Forestry & Development E-News: January 2010

Forestry & Development E-News: January 2010

Forestry & Development (F&D) is an online resource on sustainable forestry. It supports commercial forestry as a viable source of economic growth which is compatible with sustainability.

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 labeled 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.

Also in Forestry & Development E-News:

News >
About F&D >
Contact Us >

You have permission to forward this email newsletter to other interested persons provided it is passed on in its entirety.

Forestry & Development E-News is published monthly by ITS Global (http://www.itsglobal.net).

ITS Global are accredited assessors for the International Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC)

Questions and feedback can be sent to forestrydevel@bigpond.com

If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please click here.