Jake Schmidt's Blog: Saving Wildlife and Wild Places tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134 2010-05-04T13:09:05Z Movable Type Enterprise 1.52 Illegal Logging in Indonesia: Environmental, Economic, & Social Costs Outlined in a New Report tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134.5994 2010-05-04T13:00:00Z 2010-05-04T13:09:05Z Jake Schmidt Illegal logging has a huge impact on the loss of tropical forests in the key countries that account for the vast majority of deforestation (as I discussed here).  These forests are being lost at the rate of two football fields a minute and contribute the same amount of global warming pollution as all of the world’s transportation emissions, so stopping forest loss is critical to our efforts to address global warming.  And no country is as important in these efforts as Indonesia (Brazil and Indonesia are the two largest deforesting countries). 

A new report from labor and environmental organizations – the Blue Green Alliance, NRDC, United Steel Workers, Sierra Club, and Rainforest Action Network – looks at the environmental, economic, and social cost of the loss of Indonesia’s rainforests from illegal logging. 

Here are some snippets from the report.

Indonesia’s forests are large and are being lost at alarming rates.  Indonesia’s forests cover approximately 463,300 square miles, slightly smaller than the forests of Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Indonesia’s forests are being lost at significant rates, which results in Indonesia’s global warming pollution ranked as 5th largest in the world (accounting for about 5% of the world’s emissions).  Between 1990 and 2005, approximately 108,110 square miles of Indonesian forest disappeared (an area larger than the State of Colorado), 77% of which were virgin forest (see graph for a visual of this loss).

Illegal logging is a major contributor to the loss of Indonesia’s forests.  A 2007 United Nations Environment Program report estimated that 73-88% of timber logged in Indonesia is illegally sourced.  More recent estimates place the figure at a lower, but still troubling rate of 40-55%.  And this illegal logging is not only costing the environment, but also the Indonesian people.  It is costing the Indonesian government an estimated $2 billion per year due to corruption, uncollected taxes, unacknowledged subsidies, and general poor management of resources.

Consumer appetite for pulp, paper, furniture, and palm oil (which is used for biofuels and in commodities such as margarine, toothpaste, chocolate, and soap), in nations such as the U.S., the European Union, Japan, China, and India are fueling the loss of Indonesia’s deforestation.  For example in 2007, 45% of Indonesia's wood exports went to the US, Europe, and China.*

We can and must take steps to address this loss.  Luckily the Indonesian government seems focused on addressing this issue to an extent that hasn’t been witnessed in the past.  As a part of the Copenhagen Accord, they committed to cut their global warming pollution by 26% by 2020 from business-as-usual levels (as we tracked here) – much of which will need to be achieved from reduced deforestation as it accounts for 80% of Indonesia’s emissions.  So there is some political momentum within Indonesia and we need to assist/nudge that momentum by utilizing all of the tools at our disposal.  Here are the ones that the report identified:

  • The Indonesian government must enforce existing forestry and anti-corruption laws and improve transparency and public access to information.
  • Trade in products created from illegal logging should be addressed as a trade subsidy and remedied through trade laws.
  • Trade and investment agreements should end demand for and trade in wood products that are illegally and or unsustainably sourced.
  • Adequate funding must be appropriated to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enforce the Lacey Act.
  • Pulp and paper must be included in the Lacey Act import declaration requirement schedule so importers are held fully responsible for the materials they import.
  • Developed and developing countries must flesh out and implement REDD schemes with robust multi-level monitoring, reporting and verification systems, safeguards for community rights and tenure, and governance reforms that ensure lasting, sustainable growth with tangible benefits for local communities.  (Key provisions towards this aim were included in the House passed climate bill as I discussed here and hopefully included in the Senate bill as I discussed here).

Since deforestation is a significant contributor to global warming emissions we must take action to ensure that incentives for destruction of the world’s tropical forests are eliminated.  And we must aid the Indonesian government and its people in addressing this challenge, using every tool in our toolbox.  After all, addressing this challenge is in the U.S. interest as America’s farmers and ranchers recently pointed out (as I discussed here), and as labor has just pointed out.

--------------------

* Source: Data from the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, available at:  http://comtrade.un.org/db/default.aspx

]]> Halting Tropical Deforestation is in the US Interest – just ask US farmers and ranchers tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134.5655 2010-03-24T19:27:32Z 2010-04-03T15:46:34Z Jake Schmidt Want to Protect Farms and Ranches Here? Protect them there.  Ending deforestation in the tropics isn’t just some tree-hugger’s cause.  Those are the opening lines of a new advertisement campaign run by the Ohio Corn Growers Association and Avoided Deforestation Partners which stresses the need to protect tropical forests in order to protect the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture (see ad to right and click to make it bigger). 

You may be asking, why is an American farm group supporting efforts to stop tropical deforestation – many, many miles from their home base?  The simple answer is (as the ad states):

“Illegal overseas agriculture and timber operations are tearing down and burning the world’s forests to make room for massive logging, cattle, palm oil and soybean operations.  This deforestation is a leading cause of climate pollution, but it also hurts U.S. agriculture. Crops grown on this slash-and-burn land undercut American farmers and ranchers producing corn, soy, canola, meat and leather. And paper and wood products from illegal tropical logging undercut responsibly managed U.S. forests.  This deforestation reduces commodity prices and hurts competitiveness, putting additional strains on American families trying to hold onto their farms, ranches and timberlands” [emphasis added].

Tropical deforestation and agriculture.  Agricultural expansion is a major driver of deforestation in many developing countries.  For example, it is estimated that agricultural expansion – from soy and cattle – accounts for 80% of Brazil’s deforestation (and a recent study suggested that 80% of the world’s deforestation since 1980 was the result of agricultural expansion).  Illegal and unsustainable logging often work in tandem with agriculture to cause deforestation – logging clears the rainforest, selling the wood provides cash for investments in agricultural operations, and then agricultural crops and cattle are introduced into recently cleared land a couple of years after clear cutting.  A few years later, more land is cleared as the former rainforest soil is quickly depleted. 

How does agricultural expansion in rainforests impact US farmers and ranchers?  First, agriculture and forestry products from countries with large deforestation such as Brazil and Indonesia are sold directly into the U.S.  These products can compete with goods produced in the U.S. Second, agricultural and forestry products like timber, beef and soy are globally traded commodities.  When these products are sourced from deforested land and sold in the global market, they compete directly with more sustainably produced U.S. exports and impact the market price of those products throughout the world.  For example, in 2007 Brazil accounted for 32% of the global exports of soybeans* – soybean are one of the major agriculture drivers of deforestation in Brazil.  In a sense some agriculture expansion in tropical forests is “subsidized” by lax enforcement of illegal logging and unfettered expansion of agriculture into the rainforests.

This video from Avoided Deforestation Partners shows the dynamics in very helpful way (if you are more of a visual person).

 

Luckily the House-passed energy and climate bill contains key provisions that aid in slowing and stopping deforestation (as I’ve discussed here) – and Senator Kerry has supported these provisions in bills that he co-authored (as you can see here and here).   The bill sets aside 5% of the value of allowances from the cap and trade program for deforestation reduction activities in tropical countries and contains provisions for high-quality forest carbon offsets in countries that have developed robust systems to ensure that the reductions are real, additional, verifiable, and permanent.  Without the investment in the deforestation set aside, tropical forest countries won’t have near-term resources to build their capacity and develop the robust systems to generate credible offsets (they will never move from a theoretical supplier of offsets to a real supplier).  And it will be hard to define a system that doesn’t lead to agriculture and forestry activities simply shifting to non-participant countries – so called “leakage” – which is why the set aside is also designed to support efforts in countries that are susceptible to “leakage” but aren’t eligible for offsets.  We need both the set aside and strong rules governing offsets to ensure that offsets based on reducing deforestation are actually reducing global warming pollution across the world and therefore have real value.  In other words, this set aside investment is critical to the development of deforestation offsets which aren’t “subprime”.   

Slowing the loss of tropical forests, which contributes up to 17% of the world’s global warming pollution, is not only good global warming policy, but is also in the interest of U.S. farmers, ranchers, and foresters, as recently recognized by the Ohio Corn Growers, American Forest and Paper Association, National Farmers Union, National Alliance of Forest Owners, American Forest Foundation, Conservation Forestry, Green Diamond, and Hardwood Federation (see letter here).

Hopefully the Senate will take up these provisions and listen to the growing chorus of America’s farmers, ranchers, and foresters that see the connection between reducing tropical deforestation and keeping American agricultural and timber exports strong.

--------------

Sasha Lyutse greatly assisted in this post.

* Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOStat, FAO Statistics Division (2009), November 10, 2009

]]> Amazon Rainforest Still Very Susceptible to Dieback Due to Climate Change tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134.5619 2010-03-19T22:26:28Z 2010-03-29T18:47:47Z In the ongoing onslaught on the science underlying global warming, one recent criticism has focused on the finding that global warming could cause large-scale dieback of Amazon rainforest as cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (a... Jake Schmidt In the ongoing onslaught on the science underlying global warming, one recent criticism has focused on the finding that global warming could cause large-scale dieback of Amazon rainforest as cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (a point spun by the opponents of action on global warming as this post highlights).  Leading scientists with years of experience studying the Amazon rainforest have just released a letter that puts into perspective this recent controversy.  The gist of their conclusion is that we should still be concerned.

In the letter (available here), 19 highly respected scientists who conduct research on Amazon forests, climate, and/or fire refute claims that there is no link between drought (one of the possible impacts of global warming in this region) and Amazon dieback.  This “controversy” arose because the IPCC cited a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) instead of a peer reviewed journal as is common practice by the IPCC.  And a recent study from researchers at Boston University claims to “debunk myths about vulnerability of Amazon rainforests to drought” (as you can see here by the coverage). 

But as it turns out the WWF study was merely a collection of a large body of peer reviewed articles and as these leading scientists conclude: 

“the statement made by the IPCC about the sensitivity of Amazon forests [to] drought was consistent with our knowledge at that time, and has been reinforced by new studies.”

In response to the Boston University study that supposedly “debunked” the “myth” of Amazon dieback due to drought their response was:

"First, there is no myth.  Rather, there are multiple, consistent lines of evidence from ground-based studies published in the peer-reviewed literature that Amazon forests are, indeed, very susceptible to drought stress. Second, nothing is debunked by the new study."

So why do we care about this potential dieback of the Amazon rainforest?  The Amazon Basin’s trees hold carbon stocks equivalent to more than a decade of global fossil fuel emissions.  The forest also releases enough water to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration and to the ocean via river outflow to influence world climate and ocean circulation systems.  So if you are trying to reduce global warming pollution and minimize the impacts from global warming, the last thing you want to do is create conditions that lead to a huge increase in emissions (massive Amazon dieback) and that could exacerbate one of the possible impacts of global warming (changes in ocean circulation).

So what is the connection between this huge carbon stock, rainfall, fires, and global warming?  As this post on RealClimate from a forest scientist highlights: “The evidence for the possibility of a major die-back of the Amazon rainforest is due to two factors:

  1. That climate change induced decreases in rainfall in the dry season occur, and
  2. The trees cannot tolerate these reductions in rainfall.

As the 19 scientists point the link can be as follows:

“Reductions in rainfall can affect Amazon forests by increasing tree mortality, but also by increasing their susceptibility to fire.  The initial fire kills trees, increasing the likelihood of subsequent fires for years afterwards in a vicious positive feedback loop.”

As the RealClimate post points out there is some uncertainty about whether rainfall will be reduced in the Amazon due to global warming, but several peer-reviewed studies have shown that this is a real possibility. 

So the Amazon rainforests aren’t totally “out of the woods” or guaranteed to “go up in smoke”, but they are still very susceptible to dieback due to global warming as these respected scientists highlighted.

I for one would rather not risk losing an area of rainforest larger than the continental U.S. because some ill-cited peer reviewed studies or new study raised some uncertainty.  As my colleague has pointed out (here and here) there are plenty of facts on-the-ground that point us clearly towards the need to reduce our global warming pollution.  The Amazon and the planet aren’t worth such a risky bet.

]]> Stemming Global Deforestation Emissions: Copenhagen (Part 4) tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4818 2009-12-04T21:36:19Z 2009-12-14T16:46:55Z Jake Schmidt There was an extensive debate in the lead-in to the Kyoto Protocol (and after) about whether incentives for reducing deforestation would be recognized as a part of the agreement.  For a number of reasons countries didn’t agree to include deforestation incentives, but did agree to allow increased forest cover to count.  Unfortunately a lot of the world’s forests were lost in the meantime. 

But things changed…

In 2005, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica proposed that deforestation incentives be included in the future international agreement to address global warming.  And thus launched the formal negotiations on reducing emissions for deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).

This was a very positive step as deforestation accounts for an estimated 15% of the world’s global warming pollution -- an amount equivalent to the emissions from all the cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes in the world.  And its loss has untold ramifications on water, stability of countries, forest dependent people, etc. (as I’ve discussed here and here).

This negotiation has gone through its normal ups and downs and there is still disagreement on some key issues (as you can see here).  But we’ve seen some very positive movement to: turn the corner on efforts to combat global deforestation (my “key element” 3).

There has been a huge amount of consensus on deforestation in the global warming negotiations:

  1. All key countries -- developed and developing countries -- are supportive of efforts to address deforestation.  It has been quiet a surprise at how many countries have now signaled that they support efforts to address deforestation.  It is a diverse group, which makes it more likely that clear support will be provided in the Copenhagen agreement and the final legal agreement.  
  2. Key deforesting countries have shown willingness to curb their deforestation rates.  Brazil and Indonesia two of the largest deforesting countries have sent clear signals that they’ll curb their deforestation (as I discussed in Part 3).  And countries ranging from Peru to Guyana and Costa Rica to Vietnam (and many more in-between) are beginning to take steps to reduce their deforestation rates.  Is it all smooth?  Of course not, but you can’t solve this challenge if you don’t have the will to take action of key deforesting countries.
  3. Recognition that there is a need for a variety of incentives.  There has been an extensive debate on whether funding should come from market (e.g., carbon offsets) or non-market (e.g., public funding and set asides of revenues from a climate bill).  While there are still some disagreements, there is an emerging view that the answer is both.  We need to leverage sizeable investments and both market and non-market funding can tap into different aspects of the solution to addressing deforestation.  This was recognized in the climate bill that passed the US House of Representatives (as I discussed here) and will hopefully be retained in the Senate.

So this is why there is optimism that the agreement that is reached in Copenhagen will include a separate accord on deforestation (as I discussed here).  And given that there is agreement on such important overarching issues around deforestation, there is an expectation that this portion of the agreement will likely be further progressed than other aspects of the Copenhagen agreement.  That is good news as it will make it easier to translate these agreements into legally binding commitments that have all the “i’s dotted” and “t’s crossed”.  And that is good news for the loss of the world’s tropical forests -- as it will hopefully unleash all our efforts to solving this critical challenge.

But there are some important details that will have to be resolved before the final legal agreement is done.  And these will be the subject of intense negotiation in Copenhagen (and beyond), so here are some key issues to watch:

  1. The scope of the incentives.  The debate around deforestation has increased focus on other sources of emissions and sequestration (e.g., reforesting) from the land-use sector.  So REDD has now been extended to REDD+ (where the plus means agriculture soil, tree planting, etc. depending on who you talk to).  This is very positive as we’ll need to “reduce all the emissions and suck all the carbon out of the air that we can” if we are to solve this challenge.  But we think it is critical to keep a very sharp focus on deforestation and forest degradation and develop separate incentives for other aspects of the “+”.  Trying to create a single incentive mechanism that solves everything through one set of rules sounds good on paper, but will be too dependent on every rule being defined exactly right (a situation that never actually works in the real world).
  2. Avoiding incentives to convert native forests.  We don’t want to create an incentive program that on the one hand is supporting efforts to reduce deforestation and on the other hand is providing incentives for converting native forests.  It would be like paying for car insurance that covers damage only from hitting other cars and then driving your car off a cliff.   It would be like paying for car insurance that rewards drivers who stay within speed limits and rewards drivers that text while on the road.
  3. Methodologies to ensure robust measurement and accounting of the emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.  We have come a long way towards having a system to track the loss of forests throughout the world and to assess the carbon impact of that loss.  But as they always say “the devil is in the details”.  There are some proposals floating around that won’t provide the necessary level of assurance on measurement and accounting.  We need to have a program that creates a clear “gold standard” on this front.  If the system doesn’t pass the laugh test then it won’t be able to attract the necessary public and private investment.  As one movie put it (sort of): “they built and no one came”.
  4. What kind of “safeguards” are included?  There are critical issues around ensuring protections for biodiversity and indigenous and forest dependent peoples that need to be addressed before this whole thing is completed.  And we need to have clear safeguards that the investments are going to real, concrete actions on the ground.  I believe that we can address these issues, but we can’t rely on the “good faith” of all players -- we need clear rules and standards.

Two (maybe three) steps closer to finally turning the corner.  As our President Frances Beinecke discussed here, we are hopeful that we’ll see some agreement in Copenhagen on deforestation.  We’ve made huge progress since the negotiations on deforestation began in earnest.

Let’s make sure we don’t lose the forest for the trees.

]]> Indonesia Announces Goals to Curb It’s Deforestation Global Warming Emissions tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4333 2009-10-07T05:17:32Z 2009-10-17T02:19:02Z Jake Schmidt Countdown to CopenhagenDuring the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh an unnoticed announcement could have a huge impact on global warming pollution.  Unreported at the time (I missed it and I was in Pittsburgh), the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced that:

"We are devising an energy mix policy including LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry) that will reduce our emissions by 26 percent by 2020 from BAU (Business As Usual). With international support, we are confident that we can reduce emissions by as much as 41 percent.  This target is entirely achievable because most of our emissions come from forest related issues, such as forest fires and deforestation" [emphasis added].

Indonesia is the third largest emitter of global warming pollution when you consider the emissions associated with deforestation (see WRI CAIT  and a recent Indonesia report summarized here).  So this is a pretty big announcement if they achieve the goals set out in the speech.  I've talked to a couple of Indonesian government officials and Indonesia independent experts here in Bangkok and the general sense is that this is very achievable.  It requires a serious focus and some assistance, but there is a huge potential to reduce their deforestation emissions.  That effort alone could put them over the top in reaching this goal.

Around 80% of Indonesia's global warming pollution is from degradation and destruction of peatlands and forests, according to a recent report from the Indonesian "National Council on Climate Change".  Largely due to continued logging and natural ecosystem conversion, this report projects that Indonesia's emissions will rise 57% by 2030 (as Mongabay.com summarized).  So this effort would make a sizeable reduction in Indonesia's global warming pollution and make a big dent in holding global temperatures to less than 2°C (3.6°F).

In addition, the Indonesian President announced that:

"...we have decided and established a National Climate Change Action Plan with the targets of 2020 and 2050.

We will change the status of our forest from that of a net emitter sector to a net sink sector by 2030."

Of course the devil is in the details and those haven't emerged yet, but this is another signal from a key developing country that they are able and willing to take serious steps to curb their global warming pollution.  And with the proper incentives they could go even further as the Indonesian President mentioned (Reuters and AFP have coverage of this announcement).

This effort combined with the efforts of Brazil to seriously cut it's deforestation emissions (as I discussed here) means that we might finally turn the corner to combat global deforestation emissions (one of the five key cornerstones of the Copenhagen agreement as I've discussed here) since these two countries account for the bulk of deforestation emissions.

So you now have all the major emerging economies signaling that they will undertake further action to address their global warming pollution (see for example recent signals from China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea).  That is a very positive change from just a few years ago and is a huge opportunity. 

It is getting harder and harder for countries to hide behind the unwillingness of developing countries to take action.

]]> Important Week for Global Warming…Some Rays of Hope for Global Efforts tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4186 2009-09-21T14:39:21Z 2009-10-01T10:47:17Z Jake Schmidt Countdown to Copenhagen Today begins a week dubbed "climate week" because of all the high-level climate discussions that are occurring.  And they just all happen to be occurring in the US at an important time for the US domestic debate to pass a clean energy and climate bill in the US Senate.

The high-level events begin on Tuesday (Sept. 22) with the UN Secretary General hosting an all day session on global warming for Heads of Government from around the world (for more information see here), it continues with a session on deforestation for Heads of Government on Wednesday (Sept. 23), and ends with the G20 Summit in Pittsburg (for more information see here) -- with a lot in between.

Heads of Government from these key countries don't meet often to discuss global warming pollution, so every event where this is on the agenda for Heads of Government is an important opportunity to make progress.  And as I've discussed here, bringing in Heads of Government is critical at this stage of the negotiations if we are to have any chance of securing a strong global agreement in Copenhagen.  Last time Heads of Government from key countries met at the G8 and Major Economies Forum in Italy, some progress was made on a number of important benchmarks of the global effort (as I discussed here).  So there is hope of more to come at these key events.

Time is short before Copenhagen -- about 3 months to the day are left -- so there is a notable sense that things aren't coming together fast enough -- dark clouds appear to be hanging overhead.  Accordingly expectations were high that these high-level events could provide a much needed boost to international efforts -- start to part the clouds and let some sunshine appear.

What gives me a sense of optimism -- besides the fact that regardless of the fluctuations in the political climate the need for clean energy and global warming solutions will remain - are four things about international efforts on global warming that are important to keep in mind.

25th hour (and maybe 26th) is when these negotiations often come together.  This is a high stakes negotiation where everything is intimately woven together.  Countries are unwilling move on one piece as they are waiting for a similar move by another country on a related issue.  This is especially true on one of the key pieces on the agenda for the G20 -- finance/investment for developing countries (see my summary of the negotiation texts for an overview of the key issues - part 1, part 2, and part 3).  At the Major Economies Forum in July, President Obama tasked Finance Ministers to report back at the G20 on progress on this issue so there is hope that some promising signs will emerge from Pittsburgh (and the Obama Administration has shown some more public support in recent days as I discussed here).

As a result, the negotiations often "come down to the wire" as no one is willing to move until they feel like they have moved the other side as much as possible -- the final showdown.  We don't have to look too far back into these negotiations to see an example.  The Bali meeting which launched the two year negotiations towards Copenhagen wasn't resolved until Saturday afternoon the day after the meeting was supposed to end.  And I bet if you asked negotiators -- either before Bali began or at any point during the session -- whether we would get an agreement that looked like the actual outcome they would have said no (including yours truly).

Many times these negotiations only look like agreement can be reached minutes after it is actually reached.

The US is making progress domestically to curb global warming pollution.  The last time the world was on the cusp of an international agreement to address global warming -- in 1997 around the Kyoto Protocol negotiations -- domestic efforts to put in place limits on US global warming pollution had made very little progress.  In fact, some would argue that the US was on its heels before Kyoto as the Senate had sent a signal with "mixed" domestic support for what would ultimately emerge.

While things haven't changed as far as we need them to in the US, let's not forget about a couple of important changes that have occurred that make the US poised for action more than at any time in the past, including the:

  • Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and the US Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to control CO2 as required by US law pursuant to this decision (as my colleague David Doniger discussed here and here);
  • US stimulus made a down payment on the necessary investment in clean energy and global warming solutions (as we discussed here); and
  • House of Representatives passed clean energy and global warming legislation that would require US emissions to decline annually through 2050.

No one wants a repeat of Kyoto where the US couldn't build the domestic support to implement what it committed to internationally.  That is why we (and many others) are pushing for the US Senate to take action before Copenhagen -- we need to ensure that the US actually lives up to its promises.

Developing countries are taking action to curb emissions and providing hints of more to come.  Over the last 2 years, there has been a sizeable shift in how developing countries came to the international negotiations.  Major developing countries used to say: "we only act when the industrialized world takes even deeper action".  But now most major emerging economies have taken action to curb their emissions and proposed or hinted at more to come.  For example:

  • China has made a number of investments to reduce their emissions (as we summarized here), have hinted at what further steps they might undertake (as I've discussed here), and have signaled that President Hu Jintao will announce specific actions this week (as Reuters notes here);
  • South Korea has proposed a range of absolute emissions targets they'll take and are developing the domestic laws to implement that target (as I discussed here);
  • Mexico is taking serious steps to have a domestic emissions trading system for key sectors of the economy in place before 2012 and signaled a commitment to a deep cut by 2050 (as I discussed here);
  • South Africa has signaled that they'll have their emissions "peak and decline" around 2020/2025 and are beginning the national dialogue to firm up the steps they'll take to achieve that aim (as I've discussed here).
  • Brazil has committed to have their deforestation rate decline to more than 80% of today's rate by 2020 (as I discussed here) and has shown some continual progress in reversing their deforestation trend.
  • India who in the past as been ardent that they won't take action unless the industrialized world takes even deeper cuts, has actually undertaken some serious efforts domestically and recently has shown that they'll do even more domestically (as my colleague Anjali Jaiswal summarized here).

Almost all developed countries have proposed deeper emissions cuts.  The European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and Japan have all committed to deeper emissions reduction targets (with a signal from the new Japanese government that they'll go even deeper than their predecessor).  Two notable exceptions that haven't committed to deeper cuts are Russia (see here for their weak opening offer) and Canada (as noted in this call for greater action from Canada).  And while a number of these countries have to firm up their targets and their domestic laws to achieve those targets, these countries have committed in advance of Copenhagen (very different than prior to Kyoto where most hadn't proposed anything or taken steps to implement domestic actions).

------------------------------

It is easy to feel like the world's efforts to address global warming are under a dark cloud characterized by not enough progress and big unknowns in key countries, but some rays of sunshine are appearing in key countries.

And it is these rays that will have to be pieced together at the 25th hour in Copenhagen.

So will the forecast coming out of climate week improve the outlook for Copenhagen?  Let's hope as a lot is riding on the world's efforts to solve global warming (I'll be in NY and Pittsburgh to see first hand how it's looking).

]]> SOS for Tropical Deforestation…Frogs & NRDC’s Leaders tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4171 2009-09-18T13:48:48Z 2009-09-29T05:10:42Z Jake Schmidt You might be wondering what the four things in the headline to this post have to do with each other.  Frogs? Deforestation? SOS? and NRDC's Leaders????

Excellent question!

They are connected in a very simple way: NRDC's President Frances Beinecke and Executive Director Peter Lehner just did a video for the Prince's Rainforest Project where they had frogs sitting on their laps and they (Frances and Peter not the frogs) were calling for action to stop global deforestation.  An SOS for the world's tropical rainforest!

Don't believe me check out the video (see it here).

While this video had a bit of a light-hearted nature to it, NRDC takes this issue very seriously.  The loss of the world's tropical rainforests is resulting in 20% of the world's global warming pollution -- roughly the amount of the world's entire transportation emissions -- untold loss of biodiversity, etc. (as I've discussed here).

And that is one of the key reasons why we joined a coalition of environmental groups and companies (now called the Tropical Forest & Climate Coalition) in an agreement to push for strong incentives for reducing deforestation emissions in the US clean energy and global warming legislation.  We had great success in convincing Members of the House of Representatives as the bill passed in June contained most of the Coalitions recommendations (as I discussed here).

And we aren't resting on our laurels, we are strongly advocating for these provisions (with some changes) to be included in the Senate bill.  We need to secure these provisions in the bill that President Obama signs into office.

So I hope you'll join us (and the many others) in sending an SOS to world leaders (by clicking here).  And I hope you'll support us in our effort to make sure the Senate includes the key elements to address deforestation in the clean energy and climate bill. 

We need all the help we can get!

]]> Time to Solve the Loss of the World’s Tropical Forests…some tools to get us there tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.3439 2009-06-01T15:16:45Z 2009-06-11T12:18:29Z Jake Schmidt I've been spending a lot of my time recently trying to get a strong structure for addressing the loss of the world's tropical rainforests as a part of the US climate bill.  This took two parallel tracks -- developing a strong coalition for supporting specific provisions and trying to get good pieces in the climate bill that was working its way through the House Energy and Commerce committee (as NRDC discussed here).

Before digging into the details of how these efforts played out, it is worth taking a moment to remind ourselves why addressing deforestation is so critical.  Here are a couple of reasons (as I've discussed here, here, and here):

  • Each year the world loses an area of tropical forests approximately the size of New York State to deforestation;
  • Untold amounts of biodiversity are lost in the process, not to mention the livelihoods of many people; and
  • Destruction of tropical forests is responsible for roughly 20% of the world's global warming pollution -- more than all cars, trucks, planes, and ships combined.

So how did those two parallel efforts on deforestation play out?

NRDC joined a strong coalition of environmental groups and businesses to push for a set of incentives to help reduce the loss of the world's tropical rainforests as a part of the US climate bill.  This coalition was made up of: American Electric Power, Conservation, International, Duke Energy, El Paso Corporation, Environmental Defense Fund, Marriott International, Mercy Corps, National Wildlife Federation, PG&E Corporation, Sierra Club, Starbucks Coffee Company, The Nature Conservancy, The Walt Disney Company, Union of Concerned Scientists, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Woods Hole Research Center.  A pretty impressive group!

Frances Beinecke, our President, and Michael Morris the head of American Electric Power were on a press call on behalf of this group to launch a set of principles to provide incentives to reduce deforestation emissions (see here for one story from the press call).  These principles (available here) contain a number of key elements, but boil down to two key elements:

  • Setting aside 5% of the allowance value for near-term emissions reductions, market-readiness, capacity building, and leakage prevention; and
  • Carbon offsets for deforestation reductions that meet high standards of environmental accountability, with a transition from subnational to national crediting under certain conditions.

And, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) that passed out the House Energy and Commerce Committee largely recognizes and implements the provisions of this new coalition.  The bill sets aside 5% of allowances from the cap-and-trade system for deforestation reduction activities in tropical countries and contains provisions for high-quality forest carbon offsets at several scales: national, state and province, and program and project.  The largest emitting countries are only eligible at the outset to generate credits for national level deforestation reductions or only for states and provinces that reduce their total deforestation emissions during a transition period (5 years).  For a transition period (5 years with the possibility of receiving an extension under certain conditions), small emitting countries are eligible to generate credits for program or project level reductions (e.g., subnational).

As a recent New York Times Editorial put it:

"...with the rain forests shrinking and the planet warming up, it's crucial to get the right incentives in place - first as part of broad climate change legislation in the United States, then as part of a new global treaty that the world's nations hope to negotiate in the fall."

So it was a good couple of weeks for the world's tropical forests -- a strong new coalition has emerged and the House bill that just passed out of committee has some strong incentives.  Of course, simply creating the mechanisms isn't sufficient as everyone will need to work really hard to ensure that these incentives achieve tangible reductions in the global warming pollution from deforestation.

So no time to take a rest...we aren't quite there yet, but we are getting closer to have some of the tools necessary to solve the loss of the World's tropical rainforests.

]]> Clearing Some Confusion on Tropical Deforestation: Is the future that bad? tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2697 2009-02-11T16:52:05Z 2009-02-21T12:15:37Z Jake Schmidt In a recent New York Times article New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests, some confusion arose on the need to stop the loss of tropical deforestation (or at least that is the way I read the article).  We provided a comment in response and I recently asked one of the other Smithsonian researchers in the article a couple of questions.  Our response and his response to my questions are below. 

Here is a snippet from the article that caught my eye:

"Here [Panama], and in other tropical countries around the world, small holdings...are reverting to nature, as people abandon their land and move to the cities in search of better livings.

These new "secondary" forests are emerging... at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest - an iconic environmental cause - may be less urgent than once thought."

This article set off a firestorm from a range of people in the deforestation debate.  We sent this comment to the New York Times in response:

This article gives the misimpression that successful regrowth on abandoned/degraded land would eliminate the need to address tropical deforestation.  Scientists agree that tropical deforestation accounts for 15-20% of the world's global warming pollution.  And they agree that we can't solve global warming without significant cuts in global warming pollution from this deforestation.  

Secondary forests and old-growth forests are not similar in all cases.  In general, the carbon stored in regrowth is a mere fraction of the amount in the native forests.  And that doesn't even account for the significant differences in biodiversity between the two forests.  That is why the world, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and many others are coming together in pushing to provide the proper frameworks and incentives to quickly slow the rate of emissions from deforestation. 

We are also pushing for a strategy to help regrow forests on degraded lands-we need both deforestation reductions and massive regrowth/replanting if we are to solve global warming.  That is why NRDC is working with CATIE, a leading regional institute in tropical resource management headquartered in Costa Rica, to reforest land lost to cattle grazing - a leading cause of deforestation.  Through this Revive a Rainforest campaign we are working to help regrow a rainforest on land that wouldn't convert back to a rainforest fast enough. 

To go a bit deeper, I asked William Laurance (someone interviewed in the article), from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Balboa, Panama for his perspectives.  Here is how he responded [Note his views are not necessarily the views of NRDC and reflect his personal observations not those of his organization]:

Debating the tropical extinction crisis

(William Laurance, Ph.D.; Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama; Email: laurancew@si.edu)

Will we soon witness a massive loss of biodiversity in the tropics?  Two scientists from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, William Laurance and Joe Wright, recently convened a major public debate on this topic in Washington, D.C.  Here is Laurance's perspective on the debate.  

We all know tropical rainforests are the world's biologically richest ecosystems and are rapidly disappearing-at a rate of around 50 football fields a minute.  If rapid forest loss continues, some believe, we could soon face a mass extinction event: a loss of life so devastating it might rival the catastrophic disappearance of dinosaurs and other species 65 million years ago.

Yet others disagree, particularly my colleague Joseph Wright, who believes tropical deforestation will be less severe than many believe, and species extinctions far fewer.  Wright's views have kicked off one of the most heated scientific controversies in the past decade, and were the subject of a major public debate at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. on January 12.

Controversial views

In a nutshell, Wright suggests that, as part of a global trend toward increasing urbanization, many slash-and-burn farmers in tropical countries will leave the forest frontier and move to cities, where economic opportunities are greater.  This, he argues, will alleviate pressures on forests, by slowing the loss of old-growth forest and allowing secondary forests to regenerate on abandoned farmland.  Such trends will reduce species extinctions, Wright believes, because less old-growth forest will disappear and because some endangered species will survive in secondary forests.

Yet some believe that Wright is being too optimistic.  While few dispute that urbanization is occurring, it may not lead to much forest recovery.  This is because large-scale corporations-industrial logging, agribusiness, biofuels, and oil and gas industries-and globalization are increasingly driving much forest loss.  Indeed, because a single bulldozer can clear as much forest as dozens of machete-wielding farmers, rates of forest loss may accelerate in the future, not slow down, even if rural populations should decline.

In addition, many question Wright's assumption that endangered species can survive in secondary forests.  In regions such as the Amazon, the average age of secondary forests is just 6-7 years.  Young secondary forests are scrubby and sparse, differing dramatically from old-growth rainforest, which has towering canopy trees, a uniquely dark and moist microclimate, and literally thousands of plant and animal species per hectare.  Typically, young regrowth forests sustain many generalist and weedy species-few of which are likely to be endangered.

Finally, tropical species face perils above and beyond habitat destruction.  Many species, including apes, monkeys, and forest elephants, are being killed off by rampant overhunting and the commercial-bushmeat trade.  Others are being driven to extinction from exotic pathogens, such as the deadly chytrid fungus that has wiped out hundreds of tropical amphibians.  Rainforests are also being degraded by selective logging, habitat fragmentation, and surface fires, all of which harm disturbance-sensitive species.  And global warming could be a far greater peril to the tropics than many realize.

Indeed, Wright himself has begun to emphasize the importance of global warming.  In the tropics, where temperatures are nearly constant throughout the year, many species are thermal specialists.  Those living in the hot lowlands may already be dangerously close to their thermal maximum, whereas those in the cooler mountains will have nowhere to go as conditions get hotter.  Hence, habitat destruction and climate change are both dire threats to rainforest species.

Take-home messages

What are the implications of our debate?  Firstly, the controversy has highlighted a need for more research in a variety of areas.  For instance, we need to know which species will survive in secondary forests, and how different environmental threats, such as habitat loss and global warming, will interact to threaten species.  Even Wright's staunchest critics credit him with bringing new perspectives to tropical conservation. 

Secondly, we need to promote international carbon trading to slow deforestation and promote forest regeneration.  At the moment, landowners in tropical nations usually receive nothing for conserving their forests, which perform vital ecosystem services that benefit us all-such as storing carbon, helping to regulate the global climate, and conserving biodiversity.  Carbon trading provides a mechanism whereby wealthy nations can bear some of the costs of forest protection, a vital goal given that tropical deforestation produces a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions today.

Lastly, we direly need the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (or a similar international framework) to limit its carbon emissions.  This will not only slow global warming but it will greatly increase the demand for carbon credits, some of which can be used to help slow deforestation.  Reducing deforestation will not only help our battered climate, but it will preserve some of the most imperiled species and ecosystems on earth. 

Our debate in Washington occurred just days before the inauguration of President-elect Obama.  With many Washington insiders and political staffers in our audience, we are hopeful our message was heard in high places.  Like many others, we are counting on the Obama Administration to have more forest- and biodiversity-friendly policies than we've seen in recent years.

]]> Leadership Needed to Address Deforestation Emissions tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2671 2009-02-09T19:15:00Z 2009-02-19T14:24:02Z Jake Schmidt Today, NRDC joined a diverse group of environmental, conservation, and development organizations; businesses; and leading academics in a "Call for Leadership" to address deforestation (available here and a list of partners here).  Frances Beinecke, our President, helped launch this "Call" with a speech to leading US policymakers from Congress and elsewhere at an event hosted by the group Avoided Deforestation Partners (that I wrote about here).  She was joined by a high-level group of leading policymakers, including Senator's Kerry and Lugar and Nobel-Prize winner Wangari Maathai.   

The US and the world need to simultaneously cut all sources of global warming pollution - from both the energy sector and tropical deforestation.  With deforestation accounting for about 20% of the world's global warming pollution, addressing deforestation is a critical component of the world's efforts to combat global warming.  So that is why we came together to launch this "Call for Leadership"...to focus US attention on helping to get a solution to this challenge. 

Time is not on our side.  Without a significant change, much of the world's forests will be lost in the span of decades, not centuries.  And we need to mobilize resources and political will immediately to ensure that a sound strategy for deforestation's global warming pollution is integrated into the new international agreement to be reached in Copenhagen -- in just around 10 months -- and in the key tropical forest countries.    

The US must take a leadership role in helping combat these emissions, just as we must take an overall leadership role in combating global warming.  The good news is that the US has a long record of bi-partisan support for efforts to address the loss of the world's native forests, including the adoption of an amendment to the US law which helps developing countries address illegal logging.  

Leadership needs to come both by ensuring that significant financial resources and other support is effectively integrated into the US climate legislative and that the US plays a strong role in ensuring that the new international global warming agreement also includes these tools.

That is why this diverse group came together and is calling for US leadership now -- as the US climate legislation is expected to move and the outlines of the Copenhagen agreement are starting to take shape. 

We need a wide-range of tools to support efforts by developing countries to reduce these emissions.  There are no silver bullets.  But it is clear to us that we need both market and non-market approaches to solve this challenge.  And we'll need to be effective and smart in how we mobilize these dedicated resources if we are to address this important challenge.

Of course, we in the US can't do it alone.  We'll need developing countries to help us in this endeavor.  Without a strong commitment from these countries, coupled with strong support from the US, we won't succeed over time. 

It will require that the US and tropical developing countries undertake a joint financial, political, and program commitment to actions on the ground to deliver tangible reductions in deforestation's global warming pollution.  We'll need to create a framework that produces long-term preservation of these forests and that supports tropical developing countries to undertake more of the effort on their own over time.

There are recent positive signs coming from major tropical forest countries and regions that they are ready to be partners in this effort.  For example, Brazil announced a goal to significantly cut deforestation rates over the next 10 years. 

These signals alone are of course not enough.  We need to do more.  That is why this group is asking for US leadership at this crucial juncture.

We hope that you'll join us in this effort to address the loss of the world's tropical forests before it is too late.

]]> Momentum from Poland Climate Negotiations? tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2320 2008-12-15T01:52:19Z 2008-12-24T21:34:02Z Reflecting back on the last two weeks of the Poland climate talks, it is hard not to think how much we need "leaders to lead" us to ambitious solutions to global warming, while creating millions of green jobs and helping... Jake Schmidt Reflecting back on the last two weeks of the Poland climate talks, it is hard not to think how much we need "leaders to lead" us to ambitious solutions to global warming, while creating millions of green jobs and helping solve the financial crisis.  There was a lot of debate -- in the corridors and in the press -- about whether the world could come together next year.  But we need to, so let's not write it off before we even really get started.  And with leadership the task will be that much easier.

All of these negotiation sessions have high points and low points -- that is the natural cycle of these negotiations.  Usually the beginning of the week is the highpoint as there is always possibility in the undefined...followed by a drop in momentum as the negotiations get into the details (and differences arise).  The key after this low is whether the end produces positive forward movement.  In the case of this meeting, no major outcomes were expected so the momentum at the end would have to be generated elsewhere.  So, did it?

Yes, but not as much as I had hoped (as I discussed in this Bloomberg article).  There is room for optimism in a couple of the elements that arose in Poland.

We accomplished what we really needed to lay the foundation for the hard work next year.  The stage is set for a real negotiation on an international agreement in Copenhagen.  The Chair of the group tasked with coming up with new commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was given a mandate to begin to produce a negotiating text for the agreement.  This is to be done in two phases (see conclusion here):

  • By the end of March a "convergence, divergence, and options" paper will be produced. For each of the key elements of the Copenhagen agreement, this document will detail the areas of agreement and the places of disagreement. And, where there is disagreement it will contain a set of options for how that element could be handled. Debate over this document will be the main focus of the negotiations at the meeting held the end of March.
  • Prior to the June negotiating session, a draft negotiating text will be produced. This document will build upon the "convergence, divergence, and options paper" (discussed above), the debate on this document at the March negotiating session, and any new options proposed since March.

This outcome is crucial since without starting to get into details soon countries will continue to talk past each other.  These documents will force countries to start to stake out firm positions, which we need soon if we are going to get a strong agreement at the end of 2009 in Copenhagen.

So, the new US Administration will need to get their negotiation team in place quick and start to figure out their position on key elements (with strong input from Congress) -- a point we made in our transition recommendations.

Developing countries continued to show an emerging willingness to engage in emissions reductions.  We aren't quite there yet with these signals, but we are getting closer.  During the meeting a couple of significant announcements were made by major emerging economies.  Brazil announced a goal to cut deforestation rates in half by 2018 (as I discussed).  Mexico announced a goal to reduce its overall emissions by 2050 and more importantly announced that it would put a limit on emissions from oil refining and cement sectors (as I discussed).  This adds to the recent announcements from South Africa, South Korea, and the signals from China.  While not firm commitments at this point, I think these steps show a major opening when the developed countries show leadership in committing to cap their emissions and put on the table significant "performance-based" incentives.  It has significant potential to help break the impasse that has been at much the heart of the international negotiations during the Kyoto Protocol debate and afterwards.

On other items, we made modest if no real progress.  The debates over incentives to help reduce deforestation emissions, technology and finance incentives to help developing countries take further emissions reductions, and adaption for the most vulnerable are essentially no further along than prior to the meeting (arguably in some cases we might have actually lost ground on some of these).  So we have our work cut out for us next year as these are key building blocks of the international agreement.

The pieces of the global agreement are there, but we need them to be brought together into a coherent picture.  That point is becoming ever clearer in my mind as elements of the global agreement are emerging and becoming solidified in the minds of many of the negotiators that I spoke with in Poland.

This provides a unique opportunity for the US to help lead the world to a strong global agreement...as the world has been waiting for the last seven years.  This is a perfect opportunity for the new Administration and Congress to show a new international engagement (and oh by the way make a dent in solving our financial crisis and address global warming).

It will be an interesting and busy time next year.  The pieces will need to be pulled together quick if we are to get a strong agreement in Copenhagen.  There is a bit of momentum coming out of Poland.  With a new leader in the US, I'm optimistic that the world can come together to address global warming.  After all, we have no choice as too much is riding on our success. 

Hope you'll join us by helping build strong support for this action.   We'll need it!

]]> Brazilian Climate Change Plan...Pledge to Significant Cuts in Deforestation tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2302 2008-12-12T10:28:45Z 2008-12-22T06:04:03Z As I briefly discussed on Earthbeat, on Monday Brazilian President Lula da Silva signed a national climate change plan, which included a pledge to cut Brazil's deforestation rate in half from today's levels by 2018 -- from approximately 4,633 to... Jake Schmidt As I briefly discussed on Earthbeat, on Monday Brazilian President Lula da Silva signed a national climate change plan, which included a pledge to cut Brazil's deforestation rate in half from today's levels by 2018 -- from approximately 4,633 to 2,260 square miles (as discussed by Reuters).  [Note: It amounts to almost a 70% cut from the average annual rate from 1996-2005 of 7,502 sq. miles (19,000 sq. kilometers), which is the figure included in the report as Point Carbon sub req. reports.]    

The reduction in deforestation is to be reduced in stages over defined four year periods through 2017:

  • From 2006-2009, deforestation is to be cut to 4,402 sq. miles (11,400 sq. km) -- a 40% cut below the 10-year average used in the plan;
  • 2010-2013, a cut to 3,081 sq. miles (7,980 sq. km) -- an additional 30% reduction from the previous four years; and
  • 2014-2017, a reduction to 2,157 sq. miles (5,586 sq. km) -- an additional 30% reduction from the previous four years.

Now that is a significant cut in deforestation rates if achieved (see figure which shows the target as the red dashed line and the actual annual rates in black), especially compared with the high rate in 2004.

Brazilian Deforestation Targets

The early years require essentially no improvement from today's levels (the target through 2009 is roughly the same as the actual 2007 rate).  So, it essentially amounts to stabilizing deforestation rates this year and next at last year's levels.  But, they'll need to reverse the current trend as recent estimates show that the deforestation rate is on the rise.

If the annual cut in the final years of the plan -- 2,394 sq. miles per year -- are continued for subsequent four year periods (a proposition not included in the plan), deforestation in Brazil could end sometime after 2025.  Sounds like an objective worth shooting for, if not sooner.

There is always room to criticize that this plan: isn't aggressive enough, should be faster, much of the real effort occurs after President Lula da Silva is out of office, and still leaves a lot of deforestation at the end -- all fair criticisms (see: Mongabay.com article on the plan and their story on World Wildlife Fund's critiques).  We definitely need to work to improve this strategy (e.g., by reducing the rate further and faster) and ensure that the proper laws, programs, etc. are established on the ground to actually deliver this goal. 

It does, however, mark a very significant shift for Brazil.  They have long argued against establishing targets to reduce their deforestation emissions so any target is definitely a huge step forward in the decades long battle to address deforestation. 

And, since deforestation accounts for the majority of Brazil's estimated global warming pollution it potentially marks a major national effort to reduce their emissions.  Of course, if achieved.  According to one estimate it could achieve a total reduction in emissions of 4.8 billion tons of CO2 (Point Carbon sub req. reports) -- an amount equal to the European Union's total current emissions.  

While that is still a lot of deforestation -- too much in many respects -- it is a potentially groundbreaking action if they can meet it. 

Of course, the crucial test will be if the government puts in place the necessary policies to achieve these commitments.  Their success in addressing deforestation has been a mixed bag of late (as I discussed here), so it will require a sustained effort over many years and real actions on-the-ground.  And political support that continues beyond the current Administration, as much of the really steep declines occur after President Lula is out of office.

So an opening has emerged in Brazil's position on global warming (and deforestation emissions in particular) as we head into the crucial debate next year on the shape of global efforts to address deforestation emissions.  Positive signs from Poland that can help build some momentum next year as we lead-in to Copenhagen.

]]> One Step Forward on Deforestation in Poland...But More Should Have Been Achieved tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2288 2008-12-10T23:33:36Z 2008-12-20T18:34:01Z Jake Schmidt UPDATED 12/19/08: I had some subsequent conversations with key negotiators, other NGOs, other key policymakers which helped to clarify some of the positions.  As always these negotiations move fast and in real-time so I hope you bear with me on any mistakes made in the rush (it isn't intentional).

---------------------

For the past week and half, climate negotiators have been trying to push forward agreement on important elements of the global efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation emissions.  We took one step forward (but unfortunately many hoped we could have taken two steps forward or more).  The draft agreement (available here) is touted as a: Deal struck on forests in climate talks by some (Associated Press).

Modest progress has been made on one important element -- we will now be able to negotiate on the tricky political issues of how incentives will be created, to whom they will they flow, and under what rules.  This is a positive step forward as we will now be able to get down to the "nitty gritty" details on the deforestation debate (as I discussed here, a number of us were stressing this message in a joint letter).

Unfortunately, a number of us had hoped to begin to get agreement on some key details that aren't caught up in the broader political debate.  These are extremely important elements, but not necessarily as "political" (or so we thought).  In particular, we were hoping to get agreement on:

  1. Protection of biodiversity
  2. Protection of indigenous rights
  3. Ensuring that the full emissions from deforestation were accounted and that deforestation reductions can't be directly "offset" by replanting of forests

So, how did these important details fair this week?

Protecting indigenous rights?  Ensuring that indigenous lands are preserved and the rights of these indigenous peoples are protected has always been a key issue.  It looked like there was an emerging consensus from the negotiations in Accra, Ghana on this point.  However, some countries have legal issues with an international agreement that enshrines the rights of specific individual groups.  Some developing countries also pushed to have it either excluded or seriously watered down.  They either don't respect the rights of indigenous communities, acknowledge that they exist, and/or want the international community to tell them what to do on this issue.  It also appears that some countries didn't expect this to come up in the negotiations in Poland and so weren't prepared...essentially punting this until they can get greater clarification on this issue which isn't solely a global warming issue.  Well, now they know that it will be an important issue so it is time to figure out their real position.

This one got very messy in the final negotiating text.  Basically, countries are to:

"promote the full and effective participation of indigenous people and local communities, taking into account national circumstances and noting relevant international agreements."

There is clearly lots of wiggle room for different countries to interpret the outcome, but this agreement at best doesn't decide anything significant and, at worst, is a step backwards from the consensus emerging in Accra, Ghana.

Can you replace some of the carbon lost from deforestation with tree replanting?  There has been some push by a few sizeable countries to be able to get incentives for a "net" reduction in deforestation.  Basically under this "net" approach, countries would be able to chop down forests and make up some (or all) of that forest loss from replanting tress.  If the "net" carbon from the loss of native forests and the replanting are less than their agreed "goal" then they would receive financing incentives based upon this performance.  Needless to say, this is a controversial proposal as many of the co-benefits of preserving the world's native forests would be lost -- such as biodiversity.  

There was also a debate on what emissions sources a country would have to count...would it be only emissions from deforestation and forest degradation or a broader set including the resulting emissions from what the land is converted to. 

So, while it is theoretically possible (although unlikely as deforestation specialists have told me this week) that the "net" carbon from the replanting could overtake the lost carbon from the deforestation of native forests, it is not a desirable approach for many other reasons.  The EU has pushed back against this position and the recent EU Environment Ministers support a so-called "gross" deforestation accounting system where you couldn't offset any deforestation loss with replanting.  A number of environmental groups have also gone on record not supporting this position. 

Ensuring that the effort is focused on deforestation reductions will be a very strong political issue for many leaders in capitols around the world as that has been their primary focus.  Other mechanisms are of course needed for encouraging replanting of trees and agriculture emissions, but mixing them with the deforestation debate could be troublesome.  And, clear definitions of what a country is accountable for will be essential to ensure that important sources of deforestation emissions are lost in an accounting void.

The outcome in Poland on this one, doesn't resolve much.  Much more work needs to be done on this one in 2009 if incentives for deforestation emissions reductions are to take hold.

Resolving these in the future...

We took one step forward in Poland...but we could have taken many more.  We have to seriously increase the pace of negotiations on the tricky issues as our "plate" remains pretty full.  So, where do we go from here?

Clearly more work needs to be done on the political and technical issues before an agreement can be reached in Copenhagen.  Many of us will be working hard to get these technical issues (e.g., indigenous rights, biodiversity, and separation of deforestation incentives from replanting) effectively designed in the international agreement and US legislation to ensure that reducing emissions from deforestation is a key part of our efforts to combat climate change.  We have our work cut out for us, but I'm optimistic it can be done.

Some of technical issues may start to shake out in the domestic debates emerging in the main countries that will likely provide incentives to developing countries that reduce deforestation emissions -- the EU and US.  Each of the key legislative proposals in the US had language on biodiversity protection, preserving the rights of indigenous peoples, and keeping deforestation incentives separate from replanting incentives.  It would be ideal to get these enshrined in the international agreement, but I would strongly wager that these key criteria would be enshrined in the actual incentive mechanism designed in the US law (and probably the EU).

]]> Slow Progress in Poland Climate Negotiations…but Some Key Issues Emerging tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2255 2008-12-08T00:30:24Z 2008-12-17T19:34:02Z Jake Schmidt The first week of the Poland Climate Negotiations has ended and progress is slow.  This isn't a surprising outcome at this stage in negotiations.  Without the new US leadership in place and with many of the key pieces of the post-2012 international agreement likely only woven together in the "final deal" this was the anticipation as "no major breakthroughs were expected".

But, some emerging debates have arisen that will be central to the negotiations next year as the world leads-in to an international agreement in Copenhagen (Dec. 2009).

Timeline for an international agreement and will it be a "final" detailed agreement in Copenhagen?  Recent news stories coming out of Poland have contained mixed messages from key players on whether an agreement can be reached in Copenhagen and how much detail will be in that agreement (see Greenwire (subs. req.), Associated Press, and Agence France-Presse).  There is a lot of soul searching about what the Copenhagen agreement will actually have in it.  Will the agreement coming out of Copenhagen contain enough of the key details to be ratified or otherwise implemented right afterwards (e.g. with enough details that countries will know exactly what they are getting into) or will it be an agreement on the main framework with the details to be worked out later?  

Clearly the U.S. Congress and the new Administration will need to move hand in glove and only commit the U.S. internationally to what it can actually implement in domestic law.  So, NRDC and 17 other major US environmental and faith groups submitted a letter to all delegates in Poznan saying that:

We all will be devoting our efforts and resources over the next year to help President-elect Obama resurrect America's lost leadership on global warming and the environment. With diligent efforts by all countries and a renewed spirit of American international cooperation, we are confident that an agreement on climate change can be reached by the end of next year.

Emissions Reduction targets and "shared vision".  There is an extensive debate on developed countries committing to reduce their emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels in 2020 and developing countries undertaking a 15-30% cut below what their emissions would have been otherwise in 2020 (so-called business as usual cut).  The EU is pushing the 15-30% range for developing countries and the developed countries are pushing to get agreement that developed countries as a whole will reduce their emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels in 2020. 

This won't get resolved here in Poland, but it is a "coming attraction" for the year to come.  This back and forth between what level of reductions developed countries will undertake and how much action developing countries take will be one of the main points of debate in the lead-in to Copenhagen.   

Technology, finance, and developing country actions.  There has been back and forth this week on how much emissions reduction action developing countries should undertake (i.e., the 15-30% reduction from BAU being pushed by the EU), what form that action will take in the international agreement (e.g., sectoral commitments), and how developed countries will provide incentives for developing countries to go further.  There is some emerging consensus that the agreement will be formed around "differentiation of action".  That is different countries will be expected to undertake different types and stringency of target (e.g., emerging economies will be expected to do more than the least developing countries).  But how will that actually unfold in the agreement?

I've spoken a lot about the emerging framework that will drive developing country emissions reductions, the hints that key countries (e.g., South Africa, China, and Brazil) are providing about what they could do, and some key approaches that are emerging (e.g., sectoral and deforestation incentives), so I won't discuss in particular how those debates are unfolding here (except deforestation later in the post).

Instead there is a modest debate here in Poland around how much money needs to be provided as incentives for developing countries and how developed countries should best support wide-scale deployment of technology in developing countries. 

Melanie Nakagawa and I co-hosted a side-event (with E3G) last Thursday where we discussed some initial thoughts we have on this piece of the puzzle.  We discussed how we could have a loan program for emissions reductions that "pay for themselves" and a different approach that pays for advanced technologies (e.g., those technologies that make a sector less competitive).  We then discussed some key principles that should guide how funding should be distributed in the international agreement building upon some lessons from existing multilateral funds.

It is clear from this debate that large amounts of funding are needed -- e.g., similar or greater than the scale being put forward to solve the financial crisis.  And, these incentives will need to be properly designed and performance-based to incentivize actions in developing countries to further cut their emissions.

The negotiation over how much emissions reduction action developing countries will undertake on their own and how much finance is provided for further emissions reductions will probably be about 2/3 of the main negotiation next year so stay tuned.

EU climate package being adopted.  As I discussed (here and here), there is a big undercurrent story here about the status of the EU's climate package.  It sounds like they'll still deliver their target to reduce emissions 20 and 30% below 1990 levels in 2020, but they will weaken some of the implementation details.  And, it seems that they are not going to provide a detailed package of financing incentives to support technology deployment incentives, deforestation reductions, and adaptation activities in developing countries...a setback that will definitely need to be correct next year.  More details on how this package will unfold will emerge this week, so hopefully the EU will step up and show that it is still a leader on global warming.

Deforestation and forest degradation emissions.  While the most difficult and controversial elements of the agreement on how best to provide incentives to countries that reduce their deforestation emissions will occur next year -- likely in the final push in Copenhagen -- there is a sense that some elements can be agreed in Poland this week.  There is a general sense that agreement might be reached on:

  • Protecting rights of indigenous and native groups;
  • Protecting biodiversity; and
  • Not allowing countries to make up some of the emissions lost from deforestation of native forests with replanting (more on this later as this one is proving to be very difficult to get resolved here).

There is also a growing push to try to ensure that early next year countries begin to debate the best mechanism to deliver financing incentives to countries that effectively reduce their deforestation emissions.  A group of major environmental NGOs (including NRDC) signed on to a statement here in Poland:

calling on Parties now to build upon the methodological progress and begin serious discussions on the types of mechanisms for supporting reduced deforestation and forest degradation emissions (REDD).  Poznan must lay the groundwork for both methodological and policy approaches to come together in Copenhagen so that a post-2012 deal will include REDD as a key mitigation building block.

We are a long way from agreement and there are still many important details to work out.  But we felt that if we didn't start negotiating on the "big picture" issues soon (e.g., where does the finance come from, which countries get it, etc.), properly designed incentives for deforestation reductions would be lost in the final agreement in Copenhagen (see Associated Press story).

The pace and seriousness of the negotiations will need to significantly pick up the rest of the week if we are going to lay the groundwork for a good agreement in Copenhagen that puts the world on the right path.  And more importantly, we'll need to produce a detailed mandate to start negotiating the key deals next year and a plan to get that accomplished.

]]> Poland Climate Talks, Brazilian Target to Cut Deforestation, and EU Climate Package…I talk on Earthbeat tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2228 2008-12-03T08:38:06Z 2009-02-02T18:26:17Z Jake Schmidt I spoke yesterday from Poland on the radio program Earthbeat about some of the happenings in Poland these first days of the climate negotiations.  It is too early in the negotiations for any news on details of the negotiations, but as I discussed earlier there are a couple of sub-stories to keep your eyes on during these two weeks (and some of them are starting to play out already).  Here is the general gist of what I discussed, but you should also be able to listen to it here.

Looking forward to next year.  A different mood exists at these talks as the world looks forward to a new Administration in the US that understands that solving global warming is an environmental challenge of unprecedented impact and an economic opportunity at the same time.  He also understands that means being a credible player in the international negotiations.  Still a long ways to go to get a strong international agreement to address global warming, but the chances have increased significantly with a new leader in the US and with a changing Chinese tone in these negotiations as the Associated Press highlights.    

Brazil and deforestation.  While we don't expect any major breakthroughs in Poland as these will occur in the lead-in to Copenhagen, there was potentially groundbreaking news coming out of Brazil.  On Monday, President Lula da Silva signed a national climate change plan, which included a pledge to cut Brazil's deforestation rate in half from today's levels by 2018 - from approximately 4,633 to 2,260 square miles.  [Note the report actually pledges to cut them by 70% from the 10 year average rate.  As you can see here the rate of Brazilian deforestation has fluctuated over the years so that is the reason for the difference in values].  While that is still a lot of deforestation-too much in many respects-it is a potentially groundbreaking action if they can meet it.  Their success in addressing deforestation has been a mixed bag of late, so it will require a sustained effort over many years and real actions on-the-ground.  I'll post more on the details later.

EU global warming leadership.  As I discussed in the lead-in to the meeting, there will be important decisions this week in the European Union on the implementation of their plans to cut emissions significantly by 2020.  It seems from all insights I'm getting here from European's that their emission reduction targets will be agreed-20-30% below 1990 levels-but some of the details on the implementation may get weakened from the strong starting point that was proposed.  [My cellphone reception got bad at one point so some of these points may have gotten missed during the radio program.]  And, that is what I'm doing now.  I'm in Brussels for the day to brief EU Parliamentarians to help (in my small way) to push the European's to stick to their tough global warming plans.  I'll post on my impression and experience from this briefing later.

]]>