Climate change and forests: international policies, new trends in land and “green” grabbing, and some experiences from Latin America and Africa
WRM – World Rainforest Movement Website: http://wrm.org.uy Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WorldRainforestMovement
Twitter:
@WorldRainforest
Issues: 1. Strategies and efforts addressing climate change in Latin America and Africa 2. Trends in land grabbing in Latin America and Africa 3. International policies to address climate change (COP20 Lima and COP21 Paris) and its relevance for forests 4. Trends in “green grabbing�
1.Strategies and efforts addressing climate change Latin America and Africa
Are there national plans in countries in Latin America and Africa to address climate change?
- Yes, but few countries with focus on mitigation (not on adaption) - Example of Brazil: made its plan in 2007 - Number one cause of CO2 emissions: deforestation => aim of plan is to reduce but increase tree plantations - Brazil proud of its clean energy sources: + ethanol from sugar cane (9 million ha) and hydrodams (100 in Amazon only) – both causing lot of deforestation - Result now is no CO2 emission reduction in Brazil, and deforestation on the rise again after have decreased in period 2003-2012 - Problems related to climate change on the rise (water scarcity)
But are there actions happening to tackle climate change in Latin America and Africa? - Yes, but they are induced by the Northern Countries that do not want to reduce CO2-emissions at home (Europe, USA), so then the focus again on mitigation. What sort of actions? + REDD+ projects and schemes, now followed by new trends inspired on REDD+ like Blue REDD (mangrove forests), Landscape REDD and Climate Smart Agriculture + “Renewable Energy” projects : oil palm expansion pushed by agrofuel demand in Europe; and biomass eucalyptus plantations for wood export to generate electricity in Europe (both pushed by the EU Targets 2020 for ´renewable energy´)
And... - As ex-president Bush of USA once said (Rio-92): “We will not give up our lifestyle�, which is a lifestyle highly dependent on the import of raw materials from the global South; - According to UNEP study, until 2050, if nothing changes, expansion of 3 times of global consumption of minerals, ores, fossil fuels, and biomass, reaching 140 billions tons annually.
2. Trends in land grabbing in Latin America/Africa
Much of the land grabbing happens in forest-rich areas In Africa: - logging, mining, oil and gas concessions; - New trends are more industrial oil palm, agribusiness ´parks´, more infrastructure and hydrodams; In Latin America: - logging, mining, oil and gas concessions, infrastructure (hydrodams, roads, railways, waterways), agribusiness (meat, soya, maize, ethanol); - and increasingly industrial oil palm, sugar cane Comment: and it happens with all governments
Hydrodams for electricity in the Amazon region (150 in operation, 250 built/planned)
Oil and Gas in Amazon region (fields operating and planned cover 15% of region)
Mining in Amazon region (operating and planned concessions cover 21% of region)
Soya (only in Brazil 28 million ha)
Biomass eucalyptus plantations in Brazil planned for use in energy generation in the UK
Logging in Liberia-Africa
Oil palm in Nigeria (in Africa, 4 million hectares in operation and planned for Africa)
3. International policies to address climate change (COP20 Lima and COP21 Paris) and its relevance for forests
International forest policies over the past 30 years: “doing without learning” -
The main policies to stop deforestation have failed (1980ies Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) of World Bank/FAO; 1990ies Sustainable Forest Management (SFM); 2007-2014: REDD+; now Zero Deforestation – NY declaration on forests 2014) - Main reason is that none of these plans have addressed the direct and underlying causes of deforestation (although the UN has analyzed these very well in 1998-2000......implementation?) - Even worse, these top-down plans have caused more problems for forest-dependent communities; Conclusion after 30 years: - World Bank´s motto of ´learning by doing´ looks more like ´doing without learning´ - Only real advance has come from peoples struggles on the ground to guarantee their rights/control over their territories.
What to say of 23 years of talking at the UN climate conferences? - No real solutions - global CO2 emissions (for 85% caused by burning fossil fuels) have only increased; result of Kyoto Protocol very poor and even worse: it introduced the idea of ´compensatory´ (offset) mechanisms (CDM); - Since 2007 REDD as an instrument to mitigate climate change dominated the agenda of the Conferences (Green Climate fund for adaptation failed – no money) - Because of REDD, these climate conferences became the main international space to discuss the future of tropical forests, because of the carbon in forests.....
And also in these 23 years of talking: - Governments increasingly defending interest of corporations, not the people (for example, increasingly they are talking about voluntary contributions instead of binding targets; increasing importance side events with corporate presence) - Remembering also that about 2/3 of global carbon emissions come from activities of 90 big companies, that together should leave 80% of their oil reserves in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change
What about the COP20 in Lima? Final document: “Call for global Climate Action”, very weak, some call it therefore a ´Roadmap for Global Burning’, because no plan for urgent actions until 2020 (start new Climate Agreement planned for Paris) + principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (Rio-92) was maintained, but not clear how this will be guaranteed. + all governments will make national climate action plans how much they will reduce emissions; should be the basis of a new agreement; + No more CO2 emissions after 2050. This looks nice, if it did not talk about ´zero net emissions´ (opens the door for compensation mechanisms: REDD+, Landscape REDD, climate-smart agriculture, and BECCS – bioenergy based on tree plantations) -
Towards Paris 2015. What to expect? -
-
-
-
A lot of uncertainty: there is now a draft negotiation text available indicating which are the issues to be discussed: “mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer, capacity building and transpareceny for actions and support”. UN will make a ´sum´ of all national action plans, but still not clear agreements on methodology/reporting, so we will not know what all these plans together will mean in practice for the climate. Current projections: a 4º C increase of global Temperature (including the recent US-China agreement), violating the principle of the negotiations to prevent dangerous climate change. Big chance that we get a voluntary non-binding agreement looks most probable (´laissez-faire´ or ´do whatever you want´ ) Multilateralism at stake! (Brazil: better a weak than no agreement)
What does this all mean for forests? - REDD+ will probably be part of an agreement in Paris, and new trends a lot discussed like landscape REDD, climate smart agriculture...The question is still how (market mechanism?); - The World Bank, UN (FAO), big conservation NGOs (CI, TNC, WWF...), continue making efforts to move on to try to create carbon markets with REDD+, landscape REDD, and climate-smart agriculture, and also markets with other ecossystem services: biodiversity offsets, etc. - This are trying to put the ´green economy´ (main outcome of Rio+20) in practice, leading to “green grabbing”
4. Trends in “green grabbing”
What to conclude about almost 10 years experience with REDD? - In spite of hundreds of millions US$ spent, the controversies the same as in 2007 (and in 1997): + impossibility to measure carbon in forest; + it does not tackle the causes of deforestation => you just move deforestation to other places ; + with REDD+ (2009) the inclusion of tree monoculture plantations (FAO-UN consider them as forests); + forests store carbon temporary, while a carbon market wants a ´secure´ product; - The price paid now for a carbon credit (US$ 5 or less) cannot prevent forest destruction – REDD in crisis
And what about the experiences of communities affected by REDD+ pilot projects? New WRM publication overviewing experience from 24 REDD projects in all continents. Although most are certified – “silver” or “gold” label - , they all show a series of structural common problems: - forest-dependent people are seen as main cause of deforestation, especially agriculture in the forest; REDD threatens their mode of life that exactly has prevented the forest from being destroyed....; - Even if some project guarantees rights to communities, they lose control over their territories. Carbon credit owners do not need to own the area; it is through the contracts that they can define what can happen in the area – creation of new sort of property right; - Communities not informed about what is behind REDD, they do not know that the ´product´ created (carbon credits) is sold to polluters far away (oil companies), the main direct responsibles for the climate crisis....
The new trend of Landscape REDD
Landscape REDD - If REDD+ is in crisis and has so many problems, promoters of REDD like WB say: let´s create something new: Landscape REDD! (REDD-negotiator of the USA: “We go through these flavors. I feel like now the flavor is sustainable landscapes. You hear about this a lot at the World Bank, amongst donors; everyone is talking about sustainable landscapes.“) - Landscape REDD is a sort of expansion of REDD, just bigger and also with more risks to affect communities. - It has the same logic as REDD: projects that can ´compensate´ for destruction/pollution: much interest from business (agribusiness/food processing companies)
Landscape REDD initatives -
-
-
-
2013:Official Launch at UN climate conference in Poland in parallel event: Norway, UK and USA gave U$ 280 mi to World Bank´s “Biocarbon Fund initative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes”; Most interested are food processing corporations because of huge CO2 emissions agribusiness (Unilever), and also interest of Conservation NGOs promoting ´Zero Deforestation´ 2013 – launch of consortium of organizations and Roundtables of “sustainable” commodity production (palm oil, beef, soy, etc.). It "aims to build bridges between agricultural commodity roundtables and REDD+ financing“ TNC launched project (with funding Norway-USAID- agribusiness companies funding): “Sustainable Landscapes in Brazil and Indonesia”.
One more new ´flavour´ inspired on REDD: climate smart agriculture... Director sustainability from JBS (biggest meat processor in Brazil and globally:
“The big discussions about carbon dioxide emissions will not be around transport and deforestation, but around soil management for agriculture.”
Climate-smart Agriculture Three promises: - Producing more (improved (GMO) seeds, inputs) - Seeds more adapted to climate change - Improved techniques will store more carbon in the soil, resulting in carbon credits, and selling these credits will increase income for farmers/peasants
´Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project´: 2010-2017 – by Swedish NGO VI Agroforestry – U$ 1 million from WB Biocarbon Fund – in collaboration with Syngenta
Impacts on peasant communities? 2014: WB announced that 60,000 farmers got revenue from carbon credit sales, due to ´sustainable´ practices But what are the impacts on the ground? + a shift from native varieties, important for local diversified food systems, towards planting hybrid maize seeds from Syngenta, creating dependency from Syngenta and undermining future of local food sovereignty + what farmers own is very low: US$ 2-5 /ha/year + and project also suffers from the structural problems of any REDD project....
More trends of “green grabbing”: biodiversity and other offsets -
-
-
-
It is about creating other markets, not in carbon but in biodiversity, or in other ecossystem services; idea is putting nature into the market to save it! But how to put price on nature?? (many studies; TEEB) Biodiversity offsets extremely popular among mining companies in a context of increasing extractive activities (300% increase only in Brazil in 10 years) that put more pressure on community lands. Corporations looking for new tools to respond to critiques, to justifiy their continued destruction ; It means changing legislation to guarantee the right to destroy an area, and to create a new sort of ´property right´, based on the credits. Promotes the idea of ´no net loss´ and it even promises ´gains´
Example from Brazil: change in forest code - The new Brazilian Forest Code (2012) created Environmental Reserve Credits (ERAs). - If you legally have too little conserved forest in your property, you can buy ERAs to compensate from another property who has more conserved forest, than legally needed. - The negotiation is done by a Green Stock Exchange in Rio de Janeiro. - The long-term result is: more deforestation (legalized) and more pressure on community territories and forests. “The objective is transforming the environmental legislation in tradeable instruments� (Pedro Moura, director Green Stock Exchange in Rio)
The ´sustainable development´ law Gabon – Africa (2014), a country with 85% forest and increasingly palm oil, oil/gas, agribusiness... - Law created four credits: carbon, biodiversity, ecossystems and´community capital´ („sum of natural and cultural assets – property - belonging to a community‟) - Companies that do a project and will destroy an area, should buy ´sustainable development´credits. - Amount of credits needed to compensate for oil palm, mining, oil and gas, logging, is defined by a ´sustainable development assessment´ - Most amazing and terrifying is the ´community capital´ credits, so you can legally destroy village, if you´compensate´ it by investing in another one
Case of Rio Tinto in Madagscar, Africa
Biodiversity offsetting project Rio Tinto - In general little info of projects, only nice propaganada. - Rio Tinto in Madagascar mines ilmenite (for painting products), destroys 1665 ha of valuable coastal forest and affect much bigger area, but will be compensated conserving 6,678ha of forest areas elsewhere. - The „Business and Biodiversity Offset Programme’ talks about transparency and science based, but ´loss´ is permanent, and what about the ´gain´? - Focus is on biodiversity, not on communities: the latter affected two times (by destruction and conservation)
A bizar sum of ´loss´ and ´gains´ and what about the people?
Some final comments on this overall trend of financialization of nature - Do we actually need a monetary value of a forest to know it is important to conserve it? - And even if economic valuation would save some nature, if there is no change in power relations, the trend is that nature will continue be destroyed and communities affected. Therefore: - let us support the increasing community struggles to guarantee their control, their modes of managing the forest and their territories!