28 June 2009

Gordon Brown puts $100bn price tag on climate adaptation

Prime minister attempts to move stalling political talks on global warming away from targets and towards the cost of mitigation

David Adam, environment correspondent  | guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 June 2009 15.11 BST
climate change in BangladeshFlooding in Bangladesh: The annual $100bn falls well short of what developing nations have demanded in climate funding. Photograph: Hassan Bipul/DFID

Gordon Brown today attempted to seize the political initiative on climate change by calling for rich countries to hand over $100bn (£60bn) each year to help the developing world cope with the effects of global warming.

In a speech at London zoo, the prime minister said the cash offer was intended to break the political stalemate over a new global deal ongreenhouse gas emissions. He said the "security of our planet and our humanity" rested on such a treaty being agreed at key UN negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

"Over recent years the world has woken to the reality of climate change. But the fact is that we have not yet joined together to act against it.Copenhagen must be the moment we do so," Brown said. "As always, this will involve a calculus of national and collective interests, with each yielding something for the common good."

Aides said the speech was intended to provide fresh momentum to the stalling political talks on global warming. In exchange for greater action on climate as part of a new deal, the developing world wants money to help it cut carbon emissions and adapt to a warmer world. Earlier this month, EU leaders postponed a decision on such funds until October.

Brown said: "If we are to achieve an agreement in Copenhagen, I believe we must move the debate from a stand-off over hypothetical figures to active negotiation on real mitigation actions and real contributions."

Under the plan, funding would begin in 2013 and rise to $100bn a year by 2020. The money would be raised from private and public sources, such as levies on international carbon trading schemes. Developing countries would be able to apply for funds for specific projects. "I would urge the leading developing countries to bring forward ambitious and concrete propositions ... that could be financed by these sources," Brown said.

Brown is expected to discuss the plan with world leaders including Barack Obama. Because the UK will negotiate at Copenhagen as part of the EU-bloc, the suggestion will have to be agreed in Brussels before it could be put forward as a formal offer as part of the Copenhagen negotiations.

The annual $100bn falls well short of what China and other developing nations have demanded in climate funding. The G77 group of nations has suggested that rich countries could hand over 1% of their GDP, a figure that British government sources consider unfeasible. "That's a totally unrealistic number. It doesn't even bring us to the negotiating table," one said.

Green campaigners welcomed the speech but were unhappy with the reliance on carbon markets to generate the necessary funds.

Greenpeace said: "Brown is right when he says the scale of the money on the table for the developing world will make or break Copenhagen. By becoming the first major leader to put a figure on how much money is needed he has shown signs of leadership on climate change that have so far been sorely lacking."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Brazil approves controversial land tenure law

By MARCO SIBAJA, Associated Press Writer | AP in Yahoo News | Fri Jun 26, 3:27 pm ET

BRASILIA, Brazil – President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has approved a law that could legalize landholdings by some 1 million squatters occupying a Texas-sized chunk of the Amazon rain forest, despite environmentalist fears it will accelerate deforestation.

The law, approved late Thursday night, affects 260,233 square miles (67.4 million hectares) of federally owned land that for decades has been illegally occupied — mostly by small farmers, but also by large property holders and loggers.

The government says the law will help it curb deforestation and land conflicts, but environmentalists say it will lure more people into the region and lead to more devastation.

The government hopes that legalizing Amazon landholdings will let it better monitor land ownership, which it says is key to the region's sustainable development and survival.

Under the new law, squatters occupying up to 250 acres (100 hectares) will be given title to the land free of cost. The government says that more than 50 percent of the area is made up of small farms of this size.

Lots measuring between 250 and 1,000 acres (100 and 400 hectares) will be sold at a "symbolic cost" and holdings of 1,000 to 3,750 acres (400 to 1,500 hectares) will be sold at market prices.

Larger lots of up to 6,250 acres (2,500 hectares) will be auctioned to the highest bidder. Anything larger can only be sold with congressional approval.

Bowing to pressure from environmental protection groups, Silva vetoed a clause that would have allowedabsentee landlords and companies to benefit from the law.

However the president kept a clause that allows the government to give deeds to lands of less than 1,000 acres (400 hectares) without first verifying that the person asking for the title actually occupies and works the land.

Nilo Davila, Greenpeace representative in Brasilia said that without a prior inspection, more poverty-stricken squatters from around the country will be lured into the Amazon.

"This will lead to more deforestation and violence," he added.

Silva also irked environmentalists by not vetoing a clause that reduced from 10 to three the number of years that must elapse before a large property in the region could be sold.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

24 June 2009

Russia plans to increase emissions 30 percent by 2020

A Russian plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 10-15 percent from 1990 levels implies they will grow from 2.2 billion tons in 2007 to 3 billion tons in 2020

Michael von Bülow | COP15 Copenhagen | 22/06/2009 09:50

Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev announced an emissions target plan on Friday that will increase Russian greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2020.

The scheme would reduce emissions by 10-15 percent from levels in 1990 when Russia was still part of the Soviet Union and its emissions were far higher than today due to heavy industry.

The announcement angered environmentalists, and the target is also likely to fall short of expectations from developing countries.

"It's not enough, it's very low," said Alexey Kokorin, the Russia spokesman for environmental protection group WWF.

The plan implies Russia will emit some 3 billion tons of greenhouse gas in 2020 compared with 2.2 billion tons in 2007.

"We will not cut off our development potential," Dmitry Medvedev commented.

COPYRIGHT 2008-2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Nuclear energy a "green" option in Asia

China and India, among others, increase the production of nuclear energy. But IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri makes certain reservations. Nuclear energy isn't for everyone, he says

Marianne Bom | COP15 Copenhagen | 22/06/2009 13:30

Nuclear power is an option for most developing countries in Asia as a source of non-fossil energy.

That was the message from experts speaking at a forum on climate change in Manila last week, arranged by the Asian Development Bank and the United States Agency for International Development.

"Developing Asian countries – whether they like it or not – should take a look at nuclear power as a source of energy," said Piyasvasti Amranand, Chief Advisor of the Bangkok based Energy for Environment Foundation and former Thai Energy Minister, according to the Chinese news agency Xinhua.

Piyasvasti Amranand said that renewable energy may not be enough to meet the needs of the fast growing region. The average annual GDP growth rate of the region was 3.5 percent from 1990 to 2006. That resulted in an annual energy consumption growth rate of 3.2 percent. Asia now accounts for 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.

Both China and India – the largest energy consumers in the region – plan to increase the production of nuclear power as part of their energy policies.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has endorsed nuclear energy as one of the "commercially available climate change mitigating technologies," but IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri said nuclear power isn't for everyone.

"Nuclear energy provides a solution (to our climate change problem), but it’s not a solution (fit) for every country in the world. You need a certain infrastructure, engineering skills and safety standards that are followed very strictly. Not every country can ensure that," he said.

Construction of more than 100 nuclear reactors is planned world wide over the next ten years, according to the Canadian uranium mining company Cameco. The global shift toward nuclear power is prompting countries to secure their uranium deliveries with long-term supply agreements and by buying shares in companies producing uranium, reports Reuters.

COPYRIGHT 2008-2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Oil boom threatens the last orang-utans

A famous British company, Jardines, is profiting as the lowland forest – which shelters the few remaining orang-utans – is razed to make way for massive palm oil plantations, reports Kathy Marks in Tripa, Indonesia

The Independent | Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Razed lowland forest on Sumatra island awaits a palm oil plantation

Razed lowland forest on Sumatra island awaits a palm oil plantation (Kathy Marks)

Perched halfway up a tree near a bend in the Seumayan River, a young orang-utan lounges on a branch, eating fruit. In the distance, smoke rises from an illegal fire, one of dozens lit to wipe out the virgin rainforest and replace it with oil palm plantations.

It's burning season on Indonesia's Sumatra island, where vast tracts of vegetation are being torched and clear-felled to meet the soaring global demand for palm oil. The pace is especially frenzied in the peat swamp forests of the Tripa region, one of the final refuges of the critically endangered orang-utan – and a company owned by one of Britain's most venerable trading groups is among those leading the destructive charge.

Prized for its productiveness and versatility, palm oil is used in everything from lipstick and detergent to chocolate, crisps and biofuels. Indonesia and Malaysia are the world's biggest palm oil producers – but they also shelter the last remaining orang-utans, found only on Sumatra and Borneo islands in the same lowland forests that are being razed to make way for massive plantations.

In Indonesia, one of the largest palm oil companies is Astra Agro Lestari, a subsidiary of Astra International, a Jakarta-based conglomerate which is itself part of Jardine Matheson, a 177-year-old group that made a fortune from the Chinese opium trade and is still controlled by a Scottish family, the Keswicks, descendants of the original founders.

Conservation groups are targeting supermarkets in Britain to alert consumers to the effects of the palm oil explosion. But The Independent can reveal that Jardines, registered in Bermuda and listed on the London Stock Exchange, is implicated through Astra Agro in ripping out the final vestiges of orang-utan habitat.

Environmentalists are dismayed by the activities of Astra Agro, one of the main companies operating in Tripa under permits that were awarded during the 1990s by the notoriously corrupt Suharto government. They point out that Tripa belongs to the nominally protected Leuser Eco-System, renowned for its exceptional biodiversity, and claim that the plantation businesses are contravening a logging moratorium as well as engaging in illegal practices including burning land.

Greenpeace UK says: "It's scandalous that a British company is bankrolling the destruction of Indonesia's rainforests and peatlands. We need to see big firms like Jardines withdrawing investment from companies involved in rainforest clearance."

Orang-utans are vanishing at an alarming rate in Borneo but in Sumatra their situation is even more precarious. The Sumatran orang-utan – more intelligent and sociable than its Borneo cousin and with a unique culture of tool use – is likely to be the first great ape species to go extinct.

There are believed to be just 6,600 individuals left, mostly living in unprotected areas of Aceh province. Their lowland forests remained relatively undisturbed during the long-running separatist war in Aceh, but since a peace agreement was signed in 2005, it has been open season.

The primates are now splintered across 11 pockets of jungle, with only three populations considered viable. Another three, including Tripa, are borderline viable. Elsewhere, the orang-utans – which use sticks to extract insects from trees and seeds from fruit – are effectively extinct. As their territory shrinks, along with their food supplies, the apes are increasingly coming into conflict with humans. Farmers shoot those caught raiding crops; babies are captured and sold as pets. Adults discovered in oil palm plantations may be hacked to death with machetes.

In Tripa, more than half of the 62,000 hectares of ancient forest has gone. As well as being home to endangered species including the sun bear and clouded leopard, the peat swamps acted as a protective buffer during the 2004 tsunami. They also hold gigantic carbon stocks which are now being released, exacerbating climate change. "If you can't save Tripa, what can you save?" asks Denis Ruysschaert, forest co-ordinator for PanEco, a Swiss environmental organisation.

Sumatra is a beautiful island, with jungle-clad mountains and picturesque villages where long-horned water buffalo wander. But it is difficult not to be shocked by the colonisation of the landscape by one short, stumpy tree: oil palm. The monoculture is a desolate sight, stretching for miles, relieved only by charred hillsides dotted with tree stumps – cleared land awaiting yet more oil palms. Trucks rattle past, laden with the prickly red fruit from which oil is extracted. In Aceh, they call it the "golden plant" – the cash crop that is lifting the province out of poverty and helping it rebuild after the tsunami. "Recently there's a frenzy to plant oil palm," says Fransisca Ariantiningsih, who works for Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (Yel), an Indonesian conservation group.

On Sumatra's west coast, a small-time farmer, Raluwan, is nursing his seedlings. Ten families, he explains, have logged and burnt 100 hectares of land. Each hectare will yield four tonnes of fruit, fetching 800 Rupiah (47 pence) a kilo."I used to grow chilli, but palm oil is a very economical crop," he declares. "You don't need much pesticide or fertiliser." Raluwan knows orang-utans live in the nearby forests. "I don't care," he says. "I've got to feed my family."

However, many are missing out as the industry grows to meet demand from Europe, the US, China and India. Most plantation workers are migrants from Java and in Tripa, communities that depend on the swamps for water, fish and medicinal plants are suffering.

Kuala Seumayan is hemmed in by plantations. Villagers say they no longer have space even to bury their dead. "Since the forest has been chopped down, it's difficult to get food," says one elder, Darmizi. In the Seumayan River, youngsters dive for freshwater clams while children squeal and splash in the placid brown waters. It's an idyllic scene, but something is missing: the sights and sounds of the forest. The only wildlife consists of a hornbill and two long-tailed macaques. Indrianto, a forestry manager, says: "This used to be all peat swamp, with many trees and animals. Now it's all oil palm. Before, I heard animal calls. Now I hear only chainsaws."

By chance, we spot an orang-utan in a solitary tree. Tripa has just 280 apes left. The young male, its fur glowing in the afternoon sun, curls one arm lazily over an upper branch.

A black slick floats on the water: sludge from one of many canals dug to drain the swamps. The arduous procedure is considered preferable to planting on fallow land, which would require negotiations with landowners. This way, the companies also get to sell the timber. As you fly over Tripa, the scale of destruction becomes clear. The green tangle of the forest, in all its riotous variety, abruptly gives way to giant rectangles, laid out with geometrical precision and studded with thousands of palms.

Riswan Zen, a spatial analyst for Yel, last flew over in 2007. "So much forest gone, and all in two years, my God," he says, gesticulating at a satellite imaging map. "If nothing is done, there'll be no forest left in one to two years."

Tripa, designated a priority conservation site by the UN, could hold 1,500 orang-utans if the forest was allowed to regenerate. Prospects seem slim, although Indonesia – one of the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, thanks to deforestation – claims to be committed both to saving the orang-utan and combating climate change.

Fewer than a quarter of Indonesian producers have joined the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, a global organisation promoting sustainable practices. (Astra Agro is not among them.) Even in Aceh, where Governor Irwandi Yusuf, a former rebel leader, has proclaimed a "Green Vision", authorities seem unwilling to crack down on the powerful oil palm companies.

So far, Jardines, whose colourful history inspired a series of novels by James Clavell, has resisted pressure to rein in its Indonesian subsidiary. In a statement to The Independent, Jardines – whose interests include the Mandarin Oriental hotels and Asian branches of Starbucks and IKEA – said Astra Agro's plantations "function in full compliance with ... environmental impact studies".

Astra Agro says it plans to develop only half of its 13,000 hectares in Tripa because of conservation concerns, and it denies any illegal activity.

Ian Singleton, a Briton who heads PanEco's Sumatran Orang-utan Conservation Programme, has no doubt that oil palm is the biggest threat to the orang-utan: "I see the orang-utan as a test case. Are we serious about trying to conserve the planet's eco-systems? If we are, let's prove it by saving a species like the orang-utan. We know where the orang-utans are; all we have to do is protect the forests. If we're serious about conservation, this is where we start."

At a glance: Jardine Matheson

*Founded by two Scottish traders in Canton, China in 1832, it was the first British trading company to smash the East India Company's Asian monopoly.

*Founder William Jardine was known as "the iron-headed old rat" for his toughness and asperity.

*The company's fortunes were founded on smuggling huge quantities of opium into China, creating millions of addicts.

*When the Chinese fought back, Jardine persuaded the British government to launch the First Opium War against China.

*Astra Agro, a subsidiary of the company, claims that "concern for the environment" is "an integral part of all the company's activities".

©independent.co.uk

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Red lines for REDD

Hemantha Withanage | The Island Online | June 24, 2009

The UN initiated Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) in Developing Countries is one of the latest approaches for reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. A multi-donor trust fund was established in July 2008 in collaboration with FAO, UNDP and UNEP for this purpose.

As per the IPCC estimates the cutting down of forests is now contributing close to 20 per cent of the overall greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Forest degradation and land use change also make a significant contribution to emissions. Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and approaches to stimulate action" was first introduced at the Conference of the Parties (COP11) in December 2005 by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by eight other Parties.

There are opposing and supporting views for this. One of the opposing views is because REDD text agreed in COP 14 in Bali did not include the rights of the indigenous people who are living in the forests. Largest forests in Asia, Africa and Latin America are inhabited by the local indigenous people for thousands of years. ‘Adivasi’ people living in Dambana, Sri Lanka are also a good example. However, most of the forests in Sri Lanka are not inhabited by people as they had been removed under conservation programmes or development projects more than two decades ago. Yet there are many local communities who live near the forest areas protect, and depend on the forests resources and the services.

Forests in all tropical countries play a major role in the life of the communities living around them. It is not just a carbon sink but also it is the source of food, water, fire- wood, medicines, building material, non timber forest products, raw material for household appliances. It also controls erosion and floods, maintains the seed banks. It is our life.

On one hand Annex I countries which are supposed to reduce their GHG emissions owe a huge debt to countries which maintained good forests which absorbed CO2 since the industrial evolution began. Those who lived inside and protected forests should be entitled to get the repayment for those services. However in practice this may not be easy. All Sri Lankan forests were vested with the Crown by the British colonials under the Waste Land Ordinance which are now under government control. In practice, the REDD programme will mainly enter into agreement between the [so-called] forest owners, which is the Government, and the parties that seek emission cuts. The Government can only gain benefits in this case.

If the forests are included in a contract by the governments it will have serious control and will limit access to local people. Many of them are local poor who rely on the forest. So, protecting the rights of those people living in poverty and those who are relying on forests for subsistence is an utmost important aspect in this business. Is the REDD program ready to compensate those people and find alternate livelihood for them?

REDD will cut emissions if we keep those forests healthy. As we know Sri Lankan forests have many threats. The illegal cutting of timber, encroachments, massive destruction for development projects are some of them. In many countries they are the government itself, forest and energy industries, road development and big agri-businesses, tea cultivation etc., are responsible for the forest degradation. Involvement of these sectors in both economic and political structures, needed for a successful implementation of REDD, which will have serious cost involvement too.

If we are to receive REDD funds we have to maintain healthy forests. According to the UN "The UN-REDD Programme is aimed at tipping the economic balance in favour of sustainable management of forests so that their formidable economic, environmental and social goods and services benefit countries, communities and forest users while also contributing to important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."

It is the opinion of many activists that forests should not be treated as carbon sinks. It has multiple values. The above explanation shows that REDD has been proposed as not only for Climate Change Mitigation, but also the conservation of eco-diversity and continue to give other forest services such as water regulation. For local people living by the forests is much more important than getting control by the climate mitigation mechanisms (such as emission traders) who are far away from them.

Therefore we believe that REDD should not be included in the emissions market. Further, if REDD is considered under emission market, the developed countries could by themselves be out of their own obligations to reduce CO2 emissions in their own country by buying cheap forest certificates. According to the Rain Forest Foundation,UK "REDD would potentially be using for the carbon offsetting and the it would subsidy the loggers."

On the other hand, since developed countries are not willing to accept emission cuts, the REDD will be mostly voluntary. They will prefer some countries where they can find cheap credits. This may create a cold war between Annex II countries and it might weaken the Annex II countries’ positions. Especially, this is more possible in the case with the global financial crisis. Some countries will have more to offer which means they will offer cheaper CO2 absorption.

Conservation of forests is not cheap in countries such as Sri Lanka where the threat is so much compared to some countries which have more lands with low population pressure. So the cost of maintenance is not equal in all the countries. This means the cost of CO2 absorption is also not the same. Therefore if those countries are to maintain healthy forests they need more funds. On the other hand too much focus on some forests in order to respect the REDD agreements will limit attention on some not so important forests which means the total forest degradation might still go up.

As we always believe, real emission cuts should be done at home by controlling their own life style by the developed countries. However, there should be a mechanism to stop further degradation of tropical forests. With the REDD funds it will not be possible to stop all deforestation within a country at once. But, the conservation of existing natural and well managed forests should have priority over reforestation and afforestation under any mechanism. Although we can see that we are losing our natural forest cover in Sri Lanka, overall forest cover has gone up since it includes the new plantations. So it is sometimes hard to depend on the national statistics about degradation.

Consideration of biodiversity is a important aspect in REDD approach. Monoculture and Plantations have little or no contribution to biodiversity compared to natural forests. Undoubtedly, natural forests could store more carbon than forest plantations. Therefore REDD should not waste its funds for plantations which are economically so attractive.

Countries such as Sri Lanka have contributed to the conservation of forests for thousands of years. That should be rewarded in order to discourage future deforestation. There is a trend in Annex II countries, such as Sri Lanka, to destroy some forests disregarding climate impacts for development projects. If they are to save them, it needs attractive income generation from those global forest services.

One big problem with REDD is the consideration of the rights of the Indigenous and local communities whose rights must be fully respected. This is undeniable especially when UN has already accepted the rights of the indigenous people. Therefore, REDD should respect the good governance principles and democratic decisions making including Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC). Participation of the people on site is indispensable to make forest conservation permanent and socially just. In my opinion there won’t be conservation to the forest unless people have access to the funds earned under the REDD.

Nevertheless, if the REDD are going to be successful it needs dedicated funds rather than support going through the general ODA accounts. The ODA funded activities are not successful in many countries. Neither the carbon market managed activities. It will need serious management. The good governance, compensation for local right owners, poverty elimination, fair treatment of all forests, should be included in designing implementation and in post activities.

The project is normally looked after only during the implementation. If the REDD is to be successful the forests should be managed not only during the short term project period but for a long term i.e 100- 200 years. It is a question whether this is going to happen and whether those developed countries are going to put funds for such a long period.

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 by the United states proposed something similar to „debt for nature swap" which was under heavy criticism. Yet some 16 countries including Indonesia, Peru, Philippine are part of this programme. It allows countries to put debt payment to United States into a fund which manage national forests in the way United States want to control. US president has veto power over the use of the fund money. It is my fear that the REDD could be another face of the same.

With all pros and cons of REDD, more importantly REDD programmes will include forests’ ability to absorb CO2 emissions in future. However, our forests have already fixed carbon and they are already carbon stocks. If the REDD considers forest carbon stock roll, it may be easier to respect forests’ roll and continue the services without conflicting the local interests.

Unlike many countries Sri Lanka has home gardens. They are not forests but they have canopies similar to a rain forest with timber and non timber species. They act as carbon sinks and reduce erosion and control floods too. If you look at these home gardens and carbon stocks rather than forest carbon sinks it can greatly increase the carbon absorption. While forests are still with much higher diversity, if the REDD consider home gardens as carbon stocks which are done by the ordinary people they may look as an alternative. For the carbon absorption, Sri Lanka has 818,000 Ha of home gardens approximately which is about 1/3 of the total natural forest and Plantation cover in Sri Lanka. This may be the case in many tropical countries.

Hemantha Withanage, Centre for Environmental Justice – Sri Lanka
Copyright©Upali Newspapers Limited

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Amazon deforestation in 2009 declines to lowest on record

Global economic downturn drives slowing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon

Rhett A. Butler | mongabay.com | June 22, 2009
Click image to enlarge

Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell below 10,000 square kilometers for the first time since record-keeping began, reported Brazil's Environment Minister Carlos Minc on Sunday.

Minc said preliminary data from the country's satellite-based deforestation detection system (DETER) showed that Amazon forest loss between August 2008 and July 2009 would be below 10,000 square kilometers, the lowest level in more than 20 years. Official figures are due out in August or September.

Falling commodity prices and government action to crack down on illegal clearing are credited for the decline in deforestation.

Conversion to cattle pasture accounts for roughly 80 percent of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Pasture is used for beef production as well as to speculate on rising land prices.

Nearly 20 percent of the Amazon has been cleared since the 1970s, but the Brazilian government has recently committed to significant reductions in deforestation under its climate change mitigation plan. The country aims to raise more than $20 billion in donations from industrialized countries to fund forest conservation.

Copyright mongabay 2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Mixed signals from the crown? Queen knights logging tycoon while Prince fights deforestation

mongabay.com | June 22, 2009

Tiong Hiew King, founder and chairman of the Rimbunan Hijau Group, a Malaysian logging firm notorious for large-scale destruction of rainforests, has been knighted by Queen Elizabeth, a move which environmentalists say directly conflicts with her son's campaign to save global rainforests. Prince Charles established the Prince’s Rainforests Project in 2007 and has become increasingly vocal in his calls to conserve forests.

The Bruno Manser Fund (BMF), a Swiss NGO that campaigns on behalf of forests and forest people of Sarawak, a state in Malaysian Borneo, immediately condemned Queen's decision to honor Tiong.

"Tiong is unfit for such a distinction, Queen should deprive him of his knighthood," the group said in a statement. "The Queen has awarded a knighthood to a Malaysian timber tycoon whose companies have been destroying the world's tropical rainforests for decades and have been heavily involved in illegal logging activities."

Tiong was knighted by the Queen in recognition of his "services to commerce, community and charitable organisations" (PDF) in Papua New Guinea (PNG). Environmentalists have fiercely criticized Rimbunan Hijau, the largest logging operator in PNG, for alleged human rights abuses, corruption and environmental damage.

"Ironically, the Queen has thus decorated one of the main responsibles for the illegal exploitation of Papua New Guinea's tropical forests," said BMF.

"To knight the PNG rainforest mafia is a calamity of the highest order," Glen Barry, founder and director of the forest advocacy group Ecological Internet, told mongabay.com via email. "These are rainforest-destroying criminals. Whose side is UK's monarchy on anyway besides there own?"

Rimbunan Hijau has operations in Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and Russia, among other countries. Tiong founded the firm in 1976 and today is one of Malaysia's richest men, with a net worth of more than a billion dollars according to Forbes.

UPDATES

22-June-2009 A reader points out that the Queen herself didn't make the decision to knight Tiong:

The Queen only nominally knights people in Commonwealth countries, just as she does not directly select Governor Generals as 'her representative' in those countries. The point here is that the PNG Government though the Prime Minister's Dept. made this decision that was endorsed by the PNG National Executive Council (effectively their cabinet), and there is no precedent for the queen to refuse this.

23-June-2009. BMF reports confusion of whether Tiong was actually knighted.

Rising doubts over timber tycoon's knighthood

Tiong Hiew King, founder and chairman of the notorious Malaysian Rimbunan Hijau Group, may not have been knighted as announced by his media group in Malaysia and Papua New Guinea

On 15 and 16 June 2009, a number of media in Malaysia and Papua New Guinea announced that Tiong Hiew King, the billionaire owner of the Rimbunan Hijau logging group, had been bestowed a knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II. for services to commerce, community and charitable organizations in Papua New Guinea.

The news was carried among others by the Malaysian daily Sin Chiew and the Papua New Guinean newspaper The National, which are both owned by Tiong. On the same day, the Media Chinese International group, which is controlled by the Tiong family, referred in a Hong Kong stock exchange announcement to "Sir Tiong Hiew King" as a member of its board of directors.

Research by the Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) is now raising doubts if Tiong has actually been bestowed a knighthood. Tiong's name does not appear on the official Queen's birthday honors list as published by the British dailies The Independent and The Guardian. BMF is currently awaiting a clarification regarding Tiong's knighthood from the Honours and Appointments Secretariat of the Cabinet Office.

The Bruno Manser Fund believes that, due to the devastating social and environmental effects of Rimbunan Hijau's logging activities around the world, Tiong is unfit for a knighthood.

Copyright mongabay 2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

UNIDO chief urges int'l community to help developing countries develop green energy

Xinhua | 2009-06-23 07:36:53

VIENNA, June 22 -- Director-General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Kandeh K. Yumkella stressed here on Monday that the international community had to place emphasis on helping developing countries carry out green energy revolution.

At the beginning of the Vienna International Energy Conference held on Monday, he said, although in the context of the global financial and economic crisis, the international community had to focus on the development of green energy, and in particular, pay attention to development of green energy in developing countries.

He warned that the current global financial and economic crisis has resulted in a global decrease of 20 percent to 30 percent in investment in the area of renewable energy. Moreover, it might take many years to bring the relevant investment to return to the original level.

Nevertheless, the crisis also forced the countries to "pay more attention to the real economy again." Therefore, the UNIDO must use the chance brought by this global crisis to their advantage to promote "a green energy revolution."

He highlighted, the most important task of UNIDO was to help developing countries develop their economy, while avoiding the mistakes made by developed countries in the development process. At present, they should particularly strengthen support in the promotion of "green energy revolution" for developing countries.

According to the estimation of the economic expert of Vienna University of Technology, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, the current annual investment in global energy industry was about 350 billion U.S. dollars, of which more than 100 billion dollars for renewable energy.

The president of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also pointed out, the realization of the transformation of energy mix to renewable energy cannot abandon developing countries, which would be particularly important to them.

During the meeting, some experts also stressed the importance of the use of new technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and also pointed out that, at least in the foreseeable future, nuclear energy would continue to be an important part.

At present, about one-sixth of global electricity production is by nuclear energy. This three-day International Energy Conference is organized by UNIDO, the Government of Austria, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the Global Forum on Sustainable Energy.

Some 500 experts in relevant fields as well as politicians from all over the world attended the meeting.

Special Report: Fight against Global Warming
Editor: Xiong Tong
Copyright ©2009 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Mexico: 'Green fund' better than carbon credits

By Mark Stevenson | Associated Press in Google News | June 23, 2009

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican President Felipe Calderon made a push Monday for his proposal for a $10 billion "green fund" as a more efficient way to fight climate change than carbon credits.

Calderon spoke at the opening of the latest session of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, which brings together representatives of 19 countries and the European Union that together account for 80 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

"The current carbon credits would not have to disappear, but they are not an efficient mechanism," Calderon said, noting that the credits market "has to match an industry that wants to pollute with another" that has projects to compensate or reduce gas emissions.

The two-day meeting opened near the city of Cuernavaca. It is the third in a series of talks called for by President Barack Obama that will culminate with a June summit in Italy.

The goal is to help broker a replacement for the expiring Kyoto Protocol, ahead of a United Nations conference in Copenhagen next December on a new international treaty for dealing with global warming.

Calderon said the green fund could be administered by the World Bank or some other multilateral agency.

It would be funded by contributions from all nations — and open to finance projects from all nations — as opposed to largely private-sector carbon credit market.

"It will have a framework of greater multilateral participation, which will result in a more equitable and efficient distribution of funds," Calderon said.

He said the idea "does not seek, as has been traditional, that the funds to fight climate change ... come from the same old donors as an act of charity or a handout given to developing countries."

"It is time to move on from mutual reproaches, to a shared scheme of responsibility," Calderon said.

The amount each country would donate to the fund would be open to negotiation, but rich countries would be expected to give more.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
©2009 Google

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

22 June 2009

Norwegian oil giant to lead on climate change

AFP in The Swedish Wire, 21 June 2009 08:26

MONGSTAD (AFP) - Norway's most polluting industrial site, the Mongstad oil refinery, is now looking to lead the way on fighting climate change.

Located on the country's west coast, the refinery spits out around 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year -- a gas that is widely blamed for global warming.

But the Mongstad site will soon start road-testing new technology known as 'Carbon Capture and Storage' (CCS) as its owners look to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in its day-to-day operations.

"CO2 is a real threat but we believe it can be addressed with technology and different consumption patterns," said Jon Arnt Jacobsen, StatoilHydro executive vice president for manufacturing and marketing.

The refinery will first host a small-scale project pilot capable of capturing 100,000 tonnes annually from 2011. A few years later a full-scale facility which will remove most of the CO2 emitted by the refinery and the gas power plant being built here.

CCS technology is already deployed on a number of smaller factories. It uses solvents to separate out the carbon dioxide produced from industrial fumes. It can then be transported by ship or pipeline and buried underground.

This method will contribute 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions cuts needed by 2050 to keep global warming at an acceptable level, according to the International Energy Agency.

"If you are going to burn coal as indeed we have committed to doing in thousands of power plants around the world, we don't have any option apart from being able to capture carbon dioxide," Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN climate panel (IPCC) that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, told AFP.

The G8 group of nations, the world's eight leading industrialised economies, have thrown their weight behind the idea of launching 20 large scale CCS projects by 2010.

StatoilHydro says the Mongstad project is leading the way in this field and it could help cut as much as four percent of the Scandinavian country's greenhouse gas levels.

But the only illustration so far of this ambitious project is a flat, empty space where a carbon capturing unit is meant to stand.

That is one of the reasons why some environmentalists are sceptical about the CCS's potential to help combat climate change.

"CO2 emissions have to come down before 2015, which means CCS will arrive too late," said Truls Gulowsen, the leader of Greenpeace's Norwegian branch.

"We don't even know if it works but we carry on building coal power plants by the dozen in the hope that perhaps one day we will be able to capture their CO2," he added.

Greenpeace says the current focus on CCS --a technology which on top of that requires a lot of energy-- is diverting time and money from other more concrete measures to fight climate change.

The group says big industry should concentrate more on energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources.

But that view is rejected by Frederic Hauge, who heads up the Norwegian environmental group Bellona.

"We do not see any chance (of cutting emissions) at all without CCS," he said.

Hauge points out that the amount of energy required to build solar panels, construct wind turbines and produce biomass will also create a lot of greenhouse gases.

"If you're going to produce all the renewables we need for the developing world, CO2 emissions will soar without CCS," he said.

Yet question marks remain over the cost of such technology as CCS is a long way from being commercially viable.

StatoilHydro says it will cost between 1,300 and 1,800 kroner (145-200 euros, 200-280 dollars) for each tonne of CO2 captured -- and that estimate does not include transportation and storage costs.

In Mongstad, the Norwegian government has agreed to pick up the tab which will amount to some 25 billion kroner for building a full scale CCS facility.

But in other places, big industry or energy firms might find it more tempting to buy carbon credits, which currently sell for just around 15 euros per tonne of CO2 emitted.

Most experts agree that while carbon remains so cheap, many companies will not find the technology attractive.

"The price of carbon is not high enough but should we just sit back and wait until the price is right? This could take years," said Hauge.

Copyright © 2009 The Swedish Wire

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

14 June 2009

Africa: Climate change leads to civil war

23 countries in Africa face risk of violent conflict as climate change worsen other security threats, new report suggests.

Morten Andersen, COP15 Copenhagen, 12/06/2009 17:15

According to an international review panel, 23 countries in Africa face “a high risk of violent conflict” when climate change comes on top of traditional security threats. A further 14 countries face “a high risk of political instability” according to the 2009 report from the Africa Progress Panel.

The report also notes that while Africa is set to suffer greatly from effects of climate change, only a fraction of international funds intended for climate change mitigation projects find their way to the continent. Of 1,400 projects supported by the UN-backed CDM scheme (Clean Development Mechanism) less than 30 were in Africa, news site allAfrica.com reports.

The panel does, however, see positive signs at inter-governmental level. First of all, the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment has held meetings to formulate a common African position on climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference in December this year.

COPYRIGHT 2008-2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Amazon deforestation doesn't make communities richer, better educated, or healthier

A new study finds Amazon deforestation fails to sustain long-term economic growth for rural populations. The findings come as development interests in Brazil push for government support to bolster infrastructure projects and agricultural expansion in the world's largest rainforest.

Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com, June 11, 2009

Deforestation generates short-term benefits but fails to increase affluence and quality of life in the long-run, reports a new study based an analysis of forest clearing in 286 municipalities across the Brazilian Amazon. The research, published in Friday's issue of the journal Science, casts doubt on the argument that deforestation is a critical step towards development and suggests that mechanisms to compensate communities for keeping forests standing may be a better approach to improving human welfare, while simultaneously sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services, in rainforest areas.

Rainforest and soy in the Brazilian Amazon.

To reach this conclusion, Ana Rodrigues, a researcher formerly with University of Cambridge and currently at the Centre of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology in France, and colleagues used the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Index, a metric that combines life expectancy, literacy, and standard of living, to assess the welfare of 286 municipalities with varying degrees of deforestation. They found that relative welfare increases as deforestation begins, but then declines as the frontier progresses on to other areas, leaving pre- and post-deforestation levels of human development statistically equal. In other words, the boom-and-bust cycle generates few lasting benefits for local permanent populations. Most gains accrue to a population of migrants — loggers, ranchers, speculators, land squatters, miners, and farmers — that move with the frontier as resources are exhausted and land is degraded.

"The Amazon is globally recognized for its unparalleled natural value, but it is also a very poor region. It is generally assumed that replacing the forest with crops and pastureland is the best approach for fulfilling the region's legitimate aspirations to development," Rodrigues explained. "This study tested that assumption. We found although the deforestation frontier does bring initial improvements in income, life expectancy, and literacy, such gains are not sustained."

chart showing human development index with varying degrees of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon

chart poverty, standard of living, literacy rates, life expectancy along a deforestation gradient in in the Brazilian Amazon

Circles from left to right correspond classes of deforestation defined by the authors (A=low deforestation extent and activity; D=very active deforestation activity and 40-60% deforestation extent; G=inactive deforestation activity and less than 10 percent forest cover. Circles indicate median values; bars indicate first and third quartiles; horizontal dashed line indicates the median across all Brazilian municipalities. Charts adapted from Rodriquez et al. 2009. Click charts to enlarge.

"The 'boom' in development that deforestation brings to these areas is clear, but our data show that in the long run these benefits are not sustained. Along with environmental concerns, this is another good reason to restrict further deforestation in the Amazon," added co-author Rob Ewers from Imperial College London. "However, in areas that are currently being deforested, the process needs to be better managed to ensure that for local people boom isn't necessarily followed by 'bust'."

But slowing deforestation is will not be easy. Those who benefit most from short-term exploitation — large-scale ranchers, industrial logging, agricultural giants, and absentee land barons — have considerable political clout in Brazil and have lately been pushing measures that will drive more Amazon deforestation, including a bill (HB 458) passed by the Senate last week that will grant legal title to 600,000 square kilometers of illegally occupied Amazon rainforest land. The bill favors industrial developers over small landholders, allowing those controlling 400-1500 ha to sell their holdings after three years, but requiring farmers with smaller plots to wait 10 years to sell. Brazil has also committed to spend upwards of $40 billion on new infrastructure projects — including dams, ports, and road improvement — in the Amazon to support development in the region.

For all their promise, payments-for-ecosystem-services schemes will only be effective where there is the institutional capacity to deliver benefits to local people. Presently, the lack of the governance in frontier regions is a hindrance to slowing deforestation. But this may be is changing. While critics says HB 458 favors big industry and may drive new deforestation, the bill will "regularize" land holdings, potentially improving land tenure systems.

While this political pressure remains a challenge, the authors suggest a solution may lie in a multifaceted approach that includes both boosting returns on already deforested lands and limiting further deforestation.

"A combined approach might include supporting the better use of areas that have already been deforested (e.g., via the intensification of ranching and agriculture) alongside restricting further deforestation [e.g., through protected areas and appropriate land use zoning] and promoting reforestation in degraded landscapes; direct incentives to encourage forest-based livelihoods based on the sustainable harvest of timber and nontimber forest products, within and beyond forest concessions; and targeted policies to improve literacy, health, and land tenure security," they write.

The authors argue that emerging payments-for-ecosystem-services schemes could become a key mechanism for delivering benefits to local populations as an incentive for preserving forests as viable and productive ecosystems. A handful of ecosystem services programs are already being implemented in the Brazilian Amazon, includingBolsa Floresta in the state of Amazonas, an initiative that offers payment and access to education and healthcare to families that voluntary agree to reduce deforestation. Such programs would benefit from a proposed climate change mitigation mechanism, known as reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), currently under discussion for the next international climate treaty, which will be hammered out this December at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen. REDD would pay tropical countries to keep their forests standing.

Click image to enlarge
Since 2003 Brazil has set aside 523,592 square kilometers of protected areas, accounting for 74 percent of the total land area protected worldwide during that period.

"New financial mechanisms and policies are paving the way for more sustained development trajectories and creating the conditions in which the largest tropical forest in the world can be recognized as more valuable standing than felled," the authors conclude.

Brazil houses more than 60 percent of the Amazon rainforest, the world's largest tropical forest. Over the past 30 years nearly one-fifth of the forest area have been cleared, largely for agriculture and cattle pasture. Scientists estimate the forest may be home to one quarter of the world's land-based plant and animal species as well as the largest population of indigenous people still living in traditional ways. Some researchers fear that continued clearing, together with increased incidence and severity of drought and fire due to climate change, could result in a large scale die-off of the Amazon by the end of the century.

Citation: Ana S. L. Rodrigues, Robert M. Ewers, Luke Parry, Carlos Souza Jr., Adalberto Veríssimo,6 Andrew Balmford1. Boom-and-Bust Development Patterns Across the Amazon Deforestation Frontier. SCIENCE VOL 324 12 JUNE 2009
Copyright mongabay 2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

World Bank revokes loan to Brazilian cattle giant accused of Amazon deforestation

mongabay.com, June 13, 2009

The Work Bank's private lending arm has withdrawn a $90 million loan to Brazilian cattle giant Bertin, following Greenpeace's release of a report linking Bertin to illegal deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, report environmental groups, Friends of the Earth-Brazil and Greenpeace.

The loan, granted by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in March 2007, was to expand Bertin's meat-processing in the Brazilian Amazon. At the time, the IFC promoted the loan as a way to promote environmentally responsible beef production in the Amazon, although environmental groups — including Friends of the Earth-Brazil and Greenpeace — criticized the move.

The number of cattle bred in the Legal Amazon is growing fast: between 1990 and 2003, the bovine herd more than doubled, from 26.6 million to 64 million head of cattle – 60% of the herd are in the states of Mato Grosso and Pará.
Caption and image courtesy of Greenpeace's Amazon Cattle Footprint. Click image to enlarge

IFC's support of Bertin was put in the spotlight two weeks ago when Greenpeace issued its exposé on the Brazilian cattle industry. The report, titledSlaughtering the Amazon [], linked some of the world's most prominent brands to illegal deforestation in the Amazon for production of cattle products. Earlier this week Brazil's three largest supermarket chains, Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Pão de Açúcar, said they will suspend contracts with suppliers found to be involved in Amazon deforestation.

William Laurance, a senior scientist with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, said he was pleased the IFC recalled the loan.

"I am delighted to hear that the proposed IFC loan to Bertin, S.A. operation has been halted," he told mongabay.com. "Cattle ranching—often on illegally deforested lands—has emerged as one of the biggest killers of the Amazon rainforest, and a threat to the region's indigenous peoples. Bertin has been profiting from this destruction."

Mato Grosso. Photo by Rhett A. Butler

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth-Brazil also welcomed the IFC's decision.

"It is good news that the World Bank is withdrawing these funds, yet scandalous that it was feeding a company that causes Amazon deforestation and climate change in the first place. It must now guarantee that it will not invest in such damaging projects in the future," said Paulo Adario, Greenpeace Brazil’s Amazon campaign director.

"We congratulate IFC for its decision and we hope that this serves as a lesson in the future," said Roberto Smeraldi, director of Friends of the Earth. "Now, it is important for the National Bank for Social and Economic Development (BNDES) to follow this example. How can a public bank continue as a partner of a company so involved in illegal activities?"

Last year BNDES, Brazil's giant development bank, loaned Bertin 2.5 billion reais (approximately $1.25 billion).

Cattle ranching is the biggest driver of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, accounting for roughly 80 percent of forest clearing. More than 38,600 square miles has been cleared for pasture since 1996, bringing the total area occupied by cattle ranches in the Brazilian Amazon to 214,000 square miles, an area larger than France. The legal Amazon, an region consisting of rainforests and a biologically-rich grassland known as cerrado, is now home to more than 80 million head of cattle, more than 85 percent of the total U.S. herd.

Copyright mongabay 2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Climate change for richer and poorer

Editorial, FT.com, June 11 2009 19:46

For now, we have hot air – not what you want when the topic for debate is CO2emissions. But, only months before December’s Copenhagen meeting, where 181 countries are supposed to slug out a post-Kyoto protocol, bluster inevitably outweighs real concessions.

The biggest impasse is between China and the US, which together emit 40 per cent of the world’s carbon. The US is considering legislation that would cut emissions by 16-17 per cent from current levels by 2020 – roughly flat on 1990 levels, Kyoto’s baseline year. Japan this week went slightly better, offering an 8 per cent cut from 1990. The European Union offers 20 per cent; but with the EU already making good headway on cuts, this is a lesser concession than it looks.

China and India are dismissive. Beijing has raised the stakes by urging rich countries to cut emissions 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to pay huge sums to help poor countries cope with climate change. But everyone, China included, knows this is unrealistic. Its tough stance is an opening gambit, not a target outcome.

That stance is based on old arguments, but they are not less potent for being well-worn. The west has been polluting for 200 years and China’s per capita emissions are only one-fifth of those of the US. Some 40 per cent of Chinese energy use produces exports for western consumers. That Beijing has logic and morality on its side, however, does not mean we will not all perish by applying them.

Not all is lost. China, and even India, are doing more than they are letting on. But they cannot be seen as being lectured by the west: much of their tough talk is for domestic display. So neither wants to be penned in by binding commitments – but they do want to be more energy-efficient and less polluting. Notwithstanding the smog hanging over Chinese cities, Beijing really is trying to implement stricter environmental standards.

Developing countries will not accept absolute cuts. But there is talk behind the scenes of China “bending the curve” – slowing the rate of increase. That would be a start. The best outcome would be if poor-country emitters were willing to quantify such promises.

To achieve this, rich countries must lead. They must put money on the table so poor countries see financial gains from combating climate change. They should also offer genuine research and technology collaboration – cheap, but symbolically important for countries such as China. If rich countries move, they may find China and others are willing to respond.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Namibia: Rainfall Year 2009 - Unevenly Eventful

John Olszewski, Namibia Economist in AllAfrica.com, 12 June 2009

Windhoek — Less than a year ago, the prospects for the new season offered some promise but also considerable doubt. In building an analysis, the interesting 50-year pulse provided the prospect of some rain but with drought spells and an overall below normal total at the close. The effect of climate change could not be estimated but could not be ignored.

The results provided a magnification of the prospect ranges.

The arrival of early rains during the spring months was to be viewed with gratitude but also with the misgiving of a departure with no sure prospect of a return. The "green Christmas and a bad year" coupling had to be borne in mind.

October and, more particularly, November provided some productive rain.

December, similar to 1959 in many ways, went dry.

Into January and the persisting heat and dry air brought mounting concern.

Meanwhile the Pacific Ocean, which had been dithering on the verge of a La Nina event, found itself on the positive side. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology pronounced its opinion that the Southern Oscillation feature was now in a La Nina mode. This was during the second week of January.

Active weather, the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), was there for all to see away to the east of Rundu and well marked at Katima.

During the second week, timing well with La Nina revealing itself, the ITCZ drifted westward. Rains ensued forthwith.

Season 2008 had provided a glimpse of what an ITCZ invasion could do when it enters our (northern) skies.

A very similar repetition was to follow.

Okatana Mission was to herald the onset: 170mm on the 18th opened the score. Ondangwa followed suit with a 5-day Wet Spell totalling almost 150mm simultaneously. Similar ranges were to be recorded across the northern parts with very little break for the next 7 weeks.

Such features as wettest day, duration of Wet Spell days and amounts recorded were equalled or improved and the contributions to the Rainy Spell ranges (consecutive days of 1mm or more) appeared en masse by our standards.

For the Owambo regions in particular, this was just too much water. Having broken records just a year earlier, the saturation levels of the Oshanas and the slightly higher ground in-between were quickly attained and exceeded: widespread flooding yet again.

The ITCZ presence was propagating very heavy and protracted falls across southern Angola. The resultant efundja led to even higher flooding levels. For the second year running, the Etosha pan was full to the brim and even, according to some sources, overflowing into its surrounds.

On the fringes of this ITCZ activity, Sitrusdal led the Rainy Spell parade with 18 consecutive days of rain in February and only 2 rainless days in that month. This group of days of rain extended to 38 consecutive days of rain. And this in a climate zone labelled arid!

Further afield, but also in February, Omaruru has a Rainy Spell of 12 days.

Even further afield, Usakos had an 8-day offering. In between, while not breaking records, the rains were considerable.

The south and westward extension reached the coast. Mowe Bay, Ganab, Walvis Bay and Gobabeb all could report unusual rains or numbers of days on which rain fell. Inland, patchiness emerged further away from the ITCZ core of activity. This dry zone was most notable across the eastern parts from about Tsumkwe southwards to well beyond Gobabis.

It was only as the ITCZ core weakened that effective rains began to fall across these thirsty areas.

The ITCZ had been held in place by a mid-level anticyclone above central Botswana.

The southward flow generated by the anticyclone did advect some moisture into the south. But, considering the standards further north, the overall picture left a feel of need unfulfilled.

The ITCZ drifted northward during March, La Nina weakened during April and the impact on these months of usually ample rainfall input was generally limited: 1959 shadow returning?

From this, do we dare assume that ITCZ presence is now to be anticipated with some form of regularity? Are northern floods to be a repetitive event? The eastern shortfall is easily identified, but is this to be a mix of wet and dry in such close juxtaposition? ITCZ range of influence maybe difficult to measure, but can the variability of an arid climate zone find some kind of boundary? With climate change, particularly varied circulation patterns, in evidence outlooks will be varied. Season 2009 will have made its mark in disappointment, dryness and record-breaking all in the same 6-month range. Variability suggests versatility, are these boundaries about to be widened?

Copyright © 2009 Namibia Economist. All rights reserved
Copyright © 2009 AllAfrica Global Media.

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Footprint. Handprint. Blueprint: How Business Can Tackle Climate Change

By Neville Isdell, ClimateBiz, June 12, 2009

To tackle a problem like climate change, we will need new partnerships among business, government and civil society -- what I call the "Triangle of Sustainability."

Bringing these three institutions together is the only way to achieve the scale and the speed that climate change requires.

I am cautiously optimistic about the progress we can make this year. The political climate has changed. There is a new urgency among governments to address climate change. Leading organizations like The Climate Group are helping bring stakeholders together to move the agenda forward toward Copenhagen and beyond.

And the business community is stepping up. It recognizes the problem, is taking action and is working with policymakers.

I'm reminded of a phrase from the North of England that our previous speaker, Tony Blair, who represented Sedgefield as a Member of Parliament, will be familiar with: "Where there's muck, there's brass."

For the rest of you, it means waste can be profitable.

More and more companies are finding -- as we have -- that the business case for sustainability is more than philanthropic. It is an imperative for business survival and profit in the future.

My optimism is tempered with realism, however, because the latest science tells us that the steps envisioned by business so far are inadequate. The mindset of business needs to move from "should" to "must." The level of business action needs to move from "incremental steps in isolation" to "step_change collaboration." And it must happen during this global economic crisis, which limits our flexibility. The crisis also pressures executives to focus on the quarter, not the decade -- on survival, not sustainability.

In what may be a small benefit, the crisis is also separating the wheat from the chaff. It is separating the businesses that are serious about sustainability from the "greenwashers," who will cut back as they look for savings.

That means NGOs, customers and consumers can see which businesses are investing in sustainability for the long term.

Given the scientific urgency and the economic reality, what should we expect and what must we demand from business?

I would define the proper role of business as threefold:

• Address our footprint;

• Extend our handprint; and

• Help shape the regulatory blueprint.

Let's look at each of those, starting at the macro level and then moving to the micro level.

1. ADDRESS YOUR FOOTPRINT

First, addressing your footprint is necessary, but not sufficient. Collectively, even if every business reduces its footprint significantly, we will not have made the progress that the latest science says is needed.

For our company, addressing our footprint means:

• Using the best mix of energy sources;

• Improving the energy efficiency of our manufacturing process;

• And reducing the potential climate impact of the products we sell.

Let me share a few examples.

Our Water Footprint. To reduce our water footprint, we have set the goal of returning to nature an amount of water equal to what we use in our beverages and their production. We call it becoming "water neutral."

One part of that is that by the end of 2010, all of the water that leaves every one of our nearly 1,000 facilities will be returned to the environment in a nature-identical form -- able to support aquatic life.

Our Packaging Footprint. We're also addressing our packaging footprint. We're engaged with The Climate Group in a new program called "Recycle Together." It will help us increase the amount of empty bottles and cans that reach recycling facilities. Kate Krebs is leading that effort, and she joined us in January when we opened the world's largest plastic bottle-to-bottle recycling facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Here is one of the bottles produced at that plant. Thirty-percent of the plastic comes from recycled bottles. It's an example of how we're trying to create a closed loop recycling system. There's a climate benefit too. Over the next 10 years, the plant will prevent the release of 1 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of removing 215,000 cars from the road.

Communicating Our Work. As companies address their footprints, it is important to communicate their work. Just last week, the Coca-Cola Company released to the Securities and Exchange Commission our latest 10-K. With it, we became one of the first companies to include a climate-specific risk factor in our 10-K.

Again, I don't want to dwell on the footprint because it's really the bare minimum we should expect from companies.

2. EXTEND YOUR HANDPRINT

The second role business must play is to extend our handprint. Others have used the idea of a handprint in the climate discussion, so let me define it as I see it. Our handprint is what we can do that goes far beyond what we directly affect. They are interventions that allow us to have a larger impact on society by acting as a catalyst, partnering with others, and frankly, by leading. It is how you reach scale.

For me, the most creative and exciting part of our handprint is finding and exploiting "pivot points."

A pivot point is a step that one company can take which can leverage others to take similar steps. The Coca-Cola Company has a global presence and reputation. If we help pioneer an innovation, it can give that innovation credibility and spur others to adopt it. Ultimately, you can pivot a whole industry to a more sustainable future.

Let me share two examples.

Pivot Point: Refrigerant Gas. Our coolers and vending machines have used HFCs in two ways. We removed them from the insulation foam in all our new coolers. That eliminated 75 percent of the direct emissions attributable to our coolers.

That leaves a second area, the refrigerant gas, which traditionally has been HFCs. Today, we are buying coolers that use a much safer gas, CO2. Acting alone, however, we will not have a very big impact. Coca-Cola is responsible for only 1 percent of the world's compressor purchases.

Fortunately, we have found a pivot point. We believe we can help move not just the beverage industry, but the entire commercial refrigeration industry to climate-friendly systems.

In Beijing last year, I spoke at a Greenpeace conference to an audience that included 100 major Chinese businesses. I announced that the Coca-Cola Company and our bottlers will purchase and deploy 100,000 CO2 coolers by the end of 2010. And I challenged the rest of the industry to join us, so that the price will come down and they can be deployed even more broadly.

That's a pivot point. It's how 1 percent can influence 25 percent.

Pivot Point: Energy Management. Let me share another pivot point. We have developed a unique technology that cuts the energy use of a cooler by up to 35 percent. So far, we have deployed that technology in more than 1 million coolers. It helps our retail customers who enjoy lower energy bills, and it helps our climate because less energy means fewer emissions.

We own the patents, but we're sharing this innovation. That makes it a pivot point because this technology can be deployed far and wide -- reaching well beyond the bounds of our Company and our industry.

3. HELP SHAPE THE REGULATORY BLUEPRINT

Finally, business should engage in public policy to help shape the regulatory blueprint. In 2007, we endorsed the Caring for Climate Leadership platform of the UN Global Compact. We also expressed our views by signing the Bali Communiqué before COP13 [The 13th Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change], and we're looking forward to the World Business Summit in May to help unify the voice of business.

Looking ahead to December, we are in the process of shaping our role for COP15 [The 15th Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change]. We know that the business community needs to have a clear and strong voice there. We need to support a clear regulatory framework that prices the externality of greenhouse gases. We need to make markets work for climate protection by getting the economics and externalities right. Price signals are absolutely essential. They are the only way to drive and sustain meaningful change. We can help by engaging in the regulatory blueprint.

I've discussed efforts to mitigate climate change. I'd like to close with a final thought about adapting to the effects of a changed climate.

Agriculture will be severely impacted by climate, and it also affects climate. I was taken by a study that estimated that as much as 50 percent of the calories grown globally never make it to the table. In many developing countries, there is no way to store crops out of season or transport them to markets. In developed countries, a lot of food is thrown out -- up to 30 percent in the United States alone.

We know that over 70 percent of the world's water use comes from agriculture. It leads me to ask: If we could invest in crop storage, transportation and capacity building, wouldn't it allow us to feed so many who go hungry and require less water for agriculture? Perhaps that's an overlooked part of the climate solution.

In conclusion, the role of business is urgent and clear:

• Address our footprint;

• Extend our handprint; and

• Help shape the regulatory blueprint.

In closing, I am cautiously optimistic. I am realistic. We have mountains to climb, but even more, I feel that working together synergistically we can do what this moment requires of us.

Neville Isdell former chairman and CEO of the Coca-Cola Company. The preceding was adapted from remarks by Isdell at the Gathering of One Hundred Leaders conference in Washington, D.C., presented by The Climate Group.
© Greener World Media, Inc. All rights reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Uganda: Country to Benefit From £800 Million UK Climate Fund

Gerald Tenywa, New Vision in AllAfrica.com, 11 June 2009

Kampala — UGANDA is one of the countries that will benefit from the £800m (sh2,856b) international climate investment fund set up by the UK to support initiatives on clean technologies and action against climate change.

This was contained in the speech by the British High Commissioner, Martin Shearman, at the opening of an exhibition on climate change which was organised by the Uganda Museum and British High Commission at Kiira Road.

"Internationally, the UK is funding international Climate Investment Funds, with a contribution of £800m to support projects around the world to promote clean technologies and support action against climate change," he said.

"We have a further £100m (sh357b) towards climate change research over the next five years on the social and economic impact of climate change on most vulnerable developing countries."

But climate security, the envoy said is a problem that cannot be tackled by any one country.

"The 192 countries that have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including Uganda and the UK, will meet in Copenhagen in December to decide what the world should do next," he said.

"It is essential that the outcome is an ambitious, equitable and comprehensive agreement to tackle climate change security, which is fair to the developing world."

State Minister for Environment Jessica Eriyo said climate change is the biggest development issue globally, but developing countries such as Uganda are more vulnerable to its negative effects.

"Africa as a whole contributes only about 3% of the green house gases that result in global warming and climate change yet the African countries like Uganda face the highest risks associated with climate change and global warming."

This could mean increased food insecurity, shifts in the spread of diseases, increased soil erosion and land degradation, flood damage to infrastructure and settlements, and shifts in the productivity of agricultural and natural resources.

Eriyo asked Shearman for more support to Uganda's budget. "UK being our colonial parent, we expect more support from you," she said. "The diseases afflicting people are becoming epidemic in some parts of the country."

Copyright © 2009 New Vision. All rights reserved
Copyright © 2009 AllAfrica Global Media

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Indonesia leads on REDD despite fears

Carbon Positive, Thursday, 11 June 2009

Indonesia continues to warn that unless the emerging global REDD avoided deforestation initiative is made simple it will not work in developing countries. But despite its concerns, the government appears to be leading the development of REDD capacity among developing countries.

UN agencies led by the United Nations Environment Programme, along with the UN climate change convention (UNFCCC), are developing a global system for tackling high rates of deforestation in rainforest nations such as Indonesia, DR Congo and Papua-New Guinea (PNG). Forest clearing is thought to contribute up to 20 per cent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, as well as threatening species of flora and fauna and compromising fresh-water supplies.

REDD, or Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, would see payments made by rich nations to developing nations to preserve, rather than cut down, their native rainforests. Financing would be either via government funding or a carbon market mechanism similar to Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The aim is to include REDD in the next global climate treaty due to start in 2013, details of which are supposed to be finalised by December in Copenhagen. Negotiations have been slow but there are hopes this week that the current UNFCCC negotiating session in Bonn will reach draft agreement on technical rules.

The Indonesian government last month issued national-level regulations for REDD, a first among developing countries. While only a small part of the framework, the rules set up a process for central registration of pilot projects - a necessary prerequisite for a credible scheme. The regulations also make clear that REDD activities should be consistent with a UN global agreement that emerges from Copenhagen.

Indonesia was also one of the countries granted at total of $US18m in pilot funding for REDD in March. The Centre for International Forestry Research in Bogor, Indonesia, says a consultative process is now underway on how to allocate $5m in a ‘quick start’ program for REDD capacity building and other activities in the country. The government has also received financial support from Japan, Australia and the World Bank.

However, mixed messages have been coming from Jakarta over Indonesia’s support for UN REDD. Forestry Minister M.S. Kaban says the evolving scheme risks being too complicated for Indonesia and other developing countries. Kaban fears complex processes of monitoring and verification might repeat the failures of the afforestation and reforestation segment of the CDM.

Addressing a Bali conference on REDD and illegal logging in late May, the minister  called on UN negotiators to learn from the CDM experience. Few forestry projects have been approved under the Kyoto mechanism and none in Indonesia. The government is also committed to increased biofuels production and supports the expanding palm oil industry, one of the drivers of high rates of forest clearing in the country.

Kaban maintains, however, he and the Indonesian government support the REDD concept and the UN efforts to build an international mechanism.

“They want to make sure REDD is do-able for developing countries, provides livelihood benefits and avoids the difficulties of the CDM,” said Stibniati Atmadja, Climate Change Research Fellow at CIFOR.

The UN and other stakeholders are determined to ensure that a rigorous and transparent scheme emerges – one that delivers reduced deforestation rates along with benefits to forest communities and the wider environment. There is a variety of stakeholder interests trying to balance the wide range of climate, environmental, social and economic factors. This makes it a tough task to keep a REDD scheme simple.

In neighbouring PNG, disputes have already arisen between government authorities and landholders over how REDD revenues should be shared. Question marks over whose pockets early REDD carbon market payments are ending up in were raised by Reuters last week.

Poor governance is a potential threat to a fair and effective REDD scheme in all developing countries, Atmadja says. “There is a lot of interest and scepticism in Indonesia over REDD.” Indigenous groups are sceptical against a background of ongoing land rights issues that go back long before REDD. Environmental groups are also sceptical while other aid NGOs and the various levels of government – national, provincial and district – are positive.

“But in most instances, people are still uncertain what REDD is about, and its implications,” Atmadja says. Views may change as awareness and experience on the REDD scheme develops in Indonesia, she added.

© Carbon Positive 2006

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Is a Popular Carbon-Offset Method Just a Lot of Hot Air?

A popular carbon-offset scheme may do little to cut emissions

By Madhusree Mukerjee, June 2009 Scientific American Magazine

A convenient way of cutting industrial gases that warm the planet was supposed to be the United Nation’s clean development mechanism (CDM). As a provision of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM enables industrial nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in part by purchasing “carbon offsets” from poorer countries, where green projects are more affordable. The scheme, which issued its first credits in 2005, has already transferred the right to emit an extra 250 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), and that could swell to 2.9 billion tons by 2012. Offsets will “play a more significant role” as emissions targets become tighter, asserts Yvo de Boer of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But criticism of the CDM has been mounting. Despite strenuous efforts by regulators, a significant fraction of the offset credits is fictitious “hot air” manufactured by accounting tricks, critics say. As a result, greenhouse gases are being emitted without compensating reductions elsewhere.

The accounting is rooted in a concept known as additionality. To earn credits, a project should owe its existence to the prospective earnings from carbon credits: the emissions reductions from the project should be additional to what would have happened in the absence of the CDM. Hence, the developers of a wind farm in India that replaces a coal-fired power plant could sell the difference in carbon emissions between the two projects as offsets—but not if the wind farm would have been built anyway.

Many CDM projects, however, do not appear to be offsetting carbon output at all. The Berkeley, Calif.–based organization International Rivers discovered that a third of the CDM’s hydropower projects had been completed before they were accredited. Lambert Schneider of Germany’s Institute for Applied Ecology judged two fifths of the world’s CDM portfolio to be of similarly questionable additionality. Climatologist Michael Wara of Stanford University guesses the figure could be much higher, but, he says, “we have no way of knowing.”

Determining which projects are “additional” can be tricky, explains researcher Larry Lohmann of the Corner House, an environmental think tank based in Dorset, England. “There’s no such thing as a single world line, a single narrative of what would have happened without the project,” he points out. “It’s not a solvable problem.”

A related worry is that of perverse incentives. Consultants assessing a carbon-offset project often compare it with the accepted practice in the developing country where it will be located. Such an approach gives that country an incentive to take the most polluting line to maximize the credits they earn for a CDM project. Selling this artificially inflated credit could thus ultimately enable more carbon to be emitted than if the offset had not been created at all.

Take the controversy over gas flaring in Nigeria, where oil firms burn off 40 percent of the natural gas found with oil. The state-owned Nigeria Agip Oil Company plans instead to generate electricity from the waste gas of its Kwale plant, displacing fossil fuels that might otherwise have been consumed. That strategy would create credits of 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide a year for sale. (A credit for a ton of CO2, called a certified emissions reduction, has been selling for about $15 in Europe.) The project is deemed additional because the prospect of selling offsets motivated the developers.

But activist Michael Karikpo of Oilwatch finds that classification to be “out rag eous”—because routine flaring, which spews carcinogens such as benzene and triggers acid rain, is illegal in Nigeria. No company should profit from flouting the law, he adds: “It’s like a criminal demanding money to stop committing crimes.” Nevertheless, the incentive to declare a project as additional is powerful. Pan Ocean Oil Corporation, based in Nigeria, has applied for CDM approval for an effort to process and market waste gas from its Ovade-Ogharefe oil field. Should the government begin enforcing the law against flaring, it would render the project nonadditional and sacrifice considerable benefits.

The CDM’s executive board has strengthened its review process to improve the tests for additionality and to reduce perverse incentives. For instance, the board no longer accepts new projects for burning off HFC-23, a greenhouse gas produced during the manufacture of refrigerant, because the windfall credits it generated had created an incentive to set up chemical factories for the sole purpose of burning HFC-23. (Because of HFC-23’s heat-trapping potency, one ton of it fetches 12,000 CO2 credits.)

Some observers think the CDM is too far gone to salvage. No amount of tinkering will repair such a “fundamental design flaw” as additionality, Wara contends. Last November the U.S. Government Accountability Office warned that carbon offsets “may not be a reliable long-term approach to climate change mitigation.” In January the European Commission determined that the CDM should be phased out for at least the more advanced developing countries, which would instead be pressured to accept binding commitments to limit emissions. Another proposal would replace the CDM with a fund for developing countries to build green projects without generating credits—thereby eliminating the entire concept of additionality.

Doing away with the CDM and other offsets could be hard, though, because they are the easiest way for industrial nations to meet their emissions targets. The U.S. is considering a bill to reduce emissions by an ambitious 20 percent by 2020, but its provisions are so generous that apparently the country could meet its goal just by buying offsets. The fate of the CDM will be decided in climate talks to be held in December in Copenhagen.

Paying the Polluters

The World Bank is supposed to encourage sustainability, but much of its financing for carbon offsets ironically goes to polluters. For instance, the bank’s private-sector lending arm is financing a coal-fired power plant in Gujarat, India, that will generate 25.7 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. The bank also hopes to garner brokerage fees from the sale of offsets worth three million tons of carbon a year, earned by energy-efficient processes at the same plant. Janet Redman of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., charges that four fifths of the bank’s carbon finance portfolio is invested in offsets from polluting industries such as coal, chemicals, iron and steel.

Note: This article was originally published with the title, "A Mechanism of Hot Air".
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Madhusree Mukerjee, a former editor at Scientific American, is based near Frankfurt, Germany.
© 1996-2009 Scientific American Inc. All Rights Reserved

Read more... Sphere: Related Content