Are Tree Monocultures a Solution to Global Warming?
10/1/98
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Are Tree Monocultures a Solution to Global Warming?
Source: World Rainforest Movement
Status: Distribute freely with proper credit to source
Date: 10/1/98
WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT
MOVIMIENTO MUNDIAL POR LOS BOSQUES
International Secretariat Oxford Office Instituto del
Tercer Mundo 1c Fosseway Business Centre Jackson 1136
Stratford Road Montevideo Moreton-in-Marsh
Uruguay GL56 9NQ United Kingdom Ph +598 2 409
61 92 Ph. +44.1608.652.893 Fax +598 2 401 92 22
Fax +44.1608.652.878 EMail: rcarrere@chasque.apc.org EMail:
wrm@gn.apc.org Web page: http://www.wrm.org.uy
=================================
W R M B U L L E T I N # 16
OCTOBER 1998
=================================
In this issue:
* OUR VIEWPOINT
- Trees, forests and climate in Buenos Aires
* CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE
- Are tree monocultures a solution to global warming?
- For and against forests conservation and climate stabilization - Forest-
related quotes from UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol
* WRM STATEMENT
- To the Fourth Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on
Climate Change
*WRM GENERAL ACTIVITIES
- News from the International Secretariat
OUR VIEWPOINT
- Trees, forests and climate in Buenos Aires
The Conference of the Parties (COP4) of the Framework Convention on
Climate Change will be meeting during the first two weeks of November in
Buenos Aires. Much of the discussion will concentrate on the role of
forests as carbon sinks and many negotiations will include deals between
Northern and Southern countries on how to trade emissions and sinks: we
emit, you sink.
While the whole world expects that COP4 will bring about solutions to
global warming, the fact is that many Northern governments --and
particularly the major emitters-- will try to trade much of their
emissions instead of limiting them at source. On the other side, many
Southern governments will be eager to sell their sinks at the best price
possible. If it weren't tragic it would be funny: humanity is facing a
major threat and governments are tinkering with figures and money instead
of implementing real solutions.
Apart from the above, there are a number of further problems which
confuse the whole issue, namely the definition of forests, the confusion
between carbon reservoirs and sinks, the reductionist view of forests, and
the question of whether tree plantations can be carbon sinks.
The climate change negotiations are based on the FAO's definition of
forests. According to this organization, a forest is "an ecosystem with a
minimum of 10 per cent crown cover of trees and/or bamboos, generally
associated with wild flora, fauna and natural soil conditions, and not
subject to agricultural practices." The term 'forest' is further
subdivided, according to its origin, into two categories: natural forests
and plantation forests. Natural forests are "a subset of forests composed
of tree species known to be indigenous to the area", while plantation
forests are subdivided into: a) "established artificially by afforestation
on lands which previously did not carry forest within living memory" and
b) "established artificially by reforestation of land which carried forest
before, and involving the replacement of the indigenous species by a new
and essentially different species or genetic variety."
Amazingly enough, such definition has gone basically unchallenged until
now. Any lay person can see that a plantation is not a forest, but the
"experts" confuse the issue and define any area covered with trees as
being a "forest". The only case in which a plantation could be termed a
forest is that in which an area originally covered by forests is
replanted with trees and shrubs original to the area. However, this
category is explicitly not included in the definition of plantation
forests!
>From our perspective, tree plantations have only one thing in common with
forests: they are full of trees. But the two are essentially different. A
forest is a complex, self-regenerating system, encompassing soil, water,
microclimate, energy, and a wide variety of plants and animals in mutual
relation. A commercial plantation, on the other hand, is a cultivated area
whose species and structure have been simplified dramatically to produce
only a few goods, whether lumber, fuel, resin, oil, or fruit. A
plantation's trees, unlike those of a forest, tend to be of a small range
of species and ages, and to require extensive and continuing human
intervention. Plantations are much closer to an industrial agricultural
crop than to either a forest as usually understood or a traditional
agricultural field. Usually consisting of thousands or even millions of
trees of the same species, bred for rapid growth, uniformity and high
yield of raw material and planted in even- aged stands, they require
intensive preparation of the soil, fertilisation, planting with regular
spacing, selection of seedlings, weeding using machines or herbicides, use
of pesticides, thinning, mechanised harvesting, and in some cases pruning.
The above is not an idle or academic discussion. Accepting the FAO's
definition implies accepting plantations as a substitute for forests and
therefore accepting that, being "forests", they have a positive social and
environmental role to play. This is totally false. It is well documented
that large-scale industrial tree plantations have already proven to be
detrimental to people and the environment in a large number of countries
and in many cases they have been a major cause of deforestation. We
therefore demand of the FAO --and those who accept its definitions-- that
"natural forests" be called simply forests (primary and secondary) and
"forest plantations" be called tree plantations.
A second important confusion is that between carbon reservoirs and carbon
sinks. A full-grown forest is a carbon reservoir. Its carbon intake
through photosynthesis is balanced with its carbon emissions. The amount
of carbon contained in a forest is basically the same all the time. If the
forest is destroyed, the stored carbon will be released --sooner or later-
- to the atmosphere, thus contributing to the greenhouse effect.
Forests that have been cut and are regrowing can be very efficient in
capturing carbon (both in trees and undergrowth) and therefore, as part of
many other equally important functions they perform, they can be
considered as carbon sinks. As trees grow, their intake of carbon is
higher than their emissions, thus having a net positive balance regarding
the amount of carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.
On the other hand, tree plantations --which are being publicised as the
main carbon sinks-- have yet to prove this role. In general terms, any
area converted to tree plantations should until proven otherwise be
regarded as a net carbon source and not as a carbon sink. In numerous
cases, plantations have replaced either primary or secondary forests and
this has meant the release of more carbon than that which the growing
plantation can capture, even in the long run. There is a second crucial
issue: will these plantations be harvested or not? If harvested, then they
would at best be no more than temporary sinks, capturing carbon until
harvest and then releasing most of the captured carbon in a few years (in
some cases even in months) as the paper or other products of the
plantation are destroyed. If not harvested, then tree plantations would be
occupying millions of hectares of land which could be dedicated to much
more useful purposes, such as providing people with food. There is yet
another issue concerning the changes that a plantation introduces to the
local environment. Converting wetland to plantation can, for instance,
result in the release of important amounts of carbon dioxide from the
soil.
There are therefore many uncertainties about the assumption that
plantations anywhere can be carbon sinks for any length of time longer
than the early period of fast growth --and perhaps not always even then.
This "common sense" assumption needs to be supported by research before
plantations are accepted as carbon sinks.
The distinction between carbon reservoirs and sinks is not a theoretical
discussion either. The conservation of a forest cannot be seen as a
measure to mitigate global warming, but as a measure to avoid increasing
the problem. A forest can be compared with an oil deposit underground. If
the oil is kept there, the current situation will not improve, but it will
not be aggravated. Therefore, forest conservation should be seen as a
necessity to avoid further problems.
On the other hand, it is true that secondary forest regrowth can have a
beneficial effect. However, until now, governments and "experts" have
emphasized plantations (and not secondary forests) as one of the main
solutions to global warming. This is linked to the above discussion on the
definition of forests as well as to the discussion that questions the
reductionist approach to forests.
At the climate change level, forests are being seen strictly as carbon
stores; at the forestry level, forests are seen as wood for industry; at
the agricultural level as obstacles to crops; at the pharmaceutical level
as potential medicinal plants. Such approaches are all wrong if each is
considered in isolation, because forests contain all those potential
functions, but only as long as they are viewed as a whole and not as
divisible parts. When they are seen and treated as having just one
function, then the consequences are negative impacts to local societies
and to local environments.
Such an approach is obviously present in the following argument, already
being promoted by some "experts": given that primary forests are only
carbon reservoirs --and not sinks-- then it makes sense to cut them, to
convert them into durable goods (whereby the carbon within will remain
locked in the wood until the "durable goods" are destroyed) and to plant a
fast growing tree monoculture instead (which will supposedly retrieve
extra carbon from the atmosphere). As economists would say: a win-win
solution. But forests are not only carbon reservoirs. They perform a
number of environmental and social functions which cannot be replaced by
those of any plantation. The win-win situation becomes a lose-lose one for
local peoples, water catchments, local flora and fauna, agricultural
production, etc.
The reductionist approach of seeing forests and trees as carbon reservoirs
and sinks is also antagonistic to the policy of biodiversity conservation
to which the world's governments have committed themselves, particularly
when large-scale plantations are promoted as a major solution to the
problem. This contradiction was noted by the Conference of the Parties of
the Biodiversity Convention (Bratislava, 1998) which "notes the potential
impact of afforestation, reforestation, forest degradation and
deforestation on forest biological diversity and on other ecosystems, and,
accordingly, requests the Executive Secretary to liaise and cooperate with
the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change to achieve the objectives of the Convention on Biological
Diversity." Translated, the message is: you are looking at forests and
plantations only from your own narrow viewpoint and forgetting that
forests (and not plantations) are essential for biodiversity conservation.
Both from a social and environmental perspective (including but not
limiting the issue to climate change), we strongly support forest
conservation, including primary and secondary forests. But we equally
strongly oppose the conversion of forests, forest lands and grasslands to
supposed "carbon sink" monoculture plantations, which entail only one
(dubious and unproven) positive impact (the capture of carbon dioxide) and
a much larger number of negative impacts on peoples' livelihoods and on
their environment.
COP4 should thus focus on the emissions side of the equation (limiting the
use of fossil fuels, including the much-promoted natural gas). This would
involve real commitments to reductions from Northern countries. On the
reservoir side of the equation, it should support other ongoing
international processes aimed at forest conservation. Regarding sinks, it
should only provide incentives for secondary forest regrowth in all
countries of the world --and not just in Southern countries-- with the
involvement of local communities willing to have an opportunity to bring
their forests back. And put the crazy idea of covering millions of
hectares of fertile lands to "carbon sink" tree plantations where it
belongs: in the dustbin.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE
- Are tree monocultures a solution to global warming?
The Kyoto Protocol, agreed in December 1997, has been criticised for its
market-oriented approach, since it tends to establish a trading system to
buy and sell carbon emissions. Tree plantations have gained a major role
in relation to this issue because of their supposed condition of carbon
sinks. The Protocol established that afforestation is one of the
activities that Annex I countries can undertake to achieve their
"quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments" for greenhouse
effect gases (Art. 2). It also stated that "removals by sinks resulting
from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited
to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation, since 1990, measured as
verifiable changes in carbon stocks" are to be considered by Annex I
countries to meet such commitments (Art 3.3.). According to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) this group includes industrialised
countries and ex-planified economy countries, in process of transition to
a market economy.
The so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), defined by the Kyoto
Protocol in Article 12 as a form of cooperation between both groups,
provides a way by which Northern countries will be able to comply with
their commitments, simply through the establishment of extensive tree
monocrops in the South. When a public or private entity of an Annex I
country invests in a plantation project in the South, it is the investing
country that will receive emission reduction certification for the
project. As a matter of fact this provision, that goes together with the
net approach, means that industrialized countries are freed of their
responsibility to cut their carbon emissions in a significant way, while
the South will offer their territory to projects aimed at capturing them,
which will bring negative environmental consequences with them, as tree
monocrops do. On the other hand it is not fair that those countries
historically responsible for global warming would now receive assistance
from poor countries. This is "foreign aid" upside down, isn't it?
Let's take the case of the tree plantation project promoted by the Dutch
FACE Foundation (Forests Absorbing Carbon Dioxide Emissions). This
organisation aims to plant 150.000 hectares of trees to absorb CO2
equivalent to that emitted by a modern 600 MW coal fired power plant. Half
of this area has been set up in the Ecuadorian Andes. Far from promoting
the use of native species, the project is based on eucalyptus and pines.
Even though these exotic species grow slowly in that environment, FACE
justifies their use by saying that most of the native species in Ecuador
have disappeared because of deforestation and that local people's
knowledge about them have been lost with the forests themselves. This is
however untrue and the only reasonable argument to justify the use of
exotics is that they are easier and cheaper to plant.
Large-scale monoculture plantations are known to be detrimental to the
environment , both in natural forests and in grassland ecosystems:
decrease in water yield at the basin level, acidification and loss of
permeability of soils, nutrient depletion, alteration in the abundance and
richness of flora and fauna. Nevertheless, there is an aspect of
plantations that is perhaps not so well known: their social and cultural
effects. Indigenous peoples and local communities that live in the forests
are suffering encroachment of their lands by plantation companies and are
forced to leave them, losing their lands and livelihoods, what means
undermining the material and spiritual basis of their respective cultures.
In many cases, plantations require the previous destruction of the natural
forests. The case of the Tupinikim and Guarani indigenous peoples in
Espirito Santo, Brasil, is paradigmatic. After a long and unequal struggle
to recover their ancestral lands, taken away by Aracruz Cellulose to
establish eucalyptus plantations for pulp production, they were recently
forced to sign an agreement that reduces significantly the area of their
lands, to the benefit of the company. In the Portuguesa state of
Venezuela, Smurfitt Cartons is dispossessing local peasants of their lands
and destroying and replacing riverine forests with eucalyputs, pines and
gmelina monocrops. Oil palm plantation companies in Sumatra, Indonesia,
are expropriating local peoples' lands, which has resulted in civil
unrest, since they are willing to defend their lands and livelihoods.
Similar situations involving either eucalyptus and/or oil palm are also
frequent in Sarawak, Malaysia, where indigenous peoples are being
dispossessed of their traditional lands to make way to plantations and are
fighting back to defend the forests. In Chile, large-scale pine
plantations have expelled peasants from their lands and substituted the
forests that provided to people's livelihoods. The list of local
communities affected by tree plantations is indeed very long and the above
are just a few examples to prove the social and environmental destruction
that this "solution" can imply if implemented at an even larger scale.
Other global processes --as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
Intergovernmental Forum on Forests-- are now warning about the potential
impacts of tree plantations on forest biological diversity and on other
attributes of natural ecosystems. Even the Kyoto Protocol itself mentions
that Annex I countries "shall strive to implement (their) commitments ...
in such a way as to minimize adverse social, environmental and economic
impacts on developing country Parties" (Art. 3.14). However, actions are
going in the opposite direction to words. National inventories of
greenhouse-effect gases that every state has to prepare for monitoring its
situation in relation to the commitments of UNFCCC consider the increase
of tree plantation areas --called "planted forests"-- as positive for the
global environment and include carbon capture by plantations in their
respective budgets. Such methodology was adopted without taking into
account the mentioned negative impacts nor the regional or local features
that can affect the calculation. The net effect of a plantation on carbon
intake--once all the variables are taken into account-- is still at the
hypothesis stage.
In sum, the promotion of tree monoculture plantations under the CDM by the
ongoing global process on climate change has a weak scientific basis. From
a political, social and environmental perspective, far from being a
solution to the problem, they contribute to consolidate a scheme that is
threatening people and the environment worldwide. A change in this
approach is urgently needed. Article 9 of the Kyoto Protocol itself
considers the possiblity of implementing such changes "in the light of
the best available scientific information and assessments on climate
change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and economic
information". But, of course, this is not a matter of wording but of
political will. Shall the COP4 in Buenos Aires be another lost
opportunity?
- For and against forests conservation and climate stabilization
Deforestation and forest degradation worldwide have been and are cause of
concern. Rates of loss in tropical as well as in temperate and boreal
areas are alarming. All tropical forests have suffered an increase in the
rate of deforestation, while the few remaining primary temperate forests,
as well as boreal forests are under severe threat.
Forests are not empty. They are the home of million of indigenous people
and local communities, which live in or near them and depend on their
resources. Besides the services forest ecosystems provide at the local
level, they are a major factor for the stabilization of the global
climate. This function is of course not new, but the ongoing process of
discussions and negotiations on global warming have emphasized its
importance. In effect, the UNFCCC in its Art. 1.7 defines "reservoirs" as
"a component of the climate system where a greenhouse gas or a precursor
of a greenhouse gas is stored". Since, according to the above mentioned
definition, mature forests are enormous carbon reservoirs, their
conservation is capital for avoiding an increase in the athmosferic carbon
dioxide concentration. On the contrary the destruction of primary forests,
through fires for example, adds considerable quantity of carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere. Deforestation and changing land-use patterns also add
other greenhouse gases to the air. The conversion of forest to rangelands
increases the liberation of methane and the burning of forests adds
nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. It is out of discussion that forest
conservation worldwide would be an effective way of achieving the ultimate
objective of the UNFCCC, that is "the stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (Article 2). Article
4.1.d of the Convention establishes -among the commitments of all Parties-
their obligation to promote and cooperate in the conservation and
enhancement of sinks and resevoirs, including forests.
Nevertheless, and in spite of the official conferences, consultations and
workshops happening here and there, that result in nice declarations and
recommendations, very little has been done to stop this destructive
process and avoid its detrimental effects. This cannot reasonably be
attributed to the evil nature of the stakeholders involved, but to the
logics of the dominating economic system. The market oriented approach has
completely ignored the negative effects of forest destruction on the
forests themselves as a natural resource, on global climate and, for sure,
on the people that live in and on them. Promotion of cash-crops, ranching
schemes, tree monocrops, commercial logging, oil exploitation, large dam
projects are showing that deforestation is not casual or "natural" but the
consequence of such an approach. Some cases shall be mentioned.
- Southern countries are being more and more pushed to deplete their
natural resources -forests included- to generate funds to pay their
foreign debt. Indonesia, for example, aims at becoming the first oil palm
exporter in the world. Local communites and indigenous peoples are
deprived of their land and forests by oil palm companies, that do not
hesitate even in setting fire to natural forests to clear up land for
plantations. The increase of paper consumption in the North is causing the
expansion of tree plantations for pulp in lands previously occupied by
natural forests that are substituted after logging, as it is happening
with pine plantations in the temperate forests of Chile. Paradoxically in
Tasmania, Australia, center of origin of the genus Eucalyptus, massive
native clearance and replacement by monocultures plantations are underway.
- Local communities and environmental organizations are denouncing and
facing destructive logging activities. In Gabon, for example, the primary
tropical forest of the Okano River Basin are being felled down by
Malaysian logging companies. Environmental groups of Guatemala have
recently succeded in disuading the US logging giant Simpson Forestry to
continue its logging activities in the Rio Dulce area. These kinds of
activities are not limited to the South: logging is also destroying the
Pacific old-growth rainforests of Canada and the USA and environmentalists
have suffered even physical violence for their activities.
- Oil exploration and exploitation is an important factor for the
destruction of tropical forests, which adds yet another negative point to
the performance of oil companies in relation to global warming. The Yasuni
National Park, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in Ecuador, and Kithar National
Park in Pakistan, are being menaced by oil exploration by Perez Compact of
Argentina, Elf of France and Premier Oil. In Nigeria, Shell has not only
been depleting the forests and encroaching native peoples lands, but also
using the apparatus of State security to threaten those who oppose its
activities. At the same time Shell is setting up tree plantations in the
South, with the aim of creating a "green image".
- Mining activities are also an important factor of forest degradation.
Virgin rainforest of Suriname are threatened by the increase of mining
concessions that the Government is granting to foreign companies. The
Grasberg gold mine in Irian Jaya, Indonesia, is polluting water resources
and provoking the loss of local forests. Similar effects is having copper
exploitation in Bougainville and Ok Tedi, in Papua New Guinea.
The above mentioned examples are a token of the present discouraging
situation and illustrate what the text of the UNFCCC really means by
"human activity that alters the composition of the global athmosphere"
(Article 1.2).
At the opposite side, other people are confronting these destructive
schemes in their everyday actions to conserve their land, resources and
cultures, and are thus positively contributing to climate stabilization:
- The Dayak, indigenous ethnic groups of Sarawak (Malaysia) and Kalimantan
(Indonesia), have been leading a long struggle, started in the late
1980s, to stop the destruction of their rainforests by "development" plans
such as commercial logging and plantations, large dams and industrial
shrimp farming.
- The Cofanes indigenous people , who have recently occupied the Dureno 1
oil well in the Ecuadorian Amazon; the 'Uwa struggling against Occidental
Petroleum in Colombia, and the Kolla of Salta, Argentina, opposing the San
Andres gas pipeline to protect the "yungas", a mountain forest ecosystem
rich in biodiversity
- Small farmer communities of Pucallpa, Peru, who are reverting crops and
pasture lands to secondary forests, that provide fuelwood and timber for
domestic use, and offer environmental benefits such as biodiversity
conservation and carbon sequestration.
- Nigerian environmentalists and indigenus peoples, which are defending
the Okomu Forest Reserve, an area that still boasts of pristine forests in
spite of economic pressure from the huge mono-crop plantations established
in it by Michelin Rubber Company and Okomu Oil Palm Company and the
logging company Africa Timber and Plywood.
- Environmentalist groups in the North American Pacific Coast, who are
bravely facing logging companies to protect the remaining old growth
boreal forests.
These people and many others in similar conditions should be regarded as
the authentic contributors to the achievement of the "ultimate objetive of
this Convention" (Article 2). Several international legal instruments and
initiatives mention the role of indigenous peoples and local communities
in forest conservation. For instance, the Indigenous Peoples Convention,
introduced by the ILO in 1989, calls upon the signatory states to take
measures to protect and preserve the environment of the territories
indigenous people inhabit and to recognize their land rights. The "Call
for Action" issued during CBD COP2 in Jakarta, in 1995, stressed "the need
to develop and implement methods for sustainable forest management which
combine production goals, socioeconomic goals of forest-dependent local
communities, and environmental goals".
Unfortunately, the present trend of global negotiations on climate change
does not seem to go in this direction. The Kyoto Protocol is being
regarded more as a trading agreement than as an environmental agreement,
since Northern countries and private corporations -main responsible for
the alteration of the world's climate- are the most relevant actors in the
diplomatic scene and seek to impose their points of view. The "promotion
of sustainable forest management practices" -as stated in Article 2.ii of
the Kyoto Protocol as an obligation of Annex I countries- seems to be only
dead letter.
- Forest-related quotes from UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol
Framework Convention on Climate Change:
Article 1.7. "Reservoir" means a component or components of the climate
system where a greenhouse gas or a precursor of a greenhouse gas is stored
Article 1.8 "Sink" means any process, activity or mechanism which removes
a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the
athmosphere
Article 2. The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal
instruments that the conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the athmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such
a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficent to allow
ecosystems to adpat naturally to climate change, to ensure that food
production is not threatened and to enable economic develoment to proceeed
in a sustainable manner.
Article 3.3 The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate,
prevent or minimize the causes of climate change ... Efforts to address
climate change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties.
Article 4.1 All Parties, taking into account their common but
differentiated responsiblities and their specific national and regional
development priorities, objectives and circumstances, shall: a) Develop,
periodically uopdate, publish and make available to the Conference of the
Parties, in accordance with Article 12, national inventories of
anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse
gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using comparable
methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties... c)
Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion,
including transfer of technologies, practices and processes that control,
reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse effect gases not
controlled by the Montreal Protocol in all relevant sectors, including ...
forestry ... d) promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate
in the conservation and enhacement, as appropriate, of sinks and
reservoirs of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol, including ... forests.
Kyoto Protocol:
Article 2,ii Protection and anhacement of sinks and reservoirs of
greenhouse gases ... promotion of sustainable forest management practices,
afforestation and reforestation.
Article 3, 3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and
removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and
forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and
deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbos stocks
in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments under
this Article of each Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas
emissions by sources and removals by sinks associated with those
activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner and
reviewed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8.
Article 3,4. Prior to the first session of the conference of the Parties
serving as the meeting of the Parety of this Protocol, each Party included
in Annex I shall provide, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for
Scientific and Technological Advice, data to establish its level of carbon
stocks in 1990 and to enable an estimate to be made of its changes in
carbon stocks in subsequent years. The Conference of the Parties, serving
as the meeting of the Parties of this Protocol shall, at its first session
or as soon as practicable thereafter, decide upon modalities, rules and
guidelines as to how, and which, additional human-induced activities
related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by
sinks in the agricultural soils and the land-use change and forestry
cathegories shall be added to, or substracted from, the assigned amount
for Parties, included in Annex I,
Article 3,7. ... Those Parties included in Annex I for whom land-use
change in forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in
1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year of perior the
aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources
minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change for the purposes of
calculating their assigned amount.
WRM STATEMENT
- WRM statement to the Fourth Conference of the Parties of the Framework
Convention on Climate Change
Buenos Aires, November 1998
The WRM is deeply concerned about the direction in which the climate
change negotiations seem to be leading, particularly after the Kyoto
Protocol. A great number of Northern governments appear to be currently
more concerned about seeking to buy their way out of their
responsibilities to the global environment --particularly through the
Clean Development Mechanisms-- instead of implementing actions to
effectively counter the greenhouse effect. On the other hand, many
Southern governments seem to be equally interested in such approach, and
eager to sell their environmental services at the best price possible.
The climate change problem which the world is confronting is however well-
known and so are the remedies. The buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere is the result of unsustainable production and consumption
practices. One of the main greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide. The
majority of the emissions of this gas stem from two main sources: the use
of fossil fuels and deforestation processes (which release carbon stored
in biomass). The remedy is therefore to eliminate the use of fossil fuels
and to put a stop to deforestation.
The question is not whether these solutions are possible to achieve now
(the knowledge and technology certainly exist), but if governments are
creating conditions to reach that objective and if solutions will be
implemented before the world's ecosystems and societies reach a total
colapse. Unfortunately, this does not seen to be the case.
Tropical forest peoples from all over the world are witnessing a major
push in oil and gas exploration --in many cases promoted by multilateral
development banks--and are struggling to put a stop to it. Southern
governments, hand in hand with Northern oil and gas companies, repress
those peoples, while Northern governments turn a blind eye on what their
companies do. Those local peoples, while defending their own rights, are
simultaneously defending the global environment, given that if their
struggles are successful it will mean that less fossil fuel emissions will
be released to the atmosphere and fewer tropical forests destroyed.
Deforestation processes continue unabated and the destruction will
continue until major changes are introduced to the current unsustainable
global economy. Here again, local peoples are standing up to defend their
forests and forest lands and are also repressed by their governments to
the benefit of local elites and transnational corporations in the logging,
mining, oil, plantation, agriculture, aquaculture and other production
areas.
Tree plantations, promoted as one of the main solutions to climate change,
are themselves resulting in further deforestation processes in many
Southern countries, where forests are being substituted by monoculture
tree plantations. At the same time, this solution is creating further
problems to local peoples and local environments, as the displacement of
local populations (resulting in further deforestation), the depletion of
soil and water resources, the elimination of habitats of local wildlife
and flora, etc.
We therefore demand governments present at the COP4:
1) To undertake real commitment to forest conservation by supporting --
instead of repressing-- local communities willing to preserve their
forests
2) To create conditions to allow local communities to manage their
community forests, including the legal recognition of the territorial
rights of indigenous and other traditional forest and forest-dependent
peoples
3) To address the land-tenure issue and promote a genuinly participatory
agrarian reform in order to avoid planned and unplanned peasant migrations
to the forests
4) To avoid the promotion of large-scale monoculture tree plantations
(particularly exotics) and to promote the re-establishment of forests
through the plantation of species native to each area in those cases where
local communities are willing to bring their forests back
5) To avoid the implementation of infrastructure and other projects which
could directly or indirectly result in deforestation processes
6) To address the international underlying causes of deforestation and
forest degradation
7) To coordinate with other international processes dealing with equally
important environmental issues, such as the Convention of Biological
Diversity and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, to make sure that
initiatives within the different processes are not antagonistic to each
other, such as in the case of the promotion of large-scale carbon sink
tree plantations, which contribute to further deforestation and
biodiversity loss.
WRM GENERAL ACTIVITIES
- News from the International Secretariat
On October 2 the WRM International Secretariat addressed the Interamerican
Commission for Human Rights subscribing the document sent to this
international organization by CEJIL (Centre for Justice and International
Law) and CIMI denouncing the Brazilian government for its ignorance of the
Tupinikim and Guarani land rights and demanding the inmediate filing of
the Federal policie investigation against the Dutch missionary Winfried
Overbeek.
Ricardo Carrere participated in the Latin American Workshop of the Joint
Initiative to Address the Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest
Degradation held in Santiago de Chile from 8-10 October. The five case
studies presented at the workshop are available in our web site, where we
will be including the studies presented at the other seven regional
processes (some are already available)
The WRM IS launched an action alert to support the First Pacific Walking
for Land Rights and Self-determination of the Ngobe People and other
Indigneous peoples of Costa Rica, that took place between 11 and 12
October. By means of a letter we also expressed to the Ambassador of Costa
Rica in Uruguay our support to this action.
On October 20 we sent faxes to Ecuadorian authorities supporting the
struggle of the Cofanes indigenous people, who have recently occupied the
Dureno 1 oil well in the Ecuadorian Amazon, as an action of protest
against the depleting activities of oil industry in their ancestral
territories. A message was also sent to the company Bosques Arauco, dated
October 28, expressing our concern for the situation of the Mapuche
community of Cuyinco, that is defending the native forests of Cerro Alto
in southern Chile against logging activities of this company.
- Chilean ecologist receives international prize
Juan Pablo Orrego, Chilean anthropologist and ecologist, member of the ONG
GABB (Grupo de Acci›n por el BioBio) has received the 1998 prize from the
Norvegian organization Right Livelihood Foundation for his permanent
defence of the BioBio watershed and the Pewenche indigenous people against
hydrolelectric projects in the VIII and IX Regions in southern Chile. The
award -known as Alternative Nobel Prize- is confered to people and
organizations distinguished by their actions for world environement and
peace.
- Good news from Costa Rica
An action alert for the Costa Rican mangroves launched by the WRM
International Secretariat on October 13 -following a request of Mangrove
Action Project (MAP) -contributed to leave the text of national law that
protects these rich ecosystems unchanged. The Government had proposed to
the Parliament to introduce some modifications in the law, that would have
opened up these protected areas to the shrimp farm expansion.
-New book
In its chapter related to forests "Life out of Bounds" deals with the
menacing trend of tree monocultures for biodiversity. Those interested in
purchasing the book, please address the Worldwatch Institute website
, or call the Institute directly, at (U.S. dial) 800-
555-2028, or the online bookseller amazon.com. Chris Bright, "Life Out of
Bounds: Bioinvasion in a Borderless World" (New York: WW Norton, 1998).
Issued as a part of the Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series. 288 pages;
$13.00.