JUN-09-1999 10 47 OES FRONT OFFICE 202 647 0217 8 June 1999 Please see Attached List To From Subject Climate Change USDEL ® onn - Mark G Hambl Supplement to Climate Change Update No 7 for June 7 8 1999 Attached aie additional and more detailed lepoits on the various meetings and contact groups -which took place on June 7 8 The reports are as follows a A report on the contact group meetings on Jime 7 invol-ving non-Annex 1 communications prepared by Treasury’s Michael Colby- and b Notes on the June 8 SBSTA meeting on bunker fuels prepared by DOT’S Kevin Green These reports should be read in conjunction with the regular climate change update Number 5 for June 3-4 and Number 6 for June 5-7 1999 P 02 16 JUN-09-1999 10 47 202 647 0217 QES FRONT OFFICE P 03 16 Notes by Michael Colby US Treasujy OASIA Contact Group - Non-AmiM I National Communications cont June 7 1999 SBMO Item #4 Discussions outside the Non-Annex 1 Contact Group The EU Germany Netherlands UK and some of the other UmbreUa Group SoCSienLtiveJio several aspects that do not Ulm in the 0-77 C draft text Germany and the EU therefore drafted a text using much of our previous draft language not all but enough so that all of our issues were raised after a couple to discuss today UK and GER seem more reluctant than the US and AUS NZ to G77 C's propoil for aNon-Aimex I Experts Group and phrased the language so that any Lh gr up ould include experts from Annex I as weU and its ta would be to focus on the technical assessment of the non-Annex I communications after they are received- Contact Group meeting #3 6-7-99 The South African co-chair was tied up in the LU LUCF contact group so Dan Reifsnyder chaired the meeting The UK presented the EU proposal TTie chair opened the floor to either comments on the UK paper or responses by the G 77 to asked of it last Friday to flesh out their proposal for the Experts Group etc The G77 with the exception of the representative from Togo chose to pick apart the EU proposal with Bemadidas Phil challenging something in every single paragraph - even iten that were intended as olive branches John Ashe ANTIGUA focused on problems he perceived with the language on using the PCC to advance work on emissions factors and the consistency of the proposal for activities for interim funding between first and second communications with previous COP decisions Mexico was the only other G77 speaker with a brief mixed statement Togo’s representative listed about 8 or 10 things he personally thou t the Export Group could do and also opposed the IPCC role on factors It was clear though that the rest of the G77 C was not prepared to flesh out then proposal from last Friday Switzerland and US were only other Aimex I speakers generally supportive of die UK proposal for getting the important issues out on the table The struggle for control of the agenda has been joined The Issues are now pretty open The Contact Group plans to meet again Tuesday afternoon but it is not clear whether they will be able to meet again after that The next step may be for the co-chans to draft a synthesis proposal but there are two proposals on the table with some elements that may be possible to resolve and others looking less likely at the momeni JUN-09-1999 10 48 OES FRONT OFFICE 202 647 0217 Notes from SBSTA Meeting 10 Agenda Item S b—Bunker Fuels June 8 1999 Prepared by Kevin Green DOT Mr Jose Romero Switzerland has been conducting infonnal consultations on international bunker ftiels since the June 1 SBSTA plenary Participants have included Australia Austria Gennany for EC Finland Greece Japan Korea the Netherlands Panama and Saudi Arabia On June 3 Mr Romero provided draft conclusions that summarized points discussed during the plenary sought comments on the IPCC report by July IS called for consideration of allocation during SBSTA 11 aimed at a decision by “COP XX” urged ICAO and IMO to accelerate their work encouraged domestic efforts to reduce emissions from “aviation and shipping” and eneouraged reporting on these efforts and invited the secretariat to explore ways to better link ICAO IMO and SBSTA— perhaps through a joint workiiig group and a joint expert workshop Our comments on this draft called for deletion of the paragraph on allocatioi and for a simple focus on information exchange between ICAO IMO and SBSTA i e„ no Joint working group or new workshop We also proposed insertion of text calling on Parties to provide support to ICAO and IMO for efforts responding to Article 2 2 A June 4 meeting to discuss comments on this first draft by Mr Romero was postponed because Saudi Arabia was not present We did however receive written comments from several Parties all of which called for a deletion of the language that would have set a specific target date for a decision on the allocation issue Australia called for a strengthening of language on domestic action Gennany for the EU sought a SBSTA decision on the IPCC report and a focusing of the call for domestic action toward intemational emissions Japan suggested delaying consideration of aUocation until after ICAO and IMO complete their work Korea sought some refocusing toward methodologies and data and reminded SBSTA of the need to respect the role and decisions of ICAO and IMO Saudi Arabia recommended deletion of essentially all text going beyond simple recognition that Parties received information from ICAO and IMO and are encouraged to comment on IPCC’s report Mr Romero distributed a second draft on June 5 but not in time to schedule a follow­ up consultation that day This draft partially addressed our comments but still called for a draft decision on the IPCC report at COP 5 and encouraged domestic efforts to reduce emissions It also added a request that Parties comment by July 15 on a draft informal paper on bunker fuel dam collection and reporting vdiich was prepared for the secretariat in May by Dct Norske Veritas DNV - The second draft also requested Parties to provide comments on the bunker fuels issue and the IPCC report by August 16 for incorporation into a miscellaneous document P 04 16 5 JUN-09-1999 10 48 □ES FRONT OFFICE 202 647 0217 We prepared a redline strikcout of tiiis second draft but did not submit a hardcopy An informal consultation was held on Juno 7 ViituaUy all comments were by Germany Saudi Arabia and the U S We sought an additional two months to review the DNV draft questioned the intended scope of SBSTA 11 consideration of “this issue ” proposed deletion of language seeking a draft decision at COP 5 pointed out that paragraph 4 of decifflon 2 CP 3 applies to reporting requirements advised against asking Parties to submit views on allocation at this time proposed deletion of language encouraging domestic efforts to reduce emissions Cbased on inappropriate sectoral focus and expressed our hesitation to estabUsh a concrete timeline ri t now for a decision on allocation Saudi Arabia’s request for a structural separation of summary remarks and operative conclusions was weU-received Saudi Arabia also said it did not have a copy of the DNV draft questioned both its basis and the manner in which it was released and wondered if its consideration could be delayed until SBSTA 12 so that Parties would have more time for review Saudi Arabia indicated that consideration of allocation would be premature and was generally reluctant to prejudge SBSTA 11 products Saudi Arabia suggested that SBSTA’s consideration of allocation and targets would exceed its mandate under decision 2 CP 3 The secretariat suggested that even if a technical paper could not be completed by SBSTA 11 an updated copy of the DNV report could still be made available at that time Germany for the EU continued its push for a decision on ftie IPCC report at COP 5 Australia asked what such a decision nuj t contain acknowledged that decisions on limitation or reduction belong with ICAO and IMO asserted that consideration of allocation and targets would be responsive to decision 2 CP 3 and said that a decision on allocation including the possibility of a decision not to allocate needs to be reached before the commencement of negotiations on the second budget period Mr Romero distributed a third draft on June 7 and requested written comments with the hope that a follow-up meeting would not be required Our comments suggest giving credit to ICAO for requesting the IPCC report and propose deleting both a paragraph urging domestic action and a paragraph requested that Parties submit their views on bunker fuels and the implications of the IPCC report We suggest that the sectoral focus for encouraging domestic action is inappropriate and that there is no mandate for the proposed submission of views At this point the U S agency staff following this agenda item expect that another meeting will still be required if there is to be consensus on conclusions but also expect that a second disruption today will mean that this cannot take place until June 9 A side event on aviation is scheduled for this evening P 05 16