Comments on: REDD will fail with the current definition of “forest”

By: BAR.NDUKAUBA C. NWAGBO

BAR.NDUKAUBA C. NWAGBO — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:47:34 +0000

BARRISTER NDUKAUBA C. NWAGBO
Forest and Natural Resources Management Law Expert, Nigeria .

CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
DEFINITION OF “FOREST”

The FAO Definition of Forest sounds more like it inspite of all the critique, my humble contribution is that the FAO definition ought to be expanded to include other forests resources apart from tree cover. There are other plants and animals (flora and fauna) that make up the forests and form part of the Ecosystem of forests and livelihood of forest human communities. The gorillas, for instance the Cross River Gorilla peculiar to Nigeria can only exist in the forest, the forest is the natural habitat of these animals and they cannot survive elsewhere. The parks, zoo and other protected areas are forests and the forestry practices of the member states of UN-REDD ought to be considered. Plantations where crops and timber are harvested do not qualify as forests as the fauna component of a forest are missing.

The internationally accepted definition of forest cannot exclude the animals and shrubs in the forest because these other plants also help in forming the cover or canopy even though they are not trees.

An attempt is made here to define a Forest in terms of its resources from a research conducted in the forest communities of Cross Rivers State of Nigeria in 2005 which was sponsored by United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

“Forest” means a land area covered by trees and other plant species and inhabited by animal species in its natural state or which could be State Forest Reserve, Community Forest, Private Forest or Forest designated as World Heritage, managed or manageable or exploited by human species in a sustainable manner”.

By: Alemayehu Mullatu

Alemayehu Mullatu — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:32:33 +0000

Very interesting definition,hopfully Montanne forest of Southwest Ethiopia will be included and my community will be benefited.

By: Robin Webster

Robin Webster — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:15:05 +0000

David – yes, it seems as if we have all been beaten to the punch by those who want to carry on deforesting and converting to plantations – though I don’t think it’s quite as simple as just the fault of Malaysia and other oil palm growers. The definition as it stands also suits diverse countries including Canada, the US, Sweden, Finland, Australia and New Zealand, because it allows for continued conversion of natural forest into monoculture timber plantations and ‘semi-natural’ forest, which is the predominant form of forestry in these countries.

Ben – the problem is that, under the current LULUCF reporting rules, which some countries would like to see also applied to REDD in the future (should it be agreed on), there would not necessarily be any requirement to report on deforestation such as you see in the picture above, because it could be considered as “temporarily unstocked forest”, or indeed could be considered for re-planting with something that will grow to 2 metres tall at some time in the future, in which case it is still technically considered as ‘forest’, and therefore not ‘deforested’, despite the fact that it might be completely lacking in any tree cover.

By: Ben de Jong

Ben de Jong — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:05:49 +0000

Care should be taken interpreting definitions out of their context. The cited definition is only valid for the Kyoto Protocol, where it is applied to CDM projects, where only afforestation and reforestation are valid. There is no general UNFCCC definition of forest, only a generally accepted definition of FAO (another UN organization). REDD will particularly deal with “emission reductions” from avoiding deforestation and degradation. As such the photo clearly demonstrates a large loss of carbon independent if it is considered as deforeatation or forest degradation.

By: David Gilbert

David Gilbert — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:50:20 +0000

The real heart of this matter is why the UNFCCC is content to include plantations in their definition of ‘forest’. Is this an intentional shot at any potential REDD agreements? Could negotiators from Malaysia, who do indeed at times categorize oil palm plantations as forest, have beat REDD proponents to the punch?

An important question is, can the definition of forests and deforested land be changed in the build up to a post Kyoto regime in 2012? With the slow pace of negotiations, that looks doubtful.

So if no change is made to UNFCCC definitions, where does that leave REDD? In murky, murky waters it seems.

By: Jago Wadley

Jago Wadley — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:52:43 +0000

This has always been pretty clear, and it is good someone linked to a respectable intitution has written it up. The UNFCCC defintions of “forest” and “deforestation” also mean that companies that clear forests for oil palm could not be compensated for not doing so, as technically they would merely be temporarily destocking rather than deforesting. As such, all of the ideas about paying companies like Sinar Mas, and others not to convert forests into other uses, such as oil palm or industrial timber estates, would not be permitted under the UNFCCC rules. This leaves “forest degradation”, which as far as I know is not defined under the UNFCCC, so could not be financed in light of CERs either. Either the UNFCCC has to take this on board and change the rules (which would be hard, given that countries like Malaysia claim all of their oil palm estates are “forests”), or REDD is dead. Under current UNFCCC definitions, Indonesia, for example, could not be paid for CERs from reforesting most of the forests it has destroyed, as these would have had to have been deforestated before 1990. The majority of deforestation has occured since then. Let’s hope the second commitment period rules on reforestation make more sence, and that the UNFCCC rules begin to reflect the real world.