Forest Conservation - A New Form of Genocide?

A recent press release from Ecoterra International uses strong words for condemning the Paris Agreement, specifically its Article 5 relating to the conservation and promotion of forests for climate protection.

“The Paris Agreement is a trade agreement, nothing more. It promises to privatize, commodify, and sell forest and agriculture lands as carbon offsets in fraudulent schemes such as REDD+”, the press release quotes a human and indigenous rights attorney, who certainly did not take the trouble to read the original text.

This is not the first, and certainly not the last time indigenous organizations criticize the climate regime. Often times, this criticism is meeting friendly ignorance; after all, who wants to contradict and be labeled neo-colonialist! The usual reaction of international organizations and funds is to take on board stronger language on social safeguards. However, the underlying misunderstandings are hardly ever addressed. Thereby, indigenous representatives, feeling mildly omitted, often find themselves among false friends, whose agenda has nothing to do with the respect for Mother Earth. “The sacred air we breathe is being sold to the highest bidder”, the press release quotes a Mapuche representative. This type of naiveties disqualifies the indigenous cause. Let’s try and take the bull by the horns:

Indigenous representatives often find themselves among false friends, whose agenda has nothing to do with the respect for Mother Earth

Market solutions for environmental problems: A linear, resource-plundering economy has been degrading landscapes all over the world. When forests are lost, indigenous populations and other forest dwellers have always been the first to suffer. Capitalist or communist, whatever the system in place, did not make any difference in the damage caused. Historically, command-and-control is the name of the game to minimize human impact on the environment. The regulatory toolbox requires high capacities in monitoring, governance and enforcement. Worldwide, most forests in developing countries are lost due to illegal deforestation, which means that command-and-control has been failing. The market toolbox, paying landowners for ecosystem services, is trying to solve the question: How can we turn the linear economy into a cyclical one? Monitoring is done by the landowners themselves, who also provide for independent verification, in order to receive the environmental service payment. The Paris Agreement leaves the ultimate decision on which toolbox to use to the countries themselves. It foresees bilateral and multilateral performance-based payments to governments who successfully implement forest protection and promotion policies. How any of these policy instruments benefits indigenous people is a national decision. Having multilateral donors watching all aspects of policy implementation, including human rights, should nevertheless be comforting to indigenous people.

When forests are lost, indigenous populations and other forest dwellers are always the first to suffer.

Today, there is a limited number of voluntary REDD+ projects, which are no longer being supported under the Paris Agreement. They are selling a minimal quantity of voluntary carbon credits, and these do not create any real emission allowances for the buyers. Most of them apply strict safeguards to protect local populations from negative project impacts, and they are third-party certified.

Ownership of natural resources: Can anybody own forests or other land? Don’t we all borrow land from future generations? These legitimate philosophical questions must not divert from the fact that most deforestation occurs in areas whose ownership is unclear or disputed. Different legislations offer different instruments for land ownership, be it long-term lease or property. Under many national legislation, all forests are owned by the state, like in Indonesia, which has not been able to prevent their loss. Forests belonging to indigenous populations are usually best protected, because people who live on the same area over generations have to live in partnership with Mother Earth. Indigenous populations often benefit from non-codified customary rights, and mining companies have developed ample legal expertise in depriving them of their inherited habitat. Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) has been the answer of well-meaning development assistance institutions to unplanned forest loss, helping governments taking over control of what is happening on their territories. REDD+ under the Paris Agreement has become a policy instrument that supports forest governance. The REDD+ Article 5 does not stipulate the carbon market as an instrument; on the contrary, it stresses non-carbon benefits as crucial for the integral and sustainable management of forests.

Preserving the climate is a common goal, and in Paris, the parties to the Climate Convention found far-reaching agreement on this goal. Under the scenario of global warming indigenous populations are likely to be the most affected. The world’s rural areas need indigenous wisdom for the sustainable management of natural resources for the benefit of all of us. Ecoterra and others, get out of your anti-imperialist battlefield trenches, we need your social ingenuity to make peace with nature!