France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have simultaneously launched a call for the European Union (EU) to commit to a larger reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. In recent months, the EU has weathered economic troubles. But the current plan for increased energy cuts is being billed as a bid to help economic recovery and to shore up energy security.

Currently, the agreed EU target is to reduce energy use by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. In scientific terms, the current 20% reduction target is not likely to restrict global temperature rise to the 2°C – the key climate danger threshold identified by the IPCC.

The main line of argument being repeated across the three major EU powers is that Europe’s current focus on recovery from recession must not distract from the type of economy that is appropriate in the medium and long-term. Thus, Jean-Louis Borloo, France’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary, states that “without a path to a sustainable low-carbon future, we will face continued uncertainty and significant costs from energy price volatility and a destabilizing climate.” His counterparts, in the UK and Germany respectively, Chris Huhne and Norbert Roettegen, agree. “We’re determined to make the economic case for the EU to cut its emissions by 30% by 2020 as quickly as possible,” Huhne said.

The current argument is that the recession itself has cut emissions in the EU’s traded sector by 11% from pre-crisis levels. Thus, the current carbon price is too low to stimulate significant investment in “green jobs” and “green technology.” Thus, Borloo, Huhne and Roettegen contest that if the EU sticks to 20% reduction targets, Europe is likely to lose the race to compete in the low-carbon world to countries such as China or the USA—which, following from the Copenhagen COP, they are looking to create attractive environments for low-carbon investments.

Though, reduced emissions during the recession has brought projected annual costs in 2020 of meeting the existing 20% target down a projected third from €70bn ($89bn, £59bn) to €48bn. A move up to 30% is now estimated to cost only €11bn more than the original cost of achieving a 20% reduction. To put this into perspective, according to the International Energy Agency, every year of delayed investment on low-carbon energy sources costs €300bn to €400bn at the global level into the future.

But it remains to be seen what the tangible motivation will be for increasing thresholds on carbon reductions to 30%. In the past, feed-in tariffs have been successful; but with a declared reduction target, perhaps even written into law formally, there will be issue with anxiety related to the current recession. Also, competition is key to motivate changes and the USA Congress just dropped the proposed comprehensive climate change package.

The Environment Ministers in the UK, Germany, and France have addressed general public in their call for increased reduction targets. In recent months there has been a surge in popular press discussion of extreme temperatures. The first six months of 2010 brought a string of warmest-ever global temperatures. Connecting these extreme weather months to long-term climate change patterns remains difficult, according to experts. “When we are looking at the scale of a season or a few months, we can’t talk about trends related to climate change,” Herve Le Treut, head of France’s Laboratory of Dynamical Meteorology. But, for the general public these extreme temperatures reflect the concept of climate change.

Between the extreme temperatures recently and potential business-case outlines, 30% reduction targets seem to have some potential. But only time and changing circumstances will tell…

France has been a leading nation in climate change negotiations in the recent past. French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a national carbon tax on global-warming pollutants. Generally, he recognizes that “We are on the road to failure…Time is not on our side.” He has even gone so far as to suggest the creation of a new international organisation to deal with climate change. But after major losses to his party in regional elections earlier this year, the government has been backpedaling on things like the carbon tax.

But running up to the Bonn Climate Change Talks (31 May to 11 June), France has continued to organize summits and partnerships striving to move forward the UNFCCC climate change negotiation process. Prime among these have been: 1. the Oslo-Paris REDD negotiating process and 2. the Africa-France Summit.

Paris-Oslo process was initiated by France and Norway to build on progress made at the Copenhagen last December towards an international mechanism to fund forest protection. The program — called REDD Plus, for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation — will encourage rich nations to voluntarily finance forest-protecting projects while coordinating that aid to avoid waste and ensure transparency.

During the last meetings of the Paris-Oslo process on 27 May 2010 in Oslo more than $4 billion had been pledged by developing nations to kick-start international REDD+ efforts aimed at halting deforestation and restoring forests in developing countries. Effectively, the feeling is that with money on the table and the urgency to halt GHG emissions from the clearing and degradation of tropical forests, REDD+ should move ahead even in the absence of a new global climate agreement.  But there is some concern from NGOs that currently REDD+ lacks indigenous participation and transparency.

France has been taking an active role in brokering relations between Africa and EU-nations. The Africa-France Summit convened from 31 May to 1 June in Nice, France. The Summit addressed the theme of “climate and development.” A main goal of including reconciling climate change with development, poverty reduction, and food security was put forth. European Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs, took part in the Summit. He was adamant that common solutions could come under the broader African-EU Strategic Partnership.

The UNFCC session in Bonn marks the resumption of the climate negotiations within the UN framework. France believes that the UNFCCC should remain central to the negotiations and benefit form the contributions of smaller initiatives, allowing advanced progress to be made on certain tracks of the overall discussion.

Now the world waits to see the effect of the talks France has helped to broker in past months.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings continued in Bonn, Germany from 9 – 11 April 2010. This marked the eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 11) as well as the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 9).

The meetings were focused on the organization of each of the working groups in the coming year. The main goal was to prepare for a successful conclusion of the groups’ work during the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP) 16 in Cancun later this year.

During the three day meeting there was much reflection on the COP 15 negotiations which took place in Copenhagen last December. Criticisms of COP15 have been extreme in the past months. At the Bonn meeting, 10 April, Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, condemned what he called “continued attempts by some developed countries to impose a deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord as the basis for future negotiations.”

In order to combat the failures Solon has identified in the process, Bolivia will host the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April 2010. More than 15,000 people and 70 governments are expected to attend. The object of the Summit is to bring “civil society back into the process of climate change negotiations.”

In the wake of COP 15 there has been a call from many developing nations towards more industrialized ones for increased trust. To this point, at a press conference, Solon called for a return to the full UNFCCC process, and to strengthen what had been agreed in COP15. He stated that “the central aim of any climate summit is not to save itself and accept any outcome, but to come to an agreement that will save humanity.”

In the wake of criticism and the launch of the World Peoples’ Summit, the USA has begun to slice millions of climate change support dollars from Bolivia. These cuts in funds were not stated as being directly related to the Summit launch. However, funds are also being cut from Ecuador, which is the first nation to recognize the legal rights of Mother Earth. Commenting on the cuts in funding from the USA and Denmark, Solon commented: “what kind of negotiation is it where you lose money if you disagree?”

Only time will tell if the actions like the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth will affect the goals and tone of COP 16.

Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Protesters demand respect for indigeneous rights in REDD negotiations (Image by: Matthew McDermott)

Since the beginning of the Copenhagen negotiations, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) mechanism has been seen as one of the most likely to reach agreement.  However, the nuances of the mechanism have caused concern over the rights of indigenous peoples and overall financing, among other issues.  In the first week of the Copenhagen negotiations these concerns caused an outcry for more stringent targets and foci for the REDD+ structure (for more on this, click here.)

The second week of negotiations has been plagued by contentious negotiations, halted meetings and walkouts.  Political pressure to come to an agreement in the next three days has increased with the arrival of over 110 heads of State at the Bella Center.  Amid the chaos of the negotiation process there have been some positive moves, especially with regards to provisions under a REDD+ mechanism.

Cara Peace, Tropical Forest Group’s Assistant Director for Policy, states that, “REDD is one of the few areas where significant progress has been made in Copenhagen.”  Two critical elements of REDD+ have come closer to consensus between parties in the last couple days.  Firstly, forests and those residing within forests need “early action” language to fast track financing to save forests immediately as possible.  Secondly, to move forward, national forest reference levels and timelines need be decided.  Both these issues have been addressed in late night meetings.

Once the text forces decisions on reference forest emission levels, it is suspected that generating conservation funding for tropical forests will become easier.  But this presents a difficult circle of distrust in the negotiations.  ”It’s hardly surprising that developing countries won’t commit to global targets for deforestation when rich countries haven’t yet provided the necessary financing for REDD,” said Nathaniel Dyer of Rainforest Foundation, UK.  So, which comes first to break a potential halt in the negotiations; developing county targets or financing promises?

To this point there has been an increased focus on involving private sector investment and input within the REDD+ institutional set-up.  But private sector investments require “signaling” that REDD+ will be viable, and that starts with development of binding targets.  Additionally, private finance seems to spur on heightened concerns by nations and those residing in forests that safeguards against false solutions that are non-additional and allow for leakage must be taken.

The Tropical Forest Group also reports that there has been some progression in the language used to specify indigenous people’s rights.  Though, key safeguards to protect indigenous people’s rights and limitations to forest conversion to plantations were moved from the operative section of the text to a non-binding preamble text.  But the text now makes explicit reference to protection of natural forests for the first time.

The length of the REDD+ framework continues to expand and contract, but at least there is movement and progress amongst otherwise halting negotiations in Copenhagen.  But will political pressures and the time crunch be too much for developing a strong REDD+?  Two more days….

Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Deforestation and uncontrolled grazing leads to erosion (Image by: treesftf)

As negotiations continue, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and Enhanced Carbon Stocks (REDD+) is viewed as one of the only mechanisms expected to be agreed upon during the ongoing climate change talks in Copenhagen.  But an excellent point is being made – a successful REDD+ program requires a strong global CO2 target.  Without a global objective, any framework agreed for REDD+ will continue to allow deforestation without a clear finish line in view.  So, before we can even approach the complexity of the REDD+ mechanism itself, we require: a CO2 limitation target, a full understanding of the carbon stocks and governance structures for forests, and a sense of the financial commitments available, among other things.  The debate around REDD+ has been focused on issues of methodology, local communities, and indigenous people, as well as finance mechanisms.

That is a lot to settle in the one remaining week of COP15!

Running up to Copenhagen, REDD+ was often lauded as a sort of silver bullet towards addressing large-scale CO2 output reductions.  Draft REDD+ text coming into Copenhagen included a global objective for halving deforestation by 2020 and totally halting net forest loss by 2030.  The UNFCCC had assumed that forests account for about 20 % of global CO2 output, but Dutch researchers recently reported that the maximum level is likely closer to 12 % (Van der Werf, et al., 2009.

Surprisingly, discussions of REDD+ do not appear to have been damaged too much by this report.   “Even with lower emissions, avoiding deforestation remains the cheapest and quickest way to realize huge reductions,” says Herbert Christ from the Congo Basin Forest partnership (CBFP), a platform of ten Congo Basin countries.

Sure, a global REDD+ objective can help the world stay at or below 2C warming, but this does not come free of charge.  It is vital that developed countries commit to the level of funding consistent with realizing the goals of a REDD+ plan.  All this week, the potential socio-economic outcomes of REDD+ have been discussed at multiple side-events to the official negotiations.  It is stressed that REDD+ can simultaneously reduce emissions and alleviate poverty through rewarding local communities for forest conservation efforts.  But realizing side benefits depends heavily on significant and reliable streams of funding.  And well, once funds are secured, how they are distributed and monitored is a major concern.

All aspects of the Copenhagen negotiation package require funding, e.g. technology transfer, adaptation, mitigation; thus, it is hard to imagine that REDD+ will come off fully-funded with ease.  The “Copenhagen Launch Fund” was announced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the summit of Commonwealth Leaders last week in Trinidad & Tobago.  But the proposed 10 billion USD funding (meant to come from donations by the UK and other developed nations) to help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change is not enough, says Solomon Islands Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Colin Beck.

Throughout the week , this has been the ardent position of the developing nations.  Thus, when adaptation funding offered is barely ten-percent of what developing nations require (110 billion USD), how can REDD+ expect to be fully financed (by the 11 donor countries) in a totally separate pool of money?

However, there has been impressive movement by some developed nations on setting the framework of REDD+ and the associated Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).  Thursday, France clashed with other EU states in advocating strong baselines under this system for all nations.  French climate ambassador, Brice Lalonde, called accounting methods proposed by EU nations most dependent on forestry “sloppy, and even fraudulent.”  He went on to state that “the EU cannot embrace fraudulent methods and then turn around and ask developed countries to accept something that they are not willing to impose on themselves.” Lalonde.  Coming up to Copenhagen, France worked with REDD+ countries (especially those of South America) to establish viable methods for that program as well (click here to read more).

There were a number of side events concerning REDD+ throughout this first week of COP15.  Many of these events highlighted REDD+ pilot projects in some of the 37 nations covered under the plan.  Naturally, the implementation of a final REDD+ system will be complex due to differences in country and local-level needs in forest conservation.  But the general idea to which many negotiators are distilling REDD+ to over the last days is a system whereby developing countries are rewarded with carbon credits for sustaining their forests.  The same concerns were voiced by nation after nation.  Primarily, concerns fall under two themes: 1) protection of indigenous peoples’ rights; and 2) distribution of funds from federal government to localities.

Throughout the week, Guyana stressed the need to implement standardized Readiness Preparedness Proposal (RPP) procedures for countries covered by REDD+.  There is an evident capacity gap in the understanding the extent of deforestation in many countries, especially when left to self-report.  There is temptation to overlook some illegal logging, and without GIS technology, it is difficult to be accurate; chances of non-additionality and leakage are extended as well.  To this point, Guyana has also discussed a National Inventory Process that would be supported and standardized under REDD+.

Though many countries seem convinced that they will benefit from the REDD+ program, indigenous voices continue to warn that money from national-level carbon credits might not make it to them.  In this view REDD+ is intertwined with human rights laws.  To this point there has been discussion of adopting “pro-poor policies,” that protect the most marginal of indigenous peoples.  Yet, that seems to be a cloaked way of calling for total national reform to protect indigenous people in 37 countries, some of which qualify as the most unstable in the world.  And well, some of those nations still hope to get credits for forest plantations that are not cut but used for generation of products, like palm oil.

So many loose ends seem apparent… So, the real question is—does REDD+ put the cart before the horse?  Are all the discussions tailoring details without a solid and viable holistic vision of REDD+?  Not to mention PINC?

For a more comprehensive overview of all proposals on REDD+ and PINC, see the Little REDD+ Book.

Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Betio village, Kiribati. 10 February 2005. ©Greenpeace / Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert

The Kiribati delegation made a powerful public presentation of the extreme risks faces by their atoll nation in the near future by climate change effects.  Climatico analyst Jennifer Helgeson had the opportunity to have a discussion with Kiribati’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Immigration, Tessie Eria Lambourne, as well as legal Solicitor-General, David Lambourne.

The presentation preceding this conversation combined scientific discussions alongside cultural themes and socio-economic projections to put what Mr. Lambourne notes as a “human face” on climate change.  This human face includes issues such as quickly disappearing corals, loss of infrastructure, lack of potable drinking water, and extensive health issues.

Sea level rise is so serious for this nation that it is described as “inundation risk” by the risk management specialists brought in by the Kiribati government to assess the nation’s environmental situation.  These specialists have described two options for changes to Kiribati in the coming century:  1) Temporary inundation; or 2) Permanent inundation, with many changes already triggered and slowly evolving.  In the most modest model proposals (following IPCC projections), there is major coastal loss to the nation by 2030 and by 2050 there is a proliferation of swampy area throughout the mid-lands of the country. Finally, by 2100, there will be major permanent inundation of areas throughout the islands.

Such a situation would necessitate major evacuation of Kiribati’s citizens to other nations.  But, Ms. Lambourne makes it clear that if evacuation and relocation becomes realistic, the people of Kiribati will not go as environmental refugees: “We are a proud people.  We want to offer skilled individuals to other nations; we have no interest in our people living off of welfare.”  In this spirit, the government is committed to merit-based relocations (e.g. agreements to train Kiribati women as nurses in order to fill employment gaps in developed countries).  The programs already in development with Australia and New Zealand ensure long-term Kiribati communities in those nations.  Mr. Lambourne explains that historically other Pacific Island nations have had migration due to socio-economic factors.  So, they have seed communities of their indigenous people in places like New Zealand and Australia.  We need to develop those kinds of seed communities to absorb Kiribati people if climate change forces it to be so.”

When asked why he and his wife are so knowledgeable on climate change, Mr. Lambourne states that all the heads of state know about climate change because it is pervasive in all issues faced by Kiribati.  Kiribati has ordered village by village risk assessments and the reported outlook is grim.  The only airway to the country is likely to be totally inundated by 2030.  There is a key data gap in how coral will react over time; the excellent records kept since the 1990s does not allow for accurate projections.  The most densely populated island of the atoll is Tarawa (45,000 people) and poverty as well as health issues will only be exacerbated by climate change.   The one fresh water lens for the community’s drinking water has also begun to see minor salination.  Ms. Lambourne shakes her head and asks rhetorically: “do you know how expensive it is to maintain a desalinization plant?”

Kiribati is asking the world for help, but at the same time, Ms. Lambourne is quick to point out that they are taking hold of their own fate.  The Clean Development Mechanism hasn’t really made it into Kiribati because of the costs involved in setting-up the process.  “Who would do a single project in Kiribati when economies of scale let them do thousands cheaply in China?” asks Mr. Lambourne.  “We don’t have the technology to promise specific targets but we are working hard to get towards the use of more sustainable fuel types and seriously reducing the atoll’s carbon footprint.”

Kiribati is tackling the hard issues.  Mr. Lambourne admits that “relocation at all is not a comfortable topic, but we have to be realistic.”  He looks at me and jokes that, after all, our President is an economist; he is practical.”  Asked about how other Pacific Island nations feel about the merit-based migration program Kiribati is striving towards, the answer is that not all nations think it is the best way.  “Of course, it takes work on our part and on the part of our people.  But we are part of the AOSIS [Association of Small Island States], and we agree with the common message.  Each nation might choose to get there differently, but we agree.”

Complemented on the lovely Kiribati bird song shared during the initial presentation, Ms. Lambourne smiles and says that “the frigate bird is a prime example of national identity; that is why it is so hard to think about moving our people; the spiritual connection to the land is so intense.  The suggestion guides to adaptation all say that the easiest thing for individuals’ to do is to move away from coastal areas, but what happens when your entire nation is a coastal area?”

For more on Kiribati’s climate change plan for adaptation and potential evacuation, see: www.climate.gov.ki

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.