Re: HCFCs and Kyoto

[Allison Morrill Chatrchyan]

Radoslav, 
 
Thanks for sharing your first-hand, in-depth insights - I wish I could have 
been at the conference (having been involved in the Montreal Protocol as a UNEP 
staff member in late 1990s).  I think it would be interesting to share your 
insights with a long-time EPA staffer, Steve Anderson, and get his feedback, as 
a participant in US ozone policies since 1980s.  It would be particularly 
interesting to hear his thoughts on whether the HCFC agreement undermines the 
Kyoto process...
 
Allison Chatrchyan


- Original Message 
From: Radoslav Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Global Environmental Education <>
Cc: Samuel Barkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wil Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:34:19 PM
Subject: Re: HCFCs and Kyoto


Dear colleagues,

I just came back from Montreal where they negotiated the new HCFC  
agreement. Heady week! Having witnessed what happened there and how  
exactly it happened, I hope some observations would be useful to you.  
Below is also a commentary I drafted for an Earth Negotiations  
Bulletin analysis. Two key questions: what made the agreement  
possible? What are its implications, including for the climate process?

The negotiations went much faster than most people expected. Everyone  
was taken aback how quickly things were happening. Some delegates did  
not even expect full negotiations on HCFCs (the agenda was heavy with  
other items). All of a sudden, the Chinese (biggest producer) went  
along. The Russians (also opponents) disappeared from the room  
altogether. A key driving force was the linkage with climate that the  
US, EU and others kept stressing. Rumour had it that the US  
delegation had marching orders to get an HCFC agreement before the  
climate meetings this week. Bush has invited key countries to  
Washington this week to discuss climate change. With the new HCFC  
agreement within the ozone process, he is able to say: “Look, we are  
taking serious action on climate OUTSIDE the Kyoto process, and this  
action will achieve far more than all combined efforts under Kyoto.”  
Technically, this is correct. If implemented, the agreement will  
result in up to 25-30 billion tons of CO2 equivalent, that is,  
several times more than under Kyoto (assuming full implementation).

Same for China. One informed insider told me that the Chinese made a  
U-turn after the head of UNEP, Achim Steinar, contacted the Chinese  
at a "high level" and explained to them at length the climate  
benefits of dropping HCFCs. Now the Chinese, too, are in a stronger  
position to oppose binding obligations under Kyoto. Some people I  
talked to in Montreal openly said that the amendment is embarrassing  
for the Kyoto process and undermines it.

Here is a fuller commentary I drafted for the ENB. It includes more  
information about country positions, motivations behind positions,  
and also ecological and political implications of the new agreement.  
If you have more information, questions, comments, would love to hear  
them.

ANALYSIS

The nineteenth meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol opened  
to much fanfare. The meeting marked the twentieth anniversary of the  
Montreal Protocol, a treaty that pundits regard as a spectacular  
success in global environmental politics. In the keynote address,  
former Canadian Prime Minster of Canada Brian Mulroney portrayed the  
Montreal Protocol as “the single most successful international  
agreement to date.” This sentiment appears to be widely in the policy  
world, as various speakers from government delegations, international  
organizations and environmental NGOs showered the process with  
superlatives throughout the six-day meeting in Montreal. Newspapers  
around the world ran articles that lavished the event with attention.

EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS

The ozone process could easily have afforded to lie on its laurels  
and bask in the approbation of the world. Instead, delegates moved  
swiftly to forge out yet another key agreement, on accelerating the  
HCFCs phase-out. Thus, instead of merely receiving the accolades, the  
process produced a new substantive proof that it deserves them well.  
The remainder of this analysis reflects on the dynamics and  
achievements of the meeting, the considerable strengths of the ozone  
process and the challenges that lie ahead.

The celebration provided the context of the meeting and infused it  
with an upbeat and festive atmosphere. The well-organized and  
productive meeting in Montreal demonstrated that the process is a  
smooth and effective mechanism for decisionmaking. Delegates  
maintained a positive and cordial tone during the negotiations,  
displayed a constructive spirit of cooperation, and made mutual  
compromises. None of the tectonic rifts and acrimonious debates that  
characterize some other international policy processes were evident  
here.

ANOTHER NEW HORIZON: HCFCs
Switching gears to move faster on eliminating the

Article on aboriginal ecotourism in Taiwan - politics and environment

[William Hipwell]

 Hi my friends and colleagues:

I hope that you will forgive what might come across as a minor act of
self-promotion, but I thought that this might be of interest to some of
you looking at the intersection between environmental politics,
aboriginality/indigeneity, and ecotourism.  I therefore provide for your
interest a link to this article about an ecotourism site established by
the Tsou aboriginal nation of Taiwan, that I have just published in the
international journal Annals of Tourism Research.  The story of the Tsou
is, I think, an important one, and I hope that I have not done it an
injustice in the telling.


http://www.sciencedirect.com.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_u
di=B6V7Y-4PR42CK-4&_user=1495406&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=4&_fmt=
summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235855%232007%23999659995%236
69306%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5855&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=33&_ac
ct=C53190&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1495406&md5=dff7a45ee4a48
54b0187e96034b876c9
 

or

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.04.002
  

 


Cheers,

Bill

PS: One minor typo.  The Tsou conservation ethic is called "autucu" or
"aututsu", where each u has a horizontal line through it (a unique Tsou
sound).  This special character evaded ATR so it was dropped and the
word was incorrectly rendered "atc".  This in turn escaped my notice!

BH

 



-Original Message-
From: Author Services [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2007 9:51 p.m.
To: William Hipwell
Subject: Article tracking PDF offprint: [ATR_1318]


Article title: TAIWAN ABORIGINAL ECOTOURISM: Tanayiku Natural Ecology
Park
Reference: ATR1318
Journal title: Annals of Tourism Research Corresponding author: Dr.
William T. Hipwell First author: Dr. William T. Hipwell PDF offprint
dispatch: 22-9-2007

We are pleased to inform you that a PDF file of your published article
TAIWAN ABORIGINAL ECOTOURISM: Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park is attached
to this e-mail for you to view and download. Please note that this
article is published, therefore content updates are no longer possible
at this point.

To view and print PDF files you will need Adobe Reader (version 5.0 or
higher). This program is freely available and can be downloaded from
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html.

With a view to copyright stipulations please be advised that:

This article was originally published in a journal published by
Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's
benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for
non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation
use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution's
administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without
limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access,
or posting on open internet sites, personal or institution's website or
repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for
such use through Elsevier's permissions site at
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial.

>>> Helping you get published - http://www.elsevier.com/authors <<<

-

This e-mail has been sent to you from Elsevier B.V., Radarweg 29, 1043
NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. To ensure delivery to your inbox (not
bulk or junk folders), please add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to your
address book or safe senders list.

For all enquiries, problems or suggestions regarding this service,
please contact mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Copyright (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Please read our
privacy policy at http://www.elsevier.com/privacypolicy.

[T-13a-v6.0]

Re: correction

[phaas]

Thanks Rado for sharing this.  What is the coy reference to to "another 
important G8 player"?  In the past ENB has excelled at citing actors by 
names, and not hiding behind UN social conventions.


- Original Message - 
From: "Radoslav Dimitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wil Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Global Environmental 
Education" 

Cc: "Samuel Barkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:54 PM
Subject: correction


Oops, I just realized that the draft commentary I included in my  previous 
message contained one paragraph written by someone else  (another ENB 
writer who was also in Montreal). Below is the  corrected, original 
version of my draft.  I hope this information is  useful.


Cheers,

Rado


The nineteenth meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol opened  to 
much fanfare. The meeting marked the twentieth anniversary of the 
Montreal Protocol, a treaty that pundits regard as a spectacular  success 
in global environmental politics. In the keynote address,  former Canadian 
Prime Minster of Canada Brian Mulroney portrayed the  Montreal Protocol as 
“the single most successful international  agreement to date.” This 
sentiment appears to be widely in the policy  world, as various speakers 
from government delegations, international  organizations and 
environmental NGOs showered the process with  superlatives throughout the 
six-day meeting in Montreal. Newspapers  around the world ran articles 
that lavished the event with attention.


EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS

The ozone process could easily have afforded to lie on its laurels  and 
bask in the approbation of the world. Instead, delegates moved  swiftly to 
forge out yet another key agreement, on accelerating the  HCFCs phase-out. 
Thus, instead of merely receiving the accolades, the  process produced a 
new substantive proof that it deserves them well.  The remainder of this 
analysis reflects on the dynamics and  achievements of the meeting, the 
considerable strengths of the ozone  process and the challenges that lie 
ahead.


The celebration provided the context of the meeting and infused it  with 
an upbeat and festive atmosphere. The well-organized and  productive 
meeting in Montreal demonstrated that the process is a  smooth and 
effective mechanism for decisionmaking. Delegates  maintained a positive 
and cordial tone during the negotiations,  displayed a constructive spirit 
of cooperation, and made mutual  compromises. None of the tectonic rifts 
and acrimonious debates that  characterize some other international policy 
processes were evident  here.


ANOTHER NEW HORIZON: HCFCs
Switching gears to move faster on eliminating these substances has  widely 
been regarded as the next logical step in the evolution of the  Montreal 
Protocol process.
What took everyone by surprise is how quickly events unfolded. Many  said 
that the issue came to the fore very quickly, perhaps too  quickly. Even 
veteran observers of the process said they had not  expected a decision 
before MOP21, and were astonished at the rapid  pace of progress in the 
discussions. When the idea of accelerated  phaseout was first raised six 
years ago, it had met strong opposition  by key players, and until earlier 
this year no one had expected a  decision was possible at this stage. Some 
delegations even admitted  that they were not fully prepared to engage in 
in-depth negotiations  at this meeting, and may have some explaining to do 
back home.


Various conducive factors converged to facilitate rapid progress.  China, 
the biggest country producer of HCFCs and main opponent of  accelerating 
the phase-out showed far more flexibility than anyone  expected. Another 
important player, while not supporting  acceleration, decided not to 
oppose it actively either and discretely  withdrew from the discussion in 
the middle of the week. Rumour had it  that their president’s signature on 
a recent G-8 declaration had tied  the delegation’s hands on the issue.


Among the remaining players, various country interests converged to  work 
favourably in the same direction. Industrialized countries  stressed the 
high global warming potential of HCFCs and the climate  benefits of their 
elimination. Developing countries saw new stronger  commitments as a 
mechanism for increasing financial resources  available through the 
multilateral fund. They insisted on a “total  package” involving 
agreements on HCFCs, increased Fund contributions  and access to 
alternatives. They stuck to their guns on linking these  issues, and 
succeeded in securing a commitment to stable and  sufficient funding. For 
everyone involved, accelerating the phase-out  was also necessary for 
maintaining stable levels of funding in the  multilateral fund. Insiders 
openly discussed the financial reasons to  seek acceleration: with 95 
percent of other ODSs successfully  eliminated, the Fund had been drying 
up, and new policy commitments  were seen as a way to ensure cont

correction

[Radoslav Dimitrov]

Oops, I just realized that the draft commentary I included in my  
previous message contained one paragraph written by someone else  
(another ENB writer who was also in Montreal). Below is the  
corrected, original version of my draft.  I hope this information is  
useful.


Cheers,

Rado


The nineteenth meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol opened  
to much fanfare. The meeting marked the twentieth anniversary of the  
Montreal Protocol, a treaty that pundits regard as a spectacular  
success in global environmental politics. In the keynote address,  
former Canadian Prime Minster of Canada Brian Mulroney portrayed the  
Montreal Protocol as “the single most successful international  
agreement to date.” This sentiment appears to be widely in the policy  
world, as various speakers from government delegations, international  
organizations and environmental NGOs showered the process with  
superlatives throughout the six-day meeting in Montreal. Newspapers  
around the world ran articles that lavished the event with attention.


EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS

The ozone process could easily have afforded to lie on its laurels  
and bask in the approbation of the world. Instead, delegates moved  
swiftly to forge out yet another key agreement, on accelerating the  
HCFCs phase-out. Thus, instead of merely receiving the accolades, the  
process produced a new substantive proof that it deserves them well.  
The remainder of this analysis reflects on the dynamics and  
achievements of the meeting, the considerable strengths of the ozone  
process and the challenges that lie ahead.


The celebration provided the context of the meeting and infused it  
with an upbeat and festive atmosphere. The well-organized and  
productive meeting in Montreal demonstrated that the process is a  
smooth and effective mechanism for decisionmaking. Delegates  
maintained a positive and cordial tone during the negotiations,  
displayed a constructive spirit of cooperation, and made mutual  
compromises. None of the tectonic rifts and acrimonious debates that  
characterize some other international policy processes were evident  
here.


ANOTHER NEW HORIZON: HCFCs
Switching gears to move faster on eliminating these substances has  
widely been regarded as the next logical step in the evolution of the  
Montreal Protocol process.
What took everyone by surprise is how quickly events unfolded. Many  
said that the issue came to the fore very quickly, perhaps too  
quickly. Even veteran observers of the process said they had not  
expected a decision before MOP21, and were astonished at the rapid  
pace of progress in the discussions. When the idea of accelerated  
phaseout was first raised six years ago, it had met strong opposition  
by key players, and until earlier this year no one had expected a  
decision was possible at this stage. Some delegations even admitted  
that they were not fully prepared to engage in in-depth negotiations  
at this meeting, and may have some explaining to do back home.


Various conducive factors converged to facilitate rapid progress.  
China, the biggest country producer of HCFCs and main opponent of  
accelerating the phase-out showed far more flexibility than anyone  
expected. Another important player, while not supporting  
acceleration, decided not to oppose it actively either and discretely  
withdrew from the discussion in the middle of the week. Rumour had it  
that their president’s signature on a recent G-8 declaration had tied  
the delegation’s hands on the issue.


Among the remaining players, various country interests converged to  
work favourably in the same direction. Industrialized countries  
stressed the high global warming potential of HCFCs and the climate  
benefits of their elimination. Developing countries saw new stronger  
commitments as a mechanism for increasing financial resources  
available through the multilateral fund. They insisted on a “total  
package” involving agreements on HCFCs, increased Fund contributions  
and access to alternatives. They stuck to their guns on linking these  
issues, and succeeded in securing a commitment to stable and  
sufficient funding. For everyone involved, accelerating the phase-out  
was also necessary for maintaining stable levels of funding in the  
multilateral fund. Insiders openly discussed the financial reasons to  
seek acceleration: with 95 percent of other ODSs successfully  
eliminated, the Fund had been drying up, and new policy commitments  
were seen as a way to ensure continued funding. More fundamentally,  
the successful implementation of the treaty had created a paradoxical  
problem: with most of the goals achieved, the process faced the  
prospect of having nothing left to do, and in need of a reason to  
live. These diverse factors thrust a powerful tail wind in the sails  
that propelled the negotiations forward.



TILLING NEW FIELDS: CLIMATE CHANGE

One major country displayed particular enthusiasm abou

Re: HCFCs and Kyoto

[Radoslav Dimitrov]

Dear colleagues,

I just came back from Montreal where they negotiated the new HCFC  
agreement. Heady week! Having witnessed what happened there and how  
exactly it happened, I hope some observations would be useful to you.  
Below is also a commentary I drafted for an Earth Negotiations  
Bulletin analysis. Two key questions: what made the agreement  
possible? What are its implications, including for the climate process?


The negotiations went much faster than most people expected. Everyone  
was taken aback how quickly things were happening. Some delegates did  
not even expect full negotiations on HCFCs (the agenda was heavy with  
other items). All of a sudden, the Chinese (biggest producer) went  
along. The Russians (also opponents) disappeared from the room  
altogether. A key driving force was the linkage with climate that the  
US, EU and others kept stressing. Rumour had it that the US  
delegation had marching orders to get an HCFC agreement before the  
climate meetings this week. Bush has invited key countries to  
Washington this week to discuss climate change. With the new HCFC  
agreement within the ozone process, he is able to say: “Look, we are  
taking serious action on climate OUTSIDE the Kyoto process, and this  
action will achieve far more than all combined efforts under Kyoto.”  
Technically, this is correct. If implemented, the agreement will  
result in up to 25-30 billion tons of CO2 equivalent, that is,  
several times more than under Kyoto (assuming full implementation).


Same for China. One informed insider told me that the Chinese made a  
U-turn after the head of UNEP, Achim Steinar, contacted the Chinese  
at a "high level" and explained to them at length the climate  
benefits of dropping HCFCs. Now the Chinese, too, are in a stronger  
position to oppose binding obligations under Kyoto. Some people I  
talked to in Montreal openly said that the amendment is embarrassing  
for the Kyoto process and undermines it.


Here is a fuller commentary I drafted for the ENB. It includes more  
information about country positions, motivations behind positions,  
and also ecological and political implications of the new agreement.  
If you have more information, questions, comments, would love to hear  
them.


ANALYSIS

The nineteenth meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol opened  
to much fanfare. The meeting marked the twentieth anniversary of the  
Montreal Protocol, a treaty that pundits regard as a spectacular  
success in global environmental politics. In the keynote address,  
former Canadian Prime Minster of Canada Brian Mulroney portrayed the  
Montreal Protocol as “the single most successful international  
agreement to date.” This sentiment appears to be widely in the policy  
world, as various speakers from government delegations, international  
organizations and environmental NGOs showered the process with  
superlatives throughout the six-day meeting in Montreal. Newspapers  
around the world ran articles that lavished the event with attention.


EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS

The ozone process could easily have afforded to lie on its laurels  
and bask in the approbation of the world. Instead, delegates moved  
swiftly to forge out yet another key agreement, on accelerating the  
HCFCs phase-out. Thus, instead of merely receiving the accolades, the  
process produced a new substantive proof that it deserves them well.  
The remainder of this analysis reflects on the dynamics and  
achievements of the meeting, the considerable strengths of the ozone  
process and the challenges that lie ahead.


The celebration provided the context of the meeting and infused it  
with an upbeat and festive atmosphere. The well-organized and  
productive meeting in Montreal demonstrated that the process is a  
smooth and effective mechanism for decisionmaking. Delegates  
maintained a positive and cordial tone during the negotiations,  
displayed a constructive spirit of cooperation, and made mutual  
compromises. None of the tectonic rifts and acrimonious debates that  
characterize some other international policy processes were evident  
here.


ANOTHER NEW HORIZON: HCFCs
Switching gears to move faster on eliminating these substances has  
widely been regarded as the next logical step in the evolution of the  
ozone regime.
What took everyone by surprise is how quickly events unfolded. Many  
said that the issue came to the fore very quickly, perhaps too  
quickly. Even veteran observers of the process said they had not  
expected a decision before MOP21, and were astonished at the rapid  
pace of progress in the discussions. When the idea of accelerated  
phaseout was first raised six years ago, it had met strong opposition  
by key players, and until earlier this year no one had expected a  
decision was possible at this stage. Some delegations even admitted  
that they were not fully prepared to engage in in-depth negotiations  
at this meeting, and may have some explaining

Fwd: Ciriacy-Wantrup Post-Doc

[Kate O'Neill]

Listed here is the information for the Ciriacy-Wantrup Fellowship 2008-2009
for you to distribute to your colleagues.  Deadline is December 10, 2007.

The University of California, Berkeley invites applications for the
2008-2009 S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellowships in Natural
Resource Economics and Political Economy.

The S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellowships in Natural Resource
Economics and Political Economy will be awarded for the 2008-2009 academic
year to support advanced research at the University of California, Berkeley.

For the purposes of this fellowship, natural resources are defined broadly
to include environmental resources. The fellowship encourages, but is not
limited to, policy-oriented research. Applications are open to scholars
from any social science discipline, and related professional fields such
as law and planning, who will make significant contributions to research
on natural resource economics broadly defined.  Preference will be given
to proposals whose orientation is broadly institutional and/or historical,
and which are conceptually and theoretically innovative. Proposals with a
primarily statistical or econometric purpose are not eligible for
consideration.

For more information, please visit:

http://research.chance.berkeley.edu/ciriacy/


Jackie Jones
Administrative Analyst
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
University of California, Berkeley
119 California Hall, #1500
510/643-1795
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fwd: CIFOR jobs in forests, climate, etc.

[Joseph Domask]

FYI,

jd

-- Forwarded message --
From: Hasibuan, Rita   (CIFOR) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sep 24, 2007 11:11 PM
Subject: A Rare Exception
To: "POLEX (LISTSERV)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 POLEX: CIFOR's Forest Policy Expert Listserver
Fast and effective policy alerts
  --



A Rare Exception



Only rarely do we take advantage of POLEX to do anything other than alert
readers to interesting new research findings.  This is one of those
exceptions.  We need your help in identifying the best candidates worldwide
to fill several key positions at CIFOR:



·   *Director of Financial Services and Administration*. The
Director will serve as the Chief Financial Officer, oversee the finance and
administrative teams, and contribute to Center-level initiatives emerging
from CIFOR's new strategy.



·   *Director of Forests and Governance Programme *. The Director
will lead research on how society can make more informed and democratic
decisions that support sustainable forests and livelihoods. The
multidisciplinary programme currently includes research on collaborative
forest management, decentralization, finance, and law enforcement.  The
programme will also contribute to Center-level initiatives emerging from
CIFOR's new strategy, including the CIFOR Climate Change and Forests
Initiative.



·   *Senior Scientists – Climate Change* (three positions, one for
each research programme: Forests and Governance, Forests and Livelihoods,
and Environmental Services and Sustainable Use of Forests). The Scientists
will contribute to CIFOR's Climate Change and Forests Initiative.



·   *Senior Scientist – Forests and Livelihoods*. The Scientist will
contribute to research on one or more of the topics covered in the
programme:  livelihood outcomes of forest conservation and management;
forests and human well-being; forests and health; forest industry and local
livelihoods; deforestation and local livelihoods.



All of these positions will be based at CIFOR's headquarters in Bogor,
Indonesia.  Successful candidates will contribute to exciting new
initiatives currently under development as part of CIFOR's new strategy.  We
are looking for individuals who share our passion for enhancing the role of
forests in human well-being and environmental conservation, and our
commitment to professionalism, innovation, impact, and collaboration.  We
value diversity, and are especially interested in candidates from developing
countries and women.



For further details on the positions and instructions regarding how to
apply, and to learn more about CIFOR, please visit our website at
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org .


 --

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) established the
(CIFOR-POLEX) electronic listserver in July 1997 as a free information
service to the global forest community. Previous CIFOR POLEX messages can be
found at the CIFOR website http://www.cifor.cgiar.org

If you would like to receive CIFOR-POLEX in English, Spanish, French, Bahasa
Indonesia, or Nihon-go (Japanese), send a message to Ketty Kustiyawati at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If you would like to terminate your subscription to the CIFOR-POLEX mailing
list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the message:
UNSUBSCRIBE POLEX or contact Ketty Kustiyawati at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

* *