We certainly are seeing a lot about Kyoto in the papers. Prime Minister Chretiein announced in Johannesburg that the government would introduce legislation, probably before Christmas, that would set Canada on the path to ratification.
Political analysts point out that because of the liberal majority, with its history of party discipline and support by the Block and the NDP, this legislation will likely pass. The Alliance's opposition to the ratification along with the PC on-again off-again opposition will probably not affect its passage. Alberta has mounted a very public campaign to oppose the federal plan. They support reducing emissions but over a longer time period.
Kyoto will probably come into force regardless of whether Canada ratifies or not. Russian ratification is expected to occur in the spring session of the Duma. This action will bring the Kyoto Accord into effect. Russia will have ERU (emission reduction) carbon credits to sell internationally. This "hot air" or "fair air" credit results from the fact that in 1990 (the Kyoto base year), Russia had an active, but emission intense, industrial sector. This industrial sector downsized or collapsed with the dramatic political changes after 1990.
In the last few weeks Canada and several provinces have released their "official" positions on Kyoto. All the plans agree that we must reduce emissions but then the fight begins. I will report on a few points of the Alberta, Saskatchewan and National positions as they affect our membership.
Alberta's position argues that the cost of ratification to the Albertan and Canadian economy would be huge. The Federal government studies suggest that the cost would be minimal and the NGO environmental groups point to economic benefits.
I would not be brave enough to speculate about who is right but we need to realize that everyone is posturing in order to enhance their bargaining position.
Let's look at ratification in terms of benefits and drawbacks to the farm sector. First we must recognize that the scientific debates on whether or not global warming is occurring and whether the changes are anthropogenic (induced by human activity) are over. Aside from a few contrairian groups in the science world, including the American Academy of Science, the scientific community is in agreement that failure to address the issue would be foolish. This means that the global community will be forced into action and the only question is how far and how quickly do we go.
The Alberta option suggests that we should not ratify Kyoto. As farmers we need to understand that there are costs and benefits to ratifying. Our sector is a source of emissions. Therefore there will be a cost. On the other hand we can remove and store emissions in the soil with ag soil sinks
One Kyoto mechanism is an emission market and the carbon sinks created by ag sinks would have value. If Alberta prevails and Canada fails to ratify Kyoto, we may lose this opportunity. Canada has worked hard to have the sink provision included in Kyoto and it may be hard to have sinks recognized if the agreement is rejected and then renegotiated at later date.
Canada's action plan, which was made public just before the JMM (Joint Ministers Meeting) in Halifax, has been criticized for being short of specifics. The one notable provision in Canada's action plan that affects us is the point that would only allow farmers to receive recognition for some of the RMUs ( removal units or sink credits) . There is a strong implication that sink credits created by "business as usual" (BAU) would lower Canada's emission targets but the farmers that created them and currently maintain them would get little or no recognition.
We must track carefully the fate of the debate on (BAU) ag soil sinks. Most of these BAU sinks are in Saskatchewan and the Province and its farmers could be short- changed. For a province with the liability of largely coal fired electrical generation, the costs would remain but the benefit of some of its large RM ag sinks would move directly to the federal ledger where they would be used to lower national targets. This would be a disadvantage to both our province and our SSCA members.
The Saskatchewan representative at the Federal-Provincial JMM made some strong statements regarding federal infringement on provincial jurisdictions. The following excerpt is taken from the Saskatchewan government position paper:
"The federal plan should respect provincial jurisdiction, including provincial ownership of natural resources. The plan should provide fair compensation for any national use of carbon sinks developed by Saskatchewan farmers or for any carbon sinks accumulated by provincial forests. The plan should allow for a provincial role in implementation of major climate change initiatives, including monitoring and administration of any proposed emissions trading system."
Farmers need to insist on ownership of what we have accomplished by removing and storing CO2 in our soils. As an association, the SSCA will do its best to see that the value that accrues as a result of actions farmers belongs to the farmers.