Le mot du jour

Catégories

Les sponsors du GERES à COP 15

Le mot de la fin

Paroles Paroles Paroles

Il ne faut pas manger tes ongles parce qu’ils sont a toi. Si tu aimes les ongles, mange ceux des autres.

(Georges DARIEN, Le Voleur)

Sous l’oeil effaré des Pays les Moins Avancés, une partie des négociations s’était empêtrée dans un débat sur la différence entre aide au développement et financement de l’adaptation.

Seuls quelques états nordiques ont tenu la vieille promesse d’allouer 0,7% du PIB à l’aide au développement (la moyenne se situe à 0,45%, tirée vers le bas par les USA 0,16%).

Certes des montants pour l’adaptation seront annoncés d’ici à juin 2010. Mais comment se convaincre que ces nouvelles promesses seront tenues?
Quoiqu’il advienne, GERES continue d’avancer sur le terrain, avec toutes les ressources qui seront mobilisables.

Minh Cuong LeQuan pour le GERES

Clim@ctu dernière


Clim@ctu n°10


Reddy for REDD? The mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

Reddy for REDD?  The mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

Reducing deforestation and land degradation, and improving forest cover and conditions, are vital issues for both climate mitigation and adaptation.  Forests constitute resources and carbon stocks so valuable they must be saved. The problem is that forest benefits cannot be expressed in economic or carbon terms alone, forests also deliver countless intangible benefits to both bio-diversity, communities and humankind (like sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere). Deforestation rates, or the potential to ‘reduce’ emission, are not the not the same in all regions in the world. Leading to what is called perverse incentives_ under REDD countries will be rewarded for improper management while countries with past adequate systems or low deforestation rates will not or receive less benefits from such a scheme. Secondly rewarding only those countries could lead to leakage, while protecting one area (paying for its reduced deforestation rates) the deforestation will continue elsewhere.  The causal drivers of deforestation are not addressed.

With no observable decline in the rate of deforestation, 15% of current annual emissions resulting from deforestation, approximately 1.6 billion _equivalent to 25% of the global population_ depending on forests, 2 billion people using biomass for daily heating and cooking, it seems vital considerable progress, on a constructive agreement, on the protection and proper management of these natural resources has to be made.

The draft text proposed by the EU delegation in the negotiations in Copenhagen seek to reduce emissions and increase removals by halting and reversing forest cover and carbon loss from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries by 2030. This reversal cannot occur … unless developing countries compensate developing countries in their undertaking, which again will require non-annex 1 countries to provide transparency and show funds are reinvested in protection and sustainable forest management.

The draft also present options which are less ambitious « all Parties shall collectively aim to reduce emission and increase removals by halting and reversing in forest cover and carbon loss in developing countries”  and does not  state much more  than aiming to reduce emissions by 2030, without stating how.

The document is full of options, negotiators stayed up till 6:00am, meaning there is a draft proposal with some options open for the delegated ministers to come to an agreement on Friday the 18th of December, end of this week.

Positively the text does look at REDD+; a scheme which would include incentives to increase forest carbon stocks and the option to sustainable harvest forest resources. Such a scheme would ideally be coupled with certification, with a wider support for improved forest management as strategy to reduce emission reductions.  Logging is inevitable, now it is our task to find a way to do it sustainable.

A short overview of the text:

Affirmations

  • Integrated into national mitigation strategies (low emission strategy)
  • Promotes the sustainable management of forests
  • REDD will be country based
  • Set-up to facilitate sustainable development, to reduce poverty and to respond to climate change in developing countries

Safeguards

  • Transparent and effective governance structures and support mechanisms
  • Addresses non-permanence or prove additionally (option to be selected)
  • Safeguards on the conversion of natural forests, and to enhance other social and environmental benefits
  • Non-annex 1 countries should undertake necessary actions to reduce leakage [as much as possible]

Developing countries should contribute to mitigation actions in the forest sector by undertaking the following activities

  • Reducing emissions from deforestation
  • Reducing emissions from forest degradation
  • Conservation of carbon stock
  • Sustainable management of forest
  • Enhancement of forest carbon stocks

To be continued…

The REDD+ scheme may turn out to be the most significant achievement to come out of the COP in Copenhagen.

Mathieu VAN RIJN for GERES

How will the post 2012 flexible mechanism system work ?

At present nobody knows what the post-2012 flexible mechanism system will be. Everybody is waiting for this COP to clarify things.

But the draft set up by the Bali Action Plan which is likely to be accepted, proposes different mechanism for advanced developing countries and Least developed countries (LDC).
As the Clean development mechanism (CDM) would remain for the LDC, with hopefully some improvement, the incentive for the most advanced Developing Country to mitigate their emissions through actions has been called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA).


How do NAMA work ?

Basically, countries have to draft  a list of actions to achieve  voluntary emission reduction targets which could be done within their territory in order to reduce their CO2 emissions.  Emissions reductions achieved beyond these “no lose” targets would then be eligible for sale through carbon trading mechanisms.

The principle is that NAMAs are carbon-based and have to be developed in a measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) manner. This also means that NAMA will need to be closely monitored and verified. They could be registered in a national registry, after having been approved by a technical panel.

3 types of NAMAs

This incentive  consists  of 3 types of actions :
1.    Unilateral actions : with no counterpart intervention
2.    Conditional/cooperative actions : with the financial et technical help from industrialized countries which would implicate an up-front payment
3.    Credit generating actions which would be the closest to the current CDM mechanism : it would mean that these projects would be rewarded by carbon credits

Which approach ?

Under this framework, actions could be set up in a sectoral approach, a concept that had been highlighted during the last COP of Poznan, which establishes global commitment to be distributed between the sector stakeholders .
Programmatic CDM based could be another option to operationalize the idea of credit for NAMAs. And in balancing the quality of credit from NAMA and project-based CDM, the carbon credit could have a different price.

Awarding carbon credit for NAMAs is a concrete idea to scale up the current CDM to systematically decarbonise economies in developing countries as it seems obvious that CDM won’t be sufficient to finance mitigation actions.

Not ready yet to be set up

Unfortunately, the targets are still very unclear and even if this proposed scheme was to be accepted, it will again requires a lot of time and efforts to understand and set up some actions and projects that will be part of this framework. Indeed, NAMA will require to set up a structure in order to define precise actions, collect data to assess the baselines, ensure additionality, tackle procedural issues, build up capacity building. The competitiveness is also an important issue as a mitigation action focused on one sector of the economy could increase the costs of the product, and therefore be less competitive compared to the neighborhood countries or the others producers of the region. This will probably slow down enthusiasm of some countries to make any efforts on their high emission generation sectors.

Are NAMAs the first step to the CDM exclusion? Most likely, as it is clearly one of the EU and USA objective. But least developing countries are not ready to give up the CDM yet as it is still a way for them to reach financing and technology transfer. However a reform is necessary so that LDC have a broader access CDM projects.

Manon Delachenal for GERES

Clim@ctu N°9


La main tendue Africaine...

….ou comment les pays les plus vulnérables viennent au secours des pays industrialisés pour éviter l’échec des négociations.

Deux jours avant la fin des négociations, espoir et désordre se mêlent au dedans et en dehors du Bella Center. Au dedans, la proposition africaine portée par le premier ministre éthiopien et soutenue par la France et la Grande Bretagne est une main tendue vers les Etats Unis et la Chine. En dehors, les ONG se voient refuser l’accès au centre de conférence et tentent malgré tout de faire entendre la voix des oubliés des négociations climatiques.

Continue reading La main tendue Africaine…

clim@ctu N°8


Le mot du jour: Blablabla


Tels sont mes principes! et si vous ne les aimez pas, et bien… j’en ai d’autres.
(Groucho Marx)
Des chiffres sortent sur les engagements à aider les pays vulnerables. Mais grattez le vernis d’une belle declaration d’intention philanthropique, et vous trouverez une certaine pauvreté de l’engagement. Parfois même de la mauvaise foi à l’état brut.
Heureusement il existe une solution simple et efficace: remettre un vernis d’une autre couleur.
Minh Cuong LeQuan

Clim@ctu N°7