From IPS news came this item in the context of Copenhagen.
The thesis is that REDD — Reduced Emissions through avoided Deforestation and Degradation, the proposed mechanism by which developing nations will be compensated for protecting and restoring their forests under a global greenhouse gas reduction agreement — would encourage countries to cordon off their forests, and therefore restrict access to the indigenous and rural inhabitants that depend on the forests for their survival and their identity.
How real is this scenario? We thought it worthwhile to examine the piece in detail and see how much water this theory holds.
CLIMATE CHANGE: Fears Forest Proposals Are ‘Human Rights Disaster’
Leonie Joubert
COPENHAGEN, Nov 26 (IPS) – The clean, ultra-modern chrome and glass lines of the Bella Centre, in the Danish capital Copenhagen, is a world away from the thronging canopy suspended over the tropical forests of Uganda, or the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Cameroon.
But it’s here in Scandinavia, in the shadow of the spinning blades of the convention centre’s wind turbine, that the foundation for an international law governing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution will be thrashed out this December. The agreement, if it is reached, could determine how the forests of Africa are managed in decades to come, and whether or not local communities will benefit from it. This suggests that decisions about local land use will be made remotely by fiat. This is not entirely accurate since sovereign governments will heavily influence the process and outcomes at a local level. Additionally, each country will have to ratify the new accord.
This law could turn into a “massive human rights disaster” if it is not worded correctly, warned environmentalist Tove Maria Ryding during a briefing with journalists in Copenhagen earlier this year, and could result in “huge violations” of the rights of communities who are dependent on forest resources. Ryding is the chair of a coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating under the banner Danish Group 92.
Ryding raises an interesting point. There are good reasons to think that once forests are commoditized and their existence and protection become a guaranteed source of income for poor nations, local governments at every level will have an incentive to protect the golden hen. There is, sadly, a persistent pattern by governments to disenfranchise local communities and indigenous people of their right to access the natural resource. The case of indigenous people in the Amazon Basin is a case in point. To be fair, the central government has made great strides in rectifying this injustice over the last few decades.
Deforestation contributes nearly 18 percent of all GHG emissions globally. It is also one of the main sources of GHGs from the African continent, where deforestation is driven primarily by clearing forests for agriculture, burning wood for energy in rural homes, and making charcoal for urban cooking and heating. Yep
Since the Kyoto Protocol – the global initiative to stabilise GHGs at a level that will avoid dangerous climate change – expires in 2012, signatory countries to this agreement will attempt to finalise Kyoto’s replacement legislation this December. Forest management will feature prominently in this negotiation, primarily under the heading of “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”, known as REDD.
The REDD component of the proposed law is an attempt to give financial compensation to developing countries that reduce their deforestation-related emissions. Driven primarily by the World Bank, the process will use global carbon markets to move funds from the Global North to the Global South.
But the Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC), which met with the World Bank in Burundi in March this year, said in a report that it was concerned that REDD “may aggravate land alienation”, that it “rewards the wrong countries and practices, perpetuates commoditisation of nature, and focuses on states, not people.” Let’s take these one by one. “May aggravate land alienation.” Based on the earlier premise, yes, this may happen. “Rewards the wrong countries and practices.” What is a “wrong country”, anyway? I have yet to see the world divided into right and wrong camps, with the exception perhaps of the largest emitters. What about “wrong practices,”? What’s that? Unclear. “Perpetuates commoditisation.” It is naive to think that land is not a commodity. In fact, I am a strong believer that we need to assign monetary value to the natural, ecological services that we derive from nature. Only then will we be able to really value our environment beyond it’s esthetic or cultural attributes. Sorry, guys, I’m all for this. Finally, the argument concludes that it “focuses on states, not people.” While this is true, as much as I’d like to see Copenhagen address the ramifications of new energy policies, incentives, etc. it is not the UNIPCC’s role to do this. I do however think civil society and NGO’s can play an important role in raising this issue and making it an agenda item, if not in Copenhagen, then in the appropriate development forums. In fact, I’ve written an OpEd that calls on Copenhagen to take into account the energy poor of world by introducing a crash program to convert all those reliant on wood and charcoal to clean burning stoves and sustainable biomass fuels. I’ll let you know where and if it will appear.
As it stands, the draft law which is being prepared for the final negotiating platform at Copenhagen, acknowledges the rights of forest dependent communities. But at present, it puts state mechanisms as the main conduit for managing REDD-related funds and doesn’t show how this money will reach individual communities. Here’s the role for civil society, NGOs, and multi-laterals, and international community. The trick will be in the enforcement. For example, we have in New York State a dedicated fund for conservation and energy efficiency that is funded by RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which was ratified last year and intends to curb CO2 emissions in the Northeast. What’s happened since the financial crisis erupted is that the Governor keeps threatening to raid the funds to pay for the massive state deficit. In many people’s mind, protecting the environment and funding energy conservation should be secondary to redressing fiscal imbalances. I can see these types of arguments being used elsewhere in the world to justify using the funds for unintended purposes.
Organisations like IPACC and Danish Group 92 are concerned that governments might fence off forests, denying forest depended communities access to resources which they have used for centuries.
The current draft legislation will benefit those countries where extensive deforestation has already taken place, such as Brazil, and where they can show measureable slowing of forest degradation. But it will not benefit countries that have conserved their forests, such as Costa Rica and Bhutan. I don’t know enough about this. It may also not be able to prevent deforestation practices moving from one country to another – for instance, illegal loggers may be expelled from Brazil, but could simply shift their practices to a neighbouring country. This kind of leakage could definitely become a big issue. The region around Lake Victoria seems particularly vulnerable to me.
“The main issues here are security of tenure (for forest dependent communities), and recovering (their) rights as property holders,” said Julian Sturgeon, environmentalist and consultant to the IPACC.
But in most cases there are no formal records of rights, even though communities may have lived in and off a forest for centuries.This has been a long running issue for indigenous communities around the world and could clearly be exacerbated again under REDD.
“There has never been any paperwork to say, for instance, that the Batwa people in Rwanda are forest managers. But they’ve lived there for 1,500 years and their lives and culture are based on forest management,” Sturgeon said. The Batwa people better start organizing and making friends in high places.
Forest communities need secure rights, access to forests, and need to be included in the management of forests, rights organisations said. Definitely. Furthermore, there can’t be one blanket approach since circumstances vary between countries and communities. Not sure what one blanket approach means here, since we don’t know what Copenhagen contains.
“In Uganda, the main drivers of deforestation are the expansion of agriculture; the supply of energy from biomass for homes and small scale industries like bakeries and brick making; and charcoal for urban areas where many don’t have electricity,” said Xavier Mugumya, with the Ugandan National Forestry Authority in the Ministry of Water and Environment.
“It is mostly small scale people cutting the forests. The issues here are politics, economic development and poverty. REDD should address each of these,” Mugumya said.They need to be addressed but not sure REDD is structured to do this. This would probably be over-reach.
Without finding alternative sources of energy and livelihoods for people engaged in these activities, the adoption of REDD in Uganda would marginalise already vulnerable communities.Better stoves and briquettes can help!
Brian Mantlana, with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and part of the SA delegation who will help thrash out the law in Copenhagen, said there is a need to ensure the rights and benefits of REDD within local communities, but that it needed to be treated on a case by case basis.
“These are national issues so the way (REDD is implemented) in Peru is different to in Congo.” For instance, most land is privately-owned in Uganda, whereas in a country like Tanzania, land is state owned.Maybe it’s an addendum to REDD. Or maybe there should be a separate governing body that helps arbitrate REDD and all these ancillary issues.
Forests also need to be seen as more than just carbon stocks, but also as systems which offer ecosystem services, such as recycling nutrients, harbouring extensive plant and animal diversity, regulating rainfall runoff and even generating their own rain. Draft wording for the REDD framework doesn’t take this into account.Couldn’t agree more, except that REDD is about reduccing greenhouse gas emissions, not ecosystem management policy.
However it is the matter of weak governance and inclusivity of forest dependent communities which are highest on the agenda for REDD critics. If these issues aren’t addressed, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) warned, “the success of REDD is uncertain and REDD mechanisms might even inadvertently reinforce corruption, undermine human rights and threaten forest biodiversity”. There are two issues here. One is the law of unintended consequences. REDD will have to constantly be evaluated to see if it is meeting the stated objectives or leading to adverse consequences. That’s the task of the policy-makers working with government but civil society and NGOs need to bird dog this. Weak Governance and inclusivity are, again, local issues that cannot properly be addressed by REDD as social mandates because that’s not its purpose.
Let me know what your thoughts are on this and tell me if I’m wrong.
English 
French 