Both the Federal Labor party and the Coalition continue to argue over who has the best climate policy, even though both party’s policies are completely inadequate.

The concept of protecting forests as part of Australia’s climate change mitigation plan wasn’t even mentioned in the debate.

This is a missed opportunity because Australia could increase our emission reduction targets if we took immediate and cheap measures to protect and restore Australia’s forests and woodlands.

Instead, the Labor party continue to focus on the CPRS instead of getting on with the job by proposing immediate complementary measures like investing in renewable energy and forest protection.

The Coalition have released a plan that focuses on planting trees in urban areas instead of protecting the massive EXISTING carbon stores that are being cleared, logged or degraded across the continent every day.

Please help us educate our leaders by contacting your local politician and ask them to make sure their party’s climate policy includes protecting and restoring our forests and woodlands.

If you want to find the contact details for your local members of parliaments check out www.wilderness.org.au/haveyourvoiceheard

Remember, It’s simple, if we protect nature, nature will help protect our climate!

They are going to be 100% renewable by 2020.

Australia could follow their lead and do the same thing on a larger scale. We have endless solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power to do it and massive areas of forests and natural ecosystems to help suck carbon out of the atmosphere.

The world needs leaders and we need Governments that are willing to take up the challenge and lead their communities through a just transition to a carbon neutral economy.

2010 will be remembered as the year that decided the fate of the planet’s climate system.

I hope people will look back and be proud for what we achieved in 2010.

We can say ” It was simple. We just followed the lead of the Maldives”.

Gemma

The Copenhagen Accord was crafted after a major collapse in the negotiations that arose from an unwillingness of developed countries to commit to the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol until 2012 and a legally binding agreement with 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions targets for developed countries after 2012.

Australia has submitted an unconditional target of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 5% by 2020 (equals 3.89% reductions on 1990 levels). Australia’s statement to the UN also states that the Government will consider committing to a reduction target between 15% to 25% if a number of conditions are met. Developing countries are calling for at least 40% reductions in annual greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries. So far, the Rudd Government’s commitments fall well short of what is required.

This is really disappointing but hopefully when parliament resumes in Canberra tomorrow PM Rudd will follow the lead of the Maldives and commit to higher targets and commit to a transition to a carbon-neutral economy.

The Maldives have just committed to becoming a carbon-neutral economy by 2020.

NOW THAT IS INSPIRATIONAL!

Well, it has been pretty quiet on the UN front until yesterday when The UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer held a press conference. He said that because the Copenhagen climate talks did not deliver a full climate agreement, it makes the task of finalizing a global treaty more urgent and he said that the window of opportunity for reaching an agreement is closing.

In his opinion there were three main outcomes from Copenhagen climate talks. He explained that the talks raised the issue of climate change to the highest level of Government, they produced the Copenhagen accord, and the negotiations brought the actions closer to a decision.

So what can we expect to happen over the coming months?

Currently, the main discussions are about the Copenhagen accord and if it is a suitable framework for the ongoing negotiations that will be held between now and December when the next Conference of Parties will be held in Mexico.

The Copenhagen Accord was crafted after a major collapse in the negotiations that arose from an unwillingness of developed countries to commit to the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and a legally binding agreement with 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions targets for developed countries.

Currently 9 countries have formally ‘associated’ themselves with the accord, including Australia, Canada, France, Ghana, the Maldives, Papua New Guinea, Serbia, Singapore and Turkey. Cuba has formally rejected it.

Developed Countries, including Australia, can submit greenhouse gas reduction targets for inclusion in an appendix of the accord to assist in achieving the aim, which is to keep global rise in temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius.

Developing nations are also being asked to spell out the actions they intend to take to limit their own emissions, this includes actions to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).

Countries were suppose to indicate their support for the Copenhagen accord by the 31st of January, but Yvo de Boer has said that the deadline is not the last opportunity for countries to sign up to be part of the accord.

Over the next two weeks we will find out which countries are supportive of the accord being the major tool to drive negotiations for a global climate change treaty.

But one question is unlikely to be answered for some time.

Will there be a legally binding climate treaty that will secure a safe climate and avoid dangerous climate change?

There certainly are no guarantees because the accord, which could be used as a basis for the next treaty is not a legally binding agreement.

I’ll keep you all posted.

Gemma Tillack

I have arrived home after attending the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen and I have had some time to talk to my colleges about what happened in Copenhagen and what it means for the protection of the world’s biodiverse natural forests, and our forests here in Australia.

Here is a summary of what happened in Copenhagen and what it means for the world’s forests.

There is no doubt about it, overall the UN Copenhagen Climate Change conference was bitterly disappointing. There was no agreement on a global ambitious and fair climate deal that would help to avoid dangerous climate change.During the meeting a major rift occurred between the developing countries and the developed countries. This was largely due to the failure of rich developed countries to commit to a legal binding agreement that required them to reduce their annual greenhouse gases emissions by 40 – 45% by 2020 (on 1990 levels).

In addition, the refusal of Australia and other developed countries to transparently account for all their logging emissions contributed to the failure in Copenhagen. Distrust festered when it was known that even the promised emissions reductions by developed countries were under a cloud of accounting trickery from their land use and forestry sectors. The lack of trust between countries and the absence of commitments to long-term funding and ambitious science-based emission reduction targets resulted in the failure of the meeting to produce a desperately needed global climate change deal.

The only ray of light was the progress made on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in Developing countries (REDD. This progress on REDD was made despite the refusal of developed countries, like Australia to commit to protecting their own natural forests before placing an expectation on developing countries to protect their forests.

Going into Copenhagen there was a major glaring omission in negotiating text for the next global climate change agreement– it did not include protecting the world’s natural forests This was despite the fact that it is essential that next climate deal includes measures to protect the world’s natural forests. Around 20% of annual global emissions come from the clearing, logging and disturbance of forests. We simply can’t turn the corner and avoid dangerous climate change without protecting natural forests and making deep cuts in industrial carbon pollution.

The remaining intact tropical forests of developing countries including the forests of the Amazon, the Congo, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea will be affected by the outcomes of the next climate deal. We worked hard and succeeded in making sure the draft REDD deal included specific language about incentivizing the protection of natural forests in developing countries. This was not an easy job because over the past year the logging industry has been working to heavily influence the climate deal to make sure it does not protect the world’s forests.

We meet with the Australian Government and their negotiating team to convince them of the urgent need to protect the world’s forests in the lead up to Copenhagen. We delivered about 14 000 letters to Prime Minister Rudd asking him to protect the world forests, including Australia’s forests which are some of most carbon dense forests on the planet, in the week before Copenhagen. The jury is still out on if the Rudd Government will act now to make deep and early cuts in our annual greenhouse gas emissions by protecting and restoring Australia’s forests and woodlands.

The fate of Australia’s precious forests is also tied to the outcome of the climate negotiations. Under the current Kyoto protocol, the climate impact of forestry operations doesn’t have to be accounted for. Therefore Australia doesn’t officially recognise the massive amount of carbon emissions caused by the logging, clearing and burning of our forests.

All forests are important in fighting climate change, so of course we were trying to achieve an upgrade of the treatment of forests in developed countries in the new climate agreement.

The double standards between what developing countries may do in the forests and what developed countries would do were breathtaking in Copenhagen. Australia and other developed countries were under pressure at the conference to compulsorily account for large carbon emissions caused by logging which they have so far evaded under the Kyoto Protocol. But developed nations like Australia and Canada were trying to secure unacceptable accounting rules that would have hidden their logging emissions. We helped expose this accounting loophole which would have suited the logging industry nicely.

It is still vital that we do what we can here in Australia and over the next 12 months at the upcoming UN meetings to make sure that developed countries like Australia stop cheating on how they report and account for logging emissions. With the collapse of the negotiations on the treatment of forests in developed countries at Copenhagen, Australia now has the opportunity to show good faith for Mexico by firstly reporting accurately what is actually happening to our forests and secondly moving to protect them as we are asking our neighbours in Indonesia and PNG to do.

With your support I am sure we can ensure the protection and restoration of Australia’s forests and woodlands as a immediate climate mitigation measure taken by the Australian Government and we can continue our international efforts over the next 12 months so we can secure a global climate deal that protects the world’s natural forests and help secure a safe climate for our future.

Gemma Tillack is Climate Change and Forests Campaigner with The Wilderness Society

Natural forests are an ecosystem and are biodiverse, resilient and they contain more stored carbon than a plantation.Natural forests are an essential part of the global carbon cycle, and have played, and continue to play, a major role in modulating the strength of the greenhouse affect. It is vital that the definition of forest is changed so the protection and restoration of natural forests is prioritised.

It is critical that the definition of ‘forest’ in the next global climate deal is ammended so that a natural forest is defined as a terrestrial ecosystem generated and maintained primarily through natural ecological and evolutionary processes.

Plantations are not forests so they need to be defined as a crop of trees planted and regularly harvested by humans.

It is critical that plantations are treated seperately to natural forests in the next global climate deal.

We need your help. Contact PM RUDD and ask him to pledge to protect the world’s NATURAL FORESTS today.

Check out this paper on forest definition http://unfccc.int/files/methods_science/redd/applicatio/pdf/seancadman1_12nov08.pdf

Footnote:
The current definition used for reporting and accounting purposes under the Kyoto Protocol (hereafter, KP) is structurally based comprising:
A minimum area of land of 0.05 hectares with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 per cent with trees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2 metres at maturity in situ.
It includes (i) young stands of natural regeneration; (ii) all plantations which have yet to reach a crown density of 10-30 per cent or tree height of 2-5 metres; (iii) areas normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.

Over the past 2 weeks the draft deals for Reducing Emissions for Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) and Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) have changed a number of times. As far as I can tell it appears that we might get a good outcome for REDD and the worst possible outcome for LULUCF.

Earlier this year the draft text for the REDD deal contain several worrying proposals. If these proposals for REDD to be a logging, not forest protection mechanism, and the proposed text was adopted in the final REDD deal it could have resulted in large-scale climate, biodiversity and human rights disasters in developing countries.

Whilst some people, NGO’s and Indigneous peoples groups remain uncertain about the merits, intension and implementation of the REDD mechanism there has been an increasing sense of relief that the final draft text submitted to Ministers contained specific safeguards for the protection of Indigenous peoples rights and interests, safeguards that it should incentivise the protection of natural forests and the conservation of natural forests and biodiversity and it contained safeguards against the conversion of natural forests.

The draft REDD deal has been submitted to Heads Of States and they will have to make decisions on the overall aim of REDD, the funding sources for REDD and if it will be national or a sub-national approach when it is implemented.

There has been approx $3.5 billion pledge so far fro REDD, but economists have estimated that $15 billion – $25 billion is needed per year. So we are a long way from having sufficient funds to reduce the 20% – 25% of emissions that come for the deforestation and forest degradation of the world’s forests.

We can only hope that the safeguards for REDD are not weakened in any way by the Heads Of States and that if REDD is adopted it is adopted within a strong, fair, legally-binding and ambitious climate deal.

On the other hand the proposed rules for the mechanism for forests, woodlands and rural lands in developed countries could not be any worse. As I write this blog the proposed rules for LULUCF are being negotiated. I have heard that developed countries may not have to account for their emissions from forest management in the next climate deal. Developed Countries may also get to chose what baseline they want to use in their accounting for this sector. This means countries could pick or chose a baseline that allows them to have accounting results that are not realistic or reflective of the actual emissions that the atmosphere sees. I have also heard that the emissions from non-anthropogenic emissions may be ruled out. I can only hope that what I have heard so far is not correct or that the Heads of State fix up the LULUCF rules when they meet tomorrow and announce that developed countries will also commit to protecting and restoring their natural forests as well as helping developing countries to do the same thing.

Hopefully tomorrow is a good day for the world’s forests.

Gemma Tillack

Youth and Climate Change and Forests Campaigner

So here is an update, but I apologise if it is a few hours out of date.

So the negotiations over the Kyoto protocol are still very contentious. There is still a strong push to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and it’s legally binding greenhouse gas emission reductions by some countries. Developing countries continue to hold their ground and demand that the Kyoto Protocol agreement continues until 2012 and that the Annex 1 parties who have signed and ratified the protocol must meet their commitments.

The details of the Long-term Cooperative Agreement, or the next global climate deal, are still only in draft form and are not at a stage where they can be given to Ministers to agree to it and turn into a legally binding treaty. The pledged greenhouse gas reduction targets are still well below what is required to secure a safe climate and the least developed countries are still pushing for a 350ppm target and a 45% reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries. These countries are coming under a lot of pressure from developed countries to agree to a global climate deal with 450ppm as a goal, instead of the 350ppm target that is required.

All in all, the hope for a legally binding global climate deal has largely been lost and the expectation is that parties will continue to work over the next few months – or year- to finalise the deal.

One thing is for sure, the global shift to a low-carbon economy has not been put into overdrive at these climate negotiations.

Alot of people are still waiting to hear a good news story for Copenhagen, I believe that the ‘good news’ story from Copenhagen will be the ‘REDD’ deal that was agreed to in Copenhagen. More about that in my next blog.

In a nutshell, REDD is suppose to help developing countries to reduce the emissions released from their forests when they log or cleared them. The idea is that if forests become worth more to developing countries to keep them standing than to log them they will chose to keep the forests standing and help global efforts to halt climate change. It is a wonderful idea and it is a vital part of the gloabl solution to climate change.

It is crucial that we stop the 25% of emissions that come for the logging and clearing of forests asap.

The draft agreement says that developing country parties can contribute to mitigation action in the forest sector by undertaking the following activities:

a) Reducing emissions from deforestation
b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation
c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks
d) Sustainable managment of forests;
e) Enhancement of forest carbon stocks

Unfortunately, the text does not specifically list ‘protecting intact natural forests’ or ‘restoring degraded natural forests’ as activities in REDD. It does however include sustainable managment of forests which includes logging as an activity.

THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.

Tomorrow this draft text will be presented to the Heads of State meeting and essentially the Ministers of the world’s will get the final decision for what the REDD deal actually achieves. So for Australia, that means that Penny Wong will need to decide if REDD will actually help developing countries to protect their intact natural forests.

Please get in touch with Penny Wong, send her an email and ask her to make sure REDD includes protecting intact natural forests as an activity.

I am going to go to the final plenary now to see how the negotiations over the framework for the nex global climate deal are going.

Good night (or good morning) Australia!

Gemma Tillack

Youth and Climate Change and Forests Campaigner in Copenhagen.

Will we continue to be a fossil-fuel based society or will we embrace a low carbon economy and act immediately to make deep and early cuts in our emissions?

On the surface the UN’s climate talks in Copenhagen seem to be serious about achieving a global climate deal that will secure a safe climate. From the inside, it looks a bit different.

Developed countries are still not committing to 40% reductions in their annual greenhous gas emissions by 2020. Developed countries have not pledge enough funds to pay for the urgent mitigation and adaptation actions that are required. Developed countries are still trying to push through poor accounting rules for the land use, land use change and forestry sector that will allow them to submit inaccurate accounts for the emissions that come from the logging and disturbance of forests, woodlands and rural lands.

There is a massive divide between developed countires and the developing countries whose very survival is
relying on a strong, fair legally binding copenhagen deal. I hope that Australia starts to pull its weight by announcing a 40% reduction by 2020 target this week and I hope we can unite and commit to working together to secure a safe climate.

You’ll never believe it!! I have also just found out that the windmill outside is not even providing power for the conference centre. All the power is coming from the coal-fired powerstation. This just shows that we have everything at our fingertips but for some reason we are not embracing the new low carbon technology.

When will we flick the switch and embrace renewable energy, forest protection and restoration and a low carbon economy?

For the sake of the planet, nature and all the world’s people I hope we do it in the next 4 days.

Gemma

On the first day of the final week in Copenhangen