Climatico has just released its latest report entitled, “Copenhagen De-briefing: An Analysis of COP15 for Long-term Cooperation”
This report analyses key issues under discussion in Copenhagen including: finance, technology transfer, REDD+, CDM and JI, as well as the ongoing conflicts between Annex I and Non Annex I countries. The Copenhagen Accord is also discussed along with its potential effect on future negotiations.
Author: Kelly McManus
REDD+ Wildfire (Image by: B.G. Johnson)
Throughout COP15, forests have proven to be the one issue that all negotiating blocs can (at least generally) agree upon. As we arrive at the end of the this historic meeting, a global deal on climate stands on shaky grounds but REDD+ remains stable, shaping up to be quite possibly, the single success story of the COP.
We may argue that REDD+ without broader emissions targets will fail to create net emissions reductions, and that further warming is a major threat to forests regardless. These are valid points that must be addressed. But nevertheless, late last night a REDD+ text was agreed to by negotiators to hopefully be signed today by the heads of state. As one of the delegates of the contact party on REDD+ said of coming out of the session last night, “Compared to everything else, the REDD text is on schedule. Last night the contact groups reported back and you could almost detect the classroom envy as we were the goody two-shoes who handed in the assignment on time. There was a sense of history that this is finally when REDD became real.”
Why has REDD+ succeeded where everything else has failed? Perhaps it has to do with the incentives, local to global, to maintain forests. Perhaps it is the “+”-the fact that, beyond functioning as carbon sinks and stores, forests provide essential co-benefits including biodiversity, regional water cycling, cultural identity, and local livelihoods. A carbon-centric view of forests might deem REDD+ in the absence of broader targets a failure, but it is only in taking a larger, holistic view of forests that REDD+ could have made it this far. REDD+ has gotten the incentives right for the countries who needed to agree to it, and thus stands poised to become the largest coordinated effort to stop deforestation the world has seen.
The outcome of the rest of the day is, of course, of critical importance to the fate of the forests and the fate of, well, our world. It is perhaps too soon to celebrate this small victory, and the larger and more ominous context of a failed global treaty in which this small victory may occur must not be disregarded. Efficient, equitable, and fair implementation will be challenging, and long term finance must be secured. But I’d like to think that forests everywhere just breathed out a long, oxygen-filled, sigh of relief.
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: Kelly M. McManus
Negotiations on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and Enhanced Carbon Stocks (REDD+) yesterday centered on the scope and objectives of a potential Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and Enhanced Carbon Stocks (REDD+) mechanism, with a number of proposals on the tables by various countries and negotiating blocs (for an overview of these proposals, see the Little REDD+ Book). While questions over specifics-including whether an agreement on REDD should include specific reduction targets-are still being debated, the linking of REDD+ to carbon markets is being discussed as a near certainty.
REDD+ is considered as one of the more actionable items on the COP agenda, and it is predicted that a binding agreement on forests may be one of few substantive outcomes of the Copenhagen summit. However, REDD+ is widely criticized by most stakeholders, from broad calls for the three “E”s-equity, efficiency, and equality, concerns that have carried over from Poznan, to admonition of REDD+ as “carbon colonialism” by indigenous peoples who have seen their lands and livelihoods usurped in the name of the CDM. Despite these criticisms, an acknowledgement of the critical need to halt deforestation, which garners support not only on the basis of emissions reductions, but also as a strategy for protecting biodiversity and providing essential ecosystem services, drives the REDD+ process along.
But can REDD+ deliver on its essential task of reducing emissions? New research suggests that deforestation probably accounts for around 12% of global carbon emissions, both because deforestation rates have decreased in real terms and other sources of carbon emissions have increased in proportion to deforestation emissions (Van der Werf, et al., 2009). The significant challenges of implementing REDD+ mean that actual emissions reductions from deforestation will be somewhat less than this. Substantial issues have been raised in determining appropriate baseline levels of deforestation, developing methods to prevent “leakage“-i.e. deforestation displaced from forests under REDD+ governance to those which are not , and ensuring that compensation is only given to projects that are truly additional, that is, forests that would be deforested without the injection of REDD+ monies. None of these are simple questions, and what is appropriate in one nation or for one driver of forest conversion, may be disastrous in another.
Furthermore, long-term ecological modeling studies in the Amazon suggest that under conditions of drought and higher average temperatures, forest dieback may switch the forest from being a carbon sink to a carbon source (Cox et al., 2004).
The uncertainties on REDD+ extend beyond emissions reductions. REDD+ represents the largest potential financial investment into mitigating deforestation that has ever been undertaken. This investment will be delivered to developing nations for avoided deforestation (RED), forest degradation (REDD), maintenance of existing forest stocks (PINC), and/or enhancement of standing forest carbon stocks (REDD+), or some combination of these options, depending upon which proposal is ultimately adopted. If REDD+ (or RED or REDD) prioritizes carbon storage above all other currently non-market forest services (e.g. biodiversity, hydrological and nutrient cycling), it will create trade-offs between these services that may prove to be ecologically-and economically, if the critical role of water and nutrient cycling are to agriculture and human systems-unsound.
To counter these very real challenges, we have added ‘D’s and ‘+’s and ‘PINC’s and a plethora of caveats to what started as a relatively simple economic, though potentially dangerous, economic tool. We have created a REDD giant.
Given the high stakes and high uncertainty associated with REDD+, it is necessary that we critically evaluate the potential that the current market-based proposed REDD+ mechanism may ultimately cost too much, do too little, and have adverse impacts on biological and social systems.
These are not easy questions, and the political momentum behind REDD+, after literally years of negotiations and consensus-building, makes it unlikely that delegates will want to reopen this Pandora’s box. But if they were to just take a quick peek inside, they might be well advised to consider one aspect of deforestation that is becoming increasingly more clear-the increasing proportion of deforestation that is caused by export-driven commodity markets, namely cattle ranching, soya production, and oil palm plantations. If the problem with deforestation were narrowed to simply commercial markets for these commodities (albeit admittedly leaving the smaller but important problem of poverty-based deforestation for another, perhaps aid-based, mechanism) deforestation could conceivably be addressed through a trade-based, demand-side solution, akin to the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (EU FLEGT) Program. Perhaps the market that needs to be regulated is not the one that does not yet exist for forest carbon, but the very well established markets for global “deforestation” commodities. The thought of changing course so late in the game may seem the type of thing to send a delegation into a frenzy, but fear not, we merely need to add on a consonant. Ladies and gentlemen, meet REDD+T.
Fever is rising for Copenhagen, as delegates and key global players in the climate field descend on the Danish capital in readiness for the official opening of the 15th Conference of the Parties on Monday. Expectations have rollercoastered in the last few weeks, with negative sentiment peaking when it was plausible Obama would not attend and the key emitters, namely the USA, China and India were yet to stipulate plans regarding emissions reductions.
The recent email scandal from the Climate Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia and James Hansen, NASA’s head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, vehemently stressing the talks ‘must fail’ will add further dent to expectations. However pledges for emissions cuts, announced by the USA and China and the anticipation that India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh will today announce cuts in carbon intensity by 24 percent in 2020, bring hope. The cumulative result of these pledges is a positive signal that the COP could deliver a tangible structure for an agreement by the closing on December 19th.
One of the most contentious issues likely to dominate the discussions is the standoff between developing and developed countries, referred to as Annex 1 under the existing Kyoto Agreement. The key emerging emitters from the developing world, China, India, Brazil and South Africa have remained firm that developed countries must provide finance and technology to help developing nations fight global warming. This was further reaffirmed this week in Copenhagen, when the key negotiators from these four countries indicated after a preparatory meeting that they would represent a “different position” compared to a separate outline for the global climate talks by Denmark.
After a recent meeting in Beijing it also emerged that this group at Copenhagen will formally ask “developed countries to assume responsibility for emissions reduction targets in the second commitment period (from 2013)”. As Kim Carstensen, head of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative, further advocated “the developed world needs to have deeper emissions cuts, more new money on the table and much more willingness to share the technologies for low carbon development”. Developed nations are however adamant that this group of big emerging economies must also commit to mandatory emissions cuts.
Arguing aside, the fact remains that the world must cut its emissions, by around 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 if any form of climate stabilization is to be achieved. Nonetheless discussions are likely to stumble and potentially get deadlocked over the issue of historical responsibility. This issue of ‘burden sharing’ is hugely sensitive as it ultimately involves responsibility to give money, billions of dollars of it, needed for low carbon investment and in adaptation funding, especially in key areas vulnerable to the onslaught of climate change.
Developing countries will not vacillate over the need for comprehensive adaptation funding, and will not compromise on the need for this to be in addition to official development assistance (ODA). The EU’s negotiators recent written blunder, referring that they “cannot accept reference to ‘additional to’, and ’separate from’ ODA targets” could gravely undermine discussions on this issue.
In addition to the issue of funding, developing countries will be pressing for a firm agreement on Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD), where large swathes of land covered by forests of high biodiversity have the potential to earn countries money by keeping forests standing. However, as with many negotiations at Copenhagen, issues need to be ironed out with regards to the details. A major hurdle for REDD is corruption and mismanagement in the forestry industry in developing countries. For example this costs Indonesia, which has one of the highest deforestation rates, two billion US dollars a year, equivalent to its entire health budget as a Human Rights Watch report released on Tuesday indicated. Many feel the negotiations surrounding REDD are fundamental if Copenhagen is to achieve anything, and will be hoping there is not a ‘no deal’ on this.
I will be traveling to Copenhagen for the second week of deliberations to cover issues related to developing countries.
International impetus on climate change not replicated domestically
International Success…
On the international stage, Indonesia can claim with some justification that it is leading the way in advancing the climate change agenda. In the last month alone, Indonesia has been active in:
… Domestic Gloom
On the domestic front, however, concern is growing that Indonesia is not so committed. As pointed out by this blogger, even though the Presidential elections are next month, climate change is conspicuous by its absence from the election campaign. This is despite the dangers faced from rising sea levels and increased incidents of forest fires (which have already started and are projected to worsen significantly this year). Furthermore, the current economic crisis has resulted in a budget deficit totalling US$13.47 billion. Plans are afoot, however, to plug this gap with loans that are expressly allocated to climate change. As Basah Hernowo, the Bappenas director of forestry and water resource conservation says while the French and Japanese have agreed to give additional loans of $100 million, on top of the $500 million already agreed, towards reduction measures, “the government will use the money to cover the budget deficit”. And the reason given? “The loans for climate change issues have cheaper interest rates compared to other loans”.
This is extremely disturbing and raises the question of what the donor countries will do, especially as there is a monitoring mechanism in place to ensure that the money is spent on climate change projects. It also brings a more negative spin on the international achievements listed above: it suggests that internationally Indonesia is pushing the climate change agenda in order to secure more revenue for the general budget. While it could be argued that it is up to Indonesia to decide what it spends its budget on, one would expect enlightened self-interest to make climate change a top domestic priority. The signs so far however are not promising.
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:
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.
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:
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 6th 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…
© 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.
© 2010 Climaticoanalysis.org | All Rights Reserved