WRI Stories Feed: All

WRI Stories page and block--for blocks, termid=context_get("wri","term")

climate change and global warming must be addressed urgently

Forests, Climate Change and the Challenge of REDD

March 9, 2010

To combat global warming, forests must be part of the solution. How can we make good forest stewardship a reality? 2010 is a crucial year for forests. In March, major donor countries and forest-rich countries will meet in Paris, Nairobi and Manila, each grappling with the same question: how can efforts to reduce deforestation also help tackle climate change? Their decisions, and those following in the next six to twelve months, could channel substantial amounts of money to protect forests. Manish Bapna, Managing Director of the World Resources Institute, answers questions about the current window of opportunity to address both forest loss and climate change, and what is at stake in getting these mechanisms right. Why are forests important in efforts to tackle climate change? Forests are one of the greatest environmental challenges—and opportunities—facing the world in the 21st century. Forests are well known for their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, but when they are destroyed they release CO2 into the air. This helps explain why Indonesia, a developing country with high rates of deforestation, now has one of the highest emissions rates in the world. Forest loss contributes as much as 12-15% to annual greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as the entire global transportation sector. It will be practically impossible to avoid dangerous climate change without addressing this problem. That is why forests must be part of the solution. What is REDD? REDD stands for “reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.” A REDD mechanism would seek to provide incentives for developing countries to make those reductions. Right now, forest areas are often worth more harvested than left standing. At its core, REDD aims to change incentive structures in favor of protecting forests. A REDD mechanism could provide compensation to governments, communities, companies or individuals if they have taken actions to reduce emissions from forest loss below an established reference level. The sustainable management of forests then becomes a smart economic decision, as well as a smart decision for the environment. Although funding towards REDD will likely take many different forms, one option that is often discussed is to link REDD to carbon markets in developed countries. Companies could then meet their emission reduction commitments by channeling funding to REDD in forest-rich countries. Carbon markets would generate significant funding for REDD – at a scale rarely seen before. There is a risk, though. If REDD does not work as intended, its failure could reduce or even eliminate reduction efforts in developed countries. What makes REDD so challenging? In Copenhagen, countries agreed to the “immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus” to tackle emissions from deforestation. What this means in practice, though, has not been entirely clear. The idea of supporting countries to protect their forests sounds simple. But governments have only limited control over many of the drivers of deforestation. There are a number of difficult questions that have yet to be fully answered. How do you ensure that REDD leads to emissions reductions that are “real and additional,” meaning they would not have happened without a REDD program? How do you know that reducing deforestation in one place will not cause increased deforestation in another? This is what is called “leakage.” How do you know that REDD will not just be a temporary fix, but rather will protect forests permanently? How do you ensure that REDD will not adversely impact the rights and livelihoods of the millions of people who live in or around forests, especially in poorly governed states? How do you measure, report and verify emission reductions from forests? This is especially challenging for measuring reductions in forest degradation. These are just a few of the questions that arise, and they do not have easy answers. This helps explain why the possible mechanisms for achieving REDD have aroused such debate. Why is good governance of forests important? Money on its own cannot solve the deforestation challenge. History has proven this point time and time again. Deforestation is as much an issue of poor forest governance – the processes, policies, and laws by which decisions that impact forests are made – as it is an issue of misaligned economic incentives. When you look at the main drivers of deforestation, such as agricultural expansion, logging, and infrastructure development, they are often symptoms of a larger failure of governance. Many forest-rich countries do not have strong enough institutions and processes needed to value and protect forests and people who depend on them. They will not be able to manage their forests until these factors improve. REDD cannot be removed from this context. Without effective governance, money distributed through REDD could lead to some of the perverse outcomes I mentioned before. This issue could be further complicated by carbon markets because of the significant additional funding such markets could unleash. It could lead to a kind of “resource curse,” in which large inflows of funding can actually fuel corruption and bad governance. That’s why any approach to reducing deforestation, including a REDD mechanism, has to promote and support improvements in forest governance if it is to be successful. How do we improve forest governance? We must start with an understanding of what makes for good governance of forests. This is a question that WRI has grappled with over the past two years. We have developed a methodology, called the Governance of Forests Initiative (GFI) indicator framework that can help governments, civil society and other stakeholders assess the strengths and weaknesses of forest governance in their countries. This type of diagnostic can serve as a starting point for reform, uniquely tailored to each country. Going forward, international efforts must focus on supporting developing countries to strengthen forest-related institutions, build participatory processes, and ensure proper social and environmental safeguards are in place. Why is 2010 proving to be such an important year for forests? The stakes are high this year. We are going to see how US climate legislation moves forward and how it incorporates REDD. The European Union will decide whether to include REDD in the next phase of its emissions trading scheme. Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will decide how to ultimately operationalize REDD in a global climate deal. These decisions are going to shape global efforts to protect forests. 2010 is the year in which the momentum to address the interlinked challenges of forest loss and global warming can either lead to real change or fade away.

The World Bank Eskom Support Program

March 8, 2010

South Africa’s plans for a new coal power plant bring up difficult decisions for the World Bank. Please contact Smita Nakhooda (snakhooda@wri.org) or Davida Wood (dwood@wri.org) for further information. The prospect of a $3.75 billion World Bank loan to support the Medupi Supercritical coal plant in South Africa has raised questions about the future of development assistance in a warming world. The coal plant, part of the national South African utility Eskom’s program to expand generation capacity, is expected to provide 4,800 MW of electricity. Construction of the plant has already begun, and contracts for key components have been signed. Yet Eskom’s longer-term electricity expansion program may have problematic implications for environmentally and socially sustainable development in South Africa. There are trade-offs between increasing South Africa’s electricity generation capacity and reducing its greenhouse gas emissions (as laid out in the country’s national Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios) that must be reconciled. Electricity planning processes to date, however, have been neither transparent nor inclusive.1 The assumptions that coal is the most viable long-term option for South Africa need to be revisited through open, fact based debate on all available energy options. An Urgent Need for Energy South Africa has been in the middle of an electricity crisis since 2008: demand significantly exceeds supply, in a marked turn of events for a country that was once awash in cheap electricity. Major investments in new electricity generation have not been made since the 1980s. The Medupi coal plant for which World Bank funding is sought was originally just one of more than five large scale coal plants that Eskom proposed to build as part of a large capacity expansion program to stop the gap. Eskom and the Department of Energy (DoE) proposed the core elements of this build program in a draft 20-year Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for the electricity sector in September 2009. At the end of last year, the government approved an interim five year IRP plan, pending consultations on a longer term plan for the sector, recognizing the need to address the longer term implications of electricity development.2 Questioning Conventional Assumptions The full costs and benefits of the options for meeting near and long term energy needs must be considered more carefully than in the past. Eskom’s projections of 80,000 MW of future demand for electricity by 2028 are debatable. Historically, electricity planners –and Eskom in particular– have been overly optimistic about these projections to justify new investments in infrastructure.3 Financing a massive capital expansion program is certainly not cheap in the immediate term: after Eskom originally requested a 45% per year increase in the price of electricity over three years, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa allowed it an increase of approximately 25% per year between 2010 and 2013.4 All base-load electricity options pose risks, and may have hidden costs. The draft IRP emphasized these risks for low carbon options such as renewable energy, without acknowledging the risks of continued dependence on coal fired power.5 There is limited transparency about the terms on which Eskom contracts coal, and the costs of coal have been escalating.6 Interruptions in coal supply caused by transport failures and weather events have shown that coal plants are also not always reliable.7 In addition, the operation of large coal fired power plants is enormously water intensive in a country where water scarcity is a pressing environmental challenge. Acid drainage from mining already poisons many of the country’s water systems, and restoring water ecosystems is costly.8 When the implications of climate change are also factored in, the viability of conventional coal in the long term looks far less certain. While the importance of reliable electricity supplies to support economic development and reduce poverty has been central to the rationale for the Eskom program, there has been little emphasis to date on how to meet the enduring challenge of extending access to electricity to the 30% of South Africans who still lack it. Difficult Decisions for the World Bank A broad based coalition of local civil society groups within South Africa, and global NGOs are voicing their opposition to the World Bank’s support for the Medupi power plant. They have called in particular on the US government, the largest shareholder of the World Bank, to withhold support for the project, referencing the government’s new policies which suggest that coal should only be supported as an option of last resort. The role of the World Bank in the energy sector has been complex and controversial. It has a history of financing mega-infrastructure projects that raise significant environmental and social risks, and supporting private sector oriented reforms that have delivered limited social or environmental benefits.9 Attention to environmental considerations in its energy sector lending, particularly climate change, has been uneven. At the same time, the Bank is interested in financing climate change activities in developing countries, and positioning itself as a lead low carbon growth support agency. The US $6.3billion Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) that it administers on behalf of the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) represent a pilot effort to explore this space. Last year, the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) of the CIFs committed US$500 million to support renewable energy and energy efficiency in South Africa. The concentrating solar thermal plant and the wind farm included in the 2009 electricity IRP will be largely financed by the MDBs. These will be the first large-scale renewable energy facilities to come onto South Africa’s grid. The World Bank also has supported ongoing technical assistance efforts to support renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, and is presently financing the South Africa’s DoE to develop a white paper that will shape future policy on renewable energy. A Need for Transparency and Debate The underlying problem is that there has been little transparency or public debate of the assumptions that underpin long term plans for how to meet energy needs within South Africa. While the draft IRP developed by Eskom and DoE is referenced extensively in the report of the World Bank expert panel, it has never been officially publicly disclosed in South Africa, though it was leaked to the media earlier this year.10 A bigger problem is that the electricity IRP should be informed by an Integrated Energy Plan that sets a macro framework for the entire energy sector in South Africa. Public participation in the development of the Energy Plan is required in the 2008 National Energy Act. So far, no Integrated Energy Plan has been developed. Transparency and public participation are especially crucial when such long term investments that affect public interests are being made, and consumers and taxpayers pay the bills. The realities of climate change require the World Bank to support countries to seriously consider every possible alternative to carbon intensive coal power as they make decide how to meet their energy needs. In the context of the Eskom Support Program, the World Bank must recognize the limitations of the decision-making processes to date, and support improvements in governance. Policy and regulatory frameworks that better manage the environmental and social externalities of conventional energy technologies are needed. The capacity of institutions to weigh the options, and implement effective low carbon programs must be supported. Creative approaches to enhance technical capacity as well as accountability for impact are also necessary. If the World Bank is to support developing countries to transition to a sustainable energy future, and to be a credible actor in channeling climate fi...

New Mapping Website Tracks Changes and Threats to Southern U.S. Forests

March 3, 2010

SeeSouthernForests.org provides a new way to learn about – and protect – the forests of the southern United States. Changes over a large area are often hard to see. This can be especially true when it comes to forests – incremental forest loss often goes unnoticed until it is too late. A new website and report by the World Resources Institute seek to change this and allow people to visualize the trends and drivers of change affecting southern forests. The southern forests of the United States, stretching across 13 states, from Texas to Virginia and from Kentucky to Florida, are incredibly productive. They yield 18 percent of the world’s pulpwood for paper and 7 percent of its industrial timber while comprising just two percent of the world’s forest area. These forests also provide a number of other critical ecosystem services, such as water filtration, erosion control, and climate regulation by sequestering carbon, not to mention the myriad opportunities they provide for people to hike, hunt, camp, and enjoy natural beauty.

seesouthernforests.org

However, these forests are increasingly under pressure. SeeSouthernForests.org provides, for the first time, time series satellite maps dating back 30 years that reveal trends and changes in southern forests. The website also offers a rich trove of environmental data that can be overlaid on current and historical satellite images to give a clearer picture of what is happening to southern forests. For example, the maps below show the suburbanization trends of Atlanta (the city on the right) and Birmingham (on the left), from 1990 to 2010 (projected). The gray areas are urban and the yellow are suburban.

1990

2010

Other interesting spatial datasets featured on the website include: forest cover gain and loss from 1992-2001, forest ownership, protected area boundaries, forest composition, climate change impacts, a pest and pathogen risk map, and real-time wildfire data. According to Craig Hanson, Director of WRI’s People and Ecosystems Program and a co-author of the report, “This kind of visual information can empower more people to better understand the forces of change in southern forests, and hopefully better protect or sustainably manage them in the future.” The project, made possible by Toyota, will also look at innovative financial incentives that can help preserve both the economic and the ecological benefits of southern forests. Unlike other forests in the United States, the majority of forests in the South (87%) are privately owned, and of this, two-thirds is owned by individuals and families. Many of these private landowners face pressure to subdivide their land and sell for commercial or residential development. In the coming year, WRI will work to identify a portfolio of incentives, markets and practices that could encourage private landowners to retain their forests and manage them sustainably. The forests of America’s so-called “Woodbasket” are an integral part of the southern economy, and their continued health and vigor has never been more important. How we respond to these drivers of change will shape the future of southern forests, communities, and the economy.

NEWS RELEASE: Risks to Southern U.S. Forests Highlighted on New Online Mappin...

March 3, 2010

The video news release can be viewed here and at the bottom of this page. For state and city information, please see below. A new online system that maps a rich trove of environmental data of southern U.S. forests onto satellite images from the past 35 years was launched today by the World Resources Institute (WRI). The system, located at SeeSouthernForests.org, highlights risks to these forests such as pest and pathogen outbreaks, active wildfires, potential climate change impacts, and forest conversion to suburban development – the leading cause of southern U.S. forest loss in recent decades. The system also maps other features such as the region’s protected areas and forest ownership.

Extent of Southern Forests, by County (Early 2000s)

“SeeSouthernForests.org is a first-of-its-kind one-stop shop for map-based information about southern forests,” said Craig Hanson, director of WRI’s People & Ecosystems Program. “We have pulled together the power of GoogleEarth, Microsoft’s Bing Maps, NASA satellite images, ESRI technology, and a wide variety of forest data to raise awareness about the benefits of southern forests and the challenges they face.” The system is the first step in a multiyear WRI project, Southern Forests for the Future, aimed at helping landowners, conservation organizations, and others ensure the ability of these forests to continue providing a range of benefits – called “ecosystem services” – to people. “At a time when the world is concerned about climate change, freshwater availability, the economy and jobs, southern forests are part of the answer,” said Jonathan Lash, president of WRI. “The pattern of forest cover loss in this region has been acres here and acres there. Continuous but dispersed change often goes unnoticed. This new online system addresses that.” Stretching from Texas to Virginia and from Kentucky to Florida, the southern U.S. forests are among the world’s most biologically diverse temperate forests. Though they comprise just two percent of the planet’s forest cover, they underpin hundreds of thousands of jobs and produce more pulp for paper by volume than any single nation – other than the entire United States. In addition, they supply other ecosystem services, such as watershed protection, recreation, and carbon storage. “A lot of focus in global climate change discussions to date has been on tropical rainforests,” said Susan Minnemeyer, a WRI senior associate. “But U.S. forests are important too. When domestic forest acreage declines, the nation’s carbon sink shrinks.” The future of these forests mostly rests in the hands of private landowners. Approximately 27 percent of southern forest acreage is held by companies and financial institutions while another 60 percent is owned by individuals and families. But three-quarters of these family forests are owned by people 55 years of age and older. A generational transfer is on the horizon. “In many ways, the next 20 years will shape the fate of southern forests,” said Todd Gartner, manager of Conservation Incentives at the American Forest Foundation. “Surveys indicate that most families want to pass their forests on to the next generation. However, with increasing development pressure, market-based incentives are needed to ensure that private forests remain as forests.” WRI’s new online mapping system can help forest landowners in the South see the history of their forests through satellite images and better understand the forces of change affecting their properties. It also showcases examples of successful approaches for owners who want to retain their forests. “SeeSouthernForests.org will be really helpful when engaging a community and working with local landowners regarding forest conservation and sustainable management,” said Tom Bancroft, chief scientist at the Audubon Society. “If a picture is worth a thousand words, satellite images and a good map are worth 10,000.” “We hope the site will raise awareness about the economic and environmental benefits of southern forests and put important information at people’s fingertips,” said Patricia Pineda of Toyota, which is sponsoring WRI’s work as part of the company’s commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. “We were thrilled that Toyota and WRI committed to launch SeeSouthernForests.org at the Clinton Global Initiative’s Annual Meeting last year,” said Robert S. Harrison, CEO of the Clinton Global Initiative. “We hope this site will empower more and more people to appreciate southern forests and the benefits they provide to people in the region and beyond.” Alabama
Satellite Images of Forest Change Landowner Contact:
Gail and Philip Jones 334.222.3138 Arkansas
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Gary Churchill 479-264-8080 Florida
Satellite Images of Forest Change Landowner Contact:
Jon Gould, Washington County, Florida, (205) 991-6918 - work, (850) 535-2461 - home, (205) 296-4923 - cell Georgia
Satellite Images of Forest Change Landowner Contact: Earl & Wanda Barrs 478-934-4728 Kentucky
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Greg Kuhns 334.804.1151 Louisiana
Satellite Images of Forest Change Mississippi
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Judd Brooke Hancock County, Mississippi (228) 518-1259 North Carolina
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Jim Gray Dunn, North Carolina (910) 891-7376 (cell) Oklahoma
Satellite Images of Forest Change South Carolina
Satellite Images of Forest Change
Landowner Contact: Jeff Dennis Colleton County, South Carolina (843) 509-8809 Tennessee
Satellite Images of Forest Change Texas
Satellite Images of Forest Change Virginia
Satellite Images of Forest Change Landowner Contact: Jim Gray (910) 891-7376 (cell)

Brazil's Global Warming Agenda

March 1, 2010

Brazil has turned its international climate commitments into national law, but that’s only the beginning. Since Copenhagen, over fifty countries have pledged greenhouse gas reduction targets to the UNFCCC. Brazil has gone a step further and turned its commitment into national law. This is a positive development, but if the reduction target is to be met, Brazilian lawmakers will need to provide further legislative details and make key decisions regarding the country’s newly-found oil reserves. Brazil’s National Climate Change Policy President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC) just days after the closure of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. This is a crucial part of upholding Brazil’s international commitment.

President Lula da Silva, photo credit: World Economic Forum

The PNMC is far-reaching and ambitious, addressing how Brazil will tackle its current and future greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Beyond providing an explanation of thirty-two emissions reducing activities currently being implemented in Brazil – such as the expansion of its hydroelectric power-generation capacity and the continuation of the National Ethanol Program – the PNMC also lists additional activities in the conception phase. While the plan is rather comprehensive in its economy-wide coverage, many of the proposed activities are in an early stage of development, recommended rather than mandatory, or lacking specific targets or implementation measures. New Legislation Fills in Many Gaps The PNMC became national policy through Lula’s signing of Brazilian law 12.187, which also establishes a national reduction target and discusses the process to move the PNMC towards implementation. Most notably, law 12.187 officially adopts Brazil’s voluntary national greenhouse gas reduction target of between 36.1% and 38.9% of projected emissions by 2020. This in itself is a vital step for Brazil that many doubted possible. “A year ago, we didn’t have a climate plan or emissions goals, even though Brazil is the fifth or sixth largest emitter,” said Carlos Minc, Brazil’s Minister of Environment. The new law also requires Brazil’s mitigation actions to be quantifiable and verifiable, meaning that international officials will be able to review and confirm whether or not emissions reductions have truly taken place. This will lay to rest doubts raised in the U.S. and elsewhere that developing countries might not allow their reductions to be subject to outside verification. Although it does not specifically address all key issues, law 12.187 fills in many gaps. It provides more details on how Brazil will finance its climate change policies. It also estimates the necessary emissions reductions per sector, and states that an executive decree will further specify reduction targets in the future. These targets will be based on the second Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, which will be finalized this year. The Presidential Veto and Brazil’s Oil Reserves President Lula signed the law legally sanctioning the PNMC, but with an important veto. Lula rejected language calling for a “gradual abandonment” of the use of fossil fuels after pressure from the Ministry of Mines and Energy. The original text would have made it difficult for Brazil’s future economic growth to depend on energy that, while predominantly hydroelectric today, is increasingly generated from fossil fuels.

Whether and how Brazil uses oil money to finance sustainable development and low-carbon growth will be a key issue to watch in coming months.

With this veto Lula avoided, at least for the time being, contradictory issues playing out between Brazil’s climate concerns and the planned extraction of its recently discovered vast offshore deep-water oil reserves. The tensions are clear in a recent bill calling for the creation of social fund, financed by Brazil’s projected oil revenues, to support poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability programs, among other initiatives. Whether and how Brazil chooses to use oil money to finance sustainable development and low-carbon growth will be a key issue to watch in coming months. The Meaning of a “Voluntary Target” Although Brazil has generally been praised for passing the PNMC, a good deal of speculation exists regarding what a legislated voluntary target means. Minister of the Environment Minc told Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo that the target will be met since it has been passed into law. “In my head, the word ‘voluntary’ does not mean that the commitment is not mandatory, just that the motivation is independent,” said Minc. If its climate change commitment is to ultimately be taken seriously, Brazil will need to provide further details on how it will implement and enforce a law with a voluntary target. The PNMC and International Negotiations: What’s Next? At the recent international climate talks in Copenhagen, Brazil’s strong PNMC proposal and reduction target gave the country a powerful presence. Brazil eventually drafted an accord with the U.S., China, India and South Africa to commit to internationally verified emissions cuts. By enacting the PNMC immediately after the international talks, Brazil showed its serious dedication to combating climate change. Environment ministers from the BASIC countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – held their first meeting on January 25th to further develop details of the Copenhagen Accord. The meeting initiated the establishment of a fund to spur technology transfer to address global warming in poor countries. Future meetings, which will be held every three months, will work towards defining their voluntary emission reduction pledges. BASIC countries “have the obligation to be the first to submit climate action plans,” said South Africa’s environment minister, Buyelwa Sonjica. Just like every country, Brazil must navigate some complicated domestic issues to implement its Climate Change Plan. How it approaches these challenges will determine whether Brazil can continue to be a leader in international climate action.

MEDIA ADVISORY: WRI to Brief Journalists on Risks to Southern Forests

February 26, 2010

WHAT: The World Resources Institute (WRI) will brief journalists on critical changes happening to forests in Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. Forest and geographic information system (GIS) experts will walk reporters through a new online environmental database about southern U.S. forests overlaid on satellite images from the past 35 years. The database maps pest and pathogen outbreaks, active wildfires, potential climate change impacts, and forest conversion to suburban development – the leading cause of southern U.S. forest loss in recent decades. The system also maps other features such as the region’s protected areas and forest ownership. Journalists will receive a quick tutorial on how best to use the portal, receive copies of an accompanying report, and be provided with new analysis on this major North American ecosystem. We will be joined by Todd Gartner of the American Forest Foundation (AFF), who will explain why the future of these forests rests in the hands of private landowners. WHEN: Wednesday, March 3, 2010
9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m
(Continental breakfast will be served) WHERE:
World Resources Institute
10 G Street NE Suite 800, Washington, DC 20002
(Metro: Red Line to Union Station) Call-in Details:
1-800-610-4500 (toll free in USA and Canada)
1-702-851-3339 (for callers outside USA and Canada)
Participant Access Code: 4697221 Live Webcast: http://www.wri.org/news/webcasts For journalists on the phone or watching the Webcast, please send questions for the Q-and-A by e-mail to pmackie@wri.org WHO:
Janet Ranganathan, vice president for science and research, WRI
Craig Hanson, director of People and Ecosystems Program, WRI
Todd Gartner, manager of Conservation Incentives, AFF RSVP: Jessica Forres, WRI media officer, +1(202) 729-7736, jforres@wri.org

MEDIA ADVISORY: Mumbai's First "Car Free Day" to be Co-Sponsored by WRI's EMBARQ

February 18, 2010

WHAT: Residents, celebrities, cyclists, and government officials will take part in the first-ever Mumbai Car Free Day this Sunday in India. It’s part of a global movement to encourage motorists to enjoy physical activity and alternate forms of transportation, such as walking and cycling, in a safe, non-motorized, fuel-free environment. Other planned activities include yoga, cricket, dancing, skating, kite flying and musical performances. The event is modeled after initiatives like Bogotá’s Ciclovia and New York City’s Summer Streets. Member of Parliament Priya Dutt; Baba Siddique, a member of the legislative assembly; and members of the Bangalore Cycling Club are slated to attend. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and the Awaaz Foundation will conduct air and noise pollution studies before and after the event. WHEN: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. WHERE: Carter Road, Bandra-Khar, Mumbai (from Café Coffee Day to Otter’s Club) WHY: The event is organized by the Khar-Bandra-Santa Cruz (KBS) Foundation. EMBARQ and its Mumbai-based partner, the Centre for Sustainable Transport in India, helped organize the event and will have booths, as will other corporate and non-profit partners. Reporters interested in interviewing a transport expert at the event may contact Madhav Pai, technical director at CST-India, at +(91) 9987548808 or mpai@wri.org. For more general information about EMBARQ’s work in India, please contact Erica Schlaikjer, EMBARQ’s media relations coordinator, at +1(202) 729-7722 or eschlaikjer@wri.org. RSVP: Find more details at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mumbai-Car-Free-Day/248020591215

Summary of Climate Finance Pledges Put Forward by Developed Countries

February 18, 2010

WRI’s preliminary analysis on countries’ immediate and long term climate finance pledges announced thus far. Note: This analysis was updated on March 4, 2010. Download the Most Recent Version (PDF, 4 pages, 129 Kb) Previous Versions of this Analysis February 18, 2010 (PDF, 4 pages, 555 Kb) To “fast start” the Copenhagen Accord, developed countries committed, collectively, “to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.” Developed countries also agreed to a goal of jointly mobilizing, over the longer term an additional “100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.” These commitments were key to reaching an agreement in Copenhagen and to maintaining momentum thereafter. Once implemented, these resources will help the poorest and most vulnerable countries mitigate (reduce) their greenhouse gas emissions, and adapt and cope with the effects of climate change. Though the commitments are clear, their delivery is uncertain. WRI has carried out a preliminary analysis based on available information on countries’ immediate and long term pledges announced thus far. The accompanying table sets out both the amounts and the mechanisms by which funding would be delivered. WRI has also looked at whether these pledges will provide “new and additional”1 funds compared to what developed countries already provide through official development assistance. This table will be continuously updated as more information becomes available. Download the Table (PDF, 4 pages, 129 Kb)

The “new and additional” column includes information on the additionality of countries’ financial pledges. However, the information provided by contributing countries thus far is of varying nature and insufficient to determine additionality. While it is important to use a common baseline to assess additionality, there is currently no agreement among countries on what this baseline should be and the pledges listed in this table reflect this diversity. (1) Some countries chose to characterize their pledge as an increase in relation to previous levels of climate finance (2) Others explain how the finance provided relates to development assistance and ODA levels or pledges. See Counting the Cash: Elements of a Framework for the Measurement, Reporting and Verification of Climate Finance for proposed methods. ↩

Promoting Development, Protecting Environment

February 17, 2010

The World Bank and other Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are revising their environmental strategies for development planning. As they do so, they can and should integrate nature’s ecosystem services into their planning and decisions, says a new WRI report. Janet Ranganathan, Vice President of Science and Research at the World Resources Institute and lead author of Banking on Natures Assets explains how economic development and a healthy environment can co-exist. Q: What are ecosystem services? Ecosystem services are the benefits that nature provides to people. Food, freshwater, timber and cotton for clothes are some of the most familiar services. But there are other types of services that we often take for granted, for example the ability of forests to sequester carbon and mitigate climate change and the way in which wetlands filter and purify water.

The current mindset of society is to put economic development and nature in separate boxes, separate government agencies and separate academic disciplines.

We all depend on ecosystem services for our well-being, and nature’s health increasingly depends on humanity. Every development or investment decision made around the world both depends on and has an impact on nature somewhere, or somehow. Over the past century, our relationship with nature has been increasingly destructive — degrading two thirds of ecosystem services worldwide. Our report, Banking on Nature’s Assets, explains that it doesn’t have to be that way. Q: How can focusing on ecosystem services strengthen development? Development and ecosystem services are intertwined. We can’t really deal with one without dealing with the other. However, the current mindset of society is to put economic development and nature in separate boxes, separate government agencies and separate academic disciplines. We think that protecting the environment is an impediment to development. We think it’s a cost. But when we consider the environment in terms of ecosystem services, that mindset can change. We can instead see and value the environment as a series of assets or benefits that development in fact depends upon. By treating ecosystems as assets that generate benefits, development agencies can help developing countries grow economically while sustaining the environment and the livelihoods of those people who depend on ecosystems. Q: How do development agencies currently treat ecosystem services? Traditionally, development agencies and development planners focus on single ecosystem services, particularly those that can be marketed, such as freshwater, timber, crops and fish. They overlook ecosystem services that regulate important natural processes such as climate, disease, erosion, water flows, and pollination, as well as protection from natural hazards.

Shrimp Farms in Thailand.<br />
<em>Photo credit: flickr/Ben Harris-Roxa</em>

Shrimp Farms in Thailand.
Photo credit: flickr/Ben Harris-Roxa

For example, in the 1980’s the World Bank saw aquaculture as a great opportunity for economic development in Latin American and Southeast Asia. With the Bank’s support, Thailand’s government cleared the mangroves surrounding fishing communities and replaced them with shrimp aquaculture farms. By 2007, Thailand was exporting seven times more frozen shrimp than 20 years before. While it was a very beneficial strategy for a select group of shrimp farmers, no one considered the less obvious services previously provided by the mangroves—coastal protection during high tides, storms and hurricanes, and spawning grounds for fish that supported the livelihoods of local communities. As a result, the development of aquaculture farms left local communities vulnerable to increased storm damage, depleted offshore fisheries, water pollution and mosquito infestations. Q: Don’t MDBs already consider ecosystems services through safeguards? In the past, cost benefit analysis and safeguards such as impact assessment have not usually incorporated the full range of ecosystem services and how changes to ecosystem services in turn affect those people dependent on those services. The shrimp aquaculture example also illustrates how a development strategy can inadvertently create distributional effects when important ecosystem services are overlooked. The shrimp farm benefits primarily accrued to the few shrimp farmers and to those in export markets such as the U.S. and Europe who enjoyed “cheap” shrimp. In contrast, poor coastal communities who depended on the former mangroves for spawning grounds and for storm protection lost out. By systematically looking at the full range of ecosystem services that their strategies depend upon and impact, development planners can minimize and better manage ecosystem services trade-offs and increase the chances of development outcomes that are both sustainable and equitable.

Comparing the Economic and Social Value of Mangroves and Shrimp Farms Q: How can Banking on Nature’s Assets help MDB’s? Banking on Nature’s Assets identifies entry points for mainstreaming ecosystem services into MDB’s core operations. These range from country assistance strategies and environmental analysis to sector work and development policy loans. The report also presents a range of tools and policy options that MDBs can use to help country partners sustain their precious capital. It concludes with recommendations for scaling up the use of an ecosystem service approach in MDB’s core operations. Q: What tools can development planners use to make trade-offs among multiple ecosystem services? These tools and policies are becoming available. For example, a comprehensive list of ecosystem services is the most basic tool in moving from an approach that focuses on a single service to one that focuses on the trade-offs among multiple services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment used a list and a refined version is available on WRI’s website. Other tools provide frameworks to prioritize services for attention and to assess the condition and trends of those selected for attention. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services are also important tools. WRI has worked with Uganda to produce maps that overlay geo-referenced information on population and household expenses with spatial data on ecosystem services. It can now flag areas to introduce strategies that benefit both wetlands and the people depending on the services these wetlands provide. Uganda has used valuation in helping make decisions. For example, a study of the Nakivubo wetland showed that conversion of wetlands was driving up the costs of providing fresh water to 2 million residents in Kampala, Uganda. As a result, decision makers decided not to drain it for housing and industry but to make it part of the city’s greenbelt. Q: What about policies that sustain ecosystem services? Banking on Nature’s Assets explains how to determine the most critical ecosystem services in a particular location and then select the most effective policies for sustaining them depending on a country’s capacity and existing laws and policies. MDBs are already playing an important role in introducing some policies such as payments of ecosystems services. In the future, they can help countries develop policies that transform the ways in which landowners manage their land. Instead of income only from a single service like providing timber, for example, policies can encourage landowners to earn income from ecotourism, producing Forest Stewardship Council-certified timber, sequestering carbon to protect the climate, or maintaining a wetland’s filtration and flood prevention capacity.

WRI Summary of the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act

February 17, 2010

This summary provides a concise overview of S. 2877, the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act (herein referred to as CLEARA), as introduced by Senators Cantwell and Collins on December 11, 2009. Note: Small revisions were made to clarify certain aspects of the fossil fuel carbon cap targets and the price ceiling contained in the CLEAR act. Download the Complete Summary (PDF, 4 pages, 146 Kb) (includes footnotes and references) CLEARA would establish a program to limit the sale of carbon contained in all fossil fuels sold in the United States. Revenue generated from the program is primarily distributed to eligible U.S. citizens through dividend payments with some revenue set aside for other purposes. This summary follows the structure of the bill except where we believe it facilitates understanding by grouping related components together. For more information on specific components of CLEARA, please refer to the actual legislative language as referenced by section and page number in this document.1 Global Warming Pollution Reduction Targets and Timetables2 Goals and Caps. CLEARA sets non-binding economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals (Sec. 3, pg. 7) and a mandatory annual cap on the quantity of fossil fuel carbon that may be sold into commerce in the United States (Sec. 4, pg. 8); Goals: CLEARA requires the president to set non-binding economy-wide GHG emissions reduction goals and instructs the president to meet these goals through a combination of the fossil fuel carbon cap and expenditures from a fund created by CLEARA, the “Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund” (or CERT, defined and explained below) which is subject to annual appropriations by Congress. The goals are: 2020: 20 percent below 2005 (~7 percent below 1990) 2025: 25 percent below 2005 (~12 percent below 1990) 2030: 42 percent below 2005 (~33 percent below 1990) 2050: 83 percent below 2005 (~80 percent below 1990) Caps: CLEARA requires the secretary of the Treasury to set a mandatory limit on the sale of fossil fuel carbon on the following schedule indexed to 2012 emissions levels (as projected in 2011; reductions relative to 2005 and 1990 levels are contingent on the actual level of the fossil fuel carbon cap in 2012): 2012: 0 percent below 2012 2020: 5 percent below 2012 2030: 29 percent below 2012 2050: 82 percent below 2012 Adjustments to the fossil fuel carbon cap. The president may increase or decrease the number of carbon shares3 available for auction if he/she submits to Congress a notification of the modification and Congress passes a joint resolution approving the modification within 30 days (Sec. 4(a)(2)(C), pg. 10). The president may submit a notification modification to the cap for the following reasons: Changes in climate science To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system Any international obligations of the United States To preserve the international competitiveness of the United States To account for permanently sequestered carbon To provide a sufficient price signal to spur private investment in clean energy research, development and deployment If annual appropriations from Congress are insufficient to meet standards in Sec. 3 Point of Regulation, Emissions Reporting and Coverage Covered gases: Carbon contained in fossil fuels that ultimately will be combusted and emitted into the atmosphere as CO2 (Sec. 2(8), pg. 3). Mandatory reporting: Emissions reporting is not referred to in this legislation. Point of regulation: A completely upstream approach is used with all entities covered at the start of the program in 2012. All first-sellers of fossil fuel carbon into the U.S. economy are required to hold allowances for all fossil fuel carbon sold (Sec. 4(a)(1)(B), pg. 9). The limitation covers approximately 81 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2005. Allowance Value Distribution Distribution of Value: 100 percent of all allowances are auctioned to regulated entities. Auction proceeds are divided as follows: 75 percent of proceeds are deposited in the Carbon Refund Trust Fund (Sec. 4(f)(2), pg. 28) 25 percent of proceeds are deposited in the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund (Sec. 6(b)(1)(A), pg. 33) Auction procedure: Only regulated entities may participate in auctions. Auctions are initially held monthly though the secretary of the Treasury may change the frequency under certain circumstances (Sec. 4(b), pg. 20). Expenditures from the Funds: Amounts in the Carbon Refund Trust Fund are available for the purpose of paying energy security dividends (Sec. 4(f)(3), pg. 28) (See Assistance During the Transition to a Low Carbon Economy section below), Amounts in the CERT Fund could be available, subject to budget authority and annual congressional appropriations, for a range of purposes (Sec. 6(c)(1), pg. 33-37). There is no guaranteed amount of spending for any particular purpose. Purposes eligible for funding include (See Assistance During the Transition to a Low Carbon Economy and Clean Energy, Efficiency and Supplemental Greenhouse Gas Reductions sections below): Worker, community and business transition assistance, Addressing competitiveness impacts on energy-intensive industries, and Supporting clean energy, efficiency and supplemental GHG emissions reductions Clean Energy, Efficiency and Supplemental Greenhouse Gas Reductions CERT Fund: CLEARA establishes a trust fund in the U.S. Treasury called the “Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund,” Subject to annual appropriations from Congress, the president is given general discretion to request from Congress the use of CERT Funds to support programs and initiatives that provide incentives, loans and grants to (Sec. 6, pgs. 33 – 37): Invest in clean energy and fuels research, development and deployment activities Fund efficiency projects, including weatherization for low-income and public buildings Support residential fuel switching Provide matching grants for energy efficiency consumer loan recipients Fund offset-like domestic and international projects that verifiably reduce, avoid or sequester GHG emissions through forestry and other land use practices Curtail emissions of non-fossil fuel GHGs, black carbon and other emissions that affect the climate Efficiency Consumer Loan Program: The secretary of the Treasury would establish a program for any qualifying individual to borrow against any future dividend (see Assistance During the Transition to a Low Carbon Economy section below) to invest in energy efficiency or other clean energy technologies that would reduce the individual’s energy bills and reduce GHG emissions (Sec. 5, pg. 31). Reimbursement for Sequestered Carbon: In addition to the aggregate annual carbon shares limit, the secretary of Treasury is required to issue carbon shares for fossil fuel carbon that is: Verifiably sequestered in a carbon capture and storage facility Re-injected into an oil-and-gas reinjection project, or Embedded in manufactured products (Sec. 4(c), pg. 25) Voluntary Carbon Reductions: The secretary of the Treasury is required to reduce the aggregate annual carbon shares limit by an amount equal to the total quantity of all verifiable carbon reductions attributable solely to voluntary emissions reductions efforts (Sec. 4(d), pg. 26). Cost Containment Trading: Regulated entities and certain other recipients of allowances may only conduct allowances transactions on a dedicated public exchange. No other entities may conduct such transactions (Sec. 4(b)(7()A), pg. 23). Banking and Borrowing: Banking: All allowances except safety-valve allowances may be used for compliance as much as ten years after the initial date of issuance (Sec. 4(b)(5), pg. 22). Borrowing: Borrowing is not expressly permitted; however, compliance periods may last up to two years allowing entities flexibility to sell fossil fuel carbon without holding allowances, in effect a form of borrowing ...