News

June 2010: Somare: UN, World Bank "tangle us in endless process"
Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister Michael Somare has put a question mark over unilateral forest and climate deals at the recent 'REDD+ Partnership' meeting in Oslo, Norway. In an address to conference delegates, Mr Somare said that "the international mechanisms to deal with REDD+ have largely failed: meeting after meeting, promise after promise, but nothing tangible delivered in our countries. The World Bank and the United Nations tangle us in endless process and conditionality."

Mr Somare went on to say an interim REDD+ mechanism "must break from the past and deliver both finance and results."

While Prime Minister Somare's comments are pertinent, they do raise significant questions about the long-terms prospects of any REDD or REDD+ program.

Last year's UNFCCC climate negotiations in Copenhagen had developing countries effectively refusing to sign up to developed country demands. Calls by some EU member states to effectively dismantle the Kyoto Protocol - under which only developed countries are required to make binding emissions targets - were met with very stiff resistance.

New REDD or REDD+ deals under bilateral arrangements might effectively circumvent the need for international consensus or the 'tangled process' to which Somare refers.

Even then, there is still a considerable gulf to be crossed. In the lead up to the conference, a group of Governments including Australia under took a 'REDD+ Financing and Activities Survey'. Developing countries were asked for an estimate of the financing they would require to make REDD+ viable in their countries. Total requests for the period between 2010 and 2012 were in excess of USD5 billion. Yet total commitments made under both bilateral and unilateral processes for the period are less the USD 2 billion. Even then, there is little guarantee that these funds will be mobilised.

Papua New Guinea stated that it would require more than USD185 million annually from 2011 to 2030 for payments for emissions reductions. The question, then, is where precisely those emissions reductions are going to come from.

What Papua New Guinea needs and currently does not have is an economy-wide assessment of emissions, meaning that defining sources of emissions cuts will be difficult at best. Complicating matters further will be the increase in emissions from large-scale resource projects such as the Exxon LNG project. The forest sector can be ruled out - it has already been well established by the FAO that more than 70 per cent of PNG's roundwood removal is undertaken for fuelwood. This was underlined be recent statements by PNG at the latest UNFCCC climate negotiations in Germany.

June 2010: PNG in Bonn: most emissions outside forest sector
Papua New Guinea stated that most forest-based emissions come from outside of the forest sector at the most recent UNFCCC negotiations in Bonn, Germany. This finally puts PNG in line with forest research bodies such as CIFOR and the FAO, which have long stated that drivers of deforestation - and therefore emissions - come from outside of the forest sector.

Papua New Guinea was particularly active at a negotiating session that showed little progress from the over-hyped Copenhagen meeting in December. PNG's climate envoy Kevin Conrad led the charge against apparent double-standards from developed countries on deforestation.

According to news reports, developed countries are proposing that they set projected baselines for land-use change or deforestation, then base emissions reporting upon how they have deviated from the projections - which would be self-reported. This contrasts heavily with the demand from developed countries at Copenhagen that any reported emissions reductions in developing countries be measurable, reportable and verifiable. Demands from the US on China even went so far as to call for the deployment of independent auditing teams. It also contrasts with how developed countries report their emissions from all other sectors, i.e. based on systematic observation.

June 2010: Review of AUSAID spending to PNG
Australian media have again focussed their attention towards AusAID spending in the Pacific region. According to a number of media sources, the Australian Government aid programmes are offering exorbitant salary packages to a number of advisors.

According to one report, over a dozen aid consultants are earning more than the Australian Prime Minister. The same report purports that five firms - led by Coffey, GRM and Cardno ACIL - secured $1 billion in AusAID contracts.

The media reports coincide with the release of an Australian Government review on aid spending. Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Steven Smith, released the completed Review of the AUS-PNG Development Cooperation Treaty after Prime Ministers Rudd and Somare agreed to review aid spending in April 2009. The review confirms AusAID's "heavy reliance" on technical assistance, and questions the effectiveness of the 'capacity building through advisors' model. The review emphatically asserts that continuing with the "status quo is not an option".

PNG Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sam Abal, called for a further review of AusAID funding prior to the release of the report. The Minister reportedly raised concerns about the effectiveness of AusAID spending and intends on raising the matter with Australian official later this year.

Helen Hughes, a well-respected Australian aid specialist, was particularly scathing of the impact of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in PNG and the lack of economic development that has followed since their implementation a decade ago. Hughes called on delegates to a MDGs conference in Sydney to ask the question: "Why is it that after a decade of implementation of the Millennium Goals, backed by billions of taxpayers' dollars, women in PNG villages choose to breastfeed piglets because pigs are more valuable than children?"

June 2010: Canadian foresters and NGOs broker deal, Greenpeace divided
Forestry companies and environmental groups have reached an Agreement on the conservation of the Boreal Forest in North Canada. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement involves 21 member companies of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) and nine environmental organisations, among them Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation and Pew Environment Group's related conservation campaign.

The Agreement calls for a three year suspension of logging on 75 million acres of land while a permanent conservation plan is developed. Environmental groups have promised to call off boycotts and campaigns whilst the conservation plan is developed.

Yet a recording of a leaked conference call among Greenpeace Canada staffers indicates that the NGO is divided over the deal. Some staff members expressed dismay over the publicity given to the agreement, while others defended the move, describing it as strategic. One Greenpeace executive said the NGO made the deal "possibly more important than it actually is with the idea of making it harder -- when the work commences -- for the forest companies to withdraw."

Similar developments may be happening in Australia. Media reports confirm that the Tasmanian timber industry will enter formal negotiations with Green groups in an attempt reach a solution to long running disputes concerning logging in the state. The negotiations, expected to be assisted by a government appointed and funded mediator, are expected to involve stakeholders such as Forest Industries Association of Tasmania, the Forest Contractors Association, the CFMEU forestry union, Environment Tasmania, The Wilderness Society and WWF.

As in the case of the Boreal Forest, it is widely expected that any agreement would involve the industry accepting further forest reserves and an accelerated move from native forests to plantations. In return for its concessions, industry may receive a "social licence", restructuring support and lasting resource security.

June 2010: Christiana Figueres to replace de Boer at UNFCCC
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently appointed Christiana Figueres as the new U.N. climate chief, replacing Yvo de Boer as executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. De Boer's departure follows a largely unproductive climate summit in Copenhagen that ended with a nonbinding accord promising emissions cuts and immediate financing for poor countries.

Figueres is no stranger to climate change negotiations. From 1995 to 2003, Figueres was the founder and Executive Director of the Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas (CSDA). The non-profit think tank for climate change policy and capacity-building was established with the mission to "promote innovative financing mechanisms which support sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean".

Figueres was also member of Costa Rica's negotiating team on climate change since 1995, and helped facilitate Costa Rica's emergence as one of the leading international actors amongst developing countries. During Figueres time as a member, Costa Rica made a high-profile pledge to become one of the world's first carbon neutral economies by 2021 and acted as a vocal campaigner for reforms to forestry protection.

Figueres placement may be seen as part of a UN effort to consolidate the split between developed and developing nations in climate change negotiations. After divisions were so clearly evident at Copenhagen, Figueres will face a daunting task rebuilding relationships ahead of this year's UN climate summit in Cancun, Mexico.

April 2010: Is Australia about to cave on illegal logging?
Rumours circulating in Canberra indicate that the Australian Government is about to implement a new policy on illegal timber imports. But the impending policy will have less to do with achieving positive environmental outcomes than political game playing - and the cost will inevitably fall on the Pacific's poorest.

Canberra sources indicate that Australia's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests (DAFF) has finally sent to Cabinet proposals on how to implement Labor's election commitment to ban the import of illegal timber products. During the 2007 election campaign, Labor made clear promises to "require disclosure at point of sale of species, country of origin and any certification" and "identify illegally logged timber and restrict its import into Australia".

Illegal logging has been a cause celebre among environmental campaigners in the Australia/Pacific region for the last decade. The key target has been the forestry industry in Papua New Guinea. The allegations against the industry from environmental campaigners have been at best scurrilous. At worst they have bordered on racial vilification. There have even been complaints in the Malaysian media about the unwarranted emphasis by campaigners on the Chinese ethnicity of the owners of the company.

The claims made by environmental campaigners - such as the claim that 90 per cent of timber from PNG is illegally logged - have been grossly overstated. These claims have been made with no supporting empirical evidence.

Accurate data on illegal logging is lacking. Seneca Creek, the definitive study on illegal timber markets, places the total global amount at roughly 10 per cent of global trade. Yet the authors admit their report is "more art than science". To date there is no sound empirical research on the global extent of illegal logging.

Duncan Brack, one of the world's cheerleaders for the illegal logging cause, has even stated that it is close to impossible to obtain an accurate measurement of the world's illegal logging activity.

The Australian Government commissioned the highly respected Centre for International Economics to complete a regulatory impact statement for an Australian illegal logging policy.

The report concluded that the amount of 'illegal' timber entering Australia was miniscule. It also concluded that any regulatory measure would do little about levels of illegal logging in the region, and that it would impose a cost on Australian consumers. It recommended that voluntary measures be undertaken by the industry.

Australian forestry minister Tony Burke stated clearly that he rejected the findings of the report - because it would mean not delivering on an election promise. Never mind that the promise was ill-thought in the first place, or that much of the data driving the debate have been unreliable.

The measures that the Australian Government is now considering amounts to a de facto trade ban on imported forest products.

Trade bans fly in the face of the Government's firm and repeated declarations that it will not support environmental trade bans. It would be far more effective just to work with them to improve forestry practices, as Tony Burke has already promised when announcing other programmes.

Ordinarily prudent politicians would run a mile from these odious Green-inspired quagmires, particularly if they are created to advance imperious EU-style trade bans.

Yet, one policy option reportedly before Cabinet is a 'Clayton's' trade barrier on timber imports from Asia-Pacific countries. The idea is to mandate a trademark to verify the legality of any timber product import. That will also likely fall afoul of WTO rules. Any regulated control that discriminates against imports is out.

Why, then, is the Australian Government thinking of implementing a policy that is based on spurious claims and that its own research did not recommend?

It is an election year. This may be suitable Green compensation for the Government's failing climate change and renewable energy policies. But rather than ensuring positive environmental outcomes, such policy will serve to undermine economic development in countries such as PNG.

Our developing neighbours know what DAFF has been slow to work out. This is not a campaign to stop illegal logging, but one to pressure developing countries to restrict their forestry industries.

The implications are serious. Pressuring poor countries not to avail themselves of the right wealthy countries happily once exercised - to gain from more productive use of forest land - is imperious. Especially, as in the case of Australia's three leading forestry neighbours, more than enough forest area has already been set aside for conservation.

We should not be surprised. The same tactic has been used against the Australian forest industry. Harm to the environment has been exaggerated to foster opposition to forestry.

The Australian Government seems to have bought the Green line, much to the detriment of Australia's immediate neighbours.

April 2010: REDD will do little for PNG according to leading economist
One of the Pacific region's leading agricultural economists has argued that proposed REDD schemes will do little to improve the livelihoods of local communities in Papua New Guinea.

Dr Colin Hunt, visiting fellow in the School of Economics at the University of Queensland and author of Climate change and carbon sinks: forestry in the fight against global warming, gave a presentation at ANU looking at potential costs and benefits of a future REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) scheme in Papua New Guinea.

Hunt, an advisor on forestry to the Papua New Guinea Government, argued that the implementation of a REDD scheme posed serious threats to PNG, as the financial benefits from forest credits had little chance of filtering through to landowners. He further argued that it was unrealistic and immoral to assume those currently working in the forestry industry could rely on REDD welfare.

Hunt's estimates demonstrate that the prospect of REDD generating economic returns for PNG, above reasonable opportunity cost estimates, is remote.

The presentation signaled a departure from his previously published views.

Hunt's questioning of the potential benefits for Papua New Guinea from REDD implementation, specifically benefits to land owners and forestry workers, marks a significant shift in the debate on REDD. In particular, it points to the fact that many more governments and institutions are examining more closely the claims surrounding the economic returns of REDD within developing countries, particularly when compared with the returns from forestry and agriculture.

April 2010: Global deforestation slowing: FAO
New findings from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) indicate that the global rate of deforestation slowed over the last decade. The report, covering 233 countries and areas, is FAO's most comprehensive forestry study to date. The report, delivered every five years, is considered to be the definitive assessment of global forests. The release of the key findings precedes the publication of the complete Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, scheduled for October 2010.

The new data show that deforestation rates have decreased over the past 20 years. Approximately 13 million hectares of forest were converted or lost annually in the last decade, compared to a rate of 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s.

The study states that Brazil and Indonesia, which had the highest loss of forests in the 1990s, have significantly reduced their deforestation rates. Indonesia's annual rate of deforestation fell to 0.5 million hectares from 1.9 million hectares over the past 20 years.

The findings also indicate that tree planting programmes in countries such as China, India, the United States and Vietnam, in conjunction with areas of natural forest expansion, have slowed down global deforestation rates. The report states that the area of planted forest increased by about five million hectares annually from 2005 to 2010. In Asia alone, the rate of forest area growth increased by approximately 80 per cent.

April 2010: Illegal logging 'virtually impossible' to measure
Illegal logging rates have fallen in several countries according to a pilot study for a new research project by Chatham House, a UK think-tank. Chatham House's illegal logging expert, Duncan Brack, further argued that it is "virtually impossible" to accurately measure the amount of illegal logging in a presentation at a joint UNECE, FAO, and WTO conference on emerging trade measures on timber markets.

Brack's presentation outlined the current research project. The study aims to assess the illegal logging sector by looking at: national levels of media attention on illegal logging; government policy development and implementation to address illegal logging and poor forest governance; private sector policy development and implementation to address illegal logging; and poor forest governance; and the actual level of illegal logging and trade (where available). The study also includes a survey of experts within each respective country.

The preliminary results covering five countries showed what Brack describes as "encouraging progress" in Cameroon and Indonesia from 2001-06. The pilot study also found a reduction in imports of illegally-sourced timber in all consumer and processing countries profiled in the research.

The first phase of the full study, Measuring the Response to Illegal Logging: Indicators of Progress, is expected to be published in June/July 2010. The research project is largely funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

April 2010: South Africa lashes Greenpeace for lobbying efforts
South African authorities hit back against environmental NGOs for their efforts to halt a World Bank loan investing in power plant infrastructure in the country's failing energy industry. Earlier this month, Greenpeace intensified lobbying efforts against a proposed World Bank loan assisting the development of the Medupi coal-fired power station. Greenpeace failed to stop the World Bank from eventually approving the US$3.7 billion loan.

Pravin Gordhan, the South African Finance Minister, accused environmental NGOs of trying to impose their priorities on a country lacking the reliable power taken for granted by developed nations. "It is regrettable that ... developed countries and very small group of NGOs in South Africa are putting their environmental concerns, which can't be immediately addressed, above the economic needs of South Africa and our need to grow the economy so that all the people benefit."

Greenpeace opposed the loan on the grounds that coal power adds to greenhouse gas emissions, despite the project allocating $260 million for wind power and a further $490 million to improve the plant's efficiency. According to a Greenpeace Africa spokeswoman, "the victims of this decision are the hundreds of thousands of impoverished people".

However, proponents of the development say that what impoverished people in South Africa need most is affordable and reliable power. Rather than further harming the poor, they argue that the power station is essential to alleviate poverty. The World Bank, in approving the loan, argued that "without energy, countries face very limited or no economic growth: factories and businesses cannot function efficiently; hospitals and schools cannot operate fully or safely; basic services that people in rich countries take for granted cannot be offered."

March 2010: Illegal logging exports from PNG to Australia found small
Reports commissioned by the Australian Government have found the incidence of illegal timber in imports to Australia to be low. Nevertheless, under pressure from anti-forestry activists, the Agriculture and Forestry Minister, Tony Burke, is toying with imposing legally mandated import restrictions because of an election promise to do so.

The Centre for International Economics (CIE) in Canberra was commissioned by the Rudd Government to assess the regulatory impact of trade bans. It concluded that the incidence was so low that the cost of formal controls was not warranted. The focus on illegal timber imports has been on imports from Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia.

Forestry consultancy URS was separately commissioned to demonstrate how voluntary codes administered by industry could give buyers confidence that timber products that they purchased were legal. In respect of PNG, URS observed that the effectiveness of the system of inspection of logs administered by international inspection company SGS to verify payments of log exports made it unlikely that there was a high incidence of illegal timber in PNG exports.

These reports led Tony Burke to state publicly that the level of illegal product in timber imports is less than 10 per cent. It is likely to be even lower.

Most assessments rely on a report prepared five years ago by US consultants Seneca Creek which suggested that perhaps 10 per cent of world trade of timber was illegal product. The same report qualified that assessment by observing that for each assessment of illegal logging in each country, there was no verifiable data and that most sources were from anti-forestry activists.

In the case of PNG, most timber exported to Australia is processed. The lion's share is provided by three companies which, if they had visited PNG and inspected the businesses, would have led the consultants to conclude that they do not use illegally acquired timber.

However, Burke is saddled with an election promise to anti-forestry groups like WWF and Greenpeace to ban imports. Given the collapse of negotiations on climate change and a failed domestic scheme to reduce energy consumption, delivering on small environmentally-related issues like this one, even if misconceived, becomes politically important. An election is due at the end of 2010.

Greenpeace continues to claim that most logging in PNG is illegal, even though its evidence for this has been publicly shown to be bogus.

Like Greenpeace, WWF is now calling on Australians to avoid "bad wood". It too has no supporting evidence for published claims that 70 per cent of PNG timber is illegally logged. Its record of unsupportable use of numbers to support its forestry and environmental campaigns has been revealed in the current international scandal over climate change data.

WWF is lobbying the Australian Government hard to mandate that timber imports comply with the sustainability standard developed by it forest certification arm, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

The political message here is: wood certified by FSC is "good wood" - anything else is bad.

February 2010: WWF's numbers on forestry questioned
The recent scandals surrounding the accuracy of data on climate change have spread to arguably the world's most reputable conservation organisation, WWF.

The scandal surrounds the use of WWF numbers in IPCC reports, and the validity of those claims.

It also calls into question WWF's previous claims about levels of illegal logging.

WWF has been a vocal player in the illegal logging debate. In Australia, it is currently lobbying the Australian Government to implement its election commitment, ably assisted by Greenpeace.

One of its key targets has been the forestry industry in Papua New Guinea. WWF has received considerable levels of aid funding for implementing 'eco forestry' programmes in PNG.

In 2004, WWF issued a report containing estimates of illegal logging for various countries. It stated that there was not enough information to assess the levels of illegal logging in PNG.

Yet in 2008, it was more than happy to put forward a claim that 70 per cent of forestry in Papua New Guinea is illegal. It sourced the number from the infamous Seneca Creek report, which states there is no "persuasive or supporting information" to back it.

In response to a recent opinion piece in The Australian newspaper, WWF Australia CEO Greg Bourne maintained that WWF is a 'science-based conservation organisation'. The claims on illegal logging hardly seem to be based on science, but they are indeed aimed at conservation.

That is food for thought for AusAID, which granted WWF Australia almost A$500,000 for aid work. We're looking forward to seeing the outcomes of the group's work with the world's bottom billion.

February 2010: US NGO ignores the obvious
US-based campaign organisation Ecological Internet has launched a misguided smear campaign against the forestry industry in Papua New Guinea.

The NGO has disseminated reams of misinformation, including accusations of torture and bribery.

Worse still is its attempt to turn a technical legal proceeding concerning the granting of a forestry concession into a political stunt. The group has used a recent legal review of PNG Forest Authority procedures as an opportunity to accuse the country's largest loggers of environmental destruction.

This follows the campaign organisation's personal attacks on the Chairman of PNG's largest logging company after receiving an honorary knighthood.

In the meantime, claims have surfaced that there is more than US$25 million missing from the PNG National Forest Authority's accounts, in addition to a string of criminal incidents in the country, including the escape of the entire maximum security section at the nation's most notorious prison.

On top of this, the Australian media has claimed that disputes surrounding the new LNG project in PNG have claimed the lives of 16 locals.

Above all else this seems to demonstrate that the NGOs of the developed world are getting more and more disconnected from the reality of life on the ground in Papua New Guinea.

February 2010: Copenhagen commitments
The deadline for nations to state their emissions-reducing commitments under the Copenhagen Accord passed on 31 January.

A large number of nations submitted their commitments.

However, the lack of technical detail in most of the submissions is stark. It clearly reveals the political nature of the Accord itself.

Russia, for example, simply stated in one page that it would reduce emissions by 15 to 25 per cent from a 1990 baseline, provided that all other emitters make a legally-binding commitment, and that Russia's forests are 'appropriately' accounted for in any such commitment.

In other words, it has committed to nothing.

Papua New Guinea's submission was, however, quite detailed. It states that PNG wishes to triple per capita GDP by 2030 while simultaneously decreasing emissions by 50 per cent.

To do so it aims to halve the emissions from its agricultural forestry sectors.

PNG's population is growing rapidly. Per capita GDP has been falling over the past decade. This current strategy begs the question: what are people going to eat.

January 2010: A Special Report on Copenhagen - What it Means for Forestry

Copenhagen - what it means for forestry
Environmental campaigners, like world leaders, invested heavily in a strong Copenhagen outcome. This was no more apparent than in the protracted campaigns against the world's forestry and commodity industries in the lead-up to the conference.

Yet the two-week event yielded little substance. Negotiators agreed to continue negotiating. Green campaigners expressed disappointment with the lack of outcome, and the world's leaders attempted to make the best of a difficult negotiating environment.

The one positive outcome that could be read into the negotiations is that the world's developing nations are beginning to push-back on Western anti-development policies.

Forestry in the negotiations
While a number of news reports and activists hailed a positive outcome for the world's forests at the negotiations, the decisions at Copenhagen will not have a significant impact upon forested nations in the immediate future.

This is a far cry from the Green ambitions for the conference.

Green campaigners had hoped that binding commitments from developing countries would prompt REDD schemes (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) and an injection of billions of dollars of public and private money into forest conservation projects in the developing world.

The newly minted 'Copenhagen Accord' is not legally binding. Countries can sign up to it (or remove themselves) as they please. It merely mentions the need for implementing REDD and calls for finance for developing countries to address deforestation.

"REDD", however, remains yet to be adopted by the UNFCCC.

Yes to SFM, no to 'no conversion'
The negotiations for longer-term, legally binding 'post-Kyoto' commitments made slow progress. Despite public comments that the group working on forestry and land-use was making headway, much of the negotiating text is still up for grabs, and it is very much dependent upon the progress of other negotiating groups.

The inclusion of sustainable forest management in REDD can almost be considered a certainty. It is considered equally as a means of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions as avoided deforestation and afforestation or reforestation. The trick, however, will be in the strings that are attached to any REDD funding.

These found their way into the negotiations through the adding of safeguards to the text in earlier negotiating sessions. The 'no conversion' safeguard - which would effectively prevent the conversion of forests to more productive uses - was objected to by a number of African states and removed, only to find its way back in after Green lobbying of European governments. The 'no conversion' safeguard is still in the text, but has not been agreed upon.

No carbon trading bonanza
The failure at Copenhagen was the result of fundamental divisions between the industrialised economies, which wanted formal commitments from China and India and other major developing countries to reduce emissions and the outright rejection of that by those developing countries. This means that no binding global commitments to reduce emissions are foreseeable. Without that there cannot be a globally regulated system of emissions trading and thereby the grand global system upon which the original REDD idea was based (developing countries would be able to secure significant income from selling carbon credits into this global scheme) remains a pipe dream.

Concrete decisions
Outside the media circus surrounding the release of the Accord, one decision was approved by the UNFCCC that will affect forestry and economic development.

SBSTA, the UNFCCC body that directs scientific and technical advice for the Secretariat, approved a way forward on methodological issues surrounding deforestation.

There are no commitments to curb deforestation or any other similar actions. There is, however, a request that developing countries undertake work that will:

• Identify the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and how to address them;
• Identify activities which will reduce emissions, increase carbon removals and stabilise carbon sinks;
• Use the IPCC guidelines as an appropriate basis for estimating forest-related emissions; and
• Establish transparent monitoring and reporting systems.

On the surface this doesn't seem like much. Numerous developed economies - particularly Norway - have outlaid large sums for 'REDD readiness' programmes through aid agencies, which will provide similar information on forest stocks. Pressure to implement either REDD-readiness or respond to the UNFCCC request - with the promise of aid dollars attached - is likely to continue.

Multilateral initiatives
Halfway through the conference, a number of developed economies - Norway, Australia, France, Japan, and the US - announced that they would assemble US$3.5 billion of REDD finance for the next three years, from 2010 to 2012.

Yet the statement released by all countries on how and where the funding will be spent or even approved is vague at best. The US pledge of US$1 billion has come from the US Department of Agriculture, not USAID, the US aid agency. Similarly, the Australian statement on the pledge refers simply to pre-existing programmes.

Interestingly, the US statement on the fund featured glowing testimonials from US-based NGO The Nature Conservancy and Gabon's president. One NGO campaigner said publicly that "The U.S. announcement was timed to influence the tropical forest negotiations at a critical point."

Yet the pledge, particularly from the US, may ring hollow. The US$1 billion that the US has put up will require approval through the US Congress. Getting a sum that large past a US public that is becoming increasingly sceptical of the current administration's spending initiatives will be difficult at best. The US has committed more than $275 million to the protection of tropical forests this financial year.

The business response
The business presence of forest-based industries at Copenhagen was muted compared with previous years. Representatives from the industry in Brazil and Europe were visible, but few industry representatives were putting forward their case.

Fortunately, however, the FAO did the industry a huge service by releasing a draft paper outlining the contribution of forest products to greenhouse gas mitigation.

Notably absent was the bank-backed carbon trading lobby, which had in previous years been pushing hard for a global emissions scheme that would incorporate forest-based credits.

This is unsurprising. The credibility of forest-based credits took a hammering in 2009. On one side, Greenpeace and WWF strenuously objected to any market-based scheme for REDD. At the other end, Papua New Guinea's Office of Climate Change was plagued by scandals over the issuing of credits, as reported in the international media. PNG's climate envoy, Kevin Conrad, was one of the world's most prominent boosters of forest-based credits.

Similarly, recent downward revisions of the actual contribution of deforestation to climate change have made the carbon credits market seem less attractive.

The future Green response
The NGO response to Copenhagen was predictable. International NGOs such as Greenpeace and WWF labelled the exercise as a failure for the planet.

However, the final outcome of the talks - a political agreement and a commitment to negotiating - will require Green campaigners to reassess their strategies on climate change.

The UNFCCC has lost credibility with international leaders. Most will be reluctant to buy into the hype in future and risk being associated with such a poor outcome.

It has also lost some credibility with Green groups. Early last decade, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Forum on Forests were denounced by campaigners once Green demands were not met.

This will possibly shift campaigning to a domestic setting. Greens will attempt to have domestic governments lock in policies that will make life difficult for forest industries. In the developing world, this means pressure to reduce levels of commercial activity in forests. In the developed world, it means pushing aid money towards environmental programmes.

Does this mean that Green campaigns against forest-based industries will stop? Hardly. As the UNFCCC negotiations lost their public prominence, they will be less of a focal point for media-savvy NGOs. This will mean that the tried-and-true tactics of NGOs - smear campaigns against the private sector, legal delaying tactics - will most likely be back at the forefront of anti-forestry campaigns. In other words, expect more of the same on climate, biodiversity and forest certification at a forestry operation near you.

Archived News items