Eco newsletter 4
ECO NEWSLETTER
CLIMATE TALKS GENEVA - AUGUST 1994
NGO NEWSLETTER
INC 10
August 29, 1994
ISSUE #4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Pilot Phase for Annex I Countries Only
- Japan Re-invents Inadequate Policies
- Plenary
- Working Group I
- Working Group II
- Leman
- The Ecological Precipice
- Deja Vu
- Latin America NGOs Meet
- Leaders First
- New Zealand Law Clash
- On-Line Information Services
- Contacts
- 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 groups attending the Climate Talks in Geneva, August, 1994.
Pilot Phase For Annex I Countries Only
by Lise Backer, Climate Network Europe
Are Divide and rule methods being used to break G77 consensus?
Last week, in the first discussion on joint implementation, there seemed to be an understanding between developing countries that joint implementation should be only between Annex I countries. Furthermore, the general position amongst developing countries was that a pilot phase should be applicable only to Annex I countries.
The OECD countries have problems at home implementing the Rio stabilisation target, and their delegates are powerless to make any progress on their own commitments. The time-tested strategy of "divide and rule" reappears: Eco has learned that OECD countries will propose some sort of an "opt-out" system for the pilot phase. Under this system, developing countries who state that they will not participate in the pilot phase can opt to stay out. Such a proposal will effectively divide G77 on joint implementation and OECD will be able to control future negotiations on joint implementation.
Japan Re-Invents Inadequate Policies
A major Japanese NGO has recently produced a damning report on Japan's official report to the Convention.
According to the People's Research Institute on Energy and Environment (PRIEE), Japan's report is simply a "rehash of older official reports". They go on to note that "all the substantive measures explained have already been implemented and have failed to reduce the increase of greenhouse gases."
The following is a summary of the PRIEE report.
"The government's analysis of Japan's predicted CO2 emissions is somewhat confusing. CO2 emissions in 1990 were 320 million tons, and that in 2000 they will be 330 million tons, but per capita emissions were 2.59 tons in 1990 and will be 2.6 tons in 2000. The estimates used for anticipated population increase are such that although total CO2 emissions will increase, per capita emissions will remain unchanged. But it is almost certain that the ordinarily used intermediate estimate of population growth produced by the Ministry of Health and Welfare's Institute of Population Problems is too large. If this is true, then the report's projection for per capita CO2 emissions are too low.
"The report fails to explain what assumptions were made when calculating future CO2 emissions as a whole. The rate of economic growth, oil price fluctuations, and how these are linked to energy demand are not covered. Nor is there any explanation of the energy demand and supply mix underlying their predictions. Instead, they seek support from old legislation - the Law Concerning the Rational Use of Energy, simply saying that it is effective.
"The virtues of nuclear power as a means of reducing CO2 emissions from energy are given much prominence, while ignoring the dangers of radioactive contamination. According to the Government, nuclear power "improves the welfare of people living near plants" and is promoted "through understanding and cooperation."
"Little mention is made of other (non CO2) powerful greenhouse gases - HFC's and PFC's are not even mentioned.
"On general energy demand, the report provides no analysis of the significance of the bubble economy boom days in the late 1980s. Future energy demand (and thus of CO2 emissions) will be determined by whether this massive expansion of the economy is seen as a transient phenomenon, or part of a structural change in Japan's economy.
"There is a similar lack of analysis on the expansion of the transport sector with no details on projected car ownership or potential fuel consumption savings.
Released to the public on August 1, with a deadline for submitting opinions by August 12, Japanese NGOs and individuals had only 10 days to respond. The PRIEE report questions exactly how Japanese citizens are to have their opinions incorporated to the process of responding to climate change, noting that responses such as those from PRIEE will be "subject to the arbitrary judgments of government offices ... The procedures that follow the submission of opinions must be changed so they are transparent and democratic."
Plenary - Friday
The plenary began with Institutional Matters, the main topic being the permanent INC secretariat, mainly its location - a final decision will be taken at COP1. Uruguay, Germany, Switzerland and Kenya offered to be hosts. Switzerland's arguments were: ease of communications, existing infrastructure, synergy effects with other secretariats, and the offer from WMO for co-location. They also mentioned the concentration of UN Missions and the many conferences happening in Geneva. Germany's offer may have been motivated by its hosting of COP1, having no UN agency in its country yet, and wanting prestige during a German election year (there were comments that there would soon be a lot of empty offices in Bonn). Uruguay's particular reasons were unclear, except for being able to provide all necessary facilities. Following a speech by UNEP, Kenya proposed to co-locate the secretariat with UNEP in Nairobi, offering its "neve changing climate, 300 acres of land and excellent coffee". More seriously, the delegate denounced industrialized countries for trying to grab all international institutions, when all facilities are also available in Nairobi. The secretariat itself seemed to prefer the Swiss option, but said it was prepared to move wherever ordered. In the afternoon, (after NGO interventions, the text of which has already been distributed) discussions continued to no obvious conclusion. A further point was the composition of the secretariat's staff: the balance between developing and developed countries, and gender balance. The secretariat admitted improvements were possible.
Discussion then moved to Review of the activities of the INC Secretariat, including the review of Extra-budgetary funds, which barely raised the temperature. Delegates generally congratulated the secretariat on its work although the extra- budgetary fund requests were considered too high and few new pledges of funds were made. Several speakers supported funding based on UN assessment scales, but no final decision was made.
Working Group 1
Friday am: Criteria for Joint Implementation
The Secretariat presented its JI paper outlining the nature of a pilot phase. Discussion focused on whether projects in the pilot phase should: a) be credited or not; b) limited to Annex I countries or open to all Parties; c) adopt a top-down or bottom-up approach. Top-down means the COP play a central role to ensure consistency and credibility. Bottom-up means that projects are monitored and evaluated by participating organisations and/or governments only.
Interventions fell into three main groups: Industrial countries broadly in favour of JI; developing countries who see JI as a way for industrialised countries to back out of their obligations; ambivalent industrialised and developing countries who are not exactly sure what JI means for them.
Countries broadly in favour of JI who intervened (the EU, Czech Republic, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Finland) said that pilot phase projects should be undertaken primarily to gain experience and that JI should be open to all Parties. The Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand and Mauritius favour the bottom-up approach. Poland and Finland said that crediting during the pilot phase was fundamental to attract projects.
A German paper on behalf of the EU, with Swedish support, proposed that current projects could qualify and be credited for the pilot phase after final criteria for JI had been established by the COP. Both the EU and Finland felt that the proposed criterion to ensure that carbon offsets should be measured against a reasonable baseline was impracticable and should be relaxed.
The Czech Republic felt the Secretariat's proposals too restrictive. Norway proposed that the pilot phase should cover all GHGs as well as sink enhancement (forestry).
Countries not supporting JI (Brazil, China, Senegal, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria) argued that JI would allow continued unsustainable energy use in the industrialised world and should be between Annex I countries only. Brazil noted that, at INC9 G77, China and others opposed JI between industrialised and developing countries, but this was not reflected in the Secretariat's paper.
Ambivalent Countries (Argentina, Colombia, Nigeria, Russian Federation, China, Chad, Republic of Korea, Austria, Thailand, Tanzania, Mauritius, Chile, Malaysia, India, Morocco) pointed out that JI has yet to be been properly defined. The pilot phase should involve Annex I Parties only, or countries with similar commitments. Most favoured the top-down approach.
Kenya argued that industrialised countries make reasonable cuts at home while developing countries develop the institutional capacity to handle JI before projects begin.
China believed that, while most emissions cuts in industrialised countries should be made domestically, they should also provide funds if developing countries are to implement the convention and that JI should not be confused with technology transfer.
Austria proposed that the benefits of JI projects to the participants should be greater than if each participant had acted alone. They also spoke against the use of global warming potentials in crediting. Malaysia argued that JI must remain separate from development aid and the financial mechanism.
India proposed that the pilot phase be restricted in size and scope in order to keep it under control. This would mean few projects, focusing on power plant efficiency, transmission and distribution, and domestic energy conservation.
Working Group II
Progress was at glacial speed at Friday afternoon's session, much to the dismay of Chairman Akao, who re-arranged the agenda to postpone consideration of what he anticipated to be the difficult issue of operational modalities with the GEF. Instead, he opted take up a draft Chairman's text, expecting that it would sail though and create positive momentum for the afternoon. The Group scarcely got beyond consideration of operative paragraph 1. Discussion centered on the treatment in the draft text of incremental costs in relation to eligibility criteria, program priorities, and policies. The UK insisted that the Convention does not mandate the COP to offer guidance to the GEF on incremental costs. New Zealand offered compromise language which will be considered Monday.
Leman
On Friday afternoon, looking for a quiet place to reflect, Leman took a seat in Salle XX, which appeared to be almost unoccupied. However, when he (instinctively) put on his earphone, he realised he had stumbled into WG II. At that moment, Britain had just made a statement which appeared to disagree with France, who sent someone over to talk to them. (Un)fortunately the distinguished delegate from the UK neglected to turn off his microphone, thus enabling those few present to be entertained by a "y a "full and frank exchange of views" between the two countries. Obviously in this case, command over the finer points of language does not extend to the technology for disseminating them.
Over the weekend Leman did not, like many delegates, take time off in a Swiss mountain resort. Oh no, his taxing work schedule took him once more to Zermatt, to pursue his study of glacial retreat. As he headed uphill, who should he meet coming down but the head of the US delegation. Hoping for a dramatic "walk in the woods" breakthrough in the negotiations, he engaged him in conversation, only to find the discussion descend to a suggestion that the US buy space in Eco to state its views. Sadly, all that seemed to be on offer for this was a pocketful of change. Leman realises that climate change is not currently high on the US agenda, but didn't realise what effect this has had on their negotiators' budget. He will therefore be making a collection for the US delegation at the next plenary session: please dig deep - the world's largest emitter needs your help.
The Ecological Precipice
By Jonathan Loh, WWF International
It's tempting to imagine that in a changing climate there is a critical threshold below which there is little or no risk of ecological disruption, crop failure or catastrophic loss of species or habitats. The reality, however, is that different species, communities and ecosystems will react in different ways.
Most plant and animal populations can, to a degree adapt to changes in their local climate. Douglas fir growing in mountainous areas, for example, can tolerate annual average temperature increase of 1 degrees C without suffering. By spreading seeds up or down the mountain side to cooler or warmer altitudes it can smooth out the effects of climate change, so long as it can disperse its seeds far enough each year.
In alpine regions, temperature drops by about 3 degrees C for every 500 metre increase in altitude. IPCC estimates of climate change predict a rise in average global temperature of up to 0.3 degrees C a decade. A plant growing under such conditions would therefore need to gain altitude, through dispersal of its seed, by at least 50 metres a decade in order to survive. Studies of alpine meadow flora, however, suggest that many species would be unable to migrate at this rate. Some researchers propose an ecological limit of 0.1 degrees C a century. Plant communities at the tops of mountains, however, have nowhere to migrate to, their critical threshold is therefore is zero.
Other plant species may adapt by migrating north or south. Scots pine, for example, could migrate north by up to be 40-80 metres a year. At temperate latitudes the average temperature drops by about 0.5 degrees C for every 100km one moves away from the equator. The average temperature drop over a distance of 80 metres is therefore only 0.0004 degrees C. This suggests that the Scots pine has a critical migration threshold of 0.004 degrees C a decade. IPCC climate change scenarios exceed this several fold.
Alternatively, some species may simply adapt to a changing climate through natural selection. Art. 2 of the Climate Convention clearly assumes that ecosystems, or the species within those ecosystems, will adapt by either migration or natural selection. As long as the rate of climate change does not exceed their maximum rate of adaptation, then all will be well.
But there is a vast grey area in our knowledge of how fast species may migrate or adapt. Some climate impacts are already having an immediate effect on ecosystems; others may not be felt for decades. Governments must monitor ecological responses to climate change and define the critical ecological limits. One thing is clear: present commitments to reduce emissions are not enough. Our natural heritage may already be on the edge of a precipice created by current energy policies.
Deja Vu
Eco - the official mouthpiece of the green community since the 1972 Stockholm Environmental Conference - recently celebrated its 22nd birthday by reflecting on how much had really changed since that signal event.
Unfortunately, Eco had to admit, not much. Lots of international agreements had been negotiated and signed, but Northern lifestyles are still unsustainable, and many Southern countries are on track to repeat the North's mistakes.
As an impressionable teenager, Eco harbored high hopes that the Climate Convention would actually do something to counter the threat of an unstable climate. But last week, watching delegates at the Palais trying to put flesh on the bones of the treaty, a more worldwise Eco was much less sure.
Few negotiators were focused on concrete steps like a revenue-neutral energy tax that could begin to right the balance. And while negotiations took the "scenic" route, the winds of the real world changed. Just last week South China had been whipped by a massive typhoon - 100,000 homes lost, 11 million people in the storm's path. It was the fifth this year. "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows," ran through Eco's head. Where had Eco heard that line before - maybe in Stockholm?
Latin American NGOs Meet
The first-ever Latin American NGO workshop on climate change was held in Santiago, Chile, this June.
Concern for the global environment is not an immediate priority for most governments in developing countries. In Latin America, climate change has been discussed mostly behind the doors of Foreign Affairs ministries and does not influence national development plans.
An increasing number of NGOs in the region have begun to address various environmental problems, from biodiversity to forest exploitation and desertification. Yet it has been difficult to link these issues with climate change.
The Climate Action Network of Latin America (CANLA) has been actively trying to change this trend.
The Santiago meeting, sponsored by the Swiss Government and the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Chile, brought together NGO delegates from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. They discussed new scientific, social and political developments in their countries, as well as NGO national strategies. This will allow NGOs to adopt common positions on the issue and improve communications. Chairman of the INC, Ambassador Raul Estrada, and Salvano Briceno, of the INC Secretariat also participated in the meeting.
According to Eduardo Sanhueza, Coordinator of CANLA: "The best part of the meeting was to bring together relevant officials from the different ministries in Chile to meet senior INC officials, academics, and the NGO community of Latin America. This has helped strengthen all our contacts to work more closely together on the issue of climate change".
Leaders first
By Dwight Van Winkle, CASA, Japan
The USA, the EU and Japan, in their interventions on adequacy of commitments, appear to be promoting further requirements for non-Annex I Parties, particularly the "more advanced developing countries." Malaysia and South Korea objected strongly to this reference to their commitments, stating that the mandate of WG1 and COP1 is to review the adequacy of the commitments of Annex I countries only. Germany, when not representing the EU, also supported this view.
The first principle of the convention calls for the developed country Parties to take the lead in combating climate change. Annex I countries must show that they are taking the lead by binding themselves to GHG reduction commitments.
Developing countries' commitments must also be strengthened in the future; Malaysia's own "test of sincerity" will come soon enough. However, developing countries will not be willing to strengthen their participation unless Annex I countries, particularly the OECD countries, first bind themselves to emissions reductions. The trio's reference to non-Annex I Parties can only act to delay negotiations toward a protocol for reducing the emissions of Annex I countries. Such a protocol is the crucial first step toward meeting the objective of the convention.
The US, EU and Japan should clearly state, at INC10, that they have no intention of seeking stronger commitments on any developing countries, at least until the Annex I countries have adopted and shown they can meet stronger commitments themselves. One of the G7 has to move first.
New Zealand Law Clash
Kirsty Hamilton, Greenpeace International
The first legal testing of the Climate Convention is now underway over new power station development in New Zealand and Australia. The relevance of the treaty, carbon sinks and alternative energy are key items raised on the legal agenda.
Arguably 'clean' Combined Cycle Gas technology is on the line on climate grounds in New Zealand. Whether a 400MW CCGT power station proposal should go ahead is a turning into a highly political legal matter, especially as the company putting up the proposal government-owned. The estimated CO2 output would increase national emissions by around 5%.
New Zealand's Resource Management Act, 1991 puts the sustainable management of natural and physical resources as its primary purpose requiring developments to "avoid, remedy or mitigate" any adverse impacts on the environment. Normally decisions are made by local government, but section 140 allows the Minister for the Environment to deal with it nationally important issues via an independent Board of Inquiry. This is the first case testing this section of the Act.
Significantly one of the reasons that it was deemed to be of national significance was section 140(2)(e) relating to international obligations. The New Zealand Cabinet were advised that "the proposal would have significant implications for the Government's ability to meet its climate change policy objectives and is relevant to New Zealand's international obligations in relation to the global environment."
The Board of Inquiry is weighing up assertions that the FCCC is not relevant to the case (argued by the State Owned Electricity Corporation) and submissions from Greenpeace International pointing to the FCCC Article 4.2 (a) obligation on New Zealand to limit emissions. This obligation, while not legally binding, is viewed with sufficient legal import to have been one of the major factors in the inquiry.
Greenpeace argued that other national considerations and legislation are subordinate to that of meeting New Zealand's FCCC obligations - domestic law should be practiced in a way which is consistent with international law. In this case the relevance of international obligations is directly referenced in domestic legislation.
The inquiry illustrates the foolishness of relying on gas as a bridging fuel: the opportunity to avoid a 34 year permit to legally produce CO2 in favour of the clearly beneficial alternatives will stand whatever the final political decision.
This is perhaps the first time that obligations under FCCC have been directly referenced in legal proceedings at a national level. While decisions of one national legal order are generally not directly relevant in another national legal order, this case could set a legal precedent when applying the FCCC.
The Board of Inquiry held its hearings only a month ago and is yet to make its recommendation. A decision from the Minister is due before the end of the year. This decision itself is subject to legal appeal.
On-line Information Services
During the INC, GreenNet, UK member of the Association for Progressive Communications is providing:
- demonstrations of information services available via the Internet - including much UN information in various formats, and on APC (conferences and databases)
- a chance to browse the Internet and APC yourself (guest account facilities)
- email and uploading information to colleagues using our computers or your own laptops (through local dialup in Geneva).
- basic text information retrieval and printing or disk copies
- information on how to connect to APC/the Internet and thus access this information once you get back home. We can also provide copies of the free software we are using (small charge for disk).
- basic word processing, printing and fax (via email) services for documents people have ready to go on disk.
Where: Room E 3069, by the Secretariat Offices.
When: the room is open from 9am-7pm. When no one is available, please help yourself to the wordprocessing on the DOS computers. Email and information demonstrations will be available during the lunch break from 1pm-3pm for drop in, and at other times by appointment.
Thanks to EUnet St Switzerland for providing the Internet connection.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For enquiries and response to ECO:
Eco can be contacted at:
Hotel Longchamps, 7 Rue Butini, 1201 Geneva,Switzerland,
Phone: +41 22 734 7280
Fax: +41 22 738 0007
email: asieghart@gn.apc.org
ECO is also available through Dial-a-Fax. Reverse Poll your fax machine (see your fax machine manual or phone (0)374 506 506 for technical help) and simply dial ... Worldwide +44 374 50G 517 or within the UK - 0336 413 706 Wait for the horrible noise, and press "START" button on your machine.
Every issue of ECO will be posted in full to the climate.forum 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 distribution and ftp availability of ECO via APC, contact: Lelani Arris, Electronic Mail Coordinator: Tel: (604) 968-4380, Fax: (604) 968-4390 (Canada), email: larris@igc.apc.org
For information about Pagemaker files via Applelink, contact ECO staff: applelink:media.natura. For information about Applelink, contact your local Apple dealership or the UK help line, email: uk.sysop@applelink.apple.com For information about Pagemaker files via APC, contact Media Natura ECO staff, email: asieghart@gn.apc.org
CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Editorial & Production Managers: Phil Hurst and Alister Sieghart
Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet
North American Distribution: Wes Dowling & EESI
Assistance from: Alden Meyer; Dan Lashof; Carol Werner; Herman Ott, Atiq Rahman, Tessa Robertson; Shana Mertens; Andrew Deutz; Kirsty Hamilton; Debbie Goode; Wild Turkey.
Published by the Climate Action Network, with assistance from Media Natura, London.
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 * World Wide Fund for Nature * Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain * Greenpeace International * German Marshall Fund of the United States * Natural Resources Defense Council * The Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future
Special thanks to: Hotel de Longchamp % UN Non-Governmental Liaison Services
with resources contributed by: Adobe, Aldus UK, APC Networks, Apple Computer, Balelec, Dial-a-Fax, EcoNet, Fintel, GreenNet, MicroRent plc, Strategic Communications and 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 1994 (INC 10)
How did you get the newsletter?
______ e-mail address__________________________________
______ conference or list name__________________________
______ ftp or other file server location_________________
______ other (please specify) _____________________________Have you used the information in reports or newsletters?
(please specify)
Did you distribute it to others? (please list)
Return to:
*************************************************************
Lelani Arris * Essential Ellements
email: larris@igc.apc.org * Box 42
Telephone: 604-968-4380 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0
Fax: 604-968-4390 * Canada
*************************************************************
