Saturday, April 4, 2009
copenhagen 1
Jackson of course has the scene scoped wildly well. Dr. Octagon. Hotel bar keeps our beers cold. Jazz band secured for TFG COP15 party. Large green umbrellas in the house. 64 square feet and solid each. Skype through an iphone. The things we still need are speakers, ice, local #.
Earth People, I was Born on Jupiter.
Earth People, I was Born on Jupiter.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Latest Rainforest Coalition/Australia submissions
A few folks here at the talks and via email have asked where the latest key submissions are on REDD:
Clicking on the above title link will take you to the latest CfRN REDD submission by Belize, Central Africa Republic, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Ghana, Guyana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Vanuatu, & Viet Nam.
Also, several folks have asked where the Australia submission on REDD is. You can find it here:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca5/eng/misc01a02.pdf
Clicking on the above title link will take you to the latest CfRN REDD submission by Belize, Central Africa Republic, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Ghana, Guyana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Vanuatu, & Viet Nam.
Also, several folks have asked where the Australia submission on REDD is. You can find it here:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca5/eng/misc01a02.pdf
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
PNG poses REDD questions to Europe in AWG LCA
Today, in the meetings the AWG LCA is having a workshop on sub-paragraphs 1 b i and 1 b ii of the Bali Action Plan (you can read those here). For those of you not familiar with the arcane UN codewords, today's workshops are discussing what mitigation commitments developed countries will take (1 b i) and what nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) will be taken by developing countries (1 b ii).
Europe had presented what they thought developing countries should do, which included developing countries drafting low carbon/emission development plans and then registering their needs for resources to meet these plans, and then wealthy countries could also register to support the plans. In other words, Europe proposed matching actions with support.
Papua New Guinea's representative Kevin Conrad asked two questions related to REDD:
1) The first question was how do the proposed low carbon/emission differ from NAMAs, which was the already agreed language from Bali.
2) The second question from PNG was given Europe's position that it did not want to see REDD in carbon markets before 2020, wouldn't that create a perverse incentive for countries NOT to propose reducing deforestation until 2020?
3) A third question was on the nature of the registry. Kevin pointed out that given there was likely to be more need than resources, it would create a sort of reverse auctioning. He suggested that would disadvantage developing countries (presumably meaning a race to cheapest mitigation).
India followed up on the registry question, asking how they would work? Would other financial institutions run these?
Europe responded:
We are not here to re-write the Bali Action plan. we see our proposed low carbon development plans as supporting NAMAs, not replacing them.
On REDD, Europe said "we need to learn under what conditions we can link markets with REDD. And in the meantime, we need alternative funding for REDD."
In other words, it is indeed (sadly) looking like Europe is distancing itself from REDD as a market mechanism in a Copenhagen accord.
Responding to India's question about how a registry would work, Europe basically said it is still thinking it through and looks forward to discussing this with other parties...
Europe had presented what they thought developing countries should do, which included developing countries drafting low carbon/emission development plans and then registering their needs for resources to meet these plans, and then wealthy countries could also register to support the plans. In other words, Europe proposed matching actions with support.
Papua New Guinea's representative Kevin Conrad asked two questions related to REDD:
1) The first question was how do the proposed low carbon/emission differ from NAMAs, which was the already agreed language from Bali.
2) The second question from PNG was given Europe's position that it did not want to see REDD in carbon markets before 2020, wouldn't that create a perverse incentive for countries NOT to propose reducing deforestation until 2020?
3) A third question was on the nature of the registry. Kevin pointed out that given there was likely to be more need than resources, it would create a sort of reverse auctioning. He suggested that would disadvantage developing countries (presumably meaning a race to cheapest mitigation).
India followed up on the registry question, asking how they would work? Would other financial institutions run these?
Europe responded:
We are not here to re-write the Bali Action plan. we see our proposed low carbon development plans as supporting NAMAs, not replacing them.
On REDD, Europe said "we need to learn under what conditions we can link markets with REDD. And in the meantime, we need alternative funding for REDD."
In other words, it is indeed (sadly) looking like Europe is distancing itself from REDD as a market mechanism in a Copenhagen accord.
Responding to India's question about how a registry would work, Europe basically said it is still thinking it through and looks forward to discussing this with other parties...
Ecudaor asks US's Jonathan Pershing on REDD
In a LCA workshop today, Ecuador asked the United States how they saw REDD fitting into an overall package. Jonathan Pershing (the top diplomat here at the talks) answered by saying (I am paraphrasing as he speaks) "...we know forestry contributes up to 20%. It is hard to imagine a global solution...to get to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases if we keep 20% of emissions off the table.. and we are actively exploring opportunities in this area with many countries...to address drivers of deforestation...and this clearly relates to the REDD discussions. "
Greenpeace slams REDD, claims it will benefit Mobil-Exxon
Greenpeace, which has long opposed REDD (for ten years) held an incredible side event. You should watch the event yourself, but in essence, they rolled out a scientist and a modeler and concluded:
1) The Amazon will probably Die-back anyway from climate change, and therefore any REDD credits are not permanent.
2) REDD would swamp the market, causing a drop of 75% in the carbon price.
3) REDD would only benefit Mobil-Exxon. I swear, I'm not kidding.
On the first point, the scientist failed to note that all credible atmosphere-biosphere models show the Amazon doing just fine until 2050 and only one (the very challenged Hadley Model) showing an Amazon Die-Back. If you watch the presentation by the scientist, you would have a hard time concluding what Greenpeace did, but Greenpeace has never been one to follow facts carefully.
On the second point, many other more credible models have shown that REDD is likely to have a modest impact on prices. See EDF's report here. The modeling that Greenpeace commissioned only looked at one year in 2020, did not allow banking, and had every possible assumption to make the REDD credits look as ominous as possible.
In other bizarre twists, the workshop at one point said that Africa's REDD credits would be the largest impact on swamping the market, and then later said that it would be unlikely that Africa could actually implement REDD due to limited capacity.
1) The Amazon will probably Die-back anyway from climate change, and therefore any REDD credits are not permanent.
2) REDD would swamp the market, causing a drop of 75% in the carbon price.
3) REDD would only benefit Mobil-Exxon. I swear, I'm not kidding.
On the first point, the scientist failed to note that all credible atmosphere-biosphere models show the Amazon doing just fine until 2050 and only one (the very challenged Hadley Model) showing an Amazon Die-Back. If you watch the presentation by the scientist, you would have a hard time concluding what Greenpeace did, but Greenpeace has never been one to follow facts carefully.
On the second point, many other more credible models have shown that REDD is likely to have a modest impact on prices. See EDF's report here. The modeling that Greenpeace commissioned only looked at one year in 2020, did not allow banking, and had every possible assumption to make the REDD credits look as ominous as possible.
In other bizarre twists, the workshop at one point said that Africa's REDD credits would be the largest impact on swamping the market, and then later said that it would be unlikely that Africa could actually implement REDD due to limited capacity.
AWG talks slow going, Europe's REDD position wavering?
The negotiations continue in Bonn. There is a feeling that the entire process is very sloppy still (mutliple tracks, sub-tracks, contact groups). For a good overview of what is going on, please check here and for updates see here.
REDD is spread out among various track and there has been a recent push by the Coalition for Rainforest nations to have a dedicated discussion on REDD.
A few other odds and ends: Europe gave an incredibly confusing side-event on REDD. You can find the presentations here (scroll down to March 31). The bottom line of the presentation was that Europe did not feel comfortable with REDD as a market before 2020! The presentations were very unclear as to whether this was a European Commission viewpoint (which has long opposed REDD) or a European Union position (who actually negotiates international treaties).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
