Brazil's president will pledge in Copenhagen to reduce the pace of the Amazon's deforestation by 80%

If you're going over the news, looking for something positive about the upcoming global climate talks in Copenhagen in December, I think we got one for you.

Agence France-Presse reports that the Brazilian President Lula said on Tuesday that "he will offer to reduce the pace of deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rain forest by 80 percent by 2020 when he attends December’s global climate talks in Copenhagen."

This pledge is translating to emitting 4.8 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide gas. This is definitely a bold pledge, but how will Brazil do it? well, Lula didn't get into details, but as we mentioned here many times (here and here for example) it will probably will involve the concept of paying landowners to keep their trees standing and not cut them down.

Lula may reveal more details only in Copenhagen but he already knows who will pay the bill - he said according to the news that "he will also demand in Copenhagen that industrialized countries pay their fair share of the costs of reducing greenhouse gases."

It makes sense of course as the burden can't fall only on Brazil's shoulders, but nevertheless it's still a complicated task. So, good news? well, it's just a pledge but it's definitely good news to see that the discussion on the implementation of the "pay landowners to keep trees standing" is moving forward and hopefully, with the help of Lula,it will move forward significantly in Copenhagen. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

Paying to keep the trees in the Amazon alive - it ain't that simple as it might look like

We talked here many times about the concept of paying landowners to keep their trees standing and not cut them down.

This idea is gaining more popularity as a tool to fight climate change and a very interesting article in the New York Times presents some of the difficulties involved with the implementation of this concept, especially in Brazil.

Here are some of the issues Elisabeth Rosenthal brings up the article ("In Brazil, Paying Farmers to Let the Trees Stand"):

1. How much money is enough to keep the trees standing? The payment strategy includes direct payments to landowners to keep forests standing but with uprising demand to the alternatives, which are mainly cleared farmland to raise soy or cattle, the price can be high. Too high. For example, the article presents José Marcolini, a farmer that is offered by an environmental group $12 per acre per a year to keep it untouched, but at the same time can get for cleared farmland here up to $1,300 an acre.

2. How to avoid paying for tree plantations? as the article explains, "one proposed version of the new United Nations plan would allow plantations of trees, like palms grown for palm oil, to count as forest, even though tree plantations do not have nearly the carbon absorption potential of genuine forest and are far less diverse in plant and animal life." This is a situation that should be avoided - the programs should be solely focused on forests because of both environmental and monetary (limited resources) reasons.

3. Clearing away the trees is often the best way to declare and ensure ownership - the article mentions that "in parts of Southeast Asia, early experiments in paying landowners for preserving forest have been hampered because it is often unclear who owns, or controls, property."

4. Need to change - We have to remember that until not too long ago, developing the Amazon was the priority and the Brazilian government encouraged settlement through homesteaders’ benefits like cheap land and housing subsidies, many of which still exist today. It means that you need to change the state of mind, believes and values of the whole country to make real changes in the way the Amazon is considered and valued by the people.

As we see there are many issues to deal with and the success of such programs is still far from being a sure thing. But nevertheless for the first time there's money in forest preservation and this is going to be a game changer this way or another.


More related posts:

Will the new Climate Bill help protecting forests or become a source of income for timber companies?

How investors can save the forests? check out the Ethical Corporation Magazine

Al Gore and Wangari Maathai calls the U.N. General Assemby to support protection of forests

Merrill Lynch is investing in forest protection

How to deal with the growing deforestation in the Amazon rain forest?

Prince Charles wants to team up with Norway to save forests

Preserving forests to fight global warming

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting green printing

Pee in the shower! Save the Atlantic rainforest!

And how can anyone say No to such a funny ad?



This ad is part of a new campaign created by Brazilian environmental group SOS Mata Atlantica, using humor to persuade people to reduce flushes.

SOS Mata Atlantica is a Brazilian non-profit private organization, with no political or religious affiliations, which works for the protection of the Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlantica), one of the richest sets of ecosystems in terms of biodiversity, and also considered one of the most threatened with extinction on the planet.

The group says if a household avoids one flush a day, it can save up to 4,380 liters (1,157 gallons) of water annually. SOS spokeswoman Adriana Kfouri told AP that the ad is "a way to be playful about a serious subject."

This is definitely a great ad and I'm only wondering how much it can help the Mata Atlantica, but I guess any step, no matter how small it is, can be helpful!

The organization website in English - http://www.sosma.org.br/english.html

The campaign's website - http://www.xixinobanho.org.br/

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting green reading!

Mixed news about the Amazon Rainforest

We have both good and bad news about the Amazon Rainforest this week.

Let's start with the good news: The World Bank approved last Thursday $1.3 billion loan to help Brazil's environmental management and climate change efforts, with a focus on fighting deterioration of the Amazon rain forest and renewable energy sources.

The World Bank told Reuters that "the loan will support Brazil's ongoing efforts to improve its environmental management system and integrate sustainability concerns in the development agenda of key sectors such as forest management, water and renewable energy."

The loan is going to be disbursed in two parts: a first tranche of $800 million that will be provided immediately and a second tranche of $500 million upon fulfillment of the projects goals.

This loan is provided despite appeals of several Brazilian organizations and social networks to the World Bank to postpone the decision on the loan. Their argue was that prior loans have not adequately addressed environmental concerns and that this loan has the potential to continue this trend.

Well, I hope these groups are wrong, but at the same time I wish their concerns will be taken seriously as it seems the money is needed to be allocated in the best way possible given the other news about the implications of drought on the Amazon rain forest.

On the same day (last Thursday) a new study was published in the journal Science. This 30-year study, a global collaboration between more than 40 institutions, has found that the Amazon rain forest is surprisingly sensitive to drought and even a moderate drought can cause it to release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. You can read further details about this study about it on the Science Daily's report.

We'll keep following and reporting on the status of the Amazon Rainforest, hoping to have more and more good news and less and less bad news.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris
www.ecolibris.net

Will the new international fund save the Amazon?

Interesting news from Brazil (Thanks to Treehugger for the update): yesterday President Lula has launched in Rio De Janeiro an international fund to fight deforestation of the Amazon and support conservation and sustainable development.

The fund will seek donations worldwide with the goal of raising 21 billion dollars by 2021. There's also a cap for contributions in the first year - 1 billion dollars. The first contribution was already made last September by Norway that pledged to donate 100 million dollars.

Is this good news? in a way it is. Firstly, as reported by the BBC, Greenpeace in Brazil said that the country was accepting the link between global warming and preserving the forest for the first time. "For a long time, Brazil was violently opposed to this, insisting fossil fuel was to blame," said Sergio Leitao, director of public policies for Greenpeace Brazil. "That's true, historically speaking, but today forests play an important role." I think it's important as even it's only on a declarative level, it indicates that Brazil understands it can no longer play the denial game. This era is over.

Also, I hope there's going to be a good use for the money. According to Yahoo! news, the fund will promote alternatives to forest-clearing for people living in the Amazon and will finance conservation and durable development projects proposed by the environment ministry. The donations will be administered and projects monitored by a state bank, the National Economic and Social Development Banks (BNDES).

What's not so good about this initiative? well, we talked a couple of times in the past about the situation in the Amazon and about the need in a new economic model that will give living trees a value and will make it worthwhile to keep them alive. This initiative is definitely looking for the right amount of money, but the question is: is this the right way to do it? my reply: I doubt.

How can you base the effort to save the Amazon, the green heart of planet earth, on donations? what will they do if other countries won't be as generous as Norway? and my guess is that they won't be, especially when Brazil asks for the money, but don't give donors the opportunity to be part of the decision making process regarding the uses of the money.

This is an important point - Brazil is very concerned about interference with what it sees as internal affairs and wants to make sure the world will know that it will accept the money but not interference. "Donations are voluntary and donors have no say over the use of the resources," BNDES environment director Eduardo de Mello told reporters. Roberto Mangabeira Unger, the minister for strategic affairs, added that "the fund is a vehicle by which foreign governments can help support our initiatives without exerting any influence over our national policy."

At the same time, Brazil understands that it can no longer ignore worldwide concerns about the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, and it understands that it needs a lot of money to do something about it. The result is this fund, which is kind of compromise: We (the Brazilian government) admit there's a problem and will be willing to accept money to solve it, but it will be done the way we want to do it and there's nothing you can do about it.

I believe this compromise is not the worst solution, but it's definitely not the best one. You can't base it on donations and even if you agree that the Brazilians will have the final word about the use of the funds, I believe they must accept consultancy from other experts, and I also think there should be some measures of control to make sure the money is used properly.

I think the only way to do it right is by making the Amazon part of any post-Kyoto agreement that will be created, taking into consideration the urgent need for an action there, as well as the necessary funding and the issue of the Brazilian sovereignty.

One thing that encouraged me while reading on the new fund was the new Brazilian Environment Minister Carlos Minc, who was quoted in the BBC report saying: "We are committed to reducing the destruction of the rainforest, to eliminating illegal burning and to guaranteeing a better quality of life for all. "Our war is not won by simply reducing illegal burning in one month, it will be won once this environmental model that is destroying our communities and biodiversity is history." Amen!

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: plant a tree for every book you read!

Condoms will help to conserve trees in the Brazilian Rain Forest

Good news from Brazil - the Brazilian government inaugurated a condom factory that will help both poor Brazilian rubber tappers to make a living and to preserve the Amazon rain forest. Sounds like a win-win deal to me!

And it's getting even better - Associated Press reported (and thanks to Grist for the update) that "the plant in the northwestern town of Xapuri will produce 100 million condoms a year, which the government will distribute for free as part of its massive anti-AIDS program, Brazil's Health Ministry said in a statement."

According to the article, the latex for the condoms will be drawn from towering jungle trees in the sprawling Chico Mendes forest reserve by small time rubber tappers who protect their trees and thus the rain forest to ensure their livelihood.

The idea is very simple - to make it more worthwhile to conserve the trees than to cut them down by making the live trees a source of income. It is also very helpful that the income will be generated by locals (according to the Health Ministry the factory will benefit at least 500 families of rubber tappers and will provide about 150 jobs for the town of 15,000), who have now better incentive to protect the trees.

I believe that this step is connected to the Brazilian government's new measures to protect the Amazon rain forest, following the data on growing deforestation, which I reported on three months ago. In any case, I'm very happy to hear about this news and I hope to see more initiatives like this that will help both the rain forest and the local communities.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: plant a tree for every book you read!

How to deal with the growing deforestation in the Amazon rain forest?

Bad news from Brazil: The Brazilian Environment Ministry announced last Wednesday that as many as 2,700 square miles of Brazilian rain forest had been cleared from August through December, meaning that Brazil could lose 5,791 square miles of jungle by this August if the rate of deforestation continued.

This data is surprising as in the last three years there was a consistent decline in deforestation. The growing logging is probably spurred by high prices for corn, soy and cattle according to environmental officials in Brazil.

President Lula da Silva called an emergency meeting of cabinet ministers to discuss the new data. After the meeting new measures were announced including sending additional federal police and environmental agents to the Amazon. The Washington Post reports that the Environment Minister Marina Silva said that the authorities will also monitor the areas where the deforestation occurred in an attempt to prevent anyone from trying to plant crops or raise cattle there.

Reuters reported on other measures that will be taken:

1. The government will put on hold any new deforestation requests in 36 municipalities in an area that accounted for half of the forest destruction last year.

2. Landowners in the area will have to prove they maintain preservation areas, and could face penalties like being denied official credit if they fail to meet some requirements.

3. Companies like trading houses, soybean crushers and meat processors that buy commodities originating from destroyed areas of the forest will be considered responsible for deforestation.

I think that the plan is good, but I am not sure how well it can fight the economic incentives that drives the massive deforestation we see now. I think that another step to be taken is to give a counter-incentive to keep these trees alive. If local governments and municipalities will be paid to protect these trees, then they have an economic value as live trees. If this value will be high enough, then it will be worthwhile to keep them alive.

I think the measures should be based on the stick and the carrot both and not only rely on the stick. Give local communities the carrot and I promise you that you will see deforestation figures decrease again.

I also think it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the Brazilian government to take care of it. The Brazilian rain forest is called "the lungs of the world" for its ability to consume greenhouse gases and produce oxygen, and hence I believe the world (especially the developed countries) should chip in.

Just last week we reported on Norway's willingness to contribute about $500 million a year to projects aimed at protecting forests in developing countries. I think this kind of funding (and of course other countries should contribute as well) can make some good in Brazil and help Lula protect this precious natural resource. What do you think?

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: plant a tree for every book you read!

Brazilian hardwood floors. Can you say “slave labor?”

Our reader from Minneapolis, Kermit Johnson, replied to our blog-action-day post and alerted us to a very interesting article he wrote about hardwood floors, deforestation and slave labor. So go check it out and big thumbs up to all green conscious real estate people out there.

Yours,
Eylon @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: a great green gift for the holidays!