1. EGS1003: Section on International Environmental Justice and the Climate Change Challenge Mary Lawhon (marylawhon@gmail.com)marylawhon@gmail.com This work by Mary Lawhon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

2.  In the 1980s, 20-40% of GHG emissions attributed to tropical deforestation  Stopping this seemed logically to be part of addressing climate change  Conservation  Reforestation (These slides are based on Backstrand and Lovbrand, 2006) FOREST FIRE © Aleksandr Klimashin, Dreamstime

3.  As of 1995, includes all sinks and sources of carbon, including forests/plantations  “most developing countries strongly opposed the idea that carbon storage on their territory would allow industrialized countries to continue emitting greenhouse gases domestically.” (Backstrand and Lovbrand, 2006: 59)  By 2002, represented 35% of carbon benefits through AIJ. No projects in Africa

4.  From Kyoto to 2001, South fights to keep forests/plantations out of the market mechanisms  After US walks out, concede to “save the Protocol”  Limited to 1% of countries’ 1990 emissions

5.  Proponents of EM say:  Flexibility and cost-effectiveness through tree planting in the South  A win-win scenario for North and South

6.  Participation and stakeholder involvement are central to sustainable development  Bottom-up  Include marginalized voices  “Reform” and “radical” versions

7.  Proponents say:  Principled objection: “represents a ‘loophole’ i.e. an instruent for rich countries to evade their historical responsibility” (Backstrand and Lovbrand, 2006: 64)  But also, detracts from the need for long-term, systemic change in GN

8.  “If the carbon uptake in terrestrial ecosystems is inadequately measured or accidentally re-emitted to the atmosphere as a result of fire, pest attacks, illegal logging or climate change itself, sink projects may result in ‘fake credits’” (Backstrand and Lovbrand, 2006:64) By Sean Wilson for SEI

9.  NOT (inherently) a win-win  Tree planting through CDM has ecological risks  Creation of monoculture/plantations  Loss of biodiversity  Intensified use of chemicals and pesticides  Disturb water cycles

10.  NOT (inherently) a win-win  Tree planting through CDM has social risks  Displacement of communities  Loss of access to land  Reinforce/exacerbate existing inequalities  Ecologically- sometimes these communities move and cause deforestation elsewhere

12.  CDM can be beneficial, but isn’t always  Profit comes at the expense of justice  Need to “design participatory projects that can meet social development goals in the South” (Backstrand and Lovbrand, 2006: 66)  Explicitly consider trade-offs between environment, development, and climate