Distr.
GENERAL
FCCC/AGBM/1996/5
23 April 1996
Original: ENGLISH
AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE
Third session
Geneva, 5 - 8 March 1996
Paragraphs Page
I. OPENING OF THE SESSION 1 - 3 3
(Agenda item 1)
II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS
(Agenda item 2) 4 - 12 3
A. Adoption of the agenda 4 3
B. Organization of the work of the session 5 - 8 4
C. Organization of the work of future sessions 9 - 10
5
D. Attendance 11 5
E. Documentation 12 5
GE.96-
Paragraphs Page
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS OTHER THAN
THE CHAIRMAN
(Agenda item 3 ) 13 - 17 5
IV. STRENGTHENING THE COMMITMENTS IN
ARTICLE 4.2(A) AND (B)
(Agenda item 4 ) 18 - 50 6
A. Inputs from the subsidiary bodies 18 - 24 6
B. Policies and measures 25 - 37 8
C. Quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives
within specified time-frames 38 - 50 10
V. CONTINUING TO ADVANCE THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF ARTICLE 4.1
(Agenda item 5) 51 - 57 13
VI. POSSIBLE FEATURES OF A PROTOCOL OR
ANOTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENT
(Agenda item 6 ) 58 - 66 14
VII. REPORT ON THE SESSION
(Agenda item 7 ) 67 - 68 15
I. Lists of attendance 17
II. Documents before the Ad Hoc Group on the
Berlin Mandate at its third session 21
1. The third session of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate
(hereinafter referred to as "the AGBM") was held at Geneva from 5 to
8 March 1996. The session was convened in accordance with the
schedule confirmed at the first session (FCCC/AGBM/1995/2, para.
15).
2. The Chairman of the AGBM, Ambassador Raúl
Estrada-Oyuela, opened the session at the 1st meeting, on 5 March
1996. He stated that 154 States had ratified the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and indicated that
this was a clear testimony to the increasing commitment by the
international community to the Convention. He further underlined that
the third session would benefit from the inputs of the Subsidiary
Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), the Subsidiary
Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). He added that the AGBM would also benefit from
the results of two informal workshops, one on policies and measures
and one on quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives
(QELROs). He expressed his intention to overcome obstacles, avoid
procedural traps and facilitate the way forward to fulfilling the
Berlin Mandate.
3. The Executive Secretary welcomed all participants to the
session. Referring to the presentation to the SBSTA of the Second
Assessment Report of the IPCC, he observed that the future
stabilization of global greenhouse gas emissions implied the
redistribution of those emissions in response to the need for
sustainable development in developing countries. The establishment of
QELROs would have to take this into account. He urged delegations to
evaluate carefully the utility of any major new documents that may be
requested, bearing in mind that only two months were available for
the secretariat to prepare documents for the fourth session. He added
that, as work proceeded on the Berlin Mandate, it was the input of
Parties and not that of the secretariat which was increasingly
vital.
4. The AGBM, at its 1st meeting, on 5 March, adopted the following
agenda:
1. Opening of the session.
2. Organizational matters:
(a) Adoption of the agenda;
(b) Organization of the work of the session;
(c) Organization of the work of future sessions.
3. Election of officers other than the Chairman.
4. Strengthening the commitments in Article 4.2 (a) and
(b):
(a) Inputs from the subsidiary bodies;
(b) Policies and measures;
(c) Quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives within
specified time-frames.
5. Continuing to advance the implementation of Article
4.1.
6. Possible features of a protocol or another legal
instrument.
7. Report on the session.
5. At the 1st meeting, on 5 March, the Chairman recalled that
there would be services available for one morning and one afternoon
meeting with interpretation from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 p.m. to
6 p.m. The AGBM agreed to proceed on the basis of the proposed
schedule of work contained in annex II of document
FCCC/AGBM/1996/1/Add.1.
6. On the subject of applications for accreditation to sessions of
the subsidiary bodies of the Convention, the AGBM agreed to admit new
applicant organizations that had been screened by the secretariat, on
the basis of the provisions of Article 7.6 of the Convention, without
prejudice to subsequent action by the Conference of the Parties
(COP).
7. Further, the Chairman recalled that non-governmental
organizations would be admitted to the floor before and after
meetings only.
8. The AGBM, at its second session, had decided to convene
informal workshops on policies and measures and quantified emission
limitation and reduction objectives, in conjunction with the third
session (see FCCC/AGBM/1995/7, paras. 29 and 38). The workshop on
quantified objectives was held on Wednesday, 28 February 1996 and the
workshop on policies and measures on 4 and 5 March 1996.
9. At the 1st meeting of the AGBM, on 5 March, the Chairman
reported on the results of the deliberations by the Bureau of the COP
on the schedule of meetings of Convention bodies. Future sessions of
the AGBM will be as follows:
fourth session during COP 2, 8-19 July 1996 Geneva
fifth session 9-13 December 1996 Geneva
sixth session 3-7 March 1997 Bonn
seventh session 3rd quarter 1997 Bonn
COP 3/eighth session 4th quarter 1997 (to be
determined)
The representative of Japan made a statement regarding the current
situation of his Government's offer to host the third, or a
subsequent, session of the COP.
10. At its sixth meeting on 8 March, the AGBM requested the
secretariat to prepare, for consideration at the fourth session, a
compilation of proposals made to date or received by the secretariat
no later than 15 April 1996 pertaining to:
(a) The treatment of quantified emission limitation and reduction
objectives and polices and measures in a protocol or another legal
instrument;
(b) Continuing to advance the implementation of Article 4.1;
and
(c) Possible features of a protocol or another legal
instrument.
D. Attendance
11. The lists of attendance at the third session of the AGBM are
given in annex I.
12. The documents before the AGBM at its third session are listed in annex II.
13. At the 1st meeting, on 5 March, the Chairman reported on his
consultations with regional groups in respect of nominations for the
Bureau of the AGBM. He recalled that he had been authorized by the
COP at its first session to undertake such consultations and
indicated that the results of his consultations had, until then, been
inconclusive. He stated that four of the five regional groups had
agreed to the formula he had proposed at the second session. This
formula comprised two Vice-Chairmen, with one serving also as
Rapporteur, and the Chairmen of the SBSTA and the SBI as ex-officio
members. Six "advisers" would be invited by the Chairman to
participate in Bureau meetings on an equal footing with the elected
and ex-officio members. The Chairman indicated that one regional
group was not yet in a position to accept the proposal.
14. The Chairman recalled that there was consensus that one of the
Vice-Chairmen should come from the Western European and Others Group
and that this group had submitted a nomination some time before. In
view of the general support for the nomination, and without prejudice
to the election of the second Vice-Chairman at the earliest
opportunity, he proposed that the Group elect Mr. Daniel Reifsnyder
(United States of America) as one of its Vice-Chairmen. It was so
decided.
15. The Chairman invited a representative group of delegates to
assist him as "ad interim advisers", until consultations on the
nominations for the second Vice-Chairman and the advisers were
concluded.
16. At its 2nd meeting, on 6 March, the AGBM elected Mr. Suphavit
Piamphongsant (Thailand) as Vice-Chairman of the AGBM.
17. The process of designating advisers who would be invited by
the Chairman to participate in Bureau meetings on an equal footing
with the elected and ex-officio members was completed.
18. At its 1st meeting, on 5 March, the AGBM considered the inputs
from the subsidiary bodies. Statements were made by the Chairmen of
the SBSTA, the SBI and the IPCC.
19. In his statement, the Chairman of the SBSTA highlighted four
items of relevance to the AGBM. First, with regard to the Second
Assessment Report of the IPCC, he noted that the SBSTA had commended
the report to all Convention bodies. In this context, he noted that
some delegations had highlighted a number of the IPCC's conclusions,
including that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and
aerosols were increasing largely because of human activities, and
that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence
on climate, while others pointed to areas of uncertainty and opposed
selecting particular conclusions (see FCCC/SBSTA/1996/8). He
mentioned that the SBSTA would continue its consideration of the
Second Assessment Report, and had also concluded on a list of items
on which the IPCC would provide input to the SBSTA. Secondly, based
on the SBSTA's conclusions on communications from Annex I Parties, he
reiterated that the latter would have to make additional efforts
beyond those included in projections in order to fulfil their aim of
returning greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 (see
FCCC/SBSTA/1996/8). Further information would be available for the
next session of the AGBM in the form of the second compilation and
synthesis of information from Annex I Party communications. Thirdly,
he noted that the SBSTA would resume consideration of the item on
non-Annex I Party communications, at its next session, considering
the position paper of the Group of 77 and China regarding
communications from non-Annex I Parties as the principal basis.
Finally, he added that while much information on technology exists,
further work on technology inventory and assessment would be
undertaken.
20. The Chairman of the SBI drew the attention of the AGBM to the
conclusions of the SBI (see FCCC/SBI/1996/9) and especially those
that referred to the need for Annex I Parties to make additional
efforts beyond those included in projections in order to return
emissions to base year levels by 2000. He added that further
discussion in the SBI on communications from non-Annex I Parties
would be suspended until the guidelines had been refined and agreed
upon.
21. Professor Bert Bolin, Chairman of the IPCC, referred to his
earlier statement to the SBSTA on the Second Assessment Report and
offered some supplementary observations. He explained the inputs that
contributed to the IPCC's conclusion that there is a discernible
human influence on climate. While referring to the scientific
uncertainties mentioned in the IPCC report, he noted that it would be
proper to take into account in the policy debate the entire range of
such uncertainties, from their lower to their upper bounds. In this
context, he referred to the SBSTA's request to the IPCC to prepare a
technical paper that would examine a large variety of emissions
profiles for all greenhouse gases and which would be ready for the
fifth session of the AGBM. He cited the IPCC conclusion that a number
of "no-regrets" opportunities were available that could result in a
10 to 30 per cent reduction in emissions at little or no cost and
that there was sufficient rationale for action beyond "no regrets". A
prudent strategy addressing mitigation, adaptation and research,
which could be adjusted over time, was needed. The IPCC could, if
requested, provide, by the fifth session, a technical paper on
possible policies and measures. Furthermore, he reiterated that the
IPCC does not recommend specific measures. He concluded by stating
that the economies of all countries could benefit from the
implementation of policies and measures to mitigate climate
change.
22. Statements were also made by representatives of six Parties,
including one speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island
States (AOSIS) and another speaking on behalf of the European
Community and its member States.
23. On the basis of a proposal by the Chairman, the AGBM, at its
6th meeting, on 8 March, adopted the following
conclusions.
24. The AGBM expressed its appreciation to the Chairmen of the
SBSTA and the SBI and to the Chairman of the IPCC for their
statements. Many Parties underlined the importance of the Second
Assessment Report of the IPCC as a significant input to the AGBM
process and drew attention to the key conclusions highlighted by
Professor Bolin. Some Parties considered it premature to draw
conclusions and pointed to scientific uncertainties. In addition,
some specific elements from the conclusions of the subsidiary bodies
pertaining to communications from Annex I Parties and the related
emissions projections, as well as to technology inventory were also
reiterated.
25. The AGBM considered sub-item 4 (b) at its 3rd and 4th
meetings, on 6 and 7 March. The Group had before it document
FCCC/AGBM/1996/2 prepared by the secretariat. Statements were made by
representatives of 24 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). Statements
were also made by representatives of two States not parties to the
Convention.
26. The Chairman of the workshop on policies and measures, Mr.
Chow Kok Kee (Malaysia), reported on the results of the workshop at
the 3rd meeting of the AGBM, on 6 March. The Chairman of the Annex I
Experts Group on the UNFCCC, Mr. Douglas Russell (Canada), made a
progress report on the work of that group.
27. On the basis of a proposal by the Chairman, the AGBM, at its
6th meeting, on 8 March, adopted the following
conclusions.
28. The AGBM continued its analysis and assessment of possible
policies and measures as provided for in paragraph 4 of decision
1/CP.1 (the Berlin Mandate)(1). The
informal workshop on this matter was considered to be useful. The
AGBM expressed its appreciation to the Parties and organizations that
had made presentations and to the participants for their
contributions to the discussion.
29. The AGBM took note of the progress report from the Annex I
Experts Group and looked forward to receiving their first detailed
analysis before COP 2. It also took note of the substantive
contribution received from the European Community.
30. The Berlin Mandate provides that the AGBM will elaborate
policies and measures in the context of its work to strengthen the
commitments contained in Article 4.2 (a) and (b) through the adoption
of a protocol or another legal instrument. In the context of the
analysis and assessment, the AGBM considered two general orientations
to the elaboration of policies and measures:
(a) Some Parties favoured a "menu approach", according to which
the eventual instrument would include an agreed detailed listing (or
menu) of possible policies and measures, from which Annex I Parties
would be committed to select those that best suited their national
circumstances. It could be accompanied by appropriate reporting
procedures.
(b) Some Parties favoured an approach that would categorize
policies and measures in annexes to a protocol according to the
degree to which Annex I Parties would be committed to implement and
coordinate them. Others suggested focusing on selected categories of,
or priority, policies and measures.
31. There were differing views on the need for, and level of,
international harmonization. The need to better understand possible
methods for categorizing policies and measures, as well as the
modalities surrounding possible common measures, was
recognized.
32. In this context, a number of Parties made proposals for such
policies and measures, with frequent mentions of cross-sectoral
economic instruments and the removal of subsidies and market
distortions; policies and measures on renewable energy,
transportation and energy efficiency; and action on
non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as fluorocarbons and
SF6.
33. A number of Parties referred to the need for a coordination
mechanism, as proposed in the AOSIS protocol proposal, or to a
mechanism or process to review regularly policies and
measures.
34. Many delegations stressed the need for analysis of the
socio-economic and environmental impacts of policies and measures on
non-Annex I Parties, and expressed the view that policies and
measures should conform with provisions of the international trading
system and not constitute new barriers to trade.
35. New ideas raised included, inter alia, the concept of
specific performance targets for policies and measures and target
values to improve energy efficiency.
36. The AGBM looked forward to a more focused discussion on
policies and measures at the fourth session and, to this end,
welcomed the Chairman's offer to convene informal round tables during
that session on specific points related to policies and measures,
taking account of the interdependence between such policies and
measures and QELROs. All delegates and observers were encouraged
strongly to attend and participate in these discussions.
37. The AGBM requested the IPCC to prepare a technical paper on
possible policies and measures, taking account of document
FCCC/AGBM/1996/2, for consideration at the fifth session of
AGBM.
within specified time-frames
38. The AGBM considered sub-item 4 (c) at its 2nd and 3rd
meetings, on 6 March. Statements were made by representatives of 26
Parties including one speaking on behalf of the European Community
and its member States, one speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and
China, and another speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island
States (AOSIS). Statements were also made by representatives of two
States not parties to the Convention.
39. At the 2nd meeting of the AGBM on 6 March, a report on the
results of the workshop on quantified emission limitation and
reduction objectives (QELROs) was given on behalf of the workshop
Chairman, Dr. Pascale Morand Francis (Switzerland).
40. On the basis of a proposal by the Chairman, the AGBM, at its
6th meeting, on 8 March, adopted the following
conclusions.
41. In considering quantified emission limitation and reduction
objectives (QELROs), the AGBM underlined the interdependence between
such objectives and the elaboration of policies and measures. Some
Parties stressed that the AGBM should focus its efforts on an
agreement of QELROs as a first priority. Many Parties pointed to the
Second Assessment Report as a key input to the process of setting
QELROs, while some considered this to be premature. In this context,
there was a proposal by some delegations that levels of atmospheric
CO2 concentrations lower than 550 ppm should guide
limitation and reduction efforts.
42. Other Parties stressed the importance of designing QELROs in
the context of a safe emissions corridor based on IPCC assessments
with regard to absolute temperature rise, sea level rise and rates of
temperature rise.
43. The informal workshop on QELROs was seen as useful. The AGBM
expressed its appreciation to the Parties and organizations that had
made presentations and to the participants for their contributions to
the discussion.
44. The discussion of this item moved the process forward by
laying out more clearly the range of QELROs options and variations,
including the following:
(a) The AOSIS protocol proposal (a 20 per cent reduction in
CO2 emissions by 2005 with reference to 1990) was
supported by several Parties;
(b) Several Parties supported a proposal for a 10 per cent
reduction in CO2 emissions by 2005 and a 15-20 per cent
reduction by 2010, both against the base year of 1990;
(c) Some Parties supported a uniform national emission objective;
others proposed setting differentiated objectives;
(d) Some Parties expressed opposition to the use of hypothetical
future levels of emissions, as opposed to actual observed levels, as
a basis for determining objectives;
(e) Some Parties advocated a comprehensive, multi-gas approach;
others advocated a gas-by-gas approach;
(f) Other options mentioned included:
(i) The setting of collective objectives for Annex I Parties (for
example, for Annex I Parties as a group; for OECD Parties as a group,
and for non-OECD Parties as a group), while acknowledging
distributional complexities;
(ii) A separate agreement for some Parties with economies in
transition;
(iii) The concepts of cumulative emissions and emissions budgets,
possibly including some mechanism for banking;
(iv) The concept of safe emissions corridors;
(v) Creating incentives for early action; and
(vi) The proposals included in document
FCCC/AGBM/1995/4.
45. With regard to time-frames, it was agreed that those mentioned
in the Berlin Mandate (such as 2005, 2010, 2020) were appropriate and
relevant for setting objectives, particularly some combinations of
years. Some Parties emphasized short- and medium-term goals (2005 and
2010) to promote early action, while recognizing that a longer-term
perspective could complement these. Other Parties, while noting the
utility of shorter-term milestones, were more inclined to a longer
time-horizon to optimize investment decisions.
46. Concerns were raised about the risk of delaying emission
reductions in view of environmental impacts, the time needed to
implement technological changes and potentially high
costs.
47. There was a range of views on issues related to equity and
differentiation among Annex I Parties. Some Parties strongly
supported these concepts as a means to ensure economically and
environmentally effective new commitments, while respecting national
circumstances. They offered suggestions for differentiation criteria
and rules, including economic, geographical and demographic factors.
Other Parties opposed the concept of differentiation among Annex I
Parties, particularly in view of the difficulties in elaborating
details. Still others underlined that equity among all Parties was
more important.
48. Economic and cost issues were discussed in considerable
detail. The importance of minimizing costs in achieving objectives
was agreed. Some Parties pointed to available IPCC conclusions about
cost-effective solutions, such as those that make use of efficient
replacement investments in the context of the normal capital stock
turnover. Some Parties emphasized the possible role of flexibility
regarding when and where reductions would be made. Others expressed
concern about this concept pointing out that the concept of
"flexibility in place", if it extends beyond the territories of Annex
I Parties, is inconsistent with the Berlin Mandate. Some Parties
argued such costs would be very high, especially for developing
countries, and called for socio-economic analysis of impacts on
developing countries in the context of agreeing on
QELROs.
49. Several Parties pointed to the need for monitoring mechanisms
in order to review periodically effectiveness and make adjustments.
There was also a suggestion about the development of performance
indicators.
50. The AGBM looked forward to a more focused discussion on QELROs
issues at the fourth session and to this end welcomed the Chairman's
offer to convene informal round tables during that session on
specific points related to QELROs. All delegates and observers were
strongly encouraged to attend and participate in these
discussions.
V. CONTINUING TO ADVANCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 4.1
51. The AGBM considered agenda item 5 at its 4th and 5th meetings,
on 7 March. Statements were made by representatives of 13 Parties,
including one speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, and
another speaking on behalf of the European Community and its member
States.
52. On the basis of a proposal by the Chairman, the AGBM, at its 6th meeting, on 8 March, adopted the following conclusions.
53. The Chairman of the Group of 77 and China referred to the
position paper on recommendations on guidelines and format for the
preparation of initial communications from non-Annex I Parties
(FCCC/SB/1996/MISC.1/Add.1), and thanked the experts who participated
in the workshop on communications from non-Annex I Parties. There was
general support for the organization and usefulness of such
workshops.
54. The Chairman of the Group of 77 and China, speaking on behalf
of the Group of 77 and China, emphasized that the focus of the Berlin
Mandate was to strengthen the commitments of the Parties included in
Annex I as contained in Article 4.2 (a) and (b), in accordance with
Article 4.2 (d). Many Parties stressed that by formally presenting
the position paper by the Group of 77 and China on initial
communications from non-Annex I Parties, the implementation of their
existing commitments in Article 4.1 had been sufficiently advanced,
and that the relationship between the commitments of non-Annex I
Parties and the provision of financial resources and transfer of
technology, in accordance with Article 4.3, 4.5 and 4.7, must be
taken fully into account.
55. Several Annex I Parties welcomed the steps taken towards the
preparation of national communications by non-Annex I Parties, which
they considered as an essential basis for advancing the
implementation of existing commitments under Article 4.1. Some of
these Parties indicated that all Parties should make further efforts
to advance the implementation of Article 4.1 and, in particular, to
develop strategies for the mitigation of climate change as a key
element of sustainable development. These Parties pointed to the
mitigation and adaptation options contained in the Second Assessment
Report of the IPCC, the ongoing work on technology transfer and
cooperation, and the programmes for endogenous capacity building,
exchange of information and training as facilitating further actions
by non-Annex I Parties under Article 4.1.
56. The AGBM noted the relevant conclusions of the SBSTA and the
SBI (see FCCC/SBSTA/1996/8 and FCCC/SBI/1996/9,
respectively).
57. The AGBM noted the intention of non-Annex I Parties to convene
a workshop, as a follow-up to the earlier one, to address issues
relating to initial communications from non-Annex I Parties, and
requested the secretariat to facilitate assistance to the Parties in
this regard, in accordance with Article 8.2.
58. The AGBM considered this matter at its 1st and 5th meetings, on 5 and 7 March. The Group had before it two documents, FCCC/AGBM/1996/4 and FCCC/AGBM/1996/MISC.1. Statements were made by the representatives of 16 Parties, including one speaking on behalf of the European Community and its member States, one speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, and another on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). A statement was also made on behalf of environmental
non-governmental organizations.
59. On the basis of a proposal by the Chairman, the AGBM, at its
6th meeting, on 8 March, adopted the following
conclusions.
60. The AGBM agreed on the need to avoid the proliferation of new
bodies under an amendment or protocol. It stressed the Convention
provisions and the importance of institutional economy in this
regard. It was preliminarily agreed that most of the existing
institutions under the Convention could serve either an amendment or
a protocol. For example, the secretariat could serve in either case.
It was suggested that the report by the secretariat to the fourth
session could examine practical ways in which the secretariat and the
subsidiary bodies established under the Convention could assume
additional duties arising from an amendment or protocol.
61. Several Parties queried the need for the establishment of a
separate Conference of the Parties and a separate Bureau to serve a
protocol. Many agreed that the decision-making processes under both
an amendment and a protocol would need to take into account differing
memberships. In this regard, the need for coordination and policy
coherence between the Convention and any legal instrument to be
adopted was stressed. It was suggested that the report to be prepared
for the fourth session should review cases where the adoption of
protocols or related legal instruments has not led to the
establishment of separate Conferences of the Parties, as well as
review decision-making mechanisms in agreements having established
several regimes.
62. Many Parties stated that only a legally binding instrument
would meet the requirements of the Berlin Mandate. It was mentioned
that, in addition to an amendment or protocol, other legally binding
instruments, such as subsidiary agreements and a completely separate
legal instrument, could be explored by the AGBM. Some Parties
reminded the Group that the legal instrument should not seek to
establish a comprehensive regime but should focus on the
strengthening of a specific area of the Convention, namely, Article
4.2 (a) and (b). The possibility of concluding decisions,
resolutions, declarations and guidelines, in addition to, but not in
place of, a legally binding instrument, was also
mentioned.
63. Many Parties stated their preference for a protocol. Many
others stressed the importance of awaiting further developments on
the scope and nature of the commitments to be agreed upon before
deciding on the form of the instrument. Some Parties stated that
although they had chosen neither an amendment nor a protocol as the
definitive option, the adoption and operation of an amendment could
prove less complex than a protocol. They also noted that an amendment
might be a more viable option considering the lack of consensus on
the rules of procedure of the COP. In this regard, the urgency of the
COP adopting its rules of procedure at its second session was
stressed.
64. One delegation stressed the need for the legal instrument
chosen to have the capacity to evolve in the light of future
development of commitments beyond the Berlin Mandate. It also
considered that the chosen legal instrument should be able to take
into account new scientific evidence; to reflect regional approaches
on the basis of regional scenarios, progress achieved and other
relevant socio-economic data; as well as to reflect such information
in the evolving commitments.
65. Several delegations stressed the importance of the
communication and review of information under an amendment or
protocol. Many delegations stated that the multilateral consultative
process that is being considered by the Ad Hoc Group on Article 13
should, if established by the COP, be applicable to a protocol.
Consideration would need to be given to how the AGBM would ensure
that such a process, or a different one, would apply to a
protocol.
66. The AGBM looked forward to a continuation of its consideration
of these and other issues in the light of the secretariat report to
be prepared for the Group at its fourth session.
67. At the sixth meeting, on 8 March, the Chairman presented the
first part of the draft report of the session (FCCC/AGBM/1996/L.1).
The AGBM considered and adopted the
document and also requested the Chairman, with the assistance of
the secretariat, to complete the report, taking into account the
discussions of the Group, the conclusions on agenda items 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6 and the need for editorial adjustments.
68. The Chairman, after thanking all participants for their
constructive cooperation, declared the third session of the AGBM
closed.
1. The third session of the AGBM was attended by representatives
of the following 123 Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change:
Albania
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Canada
Central African Republic
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czech Republic
Denmark
Democratic People's
Republic of Korea
Ecuador
Egypt
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
European Community
Fiji
Finland
France
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guinea
Guyana
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Lao People's
Democratic Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Malawi
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia (Federated
States of)
Monaco
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Republic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Saint Lucia
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Uganda
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland
United States of America
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe2. The session was also attended by observers from the
following States not parties to the Convention:
Afghanistan
Angola
Belgium
Cambodia
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Morocco
South Africa
Syrian Arab Republic
Turkey
3. The following United Nations offices and programmes were represented:
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
4. The following specialized agencies of the United Nations and
related organizations were represented:
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (IOC/UNESCO)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
World Trade Organization (WTO)
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)
5. The following intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations were represented:
Intergovernmental organizations:
Agence de coopération culturelle et technique (ACCT)
Institut international du froid
International Energy Agency (IEA)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC)
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)
Non-governmental organizations:
Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy / Arlington, USA
Alliance for Responsible Environmental Alternatives (AREA) / Ottawa, Canada
Association française du froid/Alliance froid climatisation environnement /
Paris, France
Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future / Washington D.C., USA
Canadian Electricity Association / Ottawa, Canada
Catholic University of Nijmegen - Department of Environmental Policy Sciences /
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Centre for International Climate and Energy Research (CICERO) / Oslo, Norway
Centre for Business and the Environment / London, UK
Climate Network Africa / Nairobi, Kenya
Climate Action Network Latin America (CANLA) / Santiago, Chile
Climate Action Network UK / London, UK
Climate Action Network South East Asia / Quezon City, Philippines
Climate Network Europe / Brussels, Belgium
Edison Electric Institute / Washington D.C., USA
*Energy 21 / Boulogne, France
Environmental Defense Fund / Washington D.C., USA
Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development / London, UK
Forschungszentrum (Research Centre) / Jülich, Germany
Germanwatch / Bonn, Germany
Global Climate Coalition / Washington D.C., USA
Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute / Tokyo, Japan
Greenpeace International / Amsterdam, Netherlands
Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) / Taiwan, Province of China
Institut de recherche sur l'environnement / La Roche sur Foron, France
International Academy of the Environment / Geneva, Switzerland
International Chamber of Commerce / Paris, France
International Climate Change Partnership / Arlington, USA
International Council of Environmental Law / Bonn, Germany
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) / Toronto, Canada
*International Institute for Energy Conservation - Europe / London, UK
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association /
London, UK
International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths (IPSEP) / El Cerrito, USA
International Society on Optics within Life Sciences / Münster, Germany
National Coal Association / Washington D.C., USA
Natural Resources Defense Council / Washington D.C.,
USA
__________
* Non-governmental organization provisionally
admitted
New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) /
Tokyo, Japan
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners / Washington D.C., USA
Rainforest ReGeneration Institute / Washington D.C., USA
The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) / London, UK
Stockholm Environment Institute / Stockholm, Sweden
Tata Energy Research Institute / New Delhi, India
The Climate Council / Washington D.C., USA
*The Fridtjof Nansen Institute / Lysaker, Norway
The Woods Hole Research Center / Woods Hole, USA
Union Internationale des Producteurs et Distributeurs d'Energie Electrique
(UNIPEDE) / Paris, France
United Mine Workers of America / Washington D.C., USA
University of Tübingen - Center for International Relations / Tübingen, Germany
US Climate Action Network (CAN-USA) / Washington D.C., USA
Verification Technology Information Centre (VERTIC) / London, UK
World Business Council for Sustainable Development / Geneva, Switzerland
World Council of Churches / Geneva, Switzerland
World Coal Institute / London, UK
World Energy Council / London, UK
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy / Wuppertal, Germany
World Wide Fund for Nature / Gland, Switzerland
FCCC/AGBM/1996/1 Provisional agenda and annotations
FCCC/AGBM/1996/1/Add.1 Annotations to the provisional
agenda
FCCC/AGBM/1996/2 Strengthening the commitments in Article 4.2 (a)
and (b): policies and measures
FCCC/AGBM/1996/3 Annotated compilation of information relevant
to the Berlin Mandate process
FCCC/AGBM/1996/4 Possible features of a protocol or another legal
note: institutional issues
FCCC/AGBM/1996/MISC.1 Implementation of the Berlin Mandate:
comments from Parties
FCCC/AGBM/1996/L.1 Draft report of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin
Mandate on its third session