Carbon news - clipping

Harapan rainforest raises hope amid overexploitation
Jon Afrizal , The Jakarta Post , Jambi Fri, 09/25/2009 12:19 PM National
Sumatra's low-plain forests are fast diminishing, currently measuring only 400,000 hectares. The main cause of the deforestation rampant illegal logging and clear-cutting, and if this prevails, experts warn, low-plain forests in Sumatra will likely be completely wiped out by 2010.
The Harapan rainforest, spanning 101,355 hectares and located in Jambi and South Sumatra provinces, is part of the remaining low-plain forests on the island.
It straddles the four regencies of Batanghari, Muarojambi and Sarolangun in Jambi, and Musi Banyuasin in South Sumatra.
The area is currently being reforested to replenish the damaged forests, formerly a timber concession.
"We're currently repairing the damaged ecosystem," said Harapan rainforest agency intern head Yusuf Cahyadin recently.
As part of the reforestation efforts, the agency will issue an outright cessation on logging in the area, or at least a 20-year moratorium.
This, Yusuf said, will allow the forest to be densely wooded once again.
The ban will not affect local communities that live off the forest, particularly the Anak Dalam and Bathin IX tribes that use non-timber products such as rattan and resin.
Communities living near the forest will also stand to benefit, Yusuf says, by growing rubber, for instance.
"We're currently initiating a community-based forest through an agreement between forest caretakers and local residents, in the hopes that they can also protect the forest," he said.
He added 30 percent of the forest has been damaged through clear-cutting, particularly for oil palm plantations.
"Oil palms are not suited to the forest," he pointed out.
In Jambi province, the problem of clear-cutting of forests for farmland has been underway now on a large scale.
Jambi has a total area of 5,100,000 hectares; around half of that, or 2,482,315 hectares, are forested areas, stretching from the Kerinci Seblat National Park in the west, to the Berbak National Park in the east.
"Forests function as water catchment areas as well as homes for wildlife and plant species," said Arief Munandar, head of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment's (Walhi) Jambi branch.
However, the area's natural bounty has gone to waste under poor forest management that has hastened the rate of environmental destruction, Arief said.
He added the widespread deforestation can be blamed on the Forestry Ministry's policies, which favor investment over conservation.
The ministry has issued permitted a host of state and private companies to clear large swaths of forest to make way for hectare upon unending hectare of oil palms and rubber trees.
The total current timber concession area in the province is 487,249 hectares, while the area of forest cleared for oil palm estates is 403,467 hectares.
Notes from Bangkok
Bangkok, Day 5: Breaking News: Forests do not naturally grow in straight lines 1
Posted 3:25 AM on 2 Oct 2009by Margaret Swink
More from this author
Author Feed
· Posted in
Climate & Energy
· Read More About
UNFCCC Bangkok Climate_Change Climate_change_talks
Print
Share
Comment
Forest negotiations recently have been featuring a lot of talk about something called “sustainable forest management,” or in climate policy parlance, SFM. Because it contains the word “sustainable,” this term conjures up images of nice standing forests, perhaps occasionally harvested by indigenous peoples to make “sustainable” furniture or artisanal paper for those of us in the United States. However, here in Bangkok, SFM is at the heart of a fierce debate over what the fundamental shape of the climate change treaty will be. Environmentalists are lining up against industry interests in a debate over the inclusion of SFM in the treaty language. Who ultimately wins will determine whether or not the climate change treaty will actually reduce the 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions that stem from forests by providing support to keep tropical forests standing; or will the treaty incentivize a massive logging boom that will focus on maintaining so-called carbon stocks (the industry word for forests) – allowing corrupt elites in tropical countries to continue business-as-usual exploitation of natural resources. Part of the problem with SFM is that it’s unclear what the term actually means. Peter Wood of Global Witness, co-author of a new report on the subject, told me that, “SFM the most abused word in forestry. It’s been used and abused to describe some of the nicest forestry in the world to some of the most damaging forestry in the world. And there is nothing you can do to prove or disprove the term.”Born in 1992 at another UN environmental conference, SFM was made purposely ambiguous as part of an effort to broker a forest policy compromise. In the intervening years, the logging industry has embraced the term, using it as a justification to clear-cut of thousands of hectares by leaving a few clumps standing, or to greenwash the conversion of ancient forests into tree plantations.“SFM is a European model of nice neat rows of trees that will be managed like a crop,” continues Wood. “We’re talking about the difference between antiques and Ikea.” That difference between “managed” stands of trees and natural forests makes a huge difference in terms of carbon accounting. According to an earlier Global Witness report, even the most benign forms of commercial logging can release up to 80 tons of carbon per hectare. Logged forests are also more susceptible to forest fires. During the El Niño events in the late 1990s, 60 percent of logged forests in Indonesian Borneo went up in smoke, sending massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Only 6 percent of primary forest burned. In the short-term, SFM may bring more profits, but it certainly won’t be sustainable. Allowing SFM into the climate change treaty opens up the possibility that money meant to protect forests and reduce emissions might actually end up subsidizing forest destruction and thus, increased carbon emissions. It will also certainly result in a loss of biodiversity as habitats are destroyed and cultures are lost, along with the natural forests that have housed them for generations. This would be a betrayal of the original intention of the UN climate process, and a tragedy for forest peoples around the world.

Carbon

+4 4 votes
Only 10 days left for climate deal, UN's Ban says
by Reuters News on 03 October 2009, 19:58 PM 1 comment , 223 views Categories: Reuters News
* 10 negotiating days left, in Thailand and Spain - Ban
* Proposal considered for more talks on financing in Nov
* Says deal cannot be done without United States
By John Acher
COPENHAGEN, Oct 3 (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Saturday negotiators had just 10 days left to secure a global climate deal and governments must not be hindered by domestic troubles.
The United Nations hopes to bring 190 governments together in early December in Copenhagen to finalise a deal on greenhouse gas emissions to replace provisions of the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012.
"There are just 10 negotiating days left until we come to Copenhagen," Ban said, referring apparently to the remaining days of Sept. 28 to Oct. 9 climate talks under way in Bangkok and to a Nov. 2-6 meeting in Barcelona.
"In 10 days we need to decide what needs to be done for our future," he said in a speech at Copenhagen University.
"We are not there yet. There is still a lot to be done and not much time left," he said during a visit to Denmark's capital to meet Danish officials and speak to an Olympic Congress. [ID:nL373082]
Ban said a proposal to hold extra talks in November on financing for a climate deal was still under consideration.
"I see a value and importance of having that kind of last pressure effort," he said. "But we have to first of all see how these negotiations in Bangkok come out."
Ban said responsibility for reaching a deal rests on governments all of which, he added, face domestic challenges.
"Now is not the time to look at domestic challenges, we must look at global challenges that will impact the whole world," the South Korean secretary-general said.
Ban said success depended on the United States, though he recognised that U.S. President Barack Obama could have difficulty pushing through the necessary legislation in time for the December Copenhagen meeting.
"It is true, a fact of life, that without U.S. participation, this deal cannot be done," Ban said when asked what the world should do if the United States did not join.
The United States stayed outside the Kyoto Protocol when it was adopted in 1997, but Ban said this time all countries, "without exception", should join.
"We must have a comprehensive deal," he said.
"Now it seems it may be difficult for President Obama to come with strong authority (to Copenhagen) because this bill is still in the Senate.
"They might not be able to do that by the end of this year, but that should not give the United States an excuse not to do it."
((Editing by Alison Williams; john.acher@reuters.com; +45 2630 9650; Reuters Messaging: john.acher.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CLIMATE UN/BAN
Carbon

+1 1 vote
FACTBOX - Key issues on the table at Bangkok climate talks
by Reuters News on 28 September 2009, 12:55 PM 0 comments , 60 views Categories: Reuters News, Factboxes
Sept 28 (Reuters) - Delegates at U.N. climate talks in Bangkok are trying to whittle down a complex negotiating text that will form the basis of a broader global pact to curb the pace of climate change.
The two-week talks are crucial because negotiators have very little time to trim the options and alternative wording proposals in the 180-page text with just over two months to go before a Dec. 7-18 climate meeting in Copenhagen.
The United Nations has set the Copenhagen gathering as the deadline to try to reach a broad agreement on a replacement pact for the Kyoto Protocol.
Following are some of the main issues being discussed in Bangkok.
FINANCING
This is the glue that will hold any new pact together. Developing nations are demanding rich countries offer new and substantial annual funds to help them adapt to climate change and to help them green their economies without sacrificing growth.
Failure by rich nations to implement immediate, far-reaching actions to cut their emissions would only increase the need for poorer countries to adapt to the impact of climate change and therefore increase costs, the text says.
Poorer nations as well small-island states are seen as the most vulnerable to greater extremes of weather, rising seas and changes in rainfall patterns.
Estimates for long-term financing are in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year but as yet no firm amounts have been pledged in the negotiations by individual countries. That is expected to come in the final hours of the Copenhagen talks.
Nor is it clear how much of the money will be public funds or come from revenue generated by carbon markets or other sources.
The rules governing the allocation of funds have also not yet been decided, nor have governments agreed to beef up existing institutions or create new ones to manage the money and low-carbon programmes.
STRUCTURE FOR ALL NATIONS
Any post-Kyoto agreement will need to include steps by big developing nations such as India and China to curb emissions and to help them acquire technology to substantially cut emissions.
But developing nations won't accept binding emissions targets and have instead pledged to take a range of voluntary steps mandated by their governments, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy programmes.
Negotiators in Bangkok will be focused on designing what they call a legal framework or architecture that will encourage developing nations to sign up.
Kyoto backs economy-wide emissions reduction efforts for rich nations but many developing nations say they won't sign up to such steps in a broader climate pact.
Some nations have proposed a flexible arrangement that allows all nations to set verifiable national action plans to curb emissions. These could be entered into a registry that lists low-carbon strategies.
The idea would be to structure a climate pact that would allow easy amendment of national actions to fight global warming to take into account increased efforts over time.
DEFORESTATION AND DEGRADATION
There's growing interest among many nations to create a scheme that rewards developing nations for saving their forests, which soak up vast amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide.
The U.N.-backed reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) scheme has not yet been integrated into the next climate pact and the number of credits the scheme could generate annually and the value of the credits remain unclear.
A market-based scheme could potentially generate billions of dollars in annual funds for poorer nations from the sales of carbon credits.
Issues surrounding the rules governing the design and monitoring of REDD projects also remain unclear.
(Editing by Dean Yates) ((david.fogarty@thomsonreuters.com; +65 6403 5662; Reuters Messaging: david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Carbon

+1 1 vote
MF Global Weekly CDM & VER Market Summary 28th September - 4th October 2009
by Gareth Turner on 05 October 2009, 12:35 PM 0 comments , 62 views Categories: Newsletters, Market CommentaryTopics: mf global energy
VER demand remains consistent following a week of industry conferences. Higher pricing and the lack of issuance of exotic credits are promoting interest in recent vintage Indian RE VCUs currently $3.50/$4.50 bid/offered. Exotic VCUs are transacting at $1/2 premiums but are suffering from uncertainty over delivery timelines, new methodology approval and final volume size.
Gold Standard demand is improving with small clips of issued credits €7.50/8 bid/offered.
CAR CRTs maintain their domination of the US voluntary space aided by domestic climate legislation. Expanding methodology ranges and improved likelihood of inclusion are fuelling speculative trading with orders focusing on 200-400K tonne clips over 5 years strips 2009+ transacting at $6.50/$7.50 levels. VCU demand in the US continues to centre on forestry projects from outside of South America.
CCX CFIs bottomed out Friday at $0.10 cents having traded as low as $0.05 cents midweek in heavy volume. Market commentators attributed the drop in levels to the US climate bills failure to mention CFIs under early action offsets. The spread narrowed focusing on 2007-2009 vintages with a considerable total weekly volume of 1,659,100 tonnes exchanged. Privately negotiated transactions totaled 501 CFIs (50,100 tonnes)
50,000 tonnes US Ag Soil traded $0.75100 tonnes US RE traded $0.80
The Dec 09 secondary CER contract closed at €11.75, down around €0.23 from the previous week. Carbon traded sideways in line mirroring energy and oil levels with participants unwilling to take positions due to continued uncertainty following last weeks EU NAP court decision.
The US Senate released the initial draft of its Climate Bill last week calling for industries that emit 25,000 tonnes of C02 or more p.a. to reduce emissions 20% below 2005 levels by the year 2020. The cap and trade bill known as Boxer-Kerry will apply to roughly 7,500 entities that are responsible for 75% of US CO2 emissions. The bill will permit 2 billion offsets p.a. to help emitters meet their pollution targets. 75% of the offsets are to come from domestic projects while the other 25% can come from international projects. Should there be a shortfall of offsets, the bill would accept an additional 750 million international credits. An updated version of the bill that will detail the allowance portion of the program and how revenue raised from auctioning of allowances will be applied is expected in late October. In announcing the bill, Kerry stated he expects a floor vote before Copenhagen, however there appears to be virtually no republican support for the bill, and it is remains unclear if the legislation can come together before year end.
CDM pipeline delays leading to a 2.5% reduction in CER supply have been forecast by UNEP Risoe. The research organisation estimates 1.212 billion CERs will be issued by the end of 2012, 31 million fewer than previously projected, largely due to the suspension of verifiers, an increase in rejections and fewer project registrations. Demand for CERs has caused backwardation with €0.40c premiums being paid for 2009 contracts over 2010 with companies having pre sold expected issuances not yet delivered. Of the 1834 projects registered only 566 have been issued credits with the entire pipeline consisting of 4,673 CDM projects. 581 projects have been rejected by verifiers, 122 by the UN EB while 40 have been withdrawn.
The US Boxer-Kerry climate bill will include landfill gas and CCS projects in the offset scheme which were omitted from Waxman-Markey. Additionally, the following project types will be admitted: non landfill projects involving collection, combustion or avoidance of emissions from organic waste streams, afforestation/reforestation of acreage not forested as of Jan 1, 2009, forest management that results in increase in carbon stores, recycling and waste minimization projects, agricultural, grassland and rangeland sequestration, and land use change and forestry activities. Eligible projects in the Boxer-Kerry bill would start after January 1, 2009, however there is a provision for early action credits (from projects started after January 1, 2001) provided they were issued by a regulatory/voluntary GHG emissions program established under state or tribal law.

VER StatisticsSource: APX; CCX; CAR; Markit
APX GS Registry: 122 (+0) Projects ListedAPX VCS 70 (+0) Projects with Issued VCUsMarkit VCS Registry 56 VCS (+1) Public View ProjectsCCX CFI weekly volume 1,659.1kt (-1,482.3kt)CAR: 70 (+4) Projects Listed; 1.65Mt CRT issued
CDM StatisticsSource: UNFCCC
Total Issued CERs: 333.2Mt Issuances: 1287Total CERs Requested: 2.64Mt Host countries: 58Registered Projects: 1836 (+5) Requests: 71
Australia
’s carbon credit registry opened last week providing an account platform for firms to transfer UN backed offsets. The government established a National Authority within the Department of Climate Change. The NA’s role will be to manage and approve Kyoto protocols abroad for Australian firms to invest in CDM and JI projects. Australia will not host JI project until post 2012 with Climate Change Minister Penny Wong hailing the development as a ‘milestone’. In further developments the head of the opposition Malcolm Turnbull stated he would step down if his party failed to support emissions trading. In a change of stance, with the Liberals having voted down the first passage of the CRPS in August, Turnbull is pushing for backing of an amended scheme. If defeated a second time it could trigger a double dissolution early election with polls showing the Labour government surging ahead in the polls.
To request live project pricing information or to discuss any of the above, please contact Grattan MacGiffin gmacgiffin@mfglobal.com or Gareth Turner gturner@mfglobal.com in London on +44 20 7144 5780; Mary Haskins in New York mhaskins@mfglobal.com or Akshat Jaswal in Singapore ajaswal@mfglobal.com.sg
October 2, 2009, 11:45 am
Who Will Regulate U.S. Carbon Markets?
By Kate Galbraith
If the United States is going to set up a cap-and-trade system similar to the one in Europe in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who will regulate the new carbon market?
That question has yet to be settled.
As written in the Senate climate bill introduced on Wednesday, the job would go to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an organization that currently oversees the commodity futures and option markets in the United States.
In the House climate bill, passed in June, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would assume the main responsibilities — with the C.F.T.C. handling only the trading of carbon “derivatives.”
In Europe, which has the world’s largest active carbon-trading market, the European Commission oversees the system, with considerable input from national governments on the allocation of emission allowances.
Also up in the air is the regulatory authority over offsets.
Offsets are emissions-reduction projects — planting trees or capturing methane from pigpens, for example — that companies can invest in to counteract the greenhouse gases they emit elsewhere.
The House bill, after an aggressive, last-minute push from agricultural interests and the powerful chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Collin Peterson, handed the authority for farm offsets to the Department of Agriculture, which is perceived as friendly toward farm interests. The original authority had rested with the Environmental Protection Agency, a prospect that struck fear into farmers.
The Senate bill leaves offset regulation to the president. “This is a typical way for legislation to not pick a jurisdictional battle,” said Paul Bledsoe of the National Commission on Energy Policy.
According to an article in ClimateWire, the Senate bill “also establishes a new office of offsets integrity within the Justice Department” to make sure that the offsets are actually helping the environment.
The matter of carbon-trading regulation could end up being settled by other financial-services legislation that is currently in House and Senate committees.
Dirk Forrister, a managing director of Natsource, an environmental asset management company, stated a preference for a single regulator (as opposed to the split jurisdiction between F.E.R.C. and the C.F.T.C. proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill.)
And, ultimately, the C.F.T.C. would be a better choice, he said.
Whereas F.E.R.C. is experienced in overseeing monopoly behavior and interstate power and gas transmission, “governing financial instruments is really more the history of the C.F.T.C.,” Mr. Forrister said.