We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

The UN climate change meeting in Bali last year endorsed the idea of forest protection being included in the successor to the Kyoto Protocol — benefitting rainforest nations.

But the declarations made at the meeting did not say how forests should be protected, and this is now being hotly contested.

Options include incorporating them into carbon trading schemes or tackling deforestation with an international fund.

Satellite monitoring now offers rainforest nations the ability to quantify their own deforestation and reforestation rates for carbon trading, say advocates of market approach.

But the European Commission has proposed a ban on forestry carbon credits until 2020, fearing such moves would flood the carbon market. Instead, they propose to siphon some of the carbon market proceeds into programmes to tackle deforestation.

Brazil supports the idea of an international fund but looks to be alone among rainforest nations. While it could help build deforestation-monitoring infrastructure in developing nations, most want in on a market already worth tens of billions of dollars a year.

Link to full article in Nature