Durban on the Rocks

The most recent United Nations climate change conference in Durban, South Africa, was yet another failure dressed up as success. The meet confirmed the Kyoto Protocol is now a dead letter by proposing a nine year timetable to make a new agreement.  There is also no agreement to adopt global measures to restrict commercial forestry activities to reduce emissions.

In the broader negotiations, the conference was marked by tense divisions between the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) and the European Union. The BASIC countries demanded that the Kyoto Protocol be extended by developed countries; the EU said it would only extend if there was a firm commitment to negotiate a new agreement by 2015; and the US said it would only sign up if the BASIC countries – and other developing countries – were obliged to cut emissions.

The final result – which satisfied all these demands – was hailed as a breakthrough by media and officials alike. However, it is simply an agreement to negotiate for another three years to reach a prospective target in 2020. There are no guarantees that the process will yield a result between now and then. The past three processes instituted by the UNFCCC – the Bali Mandate, the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreements – have now effectively been replaced by another process with a new timetable.

Action on forestry remains subject to the right of developing countries to give precedence to national policy goals.  For example, reference emissions levels – the starting point for those who chose to measure emissions from deforestation – will be determined by the countries themselves. Greens and donors had pressed for “safeguard” measures under REDD that are supposed to ensure livelihoods for local communities. They were watered down – countries are able to determine their own safeguard measures. Similarly, definition of forest area used by each country is to be determined by each country – the only condition is that if the definition is different to that used when reporting other UN data, the change needs to be explained in supporting documentation.

The REDD framework remains where it started.  It will only operate where a developing country elects to receive aid from a donor to implement a REDD program. That process is recognized in the UNFCC decisions, but it is not mandated.

More interesting, however, were field reports on REDD Implementation and the difficulties being faced. Brer Adams of Macquarie Bank stated unequivocally that there are no REDD projects that are suitable for private investors and that currently they are appropriate as a demonstration only.  He also implied that they will only be profitable once there is a mandatory emissions reduction program in place that permits REDD-offset credits.  With the operative provisions of the Kyoto Protocol set to lapse, no such program is in prospect.