Image by Ben+Sam

In an earlier post, attention was drawn to the importance of Canada’s Boreal forests to its climate change strategy. As of May 2010, Canada signed the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, this was a voluntary agreement between companies (21 member FPAC) and Environmental organizations that account for two thirds of Canada’s entire Boreal forest. The agreement commits (Pew Trust has an overview here) companies FPAC (Forest Products Association of Canada) to develop and implement a framework by December 2010.

Continue reading…

On Thursday, 26 November the presidents of France and Brazil came out with a joint statement that rich(er) countries must immediately boost aid for developing nations in efforts towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. They lauded this as an essential key to obtaining a viable agreement in Copenhagen next month.

Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, invited his counterparts in countries straddling the Amazon Basin to meet in Manaus in order to come to a consensus about their views on climate change-related issues in the area (France was also invited since its overseas department of French Guyana is located in the Amazon region). Representatives from Brazil, France, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and Guyana all participated in the summit. President Nicolas Sarkozy came from France for the meeting with the President of Brazil, but the only other South American president to take part in the Manaus Summit was Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana.

Brazil, which has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by between 36.1 and 38.9 percent from projected 2020 levels, has been seeking a growing role in climate talks and wanted to forge a common position of Amazon countries to take to Copenhagen. Brazilian presidential spokesman, Marcelo Baumbach, stated that for Brazil “it is essential that the Amazon region takes part in the December conference with a cooperative and convergent proposal.”

To this point, during the Summit, representatives agreed to the position that “developing countries should also contribute to addressing the global climate change through mitigation actions according to their national conditions, supported by international funds.” This kind of statement moves beyond Kyoto because it tentatively allows for proposals that require binding targets on developing countries, so long as the developed world helps them financially and through technology transfer.

Even though French President Sarkozy was representing French Guyana during the Manaus summit, as the leader of a developed nation, he spoke from that role as well. During a press conference after the meeting, he hailed China’s new proposals on combating global warming as “extremely encouraging.” He welcomed the USA’s target (announced Tuesday, 24 November) to reduce its emissions 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

Sarkozy used the examples of the recent proposals put forth by the United States and China towards binding targets as hallmarks of how nations that had not played a strong role in Kyoto were rising to the challenge in this next round of negotiations and really understanding the threats posed by climate change. “The latest statements by Barack Obama and China’s leaders are extremely encouraging in making Copenhagen a success,” Sarkozy said.

Climate negotiators have made little visible progress in sorting out the mechanisms by which rich countries should help poorer ones fight global warming. The European Union states that the cost to help developing nations fight global warming is about $100 billion annually. But developing countries say rich countries should pay between 0.5 percent and 1 percent of their gross domestic product.

Brazil has opened an investment fund to help conservation in the Amazon rainforest but insisted donor countries would have no say in the details of the use of funds. “The poor need to be supported without any country giving up its sovereignty,” Lula said.

20% of GHG emissions come from forest change and destruction annually. Thus, in this round of negotiations it is key to include specific provisions and mechanisms that address forest preservation (which was left out of Kyoto). Inroads are being made via the REDD (Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries) proposal.

“We need numbers, not only to reduce the temperature. Copenhagen also needs to provide funds from developed countries for developing countries,” said Sarkozy. “That needs to happen now,” he emphasized.

Climatico (Kelly McManus and Jennifer Helgeson) will be reporting on the progress of REDD during the course of the Copenhagen climate negotiations. They will offer an introduction to understanding REDD. Jennifer will also continue reports on French climate policy throughout the negotiations.

Over the past two weeks, delegates from 183 countries convened in Bonn, Germany to create negotiating texts under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for consideration in Copenhagen this December. In focus at Bonn was the enhancement of international climate change cooperation, particularly as it relates to the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. In all, over 4,600 participants were in attendance, consisting of government delegates, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, representatives of the private sector, academia, and the media.

The Bonn Climate Change Talks, which began on June 1st and concluded on June 12th, consisted of four meetings as part of the UNFCCC: the sixth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 6), the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Protocol met for its eighth session (AWG-KP 8), and both the Convention’s Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) held their 30th sessions.

A brief summary of the meeting results are as follows:

AWG-LCA 6

The meeting by the AWG-LCA focused on the negotiating text development and was largely a success, resulting in a 200-page draft negotiating text. The draft managed to hold to elements addressed under the Bali Action Plan such as a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, adaptation, mitigation, finance as well as technology and capacity-building.

AWG-KP 8

The AWG-KP considered the various proposals put forth by the Annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol. Unfortunately, these discussions resulted in less success than that of the AWG-LCA 6. Over the course of the plenary sessions, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on emission reduction targets post-2012 and developing countries expressed disappointment at the proposals made by Annex I countries. According to John Ashe, the Chair of AWG-KP, while options for the treatment of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) to reduce emissions saw great progress, both aggregate emission reduction targets and individual targets have yet to be decided. In addition, the negotiating group remained far from the target range required by science to avoid the severe climate change impacts.

SBI

In focus for the SBI was the development and transfer of technologies. Three reports were produced by the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (including future financing options, long-term strategies, and indicators of performance). Furthermore, the SBI produced an agreement to reconstitute the Consultative Group of Experts on Non-Annex I National Communications. Unfortunately, the second comprehensive review of the capacity-building framework under the Protocol and the Convention was met with a lack of agreement.

SBSTA

The SBSTA considered such issues as the methodology, technology transfer, research and systemic observation, and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (referred to as REDD). The methodologies that make it possible to both monitor and report emissions from deforestation (accounting for 20% of greenhouse gas pollution) made solid progress. However, the SBSTA failed to come to an agreement on REDD for the COP draft.

Despite lack of agreement in various areas of discussion over the past two weeks, the meetings in Bonn resulted in the adoption of 31 conclusions and seven draft decisions. According to Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, “A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome…In my view, an ambitious and effective agreed outcome in Copenhagen is in sight – an outcome that provides a strong and definitive answer to the alarm raised by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

The Bonn session marked the second in a series of five major UNFCCC meetings occurring this year in preparation for the UN Climate Change Conference, taking place from 7th-18th of December in Copenhagen. The next step in the process toward Copenhagen is for parties to refine the specifics of the text for discussion at the next Bonn meeting in August, followed by another session in Bangkok in late September and a gathering in Barcelona in early November.

On March 31 2009 the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee of the US Congress released a draft of the ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009′.  This is an early discussion draft; however, it does include some explicit information on the nature of the expected US domestic carbon market.

The major points of interest are:

• 4.7bn allowances are planned for 2012, although no more than 2bn of these can come from offsets each year
• REDD credits are included within this offset provision
• Significantly, 1 US credits will equal 1.25 offsets from the international market, potentially pushing the carbon price higher through exchange-rate fuelled demand.

At present it is unclear what part the Chicago Climate Exchange, as well as the RGGI, may play in this system.

The sub-committee hopes the bill will complete its legislative passage by the end of May.  While much detail remains to be finalised during the ‘discussion period’ for this draft, such an ambitious timetable suggests that the sub-committee expects a swift resolution to any potential problems.

A link to the draft can be found here. 

It rarely receives the same attention as the Amazon rain forest, one is being devastated by illegal

Deforestation (credit: energyportal.eu)

logging and development but the other, Canada’s Boreal forests also represents a key battleground against Climate Change. Set in the in the far north, not far below the arctic line, the Boreal forests are a huge band across Canada stretching from coast to coast, annually temperatures can go from 30C in the summer all the way down to -50C in the winter. Covering 2.9million km^2,, and representing 25% of the world’s un-developed forests the Boreal forests are a huge source of concern for conservationists and Scientists alike.

The Boreal is to carbon what Fort Knox is to gold.
These maps document where and how these vital reserves
– a virtual shield against global warming –
are distributed across Canada. We should do everything we can
to ensure that the carbon in these storehouses is not released.

Dr. Jeff Wells, Senior Scientist, International Boreal Conservation Campaign

From the point of view of Climate Change a truer statement could hardly have been made, because locked up in the Boreal forests are over 100 billion tonnes of Carbon, and they annually sequester 12.5m tonnes of Carbon each year making them a critical sink of Carbon but more importantly a source of Carbon that needs to remain locked in.

Their importance has for several years attracted strong concern from various environmental groups from their own Conservation group the IBCC to Green Peace and a number of similarly concerned conservation and environmental organisations. Many feel that the ever-rising demands from industries that rely on boreal forest resources could in the long-term threaten the Boreal Forests. However a turning point came in 2007 when 1,500 Scientists from over 50 countries signed a letter calling for conservation measures to be put into place.

Their concerns were not without merit. Canada’s natural resources, already a critical part of its economy are subject to ever rising demand. In particular logging, mining and energy development all place demands on the Boreal forest region. These demands are set to increase with the growing appetites of China and India for raw materials, putting greater pressure on provincial governments to open up more of the Boreal forests for development.

As if shouldering the burden of economic weight was not enough, natural phenomena have begin to take their toll on the Boreal forests, forest fires and Pine-beetles, already devastating in the US have taken their toll on Canadian forests. Pine beetles, able to spread through rising temperatures, destroyed 130,000 km² in Western Canada in 2008, as well as devastating parts of the US.

Forest fires, have been equally devastating, with perhaps the most concerning statistic being that in some years forest fires account for up to 45% of Canada’s GHG emissions, and large-scale forest fires have hardly been a scarce: 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Fortunately the importance is starting to sink in and rising awareness has prompted greater efforts to preserve, manage or sustainably develop the Boreal Forests.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest has promised to sustain 50% of its Northern forests from intensive development such as mining and 12% from any development at all. Quebec as in most has to walk the line between mining and logging mining, a multi-billion dollar industries for Canada.

Nevertheless, even Alberta, Canada’s oil state and home of the Tar-sands, has recognised the importance of preservation. The Alberta Research Council, working with the Pembina institute and Forestry leaders has formulated a policy to offset Alberta’s declining Boreal forests.

However, the most groundbreaking effort comes from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, no stranger to bold environmental legislation (he recently proposed the Green Energy Act) he has promised to preserve 50% of Ontario’s Boreal forests and the other half subject to sustainable development regulation. This amounts to 225,000 km² of land where even hunting and fishing will be severely curtailed and other development completely banned.

Of equal importance, is the emphasis on sustainable development for the other 50%. As this article, makes clear up to 24,000 people live in the Boreal forested part of Ontario many of them first nations people and Metis communities. McGuinty has pledged to allow sustainable development with them, including reforming mining, to make it more sustainable. While the plan is estimated to take 10-15 years before its fully realised, like the Green Energy Act, Ontario has become an uncompromising trendsetter in its dedication to environmental pursuits.

The Boreal forests, might not have the attention of the Amazon, and are often second in environmentalists demands, in the place of renewable energy or fighting the tar sands but they represent a key battle that should never be far from campaigners eyes. Much of the above legislation is a start in the right direction, but how durable conservation efforts will prove, in the face of rising global demand for raw materials and the economic benefits to Canadian provinces and even local communities will prove a much greater test in the years ahead.

Photo courtesy Flickr/dodo_anji

“In bureaucratic system obedience to power and self-goals have pushed self-consciousness and uprightness into darkness.”

These words, written by a forest department official in his retirement letter were in response to the mining controversy that has brought the state of Haryana under scrutiny for indiscriminate mining policies. Following a stern report by the Central Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court, the state of Haryana (which neighbours Punjab), has finally stepped up towards stopping the unsustainable mining in the Aravalli range. The Supreme court has ordered a ban on all mining activities in the region.

But is this a little too late? Despite the lapse of a seven year lease that had ravaged the range, and a Supreme Court labelling the area as a prohibited mining zone, the Haryana government proceeded to auction two quarries in the area earlier this month.  The Forest Survey of India made satellite imagery available to the public that clearly documents the land change:  water bodies in the area have dried up and the region is suffering severe droughts.  According to this article, local people have said that not only have nearby lakes dried up in the space of three months but also that large scale sand mining was taking place, “damaging the water retention capacity” leaving few traces of the lake and “truck marks all around”. There are clearly bureaucratic loopholes aplenty, allowing the culpability to bounce from the irrigation department to fisheries to mining. The unchecked mining also played an important role in decreasing the ground water level.

The mining groups argue that the high demand for construction is forcing them to look beyond the outer limits of the national capital and to mine indiscriminately, bringing to the fore once again the often used argument of the perceived conflictual nature of development and environmental sustainability in India.

The Centre for Science and Environment recently released a  report detailing the “environmental and social footprints of mining in India”. In it, it highlights the sheer lack of regulation in mining that has spawned a booming illegal trade, adversely affecting the environment and not allowing for any recourse to legal aid by the people who work in the mines or live in the surrounding areas.  The states tend to turn a blind eye because of the profits and the overall ‘development’ that ensues.

Unsustainable mining practices are rampant all over India. Parts of Karnataka that have witnessed unsustainable mining now suffer from a host of problems: from a lack of access to water, to unsafe and illegal labour conditions, health problems, environmental devastation and pollution. Orissa is another good example. The already palpable pressure on land will only get more severe, and although the government has brought out a national biodiversity plan which lays out best practice guidelines, Indian authorities need to really take control of biodiversity conservation and land change, step up initiatives to protect the natural habitat, and soon. A sustainable approach would of course require addressing the issues mentioned before: the problems of EIAs , inclusion of participatory methods, introduction of regulation and importantly better accountability of those in public service and positions of power.   

On March 5 2009 Climatico released its first assessment report of national climate policy across twelve of the G20 countries.

This, the first of four reports leading to COP-15 in December 2009, tracks progress in government climate policy between 1st November 2008 and 20th February 2009.  Through this tracking the report draws conclusions about general trends between national policies to understand how climate policy is developing in the major greenhouse gas-emitting countries.   This ‘overview’ is presented in an editorial in Chapter 1 of the report. The report also includes a special chapter on energy policy in China.

Some of the main findings of the report are:

• A significant funding gap is appearing for adaptation, as developing country lack domestic resources and capacity and also appear unable to rely on international transfer mechanisms to meet their financing needs.  It is at present unclear how adaptation will be effectively financed.
• The financial crisis is allowing a mainstreaming of climate change into recovery packages, accelerating otherwise difficult shifts to low carbon growth in developed countries. However, the same crisis is causing a major slow down in projects that do not contribute to financial recovery (see Box 2 on page 10).
• CDM project growth in Mexico and Indonesia is already slowing significantly compared to business projections for early 2009, with most Indonesian projects on hold.

The countries included in the report are: UK, EU, France, Germany, Canada, USA, Mexico, India, China, Indonesia, Japan, Australia.

For enquires please contact:

Simon Billett, Research Director  (simon.billett@climaticoanalysis.org)

Dan Lewer, Communications Director (dan.lewer@climaticoanalysis.org)

Indonesia has formally applied to the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, a sort-of precursor of the REDD scheme. Launched at the Bali negotiations in December 2007 its objectives are:

• To build capacity for REDD in developing countries; and
• To create and test a series of incentive schemes.

Although Indonesia did not participate in the initial round of funding (totalling $82 million), the Government of Indonesia has decided now is the time to get involved. And there are plenty of good reasons too: $350 million on the table; only two other countries – Guyana and Panama – applying so far; the presence of 20 pilot REDD projects in the country; and the development of the eagerly awaited REDD rules. However two aspects of the submission raise some questions.

Blaming the poor

In the submission it suggests that “the main drivers are extensive forest harvesting by pulp, paper and palm oil firms, expansion into rainforests and peat land by agriculture and forest plantations as well as encroachment by low-income communities into forest lands.” It therefore equates the behaviour of local level cultivators with the huge commercial interests of the timber and palm oil interests. This is problematic because the Indonesian Government has a history of blaming local cultivators for actions that at best, they contributed only partially to. For example, with the fires of 1997-98, local villagers were deemed culpable despite the fact that there was little evidence to prove such an assertion. Indeed current research suggests that these fires come from a variety of sources and that due consideration must be given to local cultivators.

There must be concern that any new funds flowing into Indonesia will be first used against the indigenous users rather than the commercial interests. What safeguards will be put in place to prevent such abuses remain to be seen.

OK: Why did they open up the peat lands?

The submission also provides an analysis into how much the scheme would have to pay to prevent such deforestation. While failing to mention the cost for clearing virgin tropical rainforest, it does provide figures for degraded forest and peat land. To deter palm oil plantations on degraded land would take a pricing of $21.54 (27 Euros) a tonne while for peat lands it would only need to be priced at $4.19 (5.25 Euros) a tonne. Therefore any deforestation scheme based on the current depressed price of carbon (10.83 Euros as of 6^th March) would not deter plantations on degraded land, but would on peat lands. It has also been suggested that Indonesia losses a potential $1 billion a year in opening up the peat lands for agriculture through carbon loss.

It has been suggested that the reasons for the decree are twofold: the upcoming Indonesian elections and the need for money in the light of the global financial crisis. Given the timing of this submission, barely two weeks after the decree I would suggest a third possibility: to ‘encourage’ a pay-out from the Carbon Partnership Facility. By announcing the decree before the submission and then attaching a ‘price tag’ in the submission, the Government of Indonesia is effectively setting a price for this decree to be set aside. And given that it is below the current price of carbon, it can be viewed as a ‘bargain’.

Is this far-fetched? Only time will tell…