TreeBanker’s Blog

While most people considered the COP 15 in Copenhagen a bust, there was one clear winner. Forestry carbon projects. I could go on and on about the value of the forests, the biodiversity, the rights of indigenous forest people, etc. but I’m guessing that you’re already fully aware of all of those issues. I’ll also skip over the estimate that deforestation produces 17% of all of the greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere.


At COP 15 the only significant point of agreement among the delegates was the need to stop, or at least slow the deforestation of the planet, and that the carbon market should become a useful tool to achieve that goal.


At the Copenhagen talks, nations promised a $3.5 billion international scheme to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), with the U.S. alone pledging $1 billion, according to Reuters reports.


Unfortunately you don’t have to look very far to find examples of scams associated with forestry carbon projects, and, right along side those stories you’ll find legitimate concerns about leakage from illegal loggers.

Leakage occurs when emissions reductions at one site or point of time, indirectly drive increased emissions from another activity outside the project boundary. For example, if a forestry project limits logging in one area, developers should consider the possibility that deforestation will simply occur elsewhere.

Voluntary Carbon Markets p.21


Hard statistics about the extent of illegal logging are hard to come by. An EU Forest Watch Report produced by FERN.org in 2001 published the following statistics for four major timber exporting countries. These statistics estimate exports that came from illegal logging activities:


Brazil:80%
Source: Brazilian Secretariat for Strategic Affairs (1997)

Indonesia:73%
Source: Indonesia-UK Tropical Forest Management Programme (2000)
‘Roundwood Supply and Demand in the Forest Sector in Indonesia’.

Malaysia:35%
Source: WWF (1995) ‘Bad Harvest’.

Cameroon:50%
Source: World Resources Institute (2000) ‘An Overview of Logging
in Cameroon’.


Obviously there is a market for this lumber. I think there’s a lot of looking the other way all along the entire supply chain. How much interest would there be if all of the lumber was transparently separated into two classes? LEGALLY HARVESTED and ILLEGALLY HARVESTED


Obviously policies have to be implemented in both the exporting and importing countries to change these statistics.


The point I’m trying to make is that the carbon market has the potential to fund the protection of these valuable assets. REDD lays the foundation for using carbon credit funds to protect forests, especially rainforests.


According to the UN REDD Program website,

“REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries – is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.”

The key here is “create financial value”. If this new market designates the rainforests as a valuable asset then it obviously has to be protected.


Since such a large percentage of the deforestation is from illegal logging it stands to reason that a percentage of those funds should be used to protect the forests from those activities.


A story posted in the NY Times describes how a forestry carbon project developer in Indonesia is employing former rebel soldiers and retraining them as park rangers.


Rainforest authority MongaBay.com recently published an article describing how a group of organizations in Africa have come together to develop a model to reduce illegal wildlife trading .


An associate of ours is about to release a new, user-friendly visual accounting system that will add unprecedented transparency to projects and give these grassroots initiatives the tools they need to collect evidence that will help bring illegal loggers to justice.


By capitalizing and duplicating ideas like these with carbon credit funds the forests of the planet will be protected.


A world-wide carbon market is coming. Like any other market, the power to direct the market will be in the hands of the purchasers. Will they choose to buy credits from transparent, ethical sources or will it be the hurried, “Give me whatever you’ve got!!!”


Transparency, community development, and biodiversity protection add value to carbon credits on the voluntary market, hopefully the compliance market will follow that lead and price credits based on co-benefits… but… that’s a subject for another post.

Zero net deforestation by 2020

WWF will highlight the urgency of global leaders committing to a zero net deforestation by 2020 target at the XIIIth World Forestry Congress, being held October 18th – 23rd 2009.

This includes a complementary climate change target of reducing gross forest-based greenhouse gas emissions by at least 75 per cent by 2020. Together these targets set a global benchmark for success in tackling the problem of deforestation at the scale and pace needed to prevent runaway climate change and avoid a catastrophic decline in biodiversity.



Three-toed Sloth, Atlantic Forest, Brazil © Chris Townend/ Birdseekers,
from the surfbirds galleries


“Zero Net deforestation” can be distinguished from “zero deforestation”, which means no deforestation anywhere. The “zero net” target acknowledges that some forest loss could be offset by forest restoration. In other words, Zero net deforestation is not synonymous with a total prohibition on forest clearing. Rather, it leaves room for change in the configuration of the land-use mosaic, provided the net quantity, quality and carbon density of forests is maintained.


It recognizes that, in some circumstances, conversion of forests in one site may contribute to the sustainable development and conservation of the wider landscape (e.g. reducing livestock grazing in a protected area may require conversion of forest areas in the buffer zone to provide farmland to local communities).


However, to maximize the conservation of biodiversity and the reduction of GHG emissions we need to conserve as much of the world’s remaining natural forests as possible.


Zero Net Deforestation by 2020 needs also to be translated into a GHG emission reduction target. As forest destruction is responsible for close to 20 % of global emissions, it is imperative that action to reduce emissions from deforestation be taken as part of the Copenhagen Agreement. This must be done in a manner that promotes the protection of biodiversity and fully respects the rights of local and indigenous peoples. Countries should commit to reducing gross forest-based greenhouse gas emissions by at least 75% by 2020.


WWF is calling for a zero net deforestation by 2020 policy because:
• Deforestation has dire consequences on biodiversity, the climate and people
• This target will enhance international efforts and processes linked to biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, and protection and sustainable management of forests
• To prevent runaway climate change, greenhouse gas emission rates must peak before 2020 and decline to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
• With an annual reduction of 10% of the current global deforestation rate, the world can achieve zero deforestation by 2020
• It is expected that a REDD mechanism will become operational with the start of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2013. This will give a period of eight years during which the mechanism can contribute to the 2020 target.


For more information, visit http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_2020_zero_net_deforest_brief.pdf


Atlantic Forests – An emblem of change


Achieving zero net deforestation in the Atlantic Forest will remove a critical threat to this highly fragmented forest.


The forest is a unique area home to an extraordinary variety of plants and animal life. It hosts more than 20,000 plants species – of which 8,000 can be found nowhere else – and 1,000 bird species, 372 amphibians, 350 types of fish, 197 types of reptiles, and 270 mammals.


Though it initially spanned 500,000 square kilometres, shared between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, only 7.4 percent of the forest is left today – or about 35,000 square kilometres. This makes it one of the most threatened subtropical forests in the world.


Agricultural expansion, construction, growth of cities, and non-sustainable exploitation of the forest have led to the vast deforestation of the Atlantic Forest.


For more information, visit http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/atlantic_forests.cfm or http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/forests/

*RAGING **FOREST** FIRES THREATEN WILD ORANGUTANS IN **BORNEO***


Forest fires are breaking out in the Sabangau peat-swamp forests in Central Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo, threatening the lives of the estimated 8,000 wild orangutans living here. This is exceptionally worrying during times of extreme drought caused by El Niño. This year Borneo is once again firmly in the grip of such a drought. During previous El Niño years several hundred thousand hectares of primary rainforest burnt in this area, destroying the habitat of thousands of orangutans and other endangered plants and wildlife. According to Dr. Suwido Limin, Director of the Indonesian peatland conservation organisation CIMTROP, management of the forest by forestry companies over the last forty years has led to the loss of forest rights for local people. In order to restore the local community’s engagement with the forest, these rights need to be returned.


Dr. Limin has witnessed out of contol fires many times before and is concerned that 2009 will see a repeat. He has spent the last twenty years studying and protecting this unique ecosystem and knows very well the risks involved. “These fires have started as a result of human actions; newcomers to the area have attempted to follow traditional Dayak farming methods for land clearance but they lack the experience to control the fires they start. When peat dries out it burns very easily and at great temperatures. Once these fires take hold, they burn and burn and can be almost impossible to put out until the rains come again. In that time huge areas of forest and irreplaceable peat deposits may be lost”.


Peatland fires are not only a major threat to the natural environment and the many species that live here but also to the health of the local population due to smoke inhalation. Nationally, huge clouds of smoke are blacking out the sun, affecting air and sea traffic and potentially causing millions of dollars of lost revenue. On a global scale, they are one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute significantly to rising global temperatures and hence climate change.


To try and prevent this happening, CIMTROP run a rapid-response fire-fighting team (locally known as the Tim Serbu Api, or TSA) to tackle fires as soon as they are reported and before they get out of control. The team monitors an area of 100,000 hectares and is made up of local people who have received training and equipment from CIMTROP and are ready to be called upon when fires break out. But, as Dr. Limin reports, this is a hazardous job. “Peat fires are unique as they spread below the surface, on average 20-30cm below ground but sometimes as deep as 60cm, which makes fighting them both dangerous and unpredictable. You can put out fire in one place and then flames suddenly shoot up behind you.”


One fire hotspot is Kalampangan which borders both the NLPSF (the Natural Laboratory for Peat Swamp Forest), an international research site established by CIMTROP, and Sabangau National Park – home to the world’s largest orang-utan population. CIMTROP’s fire-fighting team have been battling fires in Kalampangan non-stop for the past ten days and will continue to monitor the fires until the rains come. Local residents report the fire took hold incredibly quickly, raging through the tinder-dry vegetation, decimating all in its path and burning down into the peat. Here orangutan sleeping nests can be seen in trees shrouded in smoke and rhinoceros hornbills fly through the haze overhead. On the ground, the TSA create fire breaks and pump water from nearby canals and bore-holes onto the fires. Bore-holes often need to be twenty meters or more deep to access sufficient water to tackle the fire, taking up to six hours and teams of three or four trained workers to dig. Extinguishing just one square metre of burning peat takes two to three hundred litres of water.


Alim, a long-term TSA team member, is enthusiastic to talk about their work and what they need. “We use water pumps and special fire-fighting hose to carry water from the water bores and canals to the burning areas. At the moment, we have twenty TSA rapid-response fire suppression team members, all fully trained specialists in fighting peat fires. They work alongside ten more people split between the River Patrol Team (Tim Patroli), which carry out daily patrols along the boundary of the NLPSF using the Sabangau river, and the TSA Ground Patrol Unit who use motorbikes to monitor the forest from the land. All our teams keep in contact with each other using two-way radios. Of course, it would be great if we could have more equipment so we can cover more ground. Ideally, I would like sixty permanent TSA members so we can set up more fire-fighting points working simultaneously in this fire hotspot while also allowing the team to get some rest! We need more water pumps, lots more hose and permanent bore-hole sites so we can channel water to burning areas more easily. Unfortunately, one of our patrol bikes was destroyed in the Kalampangan fire making patrolling much harder.”


Dr. Limin is proud of his team and their dedication in such difficult conditions. In 2006 they battled successfully for five months to save an area of pristine forest, and he expects a similar commitment this time around. But he echoes Alim’s calls for more equipment and personnel. “It is difficult to maintain funding for the TSA over the long-term because major fires occur maybe once every three or four years. We need to have the capacity to guarantee income and operational costs for the TSA and Tim Patroli and have funds permanently available for immediate use when fire hits. Disasters do not wait while mitigation strategies are discussed and put in place; they hit hard and fast, with little warning. We rely on donations, and are very grateful for the financial support we receive, but at the moment we simply don’t have the resources we need to tackle all the fires that are starting.”


Ref: Harrison M. E., Page S. E. and Limin S. H. (2009) The global impact of Indonesian forest fires. Biologist 56 (3): 156-163

Anyone that follows me on Twitter knows that the bulk of my material comes from “Green” news sources, which I study every day. I, in turn, pass along the stories that I think my followers will find interesting. One of my favorite sources is Environmental Markets Newsletter from John J Lothian & Co.


Today’s newsletter was prefaced with a commentary that I’ve been thinking about writing myself. I have these same conversations on an on-going basis and, since the editor of EMN took the time to articulate it so well today I thought I’d pass it along.

From time to time, depending on the cocktail hour company, I get a question or discuss the topic of environmental activist groups. Usually, that starts and ends with the likes of Greenpeace. I generally don’t have much of an opinion about Greenpeace but have increasingly felt myself – a follower of the market-based approach to global warming – pulling further away from such organizations. And then I saw the publicity stunt with Greenpeace draping a banner from Mount Rushmore calling on Obama to stop global warming while he attended the G-8 Meeting in Italy. As I read the ridiculous press releases from Greenpeace about what a wake-up call it was the country, I felt an even stronger disconnect.
Finally, I listened to a podcast from Bill Moyers Journal, “Obama and Environmentalists” http://bit.ly/26kDCC where he interviewed Mary Sweeters of Greenpeace USA and Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth about why they oppose the Waxman-Markey legislation. What irritated me more than anything is the complete disconnect these two people have with the political realities facing Obama and the rest of the world. While I’ll be the first to support their position that the current legislation does not seem to go far enough to address the scientific community’s call for fast and meaningful action on climate change, it shouldn’t be rejected as they suggest. But what is more infuriating about groups such as Greenpeace and others is that they often have no other practical plan to put forward. They’re the same as the ultra conservatives on the right that oppose the changes suggested but then fail to come up with new ideas that could shape the debate.
As I listened to Sweeters and Pica say that Obama just needs to twist more arms and be out in front of the American people on the issue, the fact is that isn’t an alternative plan.
So I’ve chosen to ignore much of that noise because they are not contributing to the legislation currently in the pipeline but they are doing a swell job of marginalizing themselves.

In the movie ‘HOME’, one of the narrators repeats, “It’s too late to be a pessimist.” I’d like to add, “It’s too late to point fingers without offering meaningful solutions.”

When we first decided the get in the rainforest protection and replanting business we knew it would be full of adventure and memorable experiences. I have to be honest though, we never expected to be so close to a terrorist bombing, or reassured by a bunch of strangers so quickly after the fact.


Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier this week we drove to the city of Bandung, the capital of West Java Indonesia to meet with local community development experts.


The Jakarta-to-Bandung highway we drove on was just as nice as any major highway in the US. The two hour drive gave us a little better idea of what the countryside looks like outside of Jakarta. As the scenery started to open up, Jocelyne and I started to mention how pretty the mountains and the terraced small farms were, our host and business partner smiled and told us, “On a scale of one to ten, all of this is about 2.5.” I asked, “Will we have time to see any ‘tens’ while we’re here?” He broke into a huge, proud grin and teasingly remarked, “We’ll see.”


Read the rest of this entry »

This is the first in an on-going series chronicling our trips to Indonesia to launch the first of hopefully many rainforest projects. This is our first trip to SE Asia so we’ll have a learning curve as we adapt to to the culture.
Read the rest of this entry »

When my @TreeBanker account stopped working on Twitter a couple weeks ago it could have been devastating. Weeks of long hours cultivating followers gone as quickly as it takes a page to load with a high speed connection.


But those followers didn’t just disappear, they wondered what happened. They came looking for me to see if I was alright.


Read the rest of this entry »

What a sinking feeling.


Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think I’m addicted to Twitter, I just know what a powerful tool it is for bringing like-minded people together. I also know how many hours it takes to attract 25,000 followers and I know how it feels to have people reach out from the twitterverse to say, “I’ve been following you on Twitter for a while, I read your blog, can I interview you for an article?… would you consider guest blogging on our site?… what do you think about this… what do you think about that?”


Read the rest of this entry »

It has been said that the tropical rainforests are “The Lungs of the Earth.” If this is true would they not be among the most valuable parts of the planet?

Greenpeace and other skeptics of carbon credits generated through avoided deforestation always seen to overlook a simple solution to the fear of “under-priced carbon credits flooding the market.” Place a floor on the price of all carbon credits. Instead of limiting the percentage of forestry credits in the marketplace (as in the current EU ETS), require that a certain percentage of credits come from forestry projects.


The Trillion $$$ carbon market is the rainforests’ best hope of survival, and the planet’s.


Dan T
@TreeBanker