Climate Change

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Rainforest treaty 'fatally flawed'

Climate summit loophole lets palm oil producers cull vital wilderness

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

Regenerated palm oil trees are seen growing on the site of destroyed tropical rainforest in Kuala Cenaku, Indonesia

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

(no subject) - [info] - Monday, 26 October 2009 at 12:20 am (UTC)
Re: fyukithktgyhjk FRAUDSTERS
[info]prof_use wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 09:06 am (UTC)
SPAM SCUM

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
Re: fyukithktgyhjk FRAUDSTERS
[info]oomigoolies wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC)
LiveJournal simply outdo Pontius Pilate whenever I complain (and I do) about these spam artists. They don't even bother to reply, let alone set up the alphanumeric verification all worthwhile and reputable sites do when posting messages.

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.
(no subject) - [info] - Monday, 26 October 2009 at 12:21 am (UTC)
(no subject) - [info]hugogg - Monday, 26 October 2009 at 06:30 am (UTC)
Re: sgfsdghdshdf
[info]nightside242 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 12:27 pm (UTC)
Calm down, it's most likely a bot.
Monoculture is not forest
[info]sebmel wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 12:44 am (UTC)
Brazil is rapidly being covered by cloned eucalyptus trees with demand that ants are eradicated and use up groundwater.

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?
Plus ca change mes toujours la meme shoes
[info]gorazdi wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 02:41 am (UTC)
Biggest poluter USA
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
Re: Plus ca change mes toujours la meme shoes
[info]tonygfd wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:00 pm (UTC)
awesome, another poem pleae\se
Where is it possible to send a protest petition
[info]mark71 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 03:12 am (UTC)
This is a crucial article of REDD that if left out would totally undermine the entire scheme.
Re: Where is it possible to send a protest petition
[info]hugogg wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 06:39 am (UTC)
Petitions don't work. They never have. We look back at the past and think those people were dumb... like the Romans, the Germans in the 30's. No, they were civilized... they believed that petitions and legal forms of protest could make a difference. Hopefully we won't have to rely on humans ... they always let you down. The Armagedon scenario is the only decisive thing that can happen. It might happen on an astronomical level. Look at Obama. I was just as relieved as anyone else... but look. Another puppet. How dumb to think they could have left it to chance... to "the people's will". Another step, another piece of evidence about our inability to do what's right, rather than what looks smart FOR ME. We play that game, they play theirs. They are organized, we're not.
Re: Where is it possible to send a protest petition
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:42 am (UTC)
The whole scheme is just a scam to make it look as though something is being done to prevent plantary meltdown, when in practice nothing is being done. Just like Kyoto; sign up to meaningless cuts, then fail to adhere to the agrement.

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.

Is there a way to petition this
[info]mark71 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 03:54 am (UTC)
Where can one send a letter of disaproval to?

Clearly a monoculture is not a forest and more so when a forest was cut down for it.
Re: Is there a way to petition this
[info]andre_t wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 06:03 am (UTC)
Im in
Pusillanimous West
[info]jaded63 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 04:16 am (UTC)

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.
Re: Pusillanimous West
[info]hugogg wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 06:43 am (UTC)
I never thought I would find myself saying this but... don't worry. The Earth knows how to handle itself. Worry about your own survival... in the next few years. They have planned ahead... have you?
Re: Pusillanimous West
[info]had_it wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 09:07 am (UTC)
Cameroon & Congo, Indonesia and Malaysia> Explain to me again how this is the West?
Arggh!
[info]gloriapower wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 07:28 am (UTC)
This is another example why I am not a people person.
Only one answer
[info]oznomad wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 07:49 am (UTC)
Gross stupidity like this is mind boggling, but when the mind stops boggling it comes to the only possible conclusion available to it. Grotesque, systemic, endemic CORRUPTION!
CO2 is not the enemy
[info]john_levett wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
Now you see the truth. Our governments are not interested in the environment: they are only interested in creating business opportunties for their corporate friends.

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.
Useless committee members, again
[info]prof_use wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 09:15 am (UTC)
Just been to Indonesia where the forest is being chopped down at an incredible rate. Corruption enables this to continue. Effectively destroying a treaty really does not help the sitation but it allows lying pretentious governments to claim they are doing green things. All they are doing is getting paid with our money to accomplish very little.

Unaccountable bureaucrats who either don't understand the issues or avoid them for reasons that benefit themselves
Climate change
[info]tedthedog wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
"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."

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.
Re: Climate change
[info]justwent wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:08 am (UTC)
GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS - No wonder, just look what happens if you disagree. I seem to recall a scientist that looked at weapons!
Re: Climate change
[info]arcane_af wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC)
Type in "Evolution Sceptics" and you'll get millions of hits too.

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.
Re: Climate change
[info]tedthedog wrote:
Tuesday, 27 October 2009 at 10:50 am (UTC)
Sadly the word 'denialist' (is it a word at all?) gives you away. And then you give further ground by use of the words infest, paranoid, and illiterate.

Read the science, not the propaganda.
The planet will survive ;
[info]mhenriday wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:44 am (UTC)
will we (H sapiens sapiens) ?...

Henri
I am so disappointed with such unacceptable deceit by the EU!
[info]nooraza wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC)
Sickening hypocrisy this is! PETITION against such hypocrisy and destruction can be found at : http://www.rainforestsos.org/

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."

PETITION against such hypocrisy and destruction can be found at : http://www.rainforestsos.org/
[info]nooraza wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC)
Prince Charles is spot on!
Reaping what you sow.
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 12:02 pm (UTC)
I have no sympathy for protesting environmentalists. Middle class, white westerners have no right to determine how those in third world should handle their natural resources. African countries should be lauded for playing the environmental card in obtaining international funds to sustain important industries. Every $ they earn keeps poverty at bay.
(no subject) - [info]nooraza - Monday, 26 October 2009 at 04:32 pm (UTC) Expand
Don't give up your day job.
[info]muckle10 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 04:46 pm (UTC)
When western countries can speak from the perspective of third world countries, over 50% poverty, poor infrastructure, lack of security, a $1 a day subsistence life-styles then, and only then, can they make statements on how others should lead their lives. Every person taken out of poverty, every person housed, every person given a decent earning job, every person educated and cared for is what the world should be aiming for. Everything else is just crap including caring for the environment. You cannot take care of this world if you don't first take care of the people. If that is Islamist then that makes me as an unbeliever a Muslim.
Excuse me muckle10, the natural environment is also important!
[info]nooraza wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 05:02 pm (UTC)
You don't understand the difference between an ordinary Muslims and Islamists, where Islamists are usually Dark Age fascsists, who politicize Islam for self-maniacal power? The natural world belongs to selfish people like you is it - to destroy at will? Besides, many traditional communities who are dependent on natural environment such as the forest, do not define themselves as poor if they still have that natural environment, which provide so many resoures, whether it's for food or housing but also the much needed spiritual needs, in a selfish and cruel materialistic and violent world. Which you seems to be lost at!
The EU has a hand in this
[info]tobyandtoby wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 01:57 pm (UTC)
Given that the EU now stipulates that 5% of each EU-sold litre of fuel must be bio-fuel the EU is in part to blame.
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.
Ameeen & OMG
[info]globalnomad73 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 02:42 pm (UTC)
Re: "Monoculture is not forest" - Ameeen!
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.
The treaty will be useless
[info]a_llusive wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 03:39 pm (UTC)
If rainforest diversity, which protects soil fertility and sequesters far more carbon, is not protected the treaty will be laughable, if not counterproductive. If the UK does not act to restore the phrasing which protects rainforests, or provide similar safeguards, I will feel very ashamed of my nation.
Fatally Flawed
[info]lheathrow wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 04:39 pm (UTC)
They are forests
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 06:30 pm (UTC)
"... countries which cut down rainforests and convert them to plantations of trees such as oil palms..." Well, they are still forests. Monoculture forests of oil palms, but forests. I am on the side of the poor here.
Rainforest Treaty
[info]zoegeckoeslodge wrote:
Tuesday, 27 October 2009 at 03:32 am (UTC)
I live in the Costa Rican rainforest on the Caribbean coast.
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
Bio-fuels and natural forest destruction
[info]sandn09 wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 06:38 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately the Brussels boffins and bureaucrats seem to Know little science on the one hand and no common sense on the other. What happens when you cut down tropical (or any) forest is that the locked-up carbon tends to be oxidised to CO2. So you have a CO2 input to which you add the CO2 produced by the machines that break up the soil and prepare the land, then inputs of artificial nitrogen fertilisers that cause more CO2 release in their production. Then you have the planting of a crop with more CO2 production, the crop is sprayed with Herbicides....... especially glyphosate if the plants are GMOs with more CO2 production, add other pesticides with yet more CO2 production (and of course lots of toxic substances added to the land and eventually to the ground-water). Then cut the crop with more CO2 production and thresh it with more CO2 production. Transport it to an " industrialised"country and thus release more CO2. Prepare (with more CO2 production) the bio-fuels and burn them and if You are a Bruxellian Bureaucrat think you are producing less CO2 than if you just burnt PETROL!
Britain Shoots Self in the Foot on the Forest Treaty
[info]bazirah wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 02:44 pm (UTC)
If indeed Britain was and is at the forefront of campaigning for the possibility of replacing pristine natural forest estates with plantations, then tax payers money that is being committed by Britain to curb climate change is going to the waste. It does not make sense for Britain to finance many dialogues, meetings, forums, conferences, etc around the world on climate change, only to renegade on the decisions their funds have paid to reach. If indeed Britain is committed to addressing climate change, safeguarding biodiversity in the world, reducing emissions from deforestation, she should support the reinstating of the clauses the prevent conversion of natural forest estates into plantations in the forest treaty ahead and during COP15.
Overconsumption
[info]gates23 wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 03:25 pm (UTC)
It's just another problem that ignorant overconsumption from the west is causing. I say ignorant, because we are all ignorant if we think that we can continue consuming the worlds resources at our current rate forever. The worlds resources need to managed properly, sensibly before its too late.

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.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date