REDD Myths: A critical review of proposed mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries Friends of the Earth International, Issue 114, December 2008
Friends of the Earth International (FOE), an environmental activist group, announced its opposition to REDD via a report titled REDD Myths released at the UNFCCC talks in Poznan.
The report highlights three main areas of concern:
- Land Rights: Giving forests a market value is likely to lead to an increase in state and corporate control of forests. Because there is currently little global and national recognition of customary and territory rights, this will make Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities vulnerable to losing their land. Injecting money through the same channels that are currently responsible for illegal deforestation could reinforce corruption.
- Offsetting: Forest carbon trading is inherently flawed because it does not mitigate emissions. Emissions theoretically saved by reducing deforestation would simply be used to sanction the use of fossil fuels elsewhere. This carbon offsetting will undermine current and future emissions reductions agreed by industrialised countries.
- Plantations: Under the current proposals, plantations could be defined as forests — so REDD funding could be used to replace forests with large monoculture plantations. At best plantations only store 20 per cent of the carbon of intact forests. Replacing forests with plantations has devastating environmental consequences as well as social and economic impacts on forest-communities.
“Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities may also find it hard to benefit from REDD even if they actively wish to participate in REDD projects. Firstly, if they are not engaged in unsustainable deforestation they may not qualify for REDD incentives. Secondly, they may be disadvantaged by uncertainties or conflicts over land tenure (and these conflicts are even less likely to be resolved in their favour if forests increase in value). Thirdly, because of the uncertainties associated with deforestation projects (because of storms or forest fires, for example) project managers are likely to find themselves saddled with the projects’ risks and liabilities. They may also find themselves responsible for finding upfront funding and operational costs to tide them over until they are paid at the end of the project period. Either way, larger and richer organisations operating to economies of scale can deal with these difficulties much more easily, than Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who may therefore find themselves in a poor negotiating position right from the start. They may also have to address language barriers and hire or find assistance to deal with the technical complexities involved in establishing, monitoring and verifying REDD projects.” - Extract from REDD Myths
Download the 44-page FOE report REDD Myths [pdf]… Also available in Spanish and French.
