Seeing REDD

For those who have become familiar with the lush green landscape that surrounds the Bali conference area, the notion that Indonesia has been ravaged by deforestation may seem a bit bizarre. Yet, rapid deforestation has resulted in the destruction of some 72% of Indonesia's original forests and has pushed the country to the rank of the world's third highest greenhouse gas emitter.

This trend plays out in other contexts across the globe, with deforestation accounting for at least 17% of global carbon emissions—and some estimates put that figure higher. Deforestation not only strips the landscape of the carbon-cycling capacity of forests, but inflicts a range of other consequences, namely the destruction of ecosystems and environments upon which people, particularly Indigenous and forest peoples, depend.

Enter the "solution" being put forward by the UNFCCC, or UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process, called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, or REDD. (Just a few of the many acronyms routinely tossed about in UN discussions on climate change). Much in the same vein as many other commercial fixes at the center of these debates, the REDD proposal relies on the market to reduce deforestation by providing incentives to businesses and corporations.

Here are the steps: a business emits carbon. It can offset its emissions through buying credits from the carbon market. These funds are used to reduce deforestation.

Sound simple? Not really. Because this system is plagued by vague definitions and recurrent abuses. Who gets to decide on how much a forest is worth and assign a particular price tag? Who gets to evaluate or measure how carbon emitted in one area translates to carbon absorbed elsewhere? Who actually receives the funds? Does the REDD mechanism actually reduce climate change, when its very design excuses the continued emission of carbons? Isn't a forest more than just an accumulation of carbon, but also a complex ecosystem and source of biodiversity? These questions raised by forest communities around the world, if answered truthfully, point to the deep flaws of REDD.

WALHI, an Indonesian environmental organization, has already pointed out many of these dangers. They also illustrate how REDD, with its proposals to cordon off forest areas for preservation, will cause the displacement of Indigenous Peoples who live in "protected" areas. All this, despite growing evidence that Indigenous Peoples are better able to manage and preserve the forests they rely on.

Check out some great organizations that are working on the issue of deforestation and climate justice:

Global Justice Ecology Project
World Rainforest Movement
Global Forest Coalition


Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Sphere: Related Content