|
Informing NGOs, MEPs, |
|
The UK government used 19 February 2008 to
launch the ‘final framework for a Code of Best Practice for Carbon
Offsetting’,1 which gives its stamp of approval only to offset
credits from projects registered under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM). The large majority of voluntary offset credits sold in the
UK will therefore fail to meet the credibility threshold. This should be a
useful wake-up call to offset providers and send a clear message to consumers
- buyers beware of purchasing offset credits. FERN welcomes the Code’s recognition that
voluntary offset credits are bogus, but its blanket endorsement of CDM
projects questions the rigour that has gone into ensuring “consumer
confidence in the integrity and value for money of the offset products
available to them.” As the authors of the Code could have easily found by
reading documents such as International Rivers’ December 2007 report ‘Failed
Mechanism: How the CDM is Subsidizing Hydro Developers and Harming the Kyoto
Protocol’,2 the list of CDM projects that fail to deliver
additional emissions reductions is long and worrying. The Code’s main failing though is that it
does not deal with the main problem all offset schemes face – it is
impossible to verify that any emissions saved are over and above any
reductions that would have happened anyway. 1. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/carbonoffset/codeofpractice.htm 2. http://www.internationalrivers.org/climate/publications
|
|
Indigenous peoples seen but not heard in Rome On 14 February 2008, the International
Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) withdrew from the 2nd meeting of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Working Group on Protected Areas,
held in Rome. Having dedicated a lot of energy to negotiating embassies’
bureaucracy to be able to attend, participants said that this decision was
not taken lightly, but remained the only option after two days in which
indigenous peoples were not given timely access to the floor on matters of
deep concern to them. The failure of the meeting’s chairman to allow for
effective participation went against the requirements of both the CBD
strategic plan and the programme of work on protected areas which call on
parties to improve the participation of indigenous and local communities in
both the implementation of the Convention and all matters related to
protected areas. On the previous afternoon, Slovenia,
supported by other members of the EU, asked the chairman to allow the IIFB
(and other observers), to intervene in a timely manner on items of concern to
them, as is usual practice in CBD meetings. As matters did not improve, and
text amendments submitted by IIFB were not incorporated into Convention
documents, IIFB took the decision to withdraw from the meeting completely for
the first time in its history. The IIFB used the time they had left
together to discuss ways in which they could achieve full and effective
participation in future CBD meetings. In a final statement to the meeting, it
called on all parties to work harder to foster the fullest participation
possible for indigenous and local communities, and civil society, at all
levels of the CBD implementation.1 1. http://indigenousstatement.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html |
|
Villagers in asylum claim One hundred people from the Ilisu Dam region in the southeast of Turkey travelled to Ankara on 4 March 2008 to make it clear that if their homes are destroyed by the dam, they will have no choice but to claim asylum. Speaking on behalf of themselves and 1,200 others at the Austrian, German and Swiss embassies, they stated that they and their fellow villagers would need a new country to live in unless those three countries recalled their financing commitments for the destructive project. Late last year the three countries granted official export credit guarantees for the project even though it will displace or dispossess up to 70,000 people. The participants of the event argued that by financing a dam that will destroy their homes, the three countries are forcing them to seek a new life abroad. See previous FW issues for more information
on the project. |
|
Time to refocus on forests A
report on the implementation of the European Commission’s forest monitoring
programme published at the end of January 2008,1 recommended that
the monitoring scheme should not only be continued, but extended to include
parameters related to climate change, biodiversity and the protective
functions of forests. Forest
Focus was an ambitious plan to collect and deliver data on Europe’s forests
to guide improvements to climate and biodiversity policies. As FERN commented
in 2006 (see FW 103), without this data, the EU will struggle to fulfil its
reporting requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. Due to its decision to end
Forest Focus, the EU has lost potentially relevant forest data for 2007 and
2008. In
its response to an earlier evaluation,2 the Commission points out
that the extension of monitoring activities is now included within the scope
of LIFE+ (a major funding programme for environmental activities). This does
not address the real issue because LIFE+ funding is not guaranteed (it
depends on Member States’ proposals being accepted) and unlike Forest Focus,
Member States will not be obliged to monitor what is happening to their forests.
Until independent forest monitoring becomes mandatory across Member States,
EU reporting on climate and biodiversity policy commitments will not be
meaningful. 1. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st06/st06123.en08.pdf 2. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/final_report.pdf |
|
Unease increases about the impact of EU agrofuel targets There
is a growing sense of unease among Member States as an increasing number of
reports raise concerns about the negative consequences of proposed agrofuels
targets. February 2008 saw the UK government announce a review of, among
others, the environmental impacts of agrofuels, stating that “We are not
prepared to go beyond current UK target levels for biofuels until we are
satisfied it can be done sustainably.”
Then in the first days of March, the EU’s Environment Council
reconfirmed that it saw the 10 per cent target proposed by the Commission as
binding only if production was sustainable and effective sustainability
criteria were fulfilled.1 The Dutch environmental assessment
agency MNP’s new study also found that the 10 per cent target “should be
reconsidered”, stating that “the climate has more to be gained” from
converting biomass resources into electricity.2 NGOs
continue to call for the target to be dropped and are looking to the ad-hoc
group established by the Slovenian Presidency to address the glaring holes in
the Commission proposal (see FW 124). The group met for the first time on 29
February and is expected to present its suggestions for amending the
Commission proposal by early April. FERN understands that many more Member
States believe several issues omitted by the Commission, such as impact of
agrofuel production on water, social criteria and impacts of indirect land
use change must be considered. Several experts at a European Parliament
hearing on sustainability criteria for agrofuels on 4 March also questioned
the “arbitrary volume-based target” proposed by the Commission. 1. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/envir/99178.pdf |
|
NEWS
IN BRIEF International Women’s Day 8 March 2008 sees the publication of Women and Eucalyptus: Stories of Life and Resistance. Impacts of Monocultures on Indigenous and Quilombola Women in the State of Espirito Santo.1 Paying homage to the countless women struggling for their rights, the opening paragraph explains that the intension is “to draw the Brazilian public’s attention to the impacts of monoculture eucalyptus and pine plantations on local populations and ecosystems.” 1. http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Brazil/Book_Women.html The Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) have released two new briefings on the World Bank’s controversial new Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the ‘reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’ it is intended to fund: The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility:
facilitating the weakening of indigenous peoples’ rights http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/forest_issues/fcpf_fpp_briefing_feb08_eng.pdf Some views of indigenous peoples and forest-related
organisations on the World Bank’s ‘Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’ and
proposals for a ‘Global Forest Partnership’ http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/forest_issues/fcpf_ip_survey_feb08_eng.pdf FPP have also released two publications focussing on Oil Palm. The first, ‘Land Rights and Oil Palm Development in Sarawak’ concludes that due to outstanding land rights issues, no palm oil from Sarawak should presently be Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certified. Electronic copies are available at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/asia_pacific/sarawak_land_is_life_nov07_eng.pdf Palm oil production is also the subject of a report
released by a coalition of international environmental groups. ‘Losing
Ground: The human rights impacts of oil palm plantation expansion in
Indonesia’ shows that production of oil for food and agrofuels is
resulting in wide-spread human rights abuses in Indonesia. The report can be
obtained at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/losingground.pdf |
|
|
