Any mechanism must meet the above objectives. Three flexible Kyoto Protocol mechanisms viz. (a) Clean Development Mechanism (Article 12), (b) Joint Implementation (Article 4), and (c) Emission Trading (Article 6) are all supposed to complement each other in the process of achieving the above two principal objectives. The CDM, if implemented properly, offers some opportunities for reaching GHG target. This will only be possible if any reduction is considered and demonstrated as additional and a small proportion of reduction domestically. The overall emphasis must be on domestic activities which will reduce the major share of the total amount. By attempting to make CDM as the major vehicle for carbon reduction in the physical space of developing countries may be construed by some as carbon colonialism or as carbon dumping mechanism. Hence, all efforts must be made to ensure and demonstrate that the industrialized countries, who have made their commitment in the UNFCCC and KP, must make most of the reduction at home.

By participating in KP,the developing countries have demonstrated their good faith in the process whereby new and additional funding would be made available and new  technologies will be transferred at an affordable cost to achieve carbon reduction in a cost effective way. Clime Asia in its COP5 Special Issue (July-December 1999) has analyzed the problems of CDM (see Box).

In this edition clime Asia takes on the critical issues for COP-6.

Ratification and Role of United States

To come into force, the KP must be ratified by 55 Party States who must cover 55% of GHG, it is important that US, the largest single contributor to GHG must ratify. Given the US Congress resolution and recent election of the Republican President George Bush, US ratification is highly questionable. “The biggest polluting Party has taken the planet hostage and pushing the planet towards unprecedented threat of climatic unstability and enhanced extreme events” was the opinion of the leader of a large developing country delegation.

It is thus imperative that US ratifies the KP immediately and gives life to the Kyoto mechanisms.

Adaptation Funds

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is indicating that climate change is real. Even if all of the KP commitment was implemented there would be a need by many countries and communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Adaptation would be needed in all affected areas both in industrialized and developing countries. But it is the developing and poor countries who are in the most difficult position to finance their adaptation.

Article 12.8 of the KP clearly identifies the possibility of an Adaptation Fund. Recent discussions at the thirteenth session of the Subsidiary Body (SB13) in Lyon and amongst all negotiators and the NGO community has clearly demonstrated that CDM is the only mechanism with clear allocation for Adaptation Funds. This makes CDM less attractive financially compared to the other two Kyoto Mechanisms, namely JI and ET. Further for equity amongst mechanism and the need for mobilizing requisite funds for adaptation it is important that all carbon transactions are equitably charged to contribute to the Adaptation Funds. This will make CDM a more attractive proposition and is likely to gain the support of developing countries of G77 and China during COP6.

Land use and Forestry

Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) was also a hotly debated subject in the meetings of subsidiary bodies in Bonn (SB12) and Lyon (SB13). The possibility of inclusion of forestry as a sink issue and a possible project item in the CDM has divided the global community. It has also been an emotive debate.

The science of forestry as sink for sequestration of carbon is highly uncertain because of the complexity of baseline issues, accounting, concept of permanence etc. Besides the claim that a new type of CDM-forest could be generated which will be carbon store in one country against credit of another country raises the fundamental issues relating to sovereignty of the host country.

In many developing countries the forest is a multi-use system providing the bio-diversity, home for  wildlife and human communities and in many cases for indigenous people a basic support system for livelihoods, particularly of the poor. Hence the major moral, territorial and legal question “whose forest” dominates the discussions. In most developing countries ensuring protection of these proposed “CDM Carbon forests” poses a major threat to the whole CDM regime.

Hence “Forestry in CDM” is a no go area till the science is better understood, moral, legal, tenural, management control and measurement issues are resolved. But trying to rush this through will polarize the CDM debate further and delay the whole process.

Devil is in the Details

In recent Asian regional meeting held in 3-5 November 2000 in Jakarta, Indonesia on Forging New Links and Reinforcing National Capacity on Climate Change: North-South Dialogue on Challenges and Opportunities for CDM in Asia, a number of opportunities and threats were identified in the KP process and implementation of CDM. The central issue remains that the devil is in the details. LULUCF is an example where it was identified as LUCIFER. Any attempt to push this too far too fast will polarize opinions and delay the initiation of CDM.

In a recent North-South Dialogue (NSD), held in Jakarta, Indonesia, concerns were raised by most of the representatives of developing countries that their respective governments and private sector severely lack capacity to deal with the opportunities offered by the Kyoto mechanisms. It was apprehended that the real opportunities might be forfeited due to lack of understanding, analytical capability, and loopholes in management practices and Finally, the efforts towards sustainable development might not be achieved.

Some of the participants called for early initiatives to impart training for the government officials and the private sector personnel so that they realize the potential of north-south collaboration and take proactive roles in cashing in the ... new and additional... funding, as promised in both the UNFCCC and KP. It was viewed that these developing country personnel must understand the efficient technologies first so that those could play significant role not only to reduce carbon from the atmosphere, but also help achieve sustainable development for their respective countries.

During the 13^th Session of the Subsidiary Bodies a number of critical and complex decisions were prepared. These will be discussed and likely to be taken by the signatory Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in the Conference of the Parties-6 (COP6) in Hague, the Netherlands during 13 to 24 November 2000. The representatives of the Parties (signatory States) will have to decide on direction of future climate regime on which depends well-being of the globe and all creatures living on it. Discussions will center round issues such as land-use change and forestry, the mechanisms, the compliance system and other issues including adaptation levy etc. But the options and instruments developed towards implementing the KP have lots of loopholes. It is feared that, in Hague the Parties might succumb to pressures to open up loopholes in the KP allowing ultimately to a possible increase in GHG emissions.

The NGO community around the world, representing both South and the North, has cautioned that there are options for cheating and the Southern Parties to the KP might fall into a trap disguised under the terminology ‘environmental integrity’. If these potential loopholes are adopted in Hague then very little, or no action, would be required from industrialized countries to ‘meet’ their emission commitments of the KP. This article presents where the loopholes are.

The requirements of the KP

Article 3.1 of the KP commit the Annex B parties (industrialized states listed in Annex 1 of the UNFCCC) to reducing their overall emissions of GHGs by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012. The KP also requires that the Annex B Parties, as a group, be 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. KP requires that the OECD group Parties (when their individual allocations are taken into account) be 6.6 percent below 1990 levels in 2010. These targets are considered inadequate to substantially affect climate change. However these are considered a start, and unless these are met the task in the future will be even harder.

The baseline for emissions growth used here are the most recent official projections based on UNFCCC National Communication for Annex B emissions in 2010 show that their emissions, as a whole, are likely to be 8 percent above 1990 levels in the absence of actions to implement the KP. The OECD members of Annex B are projected to be 16 percent above 1990 levels in 2010, whilst the others – Russia, the Ukraine and Central and East European countries – are projected to be 12 percent below 1990 levels in 2010. These projections mean that the OECD countries would have to reduce their emissions from business as usual by 770 MtC/yr in 2010 to meet their targets.

The nature’s balance is gone. Now it is time for the nature to take its revenge. It will not, however, allow the industrialized world settle with climate change issues, no matter how sleek the negotiators from the Annex-I country Parties are. If you fail to assume responsibility now, the future of the planet will be in jeopardy. Hey guys, who is there to be blamed?

The CNN.com reported on 4 November 2000 that rising flood waters have stopped two inches short of breaching emergency barriers of York and the northern ancient city of England was under severe threats. It all happened when the high tide of river Ouse passed through the city centre, threatening to cross the city’s emergency flood barrier which is about 18 feet above the normal river level. Some parts of the ancient Roman city was under water. Bout 1,000 homes suffered flood damage while about 3,000 people in the city were reportedly put on evacuation alert.

The AP reported that the residents of the town Wenden, Arizona suffered badly due to heavy rain exceeding one inch in about 48 hours. Runoff from high elevations inundated some streets under four feet of water. And it was just within a week after flash floods submerged cars and homes in the same area, causing millions of dollars in damage. The flooding in Wenden, 90 miles west of Phoenix, began October 21. The township usually gets about one-half inch of rain in the entire month of October. Due to heavy rainfall induced floods the population of the entire town, some 1,200, were evacuated.

Barbara Smith, a member of the Aguila Fire Department commented “the water in town has subsided but everybody is left in a big mess of mud”.

The AP reported on November 6 that the fresh storm and associated swelling of floodwaters hit Europe hard which left three dead, many at high risk. Strong winds and heavy rains hit Europe as far south as Spain and Greece due to a major weather front extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Baltic states. The French Atlantic coast experienced hurricane winds and rain, while England was severely affected. The rising waters in the Tame cut access to roads and railways and forced thousands to flee their homes.

Authorities in the town of Uckfield, East Sussex, urged residents to leave their homes for the second time in three weeks after the River Uck spilled its banks. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive of Britain’s Environment Agency identified that the stormy weather was unprecedented, then cautioned authorities not to allow construction of buildings in flood-prone areas.

The prime Minister of UK apparently took the issue seriously. He urged the international community to do more to tackle climate change. “These are serious issues about climate change... We can no longer avoid facing up to this issue on an international level,” he said. “I think the international community for far too long has refused to face up to it.”

In the Inaugural Session the Southern Perspectives to the Overall Global Vision on Climate Change was discussed. Concerns were raised that the worst impacts of climate change would be experienced by the southern countries, and it would eventually diminish their development potential. The discussion went on to elaborate on the status of the latest negotiations and the negotiation strategies for the Asia-Pacific Countries for the upcoming COP6 was highlighted by Agus P. Sari of Pelangi, the local host.

Dr. Atiq Rahman of Bangladesh Centre for Adavanced Studies (BCAS) discussed on issues where North-South partnership could be best realized. He identified a few early actions that would lead to successful implementation of collaborative projects following the negotiations in COP6. The workshop was informed about the evolution of CDM in the negotiation process and how Asian countries could participate in it.

Dr. Lee Solsbery of UK based Foundation for Business and Sustainable Development (FBSD), on behalf of the North gave an overview how mitigation of climate change has been linked with investment opportunities and the overall process of development of the southern countries.

The Technical Session-2 started with the commentary on current negotiation status. The key issues for the negotiations and the general apprehension concerning the developing countries were raised. It was also pointed out that, despite the loopholes in Kyoto process countries with adequate preparation to accept the ...new and additional fund… will gain the most. It was however, disclosed that in the post-UNCED era the overall availability of donor assistance has significantly declined, a clear deviation from the central spirit of the UNFCCC and KP, and over 90% of the new investment have gone to only about 10 developing countries. It was mentioned that such a preferential investment would not be helpful towards achieving sustainable development of many developing countries.

In the remainder of the Technical Session-2 nine country papers were presented, one each from Thailand, Pakistan, the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Vietnam, and Indonesia. The most promising project outlines with high GHG abatement potential were highlighted in each of the presentations. These projects involved high technologies: from combined cycle power generation facilities to energy efficiency improvement technologies to renewable energy technologies etc. The probable challenges faced by the respective countries were also discussed. It was generally felt that having weak institutional preparedness and lack of governance would appear to be the most significant challenges towards implementing any such project and issuance of CURs. The pressing needs for institutional capacity building, both in the public and private sector are highly recommended.

In response to the country presentations the participants from the industrialized/developed world inquired whether the projects ideas have been shared with the potential entrepreneurs of the northern countries. They also advised to make complete project briefs/portfolios before starting a dialogue with the counterparts from the industrialized world.

In the Technical Session-3 the major themes of discussions were: (a) attracting CDM projects and investment flows to Asia, (b) enabling environment and institutional framework, (c) emerging private sector: opportunities and challenges, and (d) the role of national CDM programs. The session ended with a roundtable on Splitting the Benefits: Exploring the Project Negotiation Process. Once again the issues concerning lack of institutional preparedness, skills of the proponents in both public and private sectors, governance etc. were raised and identified as major shortcomings of the developing countries. It was felt that in order to promote new partnerships it is a prerequisite to create an enabling environment through adequate awareness building, capacity enhancement through training and taking into notes the response of the local people before planning and implementing a project.

At the end a lively discussion took place on how capacity building to support the Kyoto Mechanisms in Asia could be facilitated. It was generally viewed that such a North-South Dialogue has been fruitful to develop limited capacities amongst the participants and the process should be facilitated further. It was urged that the donors should facilitate in creating further capacity in each developing country. It was felt necessary to create institutional capacity within each country to deal with climate change issues and a model ‘climate cell’ may be contemplated in each lead ministries of these countries. It was felt important that GEF would come forward to provide the basic funding in creating such capacities throughout the developing world.

At the end the participants hoped for more transparency in the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP6) in Hague, the Netherlands. It was stressed that without justice to the south, the most vulnerable to climate change impacts, the objectives of the framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol will not be achieved. The participants echoed for achieving a equitable world for all its citizens.

| Top of the Page |

Asia- Pacific Regional Consultation On Climate Change

Over 40 participants from 12 countries (Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, India, The Philippines, Vietnam, Srilanka, Australia, United States of America and the United Kingdom) representing Governments, NGOs and the business sector met for three days in Jakarta, Indonesia to discuss Strategies of improving negotiating position of the countries in Asia Pacific as a preparation for more active and meaningful participation in the COP-6 negotiation process.

• Results of the 13th Subsidiary Bodies, Lyon, France

• Key issues from SB13 leading toward COP-6

• Issues beyond COP-6: equity, developing country concerns, and the second commitment period

• Key Negotiating Position by Key negotiating Blocs

• Negotiating Strategies and Tactics for the Asia-Pacific Developing Countries

• Do the developing countries have any better option that the Kyoto Protocol to contribute toward greenhouse gas emission reduction, and play its part in mitigating the global warming process?

• If Kyoto Protocol is ratified (at COP-6 or in the immediate future), how can countries in the Asia-Pacific mobilize toward accessing benefits under the Clean Development Mechanisms?

• What are the barriers for developing countries in taking benefits from the Kyoto Protocol, and how to address them?

• Is money the only reason for developing countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol? Has economic aspects dominated climate change negotiations overshadowing   environmental aspects?

• Do developing countries have anything substantive to improve their negotiating position in the climate change process?

• Implementing CDM will require transparency, and to make this happen, surveillance of each project and its process of earning CERs for trading  will be required;

• The institutional setting to design, adapt and evaluate the surveillance system need to be in place;

• The question of equity should be at the centre of the negotiation process for South and developing countries to get results supporting sustainable development.

The participants also summarised the position of major blocs in the Climate Change Negotiations. The Kyoto Protocol issues that were taken to task were Ratification, Compliance, Technology transfer, CDM, Fungibility, LULUCF, Adaptation (article 4.8 & 4.9), Adaptation fund, Capacity Building and Equity. The results offer in a nutshell how the world stands unified and divided in the climate change negotiation process at the eve of COP-6.

POSITIONS OF JOR BLOCS

| Top of the Page |

The CDM: Does it Make Sense for the South ?

Shaheen Rafi Khan ,SDPI,Pakistan

Pakistan signed the UNFCCC in 1992, and ratified it in 1994. By doing so it committed to taking steps towards climate change mitigation and the assessment and reduction of national vulnerability. However, national governments bewitched by the glamor of multilateralism, tend to get ahead of themselves and forsake substance for form. Ground realities suggest that Pakistan could have done well to reflect a bit more on the implications of the UNFCCC. Fortunately, it has not signed the Kyoto Protocol yet and, on various grounds, should continue to hold back on signing, especially as the US continues to dilly-dally.

On the basis of present and projected per capita emissions, Pakistan is not likely to be a key player in global warming, with its emissions well below the global average. As such, it has no reason to buy into the ‘mitigation groundswell’ driven by Northern global warming concerns. The CDM is the most recent manifestation of this. This is even more so when it would mean sacrificing low-cost development options for a time when such options will be needed as commitments become inescapable. The Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, India, makes a convincing case for renunciation and has brought respectable northern NGOs, such as the Stockholm Environment Institute, around to its point of view.

On the other hand, the local consequences of GHG emissions present more compelling evidence for Pakistan to make an effort to abate such emissions. Examples of localized impacts are urban-centered health problems stemming from air pollution, especially among the poorer communities. Emissions of particulate matter and VOCs from the combustion of firewood and biomass pose a threat to human health in rural areas. Deforestation menaces countries in the form of degradation and soil erosion, with its downstream consequences

Actually, climate change impacts have more immediacy for developing countries, especially in the shape of extreme events (droughts, floods). Here too, one ought not to be looking northwards for ‘adaptation funds’ tagged onto CDMs, but at developing countries’ own will and capacity to respond. There is the expected slack here. Therefore, it makes sense to identify linkages, where climate change can provide additional criteria for strengthening good existing policies and rejecting bad ones.

However, north-south dynamics (a euphemism for arm-twisting for some) will compel the South to buy into the CDM process. At that stage it should come armed with its own menu of options – one driven by sustainable development concerns.

The Pakistan component of the ALGAS project has taken a first cut at prioritizing mitigation options, ranking them on the basis of incremental cost criteria and CO2 equivalent emissions abated. UNDP/UNEP/GEF and CDM-AIJ criteria, though different, converge for different reasons. While GEF is disposed to finance those options which have high incremental costs -- the rationale being that developing countries would implement the low-cost options themselves – in effect, institutional and market constraints limit their choice to the easier options. The CDM-AIJ mechanisms are geared towards low-cost, high emission reduction options in the first place, as they reduce donor-country liabilities to reduce emissions in their countries of origin by an equivalent amount -- and which they would have to do at a relatively higher cost.

These priorities are reviewed in the light of sustainable development criteria. In other words, the cost-benefit calculus has been expanded to include issues of health, equity, inter-generational concerns, environmental conservation and an enabling institutional environment, (a proxy for awareness, demand, market-readiness, functioning legal and regulatory framework etc.). The options have been re-ranked according to their CO2 abatement potential and on the basis of 4 sustainable development criteria: conservation potential, health, equity and institutional viability. The classification is simple – 1 represents success and 2 failure. Then these are further summed and graded on a scale from A to D. The grades are then combined with the incremental costs, with I representing high and II low incremental costs. Note how the ranking gets reversed once more broad-based criteria are invoked. Further, the more highly ranked options are also roughly coincident with their high abatement potential.

It is intriguing to find that the same options now ordered differently on the basis of the latter assessment. Admittedly, the ranking is crude and needs to be refined further through, for instance, a more formal analytical hierarchical ranking (AHP) procedure. By the same token, such processes can become hostage to a few leaders and are by no means superior to discerning analysis by the few.

COP-6 may generate some fireworks after the post-Kyoto lull at Rio and Bonn, thanks to the CDMs. However, the South would do well to go into these negotiations with caution. Both expert opinion and the evidence point towards heightened climatic activity, both of a secular and sporadic kind. The North will eventually have to buy into mitigation commitments and will do its best to hive off this responsibility to the South. At least the South should swing a good deal for itself.

| Top of the Page |

First  List of Possible CDM Project Candidates for Indonesia

Introduction

The development activities implemented by Indonesia for the last three decades has changed the Indonesia’s status as the net sink to the net emitter of greenhouse gases. This is because of increased energy use and industrial activities, forestry and land use. The increased energy use is relatively small compared to that from the changing pattern of land use.

There have been some initiatives conducted to reduce greenhouse gases emission either in energy or non-energy sector. Energy sector focuses on how to reduce the fossil fuel and increase the use of renewable energy such as geothermal and natural gas. Meanwhile, the non-energy sector more focuses on how to enlarge reforested area, to manage the waste and develop technology in reducing methane from paddy field.

Given the situation mentioned above, Indonesia is a potential market for CDM in several sectors. Despite the controversy of possibility to include LULUCF under CDM, the forestry sector is an attracting object to invest CDM.

Indonesia in Brief

Indonesia is an archipelagic country consisting of 17,508 islands stretching from a latitude of 06°08’ N to 11°15’ S, and a longitude of 94°45’ E to 141°05’ E. It includes 3.1 million km² of territorial waters (62%), almost 2 million km² of land (38%) and 81,000 km of coastline. Its position around the equator has made Indonesia a tropical climate.

Among the islands more than 50% have not got any names and only 7% are permanently inhabited. In term of political and decision making structure, the country is divided into 27 provinces, 243 districts, 62 municipals, 844 sub-districts and 65,852 villages.

Total population has been reaching 220 million in 1999 with the growth rate of 1.60% and it is projected that Indonesia’s population will exceed 300 million in 2030. The 1997 economic crisis has resulted in an increased number of poverty (almost 100 million people living under poverty), which actually could be overcome in 1994 (25.05 million people). In terms of employment, about fifty percent of the employed population which is about 38.4 million in 1999 are working in the traditional agricultural sectors. The rest find employment in more modern sectors such as construction, transportation and manufacturing.

Energy scenario

Indonesia has the primary energy sources as coal, biomass, crude oil and refinery product, natural gas, hydropower and geothermal which generally are used for power generation, industry, household and commercial as well as transportation sectors. It also uses natural gas, coal and LPG for feedstock in industrial processes such as cement and fertilizer production. Type of primary energy which produce greenhouse gases include coal, biomass, refinery products, and natural gas.

Within the energy sector there are four groups that emit a considerable amount of CO2 namely power generation industries, industry sector, transportation, residential and commercial sectors. Transportation emitted 25% and 28% of the total CO2 emission from the energy sector in 1990 and 1994 consecutively. The final energy demand during the last five years from transportation sector increased at about 9% per year and fossil fuel was the main source of that sector’s energy.

In line with the policy options in the energy sector, the government has enacted a series of policies and implemented some initiatives which frequently are in collaboration with NGOs, research institutions, universities and private sectors to reduce emission significantly.

Emission reduction potentials

Based on the Asia Least-cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy (ALGAS) study in 1997, the possibilities to reduce the GHG emission in Indonesia can be done mainly in two different sectors, namely the energy sector and the non-energy sector.

In the energy sector, the possible projects are based on reducing fuel consumption and optimizing energy use at the demand side. This can be achieved not only through the activities related directly with energy such as power generation, electricity and other fuels consumption but also through other sectors such as industries, transportation, etc.

Activities possible to be done are:

• Controlling the share of coal as the source of energy. Projects will cover the promoting of other energy sources such as geothermal, wind-energy, and other renewable energy sources.

• Controlling the share of coal in the energy system with the implementation of energy conservation.

• Improving the technology for coal-based power generation such as Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC), Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Gas-Fired Combined Cycle (GFCC) to make the combustion more efficient.

• Promoting alternative sources of energy for the transportation sector other than oil fuel. Alternative sources of energy, which emit less emission, such as natural gas and the biomass based ethanol, are encouraged.

• Promoting mass-public transportation to reduce the carbon emission, this can also include a better transport system planning and other alternative modes of transports.

• Enhancing energy conservation at the demand-side.

• Encouraging the use of renewable energy, and utilize renewable energy-based utilities, particularly in urban settlements.

• Encouraging the use of energy efficient products and technologies in the market, which can be done through the use of fiscal instruments, such as taxes and subsidies.

• Improving the performance and efficiency in the energy end-use sectors, such as better transport system

The first three bulleted activities are prioritized to reduce coal use as source of energy in Indonesia since it becomes the second source of electrification supply. This means that coal is the main producer of greenhouse gases in Indonesia. In addition to the coal use reduction, there is also an effort to develop technology to use coal efficiently.

For the non-energy sector, forestry, agriculture and waste management are the main areas where the GHG can be mitigated properly. The potential activities in forestry are in the case of timber estate, social forestry, reforestation, private forest and afforestation. Anyway, the lowest cost option is reforestation, followed by social forestry, afforestation, timber estate and, the highest, private forest. If all of these options are realized, Indonesia has a potential to abate about 4.9 billion ton of CO2 equivalent.

• Prevention of deforestation

• Small holder agro-forestry in degraded lands

• Reforestation and re-vegetation for watershed protection or habitat reconstruction or waste lands (grasslands and unproductive land)

• Timber plantations and estate crops

• Reduced impact logging

• Enhance natural regeneration

• Mangrove forests

• Protected Forests (Carbon reservoir)

• Biomass energy

For agriculture, there are two activities that emit a significant amount of GHG, particularly, methane, to which are rice planting and livestock management. The main idea for the mitigation options is to try to reduce methane effectively in a manner that will be cost effective, will not have a negative impact on yields and are socially acceptable. A general observation shows that the improvement in rice planting practices is more efficient in reducing GHG emission than changing livestock management practices.

Another area is the waste management, where the priority is given to sources with high emission rates. In this regard, mitigation options include (1) burning of waste, (2) recycling of organic waste, (3) composing organic waste, (4) burning of waste in incinerator, and (5) conversion of gas waste to energy at landfill/open dumps. The most cost efficient options, from the most efficient to the least, are: recycle of waste, composting of organic waste, conversion of gas to energy at landfills, burning of waste in temporary dumps and burning of waste in incinerator.

| Top of the Page |

Ecological and Social Eligibility Criteria for LULUCF Credits

These are some of the eligibility criteria for credits in Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) which have been developed by global NGO communities, mainly the WWF.

Exclude the conversion of, or negative impacts to, native ecosystems, including all native forests, inclusive of old growths and late successional forest areas, wetlands, grasslands or deserts. In ecosystems that have human communities, exclude areas where land tenure is in dispute and activities that have negative impacts on those communities and their livelihoods.

Promote ecosystem restoration with native species to maximize environmental benefits, such as watershed enhancement, biological diversity, and sustainable livelihoods, with the agreement and participation of local communities.

Promote adaptation to climate change impacts by avoiding ecosystem fragmentation, maintaining or restoring connectivity to foster species migrations, provide buffer zones, maintain species compositions and maintain sufficient ecological representativeness to ensure species interdependence, functional groupings and ecologically pivotal species.

Where applicable, promote protection of sensitive species and ecosystems, such as those listed under CITES and the IUCN Red Book.

Exclude the use of genetically modified trees or other organisms, and the introduction of exotic species.

Ensure sustainable forestry practices, such as those carried out by many local communities as well as those prescribed under credible certification processes. Exclude the use of harmful forestry practices, such as forest simplification, intensive soil disturbance, extensive application of pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals.

Ensure the protection of any area determined to have served as biological refugia during times of past climatic disturbance.

Allow for natural fire regimes, and fire as a management prescription, in those forest types where fires are an integral part of the ecosystem, and avoid fire suppression to obtain carbon credit in these areas.

Comply with all national laws and regulations that apply to the management of the land area, as well as those international Treaties and Conventions and their decisions.

Include a strong and multifaceted monitoring system.

| Top of the Page |

Sink in the CDM? It stinks!

There are number of reasons to reject enhancement of sinks under CDM. Let us explore why sinks in the CDM stinks.

Including sinks in the CDM would lead to Annex I countries receiving credits for forest conservation, restoration, reforestation and tree plantation establishment while the rights and interests of Indigenous and other local communities which have been inhabiting and protecting these forests for centuries are neglected. These people will have to forfeit their opportunities in the ‘CDM forest lands’ for the benefit of those who have caused climate change. Eh, it stinks!

Carbon plantations will result in little revenue for host countries, while the major beneficiaries will be the industrialized countries. The little revenue thus generated would not be sufficient to achieve long-term sustainable development, even after defying the adverse impacts of climate change. Isn’t that counteracting the provisions made by the Kyoto Protocol itself?

Including sinks in the CDM as a way of meeting the commitments of governments would reinforce existing inequalities. The climate crisis is due to industrial societies using more than their fair share of the world’s carbon-cycling capacity to gain more than a fair share of the world’s resources. This problems will not be solved by abdication to the right to take over other people’s lands and seas for so-called carbon sequestration and storage.

Including sinks in the CDM would reduce the sacred land and territories of Indigenous People to mere carbon storage units. It stinks because it is contrary to the philosophy of life of these People. A forest is for its habitat, for the people who protect it for mutual benefits. It cannot be counted solely in terms of carbon content.

Sinks in the CDM would constitute a worldwide strategy for expropriating Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ lands, seas and territories and violating their fundamental rights. Shame! Isn’t that the UN has a charter to protect the rights of the Indigenous People?

Sinks are neither long-term nor short-term solutions to mitigating climate change. The ambiguity of the current negotiation texts (definitions) and the lack of verifiable ways of estimating the ability of forests and other ecosystems to ‘compensate’ for industrial emissions means that the inclusion of sinks in the CDM would completely discredit the Kyoto Protocol.

Isn’t that inclusion of sinks in the CDM would provide a huge incentive, on top of existing subsidies, for the establishment of Northern-driven, large-scale, environmentally and socially destructive monoculture tree plantations? Are we not committing to the same kind of mistakes which we’ve done earlier?

Including sinks in the CDM would undermine, by diverting, existing financial flows supporting community-driven initiatives for the restoration and conservation of forest areas. These flows are a result of both UNCED and UNFCCC to provide … new and additional .. funds, which has been seen as a recognition of the ecological debt owed by the industrialized countries to non-industrialized countries.

Allowing sinks under the CDM regime would not address the underlying causes of forest loss. Nor would it create macro-economic conditions making forest conservation and restoration possible. Why would then the people in the host country accept such a forest?

Instead of reducing GHG emissions at home, sinks in the CDM would allow northern countries to actually increase their emissions and on paper, still complying with the emissions reduction targets. Eh, it really stinks!

Let us not allow this to happen. Let us not define CDM as a Carbon Dumping Mechanism.

| Top of the Page |

Lessons from Lyon

Government delegates from all over the world met last month in Lyon, France, in a preparatory meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB 13) prior to the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6) of the framework Convention on Climate Change which will be held in the Hague, Netherlands.

The meeting raised hopes amongst the developing country parties to the UNFCCC, but apparently failed to deliver the goods. The only positive thing that can be said about the Lyon meeting is that delegates worked very hard, late into the evenings, and that some delegates -- unfortunately too few -- actually tried to do something about climate change. But the general character of the meeting was one of blackmailing, arm-twisting, marketing, bribing and trading among the various elites present. Most of the time was spent discussing money for programmes which actually have little or no relevance to climate.

One of the topics talked about was something called the "Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)". This is a scheme which could (among other things) allow industrialized countries to "compensate for" their emissions through the use of biospheric "carbon sinks" in the South -- such as tree plantations, forests and changes in land use -- thus enabling them to maintain and even increase the fossil fuel emissions that are at the root of climate change. Little attention was paid by most of the diplomats and technocrats present to the proven negative impacts that forestry projects similar to those contemplated have already had on people and the environment.

Fortunately, this false climate "solution" has not yet been approved by the Conference of the Parties. But the preliminary negotiations at Lyon gave little reason for optimism. Some of the delegations present focused on blackmailing ("We won't sign the Kyoto Protocol unless lots of carbon sinks are included"), accompanied by arm-twisting ("You are free not to agree, but . . ."). The US and Japan scored very high here. Others tried to trade their countries' "carbon sink" capacity for money. Some Latin American delegates had a very high profile in this respect. A third group --including many European delegates -- tried to show commitment to Kyoto-agreed emission cuts, but left the door open for forestry projects in the Hague agreement. The small group of countries who strongly oppose the inclusion of carbon sinks in the Kyoto Protocol seemingly could do little more than try to find ways of avoiding the very worst of the possible deals on offer.

Sadly enough, those were the meeting's highlights. There was almost no discussion of the real issues: equal rights to the atmosphere, fossil fuel use reductions, especially in the North, alternative energy sources, and energy efficiency and conservation. If governments had been truly willing to address climate change, they would have focused on how to achieve drastic cuts in fossil fuel emissions through the active promotion of clean, renewable and low impact sources of energy. North and South would have begun to share the research and experience that both have regarding low-impact energy use and would have considered mechanisms to ensure the effective exchange of the relevant knowledge, technology, and political experience both from South to North and from North to South. Those should have been the core issues in discussions regarding any "Clean Development Mechanism." But the governments present chose otherwise.

One lesson can be drawn from the Lyon meeting: unless people put pressure on their governments, climate negotiators will do nothing to head off the world's looming climate disaster. Peoples' movements must have the courage to disbelieve what most technocrats in governments, research institutions and even NGOs are telling them -- namely, that climate change is an issue for "experts" only. They must understand that this is not a technical but a power issue and that the arena is political, where everyone is entitled to participate. They must keep firmly in mind that the issue is essentially very simple with an equally simple solution that anyone can understand: replace fossil fuels by alternative and environmentally-friendly energy sources. Climate change will not be solved by planting millions of hectares of pines and eucalyptus, which will only add to existing problems.

If left alone, official delegates will lead us all to disaster. They must be pushed, both from outside and from inside their grand meeting halls, toward more sober and responsible action. That is the lesson from Lyon.

Source: World Rainforest Movement Bulletin # 37

| Top of the Page |

Opportunities and Challenges for CDM Projects in Thailand

Srisuda Jarayabhand

Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, Thailand

In Thailand a number of candidate projects have been identified which may be considered under the CDM regime. These include:

• Effective utilization of energy in re-heating furnace in steel industries;

• Recovery of heat from combustion of waste in paper and pulp mill;

• Improvement of traffic congestion; and

• Utilization of waste heat from incineration of industrial waste at industrial estates.

In order to successfully implement these projects under CDM regime a few criteria to be fulfilled. The major criteria involve a few identified policies and measures in energy and non-energy sectors; preparation of CDM project implementation; and a few selection criteria.

Energy sector policies and measures: The foremost important aspect is that the project must ensure energy conservation by use of higher efficiency technologies. The other prospects involve demand side management; improvement of transport sector, and promotion of renewable energy technologies.

Non-energy sector policies and measures: For non-energy sector a number of projects may be considered. In case of livestock management recovery of wastes could be a major project. Changing cultivation methods by reducing water depth is considered to be low-emission rice production option. Recovery of methane from solid waste dumping site is another potential project. Thailand is also contemplating reforestation programmes, but with caution.

Preparation for CDM implementation: In Thailand it is recognised that adequate institutional arrangement is a pre-requisite for implementing any project under the CDM regime. The foremost important issue is to build institutional capacity within both public and private sectors. It is necessary to assess the technologies available for implementing the projects mentioned above. It is also necessary to map the institutional needs for successful implementation of the CDM projects.

Criteria for selecting CDM projects: The following criteria will be applied for the selection of CDMable projects:

• Additionality criteria;

• Transfer of environmentally-sound technology;

• Cost-effectiveness;

• Supplementarity;

• The projects must meet objectives of sustainable development in terms of social and economic, environmental and technological sustainability.

| Top of the Page |

Publications

Just a Lot of Hot Air?

A close look at the Climate Change Convention :

Authors: Maria E. Hurtado, Kitty Warnock and Nikki van der Gaag

Publisher: The PANOS Institute, Publication date:2000

This is a briefing document by PANOS aimed at stimulation public debate on issues of climate change and the negotiations. A slim 44 pages document, it analyzed the provisions made in both UNFCCC and KP and asked questions on issues regarding equity.The hot debated issues concerning Kyoto Mechanisms,forest sinks, compliance and enforcement, and the US position in the Negotiations are analyzed. 

Plantations Campaign.The Carbon Shop: Planting New Problems

Author: Larry Lohmann

Publisher: World Rainforest Movement, Publication date: December 2000

This briefing paper analyzed how the industrialized countries are attempting to begin the era of carbon colonialism under the disguise of sinks within the Clean Development Mechanism(CMD) regime. It analyzed the ecological politics of the north. It identified how the industrialized countries and the interest groups therein will benefit from establishing sinks under CDM. Available on request at www.wrm.org.ug

Renewable Energy Technologies in Asia

A Regional research and Dissemination Programme(Bangladesh Activities)

Publisher: Centre for Mass Education in Science(CMES)

Sponsored by: Swedish International Development Agency(SIDA) and Asian Institute of Technology(AIT)

Publication date: 2000

This is a Proceedings of the Bangladesh'National Dissemination Seminar on Renewable Energy Technologies held in Dhaka on 30 January 2000. A number of renewable technologies and their potential use in Bangladesh were discussed. E-mail contact: cmes@citechco.net

Editorial Board : Dr Saleemul Huq, Dr A Atiq Rahman.
Editorial Assistants: Dwijen Mallick and Golam Jilani.
Produced by : Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS).
Web Master : Md Shah Nawaz
E-Mail : web@bcas.net 

| Home || Top of the Page |