PRESS BRIEFING ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Michael Zammit-Cutajar, Executive Secretary, secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said at a Headquarters press briefing this morning that the Fourth Session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Buenos Aires, to be held from 2 to 13 November, would be the first in the convention process to be held in a developing country.

Mr. Zammit-Cutajar, who played a major part in preparing the negotiations which led to the Kyoto Protocol last December said that was an important political development, as it underlined the global nature of the problem of climate change. The Buenos Aires meeting, an agenda-setting conference to adopt work plans, would be the setting for the beginning of a new phase that might last several years. There would be good ministerial attendance and hopefully decisive outcomes.

The key words for the meeting were "momentum and balance", he said. Momentum was needed to keep up the drive that the Kyoto meeting had generated. The question of balance referred to the difference between the Protocol, which was the centre of attention but had not come into force and the Convention, which had come into force but was not being implemented adequately. Convention issues of particular interest to the developing countries had to be kept in view. Those issues included the transfer of technology, the impact of and responses to climate change on developing countries and their economies, and how to cushion those impacts.

Continuing, he said the focus of the Kyoto Protocol was the elaboration of the rules for the mechanisms that had been integrated into the Protocol. Those mechanisms enabled developed countries to achieve their commitment offshore by trading -- buying someone else's emission credits -- or by investing in projects in other countries that would result in lower emissions. Those mechanisms had to be credible in order to work on the "credibility mechanisms" -- measures of accounting, accountability and non-compliance. There would be some sort of action plan on those issues, with varying deadlines aimed at bringing the Protocol into force as soon as possible. A major issue not yet on the agenda, but that would be debated informally, was the question of when and how the developing countries might take on commitments to limit their emissions. Argentina would like that issue to be openly debated, but many countries opposed its inclusion.

A correspondent asked how he would compare the willingness of developing countries like those in Latin America versus India or China to enter into commitments. Mr. Zammit-Cutajar replied that there were different positions. On one side, there were countries whose main concern was their vulnerability to climate change. They were not major emitters of greenhouse gases and might even be net absorbers of gases, like the small island countries and some

Zammit-Cutajar Briefing - 2 - 22 October 1998

African countries. On the other side, there were countries which were dependent on the export of energy products. Those countries saw anything that would limit their export capacity in a negative economic light. In the centre were the industrializing countries such as China and India which had large populations and economies. They were primarily concerned with keeping their economic growth options open.

What impact would the debate over commitments by developing countries have on the rest of the process and the development of rules and guidelines for the mechanisms? a correspondent asked. Mr. Zammit-Cutajar said that was a contentious and political issue that might distract participants from taking care of the other business on the agenda. In addition, the clean development mechanism was specifically aimed at bringing investment into developing countries in return for emission-reduction certificates produced from the projects. That could be seen as part of the evolution towards commitments by developing countries, because they would be engaged in projects that lowered the rate of emissions.

Asked what might be expected in the development of rules for emissions trading, he said that emissions trading could only happen among countries that had accepted caps, such as the Annex I countries -- the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) plus the Central and Eastern European economies in transition; the European Union; and a group consisting of non-European Union and non-OECD countries, which were called the umbrella group. The European Union and the umbrella group converged on the mechanics of trade, but there were issues of principle that divided them, which they would not seek to resolve: whether there should be a limit on the amount of the target that could be achieved through trading; and whether there should be conditions on what part of the target could be sold. There was a question as to whether countries that did not need all of their target could sell the surplus. The European Union was looking for rigour while the umbrella favoured flexibility and economic efficiency. There needed to be a balance between economic efficiency and environmental credibility.

What was the likelihood of United States ratification and what might satisfy that country? a correspondent asked. That was a political question, Mr. Zammit-Cutajar answered. The United States would not be rushed on the question. The United States Administration still had to sign the Protocol which was open for signature until 15 March 1999. Ratification was dependent on what happened in the United States Congressional political process.

He went on to say that the key phrase was "meaningful participation by developing countries". Any movement towards actions by developing countries that would result in the lowering of emissions was positive. The key was whether it was action to which the country was committed or action that took place voluntarily. Many developing countries without any commitment under the Convention were using more efficient ways of producing energy that resulted in lowering their emission trend. The question of economic size was key. China and India had large emissions but it was very low per capita.

Zammit-Cutajar Briefing - 3 - 22 October 1998

In response to another question, he said a successful climate strategy must include all countries. Emissions of gases from developing countries would soon surpass those of developed countries. Most developing countries would limit emissions when they were ready and when certain conditions were satisfied in their domestic development.

He said he did not think there would be an enveloping document coming out of the meeting, but he foresaw a series of separate decisions on different subjects. There might be one major decision covering the work plans on all the mechanisms and the preparations for entry into force of the Protocol. That could be seen as the main document but it would be one among others.

Asked about deadlines, he said there were already some deadlines built into the Protocol process and into the Convention. Developed countries had undertaken to achieve certain results by the year 2000, but many would not make the deadline. The year 2005 was signalled as a stocktaking point at which the developed countries which had ratified the Protocol should show demonstrable achievements in reaching their target. They should start domestic action now and not wait for the mechanisms to kick in. There were other deadlines that did not have a year, but depended on the date of the entry into force.

What were his biggest disappointments since Kyoto? he was asked. He said that what disappointed him most was the inability of governments to come to grips in a practical way with the transfer of technology. There was a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the debate and he would like to see it move into a more practical sphere with the private sector that owned the technology. He did not believe in the rhetoric of the developed countries that said they could not touch transfer of technology because it belonged to the private sector. The world worked according to incentives and influences. There should be some incentives that would push technology in the direction which would be good for all. He had expected a greater flow of information from developing countries about their emissions and their plans for action.

* *** *