On Thursday at the UN Convention on Climate Change the Contact Group of The Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) met to discuss the next steps in achieving their two year mandate in ‘reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries’. The chairs of the contact group, Mr. Hernan Carlino from Argentina and Mr. Audun Rosland from Norway, presented a draft text to work from. This text sought a compromise between the positions expressed earlier this week in the SBSTA plenary, mainly between the US wanting to take more time whereas most parties wanted to work on goals and policies. The text called for a second workshop to be held before SBSTA 26 (COP 13) where participants “should continue discussing the range of specific topics requested by SBSTA…in relation to specific possible approaches to be considered under the UNFCCC.” Chairman Rosland explained that dealing with the methodological issues of addressing deforestation emissions is difficult if they do not relate to specific goals. While this doesn’t explicitly say they would look at policy options it is implied that actionable items would be the objective and they would be linked to methodology.
To understand the context behind these discussions the Brazilian situation is a good place to start. According to Carlos Ritti, Greenpeace Climate Campaign Coordinator of Brazil, 17% of the Brazilian Amazon has already been lost. If we reach 20% forest loss the feedbacks intensify and speed up deforestation. If we reach 40% forest loss in the Amazon it is already too late: the impact will be a new regional climate that will transform the landscape of the once lush Amazon into that of a Savannah. In his opinion there isn’t much time left, we need a framework to address deforestation by the next COP.
The proposal that Brazil presented at the deforestation workshop this summer in Rome represented a significant step forward for Brazil towards taking action to protect the Amazon. Under their proposal financial incentives are to be provided, outside of the Kyoto Protocol, to countries that voluntarily reduce emissions from deforestation. This would involve extrapolating and compiling historic deforestation trends in order to determine a “pre-defined deforestation reference rate”. Several challenges are encountered in this. Without commitments there are no baselines to reference and since domestic records are seldom complete or fully accurate, adequately determining a reference rate for most countries is not easy. Recording current rates in a manner that would allow reductions to be measured would require a well-developed, transparent monitoring system. Such a system, as discussed in the SBSTA workshop, would require satellite imaging complimented by ground truthing, both of which, while feasible, require financial capacity and verifiable, consistent methodology. Also, creating economic value in carbon storage in forests would only work if there were strong emissions caps in developed countries (Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Standards) that would create market demand for carbon credits. Furthermore, there is the concern over “leakage” which contends that it is possible that avoided deforestation in one country would be replaced by increased deforestation in a different country, hence no net reduction in emissions.
While the SBSTA Contact Group broke to allow time to discuss and digest the new draft text I spoke with members of the Canadian delegation. They expressed their view that a new funding mechanism to support countries voluntarily working to prevent tropical deforestation would not work because such “benevolent” efforts have not been successful so far. New funding is scarce, that is apparent; however, there is money accessible through the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The key, said Peter Graham from the Canadian Delegation, was the convergence of SBSTA discussions on deforestation with negotiations on post 2012 commitments under the KP. However, Brazil is adamant to keep International Law out of its sovereign forests and therefore keep deforestation out of the protocol. Their stubbornness to avoid any form of commitments under the UNFCCC even earned them the Climate Action Network “Fossil of the Day” award for their stance on post 2012 comitments during the review of the KP under Article 9. It is expected that Brazil will bring back their deforestation proposal again next week during the “Dialogue” on long-term goals however, this arena is widely viewed as an impotent “talk shop.”
The Brazilian refusal to allow avoided deforestation to be credited under the KP is warranted though because permitting such activities would allow developed (Annex-1) countries to receive emissions credits while avoiding real domestic reductions. Avoided deforestation is not a real net reduction in emissions; it is a delayed reduction. Forests are not anthropogenic “sources” (of emissions), they are a natural part of the Carbon Cycle with which humans interfere. While growing trees absorb Carbon from the atmosphere mature trees mainly just retain their carbon. Forests aren’t permanent: they decompose, they burn, they are illegally logged, and they are especially vulnerable in the context of Climate Change. For these reasons, under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism currently allows emission reduction credits for aforestation and reforestation projects but not for avoided deforestation.
It is worth taking into account that any mechanism that provides financial incentives to avoid deforestation runs the risk of further condemning tropical forests. The potential exists of creating a perverse incentive to increase deforestation rates in order to be eligible for greater funding to later reduce deforestation emissions. Taken to an extreme level any sink that could become a source, like a forest or an oil field, could be held hostage in demand for funding to prevent unleashing the Carbon they contain. Also, representatives of The Congo Basin have argued that such a financing system is flawed as it would leave out countries, like theirs, that have not been actively deforesting their land thereby offering them no incentive to continue conserving their forests.
Back to the UNFCCC: when the SBSTA contact group rejoined countries stated their views on the draft text. Papua New Guinea spoke first followed by Brazil both emphasizing the need to focus on specific policy approaches and incentives at the next workshop. Japan talked about the need to deliver from the next workshop to SBSTA 26 (next year) a report that is “practical, feasible, and implementable.” The UK on behalf of the EU expressed their general support for the paper and said they thought it “seeks a substantive outcome for COP 13.” While India supported the paper they mentioned the need to compensate for ongoing efforts of conservation, taking into account those forested countries with low deforestation rates (like in the Congo Basin). The US spoke up to ask that they further define the issues and terms of reference for the workshop and reminded delegates that “workshops are not for negotiating” (they are for talking). Canada reiterated the concerns of the US asking for clarity and mentioning the need to define the role of the Secretariat. The Chair, Mr. Rosland, brought up the importance of continuing this dialogue after the end of the mandated period next year and called for Informal Consultations to be held later on that afternoon.
I tried to get into the Informal Consultation but I was promptly asked to leave the “closed” meeting. Later I found out that inside the Informal Consultations the US had taken a hard stance reiterating their position that more data, more analysis, more methodology, basically, that more of anything other than trying to take action is needed. Now a compromise on the text is uncertain. The US sees this process as an opportunity to gain more methodological data however does not seem interested in participating in international policy to address this pressing issue. There has been enough talking; it is time to begin to move towards policy now, during this COP.
