Download wrm bulletin # 37 - World Rainforest Movement

WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT
MOVIMIENTO MUNDIAL POR LOS BOSQUES TROPICALES
International Secretariat
Ricardo Carrere (Coordinator)
Maldonado 1858; CP 11200
Montevideo - Uruguay
Ph: +598 2 403 2989
Fax: +598 2 408 0762
Email: [email protected]
http://www.wrm.org.uy
WRM BULLETIN # 37
August 2000
In this issue:
OUR VIEWPOINT
- Convention on Climate Change: The future of humanity is not tradable
2
CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE ISSUES
-
CDM: Clean Development Mechanism or Carbon Dealers' Market?
A truly Clean Development Mechanism
Tree plantations as sinks must be sunk
Can CDM money be acceptable for forest conservation?
Carbon sink plantations: Those who stand to benefit
Putting the carbon debt on the negotiations table
3
4
5
6
7
10
CARBON DUMPS IN THE SOUTH
-
Africa: Carbon sinks and money needs
Asia: Carbon plantations may prove to be problematic
Oceania: A matter of survival
Central America: To the rescue of the U.S. and Canada
South America: The push for carbon sink plantations
11
12
13
15
15
CLIMATE RELATED WRM MATERIAL
- Climate-related WRM Bulletin articles
- WRM Declarations
- The Carbon Shop: planting new problems
17
17
18
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
OUR VIEWPOINT
- Convention on Climate Change: The future of humanity is not tradable
The Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change -preceeded by a
meeting of its Subsidiary Bodies in September in Lyon - will take place in The Hague in November. The
obscure language used in the climate talks -and the even more obscure objectives of many
governments and businesses- make it necessary to translate what's being negotiated into
understandable concepts in order to facilitate very much needed public participation in the debate. As
a contribution to that end, we have focused this issue of th e WRM Bulletin entirely on this matter, of
vital importance for the future of humanity as a whole.
The solution to climate change -which is already happening and being suffered by millions of people
around the world- is in theory quite simple: to substantially reduce emissions of greenhouse gases,
particularly carbon dioxide. Where do carbon dioxide emissions come from? The majority result from
the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), whose carbon was safely stored under the earth's
surface. The extraction of vast and increasing volumes of fossil fuels are at the core of the current
climatic crisis. There are other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, among which deforestation
-which releases the carbon dioxide held in the woody biomass of the f orest- which also need to be
addressed, but by far the major cause is fossil fuel use.
The way to reduce the use of fossil fuels is to replace them as quickly as possible with
environmentally-friendly sources of energy. Such a solution is technically feas ible, but very powerful
forces -such as the oil industry- and a number of industrialized-country governments are opposing this
approach, claiming it to be too expensive.
However, given that the public is increasingly concerned over climate change, those s ame forces and
governments need to give the world a positive message to the effect that they are dealing with the
problem. In 1997, industrialized-country governments finally committed themselves to reduce
emissions in the Kyoto Protocol of the Climate Change Convention. Although those commitments were
far from the emission cuts needed to adequately address the problem, they were at least something.
But they simultaneously invented the so-called "Clean Development Mechanism" (CDM) in order to
avoid compliance with even those insufficient commitments.
While the experts meet and talk about mechanisms basically aimed at avoiding compliance with
emission reduction commitments, there are organizations and communities implementing real
mechanisms to address the excessive use of fossil fuels. Among these, we wish to highlight the
struggle of indigenous peoples opposing oil exploration and extraction in their territories. Within the
context of climate change, this is the perfect example of a truly Clean Development Mechanism: the
no oil option.
However, corporate interests involved in the climate negotiations and their experts are blind to
realities such as these and are instead inventing clever schemes which avoid the real issues. Among
the cleverest is the creation of a global "carbon market" involving the use of forests and tree
plantations as carbon sinks.
Regardless of how absurd those clever schemes may be, they seem to be receiving increased support
from a number of actors that have much to gain if they are approved by the upcoming Conference of
the Parties.
2
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
Many governments are also supporting the carbon sink-trading initiative. For some Northern
governments, it is an easy and cheap way to avoid compliance with emission cuts. For some Southern
governments, it is seen as a means to earn some cash through the sale of carbon garbage dump
services. However, Southern governments would have much more to win if they were to hold the
North accountable to its accumulated "carbon debt", which by far exceeds the conventional debt of the
South.
In sum, civil society has a crucial role to play in putting pressure o n governments to induce them to
change course. People need to bring some reason to a Convention on Climate Change which seems
to have forgotten that its role is to ensure that future generations will inherit a livable planet. That true
solutions need to be agreed upon and implemented now. That the Convention is not a market to trade
carbon credits but a forum to address a very real problem. That the future of humanity is not tradable.
top
CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE ISSUES
- CDM: Clean Development Mechanism or Carbon Dealers' Market?
In 1997, the negotiators of the Kyoto Protocol came up with an ingeniously -named project: the "Clean
Development Mechanism." For the lay person, the message was that the governments of the world
had finally agreed to create a mechanism that would allow development atmosph erically non-polluting.
But what this wording hides is anything but clean.
This mechanism is in fact a licence to pollute. In Kyoto, industrialized countries committed themselves
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they simultaneously invented a way out of those same
commitments. The mechanism is simple: instead of cutting emissions at source, they would
"compensate for" emissions by implementing projects in other countries. Some of the possible
projects involve forests, tree plantations and soils tha t would allegedly act as "carbon sinks". A U.S.
senior official candidly told Reuters: "If you remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere through
carbon sinks then that is the same as avoiding a ton of emissions through fossil fuels" and added that
"by counting how much carbon is absorbed through forests and farmland, the pressure would be
greatly reduced on U.S. companies to cut emissions and other gases." And that's the objective of the
CDM: to reduce pressures to cut emissions, particularly in the North.
However, what the earth needs is precisely the opposite. The transfer of carbon from fossil fuels to
the atmosphere cannot go on indefinitely. Some 4,000 billion tonnes of carbon in fossil fuels are still
under the earth's surface, which is more than ten times the amount of carbon stored in forests. Adding
as little as few hundred billion tons of this to the air would likely result in a climatic disaster. What's
thus needed first and foremost is to prevent the extraction and use of those fossil fuels by replacing
them with clean, renewable and low impact energy sources and energy efficiency measures. Such
would be the meaning --at least from a climate perspective-- of a Clean Development Mechanism.
Climate negotiators have perverted the meaning of those words to create a CDM which is in fact only
a Carbon Dealers' Market, through which some will economically benefit at the expense of the world's
climate. Still, some government delegates --particularly from countries more likely to be gravely
affected by climate change-- are trying to bring some reason to the debate. Mr. Espen Ronneberg, of
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, in July 27, 1998, presented a position paper of the Alliance of
3
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
Small Island States (AOSIS) on the Clean Development Mechanism. In his presentation, he said: "It is
not in our interest to create new loopholes for certain industrialized countries to export out their
domestic obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ...The unscrupulous industrialized countries
who are seeking to promote such projects need to be reminded of their obligations under the
Convention itself as well as under the Kyoto Protocol --to reduce their own emissions of greenhouse
gases-- the primary focus of which should be domestic action."
It is important to highlight that the CDM has not yet been approved and two battles need to be fought
to prevent sinks from being included in it: the September meeting of the Convention's Subsidiary
Bodies and the November meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The "unscru pulous industrialized
countries" must not be allowed to negotiate the world's atmosphere with equally unscrupulous
Southern governments willing to sell it for a handful of dollars.
top
- A truly Clean Development Mechanism
While climate change experts are trying to find "economically -viable" (meaning cheap) ways out of the
climate mess created by Western-style economic development, indigenous peoples and local
communities in many countries are in fact implementing a truly Clean Development Mechanism: they
are banning oil and gas exploitation in their territories.
There is no discussion regarding the major role that fossil fuels have on climate change. It follows that
humanity needs to switch its prevailing energy system --highly dependent on fossil fuels-- to another
one based on clean, renewable and low impact energy sources. Local peoples preventing oil
extraction are not only paving the way for such transition, but are at the same time keeping the carbon
contained in fossil fuels safely stored under the earth's crust. They are not inventing ways to solve the
effects of fossil fuel consumption; they are directly attacking the root cause of the problem: the
extraction of oil and gas.
These peoples are benefiting humanity, but instead of receiving money for the service they are
providing, what they usually receive is repression. They may be branded as enemies of the
Motherland, or as subversives or simply as terrorists. Many have been murdered, imp risoned,
tortured. They are not acceptable within the "carbon market" elite in spite of being the ones that truly
act to prevent climate change. Every barrel of oil which is not extracted is a positive contribution to
climate change and millions of barrels are still under the earth as a result of their struggle. What
follows are a few examples of what some of these peoples have achieved so far.
In Colombia, the U'wa indigenous peoples have so far prevented oil extraction from their territory by
Occidental Petroleum. They are currently preventing the exploitation of the Samore Block, with an
estimated 1.5 billion barrels of oil.
In Ecuador, the Cofan people closed down the Dureno well in Amazonia, containing some 1,265,370
barrels of oil.
In Venezuela, the Warao people managed to get British petroleum out of their territory, containing an
estimated 820 million barrels of oil.
Also in Ecuador, the Huaorani people managed to halt for a number of years the implementation of
the ITTI (Ishpingo, Tambacocha, Tiputini, Imuya) project within the Yasuní National Park, with an
4
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
estimated 265 million tons of oil and part of the territory has been now declared intangible and
therefore closed to oil extraction activities.
In Nigeria, the Ijaw people closed down the existing oil wells in their area, in an operation carried out
by the Ijaw youth in January 1999, which they named "Climate Change". A tentative estimate of the oil
and gas thereby prevented from being extracted is difficult, but can be estimated at some 6 bill ion
barrels.
There are many more examples of struggles, some of which have at least managed to delay oil or gas
exploitation --such as the Chad-Cameroon pipeline, the Yadana pipeline, the Peruvian Camisea gas
project-- while others are struggling against the combined forces of governments and oil corporations
to defend their territories against oil exploitation.
Are not all those struggles an example of a truly Clean Development Mechanism? Should there not be
a mechanism to compensate countries for not extracting oil and gas? Should not local communities
preventing oil exploration be compensated for keeping fossil fuels safely stored in perpetuity? Should
not the Convention on Climate Change support a moratorium on new oil and gas exploration? These
are all questions which many climate negotiators will try to avoid, precisely because they target the
main issue: fossil fuel extraction. Many will try to concentrate on how to mitigate the effects, but will
not be willing to address the true cause of climate ch ange. They must not be allowed to get away with
that.
top
- Tree plantations as sinks must be sunk
One of the main aims of some industrialized-country negotiators at the Convention on Climate Change
is to have plantations accepted as carbon sinks within the so -called Clean Development Mechanism.
The reasoning seems quite straightforward: while trees are growing, they take carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and fix the carbon in their wood. They thus act as "carbon sinks" and therefore help to
counter climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So what's the problem
then? The answer is: plenty of things.
The first problem is that tree plantations are not aimed at supplementing measures adopted to reduce
the use of fossil fuels. On the contrary, their aim is to allow industrialized countries to meet their
reduction commitments without actually reducing them to the extent agreed upon. If, for instan ce, a
country has made a commitment to reduce fossil fuel emissions from 100 to 90 units, then instead of
reducing by 10 it could reduce by only 5 and plant trees to absorb the remaining 5.
Secondly, a widespread trade in tree plantation "offsets" would block or undercut necessary and
urgent measures such as energy conservation, consumption reduction, more equitable resource use,
and equitable development and sharing of clean, renewable and low impact sources of energy.
The above shows that "carbon sink" plantations are not a solution to the real problem, which is the
continued use of carbon reservoirs --coal, oil and natural gas-- that is at the root of the current
climatic crisis. At the same time, plantations are a pro blem in themselves for many reasons:
- Large-scale tree plantations are already a threat to communities and ecosystems the world over. If
the Conference of the Parties were to accept carbon sink plantations as part of the Clean
Development Mechanism, it would mean that millions of hectares of new plantation land would have to
5
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
be taken over in any attempt to counteract even a small fraction of industrial emissions. Experience
with large-scale tree plantations indicates that such "offset" projects would usur p needed agricultural
lands, replace valuable native ecosystems, deplete water resources, worsen inequity in land
ownership, increase poverty, lead to evictions of local peoples, and undermine local stewardship
practices needed for forest conservation.
- Large-scale tree plantations are commonly a direct cause of deforestation. This means that before
they become a "carbon sink" they in fact cause "carbon leakage" (to use the climate negotiators'
obscure language). That is, carbon that was safely stored i n forests is released through deforestation.
The carbon balance is thus negative, because most forests store much more carbon per hectare than
any plantation.
- Large-scale tree plantations are also commonly an indirect cause of deforestation. People disp laced
by plantations are usually forced to enter other forest areas and to open them up in order to meet their
subsistence needs. These constitute further "leakages."
- Large-scale tree plantations destroy animal and plant diversity and should therefore n ot be promoted
by governments who subscribe to the Convention on Biological Diversity --the same countries, by and
large, as those who subscribe to the Convention on Climate Change.
Apart from all the above, there are scientific uncertainties both regard ing the capacity of plantations to
act as carbon sinks and the capacity of technocrats to adequately measure the carbon sequestered as
a result of a plantation. In order for a plantation "offset" project to be tradable for a given amount of
industrial emissions, a single determinate number would need to be calculated to represent the
amount of carbon sequestered or stored as a result of the project over and above what would have
been sequestered or stored in its absence. Such a determinate calculation is in fact impossible. (see
details at http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/declarations/Tamalpais.htm )
In sum, "carbon sink" tree plantations cannot be realistically considered a solution to anything, but
rather are an additional problem. All efforts must be made to avoid their being countenanced at the
upcoming Conference of the Parties. These sinks must be sunk.
top
- Can CDM money be acceptable for forest conservation?
Deforestation contributes to climate change through the release of carbon in the forest biomass.
Forest conservation and rehabilitation activities thus need to be promoted both to conserve carbon
--in the case of primary forests-- and to absorb it --in the case of secondary forests allowed to regrow.
But should forests be included in the Clean Development Mechanism or not? It's a difficult question
for NGOs, IPOs and forest communities, but one that will need to be answered at the upcoming
negotiations at the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change. Our aim here is
not to give a clearcut yes or no answer, but to share our viewpoints on the matter.
For a forest community or an environmental organization working to protect a specific forest, the
inclusion of forests in the CDM could mean receiving very much needed funding to ensure forest
conservation, as well as political and legal support from the local and/or national governm ent. The
forest would be conserved and the local community would at the same time be able to improve its
standard of living. This could be portrayed as a "win -win" situation.
6
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
There are however some problems resulting from the global character of the carb on trade. Anyone
willing to pay for a "carbon forest" service will be continuing carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere.
They will also be supporting the extraction of fossil fuels elsewhere. In both cases there will be
affected communities. Among them might be a community in another country living near the polluting
industry buying the carbon credits from the forest community. Or there might be an indigenous
community --in a third country-- affected by oil extraction in its territory. For these two communities
affected at "long distance" by the carbon project, carbon forestry projects could well be a "lose -lose"
proposition.
If we accept that any carbon-forest deal should be approved only with the consent of all affected local
people, this example suggests that before making a decision, the local community involved in the
carbon project would need to identify and consult all the other affected communities. Depending on
their response, it could accept or reject the carbon deal.
It follows that CDM-related forest conservation would be an extremenly complicated operation, since
there would be very few "simple" situations such as the one described in the above example.
Countless communities would need to be identified and consulted in most potential projects.
Additionally, what would happen if one affected community opposed a project while the other
communities involved approved it? Wouldn't this generate problems and divisions among affected
peoples?
At the same time, it needs to be stressed that although "carbon money" may be perceived as a
possible solution to save specific forest areas, it is clearly not the solution to the much broader issue
of deforestation and forest degradation occurring throughout the South. Such problem cannot be only
seen as a "climate" issue, but as also affecting soils, water, flora, wildlife and local peoples'
livelihoods. Negotiators at the Convention on Climate Change need to be reminded about the
commitments their governments have already made, particularly within the framework of the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the Proposals for Action of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Forests. If implemented, these commitments would ensure not only money transfers from the North,
but more importantly, the establishment of adequate frameworks --at both the national and
international levels-- to address the direct and underlying causes of deforestation.
NGO and IPO participants at the upcoming Conference of the Parties confront the task of e nsuring
that the Clean Development Mechanism will serve to promote socially equitable and environmentally
sustainable development and that the climate debate is linked to the rest of the social and
environmental commitments already agreed upon by governmen ts.
top
- Carbon sink plantations: Those who stand to benefit
CDM schemes based on carbon sinks in the forestry sector, trumpeted as the panacea for climate
change mitigation, are instead socially and environmentally dangerous. Nevertheless, the discussions
going on at the official levels ignore those fundamental points. Undoubtedly some have much to gain
from this marketing of nature. Who are the influential actors behind the scene at the carbon market?
What follows is a brief description of some of the more relevant.
7
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
- Industry
Big corporations are both influencing decision-makers and taking direct actions in the newly created
carbon market. Suddenly industry has discovered how profitable trees can be, and carbon sink tree
plantation projects in the South are mushrooming. For example, in January 1999 the Japan Federation
of Economic Organizations proposed to Chinese President Jiang Zemin that a group of Japanese
companies carry out a plantation programme in that country in order to secure larger quotas for
emitting carbon dioxide under the CDM. Also last year, the Confederation of British Industry tried to
launch a carbon-trading system in order to stall or reduce the UK government's planned energy tax.
From the very beginning of the Climate Change Convention process, the powerful oil industry lobby
operating at the US Senate induced this country's delegates to the climate negotiations to avoid any
commitment even to tiny reductions in CO 2 emissions. After the Kyoto Protocol, such companies
instructed US and other industrial country delegates to favour trading in carbon "offsets", including
carbon credits from tree plantations. In countries located in different regions of the world, such as
Costa Rica, Uganda and Australia, oil, coal and gas companies have signed agreeme nts to install
carbon sequestration projects through plantations --the same kind of companies whose activities
provoke severe environmental and social impacts to the detriment of local communities.
Being fossil fuel-based transport one of the causes of global warming, car companies are also trying
to revamp their image. Mazda has announced that the company will plant five trees for every unit of
the new Demio model sold in Britain in order to "compensate" for the car's first year of carbon dioxide
emissions. Avis Europe plans to plant one tree for every car in its rental fleet, while the Federation
Internationale de l'Automobile has arranged for 30,000 trees to be planted in Chiapas, Mexico, on
lands inhabited by Mayan communities, to "offset" the carbon e mitted annually by Formula One car
racing.
- Multilateral agencies
From 1997 on, the World Bank has been dealing with climate change issues. The Bank is using
funding from utility companies and Nordic governments to develop the so called Prototype Carbon
Fund (PCF), whose purpose is to facilitate "global markets for greenhouse gas investments" and
which features a portfolio of projects in the South. During a meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies of the
Convention on Climate Change that took place in Bonn last June, a World Bank official, in front of a
largely business audience, made clear that the PCF was designed to make emission cuts cheaper for
the North, and much of his presentation was focused on how little Northern corporations would have
to pay in order to avoid reducing pollution at source if they signed up for the PCF. An important task
of the PCF is to build confidence between sellers and buyers of the so called climate "products."
Companies like British Petroleum and Mitsubishi, as well as several Nor dic firms, have shown their
interest in this initiative. When the PCF was created, it was thought to be entirely devoted to energy
related projects, but now there has been a change and a 10% of these funds will go to carbon sink
forestry projects. In spite of the negative social and environmental impacts of monoculture tree
plantations, the Bank insists on promoting them, now under the guise of carbon sinks. The Bank is
also involved in the design of a CDM to subsidize trade in the resulting "carbon credits " by providing a
carbon bank or carbon stock exchange.
United Nations offices are also involved in the new carbon market. The Global Environment Fund
(GEF), whose implementing agencies are UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank, is facilitating the PCF by
creating low-cost sinks. It is difficult to understand how carbon sink tree monocultures will contribute
8
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
to biodiversity conservation --which is one of the GEF's main areas or concern. In turn, the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is co ntributing with tax monies to establish
an International Emissions Trading Association, formed by a group of about 60 transnational
companies and environmental organizations which will help figure out how to make the carbon market
dynamic.
- Governments
At the political level the action of some Northern governments --in collusion with corporate interests
aiming to skirt their responsibility in the generation of global warming -- represents the backbone of the
whole process.
Because of its high per capita emissions of carbon dioxide, its refusal to accept even the restricted
limitations established by the Convention on Climate Change at Kyoto, and the direct and indirect
influence that it exerts on other governments, the US is one of the main actors in this process. Last
July, the US Senate approved the "International Carbon Sequestration Incentive Act", according to
which, "eligible US companies could choose to receive an investment tax credit or access to
low-interest loans and insurance options on carbon sequestration investments in other countries". The
action of the US government seems to be at odds with its own country's public opinion, given that a
recent pool has revealed that most US citizens are in favour of a reduction of greenhouse gases from
industrial sources at home instead of additional means such as carbon sinks.
Another enthusiastic promoter of carbon sinks in the forestry sector is Canada. The Canadian
International Development Agency has agreed to forgive a small part of Honduras' debt wi th Canada if
this country establishes an office under the Kyoto Protocol to promote tree plantations and monitor
forest conservation. This would allow Canada to receive carbon credits without the need of domestic
reductions.
The position of Australia is also to be mentioned. Included in the Annex I countries of the Kyoto
Protocol and being very influential in the Oceania region, Australia hopes that its participation in the
carbon market will spur economic growth at home. An agriculture minister in New Sou th Wales has
recently mentioned the benefits from a "dynamic new industry" which would create jobs out of a
million hectares of new plantations, some of them paid for with money from Japanese utilities.
Even though the European governments have adopted a more cautious position on the issue, some of
them are pushing for forestry projects under the CDM. Dutch plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes and
Norwegian plantations in Uganda show that even countries that try to appear as friendly towards the
environment in the international political scenario have grabbed the opportunity to do good business
in the carbon market.
To compensate its emissions, Japan is planning to resort to afforestation projects in other countries,
for example in neighbouring China. The Japanese government is trying to inflate the amount of carbon
absorption credited to this country under "human-induced activities" by including the carbon absorbed
by new plantations. This position is not surprising: the Japanese cooperation agency JICA ha s been
one of the major promoters of the tree monoculture scheme, and the country's economic growth has
been based on a huge ecological footprint through the exploitation of other nations' resources and the
deposit of its industrial garbage.
9
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
Carbon sinks through plantations are also being promoted by some Southern governments, which look
at them as an immediate source of money coming from foreign investors. Argentina, Colombia,
Bolivia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Mexico, Chile, Guatemala and others are calling for carbon sink
plantations to be included in the CDM. This means that they gladly accept a function of carbon
garbage dumps for their territories and that they are willing to turn a blind eye on the negative social
and environmental impacts of monoculture tree plantations.
- Consultancy firms
The carbon market have opened up opportunities to build up institutions, salaried positions and
prestige for an increasing number of professionals who are willing to research, certify, and administer
carbon-"offset" plantations --and who accordingly have a growing stake in "believing" in their efficacy.
Consultancies such as SGS Forestry, Margules Poyry and Econergy International Corporation can
gain lucrative contracts to monitor and justify carbon forestry projec ts. Carbon credits certified by SGS
are already being offered on the Chicago Board of Trade. Some consultants even shuttle between
serving United Nations organizations, lobbying the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change, and their own profit-making carbon-"offset" ventures. Mark Trexler,
for example --whose firm Trexler & Associates stands to make fortunes from brokering carbon deals -was present at COP's fourth meeting in Buenos Aires in November 1998, and is also a review editor of
one chapter in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on Land Use, Land
Use Change, and Forestry. Involved in that report were also staff from carbon -related consultancies
such as Winrock International, Ecosecurities Ltd, SGS Forestry and the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon
Management. The report, perhaps unsurprisingly, gave a "scientific" stamp of approval to the idea that
carbon accounting between tree plantations and industrial emissions is possible.
- Forestry companies, professionals and researchers
The carbon market is an excellent opportunity for forestry companies not only to increase their
business but also to try to green their image. If tree monocultures are included in the CDM, it is feared
that more forest areas in tropical countries will be substituted by plantations, while grasslands
ecosystems in temperate regions --which contain soils that are effective carbon reservoirs--will be
destroyed by them.
Many professional foresters see the carbon-offset plantation boom as a way of making their
profession important to the eye of public opinion with regard to the mitigation of climate change.
Additionally --and perhaps more importantly-- increased plantation areas will provide them with well
paid job opportunities in the establishment and management of tree plantations, as well as in research
in both the forestry and the biotechnology fields to produce more fast -growing "carbon sequestering"
trees.
- Others
Many others actors play a role to directly or indirectly promote and benefit from the carbon market in
this new scenario. Trading firms, brokers, banks, academics, bureaucrats and professional
consultants are among the potential and actual beneficiaries o f this market-oriented approach.
top
10
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
- Putting the carbon debt on the negotiations table
The external debt is a heavy burden for Southern countries especially for the poorest ones and for the
poorest sectors within them. Governments implement IMF/World Bank -promoted structural adjustment
programmes in their economies to ensure punctual debt servicing, which divert funds that could
otherwise have been devoted to satisfying basic needs of their population, such as food, education,
housing and health.
However, many are now posing the question: who owes who? In fact, Northern countries have
historically based their prosperity on the exploitation of territories, resources and people in the South,
and on the invasion and occupation of indigenous peoples' territories throughout the world. A gro up of
German geographers has accurately described this as "the economy of robbery". The appropriation of
the atmosphere by Northern countries to use it as a garbage dump for carbon dioxide is but another
chapter in this long and unfair story. Even though the atmosphere is a common good of humanity and
every person on Earth has the same right to use it, differences are nowadays dismal. On a per capita
basis, the US currently uses twelve times what it should be entitled to, and the UK nearly six times its
share. But at the same time Bangladesh --one of the most vulnerable countries to sea level rise and
other climate alterations-- is ten times below its quota, Sudan 15 times, Tanzania 22 times, and so on.
According to Christian Aid, "the human economy is emitting approximately 7 billion metric tonnes of
carbon per year (1996) and reductions in the order of at least 60% are necessary to achieve a carbon
balance, i.e. to 2,800 million. If we assume that the developed (OECD) countries contain around 20%
of the world’s population then their sustainable quota should be 560 million tonnes. However, they are
presently responsible for around 50% of all carbon emissions, i.e. 3,500 million tonnes, a deficit of
approximately 2,940 million tonnes." (Who owes who? Climate change, debt, equity and survival,
1999)
It is clear then that industrialised countries have greatly overused their carbon emissions quota,
generating a Carbon Debt which is much larger than the conventional debt of the highly indebted poor
countries.
If Southern country governments are really interested --as they should be-- in defending their peoples'
interests, they should change the current market-oriented discussions going on under the Climate
Change process. The issues of justice and ecological rights at the global level should be the priority.
Only then economic instruments could be used to negotiate in positive terms. Instead of happily
getting on the bandwagon of getting some money from false "solutions" such as tree monoculture
carbon sink plantations, Southern country governments should collectively demand the payment of the
Carbon Debt generated by the North. Justice should be the starting point of all negotiations.
top
CARBON DUMPS IN THE SOUTH
- Africa: Carbon sinks and money needs
Plantation projects using tree monocultures to sequester carbon being implemented in UGANDA by
two Norwegian firms constitute a paradigmatic example of the rationale and the consequences of this
kind of projects.
11
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
The Norwegian company Tree Farms established itself in Uganda in 1996, and has one afforestation
project in progress. Additionally, the Norwegian Afforestation Group got the authorities' agreement on
a project in November 1999. The former --which operates in the Bukaleba Reserve-- area has already
started a project to set up between 80,000 and 100,000 hectares of plantations of pines and
eucalyptus. Such scheme is very similar to that adopted by the Dutch foundation FACE in the
Ecuadorian Andes and so are its consequences.
A recent research in the field performed by the Norwegian NGO NorWatch shows that both projects
--and particularly the one of Tree Farms-- have been possible thanks to the bargain price of the land
leased to the companies and to the corruption reigning at decision -makers' level in Uganda. Moreover,
the Tree Farms project has already provoked the eviction of some 8,000 people from 13 villages from
their lands --mainly farmers and fisherfolk-- now occupied by the company. Local peasants even have
to pay for the agricultural use of their own lands under the "taungya" system, and the company
exploits them since their weeding and managing of trees during these first years is not paid. Uganda's
sovereignity is also under siege with this project, since during a period of 50 years, the c ountry will
not have the option to change land use, and, additionally Uganda will not be allowed to use these
carbon sinks for its own carbon accounts.
The same forestry company Treefarms has announced a project to plant fast -growing pine and
eucalyptus trees on 150 square kilometres of grassland plains in neighbouring TANZANIA. Taking into
account this company's sad record in Uganda, it is feared that such scheme will have the same
deleterious consequences on people --especially poor peasants-- and the environment. In a recent
climate-related meeting in Bonn, the Tanzanian official representative pointed out the need to take
into account not only forestry in itself but also the welfare of local communities. How can this view be
reconciled with top-down carbon sink afforestation projects?
Given the economic crisis currently faced by many other African countries --particularly in the tropics-their governments will be probably prone to accepting any deals which may result in hard currency
investments, regardless of the negative social and environmental impacts they will entail.
Plantation-related carbon sink initiatives may well be one of them. Although the advantages for
industrialized countries are obvious --cheap sequestering of their carbon emissions-- it is equally clear
that local people and their environment will suffer the consequences and reap no benefits. What Africa
needs from industrialized countries is certainly not this type of "aid" and calling this a "Clean
Development Mechanism" is --to say the least-- an insult to African people, because no development
at all will be involved in such carbon deals.
top
- Asia: Carbon plantations may prove to be problematic
Asia has been the most affected region by the substitution of forests by tree monocultures, which has
resulted in negative consequences both at the local and global levels. Indigenous peoples and local
communities have a history of resistance to this type of forestry development. In spite of that, carbon
forestry appears to be on the rise in this continent.
In INDIA, government officials have stated that more than 60 million hectares of "non -forest
wastelands and open scrub forest lands" can be considered available for undertaking tree plantation
activities. Even though Indian plantation promoters consider plantation as "a benefa ctor and friend to
villagers and tribals", reality shows that monocultures --mainly based on eucalyptus-- have provoked
severe environmental and social impacts, resulting in opposition movements from local affected
12
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
communities. India was in fact one of the first countries to witness radical struggles against
monoculture tree plantations.
In spite of that, the Asian Development Bank considers that there is a potential of more than 24 million
hectares in this country to be transformed into carbon sink plant ations. According to the Bank, 83
tonnes of carbon per hectare would have been captured at the end of 40 years. And that is all that
seems to matter; the Bank does not appear to be concerned about the fact that a renewed push to the
expansion of eucalyptus monocultures in India, would repeat the well known history of impacts and
ensuing local struggles.
Also CHINA has become a target for carbon sink plantations, and the Japanese industry --one of the
most important contributors to global warming through its greenhouse gas emissions-- is responsible
for it. To skirt the responsibility of diminishing emissions at home, the powerful industrial lobby is
trying to find a way out by planting trees in China.
In 1998 the Japan Federation of Economic Organization s (Keidanren), proposed the project to
Chinese President Jiang Zemin when he visited Japan. Under the guise of restoring forest resources
destroyed by an extensive flood, and counting on financial support from JICA, corporations like Oji
Paper, Sumitomo Forestry, Nippon Steel, Tokyo Electric Power., and Mitsubishi would occupy 100,000
hectares of Chinese territory with tree monocultures. According to its promoters, the project would
"absorb" an estimated 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, equivalent to 6-7% of
the total emissions of Japan's paper industry in 1997. The companies hope this project will offset
some of the 6% cut in emissions (from 1990 levels) Japan is required to achieve by 2010. And at the
same time they aim at greening their low image in relation to the environment.
Officials from MALAYSIA have recently expressed that oil palm plantations could be considered better
in "absorbing" carbon that other fast-growing species. This country is the most important palm-oil
producer in the world and its palm plantations have generated large -scale impacts. As a result, oil
palm has raised resistance from indigenous communities, whose lands have been invaded by this
monoculture. What officials don't say is that huge areas of forests hav e been cleared to make way to
those plantations, thereby resulting in a negative carbon balance: more carbon released by
deforestation than that sequestered by the planted palm trees. Additionally, those forests that were
destroyed were not only carbon reservoirs but especially the home and source of livelihoods for many
people who lived there, many of whom were probably forced to find new means of subsistence by
opening up new forest areas, resulting in further carbon releases.
In turn INDONESIA is undertaking a project to identify alternative technologies using sinks in the
forestry sector. The project is supported by the U.S. Country Studies Program , which "provides
financial and technical assistance to developing and transition countries for climate ch ange studies".
Given the past history of Indonesia, such elegant wording might mean that large -scale tree plantations
--which have resulted in deforestation and dispossesion of indigenous peoples -- could be further
promoted as carbon sinks.
Asia is a perfect example of a region where carbon sink plantations make no sense at all ... except for
Northern countries willing to "sink" instead of cutting emissions. Only very narrow -minded climate
technocrats are capable of not seeing that carbon sink plantations are at odds with other much more
important issues such as food production, watershed and biodiversity conservation --to name but
three-- which should be at the core of any decision affecting the use of natural resources. What for
carbon-accounting technocrats matters is only the measuring of tonnes of carbon sequestered,
13
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
regardless of the human and environmental cost of such exercise. In Asia it might prove to be a very
difficult task.
top
- Oceania: A matter of survival
Giant AUSTRALIA is a major actor in the geopolitics of Oc eania. With its particular situation in the
Southern hemisphere but being a Northern country and included in the Annex I countries, Australia is
the only country that enjoys the possibility of increasing its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% above
1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012. Nevertheless, this country has enthusiastically
embraced the idea of offering its territory for forestry-based carbon sink projects.
In November 1999 New South Wales (NSW) --one of the country's states-- established a legal right on
carbon sequestered from plantations and signed an agreement with Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Co.
(Tepco) --part of the Mitsubishi corporate empire-- to this regard. The Japanese are planning to start
the project with the plantation of a 1,000 hectares in 2000, and to extend the site up to 40,000
hectares in the following ten years. It is to underscore that Tepco has been the first Japanese
company to sign a memorandum of understanding with the World Bank to participate in the "Prototype
Carbon Fund" system to trade in carbon offset projects.
Such initiative is not the only one in the push of NSW's authorities to enter this market. The Sydney
Futures Exchange --also in association with State Forests of NSW-- is interested in creating an
exchange-traded market for carbon credits as part of a plan to become a global emissions trading
centre.
Also vast areas of the southern island of Tasmania in Australia are being planted with tree
monocultures as "carbon sinks". The Federal Government's "P lantation 2020 Vision" programme is
aimed at establishing 650,000 hectares of tree plantations in Tasmania over the next twenty years.
The National Forestry Policy is even encouraging deforestation, ignoring the multiple environmental
services of old growth forests, among which that of being a large carbon reservoir. Australian
environmental groups are joining efforts with rural community representatives and local authorities to
question and oppose this market-oriented vision, which is causing social disruption and environmental
destruction.
While some people in Australia are looking at the possibility of doing business with climate change
using the newly created carbon market, other states in the region are facing the dramatic situation and
perspectives of global warming on their territories. Small island states of Oceania are under the peril
of disappearing in case sea level continues to increase as a consequence of climate change. The
Marshall Islands, for example, is in danger of losing 80% of the cit y of Majuro --its capital-- under this
scenario, while the larger islands would also be greatly impacted due to concentration of their
population and infrastructure along the coast lines.
These small island states have expressed their concern about the f act that the push for carbon sink
projects will only serve to allow industrialized countries to continue business as usual while their own
countries slowly sink in the ocean. As stressed by the delegate of Tuvalu, speaking on behalf of
AOSIS in reference to carbon sinks projects: "This sends some very clear signals about the likely flow
of funds for the Clean Development Mechanism, if sinks based activities are included. We are likely to
see a flood of funding for sinks activities and a trickle of funding f or technologies associated with
renewable energy and energy efficiency."
14
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
While Australian carbon dealers' are trying to reap benefits from the climate change disaster, the
small island states in the region are struggling for survival. Will the world's go vernments let them
disappear?
top
- Central America: To the rescue of the U.S. and Canada
Responding to a request of the U.S.-based independent electrical power producer Applied Energy
Services Inc. (AES), in 1988 the World Resources Institute identified and evaluated forestry projects
to compensate the carbon dioxide emissions of the company's new coal -fired powerplant in
Connecticut, expected to emit about 14.1 million tonnes of carbon over its 40 -year lifespan. According
to the WRI, "There were a number of reasons for pursuing such a project in a developing country
rather than in the United States", among which that "alternatives in the United States to avoid the
release of carbon dioxide or sequester it at the source appeared to be considerably more expensive"
reads the presentation of the project in WRI's web site.
In 1989, the WRI gave its support to a project located in GUATEMALA proposed by CARE to convert
tree planted lots established since the mid-1970s into carbon sinks. The programme had been
supported by the Guatemalan Directorate General of Forests (DIGEBOS) and the U.S. Peace Corps,
with funding provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The plantation of
about 12,000 hectares of so-called community woodlots with pine and eucalyptus for poles and lumb er
is an essential component of the project. Based on WRI's initial calculation, the CARE project would
sequester an estimated 16.3 million metric tonnes s of carbon over 40 years. Even though presented
under the guise of "community forest" promotion, the CARE project is essentially a plantation-based
project through which --surprising as it may seem-- Guatemala would "help" the US to reduce its
carbon emissions.
Also HONDURAS will probably soon become a carbon garbage dump. In September 1999 Canada
reached a deal with the Honduran authorities to "buy" oxygen from Honduras within the framework of
a "debt for nature" swap and the Clean Development Mechanism. CIDA (Canadian International
Development Agency) will "forgive" about US$ 680,000 of Honduras' U$S 11 million debt with Canada.
In exchange, a so-called joint implementation office will be established in Honduras to promote tree
plantations and monitor forest conservation programmes in that country. Canada will benefit by getting
credit for "cutting" emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Minister for the
Environment Xiomara Gomez was very enthusiastic with the idea since, according to him, this is a
good opportunity to obtain resources from developed countries for forest protection. H onduras is also
expecting that the U.S. and Germany will come to similar agreements on "oxygen sales". Unluckily the
Honduran authorities have not shown the same enthusiasm in protecting the country's forests from
illegal logging or combatting corruption at the forest administration level.
top
- South America: The push for carbon sink plantations
In the last decades several South American countries have been the scenario of the expansion of tree
monocultures --basically eucalyptus and pines-- mostly devoted to pulp production. The newly created
carbon market can mean a renewed push to further expand this activity, this time with a new or
additional purpose. In fact, forestry companies and some governments are very enthusiastic about the
idea of using part of the already existing plantations and installing new ones to serve as carbon sinks.
15
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
Embattled by their respective external debts, thus considering every foreign investment as a potential
source of fresh monies and turning a deaf ear to the increasing criticism over this forestry model,
several governments both in tropical and temperate regions of the continent --including Argentina,
Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia-- are playing a double role. On the one hand offering
their support to private companies to implement carbon sequestration projects through plantations,
and in line with this, trying to promote the inclusion of tree plantations in the CDM at the Convention
on Climate Change process.
In ARGENTINA the government has been favouring investments in plantation projects since 1998.
During the Convention's Conference of the Parties (COP4) held in Buenos Aires, the former Secretary
of the Environment and Natural Resources María Julia Alsoga ray expressed very clearly that her
country was in favour of voluntary commitments by non -Annex I countries to counteract global
warming. Since then, the government has been favouring tree plantations. Oil and forestry companies
have quickly embraced the idea, which would allow them not only to earn money but also to appear as
concerned with global warming --the same that they so much contribute to generate-- to the eyes of
public opinion. Formerly state-owned oil company YPF --now privatized and associated with Repsol of
Spain-- is implementing pine plantations in the south of the country, while Shell already owns more
than 32,000 hectares in Buenos Aires and Corrientes provinces. Forestry companies are also active in
this regard: Pecom Forestal owns pine plantations in several Argentinian provinces, which will be
"reconverted" to carbon sinks, and is negotiating carbon emissions permits with the German
companies that are involved in the controversial Chubut -Prima Klima agreement to sequester carbon
in Chubut province. The local NGO coalition Foro del Buen Ayre, which was very active during the
COP4 negotiations, has recently severely criticized the Argentinian government's approach to global
warming and its support to carbon sinks, due to the negative social and environmental consequences
of this type of forestry.
Neighbouring URUGUAY is also seeing with good eyes the option of plantations as carbon sinks.
Forestry officials and foresters --which in reality are one and the same-- are trying to convince public
opinion that the country's cattle-related methane emissions are very high and that the country could
"compensate" them by establishing carbon sink tree plantations. Additionally, they consider that with
the present area of 500,000 hectares occupied by plantations of eucalyptus and pines the country
could receive up to U$S 40 million a year from the carbon offset market. It is interesting to underscore
that since 1989 the Uruguayan state is spending a yearly sum of about U$S 20 million as sub sidies to
plantation companies. National social and environmental NGOs are highly critical about their
government's position.
Surprising it may seem, Argentinian and Uruguayan authorities seem to have forgotten that grassland
soils are rich in organic matter, which means that they constitute huge carbon reservoirs. The effect of
plantations on these reservoirs is uncertain and presumably negative. Instead of dreaming of risky
forestry megaprojects, a useful contribution of countries located in the temperat e region to curbe
global warming would be to conserve soils and grasslands --with the additional positive effect on
biodiversity and water conservation.
The enthusiasm of CHILEAN officials regarding carbon sinks is really worrying. Not only because this
country has provided the model for other South American states to promote the forestry sector, but
also since powerful Chilean forestry companies are entering other Southern Cone countries. The
Chilean model has proved at home to be completely unsustainable , both from an ecological (it
provoked the destruction of vast areas of forests in the South) and the social point of view (plantations
have invaded the Mapuche indigenous people traditional lands).
16
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
The idea of tree plantations as carbon sinks has had unt il now a cold reception in BRAZIL.
Nevertheless, the project of "carbon-sequestering trees" promoted by Peugeot can be a good example
of what can happen in the future in case the present trend prevails. Suddenly concerned with global
warming, in 1998 Peugeot launched a project to convert 12,000 hectares of "degraded" lands into
plantations in the State of Mato Grosso, which would remove 180,000 tonnes of carbon a year at the
low cost of U$S 12 million. Local people and the environment had to pay for the rea lly high cost of the
project, since during land preparation for the plantation 5,000 litres of glyphosate were spread, which
reached nearby water courses, producing an ecological disaster.
At present the most relevant case that shows how dangerous carbon sink projects in the forestry
sector can be is that of the FACE project in ECUADOR. In a thesis work of the Autonomous University
of Barcelona, the social and environmental impacts of the pine plantations in the Andean Páramo
carried out by the Dutch electricity consortium FACE were analyzed. The Páramo is a grasslands
highland region in the Ecuadorian Andes, which are crucial for the maintenance of the hydrological
cycle and for biodiversity conservation. It is inhabited by indigenous people communities, w hich live
on agriculture and cattle breeding. The FACE project aims at establishing 75,000 hectares of pine and
eucalyptus plantations there to "compensate" for the companies' emissions of carbon dioxide in The
Netherlands. The study proves that the carbon uptake by FACE’s pine plantations has proved to be
far below the expected figure. Moreover, the plantations can produce the effect of promoting the
oxidation of the soil organic matter, thus resulting in emissions of carbon to the atmosphere and a
negative carbon balance. At the local level, the study shows the negative impacts of plantations on
the economy of the indigenous communities that before the project could live there through a wise
management of this fragile ecosystem. In this case, plantations a re not only a false solution to global
warming --resulting in a negative carbon balance-- but they can also distort sustainable cultural and
economic systems.
In sum, it is clear that for South American people and environment, the promotion of carbon sin k
plantations will only exacerbate problems at the local level. However, governments are being pushed
into this scheme by a number of interested parties --local and international, private and public-- who
have much to gain in the carbon market game ... but for whom the true issue at stake --global climate
change-- seems to be more an excuse to earn money than a problem that needs to be addressed.
top
CLIMATE RELATED WRM MATERIAL
- Climate-related WRM Bulletin articles
In previous issues of the WRM bulletin we have included a number of a nalytical and informative
articles related to climate change. All those articles --some general and others on country situations-can be accessed at the following address: http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/activ-topic.htm#Clima
- WRM Declarations
The WRM has produced two declarations directly focused on the Convention on Climate Change's
negotiation process. The first one was disseminated at the fourth meeting of the Conference of the
Parties (Buenos Aires, November 1998), and is available at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/declarations/decl%20climate.htm
17
WRM
BULLETIN
# 37
AUGUST 2000
The second declaration, focused on the issue of carbon sink plantations, was issued in May 2000 and
is available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/declarations/Tamalpais.htm
- The Carbon Shop: planting new problems
As part of its Plantations Campaign, the WRM produced a campaign briefing on the issue of carbon
sink plantations, with the aim of disseminating analysis on a relatively new and increasingly
corporate-sponsored issue such as this. The full briefing is available at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/english/plantations/material/carbonshop.htm
The briefing is also available in French and Portuguese at the same address, while the Spanish
version is available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/castellano/plantations/Material/carbono.htm
top
18