Forests and Climate Change

LULUCF in 2011 - Guest Commentary in Point Carbon

2011-03-17T11:34:00.000-07:00

--the following appeared as a guest commentary in Carbon Market Europe, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon on February 25, 2011--

Closing the deal on forest accounting
By Chris Henschel, national manager of boreal conservation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Mark it on your calendar: the UN climate change conference in South Africa this December will deliver an agreement on the accountability of industrialised countries for their emissions from forest management and other land uses (LULUCF).

Under current Kyoto rules, accounting for emissions for most land use activities is voluntary, potentially undermining the effectiveness of national emission reduction targets. Countries have been discussing and negotiating possible changes to the framework for three and a half years.

The only obvious outcome from December’s UN negotiations in Cancun was a decision to continue applying the same deinitions and guiding principles. Most LULUCF negotiators had felt that a deal was within reach and the lack of a full agreement on LULUCF was a signal that LULUCF has some outstanding political issues. Arguably the most important outcome of the meeting was an explicit recognition that the eventual LULUCF rules chosen would impact the attainment of more ambitious targets and that this impact must be understood. This leaves the door open wider for well-informed LULUCF choices consistent with the broader aims of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.

One of the central unresolved issues of the negotiations has been on the baseline that will be used to account for changes in emissions from forest management. This issue is fundamental because the determination of whether emissions have gone up or down depends entirely on where the baseline is set.

Most industrialised countries have said they want to set their own emissions ‘reference level’ and most have set theirs to be above historical levels. Parties agreed in Cancun to invite submissions and subject them to expert review. Although no decision has been taken to adopt the ‘reference level’ approach, the industrialised nations will be loathe to throw it out completely after investing effort in the review process.

The only option on the table that would make use of this is the ‘baseline’ approach set out by the African group, which would merge the proposed reference levels with a historical average, thereby increasing responsibility for emissions growth.

It would appear that only a major political re-orientation could steer a Durban outcome away from one of these two options.

A related issue that is not yet resolved is whether any cap or limit should be placed on the credits or debits resulting from the chosen forest management accounting approach.

It would be surprising if certain outcomes were not ultimately accepted after the informal discussions and accommodations that took place in Cancun:

A new activity is likely to be added to the LULUCF mix: “rewetting and drainage.” This activity is meant to capture the impact on emissions of draining and restoring (re-wetting) peatlands.
Countries likely will be able to account for carbon stored in wood products using default half-lives for paper, wood panels and saw wood. All wood product carbon in landfill will be treated on the basis of instantaneous oxidation to avoid a perverse incentive to dispose of wood.
There seems a good chance that a mechanism will be developed to allow countries to limit the impact of emissions from extraordinary occurrences like fires beyond their control. The main outstanding issue here is the threshold of emissions that would trigger such a mechanism.
If all the outstanding issues related to forest management are resolved, it is expected to become mandatory for a Kyoto second commitment period.
Activities other than forest management will continue to be accounted for as they currently are, and will likely remain voluntary without a concerted political push for greater accountability.

The latest thinking on how to treat all of these issues can be seen in chapter 2 of the most recent ‘Revised proposal from the Chair’ in Cancun (FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/CRP.4/Rev.4 – Chapter II).

One large additional question that crept over the horizon in Cancun and will continue to rise in prominence in 2011: will these approaches, developed for use by industrialised nations, also be applied to developing countries in the context of negotiations falling under reduced deforestation (Redd+)? References to LULUCF in the Convention negotiating track suggest an increased blurring of the line keeping these issues separate. The fate of the Kyoto Protocol and the outcome of the ‘legal question’ about the binding nature of an agreement in South Africa may also have profound implications for the relevance of the LULUCF rules and to whom they will apply.

The Cancun Deal

2010-12-10T14:15:00.000-08:00

The president of the conference has produced a draft decision text that is receiving rave reviews from country after country in the plenary. The Mexican presidency is being praised for its transparency, adeptness and openness and for producing a decision that has package between the two negotiating tracks (something until now elusive).

It is clearly lacking in ambition and by no means is the end result that is needed. But all are hailing it as the lifeline that was required to re-instill confidence in the process and the foundation for a path forward.

The outcome on LULUCF and the forestry negotiations is better than I expected earlier in the week. There are three key elements of this outcome for me:
* There was no agreement to lock in the logging loophole (reference levels);
* There is an acknowledgment of loopholes and of the need to consider their impacts on targets and ambition;
* Options to the reference levels persist in the text for next year.

Other details:
- The guiding principles from the Marrakesh Accords continue to govern the framework
- The same definitions still apply
- A decision on whether to have a cap on credits/debits and how to exclude emissions from force majeure events (i.e. extreme fire years)will be decided in time for next December
- Parties' proposed reference levels were inscribed in an appendix, but no final decision was made to account using these
- The submission, review and replacement process for reference levels was agreed
- No other decisions on substantive matters were made (e.g. accounting for emissions from other activities, how to account for wood products, etc.)

One other outcome to note is that the negotiators came to an informal agreement on how to define and create a new activity for peatland management ('draining and re-wetting'). I suspect this didn't come into the final decision because many other issues couldn't, but it appears it is ready to formally decide next year.

Next year will be interesting...

The 11th Hour (literally)

2010-12-09T21:03:00.000-08:00

It's 11 o'clock on Thursday night and the forestry negotiators are locked in a room behind me trying to hammer out an agreement.

By all reports it's going slowly. But only those content to settle for a 500 Megatonne loophole would say it's going well.

There is a lot of momentum at the 'technical' level. Almost everyone seems content to stitch up this deal.

There are a couple of wild cards on the table. How long will Tuvalu hold out with its principled objection? How long will the African Group hold out with its compromise? What will Ministers do? Will they rubber stamp rules that allow forestry emissions to increase without penalty?

My task now is to hang around outside this room and find out what I can when they finish. Then, we will have to react quickly to influence the political decision that will follow these technical negotiations.

Will Tuvalu's Tactical Moves Still Save the Day?

2010-12-06T21:15:00.001-08:00

The 1.5 hours of negotiations on LULUCF planned today didn't happen.

The Island Nation of Tuvalu insisted on discussing concerns about process and getting assurances that its views would not be ignored.

The conventional wisdom is that a decision on LULUCF rules is needed here so countries can get on to the business of setting economy-wide targets. To most, this means there must be no delay and the decision must be made quickly. But Tuvalu appears ready to take a stand that it won't be blackmailed into accepting rules with low environmental integrity. If this is what is happening, good for Tuvalu! We will utlimately all benefit.

Africa Propose Compromise

2010-12-05T21:29:00.000-08:00

I should apologize to anyone whose appetite I whet the other day with the teaser about a proposal from the African Group that I haven't followed-up sooner. It's been very busy here as always.

The proposal is a compromise that modifies the reference level approach by combining it with a historical average of data from the first commitment period. This proposal would cut the logging loophole in the second commitment period roughly in half while still giving all Annex I Parties at least part of the ‘break’ on emissions they have been looking for. It’s only a partial fix with its own short-comings, but it is an interesting compromise that could hold some promise for a deal in Cancun, if developed countries are really looking for one.

My sense is that they are not. They feel to close to getting everything they have been asking with the logging loophole.

I should also tell you that things are very much up in the air on the LULUCF negotiations in general.

The Ministers have arrived but without at manageable text on LULUCF for them to work with. There is an extra informal (closed door meeting) tomorrow morning to try to come to some agreement on the text that will be given to Ministers. The key oustanding question is still how Tuvalu's new proposal to go back to the old rules (with some tweaks) will be incorporated.

The best thing about the Tuvalu proposal was the requirement for countries to have to account for any conversion of forests to plantations or primary forests to secondary!

Whet Your Appetite Post

2010-12-03T14:19:00.000-08:00

I'm sitting at the computer pool outside the last scheduled closed session of negotiations on accounting rules for land use, land-use change and forestry.

The time is ticking for these negotiators who have worked on and on for 3 and a half years to produce a draft decision that may still not be ready for Ministers as they begin to arrive. The idea is that Ministers must be given clear, simple choices to negotiate. They would quickly be lost and bogged down in the details and complexities of LULUCF.

As of yesterday there was no option that looked politically acceptable to all. And the only decent option for the environment had been roundly rejected by developed countries (Tuvalu's proposal from earlier this year to account for any change in logging emissions from the recent past - called 'net-net' accounting).

We learned yesterday that the facilitators of the negotiations were producing a new draft decision today that would include a 'compromise' being proposed by the African Group (of countries). I suspect they are in there discussing it right now.

This post is to whet your appetite for the news when they emerge...what has Africa put on the table? Is it really grounds for compromise? Is it an acceptable environmental outcome?

Prospects Grim in Cancun

2010-12-01T17:02:00.000-08:00

It's end of day 3 in Cancun. As always, it's been a frenzied three days.

The negotiations began along the well-worn path of the last year: developed countries refining the new rules and processes they would use to avoid accountability for emissions from logging and other land uses like croplands.

Then things got interesting.

The island state of Tuvalu, as steadfast in its abhorrence of the 'logging loophole' as we are, put a whole new package on the table. It basically throws out everything that countries have been negotiating on for the past three years - no reference levels (loophole), no credit for carbon stored in wood products (loophole), no special provision for excluding emissions from fires (possible loophole).

The quid pro quo for this tossing out the window of all things bad and troubling in the negotiations is that accounting for everything would remain voluntary. It's hard to get excited about this approach, but easy to comiserate with the apparent desperation caused by the singular focus of developed countries on anything but accounting for emissions from land use.

It's still shocking how, in this convention on climate change and emission reductions, there is no preoccupation with emission reductions from land use - they can go up as long as the practices are 'sustainable'!

It's really not clear where things will go from here. There are now three options on the table on the basic accounting approach, all of which have entrenched opposition. And, ironically, the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that they want an agreement here in Cancun!

Meanwhile, small informal groups of negotiators have been locked behind closed doors trying to hammer out an agreement on the how to deal with natural disturbances and carbon stored in wood products.

Tomorrow may bring more surprises...

Logistics at Cancun Climate Talks Reflect Commitment to Reduce Emissions

2010-11-29T21:21:00.001-08:00

The Cancun climate talks kicked off today. One of the venues is a brand-new convention centre. The other is an upscale golf course and spa. Both have bone-chilling AC (and wide open doors). The many thousands of participants are all bused an hour or more from their hotels in the morning and back again in the evening. The emissions boggle the mind.

The logistics show the same lack of regard for emissions as is evidenced in forestry negotiations and the broader negotiations toward a new global climate deal.

At the end of day one, I'm looking for some inspiration and signs of hope!

Clearest Explanation of the Logging Loophole proposed by developed countries

2010-10-19T08:17:00.000-07:00

This is my communications masterpiece - a crystal clear explanation of how developed countries are trying to increase their logging emissions with impunity from a global climate agreement!

Last Chance: The Road to Cancun

2010-10-12T07:32:00.000-07:00

I am back home in beautiful Ottawa looking out my window at the colours that make autumn so special in Canada. This beauty is in sharp relief to the thick smog the bus drove through on the way to the Beijingairport on Sunday.

The closing plenary in Tianjin showed that there is still hope for a better outcome to the forestry negotiations. Both the Africa Group (all African countries) and the Association of Small Island States spoke out strongly against the logging loophole: they both rejected the approach of using "projected reference levels" from the future to account for forestry emissions. This resistance and insistence on environmental integrity is important. Although developed countries may not want to take heed of this, we will do our best to make sure they do.

In the next seven weeks before the decision-making meeting in Cancun, I will be working with my colleagues to continue pushing for a strong outcome: campaigning, public outreach, communications and exploring compromises that have environmental integrity. We are in the final stretch.

In the meantime, I will be working to ensure that domestic policies and meausures for forests and climate change are up to snuff!

Signs of Hope

2010-10-08T08:38:00.000-07:00

I don't know if it was the jeans but the winds shifted a bit in the forestry negotiations today. Glimmers of hope have started to shine on what was starting to look like a pretty bleak outcome to these talks.

The negotiating block of developing countries known as the G77 and China have been negotiating the outlines of a weak forest deal that would allow developed countries to increase their logging emissions with impunity. Today we started to see some more resistance to this proposal. Tuvalu called on the Chair of Kyoto Protocol negotiations to bring sanity back to the talks and African countries are starting to express their reservations as well. Other rumblings of discontent are also being heard in the halls.

We've been supporting this resistance with articles in the daily newsletter ECO, pitching stories to journalists, and reaching out to countries that could make a difference and who support deep cuts in emissions. The embedded video shows Julie-Anne Richards with the International Climate Action Network repeating the call for sanity in an intervention given in an open plenary meeting. We learned at the last minute that civil society would be given a chance to speak to all the assembled countries so we scrambled to get a statement together.

The last day of the talks is tomorrow and we've got a few last tricks up our sleeves. We may just leave these talks with something that we can work with moving towards the final decision-making round of talks this December in Cancun, Mexico.

(Video: Annex B Parties means developed countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce their emissions).

Denim Protest

2010-10-07T20:46:00.000-07:00

I left the suit at the hotel and came to the conference centre in jeans and t-shirt today as a small gesture of personal protest against the dirty forest deal that is being made here in Tianjin. The sense in the halls yesterday was palpable that the G77 and China are giving developed countries everything they want in exchange for a little transparency.

The logging loophole is just a step away from being enshrined in a decision at December's big decision-making climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico. The parties to this process have spent almost all their negotiating time over the last year discussing an approach that allows developed countries to increase their logging emissions with impunity, thereby damaging forests and undermining climate action. Alternative options were barely discussed. Emissions from other land uses like croplands and wetlands has scarcely been on the agenda. Accounting for these emissions is voluntary and hardly anyone is doing it. With so little time remaining before the final meeting in Cancun this could signal that countries have no intent to close this loophole either.

Anyone who asks me today why I am in jeans and t-shirt will hear that I am protesting the lack of ambition to protect forests and fight for the climate.

Forestry Negotiations in Tianjin China: Rolling towards the abyss!

2010-10-06T10:32:00.000-07:00

Day 3 of the Tianjin Climate Talks has already past and the Great Fire Wall of China has kept me from posting before now. This post is being made through a friend back in Canada who kindly offered to help me get the word out.

The proposal to allow developed countries to use 'reference levels' from the future to measure their emissions compliance for logging continues to move forward. As one developing country negotiator described it to me: this thing now has wheels.

Unfortunately this proposal is taking us off a cliff from which environmental integrity in this process may never recover. It still amazes me that government representatives from developed countries that have caused climate change and have made commitments to fix it can say with a straight face that it is good policy to allow them to increase their logging emissions without penalty.

There have been two interesting developments in the last 24 hours. The first is that developed countries put forward a process to have expert technical teams review the proposed reference levels. It looks okay as far as technical review goes but all it will really demonstrate is whether countries have done a good job proposing bad reference levels.

The other development was that there was an open session today to discuss an alternative to the reference level approach. The island nation of Tuvalu described its proposal to use emissions/removals from forest management in the first commitment period (2008-2012) as the basis for measuring increases or decreases in the second commitment period. Tuvalu and Belarus both made clear and compelling arguments for why a historical baseline is the only reliable basis for demonstrating whether we are actually moving towards our target of emission reductions. The European Union, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea were the principle defenders of the flawed 'projected reference level' approach.

At the request of Tuvalu, the co-chairs of the session opened the floor to comments from civil society and I was able to make an intervention. I recorded it low-tech style on my iPhone. Picture me in a room full of negotiators in a conference centre that looks like it was designed for giants!

A Consensus View on Forests, Peatlands and Climate

2010-08-17T12:35:00.000-07:00

This month the Forestry Chronicle printed the article Maintaining the role of Canada's forests and peatlands in climate regulation. The article is exciting for two reasons. First, it lays out a clear policy blueprint for how forests and peatlands shoudl be managed in the context of climate change and the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, it puts to rest a very unhelpful dynamic that emerged in the pages of the very same journal - two years ago researchers from the Ontario Forest Research Institute wrote a flaming piece of rhetoric assailing the environmental community's assertions that forests should be protected to help fight climate change.

This new article presents the consensus findings of a two-day workshop in Ottawa that brought together government scientists, university academics and ENGO policy experts to develop management recommendations to maintain the role of Canada's forests and peatlands in climate regulation.

Here are the recommended management actions:

Reduce deforestation and increase afforestation
Avoid logging of natural forests
Employ forest management practices that enhance carbon storage:

1. reduce soil disturbance and maintain coarse woody debris
2. silvicultural activities to increase productivity and accelerate regeneration
3. extend rotation periods

Employ forest sector practices to enhance carbon storage and minimize greenhouse gas emissions:

1. capture methane emissions from forest products at landfills
2. increase recycling and switch production to longer lived forest products
3. use energy in wood waste for power production

Minimize the extraction of peat soils
Minimize soil disturbance

1. minimize ground disturbance in areas with saturated soils
2. avoid disturbance to permafrost

Reduce the adverse climate impacts of fire and insect disturbances

1. suppress fire and insect events where appropriate in the managed forest
2. restore the natural resilience of forest to disturbance
3. use salvage logging where appropriate to reduce harvest of undisturbed forest

The participants in the workshop were Mathew Carlson (Canadian Boreal Initiative), Jing Chen (University of Toronto), Stewart Elgie (University of Ottawa), Chris Henschel (CPAWS), Werner Kurz (Canadian Forest SerAlvaro Montenegro (University of Victoria), Nigel Roulet (McGill University), Neal Scott (Queen's University), Charles Tarnocai (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), and Jeff Wells (International Boreal Conservation Campaign).

Political Heat Not Reaching Forestry Negotiators

2010-08-05T03:58:00.000-07:00

The political heat was turned on the logging loophole at the UN Climate Talks this week in Bonn, but those negotiating the loophole appeared unfazed.

The negotiations were framed with a statement by the Chair that forestry rules should be developed that strengthen ambition. As mentioned in my previous post, presentation after presentation at a Monday workshop on countries' targets showed that they are doing the opposite. These presentations drew attention to the logging loophole and showed that all the loopholes taken together mean that developed countries could actually increase their emissions under their 'reduction' pledges made in Copenhagen. John Vidal of the Guardian wrote on the farce these loopholes are making of rich countries' Copenhagen pledges.

The forestry negotiators showed no sign of this heat after they went back behind closed doors. Some new draft texts came out this morning and nothing has really changed. I believe that this is because, with so many countries concerned primarily with the different 'national circumstances' of their forestry sectors, no one is sure what the political solution actually is. This gives the negotiators of a lot of room.

But it is clear to me that they won't change direction until they are told to by their political bosses. These bosses should be sensitive to the revelation that rich countries are playing a dangerous game with the future of the planet, pretending to reduce emissions when they are actually planning the exact opposite.

Minding the Accounting Gap in Bonn

2010-08-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

I am once again in Bonn at a UN Climate Conference, struggling alongside my colleagues to make forests in developed countries part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

The good news is that the issue has been given some good exposure. The International Climate Action Network was invited to present its views at a special session on forest management accounting before the start of this week’s meeting. I gave CAN’s presentation, which clearly laid out the 460 Mt CO2 ‘accounting gap’ resulting from the proposed rules, which would mean that developed countries could increase their emissions relative to historical levels and not have to account or be penalized for it. The presentation also compares this proposal with other accounting options on the table.

With the exception of a proposal from the island state of Tuvalu to account for emissions changes in the future compared with emissions in 2012, none of the formal options on the table will close the accounting gap. If the gap is not closed, forest management accounting will undermine the ambition of developed countries.

This fact was further illustrated today in a presentation made to the Parties by the Stockholm Environment Institute, which described the effect of the various loopholes or ‘alternatives to real mitigation.’ The ‘accounting gap’ was one of the many loopholes that mean developed countries could significantly increase their emissions while still meeting the emission reduction pledges they made in Copenhagen.

Underlying the forest management accounting gap is the troubling fact that developed countries are all forecasting that they will increase logging rates, thereby increasing pressure on forest reservoirs of carbon, and diminishing the forest sink. These actions violate commitments that all countries have made in the UN Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol to protect, conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs.

The challenge for this week is to translate understanding of this problem into politically acceptable solutions. Political acceptability has so far proved elusive, given the strong focus of most developed countries to avoid ‘punishing’ their forest sectors, rather than keeping their eye on ensuring emission reductions in all sectors.

Bonn Climate Talks: Part 10 - Where from here?

2010-06-14T10:23:00.000-07:00

Though the cough I earned with much hand-shaking and long hours of campaigning persists, the Bonn Climate Talks themselves have wrapped up.

The forestry issues were not resolved in Bonn as some had expected/feared, but these talks have clearly set the stage for some kind of resolution at the next round of talks in August.

In fact, it's probably fair to say that the biggest outcome from the last few days of the talks was a proposal to hold a 'pre-sessional' workshop on LULUCF before the next week-long meeting in Bonn officially begins. ENGOs have written a letter to John Ashe, the Chair of the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol, to request that observers can attend this meeting. His response may well determine whether a logging deal is stitched up behind closed doors.

For my final post from the June Bonn Climate Talks, I have attached this graph that was shown by the EU at a session on the effects of LULUCF rules on countries' overall targets. The graph shows very neatly the effect of different approaches to reference levels being taken by developed countries:

Most developed countries have 'conveniently' set their reference levels to exactly equal the emissions they forecast for 2012-2020, thereby hiding net increases in emissions from accounting. These countries show neither credits, nor debits in this graph;
Norway and Russia have both chosen 1990 as a base year to account for emissions from forest management. Both countries plan to increase net emissions from today but will earn credits because current emissions are lower than they were in 1990;
Japan is manufacturing credits for itself by arbitrarily choosing a zero sink as a reference level. That means it will get credits as long as its national forest is a net sink, even though it plans to increase net emissions during 2012-2020;
The most striking feature of this graph to me is Switzerland: it is the only country whose proposed reference level would deliver debits. Like the other countries, its forest will remain a net sink; Like the other countries, it plans to increase net emissions. Very much unlike the other countries, it has acknowledged some accountability for this increase in emissions and proposed a reference level that is between the historical average the forecast increase in emissions. The result will be a carbon price signal to do better carbon management in forests... enough to crown a hero in these negotiations.

Bonn Climate Talks: Part 9 The Games Continue

2010-06-09T18:05:00.001-07:00

I am back home in Canada, but the work continues in Bonn to close the logging loophole!

The campaign got two major boosts yesterday. The first was an article covering this scandal by John Vidal of The Guardian. Even better, the youth organized an inspired demonstration of the logging loophole (check out the video!)!

Meanwhile, the talks themselves took a few twists and turns in the last couple of days. Tension grew in Tuesday's informal negotiations when developed countries began to push back even on G77 and China's modest demand for transparency behind the 'projected reference levels' for forestry emissions (the source of the logging loophole). It seems the discussion on reference levels will continue at the next session in August, and the focus will be on 'packages' of approaches... we're not quite sure what that means yet...but it doesn't sound like simple, transparent environmental integrity.

The discussion yesterday and for the remainder of the session then turned to how to deal with carbon in harvested wood products and from natural disturbances. If you're following the spirit of these negotiations, you can guess that developed countries want to include in accounting carbon stored in wood products (because they can get a credit) and exclude from accounting emissions from natural disturbances (because they would get a debit).

In case you're getting confused, take a look at a glossary that appeared in the ECO newsletter yesterday. That should clear everything up.

Bonn Climate Talks Part 8: The Chorus Grows

2010-06-07T16:00:00.001-07:00

On Day 7 of the talks, the chorus is steadily growing to transform the forestry accounting framework with a goal to reduce emissions. The following countries have now all made public statements in supporting this goal:

The African Group (53 countries);
COMIFAC - the Central African Forest Commission (10 Central African countries);
The Coalition of Rainforest Nations (13 countries in Africa, Caribbean, Central America and South America);
India.

By contrast, developed countries continue to obfuscate with talk of 'proper incentives' and 'business-as-usual' management.

It becomes more and more clear each day that the "projection of forest management activities" in a country's baseline is absolutely foolhardy:

it hides increased net emissions;
it is based on unverifiable assumptions;
it leads to wild inconsistency in baselines between countries.

In a negotiating session today on 'the numbers' - i.e. countries' overall targets to reduce emissions, several developed countries made it clear that they will only move to the upper end of the range of emission reductions they have offered if they get the LULUCF loopholes they seek. In this context, moving to the upper range becomes totally meaningless.

Closed-door negotiations resume again tomorrow and there will be three sessions in total this week.

Bonn Climate Talks Part 7: Continuing to Fight for the Forests

2010-06-06T01:21:00.000-07:00

The forestry negotiations came back into the open on Saturday in a public session. Two main events occurred: The Group of 77 (G77) and China (a negotiating bloc of developing countries and China) delivered a proposal designed to limit the damage of the weak forestry rules being contemplated here. The second is that Russia delivered a proposal to hide increased net emissions and maximize credits.

The G77 and China's proposal has two main elements:

A rigorous, independent, expert review of a county's proposed reference level for forest management emissions; the reference level would be adjusted if they are shown to be either fraudulent or flawed.
A cap on the credits that a country can get from forest management;

The approach is pointed in the right direction, but unfortunately does not get the job done.

The review will increase transparency and take care of methodological problems. And the Group clearly hopes that the review can also get at substantive problems with the reference level as well: they propose that it can be used to adjust reference levels if they do not meet a set of guidelines still to be established. I think it makes sense to develop these guidelines, but also that the criteria for setting a reference level must be improved. In particular, countries should not be allowed to build new policies into their baseline (e.g. higher harvest rates).

The cap and the review is the best that G77 and China seem to think they can get in the face of an unwilling dance partner that is focused on hiding emissions and protecting its forest sector from the negative side of carbon prices. We should and could do much better if developed countries were willing to step forward to help the climate.

This limitation was illustrated by a two-part proposal made by Russia in the same session:

a country should get no penalty for increased net emissions until its entire forest sink is wiped out;
there should be no limit to the credits a country can claim for its forest sink if it uses a historical baseline (this was clever because Russia is using a historical baseline and most of the concern so far has been expressed about the projected reference levels).

These two things proposals combined mean that Russia could get credits for increased emissions and virtually never receive debits.

The Island of Tuvalu, clearly concerned with the direction things are going, asked the Chair of the negotiations to hear what civil society had to say about the proposals. The Chair agreed to hear from us. After a few hurried conversations with my colleagues in the room, I delivered the following points:

We want to see emissions from logging reduced and none of the proposals on the table do that;
We acknowledge that the proposal from G77 and China is pointed in the right direction, and especially appreciate the focus placed on the importance of historical emissions in assessing the countries' projections;
The adjustment of the reference levels must not erase the effect of new policies that have been implemented (e.g. increased harvest rates);
We agree that a cap needs to be considered, but for all circumstances, not just projections;
We completely disagree with Russia's proposal because it completely avoids accounting for increased net emissions;

Some final points on what must be done to turn this thing around:

The goal of forest management accounting must be to reduce emissions, and not allow them to increase;
Make forest management accounting mandatory (it's incredible that some countries still want it to be voluntary after making the rules so convenient for themselves);
If there is a cap, it should only be on credits - there is no need to cap debits after the great lengths developed countries have gone to remove debits from the equation (e.g. through the reference level, excluding natural disturbance emissions, accounting for carbon stored in wood products);
Make the reference levels permanent so they can't always be revised;
Further constrain the criteria for setting reference levels, and do not allow countries to build new policies and increased harvest levels into their reference levels.

Here is the text of G77 and China's proposal (note they say the footnote is not complete):

11 ter. [For the second commitment period, additions to [and subtractions from] the assigned amount of a Party resulting from forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, and from forest management project activities undertaken under Article 6 shall not exceed X percent of its assigned amount pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7 and 8.] 11 quarter. [ REFERENCE LEVEL DEFINED Immediately after a decision is adopted on LULUCF under the KP for the second commitment period, the reference levels inscribed in the appendix shall be registered by the UNFCCC Secretariat. INFORMATION PROVIDED ON REFERENCE LEVEL CALCULATION No later than six months after the COP/MOP adopts a Decision on the treatment of LULUCF for the next commitment period, Parties shall submit to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP) information on its reference level for accounting of emissions and removals from [forest management] [forest land]. The submission shall contain a transparent information and comprehensive description of all the elements used to calculate the reference level in a transparent, complete, consistent, comparable and accurate way, thus conforming to good practice in LULUCF, and including, inter alia, the assumptions, model, and data, including data on harvesting, age structure dynamics and consumption of domestic wood, and of how the items contained in footnote 2 of paragraph 11 have been taken into account. PROVISION FOR REVISION OF THE REFERENCE LEVEL Before the start of the commitment period reporting, if an inconsistency between historical data on [forest management][forest land] and the registered data applied for estimating the reference level is demonstrated by a Party, an Annex I Party that is Party to the Kyoto Protocol shall submit a revised reference level along with the revised information on elements used to calculate the reference level and justification for the new, revised value. FIRST REVIEW As part of the review process of Annex I Parties annual inventory report in 2012, a review of the reference levels and information contained in the registry shall be carried out, following guidelines on reference levels to be developed and adopted by the COP/MOP no later than its eighth session, in accordance with relevant decision related to Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol. REPORTING BY ANNEX I PARTIES START FOLLOWED BY ANNUAL REVIEW Upon reporting for the commitment period to which the reference level refers, as part of the national inventory report to the Kyoto Protocol, Annex I Parties shall submit information regarding the reference level which allows to verify consistency between data and methodologies used to calculate the reference level and those used for the purposes of accounting, including, inter alia, consumption of domestic wood. Review of that information and of information contained in the registry shall be carried out, following guidelines on reference levels to be developed and adopted by the COP/MOP no later than its eighth session, in accordance with relevant decision related to Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol. If an inconsistency between the elements used to calculate the reference level and those used for the purposes of accounting is identified, the accounted quantity shall be recalculated, in order to remove the effect of the inconsistency on the amount of RMUs to be issued.] -- 1. When applying the reference level upon accounting, an adjustment shall be applied in order not to credit, among other inconsistencies: i. Reduction in consumption of domestic [wood] [HWP] for production of energy during the commitment period compared to the reference level; ii. Substitution of consumption of domestic [wood] [HWP] with imported wood during the commitment period compared to the reference level;

Bonn Climate Talks Part 6: Shake-up in LULUCF Negotiations

2010-06-04T14:57:00.000-07:00

Today was a dramatic and busy day in the forestry negotiations. We spent much of the day talking to delegates about the proposal to review developed countries' emissions reference levels (the source of the logging loophole). We are concerned that while the review offers increased transparency, this increased transparency will not reduce emissions. We are still pushing developed countries that they must abandon their emissions loophole. So far, none among them have stepped up to take a leadership role here.

The negotiations got a shake up when the Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) made a formal statement saying that all the LULUCF loopholes must be closed. It is likely that the statement could have some significant political ramifications and it will take a few days to see how this unfolds.

Bonn Climate Talks Part 5: LULU Chefs Decry Logging Loopholes

2010-06-03T14:52:00.000-07:00

Participants in the climate change negotiations were greeted this morning by the "LULU Chefs," who were demanding that the logging loophole be closed in the negotiations on LULUCF (Land use, land-use change and forestry).

The fun demonstration by tcktcktck was put on to keep attention on the issue as governments met for a closed-door session today, discussing the emission accounting rules for forestry. Our campaign is having a visible effect on the negotiations as countries are paying much more attention and seem to be taking our concerns more seriously than in the past.

This is the most active and volatile area of the negotiations here. From hour to hour we hear different accounts of what's going on and the deals that may be made. It's frustrating to have to fish for information and get partial accounts of what's going on. It's easy to make hasty judgments so it's important to be careful to have all the information. Today were learned that developing countries proposed a review process to make sure that the choice of forestry emission baselines by industrialized countries is transparent.

We continue to insist that emissions must be reduced from forestry and land use. Nothing else makes sense in the context of a climate agreement. Some countries definitely support this goal but how this support is translated into action in the broader political context is always uncertain. We will meet with many countries tomorrow to continue making our case.

There will be another round of closed negotiations tomorrow followed by an open session on Saturday where developments from the week will be aired in public.

Bonn Climate Talks Part 4: Chorus to close loophole grows

2010-06-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

Everything seemed to change today. Whereas yesterday it felt very unclear whether we would have the chance to close the logging loophole, today I feel much more confident.

A number of important things happened:

The Chairs of the negotiations have confirmed that there will be an opportunity for substantive negotiations here;
The coalition of African countries (the Africa Group) formally spoke out in their official intervention in favour of reducing emissions from forestry in developed countries;
The Central African Nations pointed out in their formal intervention the many flaws in the proposed forestry rules for developed countries and highlighted the discrepency between the rigor that is expected of developing countries wanting support to reduce deforestation and the free-for-all approach being proposed by wealthy nations for themselves;

I take all these things as signs that there will be a chance to address our serious concerns with the draft forestry rules. We are not alone.

It is also clear from speaking to people that our message about the 400 Mt loophole for forestry is getting out and reaching high places. Hopefully we will see that translate into pressure to solve the problem within the technical negotiations.

You can watch my friend and colleague Sean Cadman make the case at the Climate Action Network media conference today.

(You can also watch him laughing at me while filming my video blog)

Bonn Climate Talks Part 3: No Clarity on Forestry Negotiations

2010-05-31T14:38:00.001-07:00

On day one of the Bonn Climate Talks, there is no clarity on what will unfold within the forestry negotiations.

Depending on who you talk to the rules are a done deal, there's time to fix them, there's no time to fix them, there's time to go deeper into the data and assumptions, we can change the text, we can't change the text, there will be a political deal, there will be no deal...!

We are meeting with the Chair of the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol tomorrow, so we will get straight from him what his strategy is for the meeting.

In the meantime, we have starting meeting with heads of country delegations here and expressing our concern that we need a high-level political fix to the forestry emissions loophole. We are at least getting recognition of the problem. We will have many more meetings throughout the week, including with the heads of the European Union's delegations tomorrow.

Finally, we are breaking into the mainstream media with two great stories today, one at length about the forestry emissions loophole, the other highlighting it as one of many problems that need to be solved.

Bonn Climate Talks Part 2: Arriving in Germany

2010-05-30T13:11:00.000-07:00

I arrived yesterday in Bonn, Germany and began working right away, despite the jetlag.

Part of the day was spent in a strategic planning exercise with other environmental groups, but the main focus of the day was to start rolling out a plan to find a country that would propose new text to close the logging loophole in the draft agreement under the Kyoto Protocol, which would allow developed countries to increase their emissions without penalty.

It's not possible that such an agreement could be made here in Bonn, but introducing the text into the draft agreement would be a powerful move that would set-up future lobbying as well as draw important attention to the issue.

Early signs are positive; we'll see where it goes.

Campaign Kicks Off to Close the Logging Loophole

2010-05-27T19:36:00.000-07:00

I am off to the Bonn Climate Change Talks to help lead a campaign effort to close the logging loophole.

Developed countries have proposed to allow themselves to increase annual logging emissions by 400 Mt CO2 (roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of the entire country of Spain) without penalty or even acknowledgement. They want to hide this emissions increase by using a baseline for forest management emissions equal to what they plan their emissions to be between 2013 and 2020!

At this round of talks we are bringing our campaign to the highest level - the heads of delegations, Ministers, heads of state and heads of government. This problem needs to be fixed.

I can't imagine a worse start to climate talks in 2010 than solidifying a deal to let developed countries increase their forestry emissions when they are trying to focus on reducing greenhouse gases globally.

I will be chronicling the effort with frequent video posts. Looking forward to your comments and engagement!

Will Emissions Loophole be Finalized at June Climate Talks?

2010-05-11T07:03:00.000-07:00

The up-coming UN climate talks in Bonn this June could determine whether the World is prepared to allow developed countries increase forestry emissions as part of a global climate deal.

The Chair of negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol has stated in his 'scenario note (para 15a)' (a kind of blueprint for the talks) that he wants to see forestry rules finalized at this meeting.

A call to finalize the talks in Bonn could create significant pressure to simply approve the draft decision that is on the table, which includes the logging loophole. The result is an increase of nearly 400 Megatons of CO2 every year that would be hidden and without penalty (see figure).

Climate Action Network International held a side event at the April 2010 Climate Talks discussing the problematic state of the draft LULUCF decision. You can watch the webcast of this side event including questions and comments from the audience.

Forest Offsets Will Add to Environmental Harm (unless there's a re-think)

2010-04-21T06:52:00.000-07:00

As details begin to emerge, it is becoming clear that forest offset frameworks in North America will likely threaten further damage to the climate and to forests.

Forest offset frameworks have been in development for the last couple of years. Details of these frameworks are now starting to emerge, and it doesn't look good.

The BC Pacific Carbon Trust has issued a call for $3 million worth of 'forest sector opportunities,' an apt term for a program that focuses on financial support only for intensive forestry activities: fertilization, select seed use and afforestation. Of these three, only afforestation has significant climate mitigation potential, but only in the long term.

Completely absent from the PCT's Forest Offset Guide are any activities with significant short-term mitigation potential focused on actually reducing emissions, for example from the avoided harvest of old-growth forests. Environmental groups responded harshly to this announcement, which followed a government pretense to listen to concerns about the plan.

The Western Climate Initiative has also just released its Offset System Essential Elements Draft Recommendations Paper for public comment. The document describes the essential elements that offset protocols must have to be eligible for use in the emerging WCI system. On at least three key points it comes up short. First, there is no strong test of additionality; WCI proposes to only consider additionality to legal requirements. Failing to do more than this means many projects will not 'offset' emissions at all, but simply allow them to continue without penalty.

Second, there are no ecological safeguards to ensure that no other forest values are sacrificed for carbon benefits. This type of safeguard would possibly prevent the type of fertilization projects promoted by B.C.'s Pacific Carbon Trust.

The third major failing apparent in the paper is the acceptance of a 100 year permanence requirement for 'sequestration' (forest) projects. It's based on a rule-of-thumb (that isn't strictly accurate) that CO2 has a 100-year lifetime in the atmosphere.

Really it's a bit of a rhetorical flourish: it sounds good but accomplishes little. Although 100 years sounds like a long time, what it really means is that forest offsets cease to be about reducing emissions, and at best only delay them. The same approach is emerging as a an apparent industry standard. You can also see it in the Pacific Carbon Trust's Forest Offset Guide and the Climate Action Registry's Forest Project Protocol

One of the dangers of establishing a false foundation of integrity is that there will inevitably be those that seek to undermine it. The second draft forest offset protocol developed by the Forest Carbon Standards Committee (not yet available for public review) proposes only 50 years rather than 100 ... apparently just because it's easier. This approach ceases to even be about delaying emissions, and actually becomes about a system of financial incentives to increase them over the long-term.

This has been my proposal: redefine permanence as permanent, and do not ever allow intentional reversals or emissions from forest carbon projects.

One of my core observations from having been involved in many of these offset discussions is that they become much more about making the system work and delivering workable incentives (or sometimes just rewards for good behaviour) than about actually reducing emissions.

The worst example of this that I've come across is the serious lobby by some of the American forest sector representatives participating in the Forest Carbon Standards Committee discussion to earn offset credits for the carbon stored in all wood products that are manufactured, regardless of where they come from and even without any consideration of a baseline. The apparent logic: wood is good, give us credits.

Add to all this the proposed Logging loophole from Copenhagen, which would allow developed countries to hide any increases in emissions and still generate fake credits if they want them and the outlook is grim. Forest-based climate mitigation is looking like a total shell game with no climate benefits and probable ecological harm.

A lot of this could be fixed by embracing a couple of simple principles when it comes to forests and climate: focus on real emission reductions and, do no ecological harm. Sadly, such basic tenets have so far been beyond reach of decision-makers on forest offsets.

Europe Frames UN Forest and Climate Negotiations

2010-03-10T06:12:00.000-08:00

I have written a lot on this blog about the 'logging loophole' in the Copenhagen climate negotiations. This loophole would allow developed countries to escape accountability for forestry emissions by hiding them in a "projected" baseline, rather than measuring actual changes in emissions.

The collapse of the formal UN talks in Copenhagen left accounting rules for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) hanging. Without any decision, environmental groups, campaigning hard at Copenhagen against the logging loophole, were left wondering about the state of play: had they sown enough doubt about this approach that it could be seriously challenged and pushed back this year? Was it a fait accompli, with even developing countries willing to swallow this bitter pill in order to simply move on?

Two recent communications from the EU have confirmed that the environmental integrity of LULUCF accounting rules is still very much in question, and therefore still attainable. The communications focus on the problem of poor environmental integrity in LULUCF accounting rules and explicitly identify the need to choose between historic and projected reference levels for forest management.

First, the European Parliament adopted this text on February 10, 2010: The European Parliament, 20. Calls for the environmental effectiveness of Annex I emissions reduction targets to be the guiding principle as regards the EU approach to international accounting rules for forest management and LULUCF, to flexible mechanisms and to the banking of any overachievement during first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol towards post-2012 targets;

Yesterday, the European Commission released its communication, International climate policy post-Copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate global action on climate change" is out now.

The communication highlighted LULUCF rules as having the potential to further erode the weak emission reduction targets coming out of Copenhagen:

Accounting rules for land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) emissions from developed countries: While the EU has no difficulties in matching these requirements, it is an issue of particular importance for major forestry countries outside the EU and environmentally critical. The current rules under the Kyoto Protocol, if continued, would entail lowering the actual stringency of the current emission reduction pledges and imply that reductions can be claimed without additional actions, which brings no real environmental benefit. In an extreme scenario, the worst-case LULUCF accounting rules would weaken the real level of ambition of developed countries by up to an additional 9% in relation to 1990. This would mean that for the lower end of the pledges we would in fact allow for an increase in developed country emissions of 2.6% above 1990 levels and for the higher end of the pledges we would only see a 2% reduction in relation to 1990.

The Commission's staff working document supporting this communication explicitly observes that the question of whether reference levels are based on historic data or projections as one of the key unresolved issues in LULUCF (section 1.2.3, page 7):

1.2.3.
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

Accounting rules for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) will have an important impact on the level of ambition of the target of several Annex I Parties. Developed countries’ emission reduction targets can therefore not be finalised until the future LULUCF rules have been agreed and taken into account

In addition, important parameters still need to be discussed and agreed such as

the way to set the reference level (based on historic data or projections),
cap, and
threshold for the eligibility of force majeure events;

Parties need to decide whether accounting for forest management, cropland management and grazing land management should become mandatory after 2012 as foreseen by the Kyoto Protocol or whether they will stay voluntary.

The communication from the European Commission also concedes that we may need to wait for the UN meeting in South Africa at the end of 2011 to sew up a new legally binding treaty. A focus on getting key decisions in place this year should give the breathing room required to fix the LULUCF negotiations and close the logging loophole.

Countries forget about forests in their pledges

2010-02-03T16:45:00.000-08:00

The UN Climate Change Secretariat reports that 55 countries, representing 78 % of global emissions have made their pledges under the Copenhagen Accord.

The pledges give no indication of the effect that accounting for sinks will have on targets for developed countries. Only Belarus and New Zealand mention that targets are premised on clear (Belarus) and effective (New Zealand) accounting rules for Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).

The uncertainty of forest accounting rules creates much uncertainty for what these pledges actually mean. It also creates the same dynamic that existed when countries negotiated the current flawed rules: countries are now making pledges before finalizing the rules. This creates an incentive for weak rules that make it easier to reach overall targets.

So much for learning from our mistakes!

There is still no clarity on how negotiations will unfold this year. The Secretariat has just formally invited views from countries on 'the need' for additional meeting time and the timing, duration and number of such meetings. Submissions are requested by February 16.

Post-Copenhagen Whisperings on Forests

2010-01-27T10:24:00.000-08:00

A principle occupation of people working on climate change these days is keeping their ear to the ground for signs of what is to come next. This makes for short blog posts, but I thought it would be worth passing on what I know.

Most forestry negotiators from developed countries seem to expect to pick up where they left off in Copenhagen in 2010, and feel that they are fairly close to a deal on rules for forest management accounting that includes the use of projections (logging loopholes).

Most also expect that these talks will occur at the annual June meeting in Bonn if not sooner.

Keeping my ear to the ground...

UN Climate Game is Back On - With it Rules for Forests

2010-01-20T11:02:00.000-08:00

Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Climate Chane Secretariat has given a press conference signalling that he expects the detailed climate negotiations that stalled in Copenhagen will carry on in 2010. Noting that Copenhagen did not produce the final 'cake,' he asserts that it provided all the necessary ingredients for baking it.

He pointed to three main ingredients in the Copenhagen outcome:

The climate change challenge was raised to the highest level of governments;
The Copenhagen Accord reflects a political consensus on the necessary long-term global goal of limiting average global warming to below 2 degrees C;
The detailed negotiations under the UN process, while not wrapping up, did result in a nearly-full set of draft decisions to implement rapid climate change action;

The forest negotiations were part of the detailed negotiations that resulted in draft decisions. While these are not nearly agreed, the basic elements of a negotiated outcome are there: developed countries are demanding the freedom to increase their emissions without accountability and developing countries are demanding a limit on credits from the sector.

Environmental groups will be looking at how to take the time that the stalled Copenhagen talks has provided to change the debate and close the logging loophole.

What happened to forests at Copenhagen??

2010-01-06T13:39:00.001-08:00

No one seems quite sure yet what the implications of the Copenhagen Accord will be. It is a three-age political agreement between six Heads of State (U.S., Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Maldives) that is vague on ambition and lacking any legally binding nature.

A big question is what happens to the draft legal agreements that nations of the UN had been working on for the past two years to extend the Kyoto Protocol and bring in the US and support developing countries? The official UN mandate for countries to work on these legally-binding agreements has been extended, but will they ever be finalized now that there is a new, loosey-goosey game in town? Just today news came out that Australia, Canada and Papua New Guinea have chosen to associate themselves with the Accord.

This uncertainty extends to provisions for developed countries to account for emissions from forestry (LULUCF) and the creation of a new mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries (REDD). The Copenhagen Accord recognizes the need to establish a REDD mechanism, but does not do so.

The Accord is totally silent on forestry emissions in developed countries - the negotiations on this topic were cut short when Heads of State arrived. In some sense this was a good thing because they were headed in the wrong direction: every developed country would be allowed to increase their forestry emissions without any penalty, as long as emissions didn't increase more than predicted.

Environmental groups staged a good fight against this idea in Copenhagen - in favour of Making Forests Count and against the logging loophole. We also proposed a very fair basis of accounting: account for all changes in forestry emissions relative to a historical average using all existing data that has been provided to the UN(from 1990 - 2007). Some champions emerged, notably France, who challenged the EU to take a position with environmental integrity.

I would say that we can still win this fight except, as I've said, it's not entirely clear there is still a fight to be won - will there be a new Kyoto agreement on forestry accounting rules? Will there be a Kyoto beyond 2012. The answer to both these questions must be yes if we are to have a fair, ambitious and legally-binding global agreement to tack climate change... but the next few months will tell whether that is in the cards.

Forests Won't Count in Copenhagen - but we will make them count in 2010!

2009-12-18T08:29:00.000-08:00

The talks in Copenhagen have been a mess the last few days. The Danish Presidency appears to have been way over its head and seems to have badly handled its role, failing to capitalize on the largest ever gathering of World leaders. The lack of ambition from most of those leaders from rich nations didn't help.

The leaders held talks late into the night that President Lula from Brazil described as an experience that leaders shouldn't be subjected to. He expressed his frustration and said an Angel needed to descend to give them the intelligence that they are missing.

It was one of a series of speeches given by leaders to try to breathe some momentum back into the process. But Lula was followed by what must be the worst speech of Obama's life. It lacked ambition and broadcast a willingness to move from their current inadequate position.

The focus now is on agreeing to a three-page political declaration; the legal texts that have been worked on for the past two years apparently tossed aside, or at least to the side. It's not clear what if any status they will have.

The declaration has an appropriate long-term global emission reduction target (50% by 2050) but developed countries' short-term emission reduction target by 2020 (from 1990 levels) is X.

The meaning of X will largely determine whether this conference is a success or a failure.

The casting aside of the legal texts means that the rules for forestry emissions accounting will not be settled here. There will be no decision to make forests count in Copenhagen, not in developed countries anyway. On the positive side, this means that we have more time to get the loopholes out. Climate Action Network proposed a very reasonable basis for accounting here - account for all changes in emissions from a historical level, defined as the average level of emissions from 1990 - 2007.

The current forestry accounting rules have a shelf-life. They must be replaced or reaffirmed for the second commitment period. So it is reasonable to assume that we will pick up where we left off next year...

...and there is good news too: many people have stepped up to make forests count:

Over 3000 people signed the make forests count petition;
France took up the rallying cry with passion, rallying other European countries to the cause, and;
We found common ground with the G77 and China, who are looking for environemntal integrity in accounting for logging emissions.

Copenhagen may well end up being a failure; but we are in a good position to make forests count in 2010.

300 is the New Climate Change Number Today

2009-12-17T03:46:00.000-08:00

350 is the key climate change number - the maximum global atmospheric concentration that the planet can sustain without catastrophic effects from global warming.

The number of today and tomorrow is 300. This is the number of the 17,000 or so observers that were accredited to attend the Copenhagen conference that are allowed to come into the conference today and tomorrow. They were here to bear witness to this effort, bringing honesty, transparency and ambition to this crucial enterprise. The number of environmentalists is 54. The number of Canadian environmentalists is 3.

I am privileged to be among this small number, but am not comfortable with it with so many others excluded.

I was chosen by the International Climate Action Network to be one of the few that still gets access to this globally important conference because I chair its working group on forestry and land use. I see my job in the next couple of days to deliver a strong outcome not only for the forests and the millions that care about this issue, but also for the hundreds of forest campaigners and thousands of climate campaigners who are being explicitly denied access to this same opportunity.

However, the extent of my possible influence is unclear. Negotiators sit in a closed door meeting right now trying to resolve issues that have been unresolved for years. In a way I feel we've exerted most of our influence already - by bringing international public attention to the logging loophole that most developed countries brought to the table here.

Hopefully I've created a space for a better outcome. And I will look for any opportunity to use my presence here to do more.

Course of LULUCF negotiations unclear

2009-12-16T07:20:00.000-08:00

It's still not known how the issues related to greenhouse gas accounting for emissions from forestry and land use in developed countries will be addressed.

In preparation for the liklihood that Ministers will have to take over, the Climate Action Network has prepared these high-level lobby points:

URGENT HIGH-LEVEL LOBBY POINTS ON LULUCF

1. To facilitate conclusion of LULUCF negotiations, Option B should be removed from the draft KP text (comprehensive accounting).
2. Overall targets will be undermined if Parties are allowed to 'reconsider' the accounting rules or reference levels after agreement in Copenhagen; only changes to increase certainty and accuracy should be allowed (pg. 19 LULUCF para 11 quater);
3. The forest management reference levels proposed by Parties must be replaced with reference levels based on historical data (an annual average value based on 1990-2007); a historical reference level accounts for actual changes in emissions rather than excusing increased or emissions from business-as-usual forest management (pg. 18-19; Option 2 (reference levels) para 11 and footnote and Appendix ("Option 2, paragraphs 11-11bis);
4. Accounting for forest management must be mandatory. (17-18; LULUCF para 6, 6bis);
5. Stronger environmental safeguards are needed if emissions from natural disturbances will be excluded from accounting, including the use of the highest standard of data and methodologies; this standard should also apply to all of accounting for land use, land-use change and forestry; [There was text in a previous decision that was deleted (proposed by Australia): "Robust estimation methods [will] be used to ensure confidence in the emissions and removals from land use, land-use change and forestry. Parties should be transitioning toward higher level (tier 2 and tier 3) accounting methodologies."]

Will the logging loophole be closed?

2009-12-15T07:18:00.000-08:00

The logging loopholes being proposed in Copenhagen have been getting media coverage around the World: New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Austria, Germany, the U.S.

The logging loopholes being proposed in Copenhagen have been getting media coverage around the World: New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Austria, Germany, the U.S.

They've been getting a lot of attention here to, with France trying to shut it tight within the EU and the block of developing countries proposing a limit on forest credits to address the appalling lack of transparency in the numbers developed countries have put forward.

Yesterday, the Climate Action Network released a simple, objective, transparent plan for closing the loopholes: account for all changes in emissions in the future based on the average emissions level from 1990 - 2007 - the total period for which we have historical data. It's so simple it's boring!

This graph for New Zealand depicts the problem quite well. The black line shows New Zeeland’s' emissions from forest management over time. The dotted grey line shows our suggested baseline, based on this data. The upper dotted line shows their forecast emissions in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and also their proposed reference level. This means New Zealand would be allowed to increase its logging emissions by 188% and not account for this at all!!

So...what's the state of play? We don't know. The Ministers are here, but the draft agreement on forestry and land use is not nearly ready for them. We believe that the technical negotiators will meet tonight (over night?), probably locked in a room until they can agree to something.

Will it be a calculated deal that fails the climate? Or a framework with environmental integrity?

Update on the Logging Loophole in Copenhagen

2009-12-12T12:31:00.001-08:00

Not much has happened out in the open the last couple of days in the forestry emissions talks at Copenhagen. The formal discussions have been suspended over a larger dispute about how talks under the Kyoto Protocol should continue.

But this does result in the opportunity to talk to delegates. I spoke to a number of government delegates today to get their sense of where things are going. And we (the ENGOs) are working on ideas to turn things around next week.

We did hear that the issue of the logging loophole was not specifically discussed at the EU summit yesterday; it was deemed to be too complicated and too late to put on the agenda. But France's position remains clear and they continue to forge ahead.

Their position of using a historical baseline to account for emissions from forest management for all of the EU is right in line with the demands of the environmental community. Watch for an update to the Make Forests Count Scorecard (Henschel Rating)!
- you will see France break apart from the EU's thumbs down!

Tomorrow is a day of rest for the negotiations, but of course the enviros take the whole day to plan their strategy! No rest for the green!!

French Government Makes Forests Count!

2009-12-10T14:00:00.000-08:00

France jumped way out in front in the campaign to Make Forests Count today!

In a very bold environmental move, the French climate Ambassador Brice Lalonde served notice to the rest of the European Union that it would be opposing the EU's current position in support of a logging loophole in the Copenhagen Climate Agreement that would allow countries to hide increased emissions from logging, thereby weakening their targets.

France's proposal is for the EU to agree to collectively account for all changes in emissions in its forests since 1990 - the year for which all other sectors are measured. The EU member states that have argued this would result in too many emissions on their books would be helped by sharing the 'burden' of these impacts across all EU countries. France has specifically stepped up to shoulder some of the burden from emissions in other countries.

France made the proposal formally tonight at an EU heads of state meeting in Brussels. If France succeeds in turning the EU's position, it would be a *huge* boost to making forests count in the Copenhagen climate agreement and remove one of the irritant loopholes that undermine real action on climate change.

I had the pleasure to sit in the conference room of the French delegation's office while Ambassador Lalonde made the statement to the press. It was very exciting because, as a colleague put it, "This is a really green move by France in an area usually filled with unrelenting cheating and gloom." This really was the most positive development in the last three years on this issue. I was even moved to congratulate the Ambassador in a French that I can only assume was considered cute rather than convincing.

The move earned France the Ray of the Day award, a new award started by the Climate Action Network at the Copenhagen Climate Conference to honour truly exceptional acts of green that push the negotiations forward.

Here's a story from AFP.

Logging Loopholes Big Enough To Drive A Logging Truck Through!!

2009-12-10T13:48:00.000-08:00

The Logging Loophole: Developed countries want to be able to increase their logging emissions and not account for it. This weakens their overall emission reduction target - whatever countries say their targets are, they will actually be smaller because they are hiding these logging emissions from the accounts. A team of analysists working with me within the Working Group of the Climate Action Network estimate that this loophole is about the size of the total emission reduction targets of the current Kyoto Protocol! It's big (so are logging trucks)!

Copenhagen Make Forests Count Scorecard

2009-12-10T06:21:00.000-08:00

Check out the Make Forests Count Scorecard (Henschel Rating)!

I've used the Henschel Rating (Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down) to assess proposals from developed countries on accounting for emissions from forest management. Unfortunately the assessment is: a logging loophole for almost everyone!

Only Switzerland received a passing grade. Thumbs down for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Japan, Russia, and the EU.

Who else will step up to make forests count?!?

CPAWS Press Release: Developed countries cheating on their targets to reduce forest emissions, according to score card results

Summary of Country submissions

Forestry Issues Getting Big Focus at Copenhagen - Developed Countries Failing

2009-12-08T15:35:00.000-08:00

Whether or not developed countries will account for increased logging emissions in the next climate agreement has become a big focus of these talks. This is the reason I am still sitting up past midnight with watery eyes!

The issue exploded when the European Union surprised everyone with the submission on forest management. They spurned the idea of accounting for actual changes in emissions from a historical level. People expect more of these climate change leaders.

Sweden, Finland and Austria have taken much of the heat so far because they are perceived to be the driving forces behind the bad position. But other countries like Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan are being very bad too.

Whether or not this gets snatched from the coals of the fire depends almost entirely on the political pressure gets applied in the next couple of days.

Stay posted for updates and analysis.

Gearing Up to Make Forests Count in Copenhagen

2009-12-06T14:10:00.001-08:00

I arrived in Copenhagen yesterday. Although my Danish friends tell me that Denmark is no angel on the climate file, it felt like flying into a climate fairytale land - windmills everywhere as the plane descended - even in the Sea! And there are very ordinary-looking people riding very ordinary-looking bikes everywhere (biking is a mode of transportation here, not a sport or an adventure challenge); and lots of cargo bikes too (often with kids in the wagons)!

I went to an all-day strategy session of the international Climate Action Network (CAN-I) today and was impressed as always by the large number and diversity of environmentalitsts working together from all around the World to get a Fair, Ambitions and Binding (FAB) outcome here.

On the forest file, I have set up an expert analysis team to look at the proposals from developed countries on how they will account (or not) for changes in emissions from logging forests - the ultimate question of whether forests will count in this deal.

Stay tuned for the outcome of this analysis...doesn't look good!

Countries are Showing Their Cards on Logging Emissions

2009-12-02T06:58:00.000-08:00

Countries have begun to post their proposed reference levels (baselines) for measuring and accounting for emissions from forest management. The following countries' submissions are now up on the UN Climate Change Secretariat's webpage: Norway, Russian Federation, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada.

These reference levels will fundamentally determine whether industrialized countries are held accountable for changes in emissions from logging.

Check back here for an assessment of these reference levels.

My initial assessment is that leadership and environmental integrity is largely lacking and that real emissions from logging will be hidden in many of these reference levels.

What does bioenergy forest harvesting look like to you?

2009-11-30T16:37:00.001-08:00

The following is a guest blog post from Jamie Simpson, Ecology Action Centre

Forest biomass is being touted as a renewable and green energy source in Nova Scotia. It's also being championed by some as a way to help meet the province's renewable energy target of 25% by 2015.

But how green is it? I recently toured a biomass harvest carried out by Northern Pulp in central Nova Scotia. It was the worst 'harvesting' I've seen in my time as a forester, and a blatant transgression of the NS Watercourse and Wildlife Habitat Protection Regulations. Is this the future of "green" energy in Nova Scotia?

I have posted photos of the harvest site so you can see for yourself.

Northern Pulp is an affiliate of Atlas Holdings LLC and Blue Wolf Capital Management LLC. (Atlas Holdings LLC • One Sound Shore Drive, Suite 203 • Greenwich, CT, USA 06830; Phone: (203) 622-9138 • Fax: (203) 622-0151). The Chief Operating Officer for Northern Pulp is Mr. Wayne Gosse, tel: 902 752 9167. On March 26th, 2009, the NS Government loaned Northern Pulp $15 million, and called it a good investment.

Northern Pulp has a license to 80,000 hectares of Nova Scotia's Crown land, and has an agreement to manage Neenah Paper's 195,000 hectares of private land. The harvest in these photos was carried out on Neenah's private land.

This operation by Northern Pulp is certified as "green" by SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative). The 2008 SFI audit report stated that "The audit found that Northern Pulp Nova Scotia Corporation’s SFM system: (1) was in full conformance with the requirements of the ISO 14001 and SFI standards included within the scope of the audit, except where noted otherwise in this report...". The minor issues the audit team had with Northern Pulp had nothing to do with poor harvesting practices. The report does note, however, that "Northern Pulp has significantly increased the amount of on-site chipping that it undertakes."

Please feel free to pass these photos on; they are an embarrassment to Nova Scotia, but need to be widely seen.

Which Countries Will Make Forests Count in Copenhagen??

2009-11-19T07:57:00.000-08:00

The environmental community is challenging developed countries to make forests count in Copenhagen. I brought a Make Forests Count pledge to the recent UN Climate Talks in Barcelona. I approached many delegates from developed countries asking to put their name to this statement:

"I support environmental integrity in Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) accounting and believe that industrialized countries need to show leadership to make this happen. In particular, I support the use of a historical reference level to measure actual changes in emissions/removals from forest management."

The countries I approached were, in no particular order: Portugal, UK, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Ireland, France, USA, Norway. Although some countries expressed their sympathy with the cause, only one county's delegates would stick their necks out and sign the pledge: France.

Starting this Friday, everyone will have to come clean. Developed countries have been asked to bring their proposed reference levels forward for negotiation by November 27. Although many countries probably won't make the deadline, you will be able to see them start to trickle in on this day. They will be posted on the UN Climate Change Secretariat's webpage on LULUCF.

Which countries will make forests count by proposing a historical reference level that would measure actual changes in emissions? Which countries will inflate their reference levels to cover up plans to increase forest harvest and emissions? Which countries will try to sweep emissions from logging in primary forests under the rug by seeking to avoid accountability for 'business as usual practices? We should know in about a week's time.

Watch here for updates.

Environmental Integrity Pushed Further Out of Reach from Copenhagen?

2009-11-09T12:01:00.000-08:00

The UN Barcelona Climate Talks have changed the whole game of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) for the worse - in particular the rules on whether and how developed countries will have to account for emissions from forest management.

The session started with a draft text from Bangkok that is very far from agreement. I think it is fair to say that there are four major areas that are most central to a new set of rules:

The basic form of accounting: it seems almost certain now to be going towards the use of some kind of reference level to measure changes in emissions - this is one of the two biggest issues: how do you set the reference level?
A limit on the amount of credits (from reducing emissions / increasing removals) that can be used towards meeting a country's national target - this is the other big issue;
Whether and how emissions from natural disturbances can be excluded from accounting - this is a prerequisite to several countries agreeing to account for forest management, principally Canada, Australia, and Russia;
Whether 'activities' such as 'forest management,' 'deforestation,' and 'cropland management' remain the basis for accounting or whether there is a switch to account for emissions/removals from all managed lands - this is seen as all as the proper goal of accounting but seems to still be largely on the table at this point as a negotiating tool (most believe it is too early to make this transition due to data limitations);

It's the negotiations on the first point that took a wild turn at these talks - there weren't really any. Countries had been saying that these major issues would need to be resolved at Barcelona so they could bring their estimates of emissions and credits/debits to the Copenhagen talks. Instead of settling the crucial issue of how to set a reference level, all countries have been invited to use whatever approach they like and bring the number in December!

The details can be found on page 9 of the new draft text (paragraph 11). Whether the reference level is based on just historical data, or also on a suite of other considerations (including 'projected forest management activities,' which everyone understands can mean an increase in harvest levels). Also an option is creating a big 'band' of non-accounting where countries can hide emissions (paragraph 11 ter). Also an option is jigging the reference level so it delivers the same amount of credits as the existing rules, which all regard as flawed. It's a mess.

The bigger mess is still to come in Copenhagen when every developed country brings a reference level based on any combination of these considerations, using different methodologies and providing whatever data they like to support them. The negotiation has now deteriorated from a discussion of principles to a haggling over opaque numbers.

Step two of this process will likely be negotiating country-specific limits to accompany each reference level. The talk from both developed and developing countries seems to be converging on the idea that developed countries tell the world how many credits they hope to get from forest management and get capped there - that way there are no surprises.

Let me translate that for you in a scary way: Each developed country tells you what its baseline will be; and each developed country tells you how many credits it's going to get. You should see that defining both of these things makes whatever outcome you desire a certainty. No debits and credits for everyone!! The fears of developing countries are assuaged because they know exactly what to expect and can adjust their demands for overall reduction targets accordingly.

...but environmental integrity in accounting for emissions from forest management will have been lost.

From Bad to Worse

2009-11-05T14:21:00.001-08:00

There was a major development today at the UN Barcelona Climate Change Talks on land use, land-use change and forestry: developed countries are being invited to bring whatever reference level they like to Copenhagen for consideration.

This is a major failing of the process and of the developed countries that should have been showing leadership. The current draft rules for setting reference levels include several loopholes tailored to the national circumstances of many developed countries and designed to allow the hiding of emissions.

Rather than fixing the text, the UN process has now invited the same Parties to use any of these loopholes they like. As a result, we will have to try to win environmental integrity through a dissection and fight over the reference levels of over 30 countries.

Unless things change quickly tomorrow, our hopes for a system with environmental integrity will lie in a staggering analytical capacity, hard campaigning, and deft negotiating from developing countries to push the genie back into the bottle in Copenhagen after seeing the numbers and strike a deal for a system with integrity.

This is what happens when you stick people in a corner to talk to themselves

2009-11-04T13:45:00.001-08:00

I was having a conversation today with an industrialized country delegate who was apologizing for not being a forester and therefore not really getting all of the intricacies and complexities and rationales of forest management carbon accounting.

I replied, "So, if you're not a forester, doesn't it seem strange to you that the rules have to be designed to ensure there is no negative impact on the forest sector for cutting trees? Why should the forest sector be the only one who should choose whether or not to reduce emissions rather than be forced to?"

The answer was telling and was something that I have often lamented: it's a structural problem resulting from the special status that this sector has - from the beginning it was an add-on with its own set of rules. What that has meant in practice is most decision-makers don't get it or try to, so it is delegated to the technical experts. What do you expect to happen when you ask a bunch of foresters to come up with rules for the forest sector? Or as this person put it, "If you stick a bunch of people in the corner of the room to talk to each other they will come up with funny ideas."

The ideas in this case are shameful: a set of draft rules that openly excuses all responsibility for emissions. Of all other sectors in this process we are demanding transformative change. In the forest sector we are demanding nothing. In fact we are doing worse than this - we are telling countries that if they like they can make things worse.

We are demanding emission reductions of 40% or more from industrialized countries. What are we demanding of the forest sectors in these countries? At most we are asking them to continue business-as-usual. If they do better we give them credits.

The only hope at this point is that developing countries negotiate hard on this. They are currently asking for the same thing we are: accountability for changes in emissions from 1990. I'm hoping we will see a new statement from them in the next couple of days.

Which loophole is the smallest?

2009-11-02T13:32:00.000-08:00

It was a discouraging first day for me at the UN Barcelona Climate Change Talks (it was only one day - it already feels like a week!?).

I spent the day with pledges in the inside pocket of my suit, ever ready to take the name and signature of a country representative that was ready to commit to making forests count: agree that we should account for actual changes in emissions resulting from logging. Coming across people willing to commit to this idea was the exception, finding people to explain their preferred method for avoiding this full accounting was the norm.

I contributed to an article (LULUCF Follies)in the Climate Action Network's daily newsletter, ECO, describing the cancer that is taking over the negotiations; here's an excerpt: "It’s a little hard to believe, but the positions taken by many Annex 1 negotiators [industrialized countries] effectively define their preferred management choices as carbon-neutral, regardless of what emissions actually are. In this fantasy world, you incur no debits for a ‘business-as-usual’ policy of cutting forests at age 50 even if most of the national forest estate is now 49 years old and you’re about to cut it all down. Nor do you receive debits for stepping up forest harvest to produce bioenergy. But the atmosphere sees increased emissions from both these changes!”

I'm not sure what is more troubling: the number of these alarming proposals or the number of people that don't seem alarmed by them. One negotiator observed that this is perfectly okay as long as you set the national emission reduction target with the knowledge that you are excluding these emissions. Another hopefully offered that I should consider which of the many proposed loopholes being brought forward is the smallest, and side with that one.

With champions from industrialized countries increasingly hard to find, could it be that the developing world could save the day here? They are now engaging in negotiations and presenting a concern for environmental integrity and there is certainly a limit to their patience for the indulgences of industrialized countries. But where will that limit be found? It seems likely that a Barcelona outcome will be the presentation of a choice to be made in Copenhagen at the political level.

...that is if there is an outcome from Barcelona on forests: today's talks were cancelled because the Africa Group has apparently said that it would boycott all further sessions until progress is made on an emission reduction target for industrialized countries.

EU Solidifying Role as Bad Guy in UN Forest Climate Talks

2009-10-23T11:41:00.000-07:00

For those of us trying to make sure countries have to account for emissions from cutting forests in the Copenhagen climate agreement, the European Union has been the cause of quite a bit of concern and consternation over the past year. There is a split between those countries who think any change in emissions should be counted for (e.g. France, Germany, U.K.) and those that don't (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Austria). Thus, the EU has been divided and unable to take a strong position.

Earlier this week the EU Council met to define its position for the Copenhagen Climate Talks. Bad news. Those hoping that the EU could still be a progressive voice on this issue have to redouble their efforts. The EU has decided it must be conscious that some countries may need flexibility in determining the baseline against which emissions in the commitment period will be determined - translation: the EU is opening the door for countries who want to increase their emissions but erase them from the books through creative accounting.

The offending text is pasted below:
33. RECOGNIZES that future accounting rules for forest management should provide an adequate balance between further incentives for sequestration, for use of wood products and for biomass energy; STRESSES the need for future accounting rules to secure that the environmental integrity of a Copenhagen agreement is preserved; ACKNOWLEDGES that there are still difficulties associated with methodologies for measuring and predicting LULUCF GHG flows with a high degree of accuracy; WELCOMES further discussions with other Parties on accounting rules for forest management where the EU is open to discuss schemes based on the use of a reference level (bar), which includes an environmentally robust interval (band) while being CONSCIOUS that national circumstances, such as age class legacy effects, may require some flexibility for countries regarding the choice of reference level including allowing for historic data or robust and transparent projections open to independent review and verification; the use of gross-net accounting with a discount could also be considered in these discussions; CONSIDERS that accounting rules need to deal with emissions and removals associated with extreme events (force majeure) to reduce the risk that Parties cannot comply with their mitigation objectives because of such events. CONSIDERS that subject to such flexibility being provided for, accounting for forest management should become mandatory for all Parties taking on quantified commitments in a Copenhagen agreement.

New Draft Rules on Forestry and Land Use

2009-10-08T21:09:00.001-07:00

A new draft text on rules for accounting for emissions from forestry and land use has come out of the Bangkok Climate Change Talks. The changes in the text are mostly the result of work that has been done between developed countries on the rule changes they want to see.

It's not pretty.

On the main issue of how to measure performance, the text is still overflowing with the pet loopholes of each country, engineered to erase any emissions that the atmosphere sees from logging.

It appears that there are special LULUCF glasses that negotiators wear to make this distorted stuff seem reasonable. Here is an example of the kind of things you hear in the hallways to rationalize it:

But if we account for the emissions from logging, there will be no incentive for bioenergy (because countries like to falsely assume that it is carbon neutral);
We shouldn't account for emissions from logging because we do sustainable forest management (and that's relevant how?)!;
We can't account for changes in emissions because we plan on increasing logging levels!;\

There are a couple of other significant changes to the text:

Developed countries have mostly agreed how they would account for carbon stored in wood products. I've never felt this was a good idea, but the text does have some reasonable safeguards in it - but not yet good enough!
Australia, the EU and Canada have come up with a combined proposal for how to remove emissions from fires and other natural disturbances from the accounts. They are still in disagreement about whether to exclude all emissions or only the biggest, extraordinary events -- significantly there is still a huge loophole in this idea: there is no accountability for countries if they salvage log these areas - a significant extra source of emissions!

A number of countries have said that they want the rules settled by Barcelona (the meeting in November) so their implications on country emission reduction targets can be clear in time for the final deal in Copenhagen. I hope they get their wish.

China and the Group of 77 Developing Countries Draw a Line in the Sand

2009-10-07T04:31:00.000-07:00

The doors opened up today on the forestry and land use negotiations at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks! For the first time at this conference, observers were able to hear the positions of delegates and for the first time this week we heard the position from China and the Group of 77 Developing Countries.

After nearly two years of developed countries discussing different options for rule changes for this sector, and not getting much farther than more clearly articulating the options that suit each country best, G77 and China said enough is enough and drew a line in the sand:

Negotiations on this must be done by Barcelona (the next session in November);
All accounting should be mandatory;
All developed countries should use the same simple rules to account for forest; management: compare emissions in the commitment period with emissions in 1990;
Put a cap on credits from the entire sector (cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation, forest management, afforestation, reforestation, deforestation);

Developing countries sent the signal that they are through listening to specific proposals for adjustments to meet the circumstances of each country so they can generate credits from this sector, and I think it's the perfect time for this message.

If I were to change the proposal I'd say that a base period could be used, rather than a hard base year that could create strange and unfair results due to the annual variability in the forest management sector. I'd also try to do something to fix the problem of extraordinary natural disturbances that create a compliance risk for countries. But all in all, this statement was exactly what the negotiations needed!

You can check out my live tweets as the meeting unfolded by following biocarbonman on twitter!

Storm brewing in forestry and land use negotiations

2009-10-06T08:19:00.000-07:00

We've been getting little peeks and rumours about the revised draft text on Land use, land-use change and forestry that developed countries are working on. It may come out tomorrow or maybe Thursday. Sounds like developed countries have figured out amongst themselves how they want to account for wood stored in harvested wood products and are making progress on how to remove the effects of big natural disturbances like fires from the forest carbon accounts.

The biggest and most troubling news is that they are compiling a new option on how to account for changes in forest management emissions. From what I hear it sounds like all the loopholes any country could want cooked up into a couple of paragraphs. It will be interesting to see how China and other developing countries respond to this game.

You can read an article I wrote about one of these loopholes in Climate Action Network's ECO Newsletter yesterday; it's called Show Us the Emissions!

You can also watch today's media conference by CAN. From 10:10 - 15:50, Jeff Fiedler of The Nature Conservancy talks about this issue as well.

Backroom LULUCF Negotiations Continue

2009-10-05T00:52:00.000-07:00

We woke up in Bangkok this morning to oppressive heat and the expectation of a new draft text agreement on the rules for forestry and land use under a revised Kyoto Protocol...but that didn't happen!

Parties continue behind closed doors to come up with the next version. We've been hearing that there is convergence around a number of the key issues but the most important question remains: what are the baselines against which performance is judged. Some developed countries are still trying to create what I think amounts to a meaningless accounting framework: they will tell the world what they expect their emissions to be from forest management in the future and only be punished if they perform worse than this. Countries should take responsibility for any increase in emissions from past levels. What is this whole process about if not about reducing emissions from the past?

Update from UN Bangkok Forestry and Land Use Negotiations

2009-10-01T20:24:00.000-07:00

We just had a briefing with the Chair and vice-Chair of the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol and the co-chairs of the negotiations on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

The formal work on LULUCF is focusing on two tasks:

Trying to reduce the number of options in the draft text of the agreement on accounting rules;
Countries are presenting forest data to explain their national circumstances and why they are interested in the options they are supporting.

Parallel to this, countries that have put forward specific proposals on key issues are meeting together to see if they can come to an agreement between them; this agreement would then be forwarded to the larger group. The issues are: reference levels (against which performance will be compared); harvested wood products; the impact of natural disturbances; cross-cutting issues and "other accounting options."

The big problem for those trying to observe and hold this process accountable is that ALL of these negotiations are being held behind closed doors.

Rather than behind closed doors, some were making their case very clearly out front of the main entrance of the conference centre: Protect Forests and Indigenous Peoples' Rights! The protest was organized by the International Youth Delegation.

Photo credit: Joshua Kahn Russell, Rainforest Action Network

Make Forests Count!

2009-09-29T20:38:00.000-07:00

CPAWS launched its Make Forests Count campaign yesterday (makeforestscount.org). The purpose is to build some public momentum behind a global climate agreement in Copenhagen that commits countries to protect forests and close loopholes in accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from forest and land use. Check it out, and make forests count by signing on!

Forest Negotiations Begin at Bangkok Climate Change Talks

2009-09-29T01:41:00.000-07:00

The first closed-door session on accounting rules for forests and land use is now underway at Bangkok. There will be six negotiating sessions here over the next couple of weeks. It is widely felt that negotiators will be under pressure to make real progress here - without clear rules for how forest emissions affect the compliance of developed countries with emission reduction commitments, there can be no agreement.

At the opening session yesterday, the Chair of the negotiating process under the Kyoto Protocol cited three main issues of consequence:

How emissions from natural disturbances are dealt with;
The overall accounting approach for forest management and whether limits need to be placed on what countries can claim;
How carbon stored in harvested wood products are dealt with.

I have other questions: will there be a commitment to protecting reservoirs of GHGs in intact forests? Will the new rules make countries accountable or a will they create a new slush fund of credits that suit particular national circumstances?

A few parties have started posting their submissions for this session (Canada, Japan and New Zealand so far). These submissions are starting to be heavier on data, so people can see the possible implications of rule changes.

We Must Support Nature's Ability to Capture and Store Carbon: UN Report

2009-09-10T11:24:00.000-07:00

Nature knows how to capture and store carbon and has been doing so effectively for mellenia. We need this capacity in order to help us resolve the climate crisis we have created. But a recent UNEP report asserts that "Currently the world’s ecosystems, instead of maintaining and enhancing nature’s carbon capture and storage capacity, are being depleted at an alarming rate.”
The report is a handy resource that summarizes the carbon capture and storage capacity of various natural and human-dominated ecosystems. The report is the latest publication to support and call for protection of carbon stores in natural ecosystems as a key climate change strategy.

It also contains a good summary of the current treatment of terrestrial carbon within the Kyoto Protocol and of the trajectory of the current climate negotiations. Quite rightly, the report concludes that it is not yet at all certain that negotiations will lead to the comprehensive treatment that is required to seize the climate change mitigation opportunities presented by ecosystems.

The necessary elements of a solution are becoming increasingly clear to me:

An effective REDD mechanism must be put in place;
Countries need to affirm their commitment to protect reservoirs of greenhouse gases by agreeing to report their goals and progress to protect natural forests, wetlands and grasslands;
Developed countries need to accept accountability for greenhouse gas emissions from forest management and wetland management;
Changes in greenhouse gas emissions from forest management and wetland management must be measured against historic levels;

One Year Anniversary of the Forests and Climate Change Blog!

2009-08-03T17:13:00.000-07:00

July 30 was the first anniverary of the Forests and Climate Change Blog! I hope to post again in the next few days, but until I do, I thought I would give a list of the three most visited posts over the past year:

No. 1: Defining Crazy LULUCF Terms: Gross-net and Net-net

No. 2: This is How Land Use Land-use Change and Forestry fit into Kyoto and the Global Climate Change Negotiations

No. 3: This is Why I Think We Shouldn't Count Carbon Stored in Harvested Wood Products

Any thoughts on what you found most interesting on this blog or in this field over the last year would be welcome as comments!

Woodland Creation Included in UK's Low Carbon Transition Strategy

2009-07-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

The UK has released its Low Carbon Transition Plan. The Plan plots out how the UK will meet the cut in emissions set out in the budget of 34% on 1990 levels by 2020.

The Plan includes strategies for reducing emissions from agriculture and waste as well a strategy for "protecting, managing and growing our forests." This latter strategy is actually focused solely on an initiative to support the creation of new woodlands. Here is an excerpt:

Protecting, managing, and growing our forests
In 2007, forests in England removed a net total of about 2.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This removal rate is declining, as forests planted in the 1950s to 1980s reach maturity. If woodland creation and removal continue at their 2007 rates, it will drop to around half a million tonnes per year by 2020, and if woodland creation stops entirely it will fall to only a hundred thousand tonnes.

Woodland creation is a very cost-effective way of fighting climate change over the long term, but it requires an upfront investment. The Government is already doing this: woodland creation represents 60% of the grant aid administered by the Forestry Commission. But to realise the potential for 2050, we need to see a big increase in woodland creation – and we need to plant sooner rather than later.

The Government will support a new drive to encourage private funding for woodland creation. If we could create an additional 10,000 hectares of woodland per year for 15 years, those growing trees could remove up to 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2050. Well-targeted woodland creation can also bring other benefits, including a recreational resource, employment opportunities, flood alleviation, improvements in water quality, and helping to adapt our landscapes to climate change by linking habitats to support wildlife. The Government will ensure that woodland creation policies continue to respect the benefits and demands of landscape, biodiversity and food security.

This will allow businesses and individuals to help the UK meet its carbon budgets, whilst delivering the other benefits that woodlands can bring. A number of informal schemes already exist, and the Government will work with them and with the private sector to consider how it can build on and complement existing initiatives. The Government is already laying the groundwork: including through the consultation on a Code of Good Practice for Forest Carbon Projects led by the Forestry Commission, and the Government consultation on corporate carbon reporting guidelines, which sets out how funding for domestic emissions reduction projects can be reported in company accounts.
Reference: The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National strategy for climate and energy. Chapter 7: Transforming farming and managing our land and waste sustainably. Page 160-161.

It's interesting that there is nothing in the plan for forest protection or management... perhaps this reflects the fact that only 7% of England is forested? (ref)

Breaking story - watch this footage on bioenergy clearcuts

2009-07-09T10:29:00.000-07:00

Perhaps not good form to do two blog posts in a day, but you should watch this news story before it comes down this evening: this is the first publicized example of the impact that a bioenergy market will have on Canadian forests, this time in Nova Scotia. Watch the CBC news for July 8 2009 starting at 34:09.

U.S. Defines Forest and Agriculture Carbon Offset Projects

2009-07-09T06:54:00.000-07:00

The American Clean Energy and Secrurity Act recently approved by the U.S. House of Representatives provides an initial list of offset project types that would be eligible to sell credits into the cap-and-trade system.

It seems a rather broad list designed to encompass all activities. Rules are to be set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Section 503. List of Eligible Domestic Agricultural and Forestry Offset Practice Types.

“…(b) INITIAL LIST.—At a minimum, the list prepared under this section shall include those practices that avoid or reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester greenhouse gases, such as—

agricultural, grassland, and rangeland sequestration and management practices, including

a) altered tillage practices;

b) winter cover cropping, continuous cropping, and other means to increase biomass returned to soil in lieu of planting followed by fallowing;

c) reduction of nitrogen fertilizer use or increase in nitrogen use efficiency;

d) reduction in the frequency and duration of flooding of rice paddies;

e) reduction in carbon emissions from organic soils;

f) reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from manure and effluent; and

g) reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to changes in animal management practices, including dietary modifications;

(2) changes in carbon stocks attributed to land-use change and forestry activities, including—

a) afforestation or reforestation of acreage that is not forested;

b) forest management resulting in an increase in forest carbon stores including but not limited to harvested wood products;

c) management of peatland or wetland;

d) conservation of grassland and forested land;

e) improved forest management, including accounting for carbon stored in wood products;

f) reduced deforestation or avoided forest conversion;

g) urban tree-planting and maintenance;

h) agroforestry; and

i) adaptation of plant traits or new technologies that increase sequestration by forests; and

(3) manure management and disposal, including—

a) waste aeration;

b) biogas capture and combustion; and

c) application to fields as a substitute for commercial fertilizer.”

American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009. AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2454, AS REPORTED OFFERED BY MR. PETERSON OF MINNESOTA (Page and line numbers refer to the file ACESFLl001 (HR 2998) on the Rules Committee website). Pages 15 – 17.

British Columbia Sets Very Low Standard for Forest Carbon Offsets

2009-06-30T09:29:00.000-07:00

The government of British Columbia in Canada has just released a draft forest carbon offset protocol for use in the province. The scope of eligibile activities is surprising and troubling:

Afforestation: increasing the size and number of BC forests by planting land that has not been forested since December 31, 1989;
Select Seed Use: planting seedlings selected for specific traits to promote faster growth, increased timber volume and carbon content, and resistance to insects and disease; and
Fertilization: adding nutrients to increase tree growth on sites deficient in one or more soil nutrients.

Afforestation is fine, but the other two activities will not yield benefits in the short-term and fertilization in particular will have negative environmental outcomes. Conspicuously absent are any forest management activities with environmental co-benefits. What about forest protection? What about lengthened rotation ages?

Also conspicuously absent is any test of the impact of projects on other environmental social values.

This protocol is out for comment until July 10. Please send in your comments!

Dealing with impermanence of forest carbon offsets

2009-06-26T07:28:00.001-07:00

The Canadian government released new draft details about the proposed federal offset system a couple of weeks ago. The guide includes the government's current thinking on how to deal with the impermanence of forest carbon offsets. Here it is:

"Biological sink projects carry a risk of carbon reversals, in which the sequestered carbon is released back into the atmosphere; for example, through forest fires or intentionally changing farm management practices. Since an offset credit must represent a permanent removal of carbon from the atmosphere, there must be a mechanism in place to address this risk of reversals.

The permanence of biological sink offset credits is ensured in the Offset System by requiring the replacement of credits in the event of a reversal anytime throughout the project’s registration periods and for a further 25-year liability period after the project’s final reporting period in its final registration period.

Furthermore, to address the risk that a Project Proponent may not be able to replace the credits when a reversal occurs, the Project Proponent is required to apply a discount factor to offset credits claimed for biological sink projects. The discount factor will be specified in the Offset System Quantification Protocol and will reflect the risk of defaulting on a replacement obligation for different project types. The Project Proponent will be required to replace credits if a reversal occurs any time during a 25-year liability period. Project Proponents are required to provide evidence to the Minister on a regular basis during the liability period and provide a certification statement that the sink has been maintained. However, verifications will not be necessary during the liability period." Page 27

My understanding is that the current draft of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the U.S. proposes instead to deal with impermanence through a 'buffer reserve' approach, which would set aside a percentage of each forest carbon offset...if the carbon is reversal is unintentionally, 50% could be covered by this reserve. I'm not sure what the liability period is.

Both these approaches differ from that used for afforestation projects within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which only issues temporary credits for forest projects. This seems the most robust approach, but it doesn't appear to be taken very seriously in any of the offset regimes that are under development... apparently because people doubt the market demand for temporary offsets.

Anybody know of any other approaches being considered out there?

Using cap-and-trade auction revenue to finance forest and peatland protection

2009-06-23T09:07:00.000-07:00

I posted a few days ago about a piece of legislation in the U.S. that aims to use government funds (from cap-and-trade auction revenues?) to finance the protection of forest carbon stocks.

What are other jurisdictions thinking about this? I'm reminded that the Western Climate Initiative Partners actually made a very concrete recommendation about using auction revenue set asides for 'forestry':

8.2. The WCI Partner jurisdictions agree that a portion of the value represented by each WCI Partner jurisdiction’s allowance budget (for example, through set-asides of allowances, a distribution of revenues from the auctioning of allowances, or other means) will be dedicated to one or more of the following public purposes which are expected to provide benefits region wide:

Energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives and achievement;
Research, development, demonstrations, and deployment (RDD&D) with particular reference to carbon capture & sequestration (CCS); renewable energy generation, transmission and storage; and energy efficiency;
Promoting emission reductions and sequestration in agriculture, forestry and other uncapped sources; and
Human and natural community adaptation to climate change impacts.

A couple of other examples...

The Province of Ontario's discussion paper on cap-and-trade references WCI's recommendation to use set asides to reduce emissions in uncapped sectors.
The EU Emission Trading Directive very strongly supports the use of at least 50% of auction revenues (and they intend auctioning to be the rule for distribution of allowances) for various uses aimed at reducing the impacts of climate change and funding adaptation. It also specifically mentions reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries, but does not specifically mention domestic forest programs.

It strikes me that the forest sector, especially forest protection, is an especially good fit for the use of set-asides:

The sector is not covered by the cap;
There are adaptation benefits as well as mitigation benefits (helping communities and biodiversity adapt to climate change through ecosystem protection);
Forest offsets present problems, like permanence, that other sectors don't present - so it should be a priority to get at this mitigation in another way.

What do others think? Does anyone have examples from other jurisdictions?

Watching U.S. Climate Bills - Money to Forest Carbon Protection

2009-06-18T10:00:00.001-07:00

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (The 'Waxman-Markey bill' (summary)) includes provisions to use 13% of money from allowance auction revenues to support additional investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. Although protecting forest carbon isn't included in this list, a parallel piece of legislation attempts to fix this: The Buy American Carbon Incentives Program of 2009. The aim of this bill is "to establish a carbon incentives program to achieve supplemental greenhouse gas emissions reductions on private agricultural and forestland of the United States, and for other purposes."

Funds would be delivered through climate mitigation contracts for activities that:

"measurably increase carbon sequestration and storage over a designated contract period through management activities on eligible lands; and
maintain carbon sequestration and storage and avoid future emissions through permanent avoided conversion agreements on eligible lands."

This scheme is complementary to offsets and projects/activities would not be eligible for both.

Any thoughts on this? Has this kind of thing been proposed in any other jurisdictions? I certainly think it would be a great policy option for Canada's federal and provincial governments: finance forest carbon protection through the use of auction revenue set asides from cap-and-trade systems.

Media article on forests and climate from Bonn Climate Change Talks

2009-06-15T07:17:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg published this article on the use of forests and land use to help meet national climate change mitigation commitments. Jeremy van Loon interviewed a number of delegates to the recent climate change talks in Bonn.

I think the article is helpful because it raises alarm about using false reductions in emissions from forests to undermine real action on climate change. I'd like to add some depth to the story by pointing out that this spectre is not created by land use accounting per se, but by the bad ideas dominating these talks. You can view a Climate Action Network presentation about this on the UN Climate Change Convention's website. Search for "Climate Action Network Canada" on Tuesday June 2 to find the presentation link.

For some thoughts on how the accounting for land use, land use change and forestry should be done, you can check out the CPAWS Kyoto Resources list. Most recent submissions/publications are at the bottom of the list.

Photo: This picture shows carbon emissions from both fossil fuels and deforestation!

Zero Sense - A forest carbon accounting proposal from the EU

2009-06-04T23:07:00.000-07:00

This is a reprint of an article written for Climate Action Network's newsletter ECO:

Zero Sense

The current LULUCF negotiations cause ECO to reflect on a question asked by some Parties with all seriousness: should a country be excused from accounting LULUCF debits from its national forest as long as it remains a sink? Isn’t it wrong to penalize a country as long as its forest is still removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, and therefore helping to mitigate climate change? Should we only assign LULUCF debits from forest management after the value of the forests sink becomes zero and it becomes a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere?’ The answer to these questions must be no.

The issue is not whether a national forest is removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, but how much. Forests currently represent a large global sink, helping reduce the impact of fossil fuel emissions. A decline in the size of that sink would be of great concern.

Eco did an analysis[1]: what would be the effect if all Annex 1 Parties were allowed to reduce their forest sink to zero without accruing any LULUCF debits? The result speaks for itself: 2.4 billion tons of CO_2e[2] in lost sequestration without even a blip in any Party’s account; 2.4 billion tons of CO_2e that represent a net emission if not compensated by greater emission reductions elsewhere; 2.4 billion tons of CO_2e in lost sequestration that would be hidden behind a newly proposed LULUCF accounting rule called “the band from zero to the bar.”

[1] Using convention reporting data for all Annex 1 Parties from 1990 – 2006. 1990 was used as the default bar and 2002-2006 was used as a hypothetical commitment period.

[2] This corresponds to roughly four percent of total emission allowances for the first commitment period

Wake up call to countries trying to abuse forests

2009-06-03T13:48:00.001-07:00

At the Climate Change Talks in Bonn, some Parties are using the forest and land use negotiations to try to entrench a system that is designed to give them make-believe credits rather than actually reduce emissions. The European Union and Russia were today awareded a 'fossil' by the International Climate Action Network for a proposal that would allow countries to eradicate their forest sinks without having to account for it.

An article in the daily newsletter, ECO explains the dynamic well ("Just Imagine").

Discussion between Environmentalists and Governments

2009-06-02T07:50:00.000-07:00

The Climate Action Network just held a very successful 'side event' here at the Bonn Climate Change talks with roughly 60 people in attendance, most of them government representatives. Among those present were the US, Canada, Japan, Iceland, Ireland, Slovakia, The European Commission, Austria, France, the United Kingdom, Senegal, Bulgaria, the Holy See, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, etc.

The most lively discussion was a debate about whether countries should be excused from accounting any emissions from their forests as long as they remain net sinks. My view was, though these forests may still be helping with climate change as long as they remove carbon from the air, the governments owning these forests are not helping with climate change if their actions reduce the size of this sink (e.g. through accelerated harvest).

The presentation can be viewed online. Look for the June 2 event by Climate Action Network Canada.

Latest views from Parties on LULUCF within the Climate Negotiations

2009-06-01T12:17:00.001-07:00

The Bonn Climate Change Talks kicked off today.

Coming into these meetings, several Parties expressed their views on the treatment of land use, land-use change and forestry. You can find these submissions online in two parts (part 1; part 2).

I have pulled out what I feel are the main points of the submissions. This is rough (especially the formatting), but I thought you might find it a useful summary/guide. But don't quote me, read them yourselves! (Please note that part 2 is not included in this summary (submission from Chile)).

Australia:
- Full factoring out of all non-anthropogenic emissions
- Land-based planning in 3 CP
- Account for forest management in national totals (Annex A)
- Using rolling averages for LULUCF accounting

Belarus:
- Include wetland restoration
- Also include wetland conservation

Canada:
- Forward-looking baseline to project business-as-usual emissions and remove all natural disturbance emissions
- Set emissions to zero for carbon-saturated croplands
- Include HWP
- Consider no limits on use of LULUCF CDM

Coalition of Rainforest Nations
- Mandatory land-based accounting
- Debit rule for carrying over debits to future commitment periods
- Any standard of methodology as long as you can demonstrate you aren’t over-estimating credits
- Use production method for HWP

China
- Use current rules
- No new activities
- Keep 1990 base year
- LULUCF rules do not need to be completed before targets discussion

EU
- Bar including country-specific bars
- Band (including band to zero)
- Land-based accounting option (still includes discounts, limits, bar)
- HWP: production approach option; stock approach option; restricted stock approach option (only accounting HWP of domestic origin)
- Factoring out focused on Force Majeure

Iceland
- Wetland restoration
- Devegetation as part of revegetation

India
- Limit on LULUCF (preferably same limit for all activities)
- No Kyoto amendments
- No new activities unless they plug loopholes
- Force Majeure could be applied in a restricted way
- No to land-based accounting

Indonesia
- Don’t link directly to targets
- Add devegetation to revegetation
- Forest management definition should include forest degradation
- Wetland restoration and degradation unless for food production
- Support planted production forest definition
- Supports limited force majeure definition, consistent with Tuvalu
- Supports introducing SFM certification

Japan
- Gross-net
- Strict activities-based accounting approach to deal with factoring out
- Mandatory accounting and continued accounting in subsequent CPs must be reviewed based on changes in rules
- HWP only products from forest accounting under 3.4 (but this also excludes existing stocks)
- Country-specific bar based on a number of factors including ‘continuation of national forest policies’
- Criteria for factoring out (prefer restricted approach)
- No to land-based accounting

Malaysia
- No loopholes
- Limit
- Alternatives to temporary credits

New Zealand
- Credit/debit rule; planted production forests
- Factoring out should relate to extraordinary disturbances…could be based on threshold percentage of total AAUs
- Support bar as best articulation of business as usual
- HWP:
o ‘Emissions to atmosphere approach’
o Factor out but keep HWP credits!!
o Not support instant oxidation of exports
o Not support instant oxidation of short-lived products
o Include in CDM
- No to land-based accounting
- CDM: A-1 Parties could take on the responsibility for impermanence as an alternative to temporary credits

Russia
- Support split between forests and planted production forests
- Restricted forest definition (larger areas, 30-50 percent canopy cover)
- ARD area threshold changed (from 1 ha to 100,000 ha)
- Support bar
- Support band (including band to zero)
- Forward-looking baseline as a bar option

Saudi Arabia
- Use full LULUCF mitigation potential

Singapore
- AR should be eligible on wetlands
- Peat fires should be treated as anthropogenic
- Broad definition of HWP to include other products (e.g. resins)
- Support option 2 (land-based) with phased approach

Switzerland
- Support addition of wetland management with minor variation
- Compulsory 3.4 accounting
- Discount rate to all LULUCF credits/debits
- HWP
o Don’t accounting existing pools
o Don’t account imported non-A1 pools
o Can claim exported if importer doesn’t

Ontario considers use of cap-and-trade auction revenue for forestry

2009-05-27T13:51:00.000-07:00

Ontario introduced Cap-and-Trade legislation today. The details can be seen on a dedicated website.

On offsets, the supporting discussion paper states "The experts indicated strong support for project types in agriculture, forestry and waste management and priority be given to landfill gas, wastewater treatment, manure management, including anaerobic digestion, and afforestation/reforestation project types. "

Of greater interest to me, is the suggestion that auction revenues could be used to achieve emission reductions through such activities. I've been thinking for some time that this type of approach would be preferable to offsets because it would avoid the additionality problem:

"Ontario recognizes that although some of the agricultural and forestry related activities may not be initially feasible for an offsets approach, such as urban forestry and native grasslands, they represent important forms of bio-sequestration that offer multiple environmental benefits to Ontarians. Benefits include improved adaptive capacity for climate change, biodiversity preservation, improved water quality and improved wildlife habitat. These activities could be supported in other ways, such as using a portion of the allowance value (e.g., auctioning revenues or a set aside) under a Cap-and-Trade system (see section 2.2). This approach has been taken in recently proposed

U.S.

climate change legislation (e.g., WCI, Waxman-Markey, Lieberman Warner). Ontario also recognizes that some of the initial challenges and complexities facing some agricultural and forestry-related activities will be resolved over time as various offset systems gain experience and as these types of activities are further integrated into future international climate change agreements."

New Article on Forests and Kyoto Negotiations

2009-05-04T18:29:00.001-07:00

I have published an article on forests within the Kyoto Negotiations at The Mark, Canada's newest online source of news and ideas: http://beta.themarknews.com/articles/117-into-the-woods

Federal Critical Caribou Map Overlaps Massive Carbon Stores

2009-04-21T11:22:00.001-07:00

The Canadian government released a science report last week that identified the critical habitat of the boreal woodland caribou, confirming the need to protect at least half of Canada's entire boreal region in order to prevent the extinction of any additional herds of this threatened species.

Of the 57 herds assessed, the report concludes that 21 are in need of active habitat restoration efforts, 25 require active habitat conservation and 11 are healthy enough that they could tolerate some additional development in their habitat.

If the boreal woodland caribou's habitat were protected, this would also protect much of one of the World's biggest carbon stores - the intact boreal forests and peatlands of Canada. This is because these carbon rich ecosystems are the primary habitat of this threatened species.

For more information, visit www.caribouandyou.ca

Scientific Report on Climate Change Impacts Supports Forest Protection

2009-04-17T07:50:00.000-07:00

A report was released yesterday predicting serious impacts of climate change on forests and discussing management strategies to help forests adapt.

Although by no means highlighted by the authors or the accompanying media release, one of the most interesting findings to me is that 'protecting primary forests' and 'reducing forest degradation and deforestation' stand out among the management strategies as having the highest scientific support and agreement for conserving biodiversity and to prevent future emissions from forests that would otherwise accelerate climate change. Check out Appendices 6.2 and 6.7 on pages 172 and 181 of the main report.

Here are some Canadian media stories that have resulted from the report:

Ottawa Citizen

Coalition Launches New Website to Support Implementation of One of the World's Greatest Conservation Announcements

2009-04-16T13:58:00.001-07:00

There's been a great new website launched by the Ontario Boreal Futures Coalition in an effort to secure protective legislation for Ontario's far north. This legislation would be the implementation of Premier McGuinty's major conservation announcement last Summer written about in one of my previous blog posts. On the main site you can read about and support this important initiative.

The site also contains a fantastic virtual tour of the region. The Aboriginal narrator is from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI), located in the heart of this region. There is also a boreal scrap book where you can post stories and pictures from your adventures in Ontario's boreal north.

Map source: http://borealopportunity.ca/maps.php

Forests in or out of carbon markets?

2009-04-14T08:12:00.000-07:00

At the Bonn Climate Change Talks last week, Johnathon Pershing, the White House's new Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change gave a briefing to non-governmental organizations.

One of his comments was discreet but thought provoking. In response to a comment from Greenpeace International expressing concern over inclusion of deforestation credits within a fully fungible carbon market, Pershing offered this (I'm paraphrasing): it may make sense to include some kinds of forest credits in the market, and not others.

What might this mean for forest offsets in Canada and the United States? Would forest management contribute offsets to the 2 billion tons of offsets available to capped sectors under congressman Waxman's draft American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009?

It's an important and provocative question: what kinds of forest credits should be included, and under what conditions?

The Scale of Impact Negotiated Bars Could Have on National Emissions Accounts

2009-04-07T07:33:00.000-07:00

I presented the results of an ititial calculation done today by the Climate Action Network. The presentation of these results begins at about the 6 minute mark of the media conference webcast and resumes with a follow-up question at 16:30.

Here is the text of the statement:

An idea put forward by the European Union (EU) at the Bonn Climate Change Talks could introduce a loophole that would result in countries not being accountable for some of their emissions from forest management. The EU introduced the concept of “The Bar,” which would be a reference against which countries would measure their forestry emissions. The potential loophole results from the option that countries could negotiate their own “bar”. This could be like getting to start a football match with your team four-nil up. So far, no details have been released about how this loophole might be constrained.

Climate Action Network released an initial calculation today illustrating a potentially significant impact of this flexibility on the emission accounts of industrialized countries. In order to calculate the impact this flexibility would have on the scale of forest carbon credits for industrialized countries, CAN looked at sixteen years of historic emissions (1990 – 2006) for thirty-six industrialized nations (not including USA), using the last five years as a hypothetical commitment period.

In measuring the size of the potential loophole, CAN considered the relative impact of setting a weak and an strong bar. The strong bar was set as the lowest level of historic emissions, meaning countries would be expected to do even better than this. The weak bar was the highest level of historic emissions, creating little expectation for improvement. We also compared the accounting impact of these two scenarios to the current accounting rules for forest management.

The accounting difference between the strong bar and the weak bar was roughly seven billion tons of CO₂. This range corresponds to roughly twelve percent of total emission allowances for the first commitment period. The weak bar produced 2.8 billion tons of CO₂credits more than would be created with the current rules for forest management.[1] This 2.8 billion ton increase corresponds to roughly five percent of total emission allowances for the first commitment period. Our calculation did not consider other improvements in the forest accounting rules that might be made. In all scenarios, the actual emissions to the atmosphere were the same, but the method would make a massive difference in the level of accountability of countries.

Creating a disconnect between accounting and real changes in emissions would not provide the proper signals for governments to unlock the mitigation potential from forest management. These numbers also illustrate the very significant impact that this potential accounting loophole could have on a Party’s overall emission reduction target.

This potential loophole could be most effectively closed by removing the ability of Parties to negotiate their own ‘bar’.

[This has also been published as an article in ECO - see issue 10 from Bonn I, 2009]

[1] The strong bar resulted in 820 Mt of carbon debits. The weak bar resulted in 1113 Mt credits of carbon. Application of the current rules for forest management, which include gross-net accounting with a cap would result in a credit of approximately 349 Mt of carbon if all countries included in the Appendix of Decision 16/CMP.1elected to account for forest management. Application of net-net accounting with a 1990 base year would result in a credit of 189 Mt of carbon.

Lively Discussion and a Draft Text

2009-04-05T02:55:00.001-07:00

The side event I had organized yesterday for the Climate Action Network on LULUCF was a huge success. The room was packed with delegates from Japan, Tuvalu, the EU, USA, Korea, Turkey.

The event was billed as an opportunity to come hear CAN's detailed views on LULUCF and also discuss two new proposals on the table here in Bonn: the EU's "bar" and a very interesting submission from Tuvalu which included the idea of mandatory accounting of 'forest biomass decline,' as well as industrialized countries accepting accounting debits or emissions from wood that may have been imported from deforestation in developing countries.

There was lively, open and interesting discussion and debate following the presentations and we were blessed with the participation of the originators of these two ideas from the EU and Tuvalu.

Later in the afternoon there was a closed 'informal' LULUCF discussion amongst the Parties and the co-chairs of this group produced a draft text in the form of a 'non-paper' (just for discussion). It's the first attempt to put all the options in the form of legal text and is in that respect a step forward. But most of the various options for dealing with LULUCF are still represented somehow in this paper.

'The Bar' is there, including the prospect that each country could negotiate its own 'bar' against which forest management compliance is measured. Some of the interesting elements of Tuvalu's proposal are there too, but the 'forest biomass decline' concept is only partly intact.

Parties will meet one more time informally tomorrow morning and then openly in a contact group in the afternoon.

EU Wins a "Fossil of the Day" for The Bar

2009-04-03T22:38:00.000-07:00

The European Union won a 'fossil of the day' yesterday from the Climate Action Network (CAN) for the idea of 'the bar' that it has been promoting in these negotiations...

During the United Nations climate change negotiations, members of CAN vote give regular 'fossil of the day' awards to the countries judged to have done their 'best' to block progress in the negotiations in the last days of talks.

Here is the text of a media release from CAN explaining the award to the EU:

"To the EU: For proposing "The Bar," a method for measuring emissions from the forest sector that could complicate negotiations on national targets and could give industrialized nations carbon credit for forest degradation.

In the contact group discussion yesterday on land use, land-use change and forestry, the EU put forward an idea that amounts to allowing any industrialized nation that chooses, to propose where its baseline will be for measuring changes in emissions from the forest sector. This would be akin to allowing countries to propose their own base year for assessing fossil fuel emission reductions. In a worst case scenario, this could allow countries to put its baseline of forest carbon low, degrade forest carbon stocks, and get carbon credit for it.

A further concern is that if this negotiation of country-specific ‘bars’ does not happen quickly enough, it could also distort the meaning of country-wide emission reduction targets."

Although 'the bar' could be promoted as a standard approach for all countries, a central element of the EU proposal is that any country could negotiate its own bar.

Countries discuss new activities their new ideas for LULUCF

2009-04-02T10:41:00.000-07:00

The first 'contact group' on LULUCF was today in Bonn. A contact group is like plenary but smaller... and there's no translation... and usually observers cannot make statements... and its more focused on details.

So today some details came out on some new proposal that Parties have made for changes in LULUCF:

Tuvalu proposed that devegetation and 'forest biomass decline' be added as new activities. As the name suggests, 'Forest Biomass Decline' is basically any activity that causes a reduction in forest carbon stocks. It is presented as a politically more palatable alternative to 'forest degradation.' You can read Tuvalu's submission, it's really interesting and clever.
The EU formally presented its idea about The Bar. Here's the summary: a default baseline would be selected for use by all Parties based on historic carbon fluxes (e.g. 1990, 2008, etc.). Increases (credits) and decreases (debits) in the carbon sink would be measured relative to this baseline (it is a form of net-net accounting, explained in a previous post). Here's the big BUT: A Party would be free to negotiate an alternative baseline if this didn't fit their national circumstances, in particular for example if the country was forecast to have a declining rate of carbon sequestration. This is the problem of most concern to my and my colleagues here - negotiating alternate bars could delay the process and would most likely lead to perverse outcomes designed to suit the interests of the Party ('more credits, please'). In the worse case scenario, these bars get negotiated after the Copenhagen deal is struck and they can be used to undo the Party's national target.
Finally, Canada presented its proposal that it should not account for emissions/removals from croplands if they have become saturated with carbon. There was mixed reaction to this in the room, but I tend to agree with the view that we have to stop engineering outcomes and just account for emissions.

The next meeting will be informal, which means it is closed to observers. All we know for sure is on the agenda is wetland management as a new activity.

Oh, and I should make a note on process: the co-chairs of the discussion proposed to put together a 'non-paper' (unofficial) that attempts to collapse some of the LULUCF options being negotiated so some progress can be made towards an agreement.

Stay tuned!

Critical to have Land Use and Forestry Rules Before Setting National Target: Annex 1 Parties

2009-04-01T01:39:00.000-07:00

In the negotiations yesterday on setting the emission reduction target for industrialized nations, several Parties made the point that it was essential to first figure out the rules for land use, land-use change and forestry. The reason is clear: industrialized nations won't know what contribution this sector can make to reducing emissions before the rules are set. There's an even better reason to make sure things happen in this order: if you set the targets first, you can develop a set of rules that allow you to generate lots of 'hot air' credits from LULUCF - credits that have no bearing on what the atmosphere sees but are designed simply to make it easier to meet your overall target. This is what happened in Kyoto.

There's a hint that Parties may even be getting more brash. The hallways are buzzing with a new idea called 'the bar'. According to one interpretation, it would allow countries to negotiate a compliance threshold for LULUCF that gets them however many credits they think they need to meet their stated emission reduction targets at home. Are removals from forests declining? Set your bar even lower and you can generate credits rather than debits!

Even under the more cautious interpretations I've heard, some level of negotiation of the bar is permitted.

There is no formal proposal on the table yet for the bar but the Chair of the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol seems to think it holds promise...

China and the Group of 77 Nations Play Hard Ball on Emission Reduction Targets at UN

2009-03-30T12:17:00.001-07:00

It was unexpected, but it made sense. Speaking on behalf of China and the Group of 77 Nations today at the UN Climate Change Talks in Bonn, the representative from South Africa asked that Land use, land-use change and forestry in industrialized nations be removed from the official agenda of the talks, along with another agenda item.

It was unexpected because this issue is in the approved work plan. It made sense because at its core, this seemed to be an expression of the frustration that developing countries have with the lack of progress Industrialized Nations have made on adopting a new target for emission reductions in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, beginning in 2012.

In a sense, this target is the lynch pin of these negotiations: how strong a commitment will industrialized nations take on? This should have been accomplished in Poznan last December but wasn't; instead, the final decision just regurgitated the weak language produced in Bali a year before. The move by China and the G77 seemed focused on trying to clear the formal agenda of any distractions from this central question - a play to force a focus and an outcome on this fundamental issue. The move also seemed to reflect the cynicism that the current LULUCF system is mostly about meeting emission reduction targets through 'magic paperwork.'

Eventually, a compromise by the Chair was adopted that allowed the greatest focus on targets while still making space on the official agenda for land use, land-use change and forestry. And in the end, I think this is a good thing. Because if there isn't formal progress made on this issue, it can't be resolved in time for the wrap-up conference in Copenhagen. And if you ask me, there's no deal without a deal on LULUCF.

Check out the article on LULUCF in today's Eco ("Show's Over"), the daily newsletter put out by Climate Action Network International.

Environmentalists Gear Up for the Negotiations

2009-03-28T13:07:00.000-07:00

Hundreds of activists have again descended upon these UN Climate Change Talks as part of their tireless effort to produce a global commitment that will help us keep global warming as far below 2 degrees as possible and help prevent the most dangerous impacts on climate change.

The International Climate Action Network has its 20th birthday this year. In that time it has been the primary vehicle for environmental and development organizations to coordinate their work on climate change.

CAN had its strategy session today where it identified its priorities and planned its work for these Climate Change Talks in Bonn. In addition to the big picture, it planned the activities of its major working groups that cover most of the issues within the negotiations:

Adaptation (primarily of developing countries to the impacts of climate change)
Bunkers (ensuring emissions from aviation and maritime transport are reduced)
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry for industrialized countries
Reducing Emissions from Forest Degradation and Deforestation in developing countries
Mitigation
Financing (of mitigation in developing countries)
Technology transfer (to developing countries to aid in mitigation)

If the calibre and commitment of this group are any indication, we should get a good climate change agreement in Copenhagen this year!

First Climate Change Negotiations of 2009 About to Begin

2009-03-23T07:11:00.001-07:00

I'm off today by air to Germany for the first official negotiations of this year. These negotiations should culminate in a new global climate change agreement by December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

As always, I will be focusing my attention on how emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry are included in the international agreement. I will be following the positions taken by Parties (countries), meeting with negotiators, and working with other environmental reps there to plan our activities and communications. Watch for my posts!

I now have a pretty good idea of what I think needs to come out of this process - what we need on the land use and forestry file. So I will be assessing progress towards reaching this eventual outcome in Copenhagen:

· Emissions resulting from industrial activities in natural/wild ecosystems are accounted for under the new global climate change agreement:

Þ Add mandatory ‘peatland management’ activity

Þ Add mandatory ‘forestry in primary forests’ and ‘forest conversion to plantations’ activities or account for forest management

· Emissions from natural disturbances are addressed using approaches that reduce compliance risk but do not exclude emissions from accounting

· There is a built-in expectation of climate change mitigation from this sector through such means as a minimum ‘bar’ or threshold of emissions/removals.

· National emission reduction targets and LULUCF rules are designed to ensure that credits generated by this sector do not substitute for emission reductions in the fossil fuel sector, either through increased national emission reduction commitments, or through limits on the use of LULUCF credits for compliance.

· Domestic policies, markets and incentives for mitigation in the forest sector should be appropriate to the forest landscape context:

Þ Largely intact forested landscapes: Avoiding emissions by protecting carbon stocks

Þ Landscapes in which forests have already been largely cleared and degraded: Growing new carbon stocks

Þ Forested landscapes subject to ongoing clearing and degradation: reducing emissions from deforestation, degradation and land-use change, including through sustainable forest management

Party Submissions on LULUCF Revealed

2009-03-12T08:10:00.001-07:00

Think of this post as a public service announcement: the submissions from Parties on land use, land-use change and forestry are up on the Climate Change Secretariat's website: Australia, Belarus, Canada, Chile, China, EU, Iceland, Japan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland. I have not yet read these submissions so I cannot yet offer any perspective or response.

The Chair of the negotiations has also released a note on possible text related to these negotiations. See page 6 and pages 14-15.

And post your comments here!

Protection of peat soils - a crucial part of the solution

2009-03-06T13:31:00.001-08:00

Check out this story about a recent EU report that describes the great significance of carbon stored in soils and concludes that the best way to guard against emissions that could swamp other mitigation efforts is to protect these soils.

The inclusion of emissions from peatland degradation and peatland restoration within the accounting framework of the new UN global climate change deal to be finalized this year would create a strong incentive for domestic action to protect soil carbon and peatlands. "Wetland management, restoration and degradation" are all being considered for inclusion as new activities that would contribute toward compliance in the new deal.

This was one of the major recommendations of a submission made last month by Climate Action Network International.

What do countries participating within the negotiations think of this idea? So far, Iceland has really been the only country pushing this idea. We will probably know more where other countries stand after their submissions are posted shortly on the UN Climate Change Secretariat's website.

If you want to learn more about climate and peatlands, I suggest you visit the website of Wetlands International. The video about peatland restoration below is from their site.

Can anyone share the original EU report behind this story with readers of this blog?

Photo credit

Defining Crazy LULUCF Terms: Gross-net and Net-net

2009-02-26T20:19:00.000-08:00

Anyone who has tried to enter and understand the world of international forest carbon accounting has come across the terms 'gross-net' and 'net-net'. Many have been totally confused; others have thought they understood but don't. Here is the simplest explanation you'll find (let's hope I'm right):

In these terms are two word positions, for example in 'gross-net', 'gross' is in the first position and 'net' in the second. Knowing what these two positions refer to is the key to understanding these two terms.

The second position refers to whether total carbon fluxes are measured, i.e. both emissions and removals. If only emissions were measured, it would be 'gross' accounting. Since in both cases, emissions and removals in the commitment period are added together to get a total carbon flux, 'net' appears in the second position of both terms.

The first position refers to whether or not the carbon flux in the commitment period is compared to the carbon flux in a base year. In this case, 'gross' means the total carbon flux is used and it is not compared to the base year carbon flux; 'net' means that the carbon flux in the commitment period is compared to the carbon flux in the base year - the base year carbon flux is subtracted from the carbon flux in the commitment period to give you a net change.

Therefore:

'Gross-net' = total carbon flux in the commitment period.

'Net-net' = carbon flux in the commitment period minus carbon flux in the base year.

Simple, right? :)

Is Wood Good? Is it as good as you say it is?

2009-02-26T07:19:00.000-08:00

A number of wood products industry associations have just launched a new website extolling the virtues of Canadian wood as enviromentally responsible.

I suppose it's inevitable that, as an environmentalist, there would be claims on such a marketing site that I find problematic. Afterall, my blog almost certainly contains some claims that others would not agree with... probably including my posts on wood products.

But when I come across a site like this I lament the inefficiency of positional arguments and wish instead that we could get together and hash out our perceptions, understandings and evidence so we could at least both be communicating balanced information, and hopefully whatever policies or actions we think should result.

Here are a couple of examples of views from the site that conflict with mine:

Wood products sequester more carbon dioxide than is emitted during harvesting, transportation, and manufacturing. I believe this to be untrue. My understanding is that, if you take carbon stored in wood products into account, it reduces the recorded emission, but it is still a net emission.

As a proud leader in forest management... Canada has the most protected forest in the world. This statistic is misleading because Canada is the second largest country in the world, so it's easy to have more land than anyone else in any category of land use. Canada also has more forest than most other countries. Less than 10 percent of Canada is protected.

What would happen if both sides were to sit down and agree to a bunch of balanced facts and characterizations about the state of Canada's forests and how forestry affects our climate. I think the problems with our forests and the benefits of wood are both real enough that a broadly supported portrayal would still argue for outcomes both sides are trying to achieve. This probably applies more broadly as well, and not just to Canada.

And now things get serious... your submissions please!

2009-02-23T10:37:00.000-08:00

2009 is the year of the Copenhagen agreement; the year Parties to the Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) are expected to come to a new global agreement. That means things are getting serious.

Parties were called upon in Poznan to make their first formal submissions on land use, land-use change and forestry by February 15. You should soon be able to see submissions being put up on the website (you can already see the submissions made by Parties last year). Using all the submissions and discussions to date, the Chair of the negotiations will present the first draft of legal text for LULUCF at the up-coming meeting this March in Bonn. Translation: things are getting serious and we should see ourselves starting to converge on what the new rules for forest and land use will be. At stake are fundamental questions such as which emissions will be included?; will accounting be mandatory?; how will emissions from natural disturbances be dealt with?

I have been working since last December to coordinate a submission from the International Climate Action Network, which we finalized and submitted to the Climate Change Secretariat over the weekend. I am very pleased with what CAN has accomplished in this document - I think there are lot of interesting and substantive ideas and recommendations Parties to consider.

For me, a few points rise to the top:

Parties should be induced to base their mitigation approaches on the forest landscape context - forest protection should be the activity of choice in largely intact forest landscapes.
It must be mandatory to account for emissions from forest and peatland degradation and these can be added as new activities under the current LULUCF framework. Forest degradation could simply be defined as 'forestry in primary forests' and 'forest conversion to plantations.'
Accounting rules for LULUCF must be settled and their implications on National accounts be made clear before new National targets for emission reductions are negotiated. Reductions in emissions should be expected from LULUCF and National targets should be raised to incorporate the anticipated credits from LULUCF.

You can read the whole CAN submission online.

Photo credit: Drained Finnish mire from Suomen Iuonnonsuojeluliito

Ontario Releases Discussion Paper on A Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade System

2009-02-04T09:58:00.000-08:00

I guess I was snoozing because I was alerted to the existence of this discussion paper by a CBC Radio journalist!

In it the Ontario government puts forward its thoughts on the cap-and-trade system it plans to develop by 2010 and then integrate with other systems. The document reads like its a good time to provide the government with reasoned views because a lot of issues are still unresolved, such as the auctioning of emission allowances.

The paper says that the system *may* include provision for the use of offsets and refers to the categories being considered within the Western Climate Initiative (agriculture, forestry, waste management).

The most interesting and welcome ingredient of the offset section is a clear condition that valued ecosystem services, such as wildlife habitat and protecting watersheds must be assured. I have been advancing a similar position to anyone who will listen (and those that won't), that there must be a biodiversity screen to make sure offsets have positive biodiversity benefits.

The discussion paper is posted for 35 days of comment on Ontario's Environmental Registry (ending March 3, 2009).

Resources:
- Environmental Registry Posting
- Discussion Paper

You can't keep a carbon man down

2009-01-27T07:56:00.001-08:00

It's been a busy time in my office with funding proposals, work planning and meetings leading up to today's federal budget in Canada, but I have been squeezing in some work on forest carbon...

As part of the Climate Action Network International's Working Group on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, I've been participating in some really interesting discussions on forest accounting under the Kyoto Protocol. We've been talking about how to deal with emissions from natural disturbances, whether emissions credits from forests should be discounted, how to best protect biodiversity, and a number of other topics that would seem esoteric to all but the most engaged, but are nonetheless important to how forest carbon fluxes are measured and accounted for.

I've also been working with some colleagues on what could constitute a list of principles related to forest offsets. It has been a useful experience that Will certainly guide my input to the various processes underway to define offset systems for North America.

One of my colleagues made a very astute observation that I would like to share: the first choice we need to make when conceptualizing an offset framework is whether we want to follow the example of a regulatory model (such as the Clean Development Mechanism) or a voluntary model (such as the various existing voluntary offset systems). This choice is significant and will lead us down a path of more or less rigor. The former path seems undoubtedly to be the better one.

What does 2009 Hold for LULUCF?

2009-01-12T17:11:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year everyone!

I would like first to thank-you all for keeping this blog alive during my long post-Poznan / holiday absence! Despite no posts from me for the last month, a steady stream of visitors to the blog has continued. I hope to reward your interest with some interesting material for 2009.

What does 2009 hold in store for forests, carbon and climate?

Within the UN negotiations, countries have been asked to make formal submissions by February 15 on how they want the rules for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry to change. Draft legal text is expected for the first meeting at the end of March. If things go to plan, the rules should more or less be agreed by mid-year in order to allow countries to negotiate new national targets and commitments for emission reductions. It's really hard to say how things will go, but the good money seems to be on a small number of changes that will bring new countries on board for forest accounting but also fix some of the loopholes. My hope is that countries will be made accountable for forest and peatland degradation and that these activities will be discouraged.

I have written before on this blog about the various initiatives to define an offset framework that includes forests. With the Canadian federal government's expressed interest in developing an integrated North American cap-and-trade system with President Obama, it may be that U.S.-based initiatives are now most relevant. In particular the Western Climate Initiative and the voluntary standard setting initiative set-up by the American Forest and Paper Association? Will Canada's embryonic offset system be aborted?

Within these domestic/regional carbon markets, I hope we can look more broadly at using other sources of funds for forest carbon projects, for example revenue from auctioning emissions allowances. This would be better because we wouldn't have to worry about the additionality of emission reduction projects.

Finally, I wager that 2009 will bring big developments in the area of bioenergy. Will forests be used in a big way to generate electricity? Will this approach actually reduce GHG emissions? What will the impact be on biodiversity? The unfortunate path of least resistance appears to be hasty policies that encourage greater forest exploitation, negative biodiversity impacts and doubtful GHG benefits.

It will be a busy year!

Not much progress in Poznan...We need to pick up the pace to Kopenhagen!

2008-12-12T05:46:00.000-08:00

Well, the meetings are over and for a lot of us it is hard to shake the feeling that have wasted our time here and over the last year. Of course on particular topics there has been movement and evolution. On my focal area of land use, land use change and forestry, things are moving and the understanding and analysis of what needs to change has advanced a lot within the environmental community.

And the talks over the last year have seen constructive proposals from the likes of China, South Africa, Mexico, Norway.... but the major industrialized nations of the World have not been acting with the required resolve or urgency to put this new agreement in place.

On the positive side, the bare minimum outcome needed here was achieved: the Chairs of the working groups have a mandate to formally kick off negotiations on legal text on the new agreement in 2009. So despite the delay, it is still possible AND CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, to reach a deal by Copenhagen next December.

I'm coming home now to enjoy the snow!

Parties fail Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity

2008-12-10T05:35:00.000-08:00

The negotiations on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in developing countries) have concluded and have failed Indigenous Peoples and Biodiversity.

Early drafts of the decision included recognition of the interests and rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (plural). The final draft only makes reference to participation of Indigenous People (singular).

Despite the efforts of environmental groups and some Parties, the importance of protecting biodiversity was also kept out of the decision.

Here is the intervention read in plenary by the Climate Action Network:

Madam Chair,

A year has passed since Bali, and what has been done?

What progress has been made on Indigenous and community rights?

How will REDD protect biodiversity?

What emissions will be counted and what rules will be applied?

The two SBSTA workshops coming into this meeting made real progress on methodological issues, which you intended to carry further here.

The CBD AHTEG advice on biodiversity was received and welcomed by some Parties.

Indigenous peoples asked to be heard, so when the Secretariat invited them, they came expecting to have a voice.

Instead, all reference to their rights and interests has been deleted.

Your negotiating text does not even refer to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And the removal of that “S” was critical.

A failure of political will has also seen the results of the workshops and the advice of the CBD ANTEG languish here.

We remind you all: the preservation of biodiversity is not a co-benefit; it is fundamental to the success and goals of REDD.

Our task here today is to protect the biological heritage of our earth and the rights and interests of all of its peoples. SBSTA has failed this crucial imperative.

It is our hope that ministers will now pick up what SBSTA has dropped.

Thank you.

Decision on REDD looming.

2008-12-08T14:22:00.000-08:00

Parties were locked in long negotiations today on a REDD decision to come out of the "Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice." One of the biggest issues that environmental groups are pushing for is that this mechanism be focused on accounting gross emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Last year in Bali, the waters were muddied with suggestions that the mechanism could also include forest management and 'conservation' measures and carbon enhancement. The fear is that this mechanism that was concieved to be a vehicle to reduce emissiosn from deforestation would be turned into something that allows deforestation or degradation to take place, while rewarding the creation of monoculture plantations.

We should see in the morning whether SBSTA has come to a strong conclusion on the focus and methodological approach to REDD.

What we're watching for in the middle of the week is the conclusion of the discussions here on the Kyoto Protocol. The big question is whether Parties will include strong language on the range of emission reductions for Annex 1 Parties (industrialized nations minus the U.S., which didn't ratify Kyoto). The goal is strong language committing Parties to a 25-40% reduction range by 2020.

Poznan, Poznan, Wherefore art thou Poznan?

2008-12-04T15:41:00.000-08:00

...I'm not sure that title makes any sense, but I've been working for 19 hours straight now, my eyes are bleary and my mind is not quite working right... it's a UN climate change negotiation!

What did I do today?

I woke up at 5:45 am to take the bus and tram into the conference centre to attend the daily briefing that the Canadian Climate Change Ambassador and Head of the Canadian delegation offers every day to us civil society folks.

I ran off to a meeting of the political coordination group of the Climate Action Network.

From there I rushed (a few minutes late) to a meeting of my Working Group on LULUCF.

From there off to a plenary meeting on the means for industrialized nations to reach their Kyoto targets.

Then what....? A blur that included a working lunch, a CAN daily meeting, a session of working to agree on some forest accounting rules to put forward here to countries, sent emails, read emails, had hallway conversations, had a working dinner, met with a country delegate and planned a meeting for tomorrow, went looking for someone I was supposed to meet and checked and wrote emails while waiting for my coat at the coat check... got outside, bought more time for my phone, went back inside to prepare tomorrow's meeting...

...took a crazy cab ride home at 11pm!

...then I started working some more on the options paper we want to put out tomorrow and discuss in our meetings. And it's 12:45am and I'm waiting for some comments to come in so I can finish the thing off, go to bed, and sleep for 3 hours and 45 minutes until the whole routine starts over again!!

Yikes.

I'll post our options paper tomorrow so you can see the fruits of our labour (it's only two pages!!)

Running around, running around, running around, BREATH!

2008-12-03T06:33:00.000-08:00

Day 3 at the Poznan climate change talks! Sorry I missed posting on Day 2...it's probably more realistic to try to post every second day.; when more than 5 hours of sleep is a luxury, it is hard to fit in all that should be done.

Negotiators on LULUCF met in an informal closed session yesterday and decided to meet only one more time on Saturday during these talks. The outcome of this meeting will be a decision to call on Parties for submissions early in the new year and then introduce draft legal text by the Chair of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol at the March meeting in Bonn. Our working group just finished developing some new ideas for accounting and we will now shop it around the various interested countries.

The first meeting on REDD has just started. ENGOs are hoping for a strong outcome here in Poznan: a decision text on everything but policies and incentives, which is appropriately figured into the negotiations on country commitments next year.

The most exciting news from yesterday was that Brazil announced its Climate Change Plan. The most prominent feature of the plan is a voluntary national target to reduce Amazon deforestation. There are questions being asked about whether or not the targets are strong enough, and about what Brazil will do about increasing emissions in other sectors, but the assumption of a national target by a developing country is a significant milestone in these negotiations.

Photo: Outside of the main Plenary Hall
Video: Click here for a BBC Clip about Amazon deforestation

First Day of Climate Change Talks

2008-12-01T08:35:00.000-08:00

It was a cool and damp morning in Poznan as the Annual Conference of the Parties (COP14) got under way today. Frost tipped the grass and by the time I approached the conference centre, breathing felt almost like drinking.

The first day of these meetings is always is an interesting contrast of excitement and dullness, anticipation and resignation.

Excitement:

Meeting dear climate change buddies - this work breeds close connections.
Ten thousand delegates converging together to solve one of the Worlds' greatest threats

Dullness:

The opening speeches are seldom stirring or inspiring, recycling established positions and offering platitudes

Anticipation:

The possibility that these talks could deliver some real outcomes such as a deal on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in developing countries (REDD) - a concrete activity for developing countries to help combat climate change while saving biodiversity and forest-dependent communities.

Resignation:

To the slow pace of the talks and the low expecations expressed by the Parties to the Convention.

At the end talks on the first day and before the host country even has a chance to welcome everyone at its formal reception, Poland has earned a "Fossil of the Day" - the award given each day by the Climate Action Network to a country with the worst performance for the climate. Poland's crime: trying to pull down Europe's ambition and commtments in the lead up to this meeting.