Make sure it’s not REDD or dead

The following is an extract from the CV of a recent appointee to a European forestry body, part of whose job will be to liaise with the United Nations REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) programme.

The successful candidate “has extensive experience in facilitating international multi-cultural, interdisciplinary teams and currently heads an organisation that provides strategic advice and support on the development and implementation of social, environmental and economic sustainability standards”.

Phew, you might well say. But that does seem to be the kind of expertise you need, not to mention the kind of language you have to understand, to get to grips with REDD. And the timber industry clearly does need to get to grips with it, as, while it’s been slow to get off the ground, its aim is to shape forest use and management globally. That, in turn, has potential consequences for wood supply.

Basically REDD envisages wealthier countries providing money to less well off forest states to maintain their forest cover. Currently it has 35 ‘partner’ countries in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America, of which 14 are now getting support for REDD activities. To date the latter have received US$59.3m and there is more in the kitty, with generous REDD backer Norway alone pledging US$1.5bn for projects in Guyana and Indonesia.

The big question is, where does sustainable timber production fit into REDD’s remit? The answer so far seems not very prominently. The idea is that funding for REDD recipient countries is based on the ‘carbon value’ of their forests, but the impact timber production can have on this, whether positive or negative, does not seem to be high on the REDD agenda.

One critic of the UN initiative is Scott Poynton, director of The Forest Trust, a body which aims to tackle deforestation by supporting commercial sustainable forest management. Its carbon value calculation system is so convoluted, he says, REDD may ultimately go for the easiest option, taking forestry out of commercial exploitation entirely.

“The danger is that the complexity will make the least sophisticated route, locking timber away, the most attractive,” he said. “There are already projects under discussion, entailing a forestry company ‘setting aside’ forest. We feel that would be bad for the forest, local people and timber.”

Against this background, the encouraging news is that forestry and timber organisations worldwide are increasingly focusing on REDD. And this includes the UK’s TTF which commissioned a just-published report to shape its own REDD strategy.

The latter recommends a two pronged approach. Not only should the TTF monitor the development of the UN programme, it should engage with it to emphasise how existing industry-backed initiatives, such as the EU FLEGT scheme and Timber Trade Action Plan, are encouraging sustainable forest management and timber production. And, in turn, it should emphasise how the latter can play a part in achieving REDD’s goal of maintaining the forests.

TTF chief executive John White puts it refreshingly simply. “We need to highlight how the timber industry can enhance potentially valuable initiatives like REDD, while minimising the risk of them curbing wood production,” he said.