Foro del Buen Ayre
COP6
$inks,
who win$ who loses?
10 arguments from members
of the Global Forest Coalition and other NGOs and IPOs against the Inclusion of
Sinks in the Clean Development Mechanism
The
undersigned Indigenous Peoples Organisations and NGOs oppose the inclusion of
Land use Land Use Change and Forestry activities in the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) for the following reasons:
- Sinks are neither
long term nor short term solution to mitigating climate change. The lack
of verifiable ways of estimating the ability of forests and other
ecosystems to "compensate" for industrial emissions means that
the inclusion of sinks in the CDM would destroy the Kyoto Protocol.
- As climate change is
the greatest threat to the world’s forests and forest peoples, we strongly
reject any attempt by Annex 1 countries to back away from their obligation
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Including sinks in
the CDM would lead to Annex 1 countries receiving credits for forest
conservation, restoration, reforestation and tree plantation establishment
while the rights and interests of indigenous and other local communities
which have been inhabiting and protecting these forests for centuries are
neglected.
- Including sinks in
the CDM as a way of meeting the commitments of governments would reinforce
existing inequalities. The climate crisis is due to the industrial
societies using more than their fair share of the world’s carbon cycling
capacity to gain more than a fair share of the world’s resources. This
problem will not be solved by abdicating them a right to take over other
people’s lands and seas for so–called carbon sequestration and storage.
- Including sinks in
the CDM would reduce the sacred land and territories of Indigenous Peoples
to mere carbon storage units. This is contrary to the cosmovision and
philosophy of life of these Peoples. A forest and its people cannot be
counted solely in terms of carbon content.
- Sinks in the CDM
would constitute a worldwide strategy for expropriating Indigenous
Peoples’ and local communities’ lands, seas and territories and violating
their fundamental rights.
- Including sinks in
the CDM would provide a huge incentive, on top of existing subsidies, for
the establishment of Northern- driven, large scale, environmentally and
socially destructive monoculture tree plantations. These plantations are
already proving disastrous for peoples and their environments all over the
world. Moreover, carbon plantations will result in little revenue for host
countries, provide an obstacle for their present and future sustainable
development while awarding Annex 1 countries huge sums in terms of carbon
credit.
- Including sink in the
CDM would undermine, by diversion, existing financial flows supporting
community-driven initiatives for restoration and conservation of forest
areas. These flows are a result of the commitments of the United Nations
Commission on Environment and Development and the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC articles 4.3, 4.4, 4.7) to provide new and additional
funds, which can be seen as a recognition of the ecological debt owed by
industralised countries to non-Annex 1 countries.
- Including sinks in
the CDM would not address the underlying causes of forest loss. Nor would
it create macro-economic conditions making forest conservation and
restoration possible. Such conditions include debt reduction, sustainable
consumption and production patterns, revision of Structural Adjustment
Programmes, strict regulation of international private investment flows
and ensuring equitable relationships between North and South.
- Taking into account
the disastrous impact climate change has and will continue to have on
Indigenous Peoples, small farmers, local communities and other groups,
particularly in Non- Annex 1 countries, we call upon the Annex 1 parties
to the FCCC to take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
beyond their commitments in the Kyoto Protocol.
Signed (as of 15/9/2000. Additional signs are being collected. Please
contact Simone or Miguel Lovera, Sobrevivencia/ FoE-Paraguay/ FoEI, lovera1@conexion.com.py)
Friends of the Earth International
The
World Rainforest Movement - Uruguay
Climate
Action Network South East Asia
Climate
Network Europe
Greenpeace
International
Coecoceiba- Costa Rica
FERN-UK, Brussels
Indigenous
Research Institute – New Zealand
Green
Forum - Philippines
The
Consortium for Community Forest Systems, Indonesia
Forest
Action Network - Kenya
FORUM
- Norway
Indonesian
Climate Action Network- Indonesia
Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds – UK
CENSAT AGUA VIVA - Colombia
Humber
Environment Network – Canada
Friends
of the Earth - Norway
Institute
for Cultural Affairs – Ghana
Cornerhouse
- UK
Sobrevivencia/
Friends of the Earth-Paraguay
Bangladesh
Centre for Advanced Studies – Bangladesh
Earthlife
Africa – Johannesburg, South Africa
Friends
of the Earth - Japan
Native
Forest Network-Southern Hemisphere
Friends
of the Earth – Ghana
Terra
Millenium III- Romania
David
Suzuki Foundation, Canada
Friends
of the Earth – England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Tropical
Forest Kyoto – Japan
Japan
Tropical Forest Action Network
Friends
of the Earth - Australia
Nuclear
Awareness Project - Canada
Siosiomaga
Society, Samoa
Friends
of the Earth-New Zealand
Tebtebba Foundation - Philippines
Para
vuestra informacion Marcelo Alvarez INforSE International Network for
Sustainable Energy Latin American Coordinator Tel/fax: +54 11 4963-0722 E-mail:
marceloalvarez@ciudad.com.ar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Windram
Estos son los resultados de una encuesta internacional sobre
la COP6, en la cual participe. los resultados son interesantes. Marcelo Alvarez INforSE
International Network for Sustainable Energy Latin American Coordinator
Tel/fax: +54 11 4963-0722
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: marceloalvarez@ciudad.com.ar----- Original Message ----- From: Corinne
Fontaine
November 7,
2000 MEDIA ADVISORY Experts Pessimistic about Upcoming Kyoto Protocol Meeting
in The Hague A global survey shows experts to be extremely pessimistic about
the upcoming international negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty to
combat global climate change. Experts believe that the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change is, by far, the most urgent Rio convention to
bring to the implementation phase, but they are not at all confident about the
future of its legal embodiment, the Kyoto Protocol. Only slightly over half of
experts surveyed predict that the Kyoto Protocol itself will survive the
negotiations scheduled to take place at the Sixth Conference of the Parties
(COP6) in The Hague beginning November 13. The survey, carried out by
Environics International of Toronto, asked environment and sustainable
development experts for their views on international environmental negotiations
to combat climate change. According to Rob Kerr, who directed the survey,
“These findings should serve as a wakeup call to governments about Kyoto. It is
time to deliver breakthroughs in negotiations or risk losing the Protocol.” The
high level of pessimism is born out by other findings in the survey. For
example, only 5 percent of experts predict that less industrialized countries,
currently not required to cut emissions, will make greenhouse reduction
commitments that satisfy the demands of the developed countries that have
reduction targets. Meaningful participation by the less industrialized
countries is key to US senate ratification. Also ominous is the finding that
only four in ten experts predict that Kyoto Protocol negotiators will agree to
the use of carbon-absorbing activities (e.g., tree-planting) as an offset to
carbon emissions. Being able to use so-called “carbon sinks” is a critical
negotiating point for several important countries with large land surfaces and
forest, such as the US, Canada and Australia. The findings are based on
Environics International’s GlobeScan survey of 200 environment and sustainable
development experts across mainly OECD countries. The survey was carried out
on-line and by fax from October 1-31, 2000. For further information, please
contact: Rob Kerr, Senior Consultant Environics International 33 Bloor Street
East, Toronto Canada M4W 3H1 Tel. 416 920 9010 x298 Fax 416 920 3510
rob.kerr@EnvironicsInternational.com Background Information for Media Advisory
GlobeScan Panel The GlobeScan panel is made up of sustainable development
experts across mainly OECD countries. The panel represents all sectors,
including multilateral organizations, government ministries, corporations and
industry groups, environmental consultancies, journalism, and academe, as well
as major policy institutes and environmental organizations. Survey Question The
findings in the media advisory are based on responses to the following question
that was asked to the GlobeScan panel: “The Sixth Conference of the Parties
(COP6) meeting regarding The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change will take place in The Hague in November 2000. Please rate the
likelihood of each of the following outcomes from the COP6 meeting.” Please use
the 5-point scale provided (where 1 is “not at all likely” and 5 is “very
likely”). a.Parties agree to the use of carbon-absorbing activities (e.g.,
tree-planting) as an offset to carbon emissions. b.Non-Annex I (i.e., less
industrialized) countries make greenhouse gas reduction commitments that
satisfy Annex I countries. c.A compliance regime with binding consequences is
basically agreed upon. d.The parties agree to compensate OPEC countries for
diminished future revenues from fossil fuels. e.The parties agree to principles
and rules for international emissions trading. f.The parties agree to
principles and rules for the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation.
g.The parties agree that nuclear power is acceptable as a climate protection
technology. h.Progress on negotiations in COP6 is so disappointing that parties
abandon the Kyoto Protocol and look for other approaches to combat climate
change. i.Other (please specify) Compensate OPEC countries Commitments by
Non-Annex I uclear as climate protection technology Agreement on compliance
regime Parties abandon Kyoto Protocol International emissions trading rules
Agreement on use of carbon sinks Rules for CDM and JI 43 37 16 40 29 28 38 41
18 20 21 55 11 27 59 10 22 65 5 13 79 2 8 88 Likely (4+5) Unlikely (1+2)
Predicted Outcomes of COP6 Meeting in The Hague (3)
RESOLUTIONS
FROM THE AFRICAN PREPARATORY WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE COP6 IN THE
HAGUE, NOVEMBER 13-24 2000
INTRODUCTION
Between October 27 and 30, 2000, Friends of the Earth-Ghana organized a
preparatory workshop in Accra, for Africa towards effective participation at
the forthcoming UNFCCC COP-6 taking place at The Hague, the Netherlands.
Delegates came from civil society organizations from a number of African
countries, academic and research institutions, the media and the Ghanaian
Government.
The workshop took the form of an overview of the Climate Change process
enriched with country case studies from Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa,
a close look at the issues for negotiations, including adaptation, capacity
building and technology transfer as well as the Flexibility Mechanisms, namely:
Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation and Emissions Trading. In
frank and objective discussions, the participants suggested the way forward for
Africa in the Climate Change process.
OBSERVATIONS
Specifically, the workshop observed as follows:
1) The impacts of Climate Change are real and are affecting African countries
2) African countries are more vulnerable and least resilient due to the lack of
capacity to cope with the impact of climate change.
3) African governments, civil society and its scientific community lack the
relevant capacity to effectively participate in the climate change process.
4) The
Kyoto Protocol in its present form does not adequately address the African goal
of sustainable development.
5) Annex 1 countries are not fulfilling their commitments under the Convention
and Protocol even though their over-consumption continues to aggravate the
issues of global warming and resultant climate change.
6) African countries lack the financial resources to cope with adaptation;
capacity building and technology transfer within the climate process.
7) The contribution of African countries to global warming is negligible yet
they continue to suffer severely from the adverse impacts of Climate change.
8) All the flexibility mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol favour polluters only
and do not address the interests of those who have not contributed to global
warming.
9) Previous UN Conventions have inequitable African representation on the
decision-making bodies.
10) African communities are forest dependent and these forests have multiple
purposes.
11) Sink-related projects will neither lead to technology transfer nor
sustainable development.
Based on
the above observations we hereby recommend as follows:
1. Annex 1 countries, as a matter of urgency should adhere to their commitments
under the Convention and Protocol to limit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
at home.
2. Annex 1 countries should provide the adequate financial and technical
resources for capacity building for adaptation to the impacts of climate
change.
3. African countries deserve to be rewarded for emissions avoidance.
4. A Technology transfer fund should be established by the Parties and funded
by annex 1 countries.
5. National technology information centres working with and through regional
centres should be established to enhance access to information about mitigation
and adaptation technologies.
6. Technology transfer should address the poverty question through the
development or strengthening of endogenous technologies and capacities, where
they do not exist.
7. Patents
derived from the development of new technologies and products should be shared
equitably between African researchers and their foreign partners.
8. African governments should stop committing funds to debt servicing; rather
they should demand the payment of ecological debt from annex 1 countries.
9. The Kyoto Protocol should be amended to include rewards for GHG emissions
avoidance and to prevent or punish the relocation of GHG emitting technologies
from Annex 1 countries to non-annex 1 countries and non-parties.
10. All sink-related projects should not be part of Clean Development Mechanism
11. Annex 1 parties should fulfil their commitments to operationalize Article
six of the Convention
12. On 'supplementarity', Annex 1 Parties should undertake 70% of their actions
domestically and 30% abroad.
13. Twenty per cent of the share of proceeds from all the flexible mechanisms
should be paid into the adaptation fund.
14. Fifty per cent of all the Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) should be
retained in their host countries.
Industry view of renewable energy and the CDM
Sponsors: European
Wind Energy Association (EWEA) and the European
Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA)
Contact: Vicky Pollard, EWEA, (ewea@ewea.org), and Dr. Murray Cameron, EPIA, (epia@epia.org) Internet: www.ewea.org and www.epia.org
Vicky Pollard, EWEA, and Dr. Murray Cameron, EPIA, presented a view on the CDM
from the perspective of the renewable energy industry. The session was chaired
by Mahendra Kumar, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme.Pollard noted
that the basic characteristics of wind energy make it a good candidate for the
CDM. Wind energy, she noted, is pollution free, uses a inexhaustible energy
source, is well suited for technology transfer, and is easily installed in
remote areas. In addition, wind energy generates income and creates local jobs.
The market for wind energy projects in Europe
has experienced an annual growth rate of approximately forty percent, and much
of this growth has been stimulated by targeted renewable energy policy
measures. In addition, the economics of producing wind energy have improved as
the production size of wind turbines has increased. Pollard explained that
while the OECD market for wind energy has been largely driven by environmental
considerations, many developing countries are facing capacity shortage and
regularly depend on imported electricity to meet their demand.
She argued that the CDM would stimulate investment in wind energy in those
countries, and that wind energy should be included in a positive list under the
CDM. To this end the EWEA is actively lobbying the European Union.
Murray Cameron, EPIA
The market for photovoltaics (PV) in Europe has also grown at an annual rate of
forty per cent, according to Cameron. This growth rate is equal to the annual
growth in the telecom industry. He emphasized that the PV industry includes
several large players, some of which are located in developing countries such
as India and China. Studies show that it is more economic to install
stand-alone PV systems in remote rural areas than to connect them to
the regular electricity grid. He also advocated the inclusion of stand-alone
technologies in a positive list under the CDM, and argued that such a list
should be exclusive, at least in the initial phase.
Discussion: The ensuing discussion focused on the storage of electricity,
maintenance, user training, and finance schedules, cooperation with
counterparts in the United States, and a European conference on renewables to
be held in October 2000. One participant noted that a positive list is also
required for Annex I countries because technologies included in such a list are
intended to produce a net reduction of CO2 emissions. One NGO representative
advocated the inclusion of cogeneration in a positive list.
UNDP /
GEF Capacity Development Initiative Regional Reports on Needs
Assessment Annotated Table of Contents (Draft of 20 May 2000 5:57 AM)
Executive
Summary (5 pages)
brief
summary of introductory sections with main focus being on a clear and concise
summary of the synthesis and conclusions. The executive summary should be
capable of being isolated from the rest as a convincing stand-alone document. Bullets,
tables or figures should be used as appropriate to convey clearly and simply
the key findings
Introduction
(3 pages)
Background
and Objectives this can be taken directly from the existing CDI material
Conceptual
Framework for Capacity Development this can be taken directly from the existing
CDI material Methodology this can be taken directly from the existing CDI
material, though should reflect any region specific adjustments
Status
and Challenges in Managing the (name of region) Environment (5 pages)
Environmental
Foundations for (name of region)’s Development summarize the role of the
environment in general, and the global environment in particular, in
development in (name of region) Issues and priorities in Biological Diversity
summarize the present status of national issues in, and priorities for,
biological diversity in (name of region)
Issues
and priorities in Climate Change summarize the present status of national
issues in, and priorities for, climate change in (name of region) Issues and
priorities in Land Degradation summarize the present status of national issues
in, and priorities for, land degradation in (name of region) Status and
challenges for environmental management systems focus on the systems level, ie.
the overall processes and relationships, policy frameworks, and legal,
regulatory, managerial and financial environments. Public opinion and what is
"politically possible" is also relevant here. Status and challenges
in institutional capacities address institutional mandates and missions,
internal competencies and processes, institutional cultures, values etc. Status
and challenges at individual levels human capacities, training, incentives,
morale, accountability, etc.
Current
approaches to capacity development at systemic, institutional and individual
levels and lessons learned summarize existing efforts and approaches and
indicate the kinds of approaches which have had more or less success in the
past
Thematic
Assessments (3 separate chapters of 15-20 pages each = 45-60 pages total)
3
separate chapters of 15-20 pages on each of Biological Diversity, Climate
Change, and Land Degradation.
National
obligations under the convention summarize obligations under the appropriate
convention National priorities and processes for addressing global
environmental and convention obligations emphasis throughout should be on the
global environment and fulfilling convention obligations rather than simply
addressing national environmental needs. Global environmental priorities and
processes will largely overlap with those driven by convention obligations and
a distinction need not necessarily be drawn between these unless there are
obvious discords between the two Capacity needs at the system level it will be
necessary to disaggregate the national, provincial and local as well as
examining the relationships between them Capacity needs at the institutional
level this may be the most difficult to address as it deals with a wide array
of disparate institutions situated in a wide variety of different institutional
contexts. Analysis will necessarily focus on similarities but differences
should also be drawn out.
Capacity
needs at the individual level the capacity assessment matrix provides guidance
Current efforts to address capacity needs at local, provincial, national, and regional
levels these should have been identified in step 6 of the questionnaire and
should be synthesized and summarized here Lessons learned this is a very
critical section since it should address what has been learned about how to
address capacity development needs and issues in previous work. It deals with
the process of identification, design and implementation of interventions and
is likely to have a significant impact on the kinds of strategic interventions
developed, and the means by which they are identified, developed and
implemented, under this initiative
Synthesis
and Conclusions (15-20 pages)
emphasis
throughout should be on the Global Environment and fulfilling convention
obligations rather than simply addressing national environmental needs.
Priorities
and needs in developing environmental management systems capacities
while
there may be some specific needs associated with each thematic area the
majority of needs are likely to be the same across all three thematic areas
Priorities and needs in institutional capacity development since these address
the functional capacity of institutions these are likely to be identical across
all three theme areas and can be addressed in a fully integrated fashion
Priorities and needs for developing individual capacities while there are
likely to be a number of generic needs across all three thematic areas it is
here that the differences between the three thematic areas are most likely to
be seen. It should probably be written as four sections with first the common
needs followed by a section on each of the specific thematic areas Lessons
learned
again, a
very critical section dealing with methods and approaches
Annexes
these
should be limited to critical bibliographies or other reference sources
