COP 6 AND BEYOND

December 12, 2000

Wayne MooreEnvironment Canada

Overview

• Context

• What Happened at CoP 6

• Where we Stand

• Sinks

3

CoP 3: Kyoto, Dec. 1997

• CoP 3 at Kyoto was about identifying targets, baselines and timetables.

• Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to a 6% reduction target on the understanding that it would have

– unfettered access to the Kyoto Mechanisms (market-based flexibility instruments)

– comprehensive inclusion of carbon sinks (i.e., forest management and agricultural soils) in the first commitment period (2008-2012)

4

CoP 6: The Hague, 13-24 Nov.

• CoP 6 was (is) about defining the rules for meeting Kyoto targets and Convention commitments. We need an implementation plan.

• These rules will largely determine whether or not countries ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

• CoP 4 outlined a range of decisions for CoP 6 reflecting priority issues of different blocs.

• The final package of decisions will be adopted by consensus (not unanimity).

• Alternative outcome is lots of discussion, nothing adopted and decisions rolled over to 2001 (May?).

5

Three Negotiating Blocs• Umbrella Group (UG):

– US is dominant player– includes Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand,

Norway, Iceland, Russia and Ukraine

• European Union (EU):– dominated by Germany, UK and France (current

President).

• G-77 and China:– dominated by hard-liners Nigeria (current Chair)

and Saudi Arabia, but ultimately India, China and Brazil will drive the deal.

– Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has long been influential.

– Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are increasingly so.

Two negotiations in one

1. Developed vs Developing countries– It’s about money and control over money– Developing countries have no obligation to reduce

emissions under the Protocol, but were promised financial assistance under the Convention

– The consensus rule gives them leverage and they are making the most of it, by insisting on a role in deciding how developed countries meet their targets

– Developed countries are prepared to give them some money, but some want the major emitters among them to eventually reduce emissions

Two negotiations in one

2. European Union vs Umbrella Group– Ostensibly it’s about environmental integrity– In practice it’s about competitiveness– Cost to EU of meeting its targets will be very high, so it

wants to ensure that UG cost will be equally high– EU says it wants to limit use of sinks and the Kyoto

Mechanisms and impose punitive consequences to preserve the environmental integrity of the Protocol

– UG says it wants the flexibility it negotiated in Kyoto to meet its targets at the lowest possible cost, consistent with environmental integrity

8

Canada’s International Negotiating Objectives

• To maximize Canada’s ability to meet its commitments at the lowest possible cost through aggressive pursuit of the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms, securing favorable terms for sinks and other measures;

• To contribute to the achievement of global climate change objectives and ensure a level playing field with Canada’s competitors, by maximizing participation of key developed and developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol; and

• To maximize opportunities for Canadian business in international projects and initiatives on climate change.

What Happened at Cop 6?

Negotiating process was totally inadequate to reach a deal

• Technical progress only in the first week -- no political issues even engaged

• Ministers couldn’t deal with the text produced by negotiators (435 pages, over 1500 square brackets)

• CoP 6 President let plenaries go on too long -- price of peace with G-77 over process

• Paper he introduced was seen as unbalanced by all negotiating blocs - definite EU/G-77 bias from our perspective

• Real negotiations only started late final night

Internal Dynamics

• Few seemed ready to actually negotiate• Most countries seemed to reach the end of

their mandate very quickly• G-77 didn’t seem to move at all• EU could not keep consensus together as

negotiations unfolded• Atmosphere was nevertheless far more

constructive than in Kyoto

Media Coverage

• Blame for breakdown of talks directed at EU (ineffectiveness/disarray) and US (inflexibility/greed)

• Canadian positions on sinks, mechanisms and nuclear heavily criticized

• We are seen both domestically and internationally as seeking loopholes

Where we stand

• Negotiations suspended• Next session likely 20 May-1 June in Bonn• Prescott (UK) publicly blaming Voynet (France) for letting

EU-UG deal fall apart• Voynet called Loy (US) to propose the «inner group»

reconvene within 2-3 weeks• Technical talks between EU and Umbrella Group last

week in Ottawa– limited progress but discussions ongoing.– still a wide range of views, particularly within the EU.– no future talks set.

Sinks

Nov. 21, 11:00 15

• The objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”

• “Each Party shall…limit its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protect and enhance its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs”

• Sinks remove ghg from the atmosphere and reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations

Why Sinks?

Nov. 21, 11:00 16

Canada’s Position on Sinks

• Our position is that Parties should:– Take debits for carbon lost through deforestation– Obtain credits for carbon sequestered through

afforestation– Take responsibility for all changes in carbon

stocks (both positive and negative) on managed forest lands and agricultural lands

Nov. 21, 11:00 17

• Agriculture land management:• Includes cropland management, grazing land

management and shelterbelts

• Forest management:• Includes only the forest we actively manage

What Canada Proposes

Nov. 21, 11:00 18

Why include forest management and agriculture?

• Forests and agricultural lands are an important part of the carbon cycle

• Increases incentives to protect and enhance existing sinks and reservoirs using sustainable land management practices (commitment to Convention and Kyoto)

• Provides substantial “co-benefits”– practices that enhance carbon tend to improve soil, water and air

quality, reduce soil erosion and maintain biodiversity

• Provides balanced and comprehensive inclusion – Sources from agricultural lands are already included– Under Article 3.3, afforestation, reforestation and deforestation

(ARD) would total only 1 million ha

Nov. 21, 11:00 19

Addressing concerns

• Reversibility (permanence)

• Uncertainties

• Measurement and verification (inventories)

• Natural effects (vs. human induced)

• Scale (size of potential sink/source)

Nov. 21, 11:00 20

Reversibility

– The Concern: • that sinks are not permanent

– Our View: • this can be resolved through appropriate accounting

– Our solution:• account for managed forest and agricultural lands on a

continuous basis (contiguous commitment periods)• once an area is in the accounting system, all changes in

carbon stock, both positive and negative, are included

Nov. 21, 11:00 21

Uncertainties and Measurement

– The Concern:• that sinks cannot be measured with sufficient certainty

– Our View:• uncertainties for sinks may be less than those of some

sources

• Can be addressed with measurement methodologies and accounting (IPCC)

– Our Solution:• Methodologies exist (both forests and ag soils)

• We have 8 years to implement and improve existing systems

Nov. 21, 11:00 22

Natural effects• The Concern

• countries may obtain credit for indirect human activity• Our View:

• Positive natural and indirect effects are scientifically uncertain and likely small (limited research)

• They are difficult to measure and separate out• Negative natural effects may also be large in Canada

(e.g., forest fires, pests, drought, flood)• Our Solution:

• We propose to account for all effects, both natural and human, both positive and negative, on our managed forest and agricultural land. (better inventories)

• Need to address cyclical effects that extend beyond a commitment period (research, monitoring)

Nov. 21, 11:00 23

Scale

– The Concern:• that the potential scale of 3.4 activities (especially

forest management) in first commitment period will reduce effectiveness of Protocol

– Our View:• For Canada, our proposal means that forests will only

contribute 10% of the effort we need to make to meet Kyoto emission reduction targets.

• Agricultural soils would contribute only 5% of the effort we need to make to meet our growing targets.

• Substantial domestic emission reductions still required and underway. Canada has announced a $1.1B Plan.

We still have some work to do

• ..but Parties have a better understanding of positions and priorities, flexibilities?

• Wide gaps within the EU, convergence?

• We need to be able to negotiate in good faith with EU representative(s)

• Need to engage G77/China

• We continue to be optimistic

• Some marketing/communication needed