* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Sinks that stink - World Rainforest Movement
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Carbon pricing in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Carbon emission trading wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
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)