The Forest Rights Act

REDD-plus given endorsement in principle, details not yet final

Behind the scenes at Copenhagen, talks moved ahead on an international forestry scheme called REDD.  The "Copenhagen Accord" now includes a full paragraph endorsing "REDD plus".  The Indian government has played a key role in pushing a form of "REDD plus" that will actually end up damaging the environment, creating violent conflict and encouraging land grabbing.

The idea looks good on paper; arranging money for protecting forests in the developing world, to make them "more valuable alive than dead."  They talk of making forests a mode of earning carbon permits (i.e. rich country companies get permission to emit more carbon dioxide if they pay for forest protection).

But in practice these talks consciously ignore the reality:

1. A forest is not a collection of wood that can be bought and sold for its carbon content.  It is a living, changing system which is inhabited by and used by people and wildlife.  
2. So, if the government illegally denies people their rights over forests, and at the same time tries to give these forests enormous financial value, then what is to prevent companies/the government from grabbing them for profits?  
3. If the talks simply say that trees are what is important, what is to prevent companies from destroying natural forests and grasslands to replace them with commercial plantations (thereby damaging the environment and potentially releasing even more carbon)?  
4. When scientists themselves say there is no one reliable method to measure how much carbon a forest is storing, how does one decide how many permits can be sold?

Most importantly: if forest protection is being sought, surely the government should be trying to strengthen global forest governance - not weaken it by bringing in private companies and trading.

In fact, the government of India actually seems to want these dangers to come true.  News reports indicated that India was one of a few countries who objected to including any binding requirement that people's rights should be respected in the negotiating text.  India has also been one of the only countries in the world pushing for inclusion of plantation activities in carbon trading under REDD (this is what makes it "REDD plus").  As a result, the draft text being discussed does not include any safeguards on either.  Is this the position of a government that  wants to respect the law, protect forests and mitigate climate change?  Or is it that of a government interested in helping rich countries to escape their obligations and private companies to make money?

Read more at our page on REDD. More documents are now available at that page including 1) a revised background note on the REDD situation after Copenhagen and 2) a brief critique of the draft agreement reached so far on REDD.