|
Informing NGOs, MEPs, |
|
|
|
Flawed assumptions in After
a decade in which forest issues have been sidelined at intergovernmental
discussions, it was refreshing to have them back on the agenda and to hear
decision-makers and the public in industrialised countries beginning to take
note of the fate of forests. It was also positive to see the series of
protests, actions and interventions by indigenous peoples and grassroots
organisations that accompanied the UN climate meeting in December 2007 and
which highlighted that reducing deforestation will take more than money,
methodologies and carbon counting.¹ However, were the headlines which
followed the conference proclaiming “good news for forests,” missing a deeper
understanding of the situation? There
certainly were positive outcomes, such as the COP’s
‘Bali Action Plan’ “[r]ecognising the complexity of
the problem, different national circumstances and the multiple drivers of
deforestation and forest degradation.”² This statement acknowledges that
whatever actions and financial mechanisms are adopted to avoid deforestation,
to work in the long-term, they must take firm consideration of social issues. There
was bad news too though; two central assumptions in plans to curb
deforestation are flawed, yet remain unchallenged. First, it is widely
assumed that giving standing forests a monetary value must be at the centre
of any plan. To millions of forest peoples and forest dependent communities,
these forests already have an immense value - without them they would be
immensely poorer. Despite this, more often than not, these communities have
no say in how forests are used; their land, tenure and customary rights are
ignored and this violation of rights is at the heart of deforestation. The
majority of proposals presented in The
second assumption worth challenging is that only trading of carbon credits
can provide the necessary funding to significantly reduce emissions from
deforestation. Estimates
of the cost of halting deforestation still vary widely, but the Stern review,
which many believe underestimates the costs, states that to halve
deforestation $5bn would be needed annually. This is roughly equivalent to
half the loss of revenue that governments currently incur due to illegal
logging.³ Other proposals included a $0.5 levy on each barrel of oil sold, or
dedicating a set percentage of revenue gained from auctioning EU Emissions
Trading Scheme emission permits to a fund addressing deforestation. The
main lesson FERN takes home from Bali is that there is a long way to go to
convince governments and other actors that when addressing forest loss, the
focus needs to be on the drivers of deforestation such as lack of good
governance, corruption, unclear tenure rights, misguided government policies
(such as those promoting agrofuels), perverse
subsidies and other market failures. We have decades of experience looking at
those actions that lead to forest loss and those that protect them.
Demarcating indigenous lands, resolving land rights conflicts, and promoting
good forest governance can be effective actions to keep forests standing, whislt poorly thought out EU policies such as its 10% biofuel targets encourage them fall. If we truly want to avoid deforestation we need to deal with its
drivers and have the policies in place to back that up. 1.
www.altereconews.org for articles on NGO action to raise awareness about
avoided deforestation in 2.
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_redd.pdf 3. http://regserver.unfccc.int/seors/reports/events_list.html |
|
World Bank launch forest fund in The launch of the World Bank’s Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility (FCPF)(see FW issue 122) on 11
December 2007 was accompanied by a vociferous and colourful protest by
environmental NGOs and indigenous peoples’ organisations. They were urging
governments to reject the new World Bank initiative promoting the inclusion
of forests in carbon markets.¹ In the run-up to the launch, NGOs had
contacted governments, asking them to refrain from tasking the World Bank
with piloting approaches to avoid deforestation because of the Bank’s poor
track record.² They cited failures from Cambodia to Peru and DRC where a
recent World Bank Inspection Panel report stated that World Bank-supported
logging in the Congo Basin might exacerbate poverty.³ Before
launching the fund, the Bank’s consultation process, notably with indigenous
peoples, was dismal. Although the World Bank’s Head of FCPF Benoit Bosquet assured participants that the Bank learns,
environmental organisations and indigenous peoples’ organisations remain
doubtful that the extended consultation round announced in 1. www.wrm.org.uy - ‘Protecting the world’s forests needs
more than just money’ 2.
http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/forest_issues/unfccc_bali_ngo_statement_nov07_eng.shtml 3.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/FINALINVREPwhole.pdf |
|
Proposal on avoided deforestation may
undermine FLEGT The
EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process will see the
EU signing partnership agreements with timber producing countries to control
the illegal timber trade, improve forest governance and strengthen local
people’s rights.¹ Agreements are being negotiated with Ghana, Malaysia,
Indonesia and Cameroon and countries such as Liberia, DRC and Gabon are
waiting in the wings. This process, if developed with informed and active
participation of local actors (NGOs and the forestry industry) has a real
chance of succeeding. One
of the issues that threatens to derail FLEGT is that some of these countries,
such as Liberia and DRC, are also on the World Bank’s FCPF list for potential
pilot Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) projects.
As our Liberian partners write² “the RED concept has potential, but also
risks that need to be clearly assessed and dealt with. These include further
entrenching the government’s control over forests and contributing to the
exclusion and marginalisation of forest peoples. Competing claims for
compensation for avoided deforestation will increase the government’s desire
to protect would-be forest carbon ‘reservoirs’ and increase land speculation,
grabbing and conflicts.” Whilst
strongly backing EU FLEGT, the 1. Council of the
European Union (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament on 2. |
|
NEWS IN BRIEF The government of Who
was the biggest NGO in Other
discussions held in Bali that will affect forests included that parties to the Kyoto Protocol
doubled the size to which afforestation projects
qualify as ‘small-scale’ under CDM procedures, and thus are subject to less
scrutiny and bureaucracy. The February Forest Watch will include more on
these other decisions. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cmp_ssc_ar_cdm.pdf |
|
|
