1

The impact of wood-based bioenergy on forests, forest dependent people and the climate.

A Southern perspective. Seminar report

Brussels, 3 June 2010 Introduction From 26 May to 3 June, the Global Forest Coalition, Friends of the Earth International, Biofuelwatch

and Global Justice Ecology Project organised an European tour on the impact of wood-based

bioenergy. The debate in Brussels on 3 June, was organised in cooperation with the European

Greens, Netherlands.

The aim of the hearing was to analyse the increasing social and ecological impacts of European

bioenergy demand and policies on forests, forest-dependent peoples, and the climate.

Representatives of Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations and civil society organisations gave

presentations about the direct and in particular the indirect impacts of wood-based bioenergy for

electricity and heat, as well as transport. The role of genetically engineered trees (GE trees) in

bioenergy developments and their impacts was also examined.

GFC’s Chair Fiu Elisara welcomed all those who had made time to respond to GFC’s invitation to participate in the seminar discussions on the topic “The Impact of wood-based bioenergy on forests, forest dependent people and the climate – A Southern Perspective. He especially thanked Mr Bas Eickhout of the European Greens, for hosting the seminar and Ms. Judith Sargentini, MEP European Greens and Paul Hodson, Directorate for Energy and Transport of the Commission on Environmental Sustainability Issues on Biomass for accepting to join us. Fiu thanked FoEI, Global Justice Ecology Project, Biofuelwatch and GFC for sponsoring this seminar.

Opening address, Mr. Bas Eickhout , European Greens, The Netherlands Mr. Bas Eickhout expressed his appreciation to the organising parties for this hearing, and for their

concerns that biomass production can have severe impacts on the future of our planet. Mr. Eickhout

pointed out that the EU is very active on climate and energy policies. He pointed to the EU's Climate

Strategy for 2020, approved in 2008 which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 20%, increase

energy efficiency by 20% and ensure that by 2020, 20% of primary energy is produced from

renewables. “In this debate we are focusing on the latter. We have been talking about sustainable

development since 2002 or even earlier. Finally we are getting more of a grip on what sustainable

development means and what sustainable criteria are.”

“As part of the European Climate and Energy package we approved a target for the transport sector in

2008. This target will mostly be met by biofuels. Since that target was first proposed, the debate on

biofuels really started. Are they really renewable? The discussion on sustainable criteria is an

important debate because of land use, not just for biofuels, but for all bioenergy and food production.

We have to realise that sustainability is more than just greenhouse gas reductions. There are also

biodiversity and development issues. Hopefully this debate can focus us more on the rights of

indigenous people.”

2

Camila Moreno, Friends of the Earth Brazil: Impact of a significant increase in the consumption of wood products in Europe

on Indigenous Peoples and their forests in Brazil, and the impacts of large-scale

industrial tree plantations.

The first presentation was made by Camila Moreno from Friends of the Earth Brazil.

Brazil has the largest area of tropical land to be converted for biomass. Moreno

stressed that mandatory targets for wood and biomass constitute a demand for land

and water. EU targets create a market for captive demand from the South. Can the

European Union supply their self imposed targets within their own territorial

boundaries?

In Brazil the National Policy on Climate Change heavily supports the expansion of plantations as a

way of increasing “forest cover “and reducing “net” deforestation. Moreno showed pictures of

monocultures advancing in an unsustainable way. Tree plantations are commonly called ‘green

deserts’, since there are no birds, no hunting grounds and it is very quiet within the plantations. Brazil

leads the world in agrofuel exports. The country has 5.98 million hectares of tree plantations: 3.75

million of them are eucalyptus, 1.8 million pine and 425,000 consists of other species, such as acacia.

(data: ABS, December, 2008). According to more recent estimates are there are now more than 7.5

million hectares of tree monocultures in the country.

Socio-economic impacts

Brazil has adopted agribusiness as a hegemonic territorial strategy, promoting large monocultures of

soy, maize, cotton, sugar cane, oil palm, eucalyptus, etc. Government policies are imposing a

simplified way of production, resulting in an erosion of food sovereignty, the destruction of diverse

livelihoods and of agro-ecological alternatives. The violation of human rights is inherent in the

monoculture/plantation system, which in fact is a colonial invention. The socio-economic impacts are:

• Expulsion of traditional populations from their land with deep impact on land structure

(concentration of ownership and privatisation); enclosure.

• Occupation of collective/common areas by private companies and restrictions of access to natural

resources and to customary land use; encroachment.

• Generation of dependence of local communities upon large companies (leading to the acceptance

of seasonal work, underpaid/slave labour, harsh conditions).

• Erosion of Food Sovereignty.

• Loss of traditional culture and of knowledge associated with (agro) biodiversity.

• Landscape destruction, which leads to the loss of memory, of historical sites, and of rural

belonging and to subsequent urban migration.

Certification is not an option

Moreno stressed that market mechanisms will not solve the

problem. Existing certification schemes (FSC, RTSPO, RTRS,

etc) have proven to be ineffective and incapable of addressing

the inherent unsustainability of plantations/monocultures and

scale. Monocultures have expanded through the Green

Revolution, for its effects and threats to life these must be

eliminated and replaced (IAASTD, 2008).

The presentation ‘Impacts Impacts of large scale Plantations in Brazil’, by Camila Moreno, NAT- Friends of the

Earth BRAZIL is available at:

http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/presentations/Impacts-plantations-in-Brazil.pdf

3

Deepak Rughani, Biofuelwatch, UK Industrial bio-energy production in Europe and its impacts on forests and forest peoples An intense debate on biomass for power generation is happening amongst scientists in climate change circles. People are questioning the basis on which bioenergy is considered to be carbon neutral given that we are approaching irreversible climate feedbacks such as the melting of Arctic sea ice and increasing emissions of methane from melting permafrost, within as little as ten years. If we only have ten years and forests re-grow over thirty plus years, burning biomass creates an upfront carbon debt at the very time when we need to be dramatically reducing it! Alongside that we are removing the capacity of photosynthesis to absorb carbon – saplings absorb a tiny fraction of the carbon absorbed by mature forests. So biomass is accelerating climate change in two ways.

Rughani starts with an overview of developments in the field of wood-based bioenergy in the EU. The

media image of renewable energy tends to focus on wind turbines and solar panels, but in fact about

68.5% of all “renewable energy” in the EU comes from bioenergy. The European Renewable Energy

Council predicts that, by 2020, bioenergy will make up 13% of total energy use in the EU, compared to

approximately 7% for all other renewable energy combined. Wood burning is likely to continue

providing the largest percentage of bioenergy generation in terms of energy output, although agrofuel

use is continuing to rapidly expand.

Monocultures of miscanthus (an invasive perennial grass native to subtropical and tropical regions of

Africa and southern Asia) and biogas, much of it from maize monocultures in Germany, are also

supported by governments in the EU and will put further pressures on land and ecosystems in Europe.

Bioenergy is being promoted primarily through national subsidy schemes, including tax rebates, as

well as EU-subsidies for research and development. The demand for wood (and other forms of

biomass) will rise even further if ‘second generation’ agrofuels, i.e. liquid agrofuels made from solid

biomass, become commercially viable. So far, these liquid fuels remain largely in the research and

development phase, with many efforts to genetically engineer microbes capable of liquefying solid

biomass without high temperatures or pressure, and promoting genetically engineering trees so that

they can be more easily turned into liquid fuel, as well as thermal conversion technologies.

Biotech firms, pulp and paper companies and oil firms have joined forces to invest billions of dollars

into research on wood-based agrofuels for cars and planes, but so far these are not widely feasible or

available. Burning woodchips and wood pellets in power stations or wood boilers faces far fewer

technological hurdles, and is comparatively cheap and easy.

Industrial bioenergy bears little resemblance to traditional uses of biomass, still common in much of

the Global South. Replacing highly energy-dense fossil fuels with plant materials is problematic

because it requires far more land per unit of energy than almost all the alternatives. Much greater

pressures on forests and other ecosystems, on soils and freshwater as well as more land-grabbing for

tree plantations are the certain consequence of a new global market in wood for bioenergy.

A popular misperception is that wood power stations in Europe burn only ‘residues’, such as sawdust

and mill ends, or branches and trimmings, not whole trees. Even the use of residues is potentially

problematic, since materials such as sawdust are often in demand already for low-grade wood

products. Burning residues for heat and electricity results in displacing other demand and can thus

trigger more industrial logging and plantation expansion. Furthermore, deadwood, branches, leaves

and twigs and even tree stumps are increasingly defined as ‘residues’ even though they are essential

for recycling nutrients and thus keeping soils fertile, for biodiversity and for carbon storage.

The demand for wood biomass far outpaces production of “residues”, and so increasingly, whole trees

are being turned into woodchips and pellets for power stations.

How does that effect the UK?

In the UK, the Energy Institute, which is partly funded by the government, has classified 10% of the

country’s land, including moorlands, as ‘suitable’ for bioenergy plantations such as willow. Announced

plans for biomass capacity in the next decade is 3,5 times the maximum current total wood production,

creating an unsustainable industry. Developments in the UK illustrate the scale of the new demand:

Power stations which will burn around 27 million tonnes of biomass are planned, and up to 700,000

4

“With current assumptions we see a gap between supply and demand of more than 200 million m3 wood by 2020” . Cepi based on report by Poyry/McKinsey.

domestic biomass/wood burners are expected by 2020. All this happens in a country which already

relies on imports for around 80% of all wood and wood products it uses. Companies cite the US,

Canada, South America, South Africa, Baltic States and Russia as regions from which wood will be

sourced.

What are the current biomass plans in Germany?

Germany is second biggest importer of paper (11.6 mega-tonnes) and pulp (4 mega-tonnes)

worldwide (2006). 40% of the current biomass involves burning woodchips and pellets made from

trees felled for this purpose.

In 2006, Germany produced 62.3 million m3 and imported 121 million m

3 wood and wood products.

The planned wood harvest is 80 million m3. 23 million m

3 of wood are already being burnt for energy in

Germany and the government plans to more than double this figure by 2020. In Germany, short-

rotation tree plantations are being established by energy companies such as Vattenfall and RWE.

Meeting the growing biomass demand domestically would translate into yet more pulp, paper & other

wood product demand abroad, and dry up exports.

Biomass expansion in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands co-firing of wood pellets went up from 200.000 tonnes in 2002 to over 900.000

tonnes in 2008. [x 4.5] Electrabel & GDF intend to burn another 470.000 tonnes of wood pellets in

2010. [x7 > 1.4mt] and Imtech NV is pioneering dedicated wood burning. Domestic wood pellet

production is a mere 130.000 tonnes [less than 10%]. Most wood and wood products used in the

Netherlands are imported from Germany, Scandinavia, Indonesia and West Africa. Imports from

Germany are set to fall due to Germans bioenergy subsidies.

The European Union is, despite plantation expansion and destructive levels of ‘residue removal’,

nowhere near capable of providing enough wood biomass to satisfy its’ own demands for bioenergy as

well as other uses. Competition for wood biomass is escalating, and the increased EU wood imports

are inevitable.

It’s becoming clear that this gap will be filled in two ways;

1. In the North: there will not be any carbon sequestration in forests anymore. In Europe, a growing

industry and policy consensus is emerging that all or most ‘new growth’ of trees should be

harvested.

2. New ‘efficient’ harvesting for bioenergy promoted by European & US corporations lead to an

intensification of wood production (efficient harvesting) including the complete removal of trees.

Short rotations lead to depleted and compacted soils.

What is happening in the global South with this 20% target?

The pulp and paper industry is working towards a five-fold increase in pulp and paper capacity,

although hampered by the recession. The expansion of tree plantations explicitly to meet the new

bioenergy demand has been reported from Uruguay, Brazil, Indonesia, Australia, China, Russia,

South Africa, Laos, Malaysia and Vietnam. Meanwhile pulp mills in Scandinavia, elsewhere in Europe,

in Canada and the US are closing down – and bioenergy companies are starting to look to the South,

too, while diverting more European wood to power stations.

US Plantations from paper to bioenergy markets

Most European imports of wood for bioenergy still come from North America, but European demand

competes with North America’s own wood bioenergy expansion as well as with previously established

pulp and paper manufacturers. Existing tree plantations which previously supplied only the pulp and

paper industry are increasingly being converted to wood pellets and woodchip production for energy.

The German company RWE Innology is building the world’s biggest wood pellet factory in Georgia,

exclusively for export to Europe, in particular the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the UK. It will have

5

a 750,000 tonnes per year capacity. Two other large plants to produce wood pellets for Europe have

opened in Florida and Alabama.

The Southern US is the biggest regional producer of pulp and paper worldwide, with 43 million

hectares of pine plantations and 6 million hectares of clear cuts a year, including in biodiverse native

forests. Cellulosic ethanol companies are also developing facilities there and, if those succeed, will

compete with the demand for wood pellets, with the demand for pulp and paper being displaced to the

global South. Forest destruction and degradation in North America is worsening due to the combined

European and US demand for wood bioenergy.

The flipside of pulp mills closing in the US in favour of chip and pellet production for bioenergy is that

yet more paper and pulp demand will be met by the South. However the EU Renewable Energy

Directive will also have its own direct impact. In December 2009, for example, Indonesian energy and

plantation company Medco was reported to

have dropped plans for a new pulp mill in

favor of plantations for ‘renewable energy’

wood pellets and wood chips for export in

Merauke District of West Papua. Medco’s

management plan, for an area still covered

in rainforest, states: “The …land will be

divided into six regions in which all broad-

leaved trees in one of the six regions will be

completely cut down." The island of West

Papua and PNG is just 0.5% of the world

land mass yet holds between 5% and 10%

of the world's biodiversity. . Forecast by Marshall & Wise et al, published in Science, 324, 1183 (2009)

So what is the future prognosis of the world’s remaining original forest and grassland ecosystems?

Marshall and Wise et al in their 2009 paper published in Science give a chilling prediction based on

the misguided definition of bioenergy as "carbon-neutral". By 2065 all natural forest and grassland will

have been converted to plantations. Along with it we will have lost the greater contribution of

ecosystems in driving our life support systems. At this point it would be hard to imagine the biosphere

retaining its equilibrium. Our rainfall cycle and associated global food production will almost certainly

collapse.

Another recent study by the Nature Conservancy entitled Energy Sprawl and published in Nature also

cautions on the expansion of bioenergy plantations, inevitably at the expense of ecosystems. Other

studies on renewable energy efficiency tell a similar story.

The irony of this chain reaction stemming from misguided policy is that's its almost entirely

preventable. If an equivalent land space is used for wind power it would produce ten times the energy

than from biofuels. Swap the turbines for photovoltaics and the figure would rise to a 100-fold return.

Swap again to solar thermal in semi-arid and desert regions and the figure jumps to a 400-fold return.

1 x 10 x 100 x 400 x

The presentation ‘Overview of developments of wood-based bioenergy in the Netherlands and EU’, by

Deepak Rughani, Biofuelwatch/Global Forest Coalition is available at:

http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/presentations/Wood-based-bioenergy-

Netherlands-and-EU.pdf

6

Response by Mrs. Judith Sargentini, MEP European Greens, Netherlands Mrs. Judith Sargentini referred to Deepak Rughani’s remark that ‘certification is not the solution’. Sargentini used to work for development NGOs and the Anti Apartheid movement and did negotiations on certification for rough diamonds. She also studied how we could use the lessons learned from diamonds for other materials, such as gold, cotton and timber. There was an embargo on diamonds from Liberia, but they could not get an embargo on timber accepted by the UN. It was blocked by China and France, who needed the timber so badly. Rughani mainly mentioned Latin America and South East Asia, but Africa will be affected equally, because of examples from Swaziland, Congo and South Africa. Sargentini stated that, when the climate change debate started, development was more important. We thought that climate change was a Western invention. We are slowly beginning to see that climate and development are two sides of the same coin.

The European Greens put a lot of emphasis on land grabbing. Land is a commodity that is not being produced anymore. With the land available, we struggle to grow plants for biofuels, but also for food. We see the disturbing trend that South East Asian and Arabic countries are buying up land in Africa for food and biofuels. The EU approach is not helpful since we don’t want to change our ideas about our own agricultural system.

Next year's UNFCCC COP will be hosted in South Africa. South Africa is seeing a huge increase in the demand for energy. This is positive, because it means emancipation, but there is the question of how it will be met. Recently the World Bank gave a grant to South Africa to build a coal power station. Energy based on coal is not sustainable, but energy from biofuels isn't either. Countries like South Africa have to fulfill their needs. It is the responsibility of the EU to find ways together with them to solve the energy crisis in a sustainable way. South Africa has the sun, wind for wind turbines and two oceans. It can also create jobs in sustainable energy. This is necessary since money and jobs are now in mining and coal. Sargentini’s last remark was about the elections coming up in the Netherlands. Although the Greens are the most environmentally friendly party, this party will not win on bioenergy issues this time. All the other parties support biofuels in their programs, based on the old-fashioned view that biofuels are a form of sustainable energy, instead of comparing them with fossil fuels. “It’s nice to be a front-runner, but cynical to lose because you moved on.”

Response by Paul Hodson, Directorate for Energy and Transport, deputy head of unit, regulatory policy and promotion of renewable energy, DG TREN, European Commission Mr. Hodson pointed out that there are three views on bioenergy: 1) all bioenergy is good, 2) some is good and some is bad, 3) all bioenergy is bad. The European Commission thinks the second view is the correct one, while the speakers during this seminar come dangerously close to the third view, that all bioenergy is bad. We worked hard to put in place the first set of mandatory sustainability criteria, that apply both to domestic production and imports, that begin distinguishing between what is good and bad in biofuels By 2050 we will need to have diminished the carbon intensity by saving energy, and the remaining energy has to be carbon free. There are two chocies choices: biomass and electrification (nuclear, , clean coal, carbon capture and storage, wind and solar). But electricity can not run our boats, planes and heavy goods vehicles. It is a question of scale. In our view, you can produce bioenergy in a sustainable way, in ways which respects biodiversity, water, etc. We can produce all the bioenergy we need domestically in Europe in a sustainable way, but we have to question whether it is right for us to stop imports, are there good and bad land grabs, are there good crops and bad crops? In response to the presentation, Mr. Eickhout stressed that dialogue is most important. Are we going to be bitten by the dog or the cat? Climate change is affecting our land, so we have to do something to

7

stop climate change. On the other hand, blindly switching over completely to biofuels will affect land even more as well as the people living on these lands. How do we tackle both issues? The person who says he has the solution right on the shelve is talking nonsense. How can we do it 100 percent right? Even the science is not clear on the issues of climate change, land and people. We need to change the system but in what direction and how? We are part of a global community and have to do this together.

People should try to steer the European Commission towards doing it the right way and make sure that we are progressing in our ideas. As Europe we have to make sure we are consistent in our policies. That is already a battle. Energy saving is most crucial, but look at the 2020 target: The energy savings target is not mandatory, which is not consistent. The EU is partly the cause of the problem, but also seeks for ways of solving it. We cannot do it alone. In Copenhagen the EU was not at its best, but neither were other countries. We need policy-making Heads of State to work in the same direction, as well as good policies for the global community. This debate should not only address the EU, but take place on the global level. We have to use land for food and energy and change the monocultures of our mind. Together we can make it happen but we need to address this issue everywhere.

Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project, US Direct and indirect effects of Europe’s bio-energy demand on US forests and forest peoples

and the threats of genetically engineered trees

Mrs. Anne Petermann pointed out that Genetically

Engineered trees pose a major new threat to forests, forest-

dependent communities and the climate. It is impossible to

predict the impacts of GE trees because unexpected

mutations are the norm rather than the exception with all

genetically engineered plants. Furthermore, trees can

spread themselves across large areas, hence GE trees can

easily establish themselves in native forests and/or cross-

fertilise with native trees. Unstable low-lignin trees are being

engineered for cellulosic ethanol and/or pulp production,

whereas fast-growing and cold-resistant trees are attractive

for wood bioenergy for heat and electricity. The main

species being engineered are eucalyptus, poplar and pine.

Photo: Hurricane Mitch mudslide. Deforestation

exacerbates global warming, which contributes

to stronger hurricanes and storms, which

destroys vast expanses of forest.

Anne Petermann elaborated on some myths and realities:

Myth 1: The use of genetically engineered trees for wood-based bioenergy is a great way to fight

climate change.

Reality: The use of Genetically Engineered trees for wood-based bioenergy will exacerbate climate

change by damaging forests, escalating deforestation, by causing more conversion of forests to

plantations, and due to the emissions caused by burning of wood. Currently, agrofuels made from

trees use more fossil fuels energy in order to produce than the energy released from burning them. In

addition, burning wood for electricity produces more emissions than coal. It is NOT carbon neutral.

Myth 2: Developing plantations of faster growing GE trees will take pressure off of native forests by

growing “more wood on less land.”

Reality: GE tree plantations, like existing tree plantations, will replace native forests, not conserve

them. The escape of GE trees into native forests will further damage forest ecosystems.

Myth 3: Making agrofuels out of wood will eliminate the competition between food and fuel.

Reality: The pressure to grow more trees for agrofuels and bioenergy means that both agricultural

lands and forests will be taken over for tree plantations. This is already occurring in places like Chile.

In the Lumaco District of Chile, tree plantations have taken over more than 50% of the land. This has

led to 60% of Mapuche communities living in poverty, one third in extreme poverty.

8

Myth 4: Insect-resistant (Bt) trees mean less toxic pesticides need to be applied.

Reality: The use of Bt trees will contribute to the evolution of Bt-resistant super-insects, leading to the

use of more toxic pesticides. Escape of this gene into native forests will upset forest ecosystems, of

which insects form a critical part.

Myth 5: Low-lignin GE trees will be the perfect feedstock for the manufacture of agrofuels, plastics,

chemicals and paper. Faster growing GE trees will be the perfect source for biomass energy.

Reality: Low-lignin trees will have little resistance to wind, cold, disease or insects, meaning that more

chemicals will be needed to grow them. Escape of this trait into native forests will lead to increased

tree and forest mortality, destroying biodiversity and worsening climate change. Faster growing GE

trees will have an advantage over native trees and be more likely to colonise native ecosystems. In

addition, low lignin trees store less carbon both in the trees themselves and in the soil, and dead low-

lignin trees rot faster, emitting carbon more rapidly and thus contributing to climate change.

Researchers are also investigating ways to modify the lignin in trees in combination with insertion of

engineered enzymes so that the trees may actually begin to digest themselves. The massive increase

in demand for wood caused by use of wood to manufacture energy will have serious consequences

for the world’s forests and forest dependent peoples. It will also impact the climate.

GE Cold-Tolerant Eucalyptus - The Next Disaster in the Gulf

One in five forested hectares in the US Southeast is covered by pine plantations. This

region has been the world’s leading producer of pulp for paper. There is now a move to

add huge plantations of GE cold-tolerant eucalyptus as a source for bioenergy

(agrofuels and biomass). On 12th May this year, the US Department of Agriculture

approved the release of 260,000 GE eucalyptus trees across seven southern US states

in so-called “field trials.” Eucalyptus are notoriously invasive, flammable and water greedy.

If these GE eucalyptus are perfected, they will be exported around the world to regions

currently too cold for traditional eucalyptus, expanding the disaster of eucalyptus

plantations to new regions. The GE eucalyptus was hybridised in Brazil, genetically

modified in New Zealand and is being mass-produced and planted in the US.

Forest-dependent peoples are already paying the price for tree plantations. Many have been forcibly

removed from their traditional lands, while others have lost their cultures, livelihoods, water, foods and

traditional medicines. Biodiversity has been devastated. Increasing the global demand for wood and

creating plantations of cold-tolerant eucalyptus will worsen this problem.

There is Good News!

GE trees have not been released in large plantations anywhere in the world except China, so for most

regions, this is a disaster we can still stop. Groups are mobilizing worldwide. On International

Women’s Day, 8 March, 2006 over 2,000 women from Via Campesina destroyed an estimated 8

million eucalyptus seedlings destined for plantations in Brazil. On International Women’s Day in 2008,

hundreds of women from Via Campesina in Brazil invaded eucalyptus plantations and destroyed

eucalyptus trees.

We must stop GE trees

To download the report: The True Cost of Agrofuels: Impacts on Food, Forests, Peoples and the Climate, co-

produced by Global Justice Ecology Project and Global Forest Coalition, go to:

www.globalforestcoalition.org/news andpublications/publications/

For more information on the dangers of GE trees, go to www.nogetrees.org

The presentation ‘GMO Tree (or any) Plantations Are Not Forests. GE Trees and Wood-based Biioenergy:

Impacts on Forests,, People & the Cliimate’ by Anne Petermann, of Global Justice Ecology Project/GFC is

available at:

http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/presentations/GETrees-and-woodbased-

bioenergy.pdf

9

Estebancio Castro Diaz, International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests, Panama Impact of bio-energy production on Indigenous Peoples and alternative approaches for climate change mitigation Indigenous Peoples have expressed their concerns at the international and national level about being at the receiving end of unjust laws and policies that ignore the fundamental rights to participate and be consulted. Many of the new policies such as bio-energy production on the indigenous peoples land may or have already ended with the dispossession of indigenous peoples of their territory, resources and traditional knowledge. The cases of Endesa/Enel in Chile, Repsol in Argentina, Pluspetrol in Perú, y Aremco y Dreyfus in Brasil show us how these companies have invaded the territories of Indigenous Peoples and violated their fundamental rights such as the free prior informed consent and the right to express. (Article 32, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) The replacement of forests with plantations in the name of climate change mitigation is hugely detrimental to Indigenous Peoples, not only because of the loss of the forest itself, but also because of the impact of pesticides used in monoculture tree plantations on people’s health and the biodiversity on which they rely. It is also extraordinarily detrimental to the climate, as evidenced by research from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)'s which shows that untouched primary forest stores significantly greater quantities of carbon than either plantations or logged forests. Recommendations to the European Union

• EU Member States must ensure that their economic international relationships, their economic policy decissions and their international economic cooperation are in accordance with international human rights and environmental law;

• To establish a sytem to periodically review the performance of companies and their respect for the human and environmental rights;

• To implement the OECD guidelines for Multinationals Companies and to disseminate information regarding those guidelines.

Precautionary approach Mr. Castro Diaz stressed that the EU should implement a precautionary approach in situations where Indigenous Peoples' human rights have been violated and their free and informed consent prior any activity has not been taken into account. The EU should stop any commercial or investment trade that is currently in the negotiation process until the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples is guaranteed and the assessment of social, environmental and cultural impacts has been properly carried out. The presentation ‘Impact of bio-energy production on Indigenous Peoples and alternative approaches for climate change mitigation’ Estebancio Castro Diaz, International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests, Panama is available at:

http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/presentations/Impact-bioenergy-on-IPs.pdf

10

UNFCCC Article 3: “Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.”

Kyoto Protocol Article 2: “The Parties included in Annex I, shall strive to implement policies and measures under this Article in such a way as to minimize adverse effects, including the adverse effects of climate change, effects on international trade, and social, environmental and economic impacts on other Parties, especially developing country Parties and in particular those identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention, taking into account Article 3 of the Convention.

Mary Lou Malig, Focus on the Global South, Philippines Free Trade and Climate Change

Mrs. Malig focused her presentation on how free trade contributes to climate change. Why is trade in

wood and other forest commodities not working for climate justice? Malig explained that free trade

policies not only increase emissions, but free trade rules prevent us from implementing real and

effective solutions to climate change and favour false - market based – solutions. Trade liberalisation

is about increasing access to and exploitation of natural resources, thus pushing the ecological limits

of the planet.

The Kyoto Protocol is not a climate but a trade deal. WTO and climate negotiations are interlinked. In

Bali trade ministries stressed that climate treaties should not hamper free trade flows, the market en

trade organizations. One third of global trade is in light products – trade that does not improve the lives

of anybody, but it does cause real pollution. Free trade locks in the export-oriented industrial model of

agriculture, production and manufacturing. Trade liberalisation has had massive negative impacts on

the environment.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) and Free Trade Agreements have several rules and ways of

preventing genuine and just action on climate change: Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) –

“non-tariff barriers”, liberalisation of “Environmental Goods and Services”, Trade Related Intellectual

Property Rights, the Agreement on Agriculture, Dispute Settlement / Investor to State Disputes. All

these agreements favour market-based solutions. Trade rules reduce government oversight of trade,

remove tariffs, eliminate import bans and quotas. Rules of the WTO and FTAs demand that national

regulations and standards don’t interfere unduly with international trade. These rules can also have a

“chilling” effect. Climate talks results can be challenged at the WTO.

The current neoliberal economic system has to be replaced if we are to fight climate change and

achieve climate justice. Malig recommends to transform the way we produce food by promoting low-

impact food production, stopping corporate influence over food production and abandoning false

market-based solutions in order to achieve climate justice. The false assumptions about putting a price

on nature have to be replaced by sustainable alternatives. Many companies are already investing in

biomass and soon we will reach a point of no return. It is a Catch 22. We have to step out of that if we

want a future for our children.

The presentation ‘Free Trade and Climate Change’ Mary Lou Malig, Focus on the Global South, Philippines is available at:

http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/presentations/Free-trade-and-climate-change.pdf

11

Debate:

Remark from the public:

Can reforestation be part of the solution if we do not promote it in the form of monocultures, but as permaculture,

by trying to replicate a primary forest. There is a lot of degraded land that is not used for agriculture. In countries

like Australia and Jordan there are more than 39 million square kilometers of degraded land. Scientists have

shown that if we restore half of all degraded lands -, we are able to stop climate change, produce enough food

and produce enough biofuels.

Response from the presenters:

• Indigenous Peoples are also undertaking reforestation initiatives, for example in Panama they are

reintroducing native trees, but they do not receive support for that.

• Permaculture can definitively be part of the solution. But the words "reforestation" and "afforestation" are

often used in the context of monocultures. Much of what we see in practice are industrial, large-scale

monocultures. We need to learn from the global South, where there are many sustainable restoration

initiatives and we need to learn how we can implement similar permaculture experiences in temperate lands.

• In the name of climate change we are encouraging the appropriation of land to be converted into industrial

agriculture and forestry.

• Degraded land is a relative concept, it is different from an agribusiness point of view, GM industry or

Indigenous Peoples point of view. Reforestation is very possible but also very complex.

Remark from the public:

The McKinsey report was the first to warn the EU about the implications of the renewable energy target. Where

will the wood come from? The EU introduces a new player to the dining table who eats as much as the entire

European industry at the moment. Efficiency is crucial for the EU. It’s after 2020 when the real problems will

come. The necessary imports will really start to create significant impacts when the EU starts to implementhe

target of 85% renewables in 2050.

Response from presenters

Four countries have offered logging concessions to Europe to meet renewable energy targets. The

biggest challenge is indeed after 2020. (See Marshall & Wise report.) We will loose from the

contribution ecosystems functions can make to our economy, because of legislation that is increasing

the demand for biomass.

Remark from the public:

The discussion is interesting but sometimes black and white. Bioenergy is good for small scale users,

but it’s about how things are done. Sustainable biomass production often hasn’t worked because of

land tenure disputes. Most forests are owned by the state. Negotiations with companiesexclude

people who live in the forest.

Remark from the public:

Sustainability criteria cover only part of deforestation, but not the other environmental and social

issues. DG Transport and Energy used pressure to keep the criteria limited.

Concluding remarks:

Lastly, Simone Lovera highlighted the main recommendations put forward during the debate.

• Sustainability is related to carrying capacity of ecosystems, so it’s always a matter of quantity.

GFC is not against the use of biomass, but against expansion and large scale use.

• Certification can not be a solution.

• Indirect Land Use Change is important because of free trade flows.

• Forest restoration is key.

• We need energy saving and a system change, which is not unrealistic.

Report: Yolanda Sikking, Global Forest Coalition, Yolandasikking@yahoo.co.uk 06-2391321