When forests become a commodity – How do you preserve the right of indigenous people?

Intact worldwide rain forests act as carbon sinks and currently absorb 15% of CO2 emissions caused by the release of burnt fossils fuels into the atmosphere. Deforestation represents an estimated 12-20% of CO2 emissions in the world and thus contributes to global warming.

At the Copenhagen climate conference, all participating nations agreed that the global temperature rise should be kept under 2C° to prevent an irreversible climate run-away. Therefore, “we” all agree that forests should be protected from logging, clearing and fires. That is world leaders argument to introduce the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme. But, what forests are they talking about? What does it mean for local people? Why is that scheme controversial?

 

The causes behind deforestation

The causes behind deforestation are numerous and complex, and range from agriculture to minerals extraction. Rising population numbers have caused the urban infrastructure such as roads, dams and cities to be extended at the expense of forests. At the same time, It impacts on agriculture by clearing forests to grow crops and feed livestock. In short, deforestation is the direct consequence of scarce availability of farm land to fulfill the needs of an ever growing urbanised population.

Forests are also a lucrative business. Trees can for instance be logged to make goods such as furniture and paper, or maintained to harvest their valuable leaves or e.g. rubber. The highest danger for the preservation of forests however, comes from mineral extraction, notably gold, and global markets economy behind them. The increasing demand on the world markets for raw material, prominently driven by companies based in Western world countries, are putting more and more pressure on countries with still large virgin rain forests, to give in, and trade their natural forest resources for the consumption driven demand.

The role of rain forests as ecosystems

Unfortunately though, such activities ignore the important role of forests in maintaining eco-systems and biodiversity for the planet Earth as a whole, for increasingly rare or nearly extinct species, and last but certainly not least for the livelihood of numerous tribes of indigenous people. For the latter, rain forests are their reservoir for survival, be it through edible and medicinal plants, bush-meat, fruits, honey, shelter, firewood and many other goods, as well as through cultural and spiritual values.

“Defend life”, a video by the World Rain Forest Movement (WRM) illustrates what the rain forest means to local people, and what happens when rainforests are cleared to make space for monoculture tree plantations.

What is REDD?
Although the REDD scheme has only been added to the global Cop15 accord last December in Copenhagen, pilots projects already exist. According to industrialised nations in favour of REDD, deforestation is the consequence of low monetary value placed on intact forests. They suggest that paying forest owners for their conservation in rain forest rich (but economically disadvantaged) countries will help protect the rain forest.

BBC Q&A about REDD

How does REDD work? And why we should worry?

REDD is part of the market-based flexible mechanism called Clean Development Mechanism, which aim at meeting CO2 reduction targets. It is, roughly, based on an accounting scheme based on how much carbon a country/corporation has avoided discharging into the atmosphere by NOT cutting trees. Large polluters, that have been awarded carbon credits by their governments under the Carbon Cap & Trade scheme, can then invest their credits into forests projects in rain forest countries in order to offset/absorb their emissions. These offsetting projects are mainly financed by banks on the base of future lucrative speculation gains.

Watch a debate between to experts on Cap & Trade: A Critical Look at Carbon Trading

In contrast to industrialised nations, which assume that deforestation is the consequence of low monetary value placed on intact forests, indigenous people fear – and rightly so, based on their past experiences notably with the REDD pilot projects – that putting a price on rain forests will, rather help to preserve them, increase land tenure by large companies and governments who will be standing to be rewarded by REDD funds.

This is why at Copenhagen, indigenous people demanded that their consent was to be taken into account on their ancestors’ land before any project authorisation is granted to corporations. Yet, despite the failure to protect indigenous livelihood in currently ongoing REDD pilot projects, the REDD scheme still was approved and is to go ahead and scale-out globally.

The danger of replacing rainforest with tree plantations

A key issue and major concern in the discussions around REDD is the fairly lax definition of ‘forest’.

In the words of the Word Rainforest Movement:

“The latest definition given by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, formally the main body responsible for forests within the UN system, is so broad that most green urban areas can be considered major forest eco-systems.”

The fact that such a highly valued thing as the rain forest has been so poorly define by the UN, effectively means that tree monoculture plantation can qualify for REDD and receive subsidies … Or more to the point:

Imagine palm oil, Agrodiesel and Ethanol plantation rewarded with subsidies at the same time as turning out huge profits. Sounds like eating the cake and have it – an ecological-economical perpetual motion machine.

Sadly, that is how the startling reality looks like in West Papua in Indonesia were ancient forests are replaced with Palm oil – as documented by Aljazeera in December 2009.

Conclusion:

The driving demand on raw material will put high pressure on countries with rain forests, making it hard and harder for them to stand up against the pressure and preserve their natural resources. Because of the REDD schema’s broad definition of the term “forest”, in fact any green plantation will potentially be in the position to claim subsidies for carbon avoidance emissions.

To make matters worse, there is no such thing as an international standard or agreement of to measure or calculate carbon absorption – it’s open doors for false claims and achievement pretenders.

Renowned climate experts believe that pollution permits and cheap offsetting projects in rain forest rich countries allow polluters to continue business as usual instead of motivating them to invest into clean technologies that cost, on the short term, significantly more than just sticking to the status quo. Credible claims state that the market based approaches only delay both, the transition to a low carbon economy and the shift from fossil fuel into renewal energies.

Finally, the one side question that is hardly ever asked, and never answered: Who guarantees, and how, that the subsidies are indeed going to local communities, when they are distributed through public, governmental channels of countries that are not always well known for their reliability and accountability to their citizens?

What came out of Copenhagen – and what does it mean for the most vulnerable?

The highly anticipated UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen ended with a fraudulent last minute agreement, engineered by the United States, using China, backed by Brazil, India and African Nations as cover-up. What exactly contains the five pages accord? What does it mean? What are the social movements asking for? And what will happen next?

The UN Climate Change conference had for its main objective the formulation of a worldwide agreement on the reduction of greenhouse emissions which would constitute the prolongation of the Kyoto protocols.

What is in that five pages accord? What does it contain?

=> Read the original 5 pages Copenhagen agreement.

Although most nations agreed that the global temperature rise must be kept under 2C° to prevent climate run-away effects, they nevertheless did not set any binding reduction targets to stop that from happening. According to experts, industrialised countries should reduce their CO2 emissions between 25% to 40% by 2020, and between 80% to 95% by 2050.

The Kyoto protocol that requires industrial nations to reduce their emissions by 5,2% below the 1990 baseline over the 2008 to 2012 period was preserved but undermined. The Cop15 accord challenged the wider United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process used in the Kyoto Protocol. It moved from a top-down framework aim at setting global greenhouse gas reduction targets for the 39 countries of the Annex I (Industrialised countries) to a bottom-up approach. This latter requires each country to set its own greenhouse gas reduction targets which might not be sufficient to keep the global rise in temperature under 2C recommended by the science.

Although the accord was recognised by the conference as whole, it was not endorsed by the 193 parties/nations present at the Cop15 in Copenhagen. For most nations this all Cop15 conference was a masquerade! According to Michael von Bülow, the outcome was decided 3 weeks earlier at the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) forum in Singapore. Backed by the US and other leaders, among them most probably China, the Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen proposed a two-step strategy that would yield to a political agreement only.

In monetary terms, rich nations promised to establish a Copenhagen Green Fund to finance adaptation measures to climate change for developing countries starting with US$ 30bn a year to reach US$100bn by 2020. This amount is by far lower than what was requested by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and African countries, which were demanding US$200bn by 2020 in order to take effective mitigation measure.

Also, experience has shown that without binding agreements and penalties, the promises are hardly kept at all. According to the BBC World Service investigation, when signing the Bonn Declaration in 2001, 20 industrialised nations (the 15 EU countries, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland), pledged to pay $410 million a year until 2008 into the UN fund, in order to tackle climate change. The date the payments were meant to start is unclear, but the total should be between $1.6bn and $2.87bn. But only $260m has ever been paid into two UN funds earmarked for the purpose.

The Copenhagen accord mentions technological development and knowledge transfer mechanisms in support of developing countries. The shift to a low-carbon economy in developed countries requires a massive investment. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the shift will require $1100bn – the equivalent of 1,5% of the 2030 global GDP.

The worst outcome of Copenhagen is the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) scheme under the carbon market offsetting mechanism’s Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM).

According to Dag Hammarskjold Foundation this concept assumes that deforestation happens because too little economic value is placed on intact forests, and that providing money for conservation to forested countries in the South will help to protect these. This idea is challenged however by many Indigenous People and forest communities, who warn that putting a price on forests will only encourage further land grabs by large companies and governments. Indigenous People stress that the real drivers of deforestation are the major construction, mining, logging and plantation developments whose owners stand to be rewarded by REDD Funds. 

In short, where and how did the Copenhagen conference fall short?

The biggest failure is the renewal of the Kyoto protocol with higher, binding, time limited CO2 reduction targets. Binding targets are essential for a properly functioning international regulated ‘Cap and Share’ carbon market.

José Manuel Barroso, the European Union president commented: “This deal is better than any deal. It’s a step forward, but, of course, below our ambition. I won’t hide my disappointment for it not being binding”.

The EU was hoping that a binding agreement would set a legal ground that would have allowed smaller carbon markets to link-up with its EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS). The final goal is to become the central hub for carbon trading in the world. This said, the EU ETS has generously rewarded polluting companies while failing to reduce emissions. The downside of not having international binding targets is that our governments will not feel pressured to act and set the regulation that will lead us to a low-carbon economy in order to reduce our GHG at home. 

What NGOs and Southern nations were pushing for

The increasingly frustrated NGOs and Southern nations, struggling to have their demands heard, attempted to meet to discuss the real solutions outside the Bella Centre on December 16h, under the banner of The Reclaim Power March, lead by the Climate Justice now! coalition. They were confronted with violence from the Danish police preventing them to join the movement.

Climate Justice now! is made up of a huge coalition of organisations such as Climate Camp, Via Campesina and joined by numerous other activists groups. Their demands are summarised in their call ’system change, no climate change’. Read the People’s Declaration from Klimaforum09. They ask that industrialised countries recognise their climate debt, which needs to be repaid, toward the Southern Developing Countries. They further call for Greenhouse gas emission targets to be based on Greenhouse Gas emission reductions achievements at home, and not through cheap offsetting projects in developing countries, which threaten the livelihood of indigenous people. Climate Justice Now! also demands that natural resources such water, land, sky, forest…. stay under public control, giving equal access to essential resources, and insuring fairer repartition of wealth to all this that produce it. Watch how trees are turned into a commodity. 

What’s next:

In the coming month, the practicalities of the Cop15 accord will be proposed by each nation and presented at the Bonn UN Climate body’s meeting in May until the next Cop conference in Mexico (Cop16).

The accord requires each country to register their planned emissions cuts by end of January 2010. We want Gordon Brown to remember the promises he made at the London Climate Change protest in December 2009, namely that of a 10% CO2 reduction by end of 2010. Unfortunately, the reality is however, that the UK government has been extraordinarily quiet about their plans of how to go about this promise since their return from Copenhagen.

Between 31 May and 11 Jun 2010, the 32nd session of the UNCCC convention will take place in Bonn. There, the Subsidiary Bodies will examine the targets put forward by each individual country.

Mexico will host the Sixteenth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 16) in December 2010. There is already a lot of hope on that UNCCC conference to achieve a achieve a binding treaty.

On April 22nd, Evo Morales, Bolivia’s president, is organising a counter-summit to welcome the social movement that grew in Copenhagen and to discuss the “real solutions” in preparation of these next major talks. 

Conclusion:

Copenhagen has been a disaster for a just and equitable climate solutions demanded by NGOs and some Southern Developing countries. The major harm was the annexation of forests into the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) threatening millions of indigenous people of evictions of their homes. The good news is that the accord did not set further ground for an international Cap & Share carbon market which would have accelerated the damages caused to our ecosystems and the livelihood of the most vulnerable, mainly indigenous populations, women and peasants. The Cop15 is finished but the practicalities are still being negotiated, so keep your eyes open. In the meantime, NGOs have been gathering to organise an action plan strategy for the months to come.

Cop15 will, from a social movement perspective, be remembered as a united, inspiring moment where the voices of the oppressed joined call to ask for ’system change, not climate change’.

Copenhagen: What really happened – behind the scenes.

Did you ask yourself what really happened outside the table of negotiations in the Bella centre during the UN Climate Change summit in Copenhagen? This is the real story that the mainstream media did not cover,  or only very briefly!

Our video about the Reclaim Power protest punctuated by interviews explaining the strategy for Copenhagen, and analysing the outcome

When I came back from Copenhagen I was astonished and chocked that people back home did not know what had been happening in the streets of Copenhagen.

Behind the scenes, in the street of Copenhagen, thousands of protestors rallied in a spirit of brotherhood, demanding that a fair deal free of carbon market mechanism for the people most harshly affected by climate change be discussed at the negotiation table inside the Bella Centre. 

All week, Danish authorities tried to silence and erradicate the activists’ movement, raiding both, our accommodations as well as our rallying spaces using indiscriminate violence and weapons against peaceful demonstrants. Thousands of innocent people were arrested, in many cases with methods showing a complete disregard for human rights concerns. By doing so, the Danish authorities clearly unveiled  their real face, the face of worldwide criminals. 

The peak of action took place on Wednesday 16th December at the Reclaim Power civil disobedience protest. We marched with determination towards the Bella Centre in a solidarity chain protecting the march from police infiltration. Headed by the Global South, the aim was to hold a people’s assembly inside the fence of the Bella Centre in support of 200 delegates representing indigenous organisations and NGOs that call for the ratification of a law as an “essential” accord  by international world leaders. The requested legislation should guarantee indigenous people consultation for all  project planned and executed on their land, as well as the requirement of their official consent – before any project realisation – should authorities want to reclaim their land. 

Nothing was achieved.   Although we did not manage break through the heavy police security, we did managed to remain calm, did not reply or escalate violence when the police used pepper spray on us and beat anyone who happened to be in the frontline. Canadian journalist, author and activist Naomi Klein’s message as part of the Climate Justice Network was heard, protesters did not counteract to police violence, but remained entirely peaceful. Immense hope emmerged when we realised what can be achieved if the world citizens decide to rally behind the same causes against the power in place. 

As citizen of the West, I acknowledge the damage that our consumerist lifestyle is having on Southern nations. I join my voice with the indigenous movement in a spirit of compassion and solidarity with the vulnerable people of the South that are oppressed, threaten to death and dispossessed of their land with the complicity amd support of the World Bank and our governments which are satisfied with passing legislation in favour of market based solutions solely backed by corporate vested interests. 

Conclusion:

Although the Copenhagen climate summit has ended without the fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement that millions of citizens around the world demanded, it opened the way to an internationally diverse peaceful activist movement, unified under the Climate Justice umbrella, to demand a just outcome.

Back home we will continue to pressure our leaders and MPs to pass national regulations in favour of a shift towards a low-carbon economy, and an alternative, less consumerist-driven, lifestyle. 

Sources:

• Naomi Klein, who is she : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein
• In preparation of the Reclaim Power protest (Wed 16 Dec, 2009) Naomi Klein held a talk in Chritiania (Freetown quarter in Copenhagen) on 14 Dec. Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOEJAgkw89w , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc6c0svVnE0&NR=1
• What really happened during 16th December 2009 Reclaim Power March – watch: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/16/police_tear_gas_beat_back_protesters
• Hundreds of videos on Youtube about the “Reclaim power protest”. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEDkNxFhwJM
• Video coverage of Copenhagen by the New Internationalist magazine: http://blog.newint.org/
• Police violence towards protestors: http://www.climate-justice-action.org/

Why? What? and Who? – Preparing for Copenhagen

Why is everybody talking about the December United Nations climate change conference? Why is that so important? What is in the Kyoto protocol? Who will attend Copenhagen and what are their aims?

World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen to formulate a post-Kyoto worldwide agreement aimed at “stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

Why is that so important?

Our life style in the West, based on heavy use of oil, is releasing, per person, an average of 10 tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) into the atmosphere per year (more than twice that of the average Chinese person), resulting in a rise in global temperatures.

For years, the link between human activities and global warming has been denied and fought fiercely against.

Today this relationship is the subject of a very broad consensus. This is the result of extensive work carried out since 1988 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC brings together 2500 scientists of all disciplines from 194 countries, publishing only statements that receive consensus agreement.

 They recommend keeping the rise in temperature below 2C to avoid reaching a tipping point that will cause an irremediable climate runaway. Higher temperatures will cause sea levels to rise, engulfing islands and coastal areas of countries, forests will burn more easily releasing more CO2, desertification will spread threatening the livelihoods and lives of billions of human beings, and putting millions of species at risk of extinction.

What is in the Kyoto protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement on climate change , ratified by 184 countries in 1997 (and which United States refused to sign). The agreement is scheduled to terminate in 2012. The major Kyoto achievement is that it set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries responsible for 80% of GHG to date. These nations committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.

Under the treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means by way of three market-based mechanisms:

• Emissions trading – known as “the carbon market”:

  “Countries can buy in the international carbon credit market to cover their shortfall in allowances. Countries with surplus credits can sell them to countries with capped emission commitments.” Source: Wikipedia

• Countries/Corporations can invest in offsetting projects and get credits for meeting their emissions targets.
  • Joint implementation (JI).

    “a developed country would set up a project in another developed country.” Source: Wikipedia

  • Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

    “a developed country can ”sponsor’ a greenhouse gas reduction project in a developing country.” Source: Wikipedia

This framework also includes the financing of a fund to assist countries in adapting to the adverse effects of climate change. 

Conflict of interests: Who wants what?

Word leaders represent their countries’ interests.

• USA – Wants a deal that’s neither too expensive nor puts any curbs on economic growth.
• Europe – Is looking for a substantial deal that sees major developing countries taking on some of the pain and recognise the European Trading System as the main carbon market.
• G77 lead by China – Aim for a deal that entails big financial support from developed nations to fund clean technologies and adaptation to climate change and give them the right to grow.
• Brazil – “Cash for those trees to be left standing.”
• The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) & Africa – Aims for large cuts by all the developed nations and adaptation funding.
• Business as usual, not bothered – Russia, Australia, Canada & Saudi Arabia

Corporate lobbies – Deniers of climate change.

They see climate change only as threatening their growth and profit making which is based on depletion of natural resources. These organizations also have been found to fund selected scientific bodies and the media outlets in order to get their denial message out and misinform public opinion. 

Environmental activists:

Activists believe that climate change is the biggest threat that humanity has ever faced and, therefore, are urging leaders to take immediate action. Campaigns, lobbying actions to rally citizens to their cause are their means of choice to ultimately impact on governments’ policies. Some organisation are more “radical” than others in their demands, but they all serve the same purpose: have goverments commit to measures to avert global warming.

Climate Justice Action is the biggest umbrella group among them. It is a coalition of organisations such as Climate Camp, Friends of the Earth, Rising Tide and other international activist groups.

Activists & NGOs are critical of the Kyoto protocol due to the following reasons:

• The creation of carbon markets allows the sky to be traded for the benefits of corporations. How? Governments allocate free carbon credit allowance to major polluters that can then be traded in a Cap & Trade market. The sky is treated as a commodity with property rights!
• Problem of pricing of carbon units: If priced too low, this will not encourage corporations to actually and factually reduce their emissions.
• The offsetting project investments, specifically those taking place in developing countries, risk to promote cheap “carbon” investment as opposed to GHG reduction at the source (which generally requires expensive investments into renewable energies). In addition, such projects pose a risk of threat to the livelihood of indigenous populations as their land will be used for “carbon offsetting” projects causing food prices to rise, and encouraging expropriations. Another form of colonization!

Activists demand that:

• Mid-term target: Cut carbon emission by between 25% to 40% by 2020
• Long-term target: Carbon emissions to be cut by 80% by 2050
• Include transport of import goods in the calculation of a country’s carbon footprint, and demand emission targets for each country in accordance with these adjusted numbers
• Introduce a carbon tax to create incentives to first move towards low-carbon economy, and then towards a zero oil use. The raised funds are to be invested in scientifically proven renewal energies, infrastructure and alternative measures.
• Finance a “carbon rent” scheme to pay tropical countries to conserve their forests. E.g. see the Yasuni campaign.
• Request that the West’s ecological debt toward the people of the South is to be recognised
• Fund adaptation measures to help the growing number of climate refugees.
• Free funds in order to transition to a low carbon economy. Such a transition requires an estimated $1,100 million and 1,5% of GDP by 2030 according to International Energy Agency.

Conclusion:

The huge sums invested in rescuing the banking system have shown that funding for “emergency causes” is available if the economy and the welfare of a nation requires it. Yet – the world’s developed nations are trying hard not to commit to more stringent controls of economic growth, consumption and their own profits, despite that current research suggest that this may be the only drastic quick-fix counter-measure to Climate Change. Copenhagen will be a sobering wake-up call for all of us.

Individually we can act now to reduce our carbon footprint by stopping creating unnecessary waste, and by changing our indiviual consumption pattern by becoming more self-aware and self-responsible, and exercise our power as citizens.

Sources:

• 
  
  The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/30/countries-to-watch
• 
  
  Kyoto Protocol: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
• 
  
  Copenhagen Climate Conference: http://en.cop15.dk/
• 
  
  Definition of Carbon Credits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit
• 
  
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/
• 
  
  ASPO – Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas: http://www.peakoil.net/
• 
  
  Environments for Europeans – Magazine of the Directorate-General for the Environment: http://ec.europa.eu
• 
  
  Climate Justice Action: http://www.climate-justice-action.org/
• 
  
  Attac – Association pour la taxation des transactions financières et pour l’action citoyenne [French]: http://www.france.attac.orgspip.php?article10456