At the UN trees are what colour???
Posted on 16. Nov, 2009 by annac in E.U., United Kingdom
Like the beautiful autumn leaves trees at the UN are also redd... (photo credit AJ smith)
I like trees.
A lot!
In fact my friends and family think I’m a little obsessed. I have rows of books about trees, I spent 6 months planting trees in Australia, I get excited just walking through the park, I even have a tree tattoo on my back!
But why am I telling you this?
Well, because actually one of the reasons I became so involved with climate change issues was due to of this love of trees! You may know that trees (or more particularly the loss of trees) have a lot to do with climate change, but you may not know that therefore they are also included in the UN climate negotiations!
When you think of a tree, draw a tree you probably colour it green. Green is the colour of trees…right?
Well actually you’re wrong…
At the UNFCCC red is the colour of trees.
Well to put it more precisely REDD is the colour of trees.
REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and that’s the part of the negotiations that refers to trees (or to be more precise, forests). 20% of our emissions come from deforestation and degradation, mostly in the developing world, and so addressing this is vital to fighting climate change. That’s what REDD was designed to do. To create a mechanism that protects forests stops deforestation and keeps natural forests in tact.
But we seem to have a problem! Because as we head towards Copenhagen that is not what we are seeing in the REDD negotiations.
As it currently stands REDD may increase emissions not reduce them!
Language has sneaked into the text that allows beautiful and amazing natural forests to be chopped down and replaced with plantations, all in the name of soaking up carbon!
In Bangkok this reached a head with the EU negotiators leading the drive to take out the language that safeguards against this. Though before and during Barcelona we did see the EU pull their head in on this, the language to protect against this is still in a bracket. Read: there’s a high likelihood it may be scrapped in Copenhagen!
What kind of agreement are we looking at in Copenhagen if things like this are not secured?
The REDD text also fails to address what actually drives deforestation, instead playing into the money making schemes of multi-million dollar corporations, which trample all over indigenous peoples rights!
Indigenous people have been the guardians of the forests for thousands of years, you cannot, just because we have realised forests are vital to fighting climate change, ignore their rights. REDD cannot and must not go ahead without indigenous rights being secured.
As we hurtle towards Copenhagen the number of problem areas and issues with what we are likely to see in any deal rises.
There is a very real possibility of deals being done in Copenhagen that make things worse and not better.
We must not accept this!
A deal that allows our amazing, and beautiful natural forests to be chopped down, a deal that robs indigenous people of the forests they have depended on and protected for thousands of years, this is not a deal we should accept.
REDD stands as just one example of how we could end up with green wash or a dirty deal.
As talk hots up, as high-level debates continue over the form and outcomes of Copenhagen, we cannot forget what’s at the very heart of any sort of deal.
Getting the deal in Copenhagen may be about politics not policy now.
But the outcomes of any deal should not be about politics or money…
they should be about our beautiful planet and its amazing people.
Anna you have an amazing way with words…I agree wholeheartedly with everything. Thanks for reminding me every day why we keep fighting for whats right…that is certainly not negotiable! Sasha P xx
Great blog Anna! A really enjoyable and informative read. I love the picture as well… arethey your hands?