By Nat Keohane

Source: Flickr/ UNClimateChange

The United Nations climate agreement in Paris, and the intense negotiations leading up to it, were a breakthrough in a number of important ways.

First of all, the agreement represents the coming of age of climate diplomacy. It was evident from the beginning that French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who chaired the talks, had the full trust and confidence of the room.

He artfully identified a zone of agreement among 196 delegations that gave nearly everyone something they wanted without crossing red lines.

The agreement was also the culmination of months of bilateral diplomacy at the highest levels, most visibly between the U.S. and China. The direct involvement of President Obama and other world leaders was critical to success – and shows a strategic savvy and leader-level involvement that we haven’t seen in past climate talks.

But it’s the language of the agreement itself, and the broad backing it received, that makes it such a big deal. It means that we now have a chance – not a guarantee, but a chance – to put the world on a healthier path.

What COP21 achieved

We know that the COP21 commitments so far will not deliver all the emissions reductions we need. That’s why the heart of the deal is the process it establishes to review countries’ progress toward meeting their commitments, and to ratchet up ambition over time.

The Paris deal:

• Lays out a common, transparent, and legally binding framework for countries to report their emissions regularly and undergo a technical expert review.

• Includes regular assessments and strengthening of commitments every five years, beginning in 2020.

• Includes strong provisions against double-counting of emissions reductions, to make sure that every ton of emissions reductions is only counted once — a critical safeguard for environmental integrity.

That strong framework for transparency and review is critical because it will provide the accountability needed to keep pressure on countries to meet their commitments. And it will send a strong signal to energy producers, world markets and governments that the future lies in clean energy.

As a result, it will drive investments, policy choices and a fundamental shift in decision-making. As an economist, I’ve seen it over and over again: Once strong rules are in place, the money follows.

187 countries, 99% of emissions onboard

Critics have complained that the deal does not penalize countries that don’t meet their emission targets. But the greater flexibility inherent in that non-binding approach made possible the most striking aspect of the Paris outcome: the broad participation underlying the agreement.

As of today, 187 countries covering almost 99 percent of global emissions have submitted commitments to take action on climate.  Joining them were more than 120 states, provinces and cities that made strong commitments of their own – along with many of the world’s largest companies.

The Paris conference did not create this wave of momentum on climate action – but it will provide an important boost to keep it going.

With an eye toward markets

The unsung hero of the agreement, meanwhile, is a set of provisions that encourages the use of markets to drive up investment in clean energy and drive down pollution.

You won’t find the word “markets” in the text.  But that is what the agreement is referring to, when it lays out clear rules for “cooperative approaches that involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.”

By affirming a role for this powerful tool, the agreement recognizes the realities already on the ground, where emission trading systems are already at work in more than 50 places that are home to nearly 1 billion people.

What’s more, the deal strikes the right balance between “bottom-up” and “top-down.” Carbon markets will continue to be driven and shaped by national priorities. The UN’s role will be limited to providing clear guidance to ensure that when countries choose to use markets internationally, the  emissions reductions are correctly tracked and accounted for.

The role of markets may not be in this week’s headlines – but a decade from now, it will be one of the enduring legacies of Paris.

Next: Keeping up the pressure

Over the course of the two-week long conference, I and my colleagues from Environmental Defense Fund walked the halls and worked the delegation rooms, talking with reporters, negotiators and fellow activists.

We pushed for accountability, transparency, forest protection, an opening for markets, regular strengthening of national commitments – and, above all, for an agreement that would actually make a significant difference for the climate.

Together, we made progress because the nations of the world – developed and developing, north and south, large and small – moved beyond the old excuses for delay and pledged substantial cuts in the pollution that is damaging our climate.

When Fabius finally brought the gavel down on Saturday evening, formally adopting the agreement, I was sitting with hundreds of other attendees in a packed meeting room at the conference site, watching on closed-circuit TV.

We were bone-tired after a week of late nights and little sleep, but the mood was ebullient.

Three days later, the exhaustion has begun to fade. But the ebullience remains, along with the sense that we were witness to a transformative moment.

Now it’s up to all of us to keep up the pressure on nations – and to deliver on the promise of the Paris agreement.

This post originally appeared on EDF Voices.

By Chris Meyer

By Chris Meyer, Senior Manager, Amazon Forest Policy and Dana Miller, Research Analyst

The Paris Agreement sends a strong signal for the forest protection policy REDD+. Credit: Flickr/Dams999

The Paris Agreement was a historic moment for the world, including the world’s forests. Now it is time to implement the agreement. But first, let’s take a moment to celebrate three important wins for forests and the framework for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+).

1) Article 5 on REDD+ signals political support for the existing internationally agreed framework

The Paris Agreement included a specific provision (Article 5, below) on forests and REDD+. Experts from EDF, Conservation International, Forest Trends, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy and Union of Concerned Scientists told press that this article “would send a strong political signal to support better protections for forests in developing countries and encourage developed nations to provide the financial incentives to do so.” This article also encourages “results-based payments”, which refers to a promising mechanism where donors pay for verified emissions reductions achieved through REDD+.

Article 5 also calls attention to the “existing framework”, referring to the Warsaw Framework for REDD+. This framework with previous and subsequent COP decisions complete the guidance for REDD+ on issues such as social and environmental safeguards, reference levels, and national forest monitoring systems, which together form the internationally recognized policy approach that REDD+ has become.

Outside the negotiations, countries, states, corporations and indigenous peoples announced how they would finance and implement the protection of forests.

2) Principles for accounting for emissions reductions ensure transparency and improvement over time for forests and other sectors

The Paris framework also includes a paragraph (below) on principles to account for countries’ emissions and removals (science-speak for the ability of forests and soils to absorb carbon from the atmosphere). These principles will ensure countries’ contributions to climate action are understandable and comparable. Furthermore, this paragraph creates a process to elaborate guidance for accounting after Paris, which will strengthen contributions.

3) The agreement overall strengthens efforts on mitigation, finance, and international markets, three important elements for REDD+

The Paris Agreement is strong overall, which is the most important signal for REDD+. The agreement calls for the highest possible ambition, increasing every five years, from all countries. It sets a long-term goal of net zero emissions in the second half of this century, recognizing the importance of removals of greenhouse gases by forests.

Additionally, the agreement encourages international cooperation and markets. That means that companies that invest in forest protection could use verified emissions units generated by programs that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in tropical countries consistent with the international policy approach for REDD+ under the Warsaw Framework and related COP decisions, to comply with market-based measures such as those being implemented and created by California and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), if those creating institutions so authorize.

Now, it’s time to act on the mandate of the agreement to scale up finance, mitigation, and international cooperation in order to save the world’s forests and climate.

 

Text references from this post: 

Summary of the REDD+ and land sector references in the adopted Paris agreement [PDF]

Glossary of terms and phrases that refer to the land sector and REDD+ [PDF]

Article on REDD+: 

Paris Agreement, Page 23

Article 5

1. Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests.

2. Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.

 

Principles on accounting

Decisions to give effect to the Agreement; Mitigation, Page 5

31. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement to elaborate, drawing from approaches established under the Convention and its related legal instruments as appropriate, guidance for accounting for Parties’ nationally determined contributions, as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 13, of the Agreement, for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session, which ensures that:

(a) Parties account for anthropogenic emissions and removals in accordance with methodologies and common metrics assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement;

(b) Parties ensure methodological consistency, including on baselines, between the communication and implementation of nationally determined contributions;

(c) Parties strive to include all categories of anthropogenic emissions or removals in their nationally determined contributions and, once a source, sink or activity is included, continue to include it;

(d) Parties shall provide an explanation of why any categories of anthropogenic emissions or removals are excluded;

 

By Steve Schwartzman

Two states in the Brazilian Amazon — Mato Grosso and Pará  emitted more greenhouse gases in 2004 than all but six nations in the world. More climate pollution than Japan. By 2012 they had cut emissions so dramatically, they dropped beneath 37 other countries.

This progress, achieved through reduced deforestation, is a major reason for the 80%  decline in Amazon deforestation between 2005 and 2014.

At the Paris climate conference, these two states rolled out plans for even more ambitious action.

(source: Observatório de Clima SEEG)

Ambitious forest policy is key to climate progress

Slowing Amazon deforestation has kept over 4 billion tons of CO₂ out of the atmosphere since 2005, several times more than the EU’s emissions reductions from 2005 – 2011. Major causes of the decline include better remote sensing monitoring, ramped-up law enforcement, credit limitations, company commitments to zero-deforestation commodity supply chains, large-scale creation of protected areas and recognition of indigenous territories.

The bad news is that plans positive incentives – payments from polluters to preserve forests — have not materialized.  Consequently, while deforestation dropped to a historic low of 4,500 km² in 2012( (from a peak of 27,000 km² in 2004), it has crept back up to around 5,000 km² in recent years.

But overall, the Brazilian government, Amazon states and forest peoples’ communities have made a very significant contribution to combatting climate change, not least in demonstrating that it is possible to reduce large-scale tropical deforestation on national and state levels. This is important, because reducing deforestation and restoring and reforesting cleared and degraded lands could reduce global emissions by some 30% — or more.  Stopping deforestation and restoring forests on cleared and degraded forests could go a long ways toward closing the substantial gap between reductions pledged at Paris and keeping warming under 2°C.

Climate ambition in the Amazon

That’s why the big news on the forest front at the climate conference is that Amazon states – Mato Grosso and Pará in particular – are putting plans and proposals on the table that would enable them to consolidate the gains they’ve made, and do even more.

Mato Grosso Governor Pedro Taques rolled out the state’s “Produce, Conserve, Include” strategy at an event in Paris for investors and companies.  Sixty per cent of Mato Grosso has intact native vegetation (forest and savanna), and the state strategy is to maintain all of this, while intensifying and increasing agriculture on already cleared lands.

The plan proposes to eradicate illegal deforestation and compensate the owners of the 1 million hectares available for legal deforestation, as well as to restore 2.9 million hectares of degraded land by 2030. Also by 2030, 100% of family farmers are scheduled to get technical assistance, in order to ramp up their share of production of the food consumed in the state and increase household incomes. Overall, between reducing deforestation and restoring degraded lands, the strategy aims to deliver 6 billion tons of CO² reductions and removals by 2030.

Pará, with about 80% of its 1.25 million km² under intact forest (an area the size of California and Texas together), has the largest expanse of forest at immediate risk in the world. The state has nonetheless reduced its deforestation 70% since 2005. Director of the state’s innovative “Green Municipalities Program” Justiniano Neto announced in Paris that the state has taken an 80% deforestation reduction target by 2020 – and proposes to reach zero net deforestation from 2020 on. The state is using cutting-edge remote sensing technology to pinpoint illegal deforestation and freeze state services – including recognition of land claims – where it is occurring. It has enrolled 105 of its 144 counties in the Green Municipalities Program and allocated resources from tax revenues to reward counties that reduce deforestation and protect forests.

Strong Words from Brazil

Pará and Mato Grosso are not the only ones engaged in building a new paradigm for low-carbon rural development. Another Paris climate event sponsored by EDF, Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), Amazon Institute for People and the Environment (IMAZON) and Center for Life Institute (ICV) – featured Brazil’s former Environment Minister Marina Silva, responsible for the National Plan for Prevention and Control of Amazon Deforestation that put in place the federal policies contributing to the reduction.

Silva lauded Pará and Mato Grosso and other Amazon states , including Acre – for their leadership . In an implicit criticism of the Brazilian pledge to end illegal deforestation by 2030, she emphasized that criminality is never acceptable or tolerable. Asked about the Brazilian Government’s recent decree purporting to create a national strategy to create payments for forest protection, Silva noted that while the idea (REDD+) was good, the decree could not be expected to generate results because of a non-transparent  process and lack of mechanisms for its implementation.

By Chris Meyer

The REDD+ negotiators in Paris still have plenty of explicit and implicit references to REDD+ in the text that have a better-than-good chance of surviving this week.

While we would like to see an explicit reference to REDD+ in the Paris Agreement or its decisions that guide its implementation, what is most important for REDD+ is a good final Paris Agreement. That will provide the impetus for quicker implementation of REDD+ and the big, big signal some say it needs. This second week is when the ministers need to focus on delivering it.

The REDD+ negotiators have spent most of their time trying to unlock language around what some countries want to call the new “REDD+ Mechanism” (currently paragraph 3bis).

The COP21 climate negotiations on REDD+ made little progress last week – keep calm and see why here – while there was a flurry of announcements from countries regarding the implementation of REDD+.

New financing please? Germany, Norway, and the UK (the “GNU” as they’re known) led the pack by announcing $5 billion in REDD+ funding between 2015-2020. The country of Colombia was the latest to receive a bilateral agreement worth $100 million through the REDD + Early Movers Program.

Implementation is the word of the day: At least at the Lima Paris Action Agenda, where many signaled the need for implementation. The biggest news was that Brazil submitted its recently decreed by President Dilma National REDD+ Strategy and thus, was able to inaugurate the Lima REDD+ UNFCCC hub. Mexico presented their progress to date on creating and consulting their National REDD+ strategy, which they expect to submit in April, 2016. Finally, Peru submitted their Reference Emissions Level for review, another of the Warsaw REDD+ Framework elements.

Private sector sourcing from REDD+ jurisdictions: This idea seems to be making its first steps as Marks & Spencer and Unilever both publicly committed to prioritize sourcing from jurisdictions moving towards zero-deforestation. The most interesting news was that Mondelez is going to directly work with the government of Cote d’Ivoire to implement their National REDD+ program.

Indigenous Peoples are part of the solution: Felipe Calderon started his summarizing remarks of the Lima Paris Action Agenda on Forests by noting many speakers panelists mentioned the importance of securing land tenure for Indigenous Peoples. Additionally, a new analysis of tropical forest carbon stocks found that 20.1% are located in Indigenous Territories, making them significant players in mitigating climate change from deforestation.

By Alex Hanafi

Among the 170+ countries that have submitted their carbon-cutting plans — known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or “INDCs” — more than half have either stated their intention to use international carbon markets to tackle carbon pollution, or are already employing them domestically. Image source: cropped INDC map from IETA's INDC Tracker

With only a few days before nations meet in Paris to negotiate an inclusive post-2020 structure for global climate cooperation under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), we already know that the world will be entering a new paradigm of climate action, in which all nations play a role in the collective fight against climate change.

We also know that while the emissions reductions pledged for 2025 or 2030 by over 170 countries over the course of this year are significant, aggressive additional action well beyond 2030 will be necessary to meet the internationally agreed goal of limiting global average atmospheric warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That goal is the upper limit agreed by the international community, at a level that scientists believe would likely avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Because the Paris pledges mark only the beginning of a new era of climate cooperation, it is imperative that an effective international climate agreement promotes greater and greater ambition as it matures. A successful Paris agreement can thus set the stage for the world to turn the corner on global emissions.

Even before they arrive in Paris, countries have started identifying effective tools that can be used to accelerate ambition over time, so that the UNFCCC’s objective – to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” – can be met.

Emissions trading systems allow countries to be more ambitious, by channeling capital and entrepreneurial effort into finding the fastest and cheapest ways to cut emissions.

Many countries have stated they can and will do more, if they have access to bilateral, regional, or international carbon markets – also known as emissions trading or “cap-and-trade.”

As shown in the map above, among the more than 170 countries that have submitted their carbon-cutting plans (known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or “INDCs”) to the UNFCCC, more than half have either stated their intention to use international carbon markets to tackle carbon pollution, or are already employing them domestically, at the national or subnational level. (For more detail, see the UNFCCC's synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions [PDF] and IETA's INDC tracker.)

Mexico is a great example of how markets can drive greater ambition and deeper reductions. Mexico’s INDC indicates carbon markets can play an important role in reducing Mexico’s carbon pollution well below its current planned cuts of 22% below “business as usual” (BAU) levels by 2030.

In fact, Mexico states that international carbon markets are “require[d]” to meet its conditional emissions target, i.e. a 36% reduction below BAU of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

Think about what that difference means: Mexico says that the availability of international carbon markets would allow it to cut its emissions 60% more than its unconditional goal.

If all nations – or even just major economies with the capacity to administer robust emissions trading systems – increased their ambition by 60%, we would collectively be much closer to limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Countries agree that carbon markets catalyze “an increase in mitigation ambition, particularly by developed countries.” Indeed, the advantages of a collaborative model for cost-effective emissions reductions informed the design of the Kyoto Protocol’s emissions trading system, which is credited with spurring developed countries to adopt deeper emissions reductions than they would have in the absence of these carbon market tools.

How emissions trading works to reduce pollution

Just how do emissions trading systems allow countries to be more ambitious?

By channeling capital and entrepreneurial effort into finding the fastest and cheapest ways to cut emissions, a price on carbon drives deeper reductions.

While cap-and-trade is not the only way of pricing carbon, it is a natural candidate, combining the economic appeal of a carbon price with the environmental guarantee of an emission cap.

Evidence from actual emissions trading markets – including the EU Emissions Trading System, the California cap-and-trade program, the U.S. Regional GHG Initiative (RGGI), and the U.S. sulfur dioxide trading system – shows that these programs are cutting pollution at lower cost and in less time than initially expected.

Growing experience with emissions trading – and the cross-border sharing of lessons learned that allows development of more effective domestic policies over time – means that momentum is building on carbon markets around the world, at the international, national, and subnational level.

As the vast majority of countries head to Paris with concrete plans to reduce their pollution, coordination among jurisdictions with carbon markets will be increasingly crucial to maximize cost-effectiveness and environmental integrity – which in turn will give jurisdictions the confidence to catalyze a faster transition to a prosperous low-carbon economy.

By Chris Meyer

In Paris, announcements on REDD+ finance and implementation by governments, companies and indigenous peoples will be as important as negotiations around text. Image: Flickr

The biggest tip-off as to how REDD+ will fare in Paris will come early on in the conference.

Heads of state and ministers are expected to announce new financial support for REDD+ countries on the Dec. 1, the second day of the climate talks, at the Lima Paris Action Agenda event on forests.

This financial support will target readiness—how prepared a country is to implement REDD+ programs—and results—the financial rewards a country will receive for verified emissions reductions.

At the same time, we expect to hear from REDD+ countries themselves about their progress in completing key milestones in the Warsaw Framework for REDD+. They’ll be addressing reference emission levels, REDD+ national strategies, and status reports on the implementation of safeguard information systems.

Where do businesses and states fit in?

Private sector engagement is also critical for REDD+. Companies could announce in Paris how they will implement their existing zero deforestation commitments. Those announcements need to be in line with policy efforts by REDD+ countries’ governments to ensure effectiveness by both sectors. Earlier this year, EDF proposed the Zero Deforestation Zone framework for how both the private and public sectors could align their efforts.

Brazilian states of Acre, Mato Grosso, and Para have already started to coordinate efforts by public and private sectors. We expect their governors, local non-governmental organizations, and multinational companies operating in those states to offer up details on their progress towards reducing deforestation. Those announcements will most likely happen at side events and receptions near the end of the first week and start of the second week of talks.

Indigenous peoples have their say

We expect new studies that will highlight the critical role indigenous peoples play in conserving tropical forests and eventual climate stability. Delegations of indigenous leaders will also share their climate change experiences at the Lima Paris Action Agenda event on forests, UNFCCC side events, panels at the indigenous peoples’ pavilion, and many other event spaces.

What about the politics?

REDD+ was an important part of climate progress made at the last two Conference of the Parties (COP) in Warsaw and Lima. Because of that, we don’t expect REDD+ or forests to be the primary focus of negotiators trying to finalize a Paris Agreement.

And that’s fine. Check out what we think about the politics of it all here. The Paris Agreement needs to deliver on a much broader set of tools and a framework that will support future actions in the land sector, including REDD+.

The Paris framework should ensure integrity in accounting for activities in the land sector, including REDD+, agriculture and other issues.  The text needs to encourage all countries to reduce emissions and increase removals by sinks because land use is the only sector that can absorb a significant amount of greenhouse gases. And, it will be crucial that land use policies and actions protect food security, ecosystems and people.

To take the real measure of whether Paris advances REDD+ we will be watching what happens on the parallel announcements about the financing and implementation of REDD+.  Like I said, follow the money.

 

Resources:

• Don't see REDD+ in the final Paris climate text? Look closer.
• Summary of the REDD+ and land sector references in the Paris agreement, COP 21 decisions, and workstream 2 (as of Nov. 10, 2015) [PDF]
• Glossary of terms and phrases that refer to the land sector and REDD+ in mitigation, adaptation, finance, and transparency in the Paris agreement; COP 21 decisions; and workstream 2 [PDF]

By Nat Keohane

The U.S. Clean Power Plan – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program to cut carbon pollution from the country's largest emitting sector, electric generating stations – is here to stay. Image: cropped photo from Flickr/ USCapitol.

It’s always hard to interpret political maneuvering in other countries. Governments resign, coalitions form, legislation means something other than what it seems to mean. So in the coming weeks, when newspapers around the world run headlines saying “U.S. Congress Votes to Overturn Clean Power Plan,” their readers may be forgiven for some confusion about America’s position coming into the Paris climate talks.

The first and most important thing to understand is that the Clean Power Plan – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program to cut carbon pollution from our largest emitting sector, electric generating stations – is here to stay. Bills to “block” the Plan may pass the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, but they will go no further. That is because those bills cannot become law unless President Obama signs them. He has made it abundantly clear that he won’t agree to dismantle his leading climate initiative.

The second thing to know is that public support for U.S. leadership on climate is strong. Opponents did manage to push a resolution through the U.S. Senate recently, but as my EDF colleague Jeremy Symons pointed out, it had fewer votes than a similar effort last year, thanks in part to strong public support for the rule. Indeed, the Clean Power Plan is part of larger American move towards clean energy and carbon limits. Ten states (including California and New York), representing a large slice of the U.S. economy, now have successful market-based limits on climate pollution.

Those not familiar with the American system might worry that, despite the current strong political position, the 2016 election could lead to the EPA rule’s undoing. And it’s true, election have consequences.

The U.S. is emerging as a world leader in cutting climate pollution.

But the Clean Power Plan is based on the bipartisan Clean Air Act, which has withstood numerous attacks across political cycles over its more than forty years of existence. In the case of climate change, the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically ruled that EPA has a responsibility to address greenhouse gas emissions — meaning that under the law, a future President can’t simply refuse to regulate them. The United States already has tailpipe standards in place for climate pollution from new cars and trucks. Power plants, the largest source of emissions in the U.S., are the logical and inevitable next step. Moreover, the Clean Power Plan is the product of an extensive years-long process of careful regulatory development, buttressed with ample public consultation and comment. Any attempt to undo it would have to go through a similar process — and then withstand the scrutiny of the courts.

An effort to weaken the CPP would not only face administrative and legal hurdles, it would also introduce significant uncertainties that could be harmful to electric power companies and the customers they serve. Indeed, many companies, understanding the fundamental shift taking place in the U.S., have already incorporated a switch to clean energy in their long term investment strategies. The CEO of American Electric Power Company, one of the nation’s largest utilities, calls the Clean Power Plan a “catalyst for the transformation that’s already occurring in our industry.”

The reality is that current talk of blocking the Clean Power Plan is pure political theater. So are attempts in Congress to undermine efforts to forge a global agreement on climate. The Paris talks are the latest step along a path set by the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under that treaty, negotiated by President George H.W. Bush and ratified with the unanimous consent of the Senate, the U.S. committed to adopt policies limiting emissions, to report regularly on those policies, and to maintain and publish emissions inventories. U.S. obligations under the Paris agreement would be premised on those existing commitments, as well as on authorities established under other legislation already enacted by Congress, such that no new congressional action is needed.

Crucially, the approach taken in negotiating the new agreement has emphasized that all nations have a role to play in addressing climate change. Over 170 countries have submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or “INDCs.” That universal approach squarely addresses the main concern Congress had with the Kyoto Protocol: that it committed the U.S. to take on emissions targets without requiring China and other fast-growing emitters to do so.

The United States will choose its own best path to contribute. But global action is good for our economy (as we create markets for clean technologies) and it is essential for doing all we can to address climate change with the urgency that is needed. Some in Congress will try to stop the U.S. from helping the world’s poorest countries fight climate change, but cooler heads know that’s short-sighted: the fact is, when other countries cut carbon pollution, it helps our economy and our climate too.

Those who follow American politics generally, and Congressional debates in particular, will recognize the script. Speeches are made, Congress votes, and the Clean Power Plan moves forward. Those watching around the world should look past the theater to the really important story: The U.S. is emerging as a world leader in cutting climate pollution.

By Chris Meyer

REDD+ and the land sector are already embedded in the UNFCCC, regardless of whether REDD+ is mentioned in the Paris text. Credit: Abigail's blog.

It’s hard to find a group more supportive than EDF of policies to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). With our Brazilian partners IPAM and ISA, we helped pioneer the concept, which places a value on living forests and ecosystems, and rewards forest protectors. That means states, such as Acre, Brazil, and countries that have significantly reduced emissions from deforestation could produce credits that companies could use for compliance with carbon markets.

REDD+ and the land sector will be in the Paris agreement – even if just between the lines.

The world’s land use, such as forests and agriculture, accounts for nearly a quarter of global emissions –and absorbs a significant amount of carbon from the atmosphere.

It might seem, then, that we would be concerned if REDD+ isn’t explicitly mentioned in the final Paris agreement, an accord that over 190 countries will negotiate this December. We’re not. Here’s why.

1) REDD+ is already in place legally and technically. REDD+ was first defined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in 2007 in Bali, Indonesia. Since then, a series of decisions at subsequent negotiations have added the necessary methodological guidance, culminating in the Warsaw Framework for REDD+. The last set of decisions agreed to in Bonn in June 2015 is ready to be approved in Paris. Those decisions over the last eight years solidified the role of REDD+ in the UNFCCC framework and mitigation before and after 2020, regardless of whether it is called out by name in the Paris agreement.

2) REDD+ and the land sector are mentioned explicitly in the current draft of the Paris outcome. REDD+ is in the current draft of the Paris texts addressing climate action in important sections on mitigation, adaptation, finance, and transparency. EDF has prepared a summary of the REDD+ and land sector references [PDF]. Even if “REDD+” gets dropped during the negotiations and thus isn’t spelled out in the final text of the agreement, the substance of many of these paragraphs would still provide an implicit signal for REDD+ by referring to forests, land use, or other terms.

3) Many terms in the Paris text implicitly refer to REDD+. The land sector is the only sector that can absorb a significant amount of greenhouse gases, so any reference to carbon “sinks” or “removals” is alluding to REDD+. For example, one paragraph of the text refers to “results-based payments”, which refers to a method where donors pay for verified emissions reductions achieved through REDD+. These references ensure REDD+ and the land sector will be in the text – even if just between the lines. With help from NGO colleagues, EDF created a glossary of terms and phrases that refer to the land sector and REDD+ [PDF].

Of course, mentioning REDD+ explicitly would be helpful to signal to tropical forest countries that REDD+ will be funded in the future.

However, that can be achieved – perhaps even more convincingly – through donor countries’ announcing that they will support REDD+ implementation and results-based payments. Expect to see such announcements from key players in the forestry and agriculture sectors alongside the talks.

And whether the Paris agreement includes straight-up “REDD+,” or goes with “sinks” or “removals,” REDD+ and the land sector will play an important mitigation role in a pre- and post-2020 world. Not being explicitly mentioned in the Paris agreement would not diminish REDD+’s future role in any way.

 

Resources from this post:

• 3 reasons why the land sector is key to a Paris climate agreement (blog post)
• Summary of the REDD+ and land sector references in the Paris agreement, COP 21 decisions, and workstream 2 (as of Oct. 23, 2015) [PDF]
• Glossary of terms and phrases that refer to the land sector and REDD+ in mitigation, adaptation, finance, and transparency in the Paris agreement; COP 21 decisions; and workstream 2 [PDF]

By Nat Keohane

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, will lead the climate conference that kicks off in Paris on Nov. 30, 2015. Source: Flickr/ UNclimatechange

In just a few weeks, negotiators from nearly every country in the world will gather at a sprawling airfield outside Paris to secure a new international agreement on climate change.

The goal of the Paris gathering – known as the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP21 – is a verifiable accord that allows countries to make and meet commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Paris agreement can also establish the rules of the road for how countries monitor and report their emissions and reductions – so that the rest of the world knows that they are following through, and can hold accountable those who do not.

Of course, we already know that COP21 won’t solve everything.

For one, the targets that countries take on will not be binding under international law – something that would likely require approval by the U.S. Senate. In the current political climate, that appears unattainable for any treaty that needs implementing legislation, let alone one on climate change.

The silver lining here is that non-binding commitments can actually encourage greater ambition and participation, both of which are essential to an effective international response to climate change.

But we also know that the Paris talks alone won’t deliver emission reductions needed to meet the long-term goal of keeping global temperatures from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – a widely agreed-upon objective, and a level that scientists believe would avert the most severe impacts of climate change.

Meeting that goal will require sustained ambition over time, well beyond the 2025 or 2030 horizon of the Paris commitments.

What Paris can do is to set the stage for the world to turn the corner on global emissions. The commitments countries make in Paris are just the first step; equally important is the framework the Paris agreement establishes for countries to report on their progress and ratchet up their ambitions over time.

The world won’t be turning the emissions corner in Paris, but Paris can help bring that day into view.

Here are four wins we need to make COP21 a success in the short term:

• Robust commitments to reduce emissions, especially from top emitters such as the United States, the European Union, China, Brazil and India. So far, more than 150 countries, accounting for more than 90 percent of global emissions, have made pledges, known as “intended nationally determined contributions,” or INDCs.

• An agreement on measuring and reporting emissions. As my colleague Alex Hanafi, an attorney with Environmental Defense Fund’s delegation to Paris, recently noted: “When countries see that other countries are keeping their commitments, it will build confidence and trust.”

• An agreement to periodically strengthen pledges to reduce emissions. As technology advances, EDF and others are urging that emissions reduction plans be kept as stringent as possible. This, in turn, signals to the private sector that low-carbon development is a national priority.

• Commitments to the U.N. Green Climate Fund and other channels of assistance that help vulnerable nations make the transition to a low-carbon economy and manage the impacts of climate change. Wealthy countries pledged in 2009 to mobilize $100 billion a year from public and private sources by 2020 and Paris can help show that goal is within reach.

Will countries continue to push for more funding, deeper cuts in emissions, and innovative policies that set us on the right course?

We see a number of signs pointing in the right direction. The challenge for the climate negotiators who will gather in Paris this month is to capitalize on that momentum – and start to make the turn toward climate safety.

This post originally appeared on EDF Voices. 

By Dana Miller

The Paris climate agreement should incorporate the land sector, which includes agriculture and deforestation, in a way that makes best use of its potential for mitigation, adaptation and development. Credit: flickr/final gather

Land use—such as agriculture and forests—accounts for almost a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions on the planet.

It’s obvious that land use will play a major role in curbing the impact of climate change—and  here are three big reasons why the land sector will be key to an agreement made in Paris:

1) The land sector has huge mitigation potential:

The land sector accounts for about 24% of net global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, it has huge potential to reduce emissions, as well. Forests alone could absorb up to 11% of emissions. The IPCC also estimates that the land sector could provide 20-60% of cumulative mitigation by 2030. Without significant efforts to reduce emissions and enhance sequestration, it will be very difficult to stabilize warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

2) Forests and agriculture are important to adaptation and development:

The livelihoods of many people, especially small land holders and indigenous peoples, depend on the land sector. It will be essential to adapt agricultural practices to climate change to protect and increase food security. Forests also provide ecosystem services that agriculture depends on, such as rainfall and habitat for pollinators such as birds, bats, and butterflies. Forests can mute the effects of extreme weather events such as storms and landslides. The land sector also harbors most of the world’s biodiversity.

For more about the importance of forests to mitigation, adaptation and development, check out the report by Center for Global Development “Why Forests, Why Now.”

3) The land sector is politically important:

Almost every country can contribute to climate action in the land sector, so recognition of the sector will be important to ensure inclusiveness of an agreement.  Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) provides incentives for tropical forest developing countries to reduce emissions from forest loss. Countries around the world have worked hard to develop REDD+ over the last eight years since REDD was formalized in Bali. Developed countries have invested a significant amount of funding into REDD+, while tropical forest countries are developing state and national REDD+ programs.

The Paris agreement should incorporate the land sector in a way that makes best use of its potential for mitigation, adaptation and development.

Chris Meyer’s upcoming blog post will dive into the status of the land sector in the current negotiations text, and what the agreement needs and does not need to include.

This post is based off of a series of dialogues on the role of the land sector in the Paris agreement with negotiators, policy experts and most recently – alongside October’s UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany –  journalists. The dialogues are led by Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation International, Forest Trends, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists, and World Wildlife Fund.

By Alex Hanafi

More than 150 countries, in blue, have submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). The pledges account for approximately 90% of greenhouse gas emissions. Source: WRI CAIT Climate Data Explorer as of Nov. 3, 2015.

With urgent action needed to limit the carbon pollution that is already affecting the lives of millions around the world, the global community has been watching closely the post-2020 emissions targets (known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” or INDCs) that countries are announcing over the course of this year.

The informal deadline for submission of these INDCs was October 1, and as of now, more than 150 countries have stepped forward to publish their INDCs and allow public review. These include the world’s biggest carbon polluters by absolute quantity: China, the United States, the EU, and India.

All told, we now know the post-2020 emissions pledges of countries accounting for approximately 90% of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

These INDCs will form an important part of a new, global climate agreement that 195 countries aim to complete in Paris this December. INDCs provide an opportunity to take a sneak peek not only into our post-2020 emissions future, but also at the tools and policies countries believe can help drive the deep reductions in carbon pollution needed to avert the worst effects of climate change.

The INDCs thus far show us the scope and contours of national climate action post-2020.

The most striking characteristic is that more and more countries are taking steps to limit and reduce their carbon pollution.Together with all developed countries, more than 100 developing countries have already submitted their plans to cut carbon pollution. This represents a significant turning point from past efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, that assigned specific emissions levels only to industrialized countries. They are taking action not only to address the global challenge of climate change, but also because they realize the local benefits of building resilient, low-carbon economies of the future.

The most striking characteristic of the INDCs is that more and more countries are taking steps to limit and reduce their carbon pollution.

 

Leadership from a diversity of countries confirms that we are in a new era, in which all nations have a role to play in the collective fight against climate change.

There is a shared and growing understanding around the world that there is no high-carbon path to prosperity, for individual nations or for the global community.

The new paradigm for global climate cooperation asks every country to create its own plan. The vast majority of countries – including all the major developed and emerging economies with the most significant emissions – have now done so.

Mexico became the first emerging economy to announce its INDC, on March 30, pledging to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2026 and reduce them 22% below a predetermined “business as usual” level by 2030. Mexico’s announcement was followed shortly by Gabon’s, whose contribution to global emissions is minor but whose role as the first African nation to make a pledge is notable.

Since then, developing countries across the spectrum have submitted their pledges, from the small but vulnerable Marshall Islands to giants such as India and China. China has promised to peak its emissions no later than 2030, and building on its INDC, it recently announced that it will launch a national carbon-cutting emissions trading system in 2017. ​​Brazil has notably pledged an absolute economy-wide 37 percent reduction in greenhouse gases below 2005 levels by 2025.

Leadership from such a diversity of countries confirms that we are in a new era, in which all nations have a role to play in the collective fight against climate change.

With the increased transparency that comes from early public review of national targets, we know that what has thus far been pledged by all countries will not be enough to meet globally agreed goals to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and that more will be needed.

How can the Paris conference harness international cooperation to drive further reductions in carbon pollution, now and in the future? That is a key question confronting nations as they prepare for Paris, and the focus of the next blog in this series.

By Steve Schwartzman

This post was co-authored by Paulo Moutinho of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) and Steve Schwartzman of EDF. See the first part of this reaction to Brazil’s climate target: Brazil's climate pledge is significant, but falls short on curbing deforestation.

Brazil’s climate pledges in advance of the Paris negotiations were significant because it is one of the world’s most important emerging economies, and it’s taking on an absolute, economy-wide emissions reduction target. But, its related goal of achieving zero illegal deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by 2030 is widely regarded in Brazil as lacking in ambition.

Stopping deforestation, which formerly accounted for about 70% of Brazil’s emissions, would be good for Brazil, good for Brazilian agriculture, and supported by a large majority of Brazilians. It is also doable. Here are three reasons why, and a look at how Brazil could make such policies work.

1) More forest, less poverty: Brazil’s economy can grow without deforestation

Brazil succeeded in reducing Amazon deforestation by more than 80% since 2005 while maintaining robust growth in beef and soy production. There are at least about 56,000 km² of degraded cattle pasture in the Amazon that can be reclaimed for agriculture, as well as ample scope for intensifying cattle raising and improving yields, freeing up even more land.

Agriculture and land-use scientist Bernardo Strassburg argues that by increasing average productivity of pasture in Brazil from the current 30% of its potential to about 50%, Brazil could meet all new demand for commodities until 2040 with no new deforestation. The benefits to smallholders would be also important, considering the already deforested area (12.7 million hectares) available for agriculture expansion in rural settlements. With appropriate technical assistance and credit smallholders could produce more food (smallholders account for 80% of food production in the Amazon) with less deforestation.

2) Subnational actions, national benefits: Amazon state governors agree Brazil doesn’t need more deforestation for robust economic growth and development

In May of this year, the governors of the nine Amazon states sent President Rousseff a letter calling on the federal government to engage with states on designing an equitable and effective incentive policy for reducing deforestation. Amazon states see huge potential in creating real economic value for reducing deforestation and protecting standing forest.

Mato Grosso’s Governor Pedro Taques said two weeks ago that he thinks his state – which produces 27% of Brazil’s soy, 25% of its corn and 19% of its beef – has room to grow its economy till the cows come home with no new deforestation. In a workshop we attended with the Brazilian and Norwegian Ministers of Environment, the governor said his state has 60% of its native vegetation cover remaining – and 16 million hectares of already cleared land where agriculture can expand. Mato Grosso was responsible for around 50% of deforestation reduction between 2005-2013.

Pará, another agricultural powerhouse, has adopted an 80% deforestation reduction target by 2020, and zero net deforestation thereafter.

Even with extremely limited international or federal support, Amazon states are moving forward with a low-carbon growth agenda. Acre state, for example, retains about 88% of its original forest cover and is already implementing the most ambitious and successful system of payment for environmental services in the tropical world focusing on forest conservation.

Zero illegal deforestation by 2030 is a considerably less ambitious goal than many Amazon states have proposed.

3) Let it rain: If deforestation continues, it will cause devastating environmental damage in the Amazon and beyond

Deforestation causes climate change on a global scale, and is responsible for about 15% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. However, since the Amazon forest is, in Antonio Nobre’s words a massive “biotic pump” that cycles trillions of tons of water through the atmosphere, producing about half of the region’s rainfall, large-scale deforestation could affect rainfall regimes at local and much larger scale.

Nobre, a scientist at the Brazilian National Space Research Institute, concludes in his comprehensive study of deforestation and rainfall in the Amazon that a quick and drastic reduction of deforestation is an urgent priority to avoid large-scale interference in rainfall patterns, and that large-scale reforestation and restoration of degraded lands is also needed.

Recent analysis also shows that tropical deforestation will affect global rainfall patterns, and consequently agriculture, finding that continued deforestation is likely to interfere with and reduce rainfall patterns in the Amazon and far beyond, compromising agricultural production and potentially leading to large-scale transformation of forest into savanna.

“Green” political will: Making Brazil’s climate policies work

President Rousseff has committed to reforesting 12 million hectares of degraded land and restoring 15 million hectares of cattle pasture, which is more than welcome. Reforesting that much land alone is a massive – and very expensive – undertaking; however, an additional effort is needed since Brazil’s Forest Code legally requires 21 million hectares to be restored or compensated by protecting more forests. Restoring 15 million hectares of degraded cattle pasture is a very positive step considering this goal is additional to the goal (15 million hectares) announced in 2010.

Of course for the global atmosphere, commitments are fine, but what matters is what actually happens.

This raises the question of how President Rousseff, in the midst of an acute economic and political crisis, proposes to pay for these policies. Some of these policies may have zero cost (e.g., energy efficiency) or high economic returns (pasture intensification), but others, such as restoration of degraded lands, will cost.

The government has made no progress in regulating or funding mechanisms or programs that could generate the necessary money. For example, Brazil’s National Climate Change Policy called for the creation of a Brazilian Emissions Reductions Market. And Brazil’s Forest Code includes a list of placeholders for positive economic incentives for reducing deforestation and restoring degraded areas, as well as a provision for a market in forest reserves (Cotas de Reserva Ambiental).

Here in lies the biggest opportunity of all: use Brazil’s emissions reductions to generate the money to carry out the climate commitments.

With its 3.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions already reduced in the Amazon over the past decade, and the potential for reducing about another 2.4 billion tons below current levels nationwide by 2020, Brazil would have ample scope to take its own target and create a Brazilian Emissions Reductions Market, and offer the international community low-cost, high quality emissions reductions in exchange for increased ambition from other major emitters.

That would create the revenue stream needed for restoring degraded lands, compensating those with legal rights to clear, and funding the almost half of the Amazon that is indigenous territories and protected areas.

Brazil’s target, on balance, is good for the international climate negotiations. And, Brazil has a chance to do much more for the planet by doing better for itself.

(Photo credit: Adrian Cowell, used by EDF with permission.)

By Steve Schwartzman

This post was co-authored by Paulo Moutinho of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) and Steve Schwartzman of EDF.

Brazil did the UN climate change negotiations – and hopefully, the planet – some good Sunday when President Dilma Rousseff announced emissions reductions targets in the UN General Assembly. However, it missed an opportunity do itself and the planet much more good.

President Rousseff deserves credit above all for announcing an absolute, economy-wide, emissions reductions target, rather than reductions below a business-as-usual projection, or a “carbon intensity” target. The goal is a 37% reduction by 2025 and 43% by 2030, both in relation to 2005. She also spoke promisingly of “decarbonizing” Brazil’s economy.

Brazil’s announcement is an important contribution to a successful agreement in the UN climate talks in Paris

Brazil has thus aligned itself with other major emitters, such as the U.S., China and the European Union, which have committed to becoming part of the solution to climate change. And the decision by one of the world’s most important emerging economies to take on an absolute emissions reduction target provides yet another signal that the world has moved on from the Kyoto Protocol approach of dividing the world sharply into “developed” and “developing” countries — a division that has helped lead to deadlock in the negotiations. For both reasons, Brazil’s announcement represents an important contribution to a successful agreement in the UN climate talks in Paris this December.

While the announcement did not go into detail, it is clear that these targets can only be met if Brazil sustains the 80% reduction in Amazon deforestation by 2020 in its National Climate Change Policy, passed by Congress in 2009.

Beyond this, the devil-in-the-details starts to show his face.

First, as some reactions have noted, Brazil is taking credit for reductions it has already made. It certainly deserves credit for those. But a 37% reduction compared with emissions from 2005 doesn’t sound quite as ambitious when you consider that Brazil already reduced its national, economy-wide emissions by 35% from 2005–2013, all from reducing Amazon deforestation. In other words, the projected emissions to 2025 compared to 2012 emissions shows a reduction around 2%. Certainly this goal would be an improvement compared with Brazil carrying on with business as usual, where emissions would be expected to grow by 2025. But as an absolute target – below actual historical emissions – this is beyond modest.

Brazil already reduced its national, economy-wide emissions by 35% from 2005–2013, all from reducing Amazon deforestation. The new target is little more.

Second, President Rousseff reiterated her pledge to achieve zero illegal deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon by 2030. But a recent study by Brazil’s National Space Research Institute (INPE) concludes that full implementation of the Forest Code (including restoration of degraded lands) would itself result in zero deforestation by 2030. That target also ignores other major forested, high-deforestation biomes, in particular the savanna (Cerrado).

Environmentalists – in fact, most people (84% by a recent poll) – in Brazil don’t think tolerating illegal deforestation until 2030 is a good idea, and for good reason. If deforestation is not extinguished in the next few years, the combination of global climate change and deforestation will lead to severe local changes in the climate.

Such changes in the climate are already occurring in Brazil’s Xingu river basin. A new study by Divino Silvério, a scientist at Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) shows that in the Xingu, the temperature has already risen four degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) between 2000 and 2010 as a consequence of deforestation.

Recent research suggests that the combination of climate change and deforestation, if unchecked, will disrupt rainfall patterns, reduce agricultural productivity, and may lead to the large-scale transformation of forests into savannas.

Most Brazilians think Brazil can and should do more to stop climate change. In our next post, we'll explain how Brazil can do that.

 

(Photo: The combination of climate change and deforestation, if unchecked, will disrupt rainfall patterns, reduce agricultural productivity, and may lead to the large-scale transformation of forests into savannas. Credit: Adrian Cowell, used by EDF with permission.)

By Chris Meyer

By Chris Meyer, Senior Manager, Amazon Forest Policy and Dana Miller, Research Analyst

Two tropical forest conservation efforts have gained momentum in recent years: zero deforestation commitments from the private sector and the policy framework Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). Both efforts are necessary, but not sufficient in themselves to eliminate global deforestation.

In a recently published paper in the Journal of Sustainable Forestry, we find that linking REDD+ and zero deforestation commitments offers a more efficient and effective solution to stop deforestation, which we call Zero Deforestation Zones (ZDZ).

The current state of private initiatives and REDD+

Deforestation, which is responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gases, is primarily caused by conversion for the production of four commodities in Brazil and Indonesia: beef, soy, palm, and timber products. To address this urgent problem, companies that control more than 90% of soy purchases in the Amazon, around half of cattle slaughter in the Brazilian Amazon, and 96% of palm oil trade globally have committed to stop deforestation.

While these company commitments are promising, many producers that clear forests can still sell commodities to companies that don’t have deforestation commitments, or they can even sell indirectly to the companies that have committed to zero deforestation. In other words, under the current policies even if companies clean up their own supply chains, they could be just creating islands of green in a sea of deforestation.

Policies for REDD+ have made great strides in recent years. The United Nations completed the technical guidance in 2014 under The Warsaw Framework for REDD+. Tropical countries have begun implementing REDD+ on the ground, while donor countries have committed $7.2 billion to the effort.

However, REDD+ implementation has been slow in many countries for two reasons. First, there’s a lack of political will and uncertainty about sustainable flows of REDD+ funding in the future. Second, few private-sector actors responsible for deforestation actively engage in the creation of REDD+ strategies and programs.

The Solution: Zero Deforestation Zones

Zero Deforestation Zones would address these challenges by bringing together private sector deforestation commitments and REDD+ programs to create a jurisdiction-wide solution.

Zero Deforestation Zones would be municipalities, states or entire countries where governments, companies and communities come together to eliminate deforestation throughout their jurisdiction. The definition of a ZDZ would be based on the context of the jurisdiction and a common framework outlined in the paper. Governments would develop and implement REDD+ programs. Companies would preferentially source commodities from ZDZs and focus new investment and expansion in the ZDZs.

Private sector conservation initiatives on individual farms (represented by green trees in the left image) can result in pockets of forest surrounded by deforestation, but Zero Deforestation Zones can conserve forests throughout entire jurisdictions (represented by the green state-wide program in the right image). Credit: Rick Velleu, EDF

The synergies that Zero Deforestation Zones can create between the private sector zero deforestation commitments and REDD+ include:

1. Lower risks of non-compliance with public and private zero deforestation policies: If companies and governments harmonize their definitions and policies around zero deforestation, they can increase pressure on direct and indirect suppliers to comply with these policies.
2. Shared monitoring, reporting, and verification systems: Governments could implement deforestation monitoring systems at economies of scale with REDD+ financing, generating useful data for the private sector.
3. Increased investment in agricultural programs: REDD+ funding could support programs by producer associations and certifications to increase agricultural production on existing farms. In addition, companies would invest in ZDZs by sourcing commodities and building new infrastructure.
4. Multi-stakeholder platforms: REDD+ stakeholder platforms would bring actors together to discuss shared concerns about forest and land sectors’ governance. These platforms could also help resolve land disputes between private sector actors and local communities and indigenous peoples.

Zero Deforestation Zones offer a framework to maximize the potential of both companies’ zero deforestation commitments and REDD+ programs. Multinational companies, their suppliers and governments in the areas they source from should discuss how they can collaborate to create a Zero Deforestation Zone.

Read more in our paper, Zero Deforestation Zones: The Case for Linking Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives and Jurisdictional REDD+, published in the special issue on Forests as Capital in the Journal of Sustainable Forestry.

 

By Steve Schwartzman

Presidents Obama and Rousseff deserve credit for putting climate change at the top of their bilateral agenda today.

President Obama and President Rousseff announced June 30 that the U.S. and Brazil would increase collaboration on climate change. Above: Obama and Rousseff at a 2011 press conference. Photo: Roberto Stuckert Filho/PR via Flickr

Public commitment to a strong Paris outcome from two major emitters that are already taking significant action on climate is more than welcome. Restoring 12 million hectares of degraded forest, as President Rousseff has pledged, is a positive contribution – albeit no more than Brazil’s current law mandates.

It is highly promising that the two major economies are creating a high-level working group to move the climate change agenda forward.  Particularly interesting is the pledge to develop innovative public-private finance mechanisms both for clean energy and the forestry sector.

It is however, disappointing that President Rousseff’s goal on deforestation – to “pursue policies aimed at eliminating illegal deforestation” – goes no further than compliance with existing law.

Brazil has already reduced Amazon deforestation by 70% below the historical average since 2005 while increasing soy and beef production, and has an ambitious but entirely achievable goal of an 80% reduction by 2020.

Amazon states are taking the lead on reducing emissions from deforestation and putting in place the policy frameworks needed to consolidate these gains. Pará state has adopted a goal of zero deforestation by 2020, while Acre governor Tião Viana affirmed to UK government officials and private investors that Acre can, with adequate support, zero out deforestation within three years.

Particularly in light of Pope Francis’s inspiring encyclical on climate change, President Rousseff sells Brazil’s achievements and abilities short in stating that all Brazil will do is follow its own law. President Rousseff has an enormous opportunity for international leadership on climate change, building on Brazil's impressive success to date and leveraging the progress and commitments by Brazilian states. She should seize that opportunity – and adopt a more aggressive and ambitious national target in advance of the Paris conference at year's end.

By Dana Miller

Representatives from countries around the globe met in Bonn, Germany this month to work on what could be the world’s most grueling but important group project: consolidating 90 pages of text into a global climate agreement to be finalized in Paris this December.

Governments and civil society organizations have more work to do before Paris, including ensuring land use is treated in a simple, flexible and ambitious way in the global agreement.

One sector that could play a fundamental role in the agreement is the land-use sector, which includes agriculture, forestry, wetland management, and other land management practices.

The land-use sector contributes about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. But it also has great potential to reduce emissions, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, improve rural livelihoods, and promote countries’ ability to adapt to a changing climate. The land use sector could also be an important part of countries’ emission reduction targets after 2020, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

Interest in the importance of land use has brought together a broad group of civil society organizations – EDF, Conservation International, Forest Trends, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists, and World Wildlife Fund– to focus on the potential role of the land-use sector in the Paris agreement. With support from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the groups have held a series of discussions on this topic alongside the United Nations climate negotiations.

Pipa Elias (right, The Nature Conservancy) introduces a discussion on whether the land-use sector is adequately addressed in the draft Paris text. (Photo credit: Steven Panfil, Conservation International)

During this month’s Bonn talks, we held two workshops in which we invited governments and civil society organizations to step back from their detailed work on the Paris text and reassess their progress toward promoting ambitious climate actions in the land-use sector in national and international policies.

For one workshop, we invited country negotiators to evaluate whether the draft text adequately addresses the land-use sector or whether further elaboration will be needed before or after Paris to drive action in the sector.

Participants generally agreed that the Paris agreement should take into account land-use issues by:

 

Building in incentives: Incentives are often necessary to trigger ambitious actions in the land-use sector, so the delivery of incentives needs to be clear if countries are going to include this sector in their INDCs. Developing countries will need financial incentives and other support, often from external sources, to continuously improve their capacity and to promote activities that yield climate mitigation and adaptation benefits. Developed countries can create incentives that reduce emissions and boost sequestration in their own land sectors, while also supporting external actions in developing countries.

Striking the right balance with flexibility and environmental integrity: The agreement should strike a balance that encourages all countries to participate in land-use sector mitigation, accommodating different capacities and circumstances, while also ensuring integrity in the way emissions reductions are measured. Too much rigidity could limit innovation and ambition, but too much flexibility could make it difficult to compare efforts among countries and ensure the environmental and social integrity of their activities.

Developing a work-plan after Paris: By the December meeting in Paris, countries need to have common expectations and objectives for accounting for land use in order to include the sector their INDCs. However, they may also need a process to continue to clarify and elaborate land-use issues after December. The outcomes of Paris should allow for further work on land-use issues, in order to build on early ambition and lessons learned, with the goal of transitioning to more comprehensive accounting for land use for all countries over time.

Twelve "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” covering about 30% of global emissions have been submitted so far. Source: World Resources Institute via http://cait.wri.org/indc/

In another workshop, we discussed how countries could include the land sector in their INDCs. We invited the World Resources Institute (WRI) to present its recent guidance on INDCs, which it developed with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). We also made our own presentations on how the United Nations decisions on INDCs relate to the land-use sector and the current status of the sector in the draft agreement. Participants discussed the differences between reporting and accounting for emissions from the land-use sector; the importance of social and environmental safeguards; and treatment of natural disturbances in land-use accounting.

We will continue this discussion in a WWF webinar, (“The Land Sector in INDCs and the 2015 Agreement”) from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM EDT on Thursday, June 25th, 2015.

Much of the real work will happen after Paris, when countries will begin to implement the agreement in their national land-use and environmental policies. However, governments and civil society organizations have more work to do before Paris, including ensuring land use is treated in a simple, flexible and ambitious way in the global agreement.

(Top photo: Flickr/elkaypics)

By Pamela Campos

Carbon pollution from airplanes creates risks to the general public’s health and welfare, according to a preliminary EPA finding released this week. But the aviation sector itself is particularly vulnerable to the rising seas, higher temperatures, and intense weather events brought by an overheated atmosphere.

Experts have been warning for years about risks airports and airlines face from climate change, including:

• airport runways buckling in the heat or flooding;
• health issues for airport and airline workers from higher temperatures on the tarmac;
• smaller capacity for take offs and landings during stormy weather;
• damage to critical air traffic control equipment from storms and floods; and
• impaired airplane performance, decreasing how far planes can fly (range) and how much weight they can carry (payload).

Airlines and the traveling public experienced the full force of these impacts in 2012. Hurricane Sandy caused the cancellation of nearly 20,000 flights in the New York area, cost the airline industry nearly $190 million in earnings, and did $29 million in damage to federal air navigation systems. Some navigation systems were offline for weeks, limiting the ability of airlines to land in poor weather even after the storm had ended.

These hefty risks place serious costs on the airlines themselves, the cities that own airports, businesses that rely on efficient cargo transport, and the flying public. This industry needs to protect the climate for its own sake. Airlines should support tough limits on carbon pollution.

By Jennifer Andreassen

Twelve states and provinces representing 100 million people from seven countries have committed to dramatically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) hosted the May 19 event in Sacramento commemorating the official signing of the agreement by so-called "subnational" state and provincial governments.

The Subnational Global Climate Leadership Memorandum of Understanding is part of a growing momentum on climate action in the lead-up to the UN climate talks that will be taking place in Paris at the end of the year.

The founding signatories of the agreement are from three continents and have a combined GDP of $4.5 trillion, which would constitute the fourth largest economic entity in the world; they are:

Acre, Brazil*
Baden-Württemberg, Germany*
Baja California, Mexico*
British Columbia, Canada
California, United States*
Catalonia, Spain* Jalisco, Mexico*
Ontario, Canada*
Oregon, United States
Vermont, United States
Wales, United Kingdom
Washington, United States

 

 

 

 

(* indicates the jurisdiction attended the May 19 signing ceremony)

The signers committed that by 2050 they would cut total emissions 80-95% percent below 1990 levels or achieve a per capita emissions target of below two metric tons.

The agreement is being referred to as the “Under 2 MOU,” a play both on this per capita target of two metric tons, and the goal of limiting global temperature rise to under 2 degrees, which Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

The jurisdictions will take a number of steps to achieve these goals, including: establishing midterm emissions reductions targets for 2030 or earlier; increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy; and coordinating on specific areas such as science, transportation and short-lived climate pollutants.

The governments have also agreed to collaborate on climate change adaptation and resilience measures.

Fred Krupp, president of EDF, said in a news release on the day of the signing:

"This agreement is further proof that states, provinces, and cities are forging ahead with climate solutions, not waiting for others to act. By taking this bold step, California and the other partners will not only secure significant emissions reductions but also demonstrate that climate action and prosperity go hand in hand. As we look ahead to the climate conference in Paris at the end of the year, today’s announcement sets a strong example for countries to follow."

Why action by subnational governments is important

Subnational governments are particularly well suited to address climate change because their decisions can influence 50-80% of greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation initiatives needed to address climate change, according to the UN Development Program.

For example, subnational governments develop and implement policies that have the most impact on climate change, including in the areas of air quality, transportation, and energy. These governments can also serve as the laboratories for policy innovations that are adopted at national and international levels. And these jurisdictions can provide the critical link in the integration of climate policies between national and local governments.

Derek Walker, EDF’s Associate Vice President, U.S. Climate and Energy Program said of the agreement:

"These subnational leaders understand first-hand that the future of people and the planet are at stake, and they are committing to concrete measures that will help us turn the corner in the fight against climate change. Today’s agreement demonstrates how dynamic climate leaders can create solutions that can be replicated elsewhere and can pave the way for more ambitious action."

More state, regional and city governments are expected to sign the agreement in the coming months.

(Photo: Governor Brown and international leaders sign Under 2 MOU. Credit:  Joe McHugh, California Highway Patrol)

By Rafael Grillo

By Rafael A Grillo Avila, Environmental Defense Fund & James Beard, WWF-UK

If international aviation were a country, it would be a global top-ten carbon emitter, with emissions expected to triple or quadruple by 2040. This is why the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has agreed to cap net carbon emissions from international aviation at 2020 levels.

Airlines are planning on filling up with biofuels to meet their climate change goals, but will aviation biofuel policies be based on science or fantasy? Above: A plane is refueled. (Photo credit: Flickr/Mika Meskanen)

ICAO aims to achieve this goal through technical and operational measures; carbon pricing through market-based measures (MBM’s); and biofuels. Many airlines see biofuels as a “silver bullet” for meeting their carbon goals.  Already over 40 airlines have flown over 600,000 biofuel-powered flights.

Biofuels: aviation's silver bullet?

ICAO established the Alternative Fuels Task Force (AFTF) to answer the key question: how much do biofuels actually reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? The AFTF is close to finalizing its answer. EDF, WWF-UK and our colleagues in the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation are working to secure an MBM of high environmental integrity for international flights. Getting biofuel carbon accounting right is vital. If biofuels reduce carbon pollution, then airlines’ obligations under the MBM will decrease. But if biofuels increase carbon pollution, then airlines’ MBM obligations will increase.

Land use change and the need for additional carbon

ICAO assumes that biofuel combustion is carbon neutral, but the scientific community increasingly challenges this assumption, for two main reasons.

• Increasing biofuel demand doesn’t necessarily lead to enough additional plant growth to offset the combustion emissions.
• The “carbon neutral” approach ignores the warming effect of CO2 emitted by burning biofuel.

For biofuels to reduce emissions, producing and burning biofuel must either result in fewer emissions or greater carbon absorption by plants than would have otherwise occurred. This is called “additionality.”

Biofuels can achieve “additionality” if they use wastes that would otherwise burn or decay, or if the biofuel production increases the carbon stock on the land where biofuel feedstocks are grown.

Biofuel production is not “additional” when it uses existing crops, or when it leads to land use change (LUC) – directly or indirectly destroying ecosystems to make room for biofuel crops.

Direct land use change (DLUC) occurs when existing ecosystems are replaced by biofuel plantations; for instance, when farmers slash rainforests to make way for palm oil plantations to supply biofuel. This releases huge stores of carbon that could take hundreds of years to recoup.

Indirect land use change (ILUC) occurs when using existing crops for biofuels triggers ecosystem destruction elsewhere. For example, if a maize farmer that originally sold to food producers starts selling to biofuel refiners, maize supply for food could go down and prices could go up. Higher prices could encourage others to create new maize farms to meet the supply shortfall. The original farm will not reduce net atmospheric carbon emissions by selling its already existing crops to a new buyer. The new farms could increase net atmospheric carbon by chopping down native vegetation to make room for new crops.

LUC-related emissions have been shown to outweigh the carbon savings of certain biofuels. Therefore, AFTF’s biofuel carbon accounting formula must account for the CO2 emitted from direct and indirect land use change (DLUC and ILUC).

The blue section in this graph shows the aviation industry sees a big role for biofuels, so it’s vital ICAO gets the carbon accounting right. (Source: “Reducing Emissions from Aviation through Carbon-Neutral Growth from 2020" [PDF])

Sustainability safeguards      

Biofuels must only be sourced from areas where the GHG emissions and removals in the land sector are measured, reported and verified in accordance with internationally recognized standards, and where regulations exist to protect vulnerable ecosystems. Certification schemes can guard against many of the potential negative impacts of biofuel production, including direct land use change. The Roundtable for Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) scheme is currently being updated with an additional module to address ILUC risks [PDF], too.

The best way to ensure additionality is to base biofuel carbon accounting on what the atmosphere sees:

• Count the GHG emissions of all fossil fuels and biofuels burned in an aircraft engine;
• Count additional carbon sequestration or avoided emissions in biofuels’ production and feedstock growth phases that would not have otherwise occurred;
• Once verified, these additional carbon reductions could be counted towards offsetting aircraft combustion emissions.

ICAO must also avoid double-counting: If emissions reductions from using biofuels count towards international aviation’s goal of carbon neutral growth from 2020, then those emissions reductions cannot also count towards a country’s national emissions reduction goals.

The cross-hatched area shows emission reductions airlines hope to obtain from biofuels. But because of direct and indirect land use change, using biofuels from ethanol or palm oil could actually drive emissions above forecasted emissions from international aviation. (EDF 2015)

A realistic role for aviation biofuels

Most land where biofuel crops can grow is already home to important ecosystems. Moreover, biofuel crops need a lot of land to be scalable, competing with increasing demands for land for other uses.

Thus, while low-emitting biofuels can play a role in reducing international aviation emissions, they can’t play the main role.

ICAO should remain focused on its other measures: establishing a robust MBM with maximum environmental integrity, and continued technical and operational improvements. Coupled with full carbon accounting for biofuels, these measures can ensure that ICAO learns from the science, and from past policy experience, to incentivize only low-risk biofuels with undisputed carbon savings.

By Lauren Newton

Cacao grown by indigenous and community cooperatives has supported the growth of the organic ultra-premium chocolate industry.  Photo Credit: Flickr/USAID Development Credit Authority

Across the Amazon, indigenous peoples have long harvested well-known commodities like cacao, coffee, Brazil nuts, and hearts of palm. Indigenous communities rely on such “non-timber” forest products—which also include traditional crops and less well-known natural products such as sacha inchi and camu camu—for the communities’ own consumption and for sale.

Responsible trade in these products can make a significant contribution to indigenous communities working to conserve their forests and generate alternative sources of income. Because indigenous management of Amazon forests is critical to controlling and reducing carbon emissions in the atmosphere, responsible trade also aligns with the growing body of corporate commitments to deforestation-free sourcing.

Indigenous products and community enterprises, however, face practical, commercial and organizational challenges in getting to market, particularly at scale. Overcoming these obstacles requires a combination of financial expertise, technical assistance and strategic commercial relationships.

Even for partners interested in working closely with local and indigenous producers for sustainable sourcing of specialty products, though, they can be tough to find. Companies have difficulty trying to identify and evaluate partners for investment and sources of supply because community enterprises are often small-scale, dispersed and relatively inexperienced in using internet and other tools to enhance their visibility.

The Putting Amazon Indigenous Producers on the Map project intends to respond to the needs of buyers seeking supply, of investors and donors looking to provide finance, and of communities aiming to enhance the visibility and demand for their products.

To help improve access to markets and finance for Amazon indigenous peoples, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and a group of Amazon-based and international organizations have developed a catalogue and unique interactive map of indigenous community enterprises for sustainable natural products from forests and farms.

Early sample entry for the indigenous producer Asociacao Sociocultural Yawanawa from the interactive mapping tool, Putting Indigenous Producers on the Map.

This comprehensive inventory of indigenous producer organizations is publicly available and is the first geospatial database of indigenous products and producer organizations in the Amazon who are engaging (or attempting to engage) with broader national and international markets.

With the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of a five-year program , the database is being developed collaboratively with The Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA), EcoDecisión and Forest Trends, in order to make it easier for buyers, funders and other allies to find indigenous partners to work with.

This tool is the first geospatial database of indigenous products and producer organizations in the Amazon.

The groups are working directly with companies and Amazon indigenous producers, gathering input from indigenous organizations belonging to COICA and development partners across the region.

Putting Amazon Indigenous Producers on the Map conveniently synthesizes a breadth of information crucial for potential investors, donors, and private sector actors. This includes: the characteristics and contact information for producer organizations; a listing of products (linked to EcoDecisión’s online platform, Canopy Bridge); a summary characterization of producers’ capacity and experience; and a description of how enterprises contribute to conservation objectives.

The first phase of Putting Amazon Indigenous Producers on the Map includes data collection running through August 2015, with project completion in late Fall. EDF and partners encourage both the private and public sectors to utilize the interactive map and database to connect with indigenous producers and make an impact in reducing deforestation in the Amazon.

 

Lauren Newton is Program Associate, International Climate Program at Environmental Defense Fund. This post was adapted from Ann Espuelas’s Ecosystem Marketplace article, Connecting to Sacha Inchi and Beyond: A Database for Products of the Amazon.