The new pledge by world leaders to halt deforestation by 2030 is likely to fail unless quickly backed by more funding, transparent monitoring and tough regulation of businesses and financiers linked to forest destruction, environmentalists warn.
Many conservationists noted that similar zero deforestation pledges had repeatedly been made and not met by both governments and businesses. Those include the 2014 New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), the United Nations sustainability goals and targets set by global household brands.
The 2014 New York declaration, backed by more than 200 countries, companies and green groups, sought to at least cut in half losses of natural forests by 2020 and then end deforestation by 2030.
Kiki Taufik, global head of Greenpeace Southeast Asia's Indonesian forests campaign, said the pledge committed to restoring an area of forests and cropland larger than India by 2030. Instead, forests the size of Spain have been destroyed for commodities like soy and palm oil since 2010.
"We need an immediate end to deforestation, backed up by water-tight domestic laws and policies which recognise the land rights of local and indigenous peoples, properly protect forests, eliminate deforestation through supply chains and start to phase out industrial meat and dairy," he added.
"While the Glasgow Declaration has an impressive range of signatories from across forest-rich countries, large consumer markets and financial centres, it nevertheless risks being a reiteration of previous failed commitments if it lacks teeth," said Jo Blackman, head of forests policy and advocacy at London-based Global Witness. "The question is whether headline-grabbing announcements on deforestation will end up amounting to more of the same empty promises or if they will be followed up with the real regulatory action that is so urgently needed."
Green groups say production of commodities and minerals drives many natural losses, with carbon-storing forests cleared for plantations, ranches, farms and mines. Environmentalists have also criticised low levels of funding committed by rich countries to help developing nations develop in a green way, leaving many leaders relying on harvesting natural resources to bolster their economies and lift people out of poverty.
Gemma Tillack, forest policy director at U.S.-based nonprofit Rainforest Action Network, said inaction by consumer brands, banks, and governments to push forest protection in countries where they procure goods was driving the loss of "our last line of defence against climate change. The pledge cannot be taken seriously if it does not require all parties to disclose proof of the actions taken to immediately halt deforestation and degradation and respect land rights across all forest-risk commodity sectors."
About 10 million hectares are still lost each year, said Tim Christophersen, who leads the United Nations Environment Programme's nature-for-climate branch, explained, "There is no shortage of these political commitments. What there is a shortage of is the money and political will to make them happen."
Fran Raymond Price, global forest practice lead at green group WWF International, welcomed the fresh commitments, saying they acknowledged the important value of forests and other natural ecosystems.
But "what we need now is urgent action and implementation of these commitments, coupled with time-bound targets and a common transparent framework for monitoring and verification of such targets. There's no time to waste."
Many large banks not involved are among the biggest investors in deforestation-linked firms, said Danny Marks, an assistant professor of environmental politics at Ireland's Dublin City University.
"For the pledge to be successful ... these banks must be penalized or even better forbidden to lend to agribusiness companies that drive deforestation and have been implicated in human rights violations,"
Rod Taylor, global director of forests at the World Resources Institute, said that to achieve success the Glasgow pledge would need significant new financing, as well as transparent monitoring, reporting and verification of its goals. To help avoid the new pledge meeting the fate of previously unmet zero-deforestation commitments, governments must implement a step-change in transparency to include full disclosure of forest and land permits and the origins of commodities.
Globally, about 35% of protected natural areas are owned, managed, used or occupied by indigenous and local communities, yet such groups are rarely considered in the design of conservation and climate programmes, according to researchers at Stanford University.
Ray Minniecon, an Australian aboriginal pastor at COP26, said a lack of indigenous representatives in policy planning and negotiations was one reason efforts to protect land often didn't work.
"Indigenous peoples know how to look after country, how to care for it and heal it and heal the people. Why aren't we at the table?" he asked.
Support for smaller farmers to adopt more sustainable practices is also key, as are trade agreements that promote deforestation-free agriculture and infrastructure WRI's Taylor said.
Will COP26 deforestation pledge be game-changer or broken promise? (trust.org)
No comments:
Post a Comment