April 2000

Issue 42

Trading carbon: a new value for forests 

New fears for forests from agricultural sector 

CSD: update on eighth session 

Certification rivalry

EU Forest Agenda

Trading carbon: a new value for forests

On 8 March 2000, a Green Paper on greenhouse gas emission trading within the European Union was adopted1 . Presenting several policy options, the Paper launches a debate on emissions trading within the EU, and on the relationship between emissions trading and other measures to reduce climate change.

Emissions trading is just one of the mechanisms recognised by the Kyoto Protocol that industrialised countries may use to meet their emissions reductions targets2 . Other options include gaining emission credits through pollution-abatement projects in industrialised countries, and through planting trees for carbon absorption as part of a ‘clean development mechanism’. The rules for the use of these mechanisms will be discussed at the sixth Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP6), in November.

With industrialised nations feeling the pressure of Kyoto commitments, a special IPCC report on Land Use Change and Forests provides a timely and objective look at some of the opportunities and problems of carbon sinks. NGOs are greatly concerned about the promotion of ‘carbon offset forestry’, which is already having detrimental effects on natural forests, the environment and forest-dependant peoples3 . This is especially worrying when the science behind the theory of carbon sinks is so uncertain.

Before Kyoto, the EU focused its attention on implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gases, opposing mechanisms that could be used to avoid vital domestic action. It is hoped that the EU will retain these principles in the coming negotiations.

Forest sinks will also be on the agenda at the second meeting of Trans-Atlantic Environment Dialogue, 10-13 May, at discussions involving EU and US NGOs, Commission experts, and Commissioners Wallstrom and Lamy, and their American counterparts.   

Reactions to the Green Paper are invited before September 2000 to be considered in the development of the EU's implementation strategy.

 1 COM(00)87.

 2 The EU is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8% from 1990 levels, during 2008-2012.

 3 A briefing is available from Fern.

4 See briefing on sinks at www.wrm.org.uy

New fears for forests from agricultural sector

Trade liberalisation in the agricultural sector was identified as a major new threat to forests and forest peoples at a NGO meeting organised by Fern (20-22 March in Brussels).

While NGO delegates from both North and South agreed that the further liberalisation of the forest products sector will continue to have a negative impact on the world’s forests, the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) argued in its presentation that trade measures in other sectors potentially harbour even greater negative impacts for forests.

Compared to the forest products sector (which has average tariffs of 1%), import tariffs on agricultural products such as soybeans, oilpalm and beef are currently high at over 100% in the EU. Yet in several studies, including the European Commission’s sustainability impact assessment, even small reductions to the forest product tariffs are shown to have a negative impact on the world’s forests and forest peoples. If the import tariffs for the  larger sector of agricultural products were to be reduced (followed by an increase in production and exports), the resulting impact on forests and forest peoples could be dramatic.

Following the meeting, a group of delegates met the European Commission which promised to look into the development of flanking measures if tariff reductions in the agricultural sector would lead to deforestation. Fern intends to follow-up these activities with a similar meeting in the autumn. q

CSD: update on eighth session

The eighth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) dealt with several issues including trade, land-use and the IFF.

The CSD and trade

A panel on trade and indigenous peoples highlighted the fact that the impact of globalisation on indigenous peoples is often negative. The EU-Mercosur agreement currently under negotiation was criticised for endangering the cultural identity and diversity of the communities in the Andean region. Other indigenous speakers made recommendations, including a permanent forum of indigenous peoples within the WTO and establishing a North-South dialogue that considers the North’s need for standards and the South’s need for sustainability.

In a session on preparations for Rio+10, the president of the IUCN, Yolanda Kakabadse, called for a body that serves as a counterbalance to the WTO. The trade segment of the CSD agreed that trade is one of the best means to achieve and promote sustainable development but that certain requirements have to be met in order to ensure that trade liberalisation plays a positive role. International rules and regulations as well as codes of conducts were mentioned as important to this end.

The importance of recognizing multilateral environmental agreements as of equal status to the WTO was discussed, as well as the need to clarify the Rio principles and their relationship with trade rules.

No place for UNFF yet

CSD participants welcomed the consensus at IFF (Forest Watch 41) and recommended both the endorsement of the IFF report and its forwarding to ECOSOC for action, particularly the recommendation to establish a United Nations Forum on Forests.

Although the EU did not state where it would prefer to see UNFF placed within the UN system, meaningful participation and keeping forests under the umbrella of sustainable development1  are the major reasons driving the CSD option for many NGOs and some EU Member States (UK, Netherlands and Denmark). The implementation of the IPF Proposals for Action was again highlighted by the EU.

Implementation report

A joint-NGO report2 assessing the implementation by 20 countries worldwide of the IPF Proposals for Action (Forest Watch 41) was released at the CSD.

Co-produced by Fern, the report was well received despite being generally critical of the level and extent of implementation of the IPF Proposals. Manuel Rodriguez, ex-IPF co-chair, commented that he was encouraged by the concept of the project and believed NGOs did not get enough credit for this kind of valuable work. NGOs believe independent monitoring should be incorporated into the workplan of the new UNFF.  q

 1 The arguments are fully elaborated in a joint NGO paper available from fern www.gn.apc.org/fern

 2 The global and the European reports are available on the Fern website and www.forestpolicy.org

Certification rivalry

A comparative study of the PEFC and the FSC by The Confederation of the European Pulp and Paper Industry 2 is criticised  by several NGOs including the FSC-UK as biased3, while another assessment4  by C. Hornborg, Helsinki University, fails to go into sufficient depth.

European NGOs, together for the annual meeting of the Forest Movement Europe, reaffirmed their serious concerns about the PEFC1 while the forest owners and forestry industry continue to back it strongly.

Fern believes the FSC's stated objective of promoting good forestry as well as its more participative structure make it the stronger  environmental and social option, but regrets that objectivity is often missing in this highly-charged certification debate.

1 Statement available from Fern.

 2Available at: www.cepi.org

 3 Available from fern.

 4http://honeybee.helsinki.fi/mmeko/graduja/hornborg.htm

EU Forest Agenda

• 10-13 May: Trans Atlantic Environment Dialogue meeting, Brussels. Issues to be discussed: carbon sinks and trade and forests. More info: Fern.

• 15 May: Action day in support for Sami people in Sweden.

• 18-19 May: A delegation of indigenous peoples from Cameroon visits Brussel. • 22-23 May: A delegation of indigenous peoples from Guyana visits Brussels.