[Gw]ENDS o vysledcich z Bonnu aj.

Jan Hollan jhollan at amper....muni.cz
Thu Aug 23 21:27:15 CEST 2001

Je to trochu dlouhe a uz zastarale, nicmene ja to cetl az dnes... 
Kdo uz o vysledcich z Bonnu vse vi, at promine... 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date:          Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:51:53 +0100
From:          "ENDS" <issue at environmentdaily...>
Subject:       Environment Daily 1036 (23/07/2001), for pship at ecn...
To:            pship at ecn...

ENDS Environment Daily - Issue 1036, Monday 23 July 2001

This mail for 
Amend account details: http://www.environmentdaily.com/myaccount
View full edition online:


World environment ministers agree operational rules after marathon
negotiating session

Chairman Pronk close to tears as standing ovation greets Kyoto
implementation agreement

Compromise creates deep uncapped carbon sinks, maintains ban on
credits from nuclear projects

New government says it will support rather than punish firms in
forthcoming 2002 budget

Jury still out over benefits of retrofitting buses, heavy lorries,
with particulate traps

Commission research directorate publicises major study on
electricity's externalities



Kyoto climate protocol comes back to life
Environment Daily 1036, 23/07/01
The industrialised world took an enormous step towards tackling
climate change today as ministers from some 170 countries meeting in
Bonn approved detailed rules to implement the 1997 Kyoto protocol. The
accord erases the memory of the failed climate summit in The Hague last
year, as well as the spectre of collapse that has hovered over the
process since the USA's walk-out in March.

The global pact should now be ratified by enough countries to enter
into force. Its headline commitment remains that industrialised
countries cut emissions by 5.2% from 1990 to 2008-12, though a series
of rule changes agreed in Bonn mean that the real figure will be much

Agreement was reached on a comprehensive package at around 10am today
when Japan finally gave its blessing to a weakened compliance regime
enforcing the protocol. Under the deal, the compliance package will be
legally adopted at a later meeting, but the consequences of not meeting
emission targets in the protocol are now agreed in principle (see
separate article for summary of agreement).

EU negotiators emerged from the talks jubilant at having secured a
complete implementation package. "In terms of the need to make a first
step, it's perfect," EU delegation chief Olivier Deleuze said. "We've
really started something so important here today," environment
commissioner Margot Wallstrom added. "We've shown the United States,
our citizens, communities and NGOs that we could have an agreement
without the US."

On Saturday night, conference chairman Jan Pronk presented a
compromise proposal aimed at breaking deadlocked talks after exhaustive
bilateral consultations with the key negotiating groups - chiefly the
EU and the umbrella group minus the USA. The EU announced the following
day it would accept the plan, while Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia
held out for a weakening of the compliance text, forcing further talks
throughout Sunday night.

The final deal was reached at the cost of some heavy concessions from
Europe, especially concerning wider rights for industrialised countries
to count gas absorption by forest and cropland sinks against industrial
emissions. "We would have preferred to have fewer sinks in the deal,"
Mr Deleuze said. "I could give you ten examples of changes I'd like to
have seen. But I prefer an imperfect living agreement to a perfect one
that doesn't exist."

Attention now turns to Kyoto ratification. The EU reiterated its
commitment to do so next year and called on other parties to follow
suit, a plea echoed by environmentalists. Japan said it wanted the
protocol to come into force next year but again failed to state
categorically that it would ratify without a similar move by the USA.
But it seems unlikely the Japanese government will refuse ratification
after endorsing a package that many delegates say is slanted heavily in
its favour.

Follow-up: UNFCCC http://www.unfccc.int/, tel: +49 228 815 1000, and
COP6bis website http://www.unfccc.int/cop6_2/index.html; European
Commission climate change updates
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/press.htm, joint EU
Commission and presidency statement
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/press230701.htm, plus
summary of the Bonn deal
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pressbckgnd.htm. See also
the daily Earth Negotiations Bulletin
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop6bis/, and NGO news updates in ECO

Climate deal prompts emotional response
Environment Daily 1036, 23/07/01
When Jan Pronk brought his gavel down today, confirming that all of
the 170-plus countries present accepted a compromise deal on the Kyoto
protocol finalised earlier in the morning, he unlocked of a flood of
emotion from delegates visibly euphoric at having secured the accord. 
They immediately rose in the first of several standing ovations,
bringing Mr Pronk to the verge of tears.

"We needed this result in order to show that multilateral agreements
do make sense," he said.  "This is a triumph for multilaterism over
unilateralism," added the Iranian head of the G77 developing country
bloc, Bagher Asadi.  The statements, veiled attacks on the USA's
decision not to ratify Kyoto, were applauded warmly and at length.

US delegate Paula Dobriansky was unrepentant, however.  Though she
congratulated the conference on its agreement, she said Kyoto was an
"unsound policy" which Washington would not ratify.  Mr Pronk thanked
her for acting in good faith during the talks and not obstructing an

Environmentalists were quick to point to flaws in the deal, but their
overwhelming emotion was one of elation on a "historic day".  WWF's
Jennifer Morgan called it a "geopolitical earthquake" which would
eventually mean "carbon accounting" entering the bottom line of all

For Climate Network Europe's Rob Bradley it was an "incredibly
positive move" showing that the world was "willing to go ahead" in
combatting climate change.  Green MEP Alexander de Roo said the
agreement was the first "baby-step" in the life of the protocol, but a
success because of the "dire straits" that the process had found itself
in the run-up to this weekend's talks.

Business reactions tended to be more negative.  While the
international chamber of commerce said the deal represented
"considerable progress," it was "concerned that additional detail is
required" for businesses to be able to make "expedient decisions."  The
nuclear industry welcomed the positive environmental effect of the deal
but claimed that atomic power had been excluded from the clean
development mechanism based on "politics and ideology" and not an
assessment of carbon-free technologies.

Meanwhile, the much-diminished global climate coalition (GCC), whose
members actively lobby for the rejection of the treaty, said the deal
would make it less likely that the US would one day return to Kyoto,
since the restrictions on flexible mechanisms would make reaching the
targets "far more expensive".  "This deal will have a severe impact on
families, communities and companies," the GCC's Glenn Kelly told
Environment Daily today.


Kyoto protocol rulebook in summary
Environment Daily 1036, 23/07/01
The Bonn talks tackled four main issues under the Kyoto protocol. They
are: funding and technology transfer for least developed countries; the
flexible mechanisms; sinks; and compliance. Only the section on
compliance in the Pronk compromise was amended in the final accord
adopted today. Many more minor and technical rules have still to be
fleshed out during the rest of the week and at later meetings.


Under today's deal, countries will be able to add to their "assigned
amount" of emissions the tonnage of carbon taken from the atmosphere by
the growth in area of their forests since 1990. Secondly, any increases
in the amount of carbon absorbed by these forests because of changes in
the way they have been managed since 1990 will also lead to increases
in the assigned amount. 

But because of difficulties in measuring this absorption, a
"discounting" formula has been used to cap the allowance, with a
maximum amount of megatonnes listed for each country. Japan and Canada
have won considerably more generous caps than the formula suggests,
however, because of their "national circumstances".

A third type of sink, representing carbon absorption caused by better
management of croplands and grasslands, is also permitted. There is no
cap on these sinks, and their potential size is very unclear. The
amount of sink credits allowed from CDM projects is limited to 1% of
1990 baseline emissions.

The inclusion of sinks in the protocol is the main reason why the 5.2%
cut in industrialised countries' emissions that the protocol still
officially requires is now something of a fiction. But estimates of
their overall impact vary. WWF has said the sinks rules agreed today
will lead to a cut of just 1.8%. Greenpeace calculated that they would
actually allow a 0.3% emissions increase.


No quantitative cap is placed on industrialised countries' ability to
use flexible mechanisms to meet their emissions targets. But they must
ensure that these are "supplemental" to domestic action by ensuring
that measures at home are a "significant element" of the reduction

Emissions trading will be limited by requiring that countries sell no
more than 10% of the "assigned amount" of emissions they are permitted
each year, even when their actual emissions are likely to be so low as
to free up more allowances to sell. This cap mainly concerns Russia and
Ukraine, which are poised to cash in on "hot air" created by their
economic contraction in the early 1990s. Only countries in compliance
with the protocol will be able to trade.

Countries will "refrain from" generating emission reduction credits by
funding nuclear power projects under either the clean development
mechanism or joint implementation. This was one of the EU's
"bottom-line" demands in the talks. Though it also wanted to exclude
forest sink projects from the CDM, these are in. But they are limited
to afforestation and reforestation projects. This means projects which
simply prevent deforestation will not result in emission credits. The
EU and environmentalists worried this would let tropical countries hold
their forests to ransom.

Under a "prompt start" for the CDM, countries will prioritise funding
for renewable energy projects under 15 megawatts (thus excluding large
hydropower schemes) and energy efficiency improvement projects leading
to savings of up to 15 gigawatthours of power annually.


The compliance regime will aim at promoting compliance with the
protocol and giving an "early warning" of potential non-compliance. Any
exceedance of the assigned amount in the first commitment period would
have to be "restored" by lowering the assigned amount correspondingly
in the next period, with a penalty "interest" rate of 30%. A clause
also requiring payment for environmental damage caused by exceeding the
assigned amount was dropped during the negotiations.

The compliance rules are to be formally adopted at the first meeting
of the parties after the protocol has entered into force. The EU
delegation, for which a legally binding compliance regime was a bottom
line, said the rules were far stronger than for any other multilateral
environmental agreement.

Developing country funding:

Industrialised countries pledged to provide "predictable and adequate"
funding to mitigate climate change in poorer regions. Three new funds
will be set up: the first two, under the UN's framework climate
convention, and administered by the global environment facility (GEF),
will promote adaptation, technology transfer, and activities in the
energy, industry and transport sectors. They will also assist
fossil-fuel dependent countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, to
diversify their economies.

A third fund specially created under the Kyoto protocol will be aimed
at more specific adaptation projects and programmes in those developing
countries which ratify it. An expert group in technology transfer,
comprising 20 members, will also be set up. In a separate political
declaration, the EU, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand and Iceland said
they would provide euros 450 million annually for the funds by 2005,
with this amount to be reviewed by 2008. Japan said it would increase
its existing funding.


Market measures "key to Italian greening"
Environment Daily 1036, 23/07/01
Italy's new government may reward environmentally minded firms with
tax breaks in its 2002 budget, due for approval this autumn, the
country's environment minister Altero Matteoli said last week.  A
policy of tax relief to encourage firms to pollute less would be better
than prosecution, Mr Matteoli told members of the Italian Senate's
environment commission.

Mr Matteoli is a member of the post-fascist National Alliance party,
one of the main partners in the centre-right government elected in
June.  This is his second stint as environment minister, having also
served in prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's short-lived previous
administration in 1994-5 (ED 11/06/01

The environment chapter of the government's medium term economic and
financial planning document, released earlier this month, also hints at
a similar policy.  Objectives must "shift from instruments of command
and control, including bans, orders and authorisations, to explicit
market mechanisms, namely tax concessions to those firms who respect
requirements for sustainable development," it states.

The environmental sector needs "clear and simple" rules, which must be
scrupulously applied, Mr Matteoli stressed during his presentation of
the new government's environmental policy.  For example, the amount of
urban solid waste produced per day needed to be halved to combat
organised crime's grip on the lucrative waste disposal sector.

Waste should also be disposed of as near as possible to where it was
produced to save money and to avoid poor neighbourhoods becoming
"dustbins," the minister said. The government intended to build a
national disposal plant for radioactive waste, he added. Italy's
regional environmental agencies would also become increasingly
important "reference points," while the national environmental
protection agency ANPA should report directly to the environment
ministry, Mr Matteoli said.

Follow-up: Italian environment ministry http://www.minambiente.it/,
tel: +39 06 57 22 55 80.

Danes debate value of diesel particle filters
Environment Daily 1036, 23/07/01
Researchers working for the Danish government have cast doubt over
whether retrofitting existing buses and lorries with particle filters
would result in significant air quality improvements or lower premature

The research was commissioned by an inter-ministerial panel set up
last autumn to advise the government whether it should promote
widespread retrofitting. The group published its first report last
month, which is now open for public consultation.

It suggests that urban background levels of particles measuring 2.5 to
10 micrograms in diameter (PM10) would drop by only a very small amount
even if all 60,000 diesel-fuelled buses and lorries on Denmark's roads
were retrofitted. The result would be only 22 fewer premature deaths
per year. Overall, the report concludes, the costs of such a
retrofitting programme would greatly exceed the benefits.

But this is not the end of the story, according to Erik Iversen of the
Danish environmental protection agency and a member of the advisory
group. Mr Iversen told Environment Daily that retrofitting might still
be the best way forward because it would also reduce levels of
ultra-fine particles under 0.1 micrograms (PM0.1).

Exposure to PM0.1 was not considered in the study's computer model
projecting the health effects of retrofitting because there is as yet
no internationally-agreed method of doing so. Nevertheless, researchers
are increasingly suggesting that the health implications of PM0.1 could
be serious. According to Mr Iversen, the advisory group made its own
rough assessment and found that a retrofitting programme might avoid up
to 1,000 deaths per year if PM0.1 was taken into account.

Despite the uncertainty, the group is under political pressure to
recommend a course of action and will do so within the few months.
Whether or not retrofitting is eventually promoted, citizens have
already been encouraged to buy diesel cars. Earlier this year Danish
environment minister Svend Auken said new diesel cars fitted with
particle filters represented private motorists' greenest option for the
forseeable future (ED 20/02/01

Follow-up: Danish government http://www.danmark.dk/; Danish EPA
http://www.mst.dk/, tel: +45 32 66 01 00.

EU highlights real costs of power generation
Environment Daily 1036, 23/07/01
The real costs of generating electricity from coal are more than
double the actual current price, and the real costs of gas-fired power
generation over one-third higher, according to an EU research project
publicised on Friday.  The European Commission said that the ExternE
project had put the "first ever plausable financial figures against
damages resulting from different forms of electricity production".

Latest results from the long-running ExternE actually emerged months
ago, as well as being formally launched by EU research commissioner
Philippe Busquin at a conference in May.  Even so, the figures appear
not to be widely known and make for fascinating reading.

Based on parallel studies for 12 European countries, coal and oil
generation have by far the highest external costs according to ExternE
- an average of 5.7 euro cents per kilowatt hour on top of average
actual generation costs of 4 euro cents/kWh.  Peat burning comes in
second, though based on only two case studies, with external costs of
3.5 cents/kWh.  Natural gas burning has relatively much lower external
costs, averaged over 12 studies at 1.6 cents/kWh.

Renewable energy, unsurprisingly, comes out much better than the
fossil fuels.  However, it might not have been predicted that nuclear
power (just under 0.4 cents/kWh) would have lower externalities than
either hydro (just over 0.4 cents/kWh), photovoltaic solar (0.6
cents/kWh though from just one case study) or biomass burning (1.4
cents/kWh).  Wind power comes out the champion, though, with external
costs of just 0.1 cents/kWh.

The estimates take into account a wide range of externalities,
including public health, global warming, occupational health and
material damage.  Taking out the climate change factor due to the
greater uncertainty of cost allocation, the Commission puts overall
external costs from electricity generation at 1-2% of the EU's gross
domestic product (GDP).  It adds that preliminary work applying the
same model to road transport suggests costs equivalent to another 1-2%
of GDP.

Follow-up: European Commission research directorate
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/research/index_en.html, tel: +32 2 299
1111, and press release

Dutch paper supports early action to curb CO2
Environment Daily 1036, 23/07/01
The arguments in favour of the Netherlands taking early action to cut
carbon emissions are stronger than those in favour of  delaying action,
concludes a paper published today by the Dutch bureau of economic
policy analysis. The paper's author, Henri de Groot, told Environment
Daily that early action would allow the Netherlands to get a head start
in achieving the technological improvements that will be necessary to
develop a lower carbon economy, while early carbon cuts could also
avert climate change-related catastrophes.  See press release

ENDS Environment Daily.  ISSN 1463-1776
Published by Environmental Data Services (ENDS)
Also on the web, at http://www.environmentdaily.com
E-mail:  info at environmentdaily...  Fax: +44 20 74 15 01 06
Subscriptions, Tel: +44 20 78 14 53 53
Editorial, Tel: +44 20 78 14 53 20
Post:  40 Bowling Green Lane, London EC1R 0NE, UK

More information about the Gw mailing list