The Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) is a centerpiece of Europe’s climate legislation as it sets annual emission reduction targets for each Member State for the greenhouse gas emissions from the transport, building, agriculture and waste sectors. The ESD was adopted in 2009 to implement the EU’s 2020 climate target and has been designed for the 2013-2020 period. To implement the newly agreed 2030 climate target, the European Commission is expected to present a new legislative proposal to reduce emissions from ESD sectors in the 2021-2030 period in the first half of 2016.
18 June 2015, Brussels. As the European Commission is consulting on options to cost-effectively reduce emissions in sectors not covered by the EU ETS a new study finds that a wrong design could undermine reduction efforts in the transport, agriculture, buildings and waste sectors by three quarters until 2030. This is because potential intra-EU offsetting options currently under discussion – for example allowing carbon permits from the EU ETS or using forestry offsets – do not represent real emission reductions.
Dear Commissioner Arias Cañete,
The European Commission has consulted stakeholders about the role the EU’s land and forests should play in its 2030 Climate and Energy Framework. With this letter, the undersigned organisations are registering their views and state that Option 1 (LULUCF pillar), is their preferred option since it is the only one that could uphold the environmental and social integrity of the EU’s target. They call on the EU to have a clear position ahead of Paris on the need for two distinct global goals, one for LULUCF and another for other emissions, including non CO2 emissions from agriculture.
At the European Summit in October 2014, Heads of State agreed that, by 2030, the EU will domestically reduce its emissions by at least 40 per cent compared to 1990. In the run up to the United Nations climate summit in Paris, the EU should continue to show leadership to tackle climate change by upholding the environmental integrity of the ‘at least 40 per cent’ target. We believe that unless the following points are addressed, the EU is at risk not only of backsliding on its ambition and harming its credibility in this crucial year for climate, but it could entail damaging impacts on biodiversity and local communities.
1. In your view, which of the multiple objectives of agriculture, forestry and other land use will gain most in relative importance by 2030?
It will be critical to ensure the long-term stability of carbon pools for carbon storage, biodiversity protection and ecosystem preservation in the future. Currently the emissions from land use represent a quarter of all human emissions and it is hence vital that the land use sector also contributes to tackling climate change.
The use of biomass is limited due to finite land availability and therefore the use of biomass should follow the cascading hierarchy and only as a last resort be used for lower-quality applications where other viable alternatives exist, which is the case with power generation.
Finally, it should be recognised that food security and sustainable farming should go hand in hand. Actions that support this include no-till farming, silvopastoral practises and demand-side measures to limit excess consumption.
Dear members of the European Parliament,
On behalf of the Chair of the CDM Executive Board, I would like to thank you for your communication of 20 May 2015, informing us of your serious concern about project 9713: Santa Rita Hydroelectric Plant. Your letter was made available to the CDM Executive Board (the Board).
I hereby inform you that project 9713” Santa Rita Hydroelectric Plant” was registered by the Board on 2 June 2014 after undergoing a review process at the request of Board members. The issues you raise in your letter were looked at during the course of this review and it was found that the proposed project activity had complied with the requirements of the CDM, including the local stakeholder consultation process. Further, the designated national authority (DNA) of Guatemala issued required letter of approval (dated 2 July 2012) confirming that the project will assist Guatemala in its efforts to achieve sustainable development. The DNA had also confirmed to the Board, in the course of the review of the project activity, that the local stakeholder consultation process was carried-out appropriately.
A leaked European Commission document suggests that pollution subsidies to industry under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme will increase to around €150 billion after 2020. The subsidy is under consideration because some industry sectors claim that the EU’s carbon market puts them at a competitive disadvantage, when in fact carbon pricing has been successfully introduced in many other regions as well. The proposal to shield industry from Europe’s main climate instrument sends the wrong signal ahead of the climate summit in Paris in December where countries are expected to sign a global climate agreement applying to all sectors and regions.
Dear Mr Schneider and Mr Buendia,
As a Member of the European Parliament committed to the respect of Human Rights, we are writing to you to express our serious concern about the Santa Rita Hydroelectric Plant in the Dolores River in Guatemala, which was registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in June 2014 (project number 9713).
In a meeting in March 2015 with a representative of the local indigenous communities we learnt that many of the communities that will be impacted by the project were never consulted in accordance with the CDM local stakeholder consultation requirements. As a result, the project has been, and still is, in the center of a violent conflict between the communities and the power company implementing this project.
This week, European policymakers have provisionally agreed on a fix for the EU’s carbon market that is suffering from an oversupply of pollution permits and yielding record-low prices. While this is a great step forward, a permanent solution to tackle the glut of pollution permits is needed as part of the upcoming legislative proposal to overhaul the EU’s carbon market for the period after 2020.
This week, the European Commission released new data on the number and origin of carbon offsets used in 2014 by companies in the EU’s carbon market. Despite new eligibility criteria to incentivize investments in poor countries, the majority of offsets come from China, Ukraine and Russia. Moreover, lack of transparency gives a carte blanche to companies to choose projects with negative environmental and social impacts. As policies for large scale mitigation investments are currently being designed, these findings can provide valuable lessons.
