Home 禄 Opinion 禄 Foreign Views
Deforestation initiative gives industrialized countries, corporations excuse to keep polluting
Print Edition
IT’S been 30 years since the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations launched the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, the first global intergovernmental initiative to halt forest loss.
Since then, deforestation has continued unabated, and the latest international effort to stop it — an initiative known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) — looks no more likely to be effective.
The flaws in REDD+ are evident in how it approaches the problem it is meant to solve. The vast majority of its projects treat forest peoples and peasant farmers as the main agents of deforestation.
REDD+ project developers seem to be especially fond of projects that focus on restricting traditional farming practices, even as they shy away from efforts to tackle the true causes of deforestation: the expansion of industrial agriculture, massive infrastructure projects, large-scale logging and out-of-control consumption.
These shortcomings are exemplified in the Socio Bosque Program, a REDD+ initiative in Ecuador, in which efforts to control forest communities and peasant farming overlook the far larger potential damage caused by industrial activity.
At the same time, the program’s documentation nullifies the agreement if the area under its jurisdiction becomes slated for oil exploitation or mining. Today, peasant farmers are being barred from forests as part of the fight against climate change; tomorrow, the same forests could be uprooted in order to allow companies to extract the fossil fuels that are the underlying cause of the problem.
Disturbing rationale
There is a disturbing rationale for this myopic focus on peasants and forest people and for the prominence of this approach on the agendas of international agencies and climate negotiators. REDD+, it turns out, has less to do with stopping forest loss than with allowing industrialized countries to continue to pollute.
The approach underlying the initiative is part of a broader effort to create a market for emission credits, which would allow polluters to continue releasing greenhouse gases if they can produce a certificate attesting that they have contributed toward preventing a similar amount of emissions elsewhere. The forests being protected by REDD+ are important producers of these tradable certificates to pollute, known as carbon credits. And REDD+ implementation through experimental projects provides advocates of this approach a solid foundation on which to advance their agenda.
For industrialized countries, carbon credits have proved to be an easy way to meet their international commitments under agreements like the Kyoto Protocol. If REDD+ credits are approved in Paris, countries and companies could pay peasant farmers in Ecuador or elsewhere to protect trees that programs like REDD+ claim they otherwise would have chopped down — thereby avoiding the need to make difficult structural changes to cut emissions at home.
Under the rules governing these transactions, the fact that no emissions were actually cut does not matter; what is important is that the tradable permission to pollute has been obtained.
For many governments, programs like REDD+ offer an opportunity to avoid politically costly changes. And for international conservation groups, the program provides access to international development and philanthropic funding.
The biggest beneficiaries, of course, are the corporations whose hunger for land is driving most of the large-scale deforestation. In addition to allowing them to continue cutting down trees as long as they can produce the necessary carbon credits, REDD+ effectively shifts the blame for forest loss away from their actions and onto communities that have the greatest stake in forests’ long-term health.
Rather than attempting to control the lives and actions of forest peoples and peasant farmers, the effort in Paris should focus on ending large-scale deforestation and leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
Jutta Kill is a researcher and activist who has written extensively about carbon markets. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2015.www.project-syndicate.org. Shanghai Daily condensed the article.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 娌狪CP璇侊細娌狪CP澶05050403鍙-1
- |
- 浜掕仈缃戞柊闂讳俊鎭湇鍔¤鍙瘉锛31120180004
- |
- 缃戠粶瑙嗗惉璁稿彲璇侊細0909346
- |
- 骞挎挱鐢佃鑺傜洰鍒朵綔璁稿彲璇侊細娌瓧绗354鍙
- |
- 澧炲肩數淇′笟鍔＄粡钀ヨ鍙瘉锛氭勃B2-20120012
Copyright 漏 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
