Daniel Pittman ’10Journal #1
I am spending the summer working with the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, an intergovernmental organization whose objective is to reconcile forest stewardship with economic development. The primary strategy of the coalition is to bring about the reform of international frameworks, both legal and economic, to correct market failures that result in unsustainable outcomes, and to create economic incentives for the preservation of areas of high biodiversity and endemism worldwide. To date, the coalition has been instrumental in the establishment of the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN-REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) program.
The Coalition, therefore, presents an ideal opportunity to participate directly in the ongoing negotiations surrounding global climate change legislation.
Last summer, I had the chance to work with Carbon Credit Capital, a company focused on the development of projects generating carbon offsets, and the information infrastructure to allow such projects to take place. Although there is currently an active carbon market courtesy of the Kyoto Protocol, the mandated European Trading Scheme, and numerous voluntary schemes (e.g. Chicago Climate Exchange), my private-sector experience reinforced the notion that climate policy would need to catch-up before carbon pricing could have any meaningful impact on climate change.
My motivation for joining the coalition was, therefore, to understand this policy dynamic and to participate in the drafting of the technical framework that follows the high-level policy mandates.
I will achieve this through participating in two projects, both of which will see the coalition providing integration, direction, and project management, while drawing on the opinions of national and intergovernmental partners, and on the analytics of McKinsey. The first project will consist of an assessment of the benefits of a national approach to climate-compatible development and an evaluation of the potential role of the private sector (this concerns the actual design of the forestry carbon market). The second project will see the drafting of climate-compatible economic development plans for a collection of member states (a necessary precursor for rainforest countries to build sufficient institutional expertise and capacity to facilitate carbon offsets).
My first few weeks with the coalition were directed primarily towards background reading and research, and thereby getting up to speed with current negotiation positions and the context of the broader climate change debate.
This time also served to allow for the project funding decisions to take place.
Journal #2
Summer is often seen as a slow time in business, as vacations constantly interrupt the flow of work. This is equally, if not more, true for policy work, a factor that aggravates an already protracted process.
Both of the main projects that were to structure my internship have been subject to delay. An ongoing dialogue with a German development agency over funding for one of the projects is hung up on negotiations over the project scope and timeline. A process that is further prolonged by the factor already mentioned above.
Negotiations seem to be at the heart of what the Coalition for Rainforest Nations does day-to-day, and preparing and presenting supporting arguments in favor of the Coalition’s agenda is what I have spent the majority of my time doing.
A key, but laborious, effort has been the negotiations surrounding the REDD+ Partnership’s work plan. The REDD+ Partnership is a collection of governments formed on the sidelines of the Copenhagen Climate Negotiations. The partnership brings together donor countries and rainforest nations to forge ahead with a system of forestry-based carbon offsets via direct bilateral pledges. The work plan charts out the partnership’s agenda for the short-term, the next six months, and the medium-term, up to 2012. Although all member countries are keen on progress, the devil is indeed in the details, where there is a misalignment of interests between the rich, northern donor-countries and the developing, southern rainforest-countries.
The Coalition, via its relationship with Papa New Guinea, is one of two co-chairs for the partnership and a champion for the developing nations. Meanwhile, the Coalition has provided parallel assistance to other nations such as Suriname.
Two issues have caught my attention throughout this process. The first is the different levels of urgency shared between the participants. The rainforest countries are keen to access funds sooner rather than later, and therefore desire to have a broader and more comprehensive work plan. The donor countries on the other hand wish to create a robust and accurate system, fearing opportunities for graft, corruption and fraud. These countries are also aware of the precise political mandates they must operate under. The result is that they wish to proceed with caution and limit the contents of the work plan to those areas that already command strong support.
A second issue that is apparent in observing the negotiations is the inherent bias that the discussion process and international forum presents. Existing intergovernmental bodies, such as the World Bank, are often seen to be dominated by the developed world. Technology, resources, and protocol further favor these countries in negotiations with smaller, poorer partners. The result is a raft of negotiating tactics from both sides that reflect this asymmetry, and often create frustrating delay.
However, through this experience I have had exposure to a very insightful view of policy formation, and a real-world workshop in managerial negotiations.
Journal #3
The latest interim negotiations in Bonn last week could hardly be called progress. The general consensus was a backsliding relative to the Copenhagen agreement. Most delegates believe nothing will come of Cancun at the end of the year. Maybe 2011 will be more fruitful.
There was, however, progress on a work plan for the REDD+ Partnership. With the full complement of developing-nation delegates in attendance, the partnership was able to make its voice heard, and a compromise text was drafted that contained a timetable to review the broader goals of the partnership.
The two projects that were supposed to define my internship are still stuck in purgatory. Neither is likely to get underway in time for Cancun.
It is difficult to see where the trajectory of global climate change legislation is headed after only ten weeks, but one thing that seems clear is that it will likely take longer than expected.
I still think that in the long run a global agreement is necessary if we are to achieve the scale of changes required to adequately address climate change. However, I believe that the short-term discrete, private-sector-led initiatives are more likely to provide the greatest impact; initiatives such as Tesla’s electric vehicles and IBM’s energy efficiency solutions. Granted, these initiatives are heavily reliant on incentives established under national legislation.
What does this mean for forestry based carbon? The reason why forestry presents such a difficult problem is that it encompasses multiple issues and stakeholders, such as indigenous tribes or bio-diversity. However, this is also why the potential rewards of a negotiated solution are so great. A global agreement will eventually come to fruition, but bilateral agreements, such as those between Norway and Indonesia, are most likely to dominate in the near term. This imperfect system will create opportunity for fraud, but it will be a step in the right direction.
With the next round of international climate negotiations in Cancun at the end of the year there should be plenty to do. I plan to stay with the coalition beyond the term of the internship to make headway on the projects and hopefully see an outcome.
