Comments: Why Europe torpedoed the REDD forests-for carbon credits initiative

Fortunately, the European Commission has held firm to its belief that bringing forest carbon into the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would be of benefit neither to tropical forests nor in terms of keeping up the pressure for essential emissions reductions *within* the European Union. The Communication published by the Commission on October 17th announces that it believes forests should not be brought into the ETS until at least 2020.

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2008/10/16/european-commission-says-no-to-forest-credits-in-the-ets-until-after-2020-cites-market-flooding-and-governance-problems/

Simon

As someone who has been working on forest conservation and human rights issues, for over 20 years (first as Friends of the Earth and now as FERN), I strongly support the Commission position. It may be worth noting that other like minded NGOs with equal experience, such as Rainforest Foundation, Global Witness, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are also all against the inclusion of forest credits in the carbon markets such as the ETS.

None of these organisations believe that inclusion of forests in the ETS will do anything good for forests, for forest peoples or the climate. 'Conservationists' attempts to include forests in the ETS seem to only focus on getting large amount of cash to save the forests (and line their own pockets?'). It is clear from various scientific analyses that 1. without first recognising local peoples' rights to the land any forest climate agreement will fail. It is unclear -to say the least- how a carbon market can do this; 2. Emission reduction in the north is essential to halt climate change. Inclusion of 'off-sets' by allowing forests in the ETS now would leave Europe of the hook in terms of emission reduction.

Large amounts of cash, are not going to save the world's forests. Emission reduction in the North, recognising forest peoples' rights and addressing the drivers of deforestation (mostly outside the forest sector!) can save the world's forests. Inclusion of forest credits in the ETS is likely to undermine all three.

Saskia Ozinga

The legislation to include 5% biofuels to fossil fuel in Europe is causing a lot of Natural forest to be replaced by plantation in for example my country Zambia(Subsaharan Africa).We see a lot of Foreign investors coming in and grabbing the best land in the northern side ;ideal for food production to grow Jatropha.Conversely charcoal production by the locals in the natural forest is also a major cause of deforestation.Ironically enough the villagers in the forest seldom use charcoal but those in the urban and peri-urban.I know someone who has developed a brilliant jatropha stove.
An ideal way to look at REDD in this particular case is to find REDD money to massively produce these stoves and cheaply provide them to the urban and periurban dwellers.I suppose they can pay for the oil which is much easier to produce by the investors and their rural counterparts(e.g. as hedge and edge row in conservation agriculture) and much easier to Transport. That way REDD would have helped mitigate the situation dont you think?

Chezen Suede

Add a comment: