Copenhagen issues - clipping

Copenhagen agreement in doubt
By Environment reporter Sarah Clarke for AM

Posted Mon Oct 5, 2009 8:06am AEDT (ABC.Net.Au)

Months before world leaders meet in Copenhagen, rich and poor nations are already discussing their differences. (Library of Congress)
There are growing fears a new global climate agreement will not be reached in Copenhagen in December.
Two months before world leaders meet in the Danish capital to thrash out a new climate deal, rich and poor nations are already discussing their differences.
Delegations from more than 180 countries are meeting in Bangkok, trying to agree on the wording of a key document that will help reduce the planet's carbon pollution.
But the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, Achim Steiner, says the document is being watered down.
"Bangkok really is our second last chance to begin to tie down some of the key elements of an agreement that has to come out in Copenhagen," he said.
"There is a negotiating text which at the moment is far too long, has far too many brackets, and really what Bangkok is meant to provide us with is the political impetus for a breakthrough leading up to Copenhagen."
He says there are two main stalling points.
"One is, can the industrialised world make clear commitments in terms of emissions reduction that are sufficient to address the findings of the scientists and the intergovernmental panel on climate change," he said.
"And that means emissions reductions somewhere around 20 to 40 per cent of CO2 emissions today.
"Also, the aim to stabilise the growth of emissions somewhere between the next eight to 10 years which is really where we have to go if we want to stay below the two degrees Centigrade warming scenario.
"The second area is how can developing countries become part of a global partnership, because even if Europe ceases to emit carbon dioxide tomorrow, we would still be moving forward with global warming."
He says industrialised countries are also struggling with their targets, particularly the United States, so the agreement has to involve all countries.
But he says those that have the greatest legacy, in terms of carbon emissions in the air, have to lead.
"That leadership at the moment seems to be not yet forthcoming, which in turn is making developing countries say, 'Well if you are not willing to take these steps, then please do not ask us to make major changes in our economies right now because we have to follow you'," he said.
Mr Steiner says it is interesting that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and US President Barack Obama, who are committed to addressing climate change, are struggling in terms of their domestic political agenda.
"I think we saw Prime Minister Rudd, we saw President Obama in New York at the climate change summit clearly indicating that this is not a matter of having to be convinced," he said.
"It is rather a matter of the political challenges in their respective countries and I think here it is really the public that now becomes the factor X because if the public is willing to support its government in moving forward, then these targets can absolutely be announced and also negotiated towards in Copenhagen.
"But I think the bottom line is unless we see industrialised countries coming forward with more credible targets, we will probably struggle to have an agreement, with 190 nations, emerge out of Copenhagen in December."
US climate bill not likely this year, says Obama adviser
Carol Browner's bleak view deepens concerns negotiations will fail to produce meaningful agreement in Copenhagen
Buzz up!
Digg it (1)
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 October 2009 18.45 BST (guardian.co.uk)
Article history
Carol Browner speaking in Washington. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
The White House has said for the first time that it does not expect to see a climate change bill this year, removing one of the key elements for reaching an international agreement to avoid catastrophic global warming.
In a seminar in Washington, Barack Obama's main energy adviser, Carol Browner, gave the clearest indication to date that the administration did not expect the Senate to vote on a climate change bill before an international meeting in Copenhagen in December.
Browner spoke barely 48 hours after Senate Democrats staged a campaign-style rally in support of a climate change bill that seeks to cut US emissions by 20% on 2005 levels by 2020.
"Obviously, we'd like to be through the process, but that's not going to happen," Browner told a conference hosted by the Atlantic magazine on Friday. "I think we would all agree the likelihood that you'd have a bill signed by the president on comprehensive energy by the time we go in December is not likely."
Browner's bleak assessment deepens concerns that negotiations, already deadlocked, will fail to produce a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. It also threatens to further dampen the prospects for a bill that was struggling for support among conservative and rustbelt Democrats.
The UN has cast the Copenhagen meeting as a last chance for countries to reach an agreement to avoid the most disastrous effects of warming. Negotiators – including the state department's climate change envoy – admit it will be far harder to reach such a deal unless America, historically the world's biggest polluter, shows it is willing to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions.
Browner's comments undercut a campaign by Democratic leaders in the Senate, corporations and environmental organisations to try to build momentum behind the bill. The day before Browner's comments, John Kerry, the former presidential candidate who is one of the sponsors of the cap-and-trade bill, told a conference he remained confident the bill would squeak through the Senate.
Her remarks also raise further doubts about how forcefully the Obama administration is willing to press the Senate for a climate bill in the midst of its struggles over healthcare.
In the last two weeks, diplomats have grown increasingly frustrated with the administration. Negotiators say they understand Obama would have to struggle to get this agenda through the Senate, but say the president has shied away from opportunities to make the case for climate change.
Obama came in for harsh criticism from environmental organisations for failing to urge the Senate to act during a speech to the United Nations summit on climate change late last month. Environmental groups called it a "missed opportunity".
"If there is no serious US legislation in place then we will have delegations arriving and getting increasingly frustrated with nothing happening," said John Bruton, the European Union's ambassador.
DEVELOPMENT:Getting REDDy for Copenhagen Servaas van den Bosch
Credit: Servaas van den Bosch/IPS Some are arguing for a climate deal that encourages farmers like these women in Rundu, Namibia to conserve tree cover.
NAIROBI, Sep 5 (IPS) - "African farmers will play a major part in the solution of climate change mitigation," predicts Dennis Garrity, head of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)."Deforestation contributes to 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Counting the loss of trees on agricultural land this number increases to 34 percent," says Global Coordinator of the Alternatives to Slash and Burn Partnership, Peter Minang. For both agroforestry scientists, planting trees on farms on a massive scale will yield more than just timber, fruits and fertiliser. "Agroforestry provides an important carbon sink and takes pressure off remaining tropical forests," Garrity says. "Already 70 percent of Kenya’s wood is grown on farms." On 46 percent of the world’s farmlands - or 1 billion hectares, harboring 500 million people - tree cover exceeds 10 percent, states a newly-released ICRAF study. Reason, according to scientists at the recently-held World Agroforestry Congress in Nairobi, to include agroforests in the negotiations over a Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) climate deal at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Copenhagen this December. "Through agroforestry-mitigation, Africa can tap into the $118 billion carbon market and use the proceeds for crucial adaptation efforts," agrees Minang. "But the continent is divided on what REDD should entail." Whereas the 10 Congo basin countries, united in the Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC), want a deal on forests alone, the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) favours a broad AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use) perspective, proposing a REDD Plus that includes agriculture. "Which makes sense for countries like Kenya that are 80 percent semi-arid," explains Minang. The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) supports REDD, but is wary of its potential to access markets and wants to include agriculture in a redesigned Clean Development Mechanism. "The problem," says Minang "is that CDMs have not worked in Africa. Only four percent of global CDM projects are on this continent. Of the forty projects involving forests, only four are in Africa and none has passed the registration stage." The African Union, in a concept note for the Conference of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC) that met in Addis Ababa on Aug. 24, resolved that: "A REDD-Plus mechanism should be designed in such a way as to accommodate different national circumstances and respective capabilities." Some fear Africa’s fragmented position will diminish its chances in Copenhagen. "Africa should go to Copenhagen with a united voice and tell the industrialized countries they have a moral issue on their hands. They should not allow Africa to suffer of a disaster that is not of its own making. Yet, if we are fragmented we will be taken advantage off," Nobel laureate Wangari Mathaai told IPS in Nairobi. But United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) chief Achim Steiner seemed skeptical of a comprehensive climate deal in December. "We are just a hundred days away from Copenhagen and the negotiations are in a state of mutual frustration and lack of progress. I find that very worrying. Looking at the pace and scale of the negotiating process at the moment one would be naïve not be concerned at what can happen in just a few months," Steiner told journalists. "REDD’s not dead. Even if it doesn’t have legs to it coming out of Copenhagen, there’s the market that’s happening outside of Kyoto as well," says Jay Samek, researcher with the Global Observatory for Ecosystem Services of Michigan State University and involved with the institute’s Carbon2Markets initiative. "Carbon is sold for 25 cents a metric tonne on the Chicago Climate Exchange in quantities of one Carbon Financial Instrument (CFI), or 100 metric tonnes," says Samek. "Carbon sequestration on one hectare is perhaps 10 metric tonnes a year, so if ten farmers work together to offer one CFI each year to the markets, after 15 years they each get $375. "The big risk involved for buyers of carbon in treed landscapes though is that of permanence," he warns. Although scientists are relatively sure about tropical forests, determining carbon sequestration in the agricultural-forest mosaic of agroforestry projects is a headache, compounded by a variety in farming practices, land reform and economic upheavals. But trees will become a carbon cash crop in the future, argues Rodell Lasco, senior scientist at the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) "Right now financial barriers and governance issues make it seem unpractical, but when the countries of the world get their act together and start addressing climate change seriously, agroforestry can very well turn out to be a cheap alternative compared to other options in the West." Samek agrees. "There is a lot of money being invested getting ready for REDD and prices will go up when legislation catches up and companies are forced to cap and trade." In 2007 the Norwegian government pledged two billion dollars for forest conversation projects around the world while insisting that a REDD mechanism should become part of a post-Kyoto climate deal when the protocol lapses in 2012. Samek: "But even on a voluntary basis there is a lot of activity in the markets and many opportunities for companies to make use of it. We are for instance talking to Cadbury’s about a carbon-label on their chocolate, highlighting the mitigating impact cocoa-plantations have and perhaps people are willing to pay extra for it. "It’s really about how to bring the market system into it. As we eliminate the hurdles, it becomes relevant to ask the question if we can set different prices for different forms of mitigation. Can we ask more money for a system that’s not just a plantation, but preserves biodiversity and offers other co-benefits to farmers?" (END/2009)

UN's forest protection scheme at risk from organized crime, experts warn
International police, politicians and conservationists warn that the UN's programme to cut carbon emissions by paying poor countries to preserve their forests is 'open to wide abuse'
Buzz up!
Digg it
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 October 2009 17.00 BST
Article history
A logger stands on a trunk after cutting down a tree, near Morere, Papua New Guinea. Interpol says the chances are very high that criminal gangs will seek to take advantage of Redd schemes in African and Asian countries. Photograph: Sutton-Hibbert/Rex Features
A revolutionary UN scheme to cut carbon emissions by paying poorer countries to preserve their forests is a recipe for corruption and will be hijacked by organised crime without safeguards, a Guardian investigation has found.
The UN, the World Bank, the UK and individuals including Prince Charles have strongly backed UN plans to expand the global carbon market to allow countries to trade the carbon stored in forests.
If, as expected, this is agreed at crucial UN climate change talks taking place in Bangkok this week and concluding in Copenhagen in December, up to $30bn a year could be transferred from rich countries to the owners of endangered forests.
But experts on all sides of the debate, from international police to politicians to conservationists, have warned this week that the scheme, called Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (Redd), may be impossible to monitor and may already be leading to fraud. The UN itself accepts there are "high risks".
Interpol, the world's leading policing agency, said this week that the chances were very high that criminal gangs would seek to take advantage of Redd schemes, which will be largely be based in corruption-prone African and Asian countries.
"Alarm bells are ringing. It is simply too big to monitor. The potential for criminality is vast and has not been taken into account by the people who set it up," said Peter Younger, Interpol environment crimes specialist and author of a new report for the World Bank on illegal forestry.
"Organised crime syndicates are eyeing the nascent forest carbon market. I will report to the bank that Redd schemes are open to wide abuse," he said.
The significance of the felling of forests across great swaths of the world cannot be overstated - it is are responsible for about 20% of the globe's entire carbon emissions. With governments anxious to find new ways to meet increasingly stringent national emission targets, a scheme which promises to benefit poor countries, cut emissions cheaply and not require any new technology is highly attractive.
But most of the countries rich in forests are also home to some of the world's most corrupt politicians and uncontrolled logging companies, who stand to make billions of dollars if they can get Redd projects approved.
"Fraud could include claiming credits for forests that do not exist or were not protected or by land grabs. It starts with bribery or intimidation of officials, then there's threats and violence against those people. There's forged documents too," said Younger. "Carbon trading transcends borders. I do not see any input from any law enforcement agency in planning Redd."
Hans Brattskar, director of Norway's forest and climate programme, whose country is financially backing the UN Redd programme, said last night: "It will be extremely difficult to make it work. Law enforcement is vital because the corruption issued are very real. But we have to put in safeguards and we have to try. Redd can save up to 20% of all the world's emissions. Without it, I believe it will be impossible to reach the target of stemming climate change and holding global temperatures to 2C," the level judged acceptable by the European Union.
Last month, Papua New Guinea, one of the countries pushing hardest for Redd to be accepted in the UN climate talks, suspended their climate change minister after allegations that $100m of fake carbon credits had been handed to communities to persuade them to sign up to forest protection schemes.
Last night the UN admitted that Redd schemes were dangerously open to abuse. "Where countries are corrupt the potential for Redd corruption is dangerous. [In Papua New Guinea], people have tried to take advantage of the market in an unacceptable way and carbon cowboys are trying to get the benefits. We can expect more of this as Redd develops," said Tiina Vahanen, a senior officer at UN-Redd.
People setting up Redd schemes also fear that they may be discredited by fraudsters aiming to profit from public money. "The potential for Redd rape and pillage is staggering. Logging companies may turn into carbon companies. All they have to do is count, not cut. It's like giving a mass murderer money," said Rob Dodwell, a British conservationist setting up schemes in Kenya and Cameroon.
The UN estimates that 25% of the world's forestry emissions, or nearly 5% of total global carbon emissions, could be saved by 2015 if rich countries invest $15bn to set up Redd schemes.
So far rich countries have put up $52m to establish nine official pilot Redd schemes in Asia, Latin America and Africa. In addition several hundred private schemes are being set up by bankers, conservation groups, and businesses who plan to offer carbon credits on the voluntary market.
But academics and environment groups with long experience working with the logging industry and indigenous communities said that both government and private schemes are being set up with no guarantees to protect communities who depend on the forests. "Decisions are being rushed, communities are not consulted or compensated and the lure of money from cutting emissions is overiding everything," says Rosalind Reeve of forestry watchdog group Global Witness.
Total forest coverage by country
Alarm over deforestation has grown as world population figures continue their inexorable rise. Our data reveals the extent of forest decline over the last 20 years country by country• Interactive: The world's great remaining forests
Comments (0)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Deforestation removes a vital line of defence against climate change. Photograph: Marcus Lyon/Getty Images
The future of our climate largely depends on essential carbon dioxide-guzzling forests. But those forests are under threat from the significant deforestation that has taken place over the past 20 years because of increasing demand for land - for agriculture, building and for natural resources for timber and paper.
Since 1990, the problem of declining forest cover has been most severe in developing countries which are exploiting their natural resources - such as Indonesia - and often simply can't afford the cost of reforestation, like Guatemala.
Richer countries such as Canada, Switzerland and Croatia managed to keep their number of hectares at a stable number or have enlarged their total forest area in the same period. But globally, the trend is clear: our forests are disappearing rapidly.
Natural disasters don't help. Hurricane-battered Haiti lost 11,000 hectares to storms between 1990 and 2005. When fatal hurricanes hit last year, Haiti had just 7% of its forests left compared to the 80% tree cover Christopher Columbus found when he landed on the island of Hispaniola in 1492.
One of the most staggering decreases has been in Brazil. Forest cover plummeted from 520,027 thousand to 477,698 thousand hectares over 15 years - a loss of 42,329 thousand hectares.
• DATA: Total forest area by country; 1990, 2000 and 2005 (forests, grasslands and drylands)
• Can you do something with this data? Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group or mail us at datastore@guardian.co.uk
• Get the A-Z of data• More environment data• More at the Datastore directory• Follow us on Twitter
Forest extent: Total forest area
(Units: Thousand hectares)
Country
1990
2000
2005
Afghanistan
1,309
1,015
867
Albania
789
769
794
Algeria
1,790
2,144
2,277
American Samoa
18
18
18
Andorra
16
16
16
Angola
60,976
59,728
59,104
Antigua and Barbuda
9
9
9
Argentina
35,262
33,770
33,021
Armenia
346
305
283
Aruba
0
0
0
Australia
167,904
164,645
163,678
Austria
3,776
3,838
3,862
Azerbaijan
936
936
936
Bahamas, The
515
515
515
Bahrain
0
0
0
Bangladesh
882
884
871
Barbados
2
2
2
Belarus
7,376
7,848
7,894
Belgium
677
667
667
Belize
1,653
1,653
1,653
Benin
3,322
2,675
2,351
Bermuda
1
1
1
Bhutan
3,035
3,141
3,195
Bolivia
62,795
60,091
58,740
Bosnia and Herzegovina
2,210
2,185
2,185
Botswana
13,718
12,535
11,943
Brazil
520,027
493,213
477,698
British Virgin Islands
4
4
4
Brunei
313
288
278
Bulgaria
3,327
3,375
3,625
Burkina Faso
7,154
6,914
6,794
Burma (Myanmar)
39,219
34,554
32,222
Burundi
289
198
152
Cambodia
12,946
11,541
10,447
Cameroon
24,545
22,345
21,245
Canada
310,134
310,134
310,134
Cape Verde
58
82
84
Cayman Islands
12
12
12
Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
10,222
10,328
10,405
Central African Rep
23,203
22,903
22,755
Chad
13,110
12,317
11,921
Channel Islands
1
1
1
Chile
15,263
15,834
16,121
China
157,141
177,001
197,290
Colombia
61,439
60,963
60,728
Comoros
12
8
5
Congo (Brazzaville)
22,726
22,556
22,471
Congo, Dem Rep
140,531
135,207
133,610
Cook Islands
15
16
16
Costa Rica
2,564
2,376
2,391
Croatia
2,116
2,129
2,135
Cuba
2,058
2,435
2,713
Cyprus
161
173
174
Czech Rep
2,630
2,637
2,648
Denmark
445
486
500
Djibouti
6
6
6
Dominica
50
47
46
Dominican Rep
1,376
1,376
1,376
Ecuador
13,817
11,841
10,853
Egypt
44
59
67
El Salvador
375
324
298
Equatorial Guinea
1,860
1,708
1,632
Eritrea
1,621
1,576
1,554
Estonia
2,163
2,243
2,284
Ethiopia
15,114
13,705
13,000
Faeroe Islands
0
0
0
Falkland Islands
0
0
0
Fiji
979
1,000
1,000
Finland
22,194
22,475
22,500
Former Serbia and Montenegro
2,559
2,649
2,694
France
14,538
15,351
15,554
French Guiana
8,091
8,063
8,063
French Polynesia
105
105
105
Gabon
21,927
21,826
21,775
Gambia
442
461
471
Georgia
2,760
2,760
2,760
Germany
10,741
11,076
11,076
Ghana
7,448
6,094
5,517
Gibraltar
0
0
0
Greece
3,299
3,601
3,752
Greenland
0
0
0
Grenada
4
4
4
Guadeloupe
84
81
80
Guam
26
26
26
Guatemala
4,748
4,208
3,938
Guinea
7,408
6,904
6,724
Guinea-Bissau
2,216
2,120
2,072
Guyana
15,104
15,104
15,104
Haiti
116
109
105
Honduras
7,385
5,430
4,648
Hungary
1,801
1,907
1,976
Iceland
25
38
46
India
63,939
67,554
67,701
Indonesia
116,567
97,852
88,495
Iran
11,075
11,075
11,075
Iraq
804
818
822
Ireland
441
609
669
Isle of Man
3
3
3
Israel
154
164
171
Italy
8,383
9,447
9,979
Jamaica
345
341
339
Japan
24,950
24,876
24,868
Jordan
83
83
83
Kazakhstan
3,422
3,365
3,337
Kenya
3,708
3,582
3,522
Kiribati
2
2
2
Korea, North
8,201
6,821
6,187
Korea, South
6,371
6,300
6,265
Kuwait
3
5
6
Kyrgyzstan
836
858
869
Lao People's Dem Rep
17,314
16,532
16,142
Latvia
2,775
2,885
2,941
Lebanon
121
131
136
Lesotho
5
7
8
Liberia
4,058
3,455
3,154
Libya
217
217
217
Liechtenstein
6
7
7
Lithuania
1,945
2,020
2,099
Luxembourg
86
87
87
Macedonia, FYR
906
906
906
Madagascar
13,692
13,023
12,838
Malawi
3,896
3,567
3,402
Malaysia
22,376
21,591
20,890
Maldives
1
1
1
Mali
14,072
13,072
12,572
Malta
0
0
0
Martinique
46
46
46
Mauritania
415
317
267
Mauritius
39
38
37
Mexico
69,016
65,540
64,238
Micronesia, Fed States
63
63
63
Moldova, Rep
319
326
329
Monaco
0
0
0
Mongolia
11,492
10,665
10,252
Morocco
4,289
4,328
4,364
Mozambique
20,012
19,512
19,262
Namibia
8,762
8,033
7,661
Nauru
0
0
0
Nepal
4,817
3,900
3,636
Netherlands
345
360
365
Netherlands Antilles
1
1
1
New Caledonia
717
717
717
New Zealand
7,720
8,226
8,309
Nicaragua
6,538
5,539
5,189
Niger
1,945
1,328
1,266
Nigeria
17,234
13,137
11,089
Niue
17
15
14
Northern Mariana Islands
35
34
33
Norway
9,130
9,301
9,387
Oman
2
2
2
Pakistan
2,527
2,116
1,902
Palau
38
40
40
Palestinian Territories
9
9
9
Panama
4,376
4,307
4,294
Papua New Guinea
31,523
30,132
29,437
Paraguay
21,157
19,368
18,475
Peru
70,156
69,213
68,742
Philippines
10,574
7,949
7,162
Poland
8,881
9,059
9,192
Portugal
3,099
3,583
3,783
Puerto Rico
404
407
408
Qatar
0
0
0
Reunion
87
87
84
Romania
6,371
6,366
6,370
Russia
808,950
809,268
808,790
Rwanda
318
344
480
Saint Helena
2
2
2
Saint Kitts and Nevis
5
5
5
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
3
3
3
Samoa
130
171
171
San Marino
0
0
0
Sao Tome and Principe
27
27
27
Saudi Arabia
2,728
2,728
2,728
Senegal
9,348
8,898
8,673
Seychelles
40
40
40
Sierra Leone
3,044
2,851
2,754
Singapore
2
2
2
Slovakia
1,922
1,921
1,929
Slovenia
1,188
1,239
1,264
Solomon Islands
2,768
2,371
2,172
Somalia
8,282
7,515
7,131
South Africa
9,203
9,203
9,203
Spain
13,479
16,436
17,915
Sri Lanka
2,350
2,082
1,933
St. Lucia
17
17
17
St. Vincent/Grenadines
9
10
11
Sudan
76,381
70,491
67,546
Suriname
14,776
14,776
14,776
Swaziland
472
518
541
Sweden
27,367
27,474
27,528
Switzerland
1,155
1,199
1,221
Syria
372
432
461
Tajikistan
408
410
410
Tanzania
41,441
37,318
35,257
Thailand
15,965
14,814
14,520
Timor-Leste
966
854
798
Togo
685
486
386
Tonga
4
4
4
Trinidad and Tobago
235
228
226
Tunisia
643
959
1,056
Turkey
9,680
10,052
10,175
Turkmenistan
4,127
4,127
4,127
Turks and Caicos Islands
34
34
34
Uganda
4,924
4,059
3,627
Ukraine
9,274
9,510
9,575
United Arab Emirates
245
310
312
United Kingdom
2,611
2,793
2,845
United States
298,648
302,294
303,089
Uruguay
905
1,409
1,506
Uzbekistan
3,045
3,212
3,295
Vanuatu
440
440
440
Venezuela
52,026
49,151
47,713
Vietnam
9,363
11,725
12,931
Virgin Islands
12
10
10
Western Sahara
1,011
1,011
1,011
Yemen
549
549
549
Zambia
49,124
44,676
42,452
Zimbabwe
22,234
19,105
17,540