Rio Summit may "ignore" forest

Rarely my favorite topic to discuss about carbon and forestry on my blog since this was out of my topic of interest. However, it is important as it is a propaganda of ways to measure forest loss and gain in line with other industries. 

Recently, I read this article about Rio +20 Summit, the first paragraph stated 

Forests have barely been mentioned in the draft of the international agreement to be made at the Rio+20 Earth Summit later this year (20-22 June), the body that represents 15,000 of the world's forest researchers has complained.

Not surprising as I feel the whole talk about carbon forestry from the beginning it was visualize as a vague idea of environmentalist and economist to earn money from the depletion of the forest, jetting up the forest to a non existence value. They probably valuate the carbon project  has an impact to change the ore, plastic, oil and  ocean industries, it may works in forestry sector too, although the profit margin is very much lower than the said industries. Not I am denying the fact carbon is related to forestry, just  carbon is a forest cannot be quantify as an item or by ultimate measurement to purchase and sell. 

Yet, carbon understanding has recently became one of my priority as it seems to be the only way to  promote Sustainable Forest Management, one of the way to eradicate poverty, especially communities or those involve directly to forestry operation. A clinging hope where all the current forest talks are taking place.

In the article, I agreed with the statement made by Louis Verchot, principal scientist at the Centre for International Forestry Research in Indonesia "quoted from his blog

"The absence of forests from this year's agenda is remarkable," he said in a blog post (14 February). "Policymakers must recognise that forests are essential to all of the major challenges that are on the table for this meeting."  

Forest are one big part of the carbon sequester and the type of forest does matter. The more "virgin" the forest, the more the carbon are being stored.

And the "zero draft they were talking about, only have one paragraph of forestry section;

[Forests and biodiversity]
90.    We support policy frameworks and market instruments that effectively slow, halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation and promote the sustainable use and management of forests, as well as their conservation and restoration. We call for the urgent implementation of the “Non-Legally Binding Instrument on all Types of Forests (NLBI)”.

And the  “Non-Legally Binding Instrument on all Types of Forests (NLBI)”, which has a purpose to 

• To strengthen political commitment and action at all levels to implement effectively sustainable management of all types of forests and to achieve the shared global objectives on forests;
• To enhance the contribution of forests to the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, in particular with respect to poverty eradication and environmental sustainability;
• To provide a framework for national action and international cooperation;

Just my opinion and reference for future uses. Kindly comment if I had wrote something that may sounds totally out of the way. 

*Picture for illustration purposes, not related to this post* 

Thanks! Happy Reading :)