Washington, DC, United States
Washington, DC, United States

Time filter

Source Type

Milder J.C.,Cornell University | Scherr S.J.,Ecoagriculture Partners | Bracer C.,Climate Focus
Ecology and Society | Year: 2010

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a market-based approach to environmental management that compensates land stewards for ecosystem conservation and restoration. Because low-income households and communities control much of the ecologically sensitive land in developing countries, they potentially stand to gain from PES, as environmentally responsible stewardship is assigned a value by various actors in society. To date, however, instances of PES benefiting the poor have been limited mainly to specific localities, small-scale projects, and a handful of broader government programs. We analyze the size, characteristics, and trends of PES to evaluate its future potential to benefit low-income land stewards in developing countries. We estimate that by the year 2030, markets for biodiversity conservation could benefit 10-15 million low-income households in developing countries, carbon markets could benefit 25-50 million, markets for watershed protection could benefit 80-100 million, and markets for landscape beauty and recreation could benefit 5-8 million. If payments and markets reach these potentials, they could provide a non-negligible contribution to poverty alleviation at the global level. © 2010 by the author(s).


Sterk W.,Wuppertal Institute for Climate | Bolscher H.,Triple E Consulting | van der Laan J.,Triple E Consulting | Hoogzaad J.,Climate Focus | Sijm J.,Energy Research Center of the Netherlands
Climate Policy | Year: 2015

Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have decided to establish a ‘new market-based mechanism’ (NMM) to promote mitigation across ‘broad segments’ of developing countries' economies but have so far defined only some broad outlines of how it is to function. This article identifies key design options of the NMM based on a survey of the literature and reviews them against a range of assessment criteria. Furthermore, potential application of the NMM is analysed for five country-sector combinations. The analysis finds that lack of data and of institutions that could manage the NMM are key bottlenecks. In addition, the analysis reveals the existence of substantial no-regret reduction potential, suggesting that sectors may not be sensitive to the market incentives from an NMM. Governmental capacity building and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) might be more appropriate in the short term, preparing the ground for the adoption of market-based approaches at a later stage. NMM pilots could be based on supported NAMAs but should ideally generate tradable and compliance-grade emission credits in order to fully simulate the real-life conditions of an NMM. Policy relevance The Doha conference identified ‘possible elements’ of the NMM to be addressed in the development of the NMM's modalities and procedures. This article identifies available options for these possible elements and reviews these options against a number of criteria, including environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, political and administrative efficiency, and others. On this basis the article identifies options that are best suited to fulfil the main aims of the NMM as decided at the Durban conference, ‘to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions’. In addition, the article analysis potential application of the NMM for five country-sector combinations. The analysis assesses the emission reduction potential that could be mobilized through the NMM as well as the institutional market readiness of the sectors. Finally, the article synthesizes the challenges ahead for the NMM that have emerged from the analysis and suggests possible ways forward. © 2014 Taylor & Francis.


Streck C.,Climate Focus
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability | Year: 2012

In the eighth year of international negotiations on REDD+, the structure and flows of REDD+ finance remain uncertain. There is no agreement on the magnitude and sources of funding; the role of the private sector and market-based mechanisms; or the modalities of disbursing international REDD+ funds. This paper summarizes the status quo of REDD+ finance, analyzes the potential sources of REDD+ finance and discusses their respective risks and strengths. Considering the evolving nature of REDD+ and relating insecurities of REDD+ finance, it argues in favor of complementary and pragmatic use of the various sources of finance to avoid further delay and frustration in REDD+ implementation. © 2012 Elsevier B.V.


Streck C.,Climate Focus | Keenlyside P.,Climate Focus | Von Unger M.,Atlas
Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law | Year: 2016

The adoption of the Paris Agreement is a milestone in international climate politics and brings years of near deadlock negotiations to a conclusion. The Agreement creates a global process of engagement, follow-up, regular stock-take exercises and cooperative action. On the one hand, it represents a step forward, overcoming the many divisions that had marked the Kyoto area: between developed and developing countries, between industrialized nations inside the Protocol and those outside, and between those supportive of market mechanisms and those that vehemently opposed them. On the other hand, individual country contributions fall short of the overall climate goal, and the risk is that the Paris Agreement remains a shell without sufficient action and support. It thus remains to be seen whether the Paris Agreement is the right framework through which to address the collective action problem of climate change. © KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2016.


Streck C.,Climate Focus
Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law | Year: 2016

In December 2015, more than 190 countries endorsed the Paris Agreement, an international framework to tackle climate change that aims to hold global temperatures well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This paper evaluates options for the European Union (eu) and its Member States to support the implementation of the Paris Agreement through financing developing country efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation (redd+). A diverse range of options exists for the eu and its Member States to generate funds to provide finance for redd+ mitigation action. The paper evaluates options to mobilize long-term and predictable finance for redd+ through additional international mitigation commitments, international cooperation, and eu-level policy instruments. redd+ offers a unique opportunity for such additional mitigation action, considering that the negotiations defining redd+ are comparatively advanced and redd+ is already supported by implementation partnerships between developed countries and tropical forest countries. © © 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.


Coren M.J.,Climate Focus | Streck C.,Climate Focus | Madeira E.M.,The Nature Conservancy
Climate Policy | Year: 2011

Previous attempts to estimate the supply of greenhouse gas emission reductions from reduced emissions from deforestation (RED) have generally failed to incorporate policy developments, country-specific abilities and political willingness to supply offsets for developed countries' emissions. To address this, we estimate policy-appropriate projections of creditable emission reductions from RED. Two global forest carbon models are used to examine major assumptions affecting the generation of credits. The results show that the estimated feasible supply of RED credits is significantly below the biophysical mitigation potential from deforestation. A literature review identified an annual RED emission reduction potential between 1.6 and 4.3 Gt CO2e. Feasible RED supply estimates applying the OSIRIS model were 1.74 Gt CO2e annually between 2011 and 2020, with a cumulative supply of 17.4 Gt CO2e under an 'own-efforts' scenario. Estimates from the Forest Carbon Index were very low at $5/t CO2e with 8 million tonne CO2e annually, rising to 1.8 Gt CO2e at $20/t CO2e. Cumulative abatement between 2011 and 2020 was 9 billion Gt CO2e ($20/t CO2e). These volumes were lower, sometimes dramatically, at prices of $5/t CO2e suggesting a non-linear supply of credits in relation to price at a low payment level. For policy makers, the results suggest that inclusion of RED in a climate framework increases abatement potential, although significant constraints are imposed by political and technical issues. © 2011 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.


News Article | November 3, 2016
Site: www.npr.org

There's a seductive idea, currently being road-tested, for how to stop the world's forests from disappearing. It relies on big food companies. That's because most forests are being cleared in order to grow crops or graze cattle. And the resulting palm oil, soybeans or beef find their way into foods being sold by a relatively small number of global companies. So here's the strategy: Get those companies to boycott products from deforested land, and much of the economic incentive to clear more forests will disappear. This should slow down or even stop the loss of forests. At first glance, the strategy looks like it's working marvelously. According to a new report from some leading environmental groups, 400 of the biggest global food companies have taken steps to make sure that at least some of their suppliers aren't responsible for deforestation. About 90 percent of those companies do buy raw materials from deforestation "hot spots" like Indonesia and Brazil. But there's a catch. In fact, there is a whole series of catches, according to the report. "We have this big problem," says Charlotte Streck, director of a group called Climate Focus and co-author of the new report. "We look at what the companies are doing, but we do not know how effective it is." For one thing, some companies are making promises that aren't firm commitments. "If a company only says, for example, 'We procure certified palm oil if it is available,' but doesn't help the producers make that supply available, then it is a relatively easy way out," says Streck. According to the report, companies should instead provide farmers with financial and technical support to help them transition into growing those crops in a more sustainable way. A bigger problem, though, is that the companies making these pledges are mostly retailers and food manufacturers, and those companies don't know what's happening at the other end of the supply chain, on the farm. Very few big food companies can trace their palm oil back to particular plots of land. They just know which mill processed the palm fruit into oil. So they have to rely on others, such as organizations that put their stamp of approval on particular suppliers, to verify that a particular shipment of palm oil came from land that hadn't been cleared of trees recently. What's more, they know even less about the origin of their soybeans or beef. "In the lifetime of [a] Brazilian cow, it goes through many owners and many farms, and it is almost impossible to check on all the farms, that they are not associated with deforestation," Streck says. Finally, it's hard to know whether the companies that have pledged to shun deforestation actually control a big enough share of the market to make a difference. Companies with headquarters in Europe or North America account for about 90 percent of the corporate anti-deforestation commitments. Those companies are major players in the palm oil trade, but not in beef production in the deforestation hot spots of Brazil. "Most of the beef in Latin America — about 80 percent — is eaten in Latin America," Streck says. "So that means that the consumer pressure in Europe and North America has limited effect." That's a particular problem because beef is "by far the largest driver of deforestation,' she says. "The carbon footprint of beef related to deforestation is about nine times bigger than palm oil." In all, scientists estimate that deforestation is responsible for about 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. According to Streck, that's more than all the cars, ships, and airplanes on Earth. Instead of tracing commodities from consumer back to supplier, some environmental watchdogs are starting at the other end of the supply chain, in the deforestation hot spots themselves. The World Resources Institute has set up a project called Global Forest Watch. It has created a database of palm oil mills around the world, and it's analyzing satellite images to measure deforestation within 50 km (about 31 miles) of each mill. The group can flag any mills located amid disappearing forests, and companies can check whether they are buying oil from that location. Despite all these shortcomings, though, Streck thinks that food companies will make a difference. "I do not think that an individual company, even a big one, has the power to reduce deforestation," she says, "but i do think that there is a critical mass [of companies making deforestation pledges], and that matters."


News Article | November 3, 2016
Site: www.npr.org

There's a seductive idea, currently being road-tested, for how to stop the world's forests from disappearing. It relies on big food companies. That's because most forests are being cleared in order to grow crops or graze cattle. And the resulting palm oil, soybeans or beef find their way into foods being sold by a relatively small number of global companies. So here's the strategy: Get those companies to boycott products from deforested land, and much of the economic incentive to clear more forests will disappear. This should slow down or even stop the loss of forests. At first glance, the strategy looks like it's working marvelously. According to a new report from some leading environmental groups, 400 of the biggest global food companies have taken steps to make sure that at least some of their suppliers aren't responsible for deforestation. About 90 percent of those companies do buy raw materials from deforestation "hot spots" like Indonesia and Brazil. But there's a catch. In fact, there is a whole series of catches, according to the report. "We have this big problem," says Charlotte Streck, director of a group called Climate Focus and co-author of the new report. "We look at what the companies are doing, but we do not know how effective it is." For one thing, some companies are making promises that aren't firm commitments. "If a company only says, for example, 'We procure certified palm oil if it is available,' but doesn't help the producers make that supply available, then it is a relatively easy way out," says Streck. According to the report, companies should instead provide farmers with financial and technical support to help them transition into growing those crops in a more sustainable way. A bigger problem, though, is that the companies making these pledges are mostly retailers and food manufacturers, and those companies don't know what's happening at the other end of the supply chain, on the farm. Very few big food companies can trace their palm oil back to particular plots of land. They just know which mill processed the palm fruit into oil. So they have to rely on others, such as organizations that put their stamp of approval on particular suppliers, to verify that a particular shipment of palm oil came from land that hadn't been cleared of trees recently. What's more, they know even less about the origin of their soybeans or beef. "In the lifetime of [a] Brazilian cow, it goes through many owners and many farms, and it is almost impossible to check on all the farms, that they are not associated with deforestation," Streck says. Finally, it's hard to know whether the companies that have pledged to shun deforestation actually control a big enough share of the market to make a difference. Companies with headquarters in Europe or North America account for about 90 percent of the corporate anti-deforestation commitments. Those companies are major players in the palm oil trade, but not in beef production in the deforestation hot spots of Brazil. "Most of the beef in Latin America — about 80 percent — is eaten in Latin America," Streck says. "So that means that the consumer pressure in Europe and North America has limited effect." That's a particular problem because beef is "by far the largest driver of deforestation,' she says. "The carbon footprint of beef related to deforestation is about nine times bigger than palm oil." In all, scientists estimate that deforestation is responsible for about 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. According to Streck, that's more than all the cars, ships, and airplanes on Earth. Instead of tracing commodities from consumer back to supplier, some environmental watchdogs are starting at the other end of the supply chain, in the deforestation hot spots themselves. The World Resources Institute has set up a project called Global Forest Watch. It has created a database of palm oil mills around the world, and it's analyzing satellite images to measure deforestation within 50 km (about 31 miles) of each mill. The group can flag any mills located amid disappearing forests, and companies can check whether they are buying oil from that location. Despite all these shortcomings, though, Streck thinks that food companies will make a difference. "I do not think that an individual company, even a big one, has the power to reduce deforestation," she says, "but i do think that there is a critical mass [of companies making deforestation pledges], and that matters."

Loading Climate Focus collaborators
Loading Climate Focus collaborators