reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation redd in kalimantan

8/3/2019 Reduced Emissions From Deforestation and Degradation REDD in Kalimantan

1/14

The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in KalimantanAaron Magner 1

A critique of the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

(REDD) scheme in Kalimantan

Aaron Magner

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................2

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................22. BACKGROUND

2.1.Why forests must be saved ..........................................................................................22.2.Deforestation and forest degradation in Kalimantan....................................................32.3.Background to REDD and REDD+ .............................................................................4

3. THE PROBLEMS WITH REDD3.1.REDD Governance ......................................................................................................53.2.Ambiguous forests definitions......................................................................................63.3.Adverse impacts on Indigenous communities .............................................................63.4.Differences between forest carbon and fossil fuel carbon ...........................................73.5.Limitations of offset schemes ......................................................................................73.6.Perverse incentives........8

4. THE SCHEME IN KALIMANTAN:THE PLAYERS4.1.The Indonesian government ....84.2.The Coalition of Rainforest Nations ... ............................84.3.The role of NGOs ......94.4.Indigenous communities .....................94.5.Australian government ...10

5. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND REDD REFORM ......116. CONCLUSION.....12

BIBLIOGRAPHY.....13


2/14


ABSTRACT

The United Nations program known as Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) seeks to create a financial

value for the carbon stored in forests and offer monetary incentives todeveloping countries for reducing emissions from deforestation. At first

glance, the idea of a mechanism where rich countries pay poor countries tonot cut down trees appears promising and compelling. With sufficient

political will, community support and money, establishing a new governanceregime to stop deforestation is ambitious but necessary. Can REDD fulfil itsaspiration? This paper examines the REDD initiative and considers its impacton deforestation, biodiversity and Indigenous communities in Kalimantan.

1.INTRODUCTION

Protecting our remaining forests is essential if we are to avoid a devastating loss ofbiodiversity, prevent irreversible global warming and preserve Indigenous cultures. Thischallenge is immense. To date most globally coordinated attempts to stop deforestation have

failed. Enter the Coalition of Rainforest Nations and the REDD scheme, an ambitiousinitiative intended to provide a way of paying poor countries to protect their forests andreduce global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. With the enthusiastic support of bothminority and majority world nations REDD negotiations and implementation is advancingrapidly in both international climate change negotiations and on the ground. 1

There are however unresolved concerns about how REDD is governed, the impact it willhave on biodiversity and the inhabitants of forests that the scheme seeks to protect. This

paper examines some of these concerns including ambiguous forest definitions, adversedevelopmental and environmental impacts, and questions the very premise of forest basedcarbon offset schemes. This papers focus is on the likely impacts of REDD in Kalimantan,where several REDD projects are planned and a major project funded by the Australiangovernment is already up and running. It also considers the impact of deforestation on theDayak people, Kalimantans best-known indigenous inhabitants, and their initial response toREDD. This paper concludes with a brief discussion of alternative approaches todeforestation and possible REDD reforms.

2.BACKGROUND

2.1 Why our forests must be savedIt is essential we reduce and ultimately stop deforestation and forest degradation. Aside from

being among the most beautiful, precious and amazing places on earth, forests are a keycomponent of the earths carbon and hydrological cycles. REDD attempts to assign a

monetary value to forests capacity to reduce carbon emissions in order to mitigate the impactof climate change. In addition to their ability to store vast amounts of carbon earths forests

1 This paper uses the terms majority world (for the developing world) and minority world (for the developedworld) as most people in the world live in the economically poorer continents (Asia, Africa and Latin America)and that only a minority of the worlds population live in the wealthier areas of the globe (Europe, Australia,New Zealand, Japan, USA and Canada). While there are countries that fall between the two and there isdiversity within the categories use of the terms helps to focus thinking on the global inequalities and unequalpower relations between the two.


3/14


should also be valued because of their role helping to maintain biodiversity, protect soil fromerosion, improve the quality of water and help regulate rainfall.2 Forests are also a source offood, medicine, building materials and fuel wood for an estimated 60 million people in themajority world and 350 million people depend on forests for a high degree for subsistence

and income.3

Forests, especially tropical and sub-tropical forests, also contain the majority ofthe worlds terrestrial biodiversity and are full of endemic and endangered species.

45

Deforestation and forest degradation increase greenhouse gas emissions mainly through theburning of wood although in Kalimantan emissions also come from the smouldering of peatand the decomposition of soil carbon.6 At the same time the loss of forests reduces the

planets capacity to absorb CO2.7

In fact deforestation and resulting land use change accountsfor a greater proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions than emissions from transport.8

2.2 Deforestation and forest degradation in Kalimantan

Why should we care about deforestation and forest degradation in Kalimantan? Considerthese facts. Indonesia is the worlds fourth most populace nation and its fifteenth largesteconomy but is the worlds third largest greenhouse gas emitter.

9Of the worlds shrinking

rainforest coverage 10 per cent still survives in Indonesia.10 Of the worlds tropical peatlandswamps just under half are found in Indonesia.

11In fact peatland swamps make up more than

half of Indonesias forests12 and the largest proportion of these carbon-rich forests is found inKalimantan.13 This is why protecting Indonesias forests and peatlands is critical to a globalclimate change mitigation strategy. The world will fail to halt greenhouse gas emissionsgrowth and our planet will experience dangerous global warming if we do not urgently andeffectively stop deforestation in places like Kalimantan.

2 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2009. Sustainable Forest Management, Biodiversity

and Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. Montreal. accessed 1 February 20123 Ibid. Quoting Sustaining Forests: A Development Strategy. Washington, D.C.: World Bank (2004).4 Over the last 35 years earth lost 30% of its biodiversity and 70% of the planets biodiversity found in forests.5 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) accessed 30 January 2012.6 Tropical deforestation and climate change, edited by Paulo Moutinho and Stephan Schwartzman. - Belm -Par Brazil : IPAM - Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amaznia; Washington DC - USA: EnvironmentalDefense, 2005.7 According to UN estimates the worlds forests store about 11,800 megatonnes of carbon, both in the treesthemselves and within peatlands that can run up to 10 metres deep beneath many areas of forest.8 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UK Stein Review estimate thatapproximately 17 per cent of the worlds anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from the land usechange and forestry sector. IPCC, 2007.9 Economic measure by total GDP. See World Economic Outlook Database-September 2011, International

Monetary Fund accessed 31 January, 2012. . Indonesias Greenhouse gas emission aresecond only to the US and China. See Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Country accessed 1 February 2012.10 Morrissey, Lily; Seeing REDD in Indonesia, 2 Jun 2011 accessed 30 January 2012.11 Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership Fact Sheet, December 2009 accessed 31 January 201212 See Deforestation in Malaysian Borneo. NASA. 2009. < http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40139> accessed 31 January 2012.13 The four Indonesian states on the Island of Borneo that make up Kalimantan are East Kalimantan, WestKalimantan, Central Kalimantan and South Kalimantan.


4/14


In Indonesia during the Suharto years there was large-scale deforestation and drainage ofpeatlands in Kalimantan for rice cultivation projects.14 Attempts to grow rice on formerpeatland swamps were ultimately unsuccessful and an estimated two million hectares ofKalimantan degraded forestland has since been converted to palm oil plantations, to serve the

minority worlds processed food.15

More recently peat fires have emerged as a new threat.Peat is an accumulation of partially decayed vegetation matter, has high carbon content and

can burn under low moisture conditions. Once ignited by the presence of a heat source, suchas a wildfire penetrating the subsurface, it can smoulder undetected for months, years, evencenturies, propagating in a creeping fashion through the underground peat layer.16 Recent

burning of peatland forests in Indonesia, with their large and deep growths containing morethan 50 billion tons of carbon, has contributed significantly to increases in world carbondioxide levels.

17

Ongoing logging, both legal and illegal, also continues to have a catastrophic impact. Theforests of Kalimantan are home to the orangutan, proboscis monkey, Bornean cloudedleopard and many other endangered species.

18Borneos orangutan population is now listed as

endangered as a direct result of deforestation across the region.19 Deforestation has also had adevastating impact on Indigenous forest inhabitants. The impact of deforestation and REDD

on the Dayak people is discussed below. 20

2.3 Background to REDD and REDD+The REDD initiative is a market based carbon offset strategy. It aims to reduce deforestation

by creating financial incentives to do so. Initial impetus for the REDD initiative arose from aproposal put by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica on behalf of many supportive Nations21in negotiations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).A process offurther consideration for what was initially known as Reducing Emissionsfrom Deforestation in Developing Countries was agreed to at UNFCCCs Conference of theParties (COP-11) in Montreal in 2005. At COP-13 in Bali a mechanism aimed at reducingemissions from deforestation in developing countries was endorsed and this initiative become

14 See Ecological Impact of the One Million Hectare Rice Project in Cantral Kalimantan, Indonesia, UsingRemote Sensing and GIS. Boehm, H-D.V. and Siegert, F. accessed 1 February 2012.15 Palm oil is increasingly used by the commercial food industry because of its low cost. Eighty five percent of

global palm oil production is from Malaysia and Indonesia.16 Big Swamp, Environment Victoria Facts Sheet accessed 31 January 2012.17 It is reported that in 1997, it is estimated that peat and forest fires in Indonesia released between 0.81 and 2.57Gt of carbon; equivalent to 1340 percent of the amount released by global fossil fuel burning, and greater thanthe carbon uptake of the world's biosphere. These fires may be responsible for the acceleration in the increase in

carbon dioxide levels since 1998. The Compost Bomb: Peat and Global Warming; accessed 31 January2012.

18 Bornean Orangutan WWF Key Facts < http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/great_apes/orangutans/borneo_orangutan/> accessed 1 February 2012.19 Yekti Maunati , Sharing the Fruit of Forestry Products: Indigenous People and Their Incomes in the ForestrySector in East Kalimantan, Indonesia,ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 24 accessed 1 February 2012.20 In Kalimantan, the Dayak consist of twelve major sub tribes: Tunjung, Kenyah, Punan, Bahau Sa, BahauBusang, Benuaq, Bentian, Kayan, Lundayeh, Modang, Krayan and Penihing. According to several informants,the Tunjung Dayak have occupied certain areas, which are mostly in the West Kutai district.21 This grouping, now formally established as the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN), continues to offer tothe minority world voluntary carbon emission reductions by conserving forests in exchange for access tointernational markets for emissions trading . Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, 2005. CFR, 2008.


5/14


known as REDD. At COP15 in December 2009 REDD was the beneficiary of the pressurefor Copenhagen to deliver some good news on climate change action. The REDD text wasredrafted and became REDD+ with an expanded scope to include the roles of conservation,

sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing

countries.22

In contrast with proposals for globally agreed mandatory emission reduction targets, REDDhas received enthusiastic support from minority and majority world countries. For minorityworld countries the REDD initiative promises relatively cheap and easy greenhouse gasemissions reductions compared to implementing domestic emission reductions. Countrieswith domestic carbon reduction targets, that already have or are moving toward emissiontrading schemes, see REDD as a low cost alternative to the hard work of achieving domesticemissions reductions. Many governments are planning to fund REDD projects from the saleof emissions reduction credits on carbon markets for the benefit of polluters in wealthycountries.23 This is despite there being no agreement yet to link REDD with internationalcarbon markets.

REDD is being sold as a win-win option for mitigating climate change with co-benefits of

biodiversity protection and poverty reduction. Not only will REDD help to mitigate climatechange, its proponents believe it will also contribute to alleviating poverty, protecting

biodiversity and conserving water. There are however lingering concerns about REDD andwhether it will help or hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions and deforestation as well asthe impact it will really have on biodiversity and the rights of indigenous people. Theseconcerns are discussed below.

3.PROBLEMS WITH REDD

3.1 REDD governance

Humanitys existing governance structures are failing us. Continuing deforestation and forestdegradation is but one illustration of this. Despite broad public support for stoppingdeforestation, the depletion of tropical forests and peatland swaps continues. This failure ofgovernance can be attributed to a number of factors, from lack of enforcement capacity tosystemic corruption, unrestrained capitalism and exponential population growth. Clearly weneed stronger and more effective global governance structures to resist these and otherdrivers of deforestation and forest degradation.

Given that countries like Indonesia have to date been unable to stop illegal logging, primarilybecause of lack of administrative capacity, ineffective governance and a culture of corruption,it is reasonable to question how REDD, a highly complex scheme that requires strictmeasurement, reporting and verification, and involves large amounts of money, can hope to

succeed where existing measures have failed.

24

Establishing new governance and funding

22 COP16 agreement on REDD+: Official UNFCCC text < www.unredd.net/index.php? option=com_docman&task= doc_download&gid=4200&Itemid=53> Accessed 31 January 2012. For the most part this paper uses theacronym REDD in a generally sense to refer to the REDD and REDD+ initiatives.23 Simon Counsell, Seeing Redd in Cancn, The Guardian, 8 December 2010, Accessed 31 January 2012.24 It has been estimated that illegal activity was responsible for between 73% and 88% of Indonesiasdeforestation in 2006; and the Indonesian government has estimated that 2.8million ha of forest, worth US$3.3billion, is lost to illegal logging every year.


6/14


mechanisms to stop deforestation are necessary but will not automatically ensure REDD willachieve its aim. If the capacity and political will to effectively govern forests are not in placeREDD will fail just as existing laws have failed. To more effectively prevent deforestationand land degradation governance structures need to be reformed to more purposefully and

effectively serve the needs of all people in society, particularly the poor and vulnerable.25

3.2 Ambiguous forest definitionsAmbiguous forest definitions could put the future success of the REDD initiative in doubt.For example the lack of effective definitions of a forest, peatland and adegraded

forest only plays into the hands of logging companies. For example logging and agriculturalcorporations claim to develop only on degraded land.26 In reality this can mean they areclearing biodiverse forests and carbon rich peatlands.

27This is because once a forest has

undergone one round of logging, even where this is selective logging, it is often considereddegraded. It then becomes more vulnerable to complete conversion to agricultural cropssuch as palm oil. The truth is many so-called degraded forests are only slightly altered bylogging and remain highly biodiverse, carbon-rich habitats for endangered species includingorangutans.28 Disputes have also arisen over what constitutes a forest, and how deep peathas to be, to be considered peatland .

29The forestry sector is even pushing for plantations

to be classified as forests.30 There is a concern that this could see REDD funds supposedlymeant for preserving biodiversity and carbon being used to clear natural degraded forestsand replace them with plantations.31 REDD will fail to stop the destruction of Indonesianforests unless ambiguous forest definitions are more clearly and appropriately defined.

3.3Adverse impacts on Indigenous communitiesSustainable climate change solutions must put justice for Indigenous peoples and forestcommunities at the centre of efforts to halt deforestation. The weakening of the rights ofIndigenous peoples is one of the biggest concerns with REDD and one of the most difficult toresolve. As a market-based mechanism with carbon emissions and climate change mitigationits main emphasis, REDD is not well adapted to value and protect the populations whoselivelihoods derive from forests.

While REDD+ attempted to extend the original REDD mechanisms to include developmentalimpacts and project governance arrangements are meant to make provision for stakeholderconsultation and the settlement of disputes, NGOs continue to report tension and conflictswith respect to land tenure in REDD project areas.32 Indigenous groups have expressed

25 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 1996 Accessed 28 January 2012.26 Lack of forest definition major obstacle in fight to protect rainforests, The Ecologist accessed 28 January 2012.27 Palm oil giant accused of rainforest destruction caught red-handed, Ecologist, 29th July, 2010


7/14


concern that that REDD projects, in particular the Australian funded Kalimantan Forests andClimate Partnership, the first large scale REDD project in the region, do not address the truedrivers of deforestation in the area and it does not recognise customary Dayak wisdom. 33According to Friends of the Earth, REDD pilot projects in Kalimantan do not recognise the

rights of local forest-dependent communities.34

Indigenous rights are not mentioned in anyREDD project documentation. Friends of the Earth claim REDD projects in Kalimantan have

created confusion among local groups, and face ongoing opposition from local people.35

3.4 Differences between forest carbon and fossil fuel carbon

Fossil fuel energy sources like coal, oil and natural gas have been created over manymillennia from decayed plants, animals and sea creatures that accumulated in the oceans. Thecarbon in fossil fuels has been locked away within the earths crust for 300-400 million years.Carbon stored in trees and soils on the other hand, is not locked away in the same way. Thisis because carbon stored in the atmosphere-land-ocean cycle is dynamic and in flux overrelatively short-time periods.36 Unlike fossil fuels buried underground, carbon in trees istemporary and more precarious. Trees can easily release carbon into the atmosphere throughfire, disease, climatic changes, and natural decay; and of course deforestation. Land usechange and forestry projects, such as REDD, may have a part to play, but cannot physically

deliver the permanent emissions reductions necessary to avoid climate change.

3.5 Limitations of offset schemesThe idea of REDD is that the minority world produce carbon credits from deforestationefforts and that these are purchased by emitters from majority world countries and used as acarbon offset. The premise being that by purchasing additional carbon offsets it will

compensate for the polluters emissions. Carbon credits generated by offset projectssuch as REDD would be used by minority-world governments and corporations to meetemission reduction targets. One criticism of offset schemes like REDD is that minority worldcountries might, in effect, outsource the responsibility of reducing carbon emissions tomajority world countries, by buying carbon offsets but continuing to emit greenhouse gases athome on a business as usual basis.

37Carbon offsets schemes like REDD will not, alone,

reduce global emissions. Instead they simply offset emissions elsewhere by cutting back onor avoiding further emissions that were supposedly planned. Maintaining carbon sinks inforests will not bring about a transformation out of the pattern of consumption and behaviourthat are the root causes of deforestation, climate change and resource depletion. Carbon fromfossil fuel stores will continue to be extracted and emitted by companies and consumersmostly from the minority world. Carbon offset schemes like REDD may simply enablecontinued and even increased emissions from fossil fuels to occur. A rich country offsettingvia REDD to fulfill their emission reduction targets is no substitute for actual cuts inemissions.

3.6 Perverse incentives

Another concern is that REDD could result in range of perverse incentives. One example is

33 Ibid.34REDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008. accessed 28 January 2012.35 Ibid.36 Greenpeace, Bad Influence how McKinsey-inspired plans lead to rainforest destruction, April 7, 2011, accessed 28 January 2012.37 Ibid.


8/14


how countries that have already taken effective action to prevent deforestation will be unableto benefit from a REDD scheme.38 REDD will, paradoxically, end up rewarding the worstoffenders, since they would have the greatest scope to mend their ways, and get paid to doso.39 Adjusting REDD to pay retrospective rewards to these well-behaved countries might be

technically feasible but will further complicate REDD administration scheme governance.

4.THE REDD SCHEME IN KALIMANTAN:THE PLAYERS

4.1The Indonesian Government

Deforestation in Indonesia is largely the result of a historically corrupt political and economicsystem.

40During the period of former Indonesian President Suhartos authoritarian 32 year

rule, logging concessions covering more than half the countrys total forest area whereawarded, many to Suharto relatives and political allies.

41Cronyism meant that timber

companies operated with little regard for long-term sustainability of production. Post-Suhartothe situation has arguably improved, with the government now less willing to protectcorporate interests as it once did. However the government appears to have no coordinated

plan and limited administrative capacity to deal with deforestation. In fact Indonesia is

implementing a new system ofregional autonomy after regional unresent in the provincesof Aceh and West Papua.42 Provincial and district governments set to benefit fromdecentralisation do not however have the capacities or funds needed to govern effectively letalone implement a complex administrative regime like REDD. Raising short-term revenuewill be a top priority in poor less developed regions such as Kalimantan. This is likely toincrease pressure for intensified exploitation of forest resources.

4.2 The Coalition for Rainforest Nations

The Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN) is a grouping of countries from the majorityworld with tropical forests. It was formed in 2005 after a call by the then Prime Minister ofPapua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare,43 fora mechanism that would allow countries toreduce deforestation without being financially disadvantaged through a system of positive

financial incentives.44 At COP and UNFCCC meetings the CfRN are a representative,authoritative and a well-regarded proponent of the REDD scheme. Members of the CfRN,including Indonesia, were instrumental in first proposing what became known as the REDDinitiative and the intergovernmental organisation remains a key player in REDD negotiations.

38Paying to save Trees: Last Gasp for Forests, The Economist, 24 September 2009 accessed 30 January 2011.39 Plans to protect forests could do the opposite, warns Friends of the Earth, The Guardian, accessed 30 January 2011.40 Global Forest Watch Indonesia's Forests in Brief accessed 30 January 2011.41 FWI/GFW. 2002. The State of the Forest: Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia: Forest Watch Indonesia, and

Washington DC: Global Forest Watch accessed 30 January 2011.42 Butt, Simon, Regional Autonomy and Legal Disorder: The Proliferation of Local Laws in Indonesia, SydneyLaw Review Vol 32: 177. 43 Countries that are part of the CfRN include: Argentina, Bangladesh, Belize, Cameroon, Central AfricanRepublic, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, DR Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,Equatorial Guinea, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya,Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay,Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay, Uganda,Vanuatu and Vietnam.44 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009, Sustainable Forest Management, Biodiversityand Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. Montreal, 47 + iii pages.


9/14


It is also true that the CfRN expect the scheme to generate significant levels of income fortheir countries. Whether funds are channeled through governments or directly to projectmanagers, and whether income will be distributed in a way that benefits those most in need,remains to be seen. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, among others, seem concerned that

many CfRN governments, overwhelmed by the enormous administrative challenges facedimplementing REDD, will be blinded by the prospect of financial windfall.

45

4.3 The role of NGOs

From the very beginning of the forest conservation movement NGOs have played a criticalrole.

Large and small NGOs are active on REDD governance issues across a wide range of

areas, undertaking research, monitoring compliance with laws, exposing poor governancepractices, organising consumer boycotts, direct action and rallies, promoting communityawareness, planning strategies and participating in implementation. While united on the needfor actions on deforestation, NGOs have diverse views on REDD. Some, including Flora andFauna and WWF, play facilitative roles, constructively participating in designing andimplementing pilot projects as well as representing local communities at the multi-stakeholder consultations.46 Others have roles as implementing agencies for REDD projects,especially during the pilot phase, assisting with facilitation training and monitoring of

performance.47

On the other hand NGOs including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Telepak have castthemselves as REDD watchdogs and critics. Friends of the Earth for example vigorouslyopposes REDD in its current form. The organisation has published a number of high qualityresearch papers documenting the shortcomings of REDD and are campaigning for a halt toREDD projects in Kalimantan and globally.48 Greenpeace are also highly critical of REDD inits current form and have a presence in Kalimantan that they use to investigate and documentdeforestation in areas in or close to REDD projects. Greenpeace are also publicising illegallogging, mobilising local communities and staging blockades in the region.

49Telepak, an

Indonesian NGO, has released video exposing illegal logging by Malaysian owned companythat was supposed to be protected under a REDD pilot scheme.

50Telapak also released

a report documenting a Malaysian palm oil company clearing forest in Kalimantan apparentlyin breach of the countrys forestry moratorium.

51

4.4Indigenous communities

The Dayaks are among the Indigenous groups that have existed in harmony with the forest ofKalimantan for thousands of years. The survival of the Dayak people and their traditional

45 SeeREDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008. accessed 28 January 2012; and Greenpeace, Bad Influence howMcKinsey-inspired plans lead to rainforest destruction, April 7, 2011, accessed28 January 2012.

46 McNeill, Desmond and Howell, Signe,Norway and REDD in Indonesia: the art of not governing? (Accessed 28 January 2012).47 Ibid.48REDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008. accessed 28 January 2012.49 Greenpeace, Bad Influence how McKinsey-inspired plans lead to rainforest destruction, April 7, 2011, accessed 28 January 2012.50 Hoisington, Caroline;Rough trade - How Australia's trade policies contribute to illegal logging in the PacificRegion, Institute Paper No. 5, October 2010 51 Ibid.


10/14


way of life depends on the continued existence of the Kalimantan forests they live in. Likeother Indigenous forest inhabitants the Dayak source food, medicine, building materials andfuel wood directly from forests, and depend on forest ecosystem services for water supply. 52In June 2011 a group of Indigenous Dayak representatives issued a statement demanding a

stop to an Australian-funded REDD project in Kalimantan.53

They expressed concerns thatREDD could conflict with centuries-old indigenous practices like shifting cultivation and

agro-forestry, knowledge indigenous people have used to manage their natural landscapessustainably for thousands of years.

54There are also concerns that REDD will see the financial

value of forests goes up and as Indigenous communities rarely have formal land title to theforests they inhabit, governments and companies will be motivated to forcibly eject themfrom their ancestral land to secure unfettered legal rights and REDD funding.

4.4. The Australian Government

Australia is a key player and proponent of REDD in Kalimantan having allocated $273million to an International Forest Carbon Initiative with the aim of building capacity and

providing momentum to support inclusion of REDD+ in a future global climate change

agreement.55 From this fund $30 million has been committed to establish what theAustralian government claims is the worlds first large-scale REDD pilot project known as

the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership project.56 The Australian government hopesthis project will be a platform to establish REDD as a UN-sanctioned source of low-costcarbon offsets for Australia.57 The partnership is trialling a market-oriented approach tofinancing and implementing measures to reduce emissions from deforestation and forestdegradation. Australia sees its role as working with the Indonesian government and othermajority world nations to demonstrate how technical and policy hurdles to REDD might beaddressed. Lessons learned will support international efforts under the UNFCCC to designREDD financial mechanisms.

58

5.ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND REDD REFORM

The devastating consequences and long-term impact of climate change, resource depletionand population growth has brought the orienting principles of humanitys governancesystems and institutions into question. To create more supportive environments forIndigenous peoples and protect the worlds remaining forests, our governance regimes andtrading rules need to change to integrate sustainable development practices into the core of

52The United Nations estimates that as at 2010, 60 million Indigenous people are entirely dependent upon

forests for their food, medicines and building materials and a total of 1.6 billion people rely on forests in someform for their livelihood. See: Sustainable Forest Management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Good PracticeGuide. Montreal. accessed 1 February 2012.53

See accessed 31 January 2012.

54 Lim,Alva,Forbidden forest of the Dayak people, July 28, 2009 accessed 31 January 2012.55 See briefing papers and facts sheets from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Actionunder the International Forest Carbon Initiative, Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership accessed30 January 2012.56 Ibid.57 Ibid.58 The KFCP is part of Australias International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI) administered by the AustralianDepartment of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and AusAID.< http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/international-forest-carbon-initiative.aspx >


11/14


their operations. This will require fundamental reform; no less than a complete reorientationof our governance institutions, economic systems and social norms.

Fundamental change is necessary. The political, legal, economic and cultural challenges of

climate change and deforestation require a level of international cooperation and co-ordination that existing systems have not proven capable of delivering. While disappointing

this should not come as a great surprise. Our existing governance institutions and systemsevolved from bygone eras.

59They were designed for different social and economic

challenges. We are now in a new paradigm; one where we are rapidly approaching theabsolute limits of the worlds natural resources. Where we are denuding our forests, depletingour oceans, and extinguishing our flora and fauna. Where the worlds population exceeds 7

billion people and continues to grow. Our ecosystems are under stress but the human appetitefor resources keeps growing. We urgently need to create a new, more sustainable course forthe future; one that strengthens equality and well-being while protecting our planet.

Todays dominant international governance arrangements do not provide the supportiveenvironments necessary to resist the drivers of deforestation and climate change. Our systemsneed to reorientate away from the dominant free-market, consumption driven paradigm

toward alternative approaches that prioritises environmental and social well being of thosemost in need, not the pursuit of economic growth alone.60 There are many alternative wayswe could organise ourselves to embark upon the necessary transformation. One approachcould come in the form of a new world parliament, a refined and reformed UN, to replace theinternational governing bodies currently in place, to instil greater democracy and promote asocial and economic transformation into more sustainable ways of being. Another progressiveoption would be a new Fair Trade Organisation to replace the WTO, with set mandatorystandards for international corporations, and an International Clearing Union, first conceived

by the economist John Maynard Keynes, to automatically rectify trade imbalances andprevent poor countries from getting trapped in debt.

61

REDD could still have a role to play, but rather than REDD+ we need REDD 2.0, extendingthe deforestation agenda beyond climate change giving greater focus todeveloping ongoingalternative incomes for communities otherwise reliant on logging and palm oil while ensuringIndigenous peoples and local communities benefit from any forest protection schemes basedin their ancestral lands. These are just some alternatives worth consideration as part of anexamination of deforestation and climate change issues. A coherent and comprehensive set ofREDD reforms and alternative approaches is, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this paper;in part because the issues of governance, politics and sustainable development are so vast,complex and continually evolving.

59For example, the Romans circa 27 BC first conceived the idea of parliamentary democracy. The modern

conception of nation state based parliamentary representative democracy arose in the form of the Westminster

system following a coup Against the monarch's authority in the 1215 charter, reflected in a document known asthe Magna Carta, written on parchment and signed in the battle field on horseback. The structure of the United

Nations, widely acknowledged as being in need of a major overhaul, was borne out of a political agreementbetween the victors of World War II. Nation states are largely a colonial anachronism that often have littleregard to ethnic culture or geography and undermine ecosystem based regional and international co-ordination.The forests of Kalimantan, divided between Indonesia and Malaysia, are a case in point.60 Trainer, Ted; Where are we, where do we want to be, how do we get there? Democracy and Nature: TheInternational Journal of Inclusive Democracy, vol.6, no.2, (July 2000) accessed 28 January 2012.61 These ideas were adapted from: Monbiot, George, The Age ofConsent: A manifesto for a new world order,Flamingo, 2003.


12/14


5.CONCLUSIONMuch remains to be done on both forest and financial governance before anyone can feel

comfortable that REDD will make a legitimate contribution to combating global warming, letalone other environmental and social goals. There are numerous structural, regulatory,

political and ethical problems associated with REDD that need to be urgently considered andaddressed. A mechanism like REDD may have a part to play provided the kinds of problemshighlighted in this paper can be overcome. That said REDD alone will not save our forests.Just as there is no one-way to transition our economies or our societies into more sustainableways of being, there is no one-way to save our forests. For effective, and just climate actionto be realised worldwide, immediate emissions reductions are required in industrialisedcountries. The minority world needs to stop pumping emissions into the atmosphere andallour remaining forests need to be protected.


13/14


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agenda 21, Earth Summit, The United Nations Programme for Action from Rio (2002) .

Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET) web site

(Accessed 21 March 2010)

Bhagwati, Jagdish,In Defense of Globalization, Oxford University Press, 2004.

Diesendorf, M., 2000, Sustainability and sustainable development, in Dunphy, D,Benveniste, J, Griffiths, A and Sutton, P (eds) Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the21st century, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Freedman, Milton,Hot, Flat, andCrowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How ItCan Renew America, Farrar Strous Giroux Books, 2009.

FWI/GFW. 2002. The State of the Forest: Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia: Forest Watch

Indonesia, and Washington DC: Global Forest Watch < www.globalforestwatch.org/common/indonesia/ sof.indonesia.english.low.pdf> accessed 1 February 2012.

Garnaut Review (2011). The Garnaut Review 2011: Australia in the Global Response toClimate Change, Ross Garnaut, commissioned by the Australian Government,http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011.html

Gowdy, John M.; Trade and Environmental Sustainability: An Evolutionary Perspective,Review of Social Economy, Vol. 54, 1995.

Hall, R. (2008), REDD Myths: A Critical Review of Proposed Mechanisms to ReduceEmissions From Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries, Amsterdam:Friends of the Earth International

Hawken, Paul; Lovin, Amory; Lovin, L Hunter;NaturalCapitalism The next industrialrevolution, Earthscan Publications, 1999.

McNeill, Desmond and Howell, Signe,Norway and REDD in Indonesia: the art of notgoverning? < http://www.fau.dk/NC/Abstracts_and_papers/Papers/W14_paper_McNeill.pdf>(Accessed 28 January 2012).

Monbiot, George, The Age ofConsent: A manifesto for a new world order, Flamingo, 2003.

Morrissey, Lily; Seeing REDD in Indonesia, 2 Jun 2011

Morita, Sachiko and Zaelke, Durwood, The Rule of Law, Good Governance and SustainableDevelopment, Seventh International Conference on Environmental compliance andenforcement, 20-24 June 2011. Accessed 10 December2011.


14/14


Pearce, D.; Hamilton, K.; Atkinson, G.;Measuring sustainable development: progress onindicators,Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE),University College London, 136 Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

REDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008. accessed 28

January 2012.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2009. Sustainable ForestManagement, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. Montreal, 47 + iii pages.

Semi-Annual report 2011 for UN-REDD programme Indonesia, October 2011, < www.un-redd.org/UNREDDProgramme/CountryActions/Indonesia/tabid/987/ language/en-US/Default.aspx> accessed 20 January 2012.

Stiglitz, Joseph, Globalisation and its discontents, Penguin, 2002.

Trainer, Ted; Where are we, where do we want to be, how do we get there? Democracy and

Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, vol.6, no.2, (July 2000)

United National Development Programme, Governance for sustainable human development,A UNDP policy document, Good governance - and sustainable human development (accessed 28 January 2012).

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, OurCommon Future,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Yekti Maunati , Sharing the Fruit of Forestry Products: Indigenous People and Their Incomesin the Forestry Sector in East Kalimantan, Indonesia,ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 24 accessed 1 February2012.

reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation redd in kalimantan

Documents