Currently the UN considers industrial tree plantations as forests. This is, simply put, an egregious error. Plantations are not forests. Forests are diverse ecosystems and plantations are void of biodiversity. The UN definition endangers Indigenous Peoples, forest dependent people, peasants, small farmers, biodiversity and
exacerbates climate change.
The groups held a media conference this morning and several actions occurred on the theme of calling on the UNFCCC to change the definition of forests so it distinguishes between native forests and plantations.
“We have united to challenge the definition of forest under the UNFCCC to ensure that agricultural tree crops, or plantations are not defined as a forest”, said Gemma Tillack, an international youth delegate and campaigner for The Wilderness Society in Australia.
“The conversion of native forests to plantations is bad for biodiversity, people and the climate. Human rights, especially women’s rights, are being violated where there are plantations, and they should not be defined as forests. In addition, industrial tree plantations impact the climate–tropical forests and grasslands store significantly more carbon than tree plantations”, said Ana Filippini from World Rainforest Movement (Uruguay) and member of the GenderCC Network – Women for Climate Justice.
“Schemes such as REDD allow companies to prevent family farmers from using the land to produce the food that is needed to feed their communities and their countries”, said Luis Muchanga of Via Campesina in Mozambique. He continued, ”Deforestation, which is a major driver of global warming, is not made by peasants and indigenous peoples, but by large companies that are given the right to convert the forest to tree plantations”.
The groups are proposing that the definitions are changed so:
o Forests are defined as ‘a terrestrial ecosystem generated and maintained primarily through natural and ecological and evolutionary processes that are home to most of the world’s biodiversity’.
o Plantations are defined as a crop of trees planted and regularly harvested by humans that do not provide habitat for biodiversity.
“The definition of forests under REDD is utterly ridiculous”, stated Sandy Gauntlett, a Maori indigenous rights activist from New Zealand, and representative of Global Forest Coalition. ”It leaves wide open the ability of countries to destroy their natural forests and replace them with industrial tree plantations-which destroys wildlife habitat and displaces indigenous and forest dependent communities. New Zealand is an example of the disaster of tree plantations-and now we are in the process of developing genetically engineered trees for
plantations”, he continued.
“Commercial release of genetically engineered Franken-trees in plantations poses a very serious threat to the world’s forests and peoples”, added Anne Petermann, Co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project in the U.S. ”GE insect resistant trees, for example, can contaminate water and soils and the pollen may be toxic to people that inhale it or wildlife that ingest it”, she stated.
The groups in this joint press release agree that: “If it is not resolved, and REDD applies this definition of forests, the global community could miss the chance of avoiding dangerous climate change and the 1.6 billion people who depend on forests for there survival will continue to be negatively affected”.
Contact: Orin Langelle, Global Forest Coalition media coordinator +48 696 723 046
Gemma Tillack, The Wilderness Society +61 427 057 643
Ana Filippini, World Rainforest Movement +48 785 260 455
Dec 18th 2008 | BRUSSELS
From The Economist print edition
IMAGINE that some huge rocky projectile, big enough to destroy most forms of life, was hurtling towards the earth, and it seemed that deep international co-operation offered the only hope of deflecting the lethal object. Presumably, the nations of the world would set aside all jealousies and ideological hangups, knowing that failure to act together meant doom for all.
About the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit |
||
 |
||
|
||
The World Bank Carbon Finance Unit’s (CFU) initiatives are part of the larger global effort to combat climate change, and go hand in hand with the World Bank and its Environmernt Department ’s mission to reduce poverty and improve living standards in the developing world. The CFU uses money contributed by governments and companies in OECD countries to purchase project-based greenhouse gas emission reductions in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. The emission reductions are purchased through one of the CFU’s carbon funds on behalf of the contributor, and within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or Joint Implementation (JI). Unlike other World Bank development products, the CFU does not lend or grant resources to projects, but rather contracts to purchase emission reductions similar to a commercial transaction, paying for them annually or periodically once they have been verified by a third party auditor. The selling of emission reductions – or carbon finance – has been shown to increase the bankability of projects, by adding an additional revenue stream in hard currency, which reduces the risks of commercial lending or grant finance. Thus, carbon finance provides a means of leveraging new private and public investment into projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby mitigating climate change while contributing to sustainable development. Read more |
||
December 6, 2007 - Representatives from 190 nations are meeting in Bali, Indonesia from December 3 – 14 to address challenges linked to global climate change. The meeting marks the start of negotiations leading to what the United Nations hopes will be a renewal and extension of the Kyoto Protocol. A delegation from the World Bank, led by President Robert B. Zoellick, will join the conference.
|
On the eve of the global gathering, the World Bank’s lead climate change specialist for Africa and a member of the Bali delegation Aziz Bouzaher discussed the impact of climate change on Africa, and Bank actions to help client countries adapt to and mitigate it. How is the World Bank’s Africa Region responding to climate change? AB: The Africa region is responding swiftly, as is the entire institution, to the emerging needs linked to climate change. Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change because of a number of things: the high dependence on natural resources, the low availability of infrastructure, the extent of poverty and the low level of institutional capacity to respond. The region is also predicted to be hardest hit in terms of catastrophic natural disasters. So we are developing a robust strategy and will be consulting with our clients and partners along the way. That strategy is to mainstream climate change into our operations and develop capacity to respond quickly – and effectively – to client needs.We have a framework with four pillars: The core pillar is adaptation. If the climate changes, you have to adapt. This pillar covers agriculture, energy, health, land management, forestry, biodiversity and fisheries, disaster preparedness, and coastal areas. The second pillar is building institutional knowledge and strengthening country capacity so that institutions are better able to deal with climate change. Third is to take advantage of mitigation opportunities, in other words to reduce emissions. The fourth and final pillar is to mobilize financing (including from the International Development Association, the World Bank Group’s concessional lending arm) and piloting new, innovative market-based carbon instruments to help our countries gain access to new funding sources. Is this strategy part of the Region’s larger ongoing work?
AB: A lot of the response to climate change is already built into current Bank policies and programs. For example, in Madagascar which is prone to cyclones, we are working on developing disaster preparedness. We are building the capacity and the tools and policies for the country to be better prepared. In some of our work on agriculture and water management, we are dealing with issues of drought and of the predicted high variability in water resources due to climate variability. In the energy sector, we have decidedly moved toward more clean energy. Our work on biofuels is contributing to the reduction of emissions. We also have analytical work going on at the regional level. For instance, we are incorporating climate change into water resources management at the river-basin level. The Niger, Zambezi, Nile, and Congo basins provide water for drinking, irrigation, hydropower, and environmental services. We are collecting information on the impact of climate change in these basins, and are building on this work to give us a view in other key areas of Africa. Basically, we are intensifying the work already being done to deal with variability and long-term change in the climate. We are also looking anew at our pipeline of projects systematically to ensure that we start a more robust incorporation of climate change issues. Why should Africa be concerned about climate change? AB: Climate change is a core development issue for Africa. There are millions of poor people who will be impacted. The potential cost of inaction could be significant and could undermine much of the progress that has been achieved, pushing even more people below the poverty line. What are the implications of climate change for African economies? AB: Africa has recorded solid economic growth. According to the Bank’s 2007 African Development Indicators, o ver the past decade, Africa has recorded an average growth rate of 5.4 percent. It’s important that this growth and its positive impact on livelihoods is sustained and made resilient to climate risk. How are governments making policy changes to combat climate change? AB: A lot of countries are developing their own adaptation strategies. They are developing National Adaptation Action Plans (NAPAs). The recommendations in these NAPAs will begin to find their way into Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and national development plans. This also will be reflected into the Bank’s new generation of Country Assistance Strategies. Is the region receiving the resources it needs to help cut emissions? The plan is to help the region get access to innovative forms of carbon financing, including payment for environmental services and new areas such as avoiding deforestation and reducing land degradation. By reducing deforestation and land degradation you actually cut emissions, but at the same time you provide funding for adaptation and livelihoods. This is a better, and more sustainable, model for development as a whole. What is the importance of the Bank’s participation in the Bali conference? The Bank hopes the Bali meeting will chart the way forward on the issue of climate change. The predictions are that Africa will bear the brunt of climate change. We are committed to using all available instruments – financial, technical, and policy-oriented – to help client countries adapt to climate change and achieve low-carbon pathways to sustainable development Is climate change solely an environmental problem? Climate change is a core development issue. It’s not another environmental or an add-on issue. A lot of good development is good for dealing with climate change. Providing access to water and sanitation, supporting livelihoods, sustainable management of resources, all of this is good development. At the same time we recognize that Africa is one of the most vulnerable areas of the world — and is the least emitter — so adaptation becomes the core of the region’s climate change strategy. |
||||
