Category Archives: UN

by | 2011-09-21 · 11:20

Environmental Groups Denounce Diversion of Forest Funding to REDD Plantations

For Immediate Release

September 21, 2011                                        (Español debajo)

 

September 21st, 2011 – On the World Day against Monoculture Tree Plantations [1], a coalition of environmental groups and Indigenous peoples organizations [2] has launched a call to the international donor community to halt the diversion of forest conservation funding to dubious schemes to “Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and enhance forest carbon stocks” (REDD+), which are being promoted within the framework of the United Nations Climate Convention.

The groups charge that climate policy makers are working with a flawed definition of “forests” that includes monocultures, genetically engineered trees and agrofuel plantations.

“This erroneous definition allows REDD+ funding to finance the expansion of monoculture tree plantations, which are implicated in serious environmental and social impacts and human rights violations all over the world,” said Winnie Overbeek, coordinator of the World Rainforest Movement.

More than five hundred scientists have called on the UN Food and Agricultural Organization to review the definition of forest [3], so that a clear distinction can be made between biologically diverse forest ecosystems, which provide a broad range of values and products for humanity, and monoculture tree plantations.

Also on the World Day against Monoculture Tree Plantations, the World Future Council will hold a ceremony in New York to hand an award to the most inspiring, innovative, and influential forest policy [4]. Simone Lovera, Executive Director of Global Forest Coalition, and one of the jury members of this year’s award, points out: “It is important to note that the six countries nominated, The Gambia, Rwanda, United States, Bhutan, Nepal, and Switzerland, have developed their successful forest policies without any REDD+ support” [5].

“Most of these successes are based on a combination of political will and the recognition of the rights of local communities and their valuable role in conserving and restoring forests,” Lovera said. “Forest donors should support initiatives and policies that ensure rights-based, socially just forest conservation rather than diverting their funding to risky REDD+ experiments that promote tree monocultures and human rights violations.”

Tom Goldtooth, director of Indigenous Environmental Network adds: “All over the world, monoculture tree plantations and other REDD+ projects are triggering conflicts with Indigenous Peoples and local communities and environmental devastation. Meanwhile, support is lacking for socially just and successful policies that support real community forest conservation.”

Many REDD+ donors speculate that their projects will soon be financed through mandatory carbon offset markets, which they expect will bring significant additional investment. However, carbon offset markets are collapsing due to fears that countries will fail to reach an agreement on legally binding emission cuts beyond 2012.

“Without global caps, there will be no global trade,” says Tamra Gilbertson of Carbontradewatch. “The European Emissions Trading Scheme – the world’s primary carbon exchange – excludes REDD+ due to well-founded concerns that forest carbon offsets undermine real efforts to reduce emissions. REDD+ funding has proven to be highly volatile, inequitable and uncertain. In order to both combat climate change and to value forests in their own right, forest conservation policies need reliable, stable and equitable support – not disingenuous and patently false solutions like REDD+.”

For further information, contact:

Winnie Overbeek, Coordinator, World Rainforest Movement, +598 2 413 2989

Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network, + 1 218 760 0442

Simone Lovera, Executive Director, Global Forest Coalition, + 595 21 663654

Tamra Gilbertson, Coordinator, Carbontrade Watch, + 34 625 498083

Jeff Conant, Communications Director, Global Justice Ecology Project, +1 510 698 3802

Notes:

[1] See http://www.wrm.org.uy

[2] The No REDD Platform is a loose network of researchers, activists, organizations and movements that work together by sharing information, organizing collective strategies and supporting each other. By connecting with global justice movements committed to climate, environmental and social justice the No REDD Platform aims to expose the injustices inherent in REDD+ projects globally. See  http://noredd.makenoise.org

[3] http://www.wrm.org.uy/forests/letter_to_the_FAO.html

[4] See http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/4398.html

[5] Please note that of these countries, Nepal is the only country that currently receives significant amounts of REDD+ support, but its successful policy on supporting community-based forest management was developed long before the first REDD+ support started to arrive.

Para Publicación Inmediata

Septiembre 21, 2011

Grupos Ambientalistas Denuncian la Desviación de Fondos Destinados a los Bosques hacia Plantaciones REDD

21 Septiembre, 2011 – En el Día Mundial de Lucha Contra los Monocultivos de Arboles [1], una coalición de grupos ambientalistas y organizaciones de Pueblos Indígenas [2] ha lanzado un comunicado a la comunidad donante internacional para detener la desviación de fondos para la conservación de los bosques hacia esquemas dudosos para “Reducir Emisiones de Deforestación y Degradación de Bosques y fortalecer las reservas de carbono” (REDD+) las cuales se están promoviendo dentro de la Convención Marco de la ONU sobre el Cambio Climático.

Los grupos claman que los responsables de las políticas de cambio climático están trabajando en base a una definición de “bosques” defectuosa que incluye a los monocultivos, los árboles Genéticamente Modificados, y las plantaciones de agrocombustibles.

“Esta definición errónea permite que los fondos REDD+ financien la expansión de monocultivos de árboles los cuales están involucrados con serios impactos ambientales y sociales y violaciones a los derechos humanos alrededor del mundo”, según Winnie Overbeek del Movimiento Mundial por los Bosques tropicales.

Más de quinientos científicos han hecho un llamado a la Organización de la ONU para la Agricultura y la Alimentación para revisar la definición de bosques [3], y así se pueda hacer una clara distinción entre ecosistemas de bosque biológicamente diversos que proporcionan un amplio rango de valores y productos para la humanidad, y los monocultivos y/o plantaciones de árboles.

También durante el Día Mundial de Lucha Contra los Monocultivos de Arboles, el Consejo del Futuro Mundial realizará una ceremonia en Nueva York para entregar un premio a la política forestal más inspiradora, innovadora, e influyente [4]. Simone Lovera, Directora Ejecutiva de la Coalición Mundial por los Bosques, y una de los miembros del jurado de este año señala que: “Es importante notar que los seis países nominados, Gambia, Ruanda, Estados Unidos, Bután, Nepal y Suiza, han desarrollado sus exitosas políticas forestales sin ningún apoyo de REDD+” [5].

“La mayoría de estos éxitos se basan en una combinación de voluntad política y el reconocimiento de los derechos de las comunidades locales y su valioso rol en la conservación y restauración de bosques,” dijo Lovera. “Los donantes de bosques deberían premiar los esfuerzos de estos países en vez de desviar sus fondos hacia experimentos riesgosos de REDD+ que promueven los monocultivos de árboles y las violaciones a los derechos humanos”.

Tom Goldtooth, Director de la Red Indígena Ambiental añade: “Alrededor del mundo, los monocultivos de árboles y otros proyectos REDD+ están disparando los conflictos con Pueblos Indígenas y comunidades locales, y la devastación ambiental. Entre tanto, el apoyo para políticas exitosas y socialmente justas que apoyen la verdadera conservación forestal comunitaria disminuye”.

Muchos donantes de REDD+ especulan que sus proyectos pronto se financiarán por medio de mercados obligatorios de compensación de carbono, de donde ellos esperan recibir importantes inversiones adicionales. Sin embargo, los mercados de compensación de carbono están colapsando debido a los temores que se tienen de que los países no lograrán llegar a un acuerdo respecto a la reducción de emisiones legalmente vinculantes más allá del 2012.

“Sin límites globales, no habrá comercio global”, dice Tamra Gilbertson de Carbontradewatch. “El Régimen Europeo de Comercio de Emisiones –  el principal en intercambio de créditos carbono mundialmente – excluye REDD+ debido a preocupaciones bien fundamentadas en que las compensaciones de carbono forestal socavan los esfuerzos reales para reducir las emisiones. Los fondos de REDD+ han demostrado ser altamente volátiles, desequilibrados e inciertos. Para poder tanto combatir el cambio climático como valorar a los bosques en su derecho propio, las políticas de conservación de bosques necesitan un apoyo confiable, estable y equitativo – no deshonesto con soluciones claramente falsas como REDD+.”

Para mayor información contactar con:

Winnie Overbeek, Coordinadora, World Rainforest Movement, +598 2 413 2989

Tom Goldtooth, Director Ejecutivo, Indigenous Environmental Network, + 1 218 760 0442

Simone Lovera, Directora Ejecutiva, Global Forest Coalition, + 595 21 663654

Tamra Gilbertson, Coordinadora, Carbontrade Watch, + 34 625 498083

Jeff Conant, Director de Comunicaciones, Global Justice Ecology Project, +1 510 698 3802

Notas:

[1] Ver http://www.wrm.org.uy

[2] La Plataforma No-REDD es una red de investigadores, activistas, organizaciones y movimientos que trabajan conjuntamente compartiendo información, organizando estrategias colectivas y apoyándose mutuamente. Al conectarse con movimientos de justicia social comprometidos con el cambio climático, la justicia social y ambiental, la Plataforma NO REDD busca exponer las injusticias inherentes de los proyectos REDD+ a nivel global. Ver http://noredd.makenoise.org

[3] http://www.wrm.org.uy/forests/letter_to_the_FAO.html

[4] Ver http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/4398.html

[5] Por favor note que de estos países, Nepal es el único que aún recibe cantidades importantes de apoyo para REDD+, pero su política exitosa que apoya el manejo comunitario de bosques fue desarrollada mucho antes de que el primer apoyo a REDD+ empezara a llegar.

Comments Off on Environmental Groups Denounce Diversion of Forest Funding to REDD Plantations

Filed under Climate Change, False Solutions to Climate Change, Indigenous Peoples, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 2011-09-03 · 12:03

Indigenous Peoples Arrested In Front Of White House To Protest Keystone XL Pipeline (short video)

Washington DC- American Indian and Canadian Native leaders were arrested  September 2, 2011, in front of the White House as they refused to move under orders from the police. Representatives of Native governments and Native organizations from the United States and Canada traveled long distances to join thousands of people that have come to Washington DC during the past two weeks to tell US President Barack Obama not to issue a permit for the construction of a controversial 1,900 mile oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

The Indigenous Call: Take Back Our Future

More on yesterday:  First Nations and American Indian Leaders Arrested In Front Of White House To Protest Keystone XL Pipeline

Comments Off on Indigenous Peoples Arrested In Front Of White House To Protest Keystone XL Pipeline (short video)

Filed under Actions / Protest, Climate Change, Energy, Indigenous Peoples, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 2011-09-01 · 12:40

Climate Challenge Media With GJEP’s Anne Petermann on GE Trees

A half hour interview on the dangers of genetically engineered trees and their relation to climate mitigation schemes.  With Climate Challenge host, Karen Strickler:

http://www.vimeo.com/28334491

(click on the link above–we were not able to embed the video in this blog post)

Comments Off on Climate Challenge Media With GJEP’s Anne Petermann on GE Trees

Filed under Biodiversity, Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, Energy, False Solutions to Climate Change, Food Sovereignty, GE Trees, Genetic Engineering, Posts from Anne Petermann, REDD, UNFCCC

Tagged as , ,

by | 2011-08-29 · 14:00

REDD-Monitor open thread: Capitalism, climate change and carbon trading

By Chris Lang, 28th August 2011

REDD-Monitor open thread

In this open thread are six links covering two themes, followed by a seventh as a postscript. First, the global economy is in serious trouble. Second, runaway climate change seems to be getting ever nearer. While neither of these are strictly REDD issues, I think they are both relevant to REDD (for reasons that I hope I don’t have to spell out).

Capitalism

1. Nouriel Roubini, “Is Capitalism Doomed?”, Project Syndicate, 15 August 2011.

Nouriel Roubini is Professor of Economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business and is known as “Dr. Doom”. He is one of the few economists that predicted the financial crisis of 2007-2008. In his book “Crisis Economics”, Roubini and his co-author Stephen Mihm argue that the meltdown was not a black swan, or an unpredictable exception, but an inherent part of capitalism.

Here’s what he writes in a recent piece on the Project Syndicate website:

Now a combination of high oil and commodity prices, turmoil in the Middle East, Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, eurozone debt crises, and America’s fiscal problems (and now its rating downgrade) have led to a massive increase in risk aversion. Economically, the United States, the eurozone, the United Kingdom, and Japan are all idling. Even fast-growing emerging markets (China, emerging Asia, and Latin America), and export-oriented economies that rely on these markets (Germany and resource-rich Australia), are experiencing sharp slowdowns.

2. Carlo Rotella, “Can Jeremy Grantham profit from ecological mayhem?”, New York Times, 11 August 2011.

Every three months, Jeremy Grantham of investment firm GMO puts out a quarterly letter. April’s letter was titled, “Time to Wake Up: Days of Abundant Resources and Falling Prices Are Over Forever”. This, according to the New York Times is the gist:

“The prices of all important commodities except oil declined for 100 years until 2002, by an average of 70 percent. From 2002 until now, this entire decline was erased by a bigger price surge than occurred during World War II. Statistically, most commodities are now so far away from their former downward trend that it makes it very probable that the old trend has changed — that there is in fact a Paradigm Shift — perhaps the most important economic event since the Industrial Revolution.”

Grantham is, as the New York Times puts it, “the public face of a company that manages more than $100 billion in assets, the very embodiment of a high-finance insider in blue blazer and yellow tie”, but he “has serious doubts about capitalism’s ability to address the biggest problems facing humanity”.

He describes himself as an environmentalist. The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment supports the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Wildlife Fund and “other such organizations”. So that’s all right, then.

“We’re all involved in environmental causes,” Grantham said of his family. “We can’t recall some single moment of conversion. We found our separate ways to it.” His wife, Hanne, sits on the board of the E.D.F. [Environmental Defense Fund] One son, Oliver, buys forests for Harvard Management Company; another, Rupert, manages forests in Massachusetts; his daughter, Isabel, helps run an E.D.F. program that recruits summer interns from top business schools to improve companies’ energy efficiency.

3. A Visualization of United States Debt

What the US debt looks like as piles of US$100 bills:

The debt currently stands at US$14,654,237,323,627 – but by the time you click on the link, it will be somewhat higher.

To read the rest of the post, please got to REDD-Monitor

Comments Off on REDD-Monitor open thread: Capitalism, climate change and carbon trading

Filed under Carbon Trading, Corporate Globalization, False Solutions to Climate Change, REDD, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , ,

by | 2011-08-19 · 13:30

Report Released on Dangers of Biofuels and Synthetic Biology

From the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) | www.field.org.uk

FIELD has prepared a new briefing paper on next generation biofuels and synthetic biology.

The paper explores how synthetic biology is being used to create next generation biofuels, their potential risks and harms, and the need for clear thinking on domestic and international regulationFIELD has prepared a new briefing paper on next generation biofuels and synthetic biology.

To download the 5 page paper, click here

Note: while the paper is quite clear on the devastating impacts that have been documented from so-called “first generation” crop-based agrofuels, they do not adequately explain the threats from second generation “ligno-cellulosic” agrofuels–many of which are the same as those associated with first generation agrofuels: competition with food crops for land, deforestation to make room for agrofuel feedstocks (and all the emissions that result from this land use change), and of course the threats from trees genetically engineered to make better fuel.

For more on these threats from second generation agrofuels, download our booklet “From Meals to Wheels,” or our report “Wood-based Energy: The Green Lie

–The GJEP Team

Comments Off on Report Released on Dangers of Biofuels and Synthetic Biology

Filed under Bioenergy / Agrofuels, Climate Change, False Solutions to Climate Change, GE Trees, Synthetic Biology, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 2011-08-11 · 11:41

Forest Cover: The Official Newsletter of Global Forest Coalition

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE (Download the 10 Page PDF by clicking here)

From standing trees to boiled, bleached pulp in one day. Photo: Petermann/GJEP-GFC

Rio+20 must Recognize the Role of Civil Society

by Fiu Mataese Elisara/ Chair of the Board, Global Forest Coalition

REDD and the Feeling of Standing Barefoot in a Peatswamp By Simone Lovera, Sobrevivencia, Paraguay

San Mariano Biofuel Project Should be Rejected as CDM Project By Feny Cosico, Advocates of Science and Technology for the People (AGHAM), the Philippines

Genetically Engineered Tree Developments: GE Cold Tolerant Eucalyptus in the US By Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project; North American Focal Point, Global Forest Coalition

African Faith Leaders get Organized for Durban COP17 By Nigel Crawhall, Director of the Secretariat of the Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) and member of the Western Cape Provincial Religious Leaders Forum

Calendar of Forest-related meetings

About Forest Cover

Welcome to the thirty-eighth issue of Forest Cover, newsletter of the Global Forest Coalition (GFC). GFC is a world- wide coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs). GFC promotes rights-based, socially just and effective forest policies at international and national level, including through building the capacity of NGOs and IPOs in all regions to influence global forest policy.

Forest Cover is published four times a year. It features reports on important intergovernmental meetings by different NGOs and IPOs and a calendar of future meetings. The views expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views of

the Global Forest Coalition, its donors or the editors.

For free subscriptions, please contact Yolanda Sikking at: Yolanda.sikking@globalforestcoalition.org

Global Justice Ecology Project is the North American Focal Point of the Global Forest Coalition

 

Comments Off on Forest Cover: The Official Newsletter of Global Forest Coalition

Filed under Biodiversity, Bioenergy / Agrofuels, Climate Justice, Corporate Globalization, False Solutions to Climate Change, GE Trees, Indigenous Peoples, Land Grabs, Latin America-Caribbean, REDD, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 2011-07-25 · 11:02

Radio Interview: The Myth of the Industrial Forest

Listen to Daphne Wysham’s Interview with Global Justice Ecology Project Executive Director Anne Petermann on the threat of genetically engineered eucalyptus trees, for the EarthBeat Radio Segment, The Myth of the Industrial Forest which played on EcoShock Radio.

Go to: http://209.217.209.33/~esnet/downloads/ES_110713_Show_LoFi.mp3

and forward to minute 26:45.

Also on that episode is an interview with Dr. Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch on the myth of biochar; and an interview with Dr. Helen Caldicott about the nuclear power threat.

Comments Off on Radio Interview: The Myth of the Industrial Forest

Filed under Bioenergy / Agrofuels, False Solutions to Climate Change, GE Trees, Genetic Engineering, Posts from Anne Petermann, REDD, UNFCCC

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 2011-07-19 · 14:02

Sustainable Development, Not ‘Green Economy’

Source: IPS

By Emilio Godoy

MEXICO CITY, Jul 15, 2011 (IPS) – With less than a year to go for the Rio+20 Summit, civil society in Latin America and the Caribbean is mustering its strength to defend the principles of sustainable development, as opposed to the model of a “green economy”, which it views as only benefiting the business interests of big companies.“The green economy is the new international environmental vogue, but it has lost all vestiges of the concept of sustainable development and has taken another direction,” Maureen Santos, an expert on international issues at the Brazilian Federation of Agencies for Social and Educational Assistance (FASE), told IPS.”It’s an attempt to shore up the present system that is in crisis,” she said.

The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development will be held Jun. 4-6, 2012 in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, marking the 20th anniversary of the first Earth Summit which took place in Rio in 1992.

The goals of the Rio+20 conference are to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges.

The conference will focus on building a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and an institutional framework for sustainable development.

“Putting a price on nature is no solution, because it isn’t a commodity,” Katu Arkonada, a researcher at Bolivia’s Centre for Applied Studies on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CEADESC), told IPS. “The green economy must not distort or divert the basic principles of sustainable development. It is a mistake to say that people will only look after goods if they have a price-tag and an owner and generate profits.”

The first Earth Summit led to a series of international treaties, like the conventions on climate change and biological diversity, the Sustainable Development Commission, and what is known as Agenda 21, an action plan for U.N. agencies, governments, companies and non-governmental organisations in every area in which people have an impact on the environment.

However, two decades later, progress towards sustainable development is still slow: greenhouse gas emissions, species loss and environmental degradation have increased, and the planet’s natural resources are being exhausted.

Debate should focus on “the greening of growth, equity in a world of limits, and building resilience to shocks and stresses,” says a study titled “Making Rio 2012 Work: Setting the stage for global economic, social and ecological renewal” by Alex Evans and David Steven.

The authors are academics with the Centre on International Cooperation (CIC) at New York University, which published the document in June.

Preliminary work on the agendas for the official and alternative conferences is advancing apace, on the part of both governments and civil society organisations. Preparatory meetings for the summit were held May 2010 and March this year at U.N. headquarters in New York.

In January and February 2012, further meetings will take place there to discuss the draft declaration to be adopted in Brazil.

Meanwhile, an international seminar was held Jun. 30- Jul. 2 in Rio de Janeiro to organise the parallel meeting, convened by the Civil Society Facilitating Committee for Rio+20.

Civil society organisations prefer to talk about greening the economy, rather than promoting a green economy. In fact, these definitions are already a cause of dissension between industrialised countries and developing nations.

“The debate on the green economy is very diverse. Latin American positions are very fragmented,” said FASE’s Santos, who is also a member of the Brazilian Network for Peoples’ Integration (REBRIP).

Governments and social organisations from the region will plan for the Rio+20 Summit at the Regional Preparatory Meeting for Latin America and the Caribbean, to be held Sept. 7-9 at the headquarters of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) in Santiago, Chile.

The session’s tentative agenda includes a report on preparations for Rio+20 and debates on progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and the key topics of the summit, as well as analysis and approval of the regional declaration.

“The two key challenges of sustainable development are, on the one hand, to overcome poverty and inequality, and on the other, to restore the balance of the Earth. Both goals are intrinsically linked, and one cannot be achieved without the other. Human beings and nature are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development,” Arkonada said.

The World Economic and Social Survey 2011: The Great Green Technological Transformation, by the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, recommends investing 1.9 trillion dollars a year in green technologies over the next 40 years, to combat the effects of climate change.

“But the current green economy agenda lacks much real substance. To give it a harder edge, it should be focused more specifically on the issue of growth – above all, the growth path of emerging economies,” Evans and Steven’s study says.

It argues that “emerging economies will account for the majority of additional demand between now and 2030; they are laboratories of the future; they are the model that other developing countries want to follow; and they have the potential to force rich countries to make belated efforts to upgrade their economies.” (END)

Comments Off on Sustainable Development, Not ‘Green Economy’

Filed under Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, False Solutions to Climate Change, Green Economy, Greenwashing, Rio+20

Tagged as , ,