*EPF112 11/20/00
Transcript: U.S. Officials Brief at Climate Change Conference Nov. 17
(Sandalow, Hambley, Gardiner at COP-6 at The Hague) (4,310)
The Sixth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-6) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change completed its first week of negotiations over the November 18-19 weekend as environmental ministers from participating countries began arriving at The Hague.
In their daily briefing November 17, three U.S. officials talked about the topics that were discussed during the first week of the conference, as well as the major issues the ministers' would be dealing with during the second week.
David Sandalow, head of the State Department's Bureau of Oceans and International and Environmental and Scientific Affairs, identified several outstanding issues:
- proposals to restrict the use of the market-based mechanisms,
- the structure of the Clean Development Mechanism and how it will operate,
- compliance provisions and consequences for non-compliance, and
- technology transfer and capacity building for developing countries.
Sandalow, who was joined by Mark Hambley, U.S. special negotiator on climate change, and David Gardiner, executive director of the White House Climate Change Task Force, explained some of the proposals for ensuring compliance with an international climate change agreement. He also commented on the philosophical differences among participating nations.
"There is no question that some countries have viewed this agreement as more narrowly focusing on reducing emissions from the industrial sector, and other countries have tended to view this as an agreement focused on fighting global warming," Sandalow said. "In the view of the United States, this agreement should achieve an environmental objective. And we should pursue both opportunities for energy efficiency and renewable energies in the industrial sector and efforts to promote the growth in forests and farmlands that might help us fight global warming as well ... in any international negotiation domestic politics are relevant for many, many countries, and this is no different."
Regarding the effect of domestic politics on the U.S. position, Gardiner said that in the three years since the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, opinion polls show "overwhelming majorities of the American public who are concerned about climate change and believe that action is warranted."
"In addition to that," he continued, "I think there has been a fundamental shift in the American business community and in other parts of American civil society as well. We have a sharp decline in organizations and businesses who are opposed to action on climate change, a dramatic rise in constructive voices in the business community who are acknowledging that climate change is a problem, and offering actions of their own to reduce their own emissions."
Following is a transcript of the press briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Delegation to the Sixth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
The Hague, the Netherlands
November 17, 2000
PRESS BRIEFING BY MR. DAVID B. SANDALOW, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS (OES); AMBASSADOR MARK G. HAMBLEY, U.S. SPECIAL NEGOTIATOR ON CLIMATE CHANGE; AND DAVID GARDINER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WHITE HOUSE CLIMATE CHANGE TASK FORCE
DAVID SANDALOW: I am delighted to announce the arrival of our Minister Frank Loy, who arrived in The Hague earlier today and who has been briefed by the delegation. President Pronk told us that Mr. Loy is the first minister to arrive and he will be here over the weekend in bilateral meetings and in further discussions planning for the week ahead.
I am also delighted to recognize some very senior U.S. government officials who are with us today. We have in the front row here Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes and Under Secretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons. They will be here for the next several days and will hold a workshop. I wanted to be sure everyone here knew about it. It is going to be tomorrow from noon to two; I think the place is to be determined. The topic will be Ecosystem Integrity and Carbon Sequestration. It is going to focus on U.S. land management policies, programs and activities to protect ecosystems. Locations are going to be announced around the hall and on TV monitors tomorrow as we understand it. Fliers are in the back of the room.
We are at the end of the first week of negotiations. The atmosphere has been good this week. Progress has been made on technical items related to these complex texts. At the same time major issues remain for resolution next week. Ministers are starting to arrive and serious political discussions will commence. There is no question that success during the week ahead will be an enormous challenge. But there is also no question that the United States and many other governments here are fully committed to meeting that challenge. So as we go forward we look forward to working with other governments and to a successful outcome one week from today. Thank you.
AMBASSADOR HAMBLEY: Thank you, David. A couple of hours ago I ran into a very senior colleague who has been engaged in this process since the days of New York before the convention was formally signed, later ratified. And he told me: "You know, Mark, before I came in this morning into the conference center I smelled something new in the building." And I said, "what was that?" He said, "Well, I smell progress. The first time I really sensed that we may actually get where we want to go by the end of next week." And I think there is a certain amount of that optimism which is spreading throughout this hall.
I do not want to overstate it. As David indicated, there are a lot of problem areas that need to be resolved; a lot of brackets which will not have been removed. But I think indicative of the type of efforts being undertaken -- is what is ongoing in the mechanisms joint working group. And that particular body, they have been involved in what they call "informal informals," which are small groups outside of the formal process to deal with some more nettlesome issues which have arisen during the course of examining those broad-based mechanisms. And they are now reporting to the informal group, which is a group for 32 countries, and that then will report to the broader open full contact group later this evening. They will work very late tonight, probably into early morning hours, but they intend to have a text available for the joint session of the SBSTA/SBI which will now be held tomorrow afternoon. It was supposed to have been held today.
So we are somewhat behind schedule, and I must say I do not think the end product will be as neat and as tidy as anticipated. Nevertheless, as David indicated, it is very good atmosphere. I think a great majority of the delegations in this hall want to see an agreement on the major issues, and so we will be working towards that end as we proceed from now until next Friday evening. Thank you.
QUESTION/Reuters: Your proposal on sinks, the famous proposal, that the EU seemed to like and then disliked. Are you making a second proposal on that? Or are you just leaving that now for when all the ministers get here to discuss it? I'm going to ask a second question while I have my microphone. You said that the majority of delegates here are looking for an agreement. That implies that some are not. I wonder who they are, who do you think those are? And, Saudi Arabia, for example, would you confirm that they are trying to wreck the agreement? Do you think that if the agreement is wrecked -- if there is no agreement -- it will be the United States that, rightly or wrongly, gets the blame? Thank you.
SANDALOW: On the sinks proposal we have had discussions over the course of the day with the EU and other delegations. We don't anticipate putting out a new proposal, but continuing to discuss the proposal we have on the table. With respect to some delegations who may lack enthusiasm for a successful outcome, I am not going to name names, but there is no question that there are some delegations more enthusiastic about success here than others. And I certainly hope that the United States -- let me just say this: I will not speculate on the possibility of a failure. I think we all need to work hard to reach a success here.
QUESTION/New York Times: Have you come up with a kind of a 50-word way to explain the graphic? Do you have a thumbnail summary of how that proposal works, even if you have not plugged the numbers into -- the x, y and z?
SANDALOW: I will take a stab at it. I applaud those of you who have made the effort. Overall I would say that the topic of carbon sinks has enormous complexities associated with it. And that is part of the reason that we have Deputy Secretary Hayes and Under Secretary Lyons here. They and their staffs are experts in some of these issues and can answer some of the technical questions. It is also worth noting with respect to those complexities that hundreds of scientists came together to review peer review literature over the course of the past couple of years and produced a report under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That special report on the role of carbon sinks in fighting global warming was released last spring. The report discusses this issue in great detail and concludes quite clearly that carbon sinks can play a central role in fighting global warming and that scientific methodologies for doing that are strong.
The proposal that we have on the table seeks to accomplish a couple of goals. First, it seeks to provide countries full credit for additional activities undertaken with respect to sinks -- it seeks to provide full credit for additional activities in protecting forests and farmlands. In addition, it provides for a discount for certain amounts of tons sequestered in forests and farmlands below a threshold level. It does that to address the concerns expressed by some countries with respect to scale: that is, that the failure to provide a discount in the view of some countries would provide too much credit for sinks to some countries, and so it proposes a discount in order to address that concern. That is a stab at a 50-word explanation, and we will do more if that does not give you the sound bite that you are looking for.
QUESTION/Steve Kerwood, National Public Radio: Mr. Secretary. Just to follow up the Times question here. How much of a discount and how much credit for additionality and where would you put this threshold?
SANDALOW: Those are important items to be negotiated, but the U.S. has not stated a proposal on those issues to date. That will surely be among the important elements negotiated by ministers here next week.
QUESTION/John Dillon, Earth Times: What would you say are the major issues outstanding that the political ministers have to deal with next week? We know about sinks; what are the other ones?
SANDALOW: I will identify a few. First are proposals to restrict the use of the market-based mechanisms. Those proposals are strongly opposed by the Umbrella Group and supported by some other countries. Second are issues concerning the structure of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and how it will operate. A third set of very important issues relates to the compliance provisions of this agreement and the consequences for non-compliance. A fourth set of important issues relates to technology transfer and capacity building for developing countries, and how we will advance those issues in these negotiations. And I guess you mentioned sinks.
AMBASSADOR HAMBLEY: I think sort of the governance issues in general as part of the question for the CDM, also part of the issues involved in compliance, as well.
SANDALOW: Those are among the major issues.
QUESTION: There is another meeting scheduled tomorrow or more negotiations scheduled tomorrow. What exactly is that about and what do you hope can be achieved by the end of that, that is kind of the last chance? On the CDM, has there been any advance on sinks in the CDM?
AMBASSADOR HAMBLEY: On the first question. Tomorrow will be the joint session of the two subsidiary bodies which will meet to endorse the work which we have done these last two weeks. These two subsidiary bodies are actually continuations of meetings which began in September. So we have to wrap those up. And so they formally conclude tomorrow with these reports which will then be sent to ministers. On Monday we did start COP-6 for a brief session, which we elected the President and adopted the agenda and we will continue COP-6 then tomorrow. On Monday we will formally open. On the second question on sinks and CDM...
SANDALOW: There has been a lot of vigorous discussion of this topic and I hope that the views of parties are closing. There is no question that that will be one of the major items discussed by ministers next week as well.
QUESTION/Jonathan Leake, Sunday Times In London: I wonder if you could just tell us something more about your proposals for compliance, and about how one would achieve global compliance with any treaty? Would this mean, for example, the creation of some kind of enforcement agency and if so, how would it work in terms of both inspecting, regulating, and penalizing countries which were suspected of breaking the treaty?
SANDALOW: The discussion on compliance here has two major elements to it. A discussion about institutions and a discussion about the consequences for non-compliance. With respect to institutions, the United States has proposed a compliance body that would be comprised of two separate parts: a facilitation branch and an enforcement branch. The facilitation branch would help countries which may be headed toward non-compliance by providing technical advice and other types of assistance. The enforcement branch would be more judicial in nature and would sit to determine whether in fact countries are in compliance with the treaty: a front set of issues. A second set of issues is what will be the consequences for non-compliance. And the views there range from some parties who have historically sought no binding consequences whatsoever to non-compliance. The views of the United States and our Umbrella Group allies: many of us have supported a binding obligation to restore tons in a subsequent budget period in the event of emissions exceedence, or in the event that countries go over their emissions in one budget period. To say that a little bit differently, if a country goes over the amount that it was required to keep its emissions at, it would need to make up the difference, plus a little bit more in the next budget period. That would help make the atmosphere whole. We need to protect the atmosphere overall and our proposal is designed to achieve an environmental result. A third set of proposals would require mandatory financial penalties for non-compliance. And so if a country goes over countries would not simply be required to reduce their emissions -- they would be required instead to pay money. Those are the basic issues on compliance.
QUESTION: Would this mean under your proposal some kind of international inspectorate? And if so, how would it run? Would it be the United Nations or the Secretariat in Bonn? The actual mechanics of it are quite interesting, because you could have inspectors empowered to, for example, to go into other countries, inspect their paperwork or even their facilities.
SANDALOW: Thank you, good question. It would be similar to the system that exists right now under the framework convention, where there are review teams that go, and the process would start with national self-reporting and countries would submit information. That information would be subject to review by publics and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] who could comment on it, and then review teams, comprised of experts from governments around the world, would come and talk to officials within the country -- in part to better understand the reports of the countries and assess what they have to say.
QUESTION/Andy Revkin, New York Times: In assessing the big rifts that remain, that hopefully someone will get at next week, do you have a sense of how much of these rifts are the function of fundamental philosophical differences and how much is a function of competing -- pretty basic economic and political ... playing to the people back home, mostly the United States and for Europe and for other countries? ... And I assume that the philosophical differences would be more difficult to overcome in the long run?
SANDALOW: There is no question that some countries have viewed this agreement as more narrowly focusing on reducing emissions from the industrial sector, and other countries have tended to view this as an agreement focused on fighting global warming. In the view of the United States, this agreement should achieve an environmental objective. And we should pursue both opportunities for energy efficiency and renewable energies in the industrial sector and efforts to promote the growth in forests and farmlands that might help us fight global warming as well. In terms of your question on the politics, in any international negotiation domestic politics are relevant for many, many countries, and this is no different.
QUESTION/City Voice, Wellington, New Zealand: I have a question, which is of a slightly general nature. I understood it at the beginning of this press conference, that the American delegations inviting the people tomorrow at 12:00 noon for some sort of presentation. At the same time tomorrow at noon there will be a demonstration outside where people from all over Europe come to The Hague to construct a symbolical dike against runaway climate change. It seems to some people who are observing this conference that there are some delegations to which the Americans seem to belong who are symbolically making a dike against any sort of real effective reduction of greenhouse gases, and the required reduction is about sixty to eighty percent. Reason for one generation to be really doing something about it. Now my question is, is there anybody that you know of that you might be willing to tell us in the American delegation or among the chiefs or bosses that you have who instruct you on your negotiation position whom he himself or herself would also require a dike in order to protect him or herself against the consequences of runaway climate change? Because this is very personal: it is very easy to talk about the effects in Bangladesh or in Holland, but if you are hit yourself, you should consider that.
SANDALOW: Let me just say that all countries, including the United States, will suffer from climate change and its ravages unless the people of the world can come together and overcome their differences and meet this challenge. Not only next week, but in the months and years ahead.
GARDINER: If I could just add to that, the President just released an important scientific report which we have conducted in the United States, assessing the potential impacts of climate change on the United States itself, and I think the conclusions of that report are in fact just as Mr. Sandalow just said, that the impact of climate change in the United States will be significant and that certainly provides a sense of the urgent need for action on climate change.
QUESTION/Odile Meuvret, Agence France-Presse: I was just wondering if you would return to the negotiations about borrowing and compliance regime. I mean I know you do not call it borrowing, but how can you explain to the public opinion, I mean if you borrow for each commitment period, you can always push that back indefinitely, no? So isn't that a bit of danger that you pushed that back indefinitely from one commitment to the next one?
SANDALOW: Countries will need to take this agreement seriously as they take other international agreements seriously, and countries who become a party will need to be committed to complying with the terms of this agreement.
QUESTION/Kathy Adams, USA Radio: In the past we've heard a lot of talk about the World Trade Organization possibly as being part of the enforcement on this treaty. Is that part of the negotiations now or is this just a rumor out here?
SANDALOW: No, it is not. I am not aware of any discussion, or proposal along those lines in these negotiations.
AMBASSADOR HAMBLEY: No, I have never seen any proposal in the five years I have been engaged in this process which has had any role for the World Trade Organization.
QUESTION/National Public Radio: Ambassador Hambley, I would like to go back to your remarks, you thought there was a difference in the air here from previous ... or you had this observation. Tell me what factors, do you think, are leading your unnamed colleague and yourself to think this way? In particular, what if anything do you think is changed in United States domestic politics to give you a sense of encouragement for being able to reach a ratifiable agreement out of this meeting?
AMBASSADOR HAMBLEY: I do not think U.S. politics has really affected our approach to this negotiation. I think we came to this negotiation with an approach which, regardless of results of the election, we will continue to do that approach. President Clinton is our president until January 20, and we are following his instructions, and we will do so until the end of this negotiation.
On your first question, the reason why my colleague and myself, and I think others too -- if you ask other delegations, other members from other countries as well -- I think, there is a sense, first of all, there are active negotiations ongoing -- in some instances, for the first time in about a year. The mechanisms being probably the prime example.
For the past year, we have had such complicated topics that delegations have been basically using, under a very effective formulation created by Chairman Chow Kok Kee of Malaysia, sort of a walk-through his garden, as he takes out the various elements involved in the various mechanisms and tries to make sure that countries understand what these elements mean. And that has been a very difficult process, a very detailed process. But finally, a couple of days ago, this process ended and we actually got down to negotiating text and is something I think that gives everybody a sense that we want to make progress by next week.
The same can be said for these other issues as well. Capacity building, which is a key issue for developing countries, almost has the texts completed -- almost all the brackets have been removed on that. That's not to say that it has been agreed to yet, but it gives a very positive sense that there is movement in that particular text. Technology transfer, this is another issue of very great importance to developing countries and to the Annex I parties as well. But there too, I think that has been a lot of progress made over the last few days, which I think we are going to see a good result next week because of that. And on difficult issues which have been introduced by some developing countries on 4.8, 4.9 and 3.14 -- these are issues regarding vulnerability, adaptation and the adverse impacts of Annex I actions. Even in these very, very difficult issues, we have text which has been developed, which is being heavily negotiated, there are a lot of brackets which are in that text, nevertheless, we are moving through it in a very professional matter. Even in that contact group, I understand that there is a pretty good atmosphere which prevails. I think that when you add that all up, I think we have a good ground for optimism.
GARDINER: I think on the question about public opinion in the United States about climate change, I believe that in the three years that have elapsed since the Kyoto Protocol was initially negotiated, that there has been a fundamental shift in public opinion in the United States on climate change. Public opinion polls today reflect overwhelming majorities of the American public who are concerned about climate change and believe that action is warranted. In addition to that, again, I think there has been a fundamental shift in the American business community and in other parts of American civil society as well. We have a sharp decline in organizations and businesses who are opposed to action on climate change, a dramatic rise in constructive voices in the business community who are acknowledging that climate change is a problem, and offering actions of their own to reduce their own emissions. We have talked in previous conferences here about the announcement that was made by Ford Motor Company and General Motors about two months ago in which they pledged to voluntarily improve the fuel economy of certain classes of their automobiles by between fifteen and twenty-five percent over the course of the next five years. That is important progress in the business community and I think it makes us optimistic that if the trend continues in American public opinion in favor of acting on climate change, that will over time very much improve the prospects of the Kyoto Protocol and its ratification.
Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN