Why
forests as carbon sinks should not be included under the CDM
As
Non-Governmental Organisations who have long been concerned with the protection
of forests, including the prevention of deforestation and the people who depend
on them, we seek a dialogue with EU and US government officials about the
ongoing climate negotiations.
We strongly support national and international
efforts to address climate change, especially through energy conservation,
consumption reduction, more equitable resource use, development of renewable
sources of energy, and promotion of sustainable development both domestically
and internationally. Commitments in the Kyoto Protocol, however, do not
go nearly far enough to stave off the threats of climate change. The scientists
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) project a need to cut
emissions 60-80% below 1990 levels just to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gas
emissions at a safe level. Governments currently are committed to reduce
greenhouse gases by just 5.2%. We would like to see the EU and the US lead the
way in the steep reductions in fossil fuel emissions which are central to
addressing the problem.
As
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere rise, there will be negative
impacts on forests. The IPCC estimates that at least one third of the world’s
remaining forests may be adversely affected by global warming.
In addition, we are strongly concerned about the
opening up of loopholes in the Kyoto Protocol, of which sinks maybe the most
significant. For every sequestered ton of carbon claimed under the Kyoto Protocol,
an additional ton of carbon from fossil fuel can be burned. Yet the idea that
planting trees is a reasonable justification for delaying emissions reductions
is clearly dubious. Avoided carbon dioxide should appear neither somewhere else
in the region nor later in the natural system. Forests do not meet this
requirement: they are vulnerable repositories -- dynamic and unpredictable
ecological systems -- rather than guaranteed long-term sinks. As CO2
concentrations rise; (1) forests globally could become net sources of CO2
emissions; (2) they could die back due to localised climate change; and (3) they
could be heavily impacted by increased forest fires. Finally, forest-generated
carbon offsets are likely to be a disincentive for technological change in the
energy sector.
Even if carbon sequestration were equivalent to
emissions reduction, it is not clear that net social and economic benefits would
accrue to countries hosting forest CDM projects.
The CDM was created to foster sustainable development. Yet likely carbon offset
projects, particularly large-scale plantations, could take away needed
agricultural lands, replace valuable native ecosystems, worsen inequity in land
ownership, and increase poverty and evictions of local peoples. These
well-documented risks, inherent in industrial plantation forestry models, would
only be accentuated if genetically modified trees were employed.
The
TAED Biodiversity Working Group is opposed to sinks in the CDM. We support the
EU position against the unbridled use of flexible mechanisms for achieving their
emissions reduction goals. We believe that there will be strong public support
for domestic actions which produce both verifiable reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and benefits to local populations.
Hemmo
Muntingh, Independent Advisor IFAW, Brussels
Friends
of the Earth Norway, Gjermund Anderson
Friends
of the Earth Ireland
Larry
Lohmann, Cornerhouse UK
Down
to Earth: International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia, Frances
Carr
Just
Forests, Tom Roche, Ireland
Earthlink
Germany, Bernhard Henselmann
Rettet den Regenwald Germany, Reinhard Behrend
Manitoba
Furute Forest Alliance, Canada, Chanda Meek
Both
Ends, the Netherlands, Paul Wolverkamp
World
Rainforest Movement, Ricardo Carrere
Reforest
the Earth, Angie Zelter
ARA,
Germany, Wolfgang Kuhlmann
ICA
Ghana, Lambert Okra