A global deal to save rainforests, backed by the Prince of Wales, is hanging in the balance at the Cancun climate change talks as countries struggle to agree on how to stop deforestation.
deforestation.
Illegal logging in Brazil. 13 million hectares (50,000 square miles) of forest are cut down each year - the equivalent of the size of England - to provide timber or make way for grazing land Photo: ALAMY
Protecting forests was supposed to be a major part of any deal to tackle global warming.
Prince Charles and others suggested a new fund should be set up that allows rich countries to pay poor nations not to chop down trees.
Under certain models the scheme would create a whole new financial market where countries, companies and even individuals can pay to offset their carbon by planting a tree.
However the complicated plan is in danger of being dropped because certain countries refuse to accept the idea of making a tree a 'commodity'. They also fear rich countries will use the mechanism as an excuse for producing more carbon as long as they can ‘offset’ it through protecting trees.
Other nations are understood to be blocking progress as a negotiating tactic to get what they want in other areas of the talks.
Also there are concerns about the rights of indigenous people and corrupt governments in places like the Congo.
The scheme known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation or REDD will be a key part of any global deal on climate change.
And if progress is not made on the issue in Cancun it will be a severe embarrassment to the United Nations talks.
Chris Huhne, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said progress on REDD is vital.
“Success in cutting carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation will not just be a vital part of the fight against climate change; it will also be an important marker of success for the UN process itself,” he said.
Some 13 million hectares (50,000 square miles) of forest are cut down each year – the equivalent of the size of England – to provide timber or make way for grazing land.
Because trees absorb carbon this causes around 20 per cent of man made carbon emission every year.
Campaigners want deforestation to be halved by 2020 and to stop completely by 2030.
But at the moment there are no such targets on the table.
Developed nations have pledged some £2.8 ($4.5) billion towards REDD already but the money is slow in coming through and many claim it is not enough.
Campaigners say it will cost £19 ($30) billion every year to halt deforestation.
Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s chief negotiator, said the money should come mostly from public funds and insist on the rights of indigenous people.
He said it is dangerous to use the market to protect nature when it is unstable and uncaring.
“They talk about reducing emissions but not in a comprehensive measure including the rights of indigenous people,” he said. “We do need a forest mechanism but it needs to be comprehensive. It is to preserve forests not to assess them in monetary terms for a carbon market.”
To move forward the UN process needs consensus and it is rumoured Saudi Arabia is also blocking progress in order to force compromise on other issues, even though it has few forests.
Another issue that has to be worked out before the end of the week are methods of reporting and verification to check whether forests are being protected once payment is given. Larger forest nations like Brazil are cautious in this area while many developed nations worry about corruption.
Also the question of whether whole countries should be paid to reduce deforestation or individual projects should be get money, prompting fears that will just shift the problem elsewhere.
Finally there is risk that the deal will be damaged by a protest vote from poor nations who are increasingly frustrated that the rich world refuses to report their own levels of deforestation.
Mr Huhne insisted progress could be made towards a more comprehensive deal next year.
“This week, we can agree on the principles of REDD+, the scale at which it should operate, and the range of forest activities covered. We can also agree on safeguards for people and biodiversity, and set in train work programmes to inform discussions on setting reference levels and MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification).
“Over the course of the next year, we need a better assessment and clearer agreement on the levels of medium and longer-term finance needed for forests,” he said.
Other nations are understood to be blocking progress as a negotiating tactic to get what they want in other areas of the talks.
Also there are concerns about the rights of indigenous people and corrupt governments in places like the Congo.
The scheme known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation or REDD will be a key part of any global deal on climate change.
And if progress is not made on the issue in Cancun it will be a severe embarrassment to the United Nations talks.
Chris Huhne, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said progress on REDD is vital.
“Success in cutting carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation will not just be a vital part of the fight against climate change; it will also be an important marker of success for the UN process itself,” he said.
Some 13 million hectares (50,000 square miles) of forest are cut down each year – the equivalent of the size of England – to provide timber or make way for grazing land.
Because trees absorb carbon this causes around 20 per cent of man made carbon emission every year.
Campaigners want deforestation to be halved by 2020 and to stop completely by 2030.
But at the moment there are no such targets on the table.
Developed nations have pledged some £2.8 ($4.5) billion towards REDD already but the money is slow in coming through and many claim it is not enough.
Campaigners say it will cost £19 ($30) billion every year to halt deforestation.
Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s chief negotiator, said the money should come mostly from public funds and insist on the rights of indigenous people.
He said it is dangerous to use the market to protect nature when it is unstable and uncaring.
“They talk about reducing emissions but not in a comprehensive measure including the rights of indigenous people,” he said. “We do need a forest mechanism but it needs to be comprehensive. It is to preserve forests not to assess them in monetary terms for a carbon market.”
To move forward the UN process needs consensus and it is rumoured Saudi Arabia is also blocking progress in order to force compromise on other issues, even though it has few forests.
Another issue that has to be worked out before the end of the week are methods of reporting and verification to check whether forests are being protected once payment is given. Larger forest nations like Brazil are cautious in this area while many developed nations worry about corruption.
Also the question of whether whole countries should be paid to reduce deforestation or individual projects should be get money, prompting fears that will just shift the problem elsewhere.
Finally there is risk that the deal will be damaged by a protest vote from poor nations who are increasingly frustrated that the rich world refuses to report their own levels of deforestation.
Mr Huhne insisted progress could be made towards a more comprehensive deal next year.
“This week, we can agree on the principles of REDD+, the scale at which it should operate, and the range of forest activities covered. We can also agree on safeguards for people and biodiversity, and set in train work programmes to inform discussions on setting reference levels and MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification).
“Over the course of the next year, we need a better assessment and clearer agreement on the levels of medium and longer-term finance needed for forests,” he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
