JUL-29-1999 202 647 0191 □ES EGC 21 58 P 01 17 omee of Global Change Bateau of Oceans and International Environmental and Seiendfie Afhirs U S Department ofState To Fax # Phone # From David Sandalow NSC CEQ 456-2710 Duncan Marsh Subject clearance request on draft response letters to NGO Date Pages 07 29 99 7 including cover sheet □ Ufgant □ FerRavlaw Plaaaa Comment □ Pleasa Raply David Attached are the draft responses to ENGOs litters of May 25 on sinks and July 13 on national communications sinks and bunkers The immediate use of these drafts are for Frank's briefing packet for the Loy Ballentine briefing with NGOs on Monday Aug 2 2 30-4 00pm which will focus on sinks but also discuss the other two issues Following the briefing we will consider whether we need to redraft these pieces taking either the current detailed substantive approach or a short political assurances approach The response to the three-issue letter is a little empty on sinks now after I deleted one of the two paras I will ask Margot to provide a little more We would appreciate your comments on these by 3 00 Friday if possible Sorry for the rushed deadline Office of Global Change 2201 C Street Rdbm 4330 Washington DG 20520 tel 202 647-4688 fax 202 647-0191 Cc Nigel Dan R MarshDR@stateygov JUL-29-1999 21 58 OES EGC DRAFT- Do not cite or quote 202 647 0191 P 02 17 Printed 07 29 99 9 17 PM Dear Colleagues Thank you for your letter of July 13 regarding the June subsidiary body meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC We welcome the opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding of U S positions or tactics during those meetings Our positions and tactics during the subsidiary body meetings were fully consistent with the US commitment to transparency The United States remains a strong advocate for transparency m the climate negotiations As you know the United States has been a leader in promoting the involvement of nongovernmental organizations in meetings of the Parties to the UNFCC Our governmental process and reporting is one of the most open in the world as evidenced by the wealth of data and other information readily available on US emissions climate change policy and related issues We are one of the primary driving forces in the constant effort to improve inventory estimation and reporting providing substantial scientific technical and financial support for such efforts in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC as well as the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice SBSTA Our reportmg is thorough straightforward and second to none as evidenced by the UNFCCC in-depth reviews of our national communications Our dedication to transparency is across the board including the issues mentioned in your letter reporting land use land use change and forestry and bunker fuels National Communications and Inventory Guidelines We welcome your attention to these crucial guidelines Accurate and timely reporting is at the heart of efforts to understand and mitigate anthropogenic effects on the global climate system Since it most directly relates to climate change emissions data is the single most importarit information that must be reported Improving the quality and timeliness of this reporting is therefore a key US objective In fact the US is one of a few nations pushing for full and timely annual inventory reporting not just of data or aggregated estimates but of the assumptions and methods used in the inventory estimation process Our goal is to provide observers with sufficient information to confirm the aggregate emissions data reported by Armex I P ies In this manner we are working diligently to build more accuracy and transparency into inventory reporting Contrary to your perception the US delegation was perfectly comfortable with using the term “shall” in relation to these requirements At no time did the US delegation oppose the use of the term “shall' for inventory reporting requirements As was widely acknowledged at the SBSTA workshop on national communications in March transparency can be diminished not enhanced by vague unfocussed reporting Some Parties noted that the sheer bulk of information currently being provided is overwhelming With potentially more extensive reporting necessary under the Kyoto Protocol this problem could become severe The question then becomes what information is absolutely necessary and feasible to collect and what current reporting can be consolidated In our view high quality timely and complete inventory information is the most important With such information observers will be able to reproduce a variety of other statistics including the indicators mentioned in your letter JUL-29-1999 21 59 DRAFT -Do not cite or quote DES EGC 202 647 0191 P 03 17 Printed 07 29 99 9 17 PM The US was therefore surprised when the Secretariat’s draft guidelines expanded the focus on other non-inventory reporting The Secretariat’s draft used the term “shall” in other reporting requirements more often than the current guidelines and much more often than in the requirements directly related to inventories The US and other Parties had clearly noted in the March workshop that for non-inventory reporting it was important to consolidate the guidelines and distinguish between mandatory and optional requirements The example regarding indicators mentioned in your letter was part of our effort to enhance the accessibility of reported information by focusing more on the most crucial information particularly inventories Although it has not yet affected our position we are increasingly concerned with the ability of other Annex I Parties ability to meet these requirements The United States is providing technical and other assistance to the Parties with economies in transition EITs to improve their capacity to meet their reporting commitment We are also very concerned with the recurring lag - as long as two years - in reporting by some other Annex I Parties We would appreciate learning what efforts you have been making to assist the EITs and to urge other Parties to meet their commitments in a timely manner In addition we would appreciate heanng about your communications with other Parties on the need for the fullest possible annual inventory reporting LULUCF The United States continues to recognize the importance of country-specific data in the debate over land use land use change and forestry We are looking forward to discussions on how such data should relate to the criteria and process for deciding how and which new activities should be included under Article 3 4 We also believe of course that discussion of country-specific data should not hinder development of the criteria and procedures for adding iiew acti vities US actions during the subsidiary body meetings were fully consistent with this position Bunker Fuels In order to reflect the unique challenges posed by international aviation and maritime tran ort the Parties in Kyoto chose to deal with these sectors in a unique way separate from the national reduction commitments in Annex B This choice is reflected in • Article 2 2 by which the Annex I Parties commit to work through the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO and the International Maritime Organization IMO to pursue limitation or reductions in bunker fuel emissions • Article 5 2 by which the Parties adopted the IPCC methodologies that provide for reporting of bunker fuel emissions separately from national totals and • Decision 2 CP 3 paragraph 4 which recalls that the Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of the IPCC state that bunker fuel emissions should not be included in “national totals ” but reported separately Decision 2 CP 3 paragraph 4 also urges SBSTA to further elaborate on the inclusion of bunker fuel emissions in the “overall greenhouse gas inventories” of Parties While we recognize that there are differing interpretations of this part of Decision 2 CP 3 we believe that a clear path JUL-29-1999 21 59 202 647 0191 □ES EGC P 04 17 DRAFT - Do not cite or quote Printed 07 29 99 9 17 PM forward exists to producing our shared goal of meaningful and timely reductions in emissions from the international aviation and marine sectors There was agreement at SBSTA between the EU and ourselves that international bunker fuel emissions were not to be included in the national totals in the first budget period but that actions to limit or reduce these emissions during this period were to occur through IMO and ICAO under Article 2 2 of the protocol The U S has been and continues to be strongly supportive in working with these organizations to develop aggressive programs to reduce greerihouse gas emissions We were also very pleased to note the recent action by ICAO to grant observer status for the first time to environmental NGOs to allow them to meaningfully participate in this process a position the U S had strongly pushed This action should enhance the transparency and ultimately the environmental effectiveness of actions taken by ICAO to address bunker fuel emissions and other environmental issues Both IMO and ICAO have taken up this task of developing programs to reduce or limit emissions and appear to be working toward a goal of concrete proposals for action by 2001 We believe that the focus of our energies should be to support these organizations in meeting this challenge We welcome your efforts and suggestions in making this goal a reality Because there is agreement that the issue of allocation would not come into play until after 2012 if at all we do not see the benefits and we see some potential for harm in focusing on this issue in the near-term It makes sense at a minimum to wait and see what actions are proposed by ICAO and IMO With this information all countries will be in a better position of evaluating what positions they believe may be appropriate for future negotiations leading to a second budget period Finally we would add that in addition to the work at IMO and ICAO on limiting emissions we believe that our current priorities should include additional work on improving the reporting of data from these sectors as part of overall greenhouse gas inventories This issue was highlighted as a shortcoming at SBSTA 10 and needs to be improved in the near-term for transparency and to serve as a basis for determining the effectiveness of future actions by ICAO and IMO This was an important focus of our efforts in Bonn and the U S will continue to actively participate in the IPCC and SBSTA processes to develop improved reporting guidelines for bunker fuels emissions Again let us thank you for your letter We look forward to continued dialogue with you on these and other issues related to climate change Sincerely Sincerely Frank Loy Roger Ballentine JUL-29-1999 22 00 OES EGC DRAFT - Do not cite or quote 202 647 0191 Printed 07 29 99 9 17 PM Drafted OES EGC-Jeff Miotke Duncan Marsh 647-4069 or 647-468g Cleared E - Anne Pence EB - Mario Merida G - Nigel Purvis OES - Melinda Kimble EPA - Steve Seidel EPA - Bill Hohenstein DOD - Dan Benton USDA - Margot Anderson WHCCTF - Jeff Seabright NSC CEQ - David Sandalow 7 28 99 P 05 17 JUL-29-1999 22 00 202 647 0191 □ES EGC us CLIMATE action NETWORK 7367 Connecticui Avenue NW Suite 300 Washington DC 20036 Tel 202 785S702 Fas 202 765-670 Email aielnt@lgc org FAX MEMORANDUM Please Deliver Immediately To Frank 1-oy 647-0753 Roger Ballentme 4S6-6468' CC Margo Andeoon KenAndrasko Peter Backlund Rosina Bierbaum £van Bloom Bill Breed David Doniger Joe Eetrants David Gardiner MarkHambiey Bill Hohensxein Heather Huppe Ann Kinzig JefFMiodee Adele Morris Tom PetBison David Sandalow FROM Nathalie Eddy OSCAJJ International Coordinator DATE July 13 1999 RE US negodaiing tactics in Bonn PAGES Dear Messrs Ballentine and toy Attached please find a letter and memo from several US Climate Action Network members Sincerely Nathalie Eddy 0 International Coordinator USCaN P 06 17 JUL-29-1999 22 00 12 01 07 13 99 □ES EGC 202 647 0191 P 07 17 NO 472 ' 002 July 13 1999 Mr Frank Loy Under Secretary Global Affairs Department of State Room 72S0 2201 C sWeet NW Washington DC 20520 Mr Roger Ballentine _ Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Initiatives The White House Room 107 East Wing Washington DC 20502 Dear Messrs Loy and Ballentine A number of US Climate Action Network USCAN members would like to bring to your anention some very disconcerting negotiating tartics and policy positions of the U S delegaaon at the most recent session of the subsidiary bodies to the UNFCCC held in May 31-June 11 1999 We found ihe U S behavior to be suiprisingly inconsisient with the U S staled support for iiansparency and sound science in the climate change negotiations While ihje U S played a constructive role in Bonn on certain issues it was dangerously offtrack on the it s of national communicarions data land-use land-use change and forestry LULUCFs and international bunker fuels The U S position on all three of these issues demonstrated an alarming lack of commitments to transparency core principles of information sharing and consideration of relevant dara This data forms the foundation of the Convention and ensures the credibility of Parties’ inventories and targets By seemingly disaediting these issues ill pursuit of negotiating tactics the U S is contributing to the destabilization of the climate change agenda Attached please find a brief report on U S behavior in each of these above-nw ntioned arenas at The Bonn sessions Please feel free to coniaa us if you would like more details on any of the issues raised We look forward to working with you to strengthen the U S position As you prepare for the next round of negotiations in Bonn Oaober 2S-Novcmbcr 5 we would wclc e the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these or other issues at greater length Sincerely Donald Goldberg Center for International Environmental Law CIEL Jon Sohn Friends of the Earth FoE Gary Cook JUL-29-1999 IV '•ii Jt'r T • • VI ' 22 00 QES EGC • • Greenpeace Michael Noble Miimesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy Boni Biagini National Environmental Trust NET Dan Lashof Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC John PassBcaniando Ozone Action Karen Hopfl-Hanis Physicians for Social Responsibility PSR Dan Becker Sierra Club Alden Meyer Union of Concerned Scientists UCS JenniferMorgan World Wildlife Fund WWF James K Wyerman 20 20 Vision 202 647 0191 P 0B 17 JUL-29-1999 07 13 99 ••1 22 00 12 01 □ES EGC 202 647 0191 P 09 17 NO 47 UNFCCC IVegotiatuig Sessions SBl 0 Bonn May Ji-Junu U 1999 Report an V S nOgoUating tactics National Communications and Inventory Guidelines Such a non-tranSJLrt approach opposes the highly prized supposed 10 be p™ount in Antcrican society It is also mconsisteot v ith standard environmental policy as evidenced in the U S Toxic Release Inventory their ahility to comply with the Ityoto Protocol The previous guidelines were proved in WM nt COW but rhe IPCC hns sine provided improved recommendations The U S took on a tairly puzzling stance in the contact group discussions on invenioty guidelines and naUonal communications Although the U S has been makmg a coi eniible invc eni in improving national inventory accuracy and transparency throu the IPCC proMss rhe general tenor of U S uiieiventidos in Bonn was ro obfiiscate the repotted data and make i more difficult to consume Here are just two examples that cause concern SHALL vs SHOULD Almost all of these guidelines are couched ««ng ttje lerms “shall or “should” such as “Parties shall report the following information The EU was the only group of countries arguing in favor of using the word “shall ” T is is a sWngcr more bindSig word It is confusing why the U S did not support the EU on this issue One ould think that the U S would want it to be a requirement for all data that is to be r orted to be required This would allow the U S to evaluate the progress of otheis and to dewnmne whether another country has sufficient emissions credits to sell under an inteMonal emissions trading regime Without solid data it would be virtually impossible to trading wiihoui substantial risk and therefore more costly Rcpoi gahould not be Does this mean the U S does not intend to be fully transparent and report all the data that it should to ihe world community and its own citizens By failing to support the use of xhc word “shall” the U S is weakening the «sting m datoiy guidelines In addition the Kyoto Protocol mandates such reporting Article 7 that “Each Party shall incorporate in its national communication t supplcmen information necessaiy to demonstrate compliance with its ” Convention Art I2 2j is equally clear Each developed country Party and each Other Party included in Annex I sbaU incorporate in its communication the following elements of information emphasis added INDICATORS The U S generally argueO for diminaiing the use of lodicntors a st dard practice in data presentation For example in a paragraph about measuring the results ot D04 JUL-29-1999 22 01 GES EGC 202 647 0191 P 10 17 greenhouse gas mitigation the U S made the following proposal deletions stricken out additions in bold Greenhouse gos mitigation monitoring and results This should cover a description of tlie way in which progress with policies and measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is monitored and evaluated over lime Institutional anrangemenis for monitoring of greenhouse gas mitigation policy may also be reported in this context Partieemayoteo pronido infennotiow about indiooiote whichwwiot in tho p »o wpo«f noniiorwig-and oifaluiitionr-Such indicotiQtiG m y eolototonggrtigaie stntirtlas ordatailad nooioral onalyawi-CU S A Parties may provide the results of monitoring acdviiies including values of indieaiors if used over time U S A A later draft of the negotiating text completely removed ANY referenee to the use of mdicaion The use of indicators is a standard practice An indicator is simply a combination of raw dam such as per capita emissions emissions population It makes the data mote useful and it also allows for easier comparison Therefore removing the use of indicators or not requiring it will make the reported data more difficult to understand The U S delegate argued that indieaton make the data more uncertain but this is not a compelling argument A great body of literature has been developed around the use of indicators They are used all the time as seen in the UNDP Human Development Index the WRI Environmental Quality Index or the World Bank Wealth of Nations Index These are but two examples that illustrate our eoncems with the U $ position at the recent Bonn session on national communications data and the review of inventory guidelines The U S performance raised several concerns Is the U S trying to hide the effects of policies on their emissions Why is the U S dying to reduce the usefulness of the data and make it more difficult for average citizens to understand Why would the U S be interested in making reporting requirements optional LAND-USE LANB-VSE CHANGE AND FORESTRY LULUCf SBSTAIO was tasked with addressing the policy and procedural elements of taking a decision on the land-use change and forestry articles of the Kyoto Protocol During the two weeks of SBSTAIO the “sinks contact group’' met daily working through the various elements of the draft conclusions for the session The most contentious Issue discussed was the role of country-specific data and information in the decision-making framework for Articles 3 3 and 3 4 of the Kyoto Protocol In other words should countries be requested to provide estimates of the carbon sequestration potential in their countries from various activities e g cropland rangeland and forestry management The role of data in this context is multi-fold Most countries now recognize that the land-use change and forestry decisions that were made in Kyoto were not well-informed due to a lack of data Even if data had been provided discussions on these items came much too late In the process to weigh the various factors adequately For that reason the Protocol now includes rather incomplete and problematic articles regarding LUCF Countries attempted in their own calculations to figure the impact of the inclusion of afforesiazion reforestation and deforestation on their Kyoto targets This led to statements by the U S that the sinks language in the Protocol would account for 3V» of the U S target It would be more effective to have these types of calculations occur in a more transparent and timely fashion It is for this reason that the European Uoion and others at SBSTaIO requested JUL-29-1999 22 01 07 13 99 12 02 OES EGC 202 647 0191 P 11 17 _ NO 472 --v r— klwioiiK of such d 1 Hios conclusions suled ttuTGiven the mpot cc of countty-spccific daU and infoimatioo and of a deeision-making ftamewotk the SBSTA j ---- at its eleventh session of the need for eountry-spKilie data and infot™UM ts relatiLhip to a deeision-making ftamewotk in the eontekt of the requirements of the Kyoto Protoeol ” FCCaSBSTA I999 l S f Upon this understandmg members Action Ve tk noted that the U S had reeogniaed the need for transparency and full provision of infonnition and we therefore applauded the U S for doing so TTiis however was not the case Duringthe last session ofthe SBSTA the U S along with oihels moved’to delete the first crucial clause of the sentence noting of countryspecific data Such a position opposes to the principles of transparency that the US has sSppottedthroughoutdiesenegoliations appears that the U S docs thistime on this highly complex and controversial article of the Pro ol leadily available and one estimate was actually presented in Bonn by an ‘ from Colorado State University Preventing the inclusion of this information in making process is harmful to the international process in general and undenmnes the foundanon of the Convention process Full data disclosure should be a principle of operaUon ofthe United States in these negotiations thus setting an example for others across the globe Bunker Fuels Throughout die SBSTAIO meeting the U S delegation tried to undermine the the SBSTA Chairman on the issue of international bunker fuels In particulaf the U S ed m question the implications of Decision 2 CP3 and singled itself out as the w arty to thai this decision calls for a discussion of the allocation of emissions of mtemational bunker fuels Decision Z CP 3 on Methodological Issues states in para 4 that -emissions based up fuel sold to ships or aircraft engaged in international transport should not be included in national totals but reported separately and urges the SBSTA to further elaborate on the inclusion of these emissions in the overall greenhouse gas inventories of Parties Furthermore although the Kyoto Protocol requires ICAO and IMO 10 -pursue Umitotion or reduction of emissions from bunker fuels a concrete proposal has yet to be p aced on fte tobk from these organizations Ihe U S suggestion of leaving the entire responsibility to l CAO and___ IMO would render a medium term decision highly unlikely Such a delay in the further negotiation of a proposal is unacceptable ' i ' Prior to SBSTA 10 it seemed that the U S agreed on the importance of closing the intemad bunker fuel looDholc in time for the negotiation ofthe second commitment period targets is however is cT ly not the case as the U S delegation did not see the need for Parties to submU their views on the IPCC Special Report on Aviation nor the necessity for a formal review of me IPCC Special Report and its implications by die SBSTA or a fuiure COP Fortuoatety e U S KD orooosal to'aenerally disregardlhe IPCC Special Report on Aviation was viewed unfavorably by the majority ofPaS and-fiie final SBSTAIO decision calls for submissions to the socretaii by Aueust 16 SBSTAl I and COPS offer an opportunity for the U S to join other Parties m working toward closing the inteinntional bunker fuel loophole and tO elaborate an approach Id bunker fuel allocation into Parties’ targets for rhe second commitment period 006 JUL-29-1999 22 02 202 647 0191 QES EGC P 12 17 -DRAFT- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1999 Howard Geller American Council for an Ener -Efficient Economy Donald Goldberg Center for International Environmental Law Annie Petsonk Environmental Defense Fund Gary Cook Greenpeace James Lyon National Wildlife Federation — Daniel Lashof ------Natural Resources Defense Council Kert Davies Ozone Action Stephanie Matheny Seattle Audubon Society Ann Mesnikoff Sierra Club Katherine Silverthome U S PIRG Emily Smith National Environmental Trust Peter Frumhoff and Darren Goetze Union for Concerned Scientists Kilaparti Ramakrishna Woods Hole Research Center Jennifer Morgan World Widlife Fund Tia Nelson The Nature Conservancy Carol Werner Environmental and Energy Study Institute Jim Jontz American Lands Alliance Joan Reiss California Wilderness Coalition Jym St Pierre Restore The North Woods Rene Voss Earth Island Institute Laurie Waybum The Pacific Forest Trust Randall White Georgia Forest Watch 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Dear Colleague Thank you for your letter of May 25“’ regarding land use land use change and forestry LULUCF As you know we are actively supporting the work on the IPCC Special Report on Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry to help clarify issues that arose under the Kyoto Protocol We are encouraging the IPCC to examine the full range of options to Article 3 3 and 3 4 and identify those that over the long run will provide the greatest incentives for Parties to minimize emissions and enhance sequestration frorn their forest and agricultural resources — consistent with sound science Naturally our positions on these issues will take into account the results of the IPCC Special Report 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 You arc correct that at this time the United States advocates a comprehensive or full carbon accounting for sequestration and emissions of greenhouse gases from the land use land use change and forestry and all sources By ensuring that all verifiable emissions and sequestration are coimted we will provide the greatest possible incentive for the conservation and enhancement of carbon reservoirs in our agricultural and forestry systems Promoting sequestration in agriculture and forestry may in turn provide important ancillary benefits while helping to address climate change Including a broad range of LULUCF activities under the Protocol is therefore crucial over the long term JUL-29-1999 22 02 □ES EGC 202 647 0191 P 13 17 -DRAFT- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Wc would also like to respond to your statement that the United States took the position postKyoto that sinks would account for only 3% of the U S target In fact the sinks provision in the Protocol that the United States was referring to was Article 3 7 — which excludes sinks from the 1990 baseline Our original goal of stabilizing U S emissions at 1990 levels assumed that the 1990 baseline would be lowered by sink removals however at Kyoto it was agreed in Article 3 7 to exclude sinks from baselines As the State Department Fact Sheet of January 15 1998 states Because the 1990 level baseline is thus higher under the Kyoto agreement the U S target becomes somewhat less stringent Specifically had the U S maintained the same level of effort assumed by the President in October and no other factors had changed the shift in the accounting method for carbon-absorbing activities would alone have transformed the President's goal of 1990 levels into a goal equivalent to at least 3% below 1990 levels The Fact Sheet went on to state parenthetically that certain carbon-absorbing activities will count against emission reduction commitments in the budget period However this reference to Article 3 3 and 3 4 did not involve any quantification In Kyoto Parties clearly understood that Article 3 4 could provide additional carbon benefits to countries whose land use activities led to net sequestration although we did not know the actual quantitative effect of adding 3 4 activities on our own country's targets or that of any other country We approached the negotiation with the understanding that in order to capture the real effect of LULUCF impacts on the atmosphere it was necessary to go beyond Article 3 3 In addition Article 3 4 could provide a mechanism to help deter land practices that lead to carbon emissions We had every expectation that a comprehensive evaluation of the carbon impacts of land use practices in the United States would help us meet our target and in the process provide a significant environmental tool to encourage further expansion of the many environmental benefits provided by improved land use practices Further we maintain that an integrated and comprehensive approach is required as part of our long-tem commitment to address this issue Once again allow us to reiterate our invitation to share with us your thoughts on this issue and on other aspects of a possible framework for including new LULUCF activities How for instance might Parties demonstrate that emissions and sequestration from proposed activities arc humaninduced measurable and verifiable We would also appreciate your suggestions on the appropriate process under the Protocol for deciding whether proposed activities meet these criteria Thank you again for your interest We look forward to receiving further input from you on this and other climate change issues Sincerely Sincerely Frank Loy Under Secretary Global Affairs Roger Ballentine Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Initiatives JIJL-29-1999 22 02 202 647 0191 QES EGC -DRAFT- 1 2 3 Drafter JBremian 647-4689 Document H CCIssues Sinks Ltr WH-Loy to EnviroLUCF ver3 4 Cleared OES FO MKimble G NPurvis EB MMarida E APcnce USDA MAnderson EPA BHohenstein DOE BBreed Treasury AMoiiis OSTP AKinzig WH DSandalow 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 P 14 17 JUL-29-1999 22 03 OES EGC 202 647 0191 P 15 17 -h American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy • Center for International Environmental Law • Environmental Defense Fimd • Greenpeace • National Environmental Trust • National Wildlife Federation • Natural Resources Defense Council • Ozone Action • Seattle Audubon Society • Sierra Club • U S PIRG • Union of Concerned Scientists • Woods Hole Research Center • World Wildlife Fund May 25 1999 Todd D Stem Assistant to the President for Special Projects Specied Projects Office The White House Room G WW 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington D C 20500 Frank E Loy Under Secretary Global Affairs Department of State Room 7250 2201 C Street NW Washington D C 20520 Dear Messrs Stem and Loy Within the past several months the Administration has made known some of its views on land use land use change and forestry LUCF under the Kyoto Protocol We are writing first to request that the Administration clarify its position wth regard to ceitam critical issues and second if our present understanding of the Administration s position is correct to express our concerns about that position It is clear from the U S submissions to the climate secretariat as well as presentations and statements in recent briefings and workshops that the AdminisUution fevois a “comprehensive” approach to LUCF under the Protocol It appears that the Administration seeks to enable Parties to take credit for much if not all of the JUL-29-1999 22 03 □ES EGC 202 647 0191 sequestration attributable to biotic sinks that can be scientifically verified regardless of whether this sequestration exceeds levels projected under “business-as-usual ” Presumably the United States would seek credit for this sequestration during the first commitment period by considering forest agriculture and range management to be additional activities under Article 3 4 of the Protocol If this conectly characterizes the Administration’s views on Article 3 4 we are deeply troubled According to the most recent available U S government study such an approach could give the United States 192 million tons of carbon equivalent credit each year during the first commitment period for “business-as-usual” activities not including agricultural soils and rangeland This is equivalent to a 13% increase in the U S assigned amount during the first commitment period or approximately a 40% reduction of the level of effort relative to reference case projections that would be required for the United States to meet its Kyoto target Put another way it is tantamount to converting the U S target from a 7% reduction to a 5% increase from 1990 levels Such a result would be a substantially weaker commitment than President Clinton originally proposed prior to the Kyoto Conference In Kyoto parlance the U S approach as we understand it amounts to a full “gross nef accounting of sinks The compromise adopted in Kyoto however was a limited gross net approach As evidence that the Administration understood and accepted the Kyoto bargain we note that it announced immediately afterward that the sinks language in the Protocol would account for 3% of the U S target—not the 13% change that could result from a full gross net approach In deciding which new activities should be adopted under Article 3 4 care must be taken to preserve the level of effort agreed for the first commitment period by each of the Annex I Parties Allowing Parties to receive substantial additional credit for “business-asusual” activities would undermine the Protocol and put the climate at greater risk If we have misstated the U S position on LUCF or the impact it would have on the level of effort required of the United States during the first commitment period we request clarification If on the other hand our characterization of the U S position and its implications for the first commitment period is correct we request that the positron be revised to take account of our concerns Respectfully ' Joyce L A Ced ProdueiivUy ofAmerica's Forests and Climate Chanse USD A Forest Service Ocneral Techttical Report RM-271 September 1995 P 16 17 JUL- 29-1999 22 03 202 647 0191 OES EGC Howard Geller American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy Donald Goldberg Center for International Environmental Law Annie Petsonk Environmental Defense Fund Gary Cook Greenpeace James Lyon National Wildlife Federation Daniel Lashof Natural Resources Defense Council Kelt Davies Ozone Action P 17 17 Stephanie Mafheny Seattle Audubon Society Ann Mesnikoff Sierra Club Katherine Silverthome U S PIRG Emily Smith National Environmental Trust Peter Frumhoff and Darren Goetze Union of Concerned Scientists Kilaparti Ramakrishna Woods Hole Research Center Jennifer Morgan World Wildlife Fund cc David Sandalow CEQ David Gardiner EPA Margo Anderson USDA Interagency “Sinks” Group •- r pit £ 7 TOTRL P 17