KIOTO, RUSIA Y PLANES NACIONALES, POR MARGOT WALLSTROM

Resumen de Prensa            Enervía, jueves, 24 junio 2004

FUENTE: Point Carbon


Margot Wallstrom talks to Point Carbon about the NAPs, Russia and the Kyoto Protocol and the next steps in international negotiations.

Margot Wallström is the European Commissioner with responsibility for the environment. During her tenure at the top of the European Commission’s environment services, she has ushered in a raft of environmental legislation including, of course, the EU emissions trading Directive. She has also represented the EU at the key international climate summits and in bilateral discussions with, among others, Russia. In May 2004, with six months left in this Commission term, Wallström spoke to Carbon Market Monitor of NAPs, Russia and the future.
So far, only one country met the deadline for implementing the EU ETS Directive, a handful met the 31 March deadline for NAPs and one met the 1 May deadline for NAPs. Does this foretell a slow start for the scheme next year? Will you be pursuing legal action against the Member States?

I don't see that the current delays will result in a slow start of the scheme. The Member States can still make up for the delays. There is no doubt that the Emission Trading Scheme will start on the 1st of January 2005.

It is clear that the introduction of emissions trading in Europe is a new and initially difficult way of implementing environment policy. Therefore it is not surprising that almost all Member States have had difficulties in meeting the time limits laid down in the Directive. That is why we did not react immediately once the deadlines for the allocation plans had passed, but decided to give them a few weeks grace, particularly since we knew that many of them were intensively working on their plans.

However, we must be fair to those Member States which did meet the deadline or have since submitted their plans, and we must make sure that we are ready to start the emissions trading system by the end of the year. We will now start preparing infringement procedures against those EU15 Member States that have not yet submitted their plans to us.

The EU emissions trading scheme is a very important project, and it is vital that the Directive’s requirement and timelines are respected. The EU has assumed leadership in implementing Kyoto, and we are closely watched by the rest of the world. This is not the moment to show hesitation.

Is there a price range, below which the scheme is no longer effective and above which it cripples industry?

One of the ground rules with a market-based instrument like the EU emissions trading system is that it is not up to political representatives to pronounce on prices, but for the market to find its price. And I don’t want to “talk prices up or down”. Having said that, I believe the allowance price will fluctuate initially and over time find its range. The Commission will also ensure that there is scarcity.

If the price hits the lower end, companies covered by the scheme will relax their efforts to reduce emissions and instead buy allowances. This will drive up the price and in turn stimulate technological development. And if there are massive technological breakthroughs, there will be more allowances on sale, and their price will be pushed down.

Will the Commission be applying principles across the board or assessing the NAPs one by one? How can you prove that a NAP which is based on projections is 'overly generous'?

We will assess each NAP on its own merits, but based on a catalogue of common allocation criteria, EU competition and state aid rules and the countries' overall emissions reduction strategies, which have to correspond to their Kyoto targets.

If a plan, for example, allocates allowances above current emission levels and at the same time the country is far away from its Kyoto target and the overall reduction strategy doesn't show any other way in which the target can be reached, then the plan simply doesn't fulfil one of the important common criteria. Or, in other words, the allocation is overly generous.

We have started to assess the submitted NAPs, and my first impression is that they generally over-allocate, which is somewhat disappointing. The first review has also shown that they are incomplete or lack information that the Commission needs to make a conclusive assessment. Letters have therefore been sent by my services to ask for the necessary clarifications.

There also seem to be some differences between Member States on which installations are covered by the Directive. We will work with them to get a common interpretation.

Talks are due to begin on the next step under Kyoto (2012 onwards) in July. Do you expect Kyoto to become stronger or could it unravel?

I believe the Kyoto Protocol will become stronger. Climate change has begun. As its effects and consequences will become increasingly evident, there will be growing demand in society to do more to mitigate it.

Given that the UNFCCC and the Protocol constitute the only framework for global action, which is required to fight climate change, it is likely that we will build on the Protocol and that it will thus become stronger. It would make no sense whatsoever to negotiate another agreement and lose valuable time.

Will the EU lead the way in setting emissions caps under the next phase of Kyoto?

A successful implementation of the emissions trading scheme, together with all the other measures that we have taken, will without doubt make the EU the most credible player when we discuss action beyond 2012 with our partners. It is clear that further reductions will be necessary, and I hope that everybody will be fully aware of this.

Can we expect the developing world to sign up to caps next time?

The developing world is not a monolithic bloc - some developing countries are more developed than others, and also produce more emissions. I hope they will agree that increasing participation from their side is vital to solve the problem we are faced with, in line with the UNFCCC’s principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'.

Whatever the result of the US election this November, it seems that Congress will not ratify Kyoto as it stands. When will the debate on Kyoto 2nd phase engage the US?

I expect the next administration, be it Republican or be it Democrat, to take a fresh look. There is growing realisation in the US that we need to fight climate change. Ten north-eastern states are establishing a regional CO2 trading scheme for power plants, California has been consistent in pursuing state legislation on standards for CO2 emissions from cars, a bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, proposes a nationwide greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme, and so on. I hope this pressure 'from the ground up' will result in a decision by the administration to back serious domestic legislation and re-engage in the multilateral process.

Since the EU ETS and the CDM are independent of Kyoto, do we need Russia or the US to ratify? Do we need Kyoto?

The EU's emission trading scheme and CDM are not ends in themselves, but important components of an effective response to climate change. The emission trading scheme does not depend on the entry into force of the Kyoto protocol. Nor does any other of the EU’s measures to combat climate change.

However, we of course need global action against this global problem. We need Russia and the US and many more countries to successfully deal with climate change. We all sit in the same boat. If the boat leaks in one place, this is a problem for all of us.
Having said that, the EU will continue its action and show global leadership in the fight against climate change because, as a major economic power, we believe that we have the responsibility to do so.

Environmental legislation is often the toughest to get through the legislative mill. Does the new constitution as it is shaping up provide for greater efficiency for the environmental chapter of the acquis?

It is going in the right direction by strengthening representative democracy and participation. Citizens are the environment’s best allies because its quality directly affects their quality of life.

Another institutional change that would have positive knock-on effects on environmental policy and might still be agreed would be simplification of the legislative process. This would help speed up the entry into force of environmental legislation and increase transparency. This would in turn would support the development of more effective legislation and improve the chances of successful implementation.

Do you expect to retain your post in the next Commission? If not, do you have any advice for your successor?

Reach out to citizens! As said, they are the environment’s best allies, and it is important to strengthen the European project by involving citizens – but also by involving all other stakeholders, such as business, NGOs, science, and so on. Then, demonstrate that environmental protection in the long run always has huge economic benefits – argue for environmental measures from an economic point of view. Employ innovative and creative approaches, such as market-based instruments and holistic strategies. This is what springs to my mind.




www.pointcarbon.com