This is a very brief history of what led to the international response to climate change, the position Canada took at the Kyoto Conference of Parties 3 meeting (COP3), and the progress since COP3 in respect to sinks. (It should be noted that this is largely the opinion of the writer).
Scientific opinion on anthropogenic (human induced) influence on climate change dates back to 1896 when a Swedish chemist predicted that CO2 emissions from burning coal would lead to global warming. Since 1958, reliable, continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2 became available from an observatory in Hawaii. In 1972, the United Nations Environmental Program was founded. The 1985, discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica drew attention to the anthropogenic influence on the atmosphere.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established and issued this statement in 1988: "Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequence could be second only to global nuclear war."
These vents led to the Conference of Parties first meeting (COP1) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. At this first "Earth Summit" meeting on climate change, 154 nations signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, voluntarily agreeing to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Here we are now in 2000 and emission levels are nowhere near 1990 levels.
At COP2 in Berlin in 1995, the IPCC concludes "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human influence on global climate." This was a stern warning to national governments.
COP3 was held in Kyoto in 1997. Here the IPCC scientists pointed out that the voluntary reductions agreed to at COP1 weren't working to address a very real problem and that legally binding reductions seem to be the only recourse.
COP3 had two goals: first to decrease CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and secondly to increase the removal of CO2. The removal of CO2 by storing or sequestering CO2 in biomass or carbon sinks is covered in Article 3.3. Canada pushed for both forests and agricultural soils to be included as sinks. In negotiations, Canada was asked to pick one sink and forestry was chosen. To date, the definition of what a forest is, continues to be disputed.
Agricultural land at COP3 was listed as a source of CO2 emissions because tillage emits CO2. I believe our negotiators wanted them included in the text of COP3 because they thought it would make it easier to change the status of agricultural soils from a 'source' to a 'sink' at a later date rather than introducing soils as a new issue altogether.
It should be noted here that Canada included soils as a five million metric tonne (MMT) source of CO2 emissions in our 1990 inventory. Now as a result of Best Management Practices in agriculture that sequesters carbon, we have a net sink. Canada will therefore receive some credit for reducing emissions whether or not agricultural soils are recognized as a 'sink.'
Article 3.4 establishes rules for incorporating new 'sinks' in the COP3 protocol. I am convinced that Canadian negotiators are putting every effort into changing Article 3.3 to recognize agricultural soils as a sink while also using Article 3.4 to have agricultural soils counted as an offset to GHG emissions.
Canada's position on day one of the talks at Kyoto was:
Canada's position by the end of COP3 was an agreement to reduce levels to 6% below the 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Other participating countries agreed to the following reductions: The U.S. -7%. The E.U. -8%, Japan -6%, N.Z. -0%, and Australia an 8% increase.
My understanding is that Canada accepted larger reductions rather than sticking to its opening position because 'sinks' were included. This was probably prudent considering Canada's geography with its huge agriculture and forested areas.
At the COP4 meeting in Buenos Aires in 1998, the text in the section 3.3 was changed from "land use change and forestry" to "land use, land use change and forestry." This is significant because Canada argued that the land use change meant changes (Best Management Practices) to agricultural land. The opponents argued that land use change meant changing agricultural land to forests. There could be an argument for Land Use as agriculture and Land Use Change could be the reforestation of marginal agricultural land. The science behind 'soil sinks' was still in debate so an IPCC special report with 800 international contributors was commissioned to study the subject.
COP5, in Bonn in 1999, saw this special report tabled and discussed. The outcome is that agricultural soils as a 'sink' will be formally discussed at COP6 at The Hague in November, 2000. The definition of what a forest is in terms of a 'sink' is still unclear.
In summary, it has taken six Conferences of the Parties to get where we are now. I am convinced that our government is doing all it can internationally to get soil 'sinks' recognized as part of the GHG solution. This is understandable when you consider that agricultural soils could conservatively contribute 24 MMT or between 10% - 20% of Canada's emission reduction target identified at COP3.
It is time however, that our governments, both provincial and federal, recognize that the agricultural soil 'sink' potential rests solely in the hands of farmers and involve them in the issues surrounding GHG reductions.