Open Letter to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
COP 12
To the
Delegates of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change:
At the Ninth
Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change held in Milan in 2003, genetically engineered (GE)
trees [also known as genetically modified, GM or transgenic trees]
were approved for use in plantations created to offset carbon emissions
as a part of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.
Research, however, actually shows:
• Native
forests overall absorb and hold far more carbon than industrial tree
plantations, which can also be responsible for nett combined soil-carbon
releases and carbon emissions during their life-cycle;
• Plantations
bring many additional problems that contribute to global warming and
ecological destruction, including water and nutrient depletion, increased
soil salinity and acidity, increased fire risk and biodiversity loss;
• GE trees
(e.g. Bt and reduced lignin trees) may actually worsen global warming
by exacerbating these problems and will cause novel ones, including
alteration of decomposition, insect and disease patterns.
For this reason,
many organizations around the world in several official and unofficial
events have called on the UNFCCC to ban GE trees from the Kyoto Protocol.
In addition,
the UN Convention on Biological Diversity has taken a stand against
GE trees.
On Wednesday, 22 March, 2006 during the Eighth Conference of the Parties
of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, representatives from
non-governmental organizations, social movements, scientists, indigenous
groups, farmers, foresters and others were joined by CBD delegates
from ten countries in calling for a moratorium on the release of GE
trees into the environment.
As a result, the UN CBD made an historic decision, acknowledging for
the first time the potential dangers—both social and ecological—of
genetically engineered trees and urging countries to take a very cautious
approach to the technology. They further called for the initiation
of a global compilation of data on the social and environmental implications
of GE tree release, in a process that includes the participation of
relevant organizations, including indigenous and local communities.
The fact that
the CBD was able to take such a decision on GE trees indicates the
high level of concern over the unique and important threats posed
by genetically engineered trees. Geneticist Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher
of the Federation of German Scientists sums it up this way, “this
CBD outcome, recommending a precautionary approach to GE trees, represents
a first step in recognizing the dangers of GE trees. It will assist
NGOs and scientists alike in sending an urgent alert to all nations
that there is insufficient scientific data on the implications of
GE trees, which pose a threat to forests and indigenous and local
peoples globally—and therefore it is crucial to halt all releases
at least until such data and assessments become available.”
It is now the
responsibility of the UNFCCC to end the contradiction between its
own pro-GE trees decision and the UN CBD’s decision against
GE trees. The UNFCCC must issue a new decision prohibiting the use
of GE trees in carbon offset plantations under the CDM.
The established
myth that forests drastically slow or even stop their carbon sequestration
as they mature has been found to be false. Research shows that intact
mature forest ecosystems have a net carbon absorption not directly
related to the growth of the established forest trees.
Undergrowth and
natural regeneration additionally contribute to carbon absorption.
Forest soils also hold carbon, which is lost into the atmosphere when
the forest is logged.
A 1995 report
by the World Resources Institute and the US Environmental Protection
Agency found that plantations and tree farms in tropical forests at
best only store 25% of the carbon absorbed by native forests.
Replacing native
forests with plantations or GE trees does not only remove the carbon
stored in the forest and release it into the atmosphere, but will
also decrease the overall carbon absorption rate, thus exacerbating
global warming rather than mitigating it.
The use of genetically
engineered trees as a techno-fix solution to global warming poses
a further threat to native forests and their capacity to help balance
the global climate.
Fast-growing
GE tree plantations maturing in as few as three years are likely to
be given higher priority than slower-growing traditional tree plantations.
However, a recent
study funded by Duke University’s Center on Global Change, the
National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Global Environmental
Change/Department of Energy, the inter-American Institute for Global
Change Research, and others has found that “Growing tree plantations
to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to mitigate global warming…could
trigger environmental changes that outweigh some of the benefits.”
These effects
include water and nutrient depletion and increased soil salinity and
acidity, said the researchers. “Almost all plantation trees
are heavy water using evergreen species such as pines and eucalyptus,”
said Robert Jackson, a professor in Duke University’s Department
of Biology and Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.
The report continued, “Together with nutrient removal, leaf
and needle fall from plantation trees can also acidify soils.”
Two of the trees
receiving the most attention from genetic engineers are eucalyptus
and pine. Expanding plantations of faster growing and low-lignin eucalyptus
and Bt pines will exacerbate the problems detailed by the Duke University
study.
Additional problems
with GM trees include: selection pressures for pesticide-resistant
insects and disruption of forest ecosystems for which insects are
an integral component; damage to soils; lignin-reduction resulting
in trees which more easily decompose, thus releasing carbon; and manipulation
of disease-resistance causing the creation of increasingly pathogenic
viruses.5 These and other problems inherent with genetically engineered
trees will lead to forest health crises that worsen global warming
rather than mitigate it.
Global warming
itself could determine the effectiveness of the carbon offset plantation
model. The carbon sink method could turn out to be a double-edged
sword. Plantations have been found to be at high risk of catching
fire. In a world of rapidly increasing temperatures and unpredictable
weather, many of the proposed carbon sinks could actually worsen the
situation. The Indonesian forest fires of 1997, for example, produced
more carbon emissions than did all of the European Union countries
together that year.
In conclusion,
carbon offset forestry is designed to allow the Industrialized North
to maintain their massively consumptive lifestyle at the expense of
the Global South by expanding tree plantations. Genetically engineered
trees are not a solution to global warming. If plantations of GE trees
spread further into native forests, or if their genetic material contaminates
native forests, then genetically engineered trees could damage native
forests, leading to accelerated global warming and the continued devastation
of the earth’s biological diversity.
Genetically engineered
trees do not offer a solution to global warming, rather they are a
global distraction from finding real solutions to the problems of
global warming. In addition, they threaten the world’s forests
and forest-dwelling communities.
For this reason,
we the undersigned, call on the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change to bring its policies in line with those of the
UN CBD and prohibit the use of genetically engineered trees in carbon
sink plantations.
Bangladesh Krishok Federation
Carbon Trade Watch
Global Forest Coalition
Global Justice Ecology Project, USA
Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria
FASE - Espirito Santo, Brazil
Large Scale Biofuels Action Group, UK
Oilwatch International
Stop GE Trees Campaign
Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa
The Corner House, UK
World Rainforest Movement
