REDDcritical questions and myths exposeddecember 2008 | summary

International

Sustainable timber harvesting operation in Guyana.© simon rawles, friends of the earth

climate &deforestation

www.foei.org

International

Deforestation and forest degradationare significant causes of climatechange, accounting for nearly 20percent of greenhouse gas emissionsevery year. Accelerating deforestationalso threatens the world’sbiodiversity, imperils the 60 millionIndigenous people who are entirelydependent upon forests for theirphysical, cultural and spiritual needsand disadvantages some 1.6 billionpeople who are heavily reliant onforests and other trees.

A newmechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation indeveloping countries (often called REDD) is being negotiated in the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and couldbecome a part of the post 2012 agreement to be reached in Copenhagen in2009. REDD is being promoted as a win-win-win option that will benefit theclimate, biodiversity and people. Yet many critical questions remainunanswered, risking the creation of another forest conservation failure: WillREDD help to mitigate climate change and if so, at what costs to people andbiodiversity? Orwill REDD actually negate efforts that have beenmade so far?Who will really benefit from REDD funds? And how might trading in forestcarbon credits impact REDD-related policies and projects?

friends of the earth international is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, uniting more than 70 diverse national member groupsand some 5,000 local activist groups on every continent.With approximately 2 millionmembers and supporters around the world, we campaignon today’s most urgent social and environmental issues.We challenge the current model of economic and corporate globalization, and promotesolutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and socially just societies.

our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with nature. We envision a society of interdependent peopleliving in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in which equity and human and peoples’ rights are realized.

This will be a society built upon peoples’ sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, economic, gender and environmental justiceand free from all forms of domination and exploitation, such as neoliberalism, corporate globalization, neo-colonialism andmilitarism.

We believe that our children’s future will be better because of what we do.

you can download this full report here:www.foei.org/en/campaigns/climate/poznan

friends of the earthinternational secretariat

P.O. Box 191991000 GD AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: 31 20 622 1369Fax: 31 20 639 2181info@foei.orgwww.foei.org

©simon

rawles,friend

sof

theearth

Flying over Iwokrama Reserve, Rupunini, Region 9, Guyana.

myths

REDD critical questions and myths exposed

myth 1: REDD is intended to stop deforestation

From a climate change point of view, there is a need to stabilizethe atmospheric concentration of CO2 at as lowa level as possible.This can partly be achieved by stopping deforestation and forestdegradation, which is responsible for some 18% of carbonemissions to the atmosphere -more thanall theworld’s transport.

But REDD itself is not intended to stop deforestation: its aim isonly to slowor defer the rate of emissions fromdeforestation. Thisis quite different. It means that REDD will allow deforestation tocontinue with levels potentially increasing in the future. REDD’sfailure to stop deforestation condones further biodiversity lossesand continued impacts on forest-dependent communities.

myth 2: a carbon trading REDDmechanismwill decrease net global greenhouse gas emissions

If REDD is funded through carbon offsetting it will underminecurrent and future emissions reductions agreed to byindustrialized countries. Allowing countries with carbon-intensive lifestyles to continue consuming inequitably andunsustainably, by permitting them to fund cheaper forest carbon‘offsets’ in developing countries, diverts critical resources andattention away from measures to address fossil fuelconsumption and the real underlying causes of deforestation.

myth 3: stopping deforestation is too expensive

Calculations concerning the levels of finance that REDD mightgenerate give the impression that completely stoppingdeforestation would be prohibitively expensive. But this is onlythe case if those engaged in deforestation are compensated. Itwould be more useful to focus on the opportunity costs togovernment revenue streams, jobs and value-added industries.This approach would still provide the necessary positiveincentives to governments considering changing their policieswith respect to deforestation.

myth 4: only carbon markets can generateenough money to fund REDD

Many people assume that REDD is synonymous with carbontrading and offsetting, but this is far from having been agreed.While numerous governments have proposed the use of carbonmarkets to finance REDD, this needs to be reconsidered. It wouldcreate the climate regime’s biggest loophole, risking humanity’sability to tackle climate change.

Using carbon markets to finance REDD is not necessary. Thereare alternative sources of funds that do not rely on voluntaryassistance or on carbon trading, such as taxing fossil fuel use anddiverting fossil fuel energy subsidies in industrialized countries.These would be true win-win options, since they would also, inthemselves, work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Theywould also provide a predictable source of transition fundingwhich carbon markets will not.

myth 5: anyone can participate in REDD projectson an equal footing

Indigenous Peoples and other forest-dependent communitiesmay find it hard to benefit from REDD even if they actively wishto participate in REDD projects. In many countries wherecustomary land rights are not recognized, those without clearland tenure are unlikely to even qualify as participants.

Because projects intended to keep trees standing can also berisky (because of storms or forest fires, for example), projectmanagers can also anticipate having to fund upfront andoperational costs, whilst waiting several years to sell forestcarbon credits. Theymight also find themselves saddledwith theprojects’ risks and liabilities. Either way, larger and richerorganizations operating to economies of scale can deal withthese difficultiesmuchmore easily than Indigenous Peoples andlocal communities, putting them in a better negotiating positionfrom the start. Indigenous Peoples are also likely to have tocontendwith language barriers and lack of experience in dealingwith the technical complexities involved in establishing,monitoring and verifying REDD projects.

critical questions

REDD critical questions and myths exposed

critical question 1: will REDD protect natural forests?

If based on a definition of forests that includes plantations, ascurrentlyplanned,REDDwillworkagainst efforts tomitigateclimatechangeandachieveclimate justice. Plantationsarenot forests. Large-scale monoculture tree plantations cause serious environmental,social andeconomicproblems, includingdrastic changes in localandregional hydrological cycles, the deterioration of rivers and streams,air and water pollution due to the use of pesticides and otheragrochemicals, and a critical loss of biodiversity. In addition, entirecommunitiesmay be displaced tomakeway for plantations.

Plantations also store only 20% of the carbon that intact naturalforests do. It thus seems inconceivable that the UNFCCC wouldsanction any process that allows natural forests to be replacedwith plantations. Yet this is exactly what is being proposed. Somecountries even support a ‘net deforestation’ approach, whichwould allow them to continue logging and cutting forests, whilstconserving forests and/or extending plantations in other areas.

critical question 2: will REDD be an effective wayof reducing deforestation?

There is a clear relationship between the destruction of forests anddemandfor forest andagriculturalproducts.Mining,oil exploitation,roadconstructionandagrofuelsarealsosignificant factors.Yet REDDdoesnot currently address reducingdemand for timber, agriculturalcommodities, meat or oil originating mainly in over-consumingindustrializedcountries. Evenmoreworryingly, it seemsthere isa realdanger that REDD could benefit the commercial loggers andagribusinesses responsible for deforestation, whilst unjustlytargeting Indigenous Peoples, local communities and subsistencefarmers, and labeling them the primary drivers of deforestation.

Current REDDproposals also fail to address concerns about leakageadequately (the displacement of deforestation and forestsdegradation to other areas). A project-level approach to REDD couldmean that deforestation activities simply shift elsewhere. So, to beeffective, a mechanism to stop deforestation would requireparticipationbyalmost all developingcountrieswith tropical forests,national level accounting of forest loss, and equally effectiveimplementation inallparticipatingcountries. Evenso,aquestionstillremainsabout leakage fromtropical forests toborealandtemperateforests.ThusREDDmight fail, even if the large sumsofmoneybeingdiscussedare raisedanddistributed.Ultimately, theonly real solutionis to remove the underlying causes of deforestation.

critical question 3: will REDD uphold the polluter pays principle?

REDD is primarily intended to create financial incentives toprompt those currently engaged in deforestation to switch tomanaging standing forests. REDD as planned seems more likely

to leverage private finance and direct it towards those engagedin logging and industrial agriculture, while ignoring countriesand communities that have low deforestation rates. REDDwouldoffer lucrative opportunities to those with money to invest,including carbon finance companies.

critical question 4: will REDD improve forest governanceand reduce corruption?

REDD policies are more likely to trigger a rapid expansion in landsset aside for REDD projects. In many countries, governments andothers may ignore the customary and territorial rights ofIndigenousPeoples, as they seek toprotect an increasingly valuableresource from ‘outside’ interference, violently or otherwise.

Funding reduceddeforestation through carbonmarkets could alsolead to a loss of peoples’ sovereignty over their natural resources,by allowing the market to decide where those reductions shouldtake place and encouraging foreign investors to buy up land orforest ‘services’. This would enable them to dictate how and bywho forests can be used. The success of REDD would also besubject to the vagaries ofmarkets and the activities of speculators,andwould tend to generate unstable and unpredictable funding.

The large flows of funding that REDD aims to generate are alsolikely to encourage, rather than discourage, corruption. Thecomplex financialmechanisms envisaged could also help to hidecorrupt practices.

critical question 5: will REDD be good for Indigenous Peoplesand forest-dependent communities?

Current REDD proposals, especially those that rely on carbonmarkets, carry new and profound risks for Indigenous Peoplesand local communities, and efforts to achieve climate justice.REDD could unleash a devastating wave of further forest loss,land grabbing, corruption, cultural destruction and conflict.Previous experiences, with the Clean Development Mechanism,voluntary carbon offset projects and payments for environmentalservices schemes indicate that there is little reason for optimism.

Indigenous Peoples and many other local communities dependon free access to forests and other ecosystems for their survival.Forests provide food, water, wood for fuel, medicine andconstruction materials. They are also at the heart of IndigenousPeoples’cultures, religion and spiritual values. In total, 60millionIndigenous people depend wholly on forests for all theirrequirements and some 1.6 billion people are heavily reliant onaccess to forests and other trees to meet their needs. Yet thesepeople may lose access to forest resources as a result of REDD,and risk displacement, violence and lost livelihoods.

conclusions

REDD critical questions and myths exposed

REDD as it is currently being negotiated is designed to rewardthose who deforest, not those who already protect their forests.If it permits the replacement of natural tropical forest withplantations and is funded through carbon markets, it willundermine the environmental credibility of the global agreementto reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

But that does not mean that deforestation should be off theUNFCCC’s agenda. Far from it: the current REDD debate shouldbe replaced by UN-wide negotiations focused on stoppingunsustainable deforestation and forest degradation once and forall. Governments are already committed to conserving forestsunder the Climate Change Convention and in other agreementssuch as the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In addition, it is critical that implementation measures aredeveloped with and take into account the rights and role ofIndigenous Peoples, as expressed in the United NationsDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. All measures tostop unsustainable deforestationmust also respect human rights,especially those of forest-dependent communities at risk ofdisplacement, violence and diminished access to forest resources.

It is particularly important that stopping deforestation is seen asmore than just a carbon counting exercise. Renewed efforts toachieve this goal should be founded on the ecosystems approachand climate justice, as well as the rights and role of IndigenousPeoples and local communities. Governments should challengethe underlying causes of deforestation directly, addressingdemand-side drivers in importing countries and resolvinggovernance, poverty and land tenure issues in forested countries.

In so far as funding is required to stop deforestation, financingshould be invested in national programs and infrastructure thatdirectly support alternative rights-based forms of forestconservation, sustainablemanagement, natural regeneration andecosystem restoration, such as community-based forestgovernance. Forest-dependent communities already possess agreat deal of the knowledgeandexperienceneeded to createmoresocially just and environmentally-sound alternatives to REDD, andhavea successful track record in sustainably governing their forests.

Funding – from whatever source – should address the needs ofdeveloping countries, but should not directly increase thefinancial value of forests. Benefits to governments could be tiedto national commitments to cease commercial deforestation andto restructure logging, pulp and paper and other industries,possibly over a number of years.

It is important tobear inmindthat financing isnot everything.Thereare other important and relatively cheap options that could help toprevent deforestation, including direct support to governmentsdismantling industrial logging operations. A global forest fire-fighting fund and expertise bank to assist countries unable toprevent or stop forest fireswould also be a constructive option.

Finding funds to help developing countries match lost taxrevenue streams, jobs and value-added industries could providethe necessary positive incentives to governments consideringchanging their policies with respect to deforestation, but wouldbe additional to the costs associatedwith tackling the underlyingcauses of deforestation.

The World Bank, which subsidizes the fossil fuel industry andchampions carbon markets, should not be permitted to drive theREDD process forward. Instead, a transparent, accountable andparticipative fund-based mechanism to stop deforestation shouldbe established within the UN. Funding should be grant-based only.Any loans–concessionalorotherwise–wouldmeanthatdevelopingcountries are pushed into increasing their debt burden because ofclimate change, a problem forwhich they are not responsible.

In conclusion, there are many policy-oriented, practical andfinancial measures that could be taken to stem the tide ofunsustainable deforestation and forest degradation – but only ifthe political will to do so exists. The post-2012 negotiations area last chance to take action to stop theworst excesses of climatechange. Unfortunately many REDD proposals currently on thetable are designed to generate profits for polluters, not stopclimate change. They must be replaced with a new and realdecision to stop deforestation, once and for all.

©tom

picken,friends

oftheearth

Left: Deforestation - a leading cause ofclimate change in the Peruvian Amazon.

Right: Logging in Indonesia. ©tano

pasino,

pand

etano@

yaho

o.com

If REDD is funded through carbonoffsetting it will undermine currentand future emissions reductions agreedto by industrialized countries.

REDD as it is currently being negotiatedis designed to reward those whodeforest, not those who alreadyprotect their forests.

©tom

picken,foe

©simon

rawles,friend

sof

theearth

Left: Land cleared for palm oil plantations in Indonesia.Right: A local guide at Turtle Mountain in the Iwokrama Forest in Guyana.