RECORD TYPE PRESIDENTIAL NOTES MAIL CREATOR John D Gibson CN John D Gibson OU WHCCTF 0 EOP WHCCTF CREATION DATE TIME 9-FEB-1999 16 58 40 00 SUBJECT notes from diplomatic meeting TO Todd Stern CN Todd Stern OU WHO 0 EOP @ EOP WHO READ UNKNOWN TEXT Attached is a write up of my notes from Friday's meeting ATTACHMENT ATT CREATION TIME DATE 0 00 00 00 00 TEXT Unable to convert ARMS_EXT ATTACH D85 MAIL435256343 036 to ASCII The following is a HEX DUMP NOTES FROM DIPLOMATIC STRATEGY MEETING 2 5 99 Topics Developing Countries Participants Todd Stem Alan Polasky Rafe Pomerance David Hales Mark Mazur David Doniger David Gardiner TJ Glauthier George Frampton Kate English Dan Reicher David Sandalow David Festa Margot Anderson Mike Rodemeyer Linda Delgado Bill White Bob Cumby Roger Ballentine Melinda Kimble Frank Loy John Gibson Beth Amer Ron Minsk Julie Anderson T Stern TDS Purpose of meeting is to sketch out our strategic objectives with respect to developing country participation and secondly to decide what our tactics are for achieving these objectives Backdrop of discussion is we need enough developing country participation to allow ratification My premise is that we can't do that w in 2 years probably looking at sometime in next 4 years F Loy Useful to put some propositions on the table These aren't facts or decisions just propositions to organize our thinking 1 Over next 2 years we won't get many countries to take on a quantitative target true or false 2 If that's the case what is meaningful participation and what is our strategy for achieving it One thing we've talked about is looking at the world in 3 categories — High income countries e g Israel — these we should push to take on a target Automated Records Management System Hex-Dump Conversion — Less well off countries these we should advocate targets but focus more on how we can get real reductions irrespective of a target — Those that want to take on a target with these we work hard to find a third way The question then becomes dowe need to change our public posture of what meaningful participation is We have to remember that the goal is lower emissions — targets are important but not the only way to achieve that goal Another point to consider is whether or not our talk about targets tums everyone off and makes other progress impossible to achieve If in fact we don't get many more countries to take on a target and our costs of compliance go up — then what Finally we are asking for countries to take on a below business as usual target — this is a very sophisticated exercise Is there any way we can make it easier for them TDS Seems to me what you are asking is la Should we have a softer line lb Should we continue to press diplomatically but have a little softer line in public Thoughts M Mazur So far we have been seeking to meet the Byrd-Hagel conditions Even though we know that that may be a distant goal it's been our approach it's been hardline So it seems that what Frank's saying is that this may not have been useful F Loy We're not abandoning targets all we're talking about is maybe not making it our lead the first thing out of our mouths D Doniger We need to look at what is really the key determinant to ratifiication Developing country participation is partly an excuse — maybe not key to ratification If we line up domestic support then this begins to look more like a traditional political fight There's also an analogy to here to the early credit debate Companies and developing countries are actually better off negotiating for a target before lowering their emissions M Kimble It is perfectly fine to talk with any developing country about targets on a bilateral basis It's in the multilateral context that it breaks down Very important to have this conversation with countries We are making some progress Example UNCTAD is now doing a trading game on the internet This is a hard conversation but it's very useful to have it Important to note the work we are doing with Argentina and Kazakstan is very expensive If we do 20 countries it will be $20 million we don't have the money let alone the other resources i e people Automated Records Management System Hex-Dump Conversion D Hales People are more limiting than money Also note that we could get developing country participation and still not get ratification That at least tells us how to talk about it it's an educational issue showing them it's in their interest R Ballentine Developing country participation is not a sufficient but it is a necessary condition to ratification Granted though it's a matter of perception The best weapon the hard-core opposition has is this issue We can't hand them a bigger club by going soft on this issue If we can redefine w o looking soft or like we are slipping then fine D Sandalow Strongly agree w M Kimble Important to have the conversation and in a bilateral context it doesn't cost us much Strongly agree w Roger — those TV ads hitting us on dev country participation were researched Absolutely essential to ratification Sure it is hard but we can do it We can get some package that looks like meaningful participation D Festa Can we come up with some other metric besides BAU baselines that makes it less expensive easier to get to D Hales No D Gardiner Politically we need to maintain our position on targets But are there other ways to get there Can we address some of the substantive underlying issues like energy intensive industries labor unions etc Can we reach out What about Sullivan Principles for steel companies pledging for instance not to invest in dirty projects in developing countries Can we add tools like this to our diplomatic strategy R Pomerance Frank's premise is that we are going to get few if any commitments over the next two years to take on targets If we believe that's the case then we have to change perceptions of what constitutes meaningful participation This is a multipronged task It includes engaging w Congress You don't want to spend all you energy on getting targets not get any and still have the Byrd-Hagel definition of meaningful participation One idea would be to allow targets w a cost cap You have to find some way to get at various policies that fall outside a target that have real effects Example If China raises its gas prices who is meaningfully participating China or the U S D Sandalow Yes no debate that it is imperative to get away from the Byrd-Hagel definition F Loy If targets are the only way we define success then we're finished So maybe we should say 1 targets yes that's our position 2 But ghg reducitons are also important So China Automate d Record s Management System Hex-Dump Conversion raising its gas prices — we'll take note of that G Frampton If we end up with a very few countries how do we square that with our political imperative that we have to go for targets TDS I think we can be aggressively pursuing a variety of things at the same time Up until now meaningful participation has been taken to meant that developing countries have got to participate in a real concrete way A target is certainly one goo way But we have never said that it is the only way Seems to me that it doesn't make too much sense for us to depart from that basic line Domestically it would be a rough ride on the hill Intemationally you have to have this discussion make clear that we think this is the best way etc But while doing that if we find no interest in targets then we do our best to engage on whole sector CDM regular CDM — etc You do that w o any winks or nods that you are letting up on targets But obviously you don't get all pigheaded about targets either At this same time we also want to get the definition of meaningful participation expanded but this is best done by those outside the Administration Pew WRl Kevin Fay etc So that at the end of the day we can say Here's 10-20 key developing couintries that are doing something - some are stars some are not Any explicit wink or nod that don't need targets would be a big mistake D Hales We need to do a status report or update on what has been accomplished on capacity building since June '97 when the AID initiative was announced D Reicher Can we somehow find a way to talk about progress we're making irrespective of targets Something like working for real carbon reductions while working for real targets This way we are defining or redefining what the various steps are on the way to targets R Ballentine Is it true that only by taking on a target can a country help lower our cost M Mazur No CDM does it too but a target brings about the most cost reduction D Hales Even things that don't offset our costs still help offset competitiveness concems TDS If you could say Here's a set of policies and measures and our best analysis of what it would translate to is X tons of reductions or some other metric then maybe you'd get somewhere but it is still a tough argument Automate d Record s Management System Hex-Dump Conversion Underscoring all those good things countries are doing besides targets is best done by someone else D Gardiner But if we have to say something when a developing couintry adopts a good policy measure some words of support After all we do it for companies TDS Fair point need to think thru how we phrasae it D Reicher You could think of it as a path towards a target TDS But we also have to leave ourselves room Talking about it that way puts everything in the framework of targets D Sandalow Sue Biniaz analysis is that this could be a lose lose proposition 1st scenario We get policies and measures but no targets Opposition says There's no binding obligation 2nd scenario We get target no policies and measures Opposition says There's no legal obligation to take on policies and measures TDS The 2nd scenario is a much stronger position though We need to engage in a cold blooded assessment of the odds small while resisting the temptation to prematurely throw in the towel It may be tough but we shouldn't assume that we can't get anyone or even 10 countries to take on targets over the next several years TJ Glauthier Projections on what might be accomplished indicate that there are scenarios where we could get a bunch of small countries R Pomerance But we have no money to do it Our country studies program is about to collapse D Reicher This is a serious issue What we are doing now is all ad hoc We need a budget strategy it's not even too soon to start talking about how we're going to approach 2001 A Polasky Is the problem of developing a target really a technical problem Automated Records Management System Hex-Dump Conversion