Dear Minister Carlgren,
The undersigned organizations write to you deeply concerned by the negotiating position that the European Union is advocating in the UN negotiations on the mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) to be agreed as part of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen.
The Bangkok negotiation session currently underway is consolidating the negotiating text on REDD, and we are alarmed that the original intent of this mechanism is at risk of being lost. The text at the moment makes no reference to protecting forests, including their above and below ground carbon stocks. Instead it includes language that could incentivize industrial-scale logging and natural forest conversion to plantations in tropical forest areas. Such logging and conversion are highly emissive activities and to fund them under a climate agreement would be perverse.
Particularly problematic in this context is the EU’s position of including “sustainable forest management” (SFM) within the scope of REDD, an intentional change from the agreed language of the Bali Action Plan that brings undesirable baggage with it. Over the past two decades this term has been co-opted by the forest industry to lend a green image to some of the most destructive logging practices in the tropics, and the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes “SFM” makes it impossible to disprove such claims. Regardless of management intentions, the introduction of logging roads acts as a catalyst towards further degradation and eventual conversion to plantations or other land uses, releasing massive amounts of carbon. The inclusion of SFM in REDD creates a loophole that could result in the subsidization of these activities, placing those who support this position at great political and reputational risk.
In order to be credible, REDD must explicitly prioritize protecting intact natural forests, and not subsidize the introduction of industrial-scale logging to such forests. REDD should encourage progressive reductions in industrial extraction of timber from tropical forests with strict enforcement of the highest environmental standards whilst such contraction takes place. Otherwise, the fundamental aim of this mechanism will be lost, and the effectiveness of the climate agreement as a whole will be placed in jeopardy.
We believe that community expectations worldwide are that REDD will support protecting intact natural forests and the EU has a responsibility to deliver on this. Taxpayers will not tolerate REDD funds being used to subsidize highly emissive activities, like industrial logging or natural forest conversion, under the guise of sustainable forest management or otherwise.
Furthermore, the EU is failing to take a leadership role in the REDD negotiations in promoting specific provisions for good forest governance. Good governance will be essential to ensure that REDD meets its aim of reducing emissions.
The short negotiating time frame between now and the 15th Conference of the Parties to be held in Copenhagen in December means that unless protecting forests is established as a core REDD objective as an outcome of the Bangkok negotiations, it is unlikely to be feasible later.
In order to remain credible, a REDD mechanism must include the following key elements:
· Protection: There is currently no wording on the table that would necessarily achieve protecting forests, or make this an activity eligible for funding. Protecting does not imply a ban on traditional forest use; on the contrary it must support inclusion and recognition of the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and local communities.
· Intact, natural forests: REDD must prioritize protecting the few remaining natural, intact forests (including their below ground carbon stocks) as the greatest stores of terrestrial carbon, and distinguish them from secondary natural forests, which are less resilient to climate change and natural disturbances such as fire, though they must like intact forests be ineligible for conversion to monoculture plantations. The introduction of logging roads or drainage canals causes fragmentation and is a known precursor to the conversion of forests to other land uses.
· Restoration: REDD should support the restoration of degraded natural forests and their degraded organic soils (peat) to fully functioning ecosystems, decreasing their vulnerability and prohibiting their conversion while increasing their carbon storage and sequestration capacity. Restoration also delivers biodiversity benefits and ecosystem services such as soil conservation and water regulation. This contrasts with plantation-style tree planting schemes, which do not offer the same multiple benefits and often exclude local peoples.
We are calling on your Government to ensure that the European Union is working for these core objectives. In particular, we ask you to ensure that they are part of the Environment Council and European Council Conclusions in the coming weeks, providing European REDD negotiators with a strong and progressive mandate that reflects the expectations of the European and world public.
Yours sincerely,
The Ecosystems Climate Alliance:
Global Witness
Humane Society International
Rainforest Action Network
Rainforest Foundation Norway
The Rainforest Foundation U.K.
Wetlands International
The Wilderness Society
And:
ClientEarth
CEPLAES, Ecuador
Community Forestry Network (MJUMITA), Tanzania
German NGO Forum Environment and Development (Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung)
Greenpeace International
Fern - Forests and the European Union Resource Network
Fundacion del Rio, Nicaragua
Hatof Foundation, Ghana
Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement, Africa
Nepenthes, Denmark
Observatorio de la Sostenibilidiad - Red Lationoamerica
Presencia Ciudadana Mexicana
Pro Natura - Friends of the Earth Switzerland
Tanzania Forest Conservation Group