Indigenous Environmental Network
Click here to Download the No REDD Papers PDF
The much hyped “fund-based approaches,” be they “public”, “hybrid” or “market-linked” or otherwise dubbed, are not a bonanza of benefits nor, alternatives to carbon market REDD. Instead, funds are slated to serve as phase one or phase two subsidies for “readying” and birthing1 REDD projects for carbon markets. International aid,2 foundation3 and big “conservation” NGO4 monies, “green” taxes, investments from polluting corporations eager for cheap greenwash5 and venture capital from carbon speculators6 will all chip in to line the coffers of a variety of such funds for getting REDD up and running and “ready” to be profitable in the nascent REDD carbon markets.
Carbon market enthusiasts are quick to lament the funding gap for REDD’s birth. “We are probably three, four or five years away in terms of having a really significant liquid private sector market so the issue is how do we fund it at the moment.?”7 “There is direct funding from governments such as Norway or through the World Bank, but the key issue is how much do we rely on public sector financing or on private sector financing,” said Martijn Wilder, head of Baker & McKenzie’s global climate change and emissions trading practice.8
By its own omission, the purpose of the World Bank Carbon Forest Partnership Facility is to “jump start a forest carbon market.”9 But there are also signs that international aid agencies may be significantly restructuring to focus primarily on REDD.10 Despite developing countries’ clamor for “fresh money”11 for REDD, i.e. in addition to current aid,12 it is increasingly clear that REDD money could substitute donor country support for social programs. Already crucial Australian international aid for poverty relief has been axed and replaced with seed money for carbon forestry projects in Indonesia.13 While Australia hurriedly passes legislation to offset 100% of its emissions eductions,14 both Australian and Indonesian civil society have lost no time in resoundingly condemning the human rights abuses and environmental destruction of Australia’s foray into REDD.15
As for Norway, it seems to have donned a REDD Santa costume, flying around the world in a carbon off-setted contraption to deliver huge financial gifts16 for REDD start-ups (i.e. multimillion dollar donations to UN-REDD,17 the Amazon Fund,18 Indonesia19 and the Interim REDD+ Partnership20).
However, despite its apparently saintly interest in forests, Norway does not seem to mind the flagrant conflict of interest of the manager of the Amazon Fund, the Brazilian Development Bank,21 which naughtily funds massive deforestation of precisely the world’s largest rainforest the fund purports to protect.22 Furthermore, that Norway has wasted no time in calculating that the Amazon conveniently “offsets” ten times Norway’s yearly emissions only further fuels speculation that, despite assurances to the contrary, that the Amazon Fund will soon transition to the carbon market.23 But regardless of the Amazon Fund’s ultimate framework, Norway’s much trumpeted initial donation has already served as green-wash for Norway’s state oil company Statoil partnership with Petrobras24 to aggressively expand agro-fuels, an infamous driver of deforestation, and plunder Brazil’s vast offshore oil reserves which risks devastating the biodiversity and livelihoods of communities of Brazil’s stunning coast.
The advent of Gourmet REDD points to a very special role that foundations could play as REDD prep cooks and midwives. Gourmet REDD pretend to compensate for environmental destruction by combining REDD carbon credits with Payment for Environmental Services provided by water, biodiversity, wetlands, Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge systems, culture and even survival. Over the years, foundations and NGOs have accumulated an impressive command of the intricate workings of grass roots communities and organizations. Now these relationships and intelligence could be harnessed for assembling “socially adept,”25 “cute and cuddly,” “charismatic carbon” and the elite, “gourmet niche of REDD.”26 Major funders like the Ford Foundation are now turning to REDD as the new frontier in philanthropy.27
Meanwhile, back at the UN, the superpowers are bickering about whether they want two or three phases for REDD.28 Some want to cut to the chase and prep and package REDD projects in the first phase and quickly get down to selling it in the second phase, while others, like the EU and the World Bank,29 prefer more REDD foreplay and as many as three phases. But regardless of the numbers or the names, the end result will be the same. As the New York Times bluntly noted, the ultimate purpose of REDD is to generate “carbon credits that can then be sold for cash on the global carbon market,”30 and REDD could end up being “a cash cow for forest destroyers.”
As we well know, the Copenhagen climate summit produced no legally binding emissions reduction targets. Instead, the divisive Copenhagen Accord hails “the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus” and proposes funding REDD by a variety of ambiguous “approaches” including the carbon market.31 Some UN delegates and analysts foresee that REDD funding will not be a nifty gift without strings but ultimately negotiated as loans32 that will simply increase spiraling foreign debt and economic neo-colonialism. Debt-for-nature swaps are also a potential REDD financial mechanism but a country has to fork over forests to get in on the action.33
REDD funds are a motley crew of prep cooks, midwives and assembly plants34 that go by many names but are united in the intent to hijack the world’s forests and promote plantations to generate carbon credits and profits. Those who strive to actually protect forests and supports Indigenous Peoples’ rights, well-being and survival must reject REDD outright and discard “fund-based approaches” and other thinly veiled carbon market-promoting euphemisms or lend themselves to green-washing carbon market REDD.
Real alternatives to carbon market REDD cannot simply re-spin REDD. It is not enough to add a clever adjective, purport to be “fund-based,” get certified or pretend to not ultimately rely on the carbon market and the privatization and commodification of trees, forests and air. Fortunately, real alternatives to REDD already exist and include collectively demarcating and titling Indigenous Peoples’ territories and land where most of the world’s forest are found, which has been proven to be one of the most effective measures for reducing deforestation; implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant international instruments; slashing demand for beef, pulp, lumber, palm oil and agrofuels; drastically reducing monoculture plantations and logging concessions, declaring a moratorium on new fossil fuel and mining extraction and dam construction on or near indigenous land as well as addressing the underlying causes of deforestation. In the event that a new buzz word is absolutely imperative to refute REDD then Indigenous Peoples’ Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and Forests35 based on respect for the Sacred and the non-commodification of life has a nice ring to it.
Notes:
1. Or ‘incubating” as the case may be. See Katoomba’s “Incubator,” http://www. katoombagroup.org/~katoomba/documents/ publications/IncubatorENGLISH.pdf.
2. According to the Head of the World Bank forest Carbon Partnership Facility: “On the financing side, then, you can, we can list a number of sources. For readiness there’s the FCPF Readiness Fund, there’s the UN-REDD programme, we have colleagues from UNDP here, the Congo Basin Forest Fund can participate, the Global Environment Facility, and of course a whole series of sources from Official Development Assistance.“ http://www.huntingtonnews. net/columns/090521-lang-columnsworldbankredd.html.
3. For example, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, http://www.moore.org/ search.aspx.
4. The Nature Conservancy: forest offsets more important than emissions reduction targets, http://www.redd-monitor. org/2009/06/05/the-nature-conservancy-forest-offsets-more-important-than-emissions-reduction-targets/. Conservation International: “Controversial Deal between US-based NGOs and Polluting Industries Slammed,” http://www.redd-monitor. org/2009/05/28/controversial-deal-between-us-based-conservation-ngos-and-polluting-industry-slammed/.
5. For example, BP, Amoco, and AEP alliance with The Nature Conservancy for the world’s largest REDD project. See Indigenous Environmental Network, No REDD Booklet, p.7, http://www.ienearth. org/REDD/redd.pdf. Chevron and General Motors: http://motherjones.com/ environment/2009/11/gms-money-trees.
6. Nobelist Krugman on the fear of carbon markets and speculation, http://www.grist.org/…/nobelist-krugman-fear-of-carbon-markets-and-speculation-is-99-wrong-and-bad/.
7. Martijn Wilder of the Baker and MacKenzie lawfirm in a forum of REDD project developers and policy-makers in Jakarta, “Indonesia Needs To Refine Forest-CO2 Rules: Lawyers,” http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/54556.
8. Ibid.
9. World Bank, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21581819~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html.
10. “The Australian government is misusing aid money and its bilateral relationship to set up cheap forest offset schemes in Indonesia, according to a report released today by AidWatch, Friends of the Earth Australia and Friends of the Earth Indonesia.” “‘The Australian government makes it quite clear that the use of aid to promote REDD is entirely self-interested. It is predicted that offsets for reduced deforestation will be much cheaper than those currently available under the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism. This is a flagrant misuse of aid money for cut-price Australian offsets,’ said James Goodman of AidWatch,” in “Aid monitoring NGO slams 200m in Australian ‘aid’ for offsets schemes,” http://www.sydney.foe.org.au/news/cprs-bad-indonesia-well-australia-groups-warn.
11. “The REDD Initiative: EU Funds and Phases” prepared by the Swedish EU Presidency for the Interparlaimentary Conference, September 2009, http://the_redd_initiative-EU-Funds and Phases.pdfthe_redd_initiative-EU-Funds and Phases.pdf
12. An new kind of “additionality” challenge?
13. AidWatch: “The Australian government is misusing aid money and its bilateral relationship to set up cheap forest offset schemes in Indonesia,” in ‘“Aid monitoring NGO slams 200m in Australian ‘aid’ for offsets schemes,” http://www.sydney.foe.org.au/news/cprs-bad-indonesia-well-australia-groups-warn.
14. “What A Scam: Australia’s offsets for Copenhagen,” details Australia’s strategic approach to offshoring its emissions– unlimited access to international offsets for companies covered by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and a push in the international climate negotiations for United Nations mandated offsets. http://tiny.cc/8XIOl.
15. “‘The Indonesian government passed their REDD regulation in the face of UN concern that these laws fail to recognize indigenous rights. Unless indigenous rights are protected, millions of Indonesians are at risk of being excluded from the forest resources that provide them with a sustainable subsistence livelihood,’ said Teguh Surya of Friends of the Earth Indonesia . . . ‘Australia must pay its carbon debt and make emissions cuts here, not export emissions cuts to developing countries like Indonesia,’ said Ellen Roberts of Friends of the Earth Australia.” http://www.sydney.foe.org.au/news/cprs-bad-indonesia-well-australia-groups-warn REDD; Wrong Path: Pathetic eco-Business WAHLI, http://www.redd-moniotr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/WAHLI-REDD.pdf.
16. Norway is the lead donor to both UN-REDD and the Amazon Fund. The Norwegian aid agency NORAD is also actively promoting grass roots work that may serve as the foundations for Gourmet “socially adept” REDD. The Prime Minister of Norway launches UN-REDD with the UN Secretary General: http://www.un-redd.org/UNREDDProgramme/tabid/583/language/en-US/Default.aspx.
17. “UN Admits Climate Change program Threatens Indigenous Peoples,” http://www.huntingtonnews.net/political/080929-staff-politicalclimatechange.html.
18. Amazon Fund: http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/.
19. Corruption allegations cloud the Indonesia-Norway billion dollar deal, http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/09/21/corruption-allegations-cloud-the-indonesia-norway-billion-dollar-deal/.
20. Multilateral Interim REDD+ Partnership Established in Oslo, http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/resource/interim-redd-partnership-established-oslo.
21. Brazilian Development Bank is the manager of the Amazon Fund, http://inter.bndes.gov.br/English/news/not1919_08.asp.
22. “Slaughtering the Amazon,” Greenpeace Report. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/slaughtering-the-amazon.
23. Brazil accepts REDD: “Brazil to Propose 10% Forest-Credit Cap in Copenhagen,” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a5jThoDmk6tk.
24. Scandinavian Oil and Gas Magazine, “Energy giants Petrobras, Statoil sign duo pact,” http://www.scandoil.com/moxie-bm2/alternative_energy/biofuels/energy-giants-petrobras-statoil-sign-duo-pact.shtml.
25. Katoomba Group’s “socially adept” REDD posterchildren, http://www.katoombagroup.org/~katoomba/documents/publications/IncubatorENGLISH.pdf.
26. “Gourmet REDD,” in Indigenous Environmental Network, No REDD Booklet, p.7, http://www.ienearth.org/REDD/redd.pdf.
27. The Climate and Land Use Alliance is a multi-foundation collaborative focused on REDD. “The Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA) is a philanthropic collaborative whose member foundations (the ClimateWorks Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation) have joined forces to address one of the most challenging and critical aspects of climate change mitigation: reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation and other land use changes, otherwise known as REDD.” http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/greendreamjobs.display/id/3050549.
28. “The REDD Initiative: EU Funds and Phases” prepared by the Swedish EU Presidency for the Interparlaimentary Conference, September 2009, http://the_redd_initiative-EU-Funds and Phases.pdfthe_redd_initiative-EU-Funds and Phases.pdf. In addition to its summary of the EU proposal on REDD funds and phases, it also notes that “A system, where the value of a forest increases, can create problems for indigenous populations (sic) since in many places the issue of ownership is unclear. When states and companies see growing opportunities of making money from standing forests it can lead to increased pressure on the traditional living spaces of indigenous populations. A problem with the recently acquired economic value of forests is that social and ecological values are lost.” Other poignant observations include REDD “could become a cheap alternative to reducing domestic emissions caused by for example burning fossil fuels. There is concern in developing countries that they could lose their sovereignty when other parties have strong views as to how to minimize deforestation.”
29. “How the World Bank explains REDD to Indigenous Peoples,” http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/090521-lang-columnsworldbankredd.html
30. Disney Invests In Saving Forests, http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/disney-invests-4-million-to-save-forests/?scp=4&sq=REDD&st=cse.
31. What came out of Copenhagen on REDD, http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/12/22/what-came-out-of-copenhagen-on-redd/.
32. The role of grants versus loans in development cooperation—lessons for climate finance and REDD+, http://redd-net.org/resource-library/the-role-of-grants-versus-loans-in-development-cooperation-lessons-for-climate-finance-and-redd+.
33. “U.S. signs debt-for-nature swap with Brazil to protect forests,” http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0813-dfns_us_brazil.html.
34. For example, see the Katoomba Group’s funders and partners, http://www.katoombagroup.org/.
35. See UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources: Working paper by Erica-Irene A. Daes, former Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, 30 July 2002, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/23, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3d5a2ce3e.html.