TIME TO CLOSE THE FOREST AND CLIMATE LOOPHOLES

8 May 2000

MONTREAL -- Governments approved the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Land-Use Change and Forestry in Montreal yesterday. According to Greenpeace and WWF, the Special Report provides a good basis for ensuring that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol is environmentally sound, to avoid the large loopholes that currently exist.

The issue of 'sinks,' the use of plants and soil to sequester or absorb carbon whilst permitting fossil fuel emissions to increase, is one of the largest loopholes in the Kyoto Protocol. If not limited this would allow fossil fuel emissions to increase dramatically instead of requiring the reduction of those emissions. The Special Report points to the magnitude of the sinks problem and lays out options for limiting those loopholes.

"If the rules of the Kyoto Protocol were to allow this kind of loophole, its environmental integrity would go out the window," said Bill Hare, climate policy director of Greenpeace International. "It is now in the hands of governments to use the Report wisely and close the sinks loopholes. Governments need to use the information in the Report wisely to ensure that the Protocol actually reduces carbon pollution."

"The Kyoto Protocol should bring about real reductions of carbon pollution, not allow cars, SUVs and power plants to continue to pollute," said Jennifer Morgan, director, WWF Climate Change Campaign, "Sucking up carbon in trees and soil is not the same as reducing emissions from tailpipes and power plants. The climate knows the difference."

At the eleventh hour, some governments wanted to hide the magnitude of the loophole by deleting text describing the fact that the use of unlimited sinks would remove the need for action to reduce fossil fuel emissions by industrialised countries. (See footnote (1) for the deleted text). The U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia did not wish to have this information included - information that demonstrates that countries could possibly meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments through uncertain sinks activities instead of reducing fossil fuel emissions.

WWF and Greenpeace challenge governments to address these critical questions and ensure that the forests and ecosystems of the world are not harmed by the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC has identified the risk that the Kyoto Protocol could:

- Include incentives for clear-cutting of old growth forests.

- Encourage the clearance of native forest lands for fast growing monoculture plantations or genetically engineered trees.

- Allow countries, to cut down old growth forests with no carbon cost, so they can claim carbon credits from tree plantations or reforestation.

- Allow sinks credits to take over the reduction target of the Kyoto Protocol, providing no incentives for real pollution reduction.

According to the IPCC, at least one-third of the world's remaining forests may be adversely affected by the changing climate, especially in the boreal zone where the warming will be greatest. This is especially relevant for Canada where studies project that up to 50% of Canada's boreal forests could be destroyed. This is critical because by 2050, forests globally could become a significant net source of carbon dioxide emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was asked to draft the "IPCC Special Report on Land Use Change and Forestry" to assist government negotiators in deciding upon rules for the use of ‘sinks’ to meet the greenhouse gas reductions targets in the Kyoto Protocol. The rules are scheduled to be decided at the Climate Summit in The Hague in November 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

- Kara Rinaldi, WWF +1 202 257 9959
- Bill Hare, Greenpeace International, +31 6 2129 6899
- Jennifer Morgan, WWF +1 703 623 2527
- Steven Guilbeault, Greenpeace Canada, 1-514-944-2650

(1) Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol require Annex I parties to reduce emissions by about 200 MtCy-1 below 1990 levels and about 750 MtCy-1 below business-as-usual projections based on the IPCC IS92a scenario. A simple comparison suggests that the potential impact of Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities in Annex I countries alone could be comparable to the projected magnitude of reductions required by Annex I Parties. Such a comparison, however, risks under-estimating the difficulty in creating and implementing the incentives needed to achieve the potential.