Road to Copenhagen Climate Deal : With or Without India and China?

ejustice July 2009

Dr. Avilash Roul

The coming December Copenhagen climate meeting will definitely clinch the replacement deal for the Kyoto Protocol. The high profile climate issue must settle a deal from all government negotiators although it seems as of now a long miles to go. However, the basic rudiments of the Copenhagen Protocol remain unanswered such as emission reduction target for the industrialized countries, willingness of developing countries such as China and India limit the level of emission, modalities of financing for reduction of emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change and managing these finances. Will that be really enough to tackle the climate change?

Will major developing countries like India and China agree to cut their share of emissions? To address these basic questions, the government representatives met in Bonn, in first week of June this year. In addition, forthcoming Bangkok meeting in September is being under full swing and also the Special New York meeting before the General Assembly meeting despite some controversies of logistics. The road to Copenhagen is still open but bumpy.

The Bonn talks which held in June found new allies and new coalition building. Since the Kyoto Protocol legally being implemented, the China and India factors have been keep coming in frequent interval even on the side line of all climate talks. The China and India are, nevertheless, key actors in any global deal to tackle climate change. Although COP-14 in Poznan saw the attempts to break the unity of G77-China, the coming Bangkok meeting will be a tougher negotiating playing field. It has been rare to see the Chinese delegations strongly support the Indian point of view as seen in the closing of the Poznan talks.

The last December Poznan talks remained unfinished to achieve a consensus on grounds of tackling climate change. Yvo de Boer, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), released a draft document on May 20, 2009 though many details remain to be agreed. The draft document, which forms the basis of the Bonn talks, suggests that developed countries must reduce carbon emissions by 75 to 95 per cent by 2050, as mere guidelines, measured against 1990 levels. However, countries have not yet agreed on targets immediately to be reached by 2020. The draft treaty further sets the first-ever targets for developing nations to reduce the carbon emissions.

However, these targets are far below those set by other countries and fail to meet scientifically backed recommendations by environmental groups. The Bonn talks expected to provide further movement of at least few key convergence areas. However, much are being left to be settled before Copenhagen.

Although the 1997 Kyoto Protocol prepared and pursued by the Clinton-Gore administration, the government miserably failed to garner support in Senate to ratify the protocol. The Copenhagen Protocol will be useless without the US entry this time. In an ambitious design, the US has signalled its willingness to be in. The new US administration has taken a lead role in the fight on climate change and has made initial recommendations on emissions reductions. This goes back to the support of former Vice President Al Gore during the Obama’s election campaign. While the negotiators were busy in Bonn, the special US negotiator on climate change concluded bilateral talks with the Chinese negotiator in Beijing which agreed to establish a joint technological research and development centre to promote cooperation in clean energy and climate-change study. The stance of the US on China has been slowed down since then. In accordance with the ‘common-but-differentiated responsibilities’, both countries agreed to take actions to prevent climate change.

India- China in climate negotiations

The way these two Asian giant-India and China has been presented in the climate change issues depends on the argument experts put forward to rationalise their positions. Mostly the Scandinavian countries/EU and the CSOs based in the developed countries who follows the suit of their countries voice strongly argue that without India and China’s commitment the climate deal won’t occur. Probably, this argument is gravely mistaken. Both countries have taken measures gradually to address the issue within their national boundaries and within their capabilities. Both countries have been major actors representing the developing countries positions since 1992. There is a deliberate attempt to make a fissure among India and China positions on climate change. So far the attempts have been failed to succeed.

During the June Bonn talks the hard positions went on as usual in any intergovernmental climate talks. When the Co-Chair of Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) called for advancing negotiating text and move away from drafting conclusions on Annex-1 emission reductions, China stressed the need to focus on ‘numbers’ and not on ‘text’. The European Union supported an aggregate reduction of 30% from 1990 levels by 2020. Representative of India warned that the 25-40% reduction range for Annex I countries in the Fourth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4) is not scientific but based on hidden assumptions about appropriate division of efforts between developed and developing countries.

Led by India and China, most developing countries across the world emphasized to focus on enhancing the implementation of the UNFCCC and expressed concern over the inclusion of concepts and ideas inconsistent with the Convention and the Bali Action Plan. India opposed attempts to ‘rewrite’ the Convention and impose legally binding commitments on developing countries. Many leading developing countries like India and China opposed proposals to blur distinctions between developed and developing countries. In these talks, a new term for economists comes up as “poor developing countries”!

Representative of India stressed that financial resources should only be provided by developed countries for the combating climate change. With China, India opposed to a proposal on levies on international aviation and maritime transportation. However, both countries opposed to review of national adaptation plans.
Since Poznan or some time before, the concept of ‘historical responsibility’ on GHG emissions has been the main bottlenecks between developed and developing countries. The front runner of this argument- India suggested that Annex I parties’ commitments should be calculated based on “discharge of historical responsibility,” which points to reductions of 79.2% below 1990 levels by 2020. The EU questioned the concept of historical responsibility stating that it is not based on the Convention. The battle has begun to garner support on two fronts- ‘historical responsibility’ led by India and ‘current responsibilities’ led by Scandinavian countries. The historical responsibility has been severely contested in the US against India as the illogical parochial talks going on in FOX NEWS in the US. The shared vision for long-term cooperative action on climate change has been severely fragmented.

The reduction timeline has been thrown to the world as 2020, 2025, 2035, 2050 and so on. In all this timeline of stabilising the emissions has a strong component of India and china. Ranging from Scandinavian government environment ministries to the climate campaigner has been calling India and China to join the club of emissions reductionists. However India has been stands tall in all those official negotiations to make itself out of any commitment. On the perspective of tough negotiations it’s most welcome step but on the other hand it seems India has been adamant and obstructionist to a global climate deal. “We are not defensive, we are not obstructionist. We want an international agreement in Copenhagen,” Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told reporters in New Delhi recently.

The South Asia has been one of the region worst hit by climate change threats. Bangladesh which is facing the real threat from the climate change made visible in the climate change negotiating process highlighting its ‘right to survival as a human being’, in Bonn. Similarly, Maldives and the Sri Lanka are exposed to sever climate threats. Since 2005, the South Asian countries have been waking up gradually combating climate change. National action plans, ambitious investment in renewable energy, environment levy act, adaptation plans are being formulated one after another. Even, climate change has taken a special space in the address to nations. Indian Prime Minister during India’s 63rd Independence address on August 15, 2009 has categorically mentioned climate change and its impact and government’s preparedness. Bangladesh has a separate cell on climate change under the Department of Environment. Even every Thursday of the week it is being reserved for the climate change activities in the Ministry. Although it’s not enough to address the climate change, there is a need to proper cooperation among the countries in the region to face the challenges of the climate change and also to face the hard positions in the global climate talks.

If the world leaders follow an ambitious Copenhagen Treaty as prescribed by Andreas Carlgren, Minister of Environment, Sweden, as reduction of emissions by 25 % to 40% by 2020 and by 80 to 95% by 2050 by the developed countries and the emerging economies (read China and India) 15-30% by 2020, there will be no need of tough climate negotiations from Bangkok to Copenhagen. In all probability, the developing countries will miss the reduction entangle upon them this time. But, the Copenhagen Protocol will replace the Kyoto Protocol!

Red lines for REDD

ejustice July 2009

Hemantha Withanage

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 who live in Dambana, Sri Lanka are also a good example. However, most of the forests in Sri Lanka are not inhabited by people as they have 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 revolution 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., who 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 it would subsidise 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 an 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, Philippines 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 as 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.
　

Adaptation for Sri Lankan communities

ejustice July 2009

How Climate change will impact livelihood?

Climate change is visible in most parts of Sri Lanka. Majority of the people be­lieve this climate change is un­favourable to living beings and livelihood. However, local climate changes in certain areas are bet­ter compared to 30 years ago. For example, Mahaweli water feeding areas in the dry zone gets more water, are more favourable to people and the environment.

However, local people cannot distinguish these local climate changes from the global climate change. On the other hand some impacts can be explained as the impacts of local environmental changes. For example some water related impacts have direct links to the destruction of forests in the local envi­ronment. These unfavourable conditions are varying from community to community.

Most nature dependent livelihoods such as farming, fishing, different types of labour in­cluding labour involved in Tea and Rubber industry, natural resources based sustainable livelihoods have negative impacts. There are unfavourabe conditions due to the spread of vector borne diseases and also quick weather change including heat. These communities have made very, very negligible contributions to the GHG emissions except the farmers en­gaged in slash and burn cultivation or animal husbandry. So they have nothing to mitigate.

However, a survey conducted by the CEJ shows that people, especially those engaged in nature based livelihoods, are somehow suf­fering from climate change. They need alter­native livelihoods and living conditions have to adapt to the new climatic conditions.
Adaptation is a need of changes for the sur­vival of the living beings in order to respond to the natural changes. This is part of the natural evolution too. However, sudden natu­ral changes due to climatic impacts are det­rimental to the other living beings. Many of these species might disappear from the earth before they adapt to the changing climate. As the human species, we have a better ability to adapt to the changing situations. Yet, human species also suffer from unexpected cyclones, floods, sea level rise, heat waves etc.

Building awareness among the civil society is an immediate requirement in Sri Lanka. Meantime those policy planners can learn from the local communities. As we were go­ing through the survey we found that the fol­lowing areas need adaptation.

The farmers have to adapt to the increased in­tensity of floods and the dry seasons. Change of the rain pattern has negatively affected farmers, especially those engaged in slash and burn cultivation. This may need moving the cultivation seasons or change of crops and cropping pattern. They will have to con­sider moving away from chena cultivation to permanent cultivation. They may also need to find plant varieties that suit the changing rainfall pattern.

Adaptation to water conservation, rain water harvesting are also important.

People living in the low lying areas need to adapt to the increased level of flooding. Some affects are due to the lack of climate proof­ing of the old and newly built infrastructures. For example, Kukule Ganga dam has created increased flooding in the low lining areas in the downstream. Some people might have to move their houses to the high ground to avoid increased floods in the surroundings of those mega development projects. Coastal low lying areas face salt water intrusion which destroy the agricultural lands, traditional live­stock, grazing lands, and the water table.
Fisher folk face loss of coastal houses due to see level rise or due to heavy erosion by in­creased size of waves. They also have to face the loss of fish caused due to the destruction of mangrove forests, sea grass beds, acidifi­cation, coral degradation or other unknown reasons.

Some water intakes are vulnerable to sea water ingression. This affects water facilities including the Kaduwela water intake. As the ground water table is going down in certain areas, the water scarcity is becoming a major problem. People in general have to adapt themselves to the mosquito menace as it is increasing in the areas that were considered as more cold. The earth slides have increased in some wet areas due to high rainfall over an extended period. People living in slopes and earth slide prone areas need actions.

Some houses may need stronger construc­tion to adapt to the increased intensity of winds. Perhaps older structures are more vul­nerable. Certain locations might not be suit­able for house constructions anymore.

Lack of climate proofing in mega develop­ment projects make people and environment vulnerable to the climate damage. Most of the infrastructure projects have not consid­ered climate change in designing and imple­mentation. While some adaptations are part of the learning curve of the local people who have specialized in their locations, some ad­aptations need proper authority but careful and cautious intervention. As many people engage in nature related livelihoods are los­ing jobs there is a need of creating green jobs in the future.

The result also shows that climate change is not only a business of the environmental agencies of the government. It needs to be a crosscutting issue for many other authorities including agriculture, water and irrigation, fisheries, meteorological, coastal, disaster mitigation and academics. The research team felt that even the provincial and local authori­ties have a role to play.

Local communities have lot to contribute to the climate plans. Keeping them out of cli­mate business will create unnecessary dam­age to life and livelihood as we have seen in some Asian countries in the recent past. Bringing them to the climate planning will allow them to understand and contribute to the mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, democratizing of climate plans and action should be done without further delay.

Save the life from poisoned food

ejustice July 2009

Dilena Pathragoda

Sri Lankans as all ordi­nary beings have a practice of taking three main meals per day and it is all important daily rou­tine. The specific place air, water and also food possess in the life of human beings has been studied by us from the early days of our lives. It is so because our mere existence depends on them.

Revelations have indicated that due to our being ignorant of certain facts we have been instrumental in making our lives short. Food stands out as the main cause. We are unaware of the quanti­ties of poisons contained in food items that we take in daily such as vegetables, instant food varieties, coloured drinks, most oils are some examples of additive containing edibles that are available in the markets.

It is a common practice among cultiva­tors and traders to use agro chemicals from seed cultivation stage up to har­vesting and even later. It has been re­vealed that chemicals are sprayed on green chilies, tomatoes, beans and most of the upcountry vegetables. All those concerned about health have the com­mon knowledge that spraying of agro-chemicals on products should cease before a minimum 7-14 days before marketing them. However the trader and cultivator is only worried about ways and means of gaining the maxi­mum profit and least concerned about health.

The time has come for us to think about the number of inmate patients in hospitals, or the number of cancer patients, the number of kidney patients or the number of eye patients. It is a sorry state of affairs when we consider the plight of children.

The immediate result of all these are the practices we have adopted in our feeding processes.

According to a survey conducted by us in various parts of Sri Lanka we have observed that most vegetables sold in markets are contaminated with these agro chemicals. The intensity of the danger is that the chemicals have been used without any standards or recom­mendations. The affects of the chemi­cals on those who spray them are also saddening. The results may sometimes be a cancer or skin ailment or may be heart problem.

The time has come to think twice what is in our food.

Can “Biochar” make a country carbon Neutral?

ejustice July 2009

Hemantha Withanage

Several patent applications have been made for industrial charcoal use in soil and for “Pyrolysis” for charcoal production. Industrial Charcoal or “Biochar” is one of the solution sug­gested by the corporations to mitigate climate change. The promoters suggest “biochar” is similar to the “Terra Preta” a mixture of charcoal and varieties of bio­mass developed by the Central Amazo­nians thousands of years ago.

These “biochar” producers suggest that this is the “silver bullet” for reducing glob­al greenhouse gases thereby mitigating climate change. This has been already proposed to the UNFCCC and for clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Sev­eral African governments also proposed this in order to promote private sector involvement in climate Mitigation.

The Maldivian Government is targeting to become the first Carbon Natural na­tion by developing three small islands producing waste into “Biochar”. The com­pany involved in this business is Carbon Gold, a UK based entity.

However, many environmentalists dis­agree with this approach and suggest not including “biochar” in climate miti­gation proposals. One argument is that industrial “Biocharcoal” is not close to “Terra Preta”. New science has so far not unveiled the techniques used by the ancient people to produce it. If the new companies granted patents, those will ensure that any future profits from the technology will go to companies, not communities. According to the FOEI and other groups, given that successful strat­egies for combining charcoal with di­verse biomass in soils were developed by indigenous peoples, ‘biochar’ patenting raises serious concerns over bio piracy. The inclusion of soils in carbon markets, just like the inclusion of forests in carbon trading will increase corporate control over vital resources and the exclusion of smallholder farmers, rural communities and indigenous peoples.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has perpetuated, rather than re­duced fossil fuel burning by permitting industries to purchase “rights to pollute” and further delaying the social and eco­nomic changes which are essential for addressing climate change. The climate impacts of fossil fuel burning are irre­versible, yet so-called ‘soil carbon sinks’ are highly uncertain and impermanent.

“Biochar” producers suggest production of gigatones on “biochar” will reduce the CO2 into pre industrial levels. How­ever environmentalists state that it will require millions of hectares of lands to convert into biomass production which will be mostly monoculture plantations which are already problematic. This is not different from the controversial “Agro­fuel” production. A UNEP report found that industrial charcoal release most of its carbon content in 30 years time, al­though the “Biochar” producers suggest that this carbon will remain in soil for thousands of years.

There is no consistent evidence that charcoal can be relied upon to make soil more fertile. Industrial charcoal produc­tion at the expense of organic matter needed for making humus could have the opposite results.

Combinations of charcoal with fossil fuel-based fertilisers made from scrub­bing coal power plant flue gases are be­ing marketed as ‘biochar’, and those will help to perpetuate fossil fuel burning as well as emissions of nitrous oxide, a pow­erful greenhouse gas. According to the experts the process for making charcoal and energy (pyrolysis) can result in dan­gerous soil and air pollution.

Using waste for composting is the best solution for carbon minimisation. How­ever, turning waste into “biochar”, perhaps will be better than burning them. How­ever, carbon in waste is not the problem for climate change. The biggest problem is burning fossil fuel. However “biochar” is not an alternative to fossil fuel. There are many scientific uncertainties over “biochar”. It is not a proven technology for making a country carbon neutral.