Archive for December, 2009
Arguably one of the few positive news stories coming out of COP15 concerns REDD, or Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation, a framework which would allow developed nations to pay (mostly) developing nations to preserve their rainforests and so earn tradable carbon credits.
According to the IPCC’s most recent assessment report , deforestation accounts for around 20% of human-induced CO2 emissions globally — more than the entire global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector. Much of this deforestation occurs in more southern latitudes and generally in developing countries.
The REDD concept was first introduced at COP13 in Bali after forestry and land-use change had originally been excluded under the Kyoto Protocol. The idea was to establish a mechanism that provided financial incentives for developing countries to reduce clearing of their natural forests. The finance would be provided by developed countries as a way of offsetting their own emissions. Since it’s conception, REDD has often stood to represent one of those rare gems in the global climate change response — namely, a piece of policy that both developing and developed countries agree on and where each party has something to gain.
Whilst the original focus was on reduction of CO2, it has since been acknowledged that REDD can and must deliver considerable co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. This has led to a rebrand of REDD into what is now known as REDD+, or REDD plus.
As with many areas of global climate policy, COP15 was supposed to represent the end of the REDD+ deliberations and the finalisation of a framework that would kick-start REDD+ projects worldwide. So what actually happen?
Whilst there was no deal on REDD+ as such, there was at least some assertive language on REDD+ within the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ (paragraph 6); there was final text from the ‘Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA)’ on methodological issues surrounding REDD+; and there was well worked up text from the ‘Ad-Hoc working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action’ on policy approaches towards REDD+. This included relatively strong language on various ‘safeguards’, such as reference to certain international human rights instruments; and there are some funding pledges totalling around $3.5 billion for REDD+.
None of this is legally binding at this stage, so REDD+ is still far from becoming the offset generating, wealth transferring nirvana that many believe it capable of. However, the outcome is positive on at least two contrasting fronts:
- For supporters of REDD+, there is clearly still momentum and it remains one of the few areas of policy where alignment between developed and developing nations is good. Progression of discussions around key principles and safeguards and the pledges of financial support should help improve pilot programs.
- For those with concerns about REDD+, in particular with the way some projects where being implemented and the sometimes unrealistic expectations of benefits, the COP15 outcome will surely represent a touching of the breaks. This is by no means a bad thing as all parties acknowledge it is important to get the framework right or else risk undermining the effectiveness of REDD+ and the confidence of those involved.
So perhaps the REDD+ result was not all that bad? Some progress has been made on the details, and interest from a diverse range of stakeholders is still high. It has bought some time to help ensure that REDD+ is sustainable in the long term. And it may allow for a reality check of what can and cannot be delivered by REDD+ as a climate change mitigation instrument as part of a broader international response to climate change.
We know that climate change presents a real threat to biodiversity. Preserving biodiversity is an end in itself, but there are also economic benefits from conservation. For example, the pharmaceutical industry invests a huge amount in capturing the pharmaceutical potential of biodiversity and species information.
Biomimcry is another fascinating area where humans benefit from biodiversity. Biomimcry is emulating or taking inspiration from nature to solve problems. Janine Benyus gave a great presentation on biomimcry at TED, which I’ve embedded below.
I came across another interesting example of biomimicry today that crosses over to the other half of climate change response: mitigation and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
Whale Power is a start-up company that is taking inspiration from whales to make more efficient wind turbines. Whales have tubercles on the leading edge of their fins where as the wings we design always have a smooth leading edge. But it turns out the unsteady flow over this more complex shape increases lift and reduces drag much better than manmade designs.
So now we have one more reason to save the whales. Who knows what else we might learn from them.
Greensense co-founder Peter Tickler is currently in Copenhagen for the United Nations discussions on climate change.
We will be running a morning seminar in February to give you the opportunity to hear about the output of the convention, how it will influence your business in 2010 and a chance to network with like minded professionals. The Seminar will run on Feb 1 from 11am — 12.30pm at The Melbourne Hotel, 942 Hay St Perth.
Please RSVP to kylie@greensense.com.au by Fri Jan 8th if you or any of your colleagues would like to attend – spaces are limited.
Greensense is pleased to announce a partnership with Triathlon Western Australia (TWA). This exciting project will see Greensense and TWA working together to raise awareness and increase education about environmental sustainability and will endeavour to foster sustainable values and principles to all staff, volunteers, members, participants and other stakeholders involved in the sport of triathlon.
Sport is an integral part of the Australian way of life and represents an amazing opportunity to reach large numbers of people in a relaxed atmosphere. TWA and Greensense will be working together to set long term goals and implement the means to track their progress. This will include conducting a sustainability audit for the Busselton Half Ironman Triathlon in May 2010.
TWA is showing great leadership in the space of sustainable sports event management, a concept that is continuing to gain momentum in Perth.
To read the press release, click here.
In a landmark decision, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) recently reversed a decision to allow a property owner to subdivide and build on a beachside block, due to the likelihood of future sea level rise.
The owner of the Waratah Bay site was initially asked to prepare a coastal hazard vulnerability assessment. In that assessment the owner argued that given the property was within the bounds of the existing Waratah Bay settlement, where measures would most likely be taken to protect the settlement from sea level rise, the property would also benefit from this protection.
This argument was rejected by the VCAT.
“Ultimately, what the permit applicant is asking us to do is to approve a subdivision to allow a second dwelling in the knowledge that by 2070 (not even 2100 as specified by the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008), the subject site is likely to have no access, as the beach would have receded to the existing road and could be flooded by repeat storm surges.”
With coastal planning regulations under the microscope, and local councils scrambling to develop climate change adaptation strategies, this ruling serves as a timely reminder to property developers and council alike, that, despite what some Federal politicians may argue, climate change is a very real problem.
With the CPRS debate not back in parliament until Feb 2010 attention will now be drawn to the UN discussions in Copenhagen for COP 15 (Conference of the Parties). As you have read before Greensense will be going to Copenhagen so we thought we would blog on the history of the COP sessions that have lead to this point.
1992 — the international political response to climate change begins with the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a framework for intergovernmental action on climate change.
1994 — the UNFCCC enter into force on March 21.
1997 — delegates of COP3 in Kyoto, Japan agree to UNFCCC protocol that commits Annex 1 parties (industrialised countries and countries in transition to a market economy) to reduce their overall emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Several of the world’s largest emitters such as the United States and developing countries including Brazil, India and China do not commit to fixed targets.
2007 — at COP 13 in Bali, the Bali Action Plan establishes a mandate to concentrate on four key elements of long term co-operation: mitigation, adaptation, financing and technology. The Bali roadmap covers negotiation “tracks” under the Convention and the Protocol over two years.
2008 — at COP14 in Pozna, Poland, governments agreed to shift into full negotiating mode to shape an ambitious and effective international response to climate change.
2009 — with critical negotiations about to occur, how will the year end? Watch this space…
