SUNK?
"Treetanic" Climate Protocol
Negotiations Fail in Final Hours
Imagine you are at an old-fashioned
bazaar where bargaining is still the rule.
You see a nice carpet, but you don't want
to pay too much for it. Should you admit to
the shop owner that you are planning to buy
the carpet anyway, whatever the cost? Of
course not. This would be a major incentive
for the shop owner to double the price.
Every experienced bargainer knows that you
should pretend you are not interested in
the carpet, even threaten to walk away, and
you will surely have the item for the best
price in the end.
Jan Pronk obviously does not have a lot
of experience in buying carpets. The fact
that the Dutch Minister of Environment let
the entire world know, months before "his"
Climate Change Summit, that he would be
happy with any outcome as long as it would
keep the US on board, put him and other
countries in a terrible bargaining
position.
Like the carpet shopkeeper, the US
immediately raised its price, with the
result that the Kyoto Protocol was turned
into a "Treetanic" Protocol. NGOs and
Indigenous Peoples' Organizations (IPOs)
had expected the US to try for one of two
things: the acceptance of tree plantations
and other sinks under the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), or the acceptance of
forest management and other so-called
"Article 3.4 options" as opportunities to
escape from energy efficiency and other
greenhouse gas emissions policies. However,
strengthened by the supreme bargaining
position Pronk had given them, the US went
for both.
It might be that the idiotic vote
counting situation in Florida put the US in
a very inflexible position. In any case, it
was clear that the spirit of G.W Bush,
known for his warm(ing) relationship with
the oil industry, hung over the meeting.
Some US NGOs predicted that Bush would not
ratify the Kyoto Protocol anyway, so their
demands might as well be ignored.
And ignore the US was exactly what the
French and German Green Environmental
Ministers did on the very last morning of
the meeting. And we should applaud them for
it, as the compromise that was on the
table, which would have probably included
the Article 3.4 options and possibly also
sinks under the CDM, was simply
unacceptable. It would have corrupted the
Kyoto Protocol, as the main polluters could
have met practically all commitments
through business-as-usual forest
management, including clearcutting and the
replacement of primary forests by
plantations. It would have made a farce of
the Clean Development Mechanism by creating
a market for carbon credits in which only
large-scale monoculture tree plantations
would be competitive. And it would have
meant complete disaster for the world's
forests and forest peoples, as it would
have created a major incentive to replace
primary forests and other ecosystems with
environmentally and socially destructive
tree plantations.
So is the Kyoto Protocol sunk? Not yet,
as the Sixth Conference of the Parties will
reconvene in May for another attempt at a
deal (although some ballast in the form of
the US might need to be thrown overboard).
In any case, there should be a clear threat
on the table that if the US does not give
in, the train will leave without them and
rules and conditions for carbon trading and
other flexible mechanisms will be developed
in their absence. There are several
economic arguments for the US to join
anyway (not to mention ecological and human
rights arguments, as they seldom play a
role in US foreign policy). Better a good
Protocol which will have to carry on for
some years without the main polluters on
board then a Protocol that fails to address
climate change
and
forms a major
threat to the world's ecosystems,
Indigenous Peoples and local
communities.
So let us put our demands on the table
again and try to reach a better deal: a
good definition of forests that excludes
monoculture plantations, no sinks in the
Clean Development Mechanism, no
business-as-usual, and tough eligibility
criteria.
Simone Lovera, FoE Paraguay
Treetanic Award for the Face
Foundation
|
|
Of course, the side events, actions
and other activities carried out by
NGOs and IPOs were far more
interesting than the formal debate in
The Hague. As described on the
following page, the Dike and other
FoEI Climate Campaign events were a
great success, and hopefully played a
role in preventing even greater
long-term damage to the world's
climate and ecosystems.
The FoEI Forest Programme also had
a number of successful happenings in
The Hague. A side event on the
negative impacts of tree plantations
was organized in coordination with
other members of the Global Forest
Coalition (GFC) on the first day of
the conference. This well-attended
event featured a presentation of the
FoEI publication Tree Trouble, a
compilation of testimonies on the
negative impacts of tree plantations
from nine national FoE groups and two
other organizations. GFC members also
organized a small exhibit
highlighting the difference between
"Kyoto Forests" (tree plantations and
clearcut areas) and real forests, and
published a flyer highlighting the
same and calling for the exclusion of
tree plantations from the Kyoto
Protocol.
FoEI and other GFC members also
disseminated statements, brochures
and other material against the
inclusion of sinks in the Clean
Development Mechanism and
highlighting the problems with carbon
sequestration in general. Last but
not least, a special "Treetanic
Award" was handed out to three
companies with particularly obnoxious
tree plantation/carbon sinks
projects. The second and third prize
were given to Forestry Tasmania for
rapidly replacing native forests with
tree plantations
and tree farms,
and
Norge/Kilombero Forests for a
large-scale co2lonialists tree
plantation project in Tanzania. The
first prize, a life vest, was handed
to the Dutch Face Foundation for its
environmentally destructive tree
plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes.
Details about all three cases can be
found in Tree Trouble
(www.foei.org).
|
