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

The Climate bill passed in the House last Friday. It might not be only a new era in fighting climate change, but also the first time when it is worthwhile to keep trees alive instead of cutting them down.

The Huffington Post reported last Friday that trees will be part of the credits scheme that is presented in the bill, and this time it means not only reforestation projects, but also protection of existing forestlands.

The article explains the mechanism:

"Say an acre of forestland sucks up two additional metric tons of carbon after a landowner plants more trees on his land or promises to rotate the way he cuts them down so more are standing at once. If the pollution market created by the legislation is currently trading at $20 a ton, then the landowner could stand to make $40 per acre if he qualifies for the program"

The legislation, according to the article. would also extend to international forests, promising to pay some countries that agree to slow their harvesting of trees abroad. We mentioned this idea in the past (see links below) and we're definitely in favor of giving economic incentives to preserve the forests and to make it worthwhile to keep them alive, avoid logging and prevent further deforestation.

This idea was discussed in the U.N.’s Bali meeting in December last year, and though it is not approved yet, there's a good chance it will be part of the post-Kyoto protocol that will be discussed in Copenhagen in December. It also enjoys the support of many international parties, such as Prince Charles, Norway, Al Gore and Wangari Maathai.

So we should be happy as forest protection finally becomes part of the carbon market, right? well, we are but it seems that the way it was integrated in the Bill is a little bit problematic..

Well, there are of course concerns about measurement, monitoring and making sure carbon capturing is actually taking place (especially outside the U.S.), but in all these concerns are no different really from the concerns you have with every other component in the "trade" part of the cap and trade scheme under the Bill. The more significant issue here might be who is eligible to take part in it in the first place.

The article on the Huffington Post mentions that owners of large swaths of forestland, such as timber companies and large farms can benefit from it. Frank O'Donnell of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch is quoted saying "In effect, the public is going to pay polluters to plant trees. Does that really lead to a major improvement in global warming? I don't know and I'm not sure anybody knows."

The fact that the Agriculture Department, which includes the U.S. Forest Service, will oversee the domestic program and develop regulations for verifying whether a forest owner's particular tract of land is actually capturing carbon, brings up questions like will they make tree farms eligible as well and how much will they will take sustainability into account?

If eventually we'll have timber companies being paid for having single-species tree farms that have replaced highly diverse forests (you can see that in the Southeast U.S. for example), then we're very far from what the idea of forests protection was meant to achieve in the first place.

So how it can be prevented? here is just one idea - how about limiting forest protection to highly-diverse forests and/or forests that have FSC certification. I believe that these kind of restrictions can provide a better chance that this measure of forests protection will truly help fighting climate change and not just become another way for land owners to make money without making any significant impact on the environment.

What do you think? I'll be happy to hear your thoughts about it so feel free to add your comments.

More related posts:

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

A new study: The destruction of forests costs much more than the financial crisis in Wall Street

Would you believe that annual loss from the disappearance of forests is greater than the current losses of Wall Street?

According to an EU commissioned study, the destruction of forests cost global economy $2-$5 trillion every year, whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion.

The BBC News reported (thanks to GreenLine Paper for the tip!) about this study, entitled "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (Teeb) and headed by Pavan Sukhdev, an economist of Deutsche Bank. According to the article, the first phase of the study concluded in May when the team released its finding that forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP.

So what is exactly this economic loss that results out of the destruction of forests? well, the principle is quite simple - as forests decline, nature stops providing services which it used to provide us essentially for free, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide. Then, the report explains, the human economy has to provide them instead, perhaps through building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide, and so on, or we have to do without them. Either way, there is a financial cost.

If you ask yourself how come the Wall Street crisis gets so much attention and of course an immediate remedy, whereas the forests are left behind, think of relevance to your daily life. I think that's the main issue here. Of course we need more regulation and economic steps to be taken to support conservation and make sure living trees will have greater value than trees that are cut down, but in the bottom line it's mainly about relevance.

People were persuaded that the Wall Street crisis is relevant for each and every one of them due to its overall influence on the economy. But most people don't find the forests' crisis relevant to their daily life, and therefore it doesn't really matter what the price tag attached to this crisis is. And if it won't matter to people, governments and businesses (but especially governments) will find it much more difficult to act in the right direction.

How you make the forests' desctruction more personally relevant for people? I wish I had the right answer. My belief is that it is a combination of more education, more political awareness, more business action and more media attention. As you see there's a lot to be done but we need to stay optimistic and believe in our ability to achieve this goal even in time of financial difficulties.

At least Mr. Sukhdev, the study leader succeed to see the full half of the glass. "governments and businesses" he says, "are getting the point." And he further expalins: "times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes would glaze over. Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how do you calculate this, how can we monetize it, what can we do about it, why don't you speak with so and so politician or such and such business."

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

More posts relevant to this issue:

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

Will the new international fund save the Amazon?

Green Options 2: The Nature Conservancy: 320,000 Acres of Forest Protected in Landmark Deal

Merrill Lynch is investing in forest protection


* Picture Courtesy of Sustainable Harvest international

Wal-Mart joins WWF's initiative to eliminate illegal logging

Forests need strong allies to win their survival battles. This week it seems they have a new powerful friend that might help. His name is Wal-Mart.

Environmental Leader reports that the world's largest retailer has become a member of the Global Forest & Trade Network (GTFN), a WWF initiative to eliminate illegal logging and improve the management of valuable and threatened forests. By becoming a member, Wal-Mart pledges to help save endangered forests by using more wood from sustainable and certified sources.

WWF published a press release about the new member of GTFN this Monday, reporting that by joining the GFTN, Wal-Mart has committed to phasing out illegal and unwanted wood sources from its supply chain and increasing its proportion of wood products originating from credibly certified sources – for Wal-Mart stores and Sam’s Clubs in the United States.

“With nearly half of the world’s forests already gone, action is urgently needed,” Suzanne Apple, WWF’s VP for Business & Industry says in the news release. “Wal-Mart’s commitment to support responsible forestry answers that call to action. WWF welcomes the company to a global community committed to healthy business and healthy forests.”

I couldn't agree more with her. Although Wal-Mart have a lot of work to do on their end to become more environmental and social friendly, this step is definitely the right one in this direction.

In any case, if you're a forest, you want Wal-Mart on your side. With more than 176 million customers weekly in 14 markets, Wal-Mart have the power to make a difference in an extent that only few other retailers have.

So what's going to happen? according to the WWF news release, within one year, Wal-Mart will complete an assessment of where its wood furniture is coming from and whether the wood is legal and well-managed. Once the assessment is completed, Wal-Mart has committed to eliminating wood from illegal and unknown sources within five years. The company will also eliminate wood from forests that are of critical importance due to their environmental, socio-economic, biodiversity or landscape values and that aren’t well-managed.

Again, Kudos to Wal-Mart on this step and I hope to see many other retailers and companies follow suit and join this initiative.

Yours,

Raz @ Eco-Libris

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

Norway presents: green vision and inspiring goals

Today I would like to praise Norway. Not only that it announced last week on a bold target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030, but it also becomes one of the biggest supporters of forests' protection.

The Norwegian government announced last Thursday on a new target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030, 20 years earlier than previously planned.

How will Norway get there? well, according to their plans, up to two-thirds of the emissions cuts will be made domestically and the other third will be offset by investing around 3 billion crowns ($553.1 million) per year to combat deforestation in developing countries (carbon credits).

I wrote here before about Norway's support of protecting forests as a tool to fight global warming. Norway announced its willingness to contribute about $500 million a year to projects aimed at protecting forests in developing countries at the U.N. climate conference last month In Bali. In this conference, as ENN reminds us, it was agreed to launch pilot projects to grant poor countries credits for slowing deforestation under a new long-term climate pact beyond 2012.

Now Norway is reinforcing its commitment - according to ENN, Norway's prime minister on Friday, a day after Norway set the new goal that "protecting forests and burying greenhouse gases are key ways of slowing world climate change."

So, I think Norway deserves kudos for three reasons:

1. Becoming carbon neutral by 2030 is a bold move and it's great to see a country that has the guts to do it and become a role model to all the other countries, especially the developed ones.

2. It's important that most of the CO2 reductions are based on cutting the total emissions by two-thirds domestically and only one third is based on carbon credits. This is a good balance that shows a real commitment to take steps and change what needs to be changed (although it's still very vague how these cuts will be made).

3. I'm happy to see that the carbon credits will be focused on protecting forests in developing countries. Deforestation accounts for about 20 percent of total greenhouse gases, and I think that protection of forests can definitely become an efficient and valuable tool in the fight against global warming. And not tom mention all the other environmental and social benefits that these forests have. It's good that these forests has a powerful reach ally such as Norway - they need it!

I hope to see many countries follow Norway. It's not only their future. It's our future.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

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

Preserving forests to fight global warming

Interesting news from Bali, Indonesia. The World Bank launched plans for a US$300 million fund to fend off global warming by preserving forests in developing countries.

The logic is very simple explained Stephanie Meeks, acting CEO and President of The Nature Conservancy: " We’ll never solve the climate challenge unless we address the loss of tropical forests, which puts out as much carbon dioxide as all the planes, trains and cars worldwide".

So the idea is to give economic incentives to preserve the forests and to make it worthwhile to keep them alive, avoid logging and prevent further .

According to the Reuters report, a US$100 million readiness fund will provide grants to around 20 countries to prepare them for large-scale forest protection under a future climate change deal, also known as reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in developing countries.

This first funding stage will be used for surveys of current forest assets in developing countries, monitoring systems and tightening governance. A second stage of funding of US$200 million carbon finance mechanism will allow some of these countries to run pilot programmes earning credits for curbing deforestation. The credits will belong to the countries or groups that put up the cash for the fund.

The World Bank announced that of the US$300 million, they already have US$160 million pledged from seven developed countries.

The World Bank forest and climate change official Benoit Bosquet told Reuters that "the projects could include anything from straight forward reforestation and better zoning of agricultural and forest lands, to paying people for environmental services or improving management of forest areas".

Another contributor to the effort is The Nature Conservancy that has pledged $5 million towards a Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), an innovative new initiative launched by the World Bank as a part of the REDD efforts.

The emissions that will be saved will also have direct economic value - right now, under the Kyoto Protocol, emissions cuts from forest areas are not yet eligible for formal credits, but they may be sold on voluntary markets. After 2012 they might be eligible for formal credits.

There are some concerns - environmental groups say they are worried deals to prioritize the carbon-retaining value of forests might exclude some of the people who have most at stake - indigenous people that live in these areas. I hope these concerns will be addressed by making sure that the people live in these areas will be part of the decision-making process, so that their concerns will be heard and taken into account.

All in all, I believe it's a good plan. We have to give a value to keeping forests alive. In a perfect world it would be obvious, but we're not living in a perfect world and hence we need to make sure everyone will know that keeping forests alive is more profitable than logging.

Yours,

Raz @ Eco-Libris

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

Picture is courtesy of Sustainable Harvest international

Paying developing countries to protect their forests - Blog Action Day

Greetings for all the blogs that are participating today in the Blog Action Day! This is a very important day and I hope it will generate a powerful green voice that will help us all move in the right direction. I would like to contribute to this day a post on very good news I read during the weekend on Planet Ark. They published a story from Reuters on a new fund initiated by the World Bank that is aimed to pay developing countries for protecting and replanting their forests.

The idea is very simple - paying developing countries money for protecting their forests will give them an economic incentive to preserve them and fight deforestation. If you make conservation more worthwhile than logging to the governments and the local communities in these areas, it should keep these precious trees alive. Less deforestation = les greenhouse gas emissions.

The logic is also very clear - deforestation contributes 20% of total greenhouse gas emissions, which is, as they remind in the article, more than all the world's cars, trucks, trains and airplanes together! And as the world bank sees it - less deforestation = less greenhouse gas emissions.

The development of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), as the new fund is called will depends on the global agreement that will take effect after Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012. In the meantime, the article reports that there will be some testing of the concept in 3-5 countries to check how well it works in real life.

I think that all in all it's a good idea and with no economic value to the forests, it will be very difficult to save them from logging. It's also important to make sure that this funding will be spent wisely and that the governments will collaborate and share it with local communities that live in these areas. Their participation and support is critical to the success of this mechanism.

In any case, we still have to remember that this is only a temporary solution. A sustainable solution will have to include also the demand side and ensure that consumers in the developed world will consume alternatives for logging products. For example, recycled paper instead of virgin paper. Only then, when demand will fall, we'll be able to secure the future of the forests and the future of this planet.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

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