Joint implementation and forestry projects: Conceptual and operational fallacies

International Affairs

Volumn 74, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 393-408

  Cullet, Philippe ^a   Kameri Mbote, Annie Patricia ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039991926     PISSN: 00205850     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-2346.00024     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted at Kyoto, 10 Dec. 1997, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1 (preliminary version of 10 Dec. 1997). Annex B of the protocol stipulates the exact percentage reduction for each country.
2. See e.g. Article 4.1 of the Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, Paris, 17 June 1994, reprinted in International Legal Materials 33, 1994, p. 1328 [hereafter Convention to Combat Desertification].
3. See e.g. Tim Jackson, 'Joint implementation and cost-effectiveness under the Framework Convention on Climate Change', Energy Policy 23, 1995, p. 117; Robin Mason, 'Joint implementation and the Second Sulphur Protocol', Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 4, 1995, p. 296.
4. See e.g. Tim Jackson, 'Joint implementation and cost-effectiveness under the Framework Convention on Climate Change', Energy Policy 23, 1995, p. 117; Robin Mason, 'Joint implementation and the Second Sulphur Protocol', Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 4, 1995, p. 296.
5. See e.g. Thomas Heller, Joint implementation and the path to a climate change regime. Jean Monnet Chair paper 23 (Florence: Robert Schuman Centre, European University Institute, 1995).
6. See e.g. David Pearce, 'Joint implementation - a general overview', in Catrinus J. Jepma, ed., The feasibility of joint implementation (New Delhi: Development Alternatives, 1995), p. 15.
7. See e.g. ZhongXiang Zhang, 'Operationalization and priority of joint implementation projects', Review of International Trade and Development 32: 6, 1997, p. 280; Peter Usher, 'Costa Rica conference perspectives: a frank exchange on AIJ benefits and concerns', in Kalipada Chatterjee, ed., Activities implemented jointly to mitigate climate change: developing countries' perspectives (New Delhi: Development Alternatives, 1997), p. 23.
8. See e.g. ZhongXiang Zhang, 'Operationalization and priority of joint implementation projects', Review of International Trade and Development 32: 6, 1997, p. 280; Peter Usher, 'Costa Rica conference perspectives: a frank exchange on AIJ benefits and concerns', in Kalipada Chatterjee, ed., Activities implemented jointly to mitigate climate change: developing countries' perspectives (New Delhi: Development Alternatives, 1997), p. 23.
9. Article 2.8 of the Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 16 Sept. 1987, reprinted in Ozone Secretariat UNEP, Handbook for the international treaties for the protection of the ozone layer, 4th edn (1996) [hereafter Montreal Protocol].
10. Articles 3 and 4 of the Kyoto Protocol.
11. Article 2.5 and 2.5. bis of the Montreal Protocol.
12. See Article 2.7 of the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, Oslo, 14 June 1994, reprinted in International Legal Materials 33, 1994, p. 1540.
13. 'Decision 1997/1 on rules and conditions for joint implementation under the OSLO protocol', Economic Commission for Europe, Executive Body for the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, Report of the 15th session, UN Doc. ECE/EB.AIR/53, annex 1. See also Peter D. Bailey et al., 'Prospects for the joint implementation of sulphur emission reductions in Europe', Energy Policy 24, 1996, p. 507.
14. Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol.
15. See Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7401 ff (1988). See also Farhana Yamin, 'The use of joint implementation to increase compliance with the Climate Change Convention: international legal and institutional questions', Review of European Community and international Environmental Law 2, 1993, p. 348.
16. 2 emission entitlements (UN Doc. UNCTAD/GID/8, 1994) (Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). See also Scott Barrett, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, The Strategy of Joint Implementation in the Framework Convention on Climate Change 5 (UN Doc. UNCTAD/GID/10, 1995).
17. 2 emission entitlements (UN Doc. UNCTAD/GID/8, 1994) (Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). See also Scott Barrett, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, The Strategy of Joint Implementation in the Framework Convention on Climate Change 5 (UN Doc. UNCTAD/GID/10, 1995).
18. See e.g. Mason, 'Joint implementation and the Second Sulphur Protocol'.
19. Art. 16 bis of the Kyoto Protocol.
20. See e.g. Heller, Joint implementation. See also Richard B. Stewart et al., United Nations Conference on Trade and Development: legal issues presented by a pilot international greenhouse gas trading system (UN Doc. UNCTAD/GDS/GFSB/Misc.1, 1996).
21. See e.g. Heller, Joint implementation. See also Richard B. Stewart et al., United Nations Conference on Trade and Development: legal issues presented by a pilot international greenhouse gas trading system (UN Doc. UNCTAD/GDS/GFSB/Misc.1, 1996).
22. See e.g. Barrett, strategy of joint implementation.
23. See e.g. Decision 5/CP.1, Activities implemented jointly under the pilot phase, in Report of the conference of the parties on its first session, Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of the Parties, First Sess., Berlin 28 Mar.-7 Apr. 1995, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1 [hereafter AIJ Decision].
24. 2 reduction commitment and that this limit should be fixed at between 25 and 50 per cent.
25. Para. 1 of the AIJ Decision.
26. Article 4.3 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 9 May 1992, reprinted in International Legal Materials 31, 1992, p. 849 [hereafter Climate Change Convention]; para. 1.e of the AIJ Decision.
27. Para. 21 of the Preamble of the Climate Change Convention.
28. See e.g. Roberto Schaeffer, 'Alcohol fuel and sugarcane bagasse as substitutes for fossil fuels in Brazil', Development Alternatives Newsletter 7: 2, 1997, p. 12.
29. See e.g. 'City of Decin: fuel-switching for district heating', in US Initiative on Joint Implementation, Activities implemented jointly: first report to the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1996), p. 90 [hereafter USIJI report].
30. See e.g. D. D. Joshi et al., 'Improving dairy efficiency and reducing methane production in Nepal', in Kalipada Chatterjee, ed., Activities implemented jointly to mitigate climate change, p. 226.
31. Hereafter, the term afforestation is used to include natural regrowth, reforestation of forests, agroforestry and multiple land uses which include trees and the establishment of new forests. See also W. Neil Adger and Katrina Brown, Land use and the causes of global warming (Chichester: John Wiley, 1994).
32. See e.g. Jyoti K. Parikh, 'North-South cooperation for joint implementation', in Jyoti K. Parikh et al., eds, Climate change and North-South cooperation - Indo-Canadian cooperation in joint implementation (New Delhi:Tata McGraw-Hill, 1997), p. 192.
33. For an example on afforestation, see 'Biodiversifix project', in USIJI report, p. 43.
34. See e.g. Zhang, 'Operationalization and priority of joint implementation projects'.
35. See 'Activities implemented jointly under the pilot phase', Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, Seventh Sess., 20-29 Oct. 1997, UN Doc. FCCC/SBSTA/1997/12.
36. Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol.
37. Article 3.12 of the Kyoto Protocol.
38. See Article 16 bis of the Kyoto Protocol. See also Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, 'Marchandisation de la survie planétaire', Le Monde diplomatique 526, 1998, p. 3.
39. See e.g. Tanya L. Forsheit, 'International emissions trading: equity issues in the search for market-based solution to global environmental degradation', University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 18, 1997, p. 689; USIJI report.
40. See e.g. USIJI report; Swiss Report; Forsheit, 'International emissions trading'.
41. See e.g. Thomas C. Heller, 'Environmental realpolitik - joint implementation and climate change', Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 3, 1996, p. 295.
42. 'Centre for Economic Analysis, domestic climate regimes and incentives for private sector involvement in JI' (ECON-Report No. 15/97, available at http://www-esd.worldbank.org/aij/domestc1.pdf, 1997). See also Anne Niederberger and Marie-Thérèse Niggli, 'Un nouvel instrument de politique environnementale: la "joint implementation"', La vie économique 3, 1997, p. 2.
43. 'Centre for Economic Analysis, domestic climate regimes and incentives for private sector involvement in JI' (ECON-Report No. 15/97, available at http://www-esd.worldbank.org/aij/domestc1.pdf, 1997). See also Anne Niederberger and Marie-Thérèse Niggli, 'Un nouvel instrument de politique environnementale: la "joint implementation"', La vie économique 3, 1997, p. 2.
44. See e.g. FAO, R.H. Kemp et al., Conservation of genetic resources in tropical forest management - principles and concepts, FAO forestry paper no. 107 (Rome: FAO 1993).
45. See e.g. FAO, State of the world's forests 1997 (Rome: FAO, 1997) [hereafter FAO forest survey 1997].
46. See e.g. Thomas Lovejoy, 'Biodiversity: what is it?', in Marjorie L. Reaka-Kudla et al., eds, Biodiversity II understanding and protecting our biologial resources (Washington DC: Joseph Henry, 1997), p. 7.
47. See e.g. FAO forest survey 1997, p. 39.
48. See e.g. Adger and Brown, Land use.
49. 4. See e.g. Adger and Brown, Land use.
50. See e.g. R.T. Watson et al., 'Sources and sinks', in J.T. Houghton et al., eds., Climate change 1992 - the supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 25; R.K. Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems', Science 263, 1994, p.185; and FAO, Forest resources assessment 1990 - global synthesis (FAO Forestry Paper no. 124, 1995) [hereafter FAO 124].
51. See e.g. R.T. Watson et al., 'Sources and sinks', in J.T. Houghton et al., eds., Climate change 1992 - the supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 25; R.K. Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems', Science 263, 1994, p.185; and FAO, Forest resources assessment 1990 - global synthesis (FAO Forestry Paper no. 124, 1995) [hereafter FAO 124].
52. See e.g. R.T. Watson et al., 'Sources and sinks', in J.T. Houghton et al., eds., Climate change 1992 - the supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 25; R.K. Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems', Science 263, 1994, p.185; and FAO, Forest resources assessment 1990 - global synthesis (FAO Forestry Paper no. 124, 1995) [hereafter FAO 124].
53. 2 emissions come from changes in land use. See also Adger and Brown, Land use, noting that between 1850 and 1985, the net carbon emissions from deforestation were about 100-130 billion tonnes (GtC) compared to 190 GtC from fossil fuels.
54. 2 emissions come from changes in land use. See also Adger and Brown, Land use, noting that between 1850 and 1985, the net carbon emissions from deforestation were about 100-130 billion tonnes (GtC) compared to 190 GtC from fossil fuels.
55. R. T. Watson et al., 'Sources and sinks', p. 25.
56. Norman Myers, 'The world's forests: problems and potentials', Environmental Conservation 23, 1996, p. 156.
57. 2 fertilization, nitrogen fertilization and climatic effects which account for 1.4 ± 1.5 GtC. See e.g. FAO, William M. Ciesla, Climate change, forests and forest management: an overview FAO, Forestry Paper no. 126, [hereafter FAO 126] (Rome: FAO, 1995). See also Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools'; J. M. Melillo et al., 'Terrestrial biotic responses to environmental change and feedbacks to climate', in J.T. Houghton et al., eds, Climate change 1995: the science of climate change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 445.
58. 2 fertilization, nitrogen fertilization and climatic effects which account for 1.4 ± 1.5 GtC. See e.g. FAO, William M. Ciesla, Climate change, forests and forest management: an overview FAO, Forestry Paper no. 126, [hereafter FAO 126] (Rome: FAO, 1995). See also Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools'; J. M. Melillo et al., 'Terrestrial biotic responses to environmental change and feedbacks to climate', in J.T. Houghton et al., eds, Climate change 1995: the science of climate change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 445.
59. 2 fertilization, nitrogen fertilization and climatic effects which account for 1.4 ± 1.5 GtC. See e.g. FAO, William M. Ciesla, Climate change, forests and forest management: an overview FAO, Forestry Paper no. 126, [hereafter FAO 126] (Rome: FAO, 1995). See also Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools'; J. M. Melillo et al., 'Terrestrial biotic responses to environmental change and feedbacks to climate', in J.T. Houghton et al., eds, Climate change 1995: the science of climate change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 445.
60. FAO 126.
61. Myers, 'The world's forests'.
62. Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools'.
63. Adger and Brown, Land use.
64. See e.g. Sandra Brown et al., 'Management of forest for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions', in Robert T. Watson et al., eds, Climate change 1995: impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 773, at p. 777, states that approximately 32.9 per cent of this carbon is stored in low latitude forests, 14.5 per cent in mid-latitudes and 52.5 per cent in high latitudes.
65. Myers, 'The world's forests'.
66. FAO 126.
67. Myers, 'The world's forests'; Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools', state that soils and peat contain about 69 per cent and vegetation about 31 per cent of the total forest carbon pool.
68. Myers, 'The world's forests'; Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools', state that soils and peat contain about 69 per cent and vegetation about 31 per cent of the total forest carbon pool.
69. See e.g. World Bank, OP 4.36, Forestry (Sept. 1993) stating that the aims of the Bank's involvement in the forestry sector are to reduce deforestation, enhance the environmental contribution of forested areas, promote afforestation, reduce poverty and encourage economic development.
70. See e.g. Sandra Brown, 'Mitigation potential of carbon dioxide emissions by management of forests in Asia', Ambio 25, 1996, p. 273.
71. See e.g. Olga N. Krankina et al., 'Carbon storage and sequestration in the Russian forest sector', Ambio 25, 1996, p. 284.
72. In the World Bank context, carbon sequestration refers to the process whereby forested areas retain a revolving but stable store of organic carbon in their biomass. See World Bank, OP 4.36 Annex A, Forestry (Sept. 1993).
73. Pedro Moura Costa, 'Tropical forestry practices for carbon sequestration: a review and case study from Southeast Asia', Ambio 25, 1996, p. 279.
74. See e.g. Brown et al., 'Management of forest', p. 780.
75. Houghton, 'Converting terrestrial ecosystems from sources to sinks of carbon', Ambio 25, 1996, p.267.
76. Manoj Dabas and Shubhra Bhatia, 'Carbon sequestration through afforestation: role of tropical industrial plantations', Ambio 25, 1996, p. 327.
77. Swiss Report.
78. Adger and Brown, Land use.
79. See e.g. Peter Read, Responding to global warming: the technology, economics and politics of sustainable energy (London: Zed, 1994).
80. See World Resources Institute et al., World Resources 1996-7 (1996) and FAO 124. For 1990-95 forest area changes, see FAO forest survey 1997, pp. 17-18.
81. FAO 124 noting that there was a 1.9 per cent diminution of forest and wooded land between 1981 and 1990 worldwide.
82. See e.g. Adger and Brown, Land use.
83. See e.g. Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools'; Richard A. Houghton, 'The role of the world's forests in global warming', in Kilaparti Ramakrishna and George M. Woodwell, eds, World forests for the future: their use and conservation (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 21.
84. See e.g. Dixon et al., 'Carbon pools'; Richard A. Houghton, 'The role of the world's forests in global warming', in Kilaparti Ramakrishna and George M. Woodwell, eds, World forests for the future: their use and conservation (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 21.
85. World Resources Institute et al., World Resources 1996-7, noting that between 1981 and 1990 there was an increase of 0.1 per cent in forest and wooded land in all temperate countries (New York: Oxford University Press).
86. Adger and Brown, Land use.
87. See e.g. Dabas and Bhatia, 'Carbon sequestration'.
88. Melillo et al., 'Terrestrial biotic responses'.
89. See e.g. Andrew Clark et al., 'Climate change: an overview', in Parikh et al., eds, Climate change and North-South cooperation, p. 50.
90. Melillo et al., 'Terrestrial biotic responses'.
91. AIJ Decision.
92. See e.g. Hans Verweij, 'The approach of the FACE foundation', in Kalipada Chatterjee, ed., Activities implemented jointly to mitigate climate change, p. 325, stating that FACE contracts run for 99 years even though the actual afforestation takes three years.
93. See e.g. Brown et al., 'Management of forest', pp. 780-81.
94. Land availability for this purpose is as much a concern as in the case of forestry projects for carbon sequestration. See e.g. David Hall et al., 'Biomass for energy: supply prospects', in Thomas B. Johansson et al., eds, Renewable energy: sources for fuels and electricity (Washington DC: Island Press, 1993), p. 593.
95. Ibid.
96. See generally Gregg Marland and Scott Marland, 'Should we store carbon in trees?', Water Air and Soil Pollution 64, 1992, p. 181.
97. See e.g. José Goldemberg et al., 'The Brazilian fuel-alcohol program', in Thomas B. Johansson et al., eds., Renewable energy: sources for fuels and electricity (Washington DC: Island Press, 1993), p. 841.
98. Some scholars have tried to tackle this problem by proposing, for instance, to start making coal by planting biomass and burying it in the soil. See e.g. Read, 'Responding to global warming'.
99. See e.g. concerning Africa, FAO forest survey 1997, p. 140.
100. See Article 4.2 (a), second sentence, of the Climate Change Convention, read together with Article 1.4 defining 'emissions' as the release of GHGs and/or their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified area and period of time.
101. Titus D. Bekkering, 'Using tropical forests to fix atmospheric carbon: the potential in theory and practice', Ambio 21, 1992, p. 414. See also para. 2. of the Ministerial Declaration, reprinted in 'Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Second Session', Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of the Parties, Second Sess., Geneva, 8-19 July 1996, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/1996/15/Add.1, noting that the stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at levels double those of before industrialization will require in the longer term a reduction of more than 50 per cent of world emissions.
102. See Articles 2.3 and 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol.
103. See Agenda 21, in 'Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development', United Nations, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. 1), Annex II.
104. See e.g. World Bank, OP 4.36 Annex A, Forestry (Sept. 1993).
105. See Article 1 of Protocol 10 to the Fourth ACP-EC Convention of Lomé as revised by the agreement signed in Mauritius, 4 Nov. 1995, The Courier ACP-EV 155, 1996.
106. On the impact of exotic species on host environments, see e.g. Daniel H. Janzen, 'Wildland biodiversity management in the tropics', in Edward Osborne Wilson, ed., Biodiversity II, p. 411.
107. See e.g. Jyoti K. Parikh, 'Joint implementation and North-South cooperation for climate change', International Environmental Affairs 7, 1995, p. 22.
108. See e.g. Reinhard Loske and Sebastian Oberthuer, 'Joint implementation under the Climate Change Convention', International Environmental Affairs 6, 1994, p. 45.
109. See e.g. Usher, 'Costa Rica conference perspectives'.
110. J. P. Painuly and Jyoti K. Parikh, 'Opportunities for joint implementation', in Parikh et al., eds., Climate change and North-South cooperation, p. 21, noting that in afforestation, unlike in other AIJ projects, there is no transfer of technology.
111. FAO 124.
112. Swiss Report.
113. See e.g. S. Maya and J. Gupta, Joint implementation for Africa: carbon colonies or business opportunities? (Harare: Centre for Energy and the Environment, 1995).
114. AIJ Decision.
115. Afforestation projects implemented in the South may, for instance, reduce the land available for subsistence agriculture and other local needs. See e.g. Climate Network Europe, 'Joint implementation: a European NGO statement', in Joint implementation from a European NGO perspective (Brussels: Climate Network Europe, 1994). See also Anil Agarwal, 'Cheap stake', Down to Earth 6: 11, 1997, p. 6.
116. Afforestation projects implemented in the South may, for instance, reduce the land available for subsistence agriculture and other local needs. See e.g. Climate Network Europe, 'Joint implementation: a European NGO statement', in Joint implementation from a European NGO perspective (Brussels: Climate Network Europe, 1994). See also Anil Agarwal, 'Cheap stake', Down to Earth 6: 11, 1997, p. 6.