Download Sinks that stink - World Rainforest Movement

Climate Change Convention:
Sinks that stink
WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT
Copyright : World Rainforest Movement
International Secretariat
Maldonado 1858, Montevideo, Uruguay
Tel: +598 2 403 2989, Fax: +598 2 408 0762
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.wrm.org.uy
Northern office
1c Fosseway Business Centre, Stratford Road,
Moreton-in-Marsh, GL56 9NQ, United Kingdom
Tel: +44.1608.652.893, Fax: +44.1608.652.878
E-mail: [email protected]
The contents of this publication can be reproduced totally or parcially without prior
authorization. However, the World Rainforest Movement should be duly accredited and
notified of any reproduction.
Published in October 2000
ISBN 9974-7608-2-8
This publication was made possible with support from NOVIB (The Netherlands), the
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Both Ends (The Netherlands), Fern (United
Kingdom), the Department for International Development (United Kingdom) and
Global Forest Coalition.
INDEX
About this book
Presentation
7
1. General
Our viewpoints
- Trees, forests and climate in Buenos Aires
- Latin America's forests: the time is ripe for change
- "Clever" schemes are not the solution to climate change
- Sinks that stink
- Convention on Climate Change: The future of humanity is not tradable
- Climate Change: The lesson from Lyon
9
12
14
14
16
17
General Analysis
- Message from Bratislava to Kyoto on tree plantations
- Are tree monocultures a solution to global warming?
- Climate Change Convention: much ado about nothing
- Contribution to the debate on carbon sinks
- Can expansion of plantations be a solution to combat Global Warming?
- Global Biodiversity Forum casts doubts on measures to mitigate climate change
- Carbon sinks or the sinking of the Climate Change Convention?
- 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
- Compensating for emissions through carbon sinks: a cheat's charter
18
19
21
22
23
25
25
26
27
28
29
30
34
35
Research documents
- New scientific findings: tree plantations may accelerate global warming
- Carbon sink plantations: less biodiversity = less carbon storage
- "Free riders" in the CDM
- Impossible to verify compliance if forests are included in CDM
- Forests better than plantations, even as carbon sinks
36
36
37
38
38
Statements
- World Rainforest Movement: The Mount Tamalpais Declaration
- Declaration of the First International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change.
- $inks: who wins, who loses?
- The word of Indigenous Peoples in Lyon
- Friends of the Earth. "Avoiding action: serious dangers for the global climate"
- "The Hague Mandate"
- FERN: Stop climate negotiators from bargaining away forests for their
carbon content!
39
43
44
45
45
46
46
2. By Region
Africa
- Carbon sinks and money needs
- Uganda: Carbon sinks and Norwegian CO2lonialism
- Tanzania: Another case of Norwegian CO2lonialism
- Gabon’s forests and the climate debate
47
48
49
50
Central America
- To the rescue of the U.S. and Canada
- Honduras to "buy" Canadian carbon dioxide
- Costa Rica: The dangers of tree monoculture "forests"
51
52
52
Asia
- Carbon plantations may prove to be problematic
- Japanese foresters invade China
53
55
South America
- The push for carbon sink plantations
- The two faces of the Brazilian policy on forests.
- Argentina: tree monoculture expansion supported by World Bank
- Environmental crime linked to Peugeot in Brazil
- Argentina: storing German carbon in forests?
- Dutch carbon sink plantations in Ecuador: adding to the problem
- Argentina: Oil companies try to "green" their image
- Brazil: Dump your carbon garbage with us please!
56
58
59
60
61
62
62
63
Oceania
- A matter of survival
- Japanese carbon garbage dumps in Australia
- Australia: "carbon sink" plantations invade Tasmania
- Aotearoa/New Zealand: Opposition to genetically engineered trees
64
65
66
67
About this book
This book includes a selection of articles --organized chronologically under several
headings-- published in the World Rainforest Movement's (WRM) Bulletin on the issue of
climate change. It focuses on how the problem is being dealt with by the international
community --particularly at the level of the Convention on Climate Change-- as well as on
the impacts that both the problem and the envisaged solutions have or may have on local
communities and on the future of our Planet.
The level of detail and analysis greatly varies from article to article due to the bulletin's
character, which aims at being a useful tool both to people and organizations working at
the local level and to those who work at the international level. In spite of that, we decided
not to omit any article, in the belief that all of them can help to raise awareness on an issue
such as this, of vital importance for the survival of humanity as a whole.
The authorship of the book is shared by Ricardo Carrere and Alvaro González (from
WRM's International Secretariat) and by the numerous people and organizations which
either sent us articles or relevant information to produce them, a list of whom is included
separately. We wish to particularly thank Larry Lohmann for his very useful comments and
suggestions which greatly improved many of the Bulletin's editorial and analytical articles.
The WRM assumes responsibility over the mistakes that might have been made.
Sources
Individuals: Adam Burling; Andrew C. Revkin; E. Melloni & A. Galvao; Federico Parapar; Fred Pearce;
Harald Eraker; Javier Baltodano; Jaya Ramachandran; Jorn Stave; Larry Lohmann; Mario Rautner; Miguel
Rentería; Nelson Francisco; Nihon Keizai; Shahid Naeem, Lindsey J. Thompson, Sharon P. Lawler, John H.
Lawton & Richard M. Woodfin; Steve Bernow, Sivan Kartha, Michael Lazarus, and Tom Page; Tadashi
Ogura; Tim Keating; Yuri Onodera. Organizations: Australian Broadcasting Company; CIMI; CLAES;
Coecoceiba, Friends of the Earth - Costa Rica; Foro del Buen Ayre; Friends of the Earth Japan; Greenpeace
International; Greenpeace New Zealand; IIASA; IPS; Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (JATAN); Native
Forests Network, Tasmania; NorWatch; Rainforest Relief; Red por una América Latina Libre de
Transgénicos; Republic of Uganda, Forest Department; Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment
Institute-Boston Center; Woods Hole Research Center. Publications: Christian Science Monitor; Ecología y
Negocios; Estado de Sao Paulo; FAO Forestry paper No. 124) January 1999; IPS;
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~dops0022/conference/forest_biotech99_home.html;
http://www.worldbank.org/pics/pid/ar6040.txt; Information Bulletin for the Buenos Aires Conference; Inside
China Daily; Jornal da Tarde; Nature; New Scientist magazine; New York Times; Resenha Ambiental
Ecopress; Sydney Morning Herald.
World Rainforest Movement
7
Presentation
The sixth Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change will take place in
November in The Hague, The Netherlands. The public at large, increasingly concerned over
the present and future effects of climate change, may well expect as a matter of course that
their governments will have the good sense to take constructive action to solve the problem.
Among those of us who have been participating in this international process, however,
expectations are somewhat different.
The fact is that this Convention appears to be going in the wrong direction and many of those
participating seem to be quite happy about that. It has in fact become a negotiation more
concerned with how much money each country thinks it might save or grab in the short term
that about finding true solutions to a real problem.
To cut or not to cut emissions? Amazingly enough, that does not seem to be the question.
For all it seems quite clear that cutting emissions is a need. However, most of the major
emitters and oil-producing countries are trying to find ways to avoid doing what they know
needs to be done, telling themselves that this will somehow save them money.
The promise of short-term money is also increasingly a factor for many Southern delegations.
Three years ago, prior to the Kyoto climate meeting in 1997, one African climate -change
negotiator angrily told a Northern-country representative that "our countries are not toilets for
your emissions!" Yet today, many Southern countries are going out of their way actually to
offer themselves as such "toilets" in order to gain a few dollars, renting or selling their
countries' lands and forests to act as supposed carbon sinks for the emissions that Northern
countries will continue sending to the atmosphere. The fact that this particular sewage
system won't work, and that the resulting climate change is having increasingly serious
effects on their people, ecosystems and economies, is seldom mentioned.
The upshot is that the current round of climate negotiations are focused on carbon sinks and
not on carbon emissions reductions, equal rights to the atmosphere, and the adoption of
clean, renewable and low-impact energy -- which is what they should be about.
Government delegates bewitched by false economics, not surprisingly, are backed by many
businesses. The Climate Convention has the peculiarity of having a number of active
participants lobbying under the name "Business NGOs". Believe it or not, the room they
occupy even bears that name. Among others, the nuclear "business community" is active in
the talks, trying to sell its "clean" energy to save the planet. More unexpectedly, even some
environmental NGOs appear to be playing the carbon sinks game and are willing to receive
carbon money for forest conservation and rehabilitation.
On the positive side, there is a large representation of NGOs and indigenous peoples
organizations trying to make governments change course in The Hague. This could well
come to pass if people in all countries of the world were to put sufficient pressure on their
governments and on the conference delegates. That means making people aware of what's
happening, organizing pressure on governments and bringing that pressure to bear at The
Hague. Without that pressure, it is all too clear what the outcome in November will be.
8
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
Within such context, we hope that this book may be a positive contribution for changing
course in the upcoming negotiations and that these will finally create the necessary
conditions to avoid the environmental and social catastrophe to which otherwise humanity
would be condemned to.
World Rainforest Movement
9
Our viewpoints
Trees, forests and climate in Buenos Aires
The Conference of the Parties (COP4) of the Climate Change Convention 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 carbo n
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
10
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
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
World Rainforest Movement
11
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
12
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
--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 be longs: in the dustbin.
(Bulletin October, 1998)
Latin America's forests: the time is ripe for change
The Climate Change Convention meeting held in Argentina is a good opportunity to
highlight the issue of forests and tree plantations in Latin America. We have therefore
focused this issue of the Bulletin on a number of representative examples of the problems
and struggles which are currently occuring in the region.
Government double-speak is exemplified -though by no means monopolized- by Brazil.
While championing forest protection in global fora, its policies and actions continue
resulting in further forest loss. Government-sponsored migration to the forest, conversion of
forest lands to agriculture and cattle raising, forest fires, dam building and ille gal logging
continue unabated, while its global international discourse clearly pertains to the area of
virtual reality, with little in common with what is actually happening at the ground level.
Large-scale tree plantations -one of the cherished solution of global technocrats to climate
change- are increasingly being opposed by local people affected by their social and
environmental impacts, as well as by most environmental NGOs. Struggles against them
are mushrooming from Mexico to Argentina, but governments seem to be deaf and blind to
peoples' opposition to such forestry model. We are improving the environment! they say.
We are planting forests and countering the greenhouse effect! they add. Impacts on
people, on water, on soils, on biodiversity are quickly dismissed as scientifically unproven
facts. Supported by multilateral development institutions, bilateral aid agencies, northern
consultancies and machinery providers, Latin American governments increasingly
subsidize transnational wood-based companies with both Northern and Southern taxpayer
money to increase the area of fast-growing tree monocultures. In most cases, such policy
results in the substitution of forest ecosystems by plantations (therefore becoming a direct
cause of deforestation), while in some few countries (particularly those located in
temperate areas such as Uruguay and certain regions of Argentina), plantations substitute
grassland, thereby implying the total destruction of the native prairie ecosystem.
Government-sponsored "development" projects continue resulting in further deforestation
and forest degradation and in most cases the only visible change has been the inclusion of
the word "sustainable" to the same type of projects which have proven to be detrimental to
forests in the past..
Guyana's and Suriname's forests, for instance -some of the more well preserved forests in
the region- are being destroyed by foreign mining and logging companies through
concessions awarded by government, without the approval and with the oppositio n of
indigenous peoples and other local communities who struggle to preserve the forest.
Mangroves throughout the region continue to be destroyed -with government support- by
shrimp farming, with the aim of increasing exports to obtain foreign currency to pay back
loans from international credit institutions. Local peoples, whose livelihoods depend to a
large extent on products obtained from the mangroves, are deprived access to them and
only receive back a completely degraded ecosystem once the shrimp far ms are
abandoned.
World Rainforest Movement
13
Oil and and increasingly gas exploitation are being promoted throughout the region, both
by governments and multilateral institutions, with the resulting destruction of forests,
(including water and air pollution and biodiversity loss) and peoples' livelihoods. Local
communities are opposing such activity and a number of struggles are under way to halt it.
Among them, we wish to highlight the successful struggle of the Cofan indigenous peoples
in Ecuador, who have recently closed down an oil well in their territory.
Deforestation is further increasing the consequences of natural disasters. The tragedy
which recently happened in Honduras and Nicaragua during the occurrence of hurricane
Mitch could have been much lesser if forests areas had not been cleared. Mudslides and
deadly floods were the result of years of deforestation. Clearance of forest land in the
region is always a direct or indirect result of government policies and not -as they try to
portray- the result of ignorance and poverty. Unfair land-tenure policies, the promotion of
logging and of the substitution of forests by other "more productive", export -oriented
activities, as well as many other policies leading to deforestation, are all the result of
government-led "development".
Road-building, now acklowledged as one of the major underlying causes of deforestation,
continues being promoted both by governments and multilateral agencies. In Ecuador, a
large tract of primary forest belonging to the Chachi indigenous peoples will b e soon
affected by a new road linking the area to southern Colombia and to other Ecuadorian
provinces.
Even in cases where governments seem to have finally decided to protect the forest by
creating reserves, they break their own rules whenever their econo mic policy decides that
the economy comes before conservation. Such a case is highlighted by the struggle of
local communities in Venezuela, fighting to protect the Imataca forest reserve, which the
government is destroying to export electricity to Brazil and to produce cheap energy for
mining companies which will further destroy the forest.
Indigenous peoples are struggling throughout the region to achieve the official recognition
of their territories, which constitutes a basic step to ensure forest conse rvation. Such
struggle has achieved some important successes in specific cases, but almost always
against a background of lack of political will from the government and the frequently violent
opposition of local or transnational economic interests.
In general terms, the protection of local communities' human rights and the conservation of
forests and other ecosystems are dangerous activities in the region. The long list of people
murdered increases every year and we sadly inform in this bulletin about the most recent
deaths in Colombia.
Within such context, there are however positive signs. Both at country and international
level, more and more people are becoming aware about the vital need to protect the forests
and are taking action to support the rights of forest peoples and forest-dependent peoples
as a means to ensure such aim. At the local level, more communities are standing up to
defend their rights and their forests. Even though governments' discourse is clearly
divorced from their actions, the adoption of such a discourse is a clear sign that the time is
ripe for change. (Bulletin November, 1998)
14
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
"Clever" schemes are not the solution to climate change
Almost everyone agrees that humanity is facing many threats, among which the
greenhouse effect. There is also general agreement on the main causes of the greenhouse
effect: use of fossil fuels and deforestation. International agreements to address those two
causes have until now proved -to say the least- inadequate. Fossil fuel consumption is still
increasing and deforestation continues unabated. The economic interest of the ever more
powerful corporations is still more powerful than the survival instinct of humanity.
Moreover, economic interest continues to actively seek for new niches for money -making
and seems to have found a pot of gold in disaster itself, such as exemplified by the "carbon
offset market". The idea is simple: you emit CO2, we store it and we charge you for the
service. How do we store it? Simple: in planted trees. But here ends the simplicity. If this
"carbon market" idea is allowed to flourish, then there will be millions of hectares of land
covered by carbon sink plantations all over the world. This entails a large number of
implications of which we will highlight but a few. Firstly, that all that land will not be
available for food production, in a world were the numbers of people facing hunger is
increasing -and are counted by the millions. Secondly, that many local communities will be
driven away from their land and their means of subsistence will be substituted by tree
plantations that no-one will be even allowed to cut, thus increasing the numbers of the
hungry. Thirdly, that many forests will be destroyed to make place to more profitable
carbon sink plantations, thereby increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the
greenhouse effect which plantations are supposed to counter, while at the same time
depriving more people of their livelihoods. Fourthly, that forests -which constitute enormous
carbon reservoirs- will continue to be increasingly depleted, both by the activities which
currently affect them and by the added pressure of communities being displaced by
plantations and other "development" activities. And finally, that all this will only serve the
purpose of those who benefit from the current fossil fuel-dependent economy.
"Clever" schemes such as the carbon offset market are aimed at avoiding real changes to
the current environmentally destructive and socially inequitable model. But the problem
remains. Unless deforestation is halted and unless fossil fuels are substituted by other
forms of energy, humanity will continue suffering the consequences of climate change.
Instead of promoting such schemes, governments and corporations should support the
efforts of local communities currently fighting -against governments and corporations- to
defend their forests. They should create the conditions to achieve forest conservation,
instead of acting in the opposite direction. The should -at least- begin by complying with
the numerous relevant international agreements which they have happily signed but never
implemented. In the meantime, the fate of the world's forests lies in the success of the
struggles being carried out by countless indigenous, traditional and other loc al
communities. To them, our support. (Bulletin October, 1999)
Sinks that stink
As nearly everyone knows, the world is heating up, and one of the main causes of climate
change is the use of fossil fuels. Under pressure, the industrialized countries most
responsible for this state of affairs made some minimal commitments to reduce their fossil
fuel emissions in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. However, some of the most polluting
countries are trying to find ways out of their commitments, using potential loopho les in the
World Rainforest Movement
15
Protocol which may allow them to plant millions of hectares of trees in Southern countries
as a substitute for cutting emissions at source.
Partly in order to assess the scientific validity of this approach, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) appointed a panel to put together a Special Report on
Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry. The report, released in May, has disappointed
many activists by giving a "scientific" stamp of approval to a carbon market which would
generate profits for a small number of mostly Northern companies and consultants, allow
industrialized countries to continue emitting carbon to the atmosphere, impact negatively
on people and the environment in the South --and fail to slow climate change.
How was it possible for the IPCC to produce such a report? Why didn't the scientists do
their job properly? The answer is probably very complex, having to do with peer pressure,
political influence from the US, personal ambition, and the fact that out of hundreds of
authors and commentators on the report, only a tiny handful were social scientists or
experienced in grassroots political realities. But one of the reason's for the report's failure
is, sadly, surely quite simple: some of the authors (and the companies they work for) will
benefit financially from having drawn the conclusions they drew. The following are only a
few examples:
Sandra Brown of the US is a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 5 ("Project -Based
Activities") and the Summary for Policymakers of the report. Brown is Senior Program
Officer for Winrock International, an Arlington, Virginia-based nonprofit organization which
accepts contracts from "public and private" sources. Winrock provides forest carbon
monitoring technical services to government agencies such as the U.S. Initiative on Joint
Implementation and a wide range of private sector and non-governmental organizations.
Pedro Moura-Costa, another important author of Chapter 5, is a UK-based executive of
Ecosecurities Ltd., a consulting firm with offices in the US, Brazil, Australia and The
Netherlands. Ecosecurities "specializes in the generation of Emission Reduction Credits"
and stands to make large profits from its involvement in carbon forestry.
Gareth Philips of the UK, another Lead Author of Chapter 5, works for Societe Generale de
Surveillance (SGS) Forestry of Geneva, which earns money from designing, monitoring and
certifying carbon forestry projects, including quantifying carbon impacts. SGS certifies the
Certified Tradeable Offsets offered by Costa Rica and hopes to expand its work elsewhere
in the carbon forestry field. Philips and SGS thus have a vested interest in arguing that
quantification of the climate effects of carbon forestry makes sense.
Richard Tipper of the UK, also an author of Chapter 5, is on the staff of the Edinburgh
Centre for Carbon Management, a consulting company which earns money from designing,
assessing and monitoring carbon forestry projects. ECCM works closely with Future
Forests, which has carbon forestry contracts with Mazda, Avis, BT and other companies.
ECCM staff have also been involved in a forestry project financed in part by the Federation
Internationale de l'Automobile in Mexico. Using lands inhabited by highland Mayan
Tojolobal and lowland Mayan Tzeltal communities, the project is designed to "offset" the
5,500 tonnes of carbon emitted annually by Formula One car racing at a price of 38,000 UK
pounds a year.
Mark Trexler of the US, a Review Editor of the same chapter, runs Trexler & Associates, a
firm which has made money -and is likely to make millions of dollars more- by promoting
and monitoring carbon sequestration and other "climate mitigation" projects.
16
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
Peter Hill of the US, a Lead Author of Chapter 4 ("Additional Human -Induced Activities -Article 3.4"), is with Monsanto Corporation. Monsanto has a large stake in genetically
modified organisms, including, potentially, organisms modified to take up or store carbon
more efficiently. Hill's corporation too thus stands to make increased prof its as a result of
the IPCC report's optimistic findings about the possibility of using land and forest projects
to mitigate climate change.
These and many other authors and editors of the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land
Use Change and Forestry had vested interests in reaching unrealistically and unjustifiably
optimistic conclusions about the possibility of compensating for emissions with trees. They
should therefore have been automatically disqualified from serving on an intergovernmental
panel charged with investigating impartially the feasibility and benefits of such "offset"
projects. As things stand, the report must now be shelved due to their clear conflict of
interest and a new report instigated which will be free of the taint of intellectual c orruption.
It's official: the carbon sink approach now definitely stinks. (Bulletin June, 2000)
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 the WRM Bulletin entirely on this matter, of vital importance for th e
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 forest- 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 feasible, 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 same
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
World Rainforest Movement
17
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.
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 on 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. (Bulletin August, 2000)
Climate Change: The lesson from Lyon
Government delegates from all over the world met this month in Lyon, France, in a
Preparatory Conference prior to the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on
Climate Change which will be held next November in the Hague, Netherlands.
The only positive thing that can be said about the Lyon meeting is that delegates worked
very hard, late into the evenings, and that some delegates -- unfortunately too few -actually tried to do something about climate change. But the general cha racter of the
meeting was one of blackmailing, arm-twisting, marketing, bribing and trading among the
various elites present. Most of the time was spent discussing money for programmes which
actually have little or no relevance to climate.
One of the topics talked about was something called the "Clean Development Mechanism."
This is a scheme which could (among other things) allow industrialized countries to
"compensate for" their emissions through the use of biospheric "carbon sinks" in the South
-- such as tree plantations, forests and changes in land use -- thus enabling them to
maintain and even increase the fossil fuel emissions that are at the root of climate change.
18
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
Little attention was paid by most of the diplomats and technocrats present to the prov en
negative impacts that forestry projects similar to those contemplated have already had on
people and the environment.
Fortunately, this false climate "solution" has not yet been approved by the Conference of
the Parties. But the preliminary negotiations at Lyon gave little reason for optimism. Some
of the delegations present focused on blackmailing ("We won't sign the Kyoto Protocol
unless lots of carbon sinks are included"), accompanied by arm-twisting ("You are free not
to agree, but . . ."). The US and Japan scored very high here. Others tried to trade their
countries' "carbon sink" capacity for money. Some Latin American delegates had a very
high profile in this respect. A third group --including many European delegates -- tried to
show commitment to Kyoto-agreed emission cuts, but left the door open for forestry
projects in the Hague agreement. The small group of countries who strongly oppose the
inclusion of carbon sinks in the Kyoto Protocol seemingly could do little more than try to
find ways of avoiding the very worst of the possible deals on offer.
Sadly enough, those were the meeting's highlights. There was almost no discussion of the
real issues: equal rights to the atmosphere, fossil fuel use reductions, especially in the
North, alternative energy sources, and energy efficiency and conservation. If governments
had been truly willing to address climate change, they would have focused on how to
achieve drastic cuts in fossil fuel emissions through the active promotion of clean,
renewable and low impact sources of energy. North and South would have begun to share
the research and experience that both have regarding low-impact energy use and would
have considered mechanisms to ensure the effective exchange of the relevant knowledge,
technology, and political experience both from South to North and from North to South.
Those should have been the core issues in discussions regarding any "Clean Development
Mechanism." But the governments present chose otherwise.
One lesson can be drawn from the Lyon meeting: unless people put pressure on their
governments, climate negotiators will do nothing to head off the world's looming climate
disaster. Peoples' movements must have the courage to disbelieve what most technocrats
in governments, research institutions and even NGOs are telling them -- namely, that
climate change is an issue for "experts" only. They must understand that this is not a
technical but a power issue and that the arena is political, where everyone is entitled to
participate. They must keep firmly in mind that the issue is essentially very simple with an
equally simple solution that anyone can understand: replace fossil fuels by alternative and
environmentally-friendly energy sources. Climate change will not be solved by planting
millions of hectares of pines and eucalyptus, which will only add to existing problems.
If left alone, official delegates will lead us all to disaster. They must be pushed, both from
outside and from inside their grand meeting halls, toward more sober and responsible
action. That is the lesson from Lyon. (Bulletin September, 2000)
General Analysis
Message from Bratislava to Kyoto on tree plantations
The fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity took place in Bratislava from 4-15 May. Among its many decisions, we wish to
highlight one related to forest biological diversity which "Notes the potential impact of
afforestation, reforestation, forest degradation and deforestation on forest biological
World Rainforest Movement
19
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."
What is the coded message behind such apparently obscure phrasing? The Climate
Change Convention process is actively promoting tree plantations as one of the major
mechanisms to act as carbon sinks to counteract fossil fuel emissions. Article 2 of the
Kyoto Protocol states that:
"1. Each Party included in Annex I [those responsible for major fossil fuel emissions], in
achieving its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3, in
order to promote sustainable development, shall:
(a) Implement and/or further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its
national circumstances, such as:
(ii) Protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled
by the Montreal Protocol, taking into account its commitments under relevant international
environmental agreements; promotion of sustainable forest management practices,
afforestation and reforestation;"
The terms "afforestation and reforestation" in fact mean millions of hectares of monoculture
tree plantations of fast growing species, particularly eucalyptus. Under this light, the
Bratislava meeting's message becomes clear: if such plans are implemented, this will
certainly affect biodiversity in forests and in other ecosystems.. Forests will be substituted
by efficient "carbon sinks" composed of few fast growing species and there is therefore an
antagonism between the aims of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the mechanism
put forward by the Climate Change Convention. We share, welcome and support suc h
concern. (Bulletin May, 1998)
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 em issions.
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 inves ting country that will
receive emission reduction certification for the project. As a matter of fact this provision,
20
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
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
World Rainforest Movement
21
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 contri bute 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 ava ilable 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? (Bulletin
October, 1998)
Climate Change Convention: much ado about nothing
Nothing much seems to have happened during the 4 th Conference of the Parties held in
Buenos (COP4) Aires from 2 to 13 November. From a broad perspective, th is can be
regarded as very bad news, given that climate change is happening and will increasingly
affect the lives of millions of people. From a more concrete perspective, the same news
can be seen as positive, given that the majority of governments don't seen to be willing to
make the difficult decisions that need to be made: subsitution of fossil fuels by renewable,
clean and low impact energy sources and worldwide forest conservation. As the whole
discusion on how to address climate change is focused on negotiations to avoid major cuts
in fossil fuel use and to avoid real measures to halt deforestation, the seemingly bad news
coming from Buenos Aires can be considered -in such a context- as good news.
Regarding forests and tree plantations as carbon reservoirs and sinks, decisions on the
definitions of deforestation, reforestation and afforestation as per Article 3.3 of the Kyoto
Protocol will be taken by the first COP following release of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) of a Special Report on Land-Use Change and Forestry (which will
take place at COP6). Additionally, it was agreed that decisions on the inclusion of any
additional human-induced land-use and forestry activities eligible for consideration by
Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (Article 3.4) will also be decided at the first COP following
release of the IPCC-Special Report (additional activities could include forestry, forest
conservation, soil conservation, other agricultural activities, etc.).
There was pressure from some countries, including Australia and some EU countries to
accelerate decisions on definitions under article 3.3 to be made prior to the IPCC Special
Report. In the end, these pressures for early decisions were held back, which can be
considered a good thing given the important consequences that such definitions may result
in. Canada -for instance- has taken the position that clearcutting of forests, including
old-growth forests, should not count as a carbon "debit" since they do not consider that as
"deforestation", but that replanting clearcuts should count as a carbon "credit" under
reforestation. Absurd as this may seem -it would be like a bank account where none of
your checks are debited, and all your deposits are credited- Canada's position is indicative
22
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
of the wide range of problems that will emerge if definitions on deforestation, reforestation
and afforestation are adopted without careful analysis of their consequences.
The Buenos Aires meeting also witnessed marked differences in NGO opinion r egarding
sinks. Some US based NGOs (namely the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature
Conservancy and the World Resources Institute) promoted very wide expanded use of
sinks. The World Rainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth, JATAN, WWF, Greenpeace
and many other NGOs took the opposite view, stating that not only will wide use of sinks
undermine achievement of the objectives of the Convention -which is to stabilize
greenhouse gases at levels below which irreversible impacts to ecosystems, including
forest ecosystems, will occur- but that additionally, activities promoted under it will more
likely lead to overall negative impacts on forest biodiversity and local communities.
Concerns included perverse incentives to log and clear primary forests, accelera ted
expansion of fast-growing monoculture tree plantations and impacts resulting from those
processes on local communities and indigenous peoples.
In sum, neither governments nor NGOs are particularly united at the climate change level
and many issues still remain open for discussion. Such situation provides a breathing
space for all those concerned with people and the environment, to raise awareness among
the public about the role that their governments are playing in these negotiations, so as to
influence them in a more positive direction than the one they seem to be heading to.
(Bulletin November, 1998)
Contribution to the debate on carbon sinks
One point that is not being sufficiently taken into consideration in the debate about
plantations as carbon sinks is the production end of the issue. That is, most of these
monocultural non-native species plantations are being grown for either of two products:
paper or fiberboard. In both cases, the trees will be turned into chips and then made into
something else.
How much of the actual wood fiber grown on the plantation is sequestered? Very little,
especially in the case of paper.
Let's see: the trees grow, sucking up a certain amount of carbon as wood fiber mass. Much
of the soil around the trees is compacted in the logging process. This does two things:
drives out much of the carbon in the organic layer, and makes the soil more prone to
erosion, which further frees up the carbon it holds.
Much of the carbon, of course, is turned into leaves which eventually fall to the ground as
the tree grows. These leaves rot into the soil, becoming part of that organic layer
mentioned above.
The trees are cut and chipped, eventually being turned into pulp and then into paper or
cardboard. These products are then used and most often thrown away. In the case of
corrugated cardboard, very few countries have achieved recycling rates over 50%. Most of
the corrugated in the world is used once and then landfilled.
World Rainforest Movement
23
Even in the US, a country with a relatively high recycling rate (as compared with the rest of
the world, not with other industrial countries, that is), only about 14% of white office paper
is recycled. Much of the plantations in Brazil and Indonesia, two of the world's leading pulp
and paper producers, is going into office paper.
So, this paper --where one would argue that most of the carbon taken up by the plantation
has been sequestered-- is pretty much landfilled. Here, the bulk of it will, over time,
decompose in an anearobic environment -that is, without the presence of oxygen- and be
released into the landfill (and eventually the atmosphere) as methane. Methane is 25 times
more effective as a global warming gas than is carbon.
Therefore, most of the sequestered carbon will be ultimately released as methane or simply
re-released as carbon in the process of harvest, chipping, pulping, waste, production into
paper, and finally, decomposition.
A small portion (that going into fiberboard) will become non-durable wood products which
will also soon be landfilled. That is, even fiberboard is disposable over a relatively short
period of time (at least in America, where this type of furniture lasts only a few years). And
when it is buried in the landfill at the end of its short life, it too, will generate methane.
A tiny fraction of the wood fiber produced by the plantation will be sequestered over the
long term as durable wood products, far exceeded, however, by the methane generated by
the disposal of all the paper and fiberboard thrown out by an ever-expanding
overconsumptive global economic machine.
The science behind carbon sequestration in plantations is not science at all, but is instead
smoke and mirrors used to generate more plantations, benefitting large paper, pulp and
wood products companies, at the expense of the Earth and local people.
Carbon sink plantation promoters seem to have forgotten that in order to actually sequester
the carbon, the trees must either:
- be left to grow; or
- be turned into durable products that will hold that carbon for hundreds o f years; and
- never be allowed to decompose in an anaerobic environment.
None of this is happening in any substantial way when it comes to fast-growing non-native
plantations. (Bulletin November, 1998)
Can expansion of plantations be a solution to combat Global Warming?
Large scale overseas plantation projects planned by Japan's paper industry cannot be
accepted in joint implementation or in the Clean Development Mechanisms of the Kyoto
Protocol to combat climate change.
What is actually resulting from plantations is forest degradation and related carbon
emissions. At the same time, carbon contained in the wood that is extracted from
plantations is released almost immediately in the case of pulpwood plantations, because
wood is transformed into paper, much of which is short-lived, thereby releasing the stored
carbon back to the atmosphere. Before assessing any CDM projects, it is therefore
necessary to close a number of loopholes contained in forestry accounting.
24
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
1. The expansion of plantations was part of 'forest degradation' in the 1980s, causing loss
of closed forests and carbon emissions.
In order to achieve high precision estimates of deforestation and forest degradation in
developing countries, the FAO conducted a satellite sampling research (" Forest Resource
Assessment 1990", FAO 1995). This land use change measurement by the FAO can be
utilized in the context of Global Warming. Estimates are based on the concept of Carbon
Stock Change method accounting, which is one candidate to be used in the Framework
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.
According to the satellite image analysis, in the 1980s, 75% of the new tree plantations in
developing countries in the tropics were made by replacing closed natural forest that had
existed there ten years earlier. Plantation projects therefore serve as agents of destruction
for natural forests. Most of these new plantations may be for oil palm or pulpwood
production purposes.
Original tropical forest stores biomass at average rates of 220 tonnes per hectare. Typical
plantations store biomass at average rates of 120 tonnes per hectare. A decrease of 100
tonnes of biomass is equivalent to roughly 50 tonne-carbon, or 183 tonne-CO2 emission.
Therefore, the 3.95 million hectares of forest converted to plantations in the 1980s means
725 million tonnes of CO2 emissions.
The result of initial logging and subsequent plantation is therefore an increase in the net
carbon emissions that contribute to global warming,and accounted for as 'forest
degradation'. Although remaining plantations can sequester carbon dioxide, part of that
carbon is extracted as timber or other products, while net Carbon Stock remains constant
in the remaining plantations.
High expansion rate of plantations is expected in the future, just as the case in the 1980s,
which expanded plantation area 25% within the decade, so the total plantation related
carbon accounting is net 'emission' of carbon dioxide.
2. Consumption patterns are essential for Carbon Stock estimates
Most afforestation schemes such as those initiated by Japanese paper companies are large
scale and involve profitable non-native species. This extension overseas of Japan's
"expanded forestation" paradigm is causing social, environmental and human rights
problems in many targetted areas.
In the process of pulp and paper production, more than half of the carbon stored in the
woodchip is consumed as a biomass energy resource and emitted into the air as CO2.
Paper products are subsequently used for only one year on average. Half of these
products are then recycled, but the other half are burned as waste producing further CO2
emissions.
Wood used for pulp and paper production is therefore fundamentally different from timber
products that are used on a longer term basis as the timber industry claims. Rather it
should be treated as the same usage as fuelwood.
World Rainforest Movement
25
3. IPCC's guideline of Sink inventory is contradictory, thus causing a loophole.
Cutting activities are accounted for the host country's activity by now, while p art of planting
credit will be given to the donor country. This is a carbon leakage problem, which allows
the developed country to abandon its emission reduction target. A trade related cost
internalization scheme, such as traded timber vs Annual Allowance Unit barter trading or
simply barter accounting scheme should be developed to close the loophole. (Bulletin
December, 1999)
Global Biodiversity Forum casts doubts on measures to mitigate
climate change
The conclusions of the XI Global Biodiversity Forum, held last November in Buenos Aires
-attended by Alvaro Gonzalez of the WRM Secretariat- reveal significant coincidences with
some of WRM's viewpoints. One point in common is that which states that even if the
increasing number of multilateral agreements on the environment could mean greater
concern on the issue, this could also lead to a fragmented and ineffective approach to
reality. On the contrary, a holistic vision is needed, that takes into account natural, social,
economic and cultural factors working together. Another important point in common is the
one that stresses that “done incorrectly, the forest-based measures to address climate
change . . . could result in negative impacts on forests and other natural ecosystems,
communities and the climate system.”. This is exactly the case of tree plantations as
carbon sinks: while their effectiveness in this respect is doubtful, their negative
environmental and social impacts –including impacts on biodiversity- have been proven
worldwide. Participants of the Forum underscored that “protecting the ecological integrity of
nature and sustaining the societies which are supported by it is vital to addressing the
climate change issue”. (Bulletin December, 1999)
Carbon sinks or the sinking of the Climate Change Convention?
Northern countries, which are responsible for most of the world fossil fuel -related emissions
resulting from their unsustainable production and consumption patterns, are seeking to buy
a way out of their responsibility in relation to global warming by promoting the use the
photosinthetic activity of tree leaves to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Fast-growing species plantations have been given a major role in relation to this issue
because of their supposed condition of carbon sinks. Under the so called Clean
Development Mechanisms, the Kyoto Protocol promotes such plantations. The result is that
the North will continue emitting CO2 to the atmosphere, while vast areas of the South will
be used as a deposit for their carbon garbage. Estimates of the are of fast-growing tree
plantations required to aborb global emissions of CO2 range from 150 to 300 million
hectares. The negative environmental and social impacts of this invasion can be enormous.
Plantations are not a solution for global warming, but an additional problem. As a matter of
fact, tree plantations are one of the main causes of forest destruction in the tropics,
eliminating the enormous carbon reservoirs that mature forests are. In the 1980s, 75% of
the new tree plantations in Southern countries in the tropics were made by replacing closed
natural forest that had existed there ten years earlier. In the temperate regions, plantations
will substitute grasslands that also act as natural carbon reservoirs. Additionally, the
scientific basis of the whole idea is very weak. The efficiency of plantations as carbon sinks
26
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
is under question because it depends very much on the species used and on the local
climatic conditions; because it is not clear for how long they are supposed to sta y as
carbon sinks; and because it depends on what happens with carbon emissions when they
are cut down and their wood is transformed into different types of wood products which will
decay in relatively short periods of time (particularly so in the case of paper).
A real solution for global warming would imply -among other additional measures- that
industrialized countries effectively diminish their emissions and that, at the same time,
primary forests and grassland ecosystems are maintained as natural carb on reservoirs,
while secondary forest regrowth is enhanced to act as real carbon sinks. That should be
the role of the CCC. If it continues concentrating on sinks and not on sources, then it will
be the CCC itself that will sink. (Bulletin July, 1999)
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 atmospherically 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 that
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 o f 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 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
World Rainforest Movement
27
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 "unscrupulous 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. (Bulletin August, 2000)
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,
imprisoned, 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 estimated 265 million barrels of oil and part of the territory
has been now declared intangible and therefore closed to oil extraction activities.
28
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
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 billion 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 change. They must not be allowed to ge t away with
that. (Bulletin August, 2000)
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 rem oving
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 instance, 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 problem 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 be taken over in any attempt to counteract even a small
World Rainforest Movement
29
fraction of industrial emissions. Experience with large-scale tree plantations indicates that
such "offset" projects would usurp 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 in 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
displaced 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 not
be promoted by governments who subscribe to the Convention on Biolog ical 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 regarding 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.
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.
(Bulletin August, 2000)
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 ans wered 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 government. The forest would be conserved and the local community would at the
30
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
same time be able to improve its standard of living. This could be portrayed as a "win -win"
situation.
There are however some problems resulting from the global character of the carbon 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 perc eived
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
ensuring 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 governments.
(Bulletin August, 2000)
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.
World Rainforest Movement
31
- 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 CO2 emissions. After the
Kyoto Protocol, such companies instructed US and other industrial country delega tes 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 agreements to install carbo n
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 emitted 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 Nordic 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 car bon
bank or carbon stock exchange.
32
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
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 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 contributing 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 with 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 a griculture
minister in New South 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 has been one of the major promoters of the tree
monoculture scheme, and the country's economic growth has been based on a huge
World Rainforest Movement
33
ecological footprint through the exploitation of other nations' resources and the deposit of
its industrial garbage.
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 projects.
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
34
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
professional consultants are among the potential and actual beneficiaries of this
market-oriented approach. (Bulletin 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 group 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 pers on 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. (Bulletin
August, 2000)
World Rainforest Movement
35
Compensating for emissions through carbon sinks: a cheat's charter
In WRM bulletin 35 we exposed the conflict of interest among some of the experts who
produced the IPCC special report on land use, land use change and forestry last June
("Sinks that stink"), resulting from their direct involvement in companies which would
economically benefit from the inclusion of sinks in the Kyoto Protocol. One of the named
experts --Richard Tipper-- replies in the current issue of Multinational Monitor magazine
that "you could say all scientists have vested interests when they participate in such a
panel because they're interested in advancement or research money" and adds: "if you
disagree with somebody then you should be able to make a coherent argument, not just
slag people off."
We believe that most scientists would disagree with Mr. Tipper's view about participation in
expert panels. We also believe that people with vested interests should not accept
appointments to expert panels whose findings might economically benefit them. Nor should
they be invited to participate in them.
Regarding Mr. Tipper's reference about "slagging people off", it is important to remember
that the World Rainforest Movement has been disseminating not one but a number of
"coherent arguments" against plantations as carbon sinks for more than a year -- all of
which Mr. Tipper seems to ignore (see all relevant WRM materials in our Climate Change
section at: http://www.wrm.org.uy ). Perhaps he feels we are not sufficiently "scientific" for
our arguments to be taken into account. However, it will be difficult for him to say the same
about the scientists from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in
Laxenburg, Austria.
IIASA carried out a detailed study of Russia's biosphere,which contains a fifth of the
world's forests. The full report, announced on 25 August in a news relea se under the
suggestive heading "Is the Kyoto Protocol Workable?" puts in question the whole idea of
using carbon sinks as a means of "compensating" for CO2 emissions. Anatoly Shvidenko,
one of the scientists involved in the study, stated that under the Kyoto Protocol, Russia is
likely to be able to claim credit for improving its biosphere's ability to soak up carbon, but
that the uncertainties involved in calculating such credits are huge and "greatly exceed
likely changes in industrial emissions." In plain English, that means that including trees in
the Kyoto Protocol is a recipe for confusion and cheating.
Sten Nilsson, also from IIASA, concluded that "the scientific uncertainties in measuring
carbon movements into and out of ecosystems are just too great," and that "by opening up
the whole of the biosphere to actions under the Kyoto Protocol, governments have made it
completely unverifiable." IIASA's Michael Obersteiner summarized the whole issue by
saying that the Protocol "really is a cheat's charter."
Asked to comment on the IIASA report, A US analyst of the Kyoto Protocol, David Victor,
working at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, concurred with its findings.
"Their analysis is fundamentally correct. It is essentially impossible to ve rify compliance if
the targets include forests," Victor said.
After analysing the IIASA report and other relevant information and viewpoints, "New
Scientist" journalist Fred Pearce reaches the conclusion that "the message from the IIASA
seems clear. Science is not yet up to policing a system of greenhouse gas targets that
includes the biosphere. Until it is, the only viable Kyoto Protocol is one that relies solely on
36
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
slashing the world's use of fossil fuels." With which we totally agree. (Bulletin Septembe r,
2000)
Research documents
New scientific findings: tree plantations may accelerate global
warming
The promotion of tree plantations as a means of combating global warming has received all
kinds of criticism. On the one hand, plantations do not relieve pressures from forests
-which are carbon reservoirs- but constitute a direct cause of their destruction. According to
a satellite image analysis, in the 1980s, 75% of the new tree plantations in Southern
countries in the tropics were made by replacing natural forest that had existed there ten
years earlier. This meant an estimated additional release of 725 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. On the other hand, when
plantations are set up on grasslands they substitute a valuable ecosystem as carbon sink
and reservoir. The amount of carbon stored by grasslands should be deducted from the
volume of carbon allegedly retained by plantations. Furthermore in some cases -as that of
the grassland vegetation of the Andean Paramos- recent studies show that natural
ecosystems are more efficient that plantations regarding their capacity of absorbing CO2.
Last but not least, the promotion of large scale monocultures under the guise of "carb on
sinks" will not but aggravate the social and environmental negative impacts that similar
plantations -aimed at producing fibre or wood- cause.
Recently, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report that
can be the coup de grace for the idea of plantations as carbon sinks. According to
scientists, planned new plantations will quickly become saturated with carbon and begin
returning most of their carbon to the atmosphere through respiration. Since CO2 is the
most important greenhouse effect gas, global warming would be accelerated instead of
mitigated. These new findings mean a change in the IPCC's previous viewpoint concerning
the issue. It had been assumed that as long as CO2 levels in the air went on rising, forest
sinks would continue to grow due to the accelerating effect of the so-called "CO2
fertilisation" on photosynthesis. However, CO2 fertilisation may already have reached its
maximum and respiration may be about to accelerate. Thus, large-scale tree plantations
would in fact aggravate instead of mitigating the greenhouse effect.
The above proves that planting trees to absorb CO2 is no substitute for cutting fossil fuel
emissions at source and furthermore, to rethinking the present unsustainable production
and consumption model that is threatening life on Earth. In spite of the efforts of their
promoters to show them as a panacea, tree plantations are not a solution to the problem
but a part of it. (Bulletin November, 1999)
Carbon sink plantations: less biodiversity = less carbon storage
Scientific evidences questioning the effectiveness of tree monocultures as carbon sinks are
increasing. In case tree plantations are included in the Clean Development Mechanism of
the Kyoto Protocol there is the risk that --as has happened in the past and is still
happening-- vast areas of forests and grasslands in the South will be substituted by
monocultures based on a reduced number of fast-growing tree species. This would mean a
World Rainforest Movement
37
dramatic decrease in the biodiversity of such areas, both considering number of species
and complexity of fluxes at the interior of the system.
Two years ago, the 4th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, that took place in Bratislava, explicitly mentioned the potential impact
of afforestation, reforestation, forest degradation and deforestation on forest biological
diversity and on other ecosystems and mandated its 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." The reason for
this was that if massive tree plantations were to be implemented under the guise of "carbon
sinks" biodiversity would be negatively affected.
Reduction of biodiversity is not only a loss in itself but also means a reduction in their
former capability of acting as real carbon sinks. A group of scientists of the Centre for
Population Biology of the Imperial College at Silwood Park, UK, proved that declining
biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems regarding biomass production,
nutrient retention, decomposition and carbon dioxide absorption. Using chambers
representing different terrestrial microcosms, placed in a specially designed laboratory
under controlled conditions of air temperature, relative humidity, soil, etc. --called Ecotron-the researchers manipulated plant and animal diversity in each chamber, simulating the
process of degradation occurring in the real world. Higher-diversity communities consumed
more carbon dioxide than lower-diversity ones. The conclusion of the article, published in
the prestigious magazine "Nature", is clear: "To the extent that loss of plant biodiverstiy in
the real world means a reduction in the ability of ecosystems to fix CO2, we also tentatively
conclude that the loss of diversity may reduce the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb
anthropogenic CO2". (Bulletin October, 2000)
"Free riders" in the CDM
A recent study of the Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute-Boston Center
concludes "that while the CDM could induce some legitimate lower-emission electricity
generation in host countries, it could also give rise to a considerable amount of spurious
emissions allowances by crediting non-additional (“free-rider”) activities --activities that
would have taken place even in the absence of the CDM." The research finds "that under
some plausible CDM regimes, the CDM could serve primarily as an instrument for
generating spurious credits, and only secondarily as an instrument for economic efficiency
or sustainable development."
The most striking finding of this research is the magnitude of the potential free -rider
problem. "By intention, the CDM is not designed to reduce global greenhouse gas
emissions. CDM projects that reduce emissions in the host countries will generate
emissions credits that enable the investor countries to increase their domestic emissions,
exceeding their Annex B emissions targets. Thus, at best, if the CDM op erates as intended,
it will be carbon-neutral on a global scale. However, in practice, to the extent that the CDM
generates unwarranted free-rider credits, it will cause a net increase in global carbon
emissions."
The researchers argue that "a small flow of free-rider credits might be acceptable, if the
overall outcome of the CDM were to help achieve the ultimate objectives of the Climate
Convention. This outcome would occur if the CDM catalyzed development and adoption of
technologies that could underpin a global transition away from carbon-intensive fuels and
38
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
contribute to sustainable development. But, in the cases investigated here, it is not
evident that the magnitude of potential free-rider credits is justified by the obtained
benefits, such as the transfer of some renewable energy technologies to the host
countries."
The report's main conclusion "is that free-rider credits from non-additional CDM projects
threaten to undermine the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol. Some CDM
regimes could lead global emissions to increase by as much as 600 MtC relative to the
Kyoto Protocol target, if credits awarded spuriously to projects that would have happened
anyways are used in place of real carbon reductions. In economic terms, 600 MtC of
free-rider credits would be worth $6 billion at $10/tC or $60 billion at $100/tC. These free
riders would amount to a multi-billion dollar cross-subsidy to CDM project participants at
the expense of the global environment. It is therefore imperative that policy maker s devise
and adopt a CDM regime that effectively encourages legitimate projects, while rigorously
screening out non-additional activities." (Bulletin October, 2000)
Impossible to verify compliance if forests are included in CDM
The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), based in Laxenburg,
Austria. carried out a detailed study of Russia's biosphere, which contains a fifth of the
world's forests. Its report puts in question the whole idea of using carbon sinks as a means
of "compensating" for CO2 emissions. Anatoly Shvidenko, one of the scientists involved in
the study, stated that under the Kyoto Protocol, Russia is likely to be able to claim credit for
improving its biosphere's ability to soak up carbon, but that the uncertainties involved in
calculating such credits are huge and "greatly exceed likely changes in industrial
emissions."
Sten Nilsson, also from IIASA, concluded that "the scientific uncertainties in measuring
carbon movements into and out of ecosystems are just too great," and that "by opening up
the whole of the biosphere to actions under the Kyoto Protocol, governments have made it
completely unverifiable." IIASA's Michael Obersteiner summarized the whole issue by
saying that the Protocol "really is a cheat's charter."
Asked to comment on the IIASA report, a US analyst of the Kyoto Protocol, David Victor,
working at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, concurred with its findings.
"Their analysis is fundamentally correct. It is essentially impossible to verify compliance if
the targets include forests," Victor said.
After analysing the IIASA report and other relevant information and viewpoints, "New
Scientist" journalist Fred Pearce reaches the conclusion that "the message from the IIASA
seems clear. Science is not yet up to policing a system of greenhouse gas targets that
includes the biosphere. Until it is, the only viable Kyoto Protocol is one that relies solely on
slashing the world's use of fossil fuels." (Bulletin October, 2000)
Forests better than plantations, even as carbon sinks
During the climate change discussions, some have argued that, given that old -growth
forests are carbon reservoirs --and not carbon sinks-- the world's climate would benefit
from cutting them down, converting the wood into durable products and replanting the
clearcut area. The existing carbon would be safely stored in wood products and the
World Rainforest Movement
39
plantation trees would act as sinks for many years, until they reached maturity. This would
enhance --so they say-- the carbon sink capacity of forest ecosystems.
Apart from the many flaws of such approach, a recent study has shown the importance of
old-growth forests as carbon sinks and has warned against their substitution by plantations.
The research concludes that forests are far better than plantations at ridding the air of
carbon dioxide. The analysis, published in the journal Science, was carried out by Dr.
Ernst-Detlef Schulze, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena,
Germany, and two other scientists at the institute.
The German study, together with other similar research, has produced a picture of mature
forests that differs sharply from long-held notions in forestry. Dr. Schulze says that aging
forests were long perceived to be in a state of decay that releases as much carbon dioxide
as it captures. But it turns out that the soils in undisturbed tropical rain forests, Siberian
woods and some German national parks contain enormous amounts of carbon derived from
fallen leaves, twigs and buried roots that can bind to soil particles and remain there for
1,000 years or more. When such forests are cut, the trees' roots decay and soil is
disrupted, releasing the carbon dioxide. Centuries would have to pass until newly planted
trees built up such a reservoir underground.
The study's authors stress the need to protect old-growth forests. Without such protection,
the scientists conclude, some countries could be tempted to cut down old-growth forests
now and then plant new trees on the deforested land, getting credit for reducing carbon
dioxide when they have actually made matters worse.
Several climate and forestry experts familiar with the work have said the study provided an
important new argument for protecting primary forests. They add that the study als o
provides a reminder that the main goal should be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at the
source. (BulletinOctober, 2000)
Statements
World Rainforest Movement: The Mount Tamalpais Declaration
We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations, wish to express extreme concern
about the role envisaged for tree plantations in helping industrialized countries meet their
commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol of the
Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Sixth Conference of the Parties, in
November 2000 in the Hague, will likely determine the content of the so -called Clean
Development Mechanism, which could allow many Northern countries to meet their
emissions reductions targets by implementing projects in the South.
Trading carbon sequestered in tree plantations for carbon resulting from burning of fossil
fuels cannot justify postponing deep reductions in CO2 emissions in industrialized
countries. First, the trade would perpetuate and exacerbate existing inequalities between
rich and poor nations and between rich and poor within particular nations. Second, the
trade would increase the area of industrial tree plantations, which are already posing
severe social and ecological problems worldwide. Third, the claim of quant ifiable "climate
neutrality" on which this trade rests has a highly questionable scientific basis and sanctions
external political interference in the policymaking of the countries of the South.
40
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
For a century and a half industrial societies have been moving carbon from underground
reserves of coal and oil into the air. Today about 175 billion more tons of carbon are
circulating in the atmosphere in the form of CO2 than before the industrial revolution, the
great bulk having come from the North. At least six billion tons are being added every year.
Just over 122 corporations account for 80 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.
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 -- more than
ten times the amount of carbon stored in forests. According to current scientific consensus,
adding as little as few hundred billion tons of this to the air would result in climate change
unprecedented in human history, bringing extreme storms, droughts and floods, disrupting
agriculture, increasing pest infestations, drowning islands and coastlines and creating
millions of "climate refugees".
Climate change will affect the poor most severely. When Hurricane Mitch ravaged Central
America it generated hundreds of thousands of environmental refugees. Many small island
states may eventually disappear under the sea. In the US it is the poor who are most
affected by pollution from oil companies, power utilities and automobiles. Climate change
will also severely affect the forests and agriculture that are the sole means for livelihood for
millions of people.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, under which
industrialized countries pledge to reduce emissions by 2010 by an average of 5.2 per cent
below 1990 levels, does not go remotely far enough to stave off these dangers. Even if the
Protocol were ratified and fully implemented, it is estimated, it would not be able to
moderate an expected warming trend of 1.4o C. by 2050 by more than around 0.05o C.
Yet instead of strengthening the Protocol in ways that would reduce the use of fossil fuels,
some governments are advocating the creation of plantations-based carbon sinks and
stores in order to justify lesser reductions in fossil fuel use. Under the Clean Development
Mechanism, such projects could be created in the South to "compensate" for industrial
emissions in the North.
We are in no doubt about the role of forest conservation in maintaining a livable climate.
We are strongly in favor of maintaining and restoring diverse forest ecosystems under local
control. We also support the equitable distribution of wealth and common property North
and South. But measures to maintain carbon reservoirs both below and above ground must
be carefully distinguished from the carbon-trading plantation schemes now being mooted
under the Kyoto Protocol. These are based on false premises and are likely to be
counterproductive. We oppose the inclusion of plantations as "sinks" in the Clean
Development Mechanism for four main reasons:
- Using "sinks" to help Northern countries meet their Kyoto Protocol emissions reductions
targets cannot promote a livable climate since those targets are themselves insufficient to
do so.
- Trading emissions for tree carbon would intensify regressive redistribution of world
resources.
Licensing the burning of fossil fuels by financing tree plantations to "absorb" carbon dioxide
would expand the ecological and social footprint of the rich, making existing social
inequalities worse. Citizens of a Northern country which use (say) 20 times more per capita
World Rainforest Movement
41
of the atmosphere for CO2 dumping than citizens of a Southern country would be entitled,
under the rationale of carbon trading, to use 20 times more tree plantation land in order to
compensate. This land would be taken disproportionately from poorer people in the South,
where real estate is cheaper and tree growth rates faster. In addition, a carbon -trading
system would put Southern countries at a disadvantage when they begin making emissions
cuts, since the easiest cuts would have already been purchased and credited to Northern
countries. It has often been pointed out that the North owes the South an immense "carbon
debt" for its historical overuse of global carbon-cycling mechanisms. Far from abiding by
the "polluter pays" principle, using trees to "compensate" for emissions would only increase
this resource debt.
Such schemes would also sanction and deepen inequalities within both Southern and
Northern countries. For example, corporations that buy carbon-dioxide emission rights in
the North by sponsoring carbon "offset" plantations in the South would be allowed to go on
releasing, along with CO2, many other pollutants that pose local health risks. Corporations
site a disproportionate number of such factories in poor communities of color.
- Large-scale industrial tree plantations are a threat to communities and ecosystems the
world over.
Millions of hectares of new plantation land would have to 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 usurp needed agricultural lands,
replace valuable native ecosystems, worsen inequity in land ownership, increase poverty,
lead to evictions of local peoples, and undermine local stewardship practices needed for
forest conservation. In Chile, Indonesia, the Nordic countries and elsewhere, tree
plantations have destroyed natural forests, while in South Africa, Argentina and Uruguay
they have replaced other valuable ecosystems such as grasslands. In countries such as
Brazil, Thailand and Chile tree plantations are at the root of serious land conflicts among
local communities, landowners, corporations and the state. Nearly everywhere they have
led to loss of water resources and biodiversity. Inherent in industrial plantation forestry
models and exhaustively documented by the World Rainforest Movement and others over
many years, these deleterious effects of plantations would only be accentuated if
genetically modified trees were employed.
-Using tree plantation projects to "compensate" for the climatic effects of carbon -dioxide
emissions is scientifically incoherent and sanctions external political interference in the
social policies of host countries.
A market in "carbon offsets" presupposes a notion of "climate neutrality" or "climate
equivalence". 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.
Deriving such a number involves quantifying two types of project effect. Both would
influence the net amount of carbon sequestered or stored.
One type of effect is physical. Unlike underground oil or coal, carbon stored in live or dead
trees can quickly reenter the atmosphere at any time. Fires, whether human-set or not, are
unavoidable features of both forests and plantations, and rates of decay difficult to
anticipate. As CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise, moreover, heightened rates of
42
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
respiration could turn forests and plantations alike into net sources of CO2 emissions, while
diebacks and fires due to localized climate change are bound to increase. In addition,
plantations typically reduce the capacity of soils to store carbon, both inside and (th rough
increased erosion) outside project areas. Vulnerable, dynamic and unpredictable,
plantations, unlike underground reserves of oil and coal, are insecure storage places for
carbon. These considerations alone indicate that no equivalence between industr ial
emissions and trees can be established of the type which would be necessary for the
establishment of a "carbon offset" plantation market.
The second type of effect is social, and would exert an equally important influence on the
amount of carbon sequestered or stored. Carbon "offset" projects could, among other
things:
*Displace communities in the immediate neighborhood, which could lead to the project's
destruction or cancellation or forest clearance and CO2 releases elsewhere.
*Undermine existing technologies or social networks preventing climatically-destabilizing
forms of industrial land clearance and loss of local knowledge of sustainable agricultural or
forest-conservation practices.
*Reduce investor interest in energy conservation or renewables.
*Displace timber operations to other locations and influence wood and land prices and thus
incentives for logging.
*Change consumer demand, landfill legislation and other social factors influencing how
quickly plantation products, including paper and furniture, were converted to carbon
dioxide.
*Siphon funding away from existing forms of carbon protection.
*Provide incentives to degrade forests or other lands outside project boundaries in order to
attract new money for carbon projects.
Such social effects are impossible to quantify. It is not even possible, in fact, to determine
a single social outcome for any given project, which would be a prerequisite for both
quantification and a "carbon trade". First, predicting the extent of the social ef fects of a
plantation project would be impossible. These effects, moreover, are not a matter for
prediction, but for democratic decision. Many different "atmospheric outcomes" of a single
project are possible, depending on what policies are adopted. For example, people evicted
by a plantation "offset" project are likely to behave in different ways toward forests in their
region depending on their land rights, which in turn depends on national policy. To assign a
single number to their behavior would be to prejudge which policy will be in effect. It could
even be said implicitly to support that policy. Second, continuous monitoring of the extent
of all social effects of a plantation project would be impracticable and vastly uneconomical
(involving, among other things, close attention to the actions of thousands of rural people in
the vicinity of the project as well as to the psychology of investors in renewables in distant
cities). Third, controlling the behavior of all people affected by an "offset" project i n such a
way that the effect of their actions on atmospheric carbon became precisely calculable over
the many decades during which a project's carbon would have to be sequestered would
also be impossible. The attempt to do so, moreover, would be politicall y unacceptable.
World Rainforest Movement
43
By the same token, it is impossible to compare quantitatively the atmospheric effects of a
plantation with "what would have happened without it". What would have happened without
any particular project depends on many variables, some of them influenced by policy
choices and political action which economists, biologists, foresters or climate scientists are
not entitled to prejudge. Yet without such prejudgments, a carbon "commodity" is
impossible.
In sum, the climatic effects of a plantation "offset" project cannot be calculated simply by
(say) comparing the amount of carbon stored in local vegetation and soils before and after
the project and by monitoring changes in vegetation outside the project site. Deeper issues
are involved that cannot be resolved through "learning by doing".
We, the undersigned NGOs, strongly support national and international efforts to address
climate change, especially through energy conservation, consumption reduction, more
equitable resource use, and equitable development and sharing of renewable sources of
energy. We hold that a widespread trade in tree plantation "offsets", through the Clean
Development Mechanism and other means, would block or undercut these necessary and
urgent measures, which constitute a rare opportunity to move on from dominant and failed
patterns of development. We urge governments not to include plantations as carbon sinks
in the Clean Development Mechanism and to address industrial emissions separately from
tree plantations. A livable climate can be assured only by a commitment to tackling the root
causes of global warming. (San Francisco, May 2000)
Declaration of the First International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on
Climate Change. Lyon, France, September, 2000
Our intrinsic relation with Mother Earth obliges us to oppose the inclusion of sinks in the
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) because it reduces our sacred land and territories
to mere carbon sequestration which is contrary to our cosmovision and philosophy of life.
Sinks in the CDM would constitute a worldwide strategy for expropriating our lands and
territories and violating our fundamental rights that would culminate in a new form of
colonialism. Sinks in the CDM would not help to reduce GHG emissions, rather it would
provide industrialized countries with a ploy to avoid reducing their emissions at source.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established by the Kyoto Protocol offers both
negative and positive possibilities. The CDM will not be a solution to global warmi ng if it
diffuses or obfuscates the responsibility of industrialized countries to reduce their GHG. It
must not be used to allow Annex I countries to continue poisoning the environment. Sinks
in the CDM pose the threat of invasion and loss of our land and territories by establishing
new regimes for protected areas and privatization. We emphatically oppose the inclusion of
sinks, plantations, nuclear power, megahydroelectric and coal. Furthermore, we oppose the
development of a carbon market that would broaden the scope of globalization. However,
we do support the Positive List including the development of alternative energies that foster
sustainable development.
Indigenous Peoples demand that the principles of transparency, prior informed consultation
and consent, independent third party verification and monitoring, benefit sharing, risk
reduction, appeals mechanism and compensation be guaranteed. Furthermore, we
44
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
emphasize the need for these principles to be applied in culturally and linguistically
appropriate manners.
The full text can be accessed in our Climate Change section at: http://www.wrm.org.uy
(Bulletin October, 2000)
$inks: who wins, who loses?
Members of the Global Forest Coalition and other NGOs and IPOs that gathered in Lyon in
September 2000 prepared a statement explaining the reasons for opposing to carbon sinks
in the Clean Development Mechanism. Here there are some of the reasons:
1. Sinks are neither long term nor short term solution to mitigating climate change. The lack
of verifiable ways of estimating the ability of forests and other ecosystems to 'compensate'
for industrial emissions means that the inclusion of sinks in the CDM woul d destroy the
Kyoto Protocol.
2. Including sinks in the CDM would lead to Annex 1 countries receiving credits for forest
conservation, restoration, reforestation and tree plantation establishment while the rights
and interests of indigenous and other local communities which have been inhabiting and
protecting these forests for centuries are neglected.
3. Including sinks in the CDM as a way of meeting the commitments of governments would
reinforce existing inequalities. The climate crisis is due to the industrial societies using
more than their fair share of the world's carbon cycling capacity to gain more than a fair
share of the world's resources. This problem will not be solved by abdicating them a right
to take over other people's lands and seas for so-called carbon sequestration and storage.
4. Sinks in the CDM would constitute a worldwide strategy for expropriating Indigenous
Peoples' and local communities' lands, seas and territories and violating their fundamental
rights.
5. Including sinks in the CDM would provide a huge incentive, on top of existing subsidies,
for the establishment of Northern-driven, large scale, environmentally and socially
destructive monoculture tree plantations. These plantations are already proving disastrous
for peoples and their environments all over the world. Moreover, carbon plantations will
result in little revenue for host countries, provide an obstacle for their present and future
sustainable development while awarding Annex 1 countries huge sums in terms of carbon
credit.
6. Including sinks in the CDM would not address the underlying causes of forest loss. Nor
would it create macro-economic conditions making forest conservation and restoration
possible. Such conditions include debt reduction, sustainable consumption and production
patterns, revision of Structural Adjustment Programmes, strict regulation of international
private investment flows and ensuring equitable relationships between North and South.
The full text can be accessed in our Climate Change section at: http://www.wrm.org.uy
(Bulletin October, 2000)
World Rainforest Movement
45
The word of Indigenous Peoples in Lyon
The following are some quotes from indigenous peoples' representatives at Lyon, which
--in sharp contrast with government delegates-- address the true issues at stake, in a
climate change process which has until now ignored indigenous peoples (the Forum of
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities on Climate Change also issued in Lyon a
declaration, which is available in our Climate Change section at: http://www.wrm. org.uy):
"Developed country proposals to buy the right to continue polluting the atmosphere by
planting more trees makes a farce of the climate change negotiations," said Héctor
Huertas, an indigenous leader from Panama.
Clark Peteru from Samoa warned: "Not only are indigenous peoples on small island states
on the brink of losing their lands to sea level rise, but indigenous peoples throughout the
world, particularly forest-dwellers, are in danger of losing their lands and livelihoods to
proposals to plant thousands of hectares of trees to act as gigantic carbon sponges.
Mature forests will be cut down to make way for more rapid growing tree species and
agricultural land will be transformed into tree plantations."
"The proposal stinks, it gives the impression of doing something when the net effect is to
make the problem worse. It allows industrial countries to continue polluting the
atmosphere, and throws the social cost on marginalised populations" explained Raymond
de Chavez of the Philippines. "It also establishes a market in carbon emissions which will
benefit only developed countries. Profits will be made even as countries disappear under
water or entire populations lose their lands. It's obscene," Chavez said.
"What is needed is a fundamental change in philosophy regarding our relationship to the
earth. Only then will developed countries get serious and honour their pledges, already
quite small, to reduce their carbon emissions rather than fiddle as the earth bu rns,"
concluded Antonio Jacanamijoy of Colombia. (Bulletin October, 2000)
Friends of the Earth. "Avoiding action: serious dangers for the global
climate"
To avoid real action at CO2 producing economies at home, the industrialised countries
have come up with other ideas on how to decrease global CO2, e.g. by reducing CO2
elsewhere or declaring forests as 'carbon sinks' to reduce CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere.
'Carbon sinks' reduce CO2 not by cutting emissions but by soaking it up: Grow a big fores t
and get rid of tons of carbon bound in the trees. But this CO2 could anytime be released
again if the trees are burnt or cut down. Even worse, naturally grown forests, rich in
biodiversity, might be replaced by monoculture plantations, which appear to be more
effective in soaking up CO2.
However, planting trees rather than reducing emissions from fossil fuels will not save the
global climate. For one thing, it is scientifically proven that the biosphere cannot store all
the carbon we could release, which is currently underground in the form of oil, gas and coal
("saturation"). Also, there are huge uncertainties and accounting problems involved with the
use of sinks to meet the targets. And if, as science indicates, forests globally will become
46
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
sources of greenhouse gases rather than sinks --how can we be sure that a forest project
will actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the long run?
Planting trees is also not necessarily environmentally friendly: a monoculture plantation
soaks up much more carbon than an old-growth forest but might destroy biodiversity. In the
long term, we cannot rely on trees and soil to soak up carbon, but we must stop burning
fossil fuels.
The full text can be accessed at: http://www.foeeurope.org/dike/avoid.htm (Bulletin
October, 2000)
"The Hague Mandate"
The following declaration, endorsed by an international group of concerned organizations
from the South and the North for COP6, stresses the need for an effective and fair
agreement to protect the global climate and among other issues, expresses that:
- cuts in emissions can and should be made by industrialised countries as agreed in Rio in
1992
- cutting emissions will bring about the innovation needed for sustainable development in
North and South
- no citizen has a right to pollute more than any other
- past, current and future emissions from industrialised countries have, do and will exceed
for an unknown period their fair share by far and that this is unfair.
We therefore call on the Governments of the world to correct this inequity by implementing
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol so that:
- mechanisms are developed whereby those who emit above their fair share provide
adequate resources to developing countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change for
both disaster preparedness and disaster relief and rehabilitation
- the overwhelming majority of emission reductions are made in the high per capita
polluting countries (domestic action first)
- other environmental and social problems are prevented by a clear focus of the Protocol’s
flexible mechanisms on renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
The full text can be accessed in our Climate Change section at: http://www.wrm.org.uy
(Bulletin October, 2000)
FERN: Stop climate negotiators from bargaining away
forests for their carbon content!
With just five weeks to go before climate negotiators flock to The Hague to hammer out the
implementing rules of the Kyoto Protocol, forests are more and more in danger of being
reduced to a single commodity --carbon-- to be traded away under the Kyoto Protocol’s so
called “Flexible Mechanisms”.
The resulting “Kyoto forests” are likely to be tree plantations --supposedly a substitute for
reducing carbon emissions-- and the implications of these for forests, forest peoples,
World Rainforest Movement
47
biodiversity and sustainable development could be grave.
Gaining credits for the natural ability of forests and soils to temporarily fix carbon, instead
of addressing greenhouse gas emissions at home will mean that the North can continue to
get away with using more than its fair share of the world’s natural resources --by claiming
(supposedly degraded) lands in the South to make up for it’s exorbitant resou rce use.
So, the North goes on polluting and people in the South pay --these countries are often hit
hardest by severe weather events (remember Hurricane Mitch, the recent flooding in
Vietnam?). What’s more, land already under heavy pressure from conflicting uses is now
being committed to Northern energy companies searching cheap land for their “carbon
offset” projects. Carbon sinks will thus lead to a new form of colonialism, which passes
onto the South responsibility for the past decades of inequitable resource use by the North.
Gaining credits to fix carbon instead of addressing greenhouse gas emissions will also
delay the inevitable switch towards renewable energy sources.
The full text can be accessed in our Climate Change section at: http://www.w rm.org.uy
(Bulletin October, 2000)
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.
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 country 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
48
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
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. (Bulletin August, 2000)
Uganda: Carbon sinks and Norwegian CO2lonialism
Forestry companies worldwide are enthusiastically trying to implement the idea of
establishing tree plantations in Southern countries under the Clean Development
Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, allegedly as a way of sequestering CO2
from the atmosphere to mitigate the effects of global warming ... and of making good profits
at the same time. Even if presented as "environmentally friendly", the whole idea of
plantations as carbon sinks is based on weak scientific arguments and does not constitute
an effective way of reducing CO2 concentrations in the air. Additionally, it enhances the
detrimental effects of the hegemonic tree monoculture scheme at the local and regional
levels. (For a complete overview on this polemic issue see our briefing paper "The Carbon
Shop: Planting new problems" in our Climate Change section at: http://www.wrm. org.uy).
Norway has also got on the bandwagon and has set its sights on Uganda. The Norwegian
company Tree Farms established itself there 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
under its subsidiary's name Busoga Forestry Company Ltd.- has already started a project
to set up between 80,000 and 100,000 hectares of plantations of pines (P. caribaea, P.
oocarpa and P. tecunumani) and eucalyptus (E. grandis). Such scheme is very similar to
that adopted by the Dutch foundation FACE in the Ecuadorian 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 some very questionable aspects:
both Norwegian companies have leased their land from the authorities for a bargain price,
since on the one hand Ugandan authorities have virtually no capacity to assess what value
the companies plan to generate, particularly through carbon trading, and on the other hand,
corruption is present at the decision making level.
The Tree Farms project has provoked the eviction of some 8,000 people from 13 villages
-mainly farmers and fisherfolk- from their lands, that the company is now occupying,
condemning them to poverty due to the loss of their livelihoods, and creating a source of
social and environmental conflicts. Moreover, under the "taungya" system, local dwellers
World Rainforest Movement
49
are allowed to grow maize, beans, and other vegetables between the rows of planted trees
during the first few years, but, surprising as it may seem, they have to pay for this land use
and, additionally, they are being exploited by the company since their weeding and
managing of trees during these first years is not paid.
By leasing out areas for "carbon plantations" during periods of 50 years, the country is
giving away the option of changing land use in the future. The so called carbon-storing
plantations have to remain as such for the foreseeable future, depriving the country's
authorities of the choice of using the areas for other purposes in the peoples' interest.
Additionally, Uganda will not be allowed to use these carbon sinks for its own carbon
accounts when the country itself faces commitments, because the credits will already have
been sold to Northern countries and companies in the rich countries.
As is usually happening, the carbon account in the Tree Farms' project is uncertain, since
there is no way of establishing the net amount of CO2 that could be removed and stored by
tree plantations during long periods. It is even possible that they become carbon sources
instead of sinks. Additionally, plantations face risks posed by fires, political unrest, and
upheavals, which are factors that make it hard to guarantee that the activities will be
allowed to continue without obstacles. Not to mention the impact of tree monocultures on
soils, water and biodiversity, including the ability of the understorey and surrounding
vegetation to remove and store CO2.
It is unclear whether the Tree Farms project will survive, because of social conflicts and
problems with profitability. A recent EU-financed study, covering among others the
mentioned Tree Farms project, concluded that there would be a "loss-loss" situation both
for forestry and the local people". NorWatch has got the view that the Tree Farms project is
really a "loss-loss-loss" situation: forestry is ailing, local people are suffering, and Uganda
is being "CO2lonized".
In relation to the Climate Change Convention process, the Conference of the Parties will
discuss -when it meets in The Hague next November- whether carbon trading based on
tree plantations in Southern countries should be approved as an option to emissions
reduction. In the meantime Norway, that in 1997 made the commitment that its greenhouse
gas emissions for the period 2008-2012 would decrease, has actually increased them.
Norwegian authorities predict that this growth will continue until 2010. For Norway, planting
trees in a Southern country such as Uganda is cheaper than implementing technologies
that would lead to a decrease in its own emissions. Local Ugandan poor and the global
environment will pay for the costs. (Bulletin June, 2000)
Tanzania: Another case of Norwegian CO2lonialism
A project implemented in Uganda by Norwegian company Tree Farms to set up between
80,000 and 100,000 hectares of plantations of pines and eucalyptus to act as carbon sinks
has been severely questioned because of its negative social and environmental
consequences. It has been defined as a "loss-loss-loss" situation, where the profits for the
company are doubtful, local peasant communities are losing their lands and working for
miser salaries, and Uganda is losing its sovereignity in relation to the management of its
territory and natural resources.
In a report published in July 2000, a project also managed by Tree Farms --this time in
neighbouring Tanzania-- is analyzed ("Carbon Upsets. Norwegian "Carbon Plantations" in
50
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
Tanzania" by Jorn Stave, NorWatch). So far Escarpment Forestry Company Ltd., subsidiary
of Tree Farms, has planted 1,900 hectares of Pinus patula and Eucalyptus saligna at Sao
Hill, Mufindi and Kilombero districts in the Tanzanian highlands. The company is in the
process of acquiring larger areas. Additionally it is funding the activities of TAGGAT
(Tanzania Greenhouse Gas Action Trust), a foundation that is working with the company in
the development of simulation models for carbon fixation in tree biomass.
Even though this project differs in several aspects to that implemented by the same
company in Uganda, the research concludes that this is another case of "CO2lonialism"
provoking negative impacts on the environment, local communities and Tanzania as a
country. Local biodiversity --including two orchids and one Aloe species endangered-- will
be affected by tree monocultures. At the same time, the fate of carbon content of soils and
roots of natural vegetation once plantations are set up is uncertain. Even though Tree
Farms made consultations with local villagers before works began, it has used local work
force for plantations hiring them by a salary well below the official recommended minimum
wage. Moreover, there are still more than 100 workers with several months of pay
outstanding. The sum the company is paying as annual rent to the Tanzanian government
for land use (U$S 1.9 per hectare) is lower than the rent at Tree Farm's project in Uganda.
Nevertheless, the Norwegians are pushing the authorities in order to reduce th e rent by as
mush as 50%. At the same time, Tanzania will lose control of the leased land during a
period of 99 years.
The activities of Tree Farms in Tanzania can be considered as even worse than those in
Uganda, since in this case the company is expected to make huge profits taking advantage
of the very low negotiation power of local communities and the scarce institutional
development of the Tanzanian state. Since the "carbon market" implies an absurd trade
between agents with very different power, it is not surprising that the more powerful and
richer gain while the more feeble and poorer loose. Definitely carbon sinks are not a
solution for climate change, but an additional problem, both at the global and the local
levels. (Bulletin September, 2000)
Gabon's forests and the climate debate
Gabon's main exports are oil and timber. Both activities contribute to climate change. While
the exports of the former result in fossil fuel emissions abroad, the latter result in carbon
emissions at home and abroad through the release of the carbon that was stored in the
forest biomass. Does this mean that Gabon --as well as many other similar Southern
countries-- should be blamed for climate change? Within the international context, it is very
clear that the country is a victim of the rules of a game established by industrialized
countries and for their benefit.
Gabon's forests are being mined by a number of transnational companies, including
French, German, Malaysian and others --all countries that participate actively at both the
Climate Change and the Biodiversity Conventions. Gabon is one of the less populated
countries of Africa, which makes it clear that it is not "overpopulation" but overconsumption
abroad which is to be blamed for the increasing rate of deforestation.
Gabon is one of the few countries in Central Africa where most of its forest still remains
unlogged. However, as transnational loggers deplete other African forests, they turn their
attention to the few remaining frontier forests and Gabon seems to be the ideal candidate
World Rainforest Movement
51
for those activities. Log production has already increased from 1 million cubic metres in
1975 to almost 3 million by the late 1990s.
However, the current "development" model makes it necessary for Gabon to increase the
production and export of both timber and oil. Within that framework, as long as
overconsumption is not addressed, the country will continue exporting timber. In the same
manner, as long as the world's economy continues being based on fossil fuel energy,
Gabon will continue exporting increasing volumes of oil. As in the case of what's happening
in most of the South, the country, its people and its forests will simply become poorer.
In that context, it is clear that Gabon's forests will not be saved by exchanging some money
for "carbon permits" for industrialized countries to continue emitting the CO2 contained in
Gabon's --and other exporters'-- oil. It is not Gabon which is responsible for climate
change, but unless the rules of the game are changed, it will con tinue contributing to it and
suffering the consequences. (Bulletin October, 2000)
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 lumber 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 ye ars. 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$S 11 million debt with Canada. In exchange, a so-called joint implementation
office will be established in Honduras to promote tree plantations and monitor forest
conservation programmes in that country. Canada will benefit by getting credit for "cutting"
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Minister for the Environment
Xiomara Gomez was very enthusiastic with the idea since, according to her, this is a good
52
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
opportunity to obtain resources from developed countries for forest protection. Honduras is
also expecting that the U.S. and Germany will come to similar agreements on "oxygen
sales". Unluckily the Honduran authorities have not shown the same enthusiasm in
protecting the country's forests from illegal logging or combatting corruption at the forest
administration level. (Bulletin August, 2000)
Honduras to "buy" Canadian carbon dioxide
Last September Canada reached a controversial deal to "buy" oxygen from Honduras
within the framework of a "debt for nature" swap and the Clean Development Mechanisms
of the Kyoto Protocol. CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) will "forgive"
about U$S 680,000 of Honduras' U$S 11 million debt with Canada. In exchang e, 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 gre enhouse
gases.
As in other similar cases since the idea of forests and tree plantations as carbon sinks was
launched as a possible way of mitigating global warming, the powerful hand of industry is
behind this project. In fact, this allows a major carbon dioxide-producing country -such as
Canada- to be able to avoid implementing real measures to either reduce carbon emissions
at source or to implement the conservation of its own forests. Such measures would for
sure be resisted by the Canadian industry, which emits huge volumes of CO2 to the
atmosphere, as well as by logging companies, responsible for deforestation in numerous
regions of the Canadian territory. The disappearance of the boreal forests in Quebec during
this century is a good (bad) example of the way in which they act.
In Honduras the idea was enthusiastically announced by the Minister for the Environment
Xiomara Gomez, according to whom this is a good opportunity to obtain resources from
developed countries for forest protection. Honduras is also expecting that the USA and
Germany will come to similar agreements on "oxygen sales". Nevertheless, the Honduran
authorities have not shown the same enthusiasm in protecting the country's forests from
illegal logging or combating corruption at the forest administration level.
Attractive as they may seem, these kinds of projects do not contribute to an effective
solution to the global warming problem. Apart from the fact that it is very doubtful that tree
plantations really absorb and store carbon, the carbon offset market is an idea which
Northern countries -the real responsible over climate change- have put forward to avoid
real changes to the current unsustainable social and economic model. Honduras, with its
pressing needs, has been selected to act as a garbage dump for northern carbon dioxide ...
for peanuts. (Bulletin November, 1999)
Costa Rica: The dangers of tree monoculture "forests"
As many other Southern countries, Costa Rica is facing the problem of the expansion of
tree monocultures. Especially in the Huetar Norte Region, the establishment of industrial
tree plantations has been a complete failure during the last 20 years. After having spent
U$S 10 million in such programmes, nowadays more than 70% of those plantations are in a
bad state and have produced far below the expected rate. At the same time the potential of
World Rainforest Movement
53
the secondary forests and its rich biodiversity --which concerning trees comprise more than
150 species-- has been neglected.
In spite of the semantic efforts of plantation promoters to call them "planted forests" and to
call the activity "reforestation", the fact is that plantations are not forests and that these
plantations result in a number of social and environmental impacts. Industrial tree
monocultures imply the occupation of vast territories and concentration in land tenure, and
the displacement of small and medium peasants. In the case of Ston Forestal --a
subsidiary of the giant Stone Container-- about 300 families had to leave their lands in
southern Costa Rica, which were then occupied by gmelina tree monocultures. Additionally,
these plantations conspire against the promotion of traditional knowledge in forest
management and agriculture. The Melku indigenous people, in the northern region of the
country, saw how 40,000 hectares in their region were occupied by tree monocultures with
subsidies from the State, while they did not receive any support to recuperate the "mastate"
(Poulsenia armata), a species which resulted almost extinct due to the pressure of logging,
and which was the basis for local craftwork.
Social impacts have gone hand in hand with negative environmental impacts. Ston Forestry
is facing legal prosecution for causing the dessication of wetlands, while gmelina
monocultures in the Osa Peninsula are considered responsible of a potential negative
effect on the population of parrots and guacamayos in the nearby Cordovado National
Park. Oil palm plantations implemented by the firm Palma Tica are expanding in the
wetlands of the southern area, in spite of the efforts of local environmental activists, who
have even sued the company. Teak monocultures promote soil erosion through the
concentration and quick release of large raindrops from their leaves. In the northern region
it has been proved that eucalyptus monocultures reduce the flow of water into the aquifers.
In spite of the above, the Costa Rican government is strongly supporting the inclusion of
tree plantations in the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. How many
more impacts will people and the environment need to suffer to finally reach the obvious
conclusion that plantations are not forests? (Bulletin October, 2000)
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
benefactor 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 communities. India was in fact one of the first
countries to witness radical struggles against monoculture tree plantations.
54
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
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 plantations.
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 Organizations (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 have 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 change 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, regardless of the human and
environmental cost of such exercise. In Asia it might prove to be a very difficult task.
(Bulletin August, 2000)
World Rainforest Movement
55
Japanese foresters invade China
In the imperial times Japan invaded China to expand its power in the Far East. Nowadays,
when war time in that region is over, a new kind of invasion is up to affect the Chinese
territory: that of tree plantations associated to the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM)
under the Kyoto Protocol.
Twenty-five Japanese companies want to initiate a major afforestation programme in
China, in a bid to secure greater quotas for emitting carbon dioxide. The Japanes e industry
is one of the most important contributors to global warming through its emissions of
greenhouse gases –mainly carbon dioxide- to the atmosphere. Instead of trying to develop
environmentally friendly technologies and collaborating to stop the consumerism that
characterizes modern Japanese society, the powerful industrial lobby seems to have found
a way out: the planting of extensive tree monocultures in foreign countries.
Takashi Imai, chairman of the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations (Keidanren),
proposed the project to Chinese President Jiang Zemin when he recently visited Japan.
The project is presented under the guise of restoring forest resources destroyed by an
extensive flood. The companies have already set up a task force to dete rmine locations,
scale and a schedule, and will ask the Japanese government to help fund the plan from
official development assistance earmarked for “environmental” projects. By means of its
international “cooperation” agency –JICA- Japan has been promoting the large-scale
fast-growing species plantation model in several Southern countries.
Oji Paper Co. and Sumitomo Forestry Co. will provide technology. Ebara Corp., Nippon
Steel Corp., Tokyo Electric Power Co., Obayashi Corp., Komatsu Ltd. and Mitsubish i Corp.
are the main participants in the group that will undertake the project.
The planned afforestation of 100,000 hectares would absorb an estimated 500,000 to
600,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, equivalent to 6-7% of the total release by Japan's
paper industry in fiscal 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. According to the
involved firms it would be very difficult to achieve this target on a domes tic basis alone.
Even without considering the negative environmental and social effects of large -scale tree
plantations at the local and regional levels, their utility to diminish carbon dioxide in the air
has got very weak scientific basis. From a political and social point of view, the solution to
global warming cannot be left in the hands of the same agents that have contributed
historically to it. Instead of facing the problem with a realistic approach –that would lead to
the enhancement of sustainable forest management, the promotion of the growth of
secondary forests and the respect to the communities and indigenous people that live in/on
the forests- Northern governments and transnationals are now only trying to “green” their
image, while acting under the principle: we emit, you sink. Meanwhile global warming
continues to increase. (Bulletin February, 1999)
56
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
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.
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
Alsogaray 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 he ctares 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 subsidies to plantation
companies. National social and environmental NGOs are highly critical about their
government's position.
World Rainforest Movement
57
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 temperate 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).
The idea of tree plantations as carbon sinks has had until 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 really 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, which 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 are 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 car bon
sink 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. (Bulletin August, 2000)
58
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
The two faces of the Brazilian policy on forests.
At the COP4 of the Climate Change Convention held in Buenos Aires, Brazil, together with
China and India, led the position of developing countries demanding the acknowledgement
of historical responsibilities by countries in relation to climate change. The Brazilian
delegation also underscored the need for the protection of the Amazon forest. However,
domestic forest policy does not seem to go in the same direction.
During a recent workshop on the environmental impact of large-scale development projects
in the Amazon and Mato Grosso regions, organized by CIMI (Conselho Indigenista
Misionario), information was revealed that the Ministry of Mining and Energy will build 400
new hydroelectric dams by the year 2015. Many of them will flood large areas of forest
lands belonging to indigenous communities.
Additionally, the degradation and destruction of vast areas of the Amazon forest by fires
has continued throughout 1998. Both degradation and elimination of forests will contribute
to accelerate global warming. Research carried out by the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental
da Amazonia –an NGO based in Belem, in northern Brazil- and the Woods Hole Research
Center, based in Massachusetts, had predicted that approximately 400,000 square
kilometres of the Brazilian Amazon would become vulnerable to fire during the 1998 dry
season. The unusually low amounts of rainfall in 1998 have increased the area of
fire-vulnerable forest to more than one million square kilometres, or one third of the
Amazonian forest. However, the degradation of forests burnt and left standing is not
included in the government's monitoring program, that only considers total burning and
clearcutting as deforestation and therefore official figures hide significant amounts of
carbon released through partial burning of forests.
In relation to climate change, these results are important for the estimation of carbon
emissions from Amazonian forests associated with land use practices: the partial burning of
standing forest can release 10 to 80% of forest biomass to the atmosphere as carbon
dioxide. Such large amounts of carbon dioxide are not included in current estimates of
carbon emissions from Amazonia. On the other hand, according to a computer model
programme run by Centre Hadley for Climate Change and presented at the COP4, i f the
destruction of the Amazon forest continues at the present rate, vast areas of tropical
forests are menaced of becoming deserts by the year 2050. This would mean -among
many other things- the loss of the largest carbon reservoir in the world.
Forest fires are enhanced by the selective removal of trees, which allows the sun's rays to
reach the forest soil and to create a dry and prone to fire environment. The Brazilian
Institute for the Environment (IBAMA) recently revealed that logging companies have
illegally extracted US$ 70 million worth of mahogany from the Kaiapo indigenous peoples'
territory in southern Para province and it has also accused 16 local sawmills of theft and
falsification of documentation. IBAMA has been carrying out a number of actions to curb
illegal logging in the Amazon, which will probably be discontinued as a result of a 47.4%
cut in the budget of the Ministry of the Environment. The Amazonian Working Group (Grupo
de Trabalho Amazonico), composed by 355 Brazilian NGOs, has recently denounced a
90% reduction in the resources devoted to projects to be implemented in the Amazon and
Mata Atlantica regions, and sent messages to the Parliament trying to stop the budget
reductions proposed by the Federal Government.
The Brazilian government's international discourse on the importance of the Amazon forest
World Rainforest Movement
59
in relation with climate change therefore seems to have little in common with what is
actually happening in the real forest. (Bulletin November, 1998)
Argentina: tree monoculture expansion supported by World Bank
The Argentinian government is definitely aimed at transforming the country in an investors
paradise for forestry projects, adopting the same scheme already operational in the
Southern Cone of South America -Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay- based on large scale tree
monocultures. This position was made clear at the COP IV on climate Change held in
November 1998 in Buenos Aires. Plantations as carbon sinks under the Clean
Development Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol are regarded as an excellent opportunity
for the development of this model. Environmental impacts on grasslands, that have already
been proven in other regions in which the prairie is the major ecosystem, are ignored.
The new Forestry Law has increased the interest of foreign investors in undertaking
forestry projects in Argentina, especially considering the tax exemptions offered and the
resulting high profitabilty rates expected. Plantations are expanding especially in the
Provinces of Misiones, Corrientes and Entre Rios, in the Eastern region. Significant areas
are also being planted in southern Buenos Aires Province, as well as in Córdoba, Cuyo,
Chaco and Patagonia, to the hands of American, New Zealand, Dutch and Chilean
companies. The present rate of investments of U$S 1600 million a year is expected to
increase with the new legal framework.
Manuel Climent, President of the Argentinian Forestry Association (Asociación Forestal
Argentina - AFOA), has recently remarked the advantages that his country offers for the
develoment of the sector: abundant available areas, adequate climate and soil conditions,
and short rotation periods. He added that the international conditions are favourable since
by 2010 a deficit of 900 million cubic metres of roundwood is expected at the global level.
According to Daniel Maradei -Executive Director of the Advisory Committee for the Forestry
Development Plan- some points are still pending, among them the adaptation of provincial
legal frameworks to the national law.
According to its promoters, plantations do not only create wealth but are also good for the
environment. That is why some entrepreneurs have got on the bandwagon of climate
change issues. For example, Gustavo Kozak, representative of Forestal Andina SA,
considers that plantations are a good instrument to combat the greenhouse effect.
The World Bank is -as elsewhere- a major actor in this plantation initiative. Total costs for
the forestry development project are estimated at about US$26.2 million, U$S 10.6 of which
will be financed by a Bank loan. According to the text of the "Argentina -Forestry
Development Project" (ARPA6040), initiated in 1994, "Argentina's forest plantations have
clear natural advantages compared with those in many countries... (a) the fast growth rates
of trees in Argentina resulting from relatively rich soils and favourable temperatures and
rainfall; and (b) an abundance of land with few alternative uses." Nevertheless, according
to the Bank's view, "forest plantations in earlier decades were not developed in line with
the potential, principally because of unfavorable macroeconomic, trade, and other policies."
But nowadays "these policies have been adjusted appropriately, and the improved
economic and policy environment encourages investment."
The World Bank's document mentions the Chilean case as an example to be followed: "The
forestry sector in Argentina contributes just under 2 percent of GDP and had a positive
60
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
trade balance of US$132.1 million in 1989. While it now contributes positively to the trade
balance, this was achieved only by 1988. The contrast between the performance of the
forestry sectors in Argentina and Chile could hardly be more striking. . . In comparing
Argentina with Chile in particular, it becomes clear that a substantial gap exists in
Argentina between the actual and potential levels of forest plantation production. . .
Furthermore, much of the past growth in forest plantations in Argentina has not been
efficient". Strange as it may seem, the expansion of the forestry sector seems to be related
to the country's size: "While Argentina is about 3.7 times the size of Chile in area, and
about 3 times its size in terms of GDP, Chile's exports of forest products, at about US$1.0
billion annually, are 4 times greater than Argentina's."
The Banks considers that the "proposed project would have no adverse environmental
impact". On the contrary, "the small farmer component is specifically designed to have a
positive impact on the environment". These conclusions are not only groundless but tota lly
false. The forestry plan is not aimed at small farmers but at large transnational and national
companies -following the Chilean model which the Bank seems to estimate so highly.
However, vast evidence exists in Chile about the negative impacts which th is forestry
model is having on people and the environment. Not to speak about India, Thailand,
Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and so many other countries where local people are having
to defend their rights against the spread of large-scale tree plantations. The Bank's
reasons for supporting plantation development in Argentina are neither social nor
environmental; they are strictly macroeconomic. It would seem that the Bank needs to be
reminded that its mandate is to alleviate poverty and the Chilean case shows that this
model has proven to increase the wealth of the wealthy and to increase the poverty of the
poor, while at the same time having strong negative impacts on the environment. (Bulletin
May, 1999)
Environmental crime linked to Peugeot in Brazil
The "environmentally concerned" French car producer Peugeot, decided to do something
about the global warming effect of the millions of cars it produces. Of course, nothing as
radical as switching to a different source of fuel. Instead, it decided to go the easy way: to
plant "carbon sequestering" trees in the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil. The project began
to be implemented last year, with the aim of converting 12,000 hectares of "degraded"
pastures into plantations. According to Peugeot, the planted area would be able to remove
183,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year. And very cheaply: for only
US$12 million.
However, the results have been very expensive for the environment and for local people. A
local subsidiary of the French NGO "Office Nations de Forets" began operations and
caused what may have been the worst ecological crime ever committed in the state.
Hundreds of animals -including species facing extinction- were found dead in one of the
plantation areas. The reason: the use of 5,000 litres of the "inocuous" herbicide gliphosate
(Round Up) in an area of 1,500 hectares being prepared for the plantation. The disaster
also reached two rivers (the Juruena and Teles Pires) resulting in the widespread death of
fish.
What's worse is that this has not been a mere accident. On the contrary, modern plantation
technology strongly recommends the use of herbicides to eliminate competing vegetation
-thus effectively eradicating much of the local plant biodiversity. The herbicide being
extensively used all around the world for this purpose, on whose effects the company
World Rainforest Movement
61
which produces it (Monsanto) has been lying for years, stating that it is less harmful than
table salt, is precisely the one that caused this disaster.
The above is the result of bogus environmentalism: the implementation of an allegedly
"environmentally-friendly" activity -planting trees- publicized as capable of sequestering
carbon dioxide and thereby mitigating the greenhouse effect. In order to avoid the really
difficult decision of abandoning the fossil fuel-dependent economy, part of the academic
community has come up with these clever schemes and provided them with "scientific"
support. Fortunately, another part of the academic community seems to be honestly trying
to assert whether plantations are or are not capable of acting as carbon sinks. Their
answer is no. (Bulletin November, 1999)
Argentina: storing German carbon in forests?
The issue of the environmental services that Southern countries can provide to Nort hern
countries to mitigate the effects of global climate change is controversial. On the one hand
there is the question of environmental justice at the global level, since those countries that
are most responsible for the dangerous alteration of climate on Earth, instead of
addressing the causes that are provoking it -for instance the unsustainable energy use and
the huge emissions of CO2 by industry- are looking for doubtful and partial solutions, that
can be bought for a low price in the South. Additionally, there is the question of who has
got the right to participate in such kind of negotiations, as well as who will be the
beneficiaries, and eventually who will be worst hit by them. The role of forests as carbon
sinks and reservoirs is nowadays an important component of the discussions and
negotiations that are taking place under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol.
There are recent news about an agreement reached in November 1999 between the
government of Chubut Province, in the southern region of Argentina, and the German
foundation Prima Klima. The aim of the project is to share the management of a natural
area and to obtain funds by means of the certification of carbon fixation during a period of
50 years. The area of the project includes the La Plata and Fontana watersheds in the
foothills of the Patagonic Andes.
In a communique dated January 6 th 2000, Greenpeace-Argentina -member of the Foro del
Buen Ayre, a network of NGOs and institutions which activiely participated at the Climate
Change Convention’s COP IV which met in November 1998 in Buenos Aires- severely
questions the validity of such agreement, both from a technical and a legal point of view.
Juan Carlos Villalonga, coordinator of GP-Argentina Energy Campaign, stated: "This kind
of activities have a low level of reliability and their contribution to solve the problem of
global climate change is poor." At the same time, Greenpeace warned about the lack of
established criteria to formulate and manage projects of generation of carbon bonds,
especially when there is an interest to use the capacity of the forests to absorb and fix
carbon. GP also considers that from a formal point of view the agreement should have
been evaluated by the Argentinian Bureau for Joint Implementation (OAIC - Oficina
Argentina de Implementación Conjunta), thus enabling civil society can take part in it.
(Bulletin January, 2000)
62
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
Dutch carbon sink plantations: adding to the problem
The social and environmental impacts of tree monocultures in the Andean Pá ramos of
Ecuador in a project carried out by the Dutch consortium FACE are analyzed in a thesis
work for a PhD in Environmental Sciences of the Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona,
Spain. The author -Verónica Vidal- worked during several months in that grasslands region
of Ecuador, inhabited by indigenous peasants, and which is capital for the maintenance of
the hydrological cycle and as well as hosting high levels of biodiversity.
The conclusions state that there is a lack of scientific evidence on the assu mption that the
increase in carbon dioxide volume in the atmosphere -the most important greenhouse
effect gas- can be compensated by the creation of the so-called "carbon sink tree
plantations." In the case of the Ecuadorian Paramos, 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, which would mean
further liberation of carbon to the atmosphere. According to estimates, the release of
carbon to the air can be even higher than the carbon uptake of the growing trees, so that
plantations would promote the increase of carbon atmospheric concentration, instead of
reducing it. This imbalance, coupled with the negative effects of plantations on the
economy of the indigenous communities that live at the Páramos, definitively show that
plantations are not a solution to global warming, but a part of the problem. (Bulletin
January, 2000)
Argentina: Oil companies try to "green" their image
Following an existing trend at the global level, oil companies in Argentina have
enthusiastically embraced the idea of entering the carbon permits market, as an effective
way to increase their profits and revamp their image to the eyes of public opinion: from the
bad guys responsible for global warming to champions of forest conservation! Since 1998,
the government has been making things easier for them by favouring investments in
plantation projects, disregarding their impacts on the valuable grassland ecosystems that
have been the natural and physical support of the country's economy.
According to Patricio Montecino, general manager of Pecom Forestal (a subsidiary of oil
company Pérez Companc), "nowadays it is difficult to think of an oil company without an
additional forestry component" both because -according to him- forestry is a good
business, and because such companies are now conscious of the need to work on
solutions based on carbon sequestration. Pecom is negotiating carbon emissions permits
with the German companies that are involved in the polemic Chubut -Prima Klima
agreement to sequester carbon in southern Chubut Province.
For Pérez Companc Company, carbon sinks are nowadays a core business. T he company
started to work in the forestry sector in the 1950s and at present owns 163,000 hectares of
land in the provinces of Misiones and Corrientes and in the Paraná Delta region, much of
which will be planted with trees. 15,000 additional hectares of pine plantations are to be set
up in the next seven years in Misiones. The company's holdings in Corrientes are being
planted to Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii at a rate of 6,000 hectares per year, with the aim
of obtaining raw material to feed an industry to be installed in the area in the near future.
World Rainforest Movement
63
Giant oil producer YPF (formerly State owned, now privatized and associated with Repsol
of Spain) is supervising the plantation of 2,000 hectares with Pinus ponderosa in southern
Neuquén Province by the Corporación Forestal Neuquina (CORFONE) and planning to
reach 5,000 hectares by the year 2002. Of course Shell cannot be absent in this kind of
initiatives: It owns 200,000 hectares in several countries (Congo, New Zealand, Chile,
Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay), being 120,000 hectares occupied by fast-growing trees
plantations. In Argentina, Shell began to operate in 1998 and its plantations are located in
Buenos Aires Province, where it owns 24,200 hectares, and in Corrientes Province,
occupying an area of 8,000 hectares with eucalyptus and pines, to be extended to 18,000
hectares.
To create a "green image" for themselves is a very important goal of these companies'
policy. Repsol-YPF boasts that its project is taking place in areas affected by erosion
produced by overgrazing, and that they are not occupied by native forests, thus pretending
to show its concern for environmental protection, in general, and for the reclamation of
degradaded soils in particular. Shell emphasises that 2,000 hectares of native fo rests in its
afforestation area will be left intact, and that the company aims to obtain certification
according to the ISO 14001 norm so that the product can reach Northern markets.
Nevertheless, such arguments are weak regarding a true conservation polic y, since on the
one hand it is well known that tree monocultures do not contribute to soil reclamation, and
on the other hand, the effectiveness of small patches of native forest to conserve
biodiversity in the midst of vast tree monocultures is very doubtful. Not to mention the poor
performance of these companies regarding environmental protection. Not to mention that
the real business of these companies -oil extraction- is devastating both the local and
global environment. And not to mention that while "greening" their image they are
increasingly appropriating vast areas of land throughout the world. (Bulletin June, 2000)
Brazil: Dump your carbon garbage with us please!
Although the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change has not yet
approved plantations and forests as carbon "offsets", the carbon shop is already very
active. What follows is an e-mail message advertising Brazil as a place where cheap land
and cheap labour is available for energy utilities to dump their carbon emiss ions:
"From: OMNITRADE <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 2:25 AM
Subject: Greenhouse gas emissions - An alternative
Our company is located in Brasilia, capital city of the Republic of Brazil since 1978. Deals
in the real estate business, acting as intermediary in rural properties as well as urban
areas. Since the "Kyoto Protocol" in 1997, signed by many developed count ries, there is
an agreement that in the near feature there will be a reduction of pollutants to minimize the
"greenhouse effect".
One of the options under consideration is the trade of emission credits with other nations.
This may involve the reforestation of large areas or the deals involving existing forest like
the negotiation that took place between electric utility industries and the Government of
Costa Rica.
We understand that if the developed countries proceed with the negotiations in COP - 6 in
Hague next November and they approve the set of international standards needed of how
64
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
compliance issues will be resolved and what role of carbon sequestration activities (land
use, land use change and forestry) in the Protocol, the demand for credits will sur ge.
We are able to submit competitive offers to energy utilities for reforesting projects (land at
low prices, cheap labor and reasonably priced fertilizers).
We realize that the first option of the energy sector will be to invest in its own country or
neighbors, but the alternative options in Brazil should be kept in mind as it could provide
great savings compared to similar investments in other places.
Aside the sale of land and native forests, we can offer the option for lease or can act as
intermediary on joint ventures for reforestation. The lease has the added advantage that is
an excellent option for the cash flow of the company with the reforestation providing the
necessary credits now and years later the benefit of the wood supply.
Our site is under construction (http://www.ecobiz.com.br). However, we have listed some
properties of interest as well some information about environmental issues. It is to your
advantage to take a look at them as you may find business opportunities of interest. If yo u
need further information, have recommendations or suggestions, please e -mail at
([email protected] cc to [email protected]).
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and hopping in the near future to do business
to our mutual benefit, we remain Yours truly. Demetre Calimeris
Director
OMNI Consultoria Imobiliaria Ltda SHIS
QL 08, CJ 02, Casa 10 71620-225 Brasilia D. F.
Brazil Phone: + 55 61 914 1234 or
911 1234
Fax: + 55 61 364 1905”
(Bulletin September, 2000)
Oceania
A matter of survival
Giant AUSTRALIA is a major actor in the geopolitics of Oceania. 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 yea rs. 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
World Rainforest Movement
65
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 "Plantation 2020 Vision"
programme is aimed at establishing 650,000 hectares of tree plantation s 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 city 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 fact 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 for technologies associated with renewable energy
and energy efficiency."
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
governments let them disappear? (Bulletin August, 2000)
Japanese carbon garbage dumps in Australia
Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco) has recently signed a letter of intent to
participate in a tree plantation project promoted by the state agency State Forests of New
South Wales, Australia, allegedly as part of its efforts to tackle global warming. New South
Wales established a legal right last November on carbon sequestered from plantations.
State forestry bodies in Australia have been looking to market their projects as sinks in the
newly created "carbon offsets market" by the Kyoto Protocol. Such initiative is not the only
one in the push of Australia to enter this market. Sydney Futures Exchange -also in
association with State Forests of New South Wales is interested in creating an
exchange-traded market for carbon credits as part of a plan to become a global emissions
trading centre. The company will look for investments coming from Australia itself, as well
as from New Zealand and the USA.
Tepco and New South Wales State Forests are likely to conclude a formal agreement as
soon as specific conditions are set. The Japanese are planning to start the project with the
66
Climate Change: Sinks that stink
plantation of a 1,000 hectares next year, and to extend the site up to 40,000 hectares in the
following ten years.
In June last year, Tepco signed a memorandum of understanding with the World Bank as
the first Japanese entity to participate in the "Prototype Carbon Fund" system to trade in
carbon offset projects.
This new move of the Japanese in the climate change field must be seen in a wider
context. In fact, the Japanese cooperation agency JICA has been -and still is- very much
involved in projects for the promotion of large-scale fast-growing tree monocultures to
produce cheap fibre in several Southern countries. At the same time, the Japanese
industry emits great quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere while the Japanese
economy consumes vast amounts of wood and wood products that result in the depletion of
the world's forests, both of which add to the greenhouse effect. And now Tepco -which will
surely be followed by other companies- is creating carbon garbage dumps through tree
plantations ... not in its own country, of course. (Bulletin October, 1999)
Australia: "carbon sink" plantations invade Tasmania
The expansion of tree monocultures in Tasmania -which is paradoxically the centre of
origin of Eucalyptus globulus, one of the most widely used species for establishing
monocultures throughout the world- under the Clean Development Mechanisms of the
Kyoto Protocol is provoking widespread concern in Australia.
The Federal Government's "Plantation 2020 Vision" programme is aimed at establishing
650,000 hectares of tree plantations in Tasmania over the next twenty years. Federal and
State governments in Australia have adopted a market-oriented viewpoint, according to
which carbon can be sequestered in tree plantations that will be logged at a later stage for
corporate profit. Not only does the National Forestry Policy promote vast tree
monocultures, but it is also encouraging deforestation to give place to such plan tations,
with all the negative environmental impacts that this substitution implies both at the local
and the global levels. The potential of old growth forests as reservoirs of large amounts of
carbon are completely ignored. Instead, logging has intensified in several parts of the
southern island of Tasmania, where native eucalyptus forests are being destroyed. At the
same time, opposition to plantations is increasing, even under the form of radical actions
such as arson and uprootings. Opposition to plantations has moved beyond the
environmental sector and now includes a significant part of the rural community,
particularly dairy farmers and local councils. For example, the "Communities Over
Plantations" group, recently created in the north of the state, constitutes a pressure group
basically composed of traditional rural community members. Dairy farmers oppose
plantations because of the devaluation of properties adjoining tree plots and the social
isolation caused by wall to wall plantations located in the middle of once-thriving rural
communities. Additionally, county administrations have to deal with the loss of revenues
from taxes resulting from the substitution of agricultural activities by tree plantations.
Major actors in this carbon sink plantation process are not even Australian companies. For
example, the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation (TEPCO) -part of the Mitsubishi corporate
empire- established a joint venture with North Ltd to establish over 23,000 hectares of tree
farms on agricultural land. This is also the case in Victoria, where a US life insurance
company, John Hancock, now owns 150,000 hectares of tree plantations.
World Rainforest Movement
67
The Australian NGO Native Forests Network is advocating for the adoption of more
effective, realistic and non destructive practices to face the increase of carbon
concentrations in the atmosphere. One of them is to stop the wasteful practice of
clearfelling and burning native forests for low-value products such as woodchips. In
addition to the massive amounts of carbon that are released through the initial logging of
forests and subsequent so-called regeneration burning, woodchips themselves are
converted into disposable commodities -such as paper- that are quickly destroyed, thus
contributing to increased carbon emissions in a short space of time. A far better response
to increased atmospheric carbon pollution is to maintain native forests standing in their
respective sites, and promote the restoration of existing cleared or degraded forests. In the
same line, the Australian Green Party has denounced that this is but a shortcut of the
government to avoid addressing the necessary reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
while Greenpeace Australia considers that the Federal Government should be focusing on
renewable energy and take action to cut emissions, rather than trying to reduce their
effects. (Bulletin June, 2000)
Aotearoa / New Zealand: opposition to genetically engineered trees
While genetic engineering applied to food production is provoking concern among
consumers and citizens and many scientists express their doubts and criticism in relation to
it, big food, forestry and energy corporations are engaged in developing genetically
modified trees, expected to be able to grow faster and to contain components desired by
industry.
Last August the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) of New Zealand
received through a specially created web site (www.context.co.nz ), up to 700 submissions
on genetically engineered pine trees. This initiative of participatory democracy with regard
to an important environmental issue is part of the evaluation process of the application
made by the Forest Research Institute (FRI) to ERMA in order to make a field trial of
genetically engineered pine trees in the open environment. It is impo rtant to highlight that
until now this new system had never received more than 50 submissions, which clearly
shows the public's concern over this issue.
Out of the 700 submissions, the vast majority were critical to the field trial. Mario Rautner,
Greenpeace's campaigner on genetically engineered trees, expressed that the results
clearly show that the public does not agree with the release of genetically engineered trees
into the country's open environment. "We are calling on the FRI to accept the public
opposition to this experiment. We would like to see the FRI applying the voluntary
moratorium and halting this field trial now. Genetically engineered trees could pose a very
serious threat to the environment and we oppose this unpredictable experiment with
nature" he added. The question is whether the authorities will act according to the public's
desires and definitively give up the field trial or if they will respond to the interest of
industry.
It is to be underscored that the inclusion of tree plantations as supposed carbon sinks
under the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol would mean a boost for the development of
biotechnology in the forestry sector, arguing that GE trees would be able to grow faster and
then to absorb more CO2 in less time. An additional risk that should be taken in account by
climate negotiators in the next meeting at The Hague. (Bulletin October, 2000)