A new study by WWF scientists and partner organizations has found global climate change could shrink Bangladesh’s Sundarbans tiger habitat by 96 percent, potentially reducing the tiger population to fewer than 20 breeding individuals. An estimated sea level rise of 11.2 inches above 2000 levels by 2070 means this unique mangrove ecosystem could disappear within half a century.
The Sundarbans delta is the largest mangrove forest in the world. This UNESCO World Heritage Site is shared by India and Bangladesh and sits at the mouth of the Ganges River. It is home to an estimated 254-432 Bengal tigers, the only tiger population adapted to live in mangroves. The tigers here regularly swim between islands and are the only tigers to have crabs and other seafood as an important part of their diet.
The area is an amazing ecosystem that houses a plethora of species including the spotted deer (the tiger’s prey), water birds, many kinds of fish, marine mammals, crocodiles, and snakes. The landscape naturally protects the area from natural disasters such as cyclones, storm surges, and wind damage. The mangroves are home not only to endangered fauna like tigers, but also to several million people who depend on the Sundarbans for their livelihoods.
Savannah grassland, Sundarbans National Park, Bangladesh
The Bengal tiger population has already been under threat from poaching and habitat destruction and loss, and research suggests that the seas may be rising faster than originally thought.
Worldwide, tigers occupy only 7 percent of their historic range with as few as 3,200 left in the wild. The study encourages local governments to take immediate action to conserve and expand mangroves while cracking down on poaching. It suggests that globally, countries should work strongly on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to save the Sundarbans.
But the news is not all bad. From the local level to the global, WWF is working to double the number of wild tigers across their range by the next Year of the Tiger in 2022.
“If we don’t take steps to address the impacts of climate change on the Sundarbans, the only way its tigers will survive this century is with scuba gear,” says Colby Loucks, WWF’s deputy director of conservation science and the lead author of the study Sea Level Rise and Tigers: Predicted Impacts to Bangladesh’s Sundarbans Mangroves. “Tigers are a highly adaptable species, thriving from the snowy forests of Russia to the tropical forests of Indonesia. The projected sea level rise in the Sundarbans will likely outpace the tiger’s ability to adapt.”
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Statement from WWF Regarding the IPCC and the Strength of Our Science
For Release: Feb 10, 2010
For nearly five decades, WWF has been a leader in conducting robust, peer-reviewed conservation research and analysis. Today, WWF scientists are working in more than 100 countries around the world, conducting leading edge research that continues to expand our knowledge and understanding of our planet and the species which inhabit it.
In recent weeks, the accuracy of two statements attributed to WWF in a 2007 report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been called into question.
As a science-based organization, we are strongly committed to the integrity of our research. When we became aware of the questions that were being raised about WWF’s role in the IPCC report, we immediately launched a full-scale inquiry involving WWF offices from several countries.
Outlined below are the results of our internal inquiry and the steps we are taking to ensure our scientific publications continue to meet the highest standards for accuracy, including a review of our scientific procedures to determine if changes in our current protocol are warranted.
Additionally, we are working to institute a system to ensure that the scientific community and the public can more easily distinguish between WWF’s peer-reviewed scientific reports and our general communications products.
IPCC Report Citing of WWF for Source on Climate Change in Himalayas and Amazon
The 2007 IPCC climate change study cited WWF reports as the source for the following claims regarding climate change:
* The Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by the year 2035
* Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation
Upon further review, we have determined that the information about the Himalayas was inaccurate and that we erred by including it in one of our reports. In regards to the Amazon, we have determined that our statements were accurate and fully supported by several published studies. In both instances, however, WWF fell short in including sufficient citations for the source of the information.
Specific details about the role played by WWF as a source for the IPCC report are provided below.
Loss of Himalayan Glaciers
The 2007 IPCC climate change report includes the claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by the year 2035 – “and perhaps sooner” – due to climate change, a statement disputed within the scientific community. As the source for that statement and another, the IPCC cites a 2005 WWF report, “An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China.” However, the language in the IPCC report was drawn not from our report, but rather a 1999 article in the online publication, Down to Earth. WWF was not the source of the statement attributed to us.
However, WWF still erred. The 2005 WWF report drew from the same Down to Earth article the IPCC relied upon, though we failed to cite Down to Earth, leading readers to believe that we drew the statement from New Scientist, the next citation in the text. Furthermore, the indirect quote WWF drew from Down to Earth was factually incorrect. Down to Earth quoted a 1999 report by the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) as saying that “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.” WWF repeated this quote without checking the original ICSI report. Had we done so, we would have found that the report did not make that claim. We greatly regret this error, which was not in keeping with our standard procedures.
Climate Change Threat in the Amazon
Another contested statement in the IPCC report is this claim: “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.” As its source, the IPCC cites a joint report by WWF and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) entitled, “Global Review of Forest Fires,” published in 2000.
The WWF/IUCN study said: “Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall,” but failed to include the correct citation – a 1999 report titled “Fire in the Amazon,” by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM). That report said: “Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” Absent the reference to the IPAM report, readers assumed incorrectly that the source was a 1999 Nature article cited two sentences later.
However, unlike the statement about Himalayan glaciers, the reference was drawn from an authoritative source, was factually correct and is supported by the peer-reviewed literature.
The Broader Context
Both the Himalayan and Amazon references illustrate lapses in the writing and review process and are more a reflection of improper citation of sources than an indication of any fundamental issues with the accuracy of the science. In the case of the Himalayan glaciers, the essential point is that their mass is decreasing as are most other glaciers around the world. In regards to the Amazon case, the fact is that a very large portion of the Amazonian forest is at risk from the drier conditions that are likely to be more common as climate rapidly changes – and if deforestation continues.
It is important to keep in mind that our current understanding of climate science is based on decades of research by thousands of scientists and volumes of peer-reviewed studies. These errors, while regrettable, are relatively minor in scope in comparison to the strong scientific basis for our understanding of climate change, which is recognized by virtually every country on the planet.
WWF’s Strong Science and the Steps we are Taking to Ensured its Continued Rigor
As the world’s leading science-based conservation organization, WWF is widely recognized for its leadership in conducting, analyzing and reporting the latest research around the world. Many of our scientists are internationally recognized leaders in their fields of expertise.
WWF has scores of scientists working around the world, publishing their research in international peer-reviewed journals, advising governments and other partners, and putting science to work for conservation. Just within our central Conservation Science Program, based in the U.S., there are 20 practicing scientists, 10 with PhDs, who produce an average of 20 peer-reviewed papers each year in journals such as Science, Nature, PNAS, Bioscience, PLoS Biology, Ecology Letters, Conservation Biology. On average, our research is cited by other scientists more than 600 times per year. WWF scientists also sit on editorial boards of several top journals and are trusted as reviewers of papers for Science, Nature and PNAS.
To ensure the continued rigor of our scientific publications, we have begun an assessment of our publication procedures to reaffirm our standards for evidence, citation, and peer-review. We will institute a system for communicating those standards clearly, so that our work can be cited appropriately. Additionally, we are exploring ways to ensure the general public and others in the scientific community are able to easily distinguish between our peer-reviewed scientific reports and our other communications materials.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the two improper IPCC references is not an indication that the scientific process is broken or that the underlying climate science should be questioned. Rather, it’s an illustration of the scientific process at work. By continually reviewing and reevaluating claims, our estimates improve over time, errors are corrected, and consensus builds. It is through precisely this process of publishing, review, scrutiny and reevaluation that we are able to refine and hone our understanding of the natural world.
For nearly five decades, WWF has been a leader in conducting robust, peer-reviewed conservation research and analysis. Today, WWF scientists are working in more than 100 countries around the world, conducting leading edge research that continues to expand our knowledge and understanding of our planet and the species which inhabit it.
In recent weeks, the accuracy of two statements attributed to WWF in a 2007 report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been called into question.
As a science-based organization, we are strongly committed to the integrity of our research. When we became aware of the questions that were being raised about WWF’s role in the IPCC report, we immediately launched a full-scale inquiry involving WWF offices from several countries.
Outlined below are the results of our internal inquiry and the steps we are taking to ensure our scientific publications continue to meet the highest standards for accuracy, including a review of our scientific procedures to determine if changes in our current protocol are warranted.
Additionally, we are working to institute a system to ensure that the scientific community and the public can more easily distinguish between WWF’s peer-reviewed scientific reports and our general communications products.
IPCC Report Citing of WWF for Source on Climate Change in Himalayas and Amazon
The 2007 IPCC climate change study cited WWF reports as the source for the following claims regarding climate change:
* The Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by the year 2035
* Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation
Upon further review, we have determined that the information about the Himalayas was inaccurate and that we erred by including it in one of our reports. In regards to the Amazon, we have determined that our statements were accurate and fully supported by several published studies. In both instances, however, WWF fell short in including sufficient citations for the source of the information.
Specific details about the role played by WWF as a source for the IPCC report are provided below.
Loss of Himalayan Glaciers
The 2007 IPCC climate change report includes the claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt completely by the year 2035 – “and perhaps sooner” – due to climate change, a statement disputed within the scientific community. As the source for that statement and another, the IPCC cites a 2005 WWF report, “An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China.” However, the language in the IPCC report was drawn not from our report, but rather a 1999 article in the online publication, Down to Earth. WWF was not the source of the statement attributed to us.
However, WWF still erred. The 2005 WWF report drew from the same Down to Earth article the IPCC relied upon, though we failed to cite Down to Earth, leading readers to believe that we drew the statement from New Scientist, the next citation in the text. Furthermore, the indirect quote WWF drew from Down to Earth was factually incorrect. Down to Earth quoted a 1999 report by the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) as saying that “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.” WWF repeated this quote without checking the original ICSI report. Had we done so, we would have found that the report did not make that claim. We greatly regret this error, which was not in keeping with our standard procedures.
Climate Change Threat in the Amazon
Another contested statement in the IPCC report is this claim: “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.” As its source, the IPCC cites a joint report by WWF and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) entitled, “Global Review of Forest Fires,” published in 2000.
The WWF/IUCN study said: “Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall,” but failed to include the correct citation – a 1999 report titled “Fire in the Amazon,” by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM). That report said: “Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” Absent the reference to the IPAM report, readers assumed incorrectly that the source was a 1999 Nature article cited two sentences later.
However, unlike the statement about Himalayan glaciers, the reference was drawn from an authoritative source, was factually correct and is supported by the peer-reviewed literature.
The Broader Context
Both the Himalayan and Amazon references illustrate lapses in the writing and review process and are more a reflection of improper citation of sources than an indication of any fundamental issues with the accuracy of the science. In the case of the Himalayan glaciers, the essential point is that their mass is decreasing as are most other glaciers around the world. In regards to the Amazon case, the fact is that a very large portion of the Amazonian forest is at risk from the drier conditions that are likely to be more common as climate rapidly changes – and if deforestation continues.
It is important to keep in mind that our current understanding of climate science is based on decades of research by thousands of scientists and volumes of peer-reviewed studies. These errors, while regrettable, are relatively minor in scope in comparison to the strong scientific basis for our understanding of climate change, which is recognized by virtually every country on the planet.
WWF’s Strong Science and the Steps we are Taking to Ensured its Continued Rigor
As the world’s leading science-based conservation organization, WWF is widely recognized for its leadership in conducting, analyzing and reporting the latest research around the world. Many of our scientists are internationally recognized leaders in their fields of expertise.
WWF has scores of scientists working around the world, publishing their research in international peer-reviewed journals, advising governments and other partners, and putting science to work for conservation. Just within our central Conservation Science Program, based in the U.S., there are 20 practicing scientists, 10 with PhDs, who produce an average of 20 peer-reviewed papers each year in journals such as Science, Nature, PNAS, Bioscience, PLoS Biology, Ecology Letters, Conservation Biology. On average, our research is cited by other scientists more than 600 times per year. WWF scientists also sit on editorial boards of several top journals and are trusted as reviewers of papers for Science, Nature and PNAS.
To ensure the continued rigor of our scientific publications, we have begun an assessment of our publication procedures to reaffirm our standards for evidence, citation, and peer-review. We will institute a system for communicating those standards clearly, so that our work can be cited appropriately. Additionally, we are exploring ways to ensure the general public and others in the scientific community are able to easily distinguish between our peer-reviewed scientific reports and our other communications materials.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the two improper IPCC references is not an indication that the scientific process is broken or that the underlying climate science should be questioned. Rather, it’s an illustration of the scientific process at work. By continually reviewing and reevaluating claims, our estimates improve over time, errors are corrected, and consensus builds. It is through precisely this process of publishing, review, scrutiny and reevaluation that we are able to refine and hone our understanding of the natural world.
Europe Frames UN Forest and Climate Negotiations
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.
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
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.
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.
UN Climate Game is Back On - With it Rules for Forests
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.
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??
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.
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
