Published by Fern 1.12.00
UPDATE VI
I: COP VI fails……..but that might even be better than accepting the deal on the table
COP VI has failed to deliver as EU delegates decided a last minute compromise proposal gave too much away to the US -and other members of the Umbrella group including Japan and Canada-. Acceptance of the compromise paper tabled by Jan Pronk, the Dutch chairman of the conference, would have meant that industrialised countries could have increased their emissions with 6 to 9% rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions with the average of 5% as mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. An analysis by the NGO newsletter ‘ECO’ showed that acceptance of the deal would have meant that the EU had lost nearly everything and only minor ‘window dressing changes’ had been made to the US positions. Therefore the EU decision not to accept the deal was right. The negotiations are expected to continue in May 2001 in Bonn.
The compromise paper developed by the Dutch, would have been disastrous for forests. If implemented the result would have been large-scale tree plantations and more forests being replaced by plantations. With no limits set for the use of the flexible mechanisms, industrialised countries could literally plant their way out of their commitments! Below follows a quick report on what was on the table in the last days of the climate conference. A more detailed report will follow next week as our last update.
The Pronk paper basically said:
On a definition of a forest
· A forest can be defined in accordance with the FAO definition.
Fern argued that the FAO definition (above 10% tree cover is enough to constitute a forest) falls short because it does not ensure penalisation for forest degradation (the reduction of forest cover from say 90% to say 15%).
On Additional carbon credit worthy activities
· The paper contained a huge gift to the US, in the form of at least 50 megatonnes of carbon from existing domestic forests and farming counted towards Kyoto targets.
· Parties decided to establish a process under SBSTA to develop rules and modalities taking into account further methodological work by the IPCC, where necessary, to deal with these issues.
Fern argued against the inclusion of forests in this article. Not only does the inclusion of forest and other landuse activities under this article enable industralised countries to increase their greenhouse gas emmissions, but they could be dangerous because of the scientific uncertainties associated with ‘sinks; and the fact that such activities (because of the above definition of a forest above) would most likely promote forestry (plantation) activities wherever they were allowed.
To ask SBSTA to develop criteria without saying that projects can only start if such criteria are agreed upon is ludicrous. AS ludicrous is to say that non-permanence, leakage etc need to be "properly"addressed - what if they cannot be propoerly addressed!??!?!?!?!
On sinks in the Clean Development Mechanism
· The CDM would be a monoculture plantation mechanism, with no meaningful safeguards for the protection of biodiversity, native forests and local communities. This is a recipe for environmental disaster and increased emissions and does nothing to contribute to sustainable development.
· The proposal stated that activities preventing deforestation and land degradation will not be eligible as credit generating projects under the CDM. However, these activities will be labelled as priority projects to be funded under an adaptation fund in order to address drought, desertification and watershed protection, forest conservation, restoration of native forest ecosystems.
Fern argued against the inclusion of forests in the CDM because this would most likely result in tree plantations in the South. Because of the social and environmental concerns almost always synonymous with tree plantations in the North and South, this must absolutely be excluded from the CDM. With this kind of proposal, we would be looking at relatively large amounts of tree plantations (and note there are no eligibility criteria proposed, which could have at least limited some of the most damaging activities and made sinks more expensive as an option) The proposed levy on CDM projects which is supposed to generate money for conservation and restoration (the adaptation fund) would in Pronk’s proposal be very small, the result being hardly any money for conservation projects.
……………….To be continued once negotiations start again
II. Response from the CBD secretariat
Thanks to all of you who signed on our letter of concern to the CBD secretariat. Their response to us all is below. As you can see the response was not very encouraging and shows how little influence the CBD has over the climate negotiations, despite the fact that climate change will have a huge impact on biodiversity.
Ref: SCBD/STTM/DC/13494 16 November 2000
Dear Ms. Ozinga,
Thank you for your letter of 31 October 2000, on behalf of a number of NGOs, concerning the potential impact of measures taken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on forest biological diversity and forest peoples.
As you note in your letter, the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), at its the fifth meeting, in Nairobi in May 2000, by its decision on forest biological diversity, (decision V/4, attached), the Conference of the Parties urged the UNFCCC, including its Kyoto Protocol, to ensure that future UNFCCC activities, including forest and carbon sequestration, are consistent with and supportive of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. In the same decision, the Conference of the Parties requested the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), where appropriate and where feasible in collaboration with the appropriate bodies of the UNFCCC and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (i) to consider the impact of climate change on biological diversity; and (ii) to prepare scientific advice in order to integrate biodiversity considerations, including biodiversity conservation, in the implementation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.
We have, of course, informed the UNFCCC Secretariat and the President of its Conference of Parties of these decisions, and have been consulting with the UNFCCC Secretariat and the Chair of the IPCC on how to take these decisions forward.
We have also prepared a note: "Climate Change and Biological Diversity: Cooperation Between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" (attached ).
At The Hague, this note was circulated at the resumed 13th session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA), on Monday, 13 November. I shall formally present the note to the UNFCCC Conference of Parties at its 6th session on Monday, 20 November.
In this paper, it is noted that while the inclusion of land use, land-use change and forestry activities in the Kyoto Protocol represents an opportunity to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, there is also a risk of negative impacts on biological diversity. This echoes the concerns expressed in the IPCC special report that attention would need to be given to synergies and trade-offs related to land use, land-use change and forestry activities under the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol in the context of sustainable development.
We believe that the activities launched by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity will contribute to informed decision-making by countries in their choice of measures to combat climate change, when they come to implement the decisions taken in The Hague. In the note, we have therefore tried to indicate the potential impact on biodiversity of different types of activities and have also outlined some of the possible types of guidance that might emerge from the Convention on Biological Diversity with regard to the integration of biodiversity considerations in the implementation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.
I would like to thank you for your interest in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Hamdallah Zedan
Executive Secretary