Crossing space, connecting people: the story that comes with a little cook stove

Cross-published on Youth Exchange of Perspectives

When I read through Jared’s updates of his time in China, he reminded me the fundamental cultural exposure and experience that are essential in a cross-cultural encounter. It is an element I sometimes neglect while I am carrying a more important personal “global environmental” agenda with me to Kenya for the second time. Despite being a researcher of environmental issues this time, I find myself still a “CUYCEer (or YEPer now)” even though I am a continent away from both China and the U.S. It is not my intention to devote my first blog on this site to talk about my experience in none of the two countries, but I have to say my life in Kenya and the other life with YEP are so much intertwined on so many aspects. One is feeding the growth of another. It is a continuously and organically evolving curly cue. Therefore I hope the story that comes with my interest in cook stove in Kenya will shed some light on “youth for sustainability” across the border to my fellow YEPers.

To make a lengthy story short, before the UN Climate Change meeting in Cancun, I had been interning at the UN Environmental Program in Nairobi, Kenya for half a year. Having attended the previous climate meeting in Copenhagen and felt at home with the international youth climate movement, I readily become a devotee to the African Youth Initiative on climate change Kenya chapter (AYICC-K) even before I landed Nairobi. Because of my personal interests in cook stoves in less developed countries (another “carry-over” interest from my time with Energy Crossroads Denmark), members of AYICC-K introduced me to a slew of youth-led community-based organizations across Kenya that are engaged with improved cook stove dissemination. One such visit was to the Tembea Youth Center for Sustainable Development, close to the northern shore of Lake Victoria in the western part of Kenya. It was just an overnight visit and once again I am drawn back to the African sun that shines a billion things to life. This time I am back for the summer to both conduct research for my honor thesis and to rekindle the inspirations and enthusiasm that I had from my equally energetic young Kenyan friends.

Then here comes what is “curly cue” about it. Out of last year’s visits and interactions with my fellow AYICCers, together around eight of us started the Rural Energy Enterprises Network, or REEN (just to add more acronyms for your information). Therefore this year’s research trip is also intended to generate knowledge to build the foundation upon which REEN delivers its vision. But it is preciously with CUYCE and YEP since Copenhagen that I come to understand and learn what it takes to plant a seed, nurture and grow it. Yes the equatorial African landscape and soil is a completely different picture from that of China and the U.S., the good ingredients of exchange, partnership and collaboration are more or less the same. The same passion – the belief in bridging individuals and building networks to defend planetary sustainability and the confidence in the young people of the world to deliver grand vision – takes me from China to the U.S., from Copenhagen to Cancun, and onto Kenya.

And we are blessed with possibilities, of which we can make changes. What my young colleagues in Kenya inspire me the most are their creativity and entrepreneurship in tackling climate change, environment and development issues. Tembea, which I base my research on, has recently engaged in a carbon offset project that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the diffusion of energy efficient cook stoves. In many parts of the world, people are still cooking with open fires made of three stones or other types of traditional stoves deemed “grossly inefficient.” The heavy and toxic smoke coming out of these stoves is killing some 1.6 million people worldwide (especially women and children,) annually, not to mention the trees being cut down and other environmental and health issues. At least the WHO says so, and many more (governments and donors alike) who are concerned with energy supply and deforestation in developing countries and their consequence globally.

In a much prolonged two-year long pilot phase, Tembea has constructed over 1600 energy efficient cook stoves in rural households, maintained 50 artisans or technicians (male and female, mostly young people) and facilitated over 130 community saving and loaning groups. The new stoves are also called “rocket stove” for its internal air and fire tunnel, and is about 50% more efficient than the traditional three stone open fire. Tembea, with funding from a carbon project developer based in Europe, subsidizes the stove to only cost households 500 Kenya Shiling (less than 6 dollars). The saving groups function to help members pay for the stove, as well as to support members with financial and other socio-economic needs. Tembea also intends to train these groups to act as empowered grassroots unit to be able to lobby for their own interests in the government system in the near future.

As a carbon-financed project in the premier voluntary carbon market, this stove program is soon to benefit from carbon credits priced around 20 Euros per ton of carbon dioxide saved. One cook stove is estimated to save 1-2 ton a year, and the plan is to install 7, 200 stoves in a 7 year project life cycle. The math is looking good, only if everything goes well with the carbon registration and validation process with Gold Standard. It has a highly complex project set up, involving many stakeholders, monitoring and validation processes. It has been an assiduous journey to fulfill the various requirements demanded by the offset standards.

This is why you often hear high transaction costs associated with small scale carbon project (with many individual components) and a general lack of capacity to implement carbon-financed projects in Africa. Tembea’s collaboration with the European-based carbon developer therefore has a lot to offer in terms of capacity building for the whole continent. On the other hand, I also look into challenges, issues of equity, and even systemic pitfalls a carbon offset project like this faces, hence the effectiveness of it to address climate change and sustainable development. Whatever the term means. Carbon offset has good potential, but that’s the only solution.

Eight hours away from Tembea, in a place near the capital city Nairobi, another youth-led enterprise is doing something similar, but in a very different approach. Several days ago when I went back to Nairobi to renew my American visa, I had the chance to revisit Peter Thuo, the owner of GreenTech Inc. and director of Ruiru Youth Center for Empowerment Program. From the latter to the former, Peter has moved from raising awareness of HIV/AIDS, constructing efficient cook stoves, onto building biogas digestors, greenhouse for vegetables and energy briquette made of waste materials. For Peter, innovating keeps him burning and a social enterprise model is what works the best in his case.

And this is where REEN strives to come in to the exchange of ideas and expertise among these resourceful youth groups and give birth to new enterprises that will thrill in their particular environment. It is a REEN for Kenyans, for Africans and for all who are young, energetic, sympathetic and eager to meet the challenge of our world. It is the same energy that fuels my engagement with CUYCE/ YEP, as well as REEN. At the same time, I see many ways in which lessons can be learned from one enterprise to another, no matter where and who they are. People need to communicate with one another, no matter the region, tribe or color.

By now I could have started writing a book of my time in the middle of nowhere in this Kenya village, just to tell you how different life is here. Where I am with Tembea in one of the poorest regions in Kenya, electricity connection rate is around 2% and I am lucky to have water to shower in bucket. Half of the population in rural area lives under literally “1 dollar a day.” Half of the staff at Tembea has only high school degree and most are below the age of 25. For the past 8 years they have accomplished a list of social and environment projects with an inventory of local and international partners, with very limited resources. For most of them, personal computers and Internet are rare species and the round talks with the UN are still too remote and surreal.

In the past several months, I have been grateful on the receiving end of the hard work YEPers have engaged and delivered. For all of you have enlightened me to take a parallel path on another side of the planet. Everyone is doing fascinating work on your end. I wish to bring your more stories in the following days.

CDM Carbon Sink Tree Plantations: Insights into Sustainability Issues

From Thinktosustain.com http://www.thinktosustain.com/ContentPageViewPoint.aspx?id=%20875) Friday, May 20, 2011

Blessing J. Karumbidza and Wally Menne

In an interview with ThinktoSustain.com, Dr. Blessing J. Karumbidza and Mr. Wally Menne discuss the sustainability and viability issues of CDM tree plantations being used as carbon emission offset projects under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and their impact on local communities and rural economies.

Forests play a crucial role in mitigating global warming. Their inclusion as ‘carbon sinks’ in international frameworks, such as REDD, to reduce emissions, has evoked interest among corporate and governments alike, who look at plantation projects to raise carbon credits to ‘subsidize’ their emissions back at home, in addition to other forest by-products. However, there are many ground-realities largely ignored by project proponents that pose a greater threat to the environment than the envisaged benefits. ThinktoSustain.com interacts with researchers – Dr. Blessing J. Karumbidza andMr. Wally Menne - who recently conducted a study on a tree plantation by a Norwegian company in Tanzania. Tree plantations in South Africa are grown to produce timber and paper products mainly for export, and to generate income that mainly benefits the multinational paper companies that own the plantations and pulp mills. However, they also cause substantial environmental damage, besides affecting local communities and rural economies negatively. To ascertain the impact of such projects, The Timberwatch Coalition conducted a study of a tree plantation carbon sink project at Idete in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. The Norwegian company that owns the project, Green Resources Ltd., aims to register the project under the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) so as to be able to generate carbon credits to sell to the Norwegian government. ThinktoSustain.com: First of all, why do industrial plantations exist in Tanzania? Who (government, multinationals or local people) is interested in such projects and Why? Dr. Blessing Karumbidza & Mr. Wally Menne: Industrial tree plantations have a long history in Tanzania, just as anywhere else in Africa where such plantations exist. We (at Timberwatch) focus specifically on industrial tree plantations for a number of reasons. Firstly, these industrial timber plantations are not forests, yet they are considered so in policy, as if they are real forests. Secondly, they are usually a monoculture tree crop that permanently destroys the bio-diversity of any area where they are planted, and impacts negatively on existing land-usage. Most of the established industrial tree plantations in Tanzania were planted during the second half of the 20th century, when the country was still under colonial rule, to help meet the timber, pulp & paper demands of growing industrial economies. They did support a crude form of economic growth, albeit an unsustainable one, requiring large areas of arable land and consuming more water than could be justified by their end value, whilst providing relatively few job opportunities for mainly temporary unskilled workers. Historically speaking, the legislation intended to regulate and control the timber production sector has been very weak in Africa in general, and this has been the case in Tanzania as well. Even in countries like South Africa, where more comprehensive legislation has been introduced, especially relating to water usage, its full implementation and effective enforcement still leaves a lot to be desired. ThinktoSustain.com: What is the Idete plantation project? When was it started? What were the benefits envisaged at the beginning of this project? Dr. Blessing Karumbidza & Mr. Wally Menne: It appears that the Idete ‘forest’ project was conceived in the late 1990s, though the actual tree planting by Green Resources Ltd. at Idete started around 2005. The project was partially in response to a perceived opportunity to make money from earning plantation carbon credits under the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) of the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted by the UNFCCC in 1997. However, the main motive for the new tree plantations was probably to take advantage of easy access to cheap community-owned agricultural land and grasslands, for timber production, because it is quite clear that the company would have established the tree plantations there regardless of their being eligible for CDM carbon credits or not. ThinktoSustain.com: In your study, you have cited local peoples’ experiences in South Africa and other countries. These experiences have not been good. According to you, why has this been so? Dr. Blessing Karumbidza & Mr. Wally Menne: The timber plantation sector is wasteful in many ways: using large areas of land, consuming much water and impacting negatively on the natural environment. Downstream processing of timber for pulp and paper production consumes and pollutes scarce water resources, and requires substantial amounts of cheap energy from non-renewable sources, mainly coal. In South Africa, this sector also developed in tandem with apartheid, and its story is linked to massive forced removals and displacement of poor black communities. Since 1994, when apartheid policies were officially ended, little has changed and the plantation timber industry is still guilty of exploiting poor communities and harming the environment. ThinktoSustain.com: Your study highlights an important aspect that Industrial tree plantations in Tanzania would have a devastating impact on biodiversity and have negative consequences on the local people. Can you explain why and how this has happened or can happen? Dr. Blessing Karumbidza & Mr. Wally Menne: Whether established on agricultural land or in natural habitat, such as the grassland areas at Idete, monoculture tree plantations wipe out other forms of life including important medicinal and food plants, and the wild animals hunted by the local community for food. The loss of grasslands used for grazing also impacts heavily on livestock-keeping, and usually means that grazing pressure will increase in the remaining grasslands, to the detriment of the ecosystem. The informal local economy is dependent on resources derived from Nature, and supplemented by small-scale agriculture. The destruction of this natural resource base through the establishment of tree plantations causes the local community to become dependent on an externally imposed financial economy, wherein inexperienced rural people with little formal education become the victims of their need to survive from the minimal wages paid for their labour by companies like Green Resources Ltd.

The hype versus the reality of carbon markets

Shefali Sharma 2011-05-11, Issue 529

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/73132

The Africa Carbon Exchange (ACX) was launched in Nairobi on March 24; yet only two days before, Bloomberg headlines announced: ‘Global Carbon Credits Die as Smart Money Backs Indian RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates).’[1]

While the ACX is positioning itself to be the hub of ‘climate change business and sustainable development in the African continent,’ existing and attempted carbon emissions exchanges in Europe and the United States have suffered one blow after another - fraud, carbon credit theft, poor legislative design, even profits for some major polluters - all at the expense of ordinary citizens and the environment.

Moreover, these exchanges have not led to a decrease in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Rather, they threaten to directly increase emissions by diverting capital to the carbon-market casino that could have otherwise gone toward reducing pollution at its source.

The Bloomberg article contends:

‘Today, carbon trading remains a backwater of the global commodities market, and it’s not even included in the benchmark Dow Jones UBS Commodity Index. Without demand from institutional investors spurred by global limits on emissions, the price of carbon has languished compared with the fossil fuels that policy makers are aiming to marginalize.’

There has been a 16 per cent decline in the membership of the Geneva-based International Emissions Trading Associations (IETA) since the climate talks reached deadlock in Copenhagen in 2009 and carbon-trading platforms such as Intercontinental Exchange Inc. folded up when the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) itself collapsed at the end of 2010.

What happened and what lessons can be learned from these debacles?

Carbon ‘offsets’ - the backbone of the Kenyan ACX - are supposed to work like this: a series of projects are implemented to take planet-warming carbon out of the atmosphere, which are then subjected to a complex set of measurement, reporting and verifying (MRV) procedures. These projects would receive ‘carbon credits’ that would be sold to polluters who could neutralise or ‘offset’ their own pollution by buying these credits.

The creation of carbon-offset projects can include a large number of players. The project can be ‘owned’ by an organisation, company or individuals. Local communities will be impacted if the project depends on utilising their time, resources or land. Several other entities will also be involved, such as project design consultants who ensure that the project follows an acceptable MRV methodology, project validators who ensure that the MRV is valid and meets a certain accepted standard, and project verifiers to ensure that the MRV methodology is being followed properly. The project then either receives ‘certified emissions reduction’ credits (CERs) or ‘voluntary emissions reduction’ credits (VERs), depending on whether the project is meant to meet mandatory ‘compliance’ targets of the UN climate treaty or feed into the voluntary carbon market. The cost of setting up such projects can therefore be substantial.

A polluter in an industrialised country can buy these CER credits to offset emissions, and hence continue polluting. In reality, however, these credits can be bought and resold in poorly regulated carbon exchanges as much as a hundred times through complex financial instruments called ‘derivatives’. A buyer without any obligations to reduce emissions can buy these offset credits, package them with credits from other projects and trade them as a carbon emissions derivative for purely speculative purposes. The credits are sold even before there is any proof that such projects have actually resulted in reducing greenhouse gases.

Such trade involves numerous middlemen in the form of traders and various forms of investment firms. Similar derivatives in still-unregulated over-the-counter markets (OTC) led to the infamous Wall Street collapse in 2008 and the ensuing global financial crisis, and regulators still have not developed adequate rules to govern these markets.

EUROPEAN AND US EXPERIENCE WITH CARBON EXCHANGES

In order to put the ‘promise’ of the ACX as an agent for development and environmental good in perspective, let’s examine first the largest climate exchange in the world: The European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The ETS was intended to help Europe meet its binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce GHGs. Launched in 2005, the ETS resulted in increased, rather than decreased, greenhouse gas emissions, while the price of carbon itself crashed to as low as one euro per tonne from a high of about 30 euros. Several complex reasons can be cited for this, but a very simple reason was the over-allocation of pollution permits that were given, at no cost, to major polluters, which were then traded and re-traded in financial markets. In other words, there was no demand for permits from polluters who faced no strict requirement to reduce emissions.

The ETS has shown through its six-year history how susceptible it is to fraud, malpractice and Internet hacking. Just this February, the ETS had to shut down its trading because cyber criminals had hacked into the system, stealing 40 million USD worth of pollution permits and reselling them. The European Law Enforcement Agency (Europol) estimates that up to five billion euros of European tax revenue (approximately 7.1 billion USD) has been lost due to fraud in value-added tax evasion through carbon trading.[2]

The two major ventures related to carbon exchanges in the United States have also suffered major blows. Just the week before the ACX was launched, the San Francisco Superior Court ordered the state of California to suspend its proposed cap-and-trade system, which includes offsets, because it was in violation of environmental laws in California. The judge ruled that the California Air Resource Board had not sufficiently considered alternatives to the cap-and-trade system and needed to do so.

Just months prior, the United States’ only national climate exchange - the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) - shut down its operations at great cost to farmers who invested in it in anticipation of offset credits. The Chicago Climate Exchange shut down because large investors were not interested in a voluntary market and had counted on US legislation to enact a mandatory market. When the climate bill in the US Congress failed, there was little incentive for companies to continue to buy and sell credits in the market.

Emerging controversies in Australia are also relevant for the ACX. The Australian ‘Carbon Farming Initiative’ is being proposed as a major offset scheme for Australian polluters and those abroad to meet Kyoto targets. Market analysts doubt whether there would be an adequate supply of credits for sufficient trading in the initial years.

Concerns are also being raised regarding the environmental integrity of such an offset scheme that could lead to pressure on water and land, given that the CFI is supposed to derive reduction in GHGs through activities such as fertiliser management, reduced livestock emissions, soil carbon and reforestation.[3]

LESSONS FOR THE ASX: WITHER DEVELOPMENT AND REDUCED RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

The ACX would sell pollution ‘credits’ generated on African soil through individual projects, thereby enabling companies in the industrialised world to continue polluting and yet comply with their governments’ commitments to meet international and national targets for emissions reductions. ACX registered projects would also aim to generate a sufficient supply of projects to be made available for carbon trading on voluntary markets.

It is now common knowledge that the Cancún climate pledges could lead to the warming of the planet by four degrees Celsius or more. The latest science shows that even a global average warming of two degrees will be devastating for life on Earth. For much of sub-Saharan Africa, a two-degree global average temperature rise would mean even higher temperatures on the ground.

This spells disaster for food security in Africa - with devastated cropping cycles, water scarcity and widespread famine. Carbon offsets are a major exit strategy for polluters to continue polluting while shifting the burden of GHG reductions to African nations that have the lowest carbon footprint on the planet. In the end, the impacts of the failure of this UNFCCC approved ‘market mechanism’ will be acutely felt by the African people who stand to suffer greatly from a warming planet.

In addition, the types of offset projects envisioned for Africa primarily entail ‘land-based carbon’ projects, either through avoiding deforestation, reforesting or reducing emissions from agriculture. This means that projects are banking on receiving credit for changing land-use practices in forests and soils to store carbon relative to what would have happened in a business-as-usual (baseline) scenario.

However, trading carbon from land-based offsets is met with major scepticism by real financial investors because of serious scientific challenges in measuring carbon in soils and forests and understanding previous and future land-use changes.

Moreover, because the bulk of forest and agriculture land is used by local communities, significant risks are associated with land tenure issues and social conflicts, with research showing an increase in land grabs of large areas of customary land in Africa by agribusiness and government agencies.[4]

A recent study[5] by experts in derivatives trading platforms also shows that land-based offsets will meet significant barriers to investment. This is because the land-based asset itself is difficult to define and therefore trade because of the high degree of uncertainty in measuring, reporting and verifying (MRV) land-based carbon.

The costs and controversies associated with land-based offsets are also likely to make them a risky venture. It will therefore lead to control of the trade by very few companies given the monopolistic nature of commodity markets (carbon is a commodity) and because very few companies will be able to finance the risk associated with this trade.

The experts therefore conclude that the market for land-based offsets will either fail because of the numerous difficulties inherent in land based carbon accounting or lead to ‘the creation of a substandard, risky and ultimately destructive forest carbon market.’[6] The same applies to agricultural soil carbon where the underlying ‘tradable’ asset is even more varied and uncertain.

Finally, given that energy markets have a high degree of price correlation with carbon, excessive speculation in carbon is likely to adversely affect food and commodity prices.[7]

Bundling carbon derivatives into index funds with other commodities would also tend to destabilise prices, as would trading carbon derivatives without position limits (limits on the number of contracts held). Highly volatile oil and food commodity prices not only have a significant impact on the economic stability of net oil and food-importing countries but also on the agriculture sector as a whole, given the high dependence on fossil fuels for synthetic fertilisers, transport, distribution and storage. Expanding carbon markets that are structurally highly susceptible to fraud and speculation and part of commodity markets, particularly through index funds, thus has serious implications for food production and food security in Africa.

SHOW ME THE MONEY

The most often quoted World Bank figure for the global carbon market is 144 billion USD. However this figure largely includes derivatives trading. Out of this, only around 3,370 million USD goes to offset project developers as total revenue (not profit) with a much more uncertain fraction of that going to local communities who may host the project.[8] The FAO estimates that close to 17 billion euros (approximately 24.3 billion USD) could be required in transaction costs alone to set up soil carbon sequestration projects from 2010 - 2030, diverting scarce resources away from critical adaptation needs.

According to the World Bank’s own estimates adaptation costs to developing countries will range between 2.5 and 2.6 billion USD per year from 2010 -2050.[9] Experts monitoring Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) schemes also find that important institutional and public resources are being diverted to create the technical capacity and infrastructure required to create offset credits to trade on potential forest carbon markets. Rather than diverting scarce resources, this money could be invested directly into institutions and communities to build resilience against climate change and directly address deforestation.

CALCULATING THE COSTS

The Africa Carbon Exchange is being publicised as the next big ticket that will help solve the development gap in Africa, with plans to replicate the exchange in other regional blocs such as the East African Community (EAC), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS).

However, before that happens, governments and their parliaments should examine:

- ongoing challenges and investment trends in climate exchanges in industrialised countries,
- investor aversion to land-based offsets,
- environmental and food security risks to Africans by allowing industrialised countries to continue polluting, and
- resources needed for African countries to adapt to climate change.

There is a real danger that carbon offsets will become a major policy distraction and capital diversion from the real climate change challenges that Africa faces: the urgent task of climate change adaptation and ensuring resilience of communities.

ALTERNATIVES EXIST

A financial transaction tax[11] on financial trading, feed-in tariff policies through which clean solar and wind energies are incentivised, and the use of International Monetary Fund (IMF) special drawing rights[12] by developing countries are just some of many alternatives being proposed to both finance the reversal of climate change and to help developing countries adapt to it. Industrialised countries have a legal, historical and moral responsibility to curb their domestic emissions at home and help finance adaptation in Africa and elsewhere. Let’s not let carbon trading and the promises of a speculative derivatives market distract us from these critical goals.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Sharma's work focuses on international trade and financial institutions, and international food and agriculture policies, with a particular interest and focus on India and South Asia. This article is sourced from The Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy.
* Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at Pambazuka News.

REFERENCES:

[1]. B. Sills, Global Carbon Credits Die as Smart Money Backs Indian RECs, Bloomberg Markets Magazine, March 22, 2011. Available at [url=http://bloom.bg/igjsR9[/url]
[2]. World Watch Institute, A Brief History of Fraudulent Activity on the EU ETS, 2011.
[3]. Point Carbon, Australian Greens Challenge Offset Mechanism, March 24, 2011.
[4]. L. Cotula, Land deals in Africa: What is in the contracts?, IIED, London. Available at http://pubs.iied.org/12568IIED.html
[5]. Munden Project, REDD and Forest Carbon: Market-based Critique and Recommendations, 2011. Available at [url=http://bit.ly/kibEbS[/url]
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. In an orderly market, carbon prices should rise with energy prices but haven’t due to the aforementioned crimes, poor legislative design and MRV controversies, and costs.
[8]. FERN, Designed to fail? The Concepts, Practices and Controversies Behind Carbon Trading, 2010.
[9]. FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation, 2010, 22.
[10]. FERN and Forest Peoples Programme, Smoke and Mirrors: A Critical Assessment of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, February 2011.
[11]. See European Parliament, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, DRAFT REPORT on Innovative Financing at Global and European Level, also known as the ‘Podimata Report,’ October 2010. Accessed at:http://bit.ly/joj3cs.
[12]. See ActionAid, Using Special Drawing Rights for Climate Finance, Discussion Paper, February 2010.