REDD: Lack of Political debate

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) sounds like a good idea, but with closer inspection seems to reveal a number of problems. One of the concerns here in Copenhagen, especially amongst indigenous and poorer peoples, is that the strategies could have a disastrous impact on biodiversity and the lives and land of Indigenous Peoples in developing countries.

The involvement of Indigenous Peoples and other forest-dependent communities in the development of REDD strategies and projects differs significantly from country to country, however there are numerous key issues that arise. These issues include the lack of consultation and inclusion of indigenous peoples, no recognition of the involvement of women who will be most impacted, concerns with lack of biodiversity and increase of monocultures, protection of indigenous property rights, the threat to the world’s natural forests, and the fact that Market-based approaches to REDD are complex yet lucrative, a combination that discourages community participation but encourages fraud and corruption. For most of the people in these areas climate negotiations should not be focused on discussing REDD and other market-based mechanisms, but rather on the transition to a new production, distribution and consumption model based on agro-ecology, on a solidarity-based economic approach, and on a diversified and decentralized energy matrix capable of ensuring food security and sovereignty.

The Industrialized nations are pushing hard for this market based approach, but it is becoming another instrument for creating phantom wealth.  Since mono crops and bio-fuels are included in the equation, the impact on biodiversity would further exacerbate the environmental problems. As money is involved in payment for carbon credits, it is likely that the people of the forest would get little or no return for their participation. Indigenous peoples have been protecting the forests for thousands of years. It is the richer nations that have been responsible for most of the destruction. Who would be best to leave as the stewards of the land, the people of the forest or big business? Can the market really be expected to take responsibility for the future of life on this planet? Seems to me like putting the fox in the house to guard the hens…