The Kyoto Protocol is an obvious failure in its mandate to enjoin countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, and quite ironically, ‘global carbon-dioxide emissions have grown by 25% since the protocol was adopted in 1997.’

There are glaring reasons why the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol did not succeed. This treaty left out of the roster of considerations such a huge problem as deforestation. Also, ‘potential participants were put off by the idea of internationally binding commitments.’

The Copenhagen climate deal that is supposed to be signed by countries in December 2009 is touted to be a more effective replacement or follow up to the failed Kyoto Protocol. After all, it has the benefit of hindsight.

Some are starting to suspect that the much awaited climate deals in Copenhagen will not be closed. The aims of the summit deal in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions targeted at specific years will come at huge economic costs to economies that are still dependent on fossil fuels. A crash is, in fact, anticipated at Copenhagen. The participants just might not buy into the details, thereby creating an incohesive deal. For starters, developing countries already fear that ‘internationally binding commitments could be used as justifications for imposing tariffs on them.’

Some have forwarded diplomatic strategies to avoid the impending crash through ways and means in getting the climate negotiations on the right track for the desired successful deal. The trick, some say, is ‘moving the negotiations onto a different diplomatic track.’

Salient suggestions have come from Australia. ‘All countries would come up with a “national schedule” of programmes, such as cap-and-trade and low-carbon regulations. Developed countries would also specify an amount by which they mean to reduce their emissions. These commitments would have the force of domestic law, but would not be subject to international sanctions. And measures that have the force of domestic law are more likely to stick than those signed up to in a treaty under diplomatic pressure.’

Via Economist.com

The Kyoto Protocol which did not achieve general success is about to expire. To replace it is the new climate treaty that will be forged in Copenhagen this December. More than thought of as a historic global agreement, the Copenhagen treaty is ‘the culmination of a 20-year process,’ and is ‘the last chance to save the planet from a temperature rise of two degrees Celsius or higher.’

Many deem that the Kyoto Protocol was not thought out well enough. This is probably the biggest reason why it lacked teeth and authority. Originally just ‘a deal between the European Union and the United States, in which developing countries signed on but did not undertake commitments of their own,’ developing countries were in reality relegated to ‘an observer position, just making sure that there were not commitments imposed on them through the backdoor.’

Things have changed. Developing countries feel the environmental crunch now more than ever. They are ‘much keener to only commit to things they consent to — now they are really negotiating.’

But the biggest difference between the old Kyoto Protocol and the upcoming Copenhagen climate deal is that people now realize that ‘current commitments are just not strong enough because the problem has become more dramatic.’ The Kyoto Protocol only defines commitments until 2012.

Deforestation which accounts for 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions today is a focal point of discussions in Copenhagen as it is an ‘important factor for the developing countries’ and ‘was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol.’

One thing is certain, the Copenhagen climate deal, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, must have ‘measurable, reportable, and verifiable’ objectives for both developed countries and developing countries.

Image

Via Foreign Policy in Focus

More than 70 percent of Indonesia’s original forest cover has been lost. Logging, which is mostly illegal, is estimated to destroy over 2.4 million hectares per year.

Re-elected Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) gets international praise for leading the fight against deforestation in his country. All Indonesian presidents in the past have pledged to preserve Indonesia’s rainforests. What makes Yudhoyono different is that, unlike his predecessors, he has taken strong steps to keep his promise. One of his flagship projects is Operation Sustainable Forestry which was launched in 2005.

According to one veteran travel organizer, “Illegal logging decreased rapidly the first year SBY was in power. Powerful people, including government officials, were sent to jail for their roles in deforestation.”

Indonesia’s military has long been suspected of having ties with illegal loggers. Yudhoyono, a former general, has asserted greater civilian control over the military, particularly regarding illegal logging.

Logging concessions in Sebangau National Park, one of Kalimantan’s most infamous illegal logging areas, ended in 1990, yet there were 147 sawmills still operating as late as 2001. Illegal logging requires heavy investments in Indonesia. Loggers had also built extensive networks of canals to transport cut timber, making the lowland peat forest area more susceptible to burning.

Staunch environmentalist groups such as the WWF have always kept watch over deforestation in Indonesia. WWF has begun reforestation with corporate partners in 850 hectares of the worst hit areas of Sebangau, located just 45 minutes by speedboat from Central Kalimantan’s provincial capital Palangka Raya and believed to have one of world’s largest wild orangutan populations.

Image

Via Asia Times Online

Many find the global discussion of deforestation a tired one, most especially with those who cannot directly relate to this particular environmental malaise. Much less is their capacity to correlate deforestation with worldwide carbon emissions. Fact is ‘deforestation accounts for 20%-25% of worldwide carbon emissions, whereas the global transportation sector currently accounts for the same amount if not less (15-20%).’

More often than not, the issue of deforestation is discussed alongside the tragedy that has been befalling the Amazon rainforest, one of the largest in the world and perhaps the most deforested. No one can argue, though, that the Amazon rainforest is vital to the planet’s ecosystem. ‘Approximately one in every 10 known species in the world lives in the Amazon. It also provides the world with 20% of its oxygen, and contains 20% of the world’s freshwater. 25% of all modern pharmaceutical drugs are derived from rainforest plants, and yet only about 1% have been studied, including those that might help fight cancer.’

The territorial caretaker of the Amazon rainforest may very well be Brazil. This country is first and foremost accountable for the forest’s stewardship. Unfortunately, the endangered species list in Brazil tripled in size in 2008 as the Amazon deforestation during the same year rose by an alarming 64 percent in rate.

So, for the sake of global warming and climate change discussions and negotiations, the matter of the Amazon rainforest should be part and parcel of any agreements that will take effect after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

REDD or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation is a set of mechanisms that ‘use market/financial incentives to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation.’ Hopefully, this will be part of whatever agreement succeeds the Kyoto Protocol.

Image

Via The Huffington Post

New growth is saving the Amazon rainforest through renewed vegetation that addresses the problem of deforestation. These ‘secondary forests’ have been undervalued, even overlooked or ignored, by scientists, especially those who want to stick to the buzzwords of irreversible deforestation and unabated forest denudation. A UN study says ‘the ecological importance of these new forests which are growing dramatically all over the world is undervalued.’

While these secondary forests may not be as species-rich as primary rainforests with giant centuries-old trees, the value of this new growth of vegetation should not be undermined. Also, these secondary forests are proof that previously denuded forests manage to recover from their overexploitation. It seems that ‘the consequences of deforestation are not as devastating as environmentalists have been preaching for years.’

American biologist Joe Wright explains that “there are more secondary than primary rain forests in most tropical countries today,” and that “on the whole, the amount of land covered by vegetation is stable.” The scenario is logical: urbanization has led to abandoned fields and farms where new vegetation takes over naturally.

While 17 percent of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest has been deforested, many of these locations have become overgrown with new vegetation. This ‘secondary vegetation provides Brazil with a significant benefit’ by way of helping capture carbon dioxide and curb global warming.

Secondary forests are a natural phenomenon and consequence.

Image

Via salon.com

The Amazon rainforest is surely and quickly being destroyed by the clearing of tropical rainforest land for the use of cattle raising and grazing. This destructive industry is ‘responsible for 80 percent of rainforest loss in the Brazilian Amazon.’

Amazon ranching is also now a multi-billion dollar business, with 80 million head of cattle or ‘nearly as many as exist in all of the United States.’ Cattle ranching in the area has caused more than three-quarters of forest loss.

Cattle ranchers have largely ignored the warnings of environmental groups whose campaigns have not halted wide deforestation of the rainforest. This is because the global demand for beef is steadily on the upswing from the widening middle class especially in emerging economies such as Brazil, China, India, and Russia.

Cattle ranching in the Amazon has become an entire industry where corporate conglomerates seek to serve the expansive international meat market. Over the past 20 years, the trend has been such that ‘industrial corporations have replaced poor farmers as the primary agents of deforestation.’

With bigger markets to serve, even bigger market potential to tap, steep production and supply demand, and the means to circumvent the laws in a largely corrupt government set-up, deforestation of the Amazon due to cattle ranching seems to be unsolvable.

The dilemma is not hopeless, though. The solution lies within the interstices of the beef trade itself. What use is supply without the demand, anyway? Of late, ‘corporate buyers of beef and leather, including Wal-Mart, are starting to demand that the destruction of the forest be halted.’ The market movers are now demanding beef and leather supplies that are not sourced via deforestation.

Via environment360

Madagascar owns one of the world’s richest biodiversity hotspots. In some of the country’s protected areas, organized groups engaged in illegal logging have been felling ‘valuable rosewood trees and extracting other resources’ mostly from the Marojejy National Park and Masoala National Park.

To prove that illegal logging, a major cause of deforestation of the world’s rainforests, and illegal timber trade are globally recognized crimes, ‘the United States and European Union are putting in place new strict laws and regulations to stop the importation of illegally harvested and traded wood products.’

The international community and conservation groups in Madagascar have issued a joint statement calling for action against the dramatic increase in illegal logging on the island.’ Signatories of the joint statement include the embassies of France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, USA, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), KfW Entwicklungsbank, US Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Bank, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the Worldwide Fund for Nature. By all indication, the campaign to combat the proliferation of illegal logging in Madagascar seems to be a serious international movement.

Madagascar has been committed to a ‘transparent wood control system that documents the legality of harvesting and sales’ as part of the country’s general commitment to protect its valuable and unique biodiversity. However, criminal groups continue to undertake the illegal harvesting of timber.

Image

Via WWF

The Western demand for beef and leather is dictating the current trend in overranching in the Amazon forests of Brazil, thus causing persistent deforestation. So says a three-year survey conducted by Greenpeace. Cattle seems to produce a lot of lucrative products and by-products: meat for fresh and canned food, leather hide for fashion, fat for toothpaste, face creams, and soap, and bone and ligament gelatin for yoghurt and candy thickeners.  

The cattle ranching trade is usually done on illegally deforested lands in the Amazon. Greenpeace wants a boycott of produce coming from these companies that practice deforestation for the purpose of cattle ranching. Last year, a similar move was done against illegally grown Brazilian soya, bringing about a moratorium on soya grown on similarly deforested lands. 

A Brazilian law stipulates that ‘such farms inside the Amazon region must retain 80% of the original forest within their legal boundary.’ Apparently, the law is not implemented because overranching and deforestation still persist. Evidence can easily be retrieved through technological innovations like the GPS that can produce data and images. 

The Amazon deforestation is a showcase of man-made disaster. The region has lost at least one-fifth of its forests since the 1970s. This lost area approximates the size of the state of California. The three top culprits in Amazon deforestation are logging, cattle farming, and soy plantation. Greenpeace has a program to stop deforestation in the Amazon by 2015. It includes ‘financial incentives to promote forest protection; and increased support for agencies to monitor, control, and inspect commercial activities.’ The Brazilian government has not supported all these proposals. 

Image

Via guardian.co.uk

World Wildlife fund (WWF) campaigns are always interesting.There was paper Panda campaign where cute paper Pandas were put in parts of cities to create awareness about the dwindling number of the species.  The message was loud and clear.

This time again the message is explicitly put.  The ad shows depleting forest cover. The forest cover itself is in the form of human lungs part of which is cut. The forest cover is reducing fast and choking our lungs. Lungs need oxygen or else there is decay and threat to the very human life. The tagline: Before it’s too late, is appropriate too.

The campaign concept designed by TBWA France is brilliant. The need of forest cover is more vital than we can imagine. There is an increased incidence of lung cancer due to high pollution levels and less tress to give us oxygen. The link between trees, oxygen and lungs is crucial. Deforestation and pollution can painful killers. The ad carries web site of WWF where one can make meaningul contributions to stop deforestation.

WWF has shifted focus from species to direct forest cover and environmental awareness. Life on earth cannot survive without trees. Such direct social awareness campaigns are the need of the hour.

Via Coloribus

Another raging problem is far more alarming than the credit crunch today. This economic meltdown has some immediate solutions that are concretely possible. The bail out is an example of an immediate and concrete solution. What surpasses this economic problem is the raging environmental problem that is currently devastating the world today. This has far more alarming effects, in the long run and over the long haul.

A more alarming crisis is on the horizon. This one is more fundamental and crucial than any stock market issue. If this one crashes, it would be equivalent to practically all the major stock markets in the world crashing. Environmental assets are the foundation for all life on earth. They are also the major determinants of prosperity on the planet.

The world has been under-valuing or devaluing these environmental assets, causing the impending ecological credit crunch. Losses in this environmental wealth will lead to gross poverty and deprivation. This can cascade into several other social and economic problems on a global scale.

75 percent of all peoples in the world are now known as ecological debtors. These are countries where national consumption has outstripped their country’s biological capacity. They have overdrawn from the ecological capital that is present in the planet. In most parts of the world, natural wealth is overconsumed by deforestation, land conversion, soil, air, and water pollution, overfishing, and destructive mining. These adverse practices have all been spurned by man’s overconsumption.

The collective will of the people is not enough to assure this. Society will need pertinent laws and regulations. It is the political will of governments, as implemented by their leaders, which can ultimately assure the success of these ecological efforts.

Image

Via Global Footprint Network