...just catching up, folks. Another installment coming soon.
Meetings / Seminars
- 5/14-16 – CCAR’s 6th Annual Meeting – all you could ever want to know about CCAR. Summaries and presentations here
---CCAR explains Climate Action Reserve. Screenshots and step-by-step how-to incl in ppt
---Nice ppt from PG&E about utility users’ vol C offset program (“by 12/2009, PG&E will contract for at least 1.5 million tons”). This is the program that had a recent RFP out (7/2) for CCAR-standard projects.
- 6/9-6/10 - 12th Global Katoomba Meeting – 6/9 and 6/10 summaries below
- 6/11-6/12 - Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake Bay – day summaries below
- 6/2008, Brazil - 12th Internat Congress on Env Law of IUCN – focused on trends in imple of PES in Americas (best practices, legal/instit frameworks). Contact: Rodrigo Martinez usdecons9(“at”)oas.org (Organiz of Amer States’ Dept of Sust Dev).
Projects
- Market-based CIG Grants (Ches Bay grants, national grants)
---Ches Nutrient Neutral Fund (Ches Bay Foundation)
---the Bay Bank (Pinchot Institute)
---Gopher Tortoise Habitat Credit Bank in GA and AL (Amer Forest Foundation)
---Mkt-based rangeland restor & crit w’life hab in Sagebrush (Sagebrush Foundation et al)
---PES in FL ranchlands, from pilot to program operation (WWF)
---C Credit mkt infra (Couer d’Alene Tribe)
---Mkt-based incen to reduce sedi from ag lands, etc. (Kansas St U)
---Develop/use a modified NTT tool for WQT (Tarleton St U, MD)
---Mkt infra for WQT/etc in Upper Miss (Minnesota River Basin, Joint Powers Board)
---Facilitating NIFP to C offset mkts (George McKinley)
- WQT Funding – EPA’s Targeted Watershed Grants app is due (w/ state governor approval) by Sept. 9. RFP is here
- Corp Sustain – World Bus Council on Sust Dev’s class of 2008 Future Leaders Team are focusing on ecosystem services & how bus depend on; how to ID opp’s and miti risks; to use WRI’s Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) methodology. Contact: Katherine Madden, WBCSD madden("at")wbcsd.org
News
- C and Institutions – May 2008 USDA Forest Service memo guides FS leaders re: reforestation/C projects. Says FS is not currently involved in any selling/trading of C offsets (C *credit* projects – distinction here is using for CCX or future regulations). FS only has 3 current C *offset* projects with National Forest Foundation, consider these as demo projects for using forest mngt in a CC miti strategy (new projects can only be approved on case-by-case basis). FS can partner with folks who advertise *general* C claims or benefits from donations for reforestation but these can’t be advertised like “offset your GHG” or ”go C neutral”.
- C – PG&E offsets Dem party nat convention w/offsets from Garcia River Forest (CF project)
- All things C - Ecosystem V-Carbon News (6/11)
---Lieberman-Warner cap & trade bill didn’t get enough votes
---1st project registered/verified under CA Forest Protocols, Pacific Forest Trust’s Van Eck forest in Humboldt Co. CA, offering VERs
---2 CA bills proposed to regulate OTC C
- CC – USDA Forest Service factsheet “Climate Change and Water: Perspectives from the Forest Service”
- Instit – Doug Lashley (CEO Greenvest) op-ed: support > efficient multi-cred mkt in Ches Bay
- Env Mkts –DoD-contracted(?) 2007 doc by Idaho Nat’l Lab – says DoD will likely be largest buyer/seller of wq credits; screenshots of hypothetical multi-cred mkt
- Env Mkt info – new blog related to env markets by EcoAsset Markets
- Tools – a little 411 on the company APX: did CCAR’s “web-based platform and account management tool for the registration, serialization, tracking, and retirement of GHG offsets for the Climate Action Reserve”. Did work in renew NRG mkts, Gold Standard VER registry. Based in Santa Clara, CA with brand-new office in DC (to get cozy with CC legislation). 2 key leaders from Marsh, Inc. (global risk mngt & insur). Goldman Sachs is a minority equity investor.
- Certif – SFI has web-based survey to collect/compile suggestions/rationale for changes to SFI standard
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Summary of 2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake Bay, June 11-12
Update (7/23): Environmental Marketplace posted presentations from this meeting here.
2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake: How to Design and Implement Market Mechanisms to Improve Water Quality Throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(courtesy of Al Todd, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry)
Building from the market-oriented thremes from the public Katoomba sessions in DC, the goal of this meeting was to catalyze new thinking around a suite of market-based tools that could build additional funding streams to achieve and maintain pollution reduction goals across the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Meeting Objectives:
1. To learn about and discuss lessons learned from both compliant and voluntary market approached to environmental quality;
2. To discuss obstacles and opportunities for applying these approaches to a robust voluntary market for water quality in the Bay watershed;
3. To draft a plan of action and next steps for implementing select market-based tools, including a Chesapeake Clean Water Fund to address water quality in the Bay watershed. The Fund will leverage private dollars to invest in high-impact projects, those in areas that have the highest pollution loads throughout the watershed.
Day One: Overview and Stage Setting
Michael Jenkins, Forest Trends gave the welcome and set the context for the Discussions.
William C. Baker, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Gave a state of water quality in the Bay. A brief and fast reality check on the history of WQ improvement efforts including dollars invested, legal authority and the need for better coordination and integration of existing regulatory mechanisms, political will, the need for a coordinated communication/outreach strategy across the Bay watershed, WQ standards and the need for new and sustainable funding sources and the role of private investment. Why market-based approaches in the Bay and why now? Said we know what to do but need the funding to do it.
Ricardo Bayon, EKO Asset Management Partners . gave an overview of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Markets and Market-like Instruments: Utilizing the market to affect positive outcomes. Defining and categorizing market-based activities in a water context and the components that make them work (supply and demand).
Dan Nees, World Resources Institute provided a sobering look at the State of Water-Quality Cap & Trade Programs in the Bay Watershed, WRI has completed a summary of Trading Programs highlighting the activities in the Bay region (MD, VA, PA). Dan is currently pessimistic that the demand drivers (regulatory) are not in place to drive the market. The 2010 TMDL may advance this. Key issue: How to mainstream the value and cost associated with establishing market mechanisms such as a voluntary water market in the Bay? How to link market-based approaches to existing regulatory programs?
Panel Discussion : Market Architecture and Design
Standards, certification, registries, exchanges, aggregators: Components of environmental/water markets in the Chesapeake Bay.
• Wetlands Banking Model, Steve Morgan, Wildlands, Inc.
• Credit Aggregators- Peter Hughes, Red Barn Trading
• Insurance Mechanisms, George Kelly-EBX
• The Green Exchange, Evolution Markets (to be confirmed)
• How Federal, State and Local Government can facilitate the design and implementation of these market components, Mindy Selman, WRI
Panel Discussion Building a Market for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed -- Generating Private Investment: New Ideas for Using Market-based Approaches to Improve Water Quality.
• Chesapeake Clean Water Fund (Ricardo Bayon)
• Supplier Certification Program (Tom Simpson)
• Eco Branding – the case of Organic Milk (Suzy Friedman)
• The Bay Bank initiative (Eric Sprague)
• Credit Insurance Programs (George Kelly)
This Panel set the stage for the second day’s discussions.
Day Two: Moving Forward in the Bay
Focus for Day 2 was on developing a road map and building consensus on specific pilots for the Bay. Focusing on the 5 initiatives outlined on the previous day, groups were to acknowledge how they would contribute to improved water quality in the Bay watershed and how they could relate to one another.
Small Group Activity: Participants were broken up into small groups for this task. Each was assigned one of the 5 initiatives and asked to discuss it and then propose a conceptual business plan for a functioning market-based scheme focused on improving water quality across the Bay. Each group should prepare a detailed 5 minute sales pitch, as if pitching the idea to venture capital (VC) investors. Each group selected a spokesperson to make the pitch to the entire group in the afternoon.
Menu of Initiatives:
The Chesapeake Clean Water Fund; Market-driven Supplier Certification Program; The Bay Bank Initiative; Credit Insurance Programs; Eco Branding
Small Group Report Out and Large Group Discussion of Proposals (Group presentation: 5 minutes followed by 10 questions/answers) An interesting aspect of this exercise was that the membership of the breakout groups was purposely designed such that none of the proponents or partners in a specific initiative were in that Breakout Group. All the groups had to go on was the presentation from Day 1 and a conceptual project brief.
Key outcomes:
1) Eco branding: A good concept but quite time and $ intensive to launch and maintain. Examples were provided that would work for eco-friendly lawn care and milk production.
2) Supplier Certification Program: This is a project that has been funded and will be progressing and deals with food supply chain certification of water quality practices. Has potential to reduce nutrient use and change behavior of ag producers through demand from processors and food producers. Agreements in place to begin with several major local food producers. Will proceed on a separate track.
3) Chesapeake Clean Water Fund: Seen as a good idea to catalyze a voluntary nutrient investment fund. Credits would be established and through increased credit valuation, funds could be reinvested in restoration projects and N reduction BMPs. Would focus on the demand side of the market and work to get several major corporate contributions (with a target of $5 million in 2 years) as seed for fund. Would eventually be able to sell high quality certified nutrient credits.
4) The Bay Bank: Seen as a great counterpoint to the Fund discussed above because it would focus primarily on the supply side of the market, educating landowners and facilitating their access to multiple markets including the “Fund”.
5) Credit Insurance: Seen as a valuable addition to both the bay bank and the Clean Water Fund. Several people in the meeting volunteered to work on this concept including reps from both the Bay bank and the Fund. It would serve as a bridging function to help reduce risk for other aggregators. WRI will take the lead.
Conclusion
Forest Trends will continue to track activities in the Bay Watershed on its web site and through the creation of an online Water Market Forum. Reps from the Bay Bank and the Clean Water Fund will convene to ensure that there is a high level of integration as these two go forward. These latter four projects are seen as the nucleus of a Chesapeake Bay water quality markets work plan.
2008 Private Katoomba Meeting on the Chesapeake: How to Design and Implement Market Mechanisms to Improve Water Quality Throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
(courtesy of Al Todd, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry)
Building from the market-oriented thremes from the public Katoomba sessions in DC, the goal of this meeting was to catalyze new thinking around a suite of market-based tools that could build additional funding streams to achieve and maintain pollution reduction goals across the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Meeting Objectives:
1. To learn about and discuss lessons learned from both compliant and voluntary market approached to environmental quality;
2. To discuss obstacles and opportunities for applying these approaches to a robust voluntary market for water quality in the Bay watershed;
3. To draft a plan of action and next steps for implementing select market-based tools, including a Chesapeake Clean Water Fund to address water quality in the Bay watershed. The Fund will leverage private dollars to invest in high-impact projects, those in areas that have the highest pollution loads throughout the watershed.
Day One: Overview and Stage Setting
Michael Jenkins, Forest Trends gave the welcome and set the context for the Discussions.
William C. Baker, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Gave a state of water quality in the Bay. A brief and fast reality check on the history of WQ improvement efforts including dollars invested, legal authority and the need for better coordination and integration of existing regulatory mechanisms, political will, the need for a coordinated communication/outreach strategy across the Bay watershed, WQ standards and the need for new and sustainable funding sources and the role of private investment. Why market-based approaches in the Bay and why now? Said we know what to do but need the funding to do it.
Ricardo Bayon, EKO Asset Management Partners . gave an overview of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Markets and Market-like Instruments: Utilizing the market to affect positive outcomes. Defining and categorizing market-based activities in a water context and the components that make them work (supply and demand).
Dan Nees, World Resources Institute provided a sobering look at the State of Water-Quality Cap & Trade Programs in the Bay Watershed, WRI has completed a summary of Trading Programs highlighting the activities in the Bay region (MD, VA, PA). Dan is currently pessimistic that the demand drivers (regulatory) are not in place to drive the market. The 2010 TMDL may advance this. Key issue: How to mainstream the value and cost associated with establishing market mechanisms such as a voluntary water market in the Bay? How to link market-based approaches to existing regulatory programs?
Panel Discussion : Market Architecture and Design
Standards, certification, registries, exchanges, aggregators: Components of environmental/water markets in the Chesapeake Bay.
• Wetlands Banking Model, Steve Morgan, Wildlands, Inc.
• Credit Aggregators- Peter Hughes, Red Barn Trading
• Insurance Mechanisms, George Kelly-EBX
• The Green Exchange, Evolution Markets (to be confirmed)
• How Federal, State and Local Government can facilitate the design and implementation of these market components, Mindy Selman, WRI
Panel Discussion Building a Market for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed -- Generating Private Investment: New Ideas for Using Market-based Approaches to Improve Water Quality.
• Chesapeake Clean Water Fund (Ricardo Bayon)
• Supplier Certification Program (Tom Simpson)
• Eco Branding – the case of Organic Milk (Suzy Friedman)
• The Bay Bank initiative (Eric Sprague)
• Credit Insurance Programs (George Kelly)
This Panel set the stage for the second day’s discussions.
Day Two: Moving Forward in the Bay
Focus for Day 2 was on developing a road map and building consensus on specific pilots for the Bay. Focusing on the 5 initiatives outlined on the previous day, groups were to acknowledge how they would contribute to improved water quality in the Bay watershed and how they could relate to one another.
Small Group Activity: Participants were broken up into small groups for this task. Each was assigned one of the 5 initiatives and asked to discuss it and then propose a conceptual business plan for a functioning market-based scheme focused on improving water quality across the Bay. Each group should prepare a detailed 5 minute sales pitch, as if pitching the idea to venture capital (VC) investors. Each group selected a spokesperson to make the pitch to the entire group in the afternoon.
Menu of Initiatives:
The Chesapeake Clean Water Fund; Market-driven Supplier Certification Program; The Bay Bank Initiative; Credit Insurance Programs; Eco Branding
Small Group Report Out and Large Group Discussion of Proposals (Group presentation: 5 minutes followed by 10 questions/answers) An interesting aspect of this exercise was that the membership of the breakout groups was purposely designed such that none of the proponents or partners in a specific initiative were in that Breakout Group. All the groups had to go on was the presentation from Day 1 and a conceptual project brief.
Key outcomes:
1) Eco branding: A good concept but quite time and $ intensive to launch and maintain. Examples were provided that would work for eco-friendly lawn care and milk production.
2) Supplier Certification Program: This is a project that has been funded and will be progressing and deals with food supply chain certification of water quality practices. Has potential to reduce nutrient use and change behavior of ag producers through demand from processors and food producers. Agreements in place to begin with several major local food producers. Will proceed on a separate track.
3) Chesapeake Clean Water Fund: Seen as a good idea to catalyze a voluntary nutrient investment fund. Credits would be established and through increased credit valuation, funds could be reinvested in restoration projects and N reduction BMPs. Would focus on the demand side of the market and work to get several major corporate contributions (with a target of $5 million in 2 years) as seed for fund. Would eventually be able to sell high quality certified nutrient credits.
4) The Bay Bank: Seen as a great counterpoint to the Fund discussed above because it would focus primarily on the supply side of the market, educating landowners and facilitating their access to multiple markets including the “Fund”.
5) Credit Insurance: Seen as a valuable addition to both the bay bank and the Clean Water Fund. Several people in the meeting volunteered to work on this concept including reps from both the Bay bank and the Fund. It would serve as a bridging function to help reduce risk for other aggregators. WRI will take the lead.
Conclusion
Forest Trends will continue to track activities in the Bay Watershed on its web site and through the creation of an online Water Market Forum. Reps from the Bay Bank and the Clean Water Fund will convene to ensure that there is a high level of integration as these two go forward. These latter four projects are seen as the nucleus of a Chesapeake Bay water quality markets work plan.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
environmental markets is back...
...after a 3-week hiatus in Panama.
Some interesting market-related tidbits from Panama...
Market interest in PES for watershed services is, in part, driven by monetary savings in dredging costs in the Panama Canal. (from Miraflora Locks visitors center displays)
A representative from a Ngobe indigenous nonprofit group expressed interest in PES for REDD from the C market, but wondered how his group could participate in light of communal property rights.
The usual news summary run-down is forthcoming.
Some interesting market-related tidbits from Panama...
Market interest in PES for watershed services is, in part, driven by monetary savings in dredging costs in the Panama Canal. (from Miraflora Locks visitors center displays)
A representative from a Ngobe indigenous nonprofit group expressed interest in PES for REDD from the C market, but wondered how his group could participate in light of communal property rights.
The usual news summary run-down is forthcoming.
Environmental Services Markets Language in Farm Bill 2008
There are other sections of the Farm Bill that relate to environmental markets, but this specific section gives USDA the authority to create standards for environmental service markets.
Link to Public Law version 6124 of the Farm Bill (use CTRL-F to look for "Sec. 2709")
Link to USDA's home page for the 2008 Farm Bill
SEC. 2709. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MARKETS.
Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 is amended
by inserting after section 1244 (16 U.S.C. 3844) the following new
section:
``SEC. 1245. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MARKETS.
``(a) Technical Guidelines Required.--The Secretary shall establish
technical guidelines that outline science-based methods to measure the
environmental services benefits from conservation and land management
activities in order to facilitate the participation of farmers,
ranchers, and forest landowners in emerging environmental services
markets. The Secretary shall give priority to the establishment of
guidelines related to farmer, rancher, and forest landowner
participation in carbon markets.
``(b) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish guidelines
under subsection (a) for use in developing the following:
``(1) A procedure to measure environmental services
benefits.
``(2) A protocol to report environmental services benefits.
``(3) A registry to collect, record and maintain the
benefits measured.
``(c) Verification Requirements.--
``(1) Verification of reports.--The Secretary shall
establish guidelines for a process to verify that a farmer,
rancher, or forest landowner who reports an environmental
services benefit pursuant to the protocol required by paragraph
(2) of subsection (b) for inclusion in the registry required by
paragraph (3) of such subsection has implemented the
conservation or land management activity covered by the report.
``(2) Role of third parties.--In establishing the
verification guidelines required by paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall consider the role of third-parties in
conducting independent verification of benefits produced for
environmental services markets and other functions, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Use of Existing Information.--In carrying out subsection (b),
the Secretary shall build on activities or information in existence on
the date of the enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 regarding environmental services markets.
``(e) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall consult with the following:
``(1) Federal and State government agencies.
``(2) Nongovernmental interests including--
``(A) farm, ranch, and forestry producers;
``(B) financial institutions involved in
environmental services trading;
``(C) institutions of higher education with
relevant expertise or experience;
``(D) nongovernmental organizations with relevant
expertise or experience; and
``(E) private sector representatives with relevant
expertise or experience.
``(3) Other interested persons, as determined by the
Secretary.''.
Link to Public Law version 6124 of the Farm Bill (use CTRL-F to look for "Sec. 2709")
Link to USDA's home page for the 2008 Farm Bill
SEC. 2709. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MARKETS.
Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 is amended
by inserting after section 1244 (16 U.S.C. 3844) the following new
section:
``SEC. 1245. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MARKETS.
``(a) Technical Guidelines Required.--The Secretary shall establish
technical guidelines that outline science-based methods to measure the
environmental services benefits from conservation and land management
activities in order to facilitate the participation of farmers,
ranchers, and forest landowners in emerging environmental services
markets. The Secretary shall give priority to the establishment of
guidelines related to farmer, rancher, and forest landowner
participation in carbon markets.
``(b) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish guidelines
under subsection (a) for use in developing the following:
``(1) A procedure to measure environmental services
benefits.
``(2) A protocol to report environmental services benefits.
``(3) A registry to collect, record and maintain the
benefits measured.
``(c) Verification Requirements.--
``(1) Verification of reports.--The Secretary shall
establish guidelines for a process to verify that a farmer,
rancher, or forest landowner who reports an environmental
services benefit pursuant to the protocol required by paragraph
(2) of subsection (b) for inclusion in the registry required by
paragraph (3) of such subsection has implemented the
conservation or land management activity covered by the report.
``(2) Role of third parties.--In establishing the
verification guidelines required by paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall consider the role of third-parties in
conducting independent verification of benefits produced for
environmental services markets and other functions, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(d) Use of Existing Information.--In carrying out subsection (b),
the Secretary shall build on activities or information in existence on
the date of the enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 regarding environmental services markets.
``(e) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall consult with the following:
``(1) Federal and State government agencies.
``(2) Nongovernmental interests including--
``(A) farm, ranch, and forestry producers;
``(B) financial institutions involved in
environmental services trading;
``(C) institutions of higher education with
relevant expertise or experience;
``(D) nongovernmental organizations with relevant
expertise or experience; and
``(E) private sector representatives with relevant
expertise or experience.
``(3) Other interested persons, as determined by the
Secretary.''.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Daily Summary: 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting, June 10, 2008.
Summaries, comments, and reactions from day 2 of the 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting: Developing an Infrastructure Fund for the Planet. For day 1 summaries, see post below.
Opening Keynote
Governor Blairo Maggi (Governor, Brazilian state of Mato Grosso) – 60%+ of state is preserved, but state still gets criticized for economic activity. Have program to encourage switching cattle production (req lots land) to food production – switch 10% each year. Rural Property Licensing System - interesting eye-in-the-sky online GIS-based monitoring of preservation areas with program that recognizes & checks for land use change yearly and can send automatic fines (…like a red-light ticket system?). Can require mitigation for deforestation from cattle producers. 1st state in Brazil doing this – intend to replicate in other states. Transparency: anyone can use the system. Mentioned tracking env liabilities city by city and finding env compensation using this system.
Future of Carbon Markets Panel
Carter Bales (The Wicks Group, McKinsey & Co) – forecasting a $2-3 bill C compliance mkt (excluding the US).
William Boyd (Covington & Burling LLP) – talking about recently defeated CC/C cap policy. Big issues: jobs (economic dislocation), cost control (big disconnect betw 2 sides of the debate). If can’t get Senate to pass domestic legislation, won’t pass international treaty.
Jack Gibbs (Prince’s Rainforest Project) – C mkt won’t bring a lot of $ to forests… yet. EU is negotiating phase III of trading system – forestry is excluded. Possible that phase III’s permit auction revenue may go to internat forestry activities.
Beatrice Ahimbisibwe (Ugandan farmer) – C mkts are imp to women in dev countries. Her groups’ tree planting project (vol C mkt) brings income stream and other benefits (future harvests seen as pension fund, land has gained value, helps soil erosion on steep slopes, fruit and medicinal bark, etc.). Hope that incr supply of trees will reduce illegal logging in nearby protected area.
Charlotte Streck (Climate Focus, World Bank) – EU – not a fan of forestry involvement in C mkts.
Q & A’s
Idea of a climate trust model was discussed – similar model to AK citizens receiving dividends from oil royalties.
Q: Influence of RGGI on national/internat C mkt? A: not sure what leakage might be, but it’s a “courageous and positive experiment”
Q: Imple auction to direct revenues to poor comm?
A: Jobs issue needs to be addressed.
Q: Bundling - when you commoditize one service you run the risk of ignoring other values that an ecosystem offers. How can we scale up to include multiple values?
Biodiversity Markets Breakout Session
Yusuf Ole Petenya Shani (Shompole Community Trust, Kenya) – his community (Masai) decided to set aside part of their land as preserve, charge visitors an entry fee, and started a high-end eco-lodge [comment: I looked at their website – swanky!]. Other lodge experience in Kenya can have “20 minivans around one cheetah”, but the community is able to maintain quality wildlife habitat & experience by limiting # of visitors (& charging more). Philosophy on PES – need to be benefits for the present as well as the future, or project will not take off. Challenges: gov understanding of PES; integrating women into PES projects.
Alvaro Umana (former Minister Nat Resources & Energy, Costa Rica; now IMF) – remarked on previous quote – valuing forests for their C content is like valuing computer chips for their silicon content. 2nd generation model of PES in Costa Rica is coming w/ differential payments for higher biodiversity (also challenging to implement).
Steve Morgan (Wildlands, Inc.) – drivers for their business: Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act. Biggest challenge: limitation of market area (to a watershed, a subpopulation of species, etc.). Their demand driver is growth and encroachment on wetlands/habitat. When regulators’ budgets are stretched thin, plans for restor/mitigation aren’t reviewed quickly.
Sachin Kapila (Shell) – switching perspective towards biodiversity as opportunity. Without clear regulation, cannot analyze opportunity.
Kerry ten Kate (Forest Trends) – explained resource markets as traditional markets (ag, forestry products, etc.) and “funky markets” (bio-prospecting, regulatory and voluntary biodiversity mkts). Total trade in funky markets – $1.5 Bill/yr (mostly in US). Business & Biodiversity Offsets Program - businesses to voluntarily achieve no net loss in biodiv (by avoiding, minimizing, mitigating). Incentive for partic: building trust, getting next license more easily, see regulation coming soon. Looking to future of biodiversity mkts… marry offsets to land use planning (the avoid part of the equation), biodiv mkt dating service to match projects to investors/those who need offsets.
Q & A’s
Q: in dev countries with resource extraction & no/v. little offsets – how get companies to offset? A: one difficulty is how to quantify the offset & locate it – Need Clear Metrics for biodiversity. A#2: “No one will write a check that you don’t have to write”. A#3: need level playing field. A#4: we need to stop this race to the bottom in developing countries.
Q re: how (Masai) community decides to set aside land; are there titles; etc. A: distrust titles (“land grab-iosis”), but community agreed to boundary – if start encroaching, go back to that agreed-upon boundary.
Q: how tease out credits of bundled services? A: we have a diversity of opp of credits to sell.
Carbon Markets Breakout Session
…coming soon.
Water Markets Breakout Session
Bettina von Hagen, VP, Ecotrust: WQT markets are unique bc they exist w/out heavy regulation - local incentives for improving WQ.
Ben Grumbles, Assistant Admin for Water, EPA: "Think globally, drink locally." Greatest concern nutrients and dead zones ($4.2 billion in grants for Miss. River basin - go get 'em!) In case you weren't sure how to describe wetlands, they are "nature's kidneys."
Marta Echavirria, Founder, Ecodecision, Ecuador: "Market" hard to convey in Latin culture but WQ is being funded by user fees, aka. "Watershed Protection User Fees", which has raised over $5mil. Working on bundling project with Forest Trends.
Mark Keiser, Sr. Scientist and Principal, Keiser & Associates: TMDL driver for WQT markets. The Miss. River basin is best chance at developing intersate market; no states in the basin have developed WQT standards. Advocate for simple rules - notes less participation in areas where rules are complex, increases transaction cost. If credit isn't credible, nobody will buy.
Richard Coombe, Regional Chief, NRCS: Catskill Plan worked because small farmers were engaged; small percent of population but own 85% of land. Eco-labeling from Catskills another way to increase profits from improved land practices.
Joe Rozza, Water Risk Mgr, Coca-Cola: "Water neutrality" - return same quantity of water as used in plants. Coca-Cola is looking at WQ in products and watersheds of customers. Interesting note - use 'risk' as means to justify environmental programs to companies, instead of financial incentives.
Will Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation: Advocates regulation and market approaches must come together. "When know what needs to be done, down to the P and N limits of subbasins; we just need the funding to do it."
Q&As:
How do address different methods and interpretations?
Ben: Flexibility with accountability; provide incentives to encourage mkt; need greater
ability to measure non pt. sources; and move states to numeric P and N goals.
There seems to be two subsets/kinds of markets, financial decision (aka. Catskill) and CSR (Coca-Cola) - how do you connect the two?
Marta: No, we need to integrate all players for markets to be successful.
Richard: They will meld together b/c water is so critical.
Hypothetical - Lake Meade is dry - Where do you start?
Ben: By 2011, most west states will experience extreme shortages. Need to advocate now: sustainable ag, Smart growth and efficiency. Wetland mitigation is an important tool.
Building Bridges Session
Public lands might serve as a future insurance mechanism for ecosystem services markets.
Senator John Kerry Keynote
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) – Inconvenient Truth part III: Return of the Politicians. A rousing speech in a room full of nodding heads (as in nodding in agreement).
An Infrastructure Fund for the Planet Panel
Moderator Alvaro Umana former Minister Nat Resources & Energy, Costa Rica; now IMF) – mentioned a new article in Science [?] proposing an atmospheric trust fund from a % of revenues from auctions of permits under a global cap & trade.
Colin le Duc (Generation Investment Management) – investment in forestry attractive (inflation hedge, tax benefits, etc.). Potential in wetland and ecosystem mitigation but has scalability issues. Mapping/monitoring services will be increasing in importance. Biomass conversion also a hot area.
Larry Linden (Linden Trust for Conservation)
…coming soon.
Larry Schweiger (National Wildlife Federation)
…coming soon.
David Brand (New Forests)
…coming soon.
John Mason (Nature Conservation Research Center, Ghana) – there’s a need to communicate with local stakeholders and recognize the unique challenges they face.
Closing Keynote
Steve McCormick (Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, former CEO of TNC) – discussed broad eras of conservation history: preservation/protection/parks, conservation recognizing the landscape (outside park boundaries), conservation in harmony with people. Suggested new trend in conservation sparked by decision on Millenium Ecosystem Services Assessment to consider the dependence of humans on ecosystem services. Now perhaps the era is on conserving nature for services with human well-being in mind. We are at the “frontier of the imagination”.
Closing Remarks
Michael Jenkins (Forest Trends) and Cristian Samper (Smithsonian Institute) – some themes revisited during the conference: monitoring, baselines & data. Take-home: stories about env markets contributing to livelihoods in developing countries should motivate us.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Daily Summary: 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting, June 9, 2008.
Today and tomorrow environmentalmarkets authors will post summaries, comments, and reactions from the 2008 Global Katoomba Meeting: Developing an Infrastructure Fund for the Planet.
Opening Keynote
John Holdren (Woods Hole, Harvard) - Inconvenient Truth part 2: return of the graphs. Climate change science rundown. Choices for dealing with it: mitigation, adaptation, and my favorite... suffering.
Q & A's
Good metaphor for importance of biodiversity: taking out the rivets on a plane b/c it's free to do so and we don't really know how many we need. Metaphor 2: library.
Re: involvement of indigenous communities... some of the key q's addressed in Bali re: REDD were: can you monitor, how do you compensate, and can you engage indigenous population?
Panel on State of Affairs
Ken Newcombe (Goldman Sachs) - insight to the history of the C market. The 1st C market is an ex of a market catalyzed by an institution, and overtaken by private investment within 1 year. Hope that REDD can start in vol mkt while figuring out baselines. Alluded to an emerging mkt for adaptation - encouraging invest in sust landuse practices like soil C and WL conservation. Ecosystem services are at the nexus between the env, social dev, ag & infra.
Katie McGinty (PA Dept of Env Protection) - Millennium Ecosystem Assessm highlighted WQ as most urgent env problem (over CC). Insight into PA WQT. Environmental imperative for the market - alternative is pouring concrete/grey infrastructure solutions and chemical treatment (aka “call the engineers”). Env skepticism of markets - healthy when a check/balance leading to better design of the mkt, not so good when get "death by discounts" – “slice & dice” of pounds of reduction from edge of field-> stream ratio, stream-> mouth of Ches Bay ratio; reserve ratio; etc. Just say no when trading is proposed when it doesn't belong.
Stuart Anstee (Rio Tinto) – Mining companies own a lot of land that they’re not working on – normally see this as a liability. When impacting biodiversity, consider this a business risk/cost. Switch perspective to opp for mitigation of impacts on their land. Create positive env results from restor/rehabilitation & potentially get income stream. Builds trust with regulators.
Odigha Odigha (NGO Coalition for the Environment) – founder of a Nigerian NGO that works at the local level challenged audience to take the discussion about PES to the community level in developing countries – to where income streams for creation of env benefits is important.
Jonathan Lash (WRI) – stressed importance of “rules of the game”. Stressed viewing markets as a means to getting desired environmental outcomes (questioned the crowd [Who’s here to make markets work?] & no hands went up). The mechanism for creating value in ecosystem services is a regulatory framework. Legitimacy, predictability, transparency important in env markets.
Q & A’s
Re: viability of markets for fisheries—yes, where possible to define & limit access & rights to access can be sold. Politically difficult to limit access.
The Coastal Zone Mngt Act needs to be updated, so why not create a regulatory mechanism to limit access & require offset responsibilities.
Re: market barriers for poor/small landowners b/c of “death by standards & consulting costs”—ex given where markets accessible for areas in extreme poverty – buying C credits [voluntary] from women tree-growers in developing countries. Works in vol market, but compliance markets still buying as commodity, so buying for lowest cost. When commoditize C, you exclude other attributes – issue of quantity vs. quality. Landowners need advanced payments to imple projects. Small parcels are a problem.
Closing Key Note
Kathy Sierra (World Bank) – gave an overview of World Bank involvement in C [& other?] env markets. Anyone have points to add re: this presentation?
Closing Dialogue
Michael Jenkins (Forest Trends) & Cristian Samper (Smithsonian Institution) - Scale, scope, and pace of change are important in development of env markets. Pace—institutions do not move quickly, but must learn to be nimble if want to affect the way markets develop. In developing countries, the institutional capacity to use/enforce standards is weak.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
News Summary for 5/17-6/3
Projects
- Nonmarket Valuation – BBC World “Nature Inc.” – “a new series that reveals the true value of nature by putting a price tag on it.” 1st install – bee pollination & CA almond groves June 13th 19:30GMT.
- W Flow – new FS project looks at beavers/fens restor/reintro in Rocky Mtn region to incr w retention capacity as CC adaptation. Contact: Trey Schillie
News
- Farm Bill (USDA website)
---“Passes” (w/snafu) on 5/22 (veto overridden)
---5-yr, $307 bill - $4bill for conservation ($188mill for Ches Bay)
---Lang to help env svcs markets but no funding (“develop uniform standards for quantifying environmental services; establish credit registries; and offer credit audit and certification services”)
---New grants for buying community forests; cost share for emergency for restor; state forest assess & plans; forest “CIG”-type grant program; wood-to-NRG program
---Some, but not much reform of subsidies (see Economist slam)
---Ecosystem Marketplace summary
---Summary of forestry-related items by Northern Forest Alliance Exec Dir George Gay
---Summary of Conservation Title from American Farmland Trust
- All things Mitigation - Ecosystem Marketplace’s Mitigation Mail (5/30)
---FL bill to regulate sea grass loss/damages fine facing veto as last-min amend to allow mitigation banking angers enviros. Crit: miti = net loss
---a NJ conserve trust is putting land up for bid to dev/sell WL miti (but not own the land). Bids start at $15k. Could bring the org $3.8mill.
---TX County has HCP for review that sets up cons miti bank (birds, karst invertebrates) for roads, schools, utilities, pub or priv dev, etc. in Co.
---Charlotte County plans to buy scrub jay (TES) habitat crit: $$, would be preserved by landowner anyway (additionality), pub access concerns
---Another Co gets crit re: additionality of cons miti plan on pub land bought for conservation. Sounds like idea to create bank spurred by dev D/ lack of miti S
---Another gov gets crit re: additionality/net loss – ME DOT + partners planned to restore WL for restoration’s sake, then decided to turn it into a WL miti bank for their uses.
---Miti industry consolidation – Wildlands Inc. buys Acer Environmental (GA/NC)
---Australia’s BioBanking has RFP for landowners to dev/sell biodiv credits, sign biobanking agree
- Cons banking/ Regulatory drivers – US House Nat Res Comm/GAO investigation finds USFWS could have “trumped science with politics” on 8 ESA [de]listing decisions (of ~200 investigated). Looks like FWS jumped the gun in delisting. Pol interference could create unnaturally weak demand-driver for cons banking. House Nat Res Comm site, GAO report (70p), News article summarizing GAO official’s testimony to the House Nat Res Committee
- WQT – Ecosystem Marketplace article on Vol W Mkts reviews basics of D drivers (even if “vol”, gotta have reg driver)/players (regulated PT source, unreg ag sector) in WQT; ag prefers to stay under the radar of regulation/gov (eg – verifiers on farms); WQT price must entice - no D if ag prices high; state policies can work against D (ex – MD “flush tax” paying for PT source poll reduction).
- C – PG&E RFP asks for up to 1mill tons GHG emiss reduction via CA CCAR-verified projects to use customers’ vol offset $s. Deadline 7/2.
- C tax – SF Bay air qual mngt auth 1st in US to charge businesses fees to emit GHG. Will raise $1.1mill from 2500 businesses (ex fees: ~$1/yr for service station -> $50k+/yr for oil refinery). [Q: and do what with it?]
- REDD – New Forests continues S Asia roll (orangutan miti in Malaysia, selling biodiv credits to palm oil manu in Borneo) w/ REDD arrange w/ Indonesia regional gov for up to 1mill hectares forest.
- REDD in the USA – NPR story on N CA forest mngd by Pac For Trust –old trees capture/store > C > quickly than younger trees; variable standards of vol C offsets; CCAR
- Nonmarket valuation –U MD Center for Agroecology study on multi ecosys svcs, incl: maximizing forest mngt for C seq & timber, recre values ($96/day trip, $400/overnight trip), existence value of forests ($200-$375/person/yr). Press release, News story
- Nonmarket val – EU/Germany report: world env damage and species loss from forests costs $2.1-$4.8 trill/yr (NPV). Other world-scale val studies in draft stage: gen biodiv loss, coral reefs, Meditterr coastal WL, env bene of flood/erosion risk mngt, cost of species/hab plans.
- Nonmarket val – Tufts U/NRDC research – cost of not addressing CC (esp from hurri damages, real est loss, incr NRG costs, w costs) in US is $3.8trill/yr by 2100.
- Nonmarket val – CA Forest Assoc’s summer mag is all about link betw forest -> clean water/ consistent flow, W & CC, etc.
- Certif – FSC Fam Forest Cert mtg ID’d ways 2 reduce costs assoc w/ cert, incr landowner bene, impr communic. Mtg report soon.
- Tools – NWI maps now on Google Earth
- Tools – Forestry GIS freeware
-Misc – OSU article on forest mkt drivers - TIMOs and REITs don’t care about maximizing ecosys svcs, sustaining local econ, etc. Land goes to highest val (golf course, timber, whatever). Rise of TIMOs/REITS b/c of tax law (disadvan for timber co’s to own land).
- Nonmarket Valuation – BBC World “Nature Inc.” – “a new series that reveals the true value of nature by putting a price tag on it.” 1st install – bee pollination & CA almond groves June 13th 19:30GMT.
- W Flow – new FS project looks at beavers/fens restor/reintro in Rocky Mtn region to incr w retention capacity as CC adaptation. Contact: Trey Schillie
News
- Farm Bill (USDA website)
---“Passes” (w/snafu) on 5/22 (veto overridden)
---5-yr, $307 bill - $4bill for conservation ($188mill for Ches Bay)
---Lang to help env svcs markets but no funding (“develop uniform standards for quantifying environmental services; establish credit registries; and offer credit audit and certification services”)
---New grants for buying community forests; cost share for emergency for restor; state forest assess & plans; forest “CIG”-type grant program; wood-to-NRG program
---Some, but not much reform of subsidies (see Economist slam)
---Ecosystem Marketplace summary
---Summary of forestry-related items by Northern Forest Alliance Exec Dir George Gay
---Summary of Conservation Title from American Farmland Trust
- All things Mitigation - Ecosystem Marketplace’s Mitigation Mail (5/30)
---FL bill to regulate sea grass loss/damages fine facing veto as last-min amend to allow mitigation banking angers enviros. Crit: miti = net loss
---a NJ conserve trust is putting land up for bid to dev/sell WL miti (but not own the land). Bids start at $15k. Could bring the org $3.8mill.
---TX County has HCP for review that sets up cons miti bank (birds, karst invertebrates) for roads, schools, utilities, pub or priv dev, etc. in Co.
---Charlotte County plans to buy scrub jay (TES) habitat crit: $$, would be preserved by landowner anyway (additionality), pub access concerns
---Another Co gets crit re: additionality of cons miti plan on pub land bought for conservation. Sounds like idea to create bank spurred by dev D/ lack of miti S
---Another gov gets crit re: additionality/net loss – ME DOT + partners planned to restore WL for restoration’s sake, then decided to turn it into a WL miti bank for their uses.
---Miti industry consolidation – Wildlands Inc. buys Acer Environmental (GA/NC)
---Australia’s BioBanking has RFP for landowners to dev/sell biodiv credits, sign biobanking agree
- Cons banking/ Regulatory drivers – US House Nat Res Comm/GAO investigation finds USFWS could have “trumped science with politics” on 8 ESA [de]listing decisions (of ~200 investigated). Looks like FWS jumped the gun in delisting. Pol interference could create unnaturally weak demand-driver for cons banking. House Nat Res Comm site, GAO report (70p), News article summarizing GAO official’s testimony to the House Nat Res Committee
- WQT – Ecosystem Marketplace article on Vol W Mkts reviews basics of D drivers (even if “vol”, gotta have reg driver)/players (regulated PT source, unreg ag sector) in WQT; ag prefers to stay under the radar of regulation/gov (eg – verifiers on farms); WQT price must entice - no D if ag prices high; state policies can work against D (ex – MD “flush tax” paying for PT source poll reduction).
- C – PG&E RFP asks for up to 1mill tons GHG emiss reduction via CA CCAR-verified projects to use customers’ vol offset $s. Deadline 7/2.
- C tax – SF Bay air qual mngt auth 1st in US to charge businesses fees to emit GHG. Will raise $1.1mill from 2500 businesses (ex fees: ~$1/yr for service station -> $50k+/yr for oil refinery). [Q: and do what with it?]
- REDD – New Forests continues S Asia roll (orangutan miti in Malaysia, selling biodiv credits to palm oil manu in Borneo) w/ REDD arrange w/ Indonesia regional gov for up to 1mill hectares forest.
- REDD in the USA – NPR story on N CA forest mngd by Pac For Trust –old trees capture/store > C > quickly than younger trees; variable standards of vol C offsets; CCAR
- Nonmarket valuation –U MD Center for Agroecology study on multi ecosys svcs, incl: maximizing forest mngt for C seq & timber, recre values ($96/day trip, $400/overnight trip), existence value of forests ($200-$375/person/yr). Press release, News story
- Nonmarket val – EU/Germany report: world env damage and species loss from forests costs $2.1-$4.8 trill/yr (NPV). Other world-scale val studies in draft stage: gen biodiv loss, coral reefs, Meditterr coastal WL, env bene of flood/erosion risk mngt, cost of species/hab plans.
- Nonmarket val – Tufts U/NRDC research – cost of not addressing CC (esp from hurri damages, real est loss, incr NRG costs, w costs) in US is $3.8trill/yr by 2100.
- Nonmarket val – CA Forest Assoc’s summer mag is all about link betw forest -> clean water/ consistent flow, W & CC, etc.
- Certif – FSC Fam Forest Cert mtg ID’d ways 2 reduce costs assoc w/ cert, incr landowner bene, impr communic. Mtg report soon.
- Tools – NWI maps now on Google Earth
- Tools – Forestry GIS freeware
-Misc – OSU article on forest mkt drivers - TIMOs and REITs don’t care about maximizing ecosys svcs, sustaining local econ, etc. Land goes to highest val (golf course, timber, whatever). Rise of TIMOs/REITS b/c of tax law (disadvan for timber co’s to own land).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
