Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): what the process says about the politics of CDM-sinks

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the most contentious issues in the negotiations aimed at operationalizing the Kyoto Protocol was the treatment of sinks and, particularly, the eligibility of sinks projects in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This paper attempts to analyse the politics underlying these negotiations, drawing on methods of process tracing, key informant interviews, negotiating texts and secondary literature. Tracing the sinks debate and highlighting key lessons about the nature of global environmental agreements and their institutional arrangements is the first step to recounting the history of the politics of one of the major contemporary international environmental debates. The paper shows that the Kyoto Protocol negotiations on sinks and CDM-sinks were multilaterally supported as a practical solution, but went ‘off track’ due to actors’ interests and tradeoffs. As regards future negotiations on forest sinks in developing countries under the framework of the UNFCCC, the paper argues that these are likely to be influenced by similar constraints, and also by the conservation and development agenda of its supporters; as well as the experience gathered on the CDM and the interests and concerns of developing countries. We broadly frame the paper within the literature on global environmental politics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Article 1.8 of the UNFCCC, a ‘sink’ is any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Therefore, while the term sinks is often used to specifically indicate tree plantations it is used in this paper to also indicate activities such as natural regeneration of trees and protection of trees in multi-component conservation projects.

  2. The first forestry offset project started before COP-1, in Guatemala in 1989 to offset emissions from a US-based company.

  3. The informal interviews were conducted by the lead author as part of her PhD research and in subsequent meetings as part of ongoing research on sinks. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their knowledge of the topic, and hence referred to as key informants.

  4. Opposition by the G77 and China to the proposal later resulted in Appendix 2 of Decision 11CP/7 on forest removals units in the Marrakech Accords in 2001.

  5. The ENB summary of COP-4 only has four instances of sinks and COP-5 has six mentioned compared to 50 instances at COP-3.

  6. The technical discussions in the IPCC were underpinned by discords over definitions set out in the report over afforestation, reforestation and deforestation. Furthermore, the report’s chapter on ‘projects’ raised significant controversy on the role of scientists in prescribing policy (Fry 2002). The World Rainforest Movement heavily criticized the report for its lack of transparency, alleging that the lead authors also had interests in private-sector consultancies that sought to promote carbon offsets (WRM 2000a; Forsyth 2003). Despite these critiques, the IPCC LULUCF report is still one of the most reliable sources of information concerning land use activities.

  7. Some could argue that in the past other approved Decisions had been changed as a result of political bargaining. For example, Russia’s cap on sinks use for compliance, which was established at 17 MtCO2/year at COP-6-2 (see Decision 5/CP.6), was moved up to 33 MtCO2/year at COP-7 (see Decision 12/CP.7).

  8. A Canadian submission during pre-COP-9 sessions considered three options for making the insured credits permanent. First, to exchange the insured credits (iCERs) for an equal number of AAUs, CERs or ERUs; Second, to subject the project to a legally binding “protected status”, such as a national park, protected area, covenant or easement; And third to subject the project to long-term sustainable management agreement for the land and its carbon reservoir, in accordance with domestic legislation. All options had to be insured and monitored for a fixed number of years, which went up to a maximum of 30 years for a reforestation project with a crediting period of 20 years not renewed (Submission by Canada, 26 November 2003).

  9. The Colombian proposal (originally submitted in September 2000 and contained as a Colombian submission in document FCCC/SBSTA/2000/MISC.8) suggested that those carbon credits obtained by a developed country from forestry projects would expire when the carbon is emitted to the atmosphere for whatever reason. Then, the holding country would have to either reduce national emissions by that amount or buy the same number of carbon credits from another forestry project.

References

  • Agarwal, A. (2000). Back to basics - prostitution of the mind. Equity watch equal rights to the environment. Special Edition 5, The Hague. November 24, 2000.

  • Andresen, S., & Agrawala, S. (2002). Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Global Environmental Change, 12, 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aukland, L., Costa, P. M., et al. (2003). A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: The case of avoided deforestation. Climate Policy, 3(2), 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benndorf, R., Federici, S., Forner, C., Pena, N., Rametsteiner, E., Sanz M. J., & Somogyi, Z. (2007). Including land use, land-use change, and forestry in future climate change, agreements: Thinking outside the box. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(4), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, E., Corbera, E., Gutiérrez M., & Estrada, M. (2004). The politics of afforestation and reforestation activities at COP-9 and SB-20. Tyndall Centre Briefing Paper 71.

  • Boyd , E., May P., Veiga F., & Chang, M. (2007b). Can the CDM bring sustainable development? Insights from carbon forestry projects in Brazil and Bolivia. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(5), 419–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, E., & Schipper, E. L. (2002). The Marrakech accord - at the crossroad to ratification: Seventh conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Journal of Environment and Development, 11(2), 184–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, E. et al. (2007a). The clean development mechanism: Current status, perspectives and future policy. Tyndall Centre Technical Report 114. UEA, Norwich.

  • Brown, K., Boyd, E., Corbera, E., Adger, W. N., & Schackley, S. (2004). How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? Tyndall Centre Technical Report 16.

  • Carpenter, C. (2001). Business, green groups and the media: The role of non-governmental organizations in the climate change debate. International Affairs, 77(2), 313–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chasek, P., et al. (2006). Global environmental politics. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, E. (2005). Interrogating development in carbon forestry activities: A case study from Mexico, PhD Thesis. University of East Anglia.

  • Corbera, E., & Brown K. (in press). Building institutions to trade ecosystem services: Marketing forest carbon in Mexico. World Development.

  • Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depledge, J. (2000). Tracing the origins of the kyoto protocol: An article-by-Article Textual History (FCCC/TP/2000/2, FCCC, 2000).

  • Depledge, J. (2001). The organization of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations: Lessons for global environmental decision-making, PhD thesis. University College of London.

  • Dessai, S. (2001). The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinks the Kyoto Protocol? (pp. 27). Norwich, UEA: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, F. (1977). Can we control the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Energy, 2, 287–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earth Negotiation Bulletin–ENB. (1997). Report of the Third Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC: 1–11 December 1997 (Vol.12, no. 76) International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

  • ENB. (1998a). Report of the Meetings of the FCCC Subsidiary Bodies: 2–12 June 1998 (Vol. 12, no. 86) IISD.

  • ENB. (1998b). Report of the Fourth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC: 2–13 November 1998 (Vol. 12, no. 87) IISD.

  • ENB. (1999). Summary of the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC: 25 October-5 November 1999 (Vol. 12, no.123) IISD.

  • ENB. (2000a). Summary of the Twelfth Session of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC: 5–16 June 2000 (Vol.12, no. 137) IISD.

  • ENB. (2000b). Summary of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Vol. 12, no. 163) IISD.

  • ENB. (2000c). Summary of the Thirteenth Session of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: 4–15 September 2000 (Vol.12, no. 151) IISD.

  • Estrada, M., Corbera, E., & Brown, K. (2007). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Revisiting the assumptions. Tyndall Centre Working Paper Series.

  • Fearnside, P. (2001). Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: As issue that divides the environmental movement. Ecological Economics, 39, 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogel, C. (2002). Perspectives on ‘carbon sinks’: The construction of knowledge and policy to abate global climate change, 1980–2001. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.

  • Fogel, C. (2005). Biotic carbon sequestration and the Kyoto Protocol: The construction of global knowledge by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. International Environmental Agreements, 5, 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical political ecology the politics of environmental science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, I. (2002). Twists and turns in the jungle: Exploring the evolution of land use, land-use change and forestry decisions with the Kyoto Protocol. RECIEL Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 11(2), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geres, R., & Michaelowa, A. (2002). A qualitative method to consider leakage effects from CDM and JI projects. Energy Policy 30(6), 461–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, C., & Shackley, S. (2001). The respectable politics of climate change: The epistemic communities and NGOs. International Affairs, 77(2), 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb, M., et al. (1999). The Kyoto Protocol a guide and assessment. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J. (2000). On behalf of My Delegation,... A survival guide for developing country climate negotiations. Washington DC, Center for Sustainable Development of the Americas.

  • Houghton, J., et al. (1990). Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Final Report of Working Group I, IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Houghton, R. A., et al. (1998). Missing sinks, feedbacks, and understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon balance. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 12(1), 25–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000). Special report on land use, land-use change, and forestry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis, contributions of working group I to the third assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jacob, T. R. (2001). Reflections on The Hague. Climate Policy, 1, 277–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, M. (2003). The role of forestry sinks in the CDM – analysing the effects of policy decisions on the carbon market. HWWA Discussion Paper 21. Hamburg Institute of International Economics.

  • Kjellén, B. (2007). A new diplomacy for sustainable development: The challenge of global change. An inside view of policy formation and international negotiation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liverman, D. M. (2004). Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance and the commodification of nature. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(4), 734–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, L. (2001). Democracy or carbocracy? Intellectual corruption and the future of the climate debate. Briefing No. 24, The Cornerhouse, UK.

  • Lohmann, L. (2006). Carbon trading a critical conservation on climate change, privatisation and power. Development Dialogue No. 48. Sweden: Mediaprint.

  • Michaelowa, A. (2003). CDM host country institution building. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 8, 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mwandosya, M. J. (2000). Survival emissions: A perspective from the south on global climate change negotiations. Dar-es-Salaam, The Centre for Energy, Environment, Science and Technology.

  • Nature. (2000a). “Deadlock in The Hague, but hopes remain for spring climate deal.” Nature, 408(30 November), 503–504.

  • Nature. (2000b). Critical Politics of Carbon Sinks. Nature, 408(6812), 501.

  • Paustian, K., Antle, J.M, Sheehan, J., & Paul, E. A. (2006). Agriculture’s role in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

  • Ramakrishna, K. (2000). The UNFCCC - history and evolution of the climate change negotiations. In L. Gomez-Echeverri (Ed.), Climate change and development. (pp. 47–62). Boston: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

  • Richards, K. R., Sampson, R. N., & Brown, S. (2006). Agricultural and forestlands: U.S. Carbon Policy Strategies. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

  • Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A climate of injustice global inequity, North-South politics, and climate policy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlamadinger, B., Johns, T., Ciccarese, L., Braun, M., Sato, A., Senyaz, A., Stephens, P., Takahashi, M., & Zhang, X. (2007). Options for including land use in a climate agreement post-2012: Improving the Kyoto Protocol approach. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(4), 295–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. (2005). The rational Choice of international institutions: Uncertainty and flexibility in the Kyoto Regime. Presented at the Colloquium on Positive Political Economy, Department of Political Science, Ohio State, January 21, 2005.

  • UNEP-Risoe. (2007). CDM pipeline database and analysis. Available at: http://www.uneprisoe.org/.

  • UNFCCC. (2002). Sixth Synthesis Report on activities implemented jointly under the pilot phase.

  • UNFCCC. (2003). Decision 19/CP.9: Modalities and procedures for afforestation and reforestation activities under the clean development mechanism.

  • WRM. (2000a). Tree trouble: A compilation of testimonies on the negative impact of large-scale monoculture tree plantations prepared for the sixth Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Montevideo and Moreton-and-Marsh, World Rainforest Movement.

  • WRM. (2000b). Climate change convention: Sinks that stink. Montevideo and Moreton-and-Marsh, World Rainforest Movement.

  • Young, O. (2003). Environmental governance: The role of institutions in causing and confronting environmental problems. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Interviews

  • Delegate 1 = Delegate from Chile. Friday, 3 December 2005. Montreal, Palais des Congress. COP 11 COP/MOP1.

  • Delegate 2 = Delegate from Switzerland. Monday, 5 December 2005. Montreal, Palais des Congress COP 11 COP/MOP1.

  • Delegate 3 = Delegate from Brazil. Tuesday, 6 December 2005. Montreal, Palais de Congress COP 11 COP/MOP1.

  • Delegate 4 = NGO representative. Thursday, 8 December, 2005. Montreal, Palais de Congress COP 11 COP/MOP1.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Extensive thanks are given to James Martin for his financial support under which this article was written. Gratitude is extended to Dr. Maria Gutierrez and Bo Kjellén for providing comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

    Emily Boyd

  2. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Emily Boyd

  3. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK

    Esteve Corbera

  4. Mexico, Mexico

    Manuel Estrada (Technical Consultant)

Authors
  1. Emily Boyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esteve Corbera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel Estrada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Boyd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boyd, E., Corbera, E. & Estrada, M. UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): what the process says about the politics of CDM-sinks. Int Environ Agreements 8, 95–112 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-008-9070-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-008-9070-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation