More than 90 signatories from 34 countries warned that carbon credits from coal power offset projects divert scarce climate finance and undermine climate targets while locking-in billions of tons of CO₂ and causing severe human health and ecosystems damage.

 “Coal is the fossil fuel with the highest greenhouse gas emissions and the anathema of “clean development” comments Bas Eickhout, a member of the European Parliament. “While the clock is ticking to get a much needed climate deal done, it is hard to believe that the UNFCCC allows coal power projects to receive climate finance.”

Under the UN’s offsetting scheme multi-billion-dollar coal power projects can receive carbon credits if they show they would have been built less efficient in the absence of the carbon revenue. But building highly efficient coal power plants makes economic and strategic sense because coal prices have been rising rapidly over the past years, and governments are mandating more efficient technologies.

 “Carbon credits from business as usual projects fundamentally undermine already insufficient pledges to reduce emissions” said Eva Filzmoser from CDM Watch, the initiator of the letter “In order to avoid hundreds of millions of carbon credits from unsustainable coal projects that deliver neither emission reductions, nor sustainable development benefits, we call on countries to exclude coal power projects from the CDM here in Durban.”

Last week, the UN’s CDM Executive Board suspended the crediting rules for coal power projects after an investigation found that the flawed rules could lead to over-issuance of millions of carbon credits that do not reflect real and additional emission reductions. An independent study found that it is not feasible to correct the flaws in the rules because they are inherent to this project type.

The emissions reductions pledged by countries so far set the world on a trajectory for a 4.3° C temperature increase by 2100. Emissions must peak by 2015 and sharply decline thereafter in order to reach the 2° C goal agreed in Cancun. The IEA explicitly states that many coal power plants will have to be shut down before the end of their lifetime, if the world is to have a chance to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. 

 “We can’t afford to wait any longer to begin serious mitigation efforts. That means it is time to move the CDM beyond coal,” comments Justin Guay from Sierra Club.

Photo from SABC

by By Thobile Hans. Published in SABC.

South African President Jacob Zuma’s declaration on “climate smart and carbon markets” as a climate change solution for African agriculture has raised suspicions among roughly 100 civil society organisations at the COP17 conference in Durban.

The host nation has been accused of playing against the rest of Africa, “it pretends to be for Africa but it’s not, instead it is toeing the line of worst polluters,” says Teresa Anderson of the Gaia Foundation at Friday’s press conference.

A letter signed by African and international civil societies sent to African negotiators at the conference, called for them to reject efforts to place agricultural soils within carbon markets. The agricultural work programme “would lead to agricultural soils and agro-ecological practices being turned into commodities to be sold on carbon markets, or used as sinks to enable industrialised countries to continue to avoid reducing emissions,” the letter says.

In a joint statement the Gaia Foundation, African Biodiversity Network (ABN), Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and EcoNexus, alleges that president Zuma has declared his intention to have a decision on agriculture, while the World Bank is promoting the so called “Climate Smart Agriculture” and carbon offsets as the future of African agriculture and climate solutions.

The civil society groups raised concerns that this vision for African agriculture will lead to land grabs, farmer poverty and food insecurity, and only worsen global climate change. South Africa has not been different from the previous hosts, they have been “secretly engaging with the US. That is appalling.”

It is suspicious that South Africa is talking agriculture because there have been no discussions on agriculture yet at this conference, Anderson asserts. “An agreement on agriculture at COP 17 would supposedly be as consolation prize to Africa for failure on legally binding targets – but the consolation prize is a poisoned chalice. It will lead to land grabs and deliver African farmers into the hands of fickle carbon markets,” she says.

Simon Mwamba of the East African Small Farmer’s Federation says: “Climate smart agriculture is being presented as sustainable agriculture – but the term is so broad that we fear it is a front for promoting industrial, green revolution agriculture too, which traps farmers into cycles of debt and poverty.”

Anne Maina of the ABN says climate smart agriculture comes packaged with carbon offset. “Soil carbon markets could open the door to offset for GM crops and large-scale biochar land grabs, which would be a disaster to Africa. Africa is already suffering from land grab epidemic – the race to control soils for carbon trading could only make this worse”.

Biochar involves the burning of woody biomass, usually from trees, to make charcoal for burial in the soil.  It is claimed, by the proponents of biochar, that this permanently removes carbon from the atmosphere and sequesters it in the soil. It is also promoted as a major “geo-engineering” solution to global climate change, as well as a means of improving soils and addressing poverty.

Maina adds that, “The World Bank and SIDA-supported projects in Kenya are being used to convince African governments that this is a workable solution for agriculture investment. Yet even the project proponents admit that farmers will not benefit from carbon payments; they are likely to earn between $5 and $1 per year.”

Civil societies states that not only will African soil carbon credits generate tiny revenues for farmers, but the soil carbon projects will allow the biggest polluters to continue to pollute. Steve Suppan of IAPT asserts, “African communities, among the most vulnerable to climate change, will suffer from the continued failure of rich countries and companies to finance adaptation projects, particularly for agriculture, the main source of African livelihoods.”

He concludes that, “If that  isn’t a curse, I don’t know what is it.”

We, more than hundred civil society organisations from 35 countries across all continents, call on Parties to acknowledge the urgency with which climate change needs to be addressed and to agree to ambitious and immediate emissions reduction targets that are in line with the Cancun Agreement to prevent global warming beyond two degrees Celsius. Kyoto Protocol parties must commit to a second commitment period at Durban. The legal and governance structure of the Kyoto Protocol is crucial to ensuring that mitigation commitments are legally binding and have environmental integrity.

We call on Environment Ministers to establish a mandate to agree to an equitable effort sharing approach between all countries by COP18. This mandate should be consistent with the equity principles of the UNFCCC, the historical responsibility of developed countries, and the right to sustainable development of developing countries. Particularly, developed countries should commit to binding targets of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Moreover, loopholes must be closed so as not to undermine already weak targets. Damage from hot air (surplus AAUs) and non-additional carbon credits from Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) must be addressed. Double counting for new market and non-market mechanisms must absolutely be avoided and accountability for LULUCF needs to be strengthened.

Any market-based mechanism, including the CDM, must be part of a legal mechanism based on ambitious and binding emission reduction commitments. Without such targets, market-based mechanisms are rendered meaningless.

To address the integrity of carbon markets under the UNFCCC, following important policy changes are needed at COP17:

Human rights: Over the past months, CDM projects related to human rights violations have increased pressure on international policy makers to clarify the mandate to safeguards human rights under the UNFCCC. During Durban, Parties must acknowledge that the United Nations, including all its bodies, are required by the UN Charter to not allow human rights violations, which means that it will investigate any claims or evidence about emission reduction projects linked to human rights violations and that emission reduction projects that violate or risk violating human rights are prevented from earning carbon credits.

Appeals procedure: In Durban, Parties will agree on procedures, mechanisms and institutional arrangements for appeals against decisions of the CDM Executive Board. An appeals procedure in the CDM project approval process presents a critical opportunity to introduce coherence and quality control into the EB decision-making process. The right of stakeholders to appeal must be implemented as broadly as possible to address the rights of peoples and communities affected by CDM projects, and the wider impacts that flawed CDM projects have on global climate change and sustainable development.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the CDM:  The eligibility of CCS projects in the CDM will be discussed in Durban. CCS in the CDM means exporting unproven and risky technologies to developing countries and allowing oil companies to generate millions of carbon credits from enhanced oil production. CCS must remain ineligible until all of the environmental, legal and safety conditions for CDM inclusion have been properly addressed and resolved.

Industrial gases: In Durban, Parties will again discuss if new HCFC-22 facilities should be eligible under the CDM to destroy their HFC-23. However, the high profits of industrial gases offset projects, such as HFCs have been shown to create perverse incentives in the context of the CDM and JI, and should be addressed through non-market-based mechanisms, such as the Montreal Protocol.  Ultimately, HFC emissions must be quickly and effectively reduced.

New market mechanisms: In Durban, Parties may agree on a framework for new non-market based and market based mechanisms. New market mechanisms must create a net decrease of emissions. Any framework must include a core set of principles that governs the overall interaction of different mechanisms. These include stringent and binding rules to ensure uniform quality criteria and no double counting, as well as strong safeguards that ensure sustainable development, uphold environmental treaties and the Declaration of Human Rights.

CDM reform: Although the future of the CDM should depend on the future of the second commitment period of the KP, Parties will continue their work on reforming the CDM in Durban. Following changes are needed to address serious shortcomings:

• Additionality: Additionality rules must be strengthened to limit the number of free-riders. In particular, large infrastructure CDM projects which are clearly non-additional (e.g. coal power projects and large hydro projects) must be excluded from the CDM.
• Human rights: It must be clarified that CDM projects that violate or risk violating human rights are ineligible for registration or will be suspended. Designated National Authorities must be allowed to withdraw letters of approval in case of violations of any of the UN principles or of national legislation.
• Sustainable development: Sustainable development co-benefit indicators and a ‘do no harm’ assessment must be established for CDM projects to avoid negative impacts of CDM projects.
• Monitoring: The revised reporting and verification standard must include clear criteria to monitor and verify sustainable development claims made in the PDD, to ensure such claims are actually realised.
• Stakeholder consultation: The revised validation and verification standard and project standard must include strong guidelines for improved stakeholder involvement at local and global levels, including rules and guidelines on how stakeholders can raise issues during the implementation of CDM projects.
• Appeals procedure: A strong grievance mechanism must be implemented swiftly to give civil society organisations the possibility to appeal against decisions by the CDM Executive Board.

Sincerely,

105 Civil Society Organisations from 35 countries on all continents:

Barcelona, 21^st November 2011. A new report released today by GAIA – Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, reveals serious flaws in CDM-backed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) projects. Most of these projects support incineration technology to burn waste and landfill gas systems (LFG) to bury waste, which ultimately increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and displace informal workers communities’ livelihoods, amongst other problems. By buying CDM carbon credits from these projects, the EU is contradicting its own policies on waste management, which prioritize recycling, pollution controls and waste diversion from landfills. The report calls for a EU ban on CDM carbon credits in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

The report released today “The European Union’s double standards on waste and climate policy” shows severe contradictions between the European Union (EU) climate and waste policies that needs to be recognized and eliminated without delay. On the one hand, the EU policies on municipal solid waste (MSW) management prioritize waste reduction, reutilisation, and recycling. Furthermore, MSW management in Europe is successfully taking steps towards more organic waste diversion from landfills and increasing recycling rates, in the spirit of increasing the efficient use of natural resources.

On the other hand, EU climate policies are built around the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to comply with its emission reductions targets. This scheme allows member states to buy carbon credits, known as Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), generated by projects developed under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) — including landfill gas systems (LFG) and waste incinerators, the very disposal methods at the bottom of the Waste Hierarchy.

The report shows that the CDM creates a perverse incentive to landfill as much waste as possible, in contradiction to the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). Since the CDM promotes landfill gas capture on a profit-basis, i.e., the more gas one captures, the more profitable the project will be, landfilling of MSW—especially organics—is ultimately encouraged in this counterproductive climate mitigation strategy. In fact, one third of CDM-backed LFG systems are pure waste disposal without resource or energy recovery – those LFG projects that only flare.

“At least 64% of CDM-backed LFG projects scrutinised by GAIA plan to stay open and receiving MSW during their crediting period”, said Mariel Vilella, GAIA’s Climate Policy campaigner. “In this way, the waste keeps being landfilled and it produces the methane emissions that later will be captured, flared, and finally certified as emission reductions by the CDM. Consequently, emissions will actually increase, at the same time as more carbon credits are earned for supposed reductions”, Vilella added.

In its turn, CDM support for incineration provides an incentive to burn recyclable and compostable materials. “This contradicts the waste hierarchy established by the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC and the EU Resource Efficiency Roadmap, which gives priority to waste prevention and reuse of materials before energy recovery or incineration”, said Joan-Marc Simon, GAIA’s Europe Coordinator.

“By buying carbon credits from CDM-backed MSW projects, the EU is actually fostering the generation of toxic emissions, jeopardising current practices of recycling and composting, and filling up the EU ETS with carbon credits that are in reality “non-additional”, said Vilella. “Ultimately, the EU is supporting waste management projects in developing countries that would be illegal on European soil”, concluded Simon.

The continued purchase of CDM carbon credits into the EU creates a double standard on waste and climate policies that needs to be addressed without delay, by excluding such carbon credits from the EU ETS.

 About GAIA:

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 650 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries whose ultimate vision is a just, toxic-free world without waste incineration or landfill.

The UNFCCC’s Methodologies panel again called for the immediate suspension of the coal methodology (ACM0013) after it published a report today that confirms its earlier warnings that under current rules, coal power projects in the CDM are severely over-credited. The CDM Executive Board had ignored the Panel’s recommendation earlier this summer to suspend the methodology and instead had commissioned a new study. The new report more than doubles the Methodologies Panel’s prior estimate of the extent of the over-crediting to 51 to 62%. The findings are consistent with the results of an independent study by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) released last week, which found over-crediting on the order of 71%. Both studies highlight that:

Project developers use outdated information that conceals the rapid technological shift away from subcritical technology occurring in India and China.

Projects significantly overstate the efficiency benefits of switching from subcritical to supercritical technologies.

The methodology does not account for variables that can have significantly larger impacts on carbon emissions than the choice of boiler technology. The SEI study points out that this may have the unintended effect of penalizing projects that minimize local air pollution impacts.

While the Methodologies Panel report focused on how emissions reductions are calculated, the SEI study also showed that it is highly unlikely that any of the coal power projects are additional due to fuel price pressures and numerous Indian and Chinese government policies that foster or even require super critical and ultra super critical coal design.

The Methodologies Panel report suggests a number of changes to ACM0013 yet these changes do not address several of the issues identified in both studies, including the small efficiency gains and the large project emissions, the impact of other variables on plant efficiency and the lack of data quality.

“The suggested revisions also do not address the systematic deficiencies in the additionality analysis or broader issues regarding the climate impacts of these projects. These projects will emit at least 20 times more than they could potentially save,” explains Justin Guay from Sierra Club. “The recommended methodology revisions are insufficient to ensure that no artificial credits are issued.”

Recommendations

“The study results show unequivocally that coal projects do not belong in the CDM,” says Eva Filzmoser from CDM Watch. “We are now calling on all decision makers to act swiftly and decisively to stop these harmful projects from receiving revenue from the CDM, a mechanism whose aim is to deliver ‘clean development’.”

CDM Watch and Sierra Club call to:

Immediately suspend methodology ACM0013 and stop registering new coal projects. Given that a methodology revision would not be sufficient to address all of the identified flaws, the Board should move to exclude coal projects from the CDM.
Exclude coal plants as a project type from the CDM at the next climate change conference in Durban in December
Ban the use of carbon credits from coal projects in the EU-ETS and all other emissions trading schemes using CDM credits

Additional Information
Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the United Nations’ carbon offsetting mechanism, new coal fired power plants in developing countries can receive carbon credits if they can show that without the CDM subsidy a less efficient plant would have been built.

Currently 45 coal projects located in India (32 projects) and China (13 projects) have been approved for or are applying for CDM support. Six of these projects are already registered and could generate 89 million carbon credits (CERs) worth over Euro 600 million. If all projects seeking approval under the current rules are successful, they will generate 451 million CERs worth billions of Euros of public and private climate finance. These CERs can be bought meet emission reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol or the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS).

Investors in the coal power projects include Germany´s electricity provider RWE, EcoSecurities, Carbon Resource Management, Japan´s Mitsui & Co, the Bunge Emissions Group, Climate Bridge, the Nordic Carbon Fund and Merrill Lynch.

Replacing community conservation of mangrove forests at Rufiji delta in favour of fortress conservation by the state to meet carbon trading needs will not work.

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) is a climate change mitigation initiative that seeks to integrate tropical forests into market-based carbon sequestration schemes to counter the effects of global climate change.

Betsy Beymer-Farris and Thomas Bassett who are Assistant Professor at Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Furman University in South Carolina and Professor, Department of Geography at University of Illinois respectively, said in their recent report that stopping the Warufiji from cultivating in the delta in readiness for REDD+ as proposed by World Wildlife Fund for nature, is counterproductive.

The report which is titled, ‘The REDD Menace: Resurgent protectionism in Tanzania’s mangrove forests,’ censures WWF researcher and authorities for trying to stop Warufiji from surviving by using resources in the delta despite their existence for centuries.

“At the centre of our critique of the REDD-readiness programme is the framing of the environmental problem in project documents in which the Warufiji are depicted by foresters, environmentalists, and donors as poor stewards of the mangrove forests,” the two authors wrote in the report.

Dismissing WWF’s REDD-Readiness Programme which recommends restrictions against Warufiji activities in the delta, Professors Beymer-Farris and Bassett warn that fortress conservation targeting carbon credit trade under REDD will never succeed without community involvement.

“Our counter-narrative provides an alternative environmental history that presents the Warufiji in a very different light. It also highlights the politics of environmental knowledge in which carbon forestry is presented as a sustainable alternative to indigenous resource management practices which are demeaned as destructive and illegal,” the authors argued.

Profs Beymer-Farris and Bassett suggest that a major consequence of the historical framing is a paradigmatic shift in natural resource conservation from community-based natural resource management to fortress conservation, a shift that has been aptly called resurgent protectionism.

The government through Mangrove Management Project ordered Rufiji delta communities to stop any activities in the mangrove forest conservation area which was declared a Ramsar Site in 2004. The MMP Director, Zawadi Mbwambo, said people are being evicted from the forest reserve and not their villages.

“We are evicting them from the forest reserve which they invaded, we have not torched anybody’s house at the village,” Mr Mbwambo told ‘Daily News’ last weekend arguing that the residents’ activities are threatening existence of the forest reserve.

Rufiji district is home to 78 per cent of the country’s 68,000 hectares of mangrove forests of which 5,000 hectares are already cleared by the more than 9,000 residents.