comdev paper programme

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

IN THE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE’S

FRAMEWORK

Prepared by Dadang Setiawan

BORNEO TROPICAL RAINFOREST FOUNDATION

Community Development in the Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change’s Framework. Dadang Setiawan

1

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND

CLIMATE CHANGE’S FRAMEWORKS

DADANG SETIAWAN

BORNEO TROPICAL RAINFOREST FOUNDATION


2

Acronyms and Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank AOGCM Atmosphere-ocean general circulation model BTRF Borneo Tropical Rainforest Foundation CBD Convention on Biological Diversity C Celsius CC Climate Change CCS Climate Change integrated Conservation Strategies CD Community Development CDM Clean Development Mechanism CERs Certified Emission Reductions CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons CH4 Methane CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research CHP Combined Heat and Power CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent COP Conference of the Parties DNA Designated National Authority DOE Designated Operational Entity IET International Emissions Trading EIT Economy in transition ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program EC European Community ET Emissions Trading EU ETS European Union - Emissions Trading Scheme EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations GCM General Circulation Model GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environmental Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas GWPs Global Warming Potentials Gt Gigaton HFCs Hydroflourocarbons LULUCF Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry H2O Water HDI Human Development Index ICDPs Integrated Conservation and Development Projects IEA International Energy Agency IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development IMF International Monetary Fund IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International United for Conservation Network (World Conservation

Union) JI Joint Implementation MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MARKAL Market Allocation MDGs Millennium Development Goals MOP Meeting of the Parties


3

Mt Metric ton N2O Nitrous oxide NAO North Atlantic Oscillation NEP Net ecosystem productivity NGOs Non-government Organizations NTFPs Non Timber Forest Products O2 Oxygen O3 Ozone ODSs Ozone Depleting Substances OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PAR Participatory Action Research PDD Project Design Document PFCs Perflourocarbons ppm parts per million PLA Participatory Learning Analysis PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PRSPs Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal SBSTTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice SF6 Sulphur hexafluoride SRLULUCF Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry SRES Special Report on Emissions Scenarios U.K. United Kingdom UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change U.S. United States WMO World Meteorological Organization WNV West Nile Virus WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WB World Bank WWF World Wide Fund for Nature


4

Contents Preface ... 6 Section I Introduction … 7 Section II Community Development … 8 Origins and Scope … 8 Terminology … 9 Aims … 11 Approaches … 12 Functionaries … 17 Section III Development, Conservation, and Community …20 Nature and Society … 20 Linkages between Development and Biodiversity Conservation … 23 Forest, Conservation, and Poverty … 26 Community for Conserved Areas and Forestry … 41 Section IV Climate Change … 46 Background … 46 Impacts … 59 Convention … 75 Mitigation and Adaptation … 79 Carbon Market … 83 Clean Development Mechanism … 85 The Role of Forests, Conservation, and NGOs … 96 Section V BTRF’ Community Development Programme … 104 Borneo Tropical Rainforest Foundation … 104 Community Development Programme … 108 Programme Description … 112 Section VI Conclusion and Discussion … 115 Conclusion … 115 Discussion … 115 References … 116 Annex 1: Logical Frame of BTRF’s Community Development Programme


5

Boxes Box 2.1: Some definitions of community development … 10 Box 2.2: Degrees of participation … 15 Box 3.1: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and target … 24 Box 3.2: Key Findings on Forest Environmental … 31 Box 3.3: Indonesian forestry and rural poverty: factsheet … 34 Box 3.4: Community conserved areas … 42 Box 4.1: Climate forcing mechanism … 47 Box 4.2: Greenhouse gases … 52 Box 4.3: Concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases … 54 Box 4.4: The emissions scenarios of the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

(SRES) … 58 Box 4.5: Climate change impacts … 61 Box 4.6: Impacts of recent extreme weather events … 66 Box 4.7: Climate change and ecosystems … 68 Box 4.8: Sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability … 82 Box 4.9: Financial intermediaries and climate change … 86 Box 4.10: Emission Trading, Joint Implementation, and CDM … 87 Box 4.11: Sink projects … 95 Box 4.12: Forests as carbon sinks … 99 Box 4.13: Community-based rangeland rehabilitation for carbon sequestration in

Sudan … 103 Tables Table 2.1: Scientific research and participatory research … 16 Table 2.2: Distinctions between expert and facilitator … 19 Table 3.1: A Framework for considering attitudes nature and society-nature

Relations … 21 Table 3.2: A Framework for considering attitudes on nature, society & its

Relationship … 22 Table 4.1: Potential CDM Projects … 86 Table 4.2: CDM’s opportunities for various actors … 87 Table 4.3: Forests and Land Use Change under the Kyoto Protocol Articles relevant

to land use change and forests … 98 Table 5.1: Sum poverty population and poverty line in East Kalimantan … 110 Figures Figure 3.1: Land degradation and human development indicators … 30 Figure 4.1: Greenhouse gas emissions (2000) … 48 Figure 4.2: Greenhouse gas effect … 49 Figure 4.3: Trend in global average surface temperature … 50 Figure 4.4: Emissions CO2 – selected countries … 51 Figure 4.5: Sea level rise due to global warming … 53 Figure 4.6: CO2 emissions from industrial processes … 55 Figure 4.7: Variations of the earth’s surface temperature: year 1000 to year

2100) … 57 Figure 4.8: Potentials climate change impact … 61 Figure 4.9: Trends in number of reported events … 65 Figure 4.10: Projected changes in global temperature … 78 Figure 4.11: Climate change – integrated framework … 83 Figure 4.12: CO2 emissions from land use change … 99


6

Preface The literature of development and environment is have plenty resources after raising awareness of importance environment, conservation, as well as climate change’s subject. The climate change issues as if have submerged the previously environment issues e.g. thrifty, populations, pollutions, etc., due to accelerate by elaborates of its impacts and after have legally binding by convention (Biodiversity “Rio” and Kyoto Protocol). Added by other UN’s role akin to Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the importance of environment movement since 1970s has got red-line with current issues after the convention and had right-track and facilitate by financial mechanism like Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The draft outline in this situation: between the earlier concept about community, development, and environment issues, and to blend with current informations about climate change issues; range between easy access even for beginner in one side and attracted for advanced in other side. It is not easy to reformulate data and information between two areas which broad based, in the extraction by digest, without out of original context. This script especially is to dedicate for Borneo Tropical Rainforest Foundation and whoever which concern on environment issues. Which interest on forest conservation, community and climate change issues, I face a broad base concept of forestry issues as well as Kyoto Protocol. It is very nice to explore of the issues. However, we have to choose the ‘narrow-minded’ issues due to the limiting resources which we have and to focus the subject. Therefore, the focusing e.g. forest conservation and community’s context, it is to be synopsis in one and other parts is inevitable between wide subject areas. The climate change issues are very complex with interconnection between subjects area in the global issues, and have dynamic path. The consequently, the parochial is inevitable, so in some parts, reader perhaps cannot have integral perspective on one issues by brief issues or cannot links with other issues, meanwhile in other subject, saw to extensive information by give details. Conversely, some parts of subject, I need more information about CDM in Indonesia to giving by details, but it is very hard due to poorly by data and information of Indonesia’s CDM. I have searching by web-based to access data. But, the data and information about Indonesia’s CDM just only rely on data & information which available based on 1994-95. The poor of data and information in line with lack of government’s concern about climate change issues which needed interlink between departments. Thanks to UNEP-Arendal on its graphics data. The all graphics data take from UNEP-GRID Arendal. Finally, I apologize by shortage of this script, and I hope it’s useful for identify and elaborates the problem of environmental aspects in Indonesia by climate change’s perspective, now and the next. Last but not least, many tanks to BTRF’s colleague and especially Pak Laode which encourage of this script. Warm regards. Dadang Setiawan


7

Section I INTRODUCTION Borneo Tropical Rainforest Foundation (BTRF) have programmes is conservation and community development. The programme takes place in East Kalimantan Province which regencies e.g. Nunukan, Tarakan, Kutai Timur, Malinau, and Berau. The community development programme consists of education programme, health programme and economic infrastructure (including microfinancing). The purpose of the draft is to address possible community development issues that would need to follow up on; and guidelines as well as toolkits for implementation, monitoring and evaluation. In other perspectives is to discuss to develop of the community development programme for improving project cycle. This assessment was based on the survey of secondary data from existing figures and statistics about the East Kalimantan. The field observations and further surveys needed to improve of this programme design. The structure of the paper is Section I introduce of the purpose the paper/proposal. Section II to elaborate of community development as a concept and operationalisation: terminology, aims, approaches and functionaries. Section III to identify linkages between development, conservation, and community: how the pattern and relationship between them can synergy. It is useful for support basic concept for formulating and implementation of the project. Section IV is the climate change, to endeavor the background, impacts, mitigation and adaptation, convention, clean development mechanism (CDM), and the role of forest, civil society and NGOs. Section V endeavor to elaborate BTRF’s philosophy, to design of community development programme. To formulate of the community development project based on the BTRF’s philosophy. Section VI is the conclusion and discussion for the next BTRF’s further programme and addressing the learning process. For the discussion, writer suggests that the role of BTRF need to specific and clearly in the concept and programme.


8

Section II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Origins and Scope In the context of public policy, the phrase community development has most often been used to describe projects initiated by, or with the active participation of, the inhabitant of a locality, which are intended to benefit them collectively. The projects may concern education, social welfare, heath, infrastructure such as roads, wells or irrigation, farming, manufacture or commerce. While much of the benefit may accrue to individual families, the projects are intended to enhance the community as a whole, in self-confidence and political skills, for instance, even if not more tangibly.1 This conception of community development was widely adopted by British, French and Belgian colonial administrations in Africa and Asia, especially after Second World War, as asocial and political as much as economic strategy for rural areas. After independence, community development was seen as a means of mobilizing rural people for such endeavors as mass literacy of education. In the 1960s, the term community development to be applied to projects in predominantly urban neighborhoods of America and later Britain, where the poverty and social pathologies were believed to concentrate. Like their colonial predecessor, these projects were intended both to provide practical benefits, such as improved social services, more relevant vocational training, legal aid, low-cost housing and more jobs, and in doing so, to increase the community’s sense of its collective competence. Community Development embodies two major ideas. The first is that of conscious acceleration of economic, technological, and social change (development). The second that of locality refers to planned social change in a village town or city it relates to projects that have obvious local significance and that can be initiated and carried out by local people. According to the widely accepted United Nations definitions, communities as units of action combine outside assistance with organized local self-determination and effort. They achieve goals that are both material (a new schoolhouse) and nonmaterial (literacy, lowered infant mortality).2 The term community development now enjoys wide usage in the West, even though community organization still best describes the mobilization of local resources for social welfare purposes. In 1948 the United Nations organization had one community development adviser in one country; in 1962 it had 47 such experts in 31 countries.

1 Marris, Peter, “Community Development,” University of Los Angeles in Kuper, Adam and Kuper, Jessica (1996) The Social Sciences Encyclopaedia, 2nd edition, Routledge, London. 2 Sanders, Irwin T. “Community Development” in Sills, David I., (ed.), (1972) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, New York. pp.169.


9

Terminology The mixed ancestry of community3 development gives a clue to the problem of defining the term Social workers, adult educators, local government officials, economic planners, city planners, and agricultural extension workers consider their respective professional fields to have been forerunners of community development, a fact which supposedly gives them each the right to speak authoritatively about its content and methods. (For shortlist can be viewed in Inbox 1). Arthur Durham (1960) tends to view community development as:

Organized efforts to improve the conditions of community life and the capacity for community integration and self direction. Four basic elements ordinarily found are: (a) a planned program; (2) encouragement of self-help; (3) technical assistance, which may include personnel, equipment, and supplies; and (4) integrating various specialties for help of the community.4

T.R. Batten (1957) considers the field of community development “to include any action taken by any agency and primarily designed to benefit the community.”5 He observes that one of the principal problems in using democratic methods in community development is that the central governments put pressure on village-level workers to achieve national goals within given time periods. As a result, the village workers attempt to speed up the programs with less democratic methods. When the program is highly formalized, as in many five years plans, the focus sometimes tends to be upon the program rather than upon what is happening to the people involved in the program. The emphasis is upon accomplishing sets of activities in health, welfare, agriculture, industry, recreation and the like that can be quantified and reported. As those statements imply, many community development programs are national in scope and are geared to over-all governmental plans, be they three year, five-year, or ten-year, for improving living and economic conditions. In this connection community development may be said to be a method through which national goals are to be achieved. Fredrick G. Friedman, who has studied UNLA—the association for the fight against illiteracy—in southern Italy as a form of community development, observes that “many Western leaders interested in the subject look at community development as an attempt at extending, in the vein of the applied social sciences, proven techniques of ‘handling’ situations to the limited and relatively manageable proportions of a village community level for substituting ‘projects’ on a community level for large-scale government planning (1960).6 Various definitions incorporate this emphasis. J.D. Mezirow, for instance, has stated on several occasions that community development is an organized effort to make

3 If define separated between community and development, community is “a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.” Develop is “to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of, to bring to a more advanced or effective state. (US EPA Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, 1998). 4 Dunham, Arthur (1960) “Community Development” pp. 178-186 in Kurtz, Russel H. (1970) Social Work Yearbook. New York: National Association of Social Workers. 5 Batten, Thomas R. (1957) Communities and Their Development, Oxford Univ. Press. 6 Sills, op cit., pp. 170


10

possible, through training and education, a wide range of individual participation in the democratic solution of community problems.7 Richard W. Poston (1958) defines community development as “an organized body of knowledge which a deal comprehensively with the community in it’s entirely, and with all of the various functions of community life as integrated parts of the whole.”8 He suggests that “the ultimate goal of community development is to help evolve through a process of organized study, planning, and action a physical and social environment that is best suited to the maximum growth, development and happiness of human beings as individuals and as productive members of their society.”

Box 2.1: Some definitions of community development Community development as organized efforts to improve the conditions of community life and the capacity for community integration and self direction. Four basic elements ordinarily found are: (1) a planned program; (2) encouragement of self-help; (3) technical assistance, which may include personnel, equipment, and supplies; and (4) integrating various specialties for help of the community. (Dunham, Arthur, 1960) Community development “to include any action taken by any agency and primarily designed to benefit the community.” (Batten, Thomas R. 1957) Community development as an attempt at extending, in the vein of the applied social sciences, proven techniques of ‘handling’ situations to the limited and relatively manageable proportions of a village community level for substituting ‘projects’ on a community level for large-scale government planning. (Friedmann, Fredrick G., 1960) Community development is an organized effort to make possible, through training and education, a wide range of individual participation in the democratic solution of community problems. (Mezirow, J. D., 1968) Community development as “an organized body of knowledge which a deal comprehensively with the community in it’s entirely, and with all of the various functions of community life as integrated parts of the whole.” (Poston, Richard W. 1958) Community development as an “education-for-action process.” It helps people achieve group goals democratically; the leader becomes an agent constructing learning experience rather that the proponent of a program for community improvement; primary importance is attached to the individual. (Nelson, Lowry, Charles E. Ramsey; and Coolie Verner, 1960) Community development is defined here as the purposive efforts of a group of people in a community to improve their social, economic, or cultural situation… Community development is more concerned with the process of change, particularly how people effect and affected by planed change. (Christenson, James A., 1982) Community development argues that community development encompasses the humanistic concept of self-actualization… Community development as a purposive activity is needed to realize the potential social well-being benefits of economic development. (Wilkinson, Kenneth P., 1982) Community development is the planned evolution of all aspects of community well-being (economic, social, environmental and cultural). It is a process whereby community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems. (Frank, Flo and Anne Smith, 1999)

7 Mezirow, J. D. in David I. Sills (ed.), (1972) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, New York, reprint edition. 8 Poston, Richard W. (1958) Report on the Chairman, Division of Community Development National University Extension Association, Proceedings 41: 23-29.


11

Community development: The process of increasing the strength and effectiveness of communities, improving people’s quality of life, and enabling people to participate in decision making to achieve greater long term control over their lives. (ICMM, ESMAP, The World Bank, 2005).

Lawry Nelson, Charles E. Ramsey, and Coolie Verner (1960) see community development as an “education-for-action process.” It helps people achieve group goals democratically; the leader becomes an agent constructing learning experience rather that the proponent of a program for community improvement; primary importance is attached to the individual. Furthermore, it is problem-oriented at the community level; the means employed in the solution are more important than the solution itself; and it is one of several types of purposive change. James A. Christenson (1982) wrote that community development is defined “as the purposive efforts of a group of people in a community to improve their social, economic, or cultural situation… Community development is more concerned with the process of change, particularly how people effect and affected by planed change.”9 Canada government sees community development is the planned evolution of all aspects of community well-being (economic, social, environmental and cultural). It is a process whereby community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.10 The International Council on Mining & Metals, World Bank and Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) to formulate that community development: “the process of increasing the strength and effectiveness of communities, improving people’s quality of life, and enabling people to participate in decision making to achieve greater long term control over their lives.”11 Aims In Asian countries, which for more than ten years have had the widest experience with community development, certain noticeable trends are under way. First, the program are stressing economic (including agricultural) goals more heavily than therefore. Second, they are making greater use of local governments as the need for decentralization becomes more apparent. Third, the training of village-level workers is stressing the practical aspects (for instance, the actual grafting if fruit trees) as well as the theoretical aspects—a new educational departure for these countries. Fourth, new administrative arrangements are being devised to assure the coordination of subject-matter specialist in accomplishment of program aims.12 The goals of community development is enhancing and improving quality of life or human well-being and empowerment of local institutions. Wilkinson (1982) sees “community development argues that community development encompasses the humanistic concept of self-actualization… Community development as a purposive

9 Christenson, James A., “Community Development” in Dillman, Don A. and Daryl J. Hobbs (ed.), (1982) Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s, West View Press Inc., USA. 10 Frank, Flo and Anne Smith (1999) The Community Development Handbook: A Tool to Build Community Capacity, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. 11 International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM), World Bank and Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), (2005) Community Development Toolkit: Pioneering New Approaches in Support of Sustainable Development in the Extractive Sector, New York. 12 Sanders in Sills, op cit. pp.171.


12

activity is needed to realize the potential social well-being benefits of economic development.”13 The World Bank, International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM), Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), to formulate community development aims to empower and help communities to improve their social, physical environments, increase equity and social justice, overcome social exclusion, build social capital and capacities, and involve communities in the strategic, assessment, and decision making processes that influence their local conditions.14 Approaches In the 1970s and early 1980s, a desire by decision-makers to more effectively incorporate the perspectives and priorities of the local people in decision-making, policy development and project implementation led to the emergence of a number of “participatory approaches” to development. This re-orientation towards greater participation in development by individuals was motivated by the development communities desire to move from an emphasis on top-down, technocratic and economic interventions towards greater attention to bottom-up, community-level interventions.15 An international organization, Cernia, defined participation implies “empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors, rather than passive subjects, manage the resources, make decisions, and control the activities that affect their lives.”16 The World Bank defined participation is the process through which stakeholders’ influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions and resource which affect them. Participation can take different forms, ranging from information-sharing and consultation methods, to mechanisms for collaboration and empowerment that give stakeholders more influence and control.17 Participatory Participatory approach to (community) development quickly evolved throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s with the introduction of methods such as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Action Research (PAR) and, particularly Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Participatory Poverty Assessment and Appreciative Inquiry.

• Rapid Rural Appraisal – used to obtain information in a timely, cost-effective, accurate and insightful manner as a basis for development planning and action.

13 Wilkinson, Kenneth P. “Social Well-being and Community,” (1979) Journal of the Community Development Society, in Dillman, Don A. and Daryl J. Hobbs (ed.), (1982) Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s, West View Press Inc., USA. 14 ICMM- The World Bank-ESMAP (2005). 15 Kanji, Nazneen, and Laura Greenwood (2001) Participatory Approach to Research and Development in IIED: Learning from Experience. IIED, London. 16 Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar, Pamulo Roddy and Jo-Ellen Parry, (2005) Have Participatory Approaches Increased Capabilities? IISD, Manitoba, Canada. 17 Rietbergen-McCracken, Jennifer, and Deepa Narayan, (1998), Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. pp. 4.


13

• Participatory Rural Appraisal – a series of exercises that emphasizes local knowledge for rural planning.

• Participatory Poverty Assessments – used to understand poverty from the

perspective of a range of stakeholders, particularly the poor. • Participatory Action Research – used to empower participants and enhance

collaboration and expedites knowledge acquisition and social change. • Appreciative Inquiry – a philosophy that the past successes of individuals,

communities, organizations are the basis for future success.18 Development of the latter approach spawned the emergence of a countless of new tools and principles for implementing and understanding participatory development and have been developed to meet needs of different disciplines, settings and objective. Throughout this period, researchers and community organizers sought to improve their understanding of “insider/local knowledge as a balance to the dominance of outsider/western scientific knowledge”. By the 1990s, and continuing to the present, participation had become a mainstream, expected component of development. Engagement of local stakeholders, involvement of poor members of communities, responsiveness to the outcomes of consultations—these have become central tenets of development and (typically) conditions for funding. This is especially true for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). The growing adoption of a participatory approach to development reflects a continuing belief in a bottom-up approach in which participants becoming agents of change and decision-making. Participation is seen as providing a means through which to enable meaningful involvement of the poor and voiceless in the development process, allowing them to exert greater influence and have more control over the decisions and institutions that affect their lives. Principles of participation The ability of participatory development to fulfil its promise rests in part on the manner in which it is undertaken. Effective participation needs to be undertaken in a manner that is cognizant of:

• the mode of participation; • the participants to be involved and the manner in which they should be

involved; and • the institutional structure within which local people operate.

Furthermore, effective participation rests on respecting a number of key principles, such as those identified by Egger and Majeres (1998)19:

• Inclusion – of all people, or representatives of all groups who will be affected by the results of a decision or a process, such as a development project.

• Equal Partnership – recognizing that every person has skill, ability and

initiative and has equal right to participate in the process regardless of their status.

18 Duraiappah, op cit., pp. 7. 19 Ibid, pp. 4.


14

• Transparency – all participants must help to create a climate conducive to

open communication and building dialogue. • Sharing Power – authority and power must be balanced evenly between all

stakeholders to avoid the domination of one party. • Sharing responsibility – similarly, all stakeholders have equal responsibility for

decisions that are made, and each should have clear responsibilities within each process.

• Empowerment – participants with special skills should be encouraged to take

responsibility for tasks within their specialty, but should also encourage others to also be involved to promote mutual learning and empowerment.

• Cooperation – cooperation is very important; sharing everybody’s strength

reduces everybody’s weaknesses.

These principles for effective participation can be applied to all aspects of the community development process or project. Degrees participation At present there are a variety of understandings of what is meant by the term “participation” and its purpose within the context of promoting development (as reflected in Box 2.2). Two broad perspectives on the rationale and objective of engaging in participatory processes emerge20:

• Functional or Passive Perspective – participation is seen as a means of accessing information from a variety of stakeholders so as to support more effective implementation of a project, policy or program.

• Rights-based or Proactive Perspective – view participation as a means of

enabling and empowering less powerful groups in society to engage in decision-making and exercise their democratic rights. The objective of participatory development is viewed as being to transform society and achieve more equitable access to and distribution of resources.

These perspectives are reflected in the various degrees of participation in the development process identified in Box 2.2, ranging from manipulation to self-mobilization. The processes presented in Box 2.2 illustrate a gradient of shifting control over information, decision making, analysis, and implementation awareness from a central, external agent towards those groups that have traditionally been marginalized and excluded from active participation in the development process. Participation thus involves a shift in power over the process of development away from those who have traditionally defined the nature of the problem and how it may be addressed (governments, outside donors) to the people immediately impacted by the issue. At its pinnacle, participation involves a transformation of the traditional development approach towards the enhancement of the capabilities of the local people and communities to define and address their own needs and aspirations.

20 Kanji, loc. cit.


15

Box 2.2: Degrees of participation21 (Adapted from Arnstein 1971; Pimbert and Pretty 1994; Wilcox 1994; Lane 1995; Pretty et al. 1995; UNDP 1997; Jeffrey and Vitra (eds) 2001). 1. Manipulation Participation is undertaken in a manner contrived by those who hold power to convince the public that a predefined project or program is best. 2. Passive participation Participation by the local people is by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is based on information provided, shared and assessed by external “experts.” Therefore, the information being shared belongs only to external experts. 3. Participation in information giving This is a one-way approach to participation whereby participation is by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. Participants are informed of their rights, responsibilities and options, but are not given the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings are neither shared nor checked for accuracy. 4. Participation by consultation This is a two-way way flow of information in which local people participate by being consulted and external agents listen to their views. Although participants have the opportunity to provide suggestions and express concerns, their input may or may not be used at all or as originally intended. The external agents define problems and solutions, both of which may be modified in light of information provided by the participants. Such a consultations process does not concede any share in decision-making and professionals are under no obligation to take on people’s view. 5. Participation for material incentives People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash, or other material incentives. Much on-farm research falls into this category, as farmers provide the fields but are not involved in experimentation or the process of learning. In this type of participation people have no stake in prolonging activities once the incentives end. 6. Functional participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the initiative. Local people’s involvement however occurs after major decisions have been made rather than at an early stage in the project cycle. The established groups are dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but over time may become more self-sufficient. 7. Interactive participation People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives, and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. As local people take control over the decision-making process, they gain a greater stake in maintaining the structures and practices they have established. A common drawback is that vulnerable individuals and groups tend to remain silent or passively acquiesce. 8. Partnership Through negotiation, power is redistributed between local people and power holders in an equitable manner. Decision-making takes place through an exchange between equally respected participants who are working towards a common goal and seeking to optimize the well-being of all concerned. There is mutual responsibility and risk-sharing in the planning and decision-making process. 9. Self-mobilization/active participation People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice that they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilization and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distribution of wealth or power.

21 Duraiappah, loc. cit., pp. 4.


16

Participation recognizes the importance of involving all stakeholders, including the poor and voiceless, in the development process. How effective participatory processes are in bringing these voices into development processes, and whether doing so is effective in increasing the capacity of people to chart the course of their destinies in collaboration with the government, NGOs and international community, depends on the approach chosen and the manner by which it is implemented.22 Participatory methods imply changes at several levels: methodological, institutional and professional. At the methodological level, these issues involve the question of theoretical underpinning of the methods, and how they are applied. Participatory methods are often contrasted with “scientific” methods23 (see Table 2.1):

Table 2.1: Scientific research and participatory research

Scientific Research

Participatory Research Only recognizes the “scientific method.”

Recognizes that no research method has absolute validity.

Emphasizes statistical analysis. Values precision more than trustworthiness.

Recognizes the biases and inherent limitations of different methods.

Applies methods with much rigor. Adapts reality to methods.

Is creative, recognizes the value of qualitative data and the information of local people.

Produces a lot of descriptive data that contributes little to understanding.

Put emphasizes on process, not just results.

Extracts data for analysis and planning by experts and policy makers.

Promotes analysis by local people and motivates their own planning for research and development.

Limitation of participatory Much debate about participatory approaches concern the appropriate techniques for uncovering the ‘realities’ of poor people and ensuring their involvement in decision-making. Any cursory review of the literature on participation in development reveals a huge review of the literature on participation in development reveals a huge volume of techniques (PRA, PLA—participatory learning analysis, etc.). As the solution to locally based development they have the advantage of being tangible, practically achievable and fitting well with project approaches. This techniques-based participatory is orthodoxy in increasingly being subjected to critical analysis. Biggs (1995) suggests that such an approach to participation fails adequately to address of power and control of information and other resources and provides an adequate

22 Duraiappah, op cit., p 5. 23 Chamber, Robert (1993) Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development in Pretty, Jules., et al., (1996) “Participation in Agricultural Research Development: Key Concepts,” ICRA learning materials.


17

framework for developing a critical reflective understanding of the deeper determinants of technical and social change.24 Myth of community. Ideas about local institution are often based on problematic notions of community. The ‘community’ in participatory approaches to development is often seen as a ‘natural’ society entity characterized by solidaristic relations. It is assumed that these can be represented and channeled in simple organizational forms.25 Participatory approaches stress solidarity within communities, processes of conflict and negotiation, inclusion and exclusion are occasionally acknowledged but little investigated. The ‘solidarity’ models of community, upon which much development intervention is based, may acknowledge social stratification but nevertheless assume some underlying commonality of interest. More realistically, Cleaver sees the community as the site of both solidarity and conflicts, shifting alliances, power and social structures. Much work on common property resource management recognizes the role of communities in managing internal conflicts and various authors have illustrated the shifting, historically and socially located nature of community institutions the power dimensions of public manifestation of collective action. Further empirical evidence and analysis is needed of whether and how the structures of participatory projects/protect/secure the interest of poor people. What exactly are the linkages between the participation of poor individual and furthering of their social and economic good? Understanding this requires analysis of ‘competent’ communities and ‘successful; participatory projects that focus on process, on power dynamics, on patterns of inclusion and exclusion. These could be built up through process documentation of the dynamics of conflicts, consensus-building and decision-making within communities, not just the recording of project-related activities. Understanding how participation can benefit the poor might also involve identifying the role of better, more responsive development agencies in promoting more effective and equitable forms of involvement or in offering state action to substitute of reinforce community participation where the costs of this are very high to the participants. Several studies now link meaningful societal change to state action prompted by popular political and social movements, and we would do well to expand our focus away from the institutional ridiculous and fasten of development projects to consider the wider dynamics of economic and social change.26 Functionaries At least four types of functionaries are found in community development programs.27 First, local leaders are essential if there is to be genuine involvement of the people of the community.

24 Cleaver, Frances (2001) Institution, Agency and the Limitation of Participatory Approaches to development,” in Cooke, Bill and Kothari, Uma. ed., (2001), Participation, the New Tyranny? Zed Books, New York, pp. 38-39. 25 Ibid. pp. 44. 26 Ibid. pp. 64. 27 Sanders, loc. cit., pp. 172.


18

A second type is the community organizer, often called the village-level worker. He is the new element added by community development to earlier, traditional programs of rural change. He is trained in human-relations skills rather than in any subject-matter field, such as agriculture, health or recreation. As a generalist, he is supposed to know how to relate these fields to the problem areas that the local people identify, but he does not claim high technical competence in them. By working with local leaders, he initiates, motivates, guides, and educates, supposedly taking into account the goals of the local people as well as the goals of the larger program that he is promoting. Once action has been decided upon by the community, the village level worker becomes the expediter, the communication link, the one who marshals outside resources appropriate to the local needs at the time. But he is relatively ineffective without a third type—the subject matter specialist: agriculturist, sanitarian, literacy expert, and the like. Fourth functionary is the person responsible for keeping the administrative machinery of a national program in running order. However, there are any distinctive between expert role and facilitator role (see table 2.2). Chamber (1993) and Geifus (1997) have contrasted the changes in professional role that participation implies, from “expert” to “facilitator”28 (see Table 2.2):

Table 2.2: Distinctions between expert and facilitator

The Expert

The Facilitator

Believes his/her scientific knowledge is worth more than indigenous knowledge.

Respects all types of knowledge for their own value. Self-questioning.

Believes him/herself superior because of education or professional qualifications.

Treat local people with respect. Likes to learn from them.

Has an opinion on everything, even when he/she has no knowledge of the subject.

Uses his/her knowledge when asked for or when necessary.

Prefers the office to the field.

Prefers the field to the office.

Tries to keep to programmed objectives.

Tries to keep promises, put more emphasis on impact than written reports.

As consequences of the distinctions, the implementation of participatory research and development has implications for institutions. Many research institutions are having built up an institutional culture and set of operating procedures over many years. It is difficult to change these overnight, but for participatory approaches to be implemented: Research institutions need to recognise the value of:

• Applied interdisciplinary work, as well reductionist science, • Qualitative, as well as quantitative, information, • Professional incentives for work in communities, as well as for scientific

publications. 28 Chamber in Pretty, ibid., pp. 5-6.


19

Development Institutions need to recognise the value of:

• Planning schedules that they cannot control beforehand • Inter-institutional collaboration and action • Professional development in new approaches, methods and attitudes.


20

Section III DEVELOPMENT, CONSERVATION AND COMMUNITIES Nature and Society Notions of environment and nature and their relationship to contemporary and future societies are subjects of considerable interest, concern and debate. Terms like nature and society, although frequently used, are highly complex. Neil Smith (1984) has remarked the term ‘nature’ not only includes a whole variety of meanings, but many of these meaning are contradictory to others. Hence29:

Nature is material and it is spiritual, it is given and made, pure and undefiled; nature is order and it is disorder, sublime and secular, dominated and victorious; it is totality and a series or parts, women and object, organism and machine. Nature is the gift of God and it is the product of its own evolution; it is a universal outside history and is also the product of history, accidental and designed, wilderness and garden.

Smith suggests that it is possible to resolve all these definitions and contradictions into two basic viewpoints. According to the first viewpoint nature is ‘external’ to human activity: it is the realm of objects that lie outside human activity. This concept is embodied in the notion of ‘natural landscapes’ as being landscapes unaffected by human activity. The second, conception of nature is as an ‘inherent state’. This conception of nature as an inherent state is built upon two other notions30. First, nature is seen as being universal: that is objects and processes are said to behave in a particular and unchanging way. For instance, if someone says that it is in the ‘nature’ of people to be selfish or greedy, or kind and considerate, it implies that this is universal characteristic of people: all people everywhere and throughout human history have had this characteristic. Seen in this light the concept of nature is profoundly ‘ahistorical’: it implies that, at least is essence, things do not change through history. A second assumption of the notion of nature as ‘inherent state’ is that of ‘one dimensionality’” objects and processes are seen to have a single basic character or ‘essence’. One of other (or both) of the two basic notions of nature, as an ‘external object’ and as an ‘inherent state’, can be underlie most of the individual definitions of nature you are likely to find. 29 Phillips, Martin and Tim Mighail, (2000) Society and Exploitation through Nature, Pearson Education Ltd., Essex, England. pp. 2. 30 Ibid.


21

Pepper (1984) suggest that the determinist/free will distinction can be used to understand of the major ways in which the people have sought to understand society and nature interrelation. Table 3.1 outlines how this argument may be advanced and in particular stresses how the two views of nature identified in the in the first segment, that is nature as ‘external object’ and nature as ‘inherent state’, can be linked to arguments about determinism and free will to human agency. Table 3.1: A Framework for considering attitudes nature and society-nature relations relations.31

Society equals nature

Society and nature are distinct

but interlinked objects

Nature equals

society

View of interrelation of society and nature

Holistic

Dualistic

Holistic

View of causal linkages

Nature creates

society

Nature

dominates society

Society

dominates nature

Society creates

nature

View of ‘nature as external object’

Rejects

Accepts

Accepts

Rejects

View of ‘nature as universal attribute’

Accepts

Accepts

Rejects

Rejects

Philosophical/theoretical positions

Environmental

constructionism

Environmental determinism

Social

determinism

Social

constructionism

Illustrative variants

Naturalism


Cultural/society

determinism

Idealism Historical

materialism The terms society is an equally contested as the term nature. Many people have adopted what described as an ‘atomistic’ or ‘individualist’ perspective on society, arguing that society is simply the outcome of the actions of individual people. Other people argue that society involves something more than the individual, in other words it involves some collective notions or forces. This is often described as a ‘structuralist’ perspective of society, in that it sees human activity as conditioned in some way by forces that are greater than the individual.32 A third conception of society, one that may be termed ‘dialectical’, sees society and individuals acting upon each other: society is not reducible to a collection of individuals but nor is it isolated from them.

31 Ibid, pp. 8. 32 Ibid, pp. 10


22

Table 3.2: A Framework for considering attitudes on nature, society & its relationship.

Society equals

nature

Society and nature are distinct but

interlinked objects

Nature equals

society

View of interrelation of society and nature

Holistic

Dualistic

Holistic

View of causal linkages

Nature creates

society

Nature dominates

society

Society dominates

nature

Society creates

nature

View of ‘nature as external object’

Rejects

Accepts

Accepts

Rejects

View of ‘nature as universal attribute’

Accepts

Accepts

Rejects

Rejects

Philosophical/theoretical positions

Environmental constructionism


Social determinism

Social

constructionism

Illustrative variants

Naturalism


Cultural/society

determinism

Idealism Historical

materialism

View of society

View of nature/society

Individualistic view

Individuals have

natural behaviour

Individuals have

natural behaviors, but these may be

modified by an individual

Individual perceptions and behavior impact

the natural environment

Individual

perceptions & actions within

social structures construct nature

Dialectical view

Individuals and societies adopt laws of nature

through interaction with

each other through

processes of nature

Individuals/societies

have natural behaviors, but these may be

modified by social norms/individual

agency

Individual/perceptions

and actions within social structures

impact the natural environment

Individual

perceptions and actions within

social structures construct nature

Structuralist view

Societies adopt laws of nature

Societies are

conditioned by nature and affected

by social norms

Social structures impact the natural

environment

Social structure construct nature

These distinctions about how ‘society’ might be conceptualised can be integrated with the framework of society-nature relation discussed earlier. Table 3.2 briefly outlines some of the characteristics of both the dialectic position on society and the dualistic concepts of society and nature interrelations33. For individualist, for instance, the ‘human agency’ end of the spectrum, described as ‘society equals nature,’ will be interpreted as ‘personal agency’ or ‘individual free choice’: that is people will be seen as performing actions, including constructing 33 Ibid, pp. 12


23

nature, as a result of their own choice or desires. In a structuralist perspective the same position of ‘society equals nature’ will be interpreted very differently: people may not be able individually to create nature but they will be seen as part of a collective agency creating nature. Linkages between Development and Biodiversity Conservation Recognition of the importance of biodiversity34 conservation and its linkage to global development issues has increased significantly during the thirty years since the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. At that time, many developing countries saw Northern concerns about increasing environmental degradation as possible obstacles to their own economic growth. As a result of the Stockholm Conference, however, acceptance grew that natural resources are essential assets on which economic growth must be based and that conservation and development are inseparable.35 The following decades saw the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the 1980 World Conservation Strategy (in which the conservation community for the first time embraced the concept of “sustainable development”), the World Commission on Environment and Development (whose 1987 report ‘Our Common Future’ established the term sustainable development in the global lexicon), and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted at the Earth Summit and now ratified by 190 countries, clearly links conservation with development, recognising in its preamble that “economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries”. Article 8 of the CBD, on in situ conservation, calls for systems of protected areas and various measures to conserve and sustainably use biological diversity, as well as requiring countries to promote efforts to support “environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas, with a view to furthering protection of these areas.” This provides a legislative justification for linking poverty issues to in situ conservation, and an acknowledgement that poverty can pose a threat to the survival of protected areas. The recognition that effective management of natural resources is an important pillar of sustainable development has been given further emphasis by the adoption in 2000 of the United Nations’ eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which aim to implement measures to reduce poverty in the world’s poorest countries by 2015, (see Box 3.1).36

34 Used as a synonym for Biological Diversity. Biological diversity: the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and ecosystems, (IUCN). Ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and nonliving environment, interacting as a fundamental unit. Humans are integral part of ecosystem, (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 35 Scherl, Lea M, et al., (2004) Can Protected Areas Contribute the Poverty Reduction? IUCN, Cambridge, UK. pp. 17-19 36 See Pisupati, Balakrishna, and Emilie Warner (2003) Biodiversity and The Millennium Goals. IUCN Regional Biodiversity Programme – UNDP, Sri Lanka.


24

Among these is MDG7: ‘to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources’ (OECD 2002), which accompanies other goals related to poverty reduction. One of the indicators for progress in achieving MDG7 is the ‘land area protected to maintain biological diversity’. However biodiversity conservation is not just the business of MDG7, as it also underpins the achievement of other goals such as those related to income, hunger alleviation, and access to water. Biodiversity conservation in general and protected areas in particular is still far from fully integrated into sustainable development planning. Some reviews of the MDGs voice concern that biodiversity conservation is being sidelined in a push for development largely driven by the demands of urban populations. For example, many nations are now embarked on compiling Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which are country-written documents detailing their plans for poverty reduction within the World Bank’s Comprehensive Development Framework.

Box 3.1: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and target Goal 1 - Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger Targets: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less that $1 a day; Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. Goal 2 - Achieve Universal Primary Education Target: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. Goal 3 - Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women Target: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005 and in all levels of education no later than 2015. Goal 4 - Reduce Child Mortality Target: Reduce, by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate. Goal 5 - Improve Maternal Health Target: Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio. Goal 6 - Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases Targets: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS; Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases. Goal 7 - Ensure Environmental Sustainability Targets: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources; Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water; Have achieved, by 2020, a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers. Goal 8 - Develop a Global Partnership for Development Targets: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system (includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction - both nationally and internationally).


25

A World Bank study37 found that while information on protected areas relating to MDG7’s environmental baselines and targets featured in 16 of the 28 full PRSPs, in general information on these baselines and targets was either very limited or nonexistent. The study also found that the relevance of indicators such as biodiversity loss and forest clearance to poverty reduction was ignored or ambiguous in some PRSPs, leading to a recommendation that a major effort be undertaken to clarify and align issues related to MDG7. However, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) does clearly state that social economic policies will play the primary role in achieving the 2015 targets set out in Millennium Declaration. The General Synthesis Report of the MA finds that “many of the targets (and goals) are unlikely to be achieved without significant improvement in management of ecosystem.” There is thus a clear link between environmental policies and the first of the MDG 2015 targets to halve the proportion of the world population living in poverty. Of the 1.1 billion people living on less than US$1 a day, around 70% live in rural areas where they depend heavily subsistence agriculture, grazing and hunting; activities that require healthy ecosystem. 38 Sustainable development The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 2002 come a decade after the historic United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which adopted Agenda 21 as blue print for sustainable development. Major issues to emerge over this period have been the globalization of markets, driven by communications advances, trade liberalization, and economic policies, creating new levels of wealth but also widening the gap between the rich and a growing number of poor. Sustainable development has become a widely recognized goal for human society ever since deteriorating environmental conditions in many parts of the world indicate that its sustainability may be at stake. But how do we know for sure? And how can we tell when we are on a path of sustainable development? We need appropriate indicators. One of the most commonly cited definitions stresses the economic aspects by defining sustainable development as “economic development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”39 Another takes a broader view by defining sustainable development as “the kind of human activity that nourishes and perpetuates the historical fulfilment of the whole community of life on earth.”40 There are many ways of securing sustainability, with very different consequences for the participants. Nature has successfully demonstrated sustainable development for a few billion years, with blind disregard of the fate of individuals and even species. 37 Bojo, J, and Reddy, C.R. (2003) “Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium Development Goal on Environment Sustainability: Opportunities for Alignment,” World Bank Environment Department Paper 92 (Environmental Economic Series). 38 Hirsch, Tim, (2005) “Ecosystem Protection, a Key to Development,” Environment & Poverty Times 04. 39 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), (1987) Our common future: The Brundtland report. Oxford University Press. 40 Bossel, Hartmut, (1999) Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. Report to the Balaton Group, IISD, Canada.


26

The principle of survival of the fittest with its effectiveness and dynamics, but also its cruelty and hardship, would not be accepted as a principle for sustainable development by the majority of humankind. Some human societies have been sustainable in their environment over long periods of time by institutionalizing systems of exploitation, injustice, and class privilege that would be equally unacceptable today for most of humankind. Sustainable development of human society has environmental, material, ecological, social, economic, legal, cultural, political and psychological dimensions that require attention: some forms of sustainable development can be expected to be much more acceptable to humans and, therefore, much further away from eventual collapse than others. Bossel41 gives indicator of sustainable development:

• constraints by what is accessible: Societies and their environments change, technologies and cultures change, values and aspirations change, and sustainable society must allow and sustain such change (allow continuous, viable and rigorous development).

• constraints of physical conditions and law of nature: not everything is

possible o laws of nature, logic o physical environment and its constraints o solar energy flow, material resource stock o carrying capacity

• constraints of human nature and human goals: not everything is desirable

o human actors o human organizations, cultures, technology o role of ethics and values

• constraints of time: dynamics and evolution determine pace and direction.

o role of time o role of evolution

Forest, Conservation and Poverty42 Tropical rainforests contain an estimated 50% of all species on earth. They provide livelihoods to some 400 million people, and ecosystem services that are important at local, national and global levels. Forests also contain species of high commercial value, and 31% of tropical rainforests are currently allocated for commercial timber production.43 However, unsustainable practices commonly disrupt forest biodiversity 41 Bossel (1999), Ibid., pp. 3-6. 42 Forest: land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It is not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use. (Global Forest Resource Assessment Update 2005, FAO). Conservation: sustainable use and protection of natural resources including plants, animals, mineral deposits, soils, clean water, clean air, and fossil fuels such as coals, petroleum, and natural gas. Poverty: Statistical Central Agency (BPS) defined poverty is unable for fulfilling minimum basic demands including food demands and non-food demands. Core from this model is to compare population consumption with “poverty line” i.e. money demand for consumption per capita, (BPS 2004). 43 EU-DFID-IUCN (2003) “Forest and Biodiversity,” Biodiversity in Development, Biodiversity Brief 12.


27

and degrade or eliminate forest habitats. Furthermore, the land that forests occupy is under pressure from agricultural expansion, mining and other developments. Based on FAO definitions (which define forests as 10% crown cover or above), forests cover 1,900 million hectares in developing countries, of which around 720 million are tropical rainforests. The latter are found in 85 countries, but 50% of tropical rainforest are found in Brazil, Indonesia and Democratic Republic of Congo alone.44 Around half of the entire world’s species, and 80% of tree species, are thought to occur in tropical rainforests. The species richness, constant evolution and radiation of new species and long life of trees give a dynamic ecosystem with numberless species’ interactions and long cycles of change and growth: a mosaic of gap, growth and mature phase forest patches. Dry zone woodlands are prone to dramatic changes as a result of fires and droughts.45 Despite their apparent vigour, which allows rapid recovery from low-impact changes, tropical rainforests are sensitive to large scale changes in structure or composition. Only 20% Forests and biodiversity soil, the rest being within the living biomass. This makes many of them prone to ‘nutrient erosion’ if degraded. They also contain ‘old growth’ species which are vulnerable to habitat change.46 Forest values Humans and forests have a long history and there are few, if any forests that are entirely untouched by human hand. This means that humans and their environment have adapted together resulting in a multi-functional resource, and many of the benefits of forest goods and services cannot be provided by other forms of land-use. The global forest industry is worth around US$330 billion in annual timber sales. 122 million cubic metres of wood are produced annually by tropical countries, which accounts for one quarter of the world’s traded timber. Demand for round-wood is expected to increase by 1.7%/year until 2010. It has been estimated that traded forest goods provide up to 10% of GDP in some African countries.47 In addition, most timber is consumed domestically and therefore not included in the figures for international trade: over 80% of timber felled in Brazil, for example, is not exported. Forests yield a wide range of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) which support local peoples’ livelihoods through subsistence, barter or trade, including food and feed; construction materials and fibres; medicines; and fuel. For example, in developing countries some 80% of energy requirements are met by wood products (much from on-farm sources), and developing countries produce and consume around 90% of the world’s fuelwood and charcoal.48 Biodiversity-rich forests also provide a supplement to on-farm production, contributing to food security (e.g. bushmeat), and providing a fallback in times of need. World Bank figures for example show that 90% of people who earn less than

44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid.


28

US$1/day depend on forests for their livelihoods. Furthermore, biodiverse crop or tree systems are less prone to widespread disease and pest attacks. Indirect benefits Forests provide a range of services which have been estimated to be worth 4.7 trillion US$/year worldwide (global annual GNP is around 18 trillion US$). These services are often ignored because they are not easy to measure, and are rarely traded in any market:49 • ecological processes, such as carbon-cycling and hydrological regimes, which

stabilise climatic systems, and provide clean air and water, and underpin functions such as soil and water conservation;

• sense of identity including cultural associations and existence values. These are

values which give peoples’ lives a sense of meaning, and can also confer autonomy and self-sufficiency;

• keeping options alive by avoiding the loss of genetic information and maintaining

the conditions for adaptation and evolution. This is important to prevent narrowing of the genetic base which provides raw material for future breeding programmes, or biotechnology. Forest loss and degradation. Nearly half the world’s forest has been converted over the last 8,000 years. Between 1980 and 1995, there was a net loss of 200 million hectares of forest in developing countries. Both Brazil and Indonesia lost 1 million ha each/year, together equalling 45% of the global total. In addition to outright habitat loss, forests are also being degraded – 28% of the 8,600 threatened tree species are declining because of unsustainable felling. Tropical forest loss and degradation will be the single greatest cause of all species extinctions in the next 50 years. At current rates, this means 13% of the world’s species could be lost by 2015. The commercial timber trade and conversion to agricultural land outweigh all other causes of forest loss. Almost all current logging practices significantly reduce biodiversity, and sustainable operations are rare. Some 90 million hectares of land will need to be brought under agriculture by the year 2010 to achieve global food security, probably half of which will be from forested lands. These processes are compounded by the removal of vegetation for fuelwood, building materials and livestock feed, insect pests and disease, fire, extreme climatic events, resettlement, and infrastructure, and invasion of forests along logging roads by commercial hunters, (for relating land degradation and human indicators, see Figure 3.1 and Box 3.2). These direct causes of loss are usually triggered by other, underlying causes which often lie outside the forestry sector. The low price of unprocessed timber, for example, takes no account of the true costs of forest management and biodiversity losses. Many national policies also provide disincentives for sustainable management, such as land tenure or resource access legislation which encourages clearance, subsidising unsustainable livestock and agriculture programmes, and 49 Ibid.


29

failure to integrate biodiversity values into other sectors. In addition, the lack of coherence at the international level between trade and environment debates is a significant factor affecting the sustainable use of forest resources. The challenge. The way ahead is to plan productive landscapes so that: • key forest areas are protected (e.g. for public good benefits, such as watershed

protection); • local people can continue to rely on NTFPs which are sustainably managed,

which could be enhanced through establishing market links with fair returns, based on sustainable harvesting practices;

• production forests are properly managed, sustainably harvested and as much

biodiversity maintained as possible; • areas that are destined to be deforested (e.g. for agricultural expansion) are

those that are most suitable for other purposes (i.e. suitable soils/climate, low biodiversity and few dependent populations).

Poverty. Unquestionably, for a majority of poor rural people—especially the very poor—safeguarding the “safety net” role of forests will remain paramount. But many believes that forestry can also play a much more meaningful role in increasing rural incomes and in reaching the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goal to halve global poverty by the year 2015, while at the same time supporting the Goal of promoting environmental sustainability (UN 2000). Neither large-scale logging nor large-scale forest plantations will contribute much to poverty reduction. Excluding or discouraging local producers from forest markets will not only deprive the poor of income opportunities, but also diminish the value of their forests, thus accelerating degradation and conversion for other uses. Making local commercial production illegal, despite active local demand, inadvertently leads to forest degradation, encourages corruption and undermines the rule of law.50 Population and income growth in developing countries are leading to a burgeoning domestic demand for forest products that little projected import demand from developed countries, even as the latter offers increasingly lucrative and diverse niche markets. Changes in market structure, new market instruments, and new interest by forestry companies in business partnerships with local people are opening market niches for which local producers have, or could develop, a competitive advantage. In some of these market niches, it makes good business sense for forest industry and investors to work with local producers. In today’s economy, different producers can occupy different parts of the value chain. It is not necessary for one company to control hundreds of thousands of hectares, as is the case of many industrial concessions. Small-scale, high-productivity forest harvest and processing equipment is available. Demand has diversified; supply chains are more sophisticated. Shorter-cycle wood and wood by-products are in greater demand. Thus many new opportunities have arisen for commercial forestry enterprise by low-income producers. It is critical to pursue these opportunities. For many millions of poor people in low- and middle-income countries, forest market

50 Scherr, Sara J, Andy White and David Kaimowitz, (2003) A New Agenda for Forest Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Making Forest Markets Work for Low-Income Producers, CIFOR, Washington, D.C.


30

development can positively contribute to local livelihoods and community development.

Figure 3.1: Land degradation and human development indicators (averaged by zones of equal land degradation severity) e.g. percentage of children that died before the age of 5, children with stunted growth, primary school enrolment, adult female literacy. For instance: the place which land degraded is high, children that died before age of 5 reaching 30%; and the land degraded is very high, the primary school enrolment is above 40%. From the agricultural sector we have learned over the past 50 years that promoting small-scale enterprises is one of the most effective ways to trigger broad-based, job-creating rural development. Commercial forestry offers one of the few economically viable options to reduce poverty for poor producers and indigenous peoples living in regions where crop production is higher-risk. There are renewed interest in the international community in the potentials of forestry to address poverty, as indicated by the World Bank’s (2002) and Asian Development Bank’s (ADB 2002) new forestry strategies, FAO’s community forestry initiatives, poverty and natural resource management programs of bilateral aid agencies like as the U.K., the Netherlands, and the U.S., the European Union-UNDP initiative on poverty and environment, and new commitments of conservation organizations like the World Conservation Union and the World Wildlife Fund to address poverty issues. Greater efforts are needed to make the private industrial sector, as well as national leaders in the developing world concerned with rural development and poverty reduction, aware of the potentials of local forest production for the market.


31

Ways must be found to tap the financial resources of the private forestry sector, public agencies and conservation organizations to support rural livelihoods through profitable local businesses. Forestry initiatives for rural development will be more successful if they work with—not against— market forces.51 Forestry can learn lessons from successful experiences of other sectors in reducing poverty, especially the importance of jointly building physical, human and natural capital assets; attending to the distributive aspects of growth over time; and building the institutional framework for good governance. Box 3.2: Key Findings on Forest Environmental Income and Poverty The World Bank conducted study on forest environmental income and poverty, by used meta-analysis is based on 54 case studies from 17 countries. These represented a heterogeneous sample, with highly varying forest environmental incomes and degrees of forest dependence as the common denominator. There were, as documented, several gaps and potential biases in the cases and, therefore, in the meta-analysis. The findings thus need to be interpreted with care. Limitation notwithstanding, several major conclusions emerged from our meta-analysis: • Forest environmental income constituted an average of about 22% of the household income in our

sample. Even though agriculture and off-farm income had higher income shares, forest environmental income represented a significant source of income. In absolute terms, the mean annual forest environmental income was about US$678 (PPP-adjusted) per household in the sample, while the median income was US$346, representing about 19% of total income. This indicates a skewed distribution, with some cases of very high forest incomes (US$3,460 was the highest). Removing the eight studies with forest environmental incomes above US$1,500, forest environmental income was still around 20% of total income, with the average household forest environmental income of US$401. Thus the broad conclusion from our limited amount of cases is that forest environmental income represents about one-fifth to the total income of rural households.

• Even if encumbered with substantial uncertainties and variations, the figures suggest that forest

environmental incomes contribute significantly to the economic production of goods and services and to welfare levels in these societies. Even contributions that are relatively “small” may be of utmost importance to families living close to the survival line. Omitting such incomes from calculations of national economic statistics and poverty assessments will create biases in the base-line data. If such data are then used in development strategies and programs and in policymaking focusing on livelihoods and poverty, inefficient resource use may occur.

• There is probably a selection bias in the sense that communities with high forest dependence

were selected for study in many of the cases. This point to the need to include environmental income estimates into poverty and livelihoods surveys. On the other hand, the studies focused only on a set of environmental benefits, namely those from the forest. Moreover, the values of forest environmental (both forest and non-forest) services are difficult to quantify, and almost all studies concentrated on products only. This lack of valuation of benefits created an estimation bias in the other direction. It implies that the figures cited all other factors constant, represent a lower limit for environmental incomes in the cases.

• Wild food and fuelwood were by far the two most important forest products for the households in

51 Scherr, ibid, pp. 3.


32

the sample, accounting for an average of 70% of all forest income. The researcher suspect that some products were underreported, such as fodder, which was reported in only seven cases but still had the third highest value for these cases. Cutting trees for timber got surprisingly low figures.

• Forest income was higher in Latin America, while East Africa had the lowest figures. There was a

weak tendency of higher income from wet forests, but the variation across regions was stronger than the variation across forest types.

• Forest environmental income tended to increase with distance to market—that is, more-remote

communities had higher forest environmental incomes. This probably reflects both forest abundance and lack of other income opportunities. Few of the other contextual factors were found to have a statistically significant impact on forest environmental income, including tenure and legal status.

• About half of the forest environmental income was earned in cash (only about a third of the cases

distinguished between cash and subsistence income). A surprising finding was that the share earned in cash declined with higher forest environmental income. We also found a negative but weaker relationship between the cash share and total income. Thus cash forest products and market access were at least as important for communities with low forest and low total income as they were for better-off communities.

• Forest environmental incomes were particularly important for poor people. Dependence is

measured by relative forest income (percent of total income). The sample was divided into three groups: low, medium, and high forest dependence, with relative forest incomes of 5, 19, and 42%, respectively. The difference between these groups was striking. The high forest dependence group had on average only half the total income of the two other groups. This group also scored lower on household capital indicators such as education and livestock ownership, and they lived in more-remote locations.

• As expected, there was a strong positive association between forest environmental income and

total income. Forest environmental income was important not only for poor communities. However, in terms of forest dependence (income share), the opposite was true: the study found a weak but not statistically significant trend of declining forest environmental income share as total income increased.

• Only about a quarter of the studies explicitly addressed the question of the distribution of forest

income within the communities studied. Yet the picture that emerged was clear: the poor were more dependent on forest income, and forest income had a strong equalizing effect on local income distribution. The pro-poor profile of forest environmental income was much stronger when looking at inter-household differences than intercommunity differences.

• In the seven studies that calculated Gini coefficients (a measure between 0 and 1 of the degree of

inequality), the coefficient on average increased from 0.41 to 0.51 when forest income was excluded from the calculations.

• The forest income share for the poor was about twice the share for the rich households in the

communities, about 32 and 17%, respectively. Still, the absolute level of forest income was higher for the richest households.

• Forest income can be seen as part of rural households’ diversification strategies. This study found

that high total income was associated with less income diversification, indicating that higher income was achieved though a process of specializing in one or a few high return activities. Interestingly, this study found a bell-shaped relationship between diversification and forest environmental income. This result, however, was sensitive to a few outliers in the data.


33

• Many studies found that forest environmental incomes most typically serve as income

supplements and important safety net in times of hardship. Only rarely do they provide a pathway out of poverty. The present study cannot provide any rigorous analysis of strategies, but our findings are consistent with this observation.

As stated throughout the report, it is difficult to determine how representative these findings are for developing countries in general, for African, Latin American or for Asian countries, for communities close to or far away from forests, for rich and poor developing countries, for dry and humid climates, and so on. Caution is called for in drawing conclusions and using the findings.

Forests and economic value: Indonesia Smallholder agricultural development has been a successful “engine of growth” in poor countries, supporting broad-based income growth in a dominant sector of the economy, with high multiplier effects. Community-based forestry has the potential to contribute much more to achieving sustainable development and poverty reduction than is the case today. Forestry provides more than 10% of the GDP of some the poorest countries, and 5% of GDP for many more countries. While over 90% of developing country production is consumed domestically, there are nonetheless about 10 developing countries where forestry accounts for 10% or more of the total national exports.52 Forests sector is an important source employment in many developing countries. It is estimated that the timber industry provides 10 million jobs in developing countries, plus 30-50 million informal jobs in the wood industry. In Indonesia, a large but undetermined number of forest-dwelling or forest dependent communities live in or adjacent to Indonesia’s forests. Estimates made over the past several decades have varied wildly on the precise numbers—from 1.5 to 65 million people—depending on which definitions was used and which policy agenda was at stake. As of mid-2000, the Ministry of Forestry and Plantations reported that 30 million people “depend directly on the forestry sector for their livelihoods.” Many of these forest-dwellers live by long-sustainable “portfolio” economic strategies which combine shifting cultivation of rice and other food crops with fishing, hunting, the gathering of forests products (e.g., rattan, honey, resins) for use and sale, and the cultivation of tree crops such as rubber for sale. These local values of the forest are poorly appreciated, though, because they are not reflected in formal market transactions.53 Meanwhile, Illegal logging is widespread and systematic in many parts of Indonesia. Indeed, Indonesia’s timber economy can now be said to be largely an illegal, underground economy: According to a 1999 study by the Indonesia-U.K. Tropical Forest Management Programme, illegal removals are thought to be in the range of 30 million m3 per year, exceeding legal cutting and thus supplying the majority of the country’s timber.54

52 Maginnis, Stewart and Mark Aldrich (2005) “Forest Conservation and Poverty Reduction: the Hunt for Synergies,” Arborvitae: The IUCN/WWF Forest Conservation Newsletter 29. 53 Barber, Charles Victor (2001) Forests, Fires, and Confrontation in Indonesia, International Marinelife Alliance, Washington, D.C. pp. 114. 54 Ibid., pp. 123.


34

Box 3.3 shows how were Indonesia’s forests is among the most extensive, diverse and valuable in the world. The forest sector support economic development and contributes to livelihoods of rural poor. The challenge in making forest-based growth pro-poor is to (i) generate growth, (ii) ensure that the poor benefit from growth, and most crucially (iii) sustain growth by managing the forestry resource. There are two main ways in which forestry can contribute to reducing poverty: Through national economic growth that creates jobs and ads to overall growth and government revenues. Forest revenues from forest taxes can be used for pro-poor purposes, both at the national level and in areas near to forests with high poverty - as tried in Ghana and Cameroon. Through opportunities for small and medium scale enterprises both as producers and processors of forest products - as tried through joint forest management. In order for national forest benefits to support poverty reduction, forest management needs to be unsubsidized, the profits needs to be taxed by the government and used for pro-poor spending. Box 3.3: Indonesian forestry and rural poverty: factsheet55 Economic Issues. Forestry and the forest products industry played an important part in Indonesia’s economy over the last 20 years. In the last ten years, forestry represented 3 to 4% of national gross domestic product (or 20 to 24% of the industrial sector) and was an important source of export earnings. In rural areas, forestry and forest industries are even more important contributors to the regional economy. Tempering these economic benefits, forest exploitation has also engendered forest destruction, loss of environmental services, concentration of wealth, and conflict with traditional community land uses and non-commercial ways of life. The high economic values (billions of dollars/year) being extracted from the sector must be recognized as a constraint on how much policy reform or small incentives can be expected to achieve. Indonesia faces a choice between a continuation of the status quo – with bleak implications for the future – and a concerted effort to manage toward a different future state – with balanced supply and demand and a revitalized industrial sector Poverty and Rural Development Issues. Most poor Indonesians live in rural areas. Forestry sector and land use issues are intertwined with rural development and poverty alleviation issues. In the rural sector generally, and in the forestry, agroforestry, and small scale plantation sector in particular, poorer households suffer from uncertain property rights, pressure to move to marginalized land and often resort to unsustainable resource management practices. They have limited access to capital and justice. Forest sector discussions often focus only on products or rights, not the other enabling conditions needed to produce community livelihood improvements, such as credit, markets, access and infrastructure. In forest sector or land use discussions, communities are often viewed as instruments for attaining certain goals (e.g., watershed rehabilitation), rather than as market actors and competent partners engaged in forest and ecosystem use and management. In conservation discussions, communities are increasingly seen as partners in achieving protection objectives, but they are often also viewed as threats, not legitimate users of forest resources.

• Efforts to Address Rural Poverty Must Recognize Issues of Forest Land Use and Control. State-claimed “forest lands” account for more than 70% of Indonesia’s land area. Recent GIS and population analyses confirm that 50-60 million Indonesians (about a quarter) live in this mostly rural, state-claimed area. More significantly, 80% of these people

55 The World Bank (2006) Sustaining Indonesia’s Forests: Strategy for the World Bank, 2006-2009.


35

live in areas with no tree cover. Of the people living in the forest zone, about 20% are poor, slightly higher than the national average of 17%. In areas with forest cover, the numbers of poor are relatively low (3-6 million people), but poverty incidence is relatively high (22% in poverty vs. 17% for the country as a whole) (Boccucci, Muliastra, and Dore, 2005; Brown, 2004). These large numbers of people have uncertain and insecure rights of access to forest resources, even in areas that no longer support tree cover.

• Disagreement Over Who Should Control Forest Lands Causes Uncertainty and

Conflict. Significant areas of the state claimed “forest zone” are non-forested (32 million ha or 24% of total). Some of these areas, and other forested areas, are in fact community managed agro-forests, agricultural lands or grasslands. These areas are currently regulated as if they still are natural forests or lands to be reforested for timber production (Contreras-Hermosilla and Fay, 2005). Many argue for a wider rationalization of forest land uses, control, and ownership. Others note that improved tenure security is a key element in alleviating rural poverty. Various initiatives are being promoted for addressing these issues and boundary demarcation of forest lands is a ministerial priority. Access and tenure are increasing issues of discussion between the Department of Forestry and stakeholders.

• Women’s Roles and Rights Need More Active Consideration in Forest Sector

Decisions. Women use forest resources differently than men. These differences may be especially important in poorer areas more dependent on traditional practices, such as collection and processing of non-timber forest products and fuelwood. Poverty also has differential gender impacts, and many argue the more women and children are among the poor. Improvements in forest management, access and rights would help to address this imbalance. There are efforts to raise awareness and action within the Department of Forestry and its regional branches through training programs and coordination with other key GOI agencies to include gender issues into forest development and make the agency more gender responsive.

• Lack of Involvement of Poor People.56 Officials are still learning about how to best

communicate with villager about government programs and to learn about local villagers’ perceptions of poverty and priorities. Local people complained about a general lack transparency, weak professional competence, low responsiveness to local initiatives, a top-down approach, and rent-seeking behavior of project managers in the district government. One difficulty is that many of the poor are insufficiently trained and organized to participate effectively in decision making process.

• Marginal institution. The lead institution responsible for coordinating poverty alleviation

programs lack authority and funding, capabilities, influence and some places leadership to promote poverty alleviation programs.

Generally, David Reed suggests several basic principles must be fulfilled if poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability are to be promoted in rural areas: • Institutional reform must allow the rural poor to increase their control over and

access to natural resource wealth and environmental assets in the areas in which they live.

56 CIFOR (2006) “Governments and Poverty Alleviation in Forest Areas in Indonesia,” Governance Brief, Forest and Governance Programme.


36

• Education and health services, introduction of technological improvements, extension of basic infrastructure, and access to credit must be delivered by national government on a sustained basis.

• Pro-urban policies and incentives must be reversed to ensure that meso and

macro policies provide a steady steam of financial, technical and human resources to rural areas.

• Political arrangements must be restructured to ensure adequate representation of

rural populations and rural issues • Urban populations must pay rural communities for their stewardship of

environmental goods and services on which healthy urban life and wellbeing depend.57

Addressing poverty in the context of biodiversity conservation The discussion about the links between livelihoods, poverty and conservation is not particularly new. Many conservationists have expressed concern about the need to take livelihoods and poverty into account in conservation activities. Since the 1970s, the movements advocating Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) and community-based conservation and resource management have reflected these concerns. Despite innovative and exciting work, however, ICDPs have been criticised for a lack of a clear framework and for weak or piecemeal implementation.58 Taking poverty reduction more seriously in conservation has a number of implications: • All conservation initiatives should strive to ensure that they do not make the poor

worse off. The costs of conservation should not be imposed on those least able to absorb them; they should be met by those groups — usually national governments and the international community — who regard conservation as a priority. This must go beyond narrow “something for something” compensation. Best-practice measures designed to offset the impact of conservation activities should maintain, if not expand, development options, rather than leaving people in a poverty trap or a condition of “sustainable poverty.”

• Conservation ought to contribute actively to poverty reduction more broadly

where it can — as in the restoration of ecosystems — simply because it can. • There is a pressing need to be more realistic. Integrated conservation and

development may not result in perfect solutions, but an equitably balanced trade-off will still lead to better conservation outcomes than could have been achieved otherwise.

• Strengthening or guaranteeing access to natural resources will contribute to

secure livelihoods for the people who depend on them. This implies that rural

57 Reed, David, (2001) Poverty is not a Number, the Environment is not Butterfly, a Viewpoint Series on Poverty and the Environment, WWF Macroeconomics Program Office, EC, DGIS and SIDA, Washington, D.C. 58 Fischer, R.J., et al., (2005) Landscape and Conservation: Landscape, People, and Power, IUCN Forest Conservation Programme, Landscape and Livelihoods Series No.2, Cambridge, UK. pp. 11-12.


37

people will have more decentralized control over the resources which they have traditionally used and managed.

Biodiversity is not just a measure of sustainable development or a concern of environmentalists, it is essential to many people’s lives. We all depend on the diversity of life – from the different types of micro-organisms vital for soil fertility, to the range of plants and animals used for food and shelter, to the variety of forests and other ecosystems protecting water supplies. Poor people are the most dependent on these diverse resources, and are most vulnerable when biodiversity is lost. However, poverty often forces people to give priority to immediate needs, and use resources unsustainably. Loss of biodiversity is a major concern to people all over the world, both rich and poor, who pressed their countries to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity (the CBD) at the Rio Summit in 1992. The CBD recognizes that development and the elimination of poverty are the overriding priorities for poorer countries. It is based on the principle that states have rights as well as responsibilities for their own resources. The objectives are: conservation of biological diversity; sustainable use of the components of biodiversity; fair and equitable sharing of the benefits resulting from the utilisation of genetic resources. The root causes of biodiversity loss are complex. An important factor is the failure of traditional economic analysis to take into account the true value of biodiversity. In addition to market failure, policies and institutions are also influential, and one important way to address these issues is to ensure local people have clear land tenure and use rights. This helps people to benefit from the conservation of resources, and provides incentives for good management. Much biodiversity is lost because of changes in land use, primarily for increased agricultural production. The forces driving the changes include excessive consumption by the rich, as well as the pressing needs of the poor. In some instances people see biodiverse areas as a barrier to development, and it is not always possible to find ‘win-win’ scenarios which enhance both people’s livelihoods and biodiversity.59 Participatory and empowerment. In line with that, development cooperation projects are often implicitly understood as battles in the fight against poverty. While this may be “self-evident” to some, it is actually quite difficult to find any tangible evidence for this in real life. The assumption that better living conditions for those who are already (to some extent) privileged will, at some stage, also help to improve the life of the poor has unfortunately not been confirmed. What is required is a combination of participatory monitoring procedures to safeguard subjectivity and multidimensionality in the analysis of poverty with a differentiating outside perspective on the uneven distribution of wealth and privileges. This in turn requires a poverty-oriented definition of the basic parameters (poverty assessments, gender assessments).60 When it comes to evaluating the measures intended to eradicate poverty and to level the differences in the distribution of wealth and privileges, it is at least as important to eradicate the causes of poverty as well. Empowerment seeks a direct approach to a solution by involving those concerned and by promoting concepts such as responsibility and self-reliance. It supports those immediately concerned, either directly or through intermediate organisations. The indirect steps, however, which

59 DFID (2003) Biodiversity: A Crucial Issue for the World’s Poorest, UK. 60 Durr, Christoph (ed.), (1999) The Contribution of Forest and Trees to Poverty Alleviation, Inter cooperation, Series 1C no. 3, Swiss-Bern, pp. 12-13.


38

target the socio-economic framework and exogenous causes of poverty, are of equal importance. Existing power structures, legal and fiscal regulations and the distribution of resources (including skills and knowledge) can only be changed under strong political pressure which needs to be generated primarily by those who are concerned themselves. The fight against poverty must aim to ensure a fairer and more even distribution of wealth and privileges. Making poverty less miserable is not enough. Forests and poor people Trees and forests make a substantial contribution to the livelihoods of the rural population. Permanent improvements to living conditions of the poor require the poor themselves to focus on their needs, to analyse the socio-economic framework and to push the necessary changes in all levels of politics and society. The management of forest resources is particularly appropriate stage for such attempt since it directly concerns a large number of the poor. The following issues have a particularly high rank if priority61:

• focus on poor population groups and women • guarantee and secure the access to forest resources • create incentives to plant and nurture tress • develop the production in nice sectors • evaluate and reward the forests’ environmental contributions.

In the next few decades, products from trees and forests will still have an important role to play in the economic lives of the poor. At the same time, however, populations will rise and put forest resources under ever increasing pressure.62 The growth in productivity will not be able to keep up with the pace of this development, and consequently the poor will need help in finding alternative livelihoods outside the forests. In countries with few forests, the improvement of agricultural production and processing techniques can solve many of the pertinent problems. The forest resources will meanwhile not lose their function as the ‘provider of last resort’ for the poor families. The challenge will be to preserve trees and forests both as productive economic factors and as a safety net with all their environmental benefits. If this particular circle can be squared, everybody will be a winner: improved protection from natural disasters and cleaner, healthier drinking water supplies will feature among the results. The objectives of the development projects can be categorised according to their intended impact on poverty. The objectives range from poverty neutral (do not make worse the situation or cause any new poverty) via poverty alleviating or – reducing to aiming to eradicate poverty permanently.63 Not all projects equally suited for the fight against poverty, but this (fight) needs to be transversally (and measurably) integrated into the planning process as a clearly stated objective. Use forest to support rural livelihoods. About 20 million Indonesian people live in villages near forests, of which about six million receive a major share of their cash

61 Durr, op cit. pp. 14-15. 62 Ibid, pp. 16. 63 Ibid.


39

income from forest resources. Forests provide poor households with fuel, medicines, food, and construction materials and serve as safety nets during times of hardship. However, this resource is both threatened and poorly utilized. Three actions are needed to ensure that forests support rural livelihoods:64 Using forest lands to promote Community Development. Indonesia’s State Forest Zone covers over 70% of the national territory. Yet, over one third of that has no forest. These areas provide livelihoods for millions of smallholders. Some 70% of rubber production comes from farms located within the forest estate, as does a large portion of other tree crop products. Rubber is the main source of income for seven million people. The present delineation of state forest lands and the absence of formal mechanisms for recognizing smallholders’ use or property rights discourages tree growing and undermines productive and environmentally sound land use. Since a significant portion of the areas in the forest estate (Kawasan Hutan) have not been forested for many years or are in managed agro-forests, it is time to consider developing collaborative management arrangements or removing these areas from the forest estate. This would improve resource security of the groups operating there, promote long-term investment and allow the Ministry of Forestry to focus on forested areas or areas likely to be under forest in the future. To avoid encouraging further forest conversion by groups hoping to gain property rights over land, the government might initially concentrate on areas that are already have mature agro-forestry systems and areas far from remaining forests. Encouraging community forestry and small-scale enterprises. Depletion of forest resources could reduce seasonal employment opportunities for hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even several million families. Some of them will undoubtedly find alternative options. However, such options will be hard to find in remote and hilly areas and places with poor soils. This could generate new pockets of chronic poverty. One way to tackle this is through encouraging small-scale forest enterprises. Small-scale forest plantations and agro-forests, saw mills, handicraft and furniture enterprises, and non-timber forest product activities generate considerable employment and value added. The government can support small-scale forest-based activities by contracting civil society organizations to provide credit, market information, management training and new technologies for individuals and small companies engaged in these activities. Similarly the regulatory environment could be improved by removing restrictions and simplifying procedures for the transport and sale of trees planted by farmers. Promote community – company partnerships. Ensuring a good partnership between companies and forest communities is a key to broadening the benefits from forest activities. Government agencies can assist by working with companies, communities and NGOs to improve the nature of the contracts between companies and communities. Together the aim should be to provide communities with: • information on markets for various forest products produced by the communities; • a better understanding the issues communities need to understand when

negotiating purchasing or business development contracts; • stronger negotiation skills; • a mechanism for mediating disputes between companies and communities; and 64 The World Bank, (2005) “Managing Forests for All,” Indonesia Policy Briefs: Ideas for the Future.


40

• stronger mechanisms for enforcing contracts. The government should also encourage pulp companies to promote out-grower schemes as part of their sustainability plans by setting a target that an appropriate portion of the new forest plantation areas planted in the next five years should be in outgrower schemes Sustainable livelihoods assessment Sustainable livelihoods assessment carried out at a community level in conjunction with a conservation assessment can determine whether communities can develop a sustainable business and at the same time achieve desirable outcomes for conservation. A sustainable livelihoods assessment will identify the underlying relationship between the communities and the resources, and it will examine how the community prioritizes the development of certain businesses in its efforts to achieve sustainable livelihood. This is important to ensure that any business development strategy is selected and driven by the community. Where poverty of communities is identified during a threats analysis as a root cause of biodiversity loss, business development may be one option for a conservation strategy. However, poverty has a multi-dimensional nature, and therefore it is risky and not necessarily accurate to assume that business development is the solution for poverty alleviation. An individual’s livelihood consists of his or her well-being, availability of food, income levels, access to and use of natural resources and vulnerability to shocks. One or all of these may need to be improved to reduce poverty. The livelihoods framework encourages a broad and systematic view of the factors that cause poverty — whether these are shocks and adverse trends, poorly functioning institutions and policies or a basic lack of assets. The analysis should be carried out at an individual household level, as every household has its own assets, activities and needs, which can differ widely between households. This analysis should be done in iteration with the conservation assessment, as data gathered will inform the conservation assessment. Carried out with full community participation, the assessment can also increase local ownership of future economic activities and the intended conservation goals. The main steps of the assessment should be stages:65 1. Identify key factors influencing a community’s interest, ability and role in business

development. 2. Assess and plan for social impacts from business development. 3. Scope potential products or services that the communities want to develop

commercially and how this goal can be achieved in the most socially acceptable manner.

65 See Bovarnick, Andrew and Ajay Gupta, (2003) Local Business for Global Biodiversity Conservation, GEF-UNDP, New York.


41

Identify and needs priorities. Communities should identify their needs and priorities for improving all elements of their livelihoods. The livelihoods assessment should therefore review the following: • the context in which different groups of people live, including the effects upon

them of external trends (economic, technological, population growth, etc.), shocks (whether natural or man-made) and seasonality;

• people’s access to different types of assets (physical, human, financial, natural and social) and their ability to put these to productive use;

• the institutions, policies and organizations that shape their livelihood; • the different strategies that they adopt in pursuit of their goals; and • vulnerability and dependency on the environment. The assessment should be highly participatory and people-orientated and consensus should be attempted. The sense of ownership and empowerment are often powerful incentives for communities to participate not only in subsequent economic activities but also in the pursuit of broader conservation goals. This assessment should identify the basic needs and priorities of the communities, the history of local economic development and local financial needs that influence use of resources. It will also identify the key barriers to generating income and developing small businesses (market volatility, lack of land tenure etc.). The livelihoods assessment can also be used to complement the threats analysis in mapping natural resource use and identifying the key resource users within each community. Project designs will also need to address non-income orientated needs and activities, e.g. food security or energy needs that are identified in the livelihoods assessment. The assessment should also produce a plan for ensuring that the communities continue to participate fully in the process of designing the business development strategy and in its implementation. The identification of community livelihood needs and priorities should inform the conservation assessment. The information provided by the assessment should then be used to determine how the communities wish to proceed with regard to small business development. Community for Conserved Areas and Forestry The 5th World Conservation Union (IUCN) World Parks Congress recognised that ‘a considerable part of the earth’s biodiversity survives on territories under the ownership, control or management of indigenous peoples and local (including mobile) communities’. Most such sites have been hitherto unrecognised in formal national and international conservation systems, perhaps ‘because [their] management systems are often based on customary tenure, norms and institutions that are not formally or legally recognised’. Realizing that many such sites are under threat, participants at the Congress agreed a recommendation in support of the national and international recognition of such areas (Box 3.4).


42

Box 3.4: Community conserved areas66 Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) are natural and modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values, voluntary conserved by indigenous and local community through customary laws and other effective means. The term as used here is meant to connote a broad and open approach to categorizing such community initiatives, and is not intended to constrain the ability of communities to conserve their areas in the way they feel appropriate. Participants at the 5th IUCN World Parks Congress, Durban 2003 recommend (among other things) that Governments should:

• Promote a multisectoral process for recognizing, enlisting, evaluating CCAs; • Recognize and promote CCAs as a legitimate form of biodiversity conservation, and

where communities so choose, include them within national systems of protected areas, through appropriate changes in legal and policy regimes;

Communities should:

• Commit to conserving the biodiversity in CCAs, maintaining ecological services, and protecting associated cultural values.

In Community Conserved Areas, authority and responsibility rest with the communities through a variety of forms of ethnic governance or locally agreed organizations and rules. These forms and rules are very diverse and can be extremely complex. For instance, land and/or some resources may be collectively owned and managed, but other resources may be individually owned and managed or managed on a clan-basis. Nearly every community has developed management regulations and organizations, which may or may not be legally sanctioned at the national level.67 In Community Conserved Areas, the community’s account ability to the larger society remains usually limited, although it may be defined as part of broader negotiations with the national government and other partners, possibly as a counter part to being assured, for example, the recognition of collective land rights, the respect for customary practices and the provision of economic incentives. Such negotiations may even result in a joint management arrangement among indigenous and local communities, government actors and other stakeholders. Some communities organize themselves in various ways, including legal forms such as NGOs, to manage their resources. Community Conserved Areas have three essential characteristics:

• Some indigenous peoples68 and local and mobile communities are “concerned” about the relevant ecosystems – usually being related to them culturally and/or because of livelihoods.

66 Scherl, op cit., pp.36. 67 Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia., et al, (2004) Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas, WCPA, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 11, IUCN. 68 Refer to ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, the indigenous people include: (i) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status


43

• Such indigenous and local communities are the major players (and hold

power) in decision making and implementation of decisions on the management of the ecosystems at stake, implying that some form of community authority exists and is capable of enforcing regulations.

• The voluntary management decisions and efforts of such communities lead

towards the conservation of habitats, species, ecological services and associated cultural values, although the protection status may have been set up to meet a variety of objectives, not necessarily related to the conservation of biodiversity.

Although not all Community Conserved Areas may be classified as protected areas, all of them make an important contribution to conservation, and as such they require recognition and support from national governments and the conservation community, especially in cases where they face threats from different forces and when communities are in a situation of vulnerability. Community forestry In Indonesia since the early 1980s efforts have been made to increase community involvement in forest management and achieve recognition of existing community forestry activities. Recent changes in the political climate (reformasi) and implementation of regional autonomy would seem to increase opportunities for development of community forestry. To that end, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) has been working with 27 communities in the upper Malinau basin in East Kalimantan since 1999 to improve local peoples’ access and control over forest benefits.69 CIFOR defined community forestry as forest management systems where local communities have some level of influence over decisions related to forest management or benefits. For example the Punan of Long Pada in the upper Tubu River excludes outsiders from collecting gaharu (Aquilaria spp) in their territory to try to conserve this valuable non-timber forest product. The Kenyah in Setulang have designated the remaining primary forest in their village area as protected forest (Tane’ Olen). They have started to monitor the forest condition to restrict encroachment. If managed properly, community forestry can accommodate a wider range of needs and services derived from forests and increase income generating opportunities for both local government and local people. Community forestry can also support sustainable management of forest resources and maintain environmental services such as watershed protection. But the development of community forestry in Malinau faces some fundamental problems that have to be resolved before community forestry can be applied at any scale. Some of these most likely apply elsewhere in Indonesia.

is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations; (ii) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. See Borrini-Feyerabend, Ibid., pp. 8. 69 Limberg, Godwin., et al., (2005) “Opportunities and Constraints to Community Forestry: Experience from Malinau,” Governance Brief No. 15, Forest Governance Programme, CIFOR.


44

Based on CIFOR’s experience, at present, obstacles to community forestry exist at several levels. Strengthening community forestry would require addressing these obstacles. At the village level, communities face70:

• weak village institutions • poor models for benefit sharing • lack of effective conflict management • poor markets, lack of market information and disadvantage of high transport

cost • no access to equipment • weak recognition and linking of community rules and regulations to local

government framework • unclear boundaries and land tenure

At the district government level, the main problems are:

• limited experience and technical know-how with different models of community forestry

• development of community forestry is labor and facilitation intensive for the forestry service

• community forestry is more difficult to scale up • uncertainty about legal framework about tenure, forestry and taxes and its

implication for access and control over forest land • competing land uses that have higher potential for district revenue generation • large remote areas that are difficult to survey • uncertainty about how to integrate community forestry with current land use

designations. At the central government level the main problems are:

• how to develop regulations that ensure sustainability, but are flexible enough to allow local adjustment to varying conditions

• how to develop mechanism for appropriate taxation and benefit sharing for different options

• how to control and monitor the implementation of regulations. NGOs could provide important assistance but face constraints such as:

o development of community forestry is labor and facilitation intensive o how to mediate between communities and district government o how to translate experiences elsewhere to locally appropriate options o how to avoid dependency of community on NGO.

CIFOR suggests the following steps as important starting points:

• acknowledge and protect existing users and their priorities, especially for meeting basic food and cash needs

• start with small-scale experiments

• communities have to be equal partners in process, or drive the process to

ensure ownership and good communication

• focus on both technical (forest and resource management) aspects and social aspects, such as fair distribution of benefits, participation of community members in decision-making, transparency, check and balances within community and between community and other partners.

70 Ibid, pp. 5.


45

• develop effective conflict management mechanisms

• secure tenure e.g. through boundary demarcation and land title or management rights decentralization has opened the door for small-scale forest management in Indonesia. The question is, what role can communities have in small-scale forest management? The list of constraints to develop community forestry is substantial, but given the potential advantages it is well worth the effort. Pilot projects supported by networks for shared learning will be important to gain insights and provide examples to other communities. The district governments should support local initiatives to stimulate policy debate at district and central government to develop further opportunities for communities to practice and benefit from forestry.

This section does not provide a comprehensive review of the linkages between conservation, environmental degradation, poverty and wealth. Clearly these linkages are very complex, although people have a strong tendency to try and demonstrate one-way causal links between various factors. For example, the following often contradictory assertions are all made frequently and often backed up with good evidence (at least for a particular case):

• Poverty leads to increased environmental degradation, either because rural people don’t know better or because they have no choice but to overexploit natural resources.

• Wealthy people have a severe impact on natural resources because they

consume more. This often leads to environmental degradation.

• People who are dependent on resources for their livelihoods are likely to protect them more carefully.

• Conservation worsens poverty by excluding people from resources.

• Conservation contributes to better quality of livelihoods because it guarantees

availability of resources. All these assertions can be valid interpretations of specific cases, but none of them is true universally. Attempts to understand linkages must be related to the contexts of specific situations. The specific factors that govern causes and effects need to be carefully identified and properly understood, a process that will often be quite complex.71 Further, in the absence of widely applicable causal patterns, addressing poverty and conservation linkages will inevitably be more of an art — requiring creativity and flexibility — than an exact science.

71 Ibid, pp. 15


46

Section IV CLIMATE CHANGE Background Carbon (and in its oxidised form, carbon dioxide) is cycled continuously through the Earth’s natural systems. The components of this cycle of relevance here are those relating to the land, predominantly plants and soils. The main natural flows are: • Carbon released (emitted) to the atmosphere by respiration (the biosphere

‘breathing’ - taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide) and the decay of organic matter;

• Carbon sequestered (absorbed) by plants as they grow, through photosynthesis,

creating a natural store or stock of carbon in their tissues. Some of this is transferred to the soil through the roots and as leaves and other litter fall.

These natural flows total around 440 gigaton (Gt) CO2/yr between the land and the atmosphere and are approximately in balance. A stock equivalent to just over 7,300 GtCO2 is currently stored in plants and soils, more carbon than contained in all remaining oil stocks, and more than doubles the amount currently in the atmosphere. If these stocks were disturbed, there is potential for sizeable emissions.72 Man-made land-use changes alter the local balance between CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere and absorbed by the ecosystem, leading to an accumulation or loss of carbon from the land stock. Measuring these flows accurately is very difficult, but estimates by Houghton (2003) suggest that in 2000, human changes to land led to a loss (release) of around 8 GtCO2. This is clearly a small fraction (less than 2%) of the total flow to the atmosphere from land but can have a significant impact on the climate.73 The human activities when fossil fuels are used to generate energy, which release carbon dioxide (CO2), it is caused releasing greenhouse gas into atmosphere. The greenhouse gas has been added when forests, which have functioned to carbon sinks, are cut down and burned. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are emitted from agricultural activities, changes in land use and other sources. Artificial chemicals called halocarbons74 (chlorofluorocarbons-CFCs, hydroflourocarbons-HFCs, perfluorocarbons-PFCs) and other long-lived gases such as sulphur

72 October 30, 2006, Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, Annex 7.f 73 Ibid. 74 Halocarbons is chemical compounds containing carbon atoms, and one or more atoms of the halogens chlorine (Cl), fluorine (F), bromine (Br) or iodine (I), include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), perflourocarbons (PFCs) and halons. Halocarbons that release chlorine, bromine or iodine into the stratosphere cause ozone depletion (WMO-UNEP 2003).


47

hexafluoride (SF6) are released by industrial process. Ozone75 in the lower atmosphere is generated indirectly by automobile exhaust fumes and other sources (see Box 4.1). Box 4.1: Climate forcing mechanism76 Climate forcing mechanisms are factors that compel changes in climate. In general, we try to distinguish natural variations from anthropogenic—human caused—climate forcings. Natural factors disturbing global climate include variations in the Earth’s orbit, variations in solar energy output and volcanic activity which tends to cool the Earth’s surface. While undeniably influencing the surface temperature, these natural variations and occurrences alone do not explain the global temperature record. Anthropogenic factors affecting global climate change include:

• Industrial processes: Industrial emissions accounted for 43% of global carbon dioxide emissions in 1995. Industrial sector carbon emissions grew at a rate of 1.5% per year between 1971 and 1995, slowing to 0.4% per year since 1990. Emissions are not the only negative impact of industrial processes; other concerns include industrial waste and depletion of natural resources.

• Buildings: The buildings sector, including commercial and residential GHG emissions

related to energy efficiency, lighting, appliances, insulation, space heating and refrigeration, accounted for 31% of global carbon dioxide emissions in 1995. Emissions from this sector have increased at rate of 1.8% per year since 1971.

• Transportation: The transportation sector has greatly expanded with industrialization

and urbanization. The increase in vehicle circulation contributes not only to noise and local air pollution, but amounts to 22% of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. Worldwide, emissions from this sector are growing at a rapid rate of approximately 2.5% annually.

• Land use changes and agriculture: The increase in global population has led to the

conversion of forests and grasslands into agricultural systems. Land use changes can disrupt the nature of the weather systems upon which the ecosystem depends. Since forested land evaporates more water and converts more carbon dioxide, oxygen and water than cleared land, deforestation causes changes in the hydrological cycle and increases in carbon dioxide emissions. Agricultural practices such as rice cultivation, livestock rising and fertilizer use also contribute to the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Land use change and agriculture accounted for only 4% of global CO2 emissions but over 20% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (mainly from CH4 and N2O) in 1995.

These human activities generate approximately seven billion tonnes of carbon per year, 75% of which were emitted by industrialized nations in 1995.

75 Ozone is the triatomic form of oxygen (O3), which is a gaseous atmospheric constituent. In the troposphere it is created by photochemical reactions involving gases occurring naturally and resulting from anthropogenic activities (‘smog’). Tropospheric ozone acts as a greenhouse gas. In the stratosphere ozone is created by the interaction between solar ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O2). Stratospheric ozone plays a major role in the stratospheric radiative balance. Its concentration is highest in the ozone layer (WMO-UNEP 2003). 76 See Figueres, Christiana, (2002) Establishing national Authorities for the CDM: A Guide for Developing Countries, IISD & Center for Sustainable Development in Americas, Canada. pp. 4.


48

Economic, technological and social trends, as well as global population will dictate future greenhouse gas emissions. However, given data collected thus far from experimental models and simulations, it is already clear that we can no longer afford to proceed along the business-as-usual emissions trend. The environmental, economic and social consequences of climate change are too dire to go unheeded.

Stern Review on October 30, 2006 reported that greenhouse gas emissions (2000), which divided by energy emission and non energy emissions: on energy emission, power takes place high rank is 24%, followed industry and transport 15% respectively, buildings 8%, and other related energy 5%. On non-energy emissions, is land use 18%, agriculture 14% and waste 3%77 (see Figure 4.1).

Greenhouse-gas emissions (2000)

Industry(14%)

Transport(14%)

Power(24%)

Other energy(5%)Waste

(3%)Agriculture

(14%)

Land use(18%)

Buildings(8%)

Figure 4.1: Total emissions in 2002=42 GtCO2-e. Energy emissions are mostly CO2

(some non-CO2 in industry and other energy related). Non-energy emissions are CO2 (land use) and non-CO2 (agriculture and waste) and non-CO2 (agriculture and waste).78

Rising level of greenhouse gases has been changing the climate. By absorbing infrared radiation, these gases control the way natural energy flows through the climate system. In response to humanity’s emissions, the climate change79 as started to adjust to a “thicker blanket” of greenhouse gases in order to maintain the balance between energy arriving from the sun and energy escaping back into space. Scientists have known about the natural ‘greenhouse effect’ for more than a century: the Earth maintains its equilibrium temperature through a delicate balance between the incoming solar energy (short wavelength radiation) it absorbs and the outgoing infra-red energy (long wavelength radiation) that it emits and some of which escapes into space. Greenhouse gases (water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and others)

77 Stern Review: The economics of Climate Change, October 2006, executive summary pp. iv. 78 Stern Review (2006), op cit. pp. iv. 79 Usually synonym with global warming, climate change as “change in climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural variability observed over comparable time periods,” (IPCC 2001). Climate change refers to statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use (World Meteorology Organization-UNEP 2003).


49

allow solar radiation to pass through the Earth’s atmosphere almost unimpeded but they absorb the infra-red radiation from the Earth’s surface and then re-radiate some of it back to the Earth (see Figure 4.2). This natural greenhouse effect keeps the surface temperature about 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be — warm enough to sustain life.

Figure 4.2: The Greenhouse effect: The Earth has a natural temperature control system. Certain atmospheric gases are critical to this system and are known as greenhouse gases. On average, about one third of the solar radiation that hits the earth is reflected back to space. Of the remainder, some is absorbed by the atmosphere but most is absorbed by the land and oceans. The Earth's surface becomes warm and as a result emits infrared radiation. The greenhouse gases trap the infrared radiation, thus warming the atmosphere. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide, and together create a natural greenhouse effect. However, human activities are causing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere to increase. Since the industrial revolution, the concentration of CO2, one of the major greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere has increased significantly. This has contributed to the enhanced greenhouse effect known as ‘global warming’. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently about 370 parts per million (ppm) — an increase of more than 30% since 175080 (see Figure 4.3). The increase is largely due to anthropogenic emissions81 of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and to a lesser extent land-use change; cement production and biomass combustion. The UK’s chief advisor, Professor Sir David King recently said that a level 500 ppm is the absolute maximum that the Earth can ‘afford’ to maintain and that we were currently heading towards much higher levels that were ‘more like 900 to 1,200 ppm”.82

80 UNEP (2003) State of the Environment and Policy Retrospective: 1972-2002. pp. 214. 81Anthropogenic emissions: greenhouse gas emissions associated with human activities such as burning fossil fuels or cutting down trees (UNEP 2001). 82 A Christian Aid Report (2006) The climate of poverty: facts, fears and hope.


50

In 2004, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that CO2 emissions would increase by another 63% by the year 2030.4 The IEA said this would ensure that the earth warmed up by between a further 0.5°C and 2°C by 2050 – an increase that would certainly have devastating implications for poor countries.

Figure 4.3: The figure shows the combined land-surface air and sea surface temperatures (degrees Centigrade) 1861 to 1998, relative to the average temperature between 1961 and 1990.The mean global surface temperature has increased by about 0.3 to 0.6°C since the late 19th century and by about 0.2 to 0.3°C over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data. Recent years have been among the warmest since 1860 - the period for which instrumental records are available. Greenhouse gas The atmosphere is a layer of gas above the earth’s surface. It is approximately 50 kilometres thick and is composed of 78% nitrogen (N2); 21% oxygen (O2); and 1% of other trace gases, including water vapour (H2O); carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); and ozone (O3). These gases, known as greenhouse gases, are responsible for the greenhouse effect, a phenomenon first recognized by the French scientist Jean-Baptiste Fourier in 1827.83 (see also Box 4.2 and 4.3) The sun reaches the Earth’s surface, mainly in the form of visible light. About 30% of the energy coming from that light is immediately reflected back into space and of the 70% absorbed, most of it penetrates the atmosphere. This results in the warming of the Earth’s surface. If this effect were not in place, the Earth would be about 330 C cooler, making lives on earth impossible. Although CO2 accounts for more than 60% of the additional greenhouse effect accumulated since industrialization, the concentrations of other greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halocarbons and halons have also increased. In comparison to CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 20% and 6–7% respectively to the additional greenhouse effect. Halocarbons have contributed about 14%. Many of these chemicals are regulated under the Montreal Protocol84. However, those which have negligible ozone-depleting potential are not controlled under the Montreal Protocol. Although they have accounted for less than 1% of the 83 See Figueres (2002), op cit., pp. 1-2. 84 The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was adopted in 1987 as an international treaty to eliminate the production and consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals, with developing countries benefiting from ten-year grace period. Although the Montreal Protocol originally identified five CFCs and three halons for reduction, by 1999 approximately 95 individual substances were controlled (IUCN 2004).


51

additional greenhouse effect since industrialization, their concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.

Figure 4.4: Volume of GHG calculated per nation and per capita. The rich country of the world historically has emitted most of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases since the start of the industrial revolution in the latter half of the 1700s. Per capita, the significant emissions still are produced by the OECD countries.- A major issue of debate is the sharing of responsibility. Non-industrialised countries strive to increase their population's standard of living, thereby also increasing their emissions of greenhouse gases, since economic development is closely associated with energy production. The volume of GHG thus will probably increase despite the efforts to reduce emissions in industrialised countries. China has the second biggest emissions of GHG in the world. However, per capita the Chinese emissions are very low compared to the no. 1 on the list, the USA. Greenhouse gas emissions are unevenly distributed between countries and regions. In general, industrialized countries are responsible for the majority of historical and current emissions. OECD countries contributed more than half of CO2 emissions in 1998, with an average per capita emission of about three times the world average. However the OECD’s share of global CO2 emissions has decreased by 11% since 1973 (IEA 2000). In assessing the possible impact of rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2001 that ‘there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities’. The overall warming amounts to about 0.6 (±0.2)°C over the 20th century; the 1990s are ‘very likely’ to have been the warmest decade and the year 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861. Much of the rise in sea level over the past 100 years (about 10 to 20 cm) has probably been related to the concurrent rise in the global temperature (IPCC 2001). Observations show that a global temperature has risen by about 0.6o C over the 20th century. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years attributable to human activities.85 (for illustration, see Figure 4.3) Climate models predict that the global temperature will rise by about 1.4 – 5.8o C by the year 2100. This change would be much larger than any climate change

85 UNEP and UNFCCC, (2003) Climate Change: Information Kit, Switzerland.


52

experienced over at leas 10.000 years. The projection is based on a wide range of assumptions about the main forces driving future emissions (such as population growth and technological change) but does not reflect any efforts to control emissions due to concerns about climate change. Climate change is likely to have significant impact on the global environment. In general, the faster the climate changes, the greater will be the risk of damage. The North Pole sea-ice has thinned by 40% in recent decades in summer and autumn, and decreased in extent by 10-15% since the 1950s in spring and summer. Global snow cover has shrunk by 10% since the 1960s, and mountain glaciers have sharply retreated. Records show a warming of 0.2 to 0.6o C in global average temperature in the 20th century, and a rise in sea levels of 10 to 20 cm (see Figure 4.5). The 1990s has been the warmest decade on record, and 1998 was the warmest year on record.

Box 4.2: Greenhouse gases86 In the long term, the earth must shed energy into space at the same rate at which it absorbs energy from the sun. Solar energy arrives in the form of shortwave-length radiation. Some of this radiation is reflected away by the earth's surface and atmosphere. Most of it, however, passes straight through the atmosphere to warm the earth's surface. The earth gets rid of this energy (sends it back out into space) in the form of long wavelength, infra-red radiation. Most of the infra-red radiation emitted upwards by the earth's surface is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapour, carbon dioxide, and the other naturally occurring "greenhouse gases". These gases prevent energy from passing directly from the surface out into space. Instead, many interacting processes (including radiation, air currents, evaporation, cloud-formation, and rainfall) transport the energy high into the atmosphere. From there it can radiate into space. This slower, more indirect process is fortunate for us, because if the surface of the earth could radiate energy into space unhindered, the earth would be a cold, lifeless place - a bleak and barren planet rather like Mars. By increasing the atmosphere's ability to absorb infra-red energy, our greenhouse gas emissions are disturbing the way the climate maintains this balance between incoming and outgoing energy. A doubling of the concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases (which is projected to occur early in the 21 century) would, if nothing else changed, reduce the rate at which the planet can shed energy into space by about 2%. Energy cannot simply accumulate. The climate somehow will have to adjust to get rid of the extra energy - and while 2% may not sound like much, over the entire earth that amounts to trapping the energy content of some 3 million tons of oil every minute. Scientists point out that we are altering the energy "engine" that drives the climate system. Something has to change to absorb the shock.

In the next 2100, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expected sea level is expected rise 9-88 cm. More recent calculations suggest that the rise may be as much as reach 13 cm over the next millennium.87 According to the IPCC, it’s 86 UNEP and UNFCCC, (2002) Understanding Climate Change: A Beginners Guide to the UN Framework Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, Switzerland. 87 Ibid, see also IUCN, (2001) Implication on Climate Change for Species Conservation, Briefing paper, Workshop.


53

causing widespread flooding of low-lying costal areas and islands. For instance, a one-metre rise would displace 70 million people (or 60% total population in this country) in Bangladesh which 25000 km land will lost, seven million people in India have to resettlement due to 5800 km land will lost, and submerge 80% of the Marshall Islands,88 (not available data for projection islands’ case in Indonesia). It would also threaten the Gulf and South Atlantic coasts of the United States and the coastal zone on which Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya sit in Japan. Salt water could intrude on rivers and coastal areas, affecting freshwater supplies and fishing.89 Rainfall patterns would change, increasing the threat of drought or floods, and a more variable climate would bring more "extreme weather events," such as intense storms and heat waves—of the kind that have caused hundreds of casualties in the US Southwest and Midwest regions since 1995.90 Climatic zones could shift poleward and vertically, disrupting forests, deserts, rangeland, and other unmanaged ecosystems.

Figure 4.5 Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 cm. It is likely that much of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the oceans may account for about 2-7 cm of the observed sea level rise, while the observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 2-5 cm. Other factors are more difficult to quantify. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests that there has been a net positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past changes in sea level because of insufficient data about these ice sheets over the last 100 years.

88 Ibid, IUCN (2001). 89 UN Department of Public Information, assistance of UNFCCC. 90 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there have been no reported trends observed in tropical storms, and no evidence of changes in the frequency or areas of storms formation, but they predicted that wind intensities will likely increases by 5 to 10%. See McLeod, Elizabeth and Rodney V. Salm (2006) Managing Mangroves for Resilience to Climate Change, IUCN Resilience Science Group Working Paper Series – No. 2, IUCN-TNC, Switzerland, pp. 13-14.


54

Box 4.3: Concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases91 The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased by 31% since 1750. The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The current rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years. The stocks of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and a number of gases that arise from industrial processes) are rising, as a result of human activity. The current stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only 280 ppm before industrial revolution. Event if the annual flow of emission did not increase beyond today’s rate, the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would reach double pre-industrial levels by 2050 – that is 550 ppm CO2 equivalent – and would continue growing thereafter. But the annual flow of emissions is accelerating, as fast-growing economies invest in high-carbon infrastructure and as demand for energy and transport increases around the world. The level of 550ppm CO2-e could be reached as early as 2035. At this level there is at least a 77% chance - and perhaps up to a 99% chance, depending on the climate model used - of a global average temperature rise exceeding 2°C. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. The rest is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation. Currently the ocean and the land together are taking up about half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. On land, the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 very likely exceeded the release of CO2 by deforestation during the 1990s. The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration has been about 1.5 parts per million (ppm), (0.4%) per year over the past two decades. During the 1990s the year to year increase varied from 0.9 ppm (0.2%) to 2.8 ppm (0.8%). A large part of this variability is due to the effect of climate variability (e.g., El Niño events) on CO2 uptake and release by land and oceans. The atmospheric concentration of methane (CH4) has increased by 1060 ppb (151%) since 1750 and continues to increase. The present CH4 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years. The annual growth in CH4 concentration slowed and became more variable in the 1990s, compared with the 1980s. Slightly more than half of current CH4 emissions are anthropogenic (e.g., use of fossil fuels, cattle, rice agriculture and landfills). In addition, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions have recently been identified as a cause of increasing CH4 concentration. The atmospheric concentration of nitrous oxide (N2O) has increased by 46 ppb (17%) since 1750 and continues to increase. The present N2O concentration has not been exceeded during at least the past thousand years. About a third of current N2O emissions are anthropogenic (e.g., agricultural soils, cattle feed lots and chemical industry). Since 1995, the atmospheric concentrations of many of those halocarbon gases that are ozone-depleting and greenhouse gases (e.g., CFCl3 and CF2Cl2), are either increasing more slowly or decreasing, both in response to reduced emissions under

91 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (2001) Third Assessment Report.


55

the regulations of the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments. Their substitute compounds (e.g., CHF2Cl and CF3 CH2F) and some other synthetic compounds (e.g., perflourocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)) are also greenhouse gases, and their concentrations are currently increasing. The radiative forcing due to increases of the well-mixed greenhouse gases from 1750 to 2000 is estimated to be 2.43 Wm-2: 1.46 Wm-2 from CO2; 0.48 Wm-2 from CH4; 0.34 Wm-2 from the halocarbons; and 0.15 Wm-2 from N2O. The observed depletion of the stratospheric ozone (O3) layer from 1979 to 2000 is estimated to have caused a negative radiative forcing92 (–0.15 Wm-2). Assuming full compliance with current halocarbon regulations, the positive forcing of the halocarbons will be reduced as will the magnitude of the negative forcing from stratospheric ozone depletion as the ozone layer recovers over the 21st century. The total amount of O3 in the troposphere93 is estimated to have increased by 36% since 1750, due primarily to anthropogenic emissions of several O3 -forming gases. This corresponds to a positive radiative forcing of 0.35 Wm-2. O3 forcing varies considerably by region and responds much more quickly to changes in emissions than the long-lived greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. These concentrations have already caused the world to warm by more than half a degree Celsius and will lead to at least a further half degree warming over the next few decades, because of the inertia in the climate system.

Figure 4.6 This map depicts the unequal distribution of industry in the world. The significant part of carbon dioxide emissions comes from energy production, industrial processes and transport. The industrialised countries consequently must bear the main responsibility of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.

92 Radiative forcing is the change in the net irradiance (expressed in Watts per square meter: W m–2) at the tropopause due to an internal change or a change in the external forcing of the climate system, such as a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere or in the output of the Sun. (WMO-UNEP 2003) 93 Troposphere is the lowest part of atmosphere above the Earth’s surface, where clouds and ‘weather’ phenomena occur. The thickness of the troposphere is on average 9 km in high latitudes, 10 km in mid-latitudes, and 16 km in the tropics. Temperatures in the troposphere generally decrease with height (WMO-UNEP 2003).


56

Even if the annual flow of emissions did not increase beyond today's rate, the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would reach double pre-industrial levels by 2050 - that is 550ppm CO2e - and would continue growing thereafter. But the annual flow of emissions is accelerating, as fast-growing economies invest in high-carbon infrastructure and as demand for energy and transport increases around the world. The level of 550ppm CO2e could be reached as early as 2035. At this level there is at least a 77% chance - and perhaps up to a 99% chance, depending on the climate model used - of a global average temperature rise exceeding 2°C.94 Emissions Scenarios In 1996, the IPCC began the development of a new set of emissions scenarios, effectively to update and replace the well-known IS92 scenarios. The approved new set of scenarios is described in the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES). Four different narrative storylines were developed to describe consistently the relationships between the forces driving emissions and their evolution and to add context for the scenario quantification. The resulting set of 40 scenarios (35 of which contain data on the full range of gases required to force climate models) cover a wide range of the main demographic, economic and technological driving forces of future greenhouse gas and sulphur emissions. Each scenario represents a specific quantification of one of the four storylines. All the scenarios based on the same storyline constitute a scenario “family” (See Box 4.4, which briefly describes the main characteristics of the four SRES storylines and scenario families).95 The SRES scenarios do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol. However, greenhouse gas emissions are directly affected by non-climate change policies designed for a wide range of other purposes (e.g., air quality). Furthermore, government policies can, to varying degrees, influence the greenhouse gas emission drivers, such as demographic change, social and economic development, technological change, resource use, and pollution management. This influence is broadly reflected in the storylines and resulting scenarios. Since the SRES was not approved until 15 March 2000, it was too late for the modelling community to incorporate the final approved scenarios in their models and have the results available in time for this Third Assessment Report.96 However, draft scenarios were released to climate modellers earlier to facilitate their input to the Third Assessment Report, in accordance with a decision of the IPCC Bureau in 1998. At that time, one marker scenario was chosen from each of four of the scenario groups based directly on the storylines (A1B, A2, B1, and B2). The choice of the markers was based on which of the initial quantifications best reflected the storyline and features of specific models. Marker scenarios are no more or less likely than any other scenarios, but are considered illustrative of a particular storyline. Scenarios were also selected later to illustrate the other two scenario groups (A1FI and A1T) within the A1 family, which specifically explore alternative technology

94 Stern Review (2006) The Economics of Climate Change, UK. 95 IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Working Group. pp. 63. 96 Ibid.


57

developments, holding the other driving forces constant. Hence there is an illustrative scenario for each of the six scenario groups, and all are equally plausible. Since the latter two illustrative scenarios were selected at a late stage in the process, the Atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) modelling results presented in this report only use two of the four draft marker scenarios. At present, only scenarios A2 and B2 have been integrated by more than one AOGCM. The AOGCM results have been augmented by results from simple climate models that cover all six illustrative scenarios. The IS92a scenario is also presented in a number of cases to provide direct comparison with the results presented in the SAR. The final four marker scenarios contained in the SRES differ in minor ways from the draft scenarios used for the AOGCM experiments described in this report. In order to ascertain the likely effect of differences in the draft and final SRES scenarios, each of the four draft and final marker scenarios were studied using a simple climate model. For three of the four marker scenarios (A1B, A2, and B2) temperature change from the draft and marker scenarios are very similar. The primary difference is a change to the standardized values for 1990 to 2000, which is common to all these scenarios. These results in a higher forcing early in the period (see Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7: Using the IS92 emission scenarios, projected global mean temperature changes relative to 1990 were calculated up to 2100 (SRES= IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios). Climate models calculate that the global mean surface temperature could rise by about 1 to 4.5 centigrade by 2100. The topmost curve is for IS92e, assuming constant aerosol concentrations beyond 1990 and high climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C. The lowest curve is for IS92c and assumes constant aerosol concentrations beyond 1990 and a low climate sensitivity of 1.5 °C. The two middle curves show the results for IS92a with "best estimate" of climate sensitivity of 2.5 °C: the upper curve assumes a constant aerosol concentration beyond 1990, and


58

the lower one includes changes in aerosol concentration beyond 1990. (It is assumed that the Greenhouse effect is reduced with increased aerosols.) Box 4.4: The emissions scenarios of the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) – (se also Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.10) A1. The A1 storyline and scenario family describes a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. Major underlying themes are convergence among regions, capacity building and increased cultural and social interactions, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. The A1 scenario family develops into three groups that describe alternative directions of technological change in the energy system. The three A1 groups are distinguished by their technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1FI), non-fossil energy sources (A1T), or a balance across all sources (A1B) (where balanced is defined as not relying too heavily on one particular energy source, on the assumption that similar improvement rates apply to all energy supply and end-use technologies). A2. The A2 storyline and scenario family describes a very heterogeneous world. The underlying theme is self-reliance and preservation of local identities. Fertility patterns across regions converge very slowly, which results in continuously increasing population. Economic development is primarily regionally oriented and per capita economic growth and technological change more fragmented and slower than other storylines. B1. The B1 storyline and scenario family describes a convergent world with the same global population, that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, as in the A1 storyline, but with rapid change in economic structures toward a service and information economy, with reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies. The emphasis is on global solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability, including improved equity, but without additional climate initiatives. B2. The B2 storyline and scenario family describes a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability. It is a world with continuously increasing global population, at a rate lower than A2, intermediate levels of economic development, and less rapid and more diverse technological change than in the A1 and B1 storylines. While the scenario is also oriented towards environmental protection and social equity, it focuses on local and regional levels.

Ozone depletion and climate change The likelihood that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs)97 also affect the climate system was first identified in the 1970s, and the global warming effectiveness of halocarbons, including HFCs, has been further clarified over the past three decades. For example, the 1989 Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone included a chapter on halocarbon global warming potentials (GWPs) and the 1989 Technology Assessment presented these GWPs in discussions of the importance of energy efficiency in insulating foam, refrigeration, and air conditioning. As various approaches were developed to the phase-out of ODSs under the Montreal Protocol, it was realized that some actions taken to reduce future depletion of the ozone layer, in particular the introduction of HFCs and PFCs, could increase or decrease global warming impact.98 Halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs, PFCs) and in particular ODSs, have contributed to positive direct radiative forcing and associated increases in global average surface temperature. The total positive direct radiative forcing due to increases in industrially 97 Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) is substance known to deplete stratospheric ozone layer. The ODSs controlled under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons, methyl bromide (CH3Br), carbon tetrachloride (CCI4), methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3), hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) and bromochloromethane (WMO-UNEP 2003). 98 WMO-UNEP, (2003) Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Summary for Policy Maker and Technical Summary, IPCC and Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.


59

produced ODS and non-ODS halocarbons from 1750 to 2000 is estimated to be 0.33 ± 0.03 W m–2, representing about 13% of the total due to increases in all well-mixed greenhouse gases over that period. Most halocarbon increases have occurred in recent decades. Atmospheric concentrations of CFCs were stable or decreasing in the period 2001–2003 (0 to –3% per year, depending on the specific gas) while the halons and the substitute hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and HFCs increased (+1 to +3% per year, +3 to +7% per year, and +13 to +17% per year, respectively). [1.1, 1.2, 1.5 and 2.3] Stratospheric ozone depletion observed since 1970 is caused primarily by increases in concentrations of reactive chlorine and bromine compounds that are produced by degradation of anthropogenic ODSs, including halons, CFCs, HCFCs, methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) and methyl bromide (CH3Br). [1.3 and 1.4] Ozone depletion produces a negative radiative forcing of climate, which is an indirect cooling effect of the ODSs. Changes in ozone are believed to currently contribute a globally averaged radiative forcing of about –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2. The large uncertainty in the indirect radiative forcing of ODSs arises mainly because of uncertainties in the detailed vertical distribution of ozone depletion. This negative radiative forcing is very likely10 to be smaller than the positive direct radiative forcing due to ODSs alone (0.32 ± 0.03 W m–2). [1.1, 1.2 and 1.5] Warming due to ODSs and cooling associated with ozone depletion are two distinct climate forcing mechanisms that do not simply offset one another. The spatial and seasonal distributions of the cooling effect of ozone depletion differ from those of the warming effect. A limited number of global climate modelling and statistical studies suggest that ozone depletion is one mechanism that may affect patterns of climate variability which are important for tropospheric circulation and temperatures in both hemispheres. However, observed changes in these patterns of variability cannot be unambiguously attributed to ozone depletion. [1.3 and 1.5] 2. Halocarbons, ozone depletion and climate change.99 Impacts Ecosystems, human health and economy are all sensitive to changes in climate — including both the magnitude and rate of climate change (see Figure 4.8). Whereas many regions are likely to experience adverse effects of climate change — some of which are potentially irreversible — some effects could be beneficial for some regions. Climate change represents an important additional stress on those ecosystems already affected by increasing resource demands, unsustainable management practices and pollution. Some of the first results of the changing climate can serve as indicators. Several vulnerable ecosystems such as coral reefs are seriously endangered by increased sea temperature (IPCC 2001) and some populations of migratory birds have been declining because of unfavourable variations in climatic conditions.100 Human society

99 WMO-UNEP (2003), Ibid, pp. 4. 100 UNEP (2003), op cit., pp. 215.


60

The impacts of the climate change to human society are facing new risks and pressures. Food security is unlikely to be threatened at the global level, but some regions are likely to experience food shortages and hunger.101 Human livelihoods are affected if plant or animal species go extinct, since many communities use them as sources of food, fuel and income. Water resources will affect as precipitation and evaporation patterns change around the world. Physical infrastructure will be damaged, particularly by sea-level rise and by extreme weather events. Economic activities, human settlements (totally 50-70% of the world’s population currently living in low-lying coastal area102), and human health will experience many direct and indirect effects. Climate change is furthermore likely to affect human health and well-being through a variety of mechanisms. For example, it can adversely affect the availability of freshwater, food production, and the distribution and seasonal transmission of vector-borne103 infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue fever and schistosomiasis. The additional stress of climate change will interact in different ways across regions. It can be expected to reduce the ability of some environmental systems to provide, on a sustained basis, key goods and services needed for successful economic and social development, including adequate food, clean air and water, energy, safe shelter and low levels of diseases (IPCC 2001). The last study from Harvard Medical School Center revealed that the impact of climate change are likely to lead to ramification that overlap in several areas including health, economy and natural system on which we depend. The study shows that warming and extreme weather affect the breeding and range of disease vectors such as mosquitoes responsible for malaria, which currently kills 3,000 African children a day, and West Nile virus, which costs the United States $500 million in 1999. Lyme disease (serious infectious disease)104, the most widespread vector-borne disease, is currently increasing in North America as winters warm and ticks proliferate (see Box 4.5). The study notes that the area suitable for tick habitat will increase by 213% by the 2080s.105 The report also finds that ragweed pollen (fertilizing powder) growth, stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be contributing to the rising incidence of asthma. The study reports that the insurance industry will be at the center of this issue, absorbing risk and helping society and business to adapt and reduce new risks.

101 Ibid. 102 Cosbey, Aaron., et al., (2005) Which Way Forward? Issues in Developing an Effective Climate Regime after 2012, IISD, Canada. 103 Vector-borne diseases: diseases that transmitted between hosts by a vector organism such as mosquito or tick (e.g. malaria dengue fever, and leishmaniasis), (IPCC 2002). 104 Lyme disease: serious infectious disease, an infectious bacterial diseases transmitted by ticks, in which skin rash, fever, and headache precede arthritis and nervous disorder (Microsoft dictionary). 105 Harvard Medical School Center, (2005) Climate Change Futures: Health, Ecological and Economic Dimension. The Center of Health and Global Environment, Swiss Re and UNDP, Boston. p 9-10.


61

Figure 4.8 Humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are expected to lead to climatic changes in the 21st century and beyond. These changes will potentially have wide-ranging effects on the natural environment as well as on human societies and economies. Scientists have made estimates of the potential direct impacts on various socio-economic sectors, but in reality the full consequences would be more complicated because impacts on one sector can also affect other sectors indirectly. To assess potential impacts, it is necessary to estimate the extent and magnitude of climate change, especially at the national and local levels. Although much progress has been made in understanding the climate system and climate change, projections of climate change and its impacts still contain many uncertainties, particularly at the regional and local levels. Box 4.5: Climate change impacts106 The case studies in brief Infectious and Respiratory Diseases Malaria is the deadliest, most disabling and most economically damaging mosquito-borne disease worldwide. Warming affects its range, and extreme weather events can precipitate large outbreaks. This study documents the fivefold increase in illness following a six-week flood in Mozambique, explores the surprising role of drought in northeast Brazil, and projects changes for malaria in the highlands of Zimbabwe. West Nile virus (WNV) is an urban-based, mosquito-borne infection, afflicting humans, horses and more than 138 species of birds. Present in the US, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, warm winters and spring droughts play roles in amplifying this disease. To date, there have been over 17,000 human cases and over 650 deaths from WNV in North America. Lyme disease is the most widespread vector-borne disease in the US and can cause long-term disability. Lyme disease is spreading in North America and Europe as winters warm, and models project that warming will

106 Ibid.


62

continue to shift the suitable range for the deer ticks that carry this infection. Asthma prevalence has quadrupled in the US since 1980, and this condition is increasing in developed and underdeveloped nations. New drivers include rising CO2, which increases the allergenic plant pollens and some soil fungi, and dust clouds containing particles and microbes coming from expanding deserts, compounding the effects of air pollutants and smog from the burning of fossil fuels. Extreme Weather Events Heat waves are becoming more common and more intense throughout the world. This study explores the multiple impacts of the highly anomalous 2003 summer heat wave in Europe and the potential impact of such “outlier” events elsewhere for human health, forests, agricultural yields, mountain glaciers and utility grids. Floods inundated large parts of Central Europe in 2002 and had consequences for human health and infrastructure. Serious floods occurred again in Central Europe in 2005. The return times for such inundations are projected to decrease in developed and developing nations, and climate change is expected to result in more heavy rainfall events. Natural and Managed Systems Water, life’s essential ingredient, faces enormous threats. Underground stores are being overdrawn and underfed. As weather patterns shift and mountain ice fields disappear, changes in water quality and availability will pose growth limitations on human settlements, agriculture and hydropower. Flooding can lead to water contamination with toxic chemicals and microbes, and natural disasters routinely damage water-delivery infrastructure. Forests are experiencing numerous pest infestations. Warming increases the range, reproductive rates and activity of pests, such as spruce bark beetles, while drought makes trees more susceptible to the pests. This study examines the synergies of drought and pests, and the dangers of wildfire. Large-scale forest diebacks are possible, and they would have severe consequences for human health, property, wildlife, timber and Earth’s carbon cycle. Agriculture faces warming, more extremes and more diseases. More drought and flooding under the new climate, and accompanying outbreaks of crop pests and diseases, can affect yields, nutrition, food prices and political stability. Chemical measures to limit infestations are costly and unhealthy Marine ecosystems are under increasing pressure from overfishing, excess wastes, loss of wetlands, and diseases of bivalves that normally filter and clean bays and estuaries. Even slightly elevated ocean temperatures can destroy the symbiotic relationship between algae and animal polyps that make up coral reefs, which buffer shores, harbour fish and contain organisms with powerful chemicals useful to medicine. Warming seas and diseases may cause coral reefs to collapse.

Human security and conflicts The conflicts and tension resulting from water resource disputes are direct and apparent. Conflicts and tensions resulting from water resource disputes are direct and apparent. More difficult to determine, and possibly more devastating, are the long term and somewhat diffuse impacts that may result from what many feel is the overriding ecological concern of the 1990s – climate change.107 Climate change may have significant implications for resource availability, agricultural productivity, the creation of environmental refugees, coastal flooding, and economic output. Reduced economic output, coupled with greater disparities in levels of economic achievement – both of which could be exacerbated by climate change –

107 IUCN, (2000) State of the Art Review on Environment, Security and Development Cooperation. OECD Development Assistance Committee. pp. 54.


63

was one of the types of environmentally induced conflict outlined previously in this report. In many cases, with adequate prior knowledge, human systems will be able to adapt to a slowly changing climate. Despite the fact that some countries may be winners within the narrow perspective of how climate change may affect agricultural productivity, it is apparent that regions more resilient to fluctuations in climate will be at an advantage as climate warms and precipitation patterns change. Sea level rise now projected to be between 0.2 and 0.6 metres under a scenario of doubling carbon dioxide levels will have significant impacts on low-lying regions and countries such as Egypt and Thailand, (not available data for projection islands’ case in Indonesia), which have a large percentage of their productive capacity lying less than one metre above sea level. More disruptive to political stability, however, will be the expected increasing magnitude and frequency of extreme events – events that are difficult, and costly, to prepare for, and events which may cause major social disruption. Most concerned will be those regions which are most vulnerable to climate disruptions, particularly areas subject to floods and droughts. A constant problem in much of Southeast Asia would increase, both in terms of flood frequency and the size or level of floods. This could cause population displacement, and related problems of environmental refugees referred to above. Periodic droughts in arid and semi-arid regions, already a cause of population displacement and conflict, could become more frequent and more long-lasting. The greatest impact of climate change and the associated extreme events would be on those groups in society that are most vulnerable to external stresses – the disenfranchised and impoverished who exist in all countries. The UNDP estimated that over one billion people live in absolute poverty in the developing world, with 64% of those people living in Asia.108 One of the key issues which need to be addressed in this context is the relationship between impoverishment and environmental degradation. Since many of those people also live in ecologically fragile areas, environmental changes, such as climate change, could be devastating to such groups. The impacts of climate change – biophysical, socio-economic, and political – as well as the response strategies that are now being discussed must be considered against the background of the poverty/environment relationship. Climate change fuels conflict. If temperatures are increasing in areas that are already hot, it will have a direct effect on the scarce resources required to sustain life: water, food, crops and livestock. When it becomes warm enough, wells will dry, livestock will die, crops will wither and there will not be enough food. In east Africa, a combination of drought and famine brought on by increasingly varied – and generally warmer – temperatures has led to flare-ups among nomadic pastoralists.109 Pastoralists have a history of disputes with each other. One of the prime causes of these conflicts, alongside increased weaponry and traditional economic disputes, is the drying out of wells, making livestock routes unsustainable. Nomads wander further afield with their animals and inevitably intrude into other areas, perhaps with

108 Ibid. 109 A Christian Aid Report (2006) loc cit..


64

settled populations. The ensuing competition for resources frequently ignites into fighting. For example, in certain areas of Uganda more flat to the vicissitudes of the climate, conflict between tribes and cattle rustlers has increased. Often conflict, drought and famine interact with each other in a terrible, destructive cycle. Sometimes it is difficult to discern which the trigger is, but it is never hard to tell who suffers most. During the Sudanese drought of 1997, some 100,000 poor people died. It is clear that conflict exacerbated the drought and famine because it interrupted lines of supply and hindered emergency provision. Siri Eriksen of Oslo University is a former senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research. She says: ‘Although many conflicts are politically instigated and driven by underlying political inequities in resource access rather than climate change as such, increasing drought stress can exacerbate conflict and violence.’ Poverty and disaster According to the UK government’s Department for International Development, some 94% of disasters and 97% of natural-disaster-related deaths occur in developing countries. Scientific opinion is moving inexorably towards acknowledging that the increasing incidence and severity of ‘extreme weather events’ that provoke many disasters is connected to climate change. The European Commission has also concluded that climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. ‘It is also clearly a development problem since its adverse effects will disproportionately affect poorer countries.’110 Climate experts often stress that there is no way, given the huge number of meteorological factors involved, that global warming can be proven to have caused any one extreme weather event. There has been some debate, for instance, over whether the conditions leading up to Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans in 2005, were caused by global warming or were part of a natural pattern. There is, however, growing agreement that climate change may account for the strength of a hurricane. (see Box 4.6 and Figure 4.8) US scientists conclude that ‘there is no way to prove that Katrina either was or was not affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible…’ But they also state that ‘the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make – and possibly already is making – those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been.’111 Stern review (2006) recently reported that a 5 – 10% increase is hurricane wind speed, linked to sea temperatures.112 These trends do show is that extreme weather events have been increasing in both number and intensity over recent years. The Red Cross’s World Disasters Report is the most authoritative source on the issue and it states with clear confidence that weather-related disasters have soared over the past 40 years. The number of reported natural disasters has almost trebled from 1,110 during the 1970s, to 2,935 between 1993 and 2002.8. During the same period, the numbers of

110 Ibid. 111 Ibid, pp.6. 112 Stern Review (2006) The Economics of Climate Change, UK.


65

people affected by storms and floods rocketed from 740 million people to 2.5 billion. Similarly, the cost of the damage increased five-fold to US$655 billion.113

Figure 4.9: With growing population and infrastructures the world’s exposure to natural hazards is inevitably increasing. This is particularly true as the strongest population growth is located in coastal areas (with greater exposure to floods, cyclones and tidal waves). To make matters worse any land remaining available for urban growth is generally risk-prone, for instance flood plains or steep slopes subject to landslides. The statistics in the graph opposite reveal an exponential increase in disasters. This raises several questions. Is the increase due to a significant improvement in access to information? What part does population growth and infrastructure development play? Finally, is climate change behind the increasing frequency of natural hazards?

These statistics also show that the numbers of people who were killed by natural disasters fell during this period from 1.96 million during the 1970s to 531,000 between 1993 and 2002. But the figures do not include 2004 and 2005 when hundreds of thousands of people died during the Asian tsunami and several severe floods. The Red Cross also notes that the fall may have been largely the result of better disaster preparedness. It is clearly not the case that all extreme weather events have been caused by global warming, but it is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of the increase has been connected to it. Again, the world’s leading climate scientists are expected to make this link explicit in the forthcoming IPCC report. 113 Christian Aid (2006), loc cit.


66

Box 4.6: Impacts of recent extreme weather events Extreme weather events are likely to occur with greater frequency and intensity in the future, particularly at higher temperatures. • Hurricane Katrina (2005) was the costliest weather catastrophe on record, totaling $125 billion in

economic losses (~1.2% of US GDP), of which around $45 billion was insured through the private market and $15 billion through the National Flood Insurance Program. More than 1,300 people died as a result of the hurricane and over one million people were displaced from their homes. By the end of August, Katrina had reached a Category 5 status (the most severe) with peak gusts of 340 km per hour, in large part driven by the exceptionally warm waters of the Gulf (1 – 3°C above the long-term average). Katrina maintained its force as it passed over the oilfields off the Louisiana coast, but dropped to a Category 3 hurricane when it hit land. New Orleans was severely damaged when the hurricane-induced 10-metre storm-surge broke through the levees and flooded several quarters (up to 1 Km inland). The Earth Policy Institute estimates that 250,000 former residents have established homes elsewhere and will not return.

• European Heatwave (2003). Over a three-month period in the summer, Europe experienced

exceptionally high temperatures, on average 2.3°C hotter than the long-term average. In the past, a summer as hot as 2003 would be expected to occur once every 1000 years, but climate change has already doubled the chance of such a hot summer occurring (now once every 500 years).28 By the middle of the century, summers as hot as 2003 will be commonplace. The deaths of around 35,000 people across Europe were brought forward because of the effects of the heat (often through interactions with air pollution). Around 15,000 people died in Paris, where the urban heat island effect sustained nighttime temperatures and reduced people’s tolerance for the heat the following day. In France, electricity became scarce because of a lack of water needed to cool nuclear power plants. Farming, livestock and forestry suffered damages of $15 billion from the combined effects of drought, heat stress and fire.

Biodiversity, ecosystem114 (terrestrial/marine) and tropical forests Tropical forests (including cloud forests) are the most species rich terrestrial ecosystems. They contain the ‘hottest hotspots’ and of the 218 Endemic Bird Areas, 83% are in forest habitat, mostly in the tropics. There are predicted to be small increases in temperature over much of the tropics, whereas rainfall patterns will vary. However, any slight increase in total precipitation masks the crucial point that there is likely to be an increase in heavy storms coupled with more rain-free days and drought. A trend of increased drought frequency in recent decades has already been detected in Borneo and Panama.115 Primary forests vary in their susceptibility to drought and drought is an entirely natural phenomenon which, in conjunction with natural fires, has shaped the structure of many tropical forests. However, although primary forest is generally resistant to fire, selectively logged forests is more open and fire-prone. Wood and litter in large gaps dry more quickly and are then susceptible to fire.116 Increased drought frequency and intensity, as well as higher temperature, is likely to increase the probability of fires 114 Ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and nonliving environment, interacting as a fundamental unit. Humans are integral part of ecosystem, (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 115 IUCN, (2001) Implication on Climate Change for Species Conservation, Briefing paper, Workshop, Switzerland. 116 Holdsworth, A.R. & Uhl C. (1997) “Fire in Amazonian selectively logged rainforest and the potential for fire reduction.” Ecological Application 7, 713-725.


67

starting or spreading, with severe consequences for biological diversity. Furthermore, tropical forests are already under intense pressure from logging, fragmentation and hunting, and the projected effects of climate change will add to this.117 Recent studies have been predicted that up one million species could go extinct due to climate change. Whatever scenario on may refer to the number of reports of extinctions and changes in ecosystem are increasing already. One-third of all amphibians and reptiles are threatened with extinction.118 Stern Review also reported that around 15-40% of species potentially facing extinction after only 20 C of warming.119 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) evaluated the effect of climate change on biological systems by assessing 2,500 published studies. Of these, 44 studies, which included about 500 taxa, met the following criteria: 20 or more years of data; measuring temperature as one of the variables; the authors of the study finding a statistically significant change in both a biological/physical parameter and the measured temperature; and a statistically significant correlation between the temperature and the change in the biological/physical parameter. Some of these studies investigated different taxa (e.g., bird and insect) in the same paper. Of a total of 59 plants, 47 invertebrates, 29 amphibians and reptiles, 388 birds, and 10 mammal species, approximately 80% showed change in the biological parameter measured (e.g., start and end of breeding season, shifts in migration patterns, shifts in animal and plant distributions, and changes in body size) in the manner expected with global warming, while 20% showed change in the opposite direction. Most of these studies have been carried out (due to long-term research funding decisions) in the temperate and high-latitude areas and in some high-altitude areas. These studies show that some ecosystems that are particularly sensitive to changes in regional climate (e.g., high-altitude and high-latitude ecosystems) have already been affected by changes in climate.120 There has been a discernible impact of regional climate change, particularly increases in temperature, on biological systems in the 20th century. In many parts of the world, the observed changes in these systems, either anthropogenic or natural, are coherent across diverse localities and are consistent in direction with the expected effects of regional changes in temperature. The probability that the observed changes in the expected direction (with no reference to magnitude) could occur by chance alone is negligible. Such systems include, for example, the timing of reproduction or migration events, the growing season length, species distributions, and population sizes. These observations implicate regional climate change as a prominent contributing causal factor. There have been observed changes in the types, intensity, and frequency of disturbances (e.g. fires, droughts, blow-downs) that are affected by regional climatic change and land-use practices, and they in turn affect the productivity of and species composition within an ecosystem, particularly at high latitudes and high altitudes. Frequency of pests and disease outbreaks has also changed especially in forested systems and can be linked to changes in climate. 117 Bawa, K.S. & Markham A. (1995) Global Climate Change and Tropical Forest Genetic Resources. Climatic Change 39, 473-485. 118 IUCN, (2005) “2o Celsius: A World of Difference to Life on Earth,” News Release. 119 Stern Review (2006), loc cit. 120 Gitay, Habiba, et al, (2002) Climate Change and Biodiversity: IPCC Technical Paper V, UNEP-WMO, pp. 11-12.


68

Extreme climatic events and variability (e.g., floods, hail, freezing temperatures, tropical cyclones, droughts) and the consequences of some of these (e.g., landslides and wildfire) have affected ecosystems in many continents. Climatic events such as the El Niño event of the years 1997–1998 had major impacts on many terrestrial ecosystems—both intensively and non-intensively managed (e.g., agriculture, wetlands, rangelands, forests)—affecting the human populations that rely on them (see Box 4.7). Changes in the timing of biological events (phenology121) have been observed. Such changes have been recorded for many species for example:122

• Warmer conditions during autumn-spring affect the timing of emergence, growth, and reproduction of some cold-hardy invertebrate species.

• Between the years 1978 and 1984, two frog species at their northern range limit in the United Kingdom started spawning 2-3 weeks earlier. These changes were correlated with temperature, which also showed increasing trends over the study period.

• Earlier start of breeding of some bird species in Europe, North America, and Latin America. In Europe, egg-laying has advanced over the last 23 years; in the United Kingdom, 20 of 65 species, including long-distance migrants, advanced their egg laying dates by an average of 8 days between the years 1971 and 1995.

• Changes in insect and bird migration with earlier arrival dates of spring migrants in the United States, later autumn departure dates in Europe, and changes in migratory patterns in Africa and Australia.

• Mismatch in the timing of breeding of bird species [e.g., Great Tit (Parus major)] with other species, including their food species. This decoupling could lead to birds hatching when food supplies may be scarce.

• Earlier flowering and lengthening of the growing season of some plants (e.g., across Europe by about 11 days from the years 1959 to 1993).

Box 4.7: Climate change and ecosystems123 Climate is the major factor controlling the global patterns of vegetation structure, productivity, and plant and animal species composition. Many plants can successfully reproduce and grow only within a specific range of temperatures and respond to specific amounts and seasonal patterns of precipitation, and may be displaced by competition from other plants or may fail to survive if climate changes. Animals also have distinct temperature and/or precipitation ranges and are also dependent on the ongoing persistence of their food species. Changes in mean, extremes, and climate variability determine the impacts of climate change on ecosystems. Climate variability and extremes can also interact with other pressures from human activities. For example, the extent and persistence of fires—such as those along the edges of peat-swamp forests in southern Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Brazil during recent El Niño events— show the importance of the interaction between climate and human actions in determining the structure and composition of forests and land-use patterns.

Ecosystems dominated by long-lived species (e.g., long-lived trees) will often be slow to show evidence of change and slow to recover from climate-related stresses. Changes in climate often affect vulnerable life stages such as seedling

121 Phenology: the study of natural phenomena that recur periodically (e.g. blooming, migrating) and their relations to climate and seasonal changes (IPCC 2002). 122 Gitay (2002) loc cit. 123 Ibid.


69

establishment, while not being sufficient to cause increased mortality among mature individuals.124 Changes in these systems will lag many years or decades behind the climate change but can be accelerated by disturbances that lead to mortality. Similarly, migration to suitable new habitats may also lag decades behind climate change, because dispersal from existing to new habitats may be slow and often the new habitats will have been occupied by weedy species that were able to disperse and establish quickly. Where climate-related stresses, including pests and diseases, cause increased mortality of long-lived species, recovery to a state similar to the previous stand may take decades to centuries, if it is achieved at all. Forested ecosystems will be affected by climate change directly and via interactions with other factors, such as land use change. Ecosystem and climate models suggest that, on a broad scale, the climatic zones suitable for temperate and boreal plant species may be displaced by 200–1,200 km northward by the year 2100 (as most mid- to high-latitude land masses are projected to warm by 2–8°C).125 Paleoecological evidence suggests that in the past most plant species migrated at only 20–200 km per century although this may have been limited by the rates of climate change at that time. For many plant species, current migration rates will be even slower due to fragmentation of suitable habitats by human activities. Thus, the poleward movement of forest cover may lag behind changes in temperature by decades to centuries, as occurred for migration of different tree species after the last glaciations. It is also questionable whether soil structural development could keep pace with the changing climate. Increased frequency and intensity of fires and changes caused by thawing of permafrost will also affect ecosystem functioning. The species composition of forests is likely to change and new assemblages of species may replace existing forest types that may be of lower species diversity.126 Most soil biota have relatively wide temperature optima, so are unlikely to be adversely affected directly by changes in temperatures, although some evidence exists to support changes in the balance between soil functional types. Soil organisms will be affected by elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and changes in the soil moisture regime where this changes organic inputs to the soil (e.g., leaf litter) and the distribution of fine roots in soils. The distribution of individual species of soil biota may be affected by climate change where species are associated with specific vegetation and are unable to adapt at the rate of land-cover change. Productivity. Changes in biodiversity and the changes in ecosystem functioning associated with them may affect biological productivity. These changes may affect critical goods and services upon which human societies rely (e.g., food and fiber). They may also affect the total sequestration of carbon in ocean and terrestrial ecosystems, which can affect the global carbon cycle and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. At the global level, net biome productivity appears to be increasing. Modelling studies, inventory data, and inverse analyses provide evidence that, over the past few decades, terrestrial ecosystems have been accumulating carbon. Several effects contribute to this. Plants are responding to changes in land-use and land management practices (e.g., reforestation and regrowth on abandoned land), increasing anthropogenic deposition of nitrogen, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and possibly climate warming.

124 Ibid. pp. 17 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid.


70

Where significant ecosystem disruption occurs (e.g., loss of dominant species or losses of a high proportion of species, thus much of the redundancy), there may be losses in net ecosystem productivity (NEP) during the transition. The loss of biodiversity from diverse and extensive ecosystems does not necessarily imply a loss in productivity. The global distribution of biodiversity is correlated with global temperature and precipitation patterns, among other factors. Rapid climate change is expected to disrupt these patterns (usually with the loss of biodiversity) for periods of at least decades to centuries as ecosystems change and reform. It is possible that changes in productivity may be less than those in biodiversity. Marine and coastal systems are affected by many human activities (e.g., coastal development, tourism, land clearance, pollution, and over-exploitation of some species) leading particularly to the degradation of coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass, coastal wetlands, and beach ecosystems. Climate change will affect the physical, biological, and biogeochemical characteristics of the oceans and coasts at different time and space scales, modifying their ecological structure and functions. This in turn could exert feedbacks on the climate system. Projected Impacts on Ecosystems in Coastal Regions Coral reefs will be impacted detrimentally if sea surface temperatures increase by more than 1°C above the seasonal maximum. Coral bleaching is likely to become widespread by the year 2100 as sea surface temperatures are projected to increase by at least 1–2°C. In the short term, if sea surface temperatures increase by more than 3°C and if this increase is sustained over several months, it is likely to result in extensive mortality of corals. In addition, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and hence oceanic CO2 affects the ability of the reef plants and animals to make limestone skeletons (reef calcification); a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations could reduce reef calcification and reduce the ability of the coral to grow vertically and keep pace with rising sea level. The overall impact of sea surface temperature increase and elevated CO2 concentrations could result in reduced species diversity in coral reefs and more frequent outbreaks of pests and diseases in the reef system. The effects of reducing the productivity of reef ecosystems on birds and marine mammals are expected to be substantial. Sea-level rise and changes in other climatic factors may affect a range of freshwater wetlands in low-lying regions. For example, in tropical regions, low-lying floodplains and associated swamps could be displaced by saltwater habitats due to the combined actions of sea-level rise, more intense monsoonal rains, and larger tidal or storm surges. Saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers is also potentially a major problem. Currently eroding beaches and barriers are expected to erode further as the climate changes and sea level rises. Coastal erosion, which is already a problem on many coastlines for reasons other than accelerated sea-level rise, is likely to be exacerbated by sea-level rise and adversely affect coastal biodiversity. A 1-m increase in sea level is projected to cause the loss of 14% (1,030 ha) of the land mass of Tongatapu island, Tonga, and 80% (60 ha) of that on Majuro Atoll, Marshall Islands, with consequent changes in overall biodiversity.127 Similar processes are expected to affect endemic plant species in Cuba, endangered and breeding bird species in Hawaii and other islands, and the loss of important pollinators such as flying foxes (Pteropus sp.) in Samoa. 127 Gitay, et al., Ibid. pp.20


71

Globally, about 20% of coastal wetlands could be lost by the year 2080 due to sea-level rise, with significant regional variations. Such losses would reinforce other adverse trends of wetland loss resulting primarily from other human activities. The impact of sea-level rise on coastal ecosystems (e.g., mangroves, marshes, seagrasses) will vary regionally and will depend on erosion processes from the sea and depositional processes from land, for example:128 • The ability of mangroves to adapt to rising sea level will vary regionally.

Mangroves occupy a transition zone between sea and land that is subject to erosion processes from the sea and depositional processes from land. The impact of climate change on mangroves will therefore be a function of the interaction between these processes and sea-level rise. For example, mangroves in low-island coastal regions where sedimentation loads are high and erosion processes are low may be better able to respond to sea-level rise because deposited sediments will create new habitat for mangrove colonization. In some cases, where mangroves are unable to migrate inland in response to sea-level rise, there may be a collapse of the system (e.g., the Port Royal Wetland in Jamaica).

• In some areas, the current rate of marsh elevation gain is insufficient to offset

relative sea-level rise. The response of tidal marshes to sea-level rise is affected by sediment supply and the backshore environment. In general, tidal marsh accretion tracks sea-level rise and fluctuations in the rate of sea-level rise, but the maximum sustainable rate of accretion is variable. In areas where sediment supply is low or the backshore environment contains a fixed infrastructure, marsh front erosion can occur in concert with sea-level rise causing a substantial loss of coastal wetlands.

• The ability of fringing (coral reef near shore) and barrier reefs to reduce impacts

of storms and supply sediments can be adversely affected by sea-level rise. Fringing and barrier reefs perform the important function of reducing storm impacts on coastlines and supplying sediments to beaches. If these services are reduced, ecosystems landward of the foreshore would become more exposed and therefore more susceptible to change. Their deterioration or loss could have significant economic impacts.

• The availability of sediment supply, coupled with increases in temperature and

water depth as a consequence of sea-level rise, will adversely impact the productivity and physiological functions of seagrasses. This is expected to have a negative effect on fish populations that depend on the seagrass beds. Further, it could undermine the economic foundation for many small islands that often rely on “stable” coastal environments to sustain themselves.

• Deltas that are deteriorating—as a result of low sediment supply, subsidence,

and other stresses—will be particularly susceptible to accelerated inundation, shoreline recession, and wetland deterioration. Deltas are particularly susceptible to sea-level rise, which will exacerbate the negative effects of anthropogenically reduced sediment supply rates, as in the Rhone, Ebro, Indus, and Nile deltas. Groundwater extraction may result in land subsidence and a relative rise in sea level that will increase the vulnerability of deltas, as projected in Thailand and China. Where local rates of subsidence and relative sea-level rise will not be balanced by sediment accumulation, flooding and marine processes will dominate

128 Ibid., pp. 21.


72

and lead to significant land loss on the outer delta from wave erosion. For example, with the projected sea-level rise, large portions of the Amazon, Orinoco, and Paraná/ Plata deltas will be affected. If vertical accretion rates resulting from sediment delivery and in situ organic matter production do not keep pace with sea-level rise, waterlogging of wetland soils will lead to death of emergent vegetation, a rapid loss of elevation due to decomposition of the below-ground root mass, and ultimately submergence and erosion of the substrate.

Projected impacts on marine ecosystems. The mean distribution of plankton and marine productivity in the oceans in many regions could change during the 21st century with projected changes in sea surface temperature, wind speed, nutrient supply, and sunlight. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would decrease seawater pH.129 Surface nutrient supply could be reduced if ocean stratification reduces the supply of major nutrients carried to the surface waters from the deep ocean. In regions limited by supply of deep ocean nutrients, stratification would reduce marine productivity and thus the strength of the export of carbon by biological processes; whereas, in regions where light is limiting, stratification could increase the light exposure of marine organisms, and thus increase productivity. Climate change will have both positive and negative impacts on the abundance and distribution of marine biota. The impacts of fishing and climate change will affect the dynamics of fish and shellfish. Climate change impacts on the ocean system include sea surface temperature-induced shifts in the geographic distribution of marine biota and compositional changes in biodiversity, particularly in high latitudes. The degree of the impact is likely to vary within a wide range, depending on the species and community characteristics and the region-specific conditions. It is not known how projected climate changes will affect the size and location of the warm pool in the western and central Pacific but, if more El Niño-like conditions occur, an easterly shift in the center of tuna abundance may become more persistent. The warming of the North Pacific Ocean will compress the distributions of sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), essentially squeezing them out of the north Pacific and into the Bering Sea. There are clear linkages with the intensity and position of the Aleutian Low Pressure system in the Pacific Ocean and the production trends of many of the commercially important fish species. 130 Climate change could affect food chains, particularly those that include marine mammals. For example, extended ice-free seasons in the Arctic could prolong the fasting of polar bears and affect the nutritional status, reproductive success, and ultimately the abundance of the seal population. Reduced ice cover and access to seals would limit hunting success by Polar Bears and Foxes with resulting reduction of Bear and Fox populations. Reductions in sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctica could alter the seasonal distributions, geographic ranges, migration patterns, nutritional status, reproductive success, and ultimately the abundance of marine mammals.131 Marine ecosystems can be affected by climate-related factors, and these changes in turn could act as additional feedbacks on the climate system. Long-term projections of biological responses are hampered by inadequate scenarios for upper ocean physical and chemical conditions under altered climate regimes and by a lack of understanding concerning physiological acclimation and genetic adaptations of

129 Ibid., pp. 21. 130 Ibid, pp.22 131 Ibid.


73

species to increasing partial pressure of CO2. Some phytoplankton species cause emission of dimethyl sulphide to the atmosphere which has been linked to the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Changes in the abundance or distribution of such phytoplankton species may cause additional feedbacks on climate change. Many of the Earth’s species are already at risk of extinction due to pressures arising from natural processes and human activities. Climate change will add to these pressures for many threatened and vulnerable species. For a few, climate change may relieve some of the existing pressures. IPCC Technical paper V reported that:132 some species are more susceptible to climate change than others; the risks of extinction will increase for many species, especially those that are already at risk due factors such as low population numbers, restricted or patchy habitats, limited climatic ranges, of occurrence on low-lying island or near the top mountains; geographically restricted ecosystems are potentially vulnerable to climate change; regional variation in the impacts of climate change on biodiversity is expected because of multiple interactions between drivers of biodiversity loss; many important reserves systems may need to be extended in area of linked to other reserves, but for some such extensions are not possible as there is simply no place to extent them. Poor and developing countries The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed - the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Stern Review reported that climate change is a grave threat to the developing world and a major obstacle to continued poverty reduction across its many dimensions: First, developing regions are at a geographic disadvantage: they are already warmer, on average, than developed regions, and they also suffer from high rainfall variability. As a result, further warming will bring poor countries high costs and few benefits. Second, developing countries - in particular the poorest - are heavily dependent on agriculture, the most climate-sensitive of all economic sectors, and suffer from inadequate health provision and low-quality public services. Third, their low incomes and vulnerabilities make adaptation to climate change particularly difficult.133 Because of these vulnerabilities, climate change is likely to reduce further already low incomes and increase illness and death rates in developing countries. Falling farm incomes will increase poverty and reduce the ability of households to invest in a better future, forcing them to use up meagre savings just to survive. At a national level, climate change will cut revenues and raise spending needs, worsening public finances. Many developing countries are already struggling to cope with their current climate. Climatic shocks cause setbacks to economic and social development in developing countries today even with temperature increases of less than 1°C. The impacts of unabated climate change, - that is, increases of 3 or 4°C and upwards - will be to increase the risks and costs of these events very powerfully.134

132 Ibid. 133 Stern Review., loc cit. 134 Stern Review (2006), Ibid.


74

Impacts on this scale could spill over national borders, exacerbating the damage further. Rising sea levels and other climate-driven changes could drive millions of people to migrate: more than a fifth of Bangladesh could be under water with a 1m rise in sea levels, which is a possibility by the end of the century. Climate-related shocks have sparked violent conflict in the past, and conflict is a serious risk in areas such as West Africa, the Nile Basin and Central Asia. Both the economic costs of natural disasters and their frequency have increased dramatically in the recent past. Global losses from weather related disasters amounted to a total of around $83 billion during the 1970s, increasing to a total of around $440 billion in the 1990s with the number of ‘great natural catastrophe’ events increasing from 29 to 74 between those decades. The financial costs of extreme weather events represent a greater proportion of GDP loss in developing countries, even if the absolute costs are more in developed countries given the higher monetary value of infrastructure and over 96% of all disaster related deaths worldwide in recent years have occurred in developing countries. Climatic shocks can - and do - cause setbacks to economic and social development in developing countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), for example, estimates costs of over 5% of GDP per large disaster on average in low income countries between 1997 and 2001.135 Climate change will exacerbate the existing vulnerability of developing countries to an often difficult and changing climate. This section focuses on those aspects that will likely feel the largest impacts: health, livelihoods and growth. The analysis draws on evidence from past and current exposure to climate variability to demonstrate the mechanisms at work. Despite some beneficial effects in colder regions, climate change is expected to worsen health outcomes substantially. Climate change will alter the distribution and incidence of climate-related health impacts, ranging from a reduction in cold-related deaths to greater mortality and illness associated with heat stress, droughts and floods. Equally the geographic incidence of illnesses such as malaria will change. If there is no change in malaria control efforts, an additional 40 to 60 million people in Africa could be exposed to malaria with a 2°C rise in temperature, increasing to 70 to 80 million at 3 - 4°C. Though some regions such as parts of West Africa may experience a reduction in exposure to vector borne diseases, previously unaffected regions may not have appropriate health systems to cope with and control malaria outbreaks. For poor people in slums, a greater prevalence of malaria – or cholera – may lead to higher mortality rates given poor sanitation and water quality, as well as malnutrition. In Delhi, for example, gastroenteritis cases increased by 25% during a recent heat wave as slum dwellers had to drink contaminated water.136 The additional heath risks will not only cost lives, but also increase poverty. Malnutrition, for example, reduces peoples’ capacity to work and affects a child’s mental development and educational achievements with life-long effects. The drought in Zimbabwe in 2000, for example, is estimated to have contributed to a loss of 7-12% of lifetime earnings for the children who suffered from malnutrition. Managing the consequences of these health impacts can in itself lead to further impoverishment. Households face higher personal health expenditures through clinic fees, anti-malarial drugs and burials, for example. This was seen in the case of Vietnam where rising health expenditures were found to have pushed about 3.5% of the population into absolute poverty in both 1993 and 1998. The effects can be

135 Stern Review (2006), pp.100. 136 Ibid.


75

macroeconomic in scale: malaria is estimated to have reduced growth in the most-affected countries by 1.3% per year.137 These figures are calculated on the basis of the occurrence and consequences of ‘great natural disasters’. This definition is in line with that used by the United Nations and includes those events that over-stretch the ability of the affected regions to help themselves. As a rule, this is the case when there are thousands of fatalities, when hundreds of thousands of people are made homeless or when the overall losses and/or insured losses reach exceptional orders of magnitude. While increases in wealth and population growth account for a proportion of this increase, it cannot explain it all. The losses are given in constant 2003 values. The true cost of disasters for developing countries is often undervalued. Much of the data on the costs of natural disasters is compiled by reinsurance companies and focused on economic losses rather than livelihood losses, and is unlikely to capture the effect of slow-onset and small-scale disasters and the impact these have on households. Convention Ozone depletion Scientific evidence linking chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) to global ozone depletion led to initial control of chemicals under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and to Amendments and Adjustments in 1990s that added additional ODSs, agreed phaseouts, and accelerated those phaseouts. Previously, International action began in earnest in 1975 when the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Governing Council called for a meeting to coordinate activities on protecting the ozone layer. A Coordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer was established the following year to undertake an annual scientific review. In 1977, the United States banned use of CFCs in non-essential aerosols138. Canada, Norway and Sweden soon enacted similar control measures. The European Community (EC) froze production capacity and began to limit use of aerosols. These initiatives, though useful, provided only a temporary respite. After falling for several years, CFC consumption began increasing again in the 1980s, as non-aerosol uses, such as foam blowing, solvents and refrigeration, increased. Stricter control measures were needed and UNEP and several developed countries took the lead, calling for a global treaty on stratospheric ozone layer protection. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was finally agreed by 28 countries in March 1985. It encouraged international cooperation on research, systematic observation of the ozone layer, monitoring of ODS production, and the exchange of information. In September 1987, 46 countries adopted the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (by December 2001, 182 parties had ratified the Vienna Convention and 181 the Montreal Protocol). The original Protocol required only a 50% cut in consumption of five widely used CFCs by December 1999, and a freeze in the consumption of three halons. Regular

137 Stern Review (2006), pp. 101. 138 Aerosol is a suspension very fine solid or liquid particle in a gas. Aerosol is also used as a common name for spray can, in which a container is filled with a product and a propellant and is pressurized so as to release the product in a fine spray (WMO-UNEP 2003).


76

scientific assessments were the basis for subsequent amendments and adjustments made to the Protocol in London (1990), Copenhagen (1992), Vienna (1995), Montreal (1997) and Beijing (1999). By the year 2000, 96 chemicals were subject to control. Kyoto protocol Who is parties which biggest emitter of caused global warming? Industrialized countries, with roughly 20% of the global population, account for 60% of annual emissions of carbon dioxide, and the biggest emitter, the United States, alone accounts for over 20%,139 (See Figure 4.4). The cumulative CO2 emissions from 1950 to 1992—these gases stay in the atmosphere for years—industrialized countries account for 74% and the US for 28%,140 (see Figure 4.6). Emissions by developing countries, although growing rapidly, are not expected to equal those of industrialized countries until 2035. A key principle of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—ratified by 189 nations—is that developed countries should take the lead since they are responsible for the bulk of past and present emissions. The 41 industrialized countries listed in Annex I of the Convention agreed to a voluntary aim of returning their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000—a goal that many did not meet.141 In less specific terms, all Parties to the treaty agreed to mitigate climate change by, for example, promoting climate-friendly technologies. When they adopted the Convention, governments knew that its commitments would not be sufficient to tackle climate change. States parties therefore launched a new round of talks to decide on stronger and more detailed commitments for industrialized countries. The outcome was the Protocol to the Convention agreed in Kyoto, Japan, on December 1997 delegates at third conference of the parties (COP-3)142, which attended 10,000 delegates, observers agreed to a Protocol to the UNFCCC that commits developed countries and countries making the transition to a market economy to achieve emissions reduction targets. These countries, known under the UNFCCC as Annex I143 parties, agreed to reduce their overall emissions of six

139 Despite the fact that the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997, George W. Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Protocol in March 2001. He announced that the Kyoto Protocol was “fatally flawed” because it did not address emissions emanating from developing countries and would be detrimental to the economic growth of the U.S. (see IISD 2002). Even without the U.S. who responsible 22% of current global emissions, the Protocol will likely go into force, (Ibid). 140 UN Department of Public Information, loc. cit. 141 Ibid. 142 The COP is supreme body of the Convention. It currently meets once a year to review the Convention’s progress. The word “conference” is not used here in the sense of “meeting” but rather pf “association” the Parties (IISD 2002). First Conference of the Parties took place in Berlin from March 28 to April 7, 1995. COP-1 determined that the voluntary reduction commitments contained in the UNFCCC were not being fulfilled by the industrialized countries, and even if they were, they would not be adequate to stabilize the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere. COP-1 thus adopted the Berlin Mandate. Under Decision 1, “[t]he Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the industrialized country Parties should take a more aggressive lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.” See IISD (2202) loc cit. 143 The UNFCCC divides countries in two main groups: Annex I parties that include the industrialized countries and countries with “economies in transition” / EITs (the Russian Federation, the Baltic States and several other Central and Eastern European countries). All the others are called non-Annex I countries. The Kyoto Protocol strengthens the Convention by committing Annex I Parties to individual, legally binding targets to limit or reduce their GHG emissions. The individual targets for Annex I Parties are listed in the Kyoto Protocol’s Annex B. In practice, Annex I of the Convention and Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol are used almost interchangeably. However, strictly speaking, it is the Annex I countries


77

greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, plus hydroflourocarbons, perflourocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride) by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012144 (the first commitment period), calculated as an average over those five years, which can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline145. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels, the Protocol will result in 2010 emissions levels that are approximately 20% below what they would have been in the absence of the Protocol. Governments accepted a "differentiated" target, which allowed developed countries to negotiate individual targets yielding overall at least a 5% reduction in emissions. The European Union accepted an 8% reduction, and has apportioned out targets to its member countries (10% Iceland, 8% Australia). The United States agreed to a 7% reduction, and Japan to a 6% cut. The Russian Federation agreed to merely stabilize emissions at 1990 levels, and some countries, like Australia and Iceland, were allowed to increase emissions. A breakthrough in negotiations occurred in July 2001, 6th Conference of the Parties (COP-6) in Bonn, Germany, when States parties agreed on crucial points, such as a "clean development mechanism"146 (CDM) — by which industrialized countries will receive credit toward their emissions targets if their government agencies or private corporations finance or carry out emissions-reduction projects in developing countries—and receive credit in the form “certified emission reductions” (CERs) which they may count against national reduction target.147 An international "emissions trading" regime that will allow industrialized countries to buy and sell emission credits among them.148 By three flexible mechanisms to assist Annex I parties in meeting their national targets cost effectively: an emissions trading system; joint implementation(JI) of emissions-reduction projects between Annex I parties; and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows for emissions reduction projects to be implemented which can invest in CDM projects and non-Annex I countries can host CDM projects. See UNEP (2004) CDM Information and Guidebook, the UNEP project CD4CDM, second edition, Roskilde, Denmark. Annex II: the countries listed in Annex II to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have a special obligation to help developing countries which financial and technological resources. They include the 24 original OECD members plus European Union. Annex B: consist of all of those countries listed in Annex I of the FCCC with the exception of Turkey and Czechoslovakia. New countries added to Annex B include Croatia, Czech Republic, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Annex B lists the Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Commitment (QELRC) for each country, (IISD 2002). 144 See Wilton Park Conference Bulletin, (2006) A Summary report to the Wilton Park Conference on “Forestry: a sectoral response to climate change,” IISD. 145 The baseline for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project activity is the scenario that reasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) that would occur in the absence the proposed project activity, see UNEP (2005) Baseline Methodologies for Clean Development Mechanism Projects, The UNEP Project CD4CDM, Denmark. 146 Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol defines the clean development mechanism. “The purpose of the clean development mechanism shall be to assist Parties 1 not included in Annex 1 in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention, and to assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment under article 3”. The CDM include projects in following sectors: end-use energy efficiency improvements; supply-side energy efficiency improvement; renewable energy; fuel switching; agriculture (reduction of CH4 and N2O emissions); industrial process (CO2 from cement etc., HFCs, PFCs, SF6); and sink projects (only afforestation and reforestation), see also UNEP, Introduction to CDM, UNEP collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment, Ris∅ National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. pp. 10. 147 UNEP, Introduction to CDM, UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment, Ris∅ National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. 148 Modalities and procedures (M&P) of the CDM were adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its seven sessions (COP7), and these are documented in Marrakech Accord (UNEP 2005). See also “Sink Projects”.


78

in non-Annex I Parties (developing countries). Following COP-3, parties began negotiating many of the rules and operational details governing how countries will reduce emissions and measure their emissions reductions. To date, 163 parties have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, including 37 Annex I Parties representing 61.6% Annex I greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005. (See this chapter “Clean Development Mechanism [CDM]”).

Figure 4.10 Using the IS92 emission scenarios, projected global mean temperature changes relative to 1990 were calculated up to 2100. Climate models calculate that the global mean surface temperature could rise by about 1 to 4.5 centigrade by 2100. The topmost curve is for IS92e, assuming constant aerosol concentrations beyond 1990 and high climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C. The lowest curve is for IS92c and assumes constant aerosol concentrations beyond 1990 and a low climate sensitivity of 1.5 °C. The two middle curves show the results for IS92a with "best estimate" of climate sensitivity of 2.5 °C: the upper curve assumes a constant aerosol concentration beyond 1990, and the lower one includes changes in aerosol concentration beyond 1990. (It is assumed that the Greenhouse effect is reduced with increased aerosols.)

The legally binding emissions commitments under the Kyoto Protocol apply only to developed countries, leaving to the future the question of similar commitments for developing countries. The growing of China149 and India’s economic recently was being a new examining for the protocol. Constituencies in some developed countries feel that a lack of legally binding commitments by developing countries would place

149 See, Pan, Jishua, et al., (2005) “Fulfilling basic development needs without low emissions: China’s challenges and opportunities for building a post 2012 climate regime.” Research Center for Sustainable Development, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in Sugiyama, Taishi, (2005) Governing Climate: The Struggle for a Global Framework Beyond Kyoto, IISD, Canada. See also Taishi (2005), Ibid. pp. 101.


79

their own industries at a competitive disadvantage and undermine the effectiveness of the Protocol. But many developing countries resist formal commitments, even if voluntary that would put an upper limit on their emissions, noting that their per capita emissions are still low compared to those of industrialized countries. Some developing countries have indicated a willingness to consider the issue, as long as industrialized countries deliver on their promise to lead and responsibilities are shared equitably. Developing countries have other strong incentives to adopt cleaner energy alternatives—and some have already started—since serious air quality problems are affecting human health and the environment. Mitigation and Adaptation Mitigation150 (cost) Stabilisation - at whatever level - requires that annual emissions be brought down to the level that balances the Earth’s natural capacity to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The longer emissions remain above this level, the higher the final stabilisation level. In the long term, annual global emissions will need to be reduced to below 5 GtCO2-e, the level that the earth can absorb without adding to the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. This is more than 80% below the absolute level of current annual emissions. Stern Review (2006) has focused on the feasibility and costs of stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in the range of 450-550ppm CO2-e Stabilising at or below 550ppm CO2-e would require global emissions to peak in the next 10 - 20 years, and then fall at a rate of at least 1 - 3% per year. By 2050, global emissions would need to be around 25% below current levels. These cuts will have to be made in the context of a world economy in 2050 that may be 3 - 4 times larger than today - so emissions per unit of GDP would need to be just one quarter of current levels by 2050.151 To stabilise at 450ppm CO2-e, without overshooting, global emissions would need to peak in the next 10 years and then fall at more than 5% per year, reaching 70% below current levels by 2050.152 Reversing the historical trend in emissions growth, and achieving cuts of 25% or more against today’s levels is a major challenge. Costs will be incurred as the world shifts from a high-carbon to a low-carbon trajectory. But there will also be business opportunities as the markets for low-carbon, high-efficiency goods and services expand. Greenhouse-gas emissions can be cut in four ways. Costs will differ considerably depending on which combination of these methods is used, and in which sector: • Reducing demand for emissions-intensive goods and services • Increased efficiency, which can save both money and emissions

150 Mitigation: actions to cut emission of greenhouse gases and so reduce climate change. Examples are using fossil fuels more efficiently for industrial processes or electricity generation, switching to solar energy or wind power, improving the insulation of buildings and expanding forests and other “sinks” to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (UNFCC 2005). An anthropogenic intervention to reduce the source of greenhouse gases or enhance their sinks (IPCC 2001). 151 Stern Review (2006), op cit., pp. 11. 152 Ibid.


80

• Action on non-energy emissions, such as avoiding deforestation • Switching to lower-carbon technologies for power, heat and transport Estimating the costs of these changes, Stern Review suggests in two ways. One is to look at the resource costs of measures, including the introduction of low-carbon technologies and changes in land use, compared with the costs of the business as usual (BAU) alternative. This provides an upper bound on costs, as it does not take account of opportunities to respond involving reductions in demand for high-carbon goods and services. The second is to use macroeconomic models to explore the system-wide effects of the transition to a low-carbon energy economy. These can be useful in tracking the dynamic interactions of different factors over time, including the response of economies to changes in prices. But they can be complex, with their results affected by a whole range of assumptions. On the basis of these two methods, central estimate is that stabilisation of greenhouse gases at levels of 500-550ppm CO2-e will cost, on average, around 1% of annual global GDP by 2050. This is significant, but is fully consistent with continued growth and development, in contrast with unabated climate change, which will eventually pose significant threats to growth. Forest. Forests, agricultural lands, and other terrestrial ecosystems offer significant carbon mitigation potential. Although not necessarily permanent, conservation and sequestration of carbon may allow time for other options to be further developed and implemented. Biological mitigation can occur by three strategies: (a) conservation of existing carbon pools, (b) sequestration by increasing the size of carbon pools, and (c) substitution of sustainably produced biological products, e.g. wood for energy intensive construction products and biomass for fossil fuels.153 Conservation of threatened carbon pools may help to avoid emissions, if leakage can be prevented, and can only become sustainable if the socio-economic drivers for deforestation and other losses of carbon pools can be addressed. Sequestration reflects the biological dynamics of growth, often starting slowly, passing through a maximum, and then declining over decades to centuries. Conservation and sequestration result in higher carbon stocks, but can lead to higher future carbon emissions if these ecosystems are severely disturbed by either natural or direct/indirect human-induced disturbances. Even though natural disturbances are normally followed by re-sequestration, activities to manage such disturbances can play an important role in limiting carbon emissions. Substitution benefits can, in principle, continue indefinitely. Appropriate management of land for crop, timber and sustainable bio-energy production, may increase benefits for climate change mitigation. Based on IPCC (2001) which taking into account competition for land use and the Second Assessment Report (SAR) and Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (SRLULUCF) assessments, the estimated global potential of biological mitigation options is in the order of 100GtC (cumulative), although there are substantial uncertainties associated with this estimate, by 2050, equivalent to about 10% to 20% of potential fossil fuel emissions during that period. Realization of this potential depends upon land and water availability as well as the rates of adoption of

153 IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Summary for Policy Maker. pp. 8.


81

different land management practices. The largest biological potential for atmospheric carbon mitigation is in subtropical and tropical regions.154 Cost estimates reported to date of biological mitigation vary significantly from US$0.1/tC to about US$20/tC in several tropical countries and from US$20/tC to US$100/tC in non-tropical countries. Methods of financial analysis and carbon accounting have not been comparable. Moreover, the cost calculations do not cover, in many instances, inter alia, costs for infrastructure, appropriate discounting, monitoring, data collection and implementation costs, opportunity costs of land and maintenance, or other recurring costs, which are often excluded or overlooked.155 The lower ends of the ranges are biased downwards, but understanding and treatment of costs is improving over time. These biological mitigation options may have social, economic and environmental benefits beyond reductions in atmospheric CO2, if implemented appropriately (e.g. biodiversity, watershed protection, enhancement of sustainable land management and rural employment). However, if implemented inappropriately, they may pose risks of negative impacts (e.g., loss of biodiversity, community disruption and ground-water pollution). Biological mitigation options may reduce or increase non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation Natural systems can be especially vulnerable to climate change, because of limited adaptive capacity (see Box. 4.5) and some of these systems may undergo significant and irreversible damage. Natural systems at risk include glaciers, coral reefs, and atolls, mangroves, prairie wetlands, and residue native grasslands.156 While some species may increase abundance or range, climate change will increase existing risk of extinction of some more vulnerable species and loss of biodiversity. Human systems that are sensitive to climate change include mainly water resources; agriculture (especially food security) and forestry; coastal zones and marine system (fisheries); human settlements, energy, and industry; insurance and other financial services; and human health. Adaptation157 strategies identify ecosystems and communities most vulnerable to climate change impacts, and strive to reduce these impacts, improve the resilience of ecosystems as well as identify or modify livelihood options for people. Individuals, business, governments, and nature itself will often adapt to climate change impacts without any external help. Planned adaptation can be launched prior to, during, or after the beginning of the actual consequences. The key goals of adaptation strategies are reduce vulnerability the livelihoods of poor people. These strategies consequently need to be rooted in an understanding of the how poor and vulnerable sustain their livelihoods, the role of natural resources in

154 Ibid. 155 Ibid. 156 IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers. pp. 4-5 157 Adaptation in this context is: adjusting natural or human system to cope with actual or expected climate change and its impacts. See UNEP (2002) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, A simplified guide to IPCC’s, Cambridge Univ. Press.


82

livelihoods activities and the scope of adaptation actions that reduce vulnerabilities and increase the resilience of poor people.158 Box 4.8: Sensitivity, Adaptive Capacity, and Vulnerability Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stimuli.159 Climate-related stimuli encompass all the elements of climate change, including mean climate characteristics, climate variability, and the frequency and magnitude of extremes. The effect may be direct (e.g., a change in crop yield in response to a change in the mean, range, or variability of temperature) or indirect (e.g., damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea-level rise). Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.160

Poor communities are vulnerable and in fragile ecosystems such as montane forests or drylands will be especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. “Now is the time to accelerate our understanding of climate change impacts and local vulnerability, and apply adaptive approaches to agriculture, forestry and water management to reduce impacts on people’s lives and livelihoods,” say Stephen Kelleher, Senior Programme Officer for the IUCN Forest Conservation Programme.161 For example, the poor living in Asian mega-cities are particularly at risk, as sea level rise compounds subsidence caused by mega excessive groundwater extraction in Manila, Bangkok, Shanghai Dhaka, and Jakarta.162 In line with mitigation efforts, the urgency and scale of adaptation efforts required will be lower if aggressive mitigation is undertaken early on, some degree of adaptation is inevitable. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were curbed immediately, the global average temperature would still continue to rise due to the slow response of the Earth’s atmosphere system past emissions. This suggests that any future levels of greenhouse gas concentration, once stabilized, will be above current levels.163 Although poor people have limited income, they have assets and capabilities that can be strengthened to reduce their vulnerability to climate change. These assets or “capital” can be grouped into social capital, natural capital, physical capital, human capital, and financial capital.164 In the policy level, needed integrated options for adaptation including integration of adaptation into policy processes (see Figure 4.11); avenues for integration at local 158 IUCN, SDC, Intercooperation, (2003) Livelihoods and Climate Change, a Conceptual Framework Paper Prepared by the Task Force in Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation. Canada. 159 Stimuli (climate related): all the elements of climate change, including mean climate characteristics, climate variability, and the frequency and magnitude of extremes (IPCC 2002). 160 IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers. 161 IUCN, (2005), loc cit. 162 UNEP, UNDP, OECD, DFID, GTZ, UE, ADB, The World Bank, (2005) Poverty and Climate Change: Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor through Adaptation. 163 UNEP (2005), loc cit. pp. 5. 164 Ibid, pp. 15.


83

level, sectoral level (human, health, urban planning, agriculture, water, forestry, fisheries, coastal resources, transportation and disaster risk reduction), private sector, national level; develop tools, methods and technology for adaptation. Meanwhile challenges for integrating adaption into policy processes including increase in awareness and dialogue; sharing of knowledge, technologies and tools on adaptation; mobilization tools and technologies; more flexible institutional and policy processes; capacity building; monitoring and evaluation.165 Figure 4.11: Climate change – integrated framework. Schematic and simplified representation of an integrated assessment framework for considering anthropogenic climate change. The yellow arrows show the cycle of cause and effect among the four quadrants shown in the figure, while the blue arrow indicates the societal response to climate change impacts.166 Carbon Market Political and business leaders have affirmed that an efficient and effective carbon market will be a critical element of the global climate regime. In the Gleneagles Plan of Action on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, G8 leaders supported a market-based approach to finance the transition to cleaner energy. The policy approach for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions specifically flagged for further attention was “tradable certificates and trading of credits.” Also given special mention were “project-based and voluntary offset mechanisms” (G8 2005). In a statement just prior to the Gleneagles summit, the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) G8 Climate Change Roundtable argued that “policy frameworks that use market-based mechanisms to set clear, transparent and consistent price signals over the long term offer the best hope for unleashing needed innovation and competition” (WEF 2005). The WEF Roundtable urged G8 governments to “establish a long-term, 165 Parry, Jo-Ellen., et al. (2005) “Climate Change and Adaptation,” in Cosbey, loc cit. pp. 62-64. 166 IPCC, (2001) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, third Assessment report. pp. 2.

Climate Change Temperature rise

Sea-level rise Precipitation change

Droughts & floods

Impacts on human & natural system Food & water resources Ecosystem & biodiversity

Human settlements Human health

Emissions and concentration

Greenhouse gases

Aerosols

Socio-economic development paths

Economic growth

Technology Population

Governance

Adaptation A

daptation

Miti

gatio

n


84

market-based policy framework extending out to 2030....” and “define greenhouse gas emissions rights through a cap-and-trade system or other market-based mechanisms....”167 Why have market-based mechanisms, and emissions trading in particular, been singled out? Market-based approaches can enable governments to put in place systems to encourage innovation in industry while at the same time providing environmental certainty, credibility and cost-efficiency in meeting reduction targets. Under a global climate regime, market-based approaches have the potential to significantly reduce the costs and increase the feasibility of achieving the deep, long-term reductions required to address the risks of climate change. These approaches can also provide incentives for the development and deployment of low-carbon energy technologies and promote technology transfer to less-developed countries. Market-based approaches, and especially emissions trading, have been central to the development of the global climate regime to date. Two aspects of the climate change problem favour the use of market-based approaches such as emissions trading as a policy:168 First, GHGs mix uniformly in the atmosphere so that the location of emission reductions does not matter. Second, lowering the costs of emission reductions is extremely important; given the scale of global reductions likely needed to meet the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC. Market-based approaches recognize that controlling emission sources, even within the same country or company, can have different costs. Emissions trading provide affected sources with flexibility and a choice of options for meeting their targets cost-effectively. This could entail implementing energy efficiency measures, adopting better control technologies or purchasing “reductions” from a source whose costs of reducing emissions are lower. An emission trading encourages reductions to take place where they are the least costly, and offers the potential to significantly reduce the overall costs of meeting climate goals. Emissions’ trading also supports the adoption of low-carbon technologies. The development, deployment and dissemination of technology are critical to achieving climate goals. Emissions trading can provide a market price incentive for the introduction of technologies that reduce emissions, and offers an important complement to other policies that promote technology development and transfer. The development of carbon trading markets also presents an important opportunity to the financial sector. Trading on global carbon markets is now worth over $10bn annually with the EU ETS accounting for over $8bn of this. Expansions of the EU ETS to new sectors, and the likely establishment of trading schemes in other countries and regions is expected to lead to a big growth in this market. Calculations by the Stern Review as a hypothetical exercise show that if developed countries all had carbon markets covering all fossil fuels, the overall market size would grow 200%, and if markets were established in all the top 20 emitting countries, it would grow 400%.169 This large and growing market will need intermediaries. Some key players are set out in Box 4.9. The City of London, as one of the world’s leading financial centres, is well positioned to take advantage of the opportunities; the most actively traded emissions

167 Bell, Warren and John Drexhage, (2005) “Climate Change and International Carbon Market” in Cosbey, loc cit., pp. 43-44. 168 Ibid. 169 Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (2006), The Economics of Stabilization, pp. 271.


85

exchange, ECX, is located and cleared in London, dealing in more than twice the volume of its nearest competitor.170 Box 4.9: Financial intermediaries and climate change171 The transition involved in moving to a low-carbon economy creates opportunities and new markets for financial intermediaries. Emissions trading schemes in particular require a number of key financial, legal, technical and professional intermediaries to underpin and facilitate a liquid trading market. These include: Corporate and project finance: trillions of dollars will be required over the coming decades to finance investments in developing and installing new technologies. Creative new financing methods will be needed to finance emission reduction projects in the developing world, and emissions trading will require the development of services needed to manage compliance and spread best practice. MRV services (monitoring, reporting and verification): these are the key features for measuring and auditing emissions. MRV services are required to ensure that one tonne of carbon emitted or reduced in one place is equivalent to one tonne of carbon emitted or reduced elsewhere. Brokers: are needed to facilitate trading between individual firms or groups within a scheme, as well as offering services to firms not covered by the scheme who can sell emission reductions from their projects. Carbon asset management and strategy: reducing carbon can imply complex and interrelated processes and ways of working at a company level. New opportunities will arise for consultancy services to help companies manage these processes. Registry services: these are needed to manage access to and use of the registry accounts that hold allowances necessary for surrender to the regulator. Legal services: these will be needed to manage the contractual relationships involved in trading and other schemes. Trading services: the transition to a low carbon economy offers growing opportunities for trading activities of all kinds, including futures trading and the development of new derivates markets.

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a milestone in global efforts to protect the environment and achieve sustainable development, marked the first time that governments accepted legally-binding constraints on their greenhouse gas emissions. The Protocol also broke new ground with its innovative “cooperative mechanisms” aimed at cutting the cost of curbing these emissions. As it does not matter to the climate where emission reductions are achieved, sound economics argues for achieving them where they are least costly. The Protocol therefore includes three market-based mechanisms aimed at achieving cost-effective reductions — International Emissions Trading (IET), Joint Implementation (JI), and the CDM 172 (see Box 4.10). 170 Ibid. 171 Ibid., pp 272. 172 CDM based on Kyoto Protocol Article 12.2 “The purpose of the clean development mechanism shall be to assist Parties not included in Annex I in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention, and to assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3” (UNFCCC).


86

Box 4.10: Emission Trading, Joint Implementation, and Clean Development Mechanism • Emissions Trading (ET) (Article 17): Parties included in Annex B can purchase assigned amount

units (AAUs) from other Annex B countries in order to fulfill their emissions reduction commitments. All emissions trading must be supplemental to domestic action.

• Joint Implementation (JI) (Article 6): In order to attain their reduction commitments, JI allows

Annex B countries to purchase emissions reduction units (ERUs) are resulting from emissions reducing or emissions avoiding project activities implemented by any other Annex B Party.

• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (Article 12): The CDM allows Annex B countries to

acquire certified emissions reductions (CERs) resulting from project activities implemented in Non-Annex B countries. Annex B countries can use these CERs to partially comply with their reduction commitments.173

The CDM, contained in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows governments or private entities in industrialized countries to implement emission reduction projects in developing countries and receive credit in the form of “certified emission reductions,” or Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), which they may count against their national reduction targets. The CDM strives to promote sustainable development in developing countries, while allowing developed countries to contribute to the goal of reducing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, the emergence of international and domestic carbon markets in the past few years has mainly resulted from the framework established under the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol introduced three market-based mechanisms—International Emissions Trading (IET), Joint Implementation (JI) and the CDM174. The inclusion of these mechanisms played a significant role in the ability of Parties to ratify the Protocol and have become a key component for many countries in designing policy packages to meet their targets. These mechanisms are also widely credited with helping to create a market value for GHG emission reductions and creating new markets and investment opportunities (see Table 4.1), even before the Protocol entered into force. This feature has been referred to as the “genius” of Kyoto.175 The carbon constraints derived from the Protocol have resulted in the establishment of national and international trading schemes for private sector entities, such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme176 173 See IISD (2002), op cit. pp. 12. 174 The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) differ with respect to the target nations. The CDM targets non-Annex I countries, while JI concerns only Annex I countries. A more important distinction arising from this issue is that CDM generates additional emissions reduction credits, as non-Annex I nations are not subject to emission caps, while JI only results in the exchange of allowances between two developed economies. In Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) no allowance banking is permitted, as AIJ represents a prototype or pilot phase of both CDM and JI. Consequently AIJ projects can be carried out either among industrialized countries or between Annex I and non-Annex I nations (UNEP 2004a). 175 Cutajar, M.Z. (2004) “Reflections on the Kyoto Protocol – Looking Back to See Ahead.” International Review for Environmental Strategies 5, pp. 61-70. 176 See Chicago Climate Exchange (2004) European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: Managing opportunities and risks. Notes: The European Climate Exchange (ECX) manages sales and marketing for ECX products for the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. ECX is wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chicago Climate Exchange. See also European Carbon Exchange, (2006) The Carbon Market, Amsterdam, Netherlands.


87

(EU ETS). Two year after European Council adopted the UE emission trading directive, the EU trading scheme (ETS) was launched on January 1, 2005.177 Other countries plan to implement such schemes in the coming years and means to link them are being considered.178 Separate from schemes that directly engage private sector entities, governments of Annex B countries that have ratified the Protocol are also active “buyers” in project-based activities under its CDM and JI mechanisms.

Table 4.1 Potential CDM Projects179 Project Type Example Renewable energy projects Biomass; Geothermal; Geothermal/hot dry rocks; Hydro;

Solar; Tidal; Wind; Wave. Power projects Fuel switching a coal powered plant to natural gas.

Capturing land-fill methane gas to generate electricity. Energy efficiency projects Altering power station infrastructure to reduce distribution

losses. Modifying processes at the demand side to reduce the amount of electricity required.

Transport projects Implementation of cleaner engine technologies. Fuel cell and battery vehicles upgrading existing fleets. Traffic flow controls. Mass transit substitution for private transport.

Forestry Planting forest (Afforestation or Reforestation) Others Geological sequestration; Geological sequestration for

enhanced oil recovery; landfill methane recovery. The demand for carbon credits by OECD countries for the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol (2008–2012) has been recently estimated at 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent.180 Some estimates suggest CDM and JI are expected to contribute approximately 300 Mt, leaving a substantial gap of 700 Mt to be met through international emissions trading and purchases of credits from Economies in Transition (EITs). The compliance gap may increase as many key actors have a long way to go to meet their Kyoto targets through domestic policies (e.g., Canada, Japan, Italy, Spain, etc.), and domestic abatement costs are projected to be high. A number of factors influence the reliability of the estimated size of the Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) market. Many Annex 1 Parties have not yet developed, or have not released publicly, a clear strategy for the fulfilment of their Kyoto targets. Others remain undecided on the role the flexible mechanisms will play within their strategy and have not identified amounts of credits they intend to procure. The demand for CERs will depend on the effectiveness of domestic policies and measures, as well as the opportunities available through both JI and IET. A view into the supply of credits shows that of the 1,192 projects reportedly under development

177 Barias, Jose Luis., et al., (2005) Getting on Track: Finding a Path for Transportation in the CDM. Final Report, IISD, Canada. pp.13 178 Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a self regulatory exchange that administers a voluntary, legally binding pilot program for reducing and trading greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in North America, with participation of Offset Providers from Brazil. The goals of CCX are: proof of concept, building institutions and expertise, providing leadership and opportunities, enhancing reputations, inform policy and the public. www.chicagoclimateexchange.com. 179 UNEP, (2004) Legal Issues Guidebook to the Clean Development Mechanism, The UNEP project CD44CDM, UNEP Ris∅ Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable, Roskilde, Denmark 180 Barias, et al., (2005), op cit., pp. 13.


88

(as of February 2005), 206 have reached the Project Design Document (PDD) stage. Renewable energy projects (biomass, biogases) currently dominate, accounting for 41% of all projects under development, followed closely by energy efficiency and landfill gas projects. However a better illustration of supply is found by examining the volume of credits currently under development: here we see an overwhelming majority of CERs arising from HFC23 and N2O projects—both chemicals are areas of concern for NGOs due to their limited local sustainability implications and low perceived co-benefits. Few Annex 1 countries have formally specified their preference for certain types of projects; although large-scale hydro power and sinks projects remain poorly receive by a number of purchasing countries, largely for political reasons. The current price range for CERs is between $4–5 per tonne CO2-equivalent.181 However, the transparency in the market is low as most buyers and sellers are reluctant to provide any information on prices defined in private purchasing agreements. According to the OECD, overall funding for the CDM projects, analysis and related capacity building initiatives is likely to exceed $1 billion by 2012. The price for EU allowances is trading at a higher level, with current prices in the €8–10/tonne range. The new markets created by these international and domestic schemes are helping to mobilize public and private resources for investments in GHG mitigation. The importance of CDM for developing countries: project criteria and eligibility CDM is a project-based mechanism. An important objective of the CDM is to assist developing countries to achieve sustainable development. Industrialized countries have developed domestic policies to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. This has led to a growing demand for carbon credits. Developing countries may supply such carbon credits. While many factors influence the size and stability of the global market, facts indicate that this market would move billions of dollars a year, increasing foreign investment capital flow in developing countries. In this context, the CDM projects offer many opportunities for various actors182 (see Table 4.2):

Table 4.2 : CDM’s opportunities for various actors Actor Reason of participation Developing country Developed country NGOs Corporations Niche company Industry associations

Promote sustainable development through investment Meet Kyoto Protocol commitments at low costs Promote environment and development Offset emissions; investment opportunity Commercial opportunity; diffuse technology New opportunities for members

181 Barias, Ibid. 182 See UNEP (2004), loc cit. pp. 84.


89

Brokers Development banks Institutional investors

Commercial opportunity Promote sustainable development; create new markets Portfolio diversification; socially responsible investing

From the developing country perspective, the CDM offers the following opportunities: • it can attract capital for projects that assist in the shift to a more prosperous, but

less carbon-intensive economy; • it encourages and permits the active participation of private and public sectors; • it can be an effective tool of technology transfer if investment is channelled into

projects that replace old and inefficient fossil fuel technology or create new industries in environmentally sustainable technologies; and

• it can help developing countries define investment priorities in projects that meet

their sustainable development goals.183 The responsibility for evaluating the sustainable development contribution of proposed CDM project activities rests with the host (i.e., the developing country that proposes a CDM project). Therefore, in addition to other global CDM criteria, CDM project activities should also satisfy criteria for a sustainable development contribution as defined by the host country’s government. The three global CDM criteria as outlined in Paragraph 5, Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol are:184

1. The participation of country governments of respective partners in the CDM is voluntary.

2. The projects result in real, measurable, and long term benefits related to

mitigation of climate change.

3. The reductions in GHG emissions from the CDM project should be additional to any that would occur in the absence of the CDM (This is referred to as the additionality criterion).

“Mitigation of climate change” in criterion 2 refers to reducing the increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) concentration in the atmosphere, which are the cause of long term changes in the climate, and to stabilizing the GHG concentration in the atmosphere. The reduction in concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere can be achieved through reduction of GHG emissions or absorption of GHGs from atmosphere and storing them in a medium. The latter is referred to as sequestration.185 183 See IISD (2002) loc cit., pp. 15. 184 See UNEP (2005), op cit. p 11-13. 185 Ibid. Sequestration: the capacity to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (IISD 2002). It is the process of increasing the carbon content of a carbon reservoir other than the atmosphere. Biological approaches to sequestration include direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through land - use change, afforestation, reforestation, and practices that enhance soil carbon in agriculture. Physical approaches include separation and disposal of carbon dioxide from flue gases or from processing fossil fuels to produce hydrogen — and carbon dioxide — rich fractions


90

Project activities that result in reducing emissions of one or more of the six GHGs, namely, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), perflourocarbons (PFCs) and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), are eligible for CDM. These project activities may reduce GHGs from energy use and production (fuel combustion and fugitive emissions from fuel), industrial processes, use of solvents and other products, the agriculture sector, and waste management. Projects that sequester (store) carbon in biomass, through afforestation and reforestation activities, are also eligible under CDM. The following types of GHG mitigation or sequestration projects and activities can be eligible for CDM:186

• renewable energy technologies • energy efficiency improvements - supply side and/or demand side • fuel switching (e.g., coal to natural gas or coal to sustainable biomass) • combined heat and power (CHP) • capture and destruction of methane emissions (e.g. from landfill sites, oil,

gas and coal mining) • emissions reduction from such industrial processes as manufacture of

cement • capture and destruction of GHGs other than methane (N2O, HFC, PFCs,

and SF6) • emission reductions in the transport sector • emission reductions in the agricultural sector • afforestation and reforestation • modernization of existing industrial units/equipment using less GHG-

intensive practices/technologies (retrofitting) • expansion of existing plants using less GHG intensive-

practices/technologies (Brownfield projects) • new construction using less GHG-intensive practices/technologies

(Greenfield projects). Criterion 3 states that the proposed CDM project activity should not only result in reduction (sequestration) of GHG, but in reductions beyond those that would have occurred in the absence of the CDM project activity. Even in the absence of CDM, an economy is likely to witness a move towards more efficient energy use and increased renewable energy use. These activities also result in GHG emissions reductions. Therefore, for a project to be an eligible CDM project the GHG reductions should be greater than or additional to the GHG reductions that are expected to occur in any case. This is also the aspect alluded to by “real” in criterion 2. “Measurable” reduction implies that a proposed CDM project should result in reductions that can be physically verified. “Long term benefits” of reduction imply that CDM should result in adoption of practices/technologies that result in a long term trend towards lowering of GHG emissions in the economy. The CDM projects should affect the way energy is produced and/or consumed in the host country economy or should affect a shift towards less carbon intensive energy sources. While reviewing the above listed categories for eligible CDM projects that use particular processes/technologies, it is important to underscore that these must be

and long-term storage in underground in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, coal seams, and saline aquifers. 186 Ibid.


91

processes or technologies that are not expected to be used in similar projects in the normal course in the economy. For example, though wind energy projects result in zero GHG production, they can not be eligible for CDM if wind energy projects are already common in a host country and the proposed CDM project is similar to existing wind projects. In such a case, one would expect that the proposed wind energy project would have been implemented even in the absence of CDM. But, if the proposed CDM project is being implemented in, say, a low wind area where in the past no similar projects were implemented, reductions from the proposed project might then be considered additional. CDM in Indonesia In 1994 (the date of the latest emissions inventory) Indonesia’s emissions of the three major GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), amounted to approximately 343 million tons of CO2 equivalent. A further 156 million tons of net CO2 emissions were caused by changes in land use, primarily deforestation, while agriculture was responsible for 85 million tons of CO2 equivalent emissions. Emissions resulting from changes in land use fluctuated strongly due to changes in the rate of forest harvesting. Furthermore, the data in respect of land use change depend strongly on a set of assumptions that cannot be verified. The economic crisis that has been ongoing since 1997 has had the effect of stabilizing emissions from the energy sector, but no inventory data exist. In the near future, emissions are projected to pick up again, albeit at a lower rate than GDP.187 The frequent fires in South-east Asia increase these emissions enormously. Some of the worst peat fires occurred in 1997, 1998 and 2002. In each of these years over 1.5 to 2.2 million hectares of peatland burned in Sumatra and Kalimantan. The emissions in each year were estimated to have reached between 3000 to 9400 Mt CO2, or up to 40% of the global CO2 emissions.188 Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics have calculated the emissions from peatland areas in Indonesia on the basis of soil and land-use data, including comparison of comprehensive field data on peat depth and carbon contents. This recent study shows that over the last years, there has been an average annual emission from peatlands of an alarming 2000 Million tonne CO2 including 600 Mt from decomposition and 1400 Mt from fires. This is more than the CO2 emissions from India or Russia and almost three times the German emissions on an annual basis.189 Indonesia emits 6.5 times as much CO2 from degraded peatlands as it does by burning fossil fuels every year. In a ranking of countries based on their total CO2 emissions, Indonesia comes 21st if peatland emissions are excluded. However, if peatland emissions are included, Indonesia is already the third-largest CO2 producer in the world.190 Between 1990-94 Indonesia’s emission of the major GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) grew rate 1.8% per year. CO2 accounted for approximately 70% of the total emissions. The energy-demand sectors of the economy (i.e., energy industry, industry, transport and residential and commercial) 187Gaughran, Audrey, ed., (2001) National Strategy Study on the Clean Development Mechanism in Indonesia, State Ministry for Environment, Jakarta. 188 Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics (2006) Peatland degradation fuels climate change: An unrecognised alarming source of greenhouse gases. 189 Ibid. 190 Ibid.


92

accounted for approximately 35 - 60% of total emissions. The forestry sector was the second largest contributor, responsible for between 20 and 50% of emissions. Agriculture contributed between 15 and 25%. Indonesia’s emission of CO2 and the CO2 equivalent, of CH4 and N2O are forecast to grow by 2% each year over the next two decades (since 1995). However, due to the economic crisis, emission estimates for the period 1995-2000 have to adjust downwards.191 The energy demand sectors are the major contribution to GHG emissions and will be responsible for most of increase in GHG emissions over the next two decades. On Indonesia’s projected of total CO2 emission from energy demand sectors to 2025 growth rate 3.3% per year since 2000. Power plants contribute 5.1%/ per year, transport 3.4%, industry 2.4%, energy industry 1.9% and households 0.4%.192 Based on this projection, Indonesia’s GHG emissions are estimated using a modelling tool called MARKAL193 (an energy system modelling tool). The energy-related sectors of the economy (i.e. energy industry, industry, transport and residential and commercial) will be responsible for most of the increase in GHG emissions over the next two decades. The CO2 emissions, for instance, from the energy demand sectors are projected to triple between 2000 and 2020. This is due, in part, to the projected composition of fuels that will be used to supply energy. The share of coal in energy supply is expected to increase by a factor of ten. Oil use doubles while the use of gas only increases by 50%. Under the PETs194 standard market scenario, the total volume of the CDM in Indonesia until 2012 is projected at 125 Mt CO2. Sales of 25 Mt CO2 per year over the commitment period, at quota per price of 1.83 $/t CO2, would amount to CDM revenue of $ 228 million, $ 4.6 million of which would have to be paid into the adaptation fund.195 The forestry sector is expected to contribute between 11 and 33% of emissions over the period 1995 to 2020, followed by the agriculture sector, which is expected to account for 12% of the total emissions. The estimated cost of implementing the CDM projects would be around $ 130 million, a large proportion of which would be due to transaction costs, i.e., the fixed costs such as setting up projects, monitoring and accreditation. By 2012 profits from CDM projects in Indonesia would be in the region of $ 94 million. To whom these profits would accrue, and how they would be used, would largely be a matter of contractual arrangement. The sensitivity analysis, described above, shows that the size of the CDM in Indonesia could vary significantly depending on the technical potential for abatement and on project costs. Indonesia’s share in global CDM is estimated at 1.5 and 3.5% under the pessimistic and optimistic scenarios respectively, compared to 2.1% under standard

191 Ibid. pp. 9. 192 Ibid. p 13. 193 MARKAL (acronym for MARKet ALlocation) is bottom-up type energy system model developed by Energy Technology System Analysis Programme (ETSAP) of the International Energy Agency (IEA), (UNEP 2005). In Indonesia MARKAL has been used for a number of years by the Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) to analyse data on energy use in Indonesia (see Gaughran 2004). 194 (Pelangi’s Emission Trading model – the modelling tool used for international market analysis), in Gaughran (2001), Ibid. 195 Ibid.


93

assumptions. In the calibration used for this analysis, the share of no-regrets projects in total CDM in Indonesia is just below 30%. Should assumptions on what constitute creditable no-regrets projects be changed, the figure of 30% would also change. There are both supply and demand-side projects with negative implementation costs. Possible supply-side projects include hydropower, gas combined cycle and low-temperature cogeneration; on the demand side, projects include the introduction of energy-efficient lighting and electric motors. Based on this study, the utilization of flared gas as a substitute energy source is the abatement option that offers the largest emission reduction potential at low positive cost in Indonesia. Utilization of flared gas is projected to account for over half the emission credits generated by Indonesia.196 Other positive-cost projects in the energy sector are expected to generate just 20% of Indonesia’s emission offsets under the CDM. This reflects the relatively larger contribution of gas flaring and the comparatively low projected international carbon price, which would exclude most higher-cost project options. Sink and sequestration projects CDM Projects can only generate Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) in the duration of their crediting period. In a Project Design Document (PDD), Project Participants for CDM Projects (other than sink197 projects) must choose a defined crediting period of:

• a maximum of seven years, which may be renewed at most two times. A crediting period can only be renewed if a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) 198 confirms to the CDM Executive Board that the original project baseline is still valid or has been updated taking account of new data where applicable; or

• a maximum of ten years with no option of renewal. For a sequestration based199 CDM Project (a “Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry” or “LULUCF” project), project developers must choose a defined crediting period of:

• a maximum of twenty years, which may be renewed up to two times, subject to a DOE’s confirmation that the original project baseline is still valid; or

• a maximum of thirty years with no option of renewal.200 The baseline for the CDM Project will be valid for the whole crediting period, regardless of any changes during that period which may affect the Additionality of the

196 Ibid. 197 Under the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries can include changes in net emissions (calculated as emissions minus removals of CO2) from certain activities in the land use change and forestry sector. Calculating the effects sinks (growing vegetation tends to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) is methodologically complex and still needs to be clarified (IISD 2002). 198 Designated Operational Entity (DOE) an independent legal entity accredited by CDM Executive Board that can validate proposed CDM projects and verify and certify Greenhouse Gas emission reduction (UNEP project CD4CDM, 2004). 199 Sequestration: the process of removing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through, for example, land use change, afforestation, reforestation, or enhancement of carbon in agricultural soils, (UNEP 2001). 200 UNEP, (2004b) Legal Issues Guidebook to the Clean Development Mechanism, The UNEP project CD44CDM, UNEP Ris∅ Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable, Roskilde, Denmark.


94

project201. Selection of an appropriate crediting period is not a legal issue, but rather a commercial decision dependent upon the project itself. The longer the operational life of a project and the likelihood that it will continue to meet the Additionality criteria, then the longer the crediting period that is likely to be chosen. Parties will therefore need to carefully assess the best approach for the particular project, bearing in mind the associated costs of revalidation of the baseline and the expected lifetime of the project. It is worth noting that a DOE will only be able to confirm that a project baseline is still valid if it meets the “additionality” criteria. This means that Project Participants may choose the longer, non-renewable crediting period option for a CDM Project if there is a risk that something will occur during the crediting period to negate the additionality of the project. The baseline is generally fixed for the duration of the crediting period, although baseline emissions may be calculated ex post, providing that such calculation adds transparency and conservativeness to the methodology. The choice of a longer crediting period to insure against a change in national policy (which negates the Additionality of a project) could also reduce the perverse incentive for Host Countries to delay implementing more effective environmental laws which could adversely affect the Additionality of existing CDM Projects. (see also Box 4.11). Box 4.11:Sink projects202 The general Modalities & Procedures (M&P) for the CDM did not cover sink projects (afforestation and reforestation projects). Seventh conference of the parties of UNFCCC (COP7) requested the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), which meets twice a year, to develop M&P for afforestation and reforestation project activities under the CDM in the first commitment period (2008-2012). They were adopted as an annex to the existing M&Ps at COP9 in Milan, December 2003 (FCCC/SBSTA/ 2003/L.27). However, the general M&P for CDM already gave some guidance for sink projects: • Only afforestation and reforestation (A&R) projects are eligible and the maximum use of Certified Emission

Reductions (CERs) from A&R projects should be less than 1% of the 1990 emissions of the Party. Other sinks like revegetation, forest management, cropland management and grazing land management are not allowed under the CDM but only as Joint Implementation projects in Annex-I countries.

Avoided deforestation is allowed for normal small-scale CDM projects, e.g. where it can be proved that installation of efficient wood stoves reduce the deforestation. The A&R terms are defined in the following way: Afforestation is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years into forested land through planting/seeding. Reforestation is in the first commitment period (2008-2012) limited to lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989. There are some restrictions on the definition of a forest. The Designated National Authority (DNA) in the CDM

201 Additionally in CDM projects: GHG emission from a CDM project activity must be reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the project. It must be shown that the project would not have been implemented without the CDM. Without this “additionality” requirement, there is no guarantee that CDM projects will create incremental GHG emissions reductions equivalent to those that would have been made in Annex I countries, or play a role in the ultimate objective of stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations (UNEP 2004). 202 UNEP (2004b) pp. 36-39.


95

host country should make an assessment and report the value in each of the following three categories, which will be used for all projects in the first commitment period in the country: • A minimum tree cover of 10-30% • A minimum forest area of 0.05 – 1.00 ha • A minimum tree height of 2-5 metres According to the M&P for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) CDM projects, small-scale LULUCF CDM project will also be allowed. For normal small-scale CDM projects, a separate M&P was developed. A similar special M&P will be developed for small-scale LULUCF CDM projects. It should be finalised at the 20th sessions of Subsidiary Bodies (SB 20) in June 2004 and adopted at COP10 based on the submissions from the Parties which was made before 28 February 2004. The LULUCF M&P contain only the following rules for small-scale CDM projects: • The greenhouse gas removal of less than 8 ktCO2/year. • The projects must be developed by low-income communities and individuals as determined by the host

Party. The M&P also contains the following important rules: Since the benefits from sink projects accrue over longer periods of time than benefits from other CDM projects the crediting period will be longer than for normal CDM projects. The crediting period begins at the start of the afforestation or reforestation project activity. Just like normal CDM projects, there are two options for the crediting period: • A maximum of 20 years which may be renewed two times, provided a DOE confirms that the baseline is still

valid or has been properly updated taking into account of new data. • A maximum of 30 years. All carbon stored must be accounted. The following carbon pools are defined:

• Above-ground biomass • Dead wood • Litter • Below-ground biomass • Soil organic carbon

A carbon pool can be excluded from the emission accounting in the project if that does not increase the net GHG removal. The procedure for establishing baseline and monitoring methodologies is the same as that for normal full-scale CDM projects. There is no methodology at the beginning. Methodologies will be approved by the EB as project participants submit them for approval. The project participants must base these new methodologies on one of the following three approaches: 1. Existing or historical changes in carbon stocks in the carbon pools within the project boundary. 2. Changes in carbon stocks in the carbon pools within the project boundary from land use that represent an economically attractive course of action, taking into account barriers of investment. 3. Changes in carbon stocks within the project boundary from the most likely land use at the time the project starts. The Project Design Documents (PDDs) for LULUCF CDM projects will contain the same information as for normal PDDs:

• General description of the project activity • Baseline methodology (including additionality) • The choice of crediting period • Monitoring methodology • Calculation of GHG emissions


96

• Environmental impacts • Stakeholder comment

However, there will be some additional requirements: • The project description must contain the exact location of the projects, a list of the carbon pools selected,

the present environmental conditions, the legal title of the land, the current land tenure and the right of access.

• There must always be an analysis of the environmental & socio economic impact. If negative impacts are

considered significant by the project participants or the host party, an environmental/socio-economic impact analysis must be made.

• The Designated Operational Entity (DOE) which validates the CDM project must make the PDD available

for public comments in a period of 45 days (30 days for normal CDM projects). • Management activities, including harvesting cycles, means that the carbon stored can vary over time.

Therefore the time of verification should be selected in such a way as the systematic coincidence of verification and peaks in the carbon stored can be avoided.

In the submissions by the Parties and the workshops where the development of the LULUCF M&P were discussed many proposals were made for treating the non-permanence issue since the risk of non-permanence of the carbon stored is an inherent feature of sinks – in contrast to the permanent nature of emission reductions in the energy sector. Carbon in forest sinks is vulnerable to natural disturbances such as pest outbreaks, wildfires and diseases, and agricultural practices and land management. The solution chosen was to let the CERs from LULUCF CDM projects expire after a certain time. The project participant must in the PDD choose one of the two options: • tCERs or 'temporary CERs' that expires at the end of the commitment period following the one during which

it was issued. • lCERs or 'long-term CERs' that expires at the end of the crediting period chosen. The initial verification and certification by a DOE may be undertaken at a time selected by the project participants. In order to show the permanence of the carbon stored, both tCERs and lCERs should be verified and certified every 5 years thereafter. Environmental NGOs had been very eager that large monoculture industrial plantations (including genetically modified trees) should be excluded because they threaten biological diversity, watershed protection, and local sustainable livelihoods. They urged parties to explicitly ask for multi-species cultures that increase or at least preserve biodiversity. However, the negotiation ended up with a text (the M&P) saying that it is up to the host country to evaluate the risks associated with the use of potentially invasive alien species and genetically modified organisms. The COP had invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to elaborate methods to estimate, measure, monitor, and report changes in carbon stock and GHG emissions. This IPCC report called “Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF in the preparation of national greenhouse gas inventories under the Convention” was finally approved at COP9. The baseline and monitoring methodologies and the PDD should be consistent with this document.

The Role of Forests, Conservation, and NGOs A warmer climate and changes in precipitation patterns will cause distinct effects on forest ecosystems, making some contract while others will expand. Increases in CO2 will compound this effect in some systems while dampening the impacts in other systems. Together this indicates that many areas, especially those habitats along


97

environmental gradients, will be subjected to change, and if the population cannot adapt or move with changes in climate, they will face extinction. Globally, it has been estimated that at least one-third of the world’s remaining forests may be adversely impacted by climate change over the next century (IPCC, 1995).203 Climate change may force species to migrate or shift their ranges far faster than they are able to, thereby disrupting existing ecosystems. Forests may experience changes in fire intensity and frequency, increased susceptibility to insect damage or diseases, and extreme weather events which they may not be adapted to survive (IPCC, 2001).204 Forests are both directly and indirectly impacted by climate change (see Box 4.12). The direct impacts of warming temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns or extreme weather events on forests are already evident in certain tree and animal species (IPCC, 2001). Even small changes in temperature and precipitation can have significant affects on forest growth and survival (e.g., for certain species of pine; and in tropical montane cloud forests), particularly those in threshold areas or at the margins of an ecosystem. Higher temperatures increase water loss through evapo-transpiration, which result in drier conditions, as well as decreasing a plant’s efficiency of water use. Disturbances are a natural part of the functioning of forest ecosystems, and are integral in bringing about succession. Most forests are in some state of reestablishment after disturbances, which themselves result in a change in ecosystem function as species composition and the structure of the forest changes. However, an extreme change in forest structure and function can take place when disturbances exceed their natural range of variation. Climate change affects forests both directly and indirectly through disturbances such as fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, wind storms and ice storms. Impacts can be seen across an array of spatial scales, from the leaf to the forest landscape, and can include a reduction in leaf function, deformed tree structure, tree death, altered regeneration patterns through the destruction of seed banks, a disruption in the physical environment from soil erosion and nutrient loss, and increased patchiness of forest communities. Because trees survive for long periods of time and take many years to become established, many climate change impacts on forests will be expressed through alterations in disturbance regimes. Other indirect effects of climate change on forests are often difficult to detect due to the complex and interdependent nature of ecosystem components. Yet, many indirect effects are just as serious if not more so than some direct effects, due to the cascading nature of the relationships. The impacts on forests from elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been studied, though the results are “neither clear nor conclusive”. Higher concentrations of CO2 generally improve efficiency of water use as plants open their stomata less and thereby reduce water loss through transpiration, though disparate results for overall plant growth have been shown, depending on the species, individual tree age, and length of study period. Moreover, plants have been shown to adjust to higher CO2 levels such that the higher absorption rates can decrease over time. Difficulties of modelling the effects of elevated CO2 concentrations are compounded when other 203 IPCC (1995) Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific Technical Analysis. Contribution Working Group II, 2nd assessment of IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge, UK. 204 IPCC (2001) Impacts, Adaptations and vulnerability, Working Group II, 3rd assessment report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.


98

anthropogenic emissions are considered. For example, ozone (O3) offsets potential benefits of CO2 on plant productivity; while nitrogen oxides may enhance forest growth in nitrogen-limited systems. Box 4.12: Forests as carbon sinks Forests act as reservoirs by storing carbon in biomass and soil. They are sinks of carbon when their area or productivity is increased; resulting in the uptake of atmospheric CO2.They can become a source of CO2 when the burning and decay of biomass and disturbance of soil result in emissions of CO2. Net CO2 emissions from changes in land use (primarily deforestation occurring mainly in tropical areas) currently contribute about 20% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Forest-based carbon offset trading is a mechanism which may allow tropical countries to provide an environmental service to industrial countries: promoting actions which absorb carbon (conservation, reforestation) or avoiding actions which release carbon (e.g. felling, burning), in exchange for payments by the purchaser of the carbon offset. There are doubts, however, that reducing forests to just one value (their carbon value) will address the underlying causes of forest loss. It is also feared that trading in carbon ‘sink’ credits may open the way for conversion of natural forests to quick-growing, carbon-absorbing, commercial monocultures, which serve neither conservation nor poverty-reduction aims.205

Within the next 50-100 years, changes to ecosystem functions and plant demographic processes will be the imminent threats, though in the long term, large shifts in forest types are likely to occur. Looking broadly at forest types, boreal forests are expected to be impacted severely through a reduction in extent since warming will be greatest at the poles (IPCC, 2001). In the tropics, the impacts of sea-level rise are predicted to be significant for mangroves as they are inundated in many areas (IPCC, 2001). In tropical forests more generally, the effects of drought and changes in seasonality will compound existing threats of fragmentation and degradation. Across all forest types, some of the most vulnerable will be island or relict forest communities, including highly fragmented forests surrounded by agricultural or urban development and forest systems on remote islands whose migration opportunities are hindered either latitudinally or altitudinally, as in the case with tropical montane cloud forests.206 Forest Conservation and Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto Protocol contains a number of provisions on Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF), see Table 4.3, which have been some of the most contested issues, resulting in negotiations that have spanned years. Many of the discussions have centered on how to govern sequestration of carbon in trees, particularly whether and how this could count towards developed countries’ emissions reductions, and the rules and procedures for monitoring these credits. Current negotiations are focused on a question of how to avoid emissions from deforestation in developing countries (see Figure 4.12).

205 EU-DFID-IUCN (2003), loc cit. 206 Ibid.


99

Table 4.3: Forests and Land Use Change under the Kyoto Protocol Articles relevant to land use change and forests207

3.3

Defines which activities may be utilized by industrialized countries during the 2008-2012 commitment periods to achieve emissions reductions in particular human-induced afforestation, reforestation and deforestation that have occurred since 1990.

3.4

States that later Conferences of the Parties may include additional activities such as forest harvest and management to achieve emissions reductions.

6 & 17

Outline project-based credit and emissions trading between industrialized countries. These allow industrialized countries to trade emission allowances with other industrialized countries. Article 6 specifies project-based credit trading and explicitly refers to enhancing carbon storage and reducing emissions, such as by slowing deforestation and tree planting.

12

Outlines the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It is allows industrialized countries to meet their reductions via projects in developing countries. There is no explicit mention of land use change and forest projects, making it uncertain that such projects will be allowed.

Forests provide a number of assets that are valuable to people, particularly the rural poor. These assets include food security, browse and fodder, fuelwood, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), building products and industrial round-wood, all of which provide the basis for livelihoods. Forests also provide services such as water retention and soil protection. In the past 15 years, the world has lost 200 million ha of forest.208 In many developing countries, a large percentage of original forest cover has been cleared, fragmented or otherwise degraded. Forest restoration is a priority for both environmental and socioeconomic reasons for these countries but is rarely financially attractive in the short to medium term. The market for CDM forestry credits could increase the financial viability of these efforts, although it is unlikely to completely cover the cost of stand afforestation and reforestation projects. At the most recent meeting, held from 6-17 November 2006 in Nairobi, Kenya, delegates agreed to hold a workshop in 2007 that will focus on ongoing and policy approaches and positive incentives, and technical and methodological requirements related to their implementation, assessment of results and their reliability, and improving understanding of reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.209 Wilton Park Conference at November 26, 2006, pointed out that forests are vital carbon sinks and noted the limited forestry measures under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. The conference some recommendations that could be implemented for addressing forestry and climate change, including the need to: enhance the harmonization of UN processes, including synergies among the UNFCCC, the Convention on Biological Diversity and United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), and promote integrated land-use and natural resource management programmes.210 207 Orlando, Bret and Smeardon Lesley (1999) Global Biodiversity Forum: Exploring Synergy between the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Conservation on Biological Diversity, Report of the Eleventh. pp.11. 208 IUCN-UNEP (2002) Carbon, Forests, and People: Toward the integrated management of carbon sequestration, the environment and sustainable livelihoods, IUCN Forest Conservation Programme, Livelihoods and Landscapes Series, No. 1., Cambridge, UK. pp. 18. 209 IISD-OECD (2006) “A Summary report of the Wilton Park on Forestry: a sectoral response to climate change.” Wilton Park Conference Bulletin, Vol. 130 No. 1. 113 Ibid. pp. 7


100

Recalling that measures needed to promote sustainable forest management (SFM) are well known by the forestry sector, conference urged participants to be confident and implement them. The existing mechanisms, such as monitoring systems, national forest programmes, criteria and indicators, and forest certification are “waiting” to be further used for promoting benefits to climate change mitigation, livelihoods, biodiversity and soil and water protection. Conference also encouraged participants to consider the mechanisms that each person could implement if more financial resources were available for the forestry sector. Citing the Stern Report, conference concluded that prompt action on climate change is needed and the time has come for changing direction and ensuring the environmental sustainability for future generations.211 Meanwhile, conservation responses to climate change that are anticipatory and systematic have been termed ‘Climate Change integrated Conservation Strategies’ (CCS). CCS begins with regional modelling, which applies appropriate available assessment tools to provide an overview of possible climate change impacts on biodiversity. Regional modelling concludes with integrative sensitivity analysis based on local ecology. This analysis is used to design specific activities in three key spheres of activity: expansion of protected areas, managing the matrix land use outside of protected areas, and regional coordination of management actions.

Figure 4.12: CO2 emissions from land use change. Emissions of carbon dioxide due to changes in land use mainly come from the cutting down of forests and instead using the land for agriculture or built-up areas, urbanisation, roads etc. When large areas of rain forests are cut down, the land often turns into less productive grasslands with considerably less capacity of storing CO2

211 Ibid..


101

The Role of Civil society and NGOs For climate adaptation to be effective, empowering civil society to participate in the assessment process, including identifying and implementing adaptation activities is especially important. However, in order to enhance their participation, it is essential to ensure that they have access to information, analysis, and knowledge about the impact of climate change on their lives. Vulnerability assessments and adaptation measures are more likely to be realistic and effective if they have input from those who will be affected by climate change and who are best placed to manage the relevant risks. At the same time, adaptation reflects a continuing learning process, and community participation in the assessment process could itself enable the community to initiate adaptation measures (see example Box 4.7). Engaging broader civil society, including community groups, religious organizations, trade unions, professional associations, the media, and public interest organizations, is also important. Such groups can be instrumental in raising awareness of climate change impacts, in supporting poor people as they engage in adaptation activities, in providing valuable knowledge, and in monitoring governmental performance and holding government to account in its efforts to cope with climate change. Consequently, civil society, and particularly the poor, must be empowered to participate in the assessment process and in identifying adaptation activities. The role of non-government organizations (NGOs) on adaptation and mitigation of climate change is capacity building.212 Capacity building is a very broad process and in general terms involves building, strengthening, enhancing and improving the following:

• Institutions, including national authorities, public and private institutions, academic, technical and research institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and communities as well as regional institutions;

• Human resources, including staff and experts in public and private

institutions, and the development of knowledge, skills and expertise in various disciplines related to climate change;

• Methodology, including methods, approaches and practices;

• Technology and equipment, related to databases, communication,

information management, analytical models, monitoring, testing, mapping and geographic information systems, including hardware, software, and know-how;

• Information and networking, including information and communication

technologies, programmes and networks to effectively facilitate the flow and exchange of information, experience and resources.213

Capacity building is an iterative process, not an event. It should be approached in a manner that allows learning by doing, whereby efforts are begun and adjustments 212 Capacity-building: increasing skilled personnel and technical and institutional capacity (IISD 2002). In the context of climate change, capacity building is a process in developing the technical skills and institutional capability in developing countries and economies in transition to enable them to participate in all aspect of adaptation to mitigation of and research on climate change (IPCC 2002). 213 IUCN, (2000) “The Role of NGOs in Capacity Building,” Paper presented to the 2nd alliance small island states workshop on climate change negotiations, strategy & management, Apia-Samoa, Washington, D.C.


102

are made along the way so as to optimize benefits and ensure that future needs and priorities are met. This implies that capacity building should be a sustained effort and designed to be sustainable over the long-term. One clear indicator of success of capacity building is the ability for a country to reproduce that capacity over and over again. For this, capacity building needs to be complemented by a stringent monitoring and evaluation effort that can measure and determine results. Climate change is already taking place and will continue over the coming decades. It is a serious factor that needs to be considered in development planning and operations, alongside a multitude of other risks that are routinely factored in. Climate change will have impacts on coastal development, water supply, energy, agriculture, and health, among other sectors. Large scales efforts need to be launched to better understand the anticipated impacts, help strengthen adaptive capacity, and promote adaptation measures. This agenda should be linked to that for disaster risk reduction. Climate change strengthens the call for an adaptive management style that focuses on transparency and learning. Such an approach needs to target stakeholders in decision making and implementation at the level of landscapes and seascapes. Coalitions, including governments and their agencies, NGOs, local communities and research institutions, can support immediate actions, plan for the medium term and establish key priorities for the longer term. Whether constituted at the regional, national or international level, these coalitions should aim to bring about change in nature conservation practice to enhance the adaptive capacity of people and nature to climate change. Box 4.13: Community-based rangeland rehabilitation for carbon sequestration in Sudan214 Beginning in 1992 and continuing through 2000, a group of 17 villages in the drought-prone Bara Province in Western Sudan took part in a project, funded by the UNDP Global Environmental Facility (GEF), to rehabilitate overexploited and highly-vulnerable rangelands through the use of community-based natural resource management (NRM) techniques. Cyclic droughts had severely degraded grazing areas, reducing their ability to regenerate and provide sufficient fodder for livestock, while cultivation under these arid conditions left the land bare and therefore exposed to wind erosion. The cumulative impacts of drought, grassland conversion to cropland and fuel wood gathering (deforestation), severely degraded the local resource base, undermined livelihoods and left communities more vulnerable to the adverse effects of future droughts. The project had two overall objectives: 1) to create a locally sustainable NRM system that would both prevent overexploitation of marginal lands and rehabilitate rangelands for the purpose of carbon sequestration, preservation of biodiversity and reduction of atmospheric dust; and 2) to reduce the risk of production failure by increasing the number of alternatives for sustainable production strategies, leading to greater stability for the local population. Developed through the support of local NGOs and strong community buy-in, the project involved a package of mutually supportive sustainable livelihood activities to be undertaken by participating villages. These included:

• Institution building: mobilizing community groups for planning and implementation of project activities.

• Training: in areas such as community development (e.g., soap production and handicrafts), natural resource management (e.g., range management and fodder production), credit systems, drought mitigation, etc.

214 IUCN (2005), op cit. pp. 10-11.


103

• Rangeland Rehabilitation: through activities such as sand dune revegetation, windbreak installation, etc.

• Community Development: through small irrigated vegetable gardens, water well construction, etc. Some project activities were not directly related to the purpose of carbon sequestration but instead focused on addressing socio-economic conditions. The long-term improvement in NRM and land rehabilitation could only be accomplished by meeting the near-term survival and production needs of villagers.

The results exceeded original expectations. For example, over 700 hectares of rangeland was improved and properly managed through the project, far exceeding the original goal of 100. Notably, the additional land area was improved on the basis of added community-buy-in and positive leakage, through which additional communities undertook project activities after witnessing the benefits. Community development activities diversified the local production system, thereby easing pressures on marginal lands. Community mobilization and training equipped local people with the capacity to cope with drought. With improved land management and a more secure environmental and social asset base, communities were able to increase their resilience to climate-related shocks, such as drought. Such resilience-building activities should form the basis of climate change adaptation strategies, as these communities are responding to climate impacts similar to those expected from climate change.


104

Section V BTRF’S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Borneo Tropical Rainforest Foundation Background Indonesian Republic occupies only 1.3% of the earth’s land surface; its 17,000 islands are home to more than 10% of the planet s flowering plants, 12% of mammal species, 17% of all reptiles and amphibians and 17% of the world s birds. The archipelago contains some 17,000 islands, including the world s third largest, Borneo, where the Indonesian provinces of Kalimantan boast the largest expanses of tropical rainforest in South East Asia. Indonesia’s forests shelter 10-20% of the world’s vertebrates and vascular plants and house many endangered animals. Some species are threatened with extinction and the decline of others will negatively affect the regeneration of the forest and the availability of wildlife, fish and other forest products that support rural livelihoods. Indonesia’s forests are one of the most important terrestrial carbon reservoirs in the world. The destruction of these forests affects the composition of the atmosphere and could have a major impact on climate change. Indonesia’s emission of the major GHGs in 1994, the last year for which an emission inventory is available, amounted to approximately 343 Mt of CO2 equivalents. A further 156 Mt of net CO2 emission were caused by changes in land use, primarily deforestation.215 The 1997/98 forest fires released roughly 8% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions that period. In addition, those fires adversely affected the health, property and livelihoods of 75 million people, caused $2.3 – 3.2 billion of damage and degraded large areas of forest. The economic costs of these fires to the citizens and business of Indonesia have been estimated at $9-10 billion with more than 1.4 million cases of acute respiratory infection and more than 2.4 million lost work days.216 As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Indonesia is committed to conserving its biodiversity wealth not only for its own future benefit, but also that of humankind. Given ongoing threats posed by the impacts of unsustainable economic practices, however, this is a challenge that needs to be addressed using new and innovative mechanisms for conservation. 215 State Ministry for Environment, (2001) National Strategy Study on the Clean Development Mechanism in Indonesia, Jakarta. 216 The World Bank (2005), loc cit.


105

In 2003, the Government properly agreed, as part of a foresighted and far-reaching development strategy for Kalimantan to set aside 10 to 20 million hectares of natural tropical forest for protection and sustainable stewardship under the auspices of BTRF, an independent, non-profit body governed by the laws of Switzerland, where it operates under the supervisory authority of the Swiss Department of Internal Affairs. The Borneo Tropical Rainforest Foundation (BTRF) established is not only to protect large expanses of rainforest but also to promote global responsibility and awareness of the need to participate collectively in the conservation of our planet s natural heritage. As part of this process, it aims to instigate constructive links and partnerships with the widest possible range of stakeholders so that the initiative may serve as a flagship model of international best practices in the field of protected area management, as well as an example of regional and international co-operation at the highest level. Particular emphasis will be placed by BTRF on fostering appropriate, mutually beneficial synergies between ecological and economic imperatives in a manner that lends real and substantial support to the Government of Indonesia in its efforts to promote conservation of its pristine rainforest reserves whilst enhancing sustainable development objectives in the provinces of Kalimantan. In this way, the project will aim to act as a catalyst to enable funding for other social and development priorities, for which the people of Kalimantan and Indonesia will be the prime beneficiaries. Rationale The contribution of forestry and land use change to total GHG emissions in Indonesia is high and very variable. The variability is primarily due to emissions, not sequestration; this reflects the impact of deforestation, the magnitude of which has varied greatly over time. In Indonesia’s National Communications under UNFCCC (SMEROI 1999), net annual GHG emissions from this sector are estimated at between 58 Mt and 269 Mt of CO2 equivalent.217 Due to the complexity of land use and forestry issues, particularly in the context of decentralization, emissions from this sector are extremely difficult to predict. Existing projections from earlier studies may not adequately reflect recent developments and outlooks. In line with ratifying of Kyoto Protocol, Government of Indonesia has further accentuated its firm commitment to the reduction greenhouse gases implicated in climate change, on the context, BTRF’ exists and mandate by taking definitive step towards the Kyoto Protocol. Indonesia has signed Kyoto Protocol in 1998, and agreed to its ratification by parliament in July 2004. Besides the potential global impact of this measure promulgated by the country with the second largest area of tropical forest in the world the Bill passed by the House of Representatives on 28th June 2004 also expressly highlighted a crucial domestic environmental security rationale for according maximum priority to the far-reaching protection of the nation s rainforest heritage from the ravages of uncontrolled logging, clearing and burning. It is, indeed, ominously significant that Indonesia is an archipelagic country, boasting the second largest aggregate shoreline in the world. The country is, as a result,

217 Gaughran, Audrey (2001)


106

particularly prone to the negative fall-out of climate change, notably the widely predicted rises in sea level that are expected to occur. To put Indonesia s potential contribution in perspective, it should be recalled that deforestation in the tropics may account for ten to 20% of the carbon released into the atmosphere by human activity during the 1990s. Deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia alone amounts to roughly four-fifths of the annual reduction in carbon emissions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol from 2008 to 2012.218 Borneo is source of 1/7 total carbon released into atmosphere worldwide by human activity in 2004. Fires in Borneo during 1997/98 caused almost half global annual release of CO2 from tropical deforestation. Philosophy The scriptures of Islam collected together in the Qur’an make it clear that “God treasures all living creatures, not least for their ability to worship and praise him,” (Su’ra 22 article 18 and Su’ra 17 article 44). And on other parts in the Qur’an, God says “There is not an animal that (lives) on the Earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but forms (parts of) communities like you (Man) (Su’ra 6 article 38).219 “And you do not make any destruction on the Earth, after doing restoration, and take pray to Him with concern and optimism (Su’ra 7 article 56). These universal messages are the basic principle of the viewpoint and the values of the BTRF. Based on the point of view, BTRF to grip on basic principles (NOTE: Draft),

∅ Humanity is integral part of the ecosystem and both living in harmony.

∅ Humanity to responsible on protects and conserves the ecosystem as well as its biodiversity.

∅ Humanity to take benefits from ecosystem through sustainable manners

∅ Humanity enable restore the ecosystem through sustainable manners and

scientific based.

∅ Humanity which develop the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs

∅ Humanity hand on hand to share on its vision.

∅ The Earth planet and its ecosystem keep improved and sustain to make

human well being through generations to generations. Mission

• To protect and safeguard large areas of tropical rainforest.

• To promote global responsibility and awareness of the need to participate collectively in the conservation of our planet’s natural heritage.

218 The Economist, 24th July, 2004 in ww.btrf.com. 219 See http://www.btrf.com


107

Objective

• To establish and safeguard large protected areas in order to foster conservation of the tropical rainforests of Borneo.

• To provide efficient management, finance and infrastructure for the strict

preservation of such protected areas as reservoirs of biological diversity for ecological, genetic, economic, scientific and educational purpose.

• To raise awareness of the planetary importance of rainforest protection and

its positive impacts for humanity. BTRF recognizes that for the successful implementation of its programmes, it is critical to work partnership. It is committed to promoting constructive cooperation between the ranges of stakeholders; including government and regional authorities, local communities, business and development interests as well as the national and international scientific and conservation communities. Mandate To develop for rainforest and protected area management

• new and innovative strategies • dynamic funding mechanisms • links and partnerships • a living model of international best practice • example of regional and international cooperation

Approach To conserve rainforests of Borneo by:

• demonstrating their global importance • monetising their value.

Involves To conserve rainforest Borneo by:

• empowering local communities • involving range stakeholders • engaging new partnerships and sources of funding • brokering institutional investment • applying cutting-edge business/asset management techniques to

conservation • promoting regional co-operation and transboundary vision • addressing priority global concerns synergistically:

o climate change convention o convention on biodiversity o UN Millennium goals

• fostering environmental, social and economic stability.


108

Portfolio

• Facilitating investment/applying offsets o alternative and renewable energy o biodiversity o biofuels o biomass o carbon o certified timber o community development o consumer powered conservation o eco-tourism o education, awareness and vocational training o environment security (incl. fire prevention and control) o habitats and species o impact assessment o inventory and monitoring o job and wealth creation o natural and cultural heritage o microfinancing o primary health care (incl. distance health service) o reforestation and afforestation o research and science o sustainable plantation o technology o water sustainability

• Mobilizing expertise, public/private partnerships and finance to securitise

valuable natural resources. Collaborative Agreement

• Department of Forestry, Republik Indonesia • Sabah Forestry Department • Local Government Regencies, Kalimantan

o Berau o Bulungan o Kutai Timur o Malinau o Nunukan

• Privileged diplomatic and government connections in each Sovereign State of

Borneo. Community Development Programme BTRF recognizes that tropical forest protect effort needs collaboration with multi-stakeholders which they have benefited directly or non-directly. Conversely, to deal with improving of human well-being in the communities on forest surroundings is essentials for to protect ecosystem, biodiversity and forest in their areas. Based on this reasoning, BTRF is belief that “Help the people who want to help the forest.” The efforts for improving human well-being in the forests surroundings being


109

prioritise of the BTRF’s programme. The community development programmes prioritise to address of ‘vulnerable’ beneficiaries in its projects. BTRF defined Community Development is an “organize efforts to manage the natural, financial, social and cultural resources to improve the living standard of the people for now and future generations based on BTRF’s philosophy.” As mention above about BTRF’s philosophy, the programme of BTRF’s community development in the context, based on:

• integrated with ecosystem and biodiversity conservation programme as well as to protects and conserves them;

• using sustainable manners and scientific based; • involving with multi-stakeholders; • sustainable and long-term programme.

Policy

• pro-poor • transparent • participatory

Rationale East Kalimantan is province with largest area in Indonesia, which size + 245,237.80 km2 equivalent with 1.5 Java and Madura islands or 11% from all Indonesia size. This province have border with neighbour country (Malaysia) i.e. Sabah and Sarawak States. In administration, this province divides on four municipals and nine regencies including 122 subdistricts, 1.144 villages and 191 urban-villages. Total the population in East Kalimantan amount 2,704,851 per capita (2003), by population density is 12 per capita/km2 and growth population average 2.77% since 1990-2000. Based on population circumstances in this province, having basic problem is the settlement of population undistributed equal between urban and rural. The population who living in urban/shoreline are 53.35% and the rest 46.65% living in remote areas. The population growth is not only origins from local people but related with migration from other provinces in Indonesia. The population from East Java, South Sulawesi, South Kalimantan and Central Java are the “supplier” of the migration to East Kalimantan by objective is seeking job. The economic growth of East Kalimantan on 2003 is to reach 4.73% and 2004 amount 5.1%. Economic structure in this province (2004) contributed by manufacture (39.37%), sub-sector oil & gas (gasoline refinery and LNG), and industry non-oil only 9.07%, followed mining sector 29.36%. Meanwhile agriculture is 7.62% and transportation & communication 7.66%.220 By that economic structure, the East Kalimantan still based on natural resources and non-renewable resources. The problem is how to transfer gradually to renewable resources. 220 See www.kaltim.go.id


110

Community development program of BTRF consist primary education sector, primary health sector and economic infrastructure (including microfinance). Following this is fact and figures about three sectors. Basic education The proportion of population, who currently attending in primary school in East Kalimantan reach 31.56% (2003), passed national average (24.04%). Meanwhile gross enrollment ratio primary school is 107.29%, above from average of all Indonesia 105.82%. The similar figure on gross enrollment ratio junior high school is 89.61% (Indonesian average, 89.61%). However, net enrollment ratio221 primary school is 91.33%, below national average (92.55%); even though for male (92.70%) above national average (92.49%), for female (89.91%) below national average (92.61%). Based on education cost, average of education cost (during July-December 2002) population who are attending school for primary school is Rp 217.450, above Indonesian average (Rp 159.160), for junior secondary school Rp 396.170 (Indonesian average Rp 408.670). But proportion of populations who are attending school and accepted scholarship is high: 21.86% (national average 6.85%) and junior secondary school 20.61% (national average 10.18%). The similar figures is stable, for senior secondary school 20.70% (national average 6.05%), and university 24% (national average 5%). These figures are highest for all provinces in Indonesia. Kind of scholarship who accepted by pupils, for primary school source of scholarship 88.32% received from government by non social safety net, just only 4.54% from government by social safety net, and 3.67 from other institutions. Similar figure on scholarship for junior high school, received from government by non social safety net (78.13) and government by social safety net (8.77%) and other institutions 6.99%.222 Primary health Accsess to health service in one area contributes significantly to poor health outcomes in the location population. The infant mortality rate is an indicator for the population access to health services. In East Kalimantan (2000), infant mortality rate (per 1,000 llive births) is 37, below national average 44. However, infant mortality rate under five years age is 46.08, above national average 44.71. The percentation malnutrition on under five years age in East Kalimantan (2002) 6.34%, (national average 7.47%), low nutrient 15.18% (national average 18.35%), and normal nutrient 74.94% (national average 71.88%). Health services for poor family have targeted (2002) in East Kalimantan is 109.995 per capita or 83.1% who have health card (national average 92.8%). But from who have health card 96.7% benefited of health card (national average 52.5%) or 80.4% from poor targeted.

221 Net enrollment ratio is proportion of pupils on an age group who schooling on their appropriate age group. See Badan Pusat Statistik, (2003) Statistics of Education 2003: National Social-Economic Survey, Jakarta. 222 ibid


111

Prenatal health services in East Kalimantan to reach 78.3% for pregnant maternal (national average 83.4%), and post natal 44.4% (national average 80.1%).223 Poverty224 The poor population in East Kalimantan (2004) reach 318.200 people, or 11.57% from total province’s population, (total national 36.146.900) From these figures category poverty gap index225 (p1) 2.0, and distributionally sensitive index226 (p2) 0.60 with poverty line Rp 165.755 /capita/month. In national, poverty line divided on urban and rural. In 2004, poverty line rural increase to Rp 108.275 /cap/month, and in urban Rp 122.775 /cap/month. In percent, poverty line urban (2004) is 88% from rural poverty. Table 5.1: Sum poverty population and poverty line in East Kalimantan

Province/Regency/ Municipal

Poor Population

(000)

Percent of Poor

Population

P1

P2

Poverty Line (Rp/cap/ month)

East Kalimantan 316.2 11.57 2.06 0.60 165.755 Pasir 27.2 15.79 3.50 0.75 141.437 Kutai Barat 19.9 13.63 1.93 0.46 177.541 Kutai 73.3 15.07 3.28 1.03 169.052 Kutai Timur 27.9 16.52 3.45 1.21 181.000 Berau 11.9 8.41 1.33 0.32 130.393 Malinau 11.3 23.88 5.51 2.27 339.182 Bulungan 21.3 22.19 3.61 0.83 201.786 Nunukan 22.7 21.18 4.32 1.25 171.122 Penajam Paser Utara 19.0 16.09 3.73 1.14 171.476 Balikpapan Municipal 17.1 3.97 0.69 0.20 153.893 Samarinda Municipal 44.9 7.90 0.98 0.19 160.414 Tarakan Municipal 13.9 9.11 1.54 0.36 167.306 Bontang Municipal 7.9 6.81 1.29 0.33 204.796

In employment sector, open unemployment in East Kalimantan is 7.44 (2003), above national average 6.96. That is decrease from 2002 which reach 8.89 (national average 6.96).227

223 Health Dept., (2003) Indonesian Health Profile, 2002, Jakarta. 224 (BPS) defined poverty is unable for fulfilling minimum basic demands including food demands and non-food demands. Core from this model is to compare population consumption with “poverty line” i.e. money demand for consumption per capita, (BPS 2004). 225 Poverty gap index (p1) is indicator expenditure gap between poor populations upon poverty line. (BPS 2004) 226 Distributionally sensitive index (p2) is indicator expenditure spread between poor population, and can using for poverty intensify. (BPS 2004) 227 Coordination Team of Poverty Alleviation (2005) Poverty in Indonesia: Data and Information Progress, Jakarta. pp. 50.


112

Economic infrastructures Access the rural population, particularly rural poor to finance institution is an indicator of availability economic infrastructure. For instance, cooperative institution in East Kalimantan total 2.722 unit (2003), which keep active 2.604 unit, has members 356.919 member with internal capital Rp 71.97 billion and external capital 50.28 billion, by business volume Rp 363 billion.228 As comparative, in 2005 cooperative institution total 3.082 unit, which keep active 2.815 unit, has members 378.109 member with internal capital Rp 28.55 billion and external capital 82.95 billion, by business volume Rp 363 billion. Meanwhile, the limitation of education and quality of human resources, and poverty or fulfilling basic needs, to encourage local communities to join with buyer or broker of illegal logger and other illegal encroachment. That is to be problems to local communities in forest surroundings area. Programme Description Goal To enhance living conditions by restoring and improving access for communities in the BTRF’s project location to basic social (health and education) and economic infrastructure (microfinancing) according to priorities established at the local level by cooperation with regional and regency government, which based on sustainable resources and conservation programme. Primary Health Service Objective To facilitate of provide direct support for adding and improving primary health services to communities in village level (Regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau), including access on medicines and funding for medical supplies. Activities

• Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholders (working group, etc.) about heath service and their needs assessment.

• Identify the problems of health services in each regency. • Hiring heath officer. • Draft design of health service program. • Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholder about draft of health service

program. • Finalize health service program by participating of local stakeholders. • Implement of health service program. • Monitoring and evaluation program

Pre-implementation

228 Ministry of Cooperative and Small and Medium Enterprises (2003).


113

• Adopt and consultation with stakeholder the health programme in Sangkulirang, Biduk-biduk.

• To identify new implementation on existing health program (ambulance available, paramedic training, tobacco addition treatment, etc.)

Primary Education and Biodiversity Awareness Objectives To facilitate of provide direct support for improved educational facilities and teaching to communities in village level (Regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau) including provide direct support for awareness of environmental program. Activities • Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholders (working group, etc.) about education

service and environment awareness program as well as their needs assessment.

• Identify the problems of education services and environment awareness program in each regency.

• Hiring education officer. • Draft design of module for extra curriculum subject to elementary schools and

junior high schools. • Draft design of education service program and toolkits for environment

awareness program. • Draft design of re-trained for local teachers. • Draft design of assisting program to local residents for being local teachers. • Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholder about draft education service and

environment awareness program. • Finalize education service and environment awareness program by participating

of local stakeholders. • To test and validation of environment module program for subject matter of extra

curriculum in elementary schools and junior high schools. • Implement of education service and environment awareness program. • Monitoring and evaluation program. Pre-implementation

• Adopt and consultation with stakeholder the education programme in existing planning.

• To identify new implementation and needs assessment on existing education program.

• To develop design plan of education and biodiversity awareness programme. Infrastructure Economics Objective To initiate and facilitate of provide the direct support for financial assistance (microfinancing) and access by target groups of local communities in the village level


114

(Regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau) as well as develop their economic capacities. Activities

• Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholders (working group, etc.) about financial assistance (microfinance) and their needs assessment.

• Facilitate technical and economic feasibility studies and identify target communities of microfinance beneficiaries.

• Hiring microfinance specialist staff, local facilitators, and volunteers for microfinance design model.

• Organize study visits for some local stakeholders (comparative study). • Draft design of (technical) microfinance operating pilot schemes. • Finalize microfinance operating mechanism by participating local

stakeholders. • Monitoring and evaluation program.

Pre-implementation

• Adopt and consultation with stakeholder the microfinancing programme in existing planning.

• To identify the beneficiaries (vulnerable) of microfinancing program programme.

• To develop design plan of mechanism of microfinancing programme. • To identify community livelihoods needs and priorities (gaharu plantation, eco

tourism, etc.) Lesson Learned

• Maintain the development of technical recommendations (guidance) of health service program, education service program, and microfinance operating mechanisms continually updated.

• Commission baseline survey/studies or sectoral survey. • Preparation communication workplan. • Finalize communication workplan and ensure that all staff and partners

received its workplan. • Writing reports regularly and project progress (annual, mid-term review,

quarterly, monthly) for multi-stakeholders by any tools, and to share with journalist (media) which material that suitable (success story, etc.).

• Facilitate meeting, gathering and events with journalist (media). • Communication of project achievement to relevant target audiences. • Proactive on issues in media about health service program, education service

program, microfinancing program, and conservations issues, as well as BTRF’s projects.


115

Section VI CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION Conclusion The biodiversity, community, and climate change is dynamic complex relationship. The interrelation between them will be more complex with any interest from elements of external respectively. The role of stakeholders for capacity building, particularly civil society and NGOs is important to encourage enhance benefits from one to other element. The climate change process will be impacts to all ecosystems, particularly for humans, animal and micro-organism. The change will be encouraging human security in the next generation if human cannot intervention as soon as possible. The program conservation, also part of the climate mitigation, and encourages sustainable livelihoods for poor people and vulnerable parties, including to gender sensitive, needs to addressing prioritize in community development programme. Discussion For community development programme, the innovation methods and approaches need to develop by share between stakeholders and lesson learning process. BTRF’s community development program needs to prioritize involvement of stakeholders for its project by participatory approach. Successful programme based on involvement of stakeholder as beginning as possible. In the project formulation, BTRF will address to adaptation climate risk management related to sink projects. The integration of climate risk management needed for assist of vulnerable people (poor) to adaptation on climate change. Projects that could be strongly affected become natural starting points for integration of climate risk management into that particular project. The poorly of data and information on climate change in Indonesia is crucial for adaptation and mitigation of climate change in here. The BTRF can role to support for this by coordinated with government; in line with encourage research to research institutions or/and to participate by giving ‘competitive grant’ for researcher on the climate change’s subject research. The position of the BTRF and its role in Indonesia: the key role of BTRF has been described, but need to elaborate concept and programme, between staff internal as well as involved in stakeholders. The clearly concept and programme will support the staff and stakeholders to involve with its programme and to formulate prioritize of the programme. BTRF is the initial entity which concern on climate change issues in Indonesia. As a new organization, the roles of leadership which open minded and emphasize to enhance capacity building (participatory learning process) both internally and stakeholder share, is needed to successfully its programme.


116

References: Barber, Charles Victor (2001) Forests, Fires, and Confrontation in Indonesia,

International Marinelife Alliance, Washington, D.C. Barias, Jose Luis, et al, (2005) Getting on Track: Finding a Path for Transportation

in the CDM. Final Report, IISD, Canada. Batten, Thomas R. (1957) Communities and Their Development, Oxford Univ. Press. Bawa, K.S. & Markham A. (1995) Global Climate Change and Tropical Forest

Genetic Resources. Climatic Change 39, 473-485. Bojo, J, and Reddy, C.R. (2003) “Poverty Reduction Strategies and the Millennium

Development Goal on Environment Sustainability: Opportunities for Alignment,” World Bank Environment Department Paper 92 (Environmental Economic Series).

Bossel, Hartmut, (1999) Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method,

Applications. Report to the Balaton Group, IISD, Canada Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, et al., (2004) Indigenous and Local Communities and

Protected Areas, WCPA, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 11, IUCN.

Bovarnick, Andrew and Ajay Gupta, (2003) Local Business for Global Biodiversity

Conservation, GEF-UNDP, New York. Christenson, James A., “Community Development” in Dillman, Don A. and Daryl J.

Hobbs,ed., (1982) Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s, West View Press Inc., USA.

Christian Aid Report (2006) The climate of poverty: facts, fears and hope. CIFOR (2006) “Governments and Poverty Alleviation in Forest Areas in Indonesia,”

Governance Brief, Forest and Governance Programme. Cooke, Bill and Kothari, Uma. ed., (2001), Participation, the New Tyranny? Zed

Books, New York, Coordination Team of Poverty Alleviation (2005) Poverty in Indonesia: Data and

Information Progress, Jakarta. Cosbey, Aaron., et al., (2005) Which Way Forward? Issues in Developing an

Effective Climate Regime after 2012, IISD, Canada. Cutajar, M.Z. (2004) “Reflections on the Kyoto Protocol – Looking Back to See

Ahead.” International Review for Environmental Strategies 5. DFID (2003) Biodiversity: A Crucial Issue for the World’s Poorest, UK. Dillman, Don A. and Daryl J. Hobbs (ed.), (1982) Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for


117

the 1980s, West View Press Inc., USA. Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar, Pamulo Roddy and Jo-Ellen Parry, (2005) Have

Participatory Approaches Increased Capabilities? IISD, Manitoba, Canada.

Durr, Christoph., ed., (1999) The Contribution of Forest and Trees to Poverty Alleviation, Inter cooperation, Series 1C no. 3, Swiss-Bern,

EU-DFID-IUCN (2003) “Forest and Biodiversity,” Biodiversity in Development,

Biodiversity Brief 12. Figueres, Christiana, (2002) Establishing national Authorities for the CDM: A Guide

for Developing Countries, IISD & Center for Sustainable Development in Americas, Canada.

Fischer, R.J., et al., (2005) Landscape and Conservation: Landscape, People, and

Power, IUCN Forest Conservation Programme, Landscape and Livelihoods Series No.2, Cambridge, UK.

Frank, Flo and Anne Smith (1999) The Community Development Handbook: A Tool

to Build Community Capacity, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Gaughran, Audrey, ed., (2001) National Strategy Study on the Clean Development

Mechanism in Indonesia, State Ministry for Environment, Jakarta. Gitay, Habiba, et al, (2002) Climate Change and Biodiversity: IPCC Technical Paper

V, UNEP-WMO. Harvard Medical School Center, (2005) Climate Change Futures: Health, Ecological

and Economic Dimension. The Center of Health and Global Environment, Swiss Re and UNDP, Boston.

Health Dept., (2003) Indonesian Health Profile, 2002, Jakarta. Hirsch, Tim, (2005) “Ecosystem Protection, a Key to Development,” Environment &

Poverty Times 04. Holdsworth, A.R. & Uhl C. (1997) “Fire in Amazonian selectively logged rainforest

and the potential for fire reduction.” Ecological Application 7, 713-725. International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM), World Bank and Energy Sector

Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), (2005) Community Development Toolkit: Pioneering New Approaches in Support of Sustainable Development in the Extractive Sector, New York.

IISD-OECD (2006) “A Summary report of the Wilton Park on Forestry: a sectoral

response to climate change.” Wilton Park Conference Bulletin, Vol. 130 No. 1. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Working Group. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Summary for Policy Maker.

IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary


118

for Policymakers. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary

for Policymakers. IPCC (1995) Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate

Change: Scientific Technical Analysis. Contribution Working Group II, 2nd assessment of IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge, UK.

IPCC (2001) Impacts, Adaptations and vulnerability, Working Group II, 3rd

assessment report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. IPCC, (2001) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers,

An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, third Assessment report.

IUCN, (2000) “The Role of NGOs in Capacity Building,” Paper presented to the 2nd

alliance small island states workshop on climate change negotiations, strategy & management, Apia-Samoa, Washington, D.C.

IUCN, (2000) State of the Art Review on Environment, Security and Development

Cooperation. OECD Development Assistance Committee. IUCN, (2001) Implication on Climate Change for Species Conservation, Briefing

paper, Workshop. IUCN-UNEP (2002) Carbon, Forests, and People: Toward the integrated

management of carbon sequestration, the environment and sustainable livelihoods, IUCN Forest Conservation Programme, Livelihoods and Landscapes Series, No. 1., Cambridge, UK.

IUCN, (2005) “2o Celsius: A World of Difference to Life on Earth,” News Release. IUCN-SDC-Intercooperation, (2003) Livelihoods and Climate Change, a Conceptual

Framework Paper Prepared by the Task Force in Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation. Canada.

Kanji, Nazneen, and Laura Greenwood (2001) Participatory Approach to Research

and Development in IIED: Learning from Experience. IIED, London. Kuper, Adam and Kuper, Jessica (1996) The Social Sciences Encyclopaedia, 2nd

edition, Routledge, London. Kurtz, Russel H. (1970) Social Work Yearbook. New York: National Association of

Social Workers. Limberg, Godwin., et al, (2005) “Opportunities and Constraints to Community

Forestry: Experience from Malinau,” Governance Brief No. 15, Forest Governance Programme, CIFOR.

McLeod, Elizabeth and Rodney V. Salm (2006) Managing Mangroves for Resilience

to Climate Change, IUCN Resilience Science Group Working Paper Series – No. 2, IUCN-TNC, Switzerland.

Maginnis, Stewart and Mark Aldrich (2005) “Forest Conservation and Poverty \


119

Reduction: the Hunt for Synergies,” Arborvitae: The IUCN/WWF Forest Conservation Newsletter 29.

Mezirow, J. D. in David I. Sills (ed.), (1972) International Encyclopedia of the Social

Sciences, The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, New York, reprint edition.

Ministry of Cooperative and Small and Medium Enterprises (2003). Orlando, Bret and Smeardon Lesley (1999) Global Biodiversity Forum:

Exploring Synergy between the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Conservation on Biological Diversity, Report of the Eleventh.

Pisupati, Balakrishna, and Emilie Warner (2003) Biodiversity and The Millennium

Goals. IUCN Regional Biodiversity Programme – UNDP, Sri Lanka. Poston, Richard W. (1958) Report on the Chairman, Division of Community

Development National University Extension Association, Proceedings 41. Pretty, Jules., et al., (1996) “Participation in Agricultural Research Development: Key

Concepts,” ICRA learning materials.

Phillips, Martin and Tim Mighail, (2000) Society and Exploitation through Nature, Pearson Education Ltd., Essex, England.

Reed, David, (2001) Poverty is not a Number, the Environment is not Butterfly, a Viewpoint Series on Poverty and the Environment, WWF Macroeconomics Program Office, EC, DGIS and SIDA, Washington, D.C.

Rietbergen-McCracken, Jennifer, and Deepa Narayan, (1998), Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Scherl, Lea M, et al., (2004) Can Protected Areas Contribute the Poverty Reduction?

IUCN, Cambridge, UK. Sanders, Irwin T. “Community Development” in Sills, David I., (ed.), (1972)

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, New York.

Scherr, Sara J, Andy White and David Kaimowitz, (2003) A New Agenda for Forest

Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Making Forest Markets Work for Low-Income Producers, CIFOR, Washington, D.C.

Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, (2006).

State Ministry for Environment, (2001) National Strategy Study on the Clean Development Mechanism in Indonesia, Jakarta.

Sugiyama, Taishi, (2005) Governing Climate: The Struggle for a Global Framework

Beyond Kyoto, IISD, Canada. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (2001) Third Assessment

Report. The World Bank (2006) Sustaining Indonesia’s Forests: Strategy for the World Bank,


120

2006-2009.

The World Bank, (2005) “Managing Forests for All,” Indonesia Policy Briefs: Ideas for the Future.

UN Department of Public Information (2001), assistance of UNFCCC. UNEP (2003) State of the Environment and Policy Retrospective: 1972-2002.

UNEP and UNFCCC, (2003) Climate Change: Information Kit, Switzerland. UNEP and UNFCCC, (2002) Understanding Climate Change: A Beginners Guide to

the UN Framework Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, Switzerland. UNEP (2004) CDM Information and Guidebook, the UNEP project CD4CDM, second

edition, Roskilde, Denmark. UNEP (2005) Baseline Methodologies for Clean Development Mechanism Projects,

The UNEP Project CD4CDM, Denmark.

UNEP, (2004) Introduction to CDM, UNEP collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment, Ris∅ National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.

UNEP, (2004) Legal Issues Guidebook to the Clean Development Mechanism, The

UNEP project CD44CDM, UNEP Ris∅ Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable, Roskilde, Denmark

UNEP, (2004b) Legal Issues Guidebook to the Clean Development Mechanism, The UNEP project CD44CDM, UNEP Ris∅ Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable, Roskilde, Denmark.

UNEP, UNDP, OECD, DFID, GTZ, UE, ADB, The World Bank, (2005) Poverty and

Climate Change: Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor through Adaptation. Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics (2006) Peatland degradation fuels

climate change: An unrecognised alarming source of greenhouse gases. WMO-UNEP, (2003) Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System:

Summary for Policy Maker and Technical Summary, IPCC and Technology and Economic Assessment Panel.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), (1987) Our common

future: The Brundtland report. Oxford University Press.

Annex 1. Logical Frame

PRELIMINARY LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BORNEO RAINFOREST TROPICAL FOUNDATION

2007-2009

Design Summary

Indicators

Mean of Verifications

Assumptions

Goal: To enhance living conditions by restoring and improving access for communities in the BTRF’s project location to basic social (health and education) and economic infrastructure (microfinancing) according to priorities established at the local level by cooperation with regional and regency government, which based on sustainable resources and conservation programme.

• Heath access and health standard of local

communities in the BTRF’s project areas increased significantly by implementing project.

• Education access and education standard of

local communities in the BTRF’s project area increased significantly by implementing project.

• Financial access, business opportunities and net

revenues of local communities BTRF’s project area increased significantly by implementing project.

• Knowledge, awareness and attitudes of local

communities on using forests and other natural resources has rising significantly by implementing project.

Baseline survey (2007 and 2010). Sectoral survey (2007 and 2010). Susenas Data by BPS. Need assessment reports.

Provincial government and regencies governments have committed to support of this project. No adverse on macro political situation and macroeconomic development takes place (stable).

Community Development in the Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change’s Framework. Dadang Setiawan 122

• Dependency of local communities on

unsustainable-use practices by over forest exploitations (logging, pouching, etc.) in BTRF’s project areas has decreased significantly by implementing project.

Purposes: 1. To facilitate of provide direct support

for adding and improving health services to communities in village level (Regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau), including access on medicines and funding for medical supplies.

• Local communities, particularly in remote areas,

have easy to access on ‘move away’ health service and medicines for and its use has increased.

• Local communities, particularly to maternal and

children have easy to access on health care and medicine, as well as its use has increased.

• Local people which practising of good health

living has increased. • The prevalence of acute respiratory infection

(ARI), tuberculosis and illness on local people has decreased.

Report of baseline survey (2007 and 2010). Health statistics by Health Dept. Health report from local health services.

Health technical staff is available as well as local staff or facilitator has trained. Partner organizations remain operational.


2. To facilitate of provide direct

support for improved educational facilities and teaching to communities in village level (Regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau) including provide direct support for awareness of environmental program.

• The pupils who school enrol in local level given

appropriate access and having sufficient quality services on education facilities.

• The teachers who have been re-trained have increased.

• The pupils who gave extra curriculum of environment and conservation’s field of study increased.

• The local resident who being local teachers by assisting of the project start increase.

• The knowledge and awareness of local communities on environment and conservation increased.

Report of baseline survey (2007 and 2010). Education statistics by Education Dept. List of teachers who have re-trained.

Education technical staff is available as well as local staff or facilitator has trained. The subject of environment and conservations module for elementary schools and junior high schools has been integrated in extra curriculum of local school. Partner organizations remain operational.

3. To initiate and facilitate of provide the

direct support for financial assistance (microfinancing) and access by target groups of local communities in the village level (Regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau) as well as develop their economic capacities.

• Local communities, particularly poor people,

have easy to access on financial assistance (microfinance) and its use has increased.

• Number of residents who is beneficiaries target on BTRF’s microfinancing program by correctly implemented has increased.

• Net revenue of local communities, particularly who gave microfinancing program has increased.

Report of baseline survey (2007 and 2010). Report of Sectoral survey (2007 and 2010). Susenas data by BPS.

Microfinance specialist staff is available as well as local staff or facilitator has trained. Partner organizations remain operational.

Results: 1. Technical recommendations of health

service program to local communities in regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau.

• By beginning 2007, technical recommendations

on health program for each regency have been completed and distributed for all stakeholders.

• Manual technical

recommendation of health service program.

Budget transfers on schedule. Normal living and working conditions.


2. Technical recommendations of

education service and environment awareness program to local communities in regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau.

• By beginning 2007, technical recommendations

on education service and awareness program for each regency have been completed and distributed for all stakeholders.

• Module of environment and

conservations subject matter for extra curriculum of elementary schools and junior high schools.

• Toolkits and strategy for environment awareness program to local communities.

3. Technical recommendations of

microfinance and business guidance to local communities in regency of Bulungan, Nunukan, Malinau, Kutai Timur, and Berau.

• By beginning 2007, technical recommendations on microfinance and business guidance for each regency have been completed and distributed for all stakeholders.

• Manual and guidance book of microfinance program (policy, targets, beneficiaries, mechanism).

4. As beginning of 2007, local, national

and international stakeholders are aware of BTRF’s community development project.

• Local, national, and international stakeholders

express awareness and supports for BTRF’s community development program (outreach).

• Annual survey among key

stakeholders on awareness and support.

• News and articles in media documented.

5. Management process of community development program well-documented as lesson learned materials for improving of the next program.

• Lesson learned materials of community development have been distributed on each end of term program.

• Documents of lesson learned model of microfinancing.

• Distribution report of the lesson learned model materials.

Microfinance staff is available and trained as planned.

Activities: 1.1 Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholders (working group, etc.) about heath service and their

needs assessment. 1.2 Identify the problems of health services in each regency. 1.3 Hiring heath officer.

Module budget: IER BTRF Other donor grants (if any) Government contribution (funds, in-kind, logistics)


1.4 Draft design of health service program. 1.5 Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholder about draft of health service program. 1.6 Finalize health service program by participating of local stakeholders. 1.7 Implement of health service program. 1.8 Monitoring and evaluation program 2.1 Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholders (working group, etc.) about education service and

environment awareness program as well as their needs assessment. 2.2 Identify the problems of education services and environment awareness program for each

regency. 2.3 Hiring education officer. 2.4 Draft design of module for extra curriculum subject to elementary schools and junior high

schools. 2.5 Draft design of education service program and toolkits for environment awareness program. 2.6 Draft design of re-trained for local teachers. 2.7 Draft design of assisting program to local residents for being local teachers. 2.8 Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholder about draft education service and environment

awareness program. 2.9 Finalize education service and environment awareness program by participating of local

stakeholders. 2.10 To test and validation of environment module program for subject matter of extra curriculum

in elementary schools and junior high schools. 2.11 Implement of education service and environment awareness program. 2.12 Monitoring and evaluation program. 3.1. Facilitate dialogue with local stakeholders (working group, etc.) about financial assistance

(microfinance) and their needs assessment. 3.2. Facilitate technical and economic feasibility studies and identify target communities of

microfinance beneficiaries. 3.3. Hiring microfinance specialist staff, local facilitators, and volunteers for microfinance design

model. 3.4. Organize study visits for some local stakeholders (comparative study). 3.5. Draft design of (technical) microfinance operating pilot schemes. 3.6. Finalize microfinance operating mechanism by participating local stakeholders.

Other partners’ contribution (funds, in-kind, logistics)


3.7. Monitoring and evaluation program. 4.1 Maintain the development of technical recommendations (guidance) of health service

program, education service program, and microfinance operating mechanisms continually updated.

4.2 Commission baseline survey/studies or sectoral survey. 4.3 Preparation communication workplan. 4.4 Finalize communication workplan and ensure that all staff and partners received its workplan. 4.5 Writing reports regularly and project progress (annual, mid-term review, quarterly, monthly) for

multi-stakeholders by any tools, and to share with journalist (media) which material that suitable (success story, etc.).

4.6 Facilitate meeting, gathering and events with journalist (media). 4.7 Communication of project achievement to relevant target audiences. 4.8 Proactive on issues in media about health service program, education service program,

microfinancing program, and conservations issues, as well as BTRF’s projects. 5.1 Collects reports of outcomes from monitoring and evaluation’s project. 5.2 Formulate of lesson learned draft. 5.3 Validation and verification of lesson learned model. 5.4 Distribute and disseminating lesson learned model to multi-stakeholders and partners. 5.5 Lesson learned concept well documented for improving of the next project.