Summary

The Kyoto Protocol represents a major step forward by industrialized countries in addressing the global threat of climate change. The UNFCCC is characterized as an international environmental agreement, one of the Rio Conventions, along with the Convention on Biological Diversity and Desertification. It is undoubtedly the most complex and challenging of any international environmental agreement, and as such is very much a work in progress. Proceeding toward implementation will take many years of open-minded and equitable, but very thorough and pragmatic, negotiations that above all deliver on the environmental bottom line—reducing GHGs in the atmosphere. The challenge is to be flexible and equitable enough to encourage the meaningful participation of developing countries, while ensuring that global GHG emission reduction commitments are met.

As it now stands, it is hard to categorize what type of an agreement the Kyoto Protocol really is. As a function of the participation, sector priorities and time-constraints of the Kyoto negotiations, the final document resembles a hybrid between an environmental regulation and pollution control convention and an international trade agreement. At the same time the Protocol seeks to promote sustainable development and support other international environmental agreements. The flexibility mechanisms are critical in that they may contribute to a broader, more ecologically appropriate climate change mitigation program, and provide value-added stimulation of sustainable development benefits in developing countries. Conversely, if they are not applied prudently, flexibility mechanisms could provide for potential loopholes for emission reduction commitments or inadvertently result in perverse and unsustainable ecosystem effects.

These comments are not intended as a criticism, but rather an acknowledgement of how complex and conceptually bold and inclusive the Kyoto Protocol sets out to be, and how much work will have to be accomplished before the first commitment period begins in 2008. These ambiguities can be seen as either a weakness or a strength. To those who view the world through the bottom line of the written word, the Kyoto Protocol contains many traps and possible pitfalls. To those who look beyond the constraints of the written text, it may provide the beginnings of an opportunity to come to grips with global climate change in yet to be known or imagined ways. At the same time, confronting the profound environmental, social and economic implications of Kyoto may help transform sustainable development from a global concept to a global reality.

There are two major dichotomies of principle and practice that affect virtually all aspects of the Kyoto Protocol:

• A regulation and protection and pollution control approach versus that of sustainable development and environmental conservation.
• Legally binding emission reductions versus voluntary, non-regulated approaches.

To address the issues of honest commitment, fairness, equity, and the immense economic implications of the protocol, particularly as it affects the developing world, a healthy dose of "can do" and "no regrets" spirit and practice will be required by all.

Concerns expressed regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of biological sinks should be taken seriously and addressed in a forthright manner. The bottom line of judgement should be the scientific verification that sinks do contribute to a net reduction of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, and the potentially large sustainable development benefits their management can provide. To preclude sinks on ideological grounds would remove incentives for sink protection and enhancement, an area of the Kyoto Protocol that needs further development. The loss of sinks would not only remove their GHG buffering capacity, but also release large amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere.

Conversely, a single-value treatment of sinks could result in inadvertent or perverse environmental effects. For example, old-growth forests or wetlands could be clear cut or drained and planted with fast-growing tree plantations, if only the carbon sequestered during the commitment period was credited. Sinks should be evaluated from a broader sustainable development perspective, ensuring compatibility with other international environmental agreements such as those that conserve biodiversity and wetlands.

A concern of some European and developing countries is that North America has an unfair natural sink advantage that will provide emission reduction loopholes. A different perspective might be that because of vast sink resources, they have an inordinate stewardship responsibility for their protection and enhancement.

Perhaps the most significant and potentially most valuable long-term opportunities for sink protection and enhancement are in developing countries. In many areas, single-purpose developments have affected natural systems and degraded the life support functions of soil and water resources, forests, wetlands and agriculture. Restoration of these systems and functions is costly and is often seen as anti-development. Sink protection and enhancement through such methods as the CDM may provide the diversity of costs and benefits that will bring both the concept and reality of sustainability to such developments.

In the Kyoto Protocol's treatment of biological sinks, only LUCF was included, agricultural soils were alluded to and wetlands were not mentioned at all. When the author tabled a discussion paper on wetlands and climate change at the first ad hoc meeting of the National Sinks Table in April 1998 (Patterson, 1998), a reaction was that wetlands were not even being considered. Since then, this and related work in Canada and the U.S. has begun to focus attention on the issue of wetlands as sinks.

Clearly, the quality and quantity of wetland sinks science, monitoring, verification and reporting do not warrant the consideration of wetlands as unique ecosystems under the Kyoto Protocol. Unlike the economically and politically driven forest and agriculture sectors, the status of wetlands has tended to exist outside the market economy. It is not surprising that there are no departments or ministries of wetlands, or a national conservation coordination entity. In the past decade, however, wetland conservation has become an important component of the sustainable use and stewardship of agricultural and forested landscapes. On ecological, economic and conservation grounds, it is logical to consider wetland sinks as part of forest and agricultural soils.

The current issues, perceptions and approaches to the sinks issue are in many ways similar to those that faced waterfowl and wetland conservation during the late 1970s, when a regulation and protection approach to management prevailed. Regulating the shared harvest of waterfowl between nations, as the management priority, was affected by competitive and distrustful perceptions of fair allocations. The object of wetland habitat conservation was to acquire and manage sites for the benefit of waterfowl, protecting wetlands from other uses to maximize harvest opportunity. However, the development and implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) by the mid-1980s fundamentally transformed the approach to one of conservation being the first priority and harvest being a shared benefit of conservation efforts.

The NAWMP recognized that competing for habitat on privately owned and managed working landscapes was not a viable approach to conservation. Rather, it set out to foster a more sustainable and cooperative approach to land use, where the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of sustainable agriculture and forestry are shared. Through partnerships and incentives for conservation land-use practices, wetland conservation became a value-added component of renewable resource-based business. This fundamental change in approach spawned the largest voluntary, non-regulatory partnership approach to natural resources management in history. The NAWMP, through its Habitat Joint Ventures, is now recognized as a world-leading demonstration of the sustainable development of landscape resources.

Wetland sinks are currently in a catch-22 situation. They are the largest carbon reservoirs in the world. However, not enough is known about their dynamics, fluxes and responses to management to justify their inclusion in a competitive, distrusting and regulatory international negotiating process. The WBGU, 1998 favours preventing additional sinks activities until it is certain that all effects are positive. However, to permanently preclude wetlands from further consideration now could have serious implications on the protection and enhancement of carbon sinks, and on the promotion of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation opportunities in the developing world.

Given the recent developments and achievements of wetland and waterfowl conservation that have exceeded any quantitative expectations, it makes sense to pursue a similar "no regrets" approach to biological sinks. An international negotiating priority for Canada would be toward some form of emissions control-sustainable development bottom line that would protect against unsustainable or perverse effects from sink management, and guard against sinks being used as artificial means of avoiding emission reductions. The "Organization for Sustainable Development" of the United Nations as proposed by the WBGU, 1998 is worth considering as such a model.

Canada's Kyoto position is that forest and agricultural soils should be included as sinks. This study strongly suggests that such a treatment of sinks would logically include wetlands since they are such integral components of those landscapes. Should such a position prevail, wetland sinks could become part of Canada's national forestry and agricultural sinks programs. Canadian wetland science could better organize and focus on the measurement of carbon stocks and flows, as will be discussed at the upcoming Oak Hammock Marsh and science experts meetings. Verification and monitoring, which would include modelling of soil carbon and remote sensing of land use and land-use change, would best be undertaken by the national forestry and agricultural systems currently under development by those sectors.

To accomplish this will require a major effort to organize, coordinate and catalyze science and policy on Canadian wetland sinks, a task for which there is no obvious government entity. If wetlands are included in agricultural and forest soils, the responsibility of the wetlands sector would be to provide the wetland science, land-use conservation and policy components to the lead sectors of agriculture and forestry. The cooperative efforts of IISD, DUC, WI-A and NAWCC, together with the science experts wetlands working group, provide a core of expertise and commitment that can be expanded and built upon.

The NAWMP Habitat Joint Ventures provide a proven delivery system for wetland sink related management programs in both agricultural and forestry lands across Canada. Regional and provincial steering committees currently include representation from the renewable resource sectors and could be expanded as required.

In the early months of 1998, following Kyoto, there was a sense of urgency that sinks issues would have to be fast tracked to meet deadlines such as the November 1998 COP-4 in Buenos Aires. Certainly there are important milestones, such as the National Climate Change in late 1999, the IPCC Panel in 2000 and COP-6, among others. However there is growing recognition that the implications of climate change mitigation and adaptation are extremely complex and will lead to unprecedented environmental, social and economic impacts. From the perspective of sinks science and policy, it is becoming more apparent that it is better to do it correctly than quickly. Sinks are of such potential importance to how we address climate change that it would be a serious consequence to preclude their full assessment and consideration based on artificial deadlines.

Canada has been a world leader in advancing the sinks issue at Kyoto and beyond. Well thought out, scientifically defensible and policy-relevant positions have had significant consequences on negotiations. One of Canada's unique strengths in the forest and agriculture sinks deliberations is that government and industry have spoken with a single voice. For agricultural soils, the energy sector has been particularly proactive in promoting and supporting pioneering work in carbon sequestration in these soils.

The potential crediting of wetland conservation as carbon sinks is uncertain at best. However, the whole sinks issue, including LULUCF, is underlain by uncertainly. This has not prevented Canada from taking an aggressive, but reasoned position, one that is having a substantial and positive impact on negotiations. We believe that Canada has a unique opportunity to develop further the science and policy of wetland conservation as components of agricultural and forest soils and be in a position of steering deliberations.

There is a definite role for the Canadian conservation sector and industry in wetland sinks. Beyond the essential research and policy development requirements, there is a need and an opportunity to initiate pilot sink enhancement projects domestically and internationally. Through Credit for Early Action and the Clean Development Mechanism, Canadian conservation organizations and industry could participate in pilot wetland projects without regret. Costs would be those incremental ones in association with wetland conservation funding available to launch the project.

In Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, the NAWMP Joint Ventures would provide the coordinating and implementation infrastructures for pilot project design, delivery and evaluation. Internationally, Wetlands International and the Ramsar Convention would provide these functions and the link to GEF.

The future status of wetland carbon sinks is uncertain. The global climate change implications of wetland carbon sinks are profound. For Canada to extend its global leadership role to considering wetland carbon sinks as part of agriculture and forest soils is a unique opportunity to advance the climate change agenda and strengthen global sustainable development.