CCN @ COP15

Thanks Nick for your question and input on the REDD policy:

“Forests and carbon sequestration are big for me right now, and big for the Northwest. What kinds of discussion and/or commitments are you hearing on that issue? From my perspective, we need a system that:

1. Sets baselines for carbon stored in forests today, through a method that is affordable, efficient and reasonably accurate.

2. Sets standards for carbon uptake and for carbon storage based on forest growing conditions from ideal (highly productive) to marginal and wood technologies that substitute wood for materials with a higher carbon footprint (concrete and steel).

3. Is certifiable by third parties.

4. Can be linked to national policies whether they are based on carbon taxes, cap and trade systems or some other mechanism.”

REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is a key issue and a key policy point for the negotiations. It is being discussed from indigenous rights to offset projects to forest plantations to NGOs such as Climate Action Network. It is an policy that con go incredibly correctly or incredibly wrong. REDD is an important component to a comprehensive climate bill because our most effective carbon sinks are our natural froests. However, there are a list of critiques of the REDD policy especially when it is connected to CDM (Clean Development Mechanism). REDD policy must be applied in a manner that is equitable and fair for those who depend on the forests for survival (ie indigenous people) Now in these international negotiations the primary focus of the REDD discussion is how it impacts the global south, since they are the ones with the greatest amount of forest cover and have the most to lose currently–and I say this with no disrespect to our Pacific Northwest forests.

In the negotiations there has been a lot of disscussion of both REDD and LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) policies. So I’m just going to ellaborate on the US’s position and the most recent international development:

The view of the United States is that “mitigating deforestation should occur in the broader context of sustainable forest management and sustainable development.” In addition, the US believes that REDD should be encompassed in the nation’s low-carbon mitigation strategy. However, it believes that private investment in these projects is the most sustainable mechanism for maintaining these policies, but understands that in the sort term it needs a significant amount of support financially and technologically. (I have no idea how they scientifically measure the amount of potential carbon that can be sequestered from the atmosphere over the next 50 years from a forest that the begin to protect now, but I’m sure that it is expensive)

Now here in Copenhagen the most recent development on this topic was yesterday:

“France clashed with other EU nations Thursday over how to calculate carbon emissions absorbed and emitted by forests.

French climate ambassador Brice Lalonde slammed a proposal favored by countries with huge forestry industries — especially Finland, Sweden and Austria — as containing “sloppy, even fraudulent” accounting methods.

Worldwide, deforestation and forest fires account for 12 to 20 percent of total greenhouse gas output, so being able to accurately measure changes in those emissions is critical in the overall effort to tame global warming.

How that is best done is what has divided the EU bloc of 27 nations.

France has taken the lead in calling for a totally transparent accounting practices, a position applauded by green groups.

But other countries, notably major consumers of wood as a heating fuel, have proposed to project generous envelopes of their forest-related emissions up to 2020, which they would then promise not to use up.

“We are talking about ceilings that are so high that there is no chance they would ever be reached,” Lalonde told AFP.

These countries would then claim that they had, in fact, reduced their total emissions as measured against this fictive benchmark, he explained.

Across the entire 27-nation bloc, this would result in a net addition of some 118 million tonnes of CO2 released every year, two percent of the EU total.

“The EU cannot embrace fraudulent methods and then turn around and ask developed countries to accept something that they are not willing to impose on themselves,” Lalonde said.”

And that is where REDD currently stands!