Forestry and Development E-News: October 2008
Forestry and 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.
UNFCCC still trying to see REDD August 2008: Forestry's role in climate change was up for discussion at the UNFCCC talks in Accra, Ghana in August. On the table at a workshop meeting was 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries – Approaches to Stimulate Action'. The workshop followed on from discussions earlier this year in Bonn and Bangkok, as well as in Bali in 2007. The talks demonstrated that what seems like a straightforward concept – compensating developing countries for avoiding deforestation – is proving exceedingly difficult. Submissions by parties prior to the workshop indicated that there is a large gulf between what developed and developing economies expect from negotiations. Countries such as India, Indonesia, Congo Basin nations and a coalition of 27 small developing nations (including Papua New Guinea) proposed that they be compensated for increasing their forest carbon stocks (afforestation and reforestation) as well as avoiding deforestation. However, this is at odds with the EU and Green position, which is only concerned with avoiding deforestation – and not expanding the commercial forest industry. At the end of the workshop, agreement was reached on only one thing: to continue discussions. The workshop highlights two major problems with the enthusiastic approach to REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) taken by Greens. Firstly, it assumes that a global agreement on emissions trading is imminent. While the UNFCCC has talked up a global agreement and named December 2009 as a deadline, prospects remain low. China and India are unlikely to agree to deep emissions cuts; the US will not participate in an agreement unless China does. Secondly, it assumes that enough is known about the forest carbon cycle. Measuring carbon emissions from soil disturbance after forest harvesting, or even finding estimates for carbon sequestered in standing forests, is still in its infancy. At this stage, REDD is based on unmeasurable carbon credits within a yet-to-be defined emissions trading scheme that is part of a non-existent climate agreement. REDD looks increasingly like a fund to coax tropical forest nations to accept binding commitments to reduce emissions and restrict forestry in return for cash.
EU to use climate change to push its deforestation agenda 17 October 2008: The European Commission has announced that it will use the UN climate change negotiations to pursue its policies to restrict deforestation in tropical countries. The Commission has proposed the formation of a "Global Forest Carbon Mechanism" to be funded with ECU 1.5 to 2 billion derived from proceeds of auctioning emission credits in the EU. The money will be given to developing tropical countries if they agree to EU policies to cease deforestation and enter binding commitments to reduce emissions. The EU will limit the number of credits developing countries can trade into the EU because if there were too many, that would ease the pressure on European energy industries to reduce emissions. The EU has said it will not be used to produce carbon credits in quantity in these developing countries until maybe around 2020 when they hope more global trading of credits occurs than is now the case. Like WWF, which has set out near-identical policies, the Commission wants both to keep its cake and eat it too. It points out that unless the 17 per cent of world emissions generated by deforestation is eliminated, it will be too expensive for European industries to reduce emissions. Yet it also accepts industrialised economies have a responsibility to lead on climate change. The report supporting the proposal shows that more carbon emissions can be reduced by afforestation and the practice of sustainable forestry, than by stopping deforestation. Yet the Commission’s proposal explicitly denies tropical developing countries the opportunity to secure benefits from extending sustainable forestry or conversion of forest lands to other commercially viable purposes, such as palm oil plantations, which are often more effective carbon sinks than forests. These activities generate commercial returns and reduce emissions. The EU policy is an anti-forestry policy, not a pro-climate change mitigation policy. It is also anti-development. There is ample scope in tropical developing countries to set aside conservation forests, to harvest native forests and to convert forestry to productive uses such as agriculture. The EU wants to keep these countries as parks, without regard to the economic well-being of the people. The EU will announce these proposals at the climate change negotiations at Poznan in December 2008. EU announces illegal logging legislation 17 October 2008: The European Commission has also announced a draft law for the European Parliament to make it illegal to procure or sell wood products without evidence the timber was legally obtained. The proposed EU law to stop imports of illegal timber is like the US Lacey Act and UK law. It puts the onus on the buyer or importer in the EU to demonstrate the product is legally sourced. This is poor law, requiring evidence to be produced from a second country to secure conviction in the first. It is expensive and rarely successful. It claims 19 per cent of timber imported into the EU is illegally logged. This is unlikely since the Indonesian Government clamped down on illegal logging. The EU uses the illegal logging issue to advance its deforestation campaign.	Norway puts money into forests, climate 9 October 2008: Norway has weighed heavily into the forests and climate debate with a series of announcements relating to the Norwegian Climate and Forest Initiative (NCFI). Launched in December last year, the NCFI will fund REDD projects to the value of approximately US$500 million annually. The goal of the programme is to take early action on REDD while waiting for a post-2012 climate agreement to be finalised. Norway has already committed US$100 million to the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), US$1 billion to the Amazon Fund, and US$35 million into the World Bank's own REDD pilots. Norway has also been engaged in talks with Papua New Guinea and Indonesia regarding disbursements in the Asia-Pacific region. FSC: Sues US Government, slammed by Greens 6 October 2008: FSC – the WWF/Greenpeace-endorsed forestry certification scheme – has come under further fire from Green groups, indicating further a deep split within the organisation. International NGO Friends of the Earth (UK) has stated publicly that it does not recommend the FSC mark, that the FSC mark has been "undermined" and that it is currently "supporting a review of the FSC scheme" in order to "understand how it needs to be strengthened in order to guarantee the highest environmental and social standards in all cases". The Rainforest Action Network (RAN), another member of FSC, has also criticised FSC, announcing it will undertake a strategic review of FSC. As stated in previous issues of Forestry and Development E-News, the clear tensions within the FSC membership indicate a lack of clarity about whether FSC is in the business of environmental advocacy lobbying or verifying sustainable forestry management. Lacey Act comes under fire 16 September 2008: The recent amendments to the Lacey Act in the US that attempt to prevent the import of 'illegal' timber products have come under fire from business groups in the US. Bloomberg reports that according to the Washington-based National Retail Federation, a peak body for US retailers, the law has been written so broadly that almost any product derived from plants could fall within the legislation's definitions. The legislation requires importers to disclose the specific name, value and quantity of plant product, and the country from which it was harvested when importing any plant-derived products. If this information is not known, importers must disclose possible species and possible countries of origin. In reality, this means that importers of cosmetics that might use fragrant woods or textiles such as rayon using cellulose fibre must disclose this information. PNG deforesting? Greenpeace continued to repeat its routine allegation that PNG was heavily deforesting and endangering the "Paradise Forests" when its vessel, The Esperenza, "Keystone Copped" its way through the Gulf of Papua last month, seising a vessel it thought belonged to someone else, and alleging it carried illegal timber, which was palpably legal. Three weeks later, the EU released a map prepared by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showing global deforestation to support its new carbon initiative. According to the map, there is no serious deforestation problem in PNG. Presumably the Dutch lottery foundation which funded the Greenpeace "Paradise Forest" campaign in the South Pacific to the tune of around ECU 2 million (according to the Greenpeace website) considered its money was well spent. Also on Forestry and Development 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. © 2008. All rights reserved | Forestry & Development Website | Contact |