Bonn/Bogota, 12 June 2013

A new report [1] by the Global Forest Coalition [2] was launched at a side event on equity in climate mitigation policies organized by GenderCC at the climate talks in Bonn, Germany [3]. The report highlights the serious negative impacts that the proposed new ‘bioeconomy’ and existing markets in ‘environmental services’ could have on women around the world.

The report shows how ‘green’ policies designed to address the different crises we face, tend to gravely impact rural and indigenous communities, and have contributed to land grabs across the world. ““Both natural resources and ecosystem functions represent common goods on which many rural and indigenous women and their families depend directly; due to women’s differentiated role in the sustainable use and conservation of natural resources, they carry out important contributions but these are overlooked, triggering the further marginalization of women and contributing to the feminization of poverty” states Isis Alvarez, lead author of the report. “It is women who are affected the most as patriarchal systems persist in most societies across the world; these do not recognize women’s rights to own land even if they are the ones who work the land, cultivate it and depend on it for their own and their families’ subsistence”, continued Alvarez.

Similarly, the proposal to develop bioeconomies (a term used to refer to industrial bioeconomies based on plant materials rather than fossil fuels) continues at a fast pace in order to fulfill the demands of industrial production. The bioeconomy approach to using plant materials instead of fossil fuels in manufacturing and the production of heat and energy will create an unprecedented increase in demand for all biological resources.

Simone Lovera, GFC’s executive director, who is currently attending the Bonn climate talks, adds, “Burning forests and other ecosystems for bioenergy is the worst climate change mitigation strategy one can think of. Governments in Bonn have paid lip-service to the need to address the drivers of forest loss this week, but the EU, the US and other countries refuse to revoke the bioenergy targets and subsidies that directly and indirectly drive the massive conversion and degradation of forests all over the world. Women are the particular victims of this trend, not only because they are the first to be affected by the higher food prices, land grabbing and air pollution caused by bioenergy, but also because they are more dependent upon free access to forest resources for family needs.”

The report also touches upon controversial issues such as ‘technofixes’ being promoted under the bioeconomy approach. These include genetic modification, synthetic biology, and geoengineering, technologies that, in the absence of a regulatory framework, represent grave threats to the environment and humanity. “Indeed, these do represent important profit opportunities to many of the same actors that are already part of the ‘juicy’ fossil fuel business”, concludes Alvarez.

For further information, contact:

Isis Alvarez, senior gender expert, Global Forest Coalition: +57-315-648-4656

Simone Lovera, executive director, Global Forest Coalition: +31-6-15345379

NOTES FOR EDITORS:

[1] http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/INCREASING-THE-GENDER-GAP-FINAL.pdf

[2] The Global Forest Coalition (www.globalforestcoalition.org) is a worldwide coalition of 54 NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations from 39 different countries striving for rights-based, socially just and effective forest conservation policies.

[3] The side event “The Social Dimension of Climate Change Mitigation in Developed Countries – Tackling the Fairness Gap” will be organized by genderCC on 12 June at the meetings of the Subsidiary Bodies to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which take place from 3 to 14 June in Bonn Germany.

As another round of climate talks [1] opens today in Bonn, Germany, a coalition of human rights and forest groups have launched a manual for communities on alternatives to REDD+ and other forms of ‘green land grabbing’ [2].

The manual, which has been produced by the Global Forest Coalition [3], Critical Information Collective [4], Biofuelwatch [5], the ICCA Consortium [6] and Econexus [7] highlights the risks of REDD+ [8] projects and large-scale bioenergy production schemes for communities.  Many of these schemes have been associated with involuntary displacements of communities and other forms of so-called ‘green land grabbing’.

“REDD+ was promoted with the fairy tale that it would generate up to 30 billion USD per year in payments to countries and communities who conserve forests, but the voluntary forest carbon offset market has provided less than 1 percent of that amount [9] and public funding is declining [10]” cautions Simone Lovera, executive director of the Global Forest Coalition, who will attend the upcoming talks.  “So Indigenous Peoples and local communities risk being cheated into contracts that take away their rights to control their own lands and territories in exchange for very uncertain financial rewards.” Negotiations about REDD+ funding stalled at the climate talks in December 2012.

Demand for biomass (for biofuels and for manufacturing in proposed new ‘bioeconomies’ [11]) is already increasing rapidly, and is likely to lead to yet more landgrabbing and industrial logging in forests.

The manual proposes several alternatives to green land grabbing, including the recognition of territories and areas conserved by Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities (ICCAs) and the development of Community Protocols that help communities to identify their own conservation and development priorities.

“Indigenous Peoples and local communities have conserved their territories and areas before money was even invented” highlights M. Taghi Farvar, President of the ICCA Consortium. “They need something that can be given to them today, i.e. legal and political recognition of their own capacities and conservation efforts.  They need policy support for sustainable livelihoods.  They need the withdrawal of the perverse incentives that ruin their local economies… What they do not need is false promises about payments that might never come.”

Press contacts:

In Bonn: Simone Lovera, executive director, Global Forest Coalition:+31-6-15345379

NOTES FOR EDITORS:

[1] The 38^th session of the subsidiary bodies of the UN Framework Convention Climate Change will take place from 3 to 14 June in Bonn, Germany.

[2] The manual Community rights and ‘Buen Vivir’ as an Alternative to Green Land Grabbing can be downloaded in English from: http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LANDGRABBING-MANUAL-FINAL-2-EN.pdf

And in Spanish from: http://www.globalforestcoalition.net/es/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LANDGRABBING-MANUAL-FINAL-ESP-FULL-1.pdf

[3] The Global Forest Coalition is a worldwide coalition of 54 NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations striving for rights-based, socially just forest conservation policies. http://www.globalforestcoalition.org

[4] Critical Information Collective aims to provide accessible and incisive information challenging corporate-driven economic globalisation and promoting fair and sustainable alternatives: http://www.criticalcollective.org

[5] Biofuelwatch works to raise awareness of the negative impacts of industrial biofuels and bioenergy on biodiversity, human rights, food sovereignty and climate change. http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

[6] The ICCA Consortium is a worldwide consortium of organizations and federations of indigenous peoples and local communities, NGOs and individuals dedicated to achieving appropriate recognition and support to territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities. http://www.iccaforum.org/

[7] EcoNexus is a not-for-profit public interest research organisation analysing developments in science and technology and their impacts on environment and society. http://www.econexus.info/

[8] Parties to the UNFCCC agreed in 2010 to develop a scheme that would provide results-based payments to projects and national policies that Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and enhance forest carbon stocks (REDD+). However, there is no agreement about who or what will actually pay for this scheme yet. Nevertheless, ‘REDD readiness’ schemes are being rolled out in various countries by the World Bank and the UN.

[9] The highest amount generated by the forest carbon offset market so far was 178 million USD per year. See: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/index.php?pubID=2963

[10] According to the REDD+ Partnership Database (http://www.reddplusdatabase.org), donor contributions were at their highest in 2011, when USD 1.14 billion was contributed to REDD+ activities. This amount dropped to USD 662 million in 2012, and for 2013 the estimates are only 229 million USD.

[11] There is a new race for land for underway for industrial-scale ‘bioenergy’ production, as part of the new ‘bioeconomy’ approach, which is intended to create a new kind of industrial manufacturing based on plant materials and wastes instead of fossil fuels. See http://www.criticalcollective.org/publications/green-economy-3/ for more information.

On the occasion of International Day for Biodiversity and the start of UN talks on a possible sustainable development goal (SDG) on agriculture [1], a coalition of environmental NGOs has published a briefing paper to raise awareness of the negative impacts of rapidly expanding industrial livestock farming and large-scale cattle ranching on the world’s forests and biodiversity. Industrial animal agriculture cuts across multiple sectors, affecting land use, water, food security, public health, and climate change. But too often these intersections are overlooked.

The paper, [2] launched today by Brighter Green [3] and the Global Forest Coalition [4], highlights the reality that large-scale cattle ranching and production of feed and fodder for the industrial livestock industry are by far the main causes of forest loss in Latin America, and play significant roles in biodiversity loss in other continents. The global livestock sector is also one of the main contributors to global warming, responsible for no less than 18% of world-wide greenhouse gas emissions.

The paper also features short case studies of how communities from Chad to Indonesia to Argentina are feeling the effects of industrial livestock production on forests, livelihoods, and their land.

“Despite increasing attention to the need to address unsustainable agriculture as a major driver of forest and biodiversity loss and climate change, Governments continue to turn a blind eye to the devastating impacts of modern-day industrial livestock farming,” states Simone Lovera, executive director of the Global Forest Coalition, a global network of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples organization headquartered in Paraguay. “Here in Paraguay, for example, large-scale cattle ranching and the production of soy for the intensive livestock industry destroy more than 850 hectares of forest every day, with devastating impacts on Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation.

“The burdens created by the spread of industrialized animal agriculture are wide and varied, spanning ecological, social, and ethical spheres,” adds Mia MacDonald, executive director of Brighter Green. “There is no way hunger and malnutrition can be eradicated, or equity achieved, if we continue to use more than 30 percent of the Earth’s land surface and 70 percent of agricultural land for livestock and feed production.”

The briefing paper also highlights the social and health impacts of industrial livestock farming, including on animal welfare. Each year, more than sixty billion animals are raised for human consumption and more than 98% of soy meal (created by crushing soy beans) is used as feed for farmed animals. Only a generation ago, most chickens in India were raised in backyard flocks, often by women. Now, 90 percent of the more than 2 billion chickens that come to market in India each year have lived their entire lives in industrial-style facilities, and India is the world’s fifth biggest poultry meat producer.

In addition to a loss of connection with nature and deviation away from traditional cultures, the industrialization of the meat industry is amplifying public health issues across the globe. In China, now the world’s largest producer and consumer of animal products, diet-related chronic disease is the most common cause of death.

The paper also explores how more sustainable forms of livestock farming, like traditional pastoralism, are being destroyed through “land grabbing” for feed and fodder production. The authors recommend that the land tenure rights of these pastoralist peoples are protected and that small-scale, ecological forms of agriculture and more balanced diets are supported over industrial meat and feed production.

Government subsidies that now support the expan­sion of industrial-scale live­stock and feed operations should be ended and the “externalities” on which animal agriculture is dependent—such as water pollution, contamination of soil and groundwater, land degrada­tion, and GHGs—should be paid for, in full, by the industry and/or specific facili­ties that cause them. The authors also call for political openness, especially in policy-making, so that voices ques­tioning intensive animal farming and promoting alternative directions can be heard.

Media contacts:

For Brighter Green: Mia MacDonald, Executive Director, macdonald@brightergreen.org / Tel: +1 212 414 2339 x. 17 (office) / +1 917 626 8702 (mobile)

For Global Forest Coalition: Anne Petermann, media coordinator

NOTES

[1] The “Rio+20” UN Conference on Sustainable Development that was held in June 2012 agreed upon the elaboration of a set of Sustainable Development Goals. From 22 to 24 May meetings of the UN Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals focusing on food and agriculture, land degradation, drought and desertification and water will take place at UN Headquarters in New York.

[2] http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MM_Brighter-Green-and-the-Global-Forest-Coalition_WSF_Industrial_Livestock-FINAL.pdf

[3] Brighter Green (www.brightergreen.org) is a public policy action tank based in New York that works to raise awareness of and encourage policy action on issues that span the environment, animals, and sustainability. Its work is done with a strong commitment to ensuring and expanding equity and rights.

[4] The Global Forest Coalition (www.globalforestcoalition.org) is a worldwide coalition of 54 NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations from 39 different countries striving for rights-based, socially just and effective forest conservation policies.

Istanbul–

The report — launched today at the 10th meeting of the UN Forum on Forests in Istanbul [5] — concludes that providing appropriate recognition to territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities (ICCAs), and eliminating subsidies and changing policies that promote forest destruction, can effectively form non-market-based forest conservation policies that are far more effective, equitable and economically efficient than forest carbon offset markets and other payments for environmental services schemes.The UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) is discussing how to increase financial support for the forestry sector, under the illusion that this will create more sustainable forest management practices. Negotiations about funding to compensate countries that agree to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) at the climate talks have stalled as countries debate whether most of this funding should be generated through forest carbon offset markets, or through official development aid.

Donor countries have refused to commit significant amounts of public support, while significant funding from forest carbon offset markets is not expected to be generated until at least 2020, due to legitimate concerns about such markets undermining the climate regime and/or leading to inequitable outcomes.

 ”It is obvious we cannot wait until 2020 to start reducing forest loss…  if only because Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity have agreed that forest biodiversity loss should have been halted by then”, highlights Simone Lovera, executive director of the Global Forest Coalition. “Compensatory payments for reducing the emissions from forest loss as proposed by REDD are not only morally, socially and environmentally questionable, they are also an unnecessarily expensive way to halt forest loss. We can’t allow debates about financial mechanisms that are doomed never to work to delay action yet again.”

In a report on the root causes of forest loss published in 2010 [6], Global Forest Coalition concluded on the basis of 23 national studies that increased demand for wood and land, rather than the lack of financial resources for the forestry sector, was the main driver of forest loss in most countries.  

“Instead of wasting money on REDD, developed countries should redirect and/or abolish all subsidies and other perverse incentives that promote practices that cause forest destruction, like industrial “bioenergy” production and intensive livestock farming” states Helena Paul, co-director of GFC’s member group Econexus. “The Conference of the Parties of the Biodiversity Convention have made a clear recommendation that such perverse incentives should be removed, and that this is a pre-condition for positive incentive schemes to have any effect.” she adds.

Another policy measure that has proven to be highly successful all over the world is a combination and legal and social recognition provided to the territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities. ”Indigenous Peoples and local communities all over the world have proven to be perfectly capable of conserving their forests through traditional, bio-cultural practices that do not treat forests as mere carbon sinks, but as a source of life, livelihoods, spirituality and culture”, emphasizes Taghi Farvar, President of the ICCA Consortium, an international consortium of more than 50 organizations dedicated to the recognition and defense of ICCAs.  

“There is an urgent need for the legal and political recognition of ICCAs as an effective, equitable, socially just and culturally appropriate form of forest conservation and restoration”, emphasizes Andrey Laletin, chairperson of the Global Forest Coalition, who was one of the contributors to a worldwide study on the recognition of ICCAs published by the ICCA Consortium and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity in 2012. [7]

Hubertus Samangun, Asian Indigenous focal point of the Global Forest Coalition and Indigenous Peoples focal point for the UNFF adds “Indigenous territories have proven to cool the planet – there are an increasing number of scientific studies that have proven they are more effective in halting deforestation than formal protected areas. Instead of wasting money on making countries “ready” for a compensation scheme that might never have enough money anyway, governments can make significant progress to halting forest loss by recognizing indigenous peoples’ territories and community conserved areas, and the rights and governance systems of Indigenous Peoples in general. Not in 2020, but now, immediately.”

For more information, please contact:

In Istanbul: Isis Alvarez, GFC communications and outreach officer: +31-645682575

In Asuncion, Paraguay: Simone Lovera, GFC executive director: +595-981-407375

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The report “Non-market-based approaches to reducing deforestation and forest degradation” by the Global Forest Coalition, Econexus and the ICCA Consortium can be downloaded in English and Spanish from http://globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Non-Market-Based-Approaches-to-Deforestation.-Report.pdf

2. Global Forest Coalition is a worldwide coalition of 54 NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations striving for rights-based, socially just forest conservation policies. http://www.globalforestcoalition.org 

3. EcoNexus is a not-for-profit public interest research organisation analysing developments in science and technology and their impacts on environment and society. http://www.econexus.info/ 

4. The ICCA Consortium is a worldwide consortium of organizations and federations of indigenous peoples and local communities, NGOs and individuals dedicated to achieving appropriate recognition and support to territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities. http://www.iccaforum.org/ 

5. The 10th session of the UN Forum on Forest will take place from 8 to 19 April in Istanbul, Turkey. See http://www.un.org/esa/forests/session.html 

6. http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Report-Getting-to-the-roots1.pdf 

7. http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-64-en.pdf

Press release: Friends of the Earth International, Global Forest Coalition, Urgewald, Rights Action, Rettet den Regenwald/Rainforest Rescue, Global Justice Ecology Project, Biofuelwatch

19^th March 2013 – International NGOs have condemned a statement by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) [1] which defends the record of a Honduran palm oil company, Grupo Dinant, which is implicated in dozens of murders as well as other human rights abuses.  The IFC statement explicitly admits to supporting training for the company’s armed security guards.  A World Bank Ombudsman [2] is currently investigating an IFC loan of $30 million for Grupo Dinant which was approved in 2009, at least half of which has already been disbursed. This month, an Open Letter by 17 NGOs [3] and an international petition signed by over 63,000 people [4] have protested the loan and called on the World Bank to immediately cease their support for Grupo Dinant.

Since 2009, international human rights bodies have documented dozens of murders of peasant activists and their supporters in connection with land conflicts involving Grupo Dinant, the company’s armed security guards and Honduran military and police.  The evidence includes a fact-finding mission report by international human rights organisations in March 2011, a hearing before the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights in October 2011, an international public hearing on human rights in the region in May 2012 [5] and a report about human rights abuses attributed to military forces in the region by Rights Action, published this month [6].  The recent Rights Action report confirms that at least 88 members and supporters of peasant movements have been murdered in targeted killings in the Bajo Aguan Valley over the past three years. It documents the direct involvement of Grupo Dinant’s armed security forces in the violence against peasant movements.  Contrary to the World Bank’s claims that the violence ended in 2012, two peasant activists were found tortured and murdered in February 2013. [7]

Annie Bird from Rights Action says: “It is a serious indictment of World Bank’s role in Honduras’s land conflicts that their International Finance Corporation admits to directly engaging with the training of Grupo Dinant’s paramilitary ‘security guards’.  It is not clear whether this engagement is a response to concerns over human rights abuses but retraining paramilitaries implicated in killings is never an acceptable response. The World Bank must cease such engagement and stop supporting Grupo Dinant at once.”

Almuth Ernsting from Global Forest Coalition and Biofuelwatch adds:  “The World Bank’s claims that killings are being investigated by Honduran courts with full cooperation from Grupo Dinant contradict the findings of human rights missions which show a state of total impunity surrounding those murders.  Such a state of impunity has been confirmed by the UN Working Group on Mercenaries.  Not only must the World Bank cancel its loan but there needs to be a full investigation into their role in human rights abuses in Honduras.”

In 2011, the German development bank, DEG, cancelled a loan for Grupo Dinant due to the company’s involvement in serious human rights abuses.Yet the World Bank continues to back the company and dismiss all independent evidence, as their recent statement shows.

Jeff Conant from Friends of the Earth US adds: “The World Bank’s statement on Bajo Aguan reveals the extent of their complicity with a palm oil company implicated in some of the most serious human rights abuses in Central America today. Years after a damning audit of their palm oil funding and a supposed overhaul of their policies, the World Bank is legitimising the use of armed paramilitaries in land conflicts against peasants who are trying to reclaim their own land, dismissing a vast volume of evidence from independent fact finding missions.”

The NGOs demand cancellation of the World Bank’s loan to Grupo Dinant and an immediate full and independent investigation into the World Bank’s involvement with Grupo Dinant, which must go beyond the remit of the current Ombudsman investigation.

Contacts:

Almuth Ernsting, Global Forest Coalition/Biofuelwatch (UK) , +44 -131-6232600

Knud Vöcking, Urgewald e.V. (Germany) , +49-171-2832408

Jeff Conant, Friends of the Earth US, +1- 510 900 0016

Notes:

[1]www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/REGION__EXT_Content/Regions/Latin%20America%20and%20the%20Caribbean/Strategy/Corporacion_Dinant?

[2] A complaint submitted by Rights Action is currently being investigated by the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO).  The CAO is an independent agency which investigates complaints filed by communities affected by project funded by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC).

[3]  www.fian.org/fileadmin/media/publications/International_Statement_CAO_-_Lower_Aguan_Honduras_-_01-.pdf

[4] www.rainforest-rescue.org/mailalert/909/honduras-world-bank-palm-oil-loans-linked-to-murders

[5] www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/honduras573ang.pdf , http://hrbrief.org/2011/10/human-rights-situation-in-the-bajo-aguan-honduras/  and www.lawg.org/storage/documents/Honduras/declaration%20international%20public%20hearing%20bajo%20aguan.pdf

[6] http://rightsaction.org/sites/default/files//Rpt_130220_Aguan_Final.pdf

[7] See http://www.coha.org/21693/

Updated! Climate Space – World Social Forum – Tunis March 26-30/ 2013

Rethinking strategies to fight for our future

The 2013 World Social Forum will be held this March 26-30 in Tunisia, where only 2 years ago, a revolution began and resulted into a historic change that created a ripple effect in the region. Now Tunisia is an inspiration to movement, both old and new, across the globe.

Click here to read the Open Call to join the Climate Space at the World Social Forum in Tunis, including a full program.

www.storaenso.com

Eleven International NGO´s file complaint to UN Human Rights Council about Stora Enso’s land acquisitions. UN Global Compact requires Stora Enso to respond to allegations by 11 April.

Human rights violations in connection to Stora Enso’s eucalyptus plantations and planned cardboard factory in Guangxi have prompted a group of international and Finnish NGO’s to instigate a complaint to the United Nations. The complaint to the UN Human Rights Council, filed under the 1503 procedure today, is endorsed by Friends of the Earth International, Global Forest Coalition, World Rainforest Movement and eight other networks and organisations. The complaint has also been signed by the director of Red Forest Hotel, the documentary film which documented human rights violations linked to Stora Enso operations in Guangxi.

“The land conflicts have led to two reported deaths and multiple instances of violence, while these cases may form only a tip of the iceberg. The UN Human Rights Council must investigate the situation and offer effective remedies, as other avenues for upholding human rights in Guangxi have proved futile”, argues Ms. Noora Ojala from Friends of the Earth Finland.

The UN’s Global Compact (an initiative for increasing social responsibility of corporations which Stora Enso has signed) has already reacted to a complaint against Stora Enso. UN Global Compact has requested Stora Enso to respond by 11 April to inquiries about the project’s impact on human rights and the environment. The company has since its land conflicts surfaced in 2009 announced that it will review land deals in China and that it sees violence as unacceptable.

“Realities on the ground suggest that Stora Enso has done little concrete. The problematic eucalyptus monoculture strategy remains in place, victims have not been compensated, and there has been negligible consideration on the effects of company land use on biodiversity or local people’s means of subsistence. There are also indications that a culture of fear has developed in villages where the company has acquired land, making remedies by the company itself questionable” says Mr. Mika Koskinen, director of the Red Forest Hotel -documentary.

The year 2012 saw Stora Enso being dropped from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the company receiving the Greenwashing Award of the Year by Friends of the Earth Sweden. Stora Enso appointed acclaimed human rights expert Parul Sharma, who recently after just 5 months with the company resigned citing ”disagreeing views on sustainable development” and saying “there is no work being done for human rights in Stora Enso”.

The main owners of the company are Swedish FAM, Finnish pension funds Varma and Ilmarinen, and state-owned KELA and Solidium. Political responsibility for Finnish state stewardship lies with Heidi Hautala, Minister of International Development.

”Stora Enso’s biggest shareholders and minister Hautala have overlooked the company’s problematic actions for too long. Given the human rights implications I think it is high time that the major shareholders seriously consider the position of the current strategy and leadership at the upcoming AGM”, concludes Mr. Mika Koskinen.

*The ICESCR covenant requires Finland to ensure that companies under its jurisdiction do not violate human rights in other jurisdictions.

Contact:

Mr. Mika Koskinen, Documentary Film Director
mobile +358 41 720 6209 email: mikakoskinen (at)hotmail.com

Ms. Noora Ojala, Campaigner with Friends of the Earth Finland Forest and Land Rights group,
mobile +358 50 362 96 44 email: noora.ojala (at) maanystavat.fi

List of NGO’s signing complaint to UN Human Rights Council

Friends of the Earth International network,  Forests and Biodiversity Programme

Global Forest Coalition network

World Rainforest Movement network

Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa

Biofuelwatch, UK/US

Jordens Vänner, Friends of the Earth Sweden

Suomen Maan ystävät ry – Friends of the Earth Finland

Friends of the Landless Finland

Uusi Tuuli ry – New Wind, Finland

Siemenpuu foundation, Finland

Emmaus Sunfactory, Finland

(cross-posted from CarbonTradeWatch)

Brussels, 18 February 2013

A growing group of civil society organisationsi is calling on the EU to abolish its Emission Trading System (ETS) to open space for truly effective climate policies. Today they release a joint declaration that highlights the many structural loopholes the ETS is facing, that the proposed reform proposals put forward by EU policy makers will not be able to fix.

Tomorrow (19 Feb.) the Environmental Committee of the European Parliament will vote on the Commission’s backloading proposal.ii “Although advertised as a way to fix the failing ETS, it is nothing but a drop in the ocean. The EU’s flagship policy to address climate change has diverted attention from the need to transform the system’s dependency on fossil fuels and growing consumption, resulting in increased emissions. After seven lost years, it’s time to make space for effective and fair climate policies,” says Joanna Cabello, from Carbon Trade Watch.

More than 90 organisations, networks and movements from all over the world launch today the joint declaration ‘It is Time to Scrap the ETS’.iii It lists the structural flaws of the ETS and the risks of trying to fix it.

One of the flaws is the use of offset projects which allows companies or governments from the North to buy credits from a project in the South instead of reducing emissions at source. “The offset projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the biggest offset scheme, has actually increased emissions while causing land grabs and human rights violations, community displacements, conflicts and increased local environmental destruction,” says Isaac Rojas, from Friends of the Earth Latin America and Caribbean (ATALC). “Other new market mechanisms and related financial products (such as forest carbon offsets and biodiversity offsets) follow the same logic which allows, and offsets, deforestation, forest degradation, biodiversity loss and water pollution,” he adds. In spite of the growing evidence of the problems, offset use in the ETS grew by 85% in 2011.

Furthermore, the EU ETS is costing the public a lot of money without serving a public purpose. Belen Balanyá, from Corporate Europe Observatory says: “At a time when EU citizens are shouldering the cost of the economic crisis, they are also being forced to bear the cost of the legislation, regulation and much of the quantification of emissions that carbon markets require, as well as the costs of measures against fraud, theft, corruption, and tax evasion. Meanwhile big polluters such as Arcellor Mittal and Lafarge make millions of windfall profits with over allocated permits.”

The EU ETS created the biggest carbon market in the world and now serves as a model for other countries. China is setting up a system with EU support and is planning to link it to the EU ETS. Other countries and regions such as Brazil, Korea, Australia, California in the US and Quebec in Canada have similar plans. The failures of the ETS will also be exported to other areas, as it will be used as a model for trading other ‘ecosystem services’ such as forests, biodiversity, water, soils and landscapes. In the meantime, civil society groups from around the world are demanding to scrap the ETS so that market mechanisms stop being used as a model for environmental protection.

The organisations supporting this declaration conclude: “It is time to stop fixating on ‘price’ as a driver for change. We need to scrap the ETS and implement effective and fair climate policies by making the necessary transition away from fossil fuel dependency.”

For more information contact:

- Joanna Cabello (Carbon Trade Watch): + 32 493829459

- Belén Balanyá (Corporate Europe Observatory): +31 6 33090386

- Isaac Rojas (Friends of the Earth Latin America and Caribbean): in Costa Rica +506 83383204, in Uruguay +59899621591

see also ‘Advocating to Scrap the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is Advocating for Climate Policy that Works‘ http://peopleforestsrights.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/advocating-to-scrap-the-eu-emissions-trading-scheme-is-advocating-for-climate-policy-that-works/

i As of February 17th, 92 groups signed on to the common declaration ‘It is Time to Scrap the ETS’ http://scrapthe- euets.makenoise.org/about/. Signatories are: AITEC – Association Internationale de Techniciens, Experts et Chercheurs (France), ANPED – Northern Alliance for Sustainability, ATTAC (Austria), ATTAC (France), Banktrack, Beyond Copenhagen Collective (India), Biofuelwatch (UK), Biofuelwatch (US), Both ENDS (The Netherlands), BROC – Bureau for Regional Outreach Campaigns (Russia), Carbon Trade Watch, Censat Agua Viva / Friends of the Earth (Colombia), Centre for Civil Society (South Africa), Center for Environment (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Centre For Environmental Justice / Friends of the Earth (Sri Lanka), CESTA / Friends of the Earth (El Salvador), Climate & Capitalism (Canada), Climate Justice Collective (UK), COECOCEIBA / Friends of the Earth (Costa Rica), Confédération Paysanne (France), Cordillera Peoples Alliance, Corner House (UK), Corporate Europe Observatory, Corporate Watch (UK), Counter Balance, Earth in Brackets (US), EARTH PEOPLES (Germany), ECA Watch (Austria), Ecologistas en Acción (Spain), EcoNexus (UK), Eco Sitio (Argentina), ECVC – European Coordination Via Campesina, EJOLT – Environmental Justice Organisations, Liabilities and Trade, Entrepueblos/Entrepobles/Entrepobos/Herriarte (Spain), ERA / Friends of the Earth (Nigeria), FASE (Brazil), FERN, Food & Water Watch (Europe), Food & Water Watch (US), Fórum Mudanças Climáticas e Justiça Social (Brazil), France Amérique Latine (France), Friends of the Earth / Amigos de la Tierra (América Latina y el Caribe), Friends of the Earth (Africa), Friends of the Earth (Australia), Friends of the Earth (Flanders and Brussels), Friends of the Earth (Malaysia), Friends of the Earth (Sierra Leone), Friends of the Earth (Sweden), Friends of the Earth (US), Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities for Climate Change Against REDD and for Life, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project (US), Global Social Justice (Belgium), GRAIN, Green Cross Society (Ukraine), Groundwork / Friends of the Earth (South Africa), Indigenous Environmental Network, Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self Determination and Liberation, International Oil Working Group, International Rivers (US), JA! Justiça Ambiental / Friends of the Earth (Mozambique), Jubileu Sul (Brasil), Kolectivo El Rebelde (Mexico), Les Amis de la Terre / Friends of the Earth (France), Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Movimento Mulheres pela P@Z! (Brazil), NESPON (India), Network of Indigenous Peoples of the Solomon Islands, Nucleo Amigos da Terra / Friends of the Earth (Brazil), ODG – Observatori del Deute en la Globalització (Catalonia), OILWATCH AMERICA LATINA, Ongd AFRICANDO (Spain), OSC RECOs – Redes de Cooperação Comunitária Sem Fronteiras (Brazil), Otros Mundos AC / Friends of the Earth (México), Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (Philippines), Platform (UK), Re:Common (Italy), REDD-Monitor, REDES / Friends of the Earth (Urugauy), School of Democratic Economics, SOLdePaz.Pachakuti (Spain), South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, Taller Ecologista (Argentina), Timberwatch Coalition (South Africa), TNI – Transnational Institute (Netherlands), Unidad Ecologica Salvadoreña (El Salvador), United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UK), Urgewald (Germany), VZW CLIMAXI (Belgium), Woodland League (Ireland), WISE – World Information Service on Energy (NL), World Rainforest Movement. The declaration is still open for signatures.

ii The Environment Committee of the EU Parliament will vote on an amendment to the EU ETS Directive. This proposed amendment is to adapt the auction timetable and enable the backloading of permits (delaying the auction of a certain amount of EUAs from the first three years of Phase 3 (2013-2020) to latter years of Phase 3 of the EU ETS (2018- 2020)

iii http://scrap-the-euets.makenoise.org/