US Pledges Fall Short of What’s Needed for Forest Protection: Ecosystems Climate Alliance
Friday, December 18, 2009 - Ecosystems Climate Alliance (ECA)  

Agreement on REDD Remains Uncertain; Targets and Baselines Undecided

Copenhagen – U.S. pledges announced in the last 24 hours are inadequate to ensure the long term success of the proposed UNFCCC program to reduce the approximately 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions that stem from the destruction and degradation of the world’s tropical forests (commonly known as REDD.), according to the forest and climate experts from the Ecosystems Climate Alliance.

“U.S. pledges are merely a drop in the bucket of the sums we will need to see to get a REDD program off the ground,” said Bill Barclay of Rainforest Action Network. “Developing countries need to know that enough money is forthcoming to support REDD in the long term before they can put targets on the table.”

After repeated calls by developing countries and observer groups for developed countries to put long term adequate financing on the table, the United States has led other countries in pledging funds to support the efforts of developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A promise of US$ 1 billion to underwrite REDD was part of a US$ 3.5 billion package from 6 countries including Australia, Britain, France, Japan, and Norway released last night, meant to jumpstart negotiations as final text was sent to ministers. An additional pledge to contribute to the creation of a new climate change fund of US$ 100 billion was announced by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a press conference today, although specifics on the sources and allocation of the money remain unclear, as does the exact amount the U.S. will supply.

“The U.S. needs to show real leadership with pledges at the scale necessary to protect the world’s forests,” said Lisa Handy of Environmental Investigation Agency. “This must be new and additional funding if we expect to get the job done.”

The lowest credible estimates on the financing of REDD show that are estimated at €15-25 billion (L13.6-22.7 billion; $22.4-37.3) from 2010-15 to support preparatory activities and proxy-based results (assuming 25% REDD implementation), and €7-14 billion (L6.4-12.7 billion; $10.4-20.9) per year by 2020 for fully measured, reported and verified emissions reductions and removals (assuming 50 percent REDD implementation)[1] <#_ftn1> . Many experts challenge these numbers as far too low to achieve the projected levels of emissions reductions.

“Changing entrenched economic systems won’t be cheap or easy,” said Rick Jacobsen of Global Witness. “More countries must pledge more money to get the job done.”

In addition to the need for truly adequate and reliable long-term funding, sources indicate that two main issues must be resolved to finalize any REDD agreement. Mid- and long-term targets to reduce deforestation have yet to be defined in the text, a critical element that will determine the program’s level of ambition to reduce deforestation. Additionally, text still contains references to “sub-national” strategies; whereby countries could receive REDD funds for avoiding deforestation in one region while continuing to log in another, failing to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions or to protect forests.

Finally, any REDD agreement will be meaningless for the world’s tropical forests. If global temperatures rise above 2 degrees Celsius, many scientists predict that tropical forests will be profoundly affected, experiencing extreme droughts, increased forest fires, and other catastrophic weather events. Unique forest species, like the orangutan, and indigenous peoples are also likely to be displaced as forests are destroyed.

About Ecosystems Climate Alliance (ECA)
The Ecosystems Climate Alliance (ECA) (www.ecosystemsclimate.org ) is an alliance of environment and social NGOs committed to keeping natural terrestrial ecosystems intact and their carbon out of the atmosphere, in an equitable and transparent way that respects the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. ECA comprises Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Global Witness, Humane Society International, Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Foundation Norway, The Rainforest Foundation U.K., Wetlands International and The Wilderness Society, Nepenthes, and the Australian Orangutan Project.

Unilever Alters Palm Oil Supply Chain After Greenpeace Allegations

December 14, 2009

In response to Greenpeace alleging that one of Unilever’s supposedly sustainable palm oil providers was instead clear-cutting rain forests to grow more palms, Unilever cut ties with the provider in question.

Greenpeace had alleged that Indonesian palm oil producer PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources & Technology was illegally cutting virgin rain forest lands, reducing habitat for orangutans and gibbons, reports the Wall Street Journal. Read the Greenpeace allegations here.

Unilever has decided to move on to a different supplier to quell the negative publicity, reports AP-Food Technology.

A Unilever spokesman said that the claims were “too serious for us to ignore.”
If PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources & Technology can come forward with proof that the allegations are false, Unilever said it would reconsider its decision.
In May, Unilever, which purchases about 4 percent of all palm oil produced globally, pledged to switch to palm oil certified as sustainable by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

In October, Unilever garnered the fourth spot in Covalence’s ethical ranking of multinational companies.

Before the recent allegations about Unilever, it had been claimed that more than 250,000 tons (metric tons) of certified sustainable palm oil had been purchased (PDF) since its availability late last year, marking the first stages of a viable market for sustainable palm oil, according to the RSPO.
In September and October alone, more than 100,000 tons of palm oil or corresponding certificates were acquired by companies globally, said RSPO.