ECO NEWSLETTER CLIMATE TALKS GENEVA - AUGUST 1993 NGO NEWSLETTER INC 8 August 19, 1993 ISSUE #4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .1 Norway in Excremental Outburst .2 Rough Ride for Joint Implementation .3 Canada - Forests of Hypocrisy .4 Leman .5 Mitigation Strategy or Hidden Agenda? .6 Joint Implementation - A View .7 Working Group II .8 Working Group I .9 Contacts .10 Credits ECO has been published by Non-Governmental Environmental Groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environment Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by Climate Action Network groups attending the Climate Talks in Geneva, August, 1993. ****************************************************************** Norway in Excremental Outburst by Eco Correspondent British diplomats in the delegate's lounge yesterday were heard muttering darkly about an outrageous development on the world stage. The source of their ire soon became clear. Thorbjorn "The Lip" Berntsen, the Norwegian Environment Minister, had the previous day called British Environment Secretary John Gummer a name the like of which, at the INC, only passes the lips of coal-industry lobbyists. In Norwegian, the word is "drittsekk"; in English, well, "shitbag" would be close. John Gummer is used to being called rude names. He has been referred to by fellow UK parliamentarians variously as a "little squit," and an "inconsequential little creep." Delegates will no doubt be mightily relieved that their colleagues at the INC exercise more decorum than do some of their bosses back home. The source of the scandal? Berntsen was angry that the British do not seem to care about their acid rain emissions, and the effect these are having on Norwegian lakes and forests. Given the reluctance Norway's INC delegation routinely shows over facing up to the challenge of domestic greenhouse-gas emissions, we cannot help wondering how much this justifiable indignation over Britain's irresponsible acid emissions springs from concern over damage to the forests themselves, and how much over the forests' potential role as sinks for offsetting greenhouse-gas obligations. Mr Gummer, for his part, blamed the outburst on sour grapes over Britain's opposition to Norwegian whaling. Whatever the truth, it seems likely that Norway and Britain will not be entertaining joint implementation schemes between the two countries. ****************************************************************** Rough Ride for Joint Implementation Working Group I's initial discussion of Joint Implementation lived up to its advance billing today. Speaker after speaker criticized or opposed the controversial idea of Joint Implementation, signaling a contentious session to come. The G77, represented by Columbia, presented a strong opposition position to the notion of Joint Implementation outside of the Annex I (OECD and economies in transition) countries. A number of G77 countries including Algeria, Nauru, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Antigua & Barbuda, Malaysia, Senegal, and Kenya, made statements during the course of the session. The G77 made it plain that Joint Implementation should in no way be considered "machinery" that will substitute for actions incumbent on Annex I parties to stabilize or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Nauru expressed concern that the objective of the Convention-stabilization of greenhouse gases at levels not dangerous to the climate-would be circumvented by Joint Implementation between Annex I and Non-Annex I countries. Joint Implementation for credit was considered by Wednesday afternoon's speakers to be limited to deals between Annex I parties only, and additional to quantified obligations. Whilst the G77 did not express absolute opposition to the concept of Joint Implementation, it drew a strong distinction between its application for "co-operation" versus "credit". It opposed Joint Implementation for credit in the context of the existing commitments for industrialized countries contained in Articles 4.2 (a) and (b). The G77 statement implied that at a future time, after the year 2000, and with appropriate further commitments from industrialized countries, Joint Implementation for credit may be possible. Kenya referred to Joint Implementation's colonial potential by pointing out that it was "tantamount to creating another way of dumping" developed country's pollution on developing nations, and could provide justification for current and increased levels of emissions. Instead, Kenya insisted, "we should define it so that it leads us to move more quickly" The politics of this issue were not lost on Eco. Developing countries have insisted, and continue to insist, on developed country actions as a precursor to their own. But is this just posturing that will change to a negotiation of conditions? ****************************************************************** Canada - Forests of Hypocrisy by Liz Barratt-Brown, NRDC The message this week from both Prof. B. Bolin and Dr. J. Leggett was clear - beware the feedback between forests and global warming. Forest preservation or conversion will have an important impact on climate - and climate will, in turn, significantly affect forests. Not only will decisions that governments make today determine whether forests will serve as effective carbon sinks, but they may trigger a devastating cycle between deforestation and increased warming. In spite of the warnings, discussions of forest preservation both at the national and international level seem oddly - and regrettably - absent. A case in point is Canada's disastrous decision earlier this year to open up two-thirds of Clayoquot (pronounced 'Klakwit') Sound to clearcut logging. Clayoquot Sound, located on spectacular Vancouver Island in British Columbia, is one of the world's last large areas of coastal temperate rain forest. Earlier in the year, and amid much fanfare, Canada announced that it had ratified both the climate and biodiversity treaties. Nothing was done, however, to engage the Provinces in negotiations regarding the resulting obligations under these treaties-or to begin conducting the required environmental impact assessments. It is no secret to the international community that British Columbia is rapidly clearcutting vast tracts of ancient forest. It is hard to believe that the Canadian Federal Government was not aware of the highly - charged debate over the future of Clayoquot. Nevertheless, it remained silent on the subject - until last week. After an emergency meeting in Vancouver with her 'hometown' timber industry, Prime Minister Kim Campbell rejected the principle of internationally - imposed sanctions under the North American Free Trade Agreement - which could seriously reduce the current massive level of clearcutting. Why is Clayoquot Sound so evocative a symbol? The threatened loss of its 800,000 acres of towering fir, cedar and hemlock forest has evoked a passionate response that can best be summarized as 'enough is enough'. With nearly ten percent of the world's forests, Canada has a special responsibility to mitigate climate change and protect biodiversity. Sadly, the Clayoquot Sound decision not only puts at risk an irreplaceable rain forest; it also threatens the fragile agreements reached at the Earth Summit. The developing countries that rejected a global forest convention last year were right: developed as well as developing countries must be held accountable for actions in their own backyards. Indeed, it is imperative that they provide leadership in this area. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking away. The Canadian Federal Government must act at once to persuade the BC administration to reverse its decision - and save Clayoquot Sound. ****************************************************************** Leman Leman has come to the conclusion that the hallucinations he has been experiencing can no longer be put down to the cocktails at Monday night's reception. He is still seeing visions, two days later, and they are getting even weirder. Yesterday he imagined he saw yet another ghost from the previous US administration's climate team, this time Bob Reinstein, former head of delegation. Worse, the apparition was wearing a badge indicating that he represented a Dutch NGO. Perhaps there is someone putting LSD in the UN water supply. Leman thinks we should be told. ****************************************************************** Mitigation Strategy or Hidden Agenda? by Grace Akumu, Climate Network Africa Scientists are saying that in order to stay within ecological limits, reductions of 60-80% over 1990 emission levels are required. The IPCC has confirmed the same. But while these predictions are at our disposal (in the relevant government ministries and departments) some policy makers in the North are already "preaching water and drinking wine". I mean exactly what the government of Norway in collusion with the World Bank has just done - pre-empting the work of the Conference of the Parties and entering into joint implementation arrangements with the governments of Mexico and Poland. The Convention states in article 4 para. 2 (d) that the COP, at its first session, shall take decisions regarding the criteria for joint implementation. Other Northern countries seem to be contemplating doing the same and are targeting poor countries of the South where "it is cheaper to obtain credits for greenhouse gas abatement in terms of cost". With this in mind, we in the South wonder whether ideologically, this view is any different from that of Larry Sommers, the former World Bank executive, who in his internal memorandum said that rather than deal with strict pollution prevention and control, as well as reduce consumption at home, it would be cheaper to pollute the South because of its level of development than to pollute the North. Most recently, Southerners, particularly Africans, were revolted by a draft UNDP-GEF project proposal: "Greenhouse gas assessment and least-cost global warming mitigation in sub-Saharan Africa," as it clearly stated that it would "assess the availability of high quality national carbon offset and carbon sequestration projects" in Africa. In our opinion, the North has a hidden agenda. They would like to continue unchecked their economic development at the expense of the South forever. The South should carry the burden of the profligate lifestyle of the North. However, our memories are still fresh with George Bush's (former president of the U.S.) revelation at Rio de Janeiro last year during the UNCED that "American lifestyle is not negotiable". With this in mind, we do not see how Europeans will want to lower their lifestyles in order to protect the environment - no wonder Norway has already found out that carbon abatement measures are cheaper elsewhere! If Northern countries do not reduce emissions and change their lifestyles, it is unlikely that Southern countries will do so. In an inequitable world, the million dollar question is: will these joint implementation or tradeable carbon offsets function equitably in an inequitable market? Are they not simply going to allow the rich North to continue its excessive, wasteful lifestyle? Moreover, the greenhouse gas studies currently being undertaken in the South seem to be Northern-agenda-driven. It appears as if the main objective of the ghg inventories is for the sponsors to identify carbon offset opportunities in the South as a prelude to joint implementation. In our view, ghg inventories are important, not as preliminaries to joint implementation (a Northern agenda item) but because they will provide important baseline information for national development plans (a Southern agenda item). The objective for supporting the process towards sustainable development is also laid down in the Convention (article 2 and article 3.4). The South should be supported in building strong national teams for assessing emissions, mitigation and adaptation strategies, so as to be able to propose and evaluate joint implementation projects in terms of their own national development priorities. However, if identifying projects for joint implementation takes priority over capacity building, Southern countries are likely to be the victims, once again, of Northern development strategies. Cheap emissions reduction opportunities available in the South could be usurped by the North leaving only more expensive options once Southern countries are subjected to emissions quotas. Moreover, why should developing countries allow others to carry out "low-cost" abatement activities today, if they will be expected to carry out "high-cost" abatement projects themselves later? Polluting countries should first set an example to the world by making considerable reductions at home before any arrangement like joint implementation is introduced. Furthermore, even the theory of crediting sink enhancement is inconsistent with the principle that "developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof" (article 3.1). The principle requires that the source of the greatest emissions, the burning of fossil fuels, be addressed head-on. ****************************************************************** Joint Implementation - A View * This is the first of a series of articles reflecting a variety of views on joint implementation Today the INC sprang to life, to the shock of most of the delegations. They were, to be frank, caught with their britches down on the issue of subsidiary bodies. Many delegations limited their interventions to support for the Swiss suggestion for new acronyms for the subsidiary bodies. The delegate from Uruguay noted he was worried "not about what these bodies are called, but what they do." We agree. In this regard the proposals of the Swiss and US delegations contain constructive thinking on how to continue the implementation of the convention. The development of institutions must be conscious of all the duties of the convention bodies. The work of the secretariat and the interested parties should also be extended to include the institutional arrangements of the financial mechanism and the relationship of the treaty bodies to other entities, not just the role of the IPCC and the location of national reports. We strongly support the continued development of the subsidiary bodies of the convention, and to this end we are pleased that the secretariat will perform more constructive work on this area. But as we have noted so many times before in these pages, the INC should go further. Parties interested in creative ideas for the future of the convention should consult its past - the Consolidated Negotiating Text from INC5 (A/AC.237/Misc.20). which was dropped due to a pressing need to get the convention drafted in time for UNCED. Consulting this document will help clarify the inconsistencies in the subsidiary bodies text in the convention (Articles 9 and 10). It is not enough to just put the issue on the agenda for the next session. The secretariat has already prepared an initial paper on subsidiary bodies (A/AC.237/33), and we think that at this session the INC should proceed in developing the thoughts of the US and Swiss proposals. As the delegate from Uruguay concluded: "If a decision on these issues is not taken as soon as possible there may be a vacuum in implementation of the convention." ****************************************************************** Working Group II The Working Group concluded its discussion of the Policies, Program Priorities and Eligibility Criteria for the Financial Mechanisms document. After three days the group concluded that there is not enough agreement to forward a decision document to the COP. They did decide, however, to allow the working group officers the opportunity to redraft it, incorporating the comments, criticisms and changes suggested by the delegates. Co-chairman Akao told the delegates in his concluding statement that they could then either look at the document again next week or throw it away. This left it unclear as to whether the working group would actually attempt approval of the redraft, or leave this dog sleeping until INC 9. Three days of debate has done nothing to bring delegates any closer to agreement. Most of the discussions rehashed the same issues raised in the 18 months of debate over the convention itself. A number of delegates mentioned this - one saying he felt a great sense of deja vu. Meanwhile, the true substance of this working group's task remains as yet untouched. One of these issues is the adequacy of funding for climate change projects. This is a hot issue the OECD countries are as yet unwilling to tackle. According to OECD delegates, total replenishment of the GEF would only be in the range of $1.5 and $5 billion. It is understandable now, given that knowledge, why the OECD delegates were so strongly arguing for strict criteria of project selection. Given that small pot of resources, it will not only be impossible to help all of the developing countries cope with the already-felt effects of climate change, but it will also be very difficult to begin mitigation of greenhouse gases. Unless, of course, there is a true commitment to finding new renewable and non-polluting sources of fuel to replace fossil fuels. The resources exist in the World Bank to fund energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies that could save the developing countries' economies and peoples from the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases. If there will be more than one operating entity, the resources should come from the multilateral funding institutions within the World Bank. The other issue which is of major relevance to funding climate change projects is the relationship between the COP and the operating entity or entities. No matter how specific the set of criteria for project selection and eligibility, if the operating entity or entities are not accountable to the COP, these three days of debate will have been merely an academic exercise in climate change reduction. The group began this latter debate at the end of Wednesday's session. It is clear from the preliminary posturing that the debate on Thursday will come down to the developed countries wanting to give the operational entity or entities broad-stroked authority and developing countries wanting to set up a hierarchical relationship between the COP and the operating entity or entities. It was the delegates from the G77 who raised the issue of the GEF restructuring in this context. They felt that the most important message to send the GEF restructuring process is the clear establishment of COP's hierarchy over the operating entity or entities. It will be important for this working group to set out a clear and well-defined relationship and deliver that message to the next GEF restructuring meeting in Washington, D.C. in September. ****************************************************************** Working Group I The morning started slow with a continuing discussion of methodologies by OECD representatives, who noted that different methodologies could be comparable at a high level of aggregation, and presented the current calculations of the net effect of forests, concluding that there is still a high level of quantitative uncertainty. Debate then turned to the question of the subsidiary bodies to the convention. Switzerland surprised everyone by tabling a concrete proposal on the role of the subsidiary bodies. The proposal called for the SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Science and Technical Assessment) take care of preparing assessments and translating them into policy issues. The SBI (Subsidiary Body for Implementation) would provide information on the aggregate review of information. The SBI would also handle compliance verification under this proposal. The SBI would also be responsible for reviewing methodologies. The afternoon session began with a substantive proposal from the United States expanding upon the morning's Swiss proposal. The US asked for the definition of links between the IPCC and the COP and expressed concern at potential conflict between the technical and policy roles of the SBI. They proposed that these roles be separated, and that technical information should be placed in the SBSTA. The US mooted a structure whereby the Technical body (the SBSTA) would receive science assessments and send them to the SBI. The SBSTA could even have a policy role. The SBI would develop recommendations on these matters as well as communications to the COP. This hierarchical structure is designed along the lines of the Montreal Protocol, where the SBI is conceived as an "executive committee" to help frame protocols and amendments. Both the US and the Swiss called for continued development of these points and for the Secretariat to develop ideas upon this subject. Australia held back in its intervention, and called for a more careful consideration of the issue at the next session. At the end of the day the Secretariat placed the discussion of subsidiary bodies on the the program of work for the next INC meeting. The debate then turned to joint implementation. There was broad agreement among the speakers (all of them from developing countries) that Joint Implementation was meant to apply only to transactions between Annex I countries; many of them cited the treaty language in support of this contention. The Secretariat responded by noting that the "common but differentiated responsibility" principle allowed an interpretation which included developing countries in Joint Implementation, but agreed that several interpretations were possible. The Kenyan delegate responded that no interpretation was acceptable "that gives permission to undertake afforestation in the Third World so as to allow them to continue emitting greenhouse gases - this is just another form of dumping." The debate will continue at today's working group session, with the US, the EC, and other parties expected to join in the fray. ****************************************************************** FOR MORE INFORMATION: For enquiries and response to ECO: Eco can be contacted at: Hotel de Longchamp, 7 rue Butini, 1201 Geneva . Tel: +41 22 731 9228. Fax: +41 22 738 0007 PLEASE NOTE CHANGED REVERSE POLL FAX NUMBERS BELOW! Dial-a-Fax Service: "Reverse poll" dial to +44 374 506 517 (outside UK) or 0336 413706 (inside UK) to receive the latest copy of ECO. See your fax manual for 'Reverse poll dialing' or call +44 374 506506 for a recorded guidance message. The 336 number is a 'premium' line in the UK only, charged at UKL 0.36/minute cheap rate and UKL 0.48/minute at all other times -- a proportion of this charge supports the ECO project. International calls are not charged any premium, and are therefore sponsored by the equipment suppliers. Every issue of ECO will be posted in full to the en.climate and climate.news conferences on the APC networks, and the Usenet news group sci.environment. It will also be available via anonymous ftp from IGC.APC.ORG (192.82.108.1), subdirectory /pub/ECO. Binary PageMaker files are also available via Applelink, on the APC conference climate.news, and via ftp from IGC.ORG For information about electronic mail, conference, and ftp distribution of ECO, contact E-mail coordinator, Lelani Arris APC Networks/Internet/Fidonet - larris@igc.apc.org Bitnet - larris%igc.org@stanford For information about Pagemaker files via Applelink, contact ECO staff: applelink:UK.REGION1. For information about Pagemaker files via APC, contact Media Natura ECO staff, email: cta@gn.apc.org ****************************************************************** CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Editorial & Production Managers: Alister Sieghart and Richard Elen Production Assistant: Andrew Gettelman Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet North American Distribution: Wes Dowling & EESI Assistance from: Beth Zilbert, Deborah Good, Karan Capoor, Toni Vidan, Steve Kretzmann, Scott Hajost, Atiq Rahman, Kalle Hesstvedt, Bill Barclay, Grace Akumu, Alden Meyer, Liz Barratt-Brown, Lise Backer. Published by: Media Natura, Tel: +44 71 240 4963, for the Climate Action Network. The Climate Action Network would like to thank the following, who have provided funds and facilities for Eco: Environmental & Energy Study Institute * Environmental Defense Fund * National Wildlife Federation * World Resources Institute * World Wide Fund for Nature * Natural Resources Defense Council * Climate Network Europe * Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain * Union of Concerned Scientists * Greenpeace International * Rockefeller Brothers Fund Special thanks to: Hotel Longchamps * UN Nongovernmental Liaison Service with resources donated by: Aldus UK, Apple Computer, Creative Technology Associates, Computers Unlimited, Dial-a-Fax, EcoNet, Industrade AG, Microsoft, Shades & Characters Ltd. ****************************************************************** PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS NEWSLETTER!! We are interested in tracking ECO electronic distribution. If you find this newsletter of value, please return the following report. Thank you for your help!! ****************************************************************** ECO NEWSLETTER - GENEVA AUGUST 1993 (INC 8) How did you get the newsletter? _________e-mail _________________________________address _________conference or list _____________________name _________ftp or other file server _______________location Have you used the information in reports or newsletters? (please specify) Did you distribute it to others? (please list) Return to: ****************************************************************** Lelani Arris * Project Director EcoNet: larris * GAIN Sustainable Transport Internet/Fidonet: larris@igc.apc.org * & Energy Project (STEP) BITNET: larris%igc.org@stanford * Box 42 Telephone: 604-968-4380 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0 Fax: 604-968-4390 * Canada ******************************************************************