La déforestation, pilier des négociations climatiques internationales[en] 

The global community is in the midst of negotiating a new climate agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC ) conference in Bonn (29 March–8 April) launched the talks on a draft agreement in view of the final conference in Copenhagen in December.

Addressing deforestation is central to the talks, as it accounts for a fifth of global CO2 emissions, according to the UN. 

The negotiating parties are expected to agree to include a funding mechanism called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) in the climate deal. The REDD initiative followed the 2007 UNFCCC meeting in Bali, which agreed to establish the details of the mechanism in time for the Copenhagen conference.

The European Commission published a Communication on addressing deforestation and forest degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss in October 2008, detailing its position on funding activities to tackle the issues. It proposed establishing a Global Forest Carbon Mechanism in a UNFCCC context, but acknowledged that the inclusion of deforestation in carbon markets could be tested in the longer term (EurActiv 20/10/08).

EU environment ministers endorsed this approach in their December meeting. Despite initially promoting the inclusion of forests in EU Emissions Trading Scheme (see EurActiv LinksDossier on the 'EU ETS'), the Parliament is set to adopt a resolution later this month, reflecting the institutional compromise by adopting a cautious approach to forest carbon credits.

Halting deforestation is central to tackling climate change, as around 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by deforestation. Negotiations have so far concentrated on whether these reductions would be financed by direct public assistance or a market-based approach.

As the first round of UN negotiations ahead of the Copenhagen meeting set to adopt a post-Kyoto climate deal in December came to a close in Bonn last week (8 April) (EurActiv 09/04/09), Michael Zammit Cutajar, who chairs one of the UNFCCC working groups, stated that the parties had held "positive discussions" on how deforestation-related emissions can be reduced in developing countries. 

Nevertheless, the diversity of national positions on financing such activities means that all options will be on the table when the countries meet again in the former German capital in June.

Carbon credits

Australia has been the most vocal advocate of including a forest carbon-trading mechanism in the international climate agreement. The country's Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told UN diplomats at the International Peace Institute last month that a post-2020 climate agreement would have to include "comprehensive coverage" of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD; Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, a funding mechanism).

Australia proposed a forest carbon-market mechanism which would allow national governments to issue forest carbon credits for activities that cut emissions below an internationally-agreed national forest emissions level.

"It is worth noting that REDD is an area where Australia and the United States have converging views," Wong said.

Indeed, a draft climate bill prepared by Congressmen Waxman and Markey foresees the use of international REDD credits to offset a progressively increasing share of the compliance target from 2012 onwards.

In the UK, Prince Charles took the opportunity to organise a side event during the London G20 meeting on 1 April to urge world leaders, including Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to provide an "emergency package" for tropical rainforests.

Alongside public funding from developed nations, he also advocated a market-based system to finance rainforest protection. This would involve issuing rainforest bonds to private capital markets, either by the World Bank or a private entity supported by the Bank.

EU favours public funding

The European Commission, on the other hand, has taken a cautious approach to forest carbon credits, arguing that the risk is too high. It says there are many unresolved issues concerning monitoring, verification and liability issues, which will have to be addressed before forest credits can be considered for inclusion in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). And even then, inclusion would not be feasible until 2020, it said.

In the meantime, the Commission argues that public funding is the most realistic way to combat deforestation. It has proposed to establish a Global Forest Carbon Mechanism, which would reward developing countries for reducing emissions by taking action to reduce deforestation and degradation. 

The EU executive estimates that between 15 and 25 billion euros are needed annually to halve deforestation by 2020. It argues that a major part of EU funding could come from revenues from auctioning emissions allowances.

Similarly, Norway's national climate funding proposal, which was well-received by developing countries in Bonn, calls on all industrialised countries to auction a share of their emissions rights and allocate the money to forest protection measures. This approach, however, would source the funding at international, not national level, making an agreement less likely.

Support from green NGOs 

A report commissioned by Greenpeace and launched at the Bonn climate talks last month argued that unlimited inclusion of forest credits in carbon markets could in fact crash the price of carbon by as much as 75% (EurActiv 31/03/09). 

The NGO supports the Commission's position on forests in carbon markets. 

"Trading forest credits in carbon markets is not necessary and should not be allowed," Sébastien Risso, EU forest policy director at Greenpeace, told EurActiv. "The risks associated with this approach are too high and it will take a long time to provide the necessary funding, while we need immediate and bold action."

Risso said the unrestricted introduction of forest credits would have a huge negative impact on carbon prices. On the other hand, allowing only a small volume of such credits, as envisaged by some in the US, would contribute very little to avoiding deforestation, he added.

"Basically, this is a lose-lose situation," Risso said, adding that there are better options on the table. "What Greenpeace wants is a performance-based fund that pays right away for effective forest conservation and reduced deforestation," he concluded.

Other green groups have been equally sceptical about the impact and fairness of carbon credits.

The Global Forest Coalition, for example, argued that carbon markets only favour a handful of polluters, and waste money which could otherwise be used for climate mitigation measures. 

"The climate crisis is escalating so rapidly that we need both an immediate halt to deforestation and a clear commitment of the developed country members of the G20 to take the lead and commit to the necessary reduction of at least 80% in their greenhouse gas emissions - with no carbon offsets," said Anne Petermann, North American focal point for the Global Forest Coalition.

NGOs have also expressed concerns that carbon traders will trample on indigenous people's right to their forests.