|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
"Forest must play a significant role in the Copenhagen negotiations", states Carlos Nobre - 07/21/2009 Locality: São Paulo - SP Source: Amazonia.org.br Link: http://www.amazonia.org.br Aldrey Riechel and Flávio Bonanome The Kyoto Protocol, launched in 1997 and ratified in 2005, represents the first attempt to reach a global agreement with goals to combat climate change. The treaty established that, by 2012, developed countries should reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5.2% in relation to 1990 emission levels. Today, twelve years later, many experts and scientists criticize the protocol as being too timid and not effective in truly averting global warming. Carlos Nobre, researcher from the National Space Research Institute (Inpe) and considered one of the leading experts in Brazil on climate change, believes that the Kyoto Protocol is insufficient. Member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Nobre was one of the researchers responsible for scientific studies that showed the world that the situation was much worse than originally thought, and that sharper reductions were needed. The researcher says that 80% reductions are needed by 2050 to avert temperature rises above 2°C, a margin considered safe to ensure that no drastic climate changes occur. "The Kyoto Protocol, therefore, is completely insufficient to even provide a basis for future negotiations", he explains in an interview given to the Amazonia.org.br website. The scientist speaks of future negotiations, already with the UN Climate Change Conference in mind, scheduled for late this year in Copenhagen. A large part of the international community expects a new emission reduction agreement to result from this meeting, and, in Nobre's opinion, it would have to be much stricter than the previous one. "Copenhagen must be much more ambitious in setting strict goals: reduction in developed countries of between 30 and 40% by 2020 and a significant reduction in emissions from developing countries ". Read the full interview below: Amazonia.org.br - Can one say that the Kyoto Protocol was important and that it fulfilled its role? Carlos Nobre - Yes, the Kyoto Protocol was important. It showed that it is possible for the majority of countries in the world to reach an international agreement working towards emission reduction. Many doubted that any such agreement could even be reached. So, the protocol showed that it is possible to reach agreements like this through diplomatic negotiation, of course, it is difficult, but it was accomplished. However, the agreement left much to desire in many aspects. Firstly, it was very timid regarding emission reduction goals. One can consider that when it was signed in 1997, the thought of reducing emissions 5.2% in relation to 1990 levels in developed countries was thought to be reasonable. But science, even in the 1990s and also in this last decade, has shown that reductions should be much greater. That, then, was the first flaw. The most serious problem was the failure of the US to abide by the agreement. This is a post-signature failure, a decision made by the Bush administration. It is not a failure of the protocol itself, but in the implementation of the agreement. One final flaw is that not even those countries that did sign the protocol and have ongoing initiatives have met their goals. So, let's say that, on a scale from zero t o ten, I'd give the Kyoto protocol a four. Less than five, the minimum desirable score, because even the signatory countries did not meet their goals. It doesn't rate a zero, however, because of its historic importance in showing that negotiations among a large number of nations is possible. It also enabled testing of a series of initiatives to reduce emissions, such as certification trade. A number of clean development mechanisms obtained funding thanks to the protocol. Especially the energy sector in developing countries. None of these would have occurred without the protocol. Although one cannot fail to appreciate this, I would still say give the protocol a score less than five. Amazonia.org.br - What must be changed to have an effective protocol? Carlos Nobre - I think the Kyoto protocol was too good an experiment to just be abandoned. We must cut global emissions by 80% by the middle of this century. The Kyoto Protocol, therefore, is completely insufficient to even provide a basis for future negotiations. The experience in itself, with its hits and misses, this has been valuable. We cannot, however, just think we'll be able to improve on Kyoto starting in 2012. The starting point of the negotiations has to be completely different. The 1997 protocol set goals 15 years in the future. We are now in 2009 and we must make significant progress in 2015, with measurable reductions in the developed countries. Something between 30% and 40% will be discussed in Copenhagen. Furthermore, developing countries will have to participate in a significant manner in the new agreement. They cannot continue increasing their emissions; they need to start reducing them. The annual growth rate must drop sharply. Therefore I prefer not even to discuss the survival or an enhanced Kyoto Protocol, but rather a fresh agreement. Amazonia.org.br - Is there hope that discussions in Copenhagen will play this role? Carlos Nobre - This is everyone's expectation. I hope that Copenhagen doesn't let the world down, that the negotiators are apt to the historic challenge they and the planet face. With science telling us with great certainty and vigor that the risks are much higher than imagined ten years ago, that changes are occurring at a much faster pace than imagined five years ago, based on this increasing scientific evidence that we must reduce emissions quickly, otherwise we place the planet on a path of high risk. We hope that negotiators and heads of state respond with a sweeping agreement. That is our expectation. Amazonia.org.br - How much would it need to be cut to begin feeling some effect on the climate? Carlos Nobre - Science currently points to about 80% in order to achieve a 75% to 80% likelihood of temperatures not increasing more than 2ºC compared to pre-industrial times. This is a good margin of safety that we will not lead the planet down a path of rapid and irreversible change. Some changes are already becoming irreversible, but we must avert the irreversible collapse of climatic subsystems from becoming the norm. Since we've already compromised 0.8ºC, and since we cannot do anything to avert an additional 0.5ºC, our margin to increase greenhouse gases is very small, and we are already at the limit. By 2050, we need a global reduction, not just from developed countries, of 80% less than emission from 1990. Amazonia.org.br - Does political will exist in the countries to act towards this goal? Carlos Nobre - It's easy for countries to make long-term commitments, such as until 2050, because none of the persons governing will even be alive then. The big question is what will be commitments from 2015 and 2020. This is the period in which we must achieve reduction from 30% to 40%, at least from the developed countries, plus a sharp decrease in emissions from developing countries. For instance, if, by 2020, Brazil fulfills the goals in its National Climate Change Plan, to bring deforestation in Amazonia under 5,000 km, Brazil will reduce its emissions by 30% and would be an example to the world. If we were to honor this commitment, it would place Brazil at the top of the cleanest countries in the world. It is also important that emerging economies decrease the pace at which their emissions have been growing. Copenhagen must therefore be much more ambitious in setting goals that are strict yet achievable. Amazonia.org.br - Do you believe that control and enforcement mechanisms aid in achieving goals? Carlos Nobre - The Kyoto protocol also lacked any sort of enforcement mechanism, there was no punishment mechanism. This is an issue that will still have to be discussed in detail. I personally do not believe in punishment mechanisms. I think it is very difficult to punish a country, or to start developing a system that will produce innumerable asymmetries, because any market-based system we establish, and the carbon market is a market, is historically used against developing countries. I personally think the establishment of punishment mechanisms is unlikely. I do believe that strict goals must be objectives and that countries need to incorporate them into their own internal policies, and vigorously so, just like any other global quality of life goals, education systems, health, etc. Countries must understand that they are for their own benefit and take action to achieve them. There is even a bit of competition to see which countries will achieve theirs first. So, achieving reduction goals will become much more likely when populations in the countries perceive that they are just as important as goals for improving health services, education, etc. An example of this is Brazil. We are the ones that have to want to reduce illegal deforestation in Amazonia. So, first, we are the ones who have to want to achieve these goals and to understand their importance. I think this is the best way to move forward. Amazonia.org.br - Has Brazil done a good job in terms of Amazonia? Carlos Nobre - Yes and no. If we look coolly at deforestation reduction numbers over the last few years, we could say that a country that has managed to reduce deforestation by over 60% from 2004 to 2009 should not be open to criticism. So, if one only looks at the numbers, there is only reason for praise. However, we also need to see whether conditions are being established to make reduced deforestation sustainable, permanent, whether or not Amazonia has adopted a different development paradigm, other than that of cattle and soy farming. It hasn't, the region's economy still hasn't advanced to a sustainable economy. So, we can say, the answer is yes, the reduction achieved is commendable, and no, we cannot be smug and pat ourselves on the back, because all of the forces that lead to increased deforestation are still present and there is currently no alternative to develop the region except to deforest. This is why enforcement must be vigilant, to not allow illegal deforestation. The rule of law must be present. The State is much more present today than 10 years ago, but the rule of law is still not ingrained. Just because progress has been made, especially with Public Prosecutors offices in Amazonia, cannot let us slip into a sense of security that only-legal development is ensured. Amazonia.org.br - Can concern over the rainforest enter into the issues to be discussed in Copenhagen? Carlos Nobre - It has to enter, it is very important. When we must reach a goal of 80% reduction to be on the less risky side of climate change, of course the forestry sector can collaborate with 10%, 12% of this goal by 2050 if we were to hypothetically have zero deforestation of tropical and sub-tropical ecosystems. One might say, "Wow, that is not very much", but it is no small amount, as the reduction must come from all sectors. It would be naïve to imagine that it will all come from oil, coal and gas - it must come from all sectors, including agriculture, ranching and industry. All sectors will have to reduce, and forests play a very significant role. Amazonia.org.br - Might not decreasing deforestation increase social problems in the region? Carlos Nobre - I don't think so, I think this line of reasoning is completely mistaken, because expansion of the agricultural frontier occurs through large-scale deforestation, favoring extremely low-efficiency agriculture and ranching, as the deforested areas are proportional to other areas being abandoned, and this cannot be allowed to continue. Secondly, one cannot justify illegality. We must implement the rule of law, which is to everyone's benefit, including the economy's. Sustainable activities will only become competitive economically when there is a level playing field. It is like justifying drug trafficking because it employs people. Small-scale agriculture, which also causes deforestation, must also receive major government support; it requires subsidies until it can establish quality and efficiency standards. The areas deforested by this type of agriculture are large and could be used much more efficiently by the families working on them. So, instead of expanding the area used, efficiency must be increased, and we cannot just justify the increased areas deforested by small-scale farmers as an inevitable necessity. We cannot continue to justify inefficient farming that fails to make proper use of areas deforested; otherwise, following this logic, the rainforest cannot be saved. We cannot give in to a fatalist attitude that people need to feed themselves. That's not the point, there is no population explosion happening in Amazonia, quite the contrary. Efficient agriculture is the core issue, and must become a permanent one in agricultural production, breaking away from this vicious cycle of deforestation, cropping, abandonment, deforestation. This vicious cycle must be broken at all points, and the way to do this is to implement the rule of law on one hand and agricultural efficiency on the other. Amazonia.org.br - Are there any good examples of policies being applied in other tropical rainforests around the world that could be followed by Amazonia? Carlos Nobre - There are good small-scale examples, such as in Costa Rica. It has been striving to develop additional systems to exploit its natural resources without damaging the ecosystem. Costa Rica is the most important country in the world in terms of tropical ecotourism, much more so than Brazil. It is a good, howbeit, limited example. This is because the truth is we have not managed, in global terms, to develop forested regions without deforestation. There is nothing like that. Yet we are the only animal species endowed with intelligence. If we can transform the world to enhance our quality of life, why can't we use our intelligence to invent a model to develop these regions without causing deforestation? With the scientific knowledge we have today, we can imagine a forest-based economy, with biodiversity resources, environmental services from the ecosystem. All of this is possible, but we have to want it. We have to say that we no longer want deforestation and invent something to replace it. There are pilot projects around the world, but still nothing that can maintain a livelihood for millions of people. The challenge is to invent a new development model for Amazonia that is a driving force for Brazil. That is where there will be an opportunity for the country to use Amazonia to leverage its own development
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Free:
| © Amigos da Terra - Amazônia Brasileira - read our privacy policy |