Resource Library: Multimedia/Resource Library: Multimedia.iso/hypertxt/msdos/montanab/jnt.008

Text File | 1993-04-06 | 60.1 KB | 1,331 lines

US CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK NEWSLETTER / This item is <abridged>

               US CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK NEWSLETTER

                          SPECIAL REPORT

                          MARCH 11, 1993

                OECD COMMON INTEREST GROUP MEETING
                             NEW YORK


                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1            Take the Next Step: A Call for Action
2            Green Economics Comes to Washington
3            Now is the Time - Editorial
4            Planning for a Nation - National Plans & the FCCC
5            Conference Report - Slow Progress on Governance
6            Debate on Incremental Costs: Delayed Progress on the GEF?
7            Contacts
8            Credits

******************************************************************

Take the Next Step: A Call for Action

As the Common Interest Group convenes in New York, Climate Action
Network- US asks that the industrialized country delegates
release a joint declaration at the conclusion of INC 7 describing
agreed actions vital to a "prompt start" in meeting the objective
of the Convention. We urge delegates to consider the following
points in drafting such a Declaration:

By the first anniversary of the signature of the Convention-June,
1993-the OECD countries should (1) commence protocol negotiations
on emissions reductions, (2) release draft national plans, and
(3) have underway an independent review of the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) and of options for the Convention's financial
mechanism. All OECD countries should strive to ratify the
Convention by the August INC (INC 8). Fourteen countries have
ratified the treaty to date. In addition to the United States,
Canada and Australia, only one European country has ratified the
Convention (Monaco).

More specifically, the OECD countries should agree to commence
negotiations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
other greenhouse gases from industrialized countries. These talks
should have the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25%
from 1990 levels by the year 2005, and should proceed on an
aggressive timetable. The European Community called for
commencement of negotiations at INC 6. It is important that
specific options for reducing emissions be developed now.

The OECD countries should also agree to complete draft national
plans by June and to circulate these drafts for domestic public
comment and to other OECD countries in order to facilitate
discussions of the draft plans by the August INC. The OECD
countries should agree that their national plans will cap
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases at 1990
levels by the year 2000, and that their plans will include
specific measures to meet this goal. Work on agreed methodologies
should commence immediately. These should include methodologies
for compiling emissions inventories, monitoring and verifying
emissions reductions through joint implementation, and
calculating "net" emissions. Strict criteria are essential to
guard against sham transactions.

Finally, OECD countries should lead efforts to reform the GEF,
including ensuring that an independent review of its performance
is conducted and that rules for public accountability are
adopted. This review should also include a review of alternatives
for the financial mechanism, such as an approach modelled on the
Montreal Protocol Fund.

Successful implementation of the Convention will depend on the
involvement of a broad array of nongovernmental actors in the
reduction of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We strongly
encourage OECD countries to establish a cross-sectoral review of
their draft plans and, at a minimum, to ensure that there is an
opportunity for comment from the public. This is fully consistent
with Article 6.a.iii. of the Convention, which calls on the
parties to promote and facilitate public participation in
developing adequate responses under Article 4. In this regard,
CAN-US would be pleased to provide copies of our comments on the
Bush Administration US National Action Plan.

******************************************************************

Green Economics Comes to Washington

By CAN Reporter

On February 17 US President Bill Clinton addressed the US
Congress and the American people, unveiling his plan to revive
the flagging US economy. The President's call for "shared
sacrifice" to cut the $360 billion per year budget deficit
grabbed the headlines. But the details of the plan reveal a quiet
revolution in the making for US economic and environmental policy.

Previous Administrations have based policy on the premise that
economic and environmental goals inherently conflict. If the
government chose in the past take action to protect the
environment, it was despite the economics, not because of them.
With their economic plan, Clinton and Gore reject the false
choice between jobs and the environment. The proposal calls for
direct investment in cleaning up the environment, as well as in
the development of new technologies that form the basis for
greener economic growth in the future.

The leaders of the US's largest environmental organizations said
in a joint statement issued after the speech that the President's
package represents "a major shift in the way our government
approaches the nation's economic and environmental problems."

The President's proposal has three major elements that are
currently being debated by the Congress: an economic stimulus
package, a long-term investment package, and a deficit reduction
plan. Each has major environmental components.

First, the economic stimulus package calls for direct investment
in energy efficiency, public transit, clean water, environmental
restoration, and other activities to create thousands of jobs
while promoting cleaner air, water, and land.

Second, the long-term investment proposal reflects a shift in
budget priorities from brown to green programs. Support for
renewable energy, energy efficiency, and rail transport will be
increased, while the military budget and nuclear power research
will be cut. Mining, grazing, and tree-cutting subsidies will be
cut, thus saving money while reducing environmental damage.

Third, the tax package includes a BTU tax on energy that will cut
energy consumption as well as the deficit. Although this tax is
modest by international standards ($0.26/million BTU on coal and
natural gas, $0.60/million BTU or $3.50/barrel on oil), it makes
an important first step toward shifting the US tax burden from
jobs and investment to pollution and consumption. If implemented
as proposed, this tax will cut US CO2 emissions in 2000 by 20-30
million tons from projected levels. This represents about 15% of
the reductions needed to return to 1990 levels, according to the
most recent Department of Energy forecast.

Although the Clinton Administration may not yet be ready to
detail its full greenhouse gas emission reduction plan, the
President Clinton's economic package lays important ground work.
Environmentalists have high hopes that the United States is about
to reassert international environmental leadership, and that all
industrialized countries will now be able to work together on
aggressive implementation of their commitments under the Climate
Treaty.

... <abridged>

******************************************************************

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For enquiries and response to ECO:

Eco can be contacted at:
Eastgate Towers, 222 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016
Tel. [phone]; Fax [phone];
e-mail [e-mail]

Dial-a-Fax Service: "Reverse poll" dial to [phone]
(outside UK) or 0836 413707 (inside UK) to receive the latest copy
of ECO. See your fax manual for 'Reverse poll dialing' or call
0836 413701 (within UK) or [phone] (outside UK) for a
recorded guidance message. The 0836 numbers are 'premium' lines 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 -   [e-mail]
  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: [e-mail]

******************************************************************

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Editor: Sally James, Cutting Edge Graphics
Production Manager: Andrew Gettelman
Electronic Distribution: Alister Sieghart and Richard Elen for Media Natura
North American Distribution: Karen Schmidt & EESI
Assistance from: Agus Sari, EN Kairu, Scott Hajost, Alden Meyer, Michael
Oppenheimer, Todd Goldman, R. Senthirajah, Karan Capoor, Sascha Muller-
Kruenner, Atiq Rahman, Kim Lamphier

Published by: Climate Action Network.

The Climate Action Network would like to thank the following, who
have provided funds and facilities for Eco:

Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Greenpeace
Natural Resources Defense Council
Union of Concerned Scientists
World Wildlife Fund

with resources donated by:

Aldus UK, Apple Computer, Creative Technology Associates,
Computers Unlimited, Dial-a-Fax, EcoNet, Microsoft, MCMXCIX,
Shades & Characters Ltd., Software Club, Vodafone plc.

Electronic mail distribution coordinator Lelani Arris, EcoNet
Energy and Climate Information Exchange (US), supported by a grant
from the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation.

******************************************************************
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 - NEW YORK March 1993 (INC 7)

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                       * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Internet/Fidonet:  [e-mail]   * Information Exchange
BITNET:    larris%igc.org@stanford      * Box 42
Telephone: [phone]                 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0
Fax:       [phone]                 * Canada
******************************************************************


                          ECO NEWSLETTER

               CLIMATE TALKS NEW YORK - MARCH 1993
                          NGO NEWSLETTER

                               INC 7

                          March 18, 1993
                             ISSUE #2

                      "Down and Dirty Issue"

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS


1.           Priorities: Quo Vadis?
2.           Beyond the GEF
3.           Bureau Elections
4.           Editorial--The Color of Money
5.           Quote of the Day
6.           Conference Report
7.           NGO Update
8.           Contacts
9.           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 groups attending the Climate Talks in New York,
March, 1993.

******************************************************************

Priorities: Quo Vadis?

With ratifications and expected ratifications ahead of schedule,
the Conference of the Parties may not far off. With this
accelerated timetable it is imperative that the INC set new
priorities. These must be set at the conclusion of INC7 so that
the process can move forward. First the INC must keep its eye on
the ultimate objective of the convention. The highest priority is
to implement policies to quickly and verifiably reduce emissions
in industrialized countries. This requires that the INC now begin
to negotiate protocols with binding commitments to reduce
emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses 25% by 2005. In
addition to getting started with these initial emission
reductions, the committee must begin to clarify the operational
meaning of the objective. That is, what emission cuts will be
needed in the long term to "stabilize the concentrations of
greenhouse gases at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system?"

Since the FCCC was opened for signature in Rio, scientific
evidence concerning the threat and impacts of global warming
continues to mount. The INC needs to gain momentum. The INC must
not take a passive role with respect to other relevant bodies and
must provide specific input to the IPCC and the GEF. To this end
the INC should make use of its very capable secretariat.

Second, the INC must begin to take more of a leadership role in
the process of developing the financial aspects of the treaty.
The substantive debate on financial matters at INC7 is a positive
sign suggesting more INC attention will be focused on these
issues in the future. But these discussions come almost too late,
and the INC must take an even greater role. It is distressing
that other organizations and agencies may make significant
decisions on the structure and function of existing and potential
financial entities before the INC can organize itself to act. The
INC must assert itself in the restructuring of the GEF, including
the primacy of the Conference of the Parties and must ensure that
alternatives to the GEF are fully considered in deliberations on
the Convention's financial mechanism. The INC must also demand a
truly independent review of the GEF pilot phase, and the
underlying principles of its operation. As noted by the
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, it is incredible that
only 1% of the energy sector funding is devoted to energy
efficiency lending. An evaluation of the GEF by the World Bank
cannot be considered an independent review. The review must also
consider alternative options for financing, including broader
issues such as debt reduction. We are concerned that the INC is
being wholly reactive in these financial matters. These financial
discussions are critical for the continued viability of the
treaty process. Countries must be urged to continue and expand
their bilateral and multilateral projects specifically directed
at reducing climate change. The INC must give priority to the
release of funds from donors simultaneously with the development
of the financial mechanism. A financial mechanism that is devoid
of substantial funding and support is inadequate, regardless of
how that mechanism works.

After early statements by European countries supporting protocol
negotiations, they have been slow to ratify the Convention and
appear to be reneging on previous commitments to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The European Community is not alone.
Few countries have taken the leadership role necessary to begin
to work within the spirit of the convention and to strengthen its
goals and targets. It will be critical for the US to follow
through on its welcome , but inadequate, signal of a change in
policy. We urge all nations to call for follow-on negotiations to
cap emissions of all greenhouse gases, and then to begin a
subsequent phase of reductions.

National plans for developed countries must be credible documents
that clearly present policies which will achieve the appropriate
targets. While we are encouraged by the early release of such
plans well in advance of the Conference of the Parties, continued
development and harmonization of these draft documents is
necessary. We urge countries and the INC to begin public and open
discussions on the process. Unfortunately, the draft "national
action" plans that have been prepared do not set high standards
and would fail to meet commitments under the Treaty. The recently
delivered Australian plan is a typical weak example of the genre.
It presents a list of options with no internal legal framework to
support it. By the Australian government's own projections,
emissions will increase substantially through the year 2000. The
admirable goal set by Australia will not be reached without a
more aggressive and accountable approach. We are pleased with the
continuing work on methodology development. The discussion at the
recent OECD common interest group meeting is a positive step, but
we urge that such discussions at an international level also
include an opportunity for public comment. The work of the IPCC
to develop methodologies necessary for the technical
implementation of the treaty is also progressing. This work
should include all available technical input from experts in both
the developed and developing nations. It is the job of the INC to
communicate these concerns to the IPCC, on behalf of those
parties not currently involved in the process.

Without new and additional action on the part of the INC and its
member countries, the treaty process threatens to stall. The INC
needs to set a series of priorities. Without action on financial
matters, the beginning of protocol negotiations, and continuing
evolution of national plans towards substantial policy documents,
the conference o of the parties will be unable to begin
implementation of the treaty. We urge all member states of the
INC to take these priorities seriously.

******************************************************************

Beyond the GEF

Climate Action Network members attending INC-7 urge the Committee
to challenge the GEF's predominant role in current discussions
about a financial mechanism for the Convention. The Committee
should explore alternatives, including other entities capable of
responding to the wide range of needs that developing countries
will face in mitigating global warming and adapting to its
impacts. The GEF-led by the World Bank-is unable to meet these
demands because it lacks openness, public accountability, and the
capacity to involve local communities in its projects. In
addition, the Bank's regular operations are often at direct odds
with global environmental objectives, such as those laid down in
the Climate Convention.

"The World Bank has shown itself unwilling to fund small,
community-based sustainable development projects," said Atiq
Rahman of the Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies. "Asking it
to play a lead role in implementing the climate convention is a
sure recipe for failure."

The Climate Convention's financial mechanism must be directly
responsive to the priorities of developing countries. "Its
operation should not be entrusted to the GEF simply because donor
countries prefer the World Bank," according to Rahman.

Instead, the Parties to the Convention should retain ultimate
control over the financial mechanism. Regular oversight of the
operation of the financial mechanism would best be accomplished
through a subsidiary body of the CoP. This could be done through
the subsidiary body on implementation, as proposed by Uruguay.
Such a body should take responsibility for making arrangements
with a variety of entities, based on their demonstrated ability
to deliver the services needed to implement the financial
assistance provisions of the Convention. The subsidiary body
would approve individual projects developed by these entities.

In addition, the GEF will need to adopt new procedures for public
participation and access to information. Despite calls by the GEF
Participants for accountability and transparency, the GEF has
failed to make progress in these areas. The World Bank continues
to withhold documentation on GEF projects and associated regular
World Bank loans from the public, even though this information is
critical to informed decision-making.

The GEF's insistence on "global benefits" precludes it from
supporting adaptation measures. Either the GEF will need to
reform its rules, or the financial mechanism will have to tap
other entities to manage such projects not covered by the GEF's
mandate. The INC should consider the following actions to create
an effective financial mechanism:

* Direct the interim secretariat to examine and make
recommendations on which entities-including NGOs-are qualified to
manage funding for the various activities required under article
4, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 8. In governing the financial
mechanism, the parties should assign work to operational entities
based on their demonstrated capabilities.

* Inform the GEF Participants that the parties to the Convention
intend to exercise governance of the financial
mechanism-including project approval-through a subsidiary body of
the convention, and that they intend to consider the GEF as one
of several potential operating entities, based on demonstrated
qualifications.

* Initiate work to elaborate policies, program priorities,
eligibility criteria, and project criteria (including such
concepts as incremental costs and cost-effectiveness) for early
action by the CoP. This effort should be informed-but not
driven-by the GEF's work to date in these areas.

* Agree on fundamental principles of public accountability and
transparency for the financial mechanism, including, among other
things, broad consultation with and participation of NGOs and
affected communities in all projects, observer status for NGOs at
meetings of the mechanism's governing body and operating
entities, and public access to documentation on projects at all
stages of the project cycle.

* Regarding the GEF restructuring and replenishment, the INC
should instruct the GEF Participants that consideration of the
GEF for a role in the convention's permanent financial mechanism
will depend, among other things, on: (1) completion of a truly
independent evaluation of the GEF pilot phase, not one undertaken
by the GEF Implementing Agencies' staff as currently intended,
and (2) reforms to ensure the GEF's adherence to the principles
of public accountability and transparency described above.

Last but not least, any discussions about a financial mechanism
to implement programs under the Convention should not obscure the
fact that the larger issues which inhibit environmentally
sustainable development in the South need to be addressed.

These include net transfers of funds from South to North
resulting from high debt burdens, trade barriers in the North,
and environmentally unsound approaches in existing development
assistance programs.

******************************************************************

Bureau Elections

The INC on Tuesday elected the new officers of its bureau-

We welcome Ambassador Raoul Estrada-Oyuela of Argentina as the
new INC Chairman.

We also welcome Mohamed El Gaouth from Mauritania, and Cornelia
Quennet of Germany to Working Group I. And we are pleased to see
Robert Von Lierop of Vanuatu and Nobutoshi Akao of Japan who will
chair Working Group II.

******************************************************************

Editorial-- The Color of Money

A significant portion of the debate on financial matters is being
overlooked at INC 7. Substantial resources must accompany the
financial mechanism developed for the Convention. As widely
noted, the current GEF fails to meet the new and additional
funding commitments as contained in the climate treaty. INC
delegates and NGOs continue to ask that "new and additional
financial resources" be defined.

We must note the context. Even countries which have long been
noted for the quality and quantity of their aid, such as Norway
and Sweden, have reduced their funding. The latest and among the
most dramatic has been Canada's reduction of its overseas
development budget by 10%. Green funds must not be used to
camouflage deeper and deeper reductions in the general level and
quality of aid to developing countries. Creative new financial
options must be developed-including reforming the multilateral
development institutions (most notably the World Bank), reducting
of debt, and reforming the world trading system.

The debate within the GEF on incremental costs reflects the
desire to pass on to the developing countries the cost of the
North's current policies. Under the GEF, the developing countries
will be given aid for only the incremental costs of programs
primarily geared toward cleaning up the environmental mess caused
by the North-through its energy policies and the transfer of its
unsustainable practices. This means that developing countries
will be forced to shift capital away from national priorities in
order to solve the environmental problems caused by the North. In
addition, developed countries have failed to commit to
substantial reductions in their own greenhouse gas emissions.

Industrialized nations are using their powerful political
position within the international system to perpetuate this fraud
against the disempowered societies of the world. The debate on
restructuring the GEF must not distract from the real issue of
genuine partnership and cooperation needed to save the planet.

******************************************************************

Quote of the Day

ECO is proud to acknowledge the Representative of Grenada for
observing: "The CoP should arrest GEF for speeding."

******************************************************************

Conference Report

By ECO Reporter

A quick plenary session Tuesday morning soon freed delegates to
attend other crucial debates on the financial mechanism. Although
short, the plenary allowed progress on INC organization.

First, Michael Zammit Cutajar presented an INC paper reviewing
the Activities of the Interim Secretariat (A/AC237/28). This
document outlines an impressive program of numerous activities to
be implemented through a clearing-house on national country
studies. The project entails both setting up an information
system and evaluating experience. Inventories of GHG emissions
and mitigation measures, impact and adaptation measures, and
training will be covered. The INC will cooperate closely with
UNEP, WMO and IUCC, and will publish a newsletter together with
IPCC. The first issue is planned for the second quarter of 1993.

The newly-elected chairman, Ambassador Estrada, welcomed this
presentation, as well as presentations from New Zealand and
Canada, and one from Denmark on behalf of the EC. These countries
supported the very positive statements made about INC in
interventions by Nitin Desai, Executive Secretary of the
Commission on Sustainable Development, and Elizabeth Dowdeswell,
Director of UNEP.

The second point of discussion in this session was the tentative
schedule for INC meetings. INC 8 will take place August 16-27.
Dates were proposed for next year: January 31 -February 11 in
Geneva; May 9-20 in New York, and August 22-31 in New York again,
if necessary. These proposed dates will be discussed Thursday
morning.

Working Group Report

After bureau elections, the INC began serious discussion of how
the financial mechanism of the convention will operate. Following
presentations on activities of the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in
Tuesday's Plenary, Working Group II devoted Wednesday to an
exchange of views on the relationship between the convention and
the GEF. The key issues are what will be funded, who will decide,
and how much money will be raised.

Liz Dowdeswell declared her intent to make UNEP an agent for
sustainable development. She said that UNEP has a mandate to
support the conventions as strongly as possible and that she
plans to lend staff directly to the INC secretariat. She further
proposed that UNEP establish a clearinghouse of information on
abatement costs, country studies, methodologies, and climate
vulnerability.

Ian Johnson, the Administrator of the GEF, summarized the results
of the participants' meeting in Rome earlier this month. That
meeting made plans to evaluate the pilot phase of the GEF,
started discussion on replenishment, and continued discussions on
restructuring and governance, without reaching any final
conclusions. These issues will be taken up again in Beijing this
May, with the aim of resolving them so that replenishment
negotiations can begin. A pledging session is scheduled for
December in Geneva. Later, Germany proposed a replenishment of 3
billion SDR. Wednesday's discussion in Working Group II focused
on guidance to the GEF on "policies, program priorities, and
eligibility criteria" for funding under the Convention. All
agreed that these must be developed by the Conference of the
Parties, but the Committee has yet to grapple with the specifics.

A number of delegates expressed concern about ensuring that the
GEF would follow the guidance of the Conference of the Parties.
Also of concern was guaranteeing that the GEF would in fact
reconsider project decisions upon request by the CoP. Although a
legal agreement between the CoP and the GEF was proposed by some,
other delegations preferred a less formal arrangement at this
point, such as a Memorandum of Understanding between the two
bodies.

One of the thorniest issues the delegates face is the scope of
the financial mechanism. Developing countries advocated that the
financial mechanism encompass all the commitments in Article 4,
including emission inventories, national plans, technology
transfer, and adaptation, as well as specific projects to
mitigate emissions. Many OECD countries appeared to favor a more
narrow focus on mitigation projects.

Canada and others proposed that the Secretariat prepare a paper
for the August meeting of the INC, providing a detailed
discussion of policies, program priorities, and criteria that the
CoP might adopt as guidance to the GEF. Of particular interest is
the definition of incremental cost and its relationship to global
environmental benefits. A number of delegations suggested that
the current meeting of the INC should provide recommendations to
the May meeting of the GEF. At the end of the day, the Group of
77 circulated a set of proposed recommendations, which may form
the basis for debate for the rest of the week.

******************************************************************

NGO Update

The following individuals were unfortunately brutally
excised from the previous list of NGO participants.  ECO
apologizes profusely for this oversight.

Korinna Horta, USA
Environmental Defense Fund

David Hallman, Canada
 World Council of Churches

David Reed, Alex Wood
WWF International

Kiliparti Ramakrishna, USA
Woods Hole Research Center

******************************************************************

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For enquiries and response to ECO:

Eco can be contacted at:
Eastgate Towers rm 19G, Tel. [phone] Fax [phone];
e-mail [e-mail]

Dial-a-Fax Service: "Reverse poll" dial to [phone]
(outside UK) or 0836 413707 (inside UK) to receive the latest copy
of ECO. See your fax manual for 'Reverse poll dialing' or call
0836 413701 (within UK) or [phone] (outside UK) for a
recorded guidance message. The 0836 numbers are 'premium' lines 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 -   [e-mail]
  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: [e-mail]

******************************************************************

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Editor: Sally James, Cutting Edge Graphics

Production Manager: Andrew Gettelman

Electronic Distribution: Alister Sieghart and Richard Elen for Media
Natura
North American Distribution: Karen Schmidt & EESI

Assistance from: Karan Capoor, Nicole Holt, Todd Goldman, Korinna
Horta, Kim Lamphier, Annie Roncerel, Atiq Rahman, Glenn Prickett,
Dan Lashof, Snoopy, Alex Wood, Agus Sari, Grace Akumu, Athena
Ronquillo, Ravi Sharma, Bill Hare, Scott Hajost, Liz BC-Brown

Published by the Climate Action Network.  Funds and facilities
provided by Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental and Energy
Study Institute, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Union of Concerned Scientists, and World Wildlife Fund.  Resources
donated by Aldus UK, Creative Technology Associates, Computers
Unlimited, Dial-A-Fax, EcoNet, Microsoft, MCMXCIX, Shades and
Characters Ltd., Software Club, and Vodaphone plc.

Electronic mail distribution coordinator Lelani Arris, EcoNet
Energy and Climate Information Exchange (US), supported by a grant
from the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation.

******************************************************************
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 - NEW YORK March 1993 (INC 7)

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                       * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Internet/Fidonet:  [e-mail]   * Information Exchange
BITNET:    larris%igc.org@stanford      * Box 42
Telephone: [phone]                 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0
Fax:       [phone]                 * Canada
******************************************************************

                          ECO NEWSLETTER

               CLIMATE TALKS NEW YORK - MARCH 1993
                          NGO NEWSLETTER

                               INC 7

                          March 20, 1993
                             ISSUE #3

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1            Report Confirms Warming
2            Insurance Industry Faces Warming Threat
3            Ratification Status
4            NGO Interventions, Possible Conclusions
5            Future INC Meetings
6            A Letter from Turtle Bay
7            Editorial - Getting it Right
8            IPCC: Unfair to the South?
9            License to Emit
10           Contacts
11           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 groups attending the Climate Talks in New York,
March, 1993.

******************************************************************

Report Confirms Warming

by ECO correspondent

Alarming new evidence that the world is warming came from the
Netherlands yesterday. According to a report in the main Dutch
newspaper, de Volkskrant, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
announced at a press conference that the average temperature in
the Netherlands was 10.4 degree C during the five years from 1988
to 1992, some 1.3 degree C higher than the average over the
period from 1890 to the 1970s. The four hottest years of the
century occurred during this five year period. It is virtually
impossible, according to the report, that variations in a
non-changing climate could bring about such a series of warm
years.

Dr. H. Fijnaut, Director of the Dutch Meteorological Service, put
the chances of this data being only a coincidence at less than
one in 10,000. He presented the report to Transport Minister Maij
and Director General Enthoven of the Environment Ministry. Both
called the results of the report "alarming". Maij said "if this
is correct, measures are inescapable."

******************************************************************

Insurance Industry Faces Warming Threat

by Dr. Jeremy Leggett

After the ruinous $6 billion expense of Hurricane Hugo in 1989,
one Lloyd's of London syndicate sought the advice of climate
experts on what the enhanced greenhouse effect might mean for the
return-time of windstorms. We can only give you a qualitative
best-guess, they were told, but expect more of the same, only
stronger and more frequent. The syndicate reduced their exposures
in coastal Florida, and their prescience saved them millions when
Hurricane Andrew hit.

But did Hurricane Andrew have anything to do with global warming?
Among the many journalists who phoned the UK Meteorological
Office's press officers while the storm raged, only one asked
this question. The Meteorological Office's answer was the stock
response of those it behooves to be ultra-cautious over the
political hot-potato of climate change. No individual climatic
event, they said, can possibly be ascribed to the human-enhanced
greenhouse effect.

This is accurate, of course. We will never know whether Hurricane
Andrew, or the storm that hit the US before this INC, owed its
ferocity to greenhouse gases. But that answer dodges a far more
important point: the question of the future. Greenhouse gases
have long lifetimes in the atmosphere, and their heat-trapping is
subject to a lag effect because of the thermal inertia of the
oceans. It is on future climate change that the IPCC's scientists
have reached broad consensus, not the present, and that consensus
is robust indeed.

But the writing on the wall is not encouraging. 1990 was the
hottest year since records began 140 years ago. 1991 was the
second hottest, despite that significant cooling effect of the
Mt. Pinatubo eruption. The seven hottest years have all occurred
since 1980. Coral reefs are beginning to bleach and die in waters
of unprecedented warmth in the Caribbean, Pacific, and Indian
oceans. And this is the merest foretaste of what the future would
look like, should the IPCC's forecasts prove correct.

The potential impacts on insurers are legion. Storm surges would
be higher, and rainfall in many areas more intense, leading to
new dimensions in inundation risk. Drought would spread, boosting
the risk of Oakland Hills-style bushfire. Most important of all,
for actuarial work, the past would no longer serve as a guide to
the future.

For windstorms, the proliferation of risk is acute indeed. The
world's largest reinsurance company, Munich Re, has spotted the
danger. "For the first time in the history of our planet, " it
concluded, "mankind is about to change the climate significantly
and possibly irreversibly, without having any idea of the
consequences that it will have." It went on to spell out the
straightforward link between a warming world and more robust
cyclones. Cyclones form only above seas warmer than about 27
degrees C. If the IPCC's climate models prove correct, the areas
of sea warmer that 27 degrees C will spread, and in consequence,
according to Munich Re's analysts, cyclones "will increase not
only in frequency and intensity but also duration and size of
areas at risk." In future, Munich Re predicts, hurricanes will
penetrate temperate latitudes, with full-scale events visiting
centres of population and industry in the Mediterranean and
western Europe for the first time. And, as Swiss Re's Greenhouse
Effect Project Team has pointed out, Manhattan and Tokyo would
enter the cyclone risk bracket.

Given the ruinous costs associated with windstorms, the whole
issue of the ineptly-named "global warming" phenomenon stands to
become, for the insurance business, a matter of life and death.
Greenpeace has been told, both by Lloyd's of London and Swiss Re,
that the very future of the insurance market is at stake. If the
reinsurance industry implodes, direct insurance will contract
catastrophically. The bottom line is clear: you cannot run a
healthy economy without a healthy insurance industry. In the
years to come, there can only be a paradigm shift in the
insurance coverage offered, and the terms of that coverage.

If a trillion-dollar-a-year global industry such as insurance is
beginning to see the writing on the wall, why not the
trillion-dollar-a -year fossil-fuel interests, which are erecting
huge barriers to greenhouse-gas emission-cuts? The fossil-fuel
business employs a multi-million dollar lobby to persuade
governments not to cut fossil-fuel burning; we put up with their
stalling tactics at every INC meeting. In reality this lobby
undermines the insurance industry's ability to manage risk.

Passive adaptation of business practice is not the only option
open to the insurance industry in the face of the emerging
threat. The industry should explore opportunities to stage a
strategic defence of its future market security. This would
involve lobbying-of industry, government, consumers, and
shareholders-in pursuit of the kinds of greenhouse-gas reductions
that can mitigate climate-change. The industry should also deploy
its capital to foster climate-friendly enterprises (a growing
market, anyway) and to discourage enterprises that exacerbate
climate change.. That is the best way to deal with the
risk-proliferation which would result from an unmitigated
enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

Dr. Jeremy Leggett is scientific director of Greenpeace
International's Climate Campaign.

******************************************************************

Ratification Status

by Earth Summit Watch Correspondent

This week's announcement that Papua New Guinea has ratified the
Climate Convention brings the total number of nations ratifying
the Convention to 16-nearly one-third of the 50 ratifications
necessary for the Treaty to enter into force. These 16 nations
should be lauded for their prompt and important action.

Notably absent from the initial group of ratifying nations are 8
of the top 10 global warming gas emitters. The United States
(number 1) and China (number 3) are the exceptions. While all 160
signatory nations are committed in theory to the principles of
the Convention, it is imperative that they press on with
ratification, following the example set by the first 16
countries. Each ratification sends a message to the international
community expressing the urgency and importance the signatory
attaches to the Climate Convention.

Currently, those countries expected to ratify the Convention
appear to be roughly on schedule, although many countries are not
setting a date for ratification. A survey conducted by the Earth
Summit Watch, a project of the Natural Resources Defense Council,
outlines the likely timetable for future ratifications. The
survey of governments indicates that 23 more countries expect to
ratify the Climate Convention by July 1993 and 38 more by the end
of the year, totalling 77 ratifications by year's end.

Although a substantial number of countries plan to take action
this year, many of the countries which pressed for the 50-country
threshold have themselves made slow progress. None of the
Scandinavian countries or members of the European Community have
ratified the Convention.

Initially, the 12 EC countries set June 1993-the anniversary of
the Earth Summit- as their target date for ratification. Many are
now shooting for much later. The G7 countries have pushed their
ratification schedule back to December 31, although Germany still
hopes to ratify by the end of September. Some delay is due to
textual translation problems, particularly for France and
Portugal. The process is also being slowed by the EC's desire to
deposit instruments of ratification en bloc; in effect, all 12
nations would be forced to wait upon the ratification of the
slowest Community nation. (This proposal is on the agenda for the
EC Environment Ministers Council meeting next week.) The Council
should carefully consider all arguments for group ratification of
the Convention, particularly the delay created by adhering to the
agenda of the slowest nation.

The many member nations of AOSIS have two obstacles delaying
their ratification of the Convention. Because the Parliamentary
agendas are heavily filled and often overbooked, ratification of
the Climate Convention is relegated to the back burner. The legal
staff who usually draw up the papers for ratification are small
and overburdened. In a potentially generous effort to assist
these smaller nations, some larger nations are considering an
offer of legal and technical assistance, in order to push the
ratification process forward. All governments should seriously
consider support of this type.

******************************************************************

NGO Interventions, Possible Conclusions

Plenary Sessions

On Thursday the Global Climate Coalition presented their
intervention during the short plenary session. They echoed the
sentiments of the environmental NGOs in calling for greater
access to the proceedings. They asked for the same considerations
in attending meetings of the Conference of the Parties and its
subsidiary bodies as they are currently allowed in the INC.

During the morning plenary on Friday, Bill Hare of Greenpeace
International presented an intervention on behalf of the Climate
Action Network. The CAN Groups repeated the call for access to
those meetings defined as private. He then called for commitments
from industrialized countries to reduce their emissions. The
statement recommended that the role of the financial mechanism be
studied carefully and that alternatives to the GEF be considered.
Finally, the statement advocated the establishment of a mandatory
funding schedule to fulfill the commitments made in Article 4.3.

The assembly discussed and selected priorities for Working Group
I. During INC8, the group will work on methodologies for
calculating emissions and removal of greenhouse gases, begin
discussion on joint implementation, and review the reports
provided by the signatories from Annex I of the Convention.

Working Group II

The highlight of the discussions of Working Group II on Thursday
was the presentation of the possible conclusions of Working Group
II. The conclusions, if agreed upon, are to be communicated to
the GEF participants assembly at their May meeting in Beijing.
These conclusions addressed: the arrangements for the financial
mechanism; policies, program priorities and eligibility criteria
for the mechanism; governance and accountability; linkages
between the CoP and the GEF; the amount of funding; and future
work. The summary noted both the call for technical and financial
aid to countries developing national action plans and a revision
of the rules of procedure for the CoP.

The G-77 and China met for almost three hours to discuss
amendments to the summary. On Friday, they distributed their
proposed amendments, which included changes to many of the
Chair's proposed "Conclusions," and also proposed changing the
title of the document to "Notes." After interventions from the
United States, Canada, the European Community, and others, an
agreement on the document appeared possible. The Chairs were to
draft a synthesis "Conclusions" document incorporating the
comments, to be distributed Saturday morning.

The fate of another G-77 plus China proposal is less clear. This
group also circulated a series of recommendations for submission
to the May GEF meeting in Beijing. Various OECD countries
indicated their willingness to negotiate changes on Friday night.
This G-77 proposal will be printed by the Secretariat for
Saturday as a Draft Decision Document. The INC recognized, before
adjournment, that if there were no agreement on the paper, the
G-77 was at liberty submit the document directly to GEF at its
May meeting.

******************************************************************

Future INC meetings

Final dates & cites of future meetings were proposed by the
secretariat and consented to by the assembly. They are:

INC8-August 16 - 27, 1993 in Geneva

INC9-February 7 - 18, 1994 in Geneva

INC10-August 22 - 31, 1994 in Geneva

INC11-February, 1995 in New York

The Conference of Parties will meet in the first months of 1995.

******************************************************************

A letter from Turtle Bay

Dear Mr. Chairman,

Welcome Mr. Ambassador. The cold weather here in New York is
reflected in the glacial pace at which the INC is moving I would
like to draw your attention to today's front page Eco story,
which describes alarming new evidence on global warming released
by the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service. When presented with
this new data, fossil fuel lobbyist and member of the Bush
Administration's climate delegation, J.R. Spradley, ventured that
he would still be willing to put "serious money" on the Dutch
report being wrong. I understand that it was pointed out to him
that the currency in which the bet would have to be made good was
not his money, but his grandchildren's lives. He had no comment
at that point, I am told.

I would like to say goodbye to M. Ripert. C'est avec nostalgie
que nous voyons partir la diplomatie francaise qui a reussi le
miracle de conclure un accord signe par 160 pays. Tous nos
espoirs sont maintenant entre vos mains afin de le mettre en
oeuvre.

Yours (As always),

Donatello

******************************************************************

Editorial

Getting it Right

As the delegates leave INC7 in chilly New York there is an urgent
need to recreate the spirit of the Earth Summit last June.
Several steps must now be taken.

The developed countries must get on with the job of quickly
producing serious, comprehensive national plans that will meet
their commitments for mitigating climate change. By INC8,
countries should be well on the way to finalising credible
national plans to meet and go beyond the initial commitments set
out in the Convention. Countries should also begin early
negotiations on protocols that strengthen the FCCC, so that the
objective of the convention may be achieved.

Further progress must be made on defining the financial mechanism
and its operating entities. This mechanism must be viewed much
more generally than the narrow focus of the present debate. There
is a major risk that the tortured debate over the GEF will
obscure the need for a financial mechanism that is strong,
resilient, accountable and transparent. The INC should not allow
the GEF to become the primary or sole organ for operation of the
funding mechanism after the interim period.

The permanent mechanism and its operating entities needs to
operate under the sole authority of the Conference of the
Parties. No other body must be allowed to dictate financial
arrangements to the Conference of the Parties. We cannot have the
"tail wagging the dog."

We call upon nations to ratify the Convention quickly so that it
may enter into force as early as possible.

******************************************************************

IPCC: Unfair to the South?

from CAN-SA (South Asia) reporter

Professor Jyoti Parikh of the Indira Gandhi Institute of
Development Research (IGIDR) in Bombay, India, has criticized the
IPCC Response Strategies Working Group (RSWG) for unfair
treatment of the developing nations in the estimates of future
emission rates (Nature, 360, 507-708, 1992).

In developing its initial "business as usual" reference scenario
against which cuts in carbon emissions could be judged, the RSWG
had to make various assumptions about regional emission growth
rates over coming decades. According to Prof. Parikh, the
assumptions that the RSWG adopted imply that "present
inequalities among world regions will increase considerably."
Moreover, they shift the burden of emission control from North to
South.

Parikh's assessment is based on a comparison of actual carbon
emission growth rates over the period 1979-1988 and the RSWG
growth rates for the period 1985-2025. For North America, the
future growth rate assumed by RSWG is considerably greater than
that observed since 1979, while for the Asian developing regions
the future growth rate is less than has been observed.

Because the growth rates of the North are inflated, these nations
may well find stabilization easier to achieve than the reference
scenario suggests. For the South, emission reductions may prove
that much harder to achieve.

Prof. Parikh considers it likely that "those involved in
constructing the original models were not conscious of the
inequality and injustice," but she concludes that there "is no
excuse for failing to formulate fair policies for the future."
The IPCC has recently developed a new set of reference scenarios
based on a broad range of alternative assumptions about future
growth. It remains to be seen whether these require further
revisions so that an equitable baseline can be adopted for the
emission reductions specified in the protocols associated with
the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

******************************************************************

Licence to emit

By Bill Hare and Tessa Robertson, Greenpeace

Greenpeace is concerned that a recent agreement between the
Norwegian Government and the Global Environmental Facility and
World Bank on two joint implementation projects preempts
decisions that should be made by the Conference of the Parties.
Greenpeace has obtained the Memorandum of Understanding on the
projects, which outlines the arrangements under which Norway has
contributed US$4.5 million towards the projects in Poland and
Mexico.

In the Memorandum, which was signed on December 16 1992 by Ken
Newcombe of the World Bank and Sven Aass for the Government of
Norway, the Bank has undertaken to provide carbon offset
certificates for the projects. It is possible that the Norwegians
might argue that these could be used to obtain emission credits
against its obligations under Article 4(a) and (b).

The fact that the financial institution responsible for the
projects is the World Bank is extremely worrying. The Bank has an
appalling record on energy lending in the developing world. In
the last two years alone it has lent over $2 billion for fossil
fuel development in the Third World, predominantly for coal
thermal power plants. All of the World Bank's loans for coal have
violated the Bank's own requirements for environmental assessment.

This development underscores the need for the Conference of the
Parties to retain complete authority over the funding mechanism.
The INC should communicate to the GEF meeting in Beijing its
strong concerns over the preemptive nature of this agreement.
Greenpeace believes that the actions proposed to be taken by the
World Bank/GEF directly contradict the Convention and challenge
the power of the Conference of the Parties. Under the Convention,
criteria for joint implementation are to be determined by the
Conference of the Parties, not by the results of pilot projects
such as these.

******************************************************************

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For enquiries and response to ECO:

Eco can be contacted at:
Eastgate Towers, 222 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016
Tel. [phone]; Fax [phone];
e-mail [e-mail]

Dial-a-Fax Service: "Reverse poll" dial to [phone]
(outside UK) or 0836 413707 (inside UK) to receive the latest copy
of ECO. See your fax manual for 'Reverse poll dialing' or call
0836 413701 (within UK) or [phone] (outside UK) for a
recorded guidance message. The 0836 numbers are 'premium' lines 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 -   [e-mail]
  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: [e-mail]

******************************************************************

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

ECO edited by Sally James of Cutting Edge Graphics; production
editor Andrew Gettelman; electronic distribution Alister
Sieghart and Richard Elen for Media Natura.

Special assistance from Karan Capoor, Liz Barratt-Brown, Scott
Hajost, Daniel Lashof, Alden Meyer, TJ Glauthier, Karen Schmidt,
Glenn Pickett.

Published by the Climate Action Network.  Funds and facilities
provided by Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental and Energy
Study Institute, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Union of Concerned Scientists, and World Wildlife Fund.  Resources
donated by Aldus UK, Creative Technology Associates, Computers
Unlimited, Dial-A-Fax, EcoNet, Microsoft, MCMXCIX, Shades and
Characters Ltd., Software Club, and Vodaphone plc.

Electronic mail distribution coordinator Lelani Arris, EcoNet
Energy and Climate Information Exchange (US), supported by a grant
from the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation.

******************************************************************
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 - NEW YORK March 1993 (INC 7)

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                       * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Internet/Fidonet:  [e-mail]   * Information Exchange
BITNET:    larris%igc.org@stanford      * Box 42
Telephone: [phone]                 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0
Fax:       [phone]                 * Canada
******************************************************************