EDF Talks Global Climate

Mexico organization partners with EDF to address deforestation, climate change and rural development

By | Published: March 7, 2012

Take a trip through southern Mexico, and you’re bound to see immense forests with majestic trees like ceibas or ahuehuetes, hear the sounds of howler monkeys or scarlet macaws, make out some amazing archaeological sites, and meet the area’s generous peoples.

EDF is working in Mexico with local groups like AMBIO to protect the country's forests, which are under threat of deforestation. Above: a tropical forest in Chiapas, the country's most southern state. (Photo thanks and credit to Flickr user Archivo de Proyectos)

This region has some of the richest  variety of life in Mexico, which is ranked the fifth most “biodiverse” country in the world.

But the country’s forests are under threat, and that’s not only bad for the forests and the people who live there, it’s bad for global efforts to reduce deforestation – a major contributor to global warming.

Although deforestation rates in Mexico have decreased in recent years, Mexico’s forests are still falling.

A large contribution to this deforestation is agricultural expansion that results from the unsustainable management and low productivity of land that has already been cleared. As in many other tropical forest countries, rich forests are being converted to farmland and pasture for cattle ranching.

Keeping forests alive is crucial to preventing climate change, because cutting and burning trees adds as much as all the world’s cars, trucks, ships and airplanes combined — about 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Forests also capture and store carbon from the atmosphere. Any realistic plan to reduce global warming pollution sufficiently — and in time — to avoid dangerous consequences for the globe must include preserving tropical forests, like those in Mexico.

EDF has been partnering with the Mexican government and non-governmental organizations since 2009 to contribute EDF’s scientific and technical expertise to Mexico’s goal of reducing carbon emissions from forests, while supporting local communities who depend on them and act as stewards of forested lands.

Local group AMBIO works with local communities to reduce emissions from deforestation

I’ve recently moved to Chiapas, the southernmost state in Mexico. As EDF’s Mexico Program Coordinator, I’m here to work with local organizations on reducing deforestation and benefiting local communities that own forests.

Part of a hillside in Chiapas has been converted from dense forest to fields to grow crops. This practice, common in tropical forest countries, is a major contributor to climate change.

One of the groups we’ve partnered with is AMBIO, whose name is a combination of the Spanish word for environment and the Greek root for life. AMBIO has been working for 15 years with a growing number of rural communities on diverse projects to aid in rural development and curb climate change emissions. Its mission is

to drive and promote sustainable rural development through building livelihoods, gender equality, cultural preservation and the restoration and conservation of local environments.

Over the years in their work with forest communities, AMBIO staff have observed many challenges that communities face that aren’t directly addressed by AMBIO’s projects, which are largely focused on carbon sequestration and forest management. In addition, available staff resources could not always address these issues – to balance forest conservation and taking on specific technical challenges for more efficient, sustainable community production of livestock and agriculture.

An experiment becomes reality in AMBIO's internship program

AMBIO’s expert in carbon sequestration and community planning, Sotero Quechulpa, had an idea for an experiment, which AMBIO turned into reality: recruit university students who have almost completed their degrees in fields like forestry and agronomy (the science of soil management and crop production) and need hands-on experience to complete their studies, and place them as interns in rural communities to address specific local problems and capacity needs for forest management and sustainable economic alternatives.

The interns worked in Chiapas communities on projects, like helping manage forests, fruit trees, and cattle populations, that were either directly or indirectly connected to "drivers," or causes, of deforestation in the region.

Now in the program’s second year, EDF has joined AMBIO to structure and pilot an expanded program that now reaches additional communities and has expanded from four to as many as ten interns for this year.

For three to four months, the interns in AMBIO's program:

  • live in the communities;
  • evaluate diverse problems, including development and environmental, within the communities; and
  • work with interested people in the communities to transfer and build knowledge and search for solutions to improve resource management that will help the communities avoid additional deforestation while not sacrificing their economic stability.

We know from our other partnerships around the world that technical skills and on-the-ground knowledge are complementary in addressing environmental issues — like our work with low-carbon farming in India’s rural agricultural communities and with curbing deforestation in the Amazon. EDF is now working with AMBIO to leverage this abundance of additional technical expertise from its university partners to complement their long-standing work with these communities.

Women playing important role in AMBIO’s work

Work in the forests and the fields is traditionally a male role in most communities in Mexico, but this year, more women than men have applied for the AMBIO internship positions. AMBIO’s Sotero told me they have shown a lot of commitment and enjoy the work.

AMBIO intern Maria shows members of the Corona community how to take soil samples from their pasture.

In fact, two of the three current interns working on pasture and cattle management are women, and Sotero told me he thinks we need more women like them in rural villages:

When I see my female colleagues in the field and all their knowledge I think they are a great example for people at the communities, especially for young people; they get to see women in a different role to what they are used to.

Young people and females must think, “If she can do it, so can I.”

As an example, he points to one intern Aurora, who has surprised the people in her community with the energy she has to walk for hours without tiring and by always being willing to work hard and collaborate with others.

Through my conversations with young people in Mexico and Chiapas, I can see many of them are passionate about the environment and development and looking out for opportunities to put their energy and knowledge to use to improve the situation in Mexico’s rural areas. AMBIO’s internship program provides that opportunity to connect different types of expertise and needs toward common interests.

Last week I met with one of AMBIO’s first interns, Maria, to discuss her experience working to address low productivity in cattle and high deforestation for cattle pastures. I will post my interview tomorrow to commemorate International Women’s Day.

Posted in Mexico |: | 2 Responses

Effort in Moscow to coordinate attack on EU aviation emissions law fizzles

By | Published: February 23, 2012

Countries have failed in Moscow to agree on any joint moves against the European Union's pioneering law to curb emissions from aviation at a two-day meeting that ended there yesterday.

The declaration coming out of the Moscow meeting, which was reportedly attended by representatives of countries and the aviation industry, states the 23 signing countries will merely "consider" taking actions against Europe for its pioneering law to curb emissions from aviation. EDF's Annie Petsonk said "Today's failure to reach agreement on a coordinated attack indicates cooler heads may have prevailed." (Thanks and photo credit to Flickr user Aleksander Markin)

The meeting, which was preceded by a great deal of hype about 26 countries' supposedly working toward a "basket of countermeasures" against Europe, produced a joint declaration signed by 23 countries that included a "Basket of ACTIONS/ MEASURES."

However,  yesterday's Joint declaration of the Moscow meeting on inclusion of international civil aviation in the Eu-ETS only says countries will "consider taking actions/ measures" against the EU. No single coordinated attack emerged from the meeting, and Russia's Deputy Transportation Minister Valery Okulov said in a press conference that countries themselves "will choose the most effective and reliable measures that will help to cancel or postpone the implementation of the EU ETS (Emissions Trading System)."

In EDF's statement following the meeting, Annie Petsonk, EDF's International Counsel said:

The airlines ginned up a laundry list of actions they wanted governments to take so that airlines don't have to comply with a reasonable law to cut global warming pollution.

Today's failure to reach agreement on a coordinated attack indicates cooler heads may have prevailed, and if so, they are to be commended.

This Moscow gathering was a follow-up to one that took place in India last September, where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and 23 other countries signed a statement that suggested opposition to the EU law, the world’s first program to reduce global warming pollution from aviation.

ICAO action to cut aviation pollution is critical

The first action/measure in Moscow's "Basket" is launching an "Article 84" case under the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation — a formal protest against the EU law at the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

Countries, the aviation industry and environmentalists have all called for a global system to be developed through ICAO, but 14 years of negotiations has yielded nothing.

ICAO Secretary General Raymond Benjamin had warned weeks prior to the Moscow meeting that a decision by any nation to launch an Article 84 case would distract ICAO from designing and obtaining global agreement on effective, market-based measures to address aviation greenhouse gas emissions.

EDF thinks such constructive participation can help ICAO achieve an effective and durable outcome, which is the best path toward resolving the current dispute. Petsonk said:

Had an Article 84 case been launched, that surely would have called into question the seriousness of the claims of industry and some nations that they truly want a solution in ICAO.

Speaking of industry, the airline industry trade association International Air Transport Association (IATA) was reportedly present at the meeting. However, EDF knows of no “civil society” group invited to the Moscow meeting. Petsonk said in EDF's statement:

With such a limited invite list, the meeting didn’t present an opportunity for a balanced discussion. Civil society must be afforded equal opportunity to participate in ICAO’s work going forward. Such participation can help ICAO achieve an effective and durable outcome.

These countries have agreed to meet again later this year in Saudi Arabia.

Posted in Aviation, News |: | 1 Response

On eve of Moscow meeting, new calculations reveal U.S. airlines could profit from EU cap on aviation emissions

By | Bio | Published: February 17, 2012

By Annie Petsonk, International Counsel, and Adam Peltz, Legal Fellow

Next week, more than two dozen countries, including the United States, are meeting in Moscow to discuss their opposition to Europe’s pioneering law to cut global warming pollution from aviation.

U.S. airlines have said the EU's law that curbs aviation emissions will cost them billions, but new calculations show they could actually make money from it. (Thanks and photo credit to Flickr user DosenPhoto.)

On the agenda for the Moscow meeting are a number of topics that have been lobbied for by the U.S. aviation industry, which has said complying with the EU law will be too expensive.

U.S. airlines have been complaining for years that complying with the EU law will cost them billions of dollars, but we’ve also seen a slew of studies that show the airlines could save money – and even profit – by participating in the system.

So we commissioned EDF’s economics team to run some numbers.

When our economists compared 1] airlines’ projected 2012 emissions (based on the 2010 data they submitted to the EU and the industry’s projected 3% annual emissions growth rate), 2] data on the free emissions allowances the EU is giving to the airlines, and 3] current prices (from Feb. 15) for emissions credits in the EU carbon market with 4] the recent $3-per-leg fare increase the airlines added last month, we found that airlines that comply with the law can actually make money.

Based on these data:

  • United stands to turn a profit of $0.73 to $2.36 per ticket, or in the range of $88,000 to $287,000 a year on its flights from Washington, D.C. (Dulles) to Brussels.
  • American Airlines stands to reap anywhere from $1.15 to $2.50 per passenger, or $700,000 to $1.2 million a year on its flights from New York (JFK) to London Heathrow.
  • Delta Air Lines, which was the first carrier to impose a surcharge, could profit between $1.02 and $2.53 per ticket from Minneapolis, or $449,000 to $1.1 million annually on its Minneapolis to Amsterdam flight.

U.S. carriers aren't the only ones finding profit in the emissions cap; airlines around the world could be poised to profit, too:

  • Etihad Airways' $3/ticket surcharge could net between $1.10 and $2.52 per passenger per flight* from Abu Dhabi to London.
  • AirAsia X's surcharge of $6.50 could produce a profit of $2.05 to $5.25 per passenger per flight* from Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) to Paris.
  • Aeroflot Russian Airlines, if it matched United’s $3 fare increase, could make between $2.26 and $2.69 per ticket* on a typical flight from Moscow to Berlin.

(*These airlines’ ticket sales numbers are not publicly available so we are unable to calculate their potential annual profits.)

It’s critical to remember the purpose of the EU's law is to cut pollution. The aviation sector is growing so rapidly that, if emissions from aviation were left unregulated, they would quadruple from 2005 levels by 2050; the EU law will cut 183 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2020, equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road every year.

The data show that airlines’ claims of suffering a disproportionate burden and punitive costs to meet the cap are wrong. Savvy companies will see the law not as the burden that it isn’t, but as the opportunity that it is, and we would hope the airlines direct any profits to technology that can help them further reduce their emissions and fly cleaner and greener.

Posted in Aviation, News |: | 2 Responses

Why Europe’s climate program for airlines is not a tax

By | Bio | Published: February 13, 2012

By Annie Petsonk, International Counsel, and Adam Peltz, Legal Fellow

As the European Union gets closer to implementing a law to control greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, U.S. airlines are stepping up their efforts to mischaracterize and undermine the program by calling it a “tax” instead of what it really is – a market-based cap on pollution that lets them find the best and cheapest way to reduce emissions.

Adding "winglets" and other structural modifications to planes can improve flight efficiency and help airlines comply with Europe's law to reduce emissions from the rapidly growing aviation sector. (Thanks and photo credit to Flickr user Bow's Photography.)

It’s no surprise. It’s the same tactic some in industry used to mischaracterize climate change legislation in the U.S. during the last Congress, and they’re doing it again to undermine Europe's efforts.

The aviation sector today emits about as much climate pollution as all of the United Kingdom, and that amount is projected to quadruple by 2050. There will be a cost to reducing those emissions. But just because something has a cost, that does not make it a tax.

  • The EU law puts a quantity limit, or cap, on the total amount of climate pollution of all flights landing at or taking off from EU airports. Every company whose planes land at or take off from airports in Europe has to ensure that at the end of each year, the amount of pollution of its planes is less than the amount of its cap. It's that simple.
  • The EU could have slapped a tax on air travel in order to drive up the price and therefore reduce demand for air travel as a means of cutting down aviation pollution. But this law doesn't do that.
  • The EU could have required the airlines to install particular pollution control technologies. But the law doesn't do that either.

Importantly, the EU law also gives airlines very broad flexibility to decide how to meet their caps.  Airlines have wide latitude to choose among many competing strategies, and the competition among the strategies to deliver the most cost-effective emissions reductions help drive down the costs of all of them.

To meet their caps, airlines can make practical changes in their operations, such as:

  • Using gradual "continuous ascent" and "continuous descent", which saves a lot of fuel, instead of today's steep, fuel-guzzling climb-ups and climb-downs.
  • Using climate-friendlier fuels like sustainably produced biofuels.
  • Putting modern, high-efficiency engines on existing planes.
  • Adding "winglets" and other structural modifications to planes to improve flight efficiency.
  • Buying or leasing new, more fuel-efficient planes.
  • Purchasing pollution credits from a wide array of projects in different countries that reduce emissions outside the aviation sector, or purchasing emissions allowances from the EU.

Why do the airlines want the EU law called a tax? Because they don't like the law, and they want to argue that they shouldn't be subject to more taxes. It's inaccurate and wrong for the airlines to label the program as a tax on aviation emissions.

The EU chose a cap, rather than a tax, as the most efficient and cost-effective way to reduce aviation emissions. Don’t let the airlines fool you: the EU Aviation Directive is a cap, not a tax.

Posted in Aviation |: | 5 Responses

REDD+ finance, indigenous rights protections move forward in 2012 with boost from Durban negotiations

By | Bio | Published: February 7, 2012

This is a joint post by Gus Silva-Chávez, EDF's Climate & Forests specialist and REDD+ project manager, and Chris Meyer, who coordinates EDF’s REDD+ activities with Indigenous Peoples.

The most recent UN climate negotiations wrapped up in December with a better-than-anticipated outcome, but the preparations for the next set — this year in Qatar — are already underway.

Policies to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) and to protect the rights of indigenous peoples who live in the forests made important progress in the recent UN climate negotiations in Durban.

We've spent some time reflecting on the outcome of the 2011 talks in Durban, South Africa, especially on progress on policies to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, known in the UN world as REDD+. REDD+ was a huge winner in the 2010 negotiations, when the UN put its seal of approval on the policy, and this year made some additional progress, most importantly in finance and in ensuring rights for indigenous peoples.

We were recently invited to write about the REDD+ negotiations in Durban for the Governor’s Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF), a coalition of -collaboration of 14 states and provinces in the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Nigeria that was formed in 2008 at the first Governor’s Global Climate Summit.

Below is our analysis of where REDD+ negotiations ended in Durban, and what we're likely to see as countries gear up for the Qatar negotiations. You can find additional analysis of Durban negotiations by EDF's International Climate Program Director Jennifer Haverkamp in her blog post In Durban, world's major economies show will to address climate change.

The Durban REDD+ Outcome

Cross-posted from the Governor’s Climate and Forests Task Force Newsletter (January 2012)

In an annual ritual, government negotiators, NGOs and journalists attended the December 2011 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Durban, South Africa. Negotiators in Durban approved technical guidelines for ensuring that reference levels — benchmarks for measuring progress in reducing emissions from deforestation — have environmental integrity. EDF had been eagerly anticipating this technical decision going into Durban, these new guidelines will provide a framework and necessary guidelines on how to establish reference levels that are based on science and that can serve as a measuring stick for environmental performance and financial compensation.

REDD+ policies got a major boost in Durban when countries agreed that all sources of funding, including carbon markets, are eligible to pay for REDD+ activities. After years of exploring how to pay for all three stages of REDD+ (capacity building, early implementation and national-level pay-for-performance), the UN has put its seal of approval on the use of markets. Estimates indicate that while public financing is needed, especially for the capacity building stage, only large-scale, sustainable funding from carbon markets will generate sufficient funding. EDF applauds this decision.

The decision on REDD+ finance, in the “Long-term Cooperative Action” (LCA) negotiations, included a clear endorsement of all sources of finance, a call for a REDD+ finance workshop and a technical paper in 2012.

Looking forward to next year’s climate negotiations in Qatar, countries will start deciding on the details of reference levels, and some will begin to calculate their reference levels using the guidance decided in Durban. As more specific REDD+ financing methods are developed, countries will hold a REDD+ finance workshop and produce a technical paper that will attempt to answer some of the questions around financing REDD+.

Indigenous peoples & REDD+

Negotiators in Durban approved critical provisions for ensuring the rights of Indigenous Peoples are respected and will be safeguarded in the implementation of REDD+ programs. Parties also outlined the protections for Indigenous Peoples prominently in the LCA’s financing sections. Still, negotiators only developed a framework for systems of reporting on the implementation of REDD+ safeguards and decided to continue working on the content of these REDD+ systems next year.

Durban resulted in a positive step forward in providing preliminary guidance for the reporting on the implementation of safeguards as countries launch REDD readiness initiatives already being financed through the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, UN-REDD program, and other bilateral initiatives. More importantly, we’re seeing indigenous peoples in many countries developing their own consultation and information gathering processes that will feed information into these systems.

The Durban conference as a whole produced surprisingly good results, given our modest expectations. However, it is important to note that there are a lot of concrete actions taking place outside of the UNFCCC forum, including efforts to open a path for REDD+ credits from Brazil, Mexico and beyond to flow into California’s emerging carbon market. Top-down efforts at the international level can only succeed if bottom-up actions like these are being successfully implemented.

For additional information on EDF’s international work, please visit edf.org/international.


Posted in Deforestation, Durban (COP-17), Indigenous peoples, REDD |: , | 2 Responses

Brazil's president and Congress could avoid backslide for Amazon protection

By | Bio | Published: February 3, 2012

Whether Brazil continues to reduce its deforestation could depend on the outcome of a vote on its forest protection law in Brazil's lower house in March and sign-off from the president. Above: the home of Brazil's Congress, Congresso Nacional do Brasil (Photo credit and thanks to Flickr user JorgeBRAZIL)

Brazil has made great strides in reducing Amazon deforestation in recent years, bringing rates down about 80% over the last six years. But President Dilma Rousseff is already showing signs of backsliding on her environmental commitments in just her first year in office.

It’s a trend environmental groups have been following since Rousseff was sworn in last January, and one New York Times reporter Alexei Barrionuevo captures well in his recent story, "In Brazil, Fears of a Slide Back for Amazon Protection."

With global emissions from deforestation contributing about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions – as much as all the world’s cars, trucks, ships and airplanes combined – a lot is at stake in next month’s vote on a forest protection law in Brazil’s House of Representatives.

Whether Brazil, home to about 40% of the world’s remaining tropical forests, continues to reduce deforestation or not could depend on the outcome of the vote, and President Rousseff’s sign-off.

Forest Code enforcement and new protected areas slashed deforestation in 2000s under Marina Silva

Brazil’s law regulating deforestation on private land, the Forest Code, has been around since 1965; until relatively recently, it was hardly enforced and rarely obeyed.

That changed under former Environment Minister Silva. In 2003 she launched a national Plan for the Prevention and Control of Amazon Deforestation that ramped up law enforcement and established 600,000 square kilometers – an area the size of France – of new protected areas. These indigenous lands, parks, and forest-land reserves were located in the areas most affected by the expansion of agriculture.

Coupled with a temporary decline in agriculture commodity prices, the Plan brought deforestation way down, and persuaded policy makers that Brazil could commit not only to a national deforestation target, but to an overall national emissions reduction target as well.

Brazil made just such a commitment at the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, pledging to reduce its emissions 36–39% below business-as-usual emissions by 2020 — the first emissions reductions target taken by any major developing country.  And Brazil is ahead of schedule to meet this 2020 target, having already reduced about 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide below its 1996–2005 baseline – on the order of what the EU has pledged to do by 2020.

However, while the deforestation plan was supposed to have a carrot (positive incentives for conservation) in addition to the stick (cracking down on illegal deforestation), so far it’s pretty much been all stick and no carrot: lots of law enforcement, but no incentives to keep the forests standing.

Farmers lash back

Many large-scale farmers in Brazil historically had railed against the Forest Code as being too restrictive, but were too busy cutting down trees to plant cattle pasture and soybeans to do much about it. Since the Code was rarely enforced, they didn’t much care.

An aerial view of Mato Grosso shows the stark distinctions between protected forests and land that has been cleared for cattle pasture or agriculture.

But they started to take notice when government, under Minister Marina Silva, began enforcing the Code and fining them for violations.

They also noticed when the environmental group Greenpeace mobilized big European soy importers to declare a moratorium on soy imports from land deforested after 2006, and when national supermarket chains, prodded by Brazil’s Attorney General, called for deforestation-free beef in 2009. Most people in urban Brazil agree that Amazon deforestation should stop, and support such measures.

For many of the large-scale farmers in Brazil and their powerful block of congressional representatives – the “ruralistas” – the solution to their not being in compliance with the law when government started enforcing it was to weaken the law.

So for the past two years, the ruralistas have been making a concerted push to radically weaken the Forest Code.

Last June, the ruralistas pushed a revised Forest Code through the lower house of Congress that amounted to a license to deforest. The bill, sponsored by a ruralista-friendly member of the Communist party, would fix the ruralistas’ problem by giving an amnesty for past illegal deforestation, and could open up new land for clearance.

Environmentalists and the Brazilian scientific community strongly contested the House bill. President Rousseff had promised during the presidential campaign to veto a new Forest Code that would increase deforestation or amnesty past illegal deforestation, but her administration was a belated and ineffective participant in the House debate.

In December, the Senate passed somewhat improved amendments to the Code, which, however, still includes an amnesty for some past illegal deforestation.

This bill now returns to the House for a final vote in March.

The amnesty for deforestation that has plagued these bills is unfair to the few farmers who made the effort to comply with the law, and could give all farmers the bad idea that if one new law granting amnesty for illegal deforestation is good, two – or more – are better. If farmers think that an amnesty now means that future illegal deforestation will eventually be amnestied too, they will take the new Code as a license to deforest. Penalties for scofflaws, and a clear pathway to legality with positive incentives, especially for small famers, would be much better.

Environmentalists are calling on Dilma to keep her campaign promise and veto the amnesty.

Deforestation: the price of progress? Not really.

For years, the ruralistas have insisted with increasing vehemence that the current Forest Code is an enormous, unfair obstacle to the growth of Brazilian agriculture. (They also often claim that environmentalists who support the Forest Code are no more than a front for foreign agriculture interests trying to protect themselves against Brazilian competition).

But there is solid evidence that while deforestation rates were falling to the lowest levels on record, Brazil and Amazon states were getting richer and agriculture production was growing to record levels.

A vivid example is Brazil’s biggest agricultural state, Mato Grosso.

Deforestation (red line in Fig. 1 above) in Brazil's state of Mato Grosso plummeted as production of soybeans (green) and cattle (blue) increased substantially from 2001-2010. (PNAS)

The state had the highest deforestation rate in the Amazon from 2000–2005, but over the next five years (2006-2010) saw deforestation fall more than 70% below historic levels. At the same time, agriculture production reached an all-time high, according to a recent article in the leading scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In “Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s,” Marcia Macedo, Ruth DeFries and others also show in great detail that in recent years, while soy prices and production picked up substantially, deforestation kept going down.

Ruralista rhetoric to the contrary, Brazil and Amazon states have shown decisively that, so far, they have the wherewithal to reduce deforestation substantially while they grow their economies and their agriculture sectors.

Brazil should encourage – not undercut – global action against climate change

However, as the Times story correctly notes, Forest Code amendments threaten to usher in open season on forests. The government has watered down environmental licensing for big infrastructure projects like dams and roads and has rolled back protected areas in the Amazon by a form of executive fiat. Brazil’s Congress is also considering a bill that would give it a veto over recognizing new indigenous lands.

Brazil is home to about 40% of the world's tropical forests and a pioneer in policies to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+), which could provide the positive economic incentives needed to maintain Brazil's progress in continuing to curb deforestation.

Perhaps most critically, there has been little progress on providing the carrot – positive economic incentives to keep deforestation going down and to restore degraded forests – that Brazil needs in order to sustain the progress it made during the last decade into the future.

One candidate for the carrot is Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)  – the concept that reducing deforestation is good for the atmosphere and needs international compensation. Brazil was one of the pioneers of this idea in the international climate talks, and consequently created the Amazon Fund, to which Norway has committed $1 billion if the country continues to meet its 2020 target.

Brazil’s National Climate Change Policy also calls for the creation of a Brazilian emissions reductions market. But the federal government has made little headway on creating its own carbon market and has been reluctant to look at linking up with international carbon markets to pay for reducing deforestation. Both could go a long way to creating the incentives needed to grow the economy and sustainably expand agriculture and forestry, while stopping deforestation and restoring degraded forests.

What all of this means is that Brazil still leads the world in reducing carbon emissions because of its success in reducing Amazon deforestation – but risks reversing the trend if it approves a general amnesty for illegal deforestation. President Rousseff should listen carefully to Brazil’s world-class scientific community on how to balance environmental protection and development priorities, in the Forest Code and more broadly.

As Brazil prepares to host the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, it will find no lack of major developed countries to criticize for foot-dragging, omission, or outright obstruction on global environmental issues.  Ambitious new commitments on environment and development are unlikely under the specter of economic crisis in the EU and anemic growth in the U.S. Blaming richer countries for tepid results is one possible outcome.

But if President Rousseff  musters the political will to kill the deforestation amnesty and save the Forest Code, Brazil could do much better in Rio+ 20. It might find ways to use its world-leading achievement in reducing emissions from deforestation to chart the way to both more ambitious commitments and effective actions from other major economies going forward, and for funding for a sustainable low-carbon development strategy.

Posted in Brazil, Deforestation, REDD |: | 6 Responses

Mexico’s Congress looks to pass climate change law this spring

By | Bio | Published: February 1, 2012

Climate change is likely to be high on the agenda of Mexico’s Congress when it returns to session today, and the world will be watching as the 15th largest emitter of global greenhouse gas emissions considers what would be the country’s first comprehensive law to curb climate change.

Mexico's lower house of Congress, which returns to session today, is anticipated to consider a sweeping climate change bill this spring. (Photo credit and thanks to Flickr user SCA)

The “General Law on Climate Change” has already made successful inroads in Congress, having passed Mexico’s Senate with an overwhelming majority in early December. This spring, the Senate-approved version of the bill is anticipated to be considered in Mexico’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies.

The bill’s language states its intention is to:

favor the transition towards a competitive, sustainable economy with low carbon emissions, consequently generating environmental, social, and economic benefits.

The bill is still subject to change in the Chamber of Deputies from the language approved in the Senate. However, the current version provides some ambitious, albeit not obligatory, goals for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, as well as promising paths to achieve these goals through promoting renewable energy, ratcheting down of fossil fuel subsidies, and reducing emissions from land-use change.

The key features of the Senate-passed legislation include:

  • The permanent establishment of a new high-level Inter-secretarial Commission on Climate Change.
  • Creation of a climate fund to collect and channel resources for climate change activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and adapt to the changing climate (adaptation).
  • Authority to establish an emissions market that can include international transactions between Mexico and any countries with which it makes emissions trading agreements.
  • Requirements for mandatory emissions reporting and the creation of a public emissions registry that will cover emissions sources from power generation and use, transport, agriculture, stockbreeding, forestry and other land uses, solid waste, and industrial processes.
  • Goals for states to reverse the trend of deforestation, increase electricity generation from clean sources to 35% by 2024, and reduce fossil fuel subsidies.

While the Chamber of Deputies is able to make modifications to the bill, the threat of triggering delays for additional voting – especially now, as this Congressional session, scheduled to end this August, winds down – often incentivizes keeping the bill in its current form.

Broad support, efforts in Mexico to address climate change

Global attention on Mexico’s climate policy has faded from its 2010 peak when the country hosted the UN climate negotiations, but Mexico’s motivation to address climate change has not.

Mexico's President Felipe Calderón, who has made climate change a top priority in his administration, signed an agreement with the United States in January to "advance towards a green economy." (Photo credit and thanks to the Mexico's Presidency of the Republic)

Particularly over the last several years, the country has shown political willingness to address climate change, with a pledge to halve its emissions by 2050 from 2000 levels, and a number of sweeping climate change bills brought up in the Senate. Though the other climate bills never became law, the current bill’s overwhelming approval in the Senate by a broad coalition of sponsors (76-2 with 5 abstentions) shows a stronger momentum than we’ve seen.

While the political composition of Mexico’s lower chamber may mean the bill will not have as broad support in the Chamber of Deputies as it had in the Senate, it may benefit from that momentum.

Meanwhile, President Felipe Calderón has made clear climate change is a top priority in his administration, and in mid-January signed a formal agreement with the U.S. to “advance towards a green economy.”

Mexico’s passing this bill to enshrine domestic action on climate change into law guarantees the country’s efforts to curbing climate change can extend far beyond the current president.

And, as the world’s 15th largest global emitter of greenhouse gases, Mexico’s domestic environmental leadership will also be particularly important as the world increasingly acknowledges that action from developed and developing countries alike will be necessary if we are to avoid the disastrous effects of global warming.

*Clarification (Feb. 3): The third bullet point above has been revised to reflect a more accurate translation of the relevant provision.

Posted in Mexico, News |: | 3 Responses

Well-structured economic incentives could massively reduce deforestation emissions in Indonesia

By | Bio | Published: January 25, 2012

Indonesia’s tropical forests are the world's third-largest, covering more than half of the country and possessing some of the richest and most unique biodiversity on earth. But Indonesia has lost more than 20% of its forest since 1990.

Indonesia's forests

Indonesia's forests offer a huge opportunity to cut carbon emissions that cause global warming -- and earn significant income for national and state governments. (Photo credit and thanks to CIFOR)

The carbon released through deforestation and related changes in land use has made Indonesia the third-largest national contributor of greenhouse gas emissions (behind China and the U.S.) – and also one of the most promising areas in the world to put into action effective policies to reduce deforestation and combat climate change.

In a study developed in collaboration with Indonesian government and non-governmental partners and published in one of the world’s leading scientific publications, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, my colleagues and I have found that the ways countries could choose to set up a framework of economic incentives for reducing deforestation really matter.

While most economic analyses of the potential for reducing deforestation emissions have been at a high theoretical level, our study takes the analysis closer to the level of policy implementation.

We found that, with an international carbon price of $10 per ton of carbon dioxide, which is relatively modest compared to existing and projected greenhouse gas compliance markets, and strong and specific economic incentives for local decision-makers, Indonesia could:

  • achieve major reductions in national greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation — up to a 26% reduction in national greenhouse gas emissions
  • earn significant new income for national and regional governments – as much as $1 billion of net national revenue per year over and above payments to local governments

Worldwide, emissions from deforestation contribute about 15% of global greenhouse emissions; the Indonesian government estimates 85% of its country’s emissions come from agriculture, forests and land-use change.

Policies to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) aim to provide incentives for forest conservation by giving living forests an economic value, and have the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions substantially right away while protecting ecosystems and generating economic and social benefits for indigenous and local communities.

Important economic analysis of REDD+

Our analysis, “Structuring economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation within Indonesia” by Jonah Busch of Conservation International, myself, and others, is an important advance because it:

1) Analyzes specific policy choices for designing a national framework to reward REDD+ activities at the local level

Our results show that Indonesia can maximize its emissions reductions while staying within its budget through a comprehensive national policy framework that both encourages broad participation and includes rewards for reductions measured across larger geographic scales, such as the political units of districts or provinces.   This system would be superior to more traditional approaches based on payments only on a site-by-site basis, which run the risk of overpaying certain sites while providing insufficient incentives to others, and thus have an increased risk of emissions shifting to these locations (“leakage”).

In particular, we found that either of two REDD+ policy scenarios would lead to strong outcomes for both the climate and Indonesia’s economic interest:

Graph showing deforestation in Indonesia from 2000–2005. (a) observed deforestation; (b) modeled expected deforestation without REDD+; (c) expected deforestation with “improved voluntary incentive structure” for REDD+ at a carbon price of $10 per ton.

    1. A cap-and-trade or tax-and-subsidy REDD+ program with international carbon payments at $10/ton showed the highest potential benefits for Indonesia during the 2000-2005 study period. Such a program could: reduce national emissions from deforestation 20-31% over five years; avoid 163-247 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from deforestation emissions every year; and inject into Indonesia’s national REDD+ program a net budget surplus of $1 billion per year.
    2. A well-structured voluntary incentive structure could be a more politically attractive option, compared to a mandatory system. To be effective environmentally but not exceed the program budget, a voluntary REDD+ system must balance robust and widespread local incentives with maintenance of revenue, through policies that, for example, combine shared revenues and responsibilities for the program between national and subnational governments, and that make payments for emissions reductions to districts or provinces rather than individual site. Operating at these larger scales helps target resources and account for possible emission shifts (“leakage”) as well as less predictable emissions at more local levels. Structured this way, Indonesia’s REDD+ program could: reduce national emissions from deforestation 17-26% over five years; avoid 136-207 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from deforestation emissions each year; and, with international carbon payments at $10/ton, yield a net budget surplus of $331 million per year for Indonesia.

Either system would be more than twice as effective at reducing emissions as a “basic voluntary structure," where payments would be made for voluntary reductions in emissions at the level of individual sites on a solely project or landowner basis.

These results show the way REDD+ policies are designed can have important implications for national and local budgets and make a huge difference in achieving large-scale, cost-effective emissions reductions.

2) Relies on actual historical data

This is the first time potential emissions reductions from deforestation in Indonesia have been estimated using actual historical data on how deforestation varies with economic factors. This provides a stronger basis for informing REDD+ policies than prior analyses that rely on various assumptions for how readily deforestation can be reduced.

3) Develops “OSIRIS” model to help inform policy decisions

To conduct our analysis, we used a model called OSIRIS (the Open Source Impacts of REDD+ Incentives Spreadsheet), a set of free, transparent, open-source, spreadsheet-based decision support tools.

The model estimates and maps the climate, forest and revenue benefits of alternative policy decisions for REDD+.  EDF and Conservation International developed a version of OSIRIS for Indonesian policy makers in collaboration with its National Council on Climate Change, and with co-authorship from Padjadjaran University and World Resources Institute. We have versions of the model for other countries and are working to enhance the analysis and extend the model to additional countries.

Analysis timely as Indonesia develops its REDD+ strategy

Our analysis, published in this week's Proceedings of National Science, offers valuable information for Indonesia's REDD+ strategy.

Indonesia’s President Susilo Yudhoyono committed in 2009 to reducing his country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26-41% below its “business as usual” levels (the amount of emissions Indonesia expects to hit if no efforts are made to curb emissions) by 2020.  These goals could translate to substantial reductions below current levels, based on the best current projections.

In May 2011, Indonesia and Norway signed a $1 billion agreement to cooperate on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

Currently the Indonesian government is developing its National REDD+ Strategy, and our analysis offers some valuable information as the country decides how to implement REDD+. We’ve already received positive feedback from our analysis – in fact, the National Council on Climate Change in Indonesia published our findings in a joint policy memo and chapter in a book about REDD+.

We look forward to Indonesia’s policy-makers’ using the best knowledge and technology to structure a REDD+ framework that will provide the economic incentives to achieve the country’s enormous potential to fight climate change and protect biodiversity.

You can read more in our full PNAS article,  “Structuring economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation within Indonesia,” our joint press release with Conservation International and at the ORISIS webpage.

Posted in Deforestation, Economics, REDD |: | Leave a comment

Europe’s law to reduce emissions from aviation takes off

By | Bio | Published: January 10, 2012

The first week of 2012 was a busy one for developments in the European Union's law requiring airlines to cut their global warming pollution.

On Jan. 1, Europe’s “Aviation Directive” took effect.  The law holds all flights using EU airports accountable for their pollution and requires the airlines to make modest cuts in their carbon emissions. (Remember that last month, after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood sent a letter to the European Commission saying the U.S. might retaliate against the law, the EU's highest court upheld the law against a challenge by United-Continental and American Airlines and their trade association.)

Obama administration weighs its options

Last week some officials from the Obama administration alluded to retaliatory measures but declined to give specifics on what the U.S. will do next. These unnamed U.S. officials told Reuters, in a Jan. 6 story:

We are contemplating a wide range of possible steps that we could take … we haven’t decided how to move forward on any specific one.

Maybe these officials’ vagueness is because the administration is currently gathering data from U.S. and European airlines to determine whether EU law discriminates against US airlines. But maybe they are starting to realize that the legal case for retaliation is thinner than the snow that didn't blanket most of the US at Christmas.

Despite what Chinese airlines say, the EU law is an emissions cap, not a “tax”

Across the world, Chinese airlines announced on Jan. 4 they wouldn’t comply with the EU law, and promptly watched their stocks slide.

plane taking off from airport. Thanks and credit to

Airlines, as of Jan. 1, are now accountable for their pollution from flights to and from Europe. (Thanks and photo credit to Flickr user chanelcoco872.)

Too bad the Chinese airlines' trade association doesn’t understand the EU law, inaccurately referring to it in a Reuters interview as a “tax,” and missing – to the detriment of its members' shareholders and customers – what the law really is: an opportunity to fly more efficiently and make money.

I want to make this point perfectly clear: the EU law is a cap on emissions, not a tax.

With a typical carbon tax, the more companies pollute, the more they pay. But under a cap-and-trade system like the EU’s that puts limits on pollution, airlines that cut emissions can comply without paying a nickel. In fact, companies that come up with better, deeper, faster ways of cutting pollution can actually make money. The EU’s top court recognizes that airlines participating in the EU law could “even make a profit” by cutting pollution and selling their surplus emissions allowances.  (See paragraphs 136-145, especially 142, of the Court’s decision.)

China's foreign ministry was reportedly more nuanced in its comments about the EU law than the airline trade association.  It didn't threaten non-compliance and it didn't threaten retaliation.  Instead a foreign ministry spokesperson told reporters:

We hope the EU can take careful precautions with a cautious and practical attitude, and regarding those aspects involving China, appropriately discuss and handle this matter.

Airlines are participating in EU law

Despite the discord, airlines have actually been preparing to comply with the EU law for months; they’ve all filed emissions data and applied for the law’s generous free allowances.

And with the start of 2012, the world’s smartest airlines are quietly lining up to participate, not litigate:

While German-based Lufthansa – the world’s second largest long-haul carrier, according to Reuters – has announced it will address the EU law by passing on the costs to its customers, it hasn’t clarified how much or what the money would be used for. Green groups and consumer groups will be watching to see whether and how much they and others like Emirates and Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific raise fares.

With his new focus on holding airlines to be more transparent about the fees and charges they add to fares, Secretary LaHood might want to make sure airlines tell customers how they use environmental surcharges – with airlines ideally limiting the fare increase to the modest true cost of complying with the EU law.  That would be a win for the flying public and the environment.

Posted in Aviation |: | Leave a comment

Major U.S. environmental groups criticize Obama administration’s efforts to undercut EU law to curb aviation emissions

By | Published: December 23, 2011

The CEOs of nine major environmental groups came out in force this week responding to a letter sent by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood to ministers in the European Union in which the Secretaries voiced objection to Europe’s pioneering law to reduce global warming pollution from airplanes.

The CEOs expressed their extreme disappointment with the U.S. objections to the EU law. They noted that “Asking America's allies to back down on strongly supported domestic legislation to reduce global warming pollution from aviation is simply not consistent with the historical U.S. leadership role on either the environment or the rule of law. If ever there was a time for U.S. leadership in both areas, it is here and now.”

International aviation represents a significant and fast-growing source of emissions. And, given nearly fifteen years of inaction by the International Civil Aviation Organization (the United Nations agency for aviation affairs), the EU has enacted a reasonable and effective law to address a portion of the sector’s emissions. The U.S. should be applauding such efforts, not thwarting them.

Earlier this week, Europe’s highest court ruled that the EU aviation directive is fully consistent with international law and relevant bilateral agreements. The high-profile case pit the U.S. airline industry against the EU and leading U.S. environmental groups, who joined European groups in supporting the EU law.

Given the imperative to reduce emissions as quickly, effectively, and efficiently as possible, and in light of the Court’s ruling this week, what we need from the U.S. government is political will, creativity, and a keen eye to the future. Instead, we’re confronted with myopic objections to a reasonable and effective law to reduce emissions. What’s more, we see little indication that the U.S. government is ready to take action either domestically or internationally to reduce emission from aviation.

As the letter to Secretaries Clinton and LaHood states, EDF and other groups are “eager to work with [the U.S. government] on creative approaches that overcome the logjams in ICAO and that capitalize on the innovative power of America’s aviation industry.”

Posted in Aviation |: | 2 Responses