Rainforest treaty 'fatally flawed'
Climate summit loophole lets palm oil producers cull vital wilderness
GETTY IMAGES
Regenerated palm oil trees are seen growing on the site of destroyed tropical rainforest in Kuala Cenaku, Indonesia
A vital safeguard to protect the world's rainforests from being cut down has been dropped from a global deforestation treaty due to be signed at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
Under proposals due to be ratified at the summit, countries which cut down rainforests and convert them to plantations of trees such as oil palms would still be able to classify the result as forest and could receive millions of dollars meant for preserving them. An earlier version of the text ruled out such a conversion but has been deleted, and the EU delegation – headed by Britain – has blocked its reinsertion.
Environmentalists say plantations are in no way a substitute for the lost natural forest in terms of wildlife, water production or, crucially, as a store of the carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere when forests are destroyed and intensifies climate change.
Now they are calling on Britain to take a lead in restoring the anti-plantations safeguard at the final negotiating session in a week's time, saying that otherwise the agreement – which seeks to halve global deforestation rates by 2020 – will be fatally flawed.
"It is a priority for the safeguard to be reinserted, or otherwise we will have a situation where countries are paid for converting their natural forests into palm plantations," said Emily Brickell, the climate and forests officer for the Worldwide Find for Nature (WWF-UK).
"If this is not changed, the agreement will be part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it will allow things to carry on as they are now and we will continue to see the loss of natural rainforest," added Simon Counsell, the executive director of the Rainforest Foundation.
The key piece of text which was lost said that parties to the treaty "shall protect biological diversity, including safeguards against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations".
It was deleted in closed negotiations but some observers think it was done at the instigation of African rainforest countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Cameroon, while other states including Indonesia and Malaysia are believed to have supported it. Both are heavily involved in the oil palm industry, which is a major driver of deforestation because palm oil is used to make biofuels.
A move to reinsert the clause was blocked at the last talks in Bangkok by British officials, who feared that the gains of the week's negotiations (the text was reduced from 19 pages to nine) would be lost if the text were reopened. Green campaigners accept that this was a matter of procedure but think it will have been a disastrously bad call if officials do not move swiftly to replace the lost text at the final negotiations in Barcelona, beginning a week today.
"The EU has to make sure the wording goes back in," said Charlie Kronik, of Greenpeace. "It's absolutely essential, otherwise it leaves open the possibility of removing intact, high-value forests and replacing them with oil palms as party of the treaty."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "The UK is pushing hard for the strongest possible deal to stop deforestation and that includes wanting specific language in the UN text on the protection of natural forests."
The proposed forest pact, which could be one of the most positive outcomes of the Copenhagen summit, addresses the fact that deforestation, mostly in Central and South America, Africa and Asia, now produces nearly 20 per cent of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – more than from all the world's transport. Many policymakers consider that the key goal of limiting global warming to no more than C above the pre-industrial level will be unattainable unless the problem of deforestation emissions is tackled. The issue, which has become known in official jargon as Redd (reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries), now has a section to itself in the proposed Copenhagen accord.
Nearly 200 countries will meet in December to try to frame a new treaty that would put the world on a path towards cutting CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. Scientists say this is the very minimum that can be done to keep temperature rises below C, which is regarded as the threshold of climate change that presents a real threat to humans society. Last week, British government scientists said a potentially disastrous rise of 4C by 2060 was on the cards if emissions continued to rise at their present rate.
The Copenhagen accord, if signed, will replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol. A deal will depend on developing nations such as China and India cutting pollution because their growing economies will be responsible for 90 per cent of CO2 emissions growth in the future.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Do not visit this site or shop here.
They are engaged in IDENTITY THEFT AND HAVE TROJANS ON THEIR SITE DESIGNED TO STEAL FROM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT
Indy, please inform the police about these people and block them from your site
Trying to get them off their arses by yelling identity theft or trojans will have no effect at all. As long as they're getting their money, screw the level of service.
The Indie have replied once, a rather pathetic email about how they were doing their best to negotiate with LJ. The best thing they could do would be to drop this pretentious and incompetent company and go a moderated set-up such as that used by the Times, Telegraph or Grauniad.
Is the UK seriously suggesting that Brazil's 2 million hectares of monoculture eucalyptus is the equivalent of its forests with their 800 or so species of tree?
Biggest consumerUSA
Fattest people USA
Non compliany USA
Worlwide hunger ignored by USA
Help the planet eat a yank
Much as I lik em couldn't eat a whole one
Veggie option eat a republican
Sarah Palin munched before she can be in White House
Lovin it already
This planet is run by global corporations and money-lenders for the benefit fo global corporations and money lenders, and they are not going to let anythhing get in their way of tehir agenda of maximising profits and concentrating power in teh ahnds of fewer and fewer individuals. And they'd rather see the entire planet uninhabitable than change their ways. They certainly won't take any notice of petitions. Everything was decided months or years ago, and the 'negotiation' will simply be a staged circus to make it look as though there was disagreement that was resolved.
Clearly a monoculture is not a forest and more so when a forest was cut down for it.
This is absolutely typical of the pusillanimous West, which for decades has done absolutely nothing to stop the biggest cause of the rise in CO2 emissions, and the greatest environmental degradation in the world, namely deforestation in developing countries.
The West prefers instead to bash its own citizens over the head in a massive and utterly counter-productive tax raising scam.
The climate scam is just such an opportunity. Already, 7% of tax revenues are green taxes and we're promised much, much more. And yet, papers like the Independent keep spinning this nonsense that is so ill-researched, almost every article contains evidence of cobbling (such as the missing temperature figures above).
If you're truly interested in the environment, see the AGW scam as the social engineering it really is and start demanding that climate change resources are directed at real issues such as providing water, food and habitat management.
Unaccountable bureaucrats who either don't understand the issues or avoid them for reasons that benefit themselves
This just about sums it up - GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS.
Aside from all other considerations, including over population, the British public should get a firm grip on one vital, salient fact.
CARBON EMISSIONS HAVE LITTLE OR NO IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE.
The climate change "science" has been established by a political consensus.
But, there are many, many highly qualified groups throughout the world who have rigorously studied these matters, and show conclusively that co2 emissions at the very worst a minor driver in the so called climate change effect. Type Climate sceptics into your browser - and then have a really good read.
Sadly, the consensus grows by relentless Government propaganda, compounded by one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet - the UN. But let us be fully aware - science is NOT about consensus. It is about rigorous observation and a willingness to continue to doubt.
Flat earth? Earth centred Universe? Second Coming? All from the same stable of political consensus.
These anthropogenic climate-change denialists... they infest the Web because they have no credibility in the real world beyond their paranoid, scientifically illiterate little minds.
Read the science, not the propaganda.
Henri
Also, please look up the Swiss based Bruno Manser Fond at www. bmf.ch, to understand what the rainforest struggle is about: "During his lifetime, Bruno Manser, one of the founders of the Bruno Manser Fund and its president for many years, was the best-known Swiss activist campaigning for the protection of the rainforests and the respect for human rights. Between 1984 and 1990, he lived in Sarawak with the Penan, one of the world’s last nomadic peoples still inhabiting the primeval forests. Confronted with the rampant destruction of the rainforest by the timber industry, he helped the Penan to resist further intrusion by the loggers and became the international mouthpiece for the threatened people of the primeval forest. He disappeared without trace after his last journey to Sarawak in May 2000."
I wish they would concentrate on job-creation rather than concentrate on promoting tropical forest destruction.
The EU could atone in part for this almost criminal act by banning the importation of all hardwoods, they aren't needed in construction anymore and they certainly aren't needed for furniture.
Re: "CO2 is not the enemy" - OMG, where to start? does poster know more than the vast majority of relevant scientists put together? Whether taxing people to behave differently is any answer is a different question. I wish total taxes remain similar, but taken away from 'good' things like labour and onto 'bad' things that pollute.... In peace.
This afternoon I was watching howler monkeys in the trees of our garden -- they're there because there is enough rainforest for them to travel through on their constant search for food.
Costa Rica forms part of the 'lungs of the world'...
ALL the scientists know this and just how long do they have to tell governments this?
I'm 50 years old and I've been reading about this for at least half my life.
For goodness sake, how many conferences, treaty's, discussions, scientific papers and evidence do we have to have before what is blindingly obvious for the majority of the planet also becomes plain to these dense politicians?
When are we all allowed to become impatient with them and replace them with people who think about the future?
Zoe Courtier: www.geckoeslodge.com
Solving overconsumption should be key, partially fixing that problem will prevent many things like climate change and potential food and water shortages of the future. We are all part of the problem but we can all become the solution.