You are on page 1of 14

A critique of the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner

CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................2 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................2 2. BACKGROUND 2.1. Why forests must be saved ..........................................................................................2 2.2. Deforestation and forest degradation in Kalimantan....................................................3 2.3. Background to REDD and REDD+ .............................................................................4 3. THE PROBLEMS WITH REDD 3.1. REDD Governance ......................................................................................................5 3.2. Ambiguous forests definitions......................................................................................6 3.3. Adverse impacts on Indigenous communities .............................................................6 3.4. Differences between forest carbon and fossil fuel carbon ...........................................7 3.5. Limitations of offset schemes ......................................................................................7 3.6. Perverse incentives........8 4. THE SCHEME IN KALIMANTAN: THE PLAYERS 4.1. The Indonesian government ....8 4.2. The Coalition of Rainforest Nations ...............................8 4.3. The role of NGOs ......9 4.4. Indigenous communities .....................9 4.5. Australian government ...10 5. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND REDD REFORM ......11 6. CONCLUSION .....12 BIBLIOGRAPHY .....13

The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner

ABSTRACT The United Nations program known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) seeks to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests and offer monetary incentives to developing countries for reducing emissions from deforestation. At first glance, the idea of a mechanism where rich countries pay poor countries to not cut down trees appears promising and compelling. With sufficient political will, community support and money, establishing a new governance regime to stop deforestation is ambitious but necessary. Can REDD fulfil its aspiration? This paper examines the REDD initiative and considers its impact on deforestation, biodiversity and Indigenous communities in Kalimantan.

1. INTRODUCTION Protecting our remaining forests is essential if we are to avoid a devastating loss of biodiversity, prevent irreversible global warming and preserve Indigenous cultures. This challenge is immense. To date most globally coordinated attempts to stop deforestation have failed. Enter the Coalition of Rainforest Nations and the REDD scheme, an ambitious initiative intended to provide a way of paying poor countries to protect their forests and reduce global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. With the enthusiastic support of both minority and majority world nations REDD negotiations and implementation is advancing rapidly in both international climate change negotiations and on the ground. 1 There are however unresolved concerns about how REDD is governed, the impact it will have on biodiversity and the inhabitants of forests that the scheme seeks to protect. This paper examines some of these concerns including ambiguous forest definitions, adverse developmental and environmental impacts, and questions the very premise of forest based carbon 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 Australian government is already up and running. It also considers the impact of deforestation on the Dayak people, Kalimantans best-known indigenous inhabitants, and their initial response to REDD. This paper concludes with a brief discussion of alternative approaches to deforestation and possible REDD reforms.

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Why our forests must be saved It 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 key component 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 impact of 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 developed world) 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 is diversity within the categories use of the terms helps to focus thinking on the global inequalities and unequal power relations between the two.
The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner 2

should also be valued because of their role helping to maintain biodiversity, protect soil from erosion, improve the quality of water and help regulate rainfall.2 Forests are also a source of food, medicine, building materials and fuel wood for an estimated 60 million people in the majority 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 of the worlds terrestrial biodiversity and are full of endemic and endangered species.45 Deforestation and forest degradation increase greenhouse gas emissions mainly through the burning of wood although in Kalimantan emissions also come from the smouldering of peat and 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 accounts for 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? Consider these facts. Indonesia is the worlds fourth most populace nation and its fifteenth largest economy but is the worlds third largest greenhouse gas emitter.9 Of the worlds shrinking rainforest coverage 10 per cent still survives in Indonesia.10 Of the worlds tropical peatland swamps just under half are found in Indonesia.11 In fact peatland swamps make up more than half of Indonesias forests12 and the largest proportion of these carbon-rich forests is found in Kalimantan. 13 This is why protecting Indonesias forests and peatlands is critical to a global climate change mitigation strategy. The world will fail to halt greenhouse gas emissions growth and our planet will experience dangerous global warming if we do not urgently and effectively 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. <www.cbd.int/development/doc/cbd-good-practice-guideforestry-booklet-web-en.pdf> accessed 1 February 2012 3 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) <www.teebweb.org> 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: Environmental Defense, 2005. 7 According to UN estimates the worlds forests store about 11,800 megatonnes of carbon, both in the trees themselves 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 that approximately 17 per cent of the worlds anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from the land use change 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. <http://www.imf.org>. Indonesias Greenhouse gas emission are second only to the US and China. See Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Country <www.carbonplanet.com/ country_emissions> accessed 1 February 2012. 10 Morrissey, Lily; Seeing REDD in Indonesia, 2 Jun 2011 <http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/ seeing-redd-indonesia> accessed 30 January 2012. 11 Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership Fact Sheet, December 2009 <www.ausaid.gov.au/hottopics/pdf/KFCP_factsheet_3_11Dec09.pdf> accessed 31 January 2012 12 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, West Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan and South Kalimantan.

The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner

In Indonesia during the Suharto years there was large-scale deforestation and drainage of peatlands in Kalimantan for rice cultivation projects.14 Attempts to grow rice on former peatland swamps were ultimately unsuccessful and an estimated two million hectares of Kalimantan 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, such as a wildfire penetrating the subsurface, it can smoulder undetected for months, years, even centuries, 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 more than 50 billion tons of carbon, has contributed significantly to increases in world carbon dioxide levels.17 Ongoing logging, both legal and illegal, also continues to have a catastrophic impact. The forests of Kalimantan are home to the orangutan, proboscis monkey, Bornean clouded leopard and many other endangered species.18 Borneos orangutan population is now listed as endangered as a direct result of deforestation across the region.19 Deforestation has also had a devastating 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 a proposal put by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica on behalf of many supportive Nations 21 in negotiations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A process of further consideration for what was initially known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries was agreed to at UNFCCCs Conference of the Parties (COP-11) in Montreal in 2005. At COP-13 in Bali a mechanism aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries was endorsed and this initiative become
See Ecological Impact of the One Million Hectare Rice Project in Cantral Kalimantan, Indonesia, Using Remote Sensing and GIS. Boehm, H-D.V. and Siegert, F. <http://www.crisp.nus.edu.sg/~acrs2001/ pdf/126boehm.pdf> 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 <www.environmentvictoria.org.au/content/big-swamp> 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 2.57 Gt of carbon; equivalent to 1340 percent of the amount released by global fossil fuel burning, and greater than the 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; <http://oilprice.com/TheEnvironment/Global-Warming/The-Compost-Bomb-Peat-And-Global-Warming.html> accessed 31 January 2012. 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 Forestry Sector in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 24 <http://www.adbi.org/files /2005.02.dp24.forestry.sector.indonesia.pdf> accessed 1 February 2012. 20 In Kalimantan, the Dayak consist of twelve major sub tribes: Tunjung, Kenyah, Punan, Bahau Sa, Bahau Busang, 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 to the minority world voluntary carbon emission reductions by conserving forests in exchange for access to international markets for emissions trading. Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, 2005. CFR, 2008.
The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner 4
14

known as REDD. At COP15 in December 2009 REDD was the beneficiary of the pressure for Copenhagen to deliver some good news on climate change action. The REDD text was redrafted 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, REDD has received enthusiastic support from minority and majority world countries. For minority world countries the REDD initiative promises relatively cheap and easy greenhouse gas emissions reductions compared to implementing domestic emission reductions. Countries with domestic carbon reduction targets, that already have or are moving toward emission trading schemes, see REDD as a low cost alternative to the hard work of achieving domestic emissions reductions. Many governments are planning to fund REDD projects from the sale of emissions reduction credits on carbon markets for the benefit of polluters in wealthy countries.23 This is despite there being no agreement yet to link REDD with international carbon 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 climate change, its proponents believe it will also contribute to alleviating poverty, protecting biodiversity and conserving water. There are however lingering concerns about REDD and whether it will help or hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions and deforestation as well as the impact it will really have on biodiversity and the rights of indigenous people. These concerns are discussed below.

3. PROBLEMS WITH REDD 3.1 REDD governance Humanitys existing governance structures are failing us. Continuing deforestation and forest degradation is but one illustration of this. Despite broad public support for stopping deforestation, the depletion of tropical forests and peatland swaps continues. This failure of governance can be attributed to a number of factors, from lack of enforcement capacity to systemic corruption, unrestrained capitalism and exponential population growth. Clearly we need stronger and more effective global governance structures to resist these and other drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Given that countries like Indonesia have to date been unable to stop illegal logging, primarily because 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 strict measurement, reporting and verification, and involves large amounts of money, can hope to succeed where existing measures have failed. 24 Establishing new governance and funding
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 the acronym 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, <www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/08/redd-deforestation-carbon-trading> Accessed 31 January 2012. 24 It has been estimated that illegal activity was responsible for between 73% and 88% of Indonesias deforestation in 2006; and the Indonesian government has estimated that 2.8million ha of forest, worth US$3.3 billion, is lost to illegal logging every year.
The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner 5
22

mechanisms to stop deforestation are necessary but will not automatically ensure REDD will achieve its aim. If the capacity and political will to effectively govern forests are not in place REDD will fail just as existing laws have failed. To more effectively prevent deforestation and 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 definitions Ambiguous 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 a degraded forest only plays into the hands of logging companies. For example logging and agricultural corporations claim to develop only on degraded land.26 In reality this can mean they are clearing biodiverse forests and carbon rich peatlands. 27 This is because once a forest has undergone one round of logging, even where this is selective logging, it is often considered degraded. It then becomes more vulnerable to complete conversion to agricultural crops such as palm oil. The truth is many so-called degraded forests are only slightly altered by logging and remain highly biodiverse, carbon-rich habitats for endangered species including orangutans.28 Disputes have also arisen over what constitutes a forest, and how deep peat has to be, to be considered peatland.29 The forestry sector is even pushing for plantations to be classified as forests.30 There is a concern that this could see REDD funds supposedly meant for preserving biodiversity and carbon being used to clear natural degraded forests and replace them with plantations.31 REDD will fail to stop the destruction of Indonesian forests unless ambiguous forest definitions are more clearly and appropriately defined. 3.3 Adverse impacts on Indigenous communities Sustainable climate change solutions must put justice for Indigenous peoples and forest communities at the centre of efforts to halt deforestation. The weakening of the rights of Indigenous peoples is one of the biggest concerns with REDD and one of the most difficult to resolve. As a market-based mechanism with carbon emissions and climate change mitigation its main emphasis, REDD is not well adapted to value and protect the populations whose livelihoods derive from forests. While REDD+ attempted to extend the original REDD mechanisms to include developmental impacts and project governance arrangements are meant to make provision for stakeholder consultation and the settlement of disputes, NGOs continue to report tension and conflicts with respect to land tenure in REDD project areas.32 Indigenous groups have expressed
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 1996 <http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/ global/hdr1996/> Accessed 28 January 2012. 26 Lack of forest definition major obstacle in fight to protect rainforests, The Ecologist <www.theecologist.org/ News/news_analysis/640908/lack_of_forest_definition_major_obstacle_in_fight_to_protect_rainforests.html> accessed 28 January 2012. 27 Palm oil giant accused of rainforest destruction caught red-handed, Ecologist, 29th July, 2010 <www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/550481/palm_oil_giant_accused_of_rainforest_destruction_caug ht_redhanded.html Accessed 28 January 2012. 28 Many of Australias most treasured National Parks have been selectively logged. The World Heritage listed Border Ranges National Park, for example, was selectively logged of all cedar trees more than 100 years ago. 29 Lack of forest definition major obstacle in fight to protect rainforests, The Ecologist <www.theecologist.org/ News/news_analysis/640908/lack_of_forest_definition_major_obstacle_in_fight_to_protect_rainforests.html> Accessed 28 January 2012. 30 Ibid. 31 REDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008. <www.foei.org/en/resources/ publications/pdfs/2008/redd-myths/view> accessed 28 January 2012. 32 Ibid.
The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner 6
25

concern that that REDD projects, in particular the Australian funded Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership, the first large scale REDD project in the region, do not address the true drivers of deforestation in the area and it does not recognise customary Dayak wisdom.33 According 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 any REDD 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 many millennia from decayed plants, animals and sea creatures that accumulated in the oceans. The carbon 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. This is because carbon stored in the atmosphere-land-ocean cycle is dynamic and in flux over relatively short-time periods. 36 Unlike fossil fuels buried underground, carbon in trees is temporary and more precarious. Trees can easily release carbon into the atmosphere through fire, disease, climatic changes, and natural decay; and of course deforestation. Land use change 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 schemes The idea of REDD is that the minority world produce carbon credits from deforestation efforts and that these are purchased by emitters from majority world countries and used as a carbon offset. The premise being that by purchasing additional carbon offsets it will compensate for the polluters emissions. Carbon credits generated by offset projects such as REDD would be used by minority-world governments and corporations to meet emission reduction targets. One criticism of offset schemes like REDD is that minority world countries might, in effect, outsource the responsibility of reducing carbon emissions to majority world countries, by buying carbon offsets but continuing to emit greenhouse gases at home on a business as usual basis.37 Carbon offsets schemes like REDD will not, alone, reduce global emissions. Instead they simply offset emissions elsewhere by cutting back on or avoiding further emissions that were supposedly planned. Maintaining carbon sinks in forests will not bring about a transformation out of the pattern of consumption and behaviour that are the root causes of deforestation, climate change and resource depletion. Carbon from fossil fuel stores will continue to be extracted and emitted by companies and consumers mostly from the minority world. Carbon offset schemes like REDD may simply enable continued and even increased emissions from fossil fuels to occur. A rich country offsetting via REDD to fulfill their emission reduction targets is no substitute for actual cuts in emissions. 3.6 Perverse incentives Another concern is that REDD could result in range of perverse incentives. One example is
33 34

Ibid. REDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008. <www.foei.org/en/resources/ publications/pdfs/2008/redd-myths/view> accessed 28 January 2012. 35 Ibid. 36 Greenpeace, Bad Influence how McKinsey-inspired plans lead to rainforest destruction, April 7, 2011, <www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/forests/2011/ Greenpeace_BadInfluence_Report_LOWRES(2).pdf> accessed 28 January 2012. 37 Ibid.
The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner 7

how countries that have already taken effective action to prevent deforestation will be unable to benefit from a REDD scheme. 38 REDD will, paradoxically, end up rewarding the worst offenders, since they would have the greatest scope to mend their ways, and get paid to do so. 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 4.1 The Indonesian Government Deforestation in Indonesia is largely the result of a historically corrupt political and economic system.40 During the period of former Indonesian President Suhartos authoritarian 32 year rule, logging concessions covering more than half the countrys total forest area where awarded, many to Suharto relatives and political allies. 41 Cronyism meant that timber companies operated with little regard for long-term sustainability of production. Post-Suharto the situation has arguably improved, with the government now less willing to protect corporate 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 of regional autonomy after regional unresent in the provinces of Aceh and West Papua.42 Provincial and district governments set to benefit from decentralisation do not however have the capacities or funds needed to govern effectively let alone implement a complex administrative regime like REDD. Raising short-term revenue will be a top priority in poor less developed regions such as Kalimantan. This is likely to increase 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 majority world with tropical forests. It was formed in 2005 after a call by the then Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare,43 for a mechanism that would allow countries to reduce 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 REDD initiative and the intergovernmental organisation remains a key player in REDD negotiations.
Paying to save Trees: Last Gasp for Forests, The Economist, 24 September 2009 <www.economist.com /node/14492973> accessed 30 January 2011. 39 Plans to protect forests could do the opposite, warns Friends of the Earth, The Guardian, < www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/25/friends-earth-forests> accessed 30 January 2011. 40 Global Forest Watch Indonesia's Forests in Brief <www.globalforestwatch.org/english/indonesia /forests.htm> 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 <www.globalforestwatch.org/common/indonesia/ sof.indonesia.english.low.pdf> accessed 30 January 2011. 42 Butt, Simon, Regional Autonomy and Legal Disorder: The Proliferation of Local Laws in Indonesia, Sydney Law Review Vol 32: 177. <http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_32/slr32_2/Butt.pdf> 43 Countries that are part of the CfRN include: Argentina, Bangladesh, Belize, Cameroon, Central African Republic, 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, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. Montreal, 47 + iii pages.
The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner 8
38

It is also true that the CfRN expect the scheme to generate significant levels of income for their countries. Whether funds are channeled through governments or directly to project managers, 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 faced implementing 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 critical role. Large and small NGOs are active on REDD governance issues across a wide range of areas, undertaking research, monitoring compliance with laws, exposing poor governance practices, organising consumer boycotts, direct action and rallies, promoting community awareness, planning strategies and participating in implementation. While united on the need for actions on deforestation, NGOs have diverse views on REDD. Some, including Flora and Fauna and WWF, play facilitative roles, constructively participating in designing and implementing pilot projects as well as representing local communities at the multistakeholder 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 cast themselves as REDD watchdogs and critics. Friends of the Earth for example vigorously opposes REDD in its current form. The organisation has published a number of high quality research papers documenting the shortcomings of REDD and are campaigning for a halt to REDD projects in Kalimantan and globally. 48 Greenpeace are also highly critical of REDD in its current form and have a presence in Kalimantan that they use to investigate and document deforestation in areas in or close to REDD projects. Greenpeace are also publicising illegal logging, mobilising local communities and staging blockades in the region.49 Telepak, an Indonesian NGO, has released video exposing illegal logging by Malaysian owned company that was supposed to be protected under a REDD pilot scheme. 50 Telapak also released a report documenting a Malaysian palm oil company clearing forest in Kalimantan apparently in breach of the countrys forestry moratorium. 51 4.4 Indigenous communities The Dayaks are among the Indigenous groups that have existed in harmony with the forest of Kalimantan for thousands of years. The survival of the Dayak people and their traditional
45 See REDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008. <www.foei.org/en/resources/ publications/pdfs/2008/redd-myths/view> accessed 28 January 2012; and Greenpeace, Bad Influence how McKinsey-inspired plans lead to rainforest destruction, April 7, 2011, <www.greenpeace.org/international/ Global/international/publications/forests/2011/Greenpeace_BadInfluence_Report_LOWRES(2).pdf> accessed 28 January 2012. 46 McNeill, Desmond and Howell, Signe, Norway and REDD in Indonesia: the art of not governing? < www.fau.dk/NC/Abstracts_and_papers/Papers/W14_paper_McNeill.pdf> (Accessed 28 January 2012). 47 Ibid. 48 REDD Myths, Friends of the Earth International, December 2008. <http://www.foei.org/en/resources/ publications/pdfs/2008/redd-myths/view> accessed 28 January 2012. 49 Greenpeace, Bad Influence how McKinsey-inspired plans lead to rainforest destruction, April 7, 2011, <www.greenpeace.org/international/ Global/international/publications/forests/2011/Greenpeace_BadInfluence _Report_LOWRES(2).pdf> accessed 28 January 2012. 50 Hoisington, Caroline; Rough trade - How Australia's trade policies contribute to illegal logging in the Pacific Region, Institute Paper No. 5, October 2010 <www.questions.com.au/issues_ideas/pdf/AI_Rough_trade.pdf> 51 Ibid.

The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner

way of life depends on the continued existence of the Kalimantan forests they live in. Like other Indigenous forest inhabitants the Dayak source food, medicine, building materials and fuel wood directly from forests, and depend on forest ecosystem services for water supply.52 In 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 that REDD could conflict with centuries-old indigenous practices like shifting cultivation and agro-forestry, knowledge indigenous people have used to manage their natural landscapes sustainably for thousands of years. 54 There are also concerns that REDD will see the financial value of forests goes up and as Indigenous communities rarely have formal land title to the forests they inhabit, governments and companies will be motivated to forcibly eject them from 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 $273 million 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 the Australian government claims is the worlds first large-scale REDD pilot project known as the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership project. 56 The Australian government hopes this project will be a platform to establish REDD as a UN-sanctioned source of low-cost carbon offsets for Australia.57 The partnership is trialling a market-oriented approach to financing and implementing measures to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Australia sees its role as working with the Indonesian government and other majority world nations to demonstrate how technical and policy hurdles to REDD might be addressed. Lessons learned will support international efforts under the UNFCCC to design REDD financial mechanisms.58 5. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND REDD REFORM The devastating consequences and long-term impact of climate change, resource depletion and population growth has brought the orienting principles of humanitys governance systems and institutions into question. To create more supportive environments for Indigenous peoples and protect the worlds remaining forests, our governance regimes and trading rules need to change to integrate sustainable development practices into the core of

52

The 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 some form for their livelihood. See: Sustainable Forest Management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. Montreal. <www.cbd.int/development/doc/cbd-good-practice-guide-forestry-booklet-web-en.pdf> accessed 1 February 2012. 53 See <www.redd-monitor.org/2011/06/15/stop-the-indonesia-australia-redd-project-indigenous-peoplesopposition-to-the-kalimantan-forests-and-climate-partnership/> accessed 31 January 2012. 54 Lim, Alva, Forbidden forest of the Dayak people, July 28, 2009 <http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/forbidden-forestof-the-dayak/> accessed 31 January 2012. 55 See briefing papers and facts sheets from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Action under the International Forest Carbon Initiative, Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership <www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/international-forest-carbon-initiative/action.aspx> accessed 30 January 2012. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 The KFCP is part of Australias International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI) administered by the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and AusAID. < http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/international-forest-carbon-initiative.aspx >
The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner 10

their operations. This will require fundamental reform; no less than a complete reorientation of 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 coordination that existing systems have not proven capable of delivering. While disappointing this should not come as a great surprise. Our existing governance institutions and systems evolved from bygone eras.59 They were designed for different social and economic challenges. We are now in a new paradigm; one where we are rapidly approaching the absolute limits of the worlds natural resources. Where we are denuding our forests, depleting our 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 appetite for resources keeps growing. We urgently need to create a new, more sustainable course for the future; one that strengthens equality and well-being while protecting our planet. Todays dominant international governance arrangements do not provide the supportive environments necessary to resist the drivers of deforestation and climate change. Our systems need to reorientate away from the dominant free-market, consumption driven paradigm toward alternative approaches that prioritises environmental and social well being of those most in need, not the pursuit of economic growth alone.60 There are many alternative ways we could organise ourselves to embark upon the necessary transformation. One approach could come in the form of a new world parliament, a refined and reformed UN, to replace the international governing bodies currently in place, to instil greater democracy and promote a social and economic transformation into more sustainable ways of being. Another progressive option would be a new Fair Trade Organisation to replace the WTO, with set mandatory standards for international corporations, and an International Clearing Union, first conceived by the economist John Maynard Keynes, to automatically rectify trade imbalances and prevent 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, extending the deforestation agenda beyond climate change giving greater focus to developing ongoing alternative incomes for communities otherwise reliant on logging and palm oil while ensuring Indigenous peoples and local communities benefit from any forest protection schemes based in their ancestral lands. These are just some alternatives worth consideration as part of an examination of deforestation and climate change issues. A coherent and comprehensive set of REDD 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.
For 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 as the 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 agreement between the victors of World War II. Nation states are largely a colonial anachronism that often have little regard 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: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, vol.6, no.2, (July 2000) <http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol6/ trainer_where.htm> accessed 28 January 2012. 61 These ideas were adapted from: Monbiot, George, The Age of Consent: A manifesto for a new world order, Flamingo, 2003.
The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner 11
59

5. CONCLUSION Much 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, let alone other environmental and social goals. There are numerous structural, regulatory, political and ethical problems associated with REDD that need to be urgently considered and addressed. A mechanism like REDD may have a part to play provided the kinds of problems highlighted 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 sustainable ways of being, there is no one-way to save our forests. For effective, and just climate action to be realised worldwide, immediate emissions reductions are required in industrialised countries. The minority world needs to stop pumping emissions into the atmosphere and all our remaining forests need to be protected.

The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY Agenda 21, Earth Summit, The United Nations Programme for Action from Rio (2002) < www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm>. Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET) web site <http://aftinet.org.au> (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 the 21st century, Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Freedman, Milton, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can 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 to Climate 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 Reduce Emissions From Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries, Amsterdam: Friends of the Earth International Hawken, Paul; Lovin, Amory; Lovin, L Hunter; Natural Capitalism The next industrial revolution, Earthscan Publications, 1999. McNeill, Desmond and Howell, Signe, Norway and REDD in Indonesia: the art of not governing? < http://www.fau.dk/NC/Abstracts_and_papers/Papers/W14_paper_McNeill.pdf> (Accessed 28 January 2012). Monbiot, George, The Age of Consent: A manifesto for a new world order, Flamingo, 2003. Morrissey, Lily; Seeing REDD in Indonesia, 2 Jun 2011 <http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/ seeing-redd-indonesia> Morita, Sachiko and Zaelke, Durwood, The Rule of Law, Good Governance and Sustainable Development, Seventh International Conference on Environmental compliance and enforcement, 20-24 June 2011. <http://www.inece.org/conference/7/vol1/05_Sachiko_Zaelke.pdf> Accessed 10 December 2011.

The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner

13

Pearce, D.; Hamilton, K.; Atkinson, G.; Measuring sustainable development: progress on indicators, 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. <http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2008/redd-myths/view> accessed 28 January 2012. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2009. Sustainable Forest Management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. Montreal, 47 + iii pages. Semi-Annual report 2011 for UN-REDD programme Indonesia, October 2011, < www.unredd.org/UNREDDProgramme/CountryActions/Indonesia/tabid/987/ language/enUS/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) <http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol6/trainer_where.htm> United National Development Programme, Governance for sustainable human development, A UNDP policy document, Good governance - and sustainable human development <www.undp.org/magnet/policy> (accessed 28 January 2012). United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Yekti Maunati , Sharing the Fruit of Forestry Products: Indigenous People and Their Incomes in the Forestry Sector in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 24 <http://www.adbi.org/files /2005.02.dp24.forestry.sector.indonesia.pdf> accessed 1 February 2012.

The Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme in Kalimantan Aaron Magner

14