As more nations adopt better laws and policies to save and restore forests at home, they may, in fact, be outsourcing deforestation to other parts of the world, according to a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Looking at six developing nations where forests are recovering—instead of receding—the study found only one of them did not outsource deforestation to meet local demand for wood-products and food, a process known as 'leakage'.

"Our study found that strengthened forest-conservation policies and economic expansion often increased the demand for imported timber and agricultural products, which contributed to deforestation abroad." explained study co-author Eric Lambin of Stanford University in California and the University of Louvain in Belgium, in a press release.

The study looked at China, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, India, and Vietnam, each of which went from a country with net deforestation to net reforestation over the past 50 years. However, saving trees locally in some cases meant cutting trees abroad: in all the countries but India, net reforestation meant a decline in timber harvests and new agriculture, thereby creating increased demand for exports from nations with illegal logging (such as Brazil) or corruption (such as Indonesia).

On average for every 100 acres reforested locally in the five nations (not including India) 22 acres were cut abroad. However, that figure has jumped in the last five years to 52 acres cut abroad for every 100 reforested. This means that for every two acres saved locally, one acre was lost abroad to feed consumption.

"If local forest protection merely shifts forest-conversion pressure to natural forests elsewhere in the world, we will not achieve a net gain for nature at a global scale," Lambin said. In fact, despite decades of efforts by conservationists and policymakers, forest cover continues to decline worldwide.

But, Lambin urged the public not to misunderstand the findings.

"This study does not imply that the efforts of these countries to protect their forests was useless, but that international trade in wood and agricultural products can decrease the global environmental benefits of national forest-protection policies," he said.

Authors said officials at the up-coming Climate Summit in Cancun, Mexico should take the paper's findings into account, especially when negotiating a program to pay nations to keep forests standing called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).

"The REDD mechanism that is under negotiation should include guardrails to assure that countries that commit to decrease their rate of deforestation do not export their deforestation," said co-author Patrick Meyfroidt, also with the University of Louvain.

Last year, a report by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) warned that REDD would not work unless policymakers addressed consumption issues worldwide and put the responsibility as much on the consuming country as on the producer.

(By Jeremy Hance)

CITATION: Patrick Meyfroidt, Thomas K. Rudel, and Eric F. Lambin. Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. PNAS 2010 : 1014773107v1-201014773.

Source: Mongabay

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license

Jakarta. Scientists have warned that mechanisms for cutting carbon emissions from the forestry sector may undermine long-term prospects for biodiversity conservation in tropical countries.

The UN-designed Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation scheme aims to provide financial incentives to developing countries that improve their forest protection to help mitigate climate change.

Parties at the 16th Climate Change talks in Cancun, Mexico, next week are expected to reach a binding decision on REDD.

Scientists from the University of Kent warned, however, that the bulk of REDD funds were targeted at peatland, where deforestation is high but biodiversity is low.

They fear that the implementation of REDD “could intensify pressures to establish oil palm and paper/pulp plantations in forests that are a higher priority for biodiversity conservation.”

In Biodiversity Conservation in the REDD, a study published in the journal Carbon Balance and Management on Tuesday, scientists used examples from Indonesia — one of the most biodiverse countries in the world but also the third-largest global carbon emitter — to highlight ways in which emission reduction strategies could turn sour for local wildlife.

The study was led by Gary Paoli of Daemeter Consulting, a firm in Bogor that specializes on sustainable development.

“Biodiversity and forest carbon are correlated at a global scale but we show that this is not the case at sub-national levels in Indonesia,” Paoli said.

“The highest carbon savings are not necessarily located in places with the highest levels of species diversity.”

The study said approximately 85 percent of Indonesia’s estimated three billion tons of carbon emissions in 2005 originated from deforestation and degradation of peatlands.

However, the study shows that biodiversity levels in peat swamps are lower than those in lowland forests on mineral soils.

“The peat forest plan diversity is less than half that of forest on mineral soils,” the study said. “[There are] only 20 [species] of the country’s 140 critically endangered lowland plant species (15 percent) that have been recorded in peat compared to 104 [species] or 74 percent found in lowland forest on mineral soils.”

The study also revealed that peat forests also harbored significantly fewer bat species and support lower densities of birds and several keystone terrestrial and arboreal vertebrates.

“Peat swamp forests attract the bulk of REDD funds — they hold around eight times more carbon than other lowland forests, and provide habitat for high-profile species such as orangutans, tigers and Asian elephants.

“However, when we look at overall numbers of plants, mammals and birds, especially species of greatest conservation concern, we find that peat forests typically support lower densities and fewer species than other lowland forest types,” said Matthew Struebig, who works at the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology in Britain.

Heru Prasetyo, secretary of the Indonesian REDD task force, said the country’s REDD mechanism is still being drafted, but added that they would keep in mind the need to balance strategies.

Indonesia has received a $1 billion pledge from Norway for REDD, which forms a large chunk of the $4.5 billion pledged globally for the scheme.

Heru said the government did not want to sacrifice areas rich with biodiversity as a consequence of an unbalanced strategy.

“We don’t want to be trapped [in a condition] where we manage to protect our peatlands with low biodiversity content but we ended up cutting down biodiversity with high values,” he said.

“No way. We don’t want that. So, the strategy needs to be balanced.”

The REDD task force is to prepare institutions for the implementation of the Indonesia-Norway agreement.

“You need to remember that we’re not just talking about REDD, but REDD Plus where we need to also consider the biodiversity values, sustainable forest management and carbon enhancement,” said Heru.

Meanwhile, Paoli said it was crucial to also take a broader look at areas requiring conservation.

“Make a list of candidate sites important for biodiversity because, e.g. they are not represented in the protected area network, or because they have large populations of threatened species in the forest,” he said.

“Then use REDD finance to help offset costs of protecting areas that are deemed most important for protection. In that way, REDD funds will be directed to help protect areas most needed to deliver biodiversity conservation benefits for Indonesia.” (By Fidelis E. Satriastanti)

Source: JakartaGlobe

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license

An update on the role of forests and REDD+ in the international climate negotiations.

Background on REDD

Deforestation and forest degradation threaten the global climate system by removing one of the planet’s essential absorbers and storehouses of carbon. Currently, forest loss is thought to contribute between 12-17 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. The United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations offer Parties an opportunity to better recognize forests’ contribution to the global climate system and to protect them both for mitigation and adaptation purposes. Parties can do this in part by creating a system for positive incentives to developing countries who take actions to reduce emissions from forest loss and degradation and increase carbon storage (known as “REDD+”).

REDD+ in 2010

The outcome of the last major UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen was a heads-of-state-negotiated “Copenhagen Accord,” a non-binding political statement outlining principles to keep global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. The Accord noted the important role of REDD+, building on the political support that has been stated in several different meetings since the Bali Conference of the Parties in 2007.

Prior to the development of the Accord, however, negotiators in Copenhagen worked on a much more detailed REDD+ language (the “REDD+ decision text”) which they hoped the parties would adopt to further guide the development of actions for REDD+.

Since the Copenhagen negotiations, countries have reopened the REDD+ decision text, and some of the changes proposed may be significant, such as which activities to include in the REDD+ framework. Nevertheless, a REDD+ decision in Cancun is still being put forward as one of the most likely outcomes of the conference of the Parties (COP) in Cancun.

The details that will be agreed on, however, will depend on whether the Chair of overall negotiations (AWG-LCA) decides to only have one balanced text, or would allow the additional REDD+ decision text to be included as an annex.

REDD + in Cancun: Key Discussion Points

Assuming that a more complete REDD+ decision moves forward in Cancun, a number of important elements of the text need to be finalized and agreed to in Cancun decision, including:

Clarity around Safeguards

One important task for negotiators would be to agree to and clarify the rules around safeguards, even if only at a high level. Social and environmental safeguards ensure the reductions from reduced deforestation and degradation are undertaken in a socially responsible and environmentally sound way. For instance, for any mechanism to be effective, it is essential that the communities (particularly indigenous communities) that rely on the forests for their livelihoods are brought into the decision-making process, and that transparent and effective governance structures are in place to help achieve this.

Social and environmental safeguards for REDD+ were discussed at length before and during Copenhagen negotiations, but some final points need to be agreed on. Among the questions that need to be answered include:

Will developing countries be supported to put the processes and procedures in place to ensure that safeguards will be met?
Will recognition and support of REDD actions taken only occur if countries can demonstrate that safeguards were met?
How will developed countries be recognized for the finance they have provided to put in place such systems?

These questions were left open in the REDD+ text after Copenhagen, although some of the language put forward in subsequent meetings start to more clearly link safeguards to actions and finance.¹

The question of whether and how countries providing and receiving financing for REDD+ activities will be held accountable for the safeguards is still unknown. Many are looking to non-UNFCCC multilateral initiatives like the UN-REDD Programme and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility for guidance on this issue.

Clear language agreed in a REDD+ decision defining safeguards would help donors and multi-lateral programs answer these questions appropriately. Furthermore, clarifying rules around safeguards will help implement REDD+ activities and coordinate financial commitments.

REDD+ Finance

To date the discussions around REDD+ finance have mostly centered on the type of finance (markets or funds) to be used for REDD+ activities. In the Copenhagen decision text on REDD+, finance is mentioned only briefly and simply states all the options.

While some more specific language has come up in negotiations since Copenhagen – including a proposal that REDD+ activities not be financed through a carbon market approach – further thinking about what language to include on finance in an agreement is needed.

In the context of the broader negotiations, finance discussions have centered on creating a fund for all climate activities. Yet to date, REDD+ negotiators have not put forward language for how REDD+ finance – if included in such a fund – would be managed and what activities would be prioritized. For example, they might wish to provide principles around the distribution of finance between different REDD+ phases currently in the text.

As decisions are made in Cancun, negotiators will need to figure out if REDD+ finance questions are being handled within the finance text regarding the fund or if there are details needed in the REDD+ text.

Defining the Scope of REDD+

The type of activities recognized as part of a REDD+ decision is still in flux. The REDD+ decision text from Copenhagen includes references to:

Reducing emissions from deforestation;
Reducing emissions from forest degradation;
Conservation of forest carbon stocks;
Sustainable management of forests;
Enhancement of forest carbon stocks;

The Accord, however, only mentions the first three. In subsequent negotiations on the REDD+ decision, countries have proposed still other configurations, such as the first and the fourth. In order to clarify which activities will receive compensation, the definition of what constitutes REDD+ will need to be made consistent in the UN process.

Giving SBSTA a Mandate

Regardless of whether one or all of the issues above are addressed in Cancun, one of the most important actions from a decision in Cancun would be to give the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) a mandate to continue to do more research on REDD+ methodologies. Through a mandate in the decision text, SBSTA could start the work identified in Copenhagen including:

identifying the drivers of deforestation
ensuring the effective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in monitoring and reporting
examining other methodological issues related to quantifying emissions and emission reductions for REDD+
considering how activities taken in Phase 1 and 2 should be tracked and recognized as part of the REDD+ framework.

In addressing these key issues in Cancun, negotiators will be one step closer to reducing emissions from forest activities in a meaningful way. (By Florence Daviet)

________________________________________

Source: World Resources Institute

Indigenous forests in Africa are being cut down at an ‘alarming’ rate of about 3.4 million hectares per year, making the continent the region with the second highest net annual loss of forests in 2000-2010, United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has said.

John Peacock, manager of the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) - Leventis Foundation Project said reforestation and education on the benefits of conservation would help stop and reclaim Africa’s lost forest and biodiversity, if necessary authorities could respond to its safety.

Mr. Peacock who spoke during the 2010 Open Day held last week added that conservation of Africa’s forest offers great benefits preserving Africa’s surviving tropical forests and that planting new trees to replace those lost to deforestation could help reduce the severity of climate change.

The 2010 Open Day was marked with the planting of indigenous trees by IITA staff in Ibadan to help mitigate the effects of climate change and losses in biodiversity.

Nigeria’s loss

According to the group, the tree planting came at a time when deforestation rate in Nigeria has reached a disturbing rate of 3.5% per year, translating to a loss of350,000-400,000 hectares of forest per year.

In 1976,Nigeria had 23 million hectares of forest but today only 9.6 million hectares remain, less than 10% of Nigeria’s total land area.Mr. Peacock added that planting trees is part of a new initiative to restore rainforests in Nigeria. IITA is also contributing to the important UN-REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) initiative in Nigeria.

Through the IITA-Leventis Project, the team, particularly Olukunle Olasupo and Deni Bown, have raised over 15,000 seedlings of 33 different species since February 2010 in preparation for planting next year.“We would like every family, represented by staff members in IITA, to plant an indigenous tree next year as part of IITA’s activities to increase the forest area,” Mr. Peacock said.

Earlier this year, IITA and partners made effort to raise awareness of the need to preserve biodiversity-a term that describes the variety of living organisms-especially in forests that are increasingly lost or threatened.

Statistics indicate that Nigeria’s Milicia excelsa (iroko) has become endangered, with about $100 million worth of Iroko timber illegally poached from remaining forests last year.

“The unfortunate thing is that these very valuable trees are not being replaced,” he said. (By Emmanuel Ogala)

Source: next