|
CEN Cross-Caucus Workshop
Merrickville
February 17-19, 2004
Speaking Notes for Matthew Bramley, Director,
Climate Change, Pembina Institute
Federal climate change policy commitments
- Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol in December 2002. Kyoto
implementation is currently based on the Climate Change Plan
for Canada (November 2002). The Martin government is now revising/completing
the latter.
- Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change (October 2000) claimed
to go 1/3 of the way to Kyoto compliance (in terms of emission
reductions) and is incorporated into the Climate Change Plan
for Canada.
- Implementation of these plans is dispersed among NRCan (most
important), Environment Canada, and the Departments of Transport,
Agriculture, Industry etc.
Federal climate change governance
- NRCan and Environment Canada formally co-lead domestic climate
change policy implementation since at least early 1998. This
remains the case today, despite NRCan’s dominance of implementation.
- From 1998 until early 2002, the Climate Change Secretariat
(there were closely overlapping federal and national, i.e. federal-provincial,
secretariats) coordinated government activities on climate change,
which mainly consisted of consultation. The Head of the Secretariat
reported to the Deputy Ministers of both Environment and NRCan,
and the Secretariat’s activities were driven by NAICC-CC
and JMM (Joint Ministers’ Meetings).
- The Secretariat has lost its importance since Alberta quit
the NAICC-CC in early 2002, and its only known current activity
is to help negotiate MoUs on climate change between the federal
and provincial governments.
- In 2002-03, there was a Reference Group of [federal] Ministers
on Climate Change, but this no longer exists under the new government,
which has not yet established any central secretariat or ministerial
committee dedicated to climate change.
Federal climate change consultation
- The Climate Change Secretariat was quite good at central coordination
of consultations on climate change, with strong ENGO involvement,
albeit on an “invited experts” basis rather than
through CEN-style delegate selection.
- Since the demise of the Secretariat, and the general shift
into more of a policy implementation phase, consultation has
been scattered, incomplete and piecemeal. In some cases (e.g.,
those where Environment Canada leads), consultation is generally
good; in others (notably where NRCan leads), consultation of
ENGOs is inadequate or non-existent.
- It is unclear whether there will any formal consultation
at all on the very important revision/completion of the Climate
Change Plan for Canada that has now begun.
- The National Round Table has recently launched a potentially
very important climate change energy program to look at Canada’s
long-term climate/energy policy. There will be opportunities
for ENGO involvement.
- Regarding NRCan not “getting” multistakeholder
consultation, the department may be open to being convinced
of the value of small multistakeholder groups where unexpected
common ground can often be identified. The Clean Air Strategic
Alliance (CASA, Alberta) provides a good example of this. NRCan
officials generally fail to understand that ENGOs can provide
real expertise and be helpful to officials who have a mandate
to achieve real environmental gains but are under adverse pressure
from industry.
Large final emitters policy
- The Pembina Institute is concentrating significant effort
on ensuring that the federal government implements a strong
system of emissions targets and trading for large final emitters
(LFEs) of greenhouse gases. Such a system is by far the largest
component of the Climate Change Plan for Canada (55 Mt out of
the 240 Mt of reductions in annual emissions needed for Kyoto
compliance).
- NRCan is leading the development of this system, although
Environment Canada retains a formal co-lead.
- Access to relevant officials at NRCan is good, but consultation
is poor: many meetings are held with industry while a few separate
meetings are conceded for ENGOs; the first comprehensive multistakeholder
consultation planned for March 23, 2004 in Toronto has no money
available to cover ENGO travel expenses.
- The LFEs policy will require new federal legislation (the
“regulatory backstop”), which needs ideally to be
tabled in the fall of 2004. This will help elevate the political
profile and awareness among opinion leaders of this issue (currently
very low). One issue is who the responsible ministers for the
legislation will be – just NRCan, or Environment Canada
too?
- There are obvious linkages between the LFEs policy and desirable
reductions in other pollutants at facilities such as coal-fired
electricity generation and refineries.
Linkages
- The ultimate driver for action on climate change in Canada
is international science and international agreements. This
drives the generation of domestic climate change plans in which
concommittent reductions in other pollutants (thereby benefiting
human health) are viewed as “co-benefits”.
- The Martin government’s emphasis on innovation and a
new deal for cities may create the need to talk instead about
plans for innovation and cities in which greenhouse gas reductions
are the co-benefits.
- One example where greenhouse gas reductions are an insufficient
rationale for convincing the government to act is provided by
green power (e.g. windpower), where the estimated $/tonne cost
of emissions reduction is too high when only greenhouse gases
are considered. If economic and other environmental and health
co-benefits are included, then governments can be more easily
convinced to support green power.
- Note that policy measures to reduce air contaminants (e.g.
as part of action to reduce smog or acid rain) only have co-benefits
in terms of greenhouse gas reductions when they involve fuel
switching, efficiency gains or conservation. Thus, despite the
Ontario government’s claims, Drive Clean hardly affects
greenhouse gas emissions.
|
