Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

It’s Groundhog Day, again. This time in Cancun…

Posted on 11 November 201025 October 2020
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

In the film Groundhog Day, Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, a weatherman who finds himself living the same day over and over again. The UN climate negotiators have developed a variation on this theme. Once a year they meet and fail to agree on a binding deal that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The variation on Groundhog Day is that they meet in a different city each time.

Well it’s Groundhog Day. Again. This year it’s in Cancun, Mexico. It seems increasingly likely that no binding deal will come out of Cancun and that the North will attempt to scrap the Kyoto Protocol. It also seems likely that some sort of deal will be pushed through on reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). There is a serious danger that REDD will act as greenwash for the North’s failure to reduce emissions dramatically.

I admit it. I wrote the previous three sentences a year ago and just replaced Copenhagen with Cancun.

One benefit of all this is that no one needs to update their positions on REDD. FERN demonstrates that it’s fully understood the Groundhog principle by quoting from a 2009 Accra Caucus press release in its November 2010 issue of EU Forestwatch.

This has been going on for some time. After the Bali conference in 2007, in an article titled “Hurray! We’re Going Backwards!”, George Monbiot quoted a press release from Friends of the Earth to illustrate what had just happened in Bali. The press release was dated 1997:

After eleven days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could … even lead to emission increases. … The highly compromised political deal … is largely attributable to the position of the United States which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests.

Here’s a prediction. The press release can be recycled after the Cancun meeting.

There are two more differences between the UN climate negotiations and Groundhog Day. Groundhog Day, the film, is funny. And Phil Connors eventually gets it right and escapes Groundhog Day.

FERN: EU Forestwatch, November 2010

Prelude to Cancun: Tianjin climate talks update

UN climate talks in Tianjin, China, in October 2010, made little progress toward a legally binding agreement in the run-up to Cancun; Parties and observers are now convinced that a legal agreement will be finalised only during the 2011 Conference of the Parties (COP17) in South Africa.

There are now two ‘options’ for a text on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Discussions mainly focused on clarifying proposals from Bolivia and Saudi Arabia.[1] Bolivia’s intention is to reflect the outcome of the Peoples’ conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth,[2] which is supported by some Parties and observers, while Saudi Arabia wants to include a reference to geological carbon sequestration and storage in the text. The outcome of the 2009 Copenhagen negotiations are still reflected in ‘option two’ of the REDD text, and the EU has expressed preference to move ahead with this option.

The key challenge on REDD therefore in Cancun will be to incorporate elements of Bolivia’s demands into the option two text, such as focusing on forests as ecosystems rather than as carbon, strengthening environmental and social safeguards and removing references that open the door to financing REDD though offsetting.

By the close of the Tianjin talks, Parties were presented with the draft elements of a ‘balanced package’ for Cancun, including reference to REDD+, which could serve as a ‘roadmap’ towards a legal agreement in 2011. The question now is whether parties will pursue this ‘balanced package’ in order to achieve progress in all areas, or whether an agreement will be reached only for a selected number of topics, which would include REDD. At this stage it is unclear where the majority of support lies among parties.

Notably, the prospect of a REDD agreement without emission reduction targets for developed countries arose in COP15 in Copenhagen. The Accra Caucus response then to governments remains pertinent today: “any agreement on reducing deforestation must be part of a global deal on emissions reductions. If rich countries do not agree to limit their industrial emissions, the world’s forests will be lost.”[3]
 


[1] ^^ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awglca12/eng/14.pdf
[2] ^^ http://pwccc.wordpress.com/
[3] ^^ http://www.fern.org/accra_caucus_press_release

 

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

4 thoughts on “It’s Groundhog Day, again. This time in Cancun…”

  1. Robin Webster says:
    11 November 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Everyone interested in protecting the world’s forests should be concerned about this. Without a binding climate deal to reduce fossil fuel emissions and keep temperature changes below 2 degres (perhaps less), the whole concept of REDD is pointless – because the effects of climate change will destroy vast swathes of tropical forests anyway.

    In that sense, REDD can be a dangerous distraction from the real issues if it is presented as the ‘outcome’ from the UNFCCC process, when actually governments’ inaction has doomed the planet to fry.

  2. Anuradha says:
    12 November 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Climate Change is inevitable. There is no doubt about this. Climate change will not treat the developed countries in one way and the developing countries another way. This will affect all in the same way.
    But developed countries will be able to adapt towards climate change in a stronger way then developing countries. Island nations will lose areas and rainforest nations will lose their valuable rainforests. Yet, the whole world is always meeting once a year to discuss about a common output for this problem.
    I feel all are talking themselves by staying inside a shell around them. There is no use of such discussions unless they can come out of these shells and discuss honestly about these issues.
    There should also be a way to convince the powerful nations to agree on a sustainable solution.

  3. Chris Lang says:
    12 November 2010 at 8:17 am

    The Onion is on the case as well: “Report: Global Warming Issue From 2 Or 3 Years Ago May Still Be Problem.”

    “Climate change is real, and we are killing our planet more every day,” said climatologist Helen Marcus, who has made similar statements in interviews in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

  4. Jago Wadley says:
    13 November 2010 at 12:46 am

    @Robin Webster: A Hadley Center report concluded that, even if we meet the 2 degrees Celsius target, we already comit ourselvs to between 20-40% loss of Amazon forest from “die-back”. While other studies refute this, surely our climate mitigation plan should be based on clear science.

    It is interesting that the negotiating text for AWG-LCA in Cancun (See reference 1 in FERN Newsletter, above) seems to be very light on certain words, and proportionately very heavy on others.

    The word “forest” occurs 80 times
    The acronym REDD occurs 12 times
    The word “deforestation” occurs 17 times
    The word “degradation” occurs 18 times, always following “forest”

    The words “fossil fuel/s” occurs 3 times
    The word “Bunker fuels” occurs 3 times
    The word “gas” occurs 32 times, but always as “greenhouse gas”. (many linked to forests, terrestrial sinks and emissions from Land Use)
    The word “Energy” occurs 7 times

    The word “oil” does no occur
    The word “coal” does not occur
    The word “petrol” does not occur
    The word “petrochemicals” does not occur
    The word “pollution” does not occur

    The more than 80% of global emissions not stemming from forests and land use change are not really getting much of a look in.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

REDDisms

“What we wanted to accomplish was to, firstly, quantify the value of a living forest; then, by putting in place mechanisms to measure the amount of carbon sequestered and structures that would avoid deforestation and degradation, protect its unique biodiversity.”

— Ciaran Kelly, CEO of Celestial Green Ventures, February 2012

Recent Posts

  • Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Peru cancels its World Bank FCPF Carbon Fund programme
  • The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s latest hot air scam: Retroactive credits
  • Some questions for Frithjof Finkbeiner, founder of Plant-for-the-Planet

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Charles Claxton on Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Chris Lang on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • Sam on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • barrywarden on Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Chris Lang on Why has the Financial Conduct Authority not taken down the website of the clone scam “Good Investment Advisors”?

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!