31
March
A Model for Reducing Illegal Logging in REDD Projects
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.
April 1st, 2010 at 7:58 am
Generally spoken, your intentions are right. But talking about deforestation and illegal logging simultaneosly is a slippery slope. There is a lot of people and organizations not differing between deforestation and illegal logging. Sometimes these people are using the terms illegal logging and deforestation synonymously, which indeed is a big mistake.
Why?
Read here:
http://forestindustries.eu/content/uk-government-still-struggling-understand-deforestation-and-illegal-logging
Johan Haderer
April 1st, 2010 at 9:48 am
Good point Johan,
Do you think that if “legal” deforestation was documented more clearly and presented to the public, the public would be willing to change their consumption habits to reduce that deforestation?
April 1st, 2010 at 1:41 pm
My point I tried to make was: when trying to stop some bad habit you must communicate honestly; not doing so, you will still worsen things. So when people want to stop illegal logging they shouldn’t start to talk about deforestation and vice versa. Because it is proofed knowledge that illegal loging is NOT the root source of deforestation. Credibility is the magic…
Answering your question:
I don’t know. But I prefer to differentiate between sustainable and unsustainable deforestation. This topic is rather complex even more coplex is the relationship between deforestation and public consumption of industrialized countries. I am not sure a dramatic drop in public consumption of soybeans will result in a substantial reduction of deforestation…
Do you think this will happen?
April 4th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
I understand the point you’re trying to make and appreciate your desire to express it here. I read through the articles associated with the link you sent and I’m left with the feeling that the writer has thoroughly researched the problem but hasn’t offered any solutions beyond an academic articulation of the problem.
I agree there is a distinction between “deforestation” and “illegal logging.” I also agree that practices considered legal in one nation would be considered illegal in another.
I also know there are no easy solutions to these problems but I will hazard a question: Besides, or in addition to the the suggestion that the carbon market could funds initiatives to protect the forests, how do you think those goals could be financed?
April 16th, 2010 at 6:09 am
Hey, I just hopped over to your site via StumbleUpon. Not somthing I would normally read, but I liked your thoughts none the less. Thanks for making something worth reading.
June 15th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Sorry for beeing that late. But I was trouled a bit in the past – answering your question:
Yes, of course there is solution besides carbon markets: it is called “sustainable forest managment” – which indeed is a bunch of things which must be tackled before you will see any results.
Just one very tiny thing to consider: have you ever heard of the fact, that biggest amount of illegal logging is done by foresters? Why? Because they are not paid sufficiently by the governments. Raising the salary of foresters will dramatically reduce illegal logging – but this can only be realized when a lot of other things whtin public administration is changed – but as mentioned, this is just a very tiny brick of the wall…
BTW – it is terrible to write at this pad – dark green background and even darker grenn fonts – is a real chellange!