tagged w/ REDD
-
In July I attended a public debate in London on the potential for REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) to make international forestry more just. The debate brought together a wide variety of stakeholders in REDD in order to assess its possibilities and its frailties. The panel leading the discussion included John Vidal from the Guardian and representatives from DFID, ODI, and FERN among others. What became increasingly clear during the debate is that although the international community appeared to be pushing on with REDD, it remains a highly contested and confused idea.
For those still unsure of what the initiative is, REDD is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests. It offers incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. However, the discussion highlighted fears that REDD may perpetuate, or even deepen, forest people’s historical dispossession from their forests.
The discussion focused on the concept of justice within REDD and the focal point of the evening turned out to be “local justice”. The question was - what is happening to the local people on the ground where these initiatives are implemented? It became increasingly clear, by hearing arguments from members of FERN and from those on the ground, that it is forest people that often are the ones who are most negatively affected by these projects. There is an overriding fear that REDD may not be dissimilar to other big money projects affecting the forests. For instance, a member of the audience, who had worked on a REDD project in Peru, stated that it was seen as more dangerous than palm oil plantations. The fear is that these projects can potentially, and almost by nature, take over entire forests, leaving indigenous people to lose the land earmarked for these REDD projects.
During the evening, several other members of the audience stated it was governments, and not large corporations, who were taking control of the forests. The ODI representative feared that REDD projects will reaffirm the ownership of the forests by the state. For example, as the government controls the carbon it trades, the forests fall under their control. This will go on to reinforce highly centralized, top down decision-making, something GBM works to move away from.
The panel was in agreement about what must be done, forest peoples and local communities must be included and able to make decisions for the future of forests in all REDD projects. Increasing evidence from Brazil and elsewhere indicates that tenure reform, that is placing control of forest resources into the hands of indigenous and other forest-dependent communities, contributes to local well-being and forest protection.
More at the linkIn July I attended a public debate in London on the potential for REDD (Reducing... more
-
-
As UN Declares International Year of Forests, Groups Demand Solutions to Root Causes of Deforestation
Insist Indigenous & Forest Peoples' Rights Must Be at the Heart of Forest Protection
New York, 2 February 2011-At the launch of the High Level segment of the UN Forum on Forests today, Mr. Sha Zhukan, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs will declare 2011 "the International Year of Forests." Civil society groups advocating forest protection, Indigenous Rights, and climate justice are launching a program called "The Future of Forests," to ensure that forest protection strategies address the real causes of global forest decline, and are not oriented toward markets or profit-making.
Critics from Global Justice Ecology Project, Global Forest Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Timberwatch Coalition, BiofuelWatch, and Indigenous Environmental Network charge that the UN's premier forest scheme: REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), advanced amidst controversy at the recent UN Climate Summit in Cancún, will not protect forests or stop deforestation.
"It is ironic that the UN is declaring 2011 the International Year of Forests considering that forests today are being destroyed and degraded faster than ever before," said Blessing Karumbidza, researcher at the Timberwatch Coalition in South Africa. "UN promises of social and environmental safeguards under REDD ring hollow considering how rates of forest loss have continued to escalate since the introduction of industry-friendly forest certification schemes. These schemes do nothing to prevent the wasteful consumption of timber products that drives forest loss, and do not address the ecological and social problems inherent to monoculture timber plantations."
"The Southern US has led the way in forest destruction and degradation and the export of these egregious practices globally," stated Scot Quaranda, Campaign Director of the Dogwood Alliance. "We are bringing increased attention to this disastrous reality to help stop the drive toward wood-based bioenergy, large-scale clearcutting, and the further conversion of forests to plantations in our region and worldwide."
"REDD will not stop deforestation for a few simple reasons," stated Anne Petermann, Executive Director of Global Justice Ecology Project and North American Focal Point for Global Forest Coalition. "First, it is based on an unscientific definition of forests that includes monoculture tree plantations and even genetically engineered trees. Second, REDD does not address the underlying drivers of deforestation, so logging may be curtailed in protected areas, but then pushed to non-protected forests. Third, REDD enables industries in the North to continue polluting, worsening climate chaos and in turn devastating forests. A further problem is that REDD does nothing to reduce toxic impacts on the communities near these polluters," she concluded.
Forest peoples, especially Indigenous Peoples, insist there be real strategies in place to protect forests. These strategies must be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adhere to the rights of free, prior and informed consent, and ensure that forest peoples remain the caretakers of their lands.
"Putting forests in the care of the people that depend on them is the best way to protect them. This includes collectively demarcating and titling Indigenous Peoples' territories and land, where most of the world's forest are found," stated Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of Indigenous Environmental Network. "Governments and corporations that profit from their plunder will never protect forests." [1] [2]
According to Dr. Rachel Smolker of BiofuelWatch, "The greatest emerging threat to forests is wood-based bioenergy. Scientific models predict that if the demand for wood-based energy continues to rise unabated, all forests and grasslands will be converted to bioenergy plantations by 2060." [3]
Global Forest Coalition released a report called "Getting to the Roots" at the recent UN Climate Conference in Cancún, Mexico to analyze the underlying causes of deforestation. The report concludes, "neoliberal economic policies are the main underlying causes since they are at the root of many of the other drivers of deforestation." [4]As UN Declares International Year of Forests, Groups Demand Solutions to Root Causes... more
-
-
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger
The United Nations-led Climate Conference at Cancun was not a diplomatic disaster, but for climate activists and grassroots groups, it wasn’t a success either. Representatives sent from around the globe to hammer out an agreement on climate change were unresponsive to grassroots concerns about how to lower carbon emissions quickly, and how to ensure fairness in the process.
“Some grassroots groups are losing their faith in the U.N.’s capacity to produce meaningful results,” Madeline Ostrader reported for Yes! Magazine. “After the United Nations expelled Native American leader Tom Goldtooth from the meeting last week, the Indigenous Environmental Network called the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change ‘the WTO of the sky.’”
While gloomy reports before the conference worried that international negotiations could veer entirely off course, the representatives at the conference did come up with an agreement that fleshed out last year’s Copenhagen Accord. It became clearer, though, that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process will not ultimately guard the interests of less powerful players.
Climbing over a low bar
Although diplomats congratulated themselves for their accomplishments, not everyone was so pleased, Stephen Leahy reported at Inter Press Service.
“It’s pathetic the world community struggles so much just to climb over such a low bar,” commented [Kumi] Naidoo, [executive director of Greenpeace.] “Our only real hope is to mobilise a broad-based climate movement involving all sectors of the public and civil society before Durban.”
Indeed, this year’s conference saw a greater mobilization of outside forces than Copenhagen did. But by the end of the conference, activists were frustrated with the UN-led process, Democracy Now! reported, and began protesting in the area near the conference, under the close watch of UN guards:
When the demonstrators continued their vigil past the time allotted to them, U.N. guards moved in and dragged them towards a waiting bus. The protesters linked arms, and the scene quickly became chaotic. As they wrestled activists onto buses, U.N. guards also seized press credentials from the necks of journalists, and detained a photographer while seizing his camera.
Running REDD
There was one issue in particular, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation or REDD, a financial tool that allows countries to offset their emissions, that caused concern among climate activists. As Michelle Chen explained at ColorLines, “From a climate justice standpoint, the deal lost credibility once it was tainted with REDD, a supposed anti-deforestation initiative that indigenous communities have long decried as an assault on native people’s sovereignty and way of life.”
The program would seek to set aside forests, through financial incentives that would make it more profitable to preserve forests than to harvest them. The problem, in essence, is that the program would take away resources in developing countries, particularly in indigenous communities, in order to mitigate negative actions in developed countries.
At IPS, Stephen Leahy reported, “REDD remains very controversial. It is widely touted as a way to mobilise $10 to $30 billion annually to protect forests by selling carbon credits to industries in lieu of reductions in emissions. … Many indigenous and civil society groups reject REDD outright if it allows developed countries to avoid real emission reductions by offsetting their emissions. “
Developed vs. Developing
Balancing the interests of developing and developed countries has always been the thorny tangle at the center of climate negotiations, and the Cancun Agreement, critics say, favors developed countries.
As Tom Athanasiou writes at Earth Island Journal, “There’s an even deeper concern, that, in the words of the South Centre’s Martin Khor, ‘Cancun may be remembered in future as the place where the UNFCCC’s climate regime was changed significantly, with developed countries being treated more and more leniently, reaching a level like that of developing countries, while the developing countries are asked to increase their obligations to be more and more like developed countries.’”
REDD is an example of that sort of bargain: Developing countries have to sacrifice, too. But developed countries have, in this conference and at its predecessors, refused to make any real sacrifices. This round, it became clear that, in addition to the United States, other key countries, like Japan, would not be willing to commit to binding legal targets for carbon emissions.
Who benefits?
What’s worse, developed countries benefit, indirectly, from the financial mechanism proposed to regulate carbon, Madeline Ostrader writes.
“Many of the proposals for financing and regulating climate are designed to earn profits for the same banks that brought the global economy to its knees,” she explains. “Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have been vying for a stake in the global carbon offset trade—a proposed economic model for cutting emissions around the world.”
The movement of non-governmental groups and activists fighting to hold rich countries accountable has gained momentum in the past year. If international leaders are ever to move away from these imbalanced agreements, that movement will have to grow and convince a vocal majority of people around the world to support its calls to action. Only then will leaders feel pressure to write stronger, fairer agreements.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger
The United Nations-led Climate Conference... more
-
-
Cancún, Mexico -- As representatives of Indigenous peoples and communities already suffering the immediate impacts of climate change, we express our outrage and disgust at the agreements that have emerged from the COP16 talks. As was exposed in the Wikileaks climate scandal, the Cancun Agreements are not the result of an informed and open consensus process, but the consequence of an ongoing US diplomatic offensive of backroom deals, arm-twisting and bribery that targeted nations in opposition to the Copenhagen Accord during the months leading up to the COP-16 talks.
We are not fooled by this diplomatic shell game. The Cancun Agreements have no substance. They are yet more hot air. Their only substance is to promote continued talks about climate mitigation strategies motivated by profit. Such strategies have already proved fruitless and have been shown to violate human and Indigenous rights. The agreements implictly promote carbon markets, offsets, unproven technologies, and land grabs—anything but a commitment to real emissions reductions.
The Voices of the People Must be Respected
Indigenous Peoples from North to South cannot afford these unjust and false ‘solutions’, because climate change is killing our peoples, cultures and ecosystems. We need real commitments to reduce emissions at the source and to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Because we are on the front lines of the impacts of climate change, we came to COP-16 with an urgent call to address the root causes of the climate crisis, to demand respect for the Rights of Mother Earth, and to fundamentally redefine industrial society’s relationship with the planet. Instead, the Climate COP has shut the doors on our participation and that of other impacted communities, while welcoming business, industry, and speculators with open arms. The U.S., Industrialized nations, big business and unethical companies like Goldman Sachs will profit handsomely from these agreements while our people die.
Women and youth in our communities are disproportionately burdened by climate impacts and rights violations. Real solutions would strengthen our collective rights and land rights while ensuring the protection of women, youth and vulnerable communities. While the Cancun Agreements do contain some language "noting" rights, it is exclusively in the context of market mechanisms, while failing to guarantee safeguards for the rights of peoples and communities.
The failures of the UN talks in Copenhagen have been compounded in Cancun. From the opening day to the closing moments of the talks, our voices were censored, dissenting opinions silenced and dozens ejected from the conference grounds. The thousands who rallied outside to reject market mechanisms and demand recognition of human and Indigenous rights were ignored.
The Market Will Not Protect Our Rights
Market-based approaches have failed to stop climate change. They are designed to commodify and profit from the last remaining elements of our Mother Earth and the air. Through its focus on market approaches like carbon trading, the UNFCCC has become the WTO of the Sky.
We are deeply concerned that the Cancun Agreements betray both our future and the rights of peoples, women, youth, and vulnerable populations. While the preamble to the Cancun Agreements note a call for "studies on human rights and climate change," this is in effect an empty reference, with no content and no standards, that will not protect the collective rights of peoples. The market mechanisms that implicitly dominate both the spirit and the letter of the Cancun Agreements will neither avert climate change nor guarantee human rights, much less the Rights of Mother Earth. Approaches based on carbon offsetting, like REDD, will permit polluters to continue poisoning land, water, air, and our bodies, while doing nothing to stop the climate crisis. Indeed, approaches based on the commodification of biodiversity, CO2, forests, water, and other sacred elements will only encourage the buying and selling of our human and environmental rights.
The Cochabamba People's Agreement Points the Way Forward
There is another way forward: the Cochabamba People's Agreement represents the vision of everyday people from all corners of the globe who are creating the solutions to climate change from the ground up, and calling for a global framework that respects human rights and the Rights of Mother Earth.
If any hope emerges from Cancun, it comes from the dramatic demonstrations we saw in the streets and from the deep and powerful alliances that were built among indigenous and social movements. The Indigenous Environmental Network joined thousands of our brothers and sisters to demand real climate solutions based in the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the rights of Mother Earth, and a just transition away from fossil fuels. We will continue to stand with our allies to demand climate justice.Cancún, Mexico -- As representatives of Indigenous peoples and communities... more
-
-
Britney Spears - Gimme more (i2edd Extraordinaire remix). This song is available for download at www.BeatsByRedd.com! In search of Hip Hop beats, Rap beats, RNB beats, and Pop beats at a price you can afford? Look no further, BeatsByRedd.com will take care of you! Every instrumental is composed by an experienced producer/sound engineer who can ensure you industry quality beats at affordable prices!Britney Spears - Gimme more (i2edd Extraordinaire remix). This song is available for... more
-
-
The World People’s Conference of Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth came to an end yesterday, as delegates in Cochabamba, Bolivia gathered for the closing ceremonies to mark Earth Day.
The grassroots summit was called by Bolivian President Evo Morales–the only indigenous head of state in the world–to provide activists, experts, and government representatives with an alternative forum to the failed UN climate talks last December. According to official estimates, over 100 countries around the world were represented, including more than 40 official government delegations and thousands of activists and representatives of various social movements.
The conference consisted of 17 working groups which discussed concrete proposals: a declaration of rights for the protection of the environment, a climate justice tribunal to hold violators legally accountable, climate debt schemes to compensate under-emitting countries for damage caused to their ecosystems by global warming, and a global referendum on climate change.
Though the process was at times chaotic, progress was made on several proposals. A declaration of rights was formulated and modified by over one thousand delegates, who aim to complement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by expanding rights-based protections to the environment. To be considered by the UN however, the document would need to be raised by a member state–a seemingly distant prospect at this point.
A working group on forests presented a final declaration rejecting the UN-sponsored Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) program–one of the more controversial issues at Copenhagen last winter. Introduced at the 2007 UN climate summit in Bali, REDD is being promoted as a global initiative to provide financial incentives for developing countries who reduce emissions through tropical forest preservation. Critics say the controversial program will in fact privatize and commodify tropical rainforests, rather than protect them.
“REDD is a predatory program that pretends to save forests and the climate, while backhandedly selling out forests out from under our Indigenous Peoples…displacing those of us least responsible for the crisis, who have been stewards of the forests since time immemorial,” said Tom Goldtooth, Director of the US-based Indigenous Environmental Network.
The declarations forged by the working groups in Cochabamba will be proposed by President Morales at the next UN climate summit in Cancún in December 2010 to counter the widely criticized Copenhagen Accord.
snip
Driven by feelings of exclusion and marginalization, activists came to Cochabamba for a more open and democratic discussion about climate solutions. Perhaps the most important result of the summit is its success in creating such a forum, where disparate groups could gather without having to confront backdoor meetings, leaked documents, and police intimidation. As delegates now move forward, they seek no less than to redefine global climate justice and, in the process, redefine democratic practice.The World People’s Conference of Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth... more
-
-
UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Last Stand of the Gorilla
Gorillas, the largest of the great apes, are under renewed threat across the Congo Basin from Nigeria to the Albertine Rift: poaching for bushmeat, loss of habitat due to agricultural expansion, degradation of habitat from logging, mining and charcoal production are amongst these threats, in addition to natural epidemics such as ebola and the new risk of diseases passed from humans to gorillas.
Alarmingly, parts of the region are experiencing intensifed exploitation and logging of its forest, in some cases even within protected areas. In the DRC, many of these activities are controlled by militias illegally extracting natural resources such as gold, tin and coltan as well as producing charcoal for local communities, urban areas, camps for people displaced by fghting and sometimes even to communities across the border. These militias are located, motivated, armed and fnanced directly by this illegal extraction of minerals, timber and charcoal.
A network of intermediaries including multinational companies or their subsidiaries, neighboring countries and corrupt offcials, are involved in the transportation and procurement of resources which stem from areas controlled by militia, or for which no legal exploitation permission exists.
Recommendations
1. Strengthen MONUC by expanding its mandate to secure full control of border crossings, by any means necessary, with regard to the export of illegally exploited natural resources, that are fnancing the confict, in full collaboration with and assisting the national customs authority to intervene and halt trans-national environmental crime, in close coordination with appropriate national and international bodies.
2. Enhance support for close coordination and trans-boundary collaboration among parks in DRC, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya, including coordination with MONUC, the Lusaka Agreement Task Force and relevant law enforcement agencies.
3. Mobilize resources for trans-boundary collaboration and coordination, including all aspects of transnational environmental crime and investigation from source to end-user outside the region – including investigations of complicit companies in recipient countries, especially but not limited to the EU, USA, People’s Republlic of China and the rest of Asia – in order to monitor the origin and halt the purchase of illegally exploited and smuggled minerals and timber from the Congo Basin.
4. Mobilize funding for judicial training and cross-boundary training of judicial staff in national and transnational environmental crime in gorilla range states to assist in bringing successful prosecutions.
5. Strengthen long term training programmes in law enforcement for park rangers and wildlife managers across the region including those working outside of parks, for example in community reserves, with particular reference to anti-poaching, monitoring, scene of crime investigation and intelligence gathering.
6. Promote the essential role that local, national and international law enforcement and anti-corruption plays in ensuring the success of rainforest protection and climate mitigation efforts under REDD+ and source specifc fnance for these measures through UNEP, UNODC, LATF and INTERPOL.
7. Establish a fund for supporting trans-boundary investigation and collaboration on trans-national environmental crime.
8. Strengthen the collaboration of UNEP, UN offce for Drugs and Crime (UNODC), UN Department of Peace Keeping Operations (DPKO), CITES, World Customs Organization (WCO) and INTERPOL on trans-national environmental crime – including illegal trade in valuable natural resources such as minerals, wood products and wildlife – by, for example, secondment of experienced offcers to help investigate cases and bring about prosecutions.
9. Support the need for strengthened funding for gorilla research and survey data. The report, compiling some of the most recent data and information from a variety of sources, clearly highlights the lack of accurate survey data in parts of the regions within the 10 gorilla range states.
VIDEO: Satinder Bindra interviews Christian Nelleman
http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/gorilla/UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Last Stand of the Gorilla
Gorillas, the largest... more
-
-
Indonesia and Australia announced on Tuesday a multi-million dollar initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation on the Indonesian island of Sumatra.
The Sumatra Forest Carbon Partnership worth 30 million Australian dollars (27 million dollars) will address immediate threats to forest on mineral soils in Jambi province.
The announcement in a statement by Australian Climate Change Penny Wong and Indonesian Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan is an expansion of an existing agreement.
"The partnership in Jambi is a demonstration activity, which is a pilot project to show how you can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in practice," Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership coordinator Neil Scotland told AFP.
"The first demonstration activity already takes place in Central Kalimantan (Borneo)," he said, adding that it was in line with the UN-REDD programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.
Rapid deforestation in Indonesia by legal and illegal loggers has made Indonesia one of the highest emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
Indonesia plans to reduce its emissions by 26 percent by 2020.Indonesia and Australia announced on Tuesday a multi-million dollar initiative to... more
-
-
United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen ended without a clear directive to save the world's forests, an issue seen as critical for averting dangerous climate change.
An agreement on REDD, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries, was expected to be completed last week as the talks wrapped up.
But the final "Copenhagen Accord" only recognized the importance of ending deforestation; it gave no specifics on what REDD will look like or what it will include.
"Business as usual logging and forest conversion will continue," said Stephen Leonard of the Australian Orangutan Project. ...
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091223/worldwide-forestry-deal-left-without-legal-frameworkUnited Nations climate talks in Copenhagen ended without a clear directive to save the... more
-
-
Two weeks of climate talks in Bangkok were meant to lay the groundwork for a strong deal to cut emissions at Copenhagen. As talks finished on October 9, the poor nations denounced the wealthy nations for sabotaging negotiations.
Rich countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia and the European Union (EU) said they intend to abandon the legally binding emissions cuts required of them under the Kyoto protocol.
Instead, wealthy nations want a non-binding agreement. They also want an international climate regime that would allow them to offset domestic emissions by buying carbon credits from overseas.
Executive director of the South Centre Martin Khor said the outcome of the Bangkok talks was “astonishing and unfortunate”. In the October 12 Malaysian Star, he said the fortnight ended “by taking steps backwards from progress towards this December’s Copenhagen conference”.
“This has sent shock waves around the world, and raised the prospect of utter failure in Copenhagen”, he said.
In an October 9 statement, the International Institute for Environment and Development said Bangkok “largely failed to deliver any substantive progress on targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or the transfer of technology and finance from rich to poorer nations for adaptation and mitigation, leading to serious questions about the political commitment of the industrialised nations”.
In a series of joint statements, China and the G77 (a group of 130 underdeveloped nations) said the US and the EU were trying to shift the burden of emission cuts on to the world’s poor.
On October 5, G77 spokesperson Lumumba Di-Aping said: “The intention of the developed countries is clearly to kill the [Kyoto] protocol.
“Feelings are running high in the G77. It is clear now that the rich countries want a deal outside the Kyoto agreement.
“It would be based on a total rejection of their historical responsibilities.”
The Kyoto protocol is set to expire in 2012. The Copenhagen talks are supposed to set up a new international climate treaty to replace it.
Kyoto bound participating nations to cut emissions by 5% (on 1990 levels) by 2012. However, the US was never a signatory to the Kyoto protocol.
The G77 called for minimum cuts of 40% (on 1990 levels) by 2020 based on the scientific data presented in the UN’s 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
At Bangkok, the rich countries signalled they want to ditch the Kyoto regime altogether and join the US in a new agreement that allows each country to pledge their own, non-binding targets.
The October 5 Guardian said a study by the Association of Small Island States suggested current national pledges from the rich countries amount to overall emissions cuts of just 11%-18% by 2020.
On October 7, the International Youth Delegation (IYD) to the Bangkok talks denounced “the dirty delaying tactics from self-interested countries”.
The delegation, which involved young people from more than 30 countries, declared they had “no confidence” in the upcoming Copenhagen conference.
“Make no mistake: Our future is being held hostage to interests that have consistently thumbed their noses at the international community and their obligations to the rest of the world”, the IYD said in a statement posted on the It’s Getting Hot in Here blog.
“This process has been polluted by self-interested corporations and nations looking to profit off of our crisis. They have been pushing false solutions that exacerbate rather than fix the problem.”
It attacked plans from rich nations to offset much of their pledged emission cuts, which could actually allow their emissions to rise.
“Not only are the targets set by rich countries weak, but they are deceptive. Rather than representing actual emissions reductions, they contain unacceptable proportions of offsets, which do not reduce emissions, and displace the burden back onto the developing countries of the world.”
The youth delegation also attacked the wealthy nations’ attempts to strip guarantees for indigenous rights out of the text for the Reduced Emissions from Deforestations and Forest Degradation (REDD) agreement.
They joined indigenous-led protests against the REDD scheme outside the conference on October 7.
The final shape of REDD, a carbon-trading scheme that allows companies to buy and trade carbon stored in forests to offset carbon emissions, is due to be decided at Copenhagen.
REDD-Monitor.org’s Chris Lang said the likely outcome “is not looking good for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, forests or for the climate”.
In particular, critics have attacked EU attempts to allow REDD credits to be claimed for logging rainforests and putting plantation timber in its place.
Rosalind Reeve of the environmental NGO Global Witness said on October 3: “The REDD process is doing precisely what it was created not to do.
“It’s turning into the biggest subsidy ever for the logging industry and putting us on the road to forest destruction.”
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/814/41858
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation’ (REDD) carbon market funds for old, natural forest logging, or for conversion of natural or semi-natural forests and other ecosystems to plantations. Ending deforestation and degradation of old and relatively ecologically intact primary and old growth forest ecosystems, and the ecological restoration of late-successional old growth forests, are keystone responses to maintaining global climate, biodiversity, water and ecosystems.
http://redapes.org/take-action/no-to-copenhagen-carbon-logging-yes-to-orangutans/Two weeks of climate talks in Bangkok were meant to lay the groundwork for a strong... more
-
-
The Global Justice Ecology Project has been in Copenhagen protesting peacefully for indigenous peoples and our forests. This entry relates to the current atmosphere and how indigenous peoples concerns are once again being rejected in negotiations.The Global Justice Ecology Project has been in Copenhagen protesting peacefully for... more
-
-
UN climate talks on ending deforestation hit a new low on Saturday after a leaked document revealed that immediate targets to halt forest loss had been cut out of a draft agreement.
Poorer forested countries had been willing to accept deforestation targets, but only with financial assistance. They wanted rich countries to commit to providing billions of dollars for the effort before they agreed to bind themselves to any goals.
Currently, there are no dollar commitments on the table. ...
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091212/deforestation-deal-copenhagen-s-supposed-savior-hits-new-low-targets-droppedUN climate talks on ending deforestation hit a new low on Saturday after a leaked... more
-
-
We, the international peasant movement La Via Campesina, are coming to Copenhagen from all five corners of the world, leaving our farmland, our animals, our forest, and also our families in the hamlets and villages to join you all.
Why is it so important for us to come this far? There are a number of reasons for that. Firstly, we would like to tell you that climate change is already seriously impacting us. It brings floods, droughts and the outbreak of pests that are all causing harvest failures. I must point out that these harvest failures are something that the farmers did not create. Instead, it is the polluters who caused the emissions who destroy the natural cycles. So, we small scale farmers came here to say that we will not pay for their mistakes. And we are asking the emitters to face up to their responsibilities.
Secondly, I would like to share with you some facts about who the emitters of green house gases in agriculture really are: new data that has come out clearly shows that industrial agriculture and the globalized food system are responsible of between 44 and 57% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. This figure can be broken down as follows (i) Agricultural activities are responsible for 11 to 15%, (ii) Land clearing and deforestation cause an additional 15 to 18%, (iii) Food processing, packing and transportation cause 15 to 20%, and (iv) Decomposition of organic waste causes another 3 to 4%. It means that our current food system is a major polluter.
The question we have to answer now is: how do we solve the climate chaos, hunger and assure a better livelihood for farmers, when the agricultural sector itself is contributing more than half of the total emissions? We believe that it is the industrial and agribusiness model of agriculture that is at the root of the problem, because those percentages that I mentioned earlier come from the deforestation and the conversion of natural forests into monoculture plantations, all of which is being carried out by Agribusiness Corporations. Not by familly farmers. Such large emissions of methane by agriculture are also due to the use of urea as a petrochemical fertilizer through the green revolution, very much supported by the World Bank. At the same time, agricultural trade liberalization promoted by free trade agreements (FTA) and by the World Trade Organization (WTO) is contributing to the greenhouse gases emissions due to food processing and food transportation around the world.
If we genuinely want to tackle the climate change crisis, the only way we have to go forward is to stop industrial agriculture. Agribusiness has not only highly contributed to the climate crisis, it has also massacred the small farmers of the world. Millions of farmers , men and women from around the world, have been kicked off their land. Millions of others suffer violence every year because of land conflicts in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Small farmers and landless farmers make up the majority of the more than 1 billion hungry people in the world. And because of free trade, many small farmers commit suicide in South Asia. So putting an end to industrial agriculture is the only way we can go.
Will the current climate negotiations, that are relying on carbon trade mechanisms, bring solutions to climate change? To this we say that carbon trade mechanisms will only serve polluting countries and companies, and bring disaster to small farmers and indigenous peoples in developing countries. The REDD initiative (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) has already kicked off their land many indigenous peoples and small farmers in developing countries. And more and more agricultural land is being converted into tree plantations in order to attract carbon credits.
At COP 13 in Bali 2007, La Via Campesina proposed the landless farmers' and small farmers' solution to climate change, which is: "small scale sustainable farmers are cooling down the earth". And here, at COP 15, again we bring that proposal, backing it with the figures that prove that it could reduce more than half of the global greenhouse gas emissions. This figure comes from: (I) Recuperating organic matter in the soil would reduce emissions by 20 to 35%. (ii) Reversing the concentration of meat production in factory farms and reintegrating joint animal and crop production would reduce them by 5 to 9% (iii) Putting local markets and fresh food back at the center of the food system would reduce a further 10 to 12%. (iv) Halting land clearing and deforestation would stop 15 to 18% of emissions. In short, by taking agriculture away from the big agribusiness corporations and putting it back into the hands of small farmers, we can reduce half of the global emissions of greenhouse gases. This is what we propose, and we call it Food Sovereignty.We, the international peasant movement La Via Campesina, are coming to Copenhagen from... more
-
-
Know what REDD stands for? It's about deforestation. Learn through a new version of "The House that Jack Built."
More background information to demystify the climate change debate and reports from the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen can be found at http://www.greendetectives.netKnow what REDD stands for? It's about deforestation. Learn through a new version... more
-
-
We are socio-environmental organizations and movements, male and female workers in family and peasant agriculture, agroextractivists, members of Quilombola (descendants of runaway slaves) communities, women's organizations, urban grassroots organizations, fishermen and women, students, traditional peoples and communities, and native peoples sharing the struggle against deforestation and for environmental justice in the Amazon and in Brazil at large. We gathered at the seminar "Climate and Forest - REDD and market-based mechanisms as a solution for the Amazon?," held in Belém, state of Pará, Brazil, on October 2-3, 2009, to analyze proposals for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) for the region in the light of our experiences with policies and programs implemented in the region in recent decades. In this letter, we are publicly calling on the Brazilian Government to reject the idea of using REDD as a carbon market-based mechanism and of accepting it as a means to compensate the emissions from Northern countries.
We reject the use of market-based mechanisms as tools to reduce carbon emissions based on the firm conviction that the market cannot be expected to take responsibility for life on the planet. The Conference of the Parties (COP) and its ensuing results showed that governments are not willing to take on consistent public commitments and that they tend to transfer the practical responsibility for achieving (notoriously insufficient) targets to the private initiative. As a result, public investments in and control of compliance with targets falter, while the expansion of a global CO2 market is legitimized as a new form of financial capital investment and a means to ensure the survival of a failed production and consumption model.
The REDD proposals under discussion do not make any distinction between native forests and large-scale tree monoculture, and they allow economic actors - which have historically destroyed ecosystems and expelled populations from them - to resort to standing forest appreciation mechanisms to preserve and strengthen their economic and political power to the detriment of those populations. In addition, we run the risk of allowing industrialized countries not to reduce their fossil-fuel emissions drastically and to maintain an unsustainable production and consumption model. We need agreements to force Northern countries to recognize their climate debt and to assume the commitment to pay it off.
For Brazil, international climate negotiations should not be focused on discussing REDD and other market-based mechanisms, but rather on the transition to a new production, distribution and consumption model based on agroecology, on a solidarity-based economic approach, and on a diversified and decentralized energy matrix capable of ensuring food security and sovereignty.
The main challenge for addressing deforestation in the Amazon and in other biomes in Brazil lies in solving the serious land ownership problems facing the country, which are at the roots of its socio-environmental conflicts.
Deforestation - resulting from the advance of monoculture and of policies that favor agribusiness and a development model based on the predatory exploitation and export of natural resources - can only be avoided if the land issue is appropriately addressed through a Land Reform and sustainable territorial reorganization measures, and if territories occupied by traditional peoples and communities and by native peoples are legally recognized.
We have a different vision on what territory, development and economics are all about, which we are building over time, based on the sustainable use of forests and free use of biodiversity. A set of public policies is necessary for ensuring recognition of and appreciation for traditional practices, on the basis of a balanced relationship between production and environmental preservation.
We are committed to keep on fighting for what we believe in the light of this vision and to make sure that any mechanism for reducing deforestation is based on a comprehensive set of public policies and public and voluntary funds that can ensure our rights and life in the Amazon and on the planet.We are socio-environmental organizations and movements, male and female workers in... more
-
-
Our forests and our agriculture will save us.
Excerpt:
South Asian countries must be rewarded for afforestation, reforestation and carbon stock growth, say N. H. Ravindranath and Shamama Afreen.
In December 2007, at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Bali, Indonesia, governments from developed and developing countries alike adopted a 'roadmap' for stepping up efforts to combat climate change.
The roadmap included,among other measures,a commitment to establish policy approaches and incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). These are due to be agreed at the UNFCCC climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year.
Strategies for REDD have been much debated and some developing countries clearly stand to benefit from the proposals. But others, particularly those with low forest cover and low deforestation rates, have little to gain unless negotiators also consider the role of conservation and sustainable forest management.
REDD winners
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the forestry sector contributes about 17 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, making it the second largest source next to energy supply. Estimates put emissions from deforestation in the 1990s at 5.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Deforestation is certainly the largest source of emissions for many developing countries. Research estimates that 12.9 million hectares of tropical forest were lost each year from 2000–2005, mainly through conversion to agricultural land, but also due to expanding settlements and infrastructure.
Brazil, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia occupied the top five positions from 1990–2005, annually deforesting anything from nearly half a million hectares in Zambia to nearly three million hectares in Brazil. And unless action is taken, deforestation is likely to remain high in the tropics over the coming years and decades.
So reducing tropical deforestation is seen as a high-priority way of mitigating potential climate change. And in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that it would not cost much to do.
The UNFCCC's vision for REDD is to give developing countries financial incentives to reduce national deforestation rates and associated carbon emissions below a baseline (based either on a historical reference case or future projection). By doing so, REDD should contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.Our forests and our agriculture will save us.
Excerpt:
South Asian countries... more
-
-
Drought in the Amazon is imperiling the rainforest ecosystem and global climate, reports new research published in Science.
Analyzing the impact of the severe Amazon drought of 2005, a team of 68 researchers across 13 countries and 40 institutions found evidence that rainfall-starved tropical forests lose massive amounts of carbon due to reduced plant growth and dying trees. The 2005 drought — triggered by warming in the tropical North Atlantic rather than el Niño — resulted in a net flux of 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere — more than the combined annual emissions of Japan and Europe — relative to normal years when the Amazon is a net sink for 2 billion tons of CO2.
The findings suggest that in the face of warming climate, relying on tropical forests as a massive carbon sink is a perilous proposition, raising questions about the effectiveness of schemes to offset industrial emissions by protecting rainforests without also curbing fossil fuel use. Should droughts worsen on a global scale, forests could become a net source of emissions, exacerbating climate change.
"For years the Amazon forest has been helping to slow down climate change. But relying on this subsidy from nature is extremely dangerous", said lead author Oliver Phillips, referencing newly published research indicating that tropical forests have absorbed as much as a fifth of fossil fuel emissions in recent decades.
"If the earth's carbon sinks slow or go into reverse, as our results show is possible, carbon dioxide levels will rise even faster," Phillips, a professor at the University of Leeds, added. "Deeper cuts in emissions will be required to stabilize our climate."
The researchers estimate that old growth forests in the Amazon store roughly 120 billion tons of carbon in their vegetation and process — through photosynthesis and respiration — 18 billion tons of carbon annually, or more than twice the emissions from fossil fuel use. Given this massive scale of carbon cycling, "relatively small changes in Amazon forest dynamics therefore have the potential to substantially affect the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and thus the rate of climate change itself," they note.
Overall the study found that a 100-millimeter (4 inch) increase in water deficit triggers the loss of 2.7 tons of aboveground forest carbon per hectare. However the impact of drought may be even worse — dry conditions greatly increase the risk of forest fire, including small surface fires that can inflict serious harm in even old-growth rainforest.
Drought also affects the species composition of the forest. Some species, especially fast-growing, light-wooded trees, are particularly vulnerable to reduced rainfall.
"Amazon drought kills selectively and therefore may also alter species composition, pointing to potential consequences of future drought events on the biodiversity in the Amazon region," the authors write.
"Drought threatens biodiversity too," said co-author Abel Monteagudo, a Peruvian botanist with the Missouri Botanical Gardens.
Unlikely other research that has relied primarily on satellite imagery to measure drought stress (including one that suggested dry conditions enhance growth in the Amazon), the study was conducted under RAINFOR, a research network that monitors death rates and growth among more than 100,000 trees in 100 forest plots across the Amazon's 600 million hectares. The granularity of the study allowed scientists to directly measure changes that would not be otherwise readily apparent but may have big impacts.Drought in the Amazon is imperiling the rainforest ecosystem and global climate,... more
-
