FOCUS

This analysis examines the possibilities for forest preservation and forest generation and regeneration in the overall context of evolving international policy negotiations and strategies for climate change mitigation through the Clean Development Mechanism. We are basing this analysis on several assumptions:

ß That global warming is occurring and is a potential threat to humanity and the ecosystem.

ß That climate change is at least in part due to human causes

ß That the quantified emissions limitations and reductions obligations are adequate to address the problem.

ß That the overall design of the Kyoto Protocol is adequate (with the exceptions of elements which are directly related to the Clean Development Mechanism and its functioning)

ß That other flexibility mechanisms (emissions trading, bubbles, and joint implementation) are non-negotiable

While all of the above elements are perpetually questioned and criticized -- casting doubts upon not only the elements of the responses outlined in the Protocol, but also the fundamental problem itself -- for the purposes of this analysis we will control those elements in order to adequately address the issues directly related to the Clean Development Mechanism and land use changes and forestry.

 

BUILDING ON JOINT IMPLEMENTATION

Joint Implementation, first proposed by Norway and Germany in 1991 and later included in the UNFCCC at Rio in 1992 as an ambiguous mechanism in article 4.2a, allowed for one country to gain emissions "credit" in exchange for achieving a greenhouse gas reduction in another country. Although there was little debate about its original inclusion in 1992, Joint Implementation grew to be a highly contentious subject. By the first Conference of the Parties in Berlin, it was decided to undertake a pilot phase of "Activities Implemented Jointly" in which Joint Implementation would be tested and evaluated. This pilot phase was a concession to several Latin American countries, notably Costa Rica, which had already begun implementing several AIJ projects. However, evaluation proved to be difficult and reservations were expressed by members of the OECD countries and many developing countries. ⁽¹¹⁾

It was at this point that member nations came together at third Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, Japan. There the negotiations on JI were revisited. The Group 77 (representing 132 developing-country members) and China insisted that Articles 3 and 6 dealing with Joint Implementation be deleted because they "felt that such concepts [could] not lead to the reduction and limitation of GHG emissions for achieving the objectives of the Convention. By contrast, several countries, led by the United States and Costa Rica, pushed strongly for inclusion of the flexibility mechanisms and the continuation of AIJ. Furthermore, the United States backed a proposal submitted by Brazil, and tentatively supported by G77 and China, the CDM. The final result was a semi compromise which included the vaguely defined CDM, left out many references to AIJ, and included a few other flexibility mechanisms, namely emissions trading and "bubbles". ⁽¹²⁾

 

 

THE INTRODUCTION OF CDM

Based on the general understanding of the CDM, there is little difference between the original "fundamentally flawed" concept of JI and the new CDM. As defined by the Kyoto Protocol is a mechanism that allows developing countries or individual countries to propose private-sector projects for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. "When these authorized projects succeed in reducing emissions, the amount of the reductions can be sold as carbon credits to a special body established by the Conference of the Parties. Developed nations, which must meet their own reduction targets, would then be able to buy these carbon credits." ⁽¹³⁾ The carbon credit could then be applied to part of the developed nation’s total emissions reduction commitment, thus utilizing a market mechanism to achieve total global emissions reductions in the most inexpensive manner. The Kyoto Protocol also includes a provision which sets aside a share of the total proceeds from certified project activities which would then be directed towards assisting those countries which are most vulnerable to the harmful effects of global climate change to adapt. The most obvious examples are the small, low-lying island states, which face possible inundation and which will require massive financial assistance to cover the costly changes needed to avoid submergence. Or by contrast, those nations, in already dry-land areas, who will face increasingly adverse conditions for agricultural productivity and consequently could face severe famine and drought, will require financial and technical assistance. Finally, the Protocol mandates that the purpose of the CDM is "to assist Parties not included in Annex I (developing countries) in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the convention…[and] be subject to the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol …." ⁽¹⁴⁾

Under Article 12.5, the Protocol states the general parameters within which CDM project must fit. Thus, any project activity designed must:

1. Promote sustainable development within the host country;

2. Voluntary participation approved by each Party involved;

3. Real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change; and

4. Reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity.

Other key elements of the CDM include:

1. Certified emissions reductions will be awarded to Annex I project sponsors;

2. Participation of private or public entities is invited;

3. Some portion of the proceeds will be used to cover administrative expenses; and

4. Early banking for projects is included as of the year 2000. ⁽¹⁵⁾