Dear Readers,

In light of the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference (COP 13) in Bali, this month’s E-News is a special edition on Forests, Carbon, and Climate Change. For this edition, we have replaced the usual Commentary of the Month and What We Are Reading with three Viewpoints that offer a diversity of perspectives on the topic of forests and carbon reduction. Additionally, all of this month’s News from the Press, Updates from the International Community, and Publications also relate to this theme. Many of the issues highlighted below will be discussed in depth during Forest Day, a day of COP 13 side-sessions dedicated to the theme of forests and climate change. Looking forward to these discussions in Bali, we hope that this newsletter provides readers with some background information and insights on the potential role of forests and forest communities in climate change negotiations.

We would also like to draw attention to a new section of E-News introduced in this edition: Network of the Month. To facilitate community forestry networking among our readers, we will feature a new network each month.

The Editor

***Breaking CF News***

In addition to the articles relating to carbon and climate change featured in News from the Press, we would like to draw attention to the following significant piece of news about community forestry in Thailand:

Thailand: Community Forest Bill Passed
Source: The Bangkok Post, 22 November 2007

Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly approved the long-debated Community Forest Bill on 21 November 2007. The final Bill, which passed by a 57-2 margin with one abstention, was a combination of articles from two versions of the Bill, one proposed by the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry and one by the civic sector. While the legal right of forest communities to preserve and manage forest land surrounding their communities is upheld in the Bill, activists expressed disappointment, saying the bill does not do enough to benefit forest dwellers. Community forest rights are only eligible to “original” forest dwellers (those who have live in designated protected forests for 10 or more years before the Bill’s passage) with strict guidelines for the use of protected forest. This article could potentially exclude up to 20,000 communities countrywide from reaping the benefits of the bill. Full text

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VIEWPOINTS

1. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries

2. Communities, Carbon Forestry, and the Need for Sustainable Arrangements

3. The Buy-a-Tree Hail Mary: Carbon Offsets

NEWS FROM THE PRESS

1. ASEAN Leaders Adopt ASEAN Declaration on Climate Change
(Related) Close-Up of the Forestry Outlook in Asia and the Pacific

2. Atienza: Global Warming Not Population’s Fault

3. Carbon-Credit Forest Companies Fears

4. Carbon Credits for Forest Conservation Concept Faces Challenges But Initiative Could Save Forests and Alleviate Rural Poverty: An Interview with Indonesian Forest Expert Ketut Deddy

5. Forests Losing the Ability to Absorb Man-Made Carbon

6. Forest Protection Should Consider Resources Value: Govt

7. Vanishing Forests a Counterpoint to Indonesia’s Climate Crusade

8. Opinion: An Inconvenient Fact

9. Opinion: Misconceptions about Carbon Emissions

10. Opinion: Stitching Sheets of Loose Sand

UPDATES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

1. Carbon Credit Support Programme

2. Converting Wood Waste into Pellets to Reduce Greenhouse Gases

3. Completion of Technical Assistance to the Republic of Indonesia for Carbon Sequestration through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

4. Forest Fires—A Good Servant, A Poor Master Management Through Integrated Forest Protection Scheme

5. How can Development Agencies Help with Adaptation to Climate Change?

6. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

PUBLICATIONS

1. Climate, carbon, Conservation, and Communities

2. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World (Human Development Report 2007/2008)

3. Designing Forestation Models for Rural Asia: Avoiding Land Conflict as a Key to Success

4. Forestry and the Carbon Market Response to Stabilize Climate

5. Multifunctional Agroforestry Systems in India

6. Reduced Emissions from Deforestation: Can carbon Trading Save our Ecosystems?

7. Seeing the Forest for the Treaties—Evolving Debates on CDM Forest andForestry

Project Activities 10 Years After the Kyoto Protocol

EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES

1. Forest Day 2007

2. Community Forestry Research Fellows

3. Living with Climate Change: Are There Limits to Adaptation?

4. Old Forests, New management International Conference

5. Mountain Forests in a Changing World

JOB OPPORTUNITIES

1. Strategic Planning and Program Plan Development Consultant, RECOFTC

2. Communications Manager, CIFOR

3. Senior Scientist, CIFOR 

4. Program Coordinator, IUCN

5. Project Officer Forest Governance, IUCN

6. Sub-regional Representative, WWF Madagascar and Western Indian Ocean

Islands

NETWORK OF THE MONTH

The Katoomba Group

RECOFTC ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. New Book Release: Participatory Monitoring and Assessment of Ecosystems: Lessons Learned for Development

2. Study Tour: Income Generation and Enterprise Development for Natural Resource Management

VIEWPOINTS

1. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries

Provided by Reinhard Wolf, Climate Protection Programme of German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) (e-mail: reinhard.wolf@gtz.de)

Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries (RED), or avoided deforestation, has become a key issue in policy debates about climate change. The push towards RED policy is based on the fact that forests are often cleared by fire and preventing or reducing forest loss also reduces emissions of greenhouse gases. Responsible for approximately 20% of total emissions, deforestation is considered the second most important human-induced source of greenhouse gases.

In response to this data, at the eleventh UN climate conference (Conference of the Parties [COP] 11) in 2005, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by several developing countries, tabled a proposal for including emissions from avoided deforestation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) . As a follow-up to these discussions, RED is likely to be on the top of the agenda at the next UN climate conference (COP 13), to be held in Bali, Indonesia next month. At COP 13, leaders will discuss whether incentives for avoided deforestation should be part of a future climate regime after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol is ending in 2012.

For the host country, RED has particular relevance: according to recent estimates, Indonesia has become one of the major emitting countries of greenhouse gases worldwide with an annual emission of about three billion tonnes of greenhouse gases. Deforestation and forest degradation account for more than 80 percent of these emissions. In response, during the annual summit of the Group of Eight (G8—the international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) leaders earlier this year, the World Bank received support to form a new Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) intended to pilot schemes to reduce emissions from deforestation in several tropical and subtropical countries (see Carbon Finance at the World Bank).

Given the magnitude of emissions related to deforestation, a meaningful reduction will require considerable financial North-South transfers. A RED financing scheme would need to generate five to ten billion USD annually in order to save a substantial part of the Earth’s tropical and subtropical forests and consequently reduce greenhouse gases. Most likely, only a carbon market can generate such huge sums; voluntary funding will not be sufficient. For a carbon market to work, a balance between supply and demand for carbon credits must exist. In order to create the demand, industrialized countries have to agree to substantial emission reduction targets, which they partly can achieve by buying credits from developing countries generated through RED. For industrialized country policymakers, this is an “inconvenient truth” (as Al Gore puts it), because in the end it will cost consumers money without immediate and noticeable benefits. During the next decades, however, it will avoid social costs that are orders of magnitudes higher. If deforestation continues at the present rate, the failure to conserve existing forests will forego a huge mitigation potential that is relatively low-cost today, but unavailable in the future. As most deforestation and forest degradation occur along the forest frontier, there are opportunities to concentrate funds efficiently. If deforestation can be reduced successfully, it will help to reach ambitious reduction targets on a global scale with fewer costs. Furthermore, avoiding deforestation has a number of important co-benefits, such as preservation of biodiversity and protection of watersheds.

Due to the diverse regional and national circumstances in tropical countries, there is obviously no one-size-fits-all approach to RED. In order to be successful, RED needs an enabling policy framework. It includes clearly defined land rights, law enforcement towards deforestation agents, general investment security, transparent subsidy schemes, and administrative capacity to support land use programs. Capacity development will be crucial for success.

Back to TOC
_____________________________________

2. Communities, Carbon Forestry, and the Need for Sustainable Arrangements

Provided by Robert Oberndorf, J.D.,Regional Analysis and Representation at RECOFTC (e-mail: robert@recoftc.org)

There has been much attention given lately to the issue of REDD arrangements (carbon credits generated through reduced emissions from avoided deforestation/degradation) as a means of simultaneously reducing global carbon emissions, sustainably conserving forest resources (particularly in the tropics), and creating revenue streams for the governments where the forest resources to be protected are located. As you read this piece, this issue is concurrently being addressed by private sector initiatives, which are rapidly moving forward within the realm of informal carbon trading markets to set up REDD projects, and public sector analysis, which is taking a more thoughtful approach towards analyzing exactly how REDD arrangements might operate within a Kyoto2 framework post 2012.

Unfortunately there does not appear at present to be enough attention given to the forest-dependent communities, particularly indigenous communities, living in or near the forest resources that might fall under REDD arrangements. Issues such as traditional rights of access and use, the potential role of communities in managing the forest resources in question, and the sharing of any revenue streams created through equitable benefit sharing mechanisms are either being addressed on the periphery of current discussions, analysis and negotiations, or are being completely ignored. This is particularly the case in terms of the rapidly developing private sector initiatives and projects, as the parties involved in trying to secure the deals often view the meaningful inclusion of forest-dependent communities as an unnecessary complication to the negotiation process at best, or a factor that can limit the opportunity for profit taking from REDD arrangements at worst. What is not being adequately recognized and addressed is that any short term gains from excluding forest-dependent communities from meaningful inclusion in the process will most likely lead to a state of non-sustainability and ultimate failure of such arrangements.

Research has shown that where forest dependent communities are disenfranchised from the resources they rely on for their livelihoods, they then lose any real interest in preserving those resources, and out of a state of economic desperation they will be under increased pressure to take back that which was stolen from them, often in rather dramatic ways that leads to the degradation, or outright destruction, of the forest resources that were meant to be protected. This is not to mention the potential for increased levels of conflict that will likely arise in such areas due to the inherent tensions created. Without meaningful inclusion of forest dependent communities, forest resources brought under REDD arrangements could quite literally go up in smoke, along with the carbon credits that were meant to be created and traded. The communities lose, the governments lose, the carbon credit trading markets lose, and ultimately our global environment will lose (Is it me, or is it getting hot in here?). Luckily this does not have to be the case.

Though setting up REDD arrangements might be more complicated and time consuming, meaningful inclusion of forest dependent communities in the process can ensure that the resources in question are sustainably secured. Several factors leading to this sustainability come into play:

§ Inclusion of forest dependent communities in initial decision making processes and active management (co-management arrangements) of the resource leads to a greater identification of the community with the forest resources in question, thus increasing the desire to protect that resource;

§ Ensuring traditional access and use rights, with some modifications in areas to ensure carbon sequestered is secured, will ensure livelihood benefits are maintained and reduce the potential for conflict, thus reducing costs over time;

§ The equitable sharing of revenue streams created, for example through payment for environmental services arrangements (PES), will improve the livelihoods of the forest dependent communities, thus reducing their reliance on extraction of forest resources;

§ Millennium Development Goals related to eradication of extreme poverty (MDG-1) and ensuring environmental sustainability (MDG-7) are more likely to be met by the governments where the forest resources in question are located; and,

§ Investors in the Carbon Credits generated are satisfied because the investment is secure, leading to greater confidence in and credibility of the carbon markets being created.

To put it succinctly, making the extra effort to include forest dependent communities in REDD arrangements helps to ensure sustainability, while also having additional add on benefits for all parties involved. Because of this, it is time that we all make sure that issues relating to forest dependent communities are brought from the periphery to the center stage of ongoing discussions relating to REDD arrangements and emerging carbon trading markets.

Back to TOC
_____________________

3. The Buy-a-Tree hail Mary: Carbon Offsets

Provided by Mark Sandiford, Country Program Support at RECOFTC (mark.s@recoftc.org)

The criticisms of carbon offset companies (see CO₂nned) and how they operate reflects a wider challenge to a remarkably dynamic and intriguing suite of non-governmental and non-multilateral responses—otherwise referred to as the voluntary sector—to mitigate climate change. True innovation, experiment, and challenge are occurring outside of the lumbering processes of COP13, and there is much to be learned. Tempered with this is the need to recognize on whom the voluntary sector will most impact. Carbon sequestration and associated carbon credit schemes, through the planting of trees, while immediately appealing, carry caveats—how much, on whose land, and why should those most vulnerable and least carbon profligate be made the guardians of global change?

Back to TOC

***Disclaimer***
These Viewpoints represent the opinions of the writers and do not necessarily reflect opinions of RECOFTC.

NEWS FROM THE PRESS

1. ASEAN Leaders Adopt ASEAN Declaration on Climate Change
Source: China Daily, 20 November 2007

In signing ASEAN Declaration on Environmental Sustainability during the 13th ASEAN summit, leaders from the ten-member bloc took necessary steps towards addressing the need to protect the environment and respond to climate change. The Declaration highlighted the importance of regional and international partnership in sustainable forest management and the protection of natural resource base for social and economic development. ASEAN member countries also agreed to combat climate change through enhancing cooperation on joint research in the development of low emission technologies for the cleaner use of fossil fuels. The Declaration also promoted the conservation and sustainable management of key ecosystems, including forest, coastal, and marine habitats. Full text

Back to TOC
_____________________________________

Related: Close-Up of the Forestry Outlook in Asia and the Pacific
Source: Inquirer, 20 November 2007

At the recent ASEAN summit in Singapore, delegates focused on issues of energy efficiency and climate change. Leaders of the 16 countries present agreed to work towards increasing forest cover, promoting the use of clean energy sources, and protecting marine ecosystems. But environment activists say the declarations from ASEAN and the wider East Asia grouping, including China and India, do not go far enough, and that it is time for governments to move beyond rhetoric and take meaningful action. With forestry becoming a major concern in the international environmental agenda, the conference mood reflected this spirit, with public and private institutions pledging to come together and take steps to combat global warming. Within the international forest sector, major themes for action include reforestation and regeneration of trees, transparency in government to combat corruption and profiteering from illegal logging, and rural livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation. Full text

Back to TOC
_____________________________________

2. Atienza: Global Warming Not Population’s Fault
Source: The Inquirer, 26 November 2007

Global warming and urban decay cannot be blamed on overpopulation, Environment Secretary Lito Atienza said. The country’s problem, he asserted, is not overpopulation, but the absence of good governance. Atienza said that proper reforestation programs and complete adherence to the Kyoto Protocol are the Philippines’ contributions to the global fight against climate change, and that the country need not alter its climate change policy because it does not contribute as much greenhouse gases as developed countries do. Atienza is pushing for the planting and nurturing of 50 million trees before the end of 2008. Full text

Back to TOC
_____________________________________

3. Carbon-Credit Forest Companies Fears
Source: The Age, 19 November 2007

While the business of carbon trading and sequestration through commercial tree planting enterprises is a promising market response to climate change, there are many potential risks for companies and their clients. Most carbon offset schemes are currently voluntary and there are plenty of traps as market offerings have evolved ahead of standards. In particular, many schemes are not accredited, audited, nor measured against a particular set of standards. Other issues include “forward loading,” whereby carbon credits are sold today based on future tree growth projections, competition with mining laws, and the fact that carbon emissions may also occur in plantation preparation. It is hoped that regulation in the tree carbon-sequestration sector will improve as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission begins its investigation on marketing schemes that claim “green” benefits. Full text

Back to TOC
_____________________________________