No deal?

The video telecasted during the opening ceremony of the COP 15 and before the world leaders during the high level segment shows a small girl is waiting for the world leaders to protect the world.

You de Boer, Executive president of the UNFCC said “Thousands of young people care about the outcome of this conference. I have received hundreds of paper footprints from children in Germany. I have received 1000 folded paper butterflies from children in Australia. And I have received 350 drawings from children in the United States. They all want their future to be safer. One drawing captures what you as the leaders of the world’s nations need to do particularly well. It is a drawing by 8-year old Sophia Dada.”

Every leader echoes that whole world watching them. Everyone is looking for a fair deal. Where is that deal? The negotiation is now in a deadlock.

In my mind this mess was created by the Danish COP 15 presidency because of her closed door text which was prepared with the selected developing country governments to make a deal. This was the news in the second day of the COP. The delegations and the civil society started distrusting other delegations. The Danish COP presidency Ms. Connie Hedegaard was then replaced by the Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Lars Lokke. But he brought another green room text.

Countries such as China made strong disagreement with the new text. Venezuelan President Hugo Charves was quite angry with the process. This might lead the fair deal to a NO DEAL. While 194 countries are engaged in a two way approaches, which is under the Kyoto Protocol and under the Long term vision as agreed by the Bali Action Plan, the Danish government want the process to end up in Copenhagen.

This no transparent approach is the biggest mess in the COP 15.

Who will “seal the deal?”

The most important environmental talk of this century was begun in the Bella Centre in Copenhagen in the capitol of Denmark on 7th December 2009. According to the sources there are more than 30,000 people have got the registration to this land mark conference. Outside the Bella Centre, civil society coming from over 200 countries have also gathered to witness this global deal. They too organise “klimaforum” and bring the voices of the civil society to shape the deal.

Speaking at the Opening Ceremony, Mayor of Copenhagen requested the parties to “seal the deal” The G77 and China, African nations and the least developed countries once again reiterated their commitment to Kyoto Protocol which is the only legally binding agreement. But developed countries want a different deal. There deal will include public and private finances, Carbon market, REDD and other false solutions. They want the developing countries to agree on emission reductions.

The deal will not be easy. There is a rumour that Danish chair is now ready with an alternative text which was prepared behind closed doors. Some believe it might come out in the middle of the dialogue. According to the environmental groups, some developing countries are also part of this close door deal.

Sealing the deal will be done only by the political leaders at the high level segment of the COP 15. Climate talks over the next two weeks will prove whether the political leaders have the guts to take a decision to reverse the climate catastrophe.

Can We expect Climate Justice in Copenhagen?

Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director/ Senior Environmental Scientist
Centre for Environmental Justice


Climate change is very high in the global political agenda at the moment. 15th Conference of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will begin on December 7th, 2009 in Copenhagen. COP 15 will be a very crucial event in the history of human race. However, we cannot have much hope since the developed countries so far very hesitant to accept their historical responsibility to the climate change and enter to a genuine deal.

It’s not a fiction. Intolerable heat, unpredictable high intensity rains and floods, cyclones, increased beach erosion are some symptoms of changing climate. Perhaps, Sri Lanka has a little understanding about the climate change. However, neighboring Maldives, Bangladesh or pacific islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati already feel the rising sea level. Cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 Burmese and affected more than 2.5 million people in 2007. Floods and cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh killed over 3000 people and affected over 900,000 families in year 2007. Floods in Sri Lanka in 2008 affected over 200,000 people and killed few. During the drought of 1999-2001 in Afghanistan FAO suggest that about half of the population was directly or indirectly affected by drought. About 3 to 4 million people were severely affected and another 8 to 12 million were under the threat of famine and stranded. There are similar stories across South Asia, Philippines, United States and across the globe.

Science is clear. Although there is a dispute about the temperature rise, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) report published in 2004 shows that rising temperature has a direct relationship with the increase of Green House Gases such as CO2, Methane, NO2, CFC and even water vapor. Methane emits from the nature as well as animal husbandry. One of the most famous climate thought appeared in the UN COP 15 thoughts are “Meatless Mondays Keep the Warming Away” and “Be a Vegan-Save our Beautiful World”. It is true that meat industry needs lost of energy and release methane. But CO2 which is result of burning “fossil Fuel” is a major reason to trap heat within the atmosphere which results global warming.

It is estimated that the temperature rise will be 2 – 5 degrees Centigrade at the end of the century. Some believe of a more severe temperature increase and 40 cm sea level rise by 2080. Some assessments state that the rise of average temperature by 4-5 degrees Centigrade will raise the sea level by 3-5 meters which leads to break up of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. Greenpeace says the breakdown of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) alone contains enough ice to increase the sea level by 5 meters and if all ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt entirely, the sea level will rise by 70 meters. Although the countries except the United States signed the Kyoto protocol, which agreed to reduce 5.2% of CO2 emissions of the 1990 levels, none of the countries have fulfilled this obligation yet.

It is expected that he Obama administration will unveil the target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions at next month's climate conference in Copenhagen. The United States has been under great pressure from the international community to present its target at the summit, because it is the only industrialized country that still hasn't revealed a plan to reduce emissions. United States present its domestic targets in August 2009 which is 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.This is only less than 4% by 1990 levels which is far less than what other countries have been pushing. Meanwhile, total emission cuts so far agreed by the entire Annex I countries excluding US are only 14 percent to 17 percent from 1990 targets. However the US and other annex I countries argue that China, India and Brazil need to bring its CO2 level down too. Although US is responsible for the highest historical carbon emission, China’s per capita CO2 level is number one at the moment.

This is a very clear politics of the developed countries in this very divisive issue, the climate catastrophe. According to the climate scientists at least 40% of the 1990 levels of emission cuts should be done by 2020. This level is necessary if we are to maintain the 2 degree centigrade temperature rise and keep the CO2 level at 350 ppm. Any further increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere will severely affect the sea level rise and other climate disasters.

Where this politics will lead us? It is estimated that over 200 million people become climate refugees at the end of the century due to impacts of climate change. In a conservative estimate, it is calculated that the inaction of cutting emission drastically by developed countries would cost the climate impacts around 40-70 billion annually. I believe the question is not where to find this money. During the US recession the United States bailout package for its corporations was over 3 trillions. The total fund requirement to reduce CO2 level is 250 billion only.

The more important issue for the people in the developing world is how the climate debate will affect our genuine development. The reason I use the term genuine development is only because I see that the current development in Sri Lanka is not correct and not sustainable. The Electricity Generation plan recently unveiled by the Ceylon Electricity board has over 3200 MW coal power plants which will be totally based on imported Coal from Cheaper sources. This cheaper coal has more than 1 percent sulphur and more ash content. These coal power plants will emit CO2 1.9 Metric Tonnes per capita which almost same as the sustainable level of CO2 emission by 6.5 billion people living in the world today.

The easy argument of the Coal power agents today is that Sri Lanka’s per capita CO2 emission is only 600 Kg and we have ample space to increase the Co2 emission. But we have increased 230 percent since the Kyoto protocol signed. Burning coal which is imported from other countries cannot be justified as sustainable. On the other hand the problem today is the wrong development paradigm of the industrialized countries. Copying the same would be a complete disaster for us.

We have the right for development as same as like any other nation. As part of the environmental justice the developing nations now fight for climate justice. The developed countries owe ecological debt for the developing countries for overconsumption of our atmosphere, environmental space and natural resources. It is clear that their development has deprived us from development. Climate debt is owed for the historical overproduction of GHG emissions by developed countries that saturated the atmosphere – considered to be a ‘global common’ – thereby reducing the environmental/survival space available for developing countries. The climate debt is also owed for the impacts of climate change that is suffered in past and present in developing countries, and for future generations.

Sri Lankans position in the climate debate is also requesting the ecological debt that developed countries owe us. Sri Lanka Government has signed to the Bolivian proposal to request ecological debt. As we believe, ecological debt asserts that wealthy nations have generated a huge debt through centuries of exploitation of the natural resources of poorer nations. The ecological debt, including the climate debt must be paid not only in terms of financial means. This has to include the unconditional cancellation of all the unfair debts that the impoverished countries have – generated through the implementation of colonial and neoliberal policies. Liberalization practices imposed through the international financial institutions causes the degradation of environment; local social and economic system thus exacerbates vulnerability to climate change. Liberalization creates unequal access to natural goods which reducing opportunities for the poor to build resilience to climate change.

Being part of the G77 cluster, Sri Lanka also strongly support the request from Annex I countries to cut emissions, mitigate the damages, assist adaptations, request climate finance through a United Nations manage funds and transfer technologies to combat climate change. The African nations and the small islands states have almost similar approach. Yet the negotiation is not easy.

Any solution to climate change should be people centered. The government can do very little either to reduce everyone’s carbon footprint, to reduce industrial emissions or adapt to the climate disasters. The climate negotiations need to bring the opinion of the public, small enterprises or academics to the big picture. However, Sri Lankan climate bureaucrats have a phobia to meet the civil society and dialogues on public expectations and opinions. I have attended many civil society initiatives on climate change. Unfortunately, I failed to meet the national delegation in those local meetings.

Internationally, many developing governments are in corporation with the civil society thoughts. Many government delegations have included civil society representatives in the delegation too. There is nothing to lose in this case since we all in the southern believe that our final goal is climate justice. Climate justice can only achieve by developed nations taking responsibility for historical emissions and pay their climate debt. We must have climate bailout.

In a worst case there would be no deal in Copenhagen. Annex I countries are trying to kill Kyoto Protocol and they will likely to discuss the shared long-term vision only. There is a great debate on climate financing. Developed countries are planning to distribute climate finance through the climate criminals such as ADB and World Bank who has increased more than 100 percent its funds to the coal based power generations in the recent years. Much opposed carbon trading due to the failures in the recent past may still continue since that is the only way for the business corporation s to make money. Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (REDD), much opposed carbon Offset mechanism supported by the UN will continue since that is the only money available for development countries.

The per capita emission is US 19.5, Canada 18.8, Australia 20 and United Arab Emirates 35 and China is only 4.58 by 2006 in Metric tonnes. The total emission china leads with 21.5% and United States 20.2% and European Union 13.8%. Except the United States, all other countries have committed some emission cuts even though it is very small with total 14 percent to 17 percent.

There is a very little chance that Annex I countries agree some emission cuts close to 20 percent by 1990 levels. There will be no deal without US committing to reduce its emissions. US domestic emission cut is 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels which is only 4% reduction by 1990 levels. Also there will be no deal without China, India and Brazil take actions to cut domestic emissions. China offered 40%-50% reduction by 2020 from 2005 levels. Any deal to reduce less than 40 percent by 1990 levels by all Annex I countries will not give hopes to developed countries. Yet, there is no walk out.

Adaptation for Sri Lankan communities

How Climate change will impact livelihood?

Hemantha Withanage
Executive Director, Centre for Environmental Justice

Climate change is visible in most parts of Sri Lanka. Majority of the people be­lieve this climate change is un­favourable to living beings and livelihood. However, local climate changes in certain areas are bet­ter compared to 30 years ago. For example, Mahaweli water feeding areas in the dry zone gets more water, are more favourable to people and the environment.

However, local people cannot distinguish these local climate changes from the global climate change. On the other hand some impacts can be explained as the impacts of local environmental changes. For example some water related impacts have direct links to the destruction of forests in the local envi­ronment. These unfavourable conditions are varying from community to community.

Most nature dependent livelihoods such as farming, fishing, different types of labour in­cluding labour involved in Tea and Rubber industry, natural resources based sustainable livelihoods have negative impacts. There are unfavourabe conditions due to the spread of vector borne diseases and also quick weather change including heat. These communities have made very, very negligible contributions to the GHG emissions except the farmers en­gaged in slash and burn cultivation or animal husbandry. So they have nothing to mitigate.

However, a survey conducted by the CEJ shows that people, especially those engaged in nature based livelihoods, are somehow suf­fering from climate change. They need alter­native livelihoods and living conditions have to adapt to the new climatic conditions.

Adaptation is a need of changes for the sur­vival of the living beings in order to respond to the natural changes. This is part of the natural evolution too. However, sudden natu­ral changes due to climatic impacts are det­rimental to the other living beings. Many of these species might disappear from the earth before they adapt to the changing climate. As the human species, we have a better ability to adapt to the changing situations. Yet, human species also suffer from unexpected cyclones, floods, sea level rise, heat waves etc.

Building awareness among the civil society is an immediate requirement in Sri Lanka. Meantime those policy planners can learn from the local communities. As we were go­ing through the survey we found that the fol­lowing areas need adaptation.

The farmers have to adapt to the increased in­tensity of floods and the dry seasons. Change of the rain pattern has negatively affected farmers, especially those engaged in slash and burn cultivation. This may need moving the cultivation seasons or change of crops and cropping pattern. They will have to con­sider moving away from Chena cultivation to permanent cultivation. They may also need to find plant varieties that suit the changing rainfall pattern.
Adaptation to water conservation, rain water harvesting is also important.
People living in the low lying areas need to adapt to the increased level of flooding. Some affects are due to the lack of climate proof­ing of the old and newly built infrastructures. For example, Kukule Ganga dam has created increased flooding in the low lining areas in the downstream. Some people might have to move their houses to the high ground to avoid increased floods in the surroundings of those mega development projects. Coastal low lying areas face salt water intrusion which destroys the agricultural lands, traditional live­stock, grazing lands, and the water table.

Fisher folk face loss of coastal houses due to see level rise or due to heavy erosion by in­creased size of waves. They also have to face the loss of fish caused due to the destruction of mangrove forests, sea grass beds, acidifi­cation, coral degradation or other unknown reasons.

Some water intakes are vulnerable to sea water ingression. This affects water facilities including the Kaduwela water intake. As the ground water table is going down in certain areas, the water scarcity is becoming a major problem. People in general have to adapt themselves to the mosquito menace as it is increasing in the areas that were considered as more cold. The earth slides have increased in some wet areas due to high rainfall over an extended period. People living in slopes and earth slide prone areas need actions.

Some houses may need stronger construc­tion to adapt to the increased intensity of winds. Perhaps older structures are more vul­nerable. Certain locations might not be suit­able for house constructions anymore.

Lack of climate proofing in mega develop­ment projects makes people and environment vulnerable to the climate damage. Most of the infrastructure projects have not consid­ered climate change in designing and imple­mentation. While some adaptations are part of the learning curve of the local people who have specialized in their locations, some ad­aptations need proper authority but careful and cautious intervention. As many people engage in nature related livelihoods are los­ing jobs there is a need of creating green jobs in the future.

The result also shows that climate change is not only a business of the environmental agencies of the government. It needs to be a crosscutting issue for many other authorities including agriculture, water and irrigation, fisheries, meteorological, coastal, disaster mitigation and academics. The research team felt that even the provincial and local authori­ties have a role to play.

Local communities have lot to contribute to the climate plans. Keeping them out of cli­mate business will create unnecessary dam­age to life and livelihood as we have seen in some Asian countries in the recent past. Bringing them to the climate planning will allow them to understand and contribute to the mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, democratizing of climate plans and action should be done without further delay.

Your Planet Needs You! Unite to Combat Climate Change

Hemantha Withanage,
Executive Director/ Environmental Scientist
Centre for Environmental Justice

It is not yet another day. This year on World Environment Day, people around the world will join together to show their unity to combat climate change. World Environment Day (WED) was established by the UN General Assembly in 1972 to mark the opening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment.

Every monsoon season, in the past decade, we have seen more and more natural disasters. During other times we face severe droughts, mosquito menace, coastal erosion, heat waves which are somehow linked to climate change. IPCC findings, published in 2004, clearly shows that increase of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere as the reason for climate change. This includes, CO2, Methane, NO2, CFC and even water vapour. The main cause for climate change is burning fossil fuel, mainly by the developed nations, since the industrial era began. The world is debating since the RIO conference held in 1992, but with no emission reductions yet. Once again they will meet in Copenhagen in December 2009 for making some crucial decisions.

It is estimated that the temperature rise will be 2 – 5 degrees Centigrade at the end of the century. Some believe of a more severe temperature increase and 40 cm sea level rise by 2080. Some assessments state that the rise of average temperature by 4-5 degrees Centigrade will raise the sea level by 3-5 meters which leads to break up of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. Greenpeace says the breakdown of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) alone contains enough ice to increase the sea level by 5 meters and if all ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt entirely, the sea level will rise by 70 metres. Although the countries except the United States signed the Kyoto protocol, which agreed to reduce 5.2% of CO2 emissions of the 1990 levels, none of the countries have fulfilled this obligation yet.

The world cannot be saved by the bodies appointed for saving it unless we all unite. This year's theme ‘Your Planet needs You! Unite to combat climate change' – is a topic that shows the value of every individual’s responsibility to protect the planet.

Sri Lanka has made less contributions to climate change. Although, our GDP is high enough to become a middle income country, we are still an agrarian society. However, we need to understand that the current development paradigm is not climate friendly. Most developed countries followed the thinking ‘develop today and conserve later.’ However the environmental disasters, including climate change, have shown that this is a failed approach.

Today we are facing three major crises, i.e. food crisis, climate crisis and financial crisis. At the end humanity is in a serious crisis. Some economists believe that the world will recover from the financial crisis. However, there is no easy solution for the food crisis and the climate crisis.

As Mahatma Gandhi once mentioned, “there are enough resources for the people’s needs but not for people’s greed.” The countries in the north have already exceeded their fair share in their resources utilization. They also have exceeded the use of the environmental space. The developed countries, representing less than one fifth of the world’s population, have emitted almost three quarters of all historical emissions. On a per person basis, they are responsible for more than ten times the historical emissions of developing countries. They owe the people in the south a huge ecological debt and emission debt. This is true for the wealthy minority in our own societies. They are not yet ready to pay this debt.

Unfortunately, the poor majority in the world suffers most from both the food crisis and the climate crisis. According to Greenpeace more than 120 million people will become climate refugees by the end of the century in India and Bangladesh alone. According to Oxfam, a charity organization, the world will require 50- 140 billion USD a year for the poorer countries to adapt to climate change.

So, it is clear that if we are to save the world, those who consume more and those who owe us need to pay their debts. Honouring these obligations is not only necessary but it is also the basis of a fair and effective solution to climate change. Those who benefited most in the course of causing climate change must compensate those who contributed least to it but bear its adverse effects.

Public perceptions show that people in Sri Lanka, who engage in nature based livelihoods, are already suffering from climate change. I wonder whether there are any statistics in Sri Lanka produced by the authorities since climate change is a very new subject for many of them. However, we cannot ignore climate change anymore as it is already causing impacts.

If we are to promote a carbon neutral economy we still have the opportunity and time for it. It is not advisable to wait for the government agencies to show the red flag on climate change. Every individual has the responsibility to act on climate change. To give few advises: - Use less energy consuming items, Use public transport or bicycles to save fuel where possible, Reduce the use of plastics. It is true that although 80% plastic can be recyclable, only 20% is recycled today. Plant a tree. Stop burning waste. Help recycling. Talk to your friends on climate change.

The authorities need a more dynamic approach on climate change. Sri Lanka’s coal lobby is not climate friendly. Although wind energy, solar energy are climate friendly, Sri Lanka’s authorities have a phobia in promoting them. Authorities still have a learning exercise on climate change. But, we should not underestimate the climate impacts to Sri Lanka as we are an island in the Bay of Bengal.

Cyclone ‘Nargiz’ attacked Burma killing more than 23,000 people and left around 40,000 homeless in 2007. Cyclone ‘Sidr’ killed over 4,000 people in Bangladesh in the same year. Therefore it is advisable for everyone to learn how to face severe weather conditions, floods and droughts, cyclones, sea level rise, or facing increased mosquito menace. Farmers need to learn how to adapt to droughts or delayed rainfall. Fishermen need to adapt to less catches, rough seas or less fish due to degradation of corals. It is not too late to include climate adaptation to the school curricula. We do not have to wait for such disasters to happen like hurricane ‘Katrina’, ‘Rita’ in the United States or cyclone ‘Nargiz’ in Burma. Only you can make this change.

Red lines for REDD

Hemantha Withanage
Centre for Environmental Justice - Sri Lanka

May 2009

The UN initiated Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) in Developing Countries is one of the latest approaches for reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. A multi-donor trust fund was established in July 2008 in collaboration with FAO, UNDP and UNEP for this purpose.

As per the IPCC estimates the cutting down of forests is now contributing close to 20 per cent of the overall greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Forest degradation and land use change also make a significant contribution to emissions. Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and approaches to stimulate action” was first introduced at the Conference of the Parties (COP11) in December 2005 by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by eight other Parties.

There are opposing and supporting views for this. One of the opposing views is because REDD text agreed in COP 14 in Bali did not include the rights of the indigenous people who are living in the forests. Largest forests in Asia, Africa and Latin America are inhabited by the local indigenous people for thousands of years. “Adivasi” people live in Dambana, Sri Lanka are also a good example. However, most of the forests in Sri Lanka are not inhabited by people as they have been removed under conservation programmes or development projects more than two decades ago. Yet there are many local communities who live near the forest areas protect, and depend on the forests resources and the services.

Forests in all tropical countries play a major role in the life of the communities living around them. It is not just a carbon sink but also it is the source of food, water, fire- wood, medicines, building material, non timber forest products, raw material for household appliances. It also controls erosion and floods, maintains the seed banks. It is our life.

On one hand Annex I countries which are supposed to reduce their GHG emissions owe a huge debt to countries which maintained good forests which absorbed CO2 since the industrial evolution began. Those who lived inside and protected forests should be entitled to get the repayment for those services. However in practice this may not be easy. All Sri Lankan forests were vested with the Crown by the British colonials under the Waste Land Ordinance which are now under government control. In practice, the REDD programme will mainly enter into agreement between the [so-called] forest owners, which is the Government, and the parties that seek emission cuts. The Government can only gain benefits in this case.

If the forests are included in a contract by the governments it will have serious control and will limit access to local people. Many of them are local poor who are rely on the forest. So, protecting the rights of those people living in poverty and those who are relying on forests for subsistence is an utmost important aspect in this business. Is the REDD program ready to compensate those people and find alternate livelihood for them?

REDD will cut emissions if we keep those forests healthy. As we know Sri Lankan forests have many threats. The illegal cutting of timber, encroachments, massive destruction for development projects are some of them. In many countries they are the government itself, forest and energy industries, road development and big agri-businesses, tea cultivation etc., are responsible for the forest degradation. Involvement of these sectors in both economic and political structures, needed for a successful implementation of REDD, which will have serious cost involvement too.

If we are to receive REDD funds we have to maintain healthy forests. According to the UN “The UN-REDD Programme is aimed at tipping the economic balance in favour of sustainable management of forests so that their formidable economic, environmental and social goods and services benefit countries, communities and forest users while also contributing to important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

It is the opinion of many activists that forests should not be treated as carbon sinks. it has multiple values. The above explanation shows that REDD has been proposed as not only for Climate Change Mitigation, but also the conservation of eco-diversity and continue to give other forest services such as water regulation. For local people living by the forests is much more important than getting control by the climate mitigation mechanisms ( such as emission traders) who are far away from them. Therefore we believe that REDD should not be included in the emissions market. Further, if REDD is considered under emission market, the developed countries could by themselves be out of their own obligations to reduce CO2 emissions in their own country by buying cheap forest certificates. According to the Rain Forest Foundation ,UK “REDD would potentially be using for the carbon offsetting and the it would subsidy the loggers.”1

On the other hand, since developed countries are not willing to accept emission cuts, the REDD will be mostly voluntary. They will prefer some countries where they can find cheap credits. This may create a cold war between Annex II countries and it might weaken the Annex II countries’ positions. Specially this is more possible in the case with the global financial crisis. Some countries will have more to offer which means they will offer cheaper CO2 absorption.

Conservation of forests is not cheap in countries such as Sri Lanka where the threat is so much compared to some countries which have more lands with low population pressure. So the cost of maintenance is not equal in all the countries. This means the cost of CO2 absorption is also not the same. Therefore if those countries are to maintain healthy forests they need more funds. On the other hand too much focus on some forests in order to respect the REDD agreements will limit attention on some not so important forests which means the total forest degradation might still go up.

As we always believe real emission cuts should be done at home by controlling their own life style by the developed countries. However, there should be a mechanism to stop further degradation of tropical forests. With the REDD funds it will not be possible to stop all deforestation within a country at once. But, the conservation of existing natural and well managed forests should have priority over reforestation and afforestation under any mechanism. Although we can see that we are losing our natural forest cover in Sri Lanka, overall forest cover has gone up since it includes the new plantations. So it is sometimes hard to depend on the national statistics about degradation.

Consideration of biodiversity is a important aspect in REDD approach. Monoculture and Plantations have little or no contribution to biodiversity compared to natural forests. Undoubtedly, natural forests could store more carbon than forest plantations. Therefore REDD should not waste its funds for plantations which are economically so attractive.

Countries such as Sri Lanka has contributed to the conservation of forests for thousands of years. That should be rewarded in order to discourage future deforestation. There is a trend in Annex II countries, such as Sri Lanka, to destroy some forests disregarding climate impacts for development projects. If they are to save them, it needs attractive income generation from those global forest services.

One big problem with REDD is the consideration of the rights of the Indigenous and local communities whose rights must be fully respected. This is undeniable specially when UN has already accepted the rights of the indigenous people. Therefore, REDD should respect the good governance principles and democratic decisions making including Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC). Participation of the people on site is indispensable to make forest conservation permanent and socially just. In my opinion there won’t be conservation to the forest unless people have access to the funds earned under the REDD.

Nevertheless, if the REDD are going to be successful it needs dedicated funds rather than support going through the general ODA accounts. The ODA funded activities are not successful in many countries. Neither the carbon market managed activities. It will need serious management. The good governance, compensation for local right owners, poverty elimination, fair treatment of all forests, should be included in designing implementation and in post activities.

The project is normally looked after only during the implementation. If the REDD is to be successful the forests should be managed not only during the short term project period but for a long term i.e 100- 200 years. It is a question whether this is going to happen and whether those developed countries are going to put funds for such a long period.

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 by the United states proposed something similar to „debt for nature swap“ which was under heavy criticism. Yet some 16 countries including Indonesia, Peru, Philippine are part of this programme. It allows countries to put debt payment to United States into a fund which manage national forests in the way United States want to control. US president has veto power over the use of the fund money. It is my fear that the REDD could be another face of the same.

With all pros and cons of REDD, more importantly REDD programmes will include forests’ ability to absorb CO2 emissions in future. However, our forests have already fixed carbon and they are already carbon stocks. If the REDD considers forest carbon stock roll, it may be easier to respect forests’ roll and continue the services without conflicting the local interests.

Unlike many countries Sri Lanka has home gardens. They are not forests but they have canopies similar to a rain forests with timber and non timber species. They act as carbon sinks and reduce erosion and control floods too. If you look at these home gardens and carbon stocks rather than forest carbon sinks it can greatly increase the carbon absorption. While forests are still with much higher diversity, if the REDD consider home gardens as carbon stocks which are done by the ordinary people they may look as an alternative. For the carbon absorption. Sri Lanka has 818,000 Ha of home gardens approximately which is about 1/3 of the total natural forest and Plantation cover in Sri Lanka. This may be the case in many tropical countries.

*****







1 http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/Carbon_Sunk