burden sharing through global cooperation in order to ensure that
developing countries do not bear a disproportionate cost in tackling
climate change. Many speakers pointed out that the Convention already
provides for equitable burden sharing, including, for example, the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the
provisions of Articles 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10.
16. In terms of potential measures to mitigate climate change,
several panellists noted that Annex I Parties already have
considerable flexibility in their policy options. Well-designed,
cost-effective responses which stimulate technological innovation and
promote improved efficiency can ensure that benefits are maximized
and costs are minimized. In this context, the potential for
no-regrets and low cost strategies was emphasized.
17. One panellist suggested the need for an independent,
peer-reviewed study by a neutral body to analyse the potential
impacts on developing countries of different possible actions by
Annex I Parties.
18. Financial assistance was seen as an important factor in
achieving equitable burden sharing. Some participants suggested that
many Annex I Parties have not made sufficient progress in meeting
their financial commitments under the Convention and several speakers
also drew attention to the recent fall in overseas development
assistance to developing countries. The importance of securing access
for developing countries to global markets was also stressed, as was
the need for technology transfer and enhanced capacity
building.
19. Several speakers highlighted the potential for an improved
system of activities implemented jointly to lower the costs and
maximize the benefits of global action to deal with climate change,
particularly through technology transfer. Some other proposals were
also put forward, including a possible compensation fund for those
developing country Parties likely to be negatively affected by the
actions of Annex I Parties.
20. In conclusion, the round table discussed a wide range of issues and brought up a number of important questions. The high level of concern expressed during the session by different groups of developing countries pays testimony to the significance of the topic. There is a clear recognition that this issue needs to be further explored. The round table was useful and constructive in advancing our understanding of these complex questions.
FCCC/AGBM/1996/5 Report of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin
Mandate on the work of its third session, held at Geneva from 5 to 8
March 1996
FCCC/AGBM/1996/6 Possible features of a protocol or another
legal instrument: review of relevant conventions and other legal
instruments
FCCC/AGBM/1996/7 Quantified emission limitation and reduction
objectives within specified time-frames: review of possible
indicators to define criteria for differentiation among Annex I
Parties
FCCC/AGBM/1996/MISC.1/ Implementation of the Berlin Mandate: comments
Add.1, 2 and 3 from Parties
FCCC/AGBM/1996/MISC.2 Implementation of the Berlin Mandate: proposals
and Add.1 from Parties
FCCC/AGBM/1996/L.2 Draft report of the Ad Hoc Group on the
Berlin Mandate on its fourth session