Mail*Link(r) SMTP               Climate Mtg Ends in Berlin

MINISTERS ADOPT 'BERLIN MANDATE' LAUNCHING NEW CLIMATE CHANGE
TALKS

BERLIN, 7 April 1995 -- After almost two weeks of negotiations,
ministers and other high-level officials from 116 Parties to the
Climate Change Convention agreed here today to launch a new
process with a deadline of 1997 for adopting the results.
     
"The `Berlin Mandate' consolidates all the work we have done on
climate change from the Rio Earth Summit until now", says Angela
Merkel, the President of the Berlin Climate Change Conference and
Germany's Federal Minister for the Environment.  "It sets an
ambitious agenda and will strengthen international action on
climate change." 
     
The Mandate concludes that the present commitments under the
Convention, notably the commitment of developed countries to take
measures aimed at returning their greenhouse gas emissions to
1990 levels by the year 2000, are not adequate.  It establishes
a process that would enable the Parties to take appropriate
action for the period beyond 2000, including a strengthening of
developed country commitments, through the adoption of a protocol
or another legal instruments.
     
This process will consider all greenhouse gases.  It will also
consider setting quantified objectives for limiting and reducing
emissions within specified time-frames, such as 2005, 2010 and
2020.  The process should begin without delay and the work should
be completed as early as possible in 1997 with a view to adopting
the results at the third session of the Conference of the
Parties.
     
"This mandate makes the Berlin Conference a success", says
Michael Zammit Cutajar, the Convention's Executive Secretary. 
"We are on our way to stronger commitments.  To make sure we get
the results we need, Governments must stick to the 1997
deadline."
     
Some 870 delegates from 170 countries are attending the 28 March
- 7 April Conference.  Of these, 116 (plus the European Union)
are Parties to the Convention (meaning that they had ratified the
treaty at least three months before).  

On 5 April, German Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl opened the
three-day ministerial segment of the Conference by appealing "to
all those taking part in this Conference to adopt a substantial
negotiation mandate here in Berlin with clear terms of reference
aimed at a protocol that is binding under international law."
     
In addition to Chancellor Kohl, two prime ministers and almost
80 ministers and 20 senior officials addressed the Conference. 
 About 1,000 observers and 2,000 media representatives have also
attended.
     
Besides the new consultations, the Parties also decided to launch
a pilot phase for "activities to be implemented jointly".  This
could allow, for example, one country to invest in an
energy-efficiency project in another country.  While the project
would help to lower global greenhouse gas emissions, the
investing country could not claim any kind of credit for the
reduced emissions during the pilot phase.  Any country could
participate in such activities.  A system of regular reporting
would monitor the activities and help the Parties to learn from
their experiences.  The pilot phase will be reviewed no later
than the end of 1999 in order to consider starting a more
comprehensive phase.  The supporters of this exercise believe
that a future formal phase could promote an international market
in low-emissions technologies.
     
While the mandate for negotiations and the pilot phase were
finalized only in the final hours of the Conference, the Parties
had earlier agreed to adopt 11 recommendations containing nine
decisions drafted by the final preparatory meeting held five
weeks ago at United Nations Headquarters in New York.  These
recommendations and decisions put in place the two basic pillars
of the Convention: the process for reviewing how the Parties to
the Convention are meeting their commitments, and the system for
financial transfers.
     
Five of the decisions relate to the commitments Governments have
under the Convention.  One of these commitments is to submit
"national communications" describing efforts to implement the
Convention and quantifying present and projected future
emissions.  Most developed countries will be required to submit
their second national communications by 15 April 1997, while the
first ones already (or soon to be) submitted will now be
subjected to in-depth reviews.  (A synthesis report of the first
15 communications was completed in late 1994.)  
     
Three of the decisions relate to financing action under the
Convention.   The interim arrangements, whereby the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) operates the financial mechanism",
will be maintained for up to four years.  The relationship
between the Conference of the Parties (COP) and the GEF will be
further elaborated.  In addition, as required by the treaty, the
COP is providing guidance on policies, programme priorities and
eligibility criteria to the GEF.  According to this guidance,
projects funded by the GEF should be cost-effective, supportive
of national development priorities, and focused (at least
initially) on so-called enabling activities that would help
developing countries to implement the Convention.
     
Another decision provides the institutional foundations for the
Convention by defining the roles of the subsidiary bodies which
will assist the COP.  The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA) will be the link between the
scientific, technical and technological assessments and
information that various external groups provide, and the
policy-oriented needs of the Parties.  The Subsidiary Body for
Implementation (SBI) will develop recommendations to assist the
Parties in assessing and reviewing the implementation of the
Convention.  These two subsidiary bodies will meet twice before
the Second Session of the COP (COP-2), scheduled for July 1996.
     
Finally, the Parties also decided to locate the Convention's
permanent secretariat in Bonn, Germany, starting in 1996.  The
budget, staffing levels, and institutional linkages to the United
Nations system were also decided.

International panel evaluates progress on environment
Environment reform is low on Central Europe's political agenda

Visegrad, Hungary_An international panel evaluated progress in
implementing National Environmental Action Programs in Central and
Eastern Europe. NEAPs are adapted to the needs and resources of
particular countries, and they are  based on the more general
Environmental Action Program (EAP), a tool designed to help
governments execute environment protection policies. Central and
Eastern European governments committed themselves to developing
NEAPs two years ago, but according to a survey of NEAPs in 11
countries carried out by the Regional Environmental Center for
Central and Eastern Europe, environment protection has dropped in
urgency on governments' lists of priorities.

REC Executive Director Stanislaw Sitnicki explained that for
environment protection to become a higher priority, Central and
Eastern European countries must cease viewing economic issues, such
as unemployment and privatization, as more important than the
environment. "Some people feel that the environment must be entirely
dropped from the reform agenda until the economy recovers," he said.
Second, people need to be made more aware of how a polluted
environment affects their health. Finally, the funds available to
improve the environment must be increased for countries to solve
their problems soon. Because environmental problems cannot be solved
quickly, they drop down on the political agenda.

According to Laszlo Karas, who coordinated the survey for the REC,
"EAPs give a methodology of how to address environment problems in
the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that are undergoing
transition.  The goal of the planning process is to develop a
comprehensive program for reducing environmental pollution and
improving the state of the environment at the lowest cost." NEAPs
rely on setting priorities for environmental action, strengthening
institutions to act on those priorities, and encouraging foreign and
domestic investment to "speed up the process of environmental
improvement."

The panel included Richard Ackermann of the World Bank, Jernej
Stritih of the OECD, Karoly Kiss of the Institute for World
Economics in Budapest, and Vilmos Kiszel of the Goncol Foundation, a
leading Hungarian non-government organization. The panel was chaired
by Eva Kruzikova, Director of the Institute for Environmental Policy
in Prague.

Their comments initiated a discussion on NEAPs by participants at
the third annual meeting of the Regional Environmental Center's
General Assembly. The 29 members of the assembly represent
governments of countries either that have donated funds to the REC,
or that are beneficiaries of REC programs and services.

Anglofobok vagytok, vagy miamano?

En persze ez ellen semmit sem tehetek, legfeljebb kilepek.

Horvath Pista

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Kedves Pista!

Ha arra gondolsz, hogy tul sok az angol nyelvu szoveg a Kornyeszen, igazad van.
 De:
1.  sajnos a Kornyesz olvasoi sokkal tobben vannak, mint az iroi...  Ez eleg
nagy baj, mert vegulis pont az lenne a cel, hogy egymas munkajat is
megismerjuk.  De valamiert eddig senki nem nagyon kuldte be a sajat anyagait
(kiveve 1-2 kobor kornyesz, hebe-hoba, azt is soxor angolul), es a
velemeny-osztogatassal is takarekoskodnak publiqsan (rengeteg magan-levelet
kapok azonban).  Ha a kurrens esemenyek nagy resze magyarul is meg lenne
vitatva, termeszetesen az angol anyagokra nem lenne szukseg.  Addig, jobb
hijan...

2.  mint a tobbi tudomany nagy reszevel, a kornyeszettel is az a helyzet, hogy
a szagirodalomban dominal az angol nyelv.  Pl. hogy a Recece Kelet-Europa
mailing list-je miert angolul es nem szlavul van, az sem tul logiqs.  De az a
kovetkezmeny, hogy az informacio nagy resze angyilusul van kodolva; es sokszor
mi is abban gyartjuk a kimeneti termekeinket.

Tehat elnezest a sok angol nyelvu anyagert; ezen egyedul ugy lehet segiteni,
hogy akit zavar, az kuldjon be magyar anyagokat, vagy kezdemenyezzen magyar
vitakat...

Moderator
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Kedves Kornyeszek!
A cikket a szuperautorol mar regebben is olvastam, most pedig hozzateszem a
magamet.
Mint gepeszmernok-palanta a kovetkezo gondot latom. Az elso, alltalanos
tarsadalmi problema, hogy jelenlegi cselekedeteinket (mint maganember es
gazdasagi szemely) nem az ertekek, hanem a profit, ervenyesules es
hatalomvagy vezerli. Ha nem igy lenne, akkor az emmlitett harom nagy
irogepgyarto es tarsaik buldozerral tolnak ki a gyartosorokat az
uzemcsarnokokbol es allitanak be az ujakat a kompozit alapu (szalerositeses
muanyag, illetve fem vagy keramia), hibrid motorral ellatott jarganyok
gyartasara. A technologia rendelkazasre all, es periferikusan mar a
tomegtermelesben is megjelent. Pont most olvastam egy cikket, a harom nagy
valamelyik sportkocsijanak a kocsiszekrenye keszul, igaz egyenlore csak
uvegszalerositesu muanyagbol. De mivel a fenti megallapitasom
tarsadalmunkrol azt hiszem, igaz, ezert van sok olyan ember, akinek nem
erdeke mindez.
Masik felvetodo kerdes az ilyen jarganyok kidobas utani sorsa. A  vilag
legjelentosebb gepjarmu-fogyaszto orszagaiban a kocsi nem akkor kerul
szemetbe, amikor tonkrement vagy vegervenyesen elavult, hanem sokkal
korabban. Mi a nyavajat lehet csinalni ennyi mindenfele adalekot es
tolteleket tartalmazo muanyaggal? Valamit biztos, de ezt azert at kell
gondolni. Nem hiszem, hogy ezek a forradalmi, sokkal tartosabb jarganyok
hasznaloit ra lehetne beszelni, hogy az eddige 3.6 ev helyett 36 evenken
csereljek az autot. Azonkivul valoszinuleg nem is koltene ra annyit,
amennyibe kerulne, legalabbis eleinte. Es ha nincs eleinte, akkor nincs
kesobb ebben a fogyasztoi tarsdadalomban.
A masik, lehet hogy ez a cikk eppen nem tartalmazza, de en olvastam valahol,
hogy ezeknek a jarganyoknak az elterjedeset valami "partizan" modon, kis
gyartokbol kiindulva is el lehet kepzelni. Szerintem nem. Van ugyaqn egy-ket
ilyen ceg (Pininfaria, Mozerati, Lamborgini, Lotus) de hat az araikat is
meg lehet nezni. Iszonyatos toke kell a technologizalashoz,
uzemfelszereleshez, hogy a skalahozadekot le lehessen akasztani (vagy
tovabbitani a fogyasztohoz).
Meg lenne mit irnom, de lekesnem a vacsit es azt nem szeretem.
Udvozlet mindenkinek es kellemes Husvetot!
ZP

Elore is bocs, ha nyitott kapukat dongetek, de a hiperautos cikkeket 
olvasgatva eszembe jutott nehany dolog:

- az kb.egy honappal ezelotti Auto-Motorban volt egy rovid kozlemeny,
miszerint a vezeto autogyarak helybol visszautasitottak az Europa
Parlament ajanlasat ( vagy javaslatat vagy valami hasonlojat ) az olyan
gepkocsi eloallitasara, amely atlag 3 liter uzemanyaggal beerne 100
km-enkent. A gyarak szerint a fejlesztes olyan sokba kerulne, hogy rovid
tavon ellehetetlenitene oket.

Kerdes: az EP-nek ennyire nincs befolyasa, hogy egyszeruen le lehet
soporni, amit mond? Akkor meg minek van? Hogy politikusaink tudjanak mire
mutogatni, amikor a valasztopolgarok szukseget erzik, hogy megnyugtassa
valaki a rossz lelkiismeretuket a kornyezetunk mocskolasa miatt? 

- nem tudom, hogy mas orszagokban hogy szokas, de itthon - ird es mondd -
ket ( 2 darab ) autogyar reklamozza ugy a termeket, hogy az alacsony
fogyasztast helyezi eloterbe. Egyik a Suzuki Swift verzioi ( atlag 3,5
l/100 km volt azon a bizonyos csaladi versenyen gyoztes eredmeny ) es a
Volvo 440/460 -as tipusai, amelyek ECE szerint 4,4 l gazolajat
fogyasztanak 90 km/h-s sebessegnel. 
 
Megjegyzem, szerintem ez mar nincs olyan nagyon messze attol a bizonyos 3
litertol. 

- a legutobbi nemzetkozi szo'mene'si talalkozon - ahol azt a bizonyos
semmitmondo es semmitero nyilatkozatot fogadtak el a szendioxid-kibocsatas
csokkentesere vonatkozoan - az OPEC tagallamok tartozkodtak a szavazason,
mert ugy iteltek meg, hogy a szendioxid-kibocsatas csokkenese miatt
csokkeno olajszarmazek-felhasznalas artana nekik. Tettek ezt annak
ellenere, hogy a valoszinusitheto tengerszintemelkedes - leven altalaban 
tengerparti allamok tengerparti kikotokkel es varosokkal - letukben 
fenyegeti oket.

Es megegy - szandekom szerint provokativ - kerdes: Mit gondoltok, mi,
Internet-hasznalo nepek, ebben az ugyben is tudnank-e valamit elerni? 
Vagy egyelore csak arra vagyunk jok, hogy kobor kutyakra lovoldozo
rendoroket birosag ele tudunk citaltatni es annak a szegeny gyereknek me'g
nehany millio kepeslapot kuldetni???? 

csussz