No Rights, No REDD. John-Andrew McNeish

Transcription

1 No Rights, No REDD John-Andrew McNeish

2 No Rights No REDD 1. No Rights No REDD 2. REDD will not work without recognising past experiences of resource governance 3. REDD will not work if it ignores social participation in governance 2

3 1. REDD (Reduced Emissions on Deforestation and Degradation) Over the past 18, the international community has sought to respond to climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from human-related activities Stern Review (2007) and Eliasch Review (2008) argued that forest protection is economically viable, and that it is cheaper and more cost-effective for industrialised countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through payments than to transform their unsustainable fossil fuel-dependent economies and production systems Bali UNFCCC meeting (COP-13), agreement reached on the urgent need to take further meaningful action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation 3

4 Co-benefits Supporting studies suggest that undertaking REDD activities in developing countries represents a cost-effective means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thereby helping to mitigate climate change and protect biodiversity (IPCC, 2007). REDD activities can provide an additional source of income for communities and governments As well as providing revenue for central and provincial governments, REDD activities are billed to provide income or other appropriate means of support for local forest dependent communities: many of whom (but not all) are indigenous 60 million indigenous peoples live in the rainforests of South America, South-East Asia and Central Africa, where their ancestors have been custodians of forests for thousands of years. A further 350 million people live in, or next to, dense forests and rely on them for subsistence or income 4

5 IPs Unlike the UN Convention on Biological Diversity,the UNFCCC includes no formal recognition of indigenous peoples or their interests, nor does the Kyoto Protocol Despite having observer status and active efforts to take part in the COP meetings by large numbers of indigenous peoples and civil society organisations efforts for more formal recognition and participation have been frustrated Whilst there has been a lot of lip-service given to rights and to the co-benefits of REDD, there has been very little practical follow up of these questions (only NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy Trust working on developing practical guidelines for respecting rights) State to State financing: national sovereignty Despite Norway s commitments to a rights based development approach and to indigenous peoples rights: these have been largely avoided in bilateral agreements made by NICFI (Indonesia) 5

6 Peristant avoidance of questions of rights and how to secure co-benefits at the local level have angered indigenous organisations: resulting in statements saying no to REDD. Some of these statements more exaggerate than others i.e. Bolivia s statement of opposition to REDD. The Plurinational State of Bolivia believes that the Cancun text is a hollow and false victory that was imposed without consensus, and its cost will be measured in human lives. History will judge harshly. Most indigenous / forest dweller organisations still looking for a way in to negotiations 6

7 2. Past Experience Many specialists wondering why the governments and large NGOs involved in discussing REDD at the international level are ignoring valuable past experience from a range of development practices i.e. participatory resource governance, payment for environmental services etc Also ignoring past experiences of indigenous peoples with extractive industries, energy and infrastructure projects Although without the same environmental consequences, REDD has many of the same features and social consequences of extractive industries. Also failing to recognize the dangers to investment and political stability of protests against another externally imposed project for development 7

8 3. Social Participation Now countless demonstrating the failure of large scale one size fits all development projects. (James Scott: Seeing like a State: soviet collective farms to the green revolution) Development and Resource Governance not a process of only policy making, bureacracy and institutional design States and economies are social constructs, and therefore need people and social engagement to come into being and change- decide on the appropriateness of instruments and the value of natural resources. Oil and Gas industry: widespread social protagonism a decisive factor in deciding success or failure (Norway s model not really a bureaucratic/ technological outcome, but rather the outcome of long term substantive social participation (statoil ad) - politics not discourse 8