Europe has its sights firmly fixed on Copenhagen (Source: Attila the Hun at Flickr)

Barely a month after the end of the Poznań conference, the European Commission has attempted to set the agenda for the next COP/MOP, which will be held in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The move came in the form of a Communication issued last week that sets out the Commission’s views on a wide range of the issues facing the UNFCCC as they aim to reach agreement over post-2012 arrangements.

Three of the main elements of the Communication are as follows:

Developed countries need to cut their emissions substantially below 1990 levels. The EU’s view is that developed countries should set targets that would reduce their emissions by 30% by 2020.

Developing countries need to set binding limits on their emissions. The Communication suggests a target reduction of 15-30% below ‘Business As Usual’ emissions by 2020.

The Clean Development Mechanism needs to be reformed and its use phased out in some countries and sectors. The Commission is advocating reform of the CDM to address concerns that many current CDM projects currently in operation or in the pipeline are not likely to their expected level of carbon reductions. It also believes that a sectoral, rather than a project-level, approach would be more efficient in some of the more advanced developing countries.

The document also contains a number of other proposals, including requiring all countries to develop adaptation strategies, bringing international shipping and aviation into the scope of the international agreement, and a dramatic increase in energy research and development.

The Commission’s statement reads like a shopping list of all the key components that would be required for an effective post-2012 climate regime. A pessimist might argue that it also reads like a list of reasons why a deal is unlikely to happen at Copenhagen. Despite the increased level of political will to address climate change in the new US administration, there is widespread doubt over whether a cap-and-trade system can be approved within the first year of the Obama presidency, and it is not clear that the administration is eager to set a US emissions cap that is anything like as tight as the EU desires. Similarly, China’s Premier Wen Jiabao played down expectations that China would commit to any binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions during his recent visit to Europe. And getting developed countries to commit to significant funding streams for CDM-based mitigation in developing countries will be far from easy given the current stae of their economies.

The Communication is an indicator of the EU’s desire to maintain momentum after Poznań and to set the agenda at the beginning of an intense year of discussion. It will be engaging in an enormous amount of negotiation over all these issues between now and December, and as with its own Energy and Climate package, any eventual deal will inevitably entail compromise. Europe has persistently striven to be a leader in forming global climate policy, and it will be anxious to continue in that role during 2009. But it will also be acutely aware of the old wise-crack that a leader without followers is just a guy taking a walk.

When asked to think about the relationship between climate change and Indonesia, the most likely answers would revolve around rainforests, deforestation, orangutans and loss of livelihoods. Missing from this picture is any appreciation of the role played by the oceans of Indonesia. This is especially surprising given that Indonesia’s:

• the world’s largest archipelago;
• 17,000 islands stretch over 5000 thousand kilometres East to West, or an eighth of the world’s circumference;
• total sea area is four times bigger than the land area.

This makes Indonesia particularly vulnerable: as Rachmat Witoelar, the environment minister pointed out, the country could lose 2000 islands by 2030 if sea levels continue to rise. But it is not just Indonesia that stands to lose out. Globally the effect of climate change on coastal communities and island states is potentially horrendous. This therefore makes the neglect of oceans in recent climate change conferences all the more puzzling. As noted by Gellywynn Jusuf, in Bali only one session out of 800 discussed climate change and its impact on oceans: in Poznan, oceans were barely mentioned.

This, together with new research suggesting that sea-level rises have been under-estimated, makes the recent announcement of the World Ocean Conference in May all the more important. Taking place in Sulawesi, Indonesia, it is hoped that the WOC will refocus the world’s attention on the important relationship between the oceans and climate change. It aims to increase awareness of:

1. the links between climate change, the implications for the socio-economic position of coastal peoples and the ecological conditions of coastal and marine zones;
2. the vital role that oceans play in mitigating climate change;
3. the need for mitigation of disasters caused by climate change;
4. the need for a strong commitment for continued discussions on the role of oceans in climate change and the effects of climate change on oceans.

There is a further possible reason for the conference: besides increasing awareness of the relationship between climate change and the oceans, and shifting some of the focus away from forests, it is possible that this conference may lay the groundwork for some sort of remuneration scheme for those countries with large oceans.

Given the potential carbon sink capacity of oceans, with Indonesia alone purportedly having the ability to ‘absorb’ up to 60 million tonnes of CO2 a year through the oceans, a REDD-like scheme for oceans could bring huge monetary sums for those countries directly affected by rising sea-levels. As Freddy Numberi, the Indonesian Maritime and Fisheries Minister, suggests “by protecting the oceans, we will be saving the livelihoods of so many people in small-island states. For this reason, wealthy nations should contribute to the cause.”

Is such a scheme feasible? REDD at its core is simple: pay money to stop cutting down trees. Trying to quantify not only degradation in the oceans but also their ability to act as carbon sinks maybe impossible but such a scheme [I am suggesting Reducing Emissions from Oceanic Degradation in Developing Countries or REOD as the name for such a programme]could provide at the very least compensation for those island countries hardest hit by climate change. This makes it a possibility worth exploring.

At Poznan a number of developing countries – China, Mexico and Brazil – took the opportunity to announce new climate change initiatives. Indonesia’s initiative, one of the world’s top 20 greenhouse gas emitters, was conspicuous by its absence and, given recent disagreements over budgetary control, we shouldn’t expect anything soon.

The body expected to take control is the National Board on Climate Change (DNPI). Formed in July 2008, its key aim was to implement the National Action Plan announced in 2007, coordinating the actions of 17 government ministries in:
• Formulating new climate change mitigation policies;
• Regulating the country’s carbon trade system;
• Overseeing development projects so to measure and control emissions;
• Taking the lead internationally in demanding developed countries take more responsibility for climate change.

This unified approach didn’t last long, however, with problems emerging in October 2008. The National Development Planning Board (Bappenas) announced that, along with the Finance Ministry, it was setting up a climate change trust fund to manage mitigation financial support from donor countries. However it was not until this week that the DNPI hit back reiterating that all funding for climate change would fall under the council’s control with Rachmat Witoelar, the Council’s director, declaring “as a national council we will manage all activities related to climate change in the country. All incoming money from donors will go through the council, including spending the donor money”.

The importance of the disagreement becomes apparent when numbers are mentioned. So far the US, Germany and Australia have pledged some $6o million in grants to combat climate change. The real prizes are the soft loans from countries like Japan who is providing up to $300 million for climate change mitigation as part of its “Cool Earth Promotion Programme“. Furthermore there could be much more on the way from the Reduction in Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme.

A cynic may suggest that having presidential and legislative elections in July may have something to do with this. But even then surely, one may ask, the money will still be used for climate change policies. Well this seems more a hope than a certainty as the trust fund will not have the same focus on climate change as the DNPI. This was made abundantly clear when the Bappenas director of forestry and water resource conservation, Basah Hernowo, stated “the trust fund will decide where the loans go. It can also be used to plug the deficit in the state budget”. Given the economic crisis and global recession, it is a valid, yet worrying question to ask how much of the donor’s money will actually be spent on climate change.

As Poznan, COP 14, an intermediate negotiations phase draws to a close and delegates from all over the world disperse, it is clear that there was very limited progress made on reforming the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the short-term. The CDM is one of the three mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol that enables developed countries (Annex B) to invest in projects in developing countries (non- Annex B) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One of the chief complaints under the CDM regime has been the slow approval process and developer’s facing confusion on the closed screening of projects by the CDM Executive Board. With over 1,186 projects registered, consequently, there are numerous projects still on the drawing-board or in the CDM pipeline biding their time until they receive the green flag from the CDM Executive Board. Such a slow process with a lack of transparency has stirred frustration in the CDM developer community and calls for reform have grown considerably over the last year; Henry Derwent, President and CEO, International Emissions Trading Association leads the charge and argues that “as a direct result of the limited guidance from parties to the Kyoto protocol in relation to the implementation of an improved CDM, uncertainties and delays currently plague the process.”

One of the longstanding demands has been the appointment of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to the Executive Board to increase transparency. Unfortunately, Poznan did not alter the structure of the Executive Board; however, it did request the Executive Board to “continue ensuring the efficient, cost-effective, transparent and consistent functioning of the clean development mechanism.” Further discussions on streamlining registration, issuance, and methodology approval procedures will have to wait until next year, where the REAL reforms are set out in Copenhagen.

Brazilian Minister for the Environment Carlos Minc launched the country’s national strategy to address climate change, signed by President Lola on 1st December 2008. Whilst the developing country previously held a defensive position, the launch of this strategy represents a shift to a more leadership position, with which they hope to influence the G77 and developed countries to also lead. Brazil echo the sentiments in Simon’s previous blog, that COP 14 has become a waiting game, as everyone waits for other’s to make the first move.

Key commitments from the National Climate Change Action Plan include:

•       Reduce deforestation in the Amazon by 70% by 2020 – saving 4.8bn tones of carbon over the 12 years. This is more than the target all countries agreed to reduce at Kyoto combined.
•       Increasing concentrations of ethanol in the fuel mix for cars by 11% each year, reducing a further 500m tones of carbon over 10 years. Additionally, this will be achieved without any impact on land used by indigenous people or for food production.
•       Increase in co-generation from 0.5% to 10% – improving efficiencies and representing a saving of around 100m tones of carbon
•       Increase in hydroelectric energy generation – to replace more of exiting energy supplies from fossil fuels
•       Plans to increase reforestation from 5 – 11 hectares, doubling the current rate of reforestation, including in indigenous areas
•       Planting more trees at a faster rate than those being chopped down – till at least 2015
•       Certification of wood and forest management to fight illegal sales of wood from the Amazon
•       Specific resources made available to fund adaptation and fight desertification – a key issues for north-eastern areas of Brazil, home to 50m people.
•       Amazon Fund created to fight deforestation in the Amazon- supported by 1bn Euros, from Norway, Germany and £100m from the UK

These commitments represent Brazil’s commendable decision to take a more leadership position, and the Minister for Environment called for collaborative action and further efforts from other developed and developing countries, to encourage the EU to adopt its higher target of 30% by 2020 – by meeting the condition of support from other nations.

Brazil has created National Climate Fund, which will be funded by 10% of the revenues from the petroleum industry. In addition, their ambitious programme is expected to be funded by their National Bank for Social and Economic Development, and the Minister of Environment felt this needed no further incentives at the moment.

Whilst Brazil’s leadership is in combating climate change is commendable, following the lead of Mexico’s ambitious intention for 50% reduction by 2050 earlier this week, it is interesting to note that the country has authorized the construction of their third nuclear power plant, using German technology. A further three are expected, but details are to be finalized. Brazil has strongly opposed CCS in CDM throughout the COP process, yet it is interesting to see their commitment and deployment of a similarly controversial technology.

Source: Benkamorvan @ Flikr

Nobel Prize winning Al Gore addressed a jam-packed plenary today, to reinforce the urgency of the global climate change crisis we face.

“The road to Copenhagen is clear…”

Gore stressed that the ‘optimism and hope’  we see today are great enough to help us to reach an agreement in Copenhagen, in spite of the obstacles and difficulties along the way.  Sending the audience into a frenzy of cheers, this statement raised the decibels in todays plenary, which has only heard a quiet chatter and less engaging murmer up till now. The message Gore delivered was American in style, and somewhat in content, quoting speeches from President-elect Obama on a ‘green’ global deal. He highlighted the emerging consensus on a synchronised and green stimulus to address the global financial crisis, developing the renewable energy sector, empowering people to be more energy efficient through a behavioural change and creating more green jobs to revitalise the global economy.

He praised developing counties for making bold steps and contributing to address climate change; including Brazil which has launched a new plan to halt deforestation, and is also considering further efforts to reduce emissions. China was congratulated for their efforts, which include a $600m injection into the green economy, and the largest tree planting programme globally, showing that they are ready to lead the way to a more sustainable world.

REDD, reform of the CDM and the adaptation fund (with appropriate financial architecture) remain the key discussion points along the journey to an agreement at Copenhagen. In addition, capacity building in developed countries (as well as developing countries) will enable them to overcome “the paralysis preventing us from acting….we must focus less on the activities of OJ Simpson and Paris Hilton, and more on the moral issue we face today”.

Gore continued to stress this notion of the climate crisis as a moral and spiritual issue, not a political one – “We have a generational mission, a compelling moral purpose and a shared vision to act…”, echoing the sentiments of  a shared vision within the UNFCCC discussions, and also highlighted by Yvo de Boer in Wednesday’s press conference.

In a bold statement, Gore emphasised that we must strive to achieve 350ppm not just 450ppm, claiming that the momentum we could achieve globally in reducing GHGs could make this an easier target for the future. Whilst this statement received further cheers and applause from many research, youth and non governmental delegations pushing for stronger targets, it seems a rather audacious claim to make amid climate negotiations which have, to date, struggled to negotiate the detail of how to deliver any agreement with significant commitments to reach 450ppm. However ambitious the target might be, the overcrowded audience was fully engaged with the speaker’s vision…more so than any other plenary I’d attended over the past 8 days. Could it be that the Academy Award-winning celebrity had us all star-struck?  Whether a good or bad thing, this nobel prize winner certainly raised the levels of frenzy in the corridor. All that remains now are the next 12 months until Copenhagen to work out the details of such bold ambitions.

Gore also runs Generation Investment Management LLP - a London based investment management firm which focuses on sustainability factors including social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance.

The UK’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Milliband, addressed  the UN Conference of Parties (COP) here in Poznan today, delivering the UK’s ministerial statement on climate change.

Ed Milliband, UK Sectretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, speaking in Poznan today

Echoing sentiments of Gordon Brown and other EU member states over the last week in Brussels, he stressed that the UK must overcome the challenge posed by the global finiancial crisis. The costs of adaptation and mitigation continue to rise the longer we wait – we must up the pace along the road to less discussion and more negotiation for an agreement at Copenhagen next year.

He praised the efforts of developing countries and stressed the need for developed nations to take on stronger targets, based upon the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities. Developing nations must consider substantial deviations from business as usual (BAU) and we must ensure that strong transfer mechanisms exist to support this effort.

The UK’s spirit of intent is reflected in the commitments they have made through the Climate Change Act, adopting challenging targets of 80% carbon reduction and 20% for generation of renewable energy, by 2050. The UK will adopt further commitments as part of the European Climate Package, which is expected to be decided in the next 48 hours. As part of the EU’s recently announced  Renewables Directive (20-20-20) the UK will adhere to plans to increase targets for generation of renewable energy from, 20% to 30% if other countries make significant contirbutions.

Milliband, stressed that “We must go further than 50% by 2050″  as the UK (and Obama) has committed. In addition, the UK is commiting further resources to the UN’s Adaptation Fund, and £100m to forestry issues (a statement on deforestation will be released tomorrow).

Milliband delivered a strong statement in amongst China and Austria, reflecting the UK’s vision to be a pioneer in the fight against climate change, and the large commitments the UK has adopted in the Climate Change Bill. The Committee on Climate Change released their first report (Building a low-carbon economy – the UK’s contribution to tackling climate change) on 1^st December, setting out the analysis which underpinned the target reductions and details of the level of the first 3 carbon budgets – up to 2022.

If one had been hoping for clear signs of progress a week-and-a-half into Poznan and on the eve of a European Council meeting, where an ambitious EU climate agenda should have been finalised, this has not been the best week. German enthusiasm for action on Climate Changed has not only waned with the onset of the financial crisis, but, more or less, disappeared completely.

In parliament last week, Angela Merkel reasserted the EU’s ambition to push for an international agreement on Climate Change. She also defended the ‘compromise’ on car emissions as reflecting the need to secure jobs as well as CO² reduction and climate change. Not only did the Greens heckle in response to this assessment, but since then different observers have questioned the purity of Ms Merkel’s intentions.

NGOs ‘Brot für die Welt’ and EED accused her of ‘forgetting about’ the EU action on Climate Change she had herself initiated. In a joint letter, Christian leaders from the UK, Germany and Sweden warned of neglecting action on Climate Change because of the financial crisis. And Klaus Töpfer, a prominent former environment minister and head of UNEP, warned that commitments to tackle Climate Change should be questioned by no-one, least of all Ms Merkel.

Leaders looking for answers

For the moment it seems that, barring a political miracle, the results of the EU Council meeting and Poznan will not meet the expectations of better times. Germany is likely to push for further exceptions to the auctioning of CO² permits for energy intensive industries, such as steelmaking, cement, and aluminium, leading to the Spiegel’s mourning Angela Merkel’s transformation from ‘Miss World’ to ‘Madame No’.

Not much space seems left for the argument Obama and an earlier Merkel have made, namely that action on Climate Change will create, rather than destroy jobs. Bärbel Höhn, the Greens’ environmental spokesperson does, saying that ‘Merkel makes a serious mistake in not seeing the economic potential of Climate Change, and endangers jobs and industries by serving short-term lobby interests.’ The recent German ‘transformation’ does not bode well for action on Climate Change, and that might turn out to be an economic, as well as an environmental, policy error.