Forest protection hinges on 10-word phrase | Green Business | Reuters .
OK, that’s a worry.
Developing nations could end up being paid billions of dollars to raze rainforests and build palm oil plantations in their place if the current text of the Copenhagen climate treaty sticks [...]
…
The 10-word provision — “safeguards against the conversion of natural forests to forest plantations” — was part of the proposal on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, known as REDD. The words were enclosed in brackets. Meaning, they were still up for negotiation.
The phrase vanished completely on the last day of UN climate talks in Bangkok in October.
The cut came from the European Union, with support from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and several other Congo Basin countries.
Afterwards, the European Commission’s chief negotiator called the word change “an unfortunate mishap.” Twenty countries are said to be in favor of restoring the phrase.
I still don’t understand why the EU goes on struggling with paying for conservation instead of paying for new plantations. It’s an ongoing battle, and one of the main reasons why REDD hasn’t taken off the ground – and why the EU doesn’t quite like carbon offsets on the ETS.
Is it fear of paying for ecosystem services becoming institutionalized and, therefore, going from optional to mandatory? Is it a question of not trusting current technology for measurement of benefits of existing forests, and preferring those planted anew?
Punchline: there is a lot that can go wrong. Can we please get the simple things right?
