I love Norway. All those beautiful fjords, a fantastic welfare state
and world leaders in the renewable energy industry (99% of mainland electricity
is generated from hydropower plants). They have also just announced they are
doubling the carbon tax on the North Sea oil industry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/11/norway-carbon-tax-oil).
The funds generated from this will be used to establish a fund to tackle the
impacts of climate change in developing countries and also combat
deforestation.
Sognefjord, Norway. What’s not
to love?
Norway was also one of the first countries to initiate a REDD scheme
with the “groundbreaking” Oslo Pact formalised in May 2011. This deal between
Norway and Indonesia could see Indonesia (the world’s 3rd largest
emitter of greenhouse gases) earn up to $1billion for forest conservation and
reduction of deforestation. The crux of the pact is a 2-year suspension of new logging
permits for carbon-rich peatlands and old-growth forests. The funds from this scheme
will be used to develop infrastructure to monitor and protect forests, and reduce
illegal logging.
However, some people are more cynical about this “landmark” agreement. Clements et al (2010)
explain their reasons for “cautious optimism”. For a start Indonesia has a poor
history of sticking to conservation commitments. A pledge to ban expansion of
oil-palm plantations on peatlands in 2007 was scrapped just 2 years later,
allowing an area of 2 million hectares (equivalent to 2 million rugby pitches)
to be cleared. A similar plan to reduce the number of forest fires also failed. Furthermore money in Indonesia’s Reforestation Fund has, more often the not,
been spent on projects unrelated to reforestation. Finally this pact only
applies to “new” permits, and land already destined for conversion to plantations
will not be protected.
Edwards et al (2012)
also have reservations, particularly the fact that the area of forest protected
under the scheme is tiny in comparison with the area that can continue to be
exploited. The moratorium specifically applies to “old-growth” forest,
excluding a much larger area of selectively-logged forest which may have high biodiversity
and carbon stocks. A large portion of the protected “old-growth” forest is in
mountainous areas and unlikely to be under threat, potentially violating the requirement
of “additionality” for
REDD to be effective.
So is it all a waste of time? I don’t think so. There are clearly
lessons to be learned but the Norwegian-Indonesian partnership is undoubtedly a
step in the right direction. It is now time for other nations to follow Norway’s
lead.
Haven't the hydro power plants disturbed the ecosystem near the sites?
ReplyDeleteGood point Tanvi – it is definitely not a clean-cut issue. I didn’t go into it in the blog because it is not really part of the main topic but it is a controversial subject. No doubt there are always going to be some biological impacts of building a hydroelectric power plant, but given careful planning the consequences for biodiversity can be minimised. A paper by Sarkar and Karagoz (1995) list conditions that if followed will minimise consequences for the environment, which include (among other suggestions):
ReplyDeletei) Avoid building dams that are likely to cause extinction of plant or animal species, or deny migratory fish access to breeding grounds or feeding sites – the original biodiversity of an area should be well conserved
ii) Ensure there are no water-related diseases in the general area
iii) Leave undammed tributaries to help reduce changes in the flood regimes on which wetlands depend and to provide alternative paths for migratory fish
iv) New dams should preferably be concentrated on previously dammed rivers
Also building small rather than large hydroelectric plants can help to reduce negative impacts.
While it is certainly important to limit ecological damage where possible, it could be argued that the environmental benefits of renewable power outweigh the environmental costs. Continuing to rely on fossil fuel-derived power has potentially far worse consequences for biodiversity on a much larger scale. I think on balance hydropower plants are probably a good thing.
Reference: http://ac.els-cdn.com/036054429500059P/1-s2.0-036054429500059P-main.pdf?_tid=d0d3f720-26ac-11e2-ad49-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1352053625_88ac4630e4bee3928cd1749124f5f357
This is definitely a 'step in the right direction' for the global effort to tackle climate change.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the major controversies surrounding climate change is the fact that the developed world often exhorts the developing countries to develop sustainably, but this rhetoric is not supported by any assistance for developing countries to do so. Since the developed world has already gone through a phase of resource exploitation, environmental degradation, etc. in order to develop, poorer countries argue that preventing them from developing in the same way as the developed world is unfair and imposes additional costs.
What Norway is doing here to address this problem is certainly commendable. While there are enforcement issues, this is an excellent starting point. If only more developed countries would follow suit!