Re: Register now for Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit (3-5 August, Brunei Darussalam) to define the region’s forest policy priorities
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Plantnet
Jul 12, 2016, 8:52:45 PM7/12/16
to Neureuther, Ann-Kathrin (CIFOR), romain...@iddri.org
Dear Ann-Kathrin and all good people working with CIFOR
(please forward)
This event sounds as if it could be very interesting, but at the
same time it seems rather uncertain to me whether it is really about
"Rainforest" at all.
When it says "forest policy priorities", what does it really
mean? Is it about forest conservation policies, or is it about aiming to
increase industrial pulp and paper production? Or is it about enclosing or
capturing the global forest commons via REDD+ so that industrial greenhouse
gas emitters can carry on with their 'business as usual' planet polluting
policies?
Then mention is made of "forestry governance". I think it would be
really helpful if it could be explained exactly what is meant by this term,
because it can be taken to mean so many vastly different things, ranging from
the protection of Earth's dwindling forest biodiversity,
to churning out millions of tonnes of 'rainforest' palm oil; depending
on which community you live in; and where, or how, you earn your
corporate cash, or achieve your local livelihood.
When it comes to understanding how the UN's "Global Goals" fit
in, the language becomes even more confusing. SDG 15 appears
to be the most relevant in the context of "forest conservation
policies" and purportedly aims to "Sustainably manage forests", but what
does this really mean? Sustainably in whose eyes? Manage for what? Are the
forests in question the real thing, or the FAO's
"planted" pseudo-forests?
But it also refers to "sustainable forestry policies", which appears to be a conflation
of "forest policy priorities", "forestry governance",
and "Sustainably manage forests". What does this mean? To me this
sounds like a 'one-size-fits-all' term that has
been designed to be as broad and as vague as possible, so that even the
most destructive 'forestry policies' such as the UNFCCC CDM's
'Afforestation and Reforestation" can be mis-interpreted as being clean and
green, when in reality the opposite is true.
And this takes us to "restoration and
community forestry models". In this instance, does "restoration" mean
fully restoring a real forest in the same place,
and with the same mix of native species as existed before, or does it mean
establishing an artificial 'forested landscape'?
And what of "community forestry"? Does destroying natural vegetation and
then clear-cutting a plantation of alien pulp-wood trees count as
'forestry'?
This is what is generally meant in the jargon used
by the timber plantation and pulp/paper/packaging industry, which
has purposefully hijacked the language of forests, and taken control of the
Forest Stewardship Council, in trying to green-wash its dirty
image. The timber industry also mis-uses the 'landscape mosaic'
concept as a way to sneak even more ecologically destructive tree plantations
onto the land.
As for CIFOR in general, I see an organisation with great
potential to help solve the escalating losses and deteriorating condition of
forests globally, which has been made worse by the FAO's stubborn insistence
that industrial tree monocultures should be called "planted forests"
instead of industrial tree plantations. However it appears to me that there is a
need for greater unity within CIFOR when it comes to finding a sensible common
position on defining and differentiating between forests and tree plantations
(fake forests). I believe that this manifests as an internal disconnect that
prevents the organisation as a whole from closing the chasm
between the FAO illusion and on-the-ground reality.
In my view, many good people at CIFOR have already identified the
definition/terminology problem and have bravely stuck their necks out
to challenge the misleading terminology and
definitions relating to tree plantations that still dominate UN
political processes, especially in the land-use/land-use change and REDD+
arenas:
But I would like to make special mention of this recent article by Romain
Pirard, as being an excellent example of the precise use of clear and
unambiguous language in describing tree plantations in
Indonesia:
However it is also my view that until CIFOR's
current head moves on, such clear thinkers will remain bogged down
in the opinion-piece blogosphere!
Wally
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:38 AM
Subject: Register now for Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit (3-5
August, Brunei Darussalam) to define the region’s forest policy
priorities
Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit, 3-5 August 2016, Brunei Darussalam
In the dynamic Asia-Pacific region, forestry governance has huge impacts on all other policy areas – from local livelihoods to achieving the UN’s new #GlobalGoals. Join this unique regional Summit spearheaded by the governments of Australia and Brunei to be a part of the regional movement for sustainable forestry policies.
The Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit will bring together governments, private sector executives, leading practitioners from non-government organizations and world-class researchers to exchange knowledge and highlight best practices.
View the agenda: We explore what’s next after Paris, discuss innovative climate finance, share success stories for restoration and community forestry models, and ask how to secure inclusive and sustainable supply chains.
Get involved:
· Register your place at the event
· Your rainforests. Your photos: Enter the photo competition for a chance to win cash prizes and to have your photo exhibited in Brunei
· Apply to host a booth at the exhibition
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages