Photo Credit: A. Sridhar, 2008

In previous Climatico blogs, it has been highlighted that the Government of India has placed sustainable economic development high on its priority list. Last week, the Government of India published its highly anticipated Interim Budget. Not surprisingly, development initiatives gained precedence in budget allocation.  In 2008, the Government had lots to say about bolstering India’s climate policies- with an Action Plan and high international involvement. Does the interim budget reflect these commitments- translating policy statements into implementation phase through budget allocation?

Notable points to note from the budget  on climate issues include:

• The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Ministry of Power received slight increases in the interim budget estimates.
• The Ministry of Environment and Forests was allocated the same budget from previous years at Rs. 150 billion (approx.3 billion USD) distributed between conservation and afforestation initiatives.
• Allocation of Rs. 140 billion (approx. 2.8 billion USD) in infrastructure and rural development schemes- an increase  from previous years.   

  -          Various farming subsidies schemes were given focus.

  -           Integrated Water Management Programme was allocated Rs. 20210 million (approx.  404 million USD)

• Ministry of Earth Sciences received funding for research on polar climates, meteorology, and climate change research center.
• Environmental Equity and Safety

  -          In coordination with the 2009-2010 central plan, the interim budget highlights a desire to ensure legal rights to forest dwellers and subsequent infrastructure building for forest tribes to promote what PM Manmohan Singh referred to as ‘growth with equity.’

  -          The budget provides Rs. 73000 million (approx. 1460 million USD) to states in efforts to ensure safe drinking water to rural communities.

The publication of the Interim budget comes amidst what is likely to be a heated election season from now till May. With the possibility of change in India’s political landscape, we are taking the opportunity to highlight some policy areas worth looking into:

• Invest more in transport infrastructure. In the past, more focus has been placed on development of roads and highways and the current Interim budget follows this trend without a more aggressive push towards efficient public transport plan for the nation. While public transport in most cities  is fairly good, there has to be a shift in perception away from private transport and towards public transport. Better networks that allow people to give up their cars.
• National level of coordination of natural resources. Many resources fall under State supervision but lack unified coordination at the national level unless litigation is involved. Establishing national-level advisory bodies can assist in the management of such resources.
• Public awareness on climate change needs to grow. Awareness is limited, initiatives at making Indians ‘go green’  have taken place but a public environmental awareness campaign like the ones we frequently see on domestic violence, education, gender and family planning will help scale up environmental initiatives and make people more aware.
• Promote new methods in farming. Agriculture forms a big chunk of our economy and much of it still remains at the subsistence level. India needs to match new technologies with better infrastructure and resource saving methods (water conservation, organic farming for example). As this report points out, Indian agriculture needs to become sustainable.
• Establish minimum standards for and incentivize green certification. For example, the Indian Green Building Council is a council representing diverse stakeholders (business, government) that offers green certification for construction. While the costs of certification are currently high right now, the Government should look towards incentivizing certification - not only in the construction sector but in other sectors too (from industrial to consumer goods - in order to bring down costs as well as raise the bar when it comes to green standards. In the past years, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency has had trouble informing and supporting its appliance labeling scheme to small enterprises.

Elections in India have usually played out on issues like food and security. While environmental policy and climate change may not resonate in the heart of the common Indian man who is concerned with other more pressing issues such as employment, access to food and development, it doesn’t mean that environmental issues don’t form the heart of political manifestos.  The BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) has called for climate change to be treated as a form of terrorism, a very important election issue and the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) promoted its Common Minimum Program  which dealt with issues that are directly affected by climate change. This includes commitments to bolster rural health and rural employment and strengthen India’s agriculture sector amidst environmental (ex. water availability/quality and desertification) and economic pressures.

(Climatico Analyst, Radhika Viswanathan, contributed to this post)

Deforestation is responsible for 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Leaders from a broad range of political, environmental, development and business communities are calling for U.S. action on deforestation in anticipation of the UNFCCC COP-15 in Copenhagen this December.

Earlier this month, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), along with a coalition of policy and scientific experts known as the “Avoided Deforestation Partnership,” led a Congressional Briefing on climate and forests, urging Congress to include strong tropical forest protection measures in U.S. climate policy.

The partnership encourages the U.S. to advance a diverse set of solutions, including market and non-market based approaches towards avoided deforestation, and to involve a wide group of experts and stakeholders, including scientists, developing nations, indigenous groups, local communities, civil society, and industry in crafting solutions that are sustainable, scalable, and equitable.

In her opening remarks, Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai remarked, “Without the leadership of the United States of America, everybody else will say, maybe this is not as serious as it seems. If America is not concerned, then it cannot be a serious issue.”

Just ten days later, this sentiment was echoed by Indonesia President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who urged U.S. leadership on climate change in a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Protecting tropical forests and reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation is not only a critical measure to putting the brakes on rising carbon emissions at a reasonable cost, but is regarded by many as a win-win-win strategy.  “It’s good for climate change, good for biodiversity, and good for economies around the world,” says Mark Tercek, president and CEO of The Nature Conservancy. “Forests are being destroyed at rapid rates, and this solution will not be available to us if we wait too long. Forest protection is one of the most cost-effective methods available to fight climate change with the unmatched benefit of preserving biodiversity at the same time.”

The imperative for incorporating the LULUCF sector into climate change mitigation strategies cannot be overstated.  Deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of carbon emissions annually, and in developing nations with high rates of deforestation like Brazil and Indonesia can account for up to 80% of total annual emissions. (To get a sense of  Furthermore, reducing emissions in the LULUCF sector is arguably the most cost-effective strategy available for significant short-term reductions—this is obvious when looking at the abatement potential of LULUCF strategies per unit cost (€ per ton CO₂e) in McKinsey’s newly published cost abatement curve, more so when you consider the amount of time it will take strategies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be viable.

This is not to say that the avoided deforestation strategy has been perfected, and those following the REDD mechanism’s (lack of) progress through the UNFCCC process to date will attest to that.  On the scientific and technical side, there remain significant methodological problems to resolve, involving establishing appropriate baselines, proving additionality, developing monitoring capacity, and so on.  The social side of REDD is even more tenuous, and developing ways to make REDD projects sustainable and equitable from the local to the global scales will involve addressing some fundamentally contentious issues.

But the public interest in avoided deforestation and the political will for REDD and related projects, for reasons given above, is probably higher than it has ever been. And timing is of the essence.

Stuart Eizenstat, who led the U.S. delegation in the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol under President Clinton, says the time has come for the U.S. to take leadership on the issue. “By valuing carbon stored in forests, the United States can lead the way to solve global climate change and protect forests and the people and species that depend on them.  What is required now is for the United States to take up the mantle of forest protection so that it will serve as a model to the rest of the world.”  Here’s hoping the 2009 delegation to Copenhagen gets the message.

While Obama’s visit to Canada rightly made headlines across North America; as the first state visit and one that was open in its discussion of Climate Change measures (even if they Climate Change talks had to take a backseat to the economy. 2009 however, also saw the slow awakening of another key initiative to Combat climate change on the North American continent.

Continue reading…

Usually, the EU’s policy on global warming tends to focus on mitigation: the 20/20/20 Climate and Energy Package is the obvious recent example. But this week the European Commission approved two reports on natural and man-made disasters that give some thought to the flip side of climate policy: adaptation.

Turbulence ahead: natural disasters are on the rise. (Image: cnystrom @ Flickr)

One of the documents focuses on reducing the risks from disasters in the developing world, and is tied to the EU’s development aid strategy. The other focuses on preventing disasters within Europe’s borders.

According to the Commission’s communications, there was a marked increase in the frequency and severity of natural disasters in Europe and the wider world over the last two or three decades. It’s impossible to attribute the cause of individual extreme events to global warming. But climate change is likely to mean that this trend for more high-impact weather events will continue during the rest of the twenty-first century.

The documents highlight key areas where the EU could develop its strategy for preventing and managing disasters. The report on disaster prevention in Europe recommends better-developed information-gathering and knowledge sharing, better institutional links between key institutions, and improving the use of the current funding and resources dedicated to climate change. In its work with developing countries, the recommendations are for stronger dialogue between the EU and those countries that it assists, integration of disaster risk reduction into development plans, and developing regional risk-management plans.

Neither document contains a fully-fledged policy: they are at this stage discussion papers that will pave the way for further negotiation before the EU adopts strategies for managing natural disasters in Europe and elsewhere.

But it reflects the fact that, while adaptation doesn’t feature highly on Europe’s climate change agenda, neither is it entirely absent.

© Alfredo Dominguez

REDD is controversial: some consider it essential to halt deforestation in forest rich developing countries, others, a danger to biodiversity, indigenous communities and carbon markets. A view from Mexico shows that REDD is not a panacea to solve deforestation and yet, at least in the case of Mexico, it may be able to contribute to existing programmes that strengthen sustainable (community) forest management.

An approximated 70 – 80% of Mexican forests are ejidos, i.e. under communal management. The economic reforms under President Salinas strengthened property rights of ejidos, yet, given strict land use regulations, communities have very little possibility to gain incomes from forestry related activities, not to mention conservation. Thus, the opportunity cost to leave forests standing is too high for many of the impoverished forest communities and (illegal) land conversion for agricultural purposes is one of the main causes of deforestation according to one of the latest reports of the National Forest Commission (CONAFOR).

But the problem is much more complex: deforestation is not just driven by economic need, but also economic greed (illegal logging (supposedly responsible for 25% of deforestation) and tourism developments), public infrastructure development (from highways to oil drilling), forest fires, activities of drug cartels, local power conflicts and unsustainable ideas of economic modernization (these complexities are very well described in an article of the World Rainforest Movement on the devastating forest fires of 1998).

Ejidos although legally holding titles to the land, have lost power over how to manage their resources. Either they convert the forest to productive use (e.g. agriculture) or somebody else will come and do it, in the best case, paying them some sort of compensation, in the worst case, murdering those that try to cling to their land or protect the forest.

In this scenario, REDD earnings could support existing programmes to a) decrease the opportunity costs of conserving forests; b) do justice to communities who protect their forests and pay for their conservation of environmental services; and c) support government and communities in fighting against illegal land conversion and deforestation.

But it will probably not be able to do much more than that, as a little back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests. Mongabay, a site that “seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife” calculates that Mexico could earn some USD70 million for a 10% reduction in deforestation (using an optimistic price of USD30 per ton of CO2 reduced). According to their calculations, this would equal a return of USD2,100 (!) per hectare of reduced deforestation.

BUT what does one hectare of reduction in deforestation imply ? (that is what Mongabay does not calculate).
Mexico’s National Forest Commission (CONAFOR) estimated in a presentation on Mexico’s advances in preparing for REDD (June 2008) that one hectare of reduction in deforestation requires 180 hectares under sustainable forest management and 150 hectares under conservation. Consequently, the various government programmes that are expected to cover almost 20 million hectares of forest between 2007 and 2012 will yield an estimated reduction in deforestation of 310,000 hectares. If REDD pays only for actual reduction in deforestation the per hectare value of REDD earnings -considering the entire forest area under sustainable management and conservation- will only yield: USD34 (not including transaction costs for project development, verification, monitoring, etc). That is maybe better than nothing, it might even be more than what some farmers earn from small scale farming activities, yet, it will not be enough to keep private interests at bay.

Thus, REDD alone will not solve deforestation. However, given that Mexico has created a strong legal and regulatory framework and is working on expanding its market incentives for sustainable forest management, REDD could provide financial support to strengthening these efforts.

The 45^th meeting of the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism was carried between Feb.12^th and 13^th.

New EB Chair and Vice-Chair

The EB elected Mr. Lex de Jonge and Mr. Clifford Mahlung as Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, of the Executive Board until the first meeting of the Board in 2010. Mr. De Jonge was previously Director of the CDM Division in the Netherlands. Mr. Mahlung was Jamaica’s chief negotiator to the recent United Nations climate change conference in Bali.

Business as usual

The approbation/refusal of registration of projects as well as the issuance of CERs was conducted without extended discussions. The Board however discussed situations in which the implementation of registered CDM projects may differ from description of the project in the registered Project Description Document. With regards to large-scale projects, it is in fact frequent to have a PDD which differs significantly from the implemented project. This is due, in part, to the delay in the approbation of the project. From the time the PDD is tunnelled in the CDM pipeline to the time it is verified and approved, there can be significant contingencies in the actual implementation of the project. The EB mandated studies on the matter.

Those expecting more debates will have to wait at the end of March for Bonn’s meeting of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the two working groups responsible for preparing the table for Copenhagen. This will be the first real test for the Obama administration.

Challenges

Of particular interest were discussions on the management plan of the CDM. It highlighted the main challenges and strategic objectives of Kyoto’s flagship flexibility mechanism (see http://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/045/eb45_repan71.pdf). These challenges pertain mainly to the stunning increase in workload the CDM governance structure had to digest in the last years. Since the CDM is a bottom-up, voluntary mechanism, this workload is difficult to predict from year to year. This also raises the capacity constraints of the CDM-related processes in the market: Firms qualified enough and willing to act as Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) are not simply available on demand. More globally, there is a need for the CDM to surpass its “learning-by-doing” approach and enter a more mature, efficient and responsive phase.

The report however is silent about the global economic context. Yet, one might think that because of the economic crisis (and correlated diminution in industrial activity), the increase in demand for registration of CDM projects as well as pressure on the DOE market will be more modest than expected.

The British automotive industry is to receive more than £2bn in soft loans under a new deal which was announced by Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson last week.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) will only provide loans to businesses who agree to fund projects that ‘further the UK objectives on low carbon and green technology’ (Source Edie.net).  These ‘Green’ conditions which form part of the loan deal will aim to meet the government’s wider commitments of reducing CO2.

The package includes:

1. Guarantees to unlock loans of up to £1.3bn European Investment Bank (EIB) guarantees for investment in lower carbon initiatives; and

2. Loans or loan guarantees to support of up to £1bn of lending for lower carbon initiatives for non-EIB backed projects  (Source: Edie.net)

The UK Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson comments:  “The car industry can and should be a vibrant part of that future…The steps we are taking will help companies speed their way to becoming greener, more innovative and more productive. This is the route to securing jobs for the long term as we build a more balanced economy for Britain’s future.”

Furthermore, the ‘Green Deal’ would unlock loans of up to £1.3 billion from the European Investment Bank while the government would guarantee a further £1 billion in loans for investment in environmentally friendly cars.

Given the recent financial bailouts that have cost the UK government, and its tax payers dearly, provokes a lot of debate about the usefulness of this proposed deal.   “This industry is not a lame duck and this is no bailout,” he said. “There is no blank cheque on offer, no operating subsidies. We are committed to ensuring that anything backed by the scheme offers value for taxpayers’ money, enables us to green Britain’s economic recovery, delivers significant innovation in processes or technologies for the long term, supports jobs and skills in Britain.”

The EIB is instrumental in brokering the deal, in granting medium and long-term loans and guarantees for investment projects to assist the development of the European Union.   Within its remit, the EIB aims to protect the natural and urban environment, by ensuring that projects submitted for funding comply with national and Community environmental legislation.  

In the last five years, the EIB it has invested EUR 26 bn in water and waste management, public transport facilities, urban planning and reducing atmospheric pollution.   The ‘Innovation 2000′ (i2i) initiative, launched at Small and Medium size businesses in March 2000 also aims to build a Europe based on knowledge and innovation. It is clear that the EIB role is encouraging investment in green automotive designs. 

However, the Conservatives have already criticised Mandelson’s plan to unlock loans for car manufacturers and increase investment in “greener” cars.   Kenneth Clarke has claimed to have suggested a similar deal of offering loan guarantees for the finance arm of car companies last November.  This debate may be yet another battle of the Commons to win votes, but perhaps the proof of the new deal is in the EIB’s track records to stimulate the green innovation which is much need in the automotive industry. 

A field of sunflowers in front of the Areva Tricastin nuclear plant in in Bollene, in the south of France. Photograph: Fred Dufour/AFP/Getty images. Source: Guardian.co.uk

The past week saw reports of at least four of the country’s leading green activists accepting that nuclear power may have a significant role to play if we are to avoid runaway climate change. Concerns over safety issues, build-up of radioactive wastes and the proliferation of nuclear weapons were realistically balanced against the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.

Stephen Tindale, a former director of Greenpace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year; and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate, are now all lobbying in favour of nuclear options to support a renewable strategy to decarbonise the electricity system.

Nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the UK’s electricity, compared with the 35% from coal and 35% from gas. It is being argued that more nuclear capacity will need to be added to replace the existing capacity, which is likely to be obsolete in around 15 years. But nuclear is not the only dwindling supply. Around 8 gigawatts - equivalent to about 6 power stations - of coal-fired generating capacity will be out of action by 2015 as Europe’s Clean Air Directive comes into force and older facilities prove uneconomic to upgrade. Taken together, the UK needs to replace a third of its electricity generating capacity in the next 15 years. Even plans for 7 gigawatts of new gas-fired capacity, expected by 2015, and another 5 gigawatts recently given the go-ahead by the Government, will not be enough as estimates put energy demand ballooning by anything up to 20% in the coming decade.

Nuclear power fits neatly with the Government energy policy goals, providing a carbon emission free source of secure energy supply - particularly important in light of recent geo-polictical tensions between Russia and Ukraine last month.

Investments are being planned by EDF (owner of British Energy), E.on and RWE Power, which are expected to create in excess of 15,000 jobs - welcomed with open arms in the current economic climate; but any planned build will only become operational by the mid 2020s at the earliest now.

George Monbiot, who has also changed his position on the nuclear argument, argues that if we want to decarbonise the UK’s energy system quicker and more cheaply, nuclear power must play a significant complementary role, alongside increased renewable energy generation, demand reduction, CHP and energy efficiency. Mark Lynas adds that nuclear power could provide a realistic solution to combating climate change and providing energy security, and as polls suggest that the public are opposing the nuclear option less and less, he calls for the Green movement to reconsider their 30 year dogma on energy generation from nuclear power.

Whilst plans for new reactors are still expected to raise face opposition, the Green movement’s acknowledgement of nuclear as the lesser of two evils will take away some of the sting. Ironically, it is the environmental agenda that made the economics of commercial nuclear expansion work. Regardless of moral reservations, the cost of nuclear power stations compared with their gas and coal-fired alternatives has always been a major factor; but the introduction of an emissions trading mechanism has forced fossil fuel plants to pay for their environmental impact, and the predictable income for nuclear plants provides much-needed clarity for private sector investors.

Whilst the safety and waste worries still remain, the arguments for and against nuclear power seemed to have changed to serve urgent targets.

Nuclear power…

*In an increasingly power-hungry world, the generation capacity of nuclear is potentially enormous

*Nuclear reactors are the best way to produce lots of electricity, reliably, with no carbon emissions

*Except for the purchase of uranium, nuclear power stations offer absolute security of supply 

However:

*Safety records may be far better than they were in the early days, but accidents can always happen

*Despite technical advances, digging a hole is still the only way to get rid of spent fuel rods

*More countries, buying more uranium, means more mining and more chance of nuclear proliferation

Ene Farm

On 28 January, six companies, including Astomos Energy Corp., Osaka Gas Co., Seibu Gas Co., Tokyo Gas Co., Nippon Oil Corp., and Toho Gas Co., made a joint-statement that they were going to sell their home-use fuel cell system, ‘Ene Farm’, from this April.

Ene Farm is a coined word that consists of energy and farm. Because generating both electricity and heat from hydrogen and oxygen is like producing agricultural products from water and earth, they created it as a brand name.

Ene Farm generates power through chemical reactions between hydrogen, from city gas, liquefied petroleum gas (LP gas) and paraffin oil, and oxygen in the atmosphere, and waste heat from the power generation heats waters, which can be used in hot water supply and floor heating.

Merits

1. CO2 reduction by 45%

For 1 kWh of energy generation and 1.4 kWh of heat collection, 1,016g of CO2 is created when energy is generated by thermal power generation and existing general water heaters. But, by using Ene Farm, only 555g of CO2 is created.

2. Reduction of primary energy consumption by 33%

For 1 kWh of energy generation and 1.4 kWh of heat collection, 16.2 MJ of primary energy consumption is necessary by thermal power generation and existing general water heaters, while 10.9 MJ is necessary by using Ene Farm.

3. Saving money

Because Ene Farm can cover sixty percent (at maximum) of electricity used by a standard family or a family of four, light and heat cost can be cut by 50,000 yen to 60,000 yen per year.

Shunichi Eguchi, a manager of the planning and promotion group of the Japan Gas Association, said ‘Fuel cell is a trump card for controlling both household CO2 emissions and energy consumption. The maximum merit is that you can save energy without giving up a convenient life.’

Obstacle

One obstacle for households to use Ene Farm is its prices. Prices of Ene Farm will range from 3,200,000 yen to 3,465,000 yen. Although households can have government subsidies of up to 1,400,000 yen per unit, Ene Farm may be still too costly for households.

Eco Cute

Another obstacle for Ene Farm must be its strong potential rival, Eco Cute. While four gas firms and two petroleum firms seek to diffuse Ene Farm, electric power companies such as Tokyo Electric Power Co., Kansai Electric Power Co., Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Tohoku Electric Power Co., Chubu Electric Power Co., Chugoku Electric Power Co., Kyushu Electric Power Co., and Okinawa Electric Power Co., seek to diffuse Eco Cute.　In Eco Cute, cute has double meanings, charming and hot water supply as hot water supply in Japanese is Kyuto.

Eco Cute is an electric heat pump water heater using natural refrigerant (CO2). Because it is a heat pump system that collects ambient heat in the air to supply hot water, it does not burn fuel, leading to no release of CO2 where it is used, according to Hiroshi kato (Chairman, the Heat Pump & Thermal Storage Technology Center of Japan).

Although Eco Cute cannot generate electricity and CO2 reduction by Eco Cute is approximately a half of CO2 reduction that can be achieved by Ene Farm. its market prices are 500,000 yen to 700,000 yen. Further, because of expansion of all-electric residences promoted by electric power firms, cumulative Eco Cute sales have already reached 1.5 million.

Thus, it should be very hard for Ene Farm to win in this battle concerning this situation. If Ene Farm wants to win, its prices should go down. As Tadashi Kimura of New Energy Foundation points out, ‘price reduction by technological development and mass production effect is inevitable for Ene Farm to be widely introduced into ‘normal’ family. Though firms on the side of Ene Farm aim to reduce its prices to 500, 000 yen by 2015, price reduction may be necessary as soon as possible before Eco Cute conquers Japan.

As President Yudhoyono was first greeting and then demanding leadership from visiting US secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on climate change, the old saying ‘those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’ comes to mind. In particular two recent events do not bode well for the future, namely the re-emergence of the forest fire problem and the decree to use peat lands as palm oil plantations.

Forest Fires

Forest fires are one of the main reasons that Indonesia is the third largest carbon dioxide emitter in the world. Beyond that, it also creates tensions with Indonesia’s neighbours: for example in 1997-8, the forest fires blanketed the whole of SE Asia causing health problems and economic damage. Faced with these issues the Indonesian government has made routine pledges to prevent the situation ever arising again. For example the National Action Plan for Climate Change promises to reduce forest fire hot spots by 50% in 2009. Unfortunately this year, severe fires have already been detected in Riau, Sumatra, resulting in haze over Pekanbaru, the provincial capital. Two factors suggest that this problem will only get worse, not better:

1. El Nino/ La Nina effect: This is a southern hemisphere oscillation that has a large effect on the weather across the globe. As a general rule La Nina brings heavy rain to Indonesia while El Nino conditions are associated with drought. So far this year has been La Nina: nonetheless there have still been hundreds of fires. However these conditions are likely to end in April, with El Nino starting either later this year or next year, resulting in a significantly drier climate, which of course encourages fires.
2. Lack of government supervision: despite government promises to stop the building of commercial sites of forested lands, the recent fires have been directly linked to forest clearance for palm oil plantations. While independent programmes exist to help control burning on the local, subsistence level, there appears to be no such effort in the commercial field.

Peat Land conversion

Peat lands are crucial carbon sinks, trapping CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. Greenpeace estimating that Indonesia’s peat lands contain 37.8 billion tonnes. In order to grow palm oil on peat lands, it must be first cleared then drained thereby releasing the trapped CO2 into the atmosphere. Furthermore this practice increases significantly the chances of fires: a report by Wetlands International in 2006 concluded that in this entire process, Indonesia emits 6.5 times the CO2 it does by burning fossil fuels.

Despite this, the government announced new plans to open up peat lands for conversion to commercial palm oil plantations. The agriculture and environmental ministries tried to assure environmentalists that the process will be strictly regulated, will recapture all the carbon lost in the conversion process and that the plantations will not be opened on peat land more than 3 meters deep.

Such claims have led to anger among activists: for example Yuyun Indradi of Greenpeace states “the government needs to protect the remaining peatlands and forests if we are to slow down climate change and protect the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities and biodiversity.” This is also a slap in the face of campaigners who have been pushing for the utilization of degraded land for palm oil plantations (last week’s blog dealt with this issue) rather than forests. It seems that the government has ignored these pleas.

So why? The first reason involves economics and the global recession. Gatot Irianto, from the Agriculture Ministry, admits as much when he said “we still need land for oil palm plantations. We must be honest: the sector has been the main driver for the people’s economy”. The second deals with domestic politics and the upcoming general elections. As Bustar Maitar of Greenpeace accuses “with the general elections coming up, the Agriculture Ministry’s plan is fishy, because it seems like an attempt to satisfy the country’s powerful paper and palm oil industries at the expense of the environment.”

Overall this has been a bad week for Indonesia who once again seems to put short-term economic interests above those of the health of its people and the global climate. By pursuing such dubious policies, it puts at risk Indonesia’s participation in future REDD projects. While it is important to demand action from leading Developed countries like the US, it must also show commitment at home to take action. So far it is failing.