|
|
|
|
Index | Editor's note | Interviews | Discussion Platform | Project analysis | Downloads |
- go back -
Dutch Advisory Council Favours Security Council for Climate
In July of this year, the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) presented its report Climate Strategy - Between Ambition and Realism (“Klimaatstrategie - Tussen Ambitie en Realisme”). With the advice WRR aimed to address the global warming issue against the background of economic growth, countries’ self-interest, and, as a consequence, complex international co-ordination of climate policy measures. Within this context, the WRR has explored how the Netherlands can formulate an effective national climate policy. It also offers suggestions for how climate negotiations could be streamlined in the future.
Climate strategy report
The WRR is a general advisory body to advise the Netherlands Government about future developments of great public interest using a scientific approach. With these advises the WRR aims to offer the government opinions to readjust existing policy, to develop new policy, or to support decision-making. Basing their advise on scientific knowledge, the council aims to form a bridge between scientific expertise and policy.
The WRR climate strategy report discusses in detail three key components of an international climate policy from a Dutch perspective:
Adaptation to a changing climate. To what extent could the Netherlands be affected by climate change?
The development of sustainable technologies, which are required for emission reduction and sustainable development.
The need for international co-ordination to formulate an effective international climate policy, which would facilitate the implementation of these sustainable technologies.
With a view to the development of a global climate policy for the period after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol will have expired, the WRR has paid considerable attention to how international negotiation procedures could be improved/reformed to make negotiations more efficient and effective.
Complex negotiations
The WRR clearly describes the complexity of climate policy making. First, it points at the uncertainties related to projections of average temperature increases, expected changes of climate systems on earth due to higher temperatures, and possible damage caused by that. These uncertainties make it difficult to estimate the costs of adaptation and to identify what is precisely needed in terms of mitigation measures. Second, presently available alternatives for fossil fuel-based technologies are, in general, still relatively expensive. Third, there is a considerable scope for countries to take a free ride on other countries’ policy actions due to the even mixing of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The Kyoto Protocol has been drafted against this complex negotiation background and also negotiations on its successor for the period after 2012 will have to tackle these problems. According to the council, an important step forward in the climate policy debate can be made if negotiation procedures were streamlined. The WRR recommends a major revision of the present negotiation process of the UNFCCC. It concludes that the configuration of present negotiations is largely focussed on the annual COP and COP/MOP sessions, with assistance provided by a number of Subsidiary Bodies and the UNFCCC Secretariat, which, though active, cannot take formal initiatives for negotiation directions.
Permanent overall body
According to the WRR, the present process of global climate policy negotiations lacks a permanent overall body which can work on executions of decisions, study climate mitigation and adaptation policy options, and prepare the COP and COP/MOP negotiations. The lack of such a permanent body has created a situation that negotiations must be completed in the relatively short periods of time during which the COPs take place.
This opens the floor for ad-hoc coalitions and compromises formulated under pressure of time, but which may not be truly effective from an environmental point of view. The WRR expresses its doubt whether the massive annual organisation of the COP and COP/MOP is truly the right way to formulate a long-term global climate policy.
World Climate Organisation
As an alternative, the WRR proposes to establish the World Climate Organisation (WCO). The WCO would be supervised by the WCO Council with Ministers carrying out the negotiations. This Council would be supported by a secretariat and a formal committee of permanent representatives to the WCO. In addition, under the WCO flag a Special Climate Council (SCC) would be established with permanent seats for around seven or eight countries and some temporary seats for other countries. According to the WRR, the permanent seats could be taken by those countries, which have the highest emissions of GHGs. In total, the SCC would have around 15 countries as members.
The WRR argues that the main benefit of a WCO would be that the SCC would establish a kind of more permanent climate policy leadership. Of course, coalitions between countries’ positions would still be possible and needed, but these could be achieved much easier through regular dialogues between the SCC and the committee of permanent WCO representatives, instead of the annual COP sessions and the preparatory meetings in the months before that: “The permanency prevents that – as regularly takes place at the COPs – negotiatiors behave assertively in an attempt to impress the politicians back home, which behaviour has proven to be counterproductive during the week that is usually available at COPs for making deals.” (WRR, 2006, Chapter 5, p. 191). With a view to this, the WRR concludes that the climate negotiations would become less political if carried out on a more regular basis throughout the year, within a more permanent institutional setting.
The report can be downloaded from:
http://www.wrr.nl (in Dutch, but English summaries are available).
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue April 2006
Mr Esteve Corbera on the Evaluation of AIJ Forestry Projects and Implications for CDM A/R Projects
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue December 2005
Mr Axel Michaelowa and Mrs Katharina Michaelowa on sustainable development and the CDM
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue October 2005
Mr Jusen Asuka and Mr Tadashi Okimura on the Quality and Price of Carbon Credits
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue July 2005
Mr John O. Niles on the CCB Standards
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue April 2005
Mr Jason Anderson on Efficiency Standards
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue December 2004
Mr Wytze van der Gaast and Mr Joris Laseur on Unilateral CDM
Discussion Platform in JIQ Issue October 2004
Mr Donald Goldberg and Mr Kevin Baumert on Action Targets
Mr Andreas Oberheitmann and Mr Manuel Frondel on CDM in China
Discussion Platform in previous JIQ Issues
...not yet available...
|
|
|
