REDD perversions

The coming UN climate conference in Paris, France, will likely produce an agreement on implementing Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD). However, REDD is being developed and implemented in the Global South mainly to serve the interests of particular countries and industries that stand to benefit through landgrabbing and by profiting from flawed financial mechanisms that allow offsetting of their greenhouse gas emissions. This is why:

REDD PRINCIPLES

The concept of REDD has attracted support from a number of “Forest Countries” in the Global South as it was perceived to offer a viable means of protecting forests, while also delivering financial rewards in the form of emission offset payments. Instead of relying on logging, which would eventually deplete forests and lead to the degradation of the local environment and damage to ecosystems, in theory, it would compensate countries for not exploiting their forests.

REDD ORIGINS

REDD was given official status after being included in the Bali Road Map at the UN climate conference held in Indonesia in 2007. REDD was proposed as a system that would halt forest loss, reverse forest degradation, and lead to forest restoration, but instead REDD has triggered numerous local conflicts.[1]

REDD and RIGHTS

REDD leads to the erosion of human rights. Forest peoples and forest dependent communities will be deprived of their rights of access to and utilisation of their forests and related resources. Although such utilisation is normally small-scale and done with care and respect for nature so as to preserve their biodiverse territories in the long run, it has been misrepresented in official UN and national documents as making a major contribution to forest loss. This has led to many violations of the rights of people who have protected their forests for generations!

REDD ALERT

Tree plantations have been mischievously presented as a “type of forest” which can be substituted for real forests. This falsehood ignores the importance of biodiversity in real forests, and the negative social and environmental impacts of plantations. It is a blatant lie that has been actively encouraged by the FAO, the UN, the climate negotiations, and the Forest Stewardship Council, the main certification scheme of so-called “responsible logging” and plantations, through the use of dishonest and misleading definitions and terminology – e.g. “planted forests”.

REDD DANGERS

There is a real danger that REDD will allow tree plantations to be included in the scheme in order to attract investors. The deliberate conversion of the remaining forests on our planet into sterile, water-guzzling, invasive, fire-prone monoculture tree plantations of mostly alien species that destroy biodiversity is a real threat. All over the world, trees are being genetically engineered for the benefit of the timber, pulp and paper, and agrofuel industries. GE trees are already widely planted in China, and just recently GE eucalyptus varieties have been approved for outdoor trials in the US and Brazil.

A REDD INVASION

Just as industrial tree plantations have been promoted as “carbon sinks” under the UN offset programme, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), it is also the goal of corporate interests to promote even more tree plantations in non-forest countries in the form of REDD projects. This would allow logging companies to “offset” their continued deforestation through logging and land conversion elsewhere.

REDD for ENERGY

If tree planting under REDD is purely for forest restoration purposes, as the theory goes, it should only include species that occur naturally at any given location. However, there is another corporate agenda, aimed at creating vast industrial wood resources on other people’s land in the Global South: Biomass-based energy fuels, which include woodchips, wood pellets, charcoal, ethanol and biodiesel.

REDD and RESTORATION

There are numerous examples of community-based projects and programmes that could genuinely qualify as “forest restoration” but are usually ignored by those with REDD aspirations. Indigenous Peoples and local communities have been actively doing this work already and possess traditional knowledge, understanding and the skills required to implement such projects successfully, and also to provide the maintenance and care needed to ensure long term survival of the restored forest.

REDD CONFLICTS

Displacing communities from their traditional forest areas is a direct violation of human and collective rights. This is largely done by force or coercion and also means that people’s needs for biodiversity resources, including fuel and food, will need to be found elsewhere. This leads to increased competition for resources in the areas people are relocated to, and is a recipe for more conflicts. The Sengwer people in Kenya for example were evicted from their land in the name of REDD+. (2)

DELUSIONS of REDD+, REDD++ and REDD+++

Ever in search of new opportunities for carbon trading, the players in carbon markets have greedily identified new ways of expanding REDD to include other ecosystems, as well as agriculture, soils, water bodies, and even marine vegetation such as sea-grass beds. Besides the atmosphere, carbon traders are now trying to commoditise our entire planet.

REDD COMMODITIES as CORPORATE CAPITAL

If REDD is formally accepted by the UN climate negotiations or by the World Bank, polluting corporations will be able to include the costs of their REDD projects in their balance sheets as capital assets, instead of treating them as trading or production expenses. In effect, this will transfer ownership of community land under REDD projects to the shareholders of Northern corporations and banks.

REDD REAL ESTATE

The carbon in forests, or plantations, or even vegetable patches, owned by polluting nations or corporations would also give them control over the associated land areas, including their soils, water and biodiversity (except in tree plantations of course!). The Indigenous Peoples and local communities that buy into REDD deals will lose decision-making power and free access to their own lands and resources!

REDD DEBITS

There have already been cases of corruption and criminal activities relating to carbon credit transactions, and this will become a major problem with REDD+ offset credits too. VAT avoidance, credits from fraudulent or non-existent projects, double counting of credits, and the resale of retired credits, have been exposed, showing that the emissions trading system can easily be manipulated and abused at the expense of forests and local communities.

REDD RESULTS

Over time, all forests could become tradable commodities, either through carbon credits, or even perhaps soil credits, water rights and oxygen futures! We have already seen how peat mining and water extraction activities have affected community access to their own resources. Production of bottled water and processed drinks such as colas are rapidly increasing commercial control over vital freshwater sources that should belong to all.

REDD RISKS

The so-called “safeguards” that are being promoted as a remedy for problems with REDD projects can only mean that REDD must be a high risk activity, that could potentially do more harm than the industrial pollution that it is supposed to negate. It is time to fight for the precious remaining forests on this planet and to knock a bit of sense into the heads of REDD-obsessed climate criminals at the UNFCCC COP21.

There are many problems with REDD, yet certain country players are intent on forcing a decision to establish a REDD mechanism in some form or other at the coming climate conference in Paris. This does not bode well for forest communities whose territories are being targeted for REDD projects. The promise of a REDD+ future will include desertification and impoverishment on a scale beyond imagination. The destruction of their fertile land, biodiversity, water resources and the displacement and enslavement of once proud and independent communities will be price to pay if REDD+ wins the day!

END NOTE

[1] See http://www.no-redd-africa.org/ and http://www.redd-monitor.org/ for more information

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.