The debate concerning the conservation-related displacement of people in Central Africa remains strongly polarised. In an earlier paper (Curran et al. 2009), we made a clear plea for in-depth, multi-disciplinary research to provide factual assessments of the extent of physical and economic displacements which Kai Schmidt-Soltau and colleagues have referred to in a series of papers (Schmidt-Soltau 2003, 2004, 2005a, b, Brockington 2004, Brockington and Igoe 2006, Brockington et al. 2006, Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau 2003a, b, 2006, Schmidt-Soltau and Brockington 2004, 2007). We also stressed the need to find some 'common ground' that would allow all of us concerned with this issue to work together in the interests of both biodiversity conservation and human development.

The accusation by Schmidt-Soltau (2009) that conservation organisations willfully continue to commit 'human rights violations' in Central Africa is, in our view, not true. We do not dispute that there are examples from around the world where conservation projects have not respected peoples' rights in the past, and we believe that lessons have been learned and that the conservation approach has shifted accordingly. But citing isolated incidents between government agents and members of local communities as proof of ongoing, systematic abuse of human rights falls well short of contributing to finding acceptable solutions to these conflicts. Furthermore, we disagree with Schmidt-Soltau's (2009) suggestion that it does not really matter how many people are affected, as long as some negative impact can be demonstrated somewhere, while at the same time continuing to cite inflated figures. In short, he provides no compelling evidence to support his claims that hundreds of thousands of rural poor are being displaced by conservation in Central Africa (Schmidt-Soltau 2003, Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau 2006).

This article responds to the critique of data on population displacements voiced in the article 'Are Central Africa's Protected Areas Displacing Hundreds of Thousands of Rural Poor?' (hereinafter Curran et al. 2009) and an earlier version of the same paper with the title 'Central Africa's Protected Areas and the Purported Displacement of People' (hereinafter Maisels et al. 2007). Both articles cast doubt upon the data collected in the field by me and my research assistants. While we have shown that large numbers of people have been physically and economically displaced from 12 protected areas in Central Africa (for example, Schmidt-Soltau 2003, 2005; Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2006), my critics claim that not a single person was displaced from at least 10 of the 12 protected areas covered in our 1996-2007 research. [While the critics claimed earlier that they 'can find no unequivocal evidence of people having been forcibly or involuntarily displaced from the (12) protected areas cited by the authors' (Maisels et al. 2007: 75), they have slightly modified their view and claim in this volume that 10 of the 12 'protected areas do not have such a (resettlement) policy for one obvious reason: despite the assertions to the contrary, resettlement has not happened, nor is it planned, in any of these sites' (Curran et al. 2009: 4).] Throughout their articles, the critics attempt to dispute the data and through this process try to discredit the inevitable conclusions that result from these data and the convergent empirical findings of many other researchers. Ultimately, the critics suggest that calling for a conservation that 'strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level and at the very minimum must not contribute to or exacerbate poverty' (WPC 2003 Recommendation 29) is meaningless as according to them we challenge a practice which is not real but only 'purported'. ['These papers challenge the purported practice of sovereign states, often supported by conservation NGOs, to designate protected areas without discussion with or providing compensation to people living nearby' (Curran et al. 2009: 1).] This is in fact the same old position that ignores and denies the impoverishment caused by protected areas instead of acknowledging and addressing this unpleasant reality in order to find mutual acceptable solutions. While we thought that this position has been repeatedly and convincingly refuted and that conservation Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) would focus after the World Park Congress in Durban (WPC 2003) on corrective actions and pro-poor conservation, the denials are repeated time and again in complete ignorance of what had been discussed and agreed upon. This is unfortunate from a societal perspective as it slows down the shift towards pro-poor conservation and from a personal perspective as I have worked with most of the critics over the last decade and considered some of them to be friends.

New data from Indonesia suggests that one-third of greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation originate from areas not officially definted as 'forest.'  Accounting for carbon in the whole landscape and Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU) can be more effective in reducing emissions.

Over half (56 percent) of America’s forests are privately owned and managed and provide a vast array of public goods and services, such as clean water, timber, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. These important public benefits are being affected by increased housing density in urban as well as rural areas across the country. The Forests on the Edge project, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, seeks to improve our understanding of where across the country housing density increases, as well as other threats, might affect these critical goods and services. For this study, we map and rank watersheds across the conterminous United States to analyze the relative contributions of private forest land to water quality, timber volume, at-risk species habitat, and interior forest. In addition, we rank watersheds according to the pressures on private forest contributions from increased housing density, wildfire, insect pests and diseases, and air pollution. Results indicate that private forest land contributions to forest cover, clean water, and timber volume are greatest in the East, but are also important in many Western watersheds. Private forests making substantial contributions to interior forest and at-risk species are more uniformly distributed across the country. Development pressures on these contributions are concentrated in the Eastern United States but are also found in the north-central region, parts of the West and Southwest, and the Pacific Northwest; nationwide, more than 57 million acres of rural forest land are projected to experience a substantial increase in housing density from 2000 to 2030. Private forests in both the Eastern and Western United States are under pressure from insect pests and diseases. The bulk of private forests most susceptible to wildfire are located in the West and parts of the Southeast. Lastly, ozone pollution affecting private forests is localized in California and several areas of the East.

Climate Focus led a team of experts to analyze opportunities for involving the private sector in the generation of REDD+ credits for the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

The objective of the study is to analyze the role the private sector could play in investing in activities that could generate carbon market credits from REDD+ and the implications this has for designing such market mechanisms. The research focuses on ways in which the private sector could be incentivized to invest in REDD+ activities when the crediting baseline is set at a national level.

The functions and effects of forestry in mitigating climate change have been elaborated in this paper. The concepts and significance of forest carbon sink, forestry carbon sequestration, and carbon sequestration forestry have been introduced, and the practices of carbon sequestration forestry in China have been summarized in this paper. The outline for management strengthening of carbon sequestration forestry has been proposed: implement the Climate Change Forestry Action Plan, reinforce measurement and monitoring of national forest carbon sink and the qualification management of measuring carbon sink projects, and carry out pilot researches for low-carbon economic forestry, aiming to ensure the forestry efforts to mitigate climate change and contribute to combat the global warming.

'The REDD-plus field dialogue was held in Ghana’s Western Region and the dialogue process engaged nearly 50 leaders from a broad spectrum of Ghanaian government and civil society, as well as stakeholders from 13 countries. The Ghana dialogue's co-chairs - James Mayers, Stewart Maginnis and Emelia Arthur - also authored the report.

The report summarizes the outcomes of the Ghana dialogue including:

• the context and status of REDD-plus in Ghana;
• lessons applicable to Ghana from other international and local experiences;
• the challenges and ways forward for REDD-plus readiness in Ghana as identified via the dialogue.

Download the report from The Forests Dialogue's website here.

In April 2009, Texas Forest Service distributed a three-page survey to 5,193 landowners hoping to gain a better understanding of their perspectives on ecosystem services markets.

The survey was designed to determine interest in these emerging environmental credit markets, as well as identify potential participation barriers. Results will be used to develop programs that provide technical assistance to interested landowners.

FIELD has prepared a short briefing paper to assist developing country negotiators who are working on REDD-plus. The briefing paper focuses on the UNFCCC negotiations taking place from 2-6 August in Bonn, Germany.

FIELD provides this information on a neutral non partisan basis. This project is funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

FIELD would welcome feedback on the paper at field@field.org.uk.