The Kyoto Protocol: a first step
By JAN PRONK
© Earth Times News Service
..continued...
Sinks
Meeting the target means that industrialized countries start,
that other countries follow later, and that the first group helps
the latter to do so soon. It also means that together we globally
reduce greenhouse gas emissions soon, rather than continue to
increase them.
Otherwise we would not be credible: the environmental integrity
of our policies is at stake.
Environmental integrity plays a major part in relation to
sequestration activities or sinks in both the North and the
South. Afforestation, reforestation and deforestation are already
provided for in the Protocol, which also opens the door to
additional activities, to meet both present and future
commitments. Some argue that we should be liberal in allowing
such activities, others are worried.
Caution is called for for several reasons. First, unlike emission
reductions and activities in other sectors, sequestration through
sinks is not permanent. Though carbon can be absorbed by trees
and other sinks, there is always a chance that it will be
released at some future date: sinks are inherently reversible.
Second, the long-term objectives of the Climate Convention can
only be achieved through the reduction of emissions. Sink
projects are a cost-effective way of deferring measures to reduce
emissions. But they are not an equally sustainable alternative as
far as mitigating climate change is concerned. Third, in many
cases it would be difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate
between human induced and natural factors that influence sinks.
However, this is something the Protocol does require. As a
result, " windfall credits" could enter the accounting system.
Finally, sinks are still surrounded by significant scientific and
methodological uncertainties, due partly to a lack of robust data
and insufficient practical experience.
We must accept that sinks could help a number of countries to
fulfil their commitments more easily. However, in the light of
current commitments, we should be cautious in deciding on the
rate at which to allow new sink related activities. The allowance
of additional sinks categories could have large implications on
the commitments of the industrialized countries.
The sinks potential appears to be very large. Therefore, it seems
that some industrialized countries might reach their commitments
only by using sinks. This could lead to the diversion of
attention from concrete policies and measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to crucial technological developments,
and capital investments in this field will be delayed.
In more concrete terms, we could take the following course of
action on sinks: our ultimate aim should be to achieve a
comprehensive system of carbon accounting, to be introduced in
the second commitment period. All possible activities would
ultimately be taken into account and measured. Given the
methodological and scientific uncertainties and given the issue
of non-permanence, we should perhaps allow only a few extra sinks
in the first period.
This would enable us to set standards relating to measurement and
uncertainty for the categories to be allowed as well as to meet
certain requirements of the accounting system.
An alternative would be to introduce a discounting factor to shed
light on the uncertain and impermanent nature of removals. And,
we must proceed with our research, in the recognition that we
still have many commitment periods to go. This is flexibility
combined with caution, or, if you allow me, environmental
integrity combined with political wisdom.
Action at home
The same applies to the question of to which extent countries
will have to take action at home and to which extent they can
meet their target by using instruments that result in emission
reductions abroad. Let me be very clear: the Protocol specifies
that commitments must mainly be met by domestic action. Measures
abroad should be supplementary. The EU has proposed a quantified
cap on what can be bought and sold: Kyoto targets should be met
through real and measurable efforts at home, rather than through
the purchase of credits abroad. The reasoning is that only a
quantified cap will guarantee that domestic action will in fact
take place and lead to a downward trend in emissions in
industrialized countries. Other industrialized countries argue
that any ceiling would have a negative impact on the cost of
implementation and thus would result in lower overall reduction
of emissions than would be possible without a cap.
The two positions have been argued at length, and, it seems a
combination of caution and flexibility is necessary. Afterall,
both positions contain an element of truth. A way out could be to
demand that action at home comes first, before acting abroad.
After all, the Kyoto Protocol considers action abroad only as
supplementary to domestic action. This could be translated by
introducing a floor rather than a ceiling. Such a floor for
domestic action is a clear sign to developing countries that
industrialized countries are making an effort at home.
A ceiling may create a negative impression: a country is not
allowed to do more than a certain amount. This would put a hold
on international action. A floor, however, is a positive concept.
It is a challenge, not a brake. It is a stepping stone: you may
continue with international action provided that you have reached
an agreed level of domestic reductions.
We must take decisions that are politically credible both vis a
vis our neighboring countries, and vis a vis our own citizens.
Structural improvement of the global environment starts at home.
Political credibility
There is such a thing as political credibility. We should
continue to negotiate, but we must understand that negotiations
are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end. Ten years
after Rio, the Kyoto Protocol still has to be ratified. If it
isn't, industrial countries will lose credibility in the eyes of
poor countries. If it isn't, we will miss an opportunity to
establish conditions for a sustainable future for our children
and grandchildren. If it isn't, government officials will lose
credibility in the eyes of their electorates and fail to do
justice to themselves. And, the private sector will also loose.
Negotiating makes sense if results are to be achieved rather than
a stalemate reached or talks postponed. It is time that
government officials create an atmosphere of certainty to enable
markets to flourish, and time that transparent, fair and lasting
rules are established so that investment is not jeopardized by
arbitrary or discriminatory political governance.
Every country must negotiate with a willingness to give and take,
to understand each other's interests and to be flexible. We need
policy measures that are flexible and transparent, but we must
stick to the target. All countries should be fair and transparent
about the policies and measures they intend to apply to reduce
CO2 emissions at home and abroad. All countries should help each
other to do so credibly and effectively. And, it is indeed in all
our interests. This requires confidence-building and a
willingness on the part of all countries, to keep working
together, to cooperate rather than compete.
Jan Pronk is Dutch Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment. The preceding article comes from a speech made at a
conference entitled The Kyoto Protocol: the end or the beginning,
Chatham House, 20 June 2000.
SOURCE: Earth Times
****************************************************************
To post a submission by email at climate-newswire@sidsnet.org
To unsubscribe, email to majordomo@sidsnet.org with the message:
unsubscribe climate-newswire
To receive updates via email, send an email to majordomo@sidsnet.org with the message:
subscribe climate-newswire
No SUBJECTS required either case.
Brought to you on the SMALL Island Developing States Network: http://www.sidsnet.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 15:10:43 EDT