Hello
Thank-you for an interesting question.
The issue you have asked about is remarkably difficult and is still
being hammered out by parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The short answer
is that Canada and other countries have agreed to work together on
'international' pollution, but the details are still being worked out.
'International' emissions raise particularly complex questions. Who is
responsible for the pollution caused by a ship or plane coming from
one country to another, possibly owned by a company in a third country
and perhaps carrying cargo or passengers fom yet more countries?
Part of your question asks about the "provisions of the convention"
and possible "emission trading". Quite honestly, things don't seem to
be at that stage yet when considering pollution that can't be pinned
down to one individual country.
Parties to the Kyoto agreement discuss these issues using the terms
"bunker fuel" and "bunker emissions" to describe fuel and
emission/pollution which is not clearly the responsibility of one
single country. According to a document from October 2002 this issue
is not yet resolved, with parties to the convention being asked to
limit their emissions of bunker fuels but without specific guidelines.
For instance:
" The Kyoto Protocol calls on Annex I Parties to limit or reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions from bunker fuels, working through the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) (Article 2.2)."
(Canada is an Annex I party according to the jargon.)
"Issues in the Negotiating Process
Emissions resulting from fuel used for international transportation:
Aviation and marine bunker fuels"
Document published by the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC)
http://unfccc.int/text/issues/emissres.html
The committee who have the job of working out all the details of this
very complex issue are the SBSTA, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific
and Technical Advice. Before I refer you to their work, I'll show you
a list (by two academics) of possible ways of allocating
responsibility for emissions. If, for example, a foreign ship is in
Canadian waters these are some alternatives for laying the blame for
any pollution:
1. No allocation;
2. Allocation of bunker emissions to Parties in proportion to
national emissions;
3. Allocation to Parties according to the country where the bunker
fuel is sold;
4. Allocation to Parties according to the nationality of the
transporting company, the country where the ship is registered, or the
country of the operator;
5. Allocation to Parties according to the country of departure or
destination. Alternatively the emissions related to the journey could
be shared between the country of departure and the country of arrival;
6. Allocation to Parties according to the country of departure or
destination of passengers or cargo. Alternatively, the emissions
related to the journey of a passenger or cargo could be shared by the
country of departure and the country of arrival;
7. Allocation to Parties according to the country of origin of the
passenger or owner of the cargo;
8. Allocation to the Party of emissions generated in its national
space.
"International Maritime Transport and Climate Policy", by Axel
Michaelowa and Karsten Krause
http://www.hwwa.de/Publikationen/Intereconomics/2000/ie_docs2000/ie0003-michaelowa.htm
A lot of the information about the SBSTA's work on bunker emissions,
from both marine and aviation fuel, dates from 1999 when they prepared
a report on the topic.
The Canada-based International Institute for Sustainable Development
publishes the 'Earth Negotiations Bulletin' which aims to be "a
neutral, authoritative and up-to-the-minute record of ongoing
multilateral negotiations on environment and sustainable development.
"
Their report on the SBSTA's work shows how different countries can
have very different attitudes to the problem:
Earth Negotiations Bulletin June 1999
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/download/pdf/enb12102e.pdf
There are some hints of Canadian negotiators' attitudes here:
"Canada considers all emissions which are based on fuel sold to
foreign registered vessels and aircraft as international. Other
Parties report difficulties in reporting these emissions separately.
The limited data suggest that for countries with a small area, the
domestic share of the emissions is rather low (Belgium) whereas in
countries with a large area, the domestic share is rather high
(Canada)."
Also, see tables 2-5, pages 11 -15, showing different countries' share
of bunker fuel emissions.
SBSTA 1999 report
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/1999/sbsta/inf04.pdf
MORE SOURCES OF INFORMATION
"Fourteen out of the 27 Parties which reported these emissions
separated them into marine and aviation bunkers in their national
communications or supporting materials. This separation is requested
by the UNFCCC guidelines and COP decision 2/CP.3. The method used to
estimate bunkers is also not consistent among Parties. For example,
Switzerland only estimated bunker emissions which are emitted from the
national territory, whereas Canada and Portugal estimated emissions
based on fuel sales to air and marine vessels of foreign registration.
Iceland and Denmark estimated emissions on the basis of fuel sold, but
not specifying to whom. The UNFCCC guidelines include the same wording
for reporting fuel sold without requesting the specification as to
whom the fuel was to be sold to. Finland developed its own model to
estimate aviation emissions, including international aviation
emissions. Most Parties did not specify what methods they used. The
impact of different methods on the bunker emission estimate has not
been assessed.
Eleven Parties reported bunker emissions of CO2 only. For 13 out of 15
Parties which also reported CH4 and N2O bunker emissions the share of
the CO2 emissions in the aggregated GHG bunker emissions is higher
than 98 per cent. For Finland it is 89 per cent, but the reasons for
this lower figure were not explained. The share was not estimated for
Canada as this Party reported only aggregated bunker emissions in
terms of CO2 equivalent. "
UNFCCC: COP
http://www.cop4.org/resource/docs/1998/sbsta/07.htm.
More reports on the subject
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+site:www.iisd.ca+canada+%22bunker+emissions%22
See links in "Bunker Fuels: Issues in the Negotiating Process"
http://cop6.unfccc.int/issues/100.html
Issue discussed in this report, especially page 148 onward:
Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships
http://unfccc.int/issues/imoghgmain.pdf
International Institute for Sustainable Development
http://www.iisd.ca
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (with 'search'
option)
http://unfccc.int
I have referred you to some pdf documents which require you to have
Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer. You can download this
free from:
Adobe Acrobat
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/alternate.html#505
I hope this is helpful. If anything is unclear or any links are
broken, please feel free to request clarification.
Regards - Leli
search terms
Kyoto protocol convention "climate change" "united nations" sbsta
iisd
bunker fuel emission Canada Canadian |
,
0 Comments
)