Ken spoke at an event hosted by Global Witness called "REDD Monitoring for Effective Implementation," which occurred on December 10th, 2009 during the COP 15 conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. The event focused on the importance of strong governance institutions and civil society for making any REDD program a success. REDD—which stands for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degredation—is a program by which forest acreage is monetized and incentives are created to prevent its destruction.

Ken was joined on this panel by speakers from the World Bank and the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, and his presentation stressed the foundational role of compliance and enforcement in the rule of law, good governance and sustainable development.

REDD Monitoring for Effective Implementation (2nd Article) [Earth Negotiations Bulletin]

Ken is attending COP 15 in Copenhagen. He will file occasional posts from the conference.

Late on Tuesday night, a draft text began circling through the Copenhagen meetings. This "Danish text" is purportedly the basis of the negotiations of a politically binding "Copenhagen Agreement." While this document would replace any sort of legally binding international treaty, its circulation does not necessarily preclude the creation of a legally binding text. It does certainly, however, look like things are headed toward a political agreement with cross-references to a number of decisions on specific issues to be taken here.

Of course, we have to recognize that it is early in the process, and there does appear to be significant pushback from developing countries on the political agreement concept since the document's release less than 2 hours ago, but it certainly is getting significant attention and could form the basis for the Conference's output.

Read the text of the document here.

After international negotiators met in Barcelona at the beginning of November, predictions on the likely outcomes—or lack thereof—from December’s Copenhagen conference have popped up everywhere. In the immediate aftermath of the Barcelona meetings, the consensus amongst those in the United States and the West more broadly was that Copenhagen was headed for failure—at least insomuch as a legally binding treaty like the Kyoto Protocol is off the table.

Since then, the situation has only become more muddled. Evidence abounds for those looking either to take a more optimistic view of the upcoming meeting, or those looking to bolster the more pessimistic outlook.  In recent days, the optimists may be gaining more evidence. President Obama’s recent trip to China birthed several positive announcements with regard to the two country’s climate action, including from a joint statement released at the end of these bilateral meetings which noted that

The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change.  The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

In the past few days, both countries have backed up that statement, by announcing that they will come to Copenhagen with hard commitments to emissions reductions; the U.S. “in the range of 17%” while Chinese have pledged to reduce the carbon intensity of their economy by 40-45%. Just pledging commitments of any kind is a significant step for Copenhagen; it was disputes over commitments like these that derailed the Barcelona talks.

The nature of these commitments, however, may give the pessimists some ammunition—President Obama’s commitment is still tied to action in the Congress, where any outcome is far from certain. In any case, a reduction of 17% is much less than many developing countries were calling for, and much less than the IPCC suggested cuts of 25-40% by 2020. For China, some experts have noted that currently enacted policies ought to fully cover China’s commitment, meaning that the Chinese have essentially pledged themselves to “business as usual” emissions.