Eco newsletter 6

eZine lover (@eZine)

Published in 

eco newsletter

 · 1 year ago

ECO NEWSLETTER

CLIMATE TALKS GENEVA - AUGUST 1994
NGO NEWSLETTER

INC 10

September 2, 1994
ISSUE #6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. The Real Climate Bomb
2. Don't Feed the Dinosaurs!
3. Berlin Build-up
4. That Sinking Feeling
5. Climate Change & Desertification: No Easy Way Out
6. From Liability to Capability
7. Land Rights & Climate Change
8. Climate Turkeys
9. Financial Reform and the Climate Convention
10. Leman
11. Working Group I
12. Plenary
13. Working Group II
14. Contacts
15. 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 Geneva, August, 1994.

The Real Climate Bomb

Next week, world leaders will be gathering in Cairo for the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD).

Population growth, particularly in developing countries continues to be perceived as a major contributor to climate change. A recent report, by a group of experts representing institutions from both North and South, explodes this myth. The report states "even if the Southern population attains zero growth today, but the Northern consumption continues unabated, the planet is destined to unprecedented global climate change" and demonstrates that "if population growth plays a key role in contributing to GHG emissions, it is not the ultimate cause, the only cause, or necessarily the most important one".

The study's methodology was based on the evaluation of the sensitivities of both population and consumption parameters with regard to global climate change. The results show that developing countries' emissions of greenhouse gases are set to rise substantially in the future. Nevertheless, compared to the North, most Southern countries will continue to have low energy consumption levels for many decades to come. The challenge for the developed world is to take action in two inter-related areas: first, to make its own consumption transition to a low-impact lifestyle and thus make 'environmental space' available for developing countries; and second, to assist developing countries through transfer of finance, technologies and skills, to ensure that their much-needed economic development is made as efficiently and cleanly as possible.

The report comes up with with a set of six forceful conclusions, including the recognition that a new global commitment towards more equitable lifestyles is urgently required. Wide support should be given, say the authors, to the initiative for a 'Global Poverty Convention', which should include measures to reduce overconsumption in the North, as well as to eliminate under-consumption both in the South and in marginal sub-populations in the North.

* To obtain copies of the report, please contact CAN focal points

Don't Feed the Dinosaurs!

by Richard Gendron, CERCLE Canada

It is no secret that JI is meant to help some Northern industry dinosaurs survive for a few more decades. In Canada the fossil fuel production industry is stimulated by massive federal and provincial government subsidies including grants, loans, royalty waivers, and deductions under the Income Tax Act. Currently, the government has more than $4 billion invested in fossil fuel mega-projects such as Hibernia and Syncrude. By comparison, investment in energy conservation and renewable energy development is minuscule and falling victim to 'budget constraints'.

Last year the Lloydminster Heavy Oil Upgrader project alone received $85 million, while the entire 1994 federal budget for efficiency and alternate energy programs is $65 million.

At the Provincial public utilities level there is a similar lack of leadership in implementing renewables and efficiency. Yet these utilities are the most vocal proponents of JI in Canada. Their engineers prefer to stick to, and export, outdated technologies rather than develop new ideas.

Clearly, Canada cannot request 'credits' from the JI projects that are submitted by these companies. Canada should in fact get 'debits' from activities like oil and gas extraction, and recovery projects being pursued by Canadian companies overseas -- particularly when such activities are funded by the Canadian Government (for example the $100 million the Canadian International Development Agency gave to Petro- Canada International in the 1991-94 period). Canadian fossil fuel and electricity generators are clearly getting nervous about reduction targets at home, and now seek new havens in some southern countries.

Berlin Build-Up

More than 80 grassroots groups from Berlin have recently joined forces to create a Climate Summit Network. Environmental and development NGOs, church groups, scientists and artists aim to mobilize the citizens of the German capital to put a progressive stamp on the climate change negotiation process.

Activities include seminars, workshops, conferences, cultural events and visits to schools and universities. The programme is already underway and will build up as the summit nears. Information will be distributed via TV and radio stations in Berlin and decentralised information centers around the capital. The programme's motto is: "The climate is right for a change." The youth of Berlin will play a major role in the process.

As well as coordinating local activities the network is co-sponsoring the 'Climate Forum', a coordinating body for all NGO-activities related to the Climate Summit. NGOs wishing to attend the Forum should contact the address below.

The build up to the Climate Summit is already underway with activities in Berlin throughout September.

* More information from: Climate Summit Network, Behrenstrasse 23, D-10117 Berlin. Tel: 49-171-6432895

That Sinking Feeling

by Kirsty Hamilton, Greenpeace NZ

An important question not yet agreed, or debated, is the "and" neatly separating the 4.2(a) requirements to reduce emissions and to protect and enhance sinks. While the vocabulary of net emissions was rejected during the negotiations, and does not appear in the convention text, some countries intend to adopt just such an approach. This is already being built into government policies. Many agree that tree planting is a risky option when it comes to methodology, ecology and liability, not to mention politics.

Should it still remain policy by the 21st September deadline for National Communication, one wonders how expert panels will deal with the situation. The US is planning on meeting just under 10% of its obligations via carbon sinks (more if you include sink increases built into the baseline). New Zealand may go further. The Environment Minister recently stated that official policy is to meet 80% via forestry plantations and 20% through gross emissions reductions.

This strategy runs counter to the necessity to rapidly cut continued fossil carbon build up in the atmosphere. But it could be alleviated if such countries make rapid policy changes before the 21st September. Rather than cutting corners it's time to bite the bullet. Fundamental shifts in energy habits are the only solution to the climate challenge.

Climate Change and Desertification: No Easy Way Out

by Isabelle Mamaty, ENDA-Senegal

After two weeks of INC10 it seems like no one wants to fulfill the commitment taken in Rio, to promote sustainable development. Unfortunately, the climate talks have deteriorated into an accusation process between the industrialised North and the developing South.

The Climate Convention is supposed to be a Framework Convention in which all Parties have to find a way to cooperate to solve this global problem. The argument advanced by developing countries -- and established in the treaty's Preamble -- is that the industrialised countries have been, and continue to be, the most important contributors to climate change and it is they who must contribute most to solving the climate change problem.

But we can see that this argument is reversed in the case of the desertification convention process. There, developing countries are being told that desertification is their problem. Industrialised countries have demonstrated very little willingness to help the 900 million people in developing countries currently suffering from desertification in arid and semi-arid lands.

No matter who is responsible for either of these problems -- present desertification or future climate change -- there is an urgent need to address the root causes of degradation in the developing and developed world.

Article 4 of the Climate Convention explicitly recognizes that countries affected by desertification are generally more vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

Combating desertification is thus inextricably linked to efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It is a vicious circle that needs to be combated.

Only short term "solutions" are offered under the Desertification Convention and the Climate Convention. By offering shortsighted and "easy way out" options like Joint Implementation and GEF, neither Convention will be able to bring about real change.

That will only happen if we challenge -- and change -- the economic system in all countries in terms of development strategies, aid strategies, and consumption patterns. But that is exactly what no government wants to do.

* June 17th in Paris saw the adoption of a desertification convention by the INCD.

Copies of the advanced final text may be obtained from the documents counter in the UN.

From Liability to Capability

by Ravi Sharma, CSE; Sascha Mueller-Kraenner, DNR; Isabelle Mamaty ENDA; YoIando Velasco, CANSEA

The adequacy of commitments is central to the convention. Annex I countries are responsible for the major part of greenhouse gas emissions. Taking into account their specific responsibilities as defined in Article 4 of the Convention, Annex I countries must take the first steps to meet the overall objective of the Convention: stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a non-dangerous level. As a result of Rio, the aim of returning to 1990 levels of CO2 emissions was accepted by most Annex I countries as a first step in this direction. Now, in times of economic recession, Annex I countries state that they state that they are no longer capable of going on with future reduction steps after the year 2000, even if most of them agree that this commitment is not adequate.

Is there any way Annex 1 countries could be held accountable to the commitments they have accepted?

On Joint Implementation all discussion has avoided the key problem -- consideration of the consumption patterns of developed countries. Instead delegates are bargaining over the atmospheric space to be polluted at the cost of the poor in Third World countries. Governments of Third World countries are in effect selling this space, itself provided by the extremely low consumption of their poor, to the Northern countries.

One of the 'supposed' advantages of JI is the transfer of technology. What does it mean? Should we be resigned to the current development model? How can we stop technologies that contribute to environmental damage simply being transported in the South?

On financial mechanisms to address climate change, developing countries originally proposed to employ the principle of 'polluter pays' through a Green Fund. This would have provided compensation for the damage done by the excessive GHG emissions from industrial countries. The proportion of money paid into this fund would have been assessed according to the responsibility of each country. This proposal, however, was derailed when France and Germany proposed the GEF. Although initially a response to earlier demands from developing countries, in the last few years funding to the GEF has gradually switched from the principle of 'liability' to one of 'capability'.

Industrialized countries are now making contributions on the basis of what they are 'capable' of rather than what they are liable for. If a country goes through recession, then it may no longer be 'capable' of paying its contribution, no matter what its responsibility.

But by continuing the debate on these flawed principles, delegates are providing excuses for several industrialized governments for not acting. In addition, they take another million dollars out of the international kitty through INC11.

The costs of the INC sessions to date have been approximately $12 million. Maybe it would be best to let the Berliners live in peace and think instead of investing the costs of COP1 in renewable energy projects.

Land Rights and Climate Change

by Grace Akumu, Climate Network Africa

Across much of the South, massive tracts of land are owned by Northern trans-national corporations and a few indigenous large-scale farmers. Their practices of repeated production of one crop, and excessive application of chemical fertilizers, seriously alter the natural balance of soils. As a result, these farmers often shift to fresh land after over-exploiting the soil and destroying its capacity to act as a sink for CO2. In some countries, alienation of land for large-scale mechanized farming has probably contributed to local and global climatic changes.

World Bank and IMF funding policies directly encourage this type of large-scale farm production, servicing the demands of the international market. The collapse of primary commodity prices has a knock-on effect: large farms expand -- to maintain their profit levels -- on to land previously used by peasants and pastoralists. They in turn have less access to land to meet their own needs.

Equally, equitable access to land would reduce vulnerability to climate change. In some countries, land redistribution is opposed on the grounds that it would lead to underutilized land being used; implying greater disturbance to soils and biomass systems, affecting climate change. With land reform, however, indigenous people would be encouraged to take care of land, increasing its productivity, and at the same time improving the management of biomass resources. This would also boost the non-farm economy, thanks to increased agricultural output.

When considering adaptation strategies, therefore, it is important that land reform should be given high priority.

Climate Turkeys

NGOs are unanimous in expressing their disappointment at the virtual deadlock in negotiations which has stymied any meaningful progress at INC 10. Expectations were greatly lowered during the early part of the first week when it transpired that the EU was in no way prepared to consider a protocol. A greatly watered down German position finally emerged containing no specifics on CO2 cuts, but only the vague, now notorious, commitment to reduce emissions (y) % by the year (x). Attempts on the part of a group of countries from both the developed and the developing worlds to put a protocol proposal on the table during the second week have come to naught.

Some OECD states have been less than eager to see new commitments on CO2 cuts proposed by COP1, and while outwardly supporting the aims of the Convention, they cannot justifiably be said to be furthering its development. Oil producing states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have shown naked cynicism and outright opposition towards both the spirit and letter of the Convention and sought to obstruct, delay and prevaricate at every opportunity. They are deliberately seizing upon and aggravating differences between industrialised and developing countries, to nobody's advantage except their own.

It is plainly absurd that industrialised countries are playing straight into the hands of nations which are not even signatories to the Convention and have allowed them to bring negotiations to a virtual standstill. The present impasse is doubly ironic when one considers that the combined populations of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are approximately 19 million, while the NGOs which make up the Climate Action Network, who have no right to intervene yet want to see strong leadership, have a combined membership of about 20 million. The onus is on the G7 to seize the initiative and lead the Parties out of the deadlock.

Little over six months remain before the first Conference of the Parties meets in Berlin. Professor Bolin, Chairman of the IPCC, made it clear on the first day of this meeting that the scientists have not changed their conclusions since the first IPCC assessment report was published: action must be taken now to reduce GHG emissions. A 20% cut in industrialised country CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by the year 2005 would be a reasonable start, but we should already be looking beyond 2005, and thinking about ways to structure and develop our economies without relying on fossil fuels or nuclear power for most of our energy needs. The Climate Convention states our ultimate objective, and is the most powerful means of achieving a sustainable future. Industrialised countries have a moral and legal obligation, and must not lose this opportunity to show leadership and take the first steps towards this end.

Financial Reform and the Climate Convention

by Liz Barratt-Brown, Lando Velasco and Scott Hajost

The past three decades have seen rapid economic growth in developing countries with a quadrupling of energy consumption. At the same time, two billion people still have no access to electricity. Developing countries in 1985 contributed just over 25% of global energy sector CO2 emissions, by 2025 they will contribute nearly 50% of this sector's emissions. The rate of increase of emissions is much larger in developing countries -- 6% per year versus about 1% in developed countries.

Equitable and effective strategies must be adopted to mitigate this anticipated emissions growth. There is a clear need to provide funding, technology, and capacity building to avoid the mistakes of the industrialized world. While the FCCC provides a logical forum for leveraging this assistance, the reality is that major decisions affecting energy consumption and resultant GHG emissions will continue to be made outside the Convention.

Developing countries have made it clear that their obligations under the Convention will have to be financed through the proposed financial mechanism or through other channels. The GEF is expected to provide $1 billion over the next three years in this area. There appears to be little hope for substantial new and additional financing from other sources.

At the same time, international financial and monetary institutions also party to the Convention, have a far greater impact on GHG emissions. The World Bank alone will finance loans close to $20 billion to the energy and transportation sectors over the next three years, twenty times that anticipated under GEF. The regional development banks are following the same path.

The leading source of international finance for highway development in the South is the World Bank, lending more money for transportation than for any other activity (17% of total lending since 1980). Vehicle fleets are increasing by 10% per year in S.E. Asia and Eastern Europe. The many opportunities for mitigating the impact of energy and transportation needs have received little attention or the financing they deserve.

Despite Agenda 21's call for rechannelling of funds to demand side management, energy conservation and renewables, little World Bank or other energy lending has been allocated to these areas. The World Bank's stated policy is to increase support for end-use efficiency and conservation through integrated energy strategies, institutional capacity building, pricing reform and regulatory reform. While there is a new energy policy in the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank has taken the next step and requires that climate impacts be accounted for in their policies and projects.

Export credit agencies and bilateral assistance agencies also provide substantial resources to developing countries. OECD country-based export credit agencies in particular frequently fund large-scale projects with significant GHG implications, yet have no common environmental guidelines. Nor do any individual OECD countries have adequate environmental review procedures addressing this issue in collaboration with developing countries.

Compounding the problem, numerous international funds have been established to facilitate private investment in the energy sector without adequate consideration of climate impacts. The GE Capital Corporation and billionaire George Soros' new Quantum Industrial Holdings are putting $200 million each into plans to invest up to $2.5 billion into Global Power Investments for new plants in China, India, Indonesia and Mexico. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private financing arm of the World Bank, will add $50 million, subject to IFC final approval. Three Canadian utility companies (Ontario Hydro, Hydro Quebec and the Power Corporation) recently signed agreements with China to construct coal fired plants. Some 100 power plants, producing electricity predominantly from coal, are planned in China over the next decade. China could soon be the world's largest CO2 emitter.

At INC 9, delegates and NGOs discussed the need to align activities undertaken outside of the Convention with the Convention's objective. Text adopted stated that consistency should be "sought and maintained" between such activities. It calls upon the Secretariat to develop options to accompany consistency and to develop a monitoring system to review the activities of the World Bank and other lending institutions. INC10 has seen deadlock over the collection of information, with widespread concern among developing countries that this will lead to scrutiny of internationally financed projects. Alternatively, this information provides an opportunity for cleaner technologies to produce the same energy with reduced environmental and social impacts, and provide substantial economic benefits.

Developed countries must assist developing countries to ensure they have the range of energy options they need. For too long industrialized country companies and consultants have benefited from highly centralized energy projects, making huge profits from loans at enormous environmental costs. Developing countries must also seek energy financing that protects the environment and promotes integrated resource planning, with full involvement of local communities.

Leman

Leman has been intrigued by the discussions on a location for the permanent Secretariat, and is surprised that a couple of the most obvious places have not been mentioned.

Firstly, Lemania offers an unchanging climate (though the rain may stop if the Convention doesn't succeed); pencils at less than cost price; some of the best instant coffee in the world, and acres of empty office space, owing to a recent blip in the economy. Furthermore, the government is prepared to offer: work permits for anybody remotely related to an Secretariat staff; diplomatic immunity for any breach of the civil or criminal code; and entry visas for unlimited numbers of spouses of either sex. Of course, Leman would be the last to suggest that diplomats would put naked self-interest ahead of practicality, but hopes that the above incentives will outweigh the fourteen-hour plane journeys and lack of electricity or telephones.

Alternatively, delegates could consider Saudi Arabia, which again offers an unchanging climate (over 40!C, again, dependent on the success of the Convention); some of the most expensive pencils and coffee anywhere; world-famous night-life; and a totalitarian regime based on nepotism. You choose.

As the INC will not be meeting in Geneva again, Leman has been forced to seek alternative employment: next week he takes up his new post as President of the World Bank.

Working Group I

Working Group I resumed its deliberations at 5.30pm Wednesday afternoon, the late hour owing to "quite successful" (co-chairman's Quennet's words) informal-informals on Adequacy of Commitments. No substantial points were resolved, but they agreed on a vague text which simply stated what delegations had said during negotiations. There is still (Friday 02.00 am.) no real paper on adequacy of commitments. The text now reads along the lines of ... some delegations thought this; other delegations thought this ... etc. Even getting to this stage took major negotiation. Discussion of this topic was sent whence it came -- private talks, and the in the 45 minutes remaining, the delegates took up the co-chairs'' draft on Joint Implementation.

Algeria, for the G77 and China, said the co-chairs' draft didn't reflect all views and should be withdrawn. After that, comments split along predictable lines. The US, backed by the EU, Canada, and the Czech Republic, among others, pressed for approval of a bracketed version (at least) that would set forth "the views in this room" and that might advance discussion at INC11.

Saudi Arabia, joined Algeria and others from the G77 in arguing that it could not support even a bracketed text, since (in the Saudis' unelaborated view) such a text might be seen as representing only one perspective.

Brazil suggested that the document be sent to INC11 as a proposal from Annex I parties. This thought went nowhere. After Mali offered the observation that the parties were at impasse, the co-chair bristled and decided to caucus for 10 minutes with a spectrum of delegates. At 6:20 the meeting resumed, only to hear the co-chair schedule another round of informal-informals at 8pm, on both JI and adequacy, while warning all that she was prepared to exert "strong pressure" to bring the unruly nations to a settlement that night.

Working Group I -- Thursday

The morning session witnessed the adoption of a recommendation to COP1 on the Report on Implementation. The group was unable to reach agreement on the substantive issues of adequacy of commitments and joint implementation. After tedious informal informals they adopted some language that was acceptable to everyone.

On JI the group decided that, "The discussions were indicative of an emerging need for a consensus on the criteria to be defined in developing the concept of joint implementation." (ed. - we do not know what this means either) The document agreed was the best compromise that would allow the G77 to preserve the unity of the group by not stating anything about specific criteria. This forces the G77 to face the issue head on at INC11 and provide concrete criteria for the pilot phase. A pilot phase is acceptable to G77, if there is no crediting and if it is exclusive among Annex I countries.

The challenge now for the G77 is how to deal with Columbia and Argentina, who are in the process of negotiating for JI domestically. It is obvious that after 3 sessions of extensive discussion on JI there will not be resolution at INC11 and the issue will have to be transferred to COP1. The Secretariat was requested to provide a compilation to INC11 of interventions on this subject and further comments transmitted by November 15.

Unable to resolve any substantive matters regarding adequacy of commitments, the committee was finally able to reach agreement on a portion of text to be included in the report of the meeting. The text gives an account of the positions of groups of states on whether additional commitments should be elaborated. A notable compromise, after numerous informal informals, was the inclusion of some language that Annex I Parties must show some leadership by means of real reductions of their emissions of greenhouse gases.

The only conclusion reached was to continue discussion at INC11. Furthermore, the Secretariat was requested to provide an annotated compilation of research on climate change by the IPCC and other relevant intergovernmental bodies. The Secretariat was also asked to prepare a compilation of interventions on the subject, and any further comments submitted to the Secretariat by November 15.

Plenary -- Thursday

Denmark opened the session by announcing its bad news, that delegates would have to carry even more paper back home, since it would present its national report. The report turned out to be a rather glossy document -- nicely made.

Afterwards discussion centered around the Rules of Procedure, which had been renegotiated in two informal sessions. The new text of some controversial provisions was introduced by the Indian delegate, who started by announcing two more changes to the document. Rule 42 on voting procedures looked worse after these consultations than before. There are now four alternatives -- China and Venezuela had successfully implemented the requirement to take decisions on substantial matters and on the adoption of amendments by consensus. As the Indian delegate stated, this was the direct result of the efforts of some states to extend the commitments of Annex I states to developing countries. It is not quite understandable, however, how the G77 with their voting power can ever be outvoted by OECD-countries.

Algeria, for the G77, announced that there was not enough time for discussion and that the group reserved its positions on all provisions, intending to come back to INC11 with more detailed proposals. India nevertheless showed some promising signs of reasonableness with regard to the question of religious holidays and recommended to transfer this question to the UN General Assembly as the appropriate forum to deal with it. The discussion on this topic concluded with a rather unsuccessful attempt by Nigeria to solve all problems at once and adopt on the spot the only sections not bracketed. Even this was transferreed to INC11.

The Chair introduced a proposal by the contact group on institutional matters, to be inserted into the report of the meeting. This paper aroused considerable criticism, as was to be expected. On the question of the physical location of the Secretariat, Canada as well as Kenya were dissatisfied with the deadline of 30 September set by the Contact Group for the submission of proposals. Apparently they haven't got their act together for their bid. Kenya renewed its offer to host the Secretariat in Nairobi, citing resolution 48/174 of the General Assembly and supporting their bid by the observation, that the climate never changes in Kenya.

The last issue to be 'negotiated' was the time and venue of INC11. Saudi Arabia, backed by Morocco and Kuwait, objected once again to the meeting being held in February. The Chair observed once again that, surprisingly, Islamic countries didn't seem to have any difficulties to attend meetings during Ramadan on other issues, such as desertification. Saudi Arabia in turn once again insisted, that in this case sessions of the INC should adjourn at 4.30 pm and that their should be no night sessions. This was a fruitful discussion promising more constructive work at INC11. In the end the Chair slammed down his hammer, finishing the discussion with the argument put forward by India, that the UN General Assembly was the appropriate place to deal with this question.

Mauritius, Kuwait and Uruguay put forward some objections to the extension of the session to three weeks, above all on financial grounds. This move was somehow supported by Sweden, asking the Chair to make an evaluation of the work to be done by INC11. The Chair patiently replied that this evaluation had already taken place, and resulted in the recommendation to have a three-week session. It bowed to this opposition, however, suggesting that the Bureau might meet for a few days before INC 11 to do some work the Committee was supposed to do. NGOs' faces cheered up considerably at the prospect of not having to endure one more week of constructive diplomacy.

Working Group II -- Wed .and Thurs.

Working Group II continued Wednesday at an escargot's pace in consideration of just about all of its agenda items. A revised co-chairs' draft was presented, which attempted to merge EU and G77 proposals on programme priorities, policies, and eligibility criteria for the financial mechanism. The use of the term national 'strategies' for providing a framework for funded projects remained taboo for many developing countries. Little progress was made due to fear of too much developed country interference in development priorities.

Delegations couldn't agree on collection of information about activities that will increase greenhouse gases. The G77 tried repeatedly to change the meaning of the text adopted at INC9 by limiting the collection of information to activities under the convention, e.g. those projects intentionally directed at mitigating climate change under Article 11.5. They argued that a more general collection of information and scrutiny might provoke new forms of conditionality. Developed countries argued that this information would aid in assisting efforts to provide energy needs while minimizing environmental impacts.

Little progress was made on other areas, as evidenced by lengthy polemical interventions at the end of the day, and a number of delegates ordering doubles at the bar at the secretariat reception.

On Thursday, the dawn was met by the presentation of a draft of the conclusions of Working Group II, consisting of 15 pages of italics and underlines. After fruitless attempts, most of the text was forwarded to INC11 in a miscellaneous document.

Progress was made regarding guidance to the operational entity. But to avoid embarrassment, Eco will not name the country that requested that the adjective "sustainable" be deleted before the word "development" in one of the points on guidance on activities undertaken under the financial mechanism. One wonders what that lengthy exercise two years ago in Rio was all about if "sustainable development" is an objectionable phrase in environmental negotiations today. A debate also occurred simultaneously with WGI over guidance to the GEF on incremental costs, reflecting a dispute between on which body would have the say in defining this contentious term of art.

The Working Group also made important substantive progress on adaptation. Based on the original EU proposal, as amended through negotiations undertaken by the delegate from Antigua and Barbuda, the Working Group agreed on a three stage approach, beginning with impact studies, options identifications, and capacity building.

The process was nearly derailed by haggling over placement of the agreed text, but a last minute concession from Antigua and Barbuda to leave it where it was, subject to negotiation on placement at INC11, ensured that the Working Group would have its largest piece of new text to report out.

After going back and forth over wording, the working group eventually requested the secretariat to present a report on technology transfer, including "elements of a framework for such transfer". German concerns about overloading the secretariat did not prove convincing.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

For enquiries and response to ECO:

Eco can no longer be contacted at:

Hotel Longchamps, 7 Rue Butini, 1201 Geneva,Switzerland,
Phone: +41 22 734 7280
Fax: +41 22 738 0007
email: asieghart@gn.apc.org

ECO is also available through Dial-a-Fax. Reverse Poll your fax machine (see your fax machine manual or phone (0)374 506 506 for technical help) and simply dial ... Worldwide +44 374 50G 517 or within the UK - 0336 413 706 Wait for the horrible noise, and press "START" button on your machine.

Every issue of ECO will be posted in full to the climate.forum 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 distribution and ftp availability of ECO via APC, contact: Lelani Arris, Electronic Mail Coordinator: Tel: (604) 968-4380, Fax: (604) 968-4390 (Canada), email: larris@igc.apc.org

For information about Pagemaker files via Applelink, contact ECO staff: applelink:media.natura. For information about Applelink, contact your local Apple dealership or the UK help line, email: uk.sysop@applelink.apple.com For information about Pagemaker files via APC, contact Media Natura ECO staff, email: asieghart@gn.apc.org

NEW!!!

In addition to existing text and PageMaker versions available on-line via APC networks and the Internet, Eco is now available via the World Wide Web (WWW) on-line hypermedia format. Eco WWW editions are being made available as soon as possible after their publication from INC10 in Geneva.

The WWW editions of Eco include all the graphics and text available in the full printed version. To view the WWW Eco editions, you will need access to the InterNet (the higher the speed the better) and WWW 'browser' software, such as NCSA Mosaic (Windows, Unix and Macintosh formats), MacWeb or WinWeb. All these software items are available via InterNet ftp sites.

To access the Eco WWW Front Page, you will need to enter its URL (Uniform Record Locator) which defines the location of a document on the InterNet. The URL of the Eco Front Page is:

http://www.igc.apc.org/igc/climate/Eco.html

(note the capital E on Eco)

For questions or problems with Eco via WWW, email Richard Elen (relen@igc.apc.org).

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Editorial & Production Managers: Phil Hurst and Alister Sieghart

Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet

North American Distribution: Mike Witt & EESI

Assistance from: Isabelle "until 5.30 am" Mamaty; Andrew Deutz; Rusty Russell; Hermann Ott; Liz Barratt-Brown; Beth "Liqueur Chocolates" Zilbert; Hermann Tennhagen; Jennifer Morgan; Dirk Hmann; Scott Hajost; Atiq Rahman; Annie Roncerel; Jonathan Loh; Richard Gendron.

Published by the Climate Action Network, with assistance from Media Natura, London.

The Climate Action Network would like to thank the following who have provided funds and facilities for Eco: Environmental & Energy Study Institute * Environmental Defense Fund * World Wide Fund for Nature * Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain * Greenpeace International * German Marshall Fund of the United States * Natural Resources Defense Council * The Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future

Special thanks to: Hotel de Longchamp % UN Non-Governmental Liaison Services

with resources contributed by: Adobe, Aldus UK, APC Networks, Apple Computer, Balelec, Dial-a-Fax, EcoNet, Fintel, GreenNet, MicroRent plc, Strategic Communications and Shades & Characters Ltd.

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 - GENEVA AUGUST 1994 (INC 10)

How did you get the newsletter?

_________e-mail _________________________________address 
_________conference or list _____________________name 
_________ftp or other file server _______________location 
_________other (please specify) _________________________

Have you used the information in reports or newsletters?
(please specify)

Did you distribute it to others? (please list)

Return to:

************************************************************* 
Lelani Arris                            * Essential Ellements 
email:     larris@igc.apc.org           * Box 42 
Telephone: 604-968-4380                 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0 
Fax:       604-968-4390                 * Canada 
*************************************************************