I have written before about REDD, (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degredation) and how I think it is the only option on the table to save the forests. I went back to review some of the criticisms of REDD, and find my way over to the excellent Natasha Loader who details the dubious not to say corrupt practices of Kirk Roberts of Nupan Trading.
This charmer is signing up deals to buy land in Papua New Guinea, with a view to trading them on the carbon market as Redd (or other) offsets. At least one of his deals, Kamula Doso, is highly dodgy.
So, the UN in setting up REDD needs to look long and hard at the integrity of the carbon markets. It is mandatory that aboriginal forest dwellers are not displaced or put at a disadvantage by the carbon value of their home, but rather, are given an advantage as sovereign stewards of the forests.
But one instance of corruption does not invalidate the whole concept of REDD.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
REDDs is all about stealing land from local people who are usually best a managing it.
This is why Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize and James Cameron put his latest art house film together.
It would be more ecological if pieces of land in Europe were given to indigenous people thousands of miles away.
Actually this would be crazy as well, REDDS are rubbish!
Hi Derek
Well, let's design a forest protection scheme that does not involve stealing land from local people.
Let's start with a situation with genuine forest people like the Yanomami. They should be granted a form of sovereignty over their traditional lands, agree to notify of any logging or degredation, and should be given a decent remuneration for this service.
So they are happy. And the planet is happy, as there is no burning.
But the Government of the country in which the forest exists will not be happy. It has foregone the financial benefit that it would have gotten through logging. True, the profit would have been short term (unless the logging were sustainable), and probably to the long term disbenefit of the country (soil loss &c) but nevertheless, it has sustained a financial loss through the service to the community that it provides by preserving the carbon store.
Therefore the state should be compensated by the international community for profits (miserable and short term though they be) foregone.
Should they not? We cannot just say to them "You can't do that! We did it, but now we know it is a bad idea. You do what we say, and no, you cannot have any compensation".
That's the way I see it, in principle.
So the international community pays the forest state. Where should it come from? It could come from general taxation, or it could come more appropriately from carbon taxes. Or fines on companies that overstep set carbon emission limits. Or - dare I say it? - through carbon offsets.
Offsets have had a lot of intellectual mud thrown at them - "indulgences" and so on. I saw a denialist blog pouring scorn on offsets using the "indulgence" analogy.
Try this thought experiment: two households, both identical in numbers of persons, energy usage and both with optimal energy conservation measures. One gives about £150 per annum to plant trees in an ecologically and socially sensitive way; the other does not. Who does less damage, the one who plants, or the one who does not plant?
Anyway, I am prepared to be persuaded that there is a better plan around somewhere, but I have not seen it yet.
Hi Richard,
The REDD and REDD+ plus structure is nothing but a land grab and has no future stubstance.
I have always maintained to protect rainforests a 'legitimate tenable instrument' must be structured on behalf of the forests owners, this has been the vision and a 'mandate' Nupan has had for many years now.
Kirk Roberts
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hi Richard,
The REDD and REDD+ plus structure is nothing but a land grab and has no future stubstance.
I have always maintained to protect rainforests a 'legitimate tenable instrument' must be structured on behalf of the forests owners, this has been the vision and a 'mandate' Nupan has had for many years now.
Kirk Roberts
Hi Kirk
OK, we both agree emphatically that the forests must be protected.
Please develop the concept of a "legitimate tenable instrument".
Will it give sovereignty to any forest dwellers? This seems sensible to me, and something that can and must be built into REDD.
Will it simply forbid any use of the forest, and be enforced by eg the UN FAO? Then how do we counter the accusation of neo-imperialism, and preventing the economic development of the nation that could "profit" financially by exploitation of its forest? A ban enforced by Western nations who have long ago destroyed their own forests, not least to build ships that enforced their colonial rule on these self same nations?
Please explain why this is a land grab. By whom and how? I am not saying that it is not happening, because sociopathic corporations will always try to distort any measure for their own advantage.
I am not being obstructive or oppositional here, I just seek full understanding.
Post a Comment