boilingspot: April 2008

25 April 2008

24 April 2008

World Bank's Massive Fossil Lending Undermines Its New Climate Funds

by Peter Riggs

Solve Climate - Apr 14th, 2008

Original URL

When you want to quit smoking, do you call a tobacco company? That in essence is what civil society groups were wondering when they met last week to evaluate the climate-friendly announcements coming out of the World Bank.

World Bank leaders had convened in Washington DC -- abloom with cherry blossoms -- for their annual spring meeting, and announced plans to launch two new climate-change funds. One new pot of Bank money is focused on the development of clean technology, and the other pot earmarked for 'resilience'-helping countries adapt to rising sea levels, increased intensity of storms, drought, and other economic harms resulting from climate change.

These two new funds are in addition to the Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), launched last year to put a bounty on 'avoided deforestation' in tropical rainforest nations.

Sound like good ideas, right? Clean technology, adaptation funds, valuing standing forests-what's not to like?

Plenty, as it turns out, because the Bank has another face - as an institution that simultaneously exacerbates the problem of global climate change. The Bank, you see, isn't working to dampen rising temperatures; rather, it's fanning the flames, despite these latest announcements.

The World Bank, is still the largest historic lender for fossil fuel projects globally. Since the 1992 Rio Summit, the World Bank has invested over $25 BILLION dollars in oil, gas, and coal projects, according to Daphne Wysham of the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network. That's the equivalent of two years of total global emissions over the lifetime of these Bank-funded projects.

The lead role the Bank plays in fossil fuel finance was highlighted again just this week when the Bank's private-sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, announced a $450 million investment to develop a massive coal-fired power plant in India.

So the climate change funds that the Bank proudly announced do not make up for its lending behavior, and, it turns out, the funds are also the focus of another concern: that they will operate outside of the framework of the UN Climate Change Convention.

Celine Tan of Third World Network:

The Bank's funds are top-down, donor-driven, and are in danger of creating parallel and contradictory structures financing climate change adaptation and mitigation.

So what?, one may ask.The more money thrown at the problem, the merrier, no?

Actually, no. The money is not being thrown at the problem, but loaned. Even though projects supported by the climate change funds will be labeled "Bank-funded," they really are not because ultimately the money will come out of the pockets of citizens in borrowing nations. Banks - and the World Bank is no exception - like to get paid back. Here's how Karen Orenstein from Friends of the Earth summed up the meaning of the Bank's new pot of money for "resilience."

The World Bank has the gall to suggest that developing countries pay for climate change impacts.

A similar flawed logic seems to motivate the World Bank's championing of a highly controversial program included in the Bali Road Map: REDD, or "Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation." REDD aims to reduce the 20% of global emissions that come from deforestation, again, a very good idea, but not if the World Bank is the institutional home of the effort.

That's because the way REDD is structured, here is its message: "we in the industrialized north can continue to emit GHGs to our hearts' content, so long as we buy offsets from developing countries - which we can do through REDD by preventing them from using forest-resource assets for their own national development." Does that square with the UNFCCC's call to address climate change "on the basis of global equity"?

Scuttlebutt from inside the Bank says that those responsible for crafting the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) barely even consulted their own forest experts. If they had, they would have learned about corruption in the forest sector, secure land tenure for forest-dwelling peoples, and the workability of proposed offset schemes. But the Bank's own forest experts couldn't get a hearing within their own institution, so it's become pretty hard to believe the Bank's rhetoric that civil society groups and indigenous peoples will be "key stakeholders" in the FCPF.

So when civil society groups met last week to discuss the World Bank's new climate strategy, they reiterated a call, first voiced at the Kyoto COP a decade ago: they demanded that the Bank get out of the business of lending for fossil-fuel projects.

Until that happens, NGOs argue, the Bank simply has little credibility in talking about actions to address climate change - just like tobacco companies promoting stop smoking campaigns.

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

19 April 2008

India proposes new steps to combat climate change

Press Trust Of India - April 14, 2008

Original URL

India has proposed a set of steps, including 'climate proofing' of public infrastructure investments, food security and water resources that the developing countries can adopt to combat climate change.

"Governments can start working on key vulnerabilities like 'climate proofing' of public infrastructure investments, food security, water resources and pursue policies to incentivise private actions toward energy efficiencies," Finance Minister P Chidambaram said at a breakfast meeting on 'Taking the Bali Process Forward', organised as a part of the Spring Meetings of the World Bank in Washington.

Highlighting the steps undertaken by the government, Chidambaram said: "India's Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are among the lowest in per capita terms. They will, of course, inevitably increase as we endeavor to remove poverty and provide basic needs to all the people."

"Our prime minister had categorically declared that even while pursuing development goals, India's per capita GHG emissions will always remain below the per capita GHG emissions of developed countries," he said.

He said India has unilaterally taken significant steps to meet the challenges including "measures to promote clean technology, review the fuel emission and efficiency regulations, mass transport systems, encourage the use of gas and building sustainable Greenfield cities."

"A quick analysis showed that our government has spent 2.6 per cent of GDP during 2006-07 on adaptation-related activities. We propose to bring out our National Action Programme on Climate Change shortly," he said.

"We are also going to establish a permanent institutional mechanism to play a coordination role to explore and implement ideas on climate change and to take on the important responsibility of advocacy", Chidambaram said.

He also underlined the need for "fair burden sharing" and efforts to build "trust between developed and developing countries" for an effective global action on climate change.

"Global action on climate change will require building trust between developed and developing countries. There must be trust about the neutrality of processes or institutions through which agreements are implemented, money is disbursed or disputes are resolved," the minister said.

"The solutions should include fair burden sharing and measures to realise sustainable patterns of consumption and production. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change should be the only basis for a global compact, anchored as it is in the well-established principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibility" he said.

The finance minister said that no discussion on climate change can be taken forward without underscoring the deep inequity in the causes and impacts of climate change.

"The developed world has caused the problem with many decades of unsustainable development process. But it is the poorer countries that will be worst affected," Chidambaram said.

Chidambaram stressed that the global community had "a shared responsibility to think through the complex challenges of climate change and come up with fair, equitable and imaginative solutions".
"Given their responsibility for causing the problem, the developed world has two clear obligations: to massively reduce their GHG emissions, and to provide new and additional financial and technological help to the developing countries to manage mitigation as well as adaptation efforts," he said.

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

'Globalized responsibility' must to tackle climate change: UK

Veeramalla Anjaiah

The Jakarta Post's World News - April 18, 2008

Original URL

It's a time for every country, rich and poor, to focus on how to make the transition from being 'high carbon' to 'low carbon' economies, rather than just focusing on money alone, Britain says.

"The British government believes it is important to focus on opportunities rather than costs if we are to successfully move toward developing low carbon economies," UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office's special envoy on climate change John Ashton said Wednesday in London.

A copy of Ashton's remarks were sent to The Jakarta Post by the British Embassy in Jakarta and received Thursday.

In Paris, world's top 17 emitters of green house gases, including Britain, are attending a two-day a meeting to work out ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The meeting will end on Friday.

The talks, which are also being attended by the European Union and the United Nations, are the third in a U.S.-led series trying to end criticism that the U.S. lagging behind its other industrial allies who have agreed to cut emissions by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 under the Kyoto Protocol.

It would be pointless to just think about the financial costs alone, Ashton says.

"So far we've had an enormous amount of focus on the cost of this transformation and how to 'share the pain'."

"The politics of sharing pain is always extremely difficult, and extremely slow," Ashton said.

He also warned that there should not be any deadlines for climate change, similar to deadlines used in trade negotiations.

"We can't do this with climate change, because the deadlines are set by the way in which the environment responds to stresses we're imposing on natural systems, and we will pay an intolerable price if we get that wrong -- if we can't meet the deadlines we set," Ashton said.

Which is why, Ashton continues, there is a real need for us to establish collective responsibility in tackling climate change.

"This is about how we build ... what I call the 'globalization of responsibility'. What we've observed so far in globalization, is the 'globalization of opportunity'," Ashton said.

Indonesia hosted the 190-nation climate conference in Bali last year to prepare a new UN treaty to fight global warming in place of Kyoto Protocol, which will be expired in 2012.

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Climate change team yet to be formed

Adianto P. Simamora,

The Jakarta Post - April 18, 2008

Original URL

The government is unlikely to meet its deadline for establishing a special climate change commission because of cautiousness and tough negotiations.

"We are still in the process (of setting up the commission)," State Minister for the Environment Rahmat Witoelar told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.

"We are now harmonizing the plan across all sectors to make sure the commission will not be rejected after it is established."

The commission was originally scheduled to be set up by the end of April.

The responsibilities of the planned powerful commission will include monitoring the national action plan for fighting climate change and teaching people to adapt to frequent changes in the weather.

The commission will also manage all funds earmarked for dealing with climate change, including the billions of dollars in grants expected from wealthy countries to help Indonesia reduce emissions.

The action plan was launched by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono while he was attending the climate change conference in Bali last December.

The action plan consists of steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy, agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors.

The government said the establishment of the climate change commission would be a follow-up to the Bali conference.

A source at the ministry said a draft of the presidential regulation on the planned commission was now at the State Secretary's office, pending the President's approval.

"The most intensive talks revolve around how to manage a commission whose members all work full time," the source said.

According to the source, Rachmat's office has proposed Agus Purnomo, special assistant to the minister on international environmental issues, as leader of the commission.

Agus was formerly the national head of the Bali conference on climate change.

The Coordinating Ministry for the People's Welfare has two candidates for the position: Mahendra Siregar, deputy minister for international economic and financial cooperation, and Rizal Malarangeng, special adviser to the minister.

Mahendra is currently a member of the United Nations Adaptation Board. Rizal is the host of MetroTV's Save Our Nation program.

The State Secretary's office has proposed Armi Susandi, a climate change expert from the Bandung Institute of Technology. Armi is currently the project manager for the second National Communication, which will calculate the country's total emissions.

Armi previously released a study showing parts of the capital, including Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, will become submerged due to rising sea levels caused by climate change.

Vice President Jusuf Kalla has warned of the severe impact of climate change on the country's agricultural sectors.

He said the country would be able to export rice if there were no extreme weather changes this year.

Kalla said last week he was not aware of the government's plan to set up the commission.

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

A Storehouse of Greenhouse Gases Is Opening in Sibera - Melting Methane

By Volker Mrasek

Spiegel Online International - April 17, 2008

Original URL

Researchers have found alarming evidence that the frozen Arctic floor has started to thaw and release long-stored methane gas. The results could be a catastrophic warming of the earth, since methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But can the methane also be used as fuel?

The Lena River flowing through Russian Siberia and empties into the Arctic Ocean. This satellite image shows the river delta, where methane concentrations are unexpectedly high (AFP)

It's always been a disturbing what-if scenario for climate researchers: Gas hydrates stored in the Arctic ocean floor -- hard clumps of ice and methane, conserved by freezing temperatures and high pressure -- could grow unstable and release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas, more worrisome than carbon dioxide, the result would be a drastic acceleration of global warming. Until now this idea was mostly academic; scientists had warned that such a thing could happen. Now it seems more likely that it will.

Russian polar scientists have strong evidence that the first stages of melting are underway. They've studied largest shelf sea in the world, off the coast of Siberia, where the Asian continental shelf stretches across an underwater area six times the size of Germany, before falling off gently into the Arctic Ocean. The scientists are presenting their data from this remote, thinly-investigated region at the annual conference of the European Geosciences Union this week in Vienna.

In the permafrost bottom of the 200-meter-deep sea, enormous stores of gas hydrates lie dormant in mighty frozen layers of sediment. The carbon content of the ice-and-methane mixture here is estimated at 540 billion tons. "This submarine hydrate was considered stable until now," says the Russian biogeochemist Natalia Shakhova, currently a guest scientist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks who is also a member of the Pacific Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Vladivostok.

The permafrost has grown porous, says Shakhova, and already the shelf sea has become "a source of methane passing into the atmosphere." The Russian scientists have estimated what might happen when this Siberian permafrost-seal thaws completely and all the stored gas escapes. They believe the methane content of the planet's atmosphere would increase twelvefold. "The result would be catastrophic global warming," say the scientists. The greenhouse-gas potential of methane is 20 times that of carbon dioxide, as measured by the effects of a single molecule.

Shakhova and her colleagues gathered evidence for the loss of rigor in the frozen sea floor in a measuring campaign during the Siberian summer. The seawater proved to be "highly oversaturated with solute methane," reports Shakhova. In the air over the sea, greenhouse-gas content was measured in some places at five times normal values. "In helicopter flights over the delta of the Lena River, higher methane concentrations have been measured at altitudes as high as 1,800 meters," she says.

The methane climate bomb is also ticking on land: A few years ago researchers noticed higher concentrations of methane in northern Siberia. The Siberian permafrost is known as one of the tipping points for the earth's climate, since the potent greenhouse gas develops wherever microorganisms decompose the huge masses of organic material from warmer eras that has been frozen here for thousands of years.

"A Wake-Up Call for Science"

Data from offshore drilling in the region, studied by experts at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), also suggest that the situation has grown critical. AWI's results show that permafrost in the flat shelf is perilously close to thawing. Three to 12 kilometers from the coast, the temperature of sea sediment was -1 to -1.5 degrees Celsius, just below freezing. Permafrost on land, though, was as cold as -12.4 degrees Celsius. "That's a drastic difference and the best proof of a critical thermal status of the submarine permafrost," said Shakhova.

Paul Overduin, a geophysicist at AWI, agreed. "She's right," he said. "Changes are far more likely to occur on the sea shelf than on land."

Climate change could give an additional push to these trends. "If the Arctic Sea ice continues to recede and the shelf becomes ice-free for extended periods, then the water in these flat areas will get much warmer," said Overduin. That could lead to a situation in which the temperature of the sea sediment rises above freezing, which would thaw the permafrost.

"We don't have any data on that -- those are just suspicions," the Canadian scientist said. Natalia Shakhova also passed on the question of whether to expect a gradual gas emission or an abrupt burst of large quantities of methane. "No one can say right now whether that will take years, decades or hundreds of years," she said. But one cannot rule out sudden methane emissions. They could happen at "any time."

One thing is clear, though: The thawing of the Arctic sea floor will create "new potential sources for methane ... which no one had reckoned with until now," said Laurence Smith, a professor for geography at the University of California in Los Angeles. Smith is researching North Pole frost zones and expects that a thawing of the permafrost will "supply fuel for methane engines."

The first methane rocket thruster was tested by the US's National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 2007, and methane from manure has been collected as "biogas" to heat and power homes (more...) in experimental German towns.

In any case, the team taking part in the Siberian study installed a number of probes in the Laptev Sea, a central part of the broad Siberian shelf sea. These probes are measuring the temperature on the upper edge of the submarine permafrost. Overduin wants to pull up the probes in August. Then, for the first time, scientists will have access to a full year's worth of data on the conditions of the sea floor.

For her part, Shakhova thinks researchers should be doing a lot more. She says too little is known about the fragile shelf sediment and the methane it stores, which could be explosive for the environment. "Actually," she says, "this is a wake-up call for science."

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2008

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Bush Has 'Understood Nothing, Learned Nothing'

Bush's plan for global warming? Wait until 2025. Only then, he said in a Wednesday speech, should the US cap greenhouse gas emissions. Germany is not impressed.

Patrick McGroarty

Spiegel Online International - April 18, 2008

Original URL

US President George W. Bush is in no hurry when it comes to global warming.

When it comes to global warming, much of the world has been resigned for years to waiting out the end of the George W. Bush presidency. Under Bush, the White House has altered climate change reports, spiked global calls for action and maintained that it would simply be too harmful to the US economy to address the growing dangers of a warming climate.

With just months to go before Bush makes way for his successor, the US president on Wednesday (more...) once again confirmed that waiting for number 44 is the way to go. Bush called for the US to halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions -- but only in 2025. As the San Jose Mercury News wrote on Thursday: "Allowing emissions to rise for the next 17 years is not a plan; it's an abdication."

Europe, not surprisingly, tends to agree. German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel (more...) called Bush's presentation a "Neanderthal speech," and said it represented "losership, not leadership. European Commissioner of the Environment Stavros Dimas was also critical. "President Bush recognized the need for mandatory federal legislation to tackle climate change," he said. "But what he proposed will not contribute to the effective tackling of climate change."

Others were more receptive of Bush's foray into environmental policy and saw it as a move away from his legacy, which includes steadfast refusal to honor the Kyoto Protocol and leadership of a decidedly conservative Environmental Protection Agency.

"It's good to have something on the table," said Yvo de Boer, head of the UN agency that oversees international climate treaties, including the Kyoto Protocol.

German commentators on Friday weren't in the mood to be quite so generous.

In an editorial headlined "Understood Nothing, Learned Nothing," the center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"For the first time, Bush has concretely said what the world's most dominant industrialized nation will do in the future to address global warming. His solution can be condensed into two words: absolutely nothing."

"That's a slap in the face to every citizen, local government and industry trade group -- including a growing number in America -- working to preserve the Earth's atmosphere. And it’s a mockery of those nations that have set climate protection goals, as well as a free pass for developing countries that have refused to sign a binding international treaty on climate protection."

"Far more important to climate protection than the year 2025 is the fall of 2008, when America will elect a new president. Whoever wins the election, it can only be a good thing for the atmosphere of the Earth."

The center-right Frankfruter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"America's president stayed true to himself. What's new about Bush's climate protection announcement is the definite deadline that greenhouse gas emissions must not climb after 2025. But Bush could not bring himself to comply with a broader agreement on emissions caps or carbon trading."

"If Bush's plan has a redeeming quality, then perhaps it's his insistence that climate protection occur without losing sight of economic goals. Indeed, the experience of the EU shows that a poorly conceived emissions trading scheme can be more trouble than it's worth."

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2008

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

The Fat Bush Theory

George W. Bush says we’re on track to meet the nation’s goals for curbing global warming.

By Gail Collins

The New York Times - April 19, 2008

Original URL

Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

I see some hands waving out there. Didn’t know we had any goals for curbing global warming? Where were you in 2002 when the president put us on the road toward reducing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent by 2012?

So there.

Bush held a press conference in the Rose Garden this week to give us a warming progress report or, in his words, “share some views on this important issue.” He almost always refers to global warming as an environmental “issue.” As The Times’s Andrew Revkin noted on his blog, Dot Earth, most people talk about environmental problems. But perhaps the White House regards that as overly alarmist.

“I’m pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal,” the president said, in a tone that sounded rather belligerent considering this was supposed to be good news.

Let’s back up here. I don’t know about you, but I’ve always had trouble getting my head around goals that involve reducing the rate at which something is growing. To appreciate the administration’s efforts on the, um, issue, let’s try to imagine it in terms other than greenhouse gas emissions. (As the president noted: “Climate change involves complicated science.”)

Suppose that two years after taking office, George W. Bush discovered that because of the stress of his job, he had gained 40 pounds and was tipping the scales at 220.

The real-world Bush would immediately barricade himself in the White House gym, refusing all human contact or nourishment until the issue was resolved. But imagine that he regarded getting fat as seriously as he regards melting glaciers, rising oceans and drought and starvation around the planet. In that case, he would set a serious, management-type goal — of, say, an 18 percent reduction in the rate at which he was gaining weight, to be reached within the next decade.

Cut to the Rose Garden in 2008 where partial victory is declared. “Over the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges,” the 332-pound chief executive announces. He delivers this good news sitting down.

2012: Bush hits his final goal and 400 pounds at approximately the same time.

I hope now you can appreciate just how useful the Bush global-warming initiative is. But the president isn’t satisfied with merely delivering on his promises. In his Rose Garden address, he upped the ante, vowing to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions entirely by 2025.

Let us forget, for a second, that this is a man who’s only going to be in office for nine months of the 17 years in question. Furthermore, let us skip lightly over the fact that Bush did not give any hints whatsoever as to how this goal is supposed to be reached except to say that “the wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts.”

Since the president never suggests actual behavior changes on the part of American citizens, that leaves us with what? More efficient refrigerators?

Lots of things! There is, for instance, the ambitious new fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020; we sure do have a lot to look forward to in the future, people. There’s new federal spending on biofuels. Much of this is for ethanol, which has the unfortunate side effect of creating more greenhouse gases than it eliminates, and, of course, helping to create a planetary crisis over rising food costs. But nothing’s perfect.

The president’s real focus seemed to be on fighting the strategies for global warming that he doesn’t like: the Kyoto Protocol, court challenges and legislation pending in Congress. Almost all of them, interestingly, were referred to as “problems.”

Instead of Kyoto, the administration is pushing for “a new process” in which the countries that do most of the polluting will get together and work on a climate agreement. That process was in fact chugging along this very week at a gathering in Paris, where Bush’s speech was greeted with a round of excited reviews. Germany’s environment minister, for instance, dubbed it “losership instead of leadership.”

The Europeans have a perfect right to look down on the United States since they’ve set much more ambitious targets for reducing global warming. While they do not appear to be likely to meet any of them, it’s the thought that counts.

If the Bush strategy seems a little ... little, go back to our metaphor. Imagine it’s 2025, and you’ve got a 486-pound ex-president being wheeled in to accept the congratulations of the world on his excellent physical fitness program. Really, that’s big.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Merrill Lynch's carbon bet

Why a Wall Street firm wants to save a forest in Sumatra?

Byline: Marc Gunther

CNN - April 18, 2008

Original URL

The business of "carbon farming" is growing fast -- and Merrill Lynch is the latest big company to bet that it will become profitable.

What's carbon farming, you ask? It's a business designed to recognize the value created when trees store carbon dioxide and prevent global warming. So people who plant new trees or prevent existing trees from destruction can get paid for doing so.

That doesn't mean that the tree in your backyard or mine will help pay college tuition or fund a 401(k). For now, the payments are going to villagers in the developing world who agree to protect endangered forests. Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500), Marriott (MAR, Fortune 500) and Rio Tinto (RTP), among others, have all agreed to finance projects designed to deter deforestation.

This week, Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500) announced that it will invest $9 million to help save a tropical forest in Aceh, Indonesia. It's the first time a Wall Street firm has invested in carbon farming, and let's be clear: this isn't philanthropy of public relations; it's strictly business.

In fact, the man who put the deal together to save the 1.9-million acre forest, called Ulu Masen, believes it could be a very big business. "It will be the biggest carbon project in the history of the world if we can pull it off," says Dorjee Sun, the 31-year-old founder of an Australian startup company called Carbon Conservation.

Here's how the deal will work: Merrill will pay villagers in Aceh, a province on the island of Sumatra, to stop logging their forests. Aceh, of course, is the place that was devastated by a tsunami in 2004 and, before that, wracked by civil unrest. It's also home to Sumatran tigers, clouded leopards and orangutans, and therefore of special interest to environmentalists. The money will be used to train the villagers in alternative livelihoods, like growing coffee, cocoa or palm trees for oil.

In exchange, Merrill will get carbon credits, which are also known as carbon offsets -- that's the "crop" in carbon farming. The credits will meet quality standards set a group called the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), whose members include environmental groups Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy and the Rainforest Alliance, and companies as BP, Intel and SC Johnson. The alliance functions as a regulator, albeit without legal clout.

Merrill will pay about $4 per credit for 500,000 credits per year over the next four years --$8 million in all. (The other $1 million buys an option to acquire more credits.) Merrill then hopes to sell them for a profit to companies that want to voluntarily offset their carbon emissions. Currently, these voluntary credits --each one represents a ton of CO2 that is prevented from entering the atmosphere -- sell from between $2 and $20 each, according to Andrew Ertel, the president and CEO of Evolution Markets, a leading broker of emissions credits.

The credits will be worth a lot more if they can be sold into regulated markets. Greenhouse gases are regulated in Europe and Japan, and laws to control them are being considered in the U.S. and Australia. So far, though, projects like this one -- called "avoided deforestation" or REDD projects, for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation -- have not been approved for regulated markets. Deforestation is said to account for about 20% of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

"This is uncharted territory," says Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon emissions at Merrill Lynch. "That's part of the risk that Merrill is taking. How much appetite will there be for credits from projects of this type?"

Speaking by phone from Jakarta, Dorjee Sun says he has pitched large-scale avoided deforestation projects to more than 200 banks, hedge funds, pension funds and conservation groups. He's working with governors in Indonesia and Brazil, and came to the U.S. last fall where he pitch deforestation projects to Howard Schultz of Starbucks and investor George Soros.

Sun, a former Internet entrepreneur, is frank about his motives. "The more hectares we manage, the more land we 'farm' carbon on, the more money we make," he says. "Our goal is to be the amazon.com of the Amazon."

Copyright 2008, CNN

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

16 April 2008

China 'now top carbon polluter'

China has already overtaken the US as the world's "biggest polluter", a report to be published next month says.

By Roger Harrabin - BBC Environment analyst

BBC NEWS - 2008/04/14 23:11:35 GMT

Original URL

The research suggests the country's greenhouse gas emissions have been underestimated, and probably passed those of the US in 2006-2007.

The University of California team will report their work in the Journal of Environment Economics and Management.

They warn that unchecked future growth will dwarf any emissions cuts made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The team admit there is some uncertainty over the date when China may have become the biggest emitter of CO2, as their analysis is based on 2004 data.

Until now it has been generally believed that the US remains "Polluter Number One".

Next month's University of California report warns that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its increases in greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions being made by rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The researchers say their figures are based on provincial-level data from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Video showing the extent of China's smog problem

They say analysis of the 30 data points is more informative about likely future emissions than national figures in wider use because it allows errors to be tracked more closely.

They believe current computer models substantially underestimate future emissions growth in China.

We are awaiting a formal comment from the UK Chinese Embassy, but Dr Max Auffhammer, the lead researcher, said his projections had been presented widely and no-one had raised a serious complaint.

All those concerned about climate change agree that China's emissions are a problem - including China itself.

CARBON EMISSIONS

Global carbon emissions statistics were last published in 2004. They show Chinese emissions began rising rapidly in 2002.

University of California research suggests China overtook the US as the worst producer of carbon emissions in 2006

But China and many other developing countries struggling to tackle poverty are adamant that any negotiated emissions reductions should not be absolute, but relative to a "business-as-usual" scenario of projected growth.

That is why this study is of more than academic interest.

If it becomes widely accepted that China's future emissions are likely to be much higher than previously estimated, that will have to factored into any future global climate agreement if the Chinese are to be persuaded to take part.

In brief, although this study looks bad for China's reputation, it may be good for China's negotiating position.

That is why this study is of more than academic interest.

In brief, although this study looks bad for China's reputation, it may be good for China's negotiating position.

The Chinese - and the UN - insist that rich countries with high per capita levels of pollution must cut emissions first, and help poorer countries to invest in clean technology.

America's per capita emissions are five to six times higher than China's, even though China has become the top manufacturing economy.

US emissions are still growing too, though much more slowly.

Dr Auffhammer told BBC News that his projections had made an assumption that the Chinese government's recent aggressive energy efficiency programme would fail, as the previous one had failed badly.

"Our figures for emissions growth are truly shocking," he said.

"But there is no sense pointing a finger at the Chinese. They are trying to pull people out of poverty and they clearly need help.

"The only solution is for a massive transfer of technology and wealth from the West."

He acknowledged that this eventuality was unlikely.

Those scientists aspiring to stabilise global emissions growth before 2020 to prevent what they believe may be irreversible damage to the climate may be wondering how this can possibly be achieved.

Flash plug-in required

To view the advanced features of this page you need to have the Adobe Flash plugin installed on your system.

Click here to download the Flash plugin from the Adobe website

Or, you can click here to view an alternative version.

How these maps were made

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

World sea levels seen rising 1.5m by 2100

By Karin Strohecker

Tue 15 Apr 2008, 13:44 GMT

Original URL

VIENNA (Reuters) - Melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warming water could lift sea levels by as much as 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) by the end of this century, displacing tens of millions of people, new research showed on Tuesday.

Presented at a European Geosciences Union conference, the research forecasts a rise in sea levels three times higher than that predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last year. The U.N. climate panel shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.

Svetlana Jevrejeva of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Britain said the estimate was based on a new model allowing accurate reconstruction of sea levels over the past 2,000 years.

"For the past 2,000 years, the sea level was very stable," she told journalists on the margins of the Vienna meeting.

But the pace at which sea levels are rising is accelerating, and they will be 0.8-1.5 metres higher by next century, researchers including Jevrejeva said in a statement.

Sea levels rose 2 cm in the 18th century, 6 cm in the 19th century and 19 cm last century, she said, adding: "It seems that rapid rise in the 20th century is from melting ice sheets".

Scientists fiercely debate how much sea levels will rise, with the IPCC predicting increases of between 18 cm and 59 cm.

"The IPCC numbers are underestimates," said Simon Holgate, also of the Proudman Laboratory.

The researchers said the IPCC had not accounted for ice dynamics -- the more rapid movement of ice sheets due to melt water which could markedly speed up their disappearance and boost sea levels.

But this effect is set to generate around one-third of the future rise in sea levels, according to Steve Nerem from the University of Colorado in the United States.

"There is a lot of evidence out there that we will see around one metre in 2100," said Nerem, adding the rise would not be uniform around the globe, and that more research was needed to determine the effects on single regions.

Scientists might debate the levels, but they agree on who will be hardest hit -- developing nations in Africa and Asia who lack the infrastructural means to build up flood defences. They include countries like Bangladesh, almost of all of whose land surface is a within a metre of the current sea level.

"If (the sea level) rises by one metre, 72 million Chinese people will be displaced, and 10 percent of the Vietnamese population," said Jevrejeva.

(Reporting by Karin Strohecker; Editing by Catherine Evans)

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

The cost of green tinkering is in famine and starvation

Biofuels threaten food supplies, rainforest and climate - yet our leaders push them in the name of the environment

Simon Jenkins

The Guardian - Wednesday April 16 2008

Original URL

Farewell the age of reason, welcome the idiocracy. Only George Orwell could have invented - and named - the government's Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) that came into operation yesterday. It is the latest in a long line of measures intended to ease the conscience of the rich while keeping the poor miserable, in this case spectacularly so.

The consequences of the RTFO have been much trumpeted on these pages. It says enough that one car tank of bio petrol needs as much grain as it takes to feed an African for a year, or that a reported one-third of American grain production is now subsidised for conversion into biofuel. Jeremy Paxman pleaded the cause of this latest green wheeze on Monday's Newsnight, while the United Nations food expert, Jean Ziegler, screamed for it to stop: "Children are dying ... It is a crime."

The transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, said this week: "The government has consistently stressed that biofuels are only worth supporting if they deliver genuine environmental benefits." Yet she must know that, at present, the opposite is the case. Kelly pleaded that rescinding her policy might impede investment and "weaken our influence over the direction of EU policy". She did not mention biofuels' threat to rainforests, food self-sufficiency and global warming generally, through needing costly fertiliser and road transport. Nor did she mention the role in her decision of such lobbies as the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, and the National Farmers' Union.

The RTFO is the latest in a series of policies, proselytised by the green movement and then commandeered by commercial lobbies, which fit a pattern of irrationality worthy of Moral Re-Armament. Until recently, most greenery has seemed no more than a feelgood parlour game. Now it is getting serious.

I have tried to follow the global warming debate, and will admit that it has changed my mind on occasions. I was once a sceptic on nuclear power and genetically modified foods. Security made the former expensive, and ignorance made the latter suspect, vulnerable to such greed-motivated cul-de-sacs as the "terminator gene" (increasing output but for just one harvest). I could also see the virtue of harnessing wind and waves, and seeking new ways of using the sun's rays, either directly or through plant photosynthesis.

I am wiser now. As the major premise of the debate has shifted to global warming, so has the balance of argument. Wherever one stands on the spectrum of climate complacency versus alarm, burning carbon should be discouraged. But as public money starts to flow, so financial interest pollutes debate.

The British government has been persuaded by the wind turbine manufacturers to commit a third of its annual renewables subsidy to this uniquely inefficient energy source, advertising over hill and dale the cabinet's horror of making a decision on nuclear power. When this was put to Tony Blair by a Commons committee early in his second parliament, he replied jokily: "Would you want a nuclear plant in your constituency?" This appeared to be the sum total of his thinking on the topic.

Ten years after Blair came to office, the government still lacks the courage to make a decision, scared of what the anti-nuclear lobby might say. Such Christian Science greenery implies that the world would be better dead than with one split atom on its surface. Nuclear power may be expensive but as the former chief scientist, Sir David King, wrote recently, "the dangers of climate change are far worse".

The same applies to genetically modified foods. It is clear that modification, which is as old as botany, has side-effects. But increased food productivity is so patently a good thing that to ban GM from European imports, and thus from Africa, is beyond perverse. Increased Indian and Chinese consumption is sucking the world dry of grain at just the time when the GM ban is denying the developing world the swiftest path to higher productivity - and at a time when supply is curbed by biofuel substitution.

These various green policies have established a lethal pincer movement on world food production. As the Oxford economist Paul Collier points out in his book The Bottom Billion, Africa has been subjected by European governments to one form of "befuddled romanticism" after another, from campaigns against GM foods and low-wage produce to "save the peasant" farm reform. Africa, says Collier, has less commercial agriculture than it did at the end of the age of empire, half a century ago.

While antagonism to science merely impedes progress, antagonism to economics is regressive. American subsidies to ethanol fuel are not just causing "tortilla riots" but costing American taxpayers a staggering $5.5bn a year. Biofuel tankers are circling the globe, burning gasoline and chasing subsidies. They have joined carbon emissions certificates among the world's greatest trading scams.

If I have changed my mind, I am not sure the same applies to many greens. I have rarely encountered so much fanaticism and blind faith. Did those demanding fuel subsidies not realise that palm oil would wipe out rainforests and that ethanol from corn would use as much carbon as it saved? Did those pleading for wind farms really think they could ever substitute for nuclear power; or those wanting eco-towns not realise they would just add to car emissions? Did they not understand that, once the tap of public money is turned on, lobbyists will ensure it is never turned off - however harmful?

If all these fancy subsidies and market manipulations were withdrawn tomorrow and government action confined to energy-saving regulation, I am convinced the world would be a cheaper and a safer place, and the poor would not be threatened with starvation.

Just now, for reasons not all of which are "green", commodity prices are soaring. Leave them. Send food parcels to the starving, but let demand evoke supply and stop curbing trade. The marketplace is never perfect, but in this matter it could not be worse than government action. Playing these games has so far made a few people very rich at the cost of the taxpayer. Now the cost is in famine and starvation. This is no longer a game.

simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

Change in farming can feed world - report

Ample resources wasted, global study warns

Biofuels exacerbating shortage of food crops

John Vidal, environment editor

The Guardian - Wednesday April 16 2008

Original URL

Filipino children eat rice, a staple crop that is under pressure across the developing world. Photograph: Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images

Sixty countries backed by the World Bank and most UN bodies yesterday called for radical changes in world farming to avert increasing regional food shortages, escalating prices and growing environmental problems.

But in a move that has led to the US, UK, Australia and Canada not yet endorsing the report, the authors said GM technology was not a quick fix to feed the world's poor and argued that growing biofuel crops for automobiles threatened to increase worldwide malnutrition.

The report was issued as the UN's World Food Programme called for rich countries to contribute $500m (£255m) to immediately address a growing global food crisis which has seen staple food price rises of up to 80% in some countries, and food riots in many cities. According to the World Bank, 33 countries are now in danger of political destabilisation and internal conflict following food price inflation.

The authors of the 2,500-page International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development [IAASTD] say the world produces enough food for everyone, yet more than 800 million people go hungry. "Food is cheaper and diets are better than 40 years ago, but malnutrition and food insecurity threaten millions," they write. "Rising populations and incomes will intensify food demand, especially for meat and milk which will compete for land with crops, as will biofuels. The unequal distribution of food and conflict over control of the world's dwindling natural resources presents a major political and social challenge to governments, likely to reach crisis status as climate change advances and world population expands from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050."

Robert Watson, director of IAASTD and chief scientist at the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: "Business as usual will hurt the poor. It will not work. We have to applaud global increases in food production but not everyone has benefited. We have not succeeded globally. In some parts of India 50% of children are still malnourished. That is not success."

Watson said governments and industry focused too narrowly on increasing food production, with little regard for natural resources or food security. "Continuing with current trends would mean the earth's haves and have-nots splitting further apart," he said. " It would leave us facing a world nobody would want to inhabit. We have to make food more affordable and nutritious without degrading the land."

The report - the first significant attempt to involve governments, NGOs and industries from rich and poor countries - took 400 scientists four years to complete. The present system of food production and the way food is traded around the world, the authors concluded, has led to a highly unequal distribution of benefits and serious adverse ecological effects and was now contributing to climate change.

The authors say science and technology should be targeted towards raising yields but also protecting soils, water and forests. "Investment in agricultural science has decreased yet we urgently need sustainable ways to produce food. Incentives for science to address the issues that matter to the poor are weak," said Watson.

The GM industry, which helped fund the report, together with the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the British and US governments, abandoned talks last year after heated debate.

The scientists said they saw little role for GM, as it is currently practised, in feeding the poor on a large scale . "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable," said the report.

"The short answer to whether transgenic crops can feed the world is 'no'. But they could contribute. We must understand their costs and benefits," said Watson yesterday.

The authors also warned that the global rush to biofuels was not sustainable. "The diversion of crops to fuel can raise food prices and reduce our ability to alleviate hunger. The negative social effects risk being exacerbated in cases where small-scale farmers are marginalised or displaced form their land," they said.

Responding to the report, a group of eight international environment and consumer groups, including Third World Network, Practical Action, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, said in a statement: "This is a sobering account of the failure of industrial farming. Small-scale farmers and ecological methods provide the way forward to avert the current food crisis and meet the needs of communities."

Lim Li Chung, of Third World Network in Malaysia, said: "It clearly shows that small-scale farmers and the environment lose under trade liberalisation. Developing countries must exercise their right to stop the flood of cheap subsidised products from the north."

Guilhem Calvo, an adviser with the ecological and earth sciences division of Unesco, one of the report's sponsors, said at a news conference in Paris: "We must develop agriculture that is less dependent on fossil fuels, favours the use of locally available resources and explores the use of natural processes such as crop rotation and use of organic fertilisers."

At a glance

Bio-energy The report says biofuels compete for land and water with food crops and are inefficient. They can cause deforestation and damage soils and water.

Biotechnology The use of GM crops, where the technology is not contained, is contentious, the UN says. Data on some crops indicate highly variable yield gains in some places and declines in others.

Climate change While modest temperature rises may increase food yields in some areas, a general warming risks damaging all regions of the globe. There will be serious potential for conflict over habitable land.

Trade and markets

Subsidies distort the use of resources and benefit industrialised nations at the expense of developing countries.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

13 April 2008

Gore to spend $300 million on global warming ads

mongabay.com - March 31, 2008

Original URL

This week Al Gore will launch a three-year, $300 million campaign to mobilize support for reining in greenhouse gas emissions, reports The Washington Post.

"The simple algorithm is this: It's important to change the light bulbs, but it's much more important to change the laws," Gore told The Washington Post. "The options available to civilization worldwide to avert this terribly destructive pattern are beginning to slip away from us. The path for recovery runs right through Washington, D.C."

"This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are so entrenched, the elected officials in both parties are going to be timid about enacting the bold changes that are needed until there is a change in the public's sense of urgency in addressing this crisis," Gore said. "I've tried everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the way the public thinks about it."

The money will come from private contributors and the proceeds from Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," his accompanying book on climate as well as a planned book on climate change, his salary from the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, and several international prizes — including the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — which add up to more than $2.7 million. The Washington Post calls the effort "one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history," rivaling spending by The Ad Council and the anti-smoking campaign by the American Legacy Foundation which began in the late 1990s.

Gore's campaign will go up against the energy lobby. According to The Washington Post, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, a nonprofit funded by the coal industry, is spending about $35 million this election to push coal-generated electricity.

Gore backs a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century. The current presidential candidates have all called for cuts, ranging from 60 percent for John McCain to 80 percent Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the 2050 time-frame.

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

09 April 2008

Global warming solutions are hurting indigenous people, says U.N.

mongabay.com - April 2, 2008

Original URL

Large-scale solutions intended to help mitigate global warming are harming the very indigenous people who are likely to bear the brunt of climate change, warned the United Nations University (UNU) at a conference in Darwin, Australia.

Biofuel plantations, renewable energy projects like hydroelectric dams, and measures to protect forests as carbon sinks threaten to undermine rights of indigenous groups. Such initiatives boost the value of land and increase the likelihood that indigenous people will be displaced.

"Indigenous peoples regard themselves as the mercury in the world's climate change barometer," said UNU Director A.H. Zakri. "They have not benefited, in any significant manner, from climate change-related funding, whether for adaptation and mitigation, nor from emissions trading schemes. The mitigation measures for climate change are very much market-driven and the non-market measures have not been given much attention."

Noting that there are at least 370 million indigenous people around the world living carbon neutral or carbon negative life styles, Zakri said that climate change presents these groups with rising sea levels; increased risk of diseases including cholera, malaria and dengue fever; higher incidence of drought and desertification; melting glaciers and thawing permafrost; greater food insecurity from coral bleaching and increasingly unpredictable growing seasons; increased likelihood of damage from invasive species; more extreme weather, including storms and hurricanes; and changes in the biodiversity on which they stake their livelihoods.

Controversy over carbon offsets for forest conservation

UNU highlighted controversy over the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)'s recent decision to include forestry as a way to offset greenhouse gas emissions. The mechanism, which has been hailed by scientists and environmentalists as a way to fund forest conservation while at the same time fighting climate change, was criticized in a paper by Estebancio Castro Diaz, a Kuna Indian from Panama who works for the Global Forest Coalition, a native peoples' NGO.

"Despite recent developments in international law in relation to Indigenous Peoples rights, Indigenous Peoples still have limited or in some instances no participation in the decision-making processes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)," wrote Diaz. "The UNFCCC instigated negotiations between Member Parties to explore ways and means to reduce emissions of deforestation and degradation in developing countries (REDD). These negotiations have taken place and continue to take place without any meaningful participation by Indigenous Peoples. Yet Indigenous Peoples rights and their experience in sustainable forest management mean that their participation in these fora is imperative, in the REDD discussions or any other discussions relating to environmental protection."

Diaz said that without formal land rights, indigenous people may get left out of compensation schemes for environmental services provided by forests and other ecosystems. The U.N. estimates that the market for REDD alone could reach $100 billion.

Still some are hopeful that REDD could offer indigenous groups new ways to earn an income while allowing them to continue living in traditional ways should they so desire.

"The proposal to reduce emissions through deforestation and degradation (REDD), if done the right way, might be an opportunity to stop deforestation and reward indigenous peoples and other forest dwellers for conserving their forests," wrote Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, an Igorot from the Philippines, and Aqqaluk Lynge, an Inuit from Greenland. "Indigenous agroforestry practices are generally sustainable, environmentally friendly, and carbon-neutral. When the Bank launched its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility in Bali, it received a lot of criticism from indigenous peoples, who had been excluded from the conceptualization process in spite of the fact that they are the main stakeholders where tropical and sub-tropical forests are concerned. To remedy this weakness, the World Bank will hold consultations with indigenous peoples from Asia, Latin America and Africa."

Dr. Daniel Nepstad, a scientist at the Woods Hole Research Institute who works in the Amazon basin, said that indigenous groups must be fairly compensated for carbon offset initiatives to be successful. He cites the Xingu indigenous reserve in the heart of the agricultural frontier of the Brazilian Amazon as an example.

"Inside the Xingu indigenous reserve... Indians could really be seen as the guardians of the forest for keeping it standing against the economic interests. The state is supposed to take care of the reserve, but in fact the Indians do a perfect job in that region," he told mongabay.com. "The Indians who live in the Xingu park need to be compensated. So that's where REDD comes in."

"A response to the protestors out in front of the World Bank in Bali... is look at the indigenous groups in the Amazon. They very much want REDD. They want to be at the table and negotiate REDD to make sure that they are not cut off from their forest resources."

Renewable energy and biofuels

Participants in the UNU meeting said that booming interest in renewable energy has further marginalized indigenous populations. In Indonesia and Malaysia, forest people have been displaced by the rapid expansion of oil palm plantations, while groups in other parts of the world have lost land to dams, nuclear waste sites, and soy farms. Tauli-Corpuz and Aqqaluk Lynge added that the surging market for biofuels have driven up prices for food, making it more difficult for some indigenous populations to feed themselves.

Effects of climate change on indigenous people

UNU included an overview a brief overview of the effects of climate change on indigenous people on a regional basis:

Africa

Asia

Central and South America and the Caribbean

Earth's warming surface is forcing indigenous peoples in this region to farm at higher altitudes to grow their staple crops, which adds to deforestation. Not only does this affect water sources and leads to soil erosion, it also has a cultural impact. The uprooting of Andean indigenous people to higher lands puts their cultural survival at risk.

In Ecuador, unexpected frosts and long droughts affect all farming activities. The older generation says they no longer know when to sow because rain does not come as expected. Migration offers one way out but represents a cultural threat.

In the Amazon, the effects of climate change will include deforestation and forest fragmentation and, as a result, more carbon released into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change. The droughts of 2005 resulted in western Amazon fires, which are likely to recur as rainforest is replaced by savannas, severely affecting the livelihoods of the region's indigenous peoples.

Coastal Caribbean communities are often the center of government activities, ports and international airports. Rapid and unplanned movements of rural and outer island indigenous residents to the major centers is underway, putting pressure on urban resources, creating social and economic stresses, and increasing vulnerability to hazardous weather conditions such as cyclones and diseases.

The relationship between climate change and water security will be a major issue in the Caribbean, where many countries are dependant on rainfall and groundwater.

Arctic

Indigenous peoples depend on polar bears, walrus, seals and caribou, herding reindeer, fishing and gathering not only for food and to support the local economy, but also as the basis for their cultural and social identity. Among concerns facing indigenous peoples: availability of traditional food sources, growing difficulty with weather prediction and travel safety in changing ice and weather conditions.

According to indigenous peoples, sea ice is less stable, unusual weather patterns are occurring, vegetation cover is changing, and particular animals are no longer found in traditional hunting areas. Local landscapes, seascapes and icescapes are becoming unfamiliar.

Peoples across the Arctic region report changes in the timing, length and character of the seasons, including more rain in autumn and winter and more extreme heat in summer. In several Alaskan villages, entire indigenous communities may have to relocate due to thawing permafrost and large waves slamming against the west and northern shores. Coastal indigenous communities are severely threatened by storm-related erosion due to melting sea ice. Up to 80% of Alaskan communities, comprised mainly of indigenous peoples, are vulnerable to either coastal or river erosion.

In Nunavut, elders can longer predict the weather using their traditional knowledge. Many important summer hunting grounds cannot be reached. Drying and smoking foods is more difficult due to summer heat undermining the storage of traditional foods for the winter.

In Finland, Norway and Sweden, rain and mild winter weather often prevents reindeer from accessing lichen, a vital food source, forcing many herders to feed their reindeer with fodder, which is expensive and not economically viable long term. For Saami communities, reindeers are vital to their culture, subsistence and economy.

Central and Eastern Europe, Russian Federation, Central Asia and Trans-Caucasia

Indigenous peoples have noticed the arrival of new plant species that thrive in rivers and lakes, including the small flowered duckweed which has made survival difficult for fish. New bird species have also arrived and birds now stay longer than before.

Changes in reindeer migration and foraging patterns, sparked by fluctuating weather patterns, cause problems also in this region, whose indigenous people have witnessed unpredictable and unstable weather and shorter winters.

North America

Global warming is predicted to cause less snowfall and more droughts in many parts of North America, which will have a significant impact on indigenous peoples. Water resources and water quality may decrease while extended heat waves will increase evaporation and deplete underground water resources. There may be impacts on health, plant cover, wildlife populations, tribal water rights and individual agricultural operations, and a reduction of tribal services due to decrease in income from land leases.

Natural disasters such as blizzards, ice storms, floods, electric power outages, transportation problems, fuel depletion and food supply shortages will isolate indigenous communities.

Higher temperatures will result in the loss of native grass and medicinal plants, as well as erosion that allows the invasion of non-native plants. The zones of semi-arid and desert shrubs, cactus, and sagebrush will move northward. Finally, fire frequency could also increase with more fuel and lightning strikes, degrading the land and reducing regional bio-diversity.

Pacific

High tides flood causeways linking villages. This has been particularly noticeable in Kiribati and a number of other small Pacific island nations that could be submerged in this century.

Migration will become a major issue. For example, the people of Papua New Guinea's Bougainville atoll island of Cartaret have asked to be moved to higher ground on the mainland. The people of Sikaiana Atoll in the Solomon Islands have been migrating primarily to Honiara, the capital. There has been internal migration from the outer islands of Tuvalu to the capital Funafuti. Almost half of Tuvalu's population now resides on the Funafuti atoll, with negative environmental consequences, including increased demand on local resources.

Warmer temperatures have led to the bleaching of the Pacific Island 's main source of survival — the coral reefs. The algae that help feed coral is loosened and, because the algae give them colour, the starved corals look pale. Continued bleaching ultimately kills corals. Coral reefs are an important shelter for organisms and the reduction of reef-building corals is likely to have a major impact on biodiversity. Tropical fishery yields are on the decline worldwide and it is now clear that the conditions may become critical for the local fish population.

Agriculture in the Pacific region, especially in small island states, is becoming increasingly vulnerable due to heat stress on plants and saltwater incursions. Hence, food security is of great concern to the region.

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

The FSC responds to its critics

An interview with Nina Haase, FSC International Communications Manager

Jeremy Hance

mongabay.com - April 7, 2008

Original URL

Last month, Mongabay.com reported on recent and various criticisms of the FSC (the Forest Stewardship Council). The FSC is an international organization that certifies forest products which, according to their standards, have been harvested in an environmentally-sustainable and socially-responsible manner.

The article cited criticism from the World Rainforest Movement, which called a recent decision by the FSC to certify monoculture eucalyptus plantations in Brazil a "death certificate" for the organization, and Ecological Internet, which launched a campaign protesting the FSC and its many large NGO supporters for certifying old-growth logging. Other concerns included the recent news of companies falsely claiming that their products had been FSC certified, problems with an Asia Pulp & Paper concession in Sumatra, and the withdrawal of a Swedish NGO from the FSC board stating that the "FSC functions badly in Sweden".

Response to the article was significant. It was picked up by the Ecological Internet's email campaign and was mentioned on numerous environmental web sites and blogs. At the time of the publication, the FSC had not responded to requests for comments. But in the following interview, FSC International Communications Manager Nina Haase answers each criticism separately and addresses several other issues, such as the FSC and climate change, the organization's monitoring capabilities, and its adaptation to new environmental concerns. Ultimately she responds to the big question raised by critics: is the FSC stamp still credible?

Nina Haase

"The need for timber resources is growing and predicted to continue to do so," Hasse told Mongabay, "some [of our critics] are concerned about plantation forests, others about logging in natural forests. At FSC we understand the concerns and crucial importance of these issues extremely well. But we are also realistic enough to understand that faced with massive demand for timber resources, neither are going to stop. So based on the fact that FSC has developed the highest and most widely supported social and environmental standards, we engage to make sure this happens in the best and most sustainable way possible."

Addressing the major criticisms one by one, Hasse says that in regards to the certification of products from monoculture plantations the "FSC certified plantations do not replace natural forests" and the "FSC does not support conversion of natural forests to plantations or other land uses." She adds that, "Many of FSC certified plantations actually contribute to the restoration of natural forests, by either allowing or actively promoting regeneration of natural forests in sensitive areas such as riparian zones."

As for certifying forest products from old-growth logging, Haase argues that FSC certified logging â€” even old-growth logging â€” can under certain circumstances help preserve forests by making the ecosystem-at-large worth something. The FSC believes that one way to ensure long-term conservation is to use the very market forces behind most forest's destruction to work in the forest's favor, helping to keep the areas in question free from greater threats like deforestation for agriculture, ranching, plantations, or illegal logging.

"A key factor behind the threats faced by natural forests is their lack of economic value, as seen by society at large. The extraordinary social and ecological value of forests in comparison to other land uses is often not considered. In other words, forests are often converted to other land uses, which lack many of the social and environmental values of forests but promise higher economic returns. FSC uses certification to engage market dynamics in driving recognition for forests at large and in improving social and environmental standards in forest management practices worldwide. FSC standards ensure that these forests maintain the values and benefits they provide to society. By providing a market differentiation mechanism, FSC enables responsible forest managers to capture more value from their forests, allowing them to compete with pressures from other land uses and the artificially low prices caused by predatory and illegal logging." Haase adds that the "FSC also recognizes that it is not a panacea; FSC is one tool among others that can be more or less effective depending on the circumstances."

Addressing the environmental critics of FSC, Hasse, argues that the organization has to find solutions that both work and can be supported by businesses as well as social and environmental interests. On both sides of the spectrum, the FSC sees at times attempts to abuse or instrumentalize the FSC.

"We regret, that some NGOs have chosen to use FSC as a tool for publicity for their campaigns instead of engaging with FSC and working through the FSC system for better forest management of the world's forests."

We do not see the FSC as "the silver bullet to save the world's forest", but simply one tool of a wide variety of solutions for the conservation of the world's great forests, says Hasse. As for those who protest the FSC's actions, she believes the best way is to address the FSC directly: "If a stakeholder, say an environmental NGO, is concerned about how a specific certified forest or a forest in the process of certification is managed, we suggest to contact the forest manager, the certification body and/or the FSC National Initiative first to explain their concerns . Many issues relating to specific operations are best solved closest to the operation. If the explanation received at this level is not satisfactory, there are options to take the issue to the next level. With regards to more general concerns, the FSC is an open, transparent and inclusive system set up so that everybody interested in improving the management of the world's forests can participate and contribute. This of course also extends to critical observations. The invitation to engage and present the FSC with constructive feed-back has been made many times already. And I would like to repeat it here again."

In the following April 2008 interview, Nina Haase discussed the criticism of the FSC in-depth and expounded on the organizations current place in the larger mission to conserve forests worldwide.

On the Criticism of FSC's Certification of Veracel's Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations

Mongabay: SGS, an FSC accredited certification body, granted FSC certification to eucalyptus plantations in Brazil. The World Rainforest Movement has called this certification decision a "death certificate" for the FSC, adding that the credibility of the FSC is ruined by the decision. How does the FSC respond?

Nina Haase: FSC rules and procedures have been developed through strong multi-stakeholder processes, and are supported and endorsed by social, environmental and economic constituents in the Global South and Global North alike. We have responded following the set FSC rules and procedures for such cases.

Please let me add that it is important to remember that FSC must keep its credibility with consumer, environmental and social groups, as well as businesses that have to implement the FSC system. Besides maintaining the highest social and environmental standards in forestry, this also means being a predictable partner who plays by the rules and follows set and agreed to procedures.

In this particular case Accreditation Services International (ASI), the body responsible for FSC's accreditation program, scheduled an onsite audit to verify that SGS and Veracel are in full compliance with all FSC requirements. The surveillance audit of SGS at the Veracel plantations in Bahia, Brazil took place last week, 26-28 March 2008.

The ASI team consisted of Hubert de Bonafos (Managing Director, ASI, and audit leader) and Andre de Freitas (Head of Operations, FSC International), and observers Chris van Dam (social expert and former member of the FSC Board of Directors) and Rubens Gomes (Chairman of the Brazilian FSC National Initiative).

Detailed information will be made available 5-6 weeks after the audit, once the audit report is finalized. Again, there are set and agreed rules and procedures that detail what the next steps will be depending on the audit's findings.

Mongabay: Considering that monoculture plantations support less biodiversity and store less carbon than the forests they replace, how are monoculture plantations sustainable?

Nina Haase: FSC certified plantations do not replace natural forests. FSC does not support conversion of natural forests to plantations or other land uses. Only plantations established before the FSC Principles and Criteria were agreed to in 1994, or established on degraded lands (reforestation) or substituting agricultural uses can be certified to FSC standards.

Many of FSC certified plantations actually contribute to the restoration of natural forests, by either allowing or actively promoting regeneration of natural forests in sensitive areas such as riparian zones.

Mongabay: Under pressure from NGOs is the FSC currently re-examining its certification of Veracel's wood products?

Nina Haase: As stated in question 1 above, FSC has set rules and procedures that it follows. Listening to and taking stakeholder concerns seriously is one of the pillars of the FSC system. This means checking on the ground the issues raised by stakeholders. As you can imagine for a system built and supported by and an organization led by equal voice and power by environmental, social and business representatives — it is crucial to listen and be transparent and a to remain a predictable partner who play by the jointly agreed rules.

Please find some further background on the workings of the FSC system below:

FSC is the only global forest management certification system that requires regular yearly controls of each forest management operation certified to its standards. FSC accredited certification bodies certify and audit each individual forest management operation.

Photo by Michael Spencer

If the forest management is in full compliance with FSC requirements, the FSC certificate is awarded. If the forest management is not fully compliant pre-conditions are noted which have to be fulfilled before the FSC certificate can be awarded. If minor non-compliances are noted the certificate can be issued with conditions that have to be met within a clearly determined timeframe.

FSC accredited certification bodies audit each FSC certificate at least once a year. If during these audits the certification body finds that a company has non compliances with FSC requirements Corrective Action Requests (CAR) are issued and the company is required to make the prescribed changes within a given timeframe or else it will loose its FSC certificate. Depending on the seriousness of the infringement the timeline can go from one year for minor administrative infringements to three months or less, or even suspension, for major infringements.

FSC is the only global forest management certification system with an integrated accreditation program that systematically controls its certification bodies. Before being able to certify according to FSC standards, certification bodies have to gain FSC accreditation. To do this, certifiers have to comply with an extensive set of rules.

Compliance with these rules and procedures is verified by ASI (the company managing FSC's accreditation program) through office audits and the witnessing of one trial audit in the field prior to gaining FSC accreditation. One such requirement is that all FSC accredited certification bodies have to be in compliance with relevant international ISO standard (ISO/IEC Guide 65: 1996 (E)).

Every year ASI controls the continued implementation of FSC rules and procedures through at least office and field audits for each FSC accredited certification body. The exact number and distribution of ASI surveillance audits is calculated based on ASI's sampling procedure taking into account complex settings (geographic areas, policies or products that carry increased risk) and the number of FSC certificates handled by a FSC accredited certification body.
Summaries of ASI surveillance audits are publicly available on the ASI web site at: www.accreditation-services.com . If an FSC accredited certification body is found to not fully comply with FSC rules and procedures, corrective action requests are raised. These have to be fulfilled within a certain time frame. Depending on the seriousness of the infringement the timeline can go from one year for minor administrative infringements to three months or less, or even suspension, for major infringements. If the certification body fails to comply with FSC requirements within the given time the certification body will be suspended and then loose its FSC accreditation if the suspension is not lifter after one year.

On Ecological Internet's Protest Regarding Old-Growth Logging

Mongabay: A recent e-mail campaign from Ecological Internet has protested the FSC and many of its biggest supporters because the FSC certifies logging in primary forests. How does the FSC respond to these charges?

Nina Haase: FSC is very aware of the pressure that primary forests face throughout the world. Much of the remaining natural forests still suffer from illegal exploitation, poor management and conversion to other land uses, commonly resulting in severe degradation or complete destruction. In fact, these same concerns led to the establishment of FSC almost 15 years ago.

FSC General Assembly. Copyright FSC / Nowack.

A key factor behind the threats faced by natural forests is their lack of economic value, as seen by society at large. The extraordinary social and ecological value of forests in comparison to other land uses is often not considered. In other words, forests are often converted to other land uses, which lack many of the social and environmental values of forests but promise higher economic returns.

FSC uses certification to engage market dynamics in driving recognition for forests at large and in improving social and environmental standards in forest management practices worldwide. FSC standards ensure that these forests maintain the values and benefits they provide to society. By providing a market differentiation mechanism, FSC enables responsible forest managers to capture more value from their forests, allowing them to compete with pressures from other land uses and the artificially low prices caused by predatory and illegal logging.

Demand for forest products around the world will not only continue but also accelerate. Wherever and whenever decisions are taken to manage forests, FSC attempts to influence and convince forest managers to implement responsible social and environmental practices, including in primary natural forests and plantations.

The quickly growing demand for forest products worldwide will inevitably result in parts of natural forests being used for production purposes. It is FSC's mission to help ensure that not only economic considerations, but equally social and environmental concerns are taken into account whenever forests are managed. FSC does not promote exploration of forests but equitable incorporation of social and environmental considerations when this happens.

Natural forests in comparison to semi-natural forests or plantations often provide a unique set of social and environmental attributes. When decisions are taken by societies, industries or communities to further explore natural forests for economic purposes, we feel that it is particularly important that the FSC standards are met. To withdraw from applying the FSC standards to logging in natural forests, would not end further exploration of natural forests, but only sacrifice a tool to promote equitable consideration of social and environmental issues in forestry, where it matters most. It is in natural forests where FSC standards can result in substantial social and environmental improvements and ultimately support the conservation and long-term maintenance of these forests.

FSC works with its partners to enforce the implementation of such standards in FSC certified areas which includes over 50 million ha of natural forest. Under FSC certification civil and indigenous rights are respected, areas of high social and environmental conservation value are maintained or enhanced, forests are not converted, highly hazardous pesticides and genetically modified trees are prohibited, and harvesting must meet national laws and international treaties. In fact, FSC developed the concept of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) specifically to recognize socially and environmentally valuable areas.

FSC is recognized as the most credible system in forest management certification and is widely regarded as one of the most important initiatives of the last decade to promote better forest management worldwide. However, it is only part of the solution for the conservation of natural forests and FSC believes that a full set of different complementary conservation strategies is necessary to protect and maintain the world's forests.

Also, there have been powerful examples showing how FSC certification has helped protect highly threatened natural forests. One example is a recent study published by the Rainforest Alliance, which shows how FSC forest management certification has proven to conserve the rainforest more effectively than strict protection in Guatemala's Maya Biosphere Reserve. You can find the full story on-line at: www.fsc.org under headline news.

For further information:

Reports on FSC: www.fsc.org/en/about/about_fsc/reports

Benefits of FSC and testimonials from supporting organizations: www.whyFSC.com

Mongabay: Many would argue that because of worsening climate change and a looming mass extinction old-growth logging can no longer be considered environmentally sustainable, how does the FSC respond?

Nina Haase: I believe this question has been largely answered with my answer to the last question. However, please let me add the following — maybe somewhat pointed point.

The need for timber resources is growing and predicted to continue to do so. Some are concerned about plantation forests, others about logging in natural forests. At FSC we understand the concerns and crucial importance of these issues extremely well. But we are also realistic enough to understand that faced with massive demand for timber resources, neither are going to stop. So based on the fact that FSC has developed the highest and most widely supported social and environmental standards, we engage to make sure this happens in the best and most sustainable way possible.

We regret, that some small, single-issue NGOs who campaign either against logging in old-growth forests or plantations, have chosen to use FSC as a tool for publicity for their campaigns instead of engaging with FSC and working through the FSC system for better forest management of the world's forests.

FSC certification is widely regarded as one of the most important initiatives of the last decade to promote responsible forest management worldwide. Why is this and what prior efforts have been made?

Photograph by Juan Carlos Reyes GarcÃa

Concerns and large-scale public debates about the state of world's forests escalated globally in the 1980's and led to a gridlock between different stakeholders fighting about environmental, social and economic interests. Initiatives from governments and international organizations did not succeed in curbing forest destruction worldwide and the need to substantially improve forest management practices persisted.

In the late 1980's, tropical timber boycotts proclaiming to save the last tropical forests, not only failed, but worse, caused opposite effects in many cases. Conversion of forests to more economical land uses continued and in some cases accelerated.

The clear need for an effective mechanism to improve forest management and conservation worldwide was further emphasized in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The World Summit in Rio de Janeiro agreed that progress towards sustainable development is the shared responsibility of social, environmental and economic interests although no legally binding commitments were agreed.

Disillusioned by the continuous failure of international negotiations, progressive forest industries, social groups and environmental organizations came together to develop an alternative solution. Rather than boycotting poor practices, they wanted to use market forces to promote socially beneficial, environmentally appropriate and economically viable forest management.

For the first time, leading social, environmental and economic players from the Global South and Global North joined in a global process with equal and equitable voices, decision-making powers and responsibilities and founded FSC. To this day, FSC provides a platform for these different interest groups to work together in a dynamic environment where each and every person has a voice and an equal say.

Since its inception countless stakeholders around the world have worked with the FSC in its equitable participatory processes in support of responsible forest management. However, also since its early days, FSC was often criticized by conservative industries which did not believe in sharing decision-making with social and environmental stakeholders. Much like conservative industries, some environmental stakeholders believe that confrontational campaigns are a more appropriate conservation tool than equitable participatory solutions-oriented approaches. FSC will continue to try to engage conservative industries as well as confrontational NGOs in its approach.

This is not to say that FSC is the silver bullet to save the world's forest. But we believe that FSC is part of a set of solutions for the conservation of natural forests and that a full set of different complementary conservation strategies are necessary to protect and maintain the world's forests.

Mongabay: Has the FSC heard its large NGO supporters regarding the recent protest (i.e. Greenpeace, WWF, Rainforest Action Network, NRDC, Forest Ethics, Friends of the Earth and the Rainforest Alliance)?

Nina Haase: Yes we maintain a lively and close contact and exchange with FSC members and non-members. Despite the fact that some were directly targeted as well during the recent campaign and others were incorrectly said to be leaving FSC, all our large NGO supporters maintain their support for FSC.

FSC's environmental members — mostly environmental NGOs have also decided to meet amongst themselves and with FSC in June this year, to prepare for the upcoming FSC General Assembly at the end of this year.

This is important as FSC members meet at least every three years to a General Assembly. The General Assembly is the highest decision-making body of the FSC. The overarching FSC Principles and Criteria were adopted by the FSC membership and can only be changed or amended by a vote of the FSC membership. It is the same with other important strategic issues — such as for example in determining FSC's role with regards to Climate Change mitigation.

On Certification and Monitoring

Mongabay: According to FSC what is 'responsible forest management?'

Nina Haase: FSC's 10 Principles and Criteria describe how the forests have to be managed in order to gain FSC certification. Essentially this defines FSC's version of socially and environmentally responsible forest management.
This includes managerial aspects as well as the highest environmental and social requirements in the industry.
Here are some examples of what the FSC Principles and Criteria require. Many of the points listed below will appear almost basic — but unfortunately in many places, even these basic requirements are not fulfilled. This is where FSC certification can make the biggest positive impact.

Prohibit conversion of forests or any other natural habitat
Respect of international workers rights
Prohibition of use of hazardous chemicals
Respect of Human Rights with particular attention to indigenous peoples
No corruption — follow all applicable laws
Identification and appropriate management of areas that need special protection (e.g. cultural or sacred sites, habitat of endangered animals or plants)

The full FSC Principles and Criteria are available on-line at: www.fsc.org

Mongabay: How does the FSC handle situations where its certification is brought into question by various environmental groups and NGOs? Is there a review process in place for contentious certifications?

Nina Haase: Absolutely. FSC has an official Complaints and Disputes Procedure which is designed to help stakeholders make their concerns known and to find the best way of resolving complaints.

This can be resolved on different levels within the FSC system and we encourage people to take a stepwise approach and hope that most complaints can be resolved in this way. FSC developed a fact sheet that explains this procedure very well. You can find this at http://www.fsc.org/en/whats_new/news/fact_sheets. This procedure is currently being revised to improve its application.

If a stakeholder, say an environmental NGO, is concerned about how a certified forest or a forest in the process of certification is managed, they should contact the forest manager, the certification body and/or the FSC National Initiative. They should explain their concerns, listen to the explanation and try to come to a solution. This is often the fastest and easiest way to solve a problem.

If a certificate holder is not fully compliant, they are required to make the prescribed changes within a given timeframe or else it will loose its FSC certificate. This could be a temporary suspension where it cannot trade with the FSC claim, or immediate termination depending on the severity of non-compliance.

If a stakeholder still has concerns, this could be related to the certification audit itself (i.e. the process in which a forest was certified or the activities of a certification body) or the quality of FSC's standards.

In the former case, the stakeholder should file a complaint directly to the certification body. In the later case, the complaint should be filed to the FSC National Initiative who developed the standards. FSC standards are reviewed every 5 years so complaints can feed into the standards review consultation process.

If the stakeholder is concerned with the quality of an FSC accredited certification body, they should contact Accreditation Services International (ASI) who is managing FSC's accreditation program. This often leads to additional audits of certification bodies by ASI to ensure that they are compliant with FSC's standards.

If the certification body is not fully compliant, they are required to make the prescribed changes within a given timeframe or else it will loose its FSC accreditation. This could be a temporary suspension resulting in the suspension of all certificates it has issued and a ban to make any new contracts, or the immediate loss of FSC accredited status. This depends on the severity of their non-compliance.

All FSC certified forest operations, certification bodies and National Initiatives have a system for managing and responding to complaints. These are in line with FSC and ISO standards.

The contact details for certification bodies and FSC national initiatives can be found at www.fsc.org and ASI at www.accreditation-services.com.

Mongabay: Considering the amount of illegal logging that occurs in tropical nations, how does the FSC make certain that it is not unwillingly certifying illegal logging?

Nina Haase: Principle 1 requires compliance with all applicable laws and is verified by certification bodies. This and the accreditation control mechanisms ensure that FSC is not unwillingly certifying illegal logging.

Furthermore, we are constantly monitoring our performance and develop the FSC system further to deal with particular difficult or new issues.

Mongabay: What monitoring tools (technologies, personnel etc.) does the FSC use to track logging through the supply chains?

Nina Haase: What FSC tracks through the supply chain is FSC certified timber. This is called Chain of Custody certification. It is a paper based system based on invoices. This is checked through the same system as FSC forest management: FSC accredited certification bodies perform audits based on their results the FSC certificate is issued or not. All FSC chain of custody certified operations are controlled at least once a year.

Mongabay: Considering worsening environmental issues (climate change, loss of biodiversity, desertification, water supply, etc.) and increasing public awareness of these issues, is the FSC's certification process adapting quickly enough?

Nina Haase: FSC is working with its partners to address new issues as quickly as possible. The broad democratic consensus on which FSC is built and which ultimately is its unique strength also slows it down. Consultations and democratic processes are often time intensive, but we strongly believe and stand by them as it is crucial that we find solutions that can be supported by all of our stakeholders: economic, social and environmental interests as well as those in the lesser developed economic south and the more prosperous economic north, primarily timber producing and timber products consuming countries.

Mongabay: What is currently being done to improve the FSC and its certifying process?

Nina Haase: We constantly work to improve and develop the FSC system further. In these efforts, comments and feed-back from our members, supporters and critics are incorporated and addressed.

FSC has implemented some major reforms recently. I would like to highlight two: FSC has revised its audit procedures to allow ASI to perform spot audits. This sharpens the teeth of the FSC system as it allows us to react faster and with more force.

Also, we are currently in the last phases of public consultations on a so-called 'policy of association' which sets out criteria that companies have to fulfill before they can apply for FSC certification. The aim of this policy is to drastically reduce the likelihood of FSC being misused by companies who only have parts of their operations certified to FSC standards.

Other ongoing initiatives to improve the system is a review of the FSC Principles and Criteria, the development of international generic indicators, the revision of the accreditation standards, the development of a new dispute resolution process, the increased of number of audits and auditors working for ASI, the development of a new training program for auditors to ensure more consistency in audits, the installment and development of information systems that will allow us to faster and more efficiently detect inconsistencies and support monitoring and evaluation systems.

On the FSC and Climate Change

Mongabay: Having reviewed your 'Principles and Criteria' document I find no mention of climate change. Currently, how important is climate change in factoring FSC's certification?

Nina Haase: FSC certification supports the conservation and long-term maintenance of forests so that they are permanently maintained and managed in a socially and environmentally responsible way. FSC certified timber does not include raw material from damaging forestry practices or forest conversion which lead to carbon emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and forest fires.

Nevertheless FSC does not claim that certification to its standards can offset carbon emissions. Furthermore, to the best of FSC's knowledge, there are no companies or FSC initiatives at present making such claims.

The FSC Board of Directors, with support from FSC staff, is currently debating the role FSC will play in relation to the global climate debate including the possible role of forests in carbon sequestration. The FSC Global Strategy, available at our website and published in December 2008, already provides some insight on this issue.

Mongabay: Does the FSC ever require logging companies to participate in large-scale reforestation programs to off-set their emissions?

Nina Haase: No it doesn't. Nor does FSC have any certification standards or requirements for this. We have not yet seen information that is conclusive on this issue and it might not be accurate to label forest management as carbon emitters.

On the FSC's Credibility

Mongabay: The FSC has been facing difficulties in its national chapters as well. What is the FSC's response to the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) recent decision to pull its support of the FSC?

Nina Haase: Actually the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation has NOT withdrawn their support for FSC. They are still FSC members and support FSC in its mission. They have however withdrawn from the FSC Sweden Board of Directors.

Mongabay: A recent report from the EIA and Tekepak showed that some companies misuse the FSC stamp of approval, for example Kybotech Ltd. has admitted to lying when it stated to consumers that all of its products are FSC certified. What monitoring programs are in place to make certain that companies do not mislead consumers about FSC certification?

Nina Haase: I already mentioned the work that ASI is doing in a previous question (See: What is currently being done to improve the FSC and its certifying process?). Furthermore, FSC has created in 2007 a new company, called FSC Global Development, which is better structured to follow up on trademark abuse, including legal action if necessary.

FSC is launching an improved on-line Certificate Search which will include more information on certificates and certified products. This is FSC's central database. It is the only place with up to date information on FSC certificates - www.fsc-info.org. This is where you check the validity of the certificate number. This will soon include a detailed list of FSC certified products offered by the certificate holder given the scope of their certificate. All of this information is uploaded by the certification body to ensure credible and correct information is presented.

Mongabay: Does the FSC feel that its credibility is currently in trouble? If so how does the organization propose to regain its credibility?

Nina Haase: I think the answers to the previous questions largely answer this one, but please let me ad the following.
At FSC take every controversial certification very seriously and work hard to rectify and learn from them to further improve the FSC system. However, this should not be misunderstood to mean that the FSC system is not working and the FSC label is no longer a real and trustworthy sustainable alternative for consumers wanting to make the right choice.

In this context it is important to know that the problematic certificates remain very isolated incidences. This is not to be complacent about problematic certificates, but it is important to keep the scale of the issue in perspective.
Feedback from stakeholder groups and the outcome of research into the causes for controversial certificates continuously contributes to our efforts to further strengthen and improve the system.

Also, all assements of certification schemes equally show the FSC system as the strongest in forest management and the FSC standards the highest social and environmental requirements on the market. Several studies have also confirmed FSC's positive impact on the ground. This is not to mean that FSC is perfect, but to keep things in perspective.

Mongabay: Finally, why should consumers trust that the FSC stamp still means the product was harvested in a sustainable manner without negatively affecting biodiversity, local communities, and global climate change?

Nina Haase: The FSC standards include managerial aspects as well as the highest environmental and social requirements in the industry. FSC certified forests are managed to ensure future timber and non-timber forest product supplies while protecting the environment and the lives of forest-dependent peoples. As I mentioned before these are some of the examples of FSC forest management requirements (the full FSC Principles and Criteria are available on-line at: www.fsc.org):

Prohibit conversion of forests or any other natural habitat
Respect of international workers rights
Prohibition of use of hazardous chemicals
Respect of Human Rights with particular attention to indigenous peoples
No corruption — follow all applicable laws
Identification and appropriate management of areas that need special protection (e.g. cultural or sacred sites, habitat of endangered animals or plants)

Many of the points listed appear almost basic — but unfortunately in many places, even these basic requirements are not fulfilled. This is where FSC certification can make the biggest positive impact.

The FSC Chain of Custody traces forest products through the supply chain to the end-consumer. You can check the validity of the certificate at www.fsc-info.org and will soon to include a more detailed list of FSC certified products offered by the certificate holder given the scope of their certificate.

FSC certification is widely regarded as one of the most important initiatives of the last decade to promote responsible forest management worldwide. It is the only internationally recognized standard setting organization for responsible forest management supported equally by environmental organizations and social groups as well as the corporate sector. Many researches and numerous governments also support FSC. For testimonials from key stakeholders and further information as to why they support FSC you can visit www.whyfsc.org.

We say choose products from FSC certified forests and this will support the conservation of forests and wildlife and help people lead better lives!

Read more... Sphere: Related Content

25 April 2008

24 April 2008

by Peter Riggs

Solve Climate - Apr 14th, 2008

When you want to quit smoking, do you call a tobacco company? That in essence is what civil society groups were wondering when they met last week to evaluate the climate-friendly announcements coming out of the World Bank.

19 April 2008

Press Trust Of India - April 14, 2008

Veeramalla Anjaiah

The Jakarta Post's World News - April 18, 2008

Original URL

Adianto P. Simamora,

The Jakarta Post - April 18, 2008

Original URL

By Volker Mrasek

Spiegel Online International - April 17, 2008

Researchers have found alarming evidence that the frozen Arctic floor has started to thaw and release long-stored methane gas. The results could be a catastrophic warming of the earth, since methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But can the methane also be used as fuel?

The Lena River flowing through Russian Siberia and empties into the Arctic Ocean. This satellite image shows the river delta, where methane concentrations are unexpectedly high (AFP)

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2008

Bush's plan for global warming? Wait until 2025. Only then, he said in a Wednesday speech, should the US cap greenhouse gas emissions. Germany is not impressed.

Patrick McGroarty

Spiegel Online International - April 18, 2008

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2008

George W. Bush says we’re on track to meet the nation’s goals for curbing global warming.

By Gail Collins

The New York Times - April 19, 2008

Original URL

Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

Why a Wall Street firm wants to save a forest in Sumatra?

Byline: Marc Gunther

CNN - April 18, 2008

Copyright 2008, CNN

16 April 2008

China has already overtaken the US as the world's "biggest polluter", a report to be published next month says.

By Roger Harrabin - BBC Environment analyst

BBC NEWS - 2008/04/14 23:11:35 GMT

Original URL

CARBON EMISSIONS

Global carbon emissions statistics were last published in 2004. They show Chinese emissions began rising rapidly in 2002.

University of California research suggests China overtook the US as the worst producer of carbon emissions in 2006

By Karin Strohecker

Tue 15 Apr 2008, 13:44 GMT

Original URL

Biofuels threaten food supplies, rainforest and climate - yet our leaders push them in the name of the environment

The Guardian - Wednesday April 16 2008

Ample resources wasted, global study warns

Biofuels exacerbating shortage of food crops

John Vidal, environment editor

The Guardian - Wednesday April 16 2008

At a glance

13 April 2008

mongabay.com - March 31, 2008

09 April 2008

mongabay.com - April 2, 2008

Controversy over carbon offsets for forest conservation

Renewable energy and biofuels

Effects of climate change on indigenous people

An interview with Nina Haase, FSC International Communications Manager

Jeremy Hance

mongabay.com - April 7, 2008

Nina Haase

On the Criticism of FSC's Certification of Veracel's Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations

Photo by Michael Spencer

On Ecological Internet's Protest Regarding Old-Growth Logging

FSC General Assembly. Copyright FSC / Nowack.

Photograph by Juan Carlos Reyes GarcÃ­a

On Certification and Monitoring

On the FSC and Climate Change

On the FSC's Credibility

Where am I?

My Facebook Profile

Follow Me

Share@Twitter

Bookmark This

Visitors

BoilingSpot in Facebook

Make Mining History in Facebook

Feeds

Subscribe To

Subscribe me

Blog Archive

Photograph by Juan Carlos Reyes GarcÃa