New climate change mitigation schemes could benefit elites rather than the rural poor

It’s nice to see somebody worried about elitism and climate change. The Climate Change Conference (COP16), to be held later this year in Cancun, Mexico may be yet another demonstration of private jets, limos, and excess in the name of climate change. Frankly thoughy I think it will be muted compared to the consumption orgy we witnessed at Copenhagen COP15.

A key event in the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference stresses role of improved forest governance in determining whether REDD+ will flounder or flourish

This press release is available in Spanish.

Oaxaca, Mexico (3 September 2010)—With governments across Latin America preparing to implement a new financial mechanism aimed at mitigating climate change by curbing carbon emissions from the destruction of tropical forests, experts gathering here today warned against a “one-size-fits-all” approach, calling instead for flexible, balanced solutions to the thorny dilemmas surrounding this new mechanism. Among the experts’ chief worries is that the wealthy and powerful could capture many of the benefits, largely at the expense of rural communities, including indigenous groups.

Organized by Mexico’s National Forestry Commission and the Swiss government, with scientific support from CIFOR, this conference—which opened on August 31 and convenes through Friday, September 3—is the fourth in a series of country-led initiatives focusing on forest governance and decentralization in support of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF). It will feed into a UNFF meeting to take place in early 2011, marking the launch of the International Year of Forests. It brought together scientists, as well as representatives of governments and nongovernment organizations, for discussions on governance, decentralization and REDD+ in Latin America.

Under REDD+ (for reducing deforestation and forest degradation), industrialized countries will provide developing nations with sizeable sums of money in exchange for verifiable storage of carbon in forests, in addition to the conservation and sustainable management of forests. Forest destruction currently accounts for 12 to 18 percent of annual global carbon emissions. Several Latin American countries, including Mexico, have taken the lead in designing REDD+ schemes and stand to benefit significantly.

“Good forest governance – involving transparent and inclusive relationships between governments, forests and the people who depend on them – is fundamental for ensuring that REDD+ helps forest-dependent communities move out of poverty, instead of fueling corruption and funding entrenched bureaucracies,” said Elena Petkova, a scientist with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). “REDD+ schemes could either flounder on governance failures or flourish under successful governance.”

The central aim of the conference in Oaxaca – was to provide science-based advice on the design and implementation of REDD+ schemes, so these schemes can capture carbon and reduce emissions effectively, while at the same time generate significant benefits from sustainable forest management that are equitably shared.

“About 40 years of public sector investment in curbing deforestation, while producing many local successes, has fallen far short of its goal,” said CIFOR scientist Andrew Wardell. “REDD+ might be our last chance to save the world’s tropical forests. So, it’s extremely important to get it right in Latin America and elsewhere. This region holds nearly a quarter of the world’s forests, upon which millions of people depend, and over the last five years, it has accounted for 65 percent of global net forest loss.”

The conference in Oaxaca also marks a key milestone in preparations for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP16), to be held later this year in Cancun, Mexico. Among other contributions, it will help shape the content of Forest Day 4, the fourth in a series of influential events taking place alongside COP16, which have heightened awareness of the important role forests play in mitigating and adapting to climate change. Last year’s event attracted 1,500 forestry experts, policymakers, activists and others, including three Nobel Laureates and two former heads of state.

The note of caution about REDD+ sounded by participants in the Oaxaca conference reflects extensive evidence of major barriers to forest governance reform in Latin America, including burdensome, unrealistic and contradictory government regulations; widespread disregard for owners’ rights to forest use, even when these have been legally granted; and continuing corruption and illegal logging.

Yet, forestry experts are not necessarily pessimistic, citing a number of positive developments. Among these are Brazil’s extraordinary progress in monitoring forests to detect illegal logging and Costa Rica’s simplified standards for sustainable forest management. Such achievements provide grounds for hope and useful models from which to learn in designing successful REDD+ schemes.

Another encouraging trend, according to several conference presentations, is the wave of land tenure change that has swept Latin America since the 1980s, often building on earlier agrarian reforms. This has helped greatly to clarify the rights of diverse rural groups, especially those of indigenous people, thus meeting an important, though not sufficient, requirement for sustainable forest management.

As a result of far-reaching land tenure reforms in Mexico, for example, most of the country’s 64 million hectares of forest are now owned by rural communities, including many indigenous groups. Much evidence in Latin America has shown that such communities, as local custodians of forest resources, are often more successful in protecting them than are formally protected areas overseen by governments.

Rural people have also proved to be a powerful force for creating local forestry enterprises, which raise rural incomes and foster sustainable practices. In the Sierra Norte region of Oaxaca, for example, community forest management has gained ground economically through commercial timber production, ecotourism and other enterprises, while also registering a modest increase in forest cover.

“Mexico’s long tradition of community forest management provides a strong foundation for local action, which is highly relevant to the design and implementation of REDD+,” said José Carlos Fernández Ugalde, head of international affairs at CONAFOR, Mexico’s National Forestry Commission.

Despite such experiences, some indigenous groups fear they will receive little but crumbs from the REDD+ table, to paraphrase one conference presentation. During recent conferences in Bolivia and Costa Rica, representatives of such groups complained that, just as they have historically been deprived of benefits from the use of natural resources in their territories, including timber, minerals and hydrocarbons, history will likely repeat itself, as “carbon cowboys” descend upon them with new, but ultimately empty, promises of big benefits.

Their fears are fueled by the broader concern that REDD+ will prompt governments to recentralize forest management, reversing many of the gains that have accrued to rural people from recent land tenure and decentralization reforms. The temptation to seize control of large sums of money, the argument goes, on the pretext that only governments can be held accountable for the use of this money to reduce carbon emissions, could prove irresistible.

In the case of Brazil at least, that is an unlikely outcome, according to one conference presentation, because the central government of such a large country cannot possibly monitor land use across its entire territory and must therefore rely heavily on local authorities to perform this function efficiently.

“Far from reversing the decentralization of forest management,” the author said, “REDD+ could provide new incentives and resources for building local capacity. Besides, if local populations believe they are being harmed or deprived of due benefits, they can simply sabotage REDD+ schemes.”

“If REDD+ is to succeed, it must not come from central government decrees that undermine rural communities,” said Christian Küchli of Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment. “It must have local support and involve increased resource flows to rural areas, with adequate safeguards in a balanced regulatory framework.”

###

Center for International Forestry Research

CIFOR advances human wellbeing, environmental conservation and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries. CIFOR is one of 15 centres within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CIFOR’s headquarters are in Bogor, Indonesia. It also has offices elsewhere in Asia as well as in Africa and South America.

Editor’s note: For additional photos, stories on forests and climate change, and live updates, please visit http://ciforblog.wordpress.com/

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
September 3, 2010 4:46 am

The graphic you use above may have copyright issues as (despite appearances) it doesn’t come from the UN. However, I suspect they’d be more than happy with a free plug. E.g. http://despair.com/viewall.html
N.B. I disclaim all responsibility if this thread is hijacked by commenters noting their favorite demotivators. I won’t do that, so I won’t mention that http://despair.com/ambition.html fits certain people we’ve discussed here.

richard telford
September 3, 2010 4:56 am

“It’s nice to see somebody worried about elitism and climate change”
Nice that you’ve noticed our concern.
Concern at the potential for elites to capture the benefits from climate mitigation measures was a constant theme at the Klimaforum organised in parallel with COP15 in København last December. There was almost uniform contempt for cap-and-trade and offsetting; REDD was strongly critisised for the potenital for rich landowners and corperations to capture the benefits, with the costs falling on the forest dependent people; and biofuels were scarcely more popular than tar sands.

September 3, 2010 5:05 am

The demotivator looks like one on my wall:
Good Leaders Are Like Eagles
We don’t have any eagles here, either.

simpleseekeraftertruth
September 3, 2010 5:35 am

Cutting down a tree then replanting an equivalent only reduces the life expectancy of the felled tree. Within a brief period of time, the sapling is mature. I hope the watermellons and tree-huggers don’t get a toe-hold here otherwise lumberjacks will be called to the Hague for crimes against humanity! The alternative to timber is usually plastic or cement and both produce CO2 during manufacture. Any sign of clear thinking for Cancun or will we see the usual bunfight?

September 3, 2010 5:44 am

I was under the impression that the elites of the world were the ones pushing the scary AGW messages in order to ‘save the world’ with our taxes while spending staggering amounts of money on silly toys such as windmills and and electric automobiles.

simpleseekeraftertruth
September 3, 2010 5:48 am

Oaxaca. Cancun. Getting confused here, looks like Oaxaca leads on to Cancun later in the year. This statement on the UN website makes it clear that it is not only about wood from trees.
” “The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun must do what Copenhagen did not achieve: It must finalize a functioning architecture for implementation that launches global climate action, across the board, especially in developing nations,” said Mr. de Boer.”

September 3, 2010 6:05 am

Trees have a much greater effect on climate as they take up and evaporate water than through storing carbon and the time frame is much shorter. They lower and moderate surface air temperature. We have long known that forest managment and green areas in cities is good. That said, paying governments to do what they know they should do is like paying children to do their home work. Paying some green organization through carbon offsets is a very bad idea.

Enneagram
September 3, 2010 6:25 am

With the carbon market value at ZERO, this is like trying to resuscitate a dead body. Though they may try to fabricate something resembling to be alive, like a voodoo zombie.
In such a case, if there are somo clients around, the market will revive, though artificially. In that event this will be true:
Among the experts’ chief worries is that the wealthy and powerful could capture many of the benefits, largely at the expense of rural communities, including indigenous groups.
Because, for everyone to be happy there should be a nice “spread”, a great difference between what it would be given as “credits”-they have already planned, and said so, to give the indigenous groups of the Amazon basin, US$3.- per each hectare of jungle, and what it would be graciously “collected” from polluters (which btw will keep on polluting) and tax payers paying for their “carbon footprint”, through progressive laws as “Cap&Trade”, which it was estimated to be at the level of US$25 per hectare of forest. Then IF this succeeds, there would be enough “corpse meat” for the “birds of prey” to share.
Conclusion: Global Warming/Clima Change/Green policies are a PONZI SCHEME, the same as “derivatives”.

Ralph
September 3, 2010 6:34 am

…….Good Leaders Are Like Eagles……..
And good scıentısts too.
Galıleo saıd that most scıentısts were lıke starlıngs .. flockıng together and foulıng the ground beneath them. Good scıetısts were lıke eagles, soarıng on theır own ındıvıdual flıghtpaths to enlıghtement.
.

PhilJourdan
September 3, 2010 6:36 am

Another example of “World Governance”? In this country, we have national partks and wild life preserves where development, drilling, logging and mining are forbidden. While the original purpose may have been to preserve the area for people to ogle at, the reality is it serves to ensure that we maintain some of the forests (the “lungs” of the world). This conference seems to extend that thought beyond national borders to different countries.
Regardless of the intent, the outcome is easy to see. Wyoming does not have the political or economic muscle that New York does, yet has 100 times the “preserved” space. In other words, they are the “serfs” for the “lords” of New York to walk around with puffed chests so they can crow about how “green” they are, when in reality they are one of the brownest states in the nation – and apparently proud of it.
So now they seek to make Brazil or Ecuador a “garden” spot, providing some pittance of money for the “nobless oblige” of the “state” to enjoy, while condemning the vast majority of the people to an, at best, subsistent living.
But it is for our own good.

September 3, 2010 6:55 am

To organize a climate conference at the bottom of la Nina isn’t good idea, either.
“Yeah gentlemen, global temperatures are back on the level of 1940s even per HadCRUT, so we have to act NOW!”

Henry chance
September 3, 2010 7:20 am

Timing is important. They should have done the conference in high heat July when Russia was burning and washington was sweating. Now is too late.

Enneagram
September 3, 2010 7:27 am

Mistake:
which it was estimated to be at the level of US$25 per hectare of forest.
It must read like this:
US$25 per ton of captured carbon/hectare, or about US$137,500/HA., which, means a difference or “spread” of US$137,497/HA, enough for nice and pretty birds of prey.

paulw
September 3, 2010 7:28 am

“New climate change mitigation schemes could benefit elites rather than the rural poor”
Anthony, you post a press release with a short (one paragraph) commentary of yours. Could you please add in these commentaries some text that refers to the choice of the post title?
You comment on the limos that the world leaders will be driving, and I accept that.
But I would like to see commentary for the part that elites could benefit rather than the rural poor.
Brazil has amazing rainforests and considering what we did (in the US, Britain, Europe) where we cut down our forests for development, it is ironic to ask them (Brazil) not to develop their land.
Wouldn’t it make sense to pay Brazil simply for the purpose to keep the rainforests intact (instead of developing the land)? Would that be such an unreasonable request?

Enneagram
September 3, 2010 7:32 am

Be very attentive everyone, as the biggest forest area is the AMAZON JUNGLE. This would represent a big percentage of the GW ponzi scheme, being recovered after the Copenhagen fiasco.
This is worst than a ponzi scheme as there are not any real assets behind, only the imaginary CO2 positive feedbacks.

Enneagram
September 3, 2010 7:40 am

Just remember YOU have been chosen and honoured to be the DONOR.

Enneagram
September 3, 2010 7:51 am

Henry chance says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:20 am
Timing is important. They should have done the conference in high heat July when Russia was burning and washington was sweating. Now is too late.

The meeting ends TODAY, and as it is not in the news, it will achieve its goal of reviving the CARBON MARKET for a few poor guys in Wall Street.

Pascvaks
September 3, 2010 7:54 am

New York has a ‘vested interest’ in preserving their natural environment as much as Wyoming, or Mexico, or Brazil, or any other state or country. This idea that a nation should pay any state or the world should pay any nation to maintain their own natural environment is idiotic, insane, blackmail, etc. There are just too many idiot PhD’s and lawyers and politicians and stupid ‘private citizens with too much time and money’. We really are way over due for another Great Depression, Plague, or Meteor Impact, or Ice Age. The idiots far outnumber the sane folks by about 33,000% and that percentage is growing by leaps and bounds. It probably has something to do with CO2 levels, or the Federal Budget, or the value of the dollar. While we’re solving all these problems, let’s revalue the dollar: let’s make the penny worth a dollar, a dollar worth $100, etc., you know, back to the value of money a hundred or so years ago. We are talking about solving everything, left?

hunter
September 3, 2010 7:55 am

And the earlier AGW inspired climate management schemes did exactly the same thing.
The Who’s classic “Won’t Get Fooled Again” comes to mind:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHJ9RMAVGI&fs=1&hl=en_US]

Douglas DC
September 3, 2010 7:57 am

The bird in the graphic should be a vulture….

John T
September 3, 2010 8:02 am

I wonder if they started being concerned about those “elites” when someone mentioned the vast expanses of forest in the US, much of it on government owned land?
Wish I could find that report I saw several years ago calculating net carbon footprints by country, showing the US being one of the few with a net negative footprint due to the expanses of forest and farmland acting as CO2 sinks. After all, a farmer maximizes profit by maximizing yield, which means maximizing biomass created, which means maximizing CO2 sequestration.

Tommy
September 3, 2010 8:06 am

I hope there is protected wilderness, including forests, for my descendents to visit. I hope there is diverse wildlife in the future.
But I don’t think it’s a good idea to base the protection of forests on some carbon quota system. What happens if someone decides there “isn’t enough” carbon in the air in the future? Wouldn’t the same reasoning call for destroying the forests?

latitude
September 3, 2010 8:12 am

“to be held later this year in Cancun, Mexico”
Are any bookies taking odds on it snowing?

Enneagram
September 3, 2010 8:13 am

Pascvaks says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:54 am
It is not idiotic as you say. Yes, of course, you are a man of honor, you could never profit without working hard, but they like it, this is their way of living. Just imagine, for a second, being one of them, hey buddy! we’ll get US$137,497 per hectare of the amazon jungle every year!!, paid by “idiots” like me or you.

Enneagram
September 3, 2010 8:19 am

Hope someone could send this WUWT post to the members of that conference, just to let them know that they are being surveyed, they are not safely hidden to sign anything.

Verified by MonsterInsights