***********************************************

WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS

Kyoto Protocol Could Accelerate Forest Destruction

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org

  http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal

  http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation

 

11/09/00

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY

Following is excellent additional information regarding concerns that

efforts being pursued to promote forest plantations as carbon sinks

at the soon to commence Hague climate meeting may speed up global

warming while increasing native forest destruction.  Please take the

time to send an email to the United Nations on this matter from:

http://forests.org/emailaction/oldcarbon_oct_00.htm

g.b.

 

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

 

ITEM #1

Title:  Kyoto Protocol could accelerate forest destruction, warn WWF

  and Greenpeace

Source:  WWF Press Release

Date:  November 9, 2000  

 

London, UK - Relying on forest plantations to store carbon pollution

from the atmosphere and combat climate change could accelerate the

destruction of old-growth native forest around the world, according

to a report commissioned by Greenpeace and WWF, the conservation

organization. The report, released today, challenges the assumption

that carbon storage in trees will yield environmental benefits. It

concludes instead, "the economics of the developing carbon

sequestration market is becoming an additional driver for clearing

native forests."

 

Whether industrialised nations will be allowed to gamble on forests

as temporary carbon stores rather than reduce emissions of global

warming gases at source is one of the most controversial topics in

two weeks of intergovernmental negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol

that open in The Hague, Holland, on Monday 13 November. Under the

Protocol, industrialized nations have to reduce their emissions 5 per

cent below their 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The United States, Japan,

Australia and Canada want to avoid domestic efforts to control their

rapidly growing carbon emissions from energy use by counting forest

carbon storage and so claim to be meeting their Kyoto targets.

Furthermore, the Protocol contains a perverse incentive in allowing

countries to claim a carbon credit for planting trees but not incur a

carbon debit for deforestation.

 

Today's report, entitled "The Clearcut Case: How the Kyoto Protocol

Could Become a Driver for Deforestation", examines a number of

Australian projects as case studies of what could emerge as a

dangerous new international threat to forests and the species they

support. (1)

 

The report outlines how Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), Japan's

largest power utility, is implicated in the destruction of native

forest in the Tamar Valley in the Australian state of Tasmania, and

its replacement by fast-growing eucalyptus plantations intended for

carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. TEPCO's investment of Aus$10

million (ca. US$5 million) in Tamar Tree Farms accounts for 3,000

hectares of eucalyptus plantation which are expected to yield TEPCO

130,000 tonnes of carbon credits that could be offset against rising

carbon emissions in Japan. The report shows how this project is not

an isolated incident but is compatible with the forest-clearance

programmes of the Australian and Tasmanian authorities.

 

"Claiming credit for carbon stored in trees is a blatant attempt by

some countries to cheat on their Kyoto commitments," said Bill Hare,

Greenpeace's Climate Policy Director. "This report shows that it is

also bad for the environment, leading in some cases to the

destruction of old-growth forest to make way for 'carbon-sink'

plantations."

 

"The only way to combat climate change is through deep cuts in

emissions of global warming gases," said Jennifer Morgan, Director of

WWF's Climate Change Campaign. "The Tasmania project is an example of

what could go terribly wrong for forests around the world if Japan,

Australia, Canada and the United States get their way. We could see

native forest destruction accelerate but still see no benefit for the

global climate. This is potentially the largest of a number of

loopholes in the Kyoto climate treaty that governments urgently need

to close."

 

The threat to forest conservation will be exacerbated if decisions on

Kyoto's "Clean Development Mechanism" promote 'carbon sinks' projects

by industrialised nations in developing countries, where gathering of

accurate data on forests would be considerably more difficult than in

Tasmania.

 

Greenpeace and WWF are calling on the 184 Parties to the Climate

Convention to exclude reliance on carbon sinks from the Kyoto

Protocol, and from its Clean Development Mechanism. The organizations

want industrialized nations to achieve their Kyoto commitments

through domestic reductions in global warming gases.

 

"The global forest commons is facing its biggest challenge since the

Industrial Revolution," said report author Tim Cadman of the Native

Forest Network. "Many forest-dependent species are on the brink of

destruction. How ironic it would be if the Kyoto Protocol were

complicit in sending some of them over the edge."

 

Proposals for relying on plantations to soak up carbon overlook the

vulnerability of forests to global warming, and the urgency of

cutting emissions. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change whose Second Assessment Report from 1995 is the

current international scientific consensus on climate change, one

third of the world's forests will undergo major changes as a result

of global warming. Entire forest types may disappear and large

amounts of carbon could be released into the atmosphere during

transitions from one forest type to another. (2)

 

For further information:

 

WWF

 

Robert Kihara, Press Officer, WWF International. Tel: +41 22 364

9553; E-mail: rkihara@wwfint.org

 

Andrew Kerr, Public Affairs Manager, WWF Climate Change Campaign.

Tel: +31 6 5161 9462 (mobile); E-mail: rrek@compuserve.com

 

Greenpeace

 

Jon Walter, Press Officer, Greenpeace International, Tel: +31 20 524

9608; E-mail: jwalter@ams.greenpeace.org

 

Bill Hare, Climate Policy Director, Greenpeace International. Tel:

+31 6 2129 6899 (mobile); E-mail: bhare@ams.greenpeace.org

 

Native Forest Network

 

Tim Cadman, Tel: +61 2 6655 9841; E-mail: tcadman@nfn.org.au

 

NOTES

 

(1) The Clearcut Case: How the Kyoto Protocol Could Become a Driver

for Deforestation by Tim Cadman, Native Forest Network. Commissioned

and published by Greenpeace International and the WWF Climate Change

Campaign. November 2000

 

(2) Climate Change 1995. Contribution of Working Group II to the

Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Summary for Policymakers,

Section 3.1.

 

 

ITEM #2

Title:  Green group says close climate loopholes at The Hague                                   

Source:  c 2000 Reuters

Date:  November 10, 2000                       

 

BRUSSELS - The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said yesterday an

international agreement to combat climate change could prove worse

than useless unless governments agreed to close potential loopholes.

 

WWF told a news briefing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol might not have the

desired effect of reducing the industrial world's greenhouse gas

emissions and could have the reverse effect of boosting

environmentally undesirable industries.                     

                                            

"Fossil fuel burning lies at the heart of the Kyoto Protocol but

there are a range of loopholes that will allow individual countries

to meet their targets without reducing their emissions," WWF's Liam       

Salter told a news conference.              

                                             

The U.N.-sponsored protocol commits developed countries to reduce

emissions of six greenhouse gases by five percent from 1990 levels by

2008-2012.                   

                                            

But the the agreement allows for "flexible mechanisms" which would

allow countries to achieve emissions reduction credits without

actually reducing emissions on their own territory.                                  

                                             

How these will work in practice is one of the key questions to be

solved at an intergovernmental meeting starting on Monday in The

Hague - dubbed by some the "Climate Summit".                           

                                             

The protocol's Achilles' heel, according to WWF, is the concept of

"carbon sinks" - the use of forestry to absorb carbon dioxide

(CO2), the main greenhouse gas, to offset emissions.                                  

                                             

WWF says, as well as being difficult to monitor, the use of sinks

could lead to environmentally-damaging monocultures being classed as

environmentally sound and do nothing to protect wildlife-rich

forests.   

                                             

The protocol could also give a boost to nuclear power and large

hydro-electric dams which, although they do not produce CO2 and could

potentially receive emissions reduction credits, are considered

environmentally unsound by WWF.             

                                            

"We need an up-front ban on (the use of) these technologies (under

the Kyoto Protocol)," WWF's Stephan Singer said.

                                            

Another potential loophole, the group says, is "emissions trading"

where a country that has reduced its emissions beyond its target can

sell the "extra" pollution it has saved to a country that has not met

its goal.

                                            

WWF wants both buyers and sellers of emissions credits to be made

legally liable in case their certificates are found not to represent

a genuine emission reduction.     

                                            

It also wants a restriction on the amount of credits that can be sold

by Russia and the Ukraine, whose industrial decline during the 1990s

means they will have plenty of spare "hot air".  "We have never been

opposed to the system of (emissions) trading but we are opposed to

buying hot air and trading in sinks," Singer said.                                

                                            

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS### 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials for

educational, personal and non-commercial use only.  Recipients should

seek permission from the source to reprint this PHOTOCOPY.  All

efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though ultimate

responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader. 

For additional forest conservation news & information please see the

Forest Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/ 

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org