|
 |
Companies must lead in absence of strong climate agreement
13 December 2011
What came out of this year’s climate conference in Durban? Are we on track for a legally binding agreement that forces countries to lower their greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change? In short, is the world better off after COP17?
Negotiations were supposed to finish late Friday night, but lack of compromise and appropriate text distribution, high-level talks extended early into Sunday morning and ended on a somewhat chaotic note. Despite that all countries showed up with a strong mandate, the results are somewhat diluted and do not reflect the level of ambition we need to limit harmful climate change occurring in the coming years. Here are the major outcomes I see from Durban.
Agreement on a “Roadmap” towards a new legally binding agreement
At the very last minute, negotiators agreed on a so-called “roadmap” towards a legally binding agreement that will take over from the Kyoto Protocol. Disappointingly, the start date of the new agreement was pushed to 2020. This will potentially allow a 4°C temperature increase, with devastating consequences to the world’s poorest countries and most vulnerable ecosystems.
Structure of the Green Climate Fund
The underlying structure of the Green Climate Fund was laid down, however negotiators did not manage to agree on a way to collect and distribute the money. The fund was coined in Copenhagen two years ago, where politician agreed on the need for a US $100 billion fund to help the poorest countries adapt to and mitigate climate change.
Extension of the Kyoto Protocol
A coalition of countries led by the EU agreed to continue the Kyoto Protocol leading up to the new agreement. Negotiation on the conditions of the continuation was left until next year. Canada, Russia and Japan already opted out of this deal.
EU and Least Developed Nations stepping up
Durban saw the emergence of a large coalition of more ambitious countries, led by the most vulnerable nations and small island states, including many in Africa. It seems up to this group of countries to show leadership on tackling climate challenge and convince the rest the world that yes, we do need a new legally binding agreement and we must have more ambitious emission reduction, for example by increasing our own reduction target for 2020 to at least 30% below 1990 levels.
Call for national and industry leadership
In the absence of global action, countries and industries are facing the challenge of resource scarcity and unprecedented elevating fuel prices, making energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions a good national business strategy. It is clear that there are huge benefits to gain for countries and industries investing in green business as way out of the financial crises. This still requires national leadership and investment capital.
As to the overall outcome of the COP, global NGOs – including Greenpeace and WWF – agree that world leaders are unambitious and that action agreed in Durban is too little, too late.
In the opening plenary of this year’s climate negotiations, lead negotiator of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Victor Kabengele wa Koudilu, proclaimed: “The African Group would like to state loud and clear that it will not allow African soil to become the graveyard of the Kyoto Protocol”. Although the world’s nations might not have buried the Kyoto Protocol in African soil during COP17, it has left it on a life support machine. We await the outcomes of COP-18 in Qatar to see if and in what form the Kyoto Protocol will survive, and when it will be replaced by a new agreement.
Until then, let’s prepare ourselves for what we know is needed. If you haven’t already developed a business model with sustainability at its core, now is your chance!
Signing out.
-- Gertrud Kümmel Birk
The carbon value of FSC-certified forests
9 December 2011
Have you wondered what the carbon value is of the FSC-certified forest or timber products that you work with? In the future, you may be able to report, communicate and be rewarded for the carbon stewardship of your FSC-certified forest. Launched at a joint FSC and Rainforest Alliance side event during COP17, FSC climate expert Stefan Salvador presented FSC's new strategy paper on engaging in climate change.
The paper marks the end of an exploratory phase by the FSC Forest Carbon Working Group to define FSC’s engagement on the issue, and the beginning of several research projects aimed at following up on three policy motions passed at this year’s General Assembly.
The purpose of this work is to strengthen the FSC brand as an environmental sound certification scheme. Not only must it ensure economic viability alongside environmentally and socially beneficial forest management, it must also maintain and potentially build the forest’s carbon stock to effectively contribute to curbing climate change.
In the next three years, FSC will:
- explore how carbon is restored in different certified forest ecosystems
- take first step in monitoring
- study how FSC certified operations can account for carbon sequestration
- explore the carbon benefits that certified operations could gain, such as by building bridges to carbon project standards
The strategy paper sends a clear message that the climate challenge is not to be overlooked and that systems that place environmental safeguards in resource management such as FSC should make efforts to proactively integrate new provisions to accommodate this challenge.
With this work in mind, FSC-certified companies may be able to gain economic benefits for their efforts to further preserve and store the carbon in their forests.
-- Gertrud Kümmel Birk
FAO: If you didn’t come to Forest Day, you missed the COP
6 December 2011
The weekend arrived packed with thematic side events and full day gatherings devoted to the discussion of key topics.
On Sunday, NGO’s, business sector representatives, country party members and the media gathered for Forest Day 5, an annual event hosted by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) with some 1,200 preregistered forest enthusiasts seeking to bring crucial forest related issues to the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UN FCCC) negotiations.
Forest Day is the key networking event for that has made influential contribution to the climate negotiations since the first Forest Day took place at COP13 in Bali back in 2007. So much so that keynote speaker FAOs assistant director Eduardo Rojas-Briales said “if you didn’t come to Forest Day, you missed the COP”.
Many presentations and countless praises were dedicated to the recently deceased Professor Wangari Maathai, Kenyan environmental and political activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Maathai was founder of the Green Belt Movement, dedicated at combating deforestation by the mobilisation and capacity building of rural women. I encourage you to watch the griping story on the outstanding accomplishments and the legacy of this courageous woman.
The Forest Day 5 covered social and environmental safeguards within Reduced Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) projects, how to scale-up on carbon projects and how we address the finance the gap for on-going and future carbon projects. The outcome from the event was by no means ground-breaking – perhaps an expression of the atmosphere of anticipation surrounding the days up to start of the political negotiations. But maybe the most important message to take from Forest Day 5 is that despite our efforts, issues of forest conservation, agroforestry and land degradation are only getting become more urgent, that strong forest advocators are ready and willing to supply innovative solutions to roll out through business value chains and global policy.
Brazil honed in on technical elements within a draft text on the specifications of REDD+ – discussions taking place in the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). Brazil remains opposed to central reporting of social and environmental safeguards within the REDD mechanism. Rumour has it that Brazil is holding back on this rather technical issue, mainly to have a card to play when the negotiations on the future legally binding agreement, starting this week.
To mark the end of the day, Christina Figueres, Executive secretary of the UN FCCC, addressed the 1,200 enthusiastic participants, encouraging us not to give up on the COP negotiations, assuring us there will be a binding agreement and that forest protection will be a central element to mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Let us see as ministers and state leaders arrive from near and far to take up the political negotiations. We are holding our breaths to hear ambition and commitment from this people and their political hinterland.
-- Gertrud Kümmel Birk
Strong business case for Carbon footprinting
2 December 2011
I have long been convinced of the benefits for companies that decide to monitor and reduce their carbon footprint – but yesterday this was further cemented by members of the business community.
A side event hosted by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development presented two brand new standards under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. The standards are designed to help companies identify their carbon emissions and take cost-efficient action to reduce them. They have been developed upon a strong private sector demand – an expression of the eagerness by the business sector to take responsibility for the climate impact of their business value chains.
But carbon footprinting is by no means a philanthropic initiative – rather a strong business strategy for companies that want to increase cost-efficiency, gain competitive advantages and improve their sustainability profile towards investor and consumers.
This case was strongly put forward by Bryan Jacob, Coca-Cola Energy & Climate Protection Manager, claiming that carbon footprinting on a corporate and product level should be seen as an opportunity for any company looking at a pure cost-efficiency point of view. When applying the two new standards, you take a carbon “life cycle approach” looking at both up- and downstream emission from your value chain. By mapping your emissions you can pinpoint which life cycle phases have the higher carbon burden, indicating where you should focus your reduction efforts. In the case of Coca Cola, Mr. Jacob notes: “we were surprised to find out that our carbon emissions were heaviest on packaging and refrigerating, forcing us to work with sub-suppliers and retailers to bring down emissions”.
Aside from there being the strong business case, the private sector is starting to push supply chains demand that is driving carbon accounting. More and more larger companies are demanding carbon footprint information from sub-suppliers and contractors as input into own corporate carbon reporting and this trend is trickling down. Read more about this in my blog entry from 21 November 2011.
Timber producers have an obvious advantage. If you are sourcing certified timber, the carbon storage is maintained in the forest over a growth period and therefore produces no emissions caused by land use change. Moreover, carbon is stored in the product over the product life cycle and in the end of life phase, reducing the overall footprint of the product. Effect producers of certified timber products have a lighter carbon footprint than other industries.
So I really see no reason why the timber sector should not get involved in measuring, reporting and reducing their carbon footprint. At NEPCon, we work with leading standards on how you ensure the best advantages from your carbon reduction efforts, so find out how you can be a first mover and read more about NEPCon’s work with Carbon footprinting.
-- Gertrud Kümmel Birk
Carbon investment: the chicken or the egg
1 December 2011
While the main climate negotiations are evolving in the big halls of Durban’s impressive International Convention Centre, I am struggling to keep up with the extensive side event calendar. Environmental organisations, traditional peoples, research institutions, women’s rights advocates and the business community are throwing insightful events to present key developments, unveil insightful data or simply to stir up discussion with participant and policy-makers on delicate issues.
A side event on carbon finance and the willingness of investors to turn to forest carbon projects revealed that although investment interest is strong, investors are still struggling to deal with the environmental integrity of forest carbon projects. Two reasons dominate the discussion. Permanence: how do we ensure that the forest remains standing? And leakage: how do we prohibit that forest degradation are shifted to areas outside of the project boundaries? Measures to monitor and estimate carbon update is continuously being discussed.
The message was however clear: designers of forest carbon projects have been on a steep learning curb and are now better equipped to solve the challenges above. And with increased certainty and environmental integrity, comes more willing investments. This trend was emphasised by a new Carbon Fund for Forests, French CDC Climat directed at forest projects worldwide – with an opening for reforestation and improved forest management projects in Europe.
I hope to see more innovative investment initiatives such as the Carbon Fund for Forests, where forerunners in the European forest industry can receive funding to do what they are best at – growing, managing and preserving forests. The timber industry would also be able to offset carbon emissions from their operations with local carbon uptake. Thereby European forest managers, as well as timber producers and traders can also contribute to global carbon uptake, as well as job creation, biodiversity protection, water conservation and reduced soil erosion.
On the third day at COP-17, negotiation evolved around the future of the market mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol. The so called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are the two project mechanisms under the Protocol, enabling developed countries nations to live up to their reduction commitment by buying credits from projects taking place in developing countries or economies in transition. This way, industrialised countries can reduce cheap and developing countries can develop environmental-friendly solutions and gain technical transfer in their industrial development. Developing nations are keen to continue the mechanisms, however this will all depend on if and how the Kyoto Protocol will continue.
Discussions on the future of the Kyoto Protocol will begin tomorrow – we are all waiting in great anticipation!
-- Gertrud Kümmel Birk
Rich countries slammed for low ambitions on forest management
30 November 2011
Yesterday, on the second day of COP-17, developed countries were criticised by the NGO community for a severe lack of ambition when accounting for their forest sector emissions. Fittingly, it is within this forum that we expect tough criticism in order to bridge an enormous gap between today’s reality and essential targets we must meet by 2020.
Today, all industrialised countries report on their net forest cover – based on afforestation, reforestation and deforestation levels – thanks to the Kyoto Protocol, which comes to an end in 2012. Changes in carbon stock resulting from changes in forest area are reported to the UN as a part of the each county's national greenhouse gas inventory report.
In effect, an increase in forest area – and therefore in carbon stock – can be used to counter-balance emissions in industries that lie outside of the “Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry” (LULUCF) sector. LULUCF covers uptake, storage and emissions related to human induced activities such as afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland management, grazing land management and re-vegetation.
Forest management reporting will be mandatory starting 2013, and developed countries have been required to produce a forest management “baseline level”. However, most countries have used a simple “business-as-usual” case, suggesting they do not foresee any significant emissions reduction from the forest industry.
The reality is, if developed countries are to reduce emissions up to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, the forest industry simply MUST take part. Moreover if developed national make unambitious efforts, how can we expect developing nations to show strong initiatives to monitor and reduce deforestation?
We call on all governments to do better than that. And let’s remind ourselves, it does make economic sense!
-- Gertrud Kümmel Birk
COP-17 in the making
29 November 2011
The first day of the official start of the 17th UN climate negotiation began yesterday, and the conference city was buzzing with activity. The side event calendar is still slim and the first day is used for setting up exhibits, finding your way round and networking. There is an atmosphere of great anticipation but also nervousness due to potential disappointments.
As the official negotiations begin, the destination is clear, but the road to get there is not yet mapped out: climate change is escalating and the world needs a legally binding agreement that will lead us towards a low-carbon global society.
Breaking this down, what are the main challenges facing the decision-makers at this year conference?
- Reduction commitment: Developed countries must agree on reduction targets of at least 25-40% below 1990 lelvels by 2020 to stay under the 2 degree temperature rise agreed upon two years ago in Copenhagen – and they must show commitment to live up to them!
- A new Protocol: All participating parties must secure a mandate for a new legally binding agreement to take over from the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2013 or 2015 at the latest.
- Funding: Parties should ensure capitalisation of the Green Climate Fund to support developing countries with climate change adaptation and mitigation. It must reach the $100 billion capacity goal.
- Forest accounting: Countries should act with environmental integrity by adequately accounting for their emissions from deforestation and other land use changes, ensuring the forest sector is adding to the protection of the world climate as we know it.
The fact is that with all existing national pledges of greenhouse gas emission reduction, the world still faces a gap of 6-11 GT emissions if we want to keep global warming below the 2% degrees.
I am looking forward to engaging in discussions today on this crucial issue. Stay tuned to find out more about the forest content of the negotiations.
-- Gertrud Kümmel Birk
Climate negotiations near
23 November 2011
What will happen at this year’s international climate conference COP17 in Durban, South Africa, and how are the results relevant to businesses in the timber sector? Just five days before COP17 begins, few experts believe an international agreement will materialise that sets clear targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction. Yet, with 2010 just recognised as the most carbon intensive year in human history major, collective action is far overdue.
Adopted in 1994, the Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialised countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This amounts to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels, over the five-year period 2008-2012. Currently national leaders and international organisations are negotiating the terms of a protocol that will continue where the Kyoto agreement come to a close in 2013.
The forest content is heavy and progressing at a higher pace than the overall negotiations. The key questions that will unfold at COP-17 are, how will forests be accounted for in national carbon emission inventories? Will the carbon benefits for private forest be greater in a post-2012 agreement? And how will developing nations be assisted in their efforts to reduce deforestation and land degradation?
Of key relevance to the private sector, including the timber industry, is the way developed nations choose to reach their emission reduction commitment. Until now the European Commission has proven to be by far the most ambitious player in emission reduction implementation by rolling out the Emission Trading scheme (ETS).
The ETS places greenhouse gas emission reduction responsibility on the largest emitters – some 13,000 companies across the EU. The EU enters the climate negotiation with a reduction commitment of 30% against 1990 levels by 2020, ready to look beyond the sectors currently targeted in the ETS, such as the transportation, agriculture, forestry and building sectors.
What will happen in the absence of a new agreement or in the gap between Kyoto and a new protocol is of great importance. Nations across the world have proven that they are willing to act despite the lack of progress in the international agreements. Innovative national and regional institutions such as the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and even China have established national or regional cap-and-trade systems (such as the ETS) in the belief that market mechanisms are needed for national states and the private sector to take responsibility for their actions. Efforts will no doubt continue and the question now is: who’s in?
I’m looking forward to sharing progress of the climate talks with you, through daily update in this blog.
-- Gertrud Kümmel Birk
Timber Industry needs to move
21 November 2011
There is a clear business case for carbon accounting and disclosure, so much so that up to 50% of multinationals look set to select their suppliers based upon carbon performance in the future. This is evident from a recent report from the Carbon Trust Advisory also stating that 29% of suppliers are likely to lose their places on ‘green supply chains’ if they do not have an adequate performance records on carbon.
While larger companies are becoming more carbon conscious, small and medium sized enterprises are still lacking behind. However, it is only a matter of time before carbon efficiency is a key performance parameter across industries and value chains. Monitoring, accounting and reporting on your carbon footprint not only improves your image on the green market place, but reduces risks and guides you to a more cost efficient production, effecting the long-term sustainability of your business.
Companies in the timber industry have a clear advantage - working with organic biomass. Wood products store carbon in the use phase and companies supplying wood from certified forests ensures that the carbon stock is maintained in the forest. Recent focus on product substitution and an increasingly energy efficient building sector exemplifies timber industry opportunities.
 As NEPCon’s Climate Program Manager, I will be reporting from the Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa, to keep you updated on the future of carbon accounting and climate policy – follow this blog! You can also follow us on Twitter!
Learn about NEPCon's carbon services
|
 |
|
|
