Hello world! Thanks for following our blog. All of us are powering through final papers and exams as we anxiously await our departure for the COP15. Over 15,000 people have registered for the conference and hotels are booked for miles outside the city. As news of hope and cynicism for the Copenhagen venture flows in every day, I gain an enhanced gratitude for the opportunity to attend what could potentially be one of the most memorable and important international summits of the century. Each of the Rice delegates will focus on a specific aspect of the neogtiations to research during our stay. I’ll fill you in on my line of work now.
What do you and a native Waiãpí woman of the Brazilian Amazon have in common? It may surprise you, but both her life , and yours more indirectly, rely upon the preservation of the surrounding forest. Not only do these lands present a cheap and biologically rewarding opportunity to sequester carbon, but also their preservation could become hot investments as leaders at the COP15 craft a mechanism to incorporate natural lands into a global carbon offset market.
Land-use management – deforestation, reforestation and peatland restoration – must be an indispensible priority for a post-Kyoto, 450-ppm world. Preserving forests not only increases potential carbon sinks to store and mitigate human emissions, but also maintains natural watershed functions and ensures biodiversity. A comprehensive climate change agreement must address the current rates of deforestation and forest degradation, which result in one-fifth of anthropogenic carbon emissions worldwide.
I hope to research incorporations of natural resource management, primarily forests, into the climate negotiation. In doing so, I expect to confront complex questions such as: How can the international community economically incentivize forest protection? Should forests be placed on the carbon market as offset-sinks? Who will control global flows of money from offset purchases? How are forests prioritized and their capacities quantified? How can such programs respect indigenous rights and ensure native communities realize the benefits of forest preservation?
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, deforestation occurs at an alarming rate of approximately 13 million hectares per year (for the period 1990–2005). The IPCC WGIII (2007) estimated emissions from deforestation in the 1990s to be at 5.8 GtCO2/yr, approximately 20 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC also reports that reducing and/or preventing deforestation is the mitigation option with the largest and most immediate carbon stock impact in the short term. In light of these figures, the UN established the “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation” (REDD) measure at the COP13 in Bali. The decision provided a formalized mandate for actions by the parties to strengthen efforts to assist developing countries in forest preservation, enhancing carbon stocks and structuring sustainable management systems.
With this environmental impetus in place, the parties now face the inescapable question of funds: how will REDD measures be financed? Forest destruction is a direct result of global economic pressures, such as demand for timber, soybeans and palm oil. Combating deforestation necessitates a fundamental evaluation of the forces driving the destruction of natural resources in the first place. The conversion of forestland to agricultural land will prove increasingly necessary to provide food security to increasing populations.
Many forest/rainforest nations in the global south now call for a repayment of the developed world’s “environmental debt”; rich nations have materially and economically benefited from huge foresting and timber corporations that account for the 13 million missing hectares a year. Although Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced that “gringos” should pay Amazon nations to prevent deforestation, he worries an offset scheme would allow the world’s largest historical polluters “off the hook” for industrial activities while limiting economic growth in developing countries – a form of “green imperialism.” Still, many OECD nations hope to see forests put on the carbon market as potential offset credits. Gordon Brown has said, “I believe there is a particular need for innovation in forestry… forestry credits can and I believe should be brought into the carbon market, under appropriate conditions of monitoring, control and governance.” While in Copenhagen, I will be following as the parties hammer out the specifics of these monitoring, controlling and governing mechanisms.
More importantly, I hope to focus on how REDD measures incorporate, or disenfranchise, the indigenous peoples that inhabit the world’s forests. There is growing concern that indigenous peoples are being left out of the decision-making processes concerning climate change – significantly, forest management. I am anxious to understand how an international forest-climate measure could collaborate with indigenous leadership, knowledge and land rights. An important nexus of environmental and social justice, as well as ecological sustainability, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation could prove one of the most naturally simple, yet socially and economically complex measures available to keep global temperatures from rising above 2 degrees C.
Stay tuned for more updates from Denmark! In the meantime, check out our About page to get better acquainted with the Rice crew.
IPCC 2007. Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.