Vol. 05 No. 146
Friday, 10 March 2000
The Ad Hoc Open Ended Intergovernmental Group of
Experts on Energy and Sustainable Development met in the
morning to discuss the intersessional programme of work and
provisional agenda for its next session, to be held prior to
the ninth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD-9). In the afternoon, the Expert Group considered the
second draft of the Co-Chairs’ Summary of the discussion on
key issues.
INTERSESSIONAL PROGRAMME OF WORK
Delegates began discussion on a programme of work for the
intersessional period leading up to the next session of the
Expert Group. AUSTRIA invited delegates to visit and
contribute to the web-site <www.sustainable-energy.org>,
which is to become a comprehensive online clearinghouse. He
also announced the launch of a Global Forum on Sustainable
Energy. The Forum will create a multi-stakeholder process to
influence institutions and act as a platform for
public-private dialogue on sustainable energy. The EU
expressed interest in regional preparations and inputs for the
Expert Group’s work, to ensure dialogue among all sectors.
He proposed regional workshops on pricing and subsidies,
involving multilateral stakeholders and governments, with a
focus on LDCs. He drew attention to DENMARK’S launch of a
Sustainable Energy Advisory Facility. The G-77/CHINA welcomed
the prospect of regional work, but cautioned that outcomes and
research outputs should not form direct inputs but be used to
inform the Expert Meeting. SWEDEN encouraged countries and
international organizations to facilitate stakeholder
dialogues, especially with LDCs. Supporting the regional
perspective, he said these could contribute directly to
preparations by the Expert Group and provide a bridge for
cooperation among regional stakeholders. IRAN announced a
regional workshop on energy efficiency improvements in the oil
and gas sector, and invited support from UN bodies and
international organizations. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION suggested
that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for
Development (CENRD), UN regional economic commissions, and
multilateral institutions contribute to intersessional work.
He also proposed inter-regional activity and a dedicated CSD
web-page on sustainable energy and intersessional activity.
BRAZIL, with COLOMBIA and INDONESIA, outlined the benefits
of working at a regional level. The ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (ECLAC) described an
inter-parliamentary project in partnership with the EU, which
examines regulation of the energy sector. He noted a regional
project with Germany on energy policies for sustainable
development, involving national and sub-regional studies. The
ECE announced a seminar on energy pricing, to be co-hosted
with the OECD in June in Prague, and noted a high-level
multi-stakeholder forum on sustainable energy in a competitive
market. COLOMBIA emphasized the importance of developing
country participation at regional discussions. The UNDP said
the World Energy Assessment (WEA) report will be disseminated
on the internet by the summer, and through different outreach
efforts thereafter. The EU and EC outlined their commitment to
dialogue on sustainable energy with African, Caribbean and
Pacific (ACP) countries. UNEP noted the list of energy-related
activities available on the CSD’s website. AUSTRIA noted a
workshop on energy efficiency in transport to be held in May,
and co-hosted with the UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (DESA). FRANCE informed the Group of a workshop with
South East Asian and Latin American countries on energy
policies in the context of globalization and the environment.
The EU highlighted the benefits of using interactive websites.
DRAFT PROVISIONAL AGENDA FOR THE SECOND SESSION OF THE
EXPERT GROUP
Chair Freudenschuss Reichl introduced the draft provisional
agenda for the Expert Group’s second session, based on
chapters of the Secretary-General’s Report on key issues and
the Co-Chairs’ summary. She noted that the agenda reflected
the G-77/CHINA’s call to address all sectoral issues, taking
into account the means of implementation, capacity building,
technology transfer and financial resources. She noted the
inclusion of agenda items on regional initiatives, success
stories, and a proposed item on the review of progress
achieved since UNCED.
DISCUSSION ON PROCEDURE
Co-Chair Salamat introduced the revised draft summary and
called for the identification of points that may be missing,
reminding delegates not to undertake a drafting exercise.
The EU, with SAUDI ARABIA, requested more time to consider
the document. Noting that the meeting had already been
delayed, the Co-Chair proposed continuing with discussions to
enable delegates to take account of others’ input. The
Co-Chair reminded delegates that the document is not a
negotiating text. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm in
response to the EU’s point of order in which he reminded the
Co-Chairs that requests for adjournments made by groups of
countries are usually respected. He said that in the absence
of a group position, EU member countries would be taking the
floor in their individual capacity. A G-77/China proposal to
adjourn was welcomed by the EU. The Expert Group resumed
discussion at 5:55 pm to exchange views on the Draft Co-Chairs’
Summary.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON DRAFT CO-CHAIRS’ SUMMARY
The EU noted the purpose of the Co-Chairs’ Draft is to
reflect the results of the discussion, including points upon
which delegates could not agree. He called on the Co-Chairs to
consider the EU’s background paper, noting in particular the
issues of market reform, liberalization, and internalization
of externalities. The G-77/CHINA expressed concern with these
proposed additions. The G-77/CHINA, EGYPT, BRAZIL and
AUSTRALIA, emphasized the need to reflect areas lacking
consensus. BRAZIL expressed concern with the downturn in
discussions and with the EU’s imposition of its own
political agenda. He proposed refraining from heavily
politicized debates that block discussion, calling for a
return to the positive tone of the morning. The Co-Chair
recalled the earlier call by the US for a discussion on
process issues.
INTRODUCTION: The US proposed emphasizing that the
document is for decision-making on a cross-sectoral level. The
US, with the UK and the EU, expressed reservations about
language implying that the draft enjoyed the full support of
the Expert Group. The UK recalled the proposal by CANADA for
text indicating when only "some countries" had
supported various proposals. The UK and DENMARK expressed
concern with the reference to the World Solar Programme.
DENMARK queried the lack of reference to other international
initiatives, and expressed surprise with the suggestion that
advice to the Expert Group be limited to that "based on
the best scientific and technical analysis," noting the
need for other input.
KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY CSD-9
Noting the role of existing energy systems in promoting
economic development, the G-77/CHINA, with SAUDI ARABIA,
disputed the statement that "current energy systems do
not support the goals of sustainable development."
ICELAND, with the UK, expressed its preference for the earlier
draft in which reference was made to the "current
unsustainable pattern of production and use of energy."
VENEZUELA, with COLOMBIA, recalled its earlier emphasis on the
role of fossil fuels and the need for R&D, diffusion and
transfer of decarbonization and energy efficiency
technologies.
The NETHERLANDS queried the removal of earlier wording with
a more detailed description of what the Expert Group was
expected to produce. EGYPT expressed surprise that the
document does not refer to "common but differentiated
responsibilities."
Accessibility of Energy: On the contribution of energy
to social and economic development, the G-77/CHINA added
"poverty reduction." He questioned a reference to
"increased" international support, given the current
absence of support. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION recalled his
proposal that the draft refer to access to electric power
markets. SAUDI ARABIA, opposed by SWITZERLAND, requested
deletion of a reference to the contribution of diversification
to the security of energy supplies. FINLAND called for the
restoration of text on access to fuel. The UNITED KINGDOM
proposed to reinsert reference to enhanced transparency. He
also voiced concerns about the categorical tone of the Second
Summary. DENMARK added a reference to the promotion of
environmentally sound and economically advantageous solar,
wind, biomass and ocean based technologies.
Energy Efficiency: EGYPT emphasized "energy for
sustainable development" rather than "sustainable
energy." The RUSSIAN FEDERATION added reference to
institutional frameworks, and FRANCE underlined the importance
of long term planning. DENMARK stressed the major gains from
energy efficiency for industrialized countries.
Renewable Energy: EGYPT said increasing the renewables
available to LDCs was too ambitious. The UNITED KINGDOM
pointed out that considerable amounts of research have already
been conducted on renewables. SAUDI ARABIA asked for the
deletion of a paragraph on investment initiatives for
renewable energy technologies, describing them as subsidies.
Advanced Fossil and Nuclear Fuel Technologies: Co-Chair
Salamat explained that the Co-Chairs were unsure how to
reflect views on this section. IRAN said the issues were
adequately addressed in the Secretary-General’s Report and
the draft WEA. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION, supported by IRAN, said
nuclear power contributes substantially to sustainable
development. CANADA supported nuclear technology as an option
for sustainable development. The US drew attention to
reference to the role of nuclear energy for a sustainable
energy future in a CENRD Report. ITALY, supported by AUSTRIA,
DENMARK, IRELAND, BELGIUM, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, and the
NETHERLANDS, expressed concern at consideration of nuclear
power as a means to achieve sustainable development, and
recalled his Government�s rejection, at FCCC COP-5, of the
eligibility of nuclear technology under the Kyoto Protocol�s
Clean Development Mechanism. SAUDI ARABIA questioned further
spending on nuclear technology, in the light of its drawbacks.
BRAZIL, supported by INDONESIA, suggested that advanced fossil
fuels and nuclear technology should be located in separate
sections in the draft. COLOMBIA said one nuclear accident is
more lethal for the environment and health than an accident
involving other energy sources.
Rural Energy: FRANCE said that rural energy systems
should be designed to meet local needs "in particular,
water."
Energy and Transportation: In response to the US query
about whether the establishment of a common standard refers to
national, domestic or international standards, CANADA said the
intention was not to create new standards, but to acknowledge
existing standards related to the transportation sector. SAUDI
ARABIA suggested deleting reference to "negative
environmental and social impacts of transportation."
Technology Transfer: FRANCE proposed inserting
"technology adaptation" to address concerns
expressed by some delegates. On the intensification of
international cooperation, SAUDI ARABIA preferred not to
specify "North-South and South-South" cooperation.
Capacity Building: FRANCE suggested including
"legal" capacity building. Noting that the
acceptability of new technology is dependent on public
awareness, he stressed the need to support the participation
of civil society.
Mobilization of Financial Resources: The US said
substantial new and additional financial resources will
continue to be required "to support" developing
countries to move towards sustainable energy systems. He said
language implying that all developing countries are hampered
with debt problems was incorrect, and with FRANCE, but opposed
by BRAZIL, he proposed specifying "some countries."
COLOMBIA, supported by the UK, suggested making a
distinction between the different opinions expressed, rather
than try to find compromise text.
The EU called for emphasis on domestic resources. FRANCE
said structural reform in the energy sector should be
encouraged "under appropriate regulation by
governments."
International and Regional Cooperation: There were no
comments on this section.
Chair Salamat thanked the Group for their flexibility and
closed the meeting at 8:00 pm.