REDD – Who benefits?

History has seen countless movements to commodify land, food, labour, forests, water, genes and ideas. Carbon trading is yet another way for capitalism to transform our natural environment into a product that can be bought and sold in a global market. The schemes put together under REDD+ do not and will not contribute to the protection and preservation of our planet; they are ill thought out and often amplify social inequalities in the areas where they are implemented.

REDD, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, refers to a policy structure that essentially allows Annex 1 (developed) nations to pay their developing counterparts not to deforest areas, counting this as a carbon credit towards emission reduction targets. However, there are three major loopholes (I’ve touched on them before, but we’ll revisit them briefly):

1. leakage occurs when a project is simply relocated; for example our government may provide funding so that a chunk of rainforest isn’t logged and we would count those carbon credits towards our targets, but this doesn’t necessarily stop the logging company from moving 3 miles south and logging there — so there is no real emission reduction

2. permanence — so, let’s continue with the hypothetical chunk of rainforest — we’ve paid for it, saved it and counted our credits; fifty years down the line, who’s to say it isn’t logged? What if there’s a forest fire? What if the capture storage capacity of the forest is degraded (by age, or by climate change itself)?

3. definitions — What makes a “forest” a forest and a “plantation” a plantation? Where do you draw the line, specifically? Very minor changes to this definition can greatly affect the rate of a country’s “deforestation” or “reforestation.”

By failing to address these concerns, we could find ourselves making huge investments of mitigation funds into a program that doesn’t actually reduce emissions. These projects exemplify the term “false solution.”

Many Indigenous communities are starting to call REDD/REDD+ “CO2lonialism of forests” or “capitalism of the trees and air.” Why? Well, our governments will buy the rights to these forest only as a means to justify the continuation of fossil fuel projects like the Canadian tar sands, which have enormous environmental, health and social consequences. Furthermore, these deals will serve only to reinforce the power of the “authorities” of the regions – that would be the governments and corporations, not the Indigenous communities who live on these lands. In a nutshell, these market based solutions undermine Indigenous communal land rights, benefiting only the polluters who gain official permission to continue with “business as usual.”

For example, current REDD projects in Ecuador include contracts that prohibit hunting, fishing, change of land use (agriculture) or cutting down trees, all of which constitute the traditional way of life and ensure food security to these communities. Despite these stringent requirements for locals, some projects still allow destructive industries like mining and oil extraction. Ultimately if these obligations are upheld, the entire livelihood of the people on this forested land is destroyed; what’s written between the lines of this policy is that small, self sustaining communities will be forced off the land and lifestyle that they know all in the name of emissions reductions that will be counted half a world away. These areas have contributed virtually nothing to climate changing carbon in our atmosphere, yet we feel entitled to offer money so that instead of changing our way of life, they will lose theirs.

Our governments are negotiating much more than carbon trade here; what comes out of Cancun on these policies will have incredible consequences for generations to come.

3 Responses to “REDD – Who benefits?”
  1. Kimia Ghomeshi says:

    Great article! Its great to see someone covering the serious issues with REDD+. Can you tell me where negotiations are at with REDD right now? I’m not very up to date…

    thanks and keep up the great work.

    • Amara Possian says:

      Short answer? Closed door. Nobody really knows yet.

      The longer answer is that Bolivia is currently blocking REDD+ and yesterday, Guy Saint-Jacques called the country a marxist state that isn’t willing to cooperate. He added that Canada supports the REDD+ text in its current form. When asked whether Canada has a distinct position from the Umbrella Group, he said no. And when asked if he is willing to incorporate UNDRIP into the text, he said he would get back to us after talking to his negotiators.

      In happy news, the CYD says hi and we miss you.

Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] A lot of the solutions to deforestation brought through the UN process seem inherently unfair. Looking at the programme for Forest Day 4 you can see how much is focused on REDD+ which is a policy that basically allows developed countries nations to pay developing countries not to deforest in return for permission to emit more carbon. Emilie Novaczek from the Canadian Youth Delegation explains how unfair a lot of REDD+ is in her blog REDD – Who Benefits? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: