Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER 2001
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
AND SARAH
HENDRY
60. To nail this down, the timetable and precise
figures, are these linked to particular projects? Do they have
to be linked to a particular project? You mentioned a range of
things they could fund, are they essentially open-ended, a contribution
to particular countries to capacity build or technology transfer
or whatever? (Mr Meacher) There is uncertainty about
that. On the payment side I think the allocation is fairly clear.
How the money is distributed and who gets it will be a much more
contentious issue for them.
61. Yes. Also, how it is distributed between
a variety of laudable goals? (Mr Meacher) Yes.
62. You are saying that it is up to the developing
countries to argue that one out? (Mr Meacher) It is
basically. I do not think it is for us, the Annex 1 countries,
to tell them how it should be used. As long as they use it within
the range of purposes for which it is intend, which I am sure
they will, it is a matter that is up to them. Whether they decide
to do it in terms of economic size or in terms of degree of poverty
and need is a matter for them. Obviously G77 is a hugely heterogenous
category and the difference between China, India, Brazil and Indonesia
at one end and the Sub Sahara and Africa at the other is enormous.
How you allocate it is open to question.
David Taylor
63. What is to stop developing countries reclassifying
aid they had already promised to bring it within this heading
and thereby meet the obligations that might have been agreed to? (Mr
Meacher) Again, that was an issue. One major developed country
in particular was extremely keen that contributions for the purposes
I have indicated, technology transfer, adaptation and capacity
building, should be payable out of ODA. The EU took a line and
the United Kingdom strongly supported it, that it should be additional
to ODA money. That is the current position.
Mr Jack
64. We have had some discussion so far about
sinks and I just wanted to know basically whether you felt that
the sort of growing importance attached to them was good negotiating
flexibility or whether it represented, if you like, a scientifically
robust way of genuinely dealing with emissions on a continuing
basis, because some of the statements coming out under the heading
of our own climate change programme, "it believes a reduction
in emissions should be the principal policy response, given the
vulnerability and uncertainty associated with the sinks process." (Mr
Meacher) There is no doubt, for the reasons I partly mentioned,
that sinks are vulnerable, carbon sinks in the form of forestation,
because they can burn and the loss to the world with the forest
fires in Indonesia and in Brazil a couple of years ago were on
a colossal scale. Indeed I heard Klaus T½pfer, who is the
Executive Director of UNIP, who visited Indonesia at the time,
saying that the rough calculation was that the increase in CO2
generated by those fires in Asia was greater than the whole of
the CO2 emissions from Europe in that year. The vulnerability
is on a colossal scale. Uncertainty we have already mentioned,
there is uncertainty but I think we can refine that. The truth
is that sinks are in the Kyoto Protocol, carbon sinks are a phenomenon
that nobody denies, it does happen. The question is, how you decide
on additionality and how you decide on quantification, bearing
in mind the nature of the product, the age of the forest, its
type, et cetera. It is for those reasons that we are very cautious
about it. There is no question of eliminating carbon sinks from
the protocol. Countries can justifiably regard that as part of
the way in which they meet their targets. The truth is in Bonn
I actually think that we did quite well on targets. Before Bonn
there was a view that if existing forests were allowed there could
be something like 1,000 million tonnes of carbon extra which would
be allowed in, which would really blow the whole Kyoto five per
cent target. That has now been removed. The Bonn agreement capped
the forest management in terms of sinks at 50 million tonnes of
carbon a year, that is one twentieth of what it might have been,
and it is worth the flexibility, which we were obliged to offer
to Japan and Canada in order to get the agreement. We gave them
more than we would have liked but the overall gain is greatly
disproportionate to the small and marginal concession we had to
make.
65. Can I be clear, are we talking about the
use of forestation as net to what there is or allowing what is
already on the ground to count towards each nation's target? (Mr
Meacher) Again, this is one of the issues. It will be argued
by states, has been argued by states, that improved forest management
should be allowed even with regard to existing forests. It is
one thing to plant new forests, afforestation, reforestation,
they count, but what about an existing forest where as a result
of improved forest management, whatever exactly that means, one
can claim certain targets? This is where the uncertainty is very
great and we need to have agreed rules before we start.
Mr Jack
66. Can we just have a look at the United Kingdom
Government's attitude to all this because on page 21 of the Executive
Summary of the England Rural Development Programme 2000-06
we find this encouraging statement: "To encourage the development
of energy crops in order to contribute both to EU commitments
on the reduction of greenhouse gases and to the UK Government's
target to produce ten per cent of electricity from renewable sources.
These crops also offer a diversification opportunity for farmers".
That is under a section headed "Energy Crops Scheme (Miscanthus)".
Are you as enthusiastic now that you are part of the Department
that espouses this particular view as you were under your former
incarnation? Are you going to really encourage UK agriculture
to take up this opportunity? (Mr Meacher) Yes, we are
but—
Chairman
67. Miscanthus is coarse grass. (Mr Meacher)
Yes, I realise that.
68. I know you do. (Mr Meacher) Yes,
we are but subject to the cost efficiency. These do need to be
encouraged, for example through cuts in duty. They have to be
justified in terms of loss to the Exchequer against other alternative
ways of achieving CO2 emission reductions. If they can be justified,
yes, we will certainly be supporting them and, indeed, the Chancellor
announced in the last Budget a Green Fuels Challenge and invited
industry to come forward with proposals about how they can extend
exactly the kind of source for transport fuel that you are referring
to.
69. Am I right in saying that the original target
for the Climate Change Levy was a saving of two million tonnes
of CO2, or carbon dioxide? (Mr Meacher) Two million
tonnes as a saving?
70. As a target of the Climate Change Levy. (Mr
Meacher) Partly. We expected that as a result of the Climate
Change Agreement there might be a gain of the order of two million
tonnes, but in addition the price differential, we believe, could
also generate a further two million tonnes. In total it could
be around four million tonnes.
71. Interestingly when I put down a series of
parliamentary questions last year it was confirmed that in terms
of the four million tonne figure you have quoted you would need
about 200,000 hectares of short rotational coppice to absorb that,
which I think represents about one per cent of the UK's cultivatable
area transferred to SRC. Do you do any kind of scenario play like
that to work out relationships between these big number targets
and what could be achieved by SRC and the contribution it makes
to renewable energies? (Mr Meacher) I think a fair
answer to that is yes. We are looking at all sources for saving
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The strategy paper
that we published last year does look at all the main sectors
where this can be expected, including the one you have just mentioned.
It is not the case that if we can do more in one area then we
can exclude another. I know of your concerns from previous discussions
about this with regard to the Climate Change Levy and its effect
on industry. The fact is industry is as wasteful in the use of
energy as many households are and, therefore, to have an incentive
or a lever to improve energy efficiency is actually valuable to
that industry itself. Of course there is a capital outlay while
one either changes process plants or puts in place equipment which
will save energy, but within a payback period which may be a year
and a half, five years, I certainly think not more than seven
years in most cases, there is an actual saving in the utilisation
of energy and it is actually good for the bottom line. We are
only encouraging industry to do what is in its own long-term self-interest.
The premise of your argument if we could do more in terms of miscanthus
and bioethanol and SRC then we could exclude industry from the
rigours of the Climate Change Levy, I would not agree with that
premise, I think we need both.
72. I am not necessarily saying I would disagree
with that in the light of the earlier discussion when you illustrated
the size of the problem. I think what was at the back of my mind
was part of the agenda that this Committee is going to consider
in the future is the future form of our agricultural industry
and new things for agriculture to do with the land mass address
part of this issue. I was looking for some signals that, in spite
of the odd question mark about the value of sinks both in terms
of science and monitorability, we would still be encouraging this
type of thinking, development, investment in it in the context
of our own UK agriculture. (Mr Meacher) Certainly.
Patrick Hall
73. Minister, I understand that the most significant
natural carbon sinks are the world's oceans, if I am right in
that. (Mr Meacher) They are certainly a sink and they
are certainly the largest. The seas cover 71 per cent of the surface
of the earth, so they are enormous. On the other hand, I think
the degree of carbon sequestration by oceans within a certain
magnitude is less than forests. Trees absorb carbon more than
the oceans but because the oceans are so vast, yes, there is an
effect.
74. They play a very important role. (Mr
Meacher) Yes.
75. So protection of the global marine environment
is an important element in looking at and dealing with climate
change. To what extent do you think that this is addressed in
Kyoto? (Mr Meacher) It has certainly had very little
discussion, the main discussion is about the role of forests.
After all, the oceans are there whether we like it or not and
although we can degrade them, and I am afraid we do by a number
of our practices, both land based pollution but also pollution
at sea, they also have an internal cleansing capacity on a significant
scale and they are there but, of course, plankton and other small
marine species do have a role in absorbing carbon, that is perfectly
true. How far any state can claim the benefit of this because
if we are talking about oceans which are well away from the land
no-one has responsibility for them and, secondly, there is no
incremental effort involved, it is simply a natural process which
is beneficial up to a certain level.
76. It is a natural process that we are putting
at risk ultimately if we continue to pollute. Therefore, is it
not something that should be examined in the future so that the
plankton can continue to perform their very helpful function? (Mr
Meacher) I very much agree with that and, indeed, the UK Government
in this year is giving considerable attention to this issue ourselves.
We have protection of terrestrial species with SSSIs. We do realise
that the protection of marine species is at a much lower level
and we are looking, and indeed I met a number of the relevant
interests, the stakeholders, including not just the NGOs but the
ports developers, literally in this last week to look at ways
by which compatibly with the interests of the parties, if that
is possible, we could improve the protection of the marine ecosystem.
There has also been talk from the NGOs about a new Oceans Act.
There is awareness of this issue but of course the UK can only
do a limited amount itself and it is only multilateral agreements
which are going to be effective. There are, of course, many such
international agreements in place. UNLOSC, the Law of the Sea
Conference, and the IMO, the International Maritime Organisation,
are already responsible for trying to reduce pollution in the
wider oceans.
77. I am just trying to make the point that
I do not think it has been given enough significant attention
in the context of looking at climate change and I think that has
got to be put right, it has got to be addressed. (Mr Meacher)
That is an interesting point and I do think that when the more
immediate pressing issues about the utilisation of terrestrial
sinks has been settled, that is something which perhaps the scientists
could give more attention to and put some quantification on it
which I cannot at this moment.
Mr Mitchell
78. Are we preparing an Oceans Act? (Mr
Meacher) No, no.
79. Why not? (Mr Meacher) I see.
I did say that the —
|
