Do provinces undercut climate negotiations? Sub-national governments with tougher Copenhagen targets make negotiations harder for federal counterparts, say experts. By Laura Payton Published December 16, 2009

View story Email Comments To the Editor

Last week, Toronto Mayor David Miller joined forces with environmental NGO Climate Action Network to accept a tongue-in-cheek "Fossil of the Day" award on behalf of the Canadian government. Environmentalists announce the awards during climate talks to call out leaders they see as particularly contrary to negotiations.

Usually, the group doesn't have anyone to accept the award. But Mr. Miller seemed to relish the chance, announcing his "disappointment and regret" over the federal government's controversial emission reduction targets and lack of a plan to reach those targets.

"As mayor of Canada's largest city, I can assure the rest of the world that there is leadership in Canada," Mr. Miller said in a press release. "Provincial and municipal governments are taking climate change seriously even as the federal government is lagging.... We expect the government to support a fair, ambitious and binding deal."

As it happens, Mr. Miller is not the only Canadian sub-national government official at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Premiers, provincial environment ministers and mayors from across the country are at the summit to network and make their cases for tougher emissions targets and for federal money for technology and infrastructure to cut harmful greenhouse gases.

But the contradictory messages between an under-achieving federal government target and the more ambitious provinces are both confusing and potentially embarassing, say experts.

"It's very important in any negotiation that Canada speaks with one voice," says Paul Heinbecker, a former diplomat who was Canada's head negotiator for the 1997 Kyoto Accord. "When you have contradictory messages coming out of the Canadian delegation it can only cause confusion.

"It undermines people's positions, certainly," Mr. Heinbecker adds.

British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec have all struck positions on climate change that are tougher than that of the federal government, including using 1990 as a base year for greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The federal government is using a 2006 base year for its targets, which translate into only a three per cent emission reduction over 1990 emission levels by 2020. Ontario's target is a 15 per cent reduction, while Quebec is aiming for 20 per cent, and British Columbia for a 33 per cent reduction.

Mr. Heinbecker says there were only one or two provincial ministers in the Canadian delegation for the Kyoto talks and that they didn't have fundamentally different positions from the federal government.

"For there to be a single Canadian voice there needs to be at least a reasonable amount of agreement on what the position is that we are taking, and that doesn't exist at the current time in Canada, partly because the federal government hasn't devised the position that the others would subscribe to," he says.

Negotiators from other countries could feel like they can hold out for more progressive targets from Canada because the provinces are calling for them, but in the end it's the federal government that signs the agreement, Mr. Heinbecker says.

However, a public disagreement like this will hurt Canada's reputation, says Christopher Kukucha, a University of Lethbridge professor who has written a book about the provinces and foreign trade policy.

"Typically, most of the people that are engaged in these negotiations obviously are professional negotiators and aren't going to be fazed by that kind of politics," he says. "But I think it certainly hurts Canada's reputation internationally.... We lose credibility internationally when we have these kinds of things going on. People just don't take us that seriously anymore."

Not many countries have sub-national regions as powerful as the Canadian provinces, and some of those that do also have their responsibilities more clearly laid out in national statutes.

At the same time, Gordon Campbell, the premier of British Columbia, says his province is almost larger than Britain, France and Germany combined, making it, size-wise, a big player. Further, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice invited him to the talks.

"I think the minister was thinking by us being there we could show there's a lot taking place in our country," says Mr. Campbell. "I think it's important to show the rest of the world that we're making some significant policy changes and directional changes in Canada."

In any case, it's Canada that sits at the table, not the provinces, Mr. Campbell says.

"I have said all along that Minister Prentice is our voice and we're there to add support, to give ideas, to give examples of what we can do. As I said, British Columbia intends to carry on with our plans and certainly Minister Prentice has just encouraged us to do that," he says.

In the end it's Canada's chief negotiator, Michael Martin, who has to worry about how provincial and municipal representation in Copenhagen could influence the talks.

"They have important areas in their jurisdiction that they can influence, where the mitigation potential may allow for setting strong goals," Mr. Martin said in a conference call with reporters last week.

There are representatives from 12 of the 13 provinces and territories on his negotiating team, he added. And he's not worried about the different targets because the federal and sub-national plans are separate.

"I think you're comparing apples and oranges because we're comparing a national goal that will ultimately be the subject of an internationally binding legal commitment, and provincial and territorial goals which are set as a means of driving forward policies," Mr. Martin said. "They're quite compatible."

Mr. Heinbecker says Mr. Martin is a very capable negotiator with a wide range of issues on the table, not least of which are the basic points on which some of the provinces disagree with the federal government.

"He's negotiating across a wide range of things, not just what the number will be and what the base year will be. There's all sorts of things that have to be negotiated in an agreement this complicated. It's the most complex agreement that there is."