On May 23-24, 2024, The Policy and Law Center for Environmental Sustainability (PLES) of National Taiwan University College of Law, co-hosted the Eight Melbourne Forum on Constitution-Building in Asia and the Pacific (hereinafter the Melbourne Forum), jointly with International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) and the Constitution Transformation Network (CTN) of Melbourne Law School. 16 scholars, experts, and practitioners from the Asia-Pacific region, each representing different sub-region or jurisdiction, are invited to share insights on the topic “Climate Change and Constitutions”.

Two Sessions were held in Day 1 of the Melbourne Forum. Session I focused on the issues of representation and democratic decision-making. Speakers and participants vibrantly shared views on the impacts of democracy deficits on state capacity dealing with climate change, the problem of over-representation of institutions and under-representation of local or indigenous groups, as well as different elements often attached to climate change, e.g. development, disaster, green energy, etc., with their possible impacts to the public discourse and participation.

Session II of the Melbourne Forum focused on the international, regional, and domestic intersections reflected by the multilevel governance in climate change. In this session, speakers and participants exchanged views on how states took part in the international and regional regulatory or cooperative frameworks, and how the international or regional commitments have been brought (or have not been brought) into domestic or local levels. The Forum also highlighted the importance of the inclusion of diverse voices to ensure the comprehensiveness of the measures dealing with climate change.

#MF2024Climate

#Climate_Change_and_Constitution

#NTU_Law_PLES

【 Panel Discussion Summary 】4/18 “Taiwan in the World: From International Humanitarian/Criminal Law to International Environmental/Biodiversity Law”

    Taiwan has confronted difficulties against its statehood as well as participation in global agreements and organizations since 1971. What’s worse, worldwide conflicts and urgent environmental issues, such as biodiversity loss and climate change, have posed serious challenges to the globe, including Taiwan. In response, the Public Law Center and Policy and Law Center for Environmental Sustainability hosted a panel discussion, with the title of "Taiwan in the World: From International Humanitarian/Criminal Law to International Environmental/Biodiversity Law", inviting Professor Kevin Chang from National Chengchi University and Visiting Professor Ann Madding from National Taiwan University as speakers to provide valuable insights and suggestions for Taiwan's international strategies.

    Professor Chang underscored the pivotal role of international law and international organizations in ensuring global peace and security. He reaffirmed Taiwan's status under international law and advocated for measures to strengthen its sovereignty. These measures involve exploring avenues for engagement with key international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), aligning domestic laws with global legal standards, and bolstering national security to deter potential threats, especially from China.

    Professor Chang highlighted the role of ICC for Taiwan's further international engagement. Established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, the ICC addresses serious international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. Unlike member-based organizations, ICC operates as a functional court based on the Rome Statute's ratification. Therefore, there are two possible ways for Taiwan's engagement with the ICC: either by ratifying the Rome Statute to become a state party or by voluntarily accepting the Court's jurisdiction without formal membership. Each approach carries distinct benefits and legal implications, requiring Taiwan’s careful consideration based on its own national interests and capacity.

    To further illustrate, Professor Chang identified several key benefits for Taiwan in joining the ICC, including enhancing Taiwan’s international reputation and values, reforming legal structures to align with global standards, and providing a robust deterrent against potential threats, especially from China, thus strengthening national security. Furthermore, Taiwan's accession could bolster the influence of ICC in Asia, where countries pay not that much attention to ratification as well as engagement with this institution. Professor Chang's analysis suggests a favorable likelihood of Taiwan joining the ICC, given China's reluctance to embrace ICC membership due to accountability issues, resulting in limited political sway. Also, the Court prioritizes universal membership, recognizing the value of including all territories to address international crimes comprehensively. All these factors indicate the possibility of Taiwan joining the ICC, especially considering its strategic position and the evolving dynamics of international relations in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Next, Professor Ann Madding discussed on Taiwan's changing dynamics from the perspective of international environmental law. Professor Madding first pointed out Taiwan's past interactions with international environmental law, particularly focusing on its engagement with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). After a video of rhino trading was released, Taiwan was caught violating the Convention and was sanctioned by international community and the U.S. in the 1990s when its role in relation to international environmental conventions remained ambiguous. However, with the unique characteristics of international environmental law, non-state parties could still bear certain obligations and sanctions under international law order. In response, Taiwan performed quickly to align itself with the international environmental law standards, and the Wildlife Conservation Act was indeed the product of that time.

    Despite limitations as a non-party member, Professor Madding suggested that Taiwan has benefited from this proactive stance, witnessing improvements in environmental and biodiversity conservation. Professor Madding highlighted opportunities within international environmental law, emphasizing its decentralized nature compared to other areas of international law. With approximately 3,700 existing international environmental law agreements, Taiwan has ample space to engage with and contribute to the global community. Moreover, given its scientific strength in areas like climate change technology, Taiwan can provide significant assistance to international environmental or biodiversity-focused efforts. Moreover, by collaborating with sub-state actors and international environmental NGOs as well as showcasing its environmental compliance and initiatives, Taiwan can also raise awareness by providing international support and enhance its role in combating global environmental challenges.

#Taiwan_in_the_world

#Taiwan_and_ICC

#Taiwan_and_Climate

The contested status of Taiwan's statehood has always hampered its actions under international law. With the looming crises brought by China's mounting military incursions and global environmental degradation, what can Taiwan do as a non-party member to international organizations and treaties? Are there any breakthroughs for Taiwan?

Professor Kevin Chang and Ann Madding will provide their insights from the perspectives of international humanitarian/criminal law and international environmental/biodiversity law respectively. 

Roundtable Discussion 

(held by both Public Law Center and PLES)

Time: April 18th, 2024, 12:20-14:20

 Place: Tsai Lecture Hall, 7F, Room 1710

Topic: Taiwan in the World – from International Humanitarian/Criminal Law to International Environmental/Ecological Law

Moderator:

University Chair Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh

Speakers:

Associate Professor Kevin Chang (International College of Innovation, National Chengchi University)

Visiting Professor Annie Madding (College of Law, National Taiwan University)

Discussants:

Dr. Pei-Jung Li (College of Law, National Taiwan University)

Associate Professor Chun-Yuan Lin (Department of Financial and Economic Law, Chung Yuan Christian University)

Assistant Professor Yi-Li Lee (Institute of Law for Science and Technology, National Tsing Hua University)

Closing Remark:

Distinguished Professor Wen-Chen Chang (College of Law, National Taiwan University)

Time Schedule 

12:20-12:30 Introduction 

Prof. Jiunn-rong Yeh

12:30-12:50 Speech

Associate Prof. Kevin Chang

12:50-13:10 Speech 

Visiting Prof. Annie Madding

13:10-13:20 Panel Discussion

Prof. Yi-Li Lee 

13:20-13:30 Panel Discussion 

Prof. Chun-Yuan Lin

13:30-13:40 Panel Discussion 

Dr. Pei-Jung Li

13:40-13:50 Closing Remark

Prof. Wen-Chen Chang

13:50-14:20 Open Discussion／Q&A

1. Background 

Beginning of this year, the Taitung County authorities started the bidding for the development of the Jhihben Wetland (知本濕地). The authorities plan to set up a solar energy presentation area to promote sustainable development. However, the Jhihben Wetland is an important ecological area. In addition, it is located within the traditional territory of a local indigenous Puyuma community. This community, the Katratripul community, have traditionally used the Jhihben Wetland for their rituals and for hunting and fishing. Yet the community has not been involved so far in any of the planning and proposed development of the Jhihben Wetland. 
The Jhihben Wetland case is an example of the tension between sustainable development promoted by the State and the use of lands, territories, and natural resources by indigenous peoples in Taiwan. The controversies of the Jhihben Wetland case are part of a broader problem in Taiwan’s approach to “sustainable development.” The State adopts a narrow view on sustainable development that mainly focuses on economic growth and to some extent addresses environmental protection but overlooks social inclusion. Renewable energy projects, ecotourism, and national parks are proposed on lands, territories, and natural resources occupied and/or used by indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples need these lands, territories, and natural resources for their subsistence and their cultures. There nevertheless is not a full consultation and consent of indigenous peoples in the planning and achievement of sustainable development schemes. 
The narrow view on sustainable development is laid down in the applicable laws on the development of lands and natural resources. There is no law that mandates social impact assessments at any stage of proposed sustainable development projects. In addition, the obligatory EIAs do not provide for substantial consultation with affected indigenous communities – only a public hearing is to be held. The relation of the EIAs with laws that prescribe consultation and Free Prior and Informed Consent (‘FPIC’) of indigenous peoples is also ambiguous. These laws on consultation and FPIC moreover impose a model of decision-making that is alien to many indigenous peoples. A final example is that the law does not contain regulations on fair and appropriate compensation for and distribution of the risks and benefits of sustainable development projects between non-indigenous dominant society and indigenous peoples.
So, generally, law does not include indigenous peoples in the decision-making on sustainable development projects and their risks and benefits. This is not in accordance with international trends and standards for sustainable development. The proposed seminar aims to address these problems of Taiwanese law, have an exchange of ideas, and to propose directions for further advancement of the law. 

2. General Seminar Theme and Sub Topics

The general theme of the seminar is proposed to be “sustainable development and indigenous peoples.” It revolves around the problem of who benefits from sustainable development in Taiwan. As set out above, sustainable development in Taiwan is one-sided. Indigenous peoples carry its burden; their views, traditions, and values on sustainable development are not considered, and their lands and natural resources are not respected. Therefore, the question can be asked: sustainable development for whom?
This seminar focuses on the interactions between the State and indigenous peoples on sustainable development, and the role of law in these interactions. So, the seminar addresses the role of the law in the issues of indigenous peoples and EIAs, the right to consultation, FPIC, and benefit-sharing and compensation. The speakers are invited to share their views and expertise. 

3. Schedule:

Date: 4/18(Wed.) 12:30~14:30
Venue: National Taiwan University, College of Social Science, I-Sian Building, First Conference Room (Room 419)

12:30-12:45
Welcome and Introduction
12:45-13:00
Professor Awi Mona Chih-Wei Tsai 
13:00-13:15
Professor Nian-Feng Xin 
13:15-13:30
Dr. Jeroen van Bekhoven
13:30-13:45
Dr. Tsung-Ling Lee 
13:45-14:00
Professor Kuei-Tien Chou
14:00-14:20
Q&A
14:20-14:30
Closing Remarks

*The presentations will be mainly in Chinese (with no translator).
Only the presentation of Jeroen van Bekhoven will be in English.

The Former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, winner of the 2014 Tang Prize in sustainable development is going to give speeches in Taiwan!

4/2 "Public Health and the Environment in a Sustainable Society - Special Forum" 
Venue: Second Conference Room (3F), South Wing, Building for Humanities & Social Sciences, Academia Sinica (128 Academia Road, Section 2, Nankang, Taipei 11529)

Topic: The UK's Experience of the risks and opportunities presented by the transition to a low carbon economy

Speaker: Sir David King (UK Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative for Climate Change)

Discussants: Prof. Wen-Chen Chang (College of Law, NTU), Prof. Wen-Chen Shih (Department of International Business, NCCU), Prof. Kuei-Tien Chou (Graduate Institute of National Development, NTU),  Prof. Tze-Luen Lin (Department of Political Science, NTU)

Time/Date: 14:20 - 16:00 / March 21, 2017

Venue: Room 1301, Tsai Lecture Hall.

Co-hosted by British Office in Taipei and PLES

Date: May 3, 2014
 

As the pioneer in policy making in international climate change policies, European Union and its legislation procedure usually begins with establishing long term legislation projects, and later the project will be implemented through directives and regulations. Legislation will first come up with a long-term project and an overall policy for the legislation framework, and then individualized the separated legislation as substantial regulation, allowing developing countries to join EU’s direction, while adjusting its legislation strategies according to different conditions.

Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it specifies that EU environmental strategies should go after the goal of the prevention of climate change strategies. It also mentions the shared authority between EU and its member countries on issues such as environment, climate change and energy campaign. Therefore, EU has brought up European Climate Change Programme in order to honor Kyoto Protocol, and further develop bundled legislation of climate and energy in 2020, hoping to achieve its goal of lowering GHG emission, raising the ratio of EU renewable energy, and improving energy efficiency for its target. The undertaking measures include the establishment of EU carbon emission trade system, setting up reduction targets for those weren’t restricted by carbon trade regulating system, letting each country set up binding national goals  to reach the usage ratio for renewable energy, and developing carbon capture and storage. Later on, EU then passed the 2030 climate and energy policy framework in order to continue its campaign on lowering carbon economy and construction of a competitive energy safety system in order to lower EU’s dependency on imported energy and further promote related job market. Under this construction, EU further applies restraining methods to lower carbon emission to 40% of carbon emission in 1990. Moreover, EU has invested in renewable energy in order to increase the ratio of renewable energy and to improve its job market and economy progress. Before that, EU has come up with a 2050 grand plan as a long term establishment, hoping to develop EU as competitive low carbon economy. In a nutshell, the legislation framework of EU is quite designful, we could see that there will be transnational integrated projects in the future.

The organization framework of EU is quite interesting. The climate change issue was under the jurisdiction of European Environment Agency. But in 2010, there has been an independent agency - DG Climate Action. DG Cilmate has taken over the related function of the original climate negotiation in industrial organization. Two agencies are geographically close by, with mostly the same administration members from the original agency. DG Climate takes charge in collecting information of each country, and it has been an integration of cross-function department and single-authority organization, with its level equivalent to a commission standing. While it incorporated different opinions from different departments and countries, DG Climate has raised the enforceability of climate change strategies and efficiency, and further increase its negotiation influence.

The regulated objectives of EU’s restraining method falls on national governments, with a few regulations involved in restraining special corporates and ordinary people.  The methods that EU applies in regulation in overall carbon regulation involves both order control and economic incentives, it also has penalty for violators. For instance, airline companies that violate directives of emission trade shall pay for penalty, and might face disciplinary sanction of grounded aircrafts.

If we look into EU’s legislation action and method, we can see that EU is indeed the pioneer of international movement of climate change. It’s future development worths our continuing observation.

France has incorporated Environmental Charter in its Constitution. It does not have a specific legislation for climate change but merely established an environmental agreement framework with its main focus on implementing EU regulations. There are more than 50 nuclear plants in France. After the Fukushima incident, the new government proclaimed its intention of lowering the number of nuclear power plants. However, Professor Hsu indicated that because of economic reliance and technical exporting factors, it is difficult for France to lower the number of its nuclear plants. Moreover, the nuclear plants has taken some burdens off France in its carbon emission pressure. With its stability in geographic nature, France is likely to continue its reliance on nuclear power plants. Professor Hsu also pointed out that even though France has been vetoed in collecting carbon tax by its constitutional committee, however, the reason behind was not that there shall not be carbon tax, but that it was unconstitutional of its violation in equality principle of tax, thus leaving room for discussion in carbon tax system.

Date: May 3, 2014

The United Kingdom is one of the international role models when it comes to climate change strategies. It has always been the great promoter of Kyoto Protocol, with its astonishing achievement on GHG emission reduction results, the United Kingdom has outreached its said target on GHG reduction during the first commitment period.

The main climate change law in the United Kingdom is “Climate Change Act 2008.” It is a legislation of compulsory law on a national level, regulating procedures, authorities and organization, substantially authorizing the organizations in charge the authority of detail regulations. Climate Change Act 2008 has set up the reduction target up to 2050, establishing carbon budget system, giving the foundation of the establishment of carbon trade system while including regulations regarding energy and adjustment topics.

Of the organization aspect, the United Kingdom merges the affair of energy and climate change and has established the Department of Energy and Climate Change as the authority department. On top of that, the United Kingdom also set up the organization of “Committee on Climate Change.” The nature of this organization is of a consulting and researching agency while the reports the committee provided have absolute influences. Under the Committee, there is “Adaptation Sub-Committee” with its main focus on adjustment research. The members of Committee on Climate Change have been gathered by experts of various fields including climate science, economy, energy and finance, thus giving the Committee the nature of expertocracy. Researcher Diagee Shaw, panel speaker of the seminar spoken that the government officials of the United Kingdom once said, the secret of the climate change policies of the United Kingdom lies within the reports submitted by the Committee on Climate Change, with professionals in charge in supervising the government instead of making it the parliament’s duty. However, will the expert committee bring doubts in the lack of democracy in expertocracy or the danger of the committee being manipulated whatsoever? Participant speaker Professor Kuei-tien Chou mentioned that even though Taiwanese expertocracy has been criticized with the above issues, however, the United Kingdom is well-known for its traditional democratic self-discipline, experts tend to be trusted by citizens more and could bring its expertise into full play under the circumstance.

In recent years, the focus of the United Kingdom climate change legislation has shifted to adjustment issues. Committee on Climate Change took charge of issues such as climate change risk evaluation and management. The establishment of the Adaptation Sub-Committee has shown the attention given on adjustment issues. The climate change risk evaluation reports and national adjustment projects shall be updated regularly. According to national adjustment projects, the United Kingdom has carried out an overall evaluation of important and fundamental infrastructures. The government is given the right to request climate change adaptability responses from related industries and organizations. The United Kingdom has carried out a system of multi-layers in management and information exchange between central and local governments, government and civil units in consultation and communication. For example, there are consulting conferences for local governments as a mechanism in bringing in an upward information flow for central government in decision making and communication process and further contributing to adjustment strategies that could be tuned up accordingly.

Professor Wen-Chen Shih supplemented on the topics of the financial and economic incentives of the United Kingdom’s climate change mechanism. The United Kingdom has imposed climate change levy on consumers through electronic and gas bills. The revenues were used in establishing a non profit venture “Carbon Trust” as a consulting and technical institute of climate change and it has quite some credibility on international reputation. Professor Shih brought up a interesting information, that if the energy intensive industries signed the climate change agreement with the government, making goals of energy-saving plans, then such industry could reduce levy. The United Kingdom has promoted voluntary carbon emission trade mechanism through policies, targeting carbon reduction while hoping that London could become the international center of carbon finance. In 2006, the carbon trade mechanism that is still operating is the European Union carbon trade mechanism. After 2008, the United Kingdom has legislated the fundamental law of carbon trade and further requested the involvement from public sectors.

All in all, UK’s reduction measures are largely dependent upon economic incentives. The measures of indemnity or methods that are similar to “revenue-neutral” are also involved in encouraging corporates that are voluntary in taking methods or achieving goals. Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh specifically noticed the part of climate change agreement, saying that it conforms with UK’s trend of largely using mass contracts instead of traditional administrative methods in recent years and has shown the nature of climate change: “from government to governance,”  and the possibility of cooperation between public and private sectors. Researcher Daigee Shaw further pointed out the carbon price floor in UK makes manufactures that have not been involved in carbon trade also face the same minimum carbon price. Researcher Shaw pointed out that climate legislation and policies should focus mainly upon using incentives in help forwarding reduction, and that the methods of incentives should be used carefully as it could lead to corporate fraudulence, for example. Professor Kuei-tien Chou commented that while the negotiation between public and private sectors and such agreements as economic incentives are part of the governance, we should still keep an eye on the issues of civilian supervision.

Date: May 3, 2014

Compare Australia to Canada, Australia initially did not ratify Kyoto Protocol. But after Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2007, the numbers of Australians domestic legislation has increased largely. In 2010, the numbers of climate change legislation has boomed after the federal elections in 2010, and in 2011, Australia has legislated Clean Energy Act as the main package of 18 laws. Put it in a nutshell, Australia has a swinging attitude towards climate change issues, and it has to do with Australian’s political parties. Where they stand on climate change political issues substantially affect whether or not the political parties could win the votes.

When it comes to establishing organizations, competent authority has not been determined in recent years. Although there are cross-sectors organizations, for example, in 2010 Australian Labor Party has established a Multi Party Climate Change Committee and was later abolished and replaced by climate change conference to offer policy consulting. Another establishment of offering GHG emission trade regulations and consulting and later has been abolished was Climate Change Authority, and that GHG office has been merged to clean energy supervision organization. Of the above, we could see the instability of Australian’s climate change policies, and it has been affected by political reasons.

Australia has put energy regulation as its main focus when it comes to regulation mechanism and controlling methods. Australia has been choosing between carbon tax and emission trade as its controlling method, and finally Australia compromised its halfway. In 2011, Australia has passed clean energy act, with its ultimate hope of establishing emission trade system, with its first three years of fixed pricing. In 2012, Australia has connected with EU’s emission trade system, and has abolished the fixed pricing part and let the market be its hand, using emission reduction fund as a replacement of carbon tax. Another trait of clean energy act is that the reimbursement kicks in when reduction promotion has burdened or ever harmed Australian corporations and communities. We could say that Australia has subsidy methods in emission reduction policies.

Australia has suffered from various climate change disasters and has raised the awareness of climate change adjustment issues to national level in 2007. It has established a national adjustment framework on climate change adjustment, with its priority mission as investigating vulnerability of each place and its location in climate change adjustment actions priorities within various different fields. Six fields that has been considered to be under the largest impacts of Australian climate change: water resources, shores, foundational constructions, ecology, management of natural disasters and agriculture.

As to emission reduction fund, the policies involved are through establishing funds to contribute to substantial policies, using financial mechanism to promote reduction. This fund has quite clear political directives and procedures; it must be low-cost to reach actual reduction, while the procedures shall be easy to participate. Australian government and clean energy regulators cooperated separately, with the government taking charge of deciding the sequence of methods and development, and establishing related standards; while clean energy regulators are responsible for the approval of credential projects, auctions, and contract-signing procedures and fulfillment report.

Professor Lin pointed out that, the main observing focus on Australian climate change legislation includes: political parties as the influence key on climate change policies, making Australian’s standing towards climate change swinging; the impacts on considerable amount of passed legislation; the attention given on aborigines and agriculture, and its adjustment; other noteworthy focus are the reduction fund and subsidy policies.

Researcher Dai-gee Shaw pointed out that the Australian Labor Party won the election because of climate change policies, and thereafter has promoted climate change polices. However, the Australian Labor Party failed on its policies and therefore lost its authority. The new political party in charge also took the strategy of abolishing the previous legislation. Researcher Shaw recommended that we put this history and contexts in the report. On the other hand, emission fund is a new strategy of the new government in replacing the policies from the previous authority. New government has taken the strategies of giving out benefits for the emitting parties. Lastly, the new government wants to abolish carbon tax. Researcher Shaw indicated that the previous project of fixed pricing and carbon trade system shall be a very successful mechanism, and Researcher Shaw wished to understand more regard the systems and its development timing. Professor Lin responded that the emission reduction fund began in November 2013, and it’s already the new government era. According to the recent announced White paper, it shall be the new policy strategy of the government taking in charge by replacing the strategy of carbon trade from the previous government.

Date: May 3, 2014

The climate change legislation in Canada shares much similarity with climate change legislation in Australia. The developments of climate change legislation are involved with political parties in both countries. At first Canada was active in climate change legislation, but in 2011, Canada announced its withdrawal from Kyoto Accord, disappointing those who had anticipated that Canada stands as a leading role in climate change issues.

In 2007, Canada has established Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which has a legislative framework. At that time, COP 11 was held in Montreal, it was when the act was established and all standards were closely related to Kyoto Protocol’s standards.

To everyone’s surprise, Canada withdrew from Kyoto Accord in 2011, and then abolished Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act in 2012. With this change, it is estimated that future movement of climate legislation will be slower than before. We could say that the 2007 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act is a framework for following legislation; any later law could be put into this framework. It is interesting that even though the framework itself had been abolished; however, the laws continued to exist and later became a scattered legislation mode. After the frame law had been abolished, the federal sustainability strategies have become the foundation of future development. As to the organization, there haven’t been any new established organizations; Environment Canada continued to move forward the issues of climate change. The authority of Environment Canada includes establishment, assessment, management, execution, etc in climate change issues. These have been the authority and power of Environment Canada. And the policies are synchronized with American climate change policies, with the aligned standards just like in America.

The regulating mechanism and strategies are focused on transportation and energy. Energy regulations were active, Energy Efficiency Regulations was established and the amended 2008 GHG clauses were included. In 2012, Environment Canada announced a series of regulations, and gradually eliminated heat power. In addition, Canada focused its strategies on agriculture and wood industries, specifically put agriculture industry into regulating policies. As it comes to research and information establishment, including clean air process regulations, it is required that GHG emission situation to be investigated and reported. And that The Federal Sustainable Development Strategy requires Environment Canada to carry on relevant reports.

As compared to America’s lack of focus on financial mechanism, there are three aspects of Canada’s financial mechanism: First, technology development. Canada has firstly established Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund Act. In 2010, there is development in clean technology financial fund. Moreover, Canada cares about adjustment. Each year, Canada has spent a lot of fund in researching climate change adjustment strategies and develops adjustment plans since 2007. In addition to that, Canada also established climate finance in helping developing countries in adjusting reduction policies.
　　

In Professor Lin’s opinion, we could continue to observe Canada’s climate change legislation. Since its previous close connection with international environment, until it withdrew from Kyoto Accord, what will be its next step of policies is worth our attentions. Will it stop developing climate change legislation, or will it develop its own policies? Moreover, we could see the similarities of Canada’s new policies and American climate change policies. On top of that, we could see more about the relationship between federal government and local government. Since local governments are inclined to oppose federal policies, so we could look deep as to whether the cooperation between local and federal governments could bring more integration. Canada’s policies care about adjustment deeply. The main focus for us to observe will be the tight financial mechanism connections and the fund invested in promoting adjustments.
　　

Professor Wen-Chen Shih pointed out that, Ontario, Canada has a connected emission system with California, the United States. We could see that there are more active connections between states than the federals. Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh stated that there exists a secondary cross country-state cooperating phenomenon other than cooperation on a country to country level between Canada and America. We could also look deep into the connection of carbon market between the United States and Canada.
 

Professor Wen-Chen Chang stated that, if we look into North America area, political parties affect the movement of climate change. Besides, when it comes to treaties, Canada adopts dualism. Therefore, after Canada withdrew from Kyoto Accord, the Implement Act does not have a standing. Since Canada didn’t transfer the Implementation Act into domestic law, we could see that Canada stood strong in withdrawing from international mechanism of climate change issues. Other than that, there wasn’t enough ground for making the Implementation Act domestic law. However, we could see that Canada’s action of joining Kyoto Accord and establishing domestic law. It doesn’t mean that Canada does not carry out climate change policies; it was just that the implementation did not have a domestic impact and status. Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh supplemented that we could look into the political phenomenon of putting the issues of climate change under political framework, and that Canada is currently the only country which dropped out of Kyoto Accord and abolished its domestic regulations.