Ecology for decision-makers

[Ian Redmond]

How can we ensure decision-makers and climate negotiators understand the ecological implications of their decisions? This was a question that arose during the lively discussion in the REDD+ Hour here at the CBD CoP10 in Nagoya today. My worry is that most negotiators and the ministers they report to (most of whom are lawyers, economists or politicians with little training in ecology) appear to regard biodiversity as an optional extra in REDD, one of the bonus benefits included in the + rather than a term that encompasses all the animals, plants, fungi and micro-organisms that comprise a healthy forest ecosystem. In other words, REDD+ isn't just an opportunity to protect a bit of biodiversity while reducing carbon emmissions, but instead, biodiversity is essential to the success of REDD+ in helping to stabilise our global climate. This is the message we need to convey to Cancun and beyond...

[Javier M. Claparols]

I too have a problem with REDD and REDD +! This does not address the reduction of GHG emissions at source and now have made it a commodity that can be traded! My biggest concern is that it allows business as usual and allow Plantations to be classified as Tropical/Natural Forest! No you are not being too harsh Mike.

[Mike Shanahan]

Good points Ian. I'm sure that most negotiators and the ministers they report to have never set foot in a tropical forest so they view forests as trees and not vibrant and complex ecosystems. Am I being too harsh?