Reaching a compromise at the Kyoto 2 Conference in Copenhagen on an agreement that will effectively address climate change in a manner that is sustainable, relatively equitable, and financially feasible will be extremely challenging. In the Bringing Copenhagen Climate Change to a Conclusion report, the authors elaborated on many potential problems for the upcoming conference that were not addressed in the Bali Cop13 Roadmap. However, the authors did not sufficiently address and critique the current understand of and financial provisions for conservation.
There is a need for establishing stronger binding commitments to land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) issues within the Copenhagen conference rather than the vague Notes of importance, timid Requests for monitoring, voluntary Invitations to action, Acknowledgments, Affirmations, and other verbose and wimpy sentiments from pages 8-10 of the Bali Roadmap. LULUCF issues (particularly deforestation) are playing an enormous role in releasing green house gas emissions relative to many other sources (see here for GHG Emissions Diagram). The current Kyoto Protocol agreements are politely sidestepping these issues with impotent and inefficient incentives that encourage poor environmental practices, as is suggested in the Climate Challenge: Money on Trees documentary.
LULUCF issues (particularly deforestation) are playing an enormous role in releasing green house gas emissions relative to many other sources (see here for GHG Emissions Diagram). The current Kyoto Protocol agreements are politely sidestepping these issues with impotent and inefficient incentives that encourage poor environmental practices, as is suggested in the Climate Change REDD documentary.
There is a financial incentive for indigenous people to destroy existing primary and secondary forests and replace them with monocultural plantations, because they will not only receive carbon offset payments, but they will also make money from harvesting the biomass.
This is not a sustainable trend. These tree plantations are often ecologically destructive as was described in Is Mother Earth a Cancer Patient? There is potential for incentivizing conservation. But, even if the Kyoto Protocol provides effective incentives there will need to be political paradigm shifts among local, regional, and national bodies as well in order for conservation programs to be effective as was described in the Brazil eyes Sugar Cane Ban. Additionally, defining LULUCF issues under the second pillar of adaptation mechanisms is too narrow a definition for such expansive problem. Conserving ecosystems, especially forests, are not just adaptive, but need to be viewed as important part of the mitigation pillar. There is potential for cooperation between developed and developing countries to work together on conservation programs like REDD programs that will not only sequester green house gases, but also contribute to preserving numerous threatened ecosystems (if they are properly managed, monitored, and organized). However, for programs to be successful there needs to be a larger percentage of the climate change budget to be diverted to these activities. According to the Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy Report, there is disproportionately small amount of funds diverted to the Adaptation fund relative to other areas. In order for conservation project to receive more funds it needs to be included in other parts of the Kyoto Protocol. It is potentially economically feasible for large amounts of carbon to be sequestered in many third world nations with the definitive financial and legislative support from developed countries (refer to the Potential Carbon Mitigation and Income in Developing Countries from Changes in Use and Management of Agricultural and Forest Lands report for more details. It should not only be part of the second pillar of adaptation, because this is too narrow a definition for such an enormous systemic problem. Conserving ecosystems, especially forests, is not just adaptive, but needs to be viewed as important preventive mitigation tool. Ultimately, the Bali Roadmap and the Bringing Copenhagen Climate Change to a Conclusion report both needed to give more attention to the issue of conservation. Hopefully, there will be a paradigm shift from a economically and techno-centered lens to also incorporate an ecological lens for parties at the Kyoto 2 Conference, so that there will be more provisions for this worthwhile and underappreciated cause.
Tags: Bali Roadmap, Clean Development Mechanism, LULUCF, Philip Rothrock
