On Friday morning, panel chair Ingo Puhl, 500ppm, Germany, presented the speakers on the verification, monitoring and reporting panel. He noted that they would address issues under the EU ETS, and CDM and JI projects.

Richard Gledhill, PricewaterhouseCoopers, introduced the situation of monitoring and verification in the EU ETS, highlighting a shortage of verifiers for the first quarter of 2006 and urging firms to plan ahead and select verifiers soon. He identified common problems such as data inconsistency, errors in calculations and lack of adequate documentation. He expressed concern about the differences in monitoring methodologies and formats for emissions and verification reports within Europe, calling for harmonization of verification, monitoring and reporting requirements, and a European-wide accreditation system for verifier companies.

Jochen Gross, SGS Climate Change Program, reported on monitoring and reporting of GHG within CDM and JI explaining that the guidelines used are those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Good Practice Guidance for National Inventories. He highlighted problems faced, such as changes in the approved baseline and monitoring methodologies, lack of quality assurance and quality control criteria for the calibration and maintenance of instruments, and lack of parameters for estimating emissions when data is missing or corrupted. Finally, he suggested that firms should be proactive in preparing good monitoring reports regardless of approved methodology deficiencies.

Sussane Haefeli-Hestvik, Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Norway, highlighted that four projects are about to finish the CDM validation, procedure which will lead to the issuance of the first CERs. She noted that two projects have delivered fewer emission reductions than predicted in the Project Design Document (PDD), encouraging firms engaging in CDM or JI projects to fully consider the possibility that projects will deliver fewer CERs/ERUs than originally expected. The challenges that verifiers face, she explained, are to ensure consistency of monitoring methodologies, to correct miscalculations and errors in data entry, and to ensure that the management system complies with the monitoring plan.

Michael Rumberg, TÜV SÜD Group, Germany, presented three case studies in India, Czech Republic and Chile on monitoring, reporting and verification in JI and CDM. Problems observed during the initial and first periodic verification of these projects include: changes to the project design; little attention to environmental and social indicators; and failure to document routines and procedures in the management system. For future monitoring, reporting and verification, he underscored the need to consider: whether project implementation will follow original plans; to what extent the project may be changed; and how to deal with the loss of additionality due to project design changes.

Andras Juhasz, Deloitte Ltd., Hungary, explained how companies set up monitoring and verification systems. He said that the carbon dioxide monitoring system should meet EU ETS Decision criteria and be built and operated with the least costs possible. In building the system, the industry sector of the company and the source of carbon dioxide emissions are significant factors to be considered. He concluded by highlighting that firm's adaptation of carbon dioxide emission monitoring systems and election of verifiers should be finalized as soon as possible to provide the basis for any EU ETS trading activity or internal carbon dioxide abatement projects.

Leszek Adamczyk, Atmoterm S.A., Poland, presented a case study on IT-supported instruments for carbon dioxide monitoring and reporting, identifying problems in IT solutions for monitoring, such as: limited number of installations with strict procedures for data management; inefficient organizational set-ups leading to unclear responsibilities and inconsistent data management systems; lack of final regulatory frameworks for internal systems; heavy reliance on national regulation rather than on EU guidelines; and unclear verification rules. In conclusion, he stressed the urgent need to complete the regulatory framework in Poland and the importance of high-quality, independent verification processes.

During the question-and-answer session, one participant explained that only ten verifiers had been selected in Slovakia, and they were individual Slovak citizens. Some participants commented on efforts underway to promote a European-wide recognition of verifiers. Many participants reflected on the "conservative" IPCC approach versus the principle of continual improvement in methodologies from the EU ETS, highlighting that the IPCC approach tends to result in emissions underestimation and less accurate results. They also commented on the causes of underachievement by CDM projects in terms of projected emission reductions saying that in some cases it was due to monitoring equipment problems, and in others it was due to the nature of the project, like landfills, where it is very hard to forecast emissions ex ante.

REGISTRIES AND TRANSACTION LOGS - INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND
REPORTING

Peter Pembleton, UNIDO, chaired the panel and highlighted the importance of information exchange and reporting.
Francois Dauphin, Logica CMG, discussed registry and transaction logs from an IT integrator's perspective. Having identified obstacles in information exchange and reporting for effective reduction of GHG, he said these had significant impacts on the carbon market. In order to overcome these problems and to implement both ETS and the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms, he stressed the importance of: central program management and supervision; communication and facilitation of the schemes, including dissemination of information websites; and infrastructure funding.

Philip Metcalfe, Carbon Registry Services Ltd., UK, presented the details of managing an emission portfolio and transacting across multiple registries. He stressed the need for data management to know actual and forecasted emissions and to help companies develop compliance and trading strategies. He also emphasized the value of interacting with registries to learn how to access the market.

Helen Shore, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, UK, spoke about allowances and units issued by national registries, CDM registry and Annex I Parties, including: EUAs, CERs, ERUs, assigned amount units (AAUs), and removal units (RMUs). She explained that entries in national registries will be sent to international transaction logs (ITL) for transfer.

Wolfgang Aubrunner, Emission Certificate Registry Austria (ECRA), explained the functioning of the Austrian registry system, emphasizing its functionality, user-friendliness, security standards and data-access rights. He also explained how allowances can be transferred to internal or external accounts and offered software solutions and cooperation to establish new registries in other countries.

Participants commented on security measures against hackers, volumes traded and number of accounts operating in different countries, and liability for errors in registered data. Panelists noted that registries should be available around the clock for consultation and encouraged operators to read the terms of service carefully to prevent liability arising out of potential errors in registration.

TRADING INFRASTRUCTURE, MARKET DEPTH, CURRENT PARTICIPANTS, TRENDS AND IMPLICATIONS

Edwin Aalders, International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), chaired the panel.

Louis Redshaw, Barclays Capital, UK, presented on EUA price determinants, which include: marginal cost of carbon dioxide emission reductions; political intervention; weather; liquidity in the market; and supply of CERs, noting that the easiest and largest capability for reduction is in the power sector. He said that CER supply is growing rapidly, leading to a decrease in their price. In conclusion, he stressed the need for companies to understand various factors that are affecting carbon dioxide prices, cautioning on uncertainties in the market and prices and suggesting use of carbon dioxide risk management.

Mark Meyrick, EDF Trading Limited, made a presentation comparing EUA and CER prices. He noted that EUA prices have moved from 6.65 Euro to 29.50 Euro, driven by a variety of factors, including: strong demand from western utilities; fuel prices; and a lack of fundamental knowledge of the market, exhibiting some of the classic symptoms of a new market. On the other hand, he noted that CER prices have firmed slightly this year, from around 4-5 Euro per ton to around 8-12 Euro per ton. However, he said that CER prices are highly project-specific, are not communicated in a transparent manner and have no clear correlation with other factors.

Phil Brown, European Climate Exchange, introduced the Exchange, which is a central marketplace for trading EU allowances. He noted that 90 million tones of carbon dioxide have been traded this year, and the market infrastructure has featured: increasing numbers of market participants; nine brokers with seven completing exchange offerings; price reporters and indices; and 11 national registries currently operational. He said that as the exchange carries on, market risks emerge as a result of the diversity of NAPs and legal jurisdictions, price volatility, and various local liquidity pools. In conclusion, he said that a healthy market requires fair market prices, liquidity, easy access, credit management, and post-trade administration.

John O'Brien, Carbon Capital Markets, UK, talked about impact of ER/ ERU prices on EUA prices. He said that the CDM market can be an important tool for companies in the EU ETS to meet their targets, while the JI market is less developed because it mainly involves government buyers. He also highlighted CDM market risks, including: regulatory, technology, financing, country, ownership, and delivery. In summary, he said that both CDM and JI markets are interesting for ETS companies, while risks and uncertainties make valuating CERs and ERUs difficult.

Harri Laurikka, GreenStream Ltd., explained the work of intermediaries in the market, identifying his company's clients as traders and exchanges (buyers) and industrial and energy companies (sellers). He analyzed the reasons why many companies have not yet entered the market, including that registries are not yet operating in some countries, that some companies do not having a trading strategy and prefer to observe the market evolution, and that some companies do not favor speculation at this point in time.

Toby Campbell-Colquhoun, Shell Trading, UK, explained the trading strategy for his company, which owns refineries, combustion installations and power generators. He reflected that contrary to predictions that carbon dioxide prices would be tied to the marginal abatement costs of emissions reductions, the price is linked to other factors such as the costs of fuel alternatives, such as natural gas. This is due to the fact that the first commitment period is insufficient for putting new abatement technologies in place for most major emitters. In this sense, he emphasized that prompt definition of NAPs for the second ETS commitment period is critical for long term strategic investments in abatement technologies.

Participants then commented on the presentations, highlighting the interrelation between gas, electricity and carbon dioxide prices, with some noting that the origin of price drivers is not yet clear.On problems related to the delivery date and the risk of default by intermediaries, some operators reported their intention to deliver a day earlier to prevent last-minute problems for brokers.

BEYOND 2008: LINKING TO NON-EU SCHEMES AND NEW INSTRUMENTS

Jürgen Salay spoke about linking the EU ETS to other GHG markets. He emphasized that the EU and its member States can all participate in the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms as Parties to the Protocol, at government level or through the private sector, in order to achieve their reduction targets, while companies may use JI and CDM credits for compliance with the EU ETS. He noted two ways of linking of ETS to non-EU GHG markets: firstly with the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms, the EU ETS is already linked to CDM and will be to JI from 2008 (when ERUs start being issued); and secondly with other GHG markets which are being designed and considered by other Kyoto Protocol Parties.

Kuniaki Ito, Japan Bank of International Cooperation, Japan, presented Japan's GHG policies, Japan's ETS and the Bank's engagement in the carbon market. He said that Japan's Kyoto Protocol target achievement plan was recently approved by the cabinet, with new measures being explored, including a GHG reporting system, a voluntary emission trading scheme, and the promotion of Kyoto Protocol mechanisms. On Japan's ETS, he noted that it is government-led, voluntary, experimental, and educational, and currently has 34 participants. He also stressed the need for linking Japan's ETS with other schemes including the EU ETS as well as cooperation with countries such as the US, Australia and other Asian countries.

John Schmidt, State Government of New South Wales, Australia, introduced a state-based emissions trading scheme, pointing out that the Australian federal government has not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol. He noted that the scheme's goals are to: provide a consistent emissions trading framework across Australia; reduce GHG emissions and assist in meeting Australia's Kyoto Protocol target; allow for consistency with international developments; and minimize costs and regulations for participants. Regarding linking this scheme with the EU ETS, he said that if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by Australia, linking could be done through the Kyoto Protocol's emission trading mechanism, and if the Kyoto Protocol is not ratified by Australia, a special linking arrangement with the EU ETS would be required.

V. Gavrilov, Ministry of Economic Development, Russian Federation, introduced his country's approaches to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, noting that while national legislation implementing the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms has not yet been enacted, the country plans to implement JI from the beginning of 2006. In terms of cooperating with the EU ETS, he said that his country expects to maximize attention to the greening of existing projects and to find appropriate solutions for Kyoto risk mitigations.

Olga Gassan-zade, Point Carbon, Ukraine, highlighted the gap in emission reduction credits that some Annex I Parties will face for achieving their Kyoto targets and considered the availability of alternative solutions including the supply of excess AAUs by Ukraine and the Russian Federation. She noted that although some predict a collapse in carbon credit prices as soon as these AAUs enter the market, such a situation is unlikely to occur due to logistical and administrative burdens faced by these two countries, and because they will probably not enter the market and be negotiated directly by governments on a bilateral basis.

Edwin Aalders said linking is always positive for business and industry, providing benefits in cost reduction, flexibility and impact on overall GHG emissions. However, he cautioned on the need to meet certain conditions such as: GHG credits' fungibility; integrity and consistency in the monitoring, verification and registry requirements; and, most importantly, keeping the process simple.

In the discussion, participants agreed that a collapse of GHG credit prices due to excessive AAUs from Eastern European countries is unlikely, with Japan estimating that AAUs will be negotiated within a political setting, and others commenting that negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period will influence decisions by the Russian Federation and Ukraine on marketing AAUs. They also considered the possibilities of linking the EU ETS with voluntary mechanisms in Japan, Australia, Canada and the US, concluding that the Australian system is the most EU-compatible at this point.

CLOSING SESSION

Marina Ploutakhina encouraged panel Chairs to reflect on the meeting's outcomes.

Bill Kyte highlighted that the panel on the status of regulatory implementation had shown the emission trading process to be up and running. He recognized there are still obstacles to overcome, but noted that they will be streamlined and harmonized over time, leading to positive outcomes in GHG emission reduction and sustainable development.

Peter Pembleton said that the panel on registries and transaction logs highlighted the urgency of putting in place and linking registries, noting that in 18 months the international transaction log will have to be implemented, generating a need for additional financial and human resources to adequately operate it.

Edwin Aalders noted that the panel on trading infrastructure indicated that the young carbon market presents both opportunities and risks for companies with its evolution remaining yet to be seen.

Ingo Puhl highlighted that the panel on monitoring, reporting and verification identified various problems, suggesting a "learning by doing" approach. He said the Panel also acknowledged industry's constructive role, calling for further experience- and information-sharing at all levels.

Jürgen Salay highlighted the increasing number of players in the carbon market and expressed satisfaction at the wide range of seminar participants.

József Feiler said that the panel on regulatory issues sent a clear message against member States playing by different rules in the ETS implementation. He noted that a lot of questions exist on JI after 2008 since there is no clear international set-up so far.

Jeff Chapman said that the panel on corporate decision-making and compliance management raised a serious question about industry's competitiveness in relation to ETS, suggesting the importance of continued consideration of this issue to ensure that industry becomes more competitive through ETS implementation.

In her concluding remarks, Marina Ploutakhina said the seminar highlighted the overall complexity and uniqueness of the EU ETS as well as its linking with Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms. She called for continued information-sharing and exchange among countries and reemphasized UNIDO's commitment to facilitating industry's participation.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

24TH SESSION OF THE IPCC AND WGIII MEETING: The meeting will take place from 22-28 September 2005, in Montreal, Canada. The 8th session of IPCC WG III will meet from 22-24 September, and will be followed by the meeting of the 24th Session of the IPCC, which will take place from 26-28 September. For more information, contact: IPCC Secretariat; tel: +41-22-730-8208; fax: +41-22-730-8025; e-mail: IPCC-Sec@...; Internet: http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session24.htm

FIFTH ANNUAL WORKSHOP OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION TRADING:

This workshop, organized by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) will take place from 27-28 September 2005 in Paris, France. It will combine the presentation of papers on recent research with discussion sessions on different subjects related to GHG emission trading. For more information contact: IEA, IETA, EPRI; e-mail: etworkshop@...;
Internet: http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/workshopdetail.asp?WS_ID=213

UNEP FINANCE INITIATIVE GLOBAL ROUNDTABLE:

The 2005 UNEP Finance Initiative Global Roundtable will be held from 25-26 October 2005 in New York, US. It will include a strong focus on the issues of carbon and responsible investment. For more information contact: UNEP FI Roundtable Secretariat; tel: +41-22-917-8178; fax: +41-22-796-9240; e-mail: roundtable@...;Internet: ttp://www.unepfi.org/events/2005/roundtable/index.html

WORKSHOP ON INTERNATIONAL POLICY APPROACHES TO ADDRESS THE CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGE:

Organized by the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Organization (IPIECA) and China's Office of Global Environmental Affairs, this workshop will take place on 25-26 October 2005, in Beijing, China. Participants will consider key elements of climate change risk management and future policy architectures to address climate change. For more
information contact: Tim Stileman; tel: +44-20-7633-2378; fax: +44-20-633-2389;e-mail:tim.stileman@...;Internet: tp://www.ipieca.org/downloads/climate_change/beijing2005/beijing
_email/ccwg_beijing.html

CREATING THE CLIMATE FOR CHANGE - THE SECOND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FINANCE ROUNDTABLE:

This roundtable will take place on 27 October 2005 in New York, US. Participants will explore successful approaches to renewable energy and energy efficiency financing and investment. This event will follow the UNEP Finance Initiative Global Roundtable. For more information contact: Nadim Chaudhry; e-mail: chaudhry@...; Internet:
http://www.greenpowerconferences.com/sefi/index.htm

SECOND TECHNICAL WORKSHOP ON JI/CDM:

 The Austrian Joint Implementation/Clean Development Mechanism Programme is holding its second technical workshop on 27-28 October 2005 in Vienna, Austria. The workshop will focus on project opportunities in various host countries and on how to successfully submit a project to the third tender of the Austrian JI/CDM Programme. For more information contact: Clemens Ploechl, Kommunalkredit Public Consulting GmbH; tel: +43-1-31-6-31244; e-mail: c.ploechl@...; Internet: http://www.ji-cdm-austria.at

BEIJING INTERNATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY CONFERENCE 2005:

Following up on the Renewables 2004 event held in Germany, China is holding this Conference on 7-8 November 2005, in Beijing. For more information contact: Mr. Qin Haiyan; tel: +86-10-64228218; fax: +86-10-64228215; e-mail: birec2005@...; Internet: http://www.birec2005.cn

ENERGY SUMMIT IN AFRICA:

This Summit will he held on 7-9 November 2005 in Dakar, Senegal. The issues to be addressed include energy needs and resources, infrastructure, investment, deregulation, the opening up of markets, and new regulations. For more information contact: Jean-Pierre Favennec; tel: +33-1-4752-7116; e-mail: j-pierre.favennec@...;Internet: http://www.gvep.org/content/calendar/detail/9326

FIRST MEETING OF PARTIES TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND ELEVENTH CONFERENCE OF PARTIES TO THE UNFCCC:

 The first Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP-1) is taking place in conjunction with the eleventh session of the Conference of Parties (COP-11) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from 28 November to 9 December 2005, in Montreal, Canada. For more information contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail: secretariat@...; Internet:
http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_11/items/3394.php

SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL:

 This meeting will be held on 12-16 December 2005, in Dakar, Senegal. For more information contact: Ozone Secretariat; tel: +254-2-62-3850; fax: +254-2-62-3601; e-mail: ozoneinfo@...; Internet: http://www.unep.org/ozone

Dt.3/09/2005                                        NAGPUR (INDIA)

 

 

To,

The Designeted National Authority

C.D.M. INDIA

New Delhi.

 

 

Sub.:- How Certified Tradable Carbon Offsets (CTO’s) generated in our plantations can be sold to international investors ( CER's  &  CDM's) .

 

Sir /Madam ,

 

 

        We are  farmer Family  registered for National Medicinal Plant  Board in Nagpur District  INDIA . We have planted Teak & Subabool  Trees in our 150 Acres  "Nature -Farm", since last 15 yrs.( 1990).

                   

        We would like to know details of  how  Certified Tradable Carbon Offsets (CTO’s) generated from the plantations in INDIA  can be sold to international investors ( CER's  &  CDM's) .

 

Key questions in this regard for carbon offset credits include:-

 1. How to prepare the requisite Project Report ? Since this involve Highly technical & coplicated procedure/calculations.

 2. Are there any Consultants / Agengies / N.G.O.'s to help  in preparing  the PCN (Project concept note) & PDD (Project Design Document)  etc  required as per guidelines of our National C.D.M.Authority .

  3.The approx.economic as well as environmental benefits that will be available to the Agro-Forestry Farmers to support sustainable development objectives.

 An article in T.O.I. Pune edition(Dt.25/07/2005) on this may kindly be seen below.

 I will be highly obliged for your guidance on this issue.

     Thanks .

 

     Yours Truely

      (Arvind Kale)

          Nagpur,M.S.

       rvnd_kale@...

---------------------------------------

 

 

Forget the forests, the future is Carbon Neutral

 

(published on 13-September-2005)

Britain's largest player in the voluntary carbon-offset market, Future Forests, has relaunched this week as The Carbon Neutral Company to reflect its broader offering in the voluntary carbon offset market.

Jonathan Shopley CEO of the company told edie that circumstances had changed considerably since the company began. "Over the last four or five years our offering has evolved quite significantly, as has the market itself."

"When we really got the idea going, about 8 - 10 years ago, climate change wasn't on the agenda as strongly as it is now, the regulated market hadn't begun and the voluntary market was all that there was, with very few incentives to get involved."

"So, our particular proposition - built around the icon of the tree - was very powerful and got things moving."

Since then, however, the voluntary carbon offset market has grown enormously, with several companies such as 500PPM in Germany, BP Global Choice in Australia, and Climate Care in the UK, all offering specialist offset options.

Indeed, the voluntary market has grown to such an extent that Mark Kenber, policy director of The Climate Group - an organisation set up last year (see related story) to encourage business engagement on climate change - has predicted that, if it takes off in the USA, it could become bigger than the clean development mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol.

To fully capitalise on this market growth, Future Forests has developed a portfolio of options for individuals, companies, and even cities, to offset their emissions and become Carbon Neutral.

Last year the city of Newcastle announced a partnership with Carbon Neutral to reduce emissions by 60% through offsetting followed shortly after by Bristol (see related story) and now the company boasts an impressive client list including Honda, Berkeley Homes, Avis car hire, and Radio Taxis.

To reach this level, Shopley said the company soon had to offer far more than simply selling the carbon stored in trees to offset individual CO2 emissions. Instead, it has branched out into a full blown consultancy, able to conduct an audit of carbon emissions that a company or individual may produce, then offer strategic advice to reduce those emissions, and, of course, a range of options to offset whatever emissions will remain.

This range of options extends beyond investing in forests and includes investments in renewable energy schemes and energy efficiency projects.

"At the start of this year, we spoke to a lot of people - NGOs, government, business - about what our role is," Shopley explained. "We soon found that a lot of people were amazed at the extent of the work we were doing. It gave us a clear signal that our name had to change so that people could see beyond the forests aspects."

After this offsetting, Carbon Neutral also offers a communications role, helping to advertise the carbon programme and allow it to differentiate itself in the market.

Shopley felt that the time was right for the relaunch for a number of reasons. "There is a confluence of forces at work in the market place, meaning demand for carbon offset is huge. Last year our turnover was £1.4 million, and we are on course for £2.5 million this year."

One reason for this has been the advent of Kyoto and the regulated market in emissions, giving a terrific boost to the voluntary offset sector as well.

"As soon as the EU emissions trading scheme came into being, business saw a rapidly maturing market for carbon being traded. It created a sense of credibility and sustained interest which wasn't there before, and made a strong statement that this is definitely part of the future," Shopley said.

A sense of credibility is something that Future Forests has, in the past, been accused of lacking. Critics have questioned the scientific basis of using forests as carbon sinks, and claimed that many of the sponsored projects would have happened anyway, regardless of Future Forests involvement.

As part of the rebranding process, Carbon Neutral has sought to counter these criticisms. Partly, this has been addressed through moving investment away simply from forests and into renewable projects, and also through developing the Carbon Neutral Protocol to create a baseline, or standard, by which the offsetting can be judged and open it up to third party scrutiny.

This has been developed in consultation with Mark Kenber, who also wrote the Gold Standard for the CDM, and now sits on the advisory board of Carbon Neutral. The Protocol is also subject to an independent assurance review from KPMG.

In addition, it has sought to place more emphasis on the scientific underpinning of its investments by bringing in John Murliss, previously chief scientific advisor to the Environment Agency. He will be helping to develop policy options and chair the carbon neutral advisory board.

"It means we'll have a brand that consumers and clients can know and understand and we can assuage any concern. We need standards and people need to know what's behind them. The Carbon Neutral Protocol should do that."

The need to develop standards that people can trust, and to prove that voluntary offsets can add value to businesses is crucial if Carbon Neutral is to keep building its customer base. A new survey of FTSE 500 companies shows that, while the majority see tackling carbon emissions and climate change as a greater priority than terrorism or competition from the developing world, a shocking 75% of directors said that business would only take climate change seriously if forced to do so by taxes or regulation.

According to the findings, the management of CO2 emissions rated only just above 'gym membership' in the actions of most directors.

"It's interesting that our survey's findings suggest that while businesses are not doing enough to address climate change, there is a growing recognition that tackling carbon emissions has positive benefits to businesses bottom line and the economy," said Shopley. "We believe there has never been a better time for businesses to act and government to incentivise."

The business case for going carbon neutral is certainly strong, with firms such as Radio Taxis in London claiming to have won contracts worth over £1.2 million as a direct result of this action in the past year.

However, as the results of the survey show, there is still a long way to go in persuading all business of the merits of taking action. It would appear that, in the voluntary offset market, many businesses can't see the wood for the (future) forests.

By David Hopkins.

-----------------------------------------------

 

Outsourcing forests to India ADITI TANDON TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005      PUNE: Farmers in Maharashtra are all set to cash in on opportunities offered by carbon credit trading, a scheme aimed at setting the wheels in motion to reduce green-house gas (GHG) emissions globally, following the signing of the Kyoto Protocol by 141 countries. A Pune-based non-governmental organisation, 'Friends of Carbon' (FoC), has already brought together 5,000 farmers to exploit the option, which permits a developed country to meet part of its targeted emission cuts by funding tree plantations in developing countries like India, for carbon sequestration. According to the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, which came into effect in February 2005, developed nations have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5.2% below their 1990 levels by 2012. Says Shekhar Kadam, who is in charge of the financial and commercial aspects of FoC, "Plantations are one of the best solutions to curbing damage from GHG emission. But the expenditure for that in developed countries is high." So, companies there can fund plantations in countries like India, where the costs are low, and in turn take credit for the carbon absorbed by the trees.   Farmers need a minimum of 50,000 acres to begin trade in carbon credits. "This system will be a bonus for old plantation owners. Along with the standard yield from the trees, they will also be able to now earn through carbon-credit trading. Improvement in quality of soil is an additional benefit," he says.

Ninety per cent of the funds FoC earns will go to its farmers. Five per cent will go to its associates around the country and the remaining 5 per cent will be used to pay the International finance corporation, which will act as a mediator and facilitate interaction with developed countries like Japan and others in Europe. The quantum of funding will be based on the tonnage of carbon absorbed. This is calculated taking into account factors like age and height of trees and canopy cover. Kadam claims that the mango tree is one of the best variety. The current average rate for a tonne of carbon is around $4 (Rs 174). "We have started allotting district-wise franchisees all over Maharashtra. We also have added associates from Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh," Kadam adds.

===+++++++++====

Projects seeking to sell carbon credits racing against deadline