December 2009 is the key date when global world leaders aim to agree a ‘Global’ climate change plan at the forthcoming UN Summit at Copenhagen.  UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, outline what they would like to see emerge from the December 2009 Copenhagen summit in replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire in 2012. 

In his recent speech, Gordon Brown revealed a ‘Road to Copenhagen’ document which was presented to Parliament, and sets out why a Copenhagen deal is so important, and for the first time, what deal the UK Government is pushing for; some aspects are outlined below:

Emissions Reduction: Commit to firm reductions in amount of greenhouse gases they emit at Copenhagen.  The European Union has already pledged that it will reduce emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 30% if other countries commit to a similar level of action in a global agreement.

Adaptation: The UK wants a deal which gives developing countries the support they need to develop their own national plans to adapt to climate change. Other Adaptation actions could include better water conservation, new farming methods and plans to build new homes and businesses away from flood plains.

Tackling deforestation: The UK wants to see a deal which at least halves the rate at which we are cutting down tropical forests by 2020, with a complete end to global forest loss by 2030 at the latest.

New technologies: Carbon Capture and Storage to prevent emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations entering the atmosphere; Electric vehicles that produce lower emissions; Solar and other renewable power that produces cleaner energy; Energy efficient products for use in homes and business.

The UK plans for action are based on the UK Climate Projections a few weeks ago, that showed that Britain will also suffer if we do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions.  By the 2080’s temperatures could, under a high emissions scenario, be up to 12 degrees C warmer on the hottest summer days and sea levels could rise by 36 cm.  

Together with our EU partners we have already made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, with an offer to reduce emissions by 30% if an ambitious global deal is agreed. 

The talks will discuss the sectors in which the greatest reductions can be achieved.  This will also vary on a country by country basis, as the largest carbon emitting sectors will vary, and the impact on national strategies in preventing future growth which will almost certainly cause debate for some.

As part of a broader marketing campaign within the UK, Ed Milliband is the forefront of ‘Act on Copenhagen’ the official UK government website launched on 26th June, and designed for activities in the lead up to global climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.  In addition, thousands of pamphlets will be issued to schools, citizen’s advice centres and libraries explaining why a global deal is vital and giving 15 top tips on what each of us can do to cut our carbon footprint as part of the global effort.

Not everyone will hold the same view as the UK and therefore anticipate that a convincing argument will need to be pitched at some world leaders, and China is one of them.  In the face of a strong and ever growing, and prosperous economy, what actions will be taken to limit the growth of factories, air travel and industrialization?

Developing nations are emitting up to 50.3 per cent of world emissions, a study provided by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, therefore, Gordon Brown will play a leading role in not only to pledging to reduce emissions from all members, but in leading the securing of a global agreement on climate change – a role which many leaders may wish to take.  With Ed Milibands recent announcement for a UK coal consultation Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration, this may be the driving force for the UK to show that they are leading the Copenhagen debate, and not following it. 

Gordon Brown plans to meet with the President Obama administration at the September meeting of the G20 in Pittsburgh before presenting his plans, with the hope of a successful outcome at Copenhagen in December.

© 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.

A recent report from the Economy and Environment Program for South East Asia (EEPSEA) makes grim reading for anyone concerned about the effects of climate change in South East Asia generally and Indonesia in particular. Combining hazard maps for five climate-related risks (tropical cyclones, floods, landslides, droughts, and sea level rise) with population density and adaptive capacity data, major points of alarm include:

• Climatic ‘hotspots’ in western and eastern parts of Java (see figure 1.);
• Java is one of least ecologically protected areas in South East Asia, primarily because it is the most densely populated island in the region;
• Adaptive capacity to climate change higher than Laos and Cambodia but lower than Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam;
• Parts of western Java and western Sumatra are extremely vulnerable to climate change;
• Jakarta is the most vulnerable area in the whole of South East Asia.

These alarming findings confirm an earlier Environmental Ministry report declaring that sea-level rise could put parts of Jakarta permanently under water, including the international airport. Given these disturbing conclusions what can be done?

Tackle Primary Causes: Deforestation

Well it is always good to try and tackle the causes of climate change. One of the key contributors is rapid deforestation, with Indonesia experiencing a ‘boom’ primarily in palm oil cultivation. Perceived incorrectly as a clean bio-fuel, palm oil plantations not only destroy the natural habitat of vulnerable species like the Sumatran tiger and Orangutans, but also adversely affect the local population through land loss. Indeed, altogether deforestation pumps over 2.6 billon tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, making Indonesia the third biggest source of CO2 in the world.

Reality Bites

This is exactly what the REDD scheme is all about, making money available to prevent deforestation. However as reported in my last blog there has been confusion who will control the inflow of money from donors as well as the disbursements to various sectors. Two further factors suggest government inaction is the way forward. Firstly, the price of palm oil has risen by 70% in the last year making it an integral part of the Indonesian economy. There are plans also to create a palm oil exchange market in Indonesia suggesting that palm oil will be become more important, not less, with time.

Secondly, the Indonesian government has delayed releasing rules aimed at governing the billions of dollars of investment expected to flow into the country in return for carbon credits. Expected in December, these rules were meant to decide who benefits from the selling of REDD credits as well as which forests would be suitable for the scheme. An integral part of REDD is to share the benefits with the local populace which is only to be applauded. But given that it has now been put out for review with no new deadline for release, concern is rising that REDD implementation is stalling in Indonesia and even if implemented will benefit central government over local people.

To hear about water crisis in Ethiopia does not surprise, but not many people would expect that Mexico, an industrializing country, is facing serious water challenges. Punctually to the 20th anniversary of Conagua (Mexico’s National Water Commission), Mexico City has to close its water taps: from January until the end of the dry season (April), water supplies will be suspended for three days per month, to alleviate water shortages of Mexico City’s fresh water sources, which due to scarce precipitation, have reached the lowest levels for the past 16 years.

This is certainly not a once-off problem but the first signs of the culmination of two phenomena: immense overexploitation of available water resources not just in Mexico City but across the country and decreasing precipitation due to climatic changes.

With respect to the latter, the Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAT) and the Centre for Atmospheric Sciences of the Universidad Autónoma de México estimate that by 2020 precipitation rates in the Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City could fall by 5% while temperatures may rise by up to 1.2 degrees Celsius, increasing evaporation.

And Mexico City is surely not the only place facing these risks: in fact, the entire centre as well as the North of Mexico exhibits a similar problematic: severe overexploitation of water resources, and impending adverse impacts on water resources due to climate change.

What are the key problems: in Mexico City, it is of course rapid growth of the urban area, significant water losses due to an obsolete water distribution system but especially pollution of water bodies due to untreated release of sewage water. According to Government statistics (INEGI) Mexico’s urban areas generate 243 cubic meters of wastewater per second of which 25% drain off somewhere into the land-/cityscape, and only a third of which is treated. This does not account for leakage of pollutants due to waste and refuse such as Mexico City’s “Bordo Poniente”, the world’s second largest landfill site that receives 12.5 thousand tons of waste on a daily basis. In addition, deforestation and land use change threaten hydrological cycles and the replenishment of aquifers.

What are the solutions?

Mexico City is expecting the start of the construction of what will be the world’s largest water treatment plant, with a capacity of processing 23 cubic meters of water per second. Water treatment, the extension of sewage systems and access to potable water are also the priorities of Conagua. All these measures are of dire importance, yet as long as they are not coupled with activities that tackle not only symptoms but the actual root causes of the problem -pollution and overexploitation, due to bad planning at national and local level- Mexico will be ill-prepared to face water related impacts to climate change.

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.

Deforestation (credit: energyportal.eu)

Discussions at Poznan on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) managed to come to some sort of conclusion this morning. UN estimates suggest that investments of $17-30bn annually could halve deforestation levels, reducing GHG emissions by 10%, but how should these investments be allocated, and where should the financing come from?

During negotiations, there was finally agreement on the thorny issue of how countries should be rewarded. Previously, Brazil had argued that countries should only be rewarded for simply stopping further deforestation, but now they have agreed to calls from China/India and others that there should be rewards for planting new forests and rehabilitating degraded land as well.

The Brazilians have generally been progressive on many REDD issues at Poznan, setting an ambitious target of reducing their deforestation rate by 70% over the next 10 years earlier this week.

However, there are still sticking points on REDD, mostly relating to social issues and forest monocultures. Several countries (USA, Canada, Aus, NZ) deleted any specific reference to the “rights” of indigenous people from the text, but their “full and effective participation” is still mentioned. This is an issue because historically, “forestry management” has often resulted in indigenous groups being expelled from their lands.

Also, some environmental activists are worried that the draft doesn’t mention biodiversity. This could potentially mean that further deforestation could be allowed as long as the forests are replanted, potentially with biofuel monoculture crops such as palm oil, which have been shown to increase emissions.

Despite these issues, it is certainly welcome that there has been some sort of agreement on REDD, and hopefully the text will survive any last-minute attempts at changes.

Day 9 has started with a bump after two days of no formal negotiations.  There are number of key items to report:

Canada, Japan, Australia on 25-40% 2020 Target: Canadian media have begun to report that leaked documents from AWG-LCA show that there is growing divisions over the interim targets that the Bali Roadmap Group had been drafting in preparation for the high-level segment of COP-14 this week.  The draft document shows that countries have expressed formal problems (indicated on the document by a ‘hook’) with the language of the interim targets and that the EU delegation has confirmed that Canada, Japan, Australia and possibly Russia are trying to alter the current language that commits parties to the interim target.  

The EU delegation (in the form of the French presidency) are, not surprisingly, annoyed.  Delegates around the centre here are suggesting that the EU will begin applying pressure–whatever that actually means (‘corridor speak’ is always rather ambiguous).

Finance: In the daily UNFCCC statement Yvo de Boer has intimated that the operationalisation of the Adaptation Fund is now in discussion, although whether it will be agreed upon–specifically in terms of how to fund it–is still not clear.  What Mr de Boer did say was that attempts to exclude the World Bank from the adaptation transfer system was like ‘cutting off you nose to spite your face’.

Targets: In addition to the issues regarding interim targets above, it looking increasingly unlikely that there will be agreement on long term targets by the end of COP14.

Deforestation: Discussions are continuing but at a slow rate.  There are still major divisions about the fundamental structure of this project, from what will be protected to who will pay.  It is looking very unlikely that there will be major progress on this by the end of the week.

CDM: there are major discussions about the CDM.  In fact, such discussions have taken up a large proportion of the negotiating time in Poznan.  Inclusion of CCS and nuclear in CDM is now on the table, according to Yvo de Boer.

A key conclusion that is now beginning to emerge is that COP14 is going to be largely a talking shop and foundation-building exercise.  This is not a surprise.  However, today Yvo de Boer has begun using language that frames COP15 in Copenhagen not the as conclusion of negotiations for the second commitment period but as another step along the road.  ’If the fundamentals are in place by the end of 2009 then we can work out the details after’.  

This is similar to the process used after the creation of the Kyoto Protocol, where the CDM was added in at the last minute in 1997 and then subsequently developed between 1997 and 2001.  Such a detail-forming process would not necessarily be bad in terms of the treaty mechanisms that would result; after all the second commitment period begins in 2012.  However, a half-baked Copenhagen Protocol would look less progressive in public, activist, and business eyes.  There has been much discussion, for example, at Poznan about how business needs certainty for post-2012 investments in CDM projects.

What we are seeing here is the UNFCC trying to re-frame the context of Poznan and also now Copenhagen. The implications of this on the COP process is not clear yet, but it is clear that parties are preferring a longer-term view over a focus on the immediate.

More information to follow after today’s plenary sessions.