Topic: canada

Coming Soon: Global Forest Watch 2.0

James Anderson — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:03:32 -0500

Welcome to the home of Global Forest Watch 2.0, a powerful near real-time forest monitoring system that unites satellite technology, data sharing, and human networks around the world to fight deforestation.

GFW 2.0 is currently under development, and will launch in late 2013.

Read more below, and email gfw2@wri.org to participate in the pilot testing period or be notified when GFW 2.0 launches. Please note that as we prepare for the launch, the original Global Forest Watch website has been redirected to this page.

Watch a Short Preview of Global Forest Watch 2.0 at the UN Forum on Forests 10, in Istanbul.

Watch the full version here

Speakers:

Zulkifli Hasan, Minister of Forestry, Indonesia
Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Wu Hongbo, Under-Secretary-General, United Nations
Naoko Ishii, CEO and Chairperson, Global Environment Facility
Tim Christophersen, Senior Program Officer, Forests and Climate Change, UNEP
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forests Initiative, World Resources Institute

Photo by David Gilbert

WHY FORESTS, WHY NOW?

Forests provide food jobs, raw materials, climate benefits and more. But without clear, up-to-date information, governments, companies and communities lack the tools to monitor and manage these resources.

We can track a company’s financial information daily, but information about forests is often years out of date.

Deforestation continues today in part because by the time satellite images are available, analyzed, and shared, the forest clearing is long done. The illegal loggers have moved on; cattle are already grazing amidst stumps; the oil palm plantation has been established. We simply find out too late.

New technologies can overcome these challenges

Fortunately, a convergence of technologies and human networks offers the ability to address these challenges for the first time:

Advances in satellite and remote sensing technology, including the launch of NASA’s Landsat 8 in early 2013, and new private systems, enable higher spatial resolution analysis and much more rapid updates of information. This has enabled the development of near-real-time forest cover change detection.
Brazilian partner IMAZON, is making its Amazon Alert System available through GFW 2.0, and also the DETER system which is innovating in detection of forest degradation. Brazil has seen a remarkable drop in deforestation in the Amazon of almost 80 percent partly due to improved linked to more effective use of satellite imagery.
Cloud computing and open source software can now be used to rapidly process and interpret large volumes of satellite data at low cost by utilizing clusters of servers scattered around the world. Google Earth Engine’s team is partnered with Global Forest Watch 2.0 to optimize easy access to cloud computing-based forest cover information.
High speed internet connectivity enables sending data and forest maps processed in North America, Europe, or Singapore to laptops and mobile phones in Jakarta, Kinshasa, Lima, Vladivostok, and other corners of the globe.
Smartphones are more common than ever and can be used by anyone in the field to download maps and satellite images, as well as upload GPS coordinates and photographs from the ground.
Crowdsourcing using simple web interfaces can empower thousands if not millions of people to gather and share information, participate in forest monitoring, and hold decision-makers accountable. • Social media outlets are creating a flat, networked world in which information travels fast, communities self-organize, and people get mobilized.

ABOUT GLOBAL FOREST WATCH 2.0

These enhanced technologies and social movements are the foundation for Global Forest Watch 2.0. GFW 2.0 will unite a near-real-time deforestation alert system, complementary satellite imagery and monitoring systems, WRI’s data-rich collection of maps, mobile technology, and a networked world to create never-before-possible transparency for faraway forests.

The platform is currently under development, and will be launched in late 2013.

This powerful new platform will enable responsible companies, NGOs, the media, and progressive government leaders to hold those responsible accountable for forest management.

GFW 2.0 can be useful to multiple groups of users involved with the sustainable management of forests:

Buyers of sustainable commodities. GFW 2.0 will enable buyers of sustainably sourced commodities―such as certified timber, palm oil, soya, and beef―to confirm adherence to or violations of supplier commitments to “no deforestation,” “no clearing of high conservation value forest,” and related criteria.
Suppliers of sustainable commodities. GFW 2.0 will help suppliers of sustainable commodities prove to buyers, investors, governments, and NGOs that their commodities are adhering to best forest management practices, national laws, criteria of the relevant commodity roundtables, or investor lending conditions.
Governments. GFW 2.0 is designed to help progressive elements in governments better enforce sustainable forest management and forest protection laws. GFW 2.0 is also designed to be a trusted, independent, and user-friendly way to help investors in REDD+ and other forest conservation projects monitor performance and hold countries accountable to their commitments on greenhouse gas emission reductions and forest conservation.
Conservation and community organizations. GFW 2.0 will enable NGOs dedicated to forest conservation, indigenous rights, and forest communities to identify deforestation hotspots as they arise and quickly mobilize action to curtail further clearing.
The media. GFW 2.0 will enable local, national, and international media to ring the alarm bell on deforestation hotspots around the globe at a pace never-before-possible, and thereby put pressure on governments, companies, and others to curtail forest conversion and illegal logging in time

Applying new technology

GFW 2.0 combines satellites, new algorithms, cloud computing, mobile phone technologies, and WRI databases to connect images, maps, photos, and data with forest clearing alerts ultimately within two weeks of significant deforestation occurring.

Because GFW 2.0 will be powered by Google Earth Engine and Earth Builder, it will bring to target users a seamless experience of the best technology offered by WRI, Google, and their partners, as Bloomberg does for the world’s vast, complex array of financial information.

Mobilizing human networks

GFW 2.0 will mobilize networks of people to ensure sustainable management of forests and greater forest conservation. Global Forest Watch “anchor” NGOs in each priority country or region, will actively use and contribute content in an open-source, network model.

These groups will include ScanEx and its non-profit affiliate Transparent World in Russia, Imazon in Brazil and their Amazon-wide network of partners across the seven neighboring countries, the Observatoire Satellital des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale (OSFAC) which covers the Central Africa region. More partners in Canada, China, Europe, and the United States are joining every day.

Watch a Sneak Peek of GFW 2.0 presented at Rio+20

Video streaming by Ustream

Speakers:

Carlos Souza Jr., Senior Researcher, IMAZON
Charles Barber, Forest Division Chief, Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science, U.S. Department of State
Rebecca Moore, Google
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forest Initiative, World Resources Institute

Watch UNEP’s press conference featuring GFW 2.0 at COP18 in Doha

Speakers:

Mr. Heru Prasetyo, Deputy I, Presidential Delivery Unit on Development Monitoring and Oversight, Government of Indonesia
Tim Christophersen, Senior Programme Officer, Forests and Climate Change, UNEP
Jane Feehan, Natural Resources Specialist, European Investment Bank
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forest Initiative, World Resources Institute

Watch a Sneak Peek of Global Forest Watch 2.0 at the U.S. Pavilion, COP18 in Doha

Video streaming by Ustream

Speakers:

Nigel Sizer, Director, Forests Initiative, World Resources Institute
Nirarta “Koni” Samadhi, Head of REDD+ Task Force Working Group on Moratorium Monitoring, Presidential Work Unit on Monitoring and Development Oversight (UKP4), Government of Indonesia
Per Fredrik Ilsaas Pharo, Director, International Climate and Forest Initiative, Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, Government of Norway
Tim Christophersen, Senior Program Officer, Forests and Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Read more about WRI’s forest work here.

Open Climate Network Analysis

Kevin Lustig — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:16:37 -0400

Use the list to the right to explore available analysis from the Open Climate Network »

Regional Cap and Trade Programs

Tim Herzog — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:36:39 -0500

23 U.S. states have actively participated in the design and/or implementation of three regional cap-and trade programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (Midwestern Accord), and the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). Four Canadian provinces are also active participants. Five U.S. states, five Mexican states, and one Canadian province are observers of the WCI.

Together, the active U.S. state participants represent 51% of U.S. GHG emissions, 61% of U.S. GDP, and 67% of U.S. population.

NEWS RELEASE: Effective Community Engagement Essential for CCS Deployment

Jessica Forres — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:35:12 -0500

Building constructive relationships with host communities is crucial for the successful deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a clean energy technology that can help reduce carbon pollution, according to a new report by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

The report, CCS and Community Engagement: Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage Projects, outlines how project developers and operators can effectively engage local communities near a potential CCS site. The guidelines, which had input from over 90 contributors, are meant to strengthen the decision-making process so that community members, developers, and regulators are all represented during project planning and development and throughout a plant’s lifecycle.

“Local opposition stands as one of the biggest potential barriers to the successful implementation of CCS projects,” said Jonathan Lash, president of WRI. “In order for countries to move ahead with large-scale deployment of CCS around the world, greater transparency and community engagement need to be made a priority throughout the process.”

There are currently a few small-scale industrial operations capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions around the world, but the technology has not yet been scaled to cut emissions in larger coal-fired power plants. Further testing of demonstration projects will be necessary to determine whether or not CCS is a viable solution to the climate change problem.

The report presents a series of case studies, including examples of successful and unsuccessful community engagement strategies including four places in the United States—Wallula, Washington; Matoon, Illinois; Jamestown, New York; and Carson, California. There are also international cases in Barendrecht, Netherlands; and Nirranda, Victoria Australia. The case studies confirm that the decisions on individual demonstration projects ultimately hinge on site-specific factors, including the needs of the local community.

In Matoon, Illinois, for example, trust diminished when the U.S. Department of Energy made changes to the original FutureGen project seven years after the initial announcement. According to the case study, the revised project, renamed FutureGen 2.0, would retrofit an existing power plant with CCS technology across the state in Merodisia rather than building a state-of-the-art plant and research facility in Matoon.

“While many communities across the globe have rejected CCS projects, our community of more than 50,000 people was willing to stake our future on the emerging science of CCS,” said Angela Griffin, president of Coles Together, which is based in Matoon, in a letter published in the Guidelines. “That all changed when FutureGen 2.0 was announced. The new plan enormously diminished the role our federal partners envisioned for the community.”

Griffin added, “It is evident that gaining the trust of the community through two-way information exchanges is a key ingredient to moving CCS projects forward.”

Recommendations in the report will be road-tested in real-life CCS demonstration projects, and the outcomes integrated into a more robust set of globally-applicable best practices for CCS projects. The report follows WRI’s Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage, a set of technical guidelines published in 2008 for how to responsibly proceed with safe CCS projects.

Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage Projects

Maggie Barron — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:41:48 -0500

Executive Summary

CCS and Climate Change Mitigation

Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) encompasses a suite of existing and emerging technologies for capture, transport, and storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) that together can be used to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power generation and other industrial sources. Achieving cuts in energy-related CO2 emissions is critical to avoiding more than a 1.5 degree Celsius (°C) (2.7 degree Fahrenheit [° F]) rise in global temperatures by 2050 and the irreversible and damaging impacts such a temperature rise would have on people and ecosystems. The scale of the climate change challenge requires a portfolio of clean energy technologies and energy efficiency efforts, and most credible analyses project that CCS will have to play a substantial role in achieving the necessary emissions reductions (see Appendix 3).

CCS has been tested at a small scale, and there are a few industrial operations around the world, including in North America and Europe, which already capture and store small quantities of CO2 emissions underground. However, the technology has not yet been demonstrated at the scale required for application to commercial power and industrial plants. To address this gap, governments of many major economies have announced plans to support commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects that store more than 1 million metric tons of CO2 annually. Several are currently being built in Europe, China, Australia, and Canada, and many more are in the planning stages, including in the United States. Leading industrial nations, through the G8, have called for 20 such demonstration plants to be launched by 2010, with a view toward broad deployment by 2020.

Actions taken to demonstrate transformational clean energy technology over the next decade will define the solutions available to help solve the climate problem. Commercial-scale CCS demonstration projects are required to demonstrate whether or not the technology should play a major role in bridging today’s fossil fuel–driven world and tomorrow’s low- or zero-carbon economy. Yet, as with the introduction of many new technologies, proposed CCS projects have been met with mixed reactions from the public, and in particular from the local communities asked to host them.

Community Engagement in the CCS Context

Project developers and technical experts in CCS often cite the public as a “barrier” to CCS deployment, because decisions on whether individual projects move forward often significantly depend on the local community’s acceptance or opposition. The case studies from the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia featured in this report suggest that communities often have more concerns and questions about CCS than about more established industries and technologies. The guidelines for community engagement, however, were written with the belief that decisions on individual demonstration projects ultimately hinge on site-specific factors, including the needs of the local community. While much social science research around CCS to date has focused on gauging public attitudes toward the technology or on education and outreach best-practices for project developers (see Appendix 2), we focus instead on providing recommendations for creating a culture of effective, two-way community engagement around CCS projects.

In addition to project developers and host communities, there is a third partner essential to effective community engagement around CCS: regulators. In some countries, regulatory frameworks governing CCS development and deployment, including rules for community engagement, are already in place (see Appendix 1). In others, an environmental regulatory framework for CCS does not yet exist, and the advent of demonstration plants is forcing regulatory policymakers to make real-time decisions about how to ensure projects move forward safely, and what level of public participation should be required in the decisionmaking processes. The engagement around any one project, therefore, is contingent on the interactions of three primary groups: local decisionmakers (typically on behalf of those in the community), regulators, and project developers. All three groups are addressed in this report. It is important to underscore upfront, however, that effective community engagement is measured by the success of the engagement process, and is not contingent upon agreement between the project developer, regulator, and community on the outcome or the design of the CCS project. Nevertheless, effectively engaging communities can help move CCS projects forward and foster continuing constructive relationships between project developers and communities. Such relationships can help ensure that commercial-scale CCS demonstrations and any subsequent commercial projects progress in such a way that local economies, values, ecosystems, and people are respected, and the potential of the technology in helping to mitigate climate change is fully realized.

About the Guidelines

The Guidelines was drafted by authors at WRI in close consultation with an international group of stakeholders (see inside front cover) with specific expertise and experience in engaging local communities regarding deployment of CCS technology. This effort builds on WRI’s previous 2-year consensus-building stakeholder effort that resulted in the Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage, a set of technical guidelines for how to responsibly proceed with safe CCS projects. The community engagement guidelines for CCS are intended to serve as international guidelines for regulators (including those in both regulatory policy design and implementation capacities); local decisionmakers (including community leaders, citizens, local advocacy groups, and landowners); and project developers to consider as they plan and seek to implement CCS projects.

The Guidelines begins with an introduction that describes their intent, a working definition of community engagement, and why effective engagement is an essential element of CCS deployment. It then provides an overview of relevant CCS technology issues, including the status of CCS technology, regulatory and permitting processes, and the timeline and various stages of a representative CCS project. The report then reviews existing relevant experience in community engagement, presented in six case studies from CCS projects. These studies were drafted by stakeholders engaged in the development of the Guidelines who had a hands-on role either in engaging the local community or in decisionmaking around the featured project. Chapter 4 of the report presents the guidelines for community engagement on CCS.

This effort was initiated with a hope of providing a set of best practices to guide the engagement of future commercial CCS projects, if the demonstration projects prove successful. The guidelines for regulators are designed to guide regulatory authorities responsible for overseeing CCS projects but also offer recommendations for improving the public participation rules as new regulations are drafted. The guidelines for local decisionmakers highlight how, in some cases, communities can take a proactive role in shaping the engagement around a potential CCS project, rather than a passive role as purely receiver of information. Finally, the guidelines for project developers highlight principles and activities that can be employed to promote effective community engagement and involve the local community in the CCS project.

The guidelines are separated into five categories as summarized in the table above. The full text of the guidelines follows, presented by audience. In Chapter 4, the guidelines are presented by engagement principle, with an introductory overview of each issue.

For more information, contact Sarah Forbes, Francisco Almendra, or Micah Ziegler

New WRI Web App Allows Easy Analysis of Developed Country Climate Pledges

Paul Mackie — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:43:46 -0500

Demonstrates that Current Pledges Fall Short

All the latest emission reduction pledges from developed countries, including recent announcements from the U.S. and Russia, are incorporated in an interactive Web application released by the World Resources Institute (WRI) here today at the U.N. climate conference.

“Understanding the levels of ambition of developed country targets, as well as how they compare with one another, is crucial. Hopefully this will help them agree to an ambitious path towards reducing their pollution,” said Rob Bradley, WRI’s international climate director.

Web users can easily test the strength and comparability of pledges - based on a variety of scenarios – by Australia, Belarus, Canada, Croatia, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United States.

A screen-shot from WRI’s new Web application: Annex I developed country absolute emission-reduction pledges in 2020 relative to 1990 levels. The red line represents these countries’ aggregated reductions based on their pledges (13-18%, if LULUCF emissions are included in baseline). The IPCC suggests that stabilizing atmospheric concentrations to 450 parts per million of CO2 will require these countries to reduce emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

“Anyone can play online with these updated pledge numbers, choose assumptions, and compare commitments of countries. Importantly, the user can also see how far current pledges go towards addressing the urgent problem of climate change,” said Kelly Levin, a WRI associate and lead analyst on this work.

Scenarios for comparing country pledges include:

percent change in per capita reductions versus absolute reductions;
baseline years of 1990, 2000, 2005, or 2006;
high and/or low pledge ranges; and
with or without land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) emissions in the baseline.

An accompanying report, Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges, along with a chart comparing 2020 targets of Annex I countries, is also being released today. It details the commitments from industrialized countries that are part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The report finds that developed country pledges total a 13 percent to 18 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, depending on the assumptions made about the details of the pledges.

This falls far short of the 25 percent to 40 percent range of emission reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states would be necessary for stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million, a level associated with a 26 percent to 78 percent risk of overshooting a 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase.

“It is clear that we need industrialized countries to come forward with more ambitious pledges in Copenhagen if we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change,” added Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s Climate and Energy Program.

The numbers in the Web application, report, and chart represent pledges by countries responsible for 98 percent of all developed country greenhouse gas emissions.

Developed Country GHG Reduction Pledges Fall Short, New Analysis Reveals

Jessica Forres — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:02:59 -0400

Commitments made by developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when added together, fall short of stabilizing global temperatures at a level that averts dangerous climate change.

Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges, a new analysis by the World Resources Institute (WRI), examines the pledges made by the European Union, Japan, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Belarus, Ukraine and Canada as negotiations on a new global climate agreement near their climax in Copenhagen this December. Also included is the United States’s emission reductions based on the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives in June.

WRI’s analysis reveals that commitments by these industrialized country parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would result in a 10 to 24 percent reduction of global emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

This is less than the 25 to 40 percent range of emission reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states would be necessary for stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450ppm, a level associated with a 52 percent risk of overshooting a two degrees Celsius goal. Both the G8 and the Major Economies Forum - representing the world’s 17 leading economies - recently agreed to a goal of limiting average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

“Our analysis provides a preliminary picture of where the world is headed in the run-up to Copenhagen,” said Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s climate and energy program. “While emission reduction commitments by these countries could have an important and potentially substantial impact, they will not be enough to meet recommendations of IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. WRI therefore urges industrialized countries to bring forward more ambitious pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

The report, which covers pledges by countries responsible for 98% of all developed country emissions, uses three metrics to compare country commitments - per capita reductions, emission intensity reductions, and absolute reductions. The 10 to 24 percent reduction is based on the inclusion or omission of factors, such as changes in land use, forestry data and low vs. high pledges. Other key findings include:

The choice of metrics used by countries (such as whether to include offsets, land-use change or forestry emissions) can alter their emission reduction calculations significantly.

High regulatory standards and robust accounting rules will be critical to ensure that international emission reductions are real and additional.

Regional Climate Initiatives in the United States and Canada

Payson Schwin — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:50:44 -0400

Regional Climate Initiatives in the United States and Canada

Payson Schwin — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:36:09 -0400

Note: this map has been updated: click here to view the update.

Regional climate initiatives in the U.S. and Canada include the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA), the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).

First Worldwide Summary of Water-Quality Trading Programs Shows Growing Popularity

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:45:21 -0400

The first list of the 57 water-quality trading programs worldwide is being released today by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

Water-quality trading is a market-based approach that can complement water-quality regulation. In many industrialized countries, facilities are required to reduce the level of pollutants before discharging wastewater into waterways. A water-quality trading market allows the facilities to buy pollutant-reduction credits from other facilities in the same watershed, or from non-point sources such as agriculture. Since non-point source pollutant reductions are frequently less expensive than treatment-plant upgrades, trading programs can cost-effectively improve water quality.

“Water quality is one of the most pressing environmental concerns facing many parts of the world today,” said Mindy Selman, lead author of the list, which appears in a new report entitled Water Quality Trading Programs: An International Overview. “It is encouraging that trading is a concept that is growing in popularity, especially in the United States, but also in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.”

The report provides a listing of the 57 programs, all but six of which are in the United States. Twenty-six are active programs, 21 are under consideration or development, and 10 are inactive. Also identified are the 13 statewide programs in existence or in development (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia).

One of the programs detailed in the report is the Great Miami program in Ohio, administered by the Miami Conservancy District. Funded by nearly $1 million in grants and voluntary donations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and local wastewater-treatment plants, the program provides a trading platform between those entities and the 50 farmers selected to participate based on the strength of their plans to reduce phosphorus runoff. Under the trading program, the district has funded projects that have resulted in the reduction of 324 tons of phosphorus pollution and is expected to save local residents more than $300 million over the next 20 years on their utility bills.

Even still, Selman added, “The number of trading programs is not an indication that water-quality trading is an overall success. Many of these programs are not experiencing much trading due to several factors, including low demand for credits. The good news is that new programs can learn from past experiences.”

In a 2008 study, WRI identified 415 ”eutrophic” coastal zones throughout the world de-oxygenated by excessive nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Only 13 of the coastal areas identified are showing signs of recovery. Some of the coastal areas studied include the Chesapeake Bay, Baltic Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Tampa Bay. Seventy-eight percent of the assessed continental U.S. coastal area and 65 percent of Europe’s Atlantic coast are eutrophic.

Water Quality Trading Programs: An International Overview

Tim Herzog — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:07:59 -0400

Water quality trading is gaining traction in a number of watersheds around the world. It is a market-based approach that works alongside water quality regulation to improve water quality, providing flexibility in how regulations are met and potentially lowering regulatory compliance and abatement costs. Our research identified 57 water quality trading programs worldwide. Of these, 26 are active, 21 are under consideration or development, and 10 are inactive or are completed pilots with no plans for future trades. The majority of programs were located in the United States, with only six programs existing outside the United States—four in Australia, one in New Zealand, and one in Canada.

From our assessment of these water quality trading programs, we identified five key factors that stakeholders believed were important for the successful implementation of their trading programs:

Strong regulatory and/or non-regulatory drivers, which helped create a demand for water quality credits;
Minimal potential liability risks to the regulated community from meeting regulations through trades;
Robust, consistent, and standardized estimation methodologies for nonpoint source actions;
Standardized tools, transparent processes, and online registries to minimize transaction costs; and
Buy-in from local and state stakeholders.

Before going to the expense of developing a water quality trading program, we recommend that the relevant bodies—either governmental or nongovernmental—ensure these factors are in place.

WRI, EIA Form Partnership to Stem Illegal Forest Products Imported Into U.S.

Paul Mackie — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:18:43 -0500

The World Resources Institute and the Environmental Investigation Agency today launch a partnership to combat illegal logging worldwide and clean up timber supply chains.

The partnership focuses on the 100-year old Lacey Act, which was recently amended to include plant products - including timber and wood.

“The Lacey Act, if enforced, has the potential to send a powerful signal around the world that the U.S. is serious about curtailing illegal logging. Increasingly, illegal logging and deforestation contribute to climate change,” said Jonathan Lash, president of WRI.

Signed into law by President William McKinley, the Lacey Act has been a powerful tool used by the U.S. to battle wildlife trafficking by prohibiting the transportation of illegally captured animals or wildlife products across state lines. The new amendment extends this protection to plants and their derivative products, including items ranging from lumber and wood furniture to paper and sporting goods.

“The bill marks the first time that a major consuming country has made the trade in illegally logged wood a crime. It provides a precedent-setting tool to change the face of a $1 trillion industry, reduce deforestation, and improve forestry governance,” said Alexander von Bismarck, executive director at EIA.

Proposed in 2007 by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), with co-sponsorship by President-elect Barack Obama, the bill received widespread backing from a broad coalition of environmental, industry, and labor groups, led by the EIA.

The WRI-EIA partnership will support the coalition by delivering objective and timely information to governments and the private sector to facilitate adherence to Lacey Act requirements. The Lacey Act allows the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute if a product is produced in violation of the relevant laws of the country of origin and is brought into the United States.

“The WRI-EIA partnership will provide companies and government officials with FAQ sheets, forest information reports, and procurement guides. These will help them ask important questions to ensure their producers and importers trade in legally-sourced products,” said Dr. Lars Laestadius, senior associate at WRI.

“The U.S. is the world’s largest market for forest products,” said David Bonistall, vice president, Environmental, Health & Safety at NewPage. “The Lacey Act is monumental in that it could domino into other countries and increase transparency within the global wood market, ultimately enhancing the reputation of forest products as a sustainable material.”

“The Lacey Act will protect the forest-products industry’s global reputation by helping eliminate illegal logging, which in some places is carried out by organized crime, spreading violence and deforestation in some developing countries,” added Cassie Phillips, vice president, Sustainable Forests and Products at Weyerhaeuser. “It will cost the global industry economically, but we will all gain in the longer term as illegally sourced wood is removed from the marketplace.”

WRI’s partnership with the EIA arrives at the right time. December 6 is the official “forest day” for delegates at the United Nations climate conference in Poland, where WRI and EIA will both be holding events about the links between deforestation and climate change. Also, the first public comment period on issues relating to implemetation of the Lacey Act, which went into effect on May 22, ends December 8.

WRI Joins North America’s Largest Greenhouse Gas Reporting Partnership

Paul Mackie — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:51:34 -0400

The Climate Registry, which uses accounting methodologies created by the World Resources Institute, will name WRI one of its founding reporters next month.

To date, WRI and more than 100 businesses and organizations have committed to report to The Climate Registry, which bills itself as “North America’s largest climate change organization.” It is, according to the Denver Post, “a nationwide program in which participants quantify and publicize their greenhouse gas emissions as a first step in reducing them.” The Registry was founded by 39 U.S. states, seven Canadian provinces, six Mexican states, three Native American tribes, and the District of Columbia.

“WRI has demonstrated exemplary environmental leadership by courageously stepping forward to support The Climate Registry in its preliminary stages,” said Gina McCarthy, chair of The Climate Registry.

“We have reported our annual emissions publicly on our Web site since 2001,” added Jonathan Lash, WRI president. “Registries like this are tremendously important as tools to allow companies, organizations, and civil society to track our progress in managing and reducing emissions.”

The Climate Registry is a non-profit organization established to measure and publicly report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a common, accurate and transparent manner consistent across industry sectors and borders. All emissions reported require third-party verification. The Registry represents a linking of several state-sponsored GHG emissions reporting efforts, including the California Climate Action Registry and the Eastern Climate Registry. It is anticipated that mandatory state-level GHG reporting programs will be linked with the Registry.

The Climate Registry’s protocols are based on the internationally recognized Greenhouse Gas Protocol, which was created by WRI and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and is the most widely used international accounting tool for governments, companies, and organizations to measure and report their GHG emissions. WRI also played an active role in the development of the Climate Registry.

The Climate Registry Releases Its General Reporting Protocol

David Rich — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:31:50 -0400

The Climate Registry has finalized its General Reporting Protocol, which provides a consistent framework for companies and organizations across North America to measure and publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions. To date, the Climate Registry has 126 reporting organizations, including WRI.

Launched in April 2007, the Climate Registry offers a unified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting system that allows accurate, consistent, and verifiable reporting across sectors and borders. The platform is currently supported by over 40 U.S. states and tribes, 7 Canadian provinces, and 6 Mexican states.

With the publication of the General Reporting Protocol (GRP), the Registry is on schedule to be fully operational this summer.

The GRP is based on the GHG Protocol’s [Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard](node/4887), developed by WRI and the [World Business Council for Sustainable Development](http://www.wbcsd.org). Building on the GHG Protocol ensures consistency with international accounting and reporting practices. Additionally, WRI’s GHG Protocol team provided technical assistance in developing the GRP.

Companies and organizations that join the Registry agree to measure and publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions for all operations in the United States, Canada and Mexico. By reporting each year, companies and organizations provide a public record of their emissions over time.

For More Information

The Climate Registry: Red and Blue States Go Green

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:00:00 -0400

34 U.S. states, 2 Canadian provinces, and 2 Native American nation establish a single, unified GHG emissions accounting system.

Climate Registry States

For some time now, U.S. states have been well ahead of the federal government in taking action on climate change. In April came the latest big development: 34 U.S. states, two Canadian provinces (British Columbia and Manitoba), and the Campo Kumeyaay Nation joined together to form the Climate Registry. The 34 U.S. states together represent 78% of the U.S. population, and they represent impressive diversity, geographically, economically, and politically.

The Climate Registry evolved out of many states’ efforts to begin to address climate change by developing consistent, transparent, and verifiable programs to measure and report GHG emissions across many sectors. Programs that measure, report, and verify emissions are critical first steps to develop just about any policy to reduce GHG emissions, be it voluntary, regulatory, governmental, or private sector. As Frances Beineke at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) put it, “you have to count carbon pollution in order to cut carbon pollution.”

The Climate Registry combines the work of many states on emissions registries under development or implementation over the years: many of which were based on WRI’s GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard:

The California Climate Action Registry: the first state-level, voluntary corporate GHG registry in the United States.
The Eastern Climate Registry (ECR): a voluntary, corporate GHG registry initiated by a group of Northeast states. The ECR was designed to support voluntary reporting as well as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an emissions trading system for the electricity sector.
In 2005, several states began to develop a Midwest registry inspired by the ones in the Northeast and in California. But by then there was growing interest from an increasing array of stakeholders—including the California Registry, the ECR, the Western Regional Air Partnership, as well as other states and tribes—to create a single, unified registry.

What makes the Climate Registry significant is that the majority of U.S. states will soon be using a unified accounting standard for GHG emissions. That makes it much easier for states to coordinate multi-state and regional strategies to reduce emissions. The Climate Registry is specifically designed to support both voluntary and mandatory policies. Companies will benefit from uniform standards across state lines. And ultimately, these standards may help support and provide a common template for federal climate change policies and programs as well.