This issue is obviously really complicated, it’s crucial that there are international provisions in US legislation. The Unites States must invest in other countries – this included revitalizing forests. Currently the avenue in US legislation is through the REDD provisions. There are so many things wrong with REDD – we must support forests WHILE continuing to restructure these programs so that they support communities rather then destroying them. Equally important is making sure REDD is not an excuse to build more coal plants.

“REDD will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but in fact, it will result in
more violations of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. It will increase the violation
of our Human Rights, our rights to our lands, territories and resources,
steal our land, cause forced evictions, prevent access and threaten
indigenous agriculture practices, destroy biodiversity and culture diversity and
cause social conflicts. Under REDD, States and Carbon Traders will
take more control over our forests . -Indigenous Peoples Statement on REDD to the UN

“REDD could unleash a devastating wave of further forest loss, land grabbing, corruption, cultural
destruction and conflict .” Indigenous Peoples “risk displacement, violence and lost of livelihoods.” -Friends of the Earth

“The vast majority of indigenous peoples feel that the REDD will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but in fact will result in more violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It will increase the violation of our rights to our lands, territories and resources; cause forced evictions; prevent access and threaten indigenous agriculture practices; destroy biodiversity, cultural diversity, traditional livelihoods and knowledge systems; and cause social conflicts. Under REDD, States and carbon traders will take more control over our forests.” -Indigenous Peoples Petition to the Members of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

As the second largest cause of global warming, it is clear that we must address deforestation. But privatizing forests, which also happen to be the homes for millions of people, and selling the carbon rights so that rich nations and multinational corporations can continue to pollute is not the way to do it.

Rachel, the problem with your list of criteria for REDD, is that they are not included in REDD. In fact such language was actually rejected at recent UN meetings. So it is utterly irresponsible for groups such as Avaaz calling for funding for REDD knowing it does not respect indigenous rights.

Indigenous rights aside, it is neither effective nor desirable to allow companies to continue unrestricted burning of fossil fuels in exchange for offsetting their emissions via REDD.

For more critiques of REDD check out: http://www.redd-monitor.org

Thanks, Matt

In a January 2009 interview, Tom Goldtooth (executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network) said, “The positive side to REDD is, well, I guess, no, I don’t see a positive side to REDD. I’m just not sold on an idea that using forest as a carbon offset is a solution. It allows the northern industrialised countries to continue to pollute and even increase greenhouse gases. It creates toxic hotspots and energy sacrifice zones such as the tar sands in Canada or the proposed offshore drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of Alaska. It creates the expansion of coal mining and coal-fired power plants within our Indigenous territories in Southwest U.S. creating compounding changes of climate, toxic and health complications for our communities. REDD provides an “out” for industrialised countries like the U.S. from seriously cutting their carbon emissions. REDD in many ways rewards those wanting to develop industrial tree plantations, the loggers and the agrofuel industry.”

You can read the whole interview at http://www.ienearth.org/docs/InterviewTomGoldtoothREDDMonitor.html.

-A REDD mechanism must make explicit provisions that acknowledge and safeguard the rights, interests and needs of indigenous peoples and local communities in which it operates, and reaffirm rights and benefits under international instruments and treaties, including, inter alia, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

-A REDD mechanism must guarantee the security of land/property/customary use rights of local and indigenous communities as well as provide for and encourage their continued direct participation in the conservation of their forests.

-In many countries, participatory legal reviews to clarify tenure and access rights will be essential before funds from REDD can or should be distributed.

-If the rights, interests and needs of forest dependent peoples are not acknowledged and safeguarded in a REDD scheme, social and economic instability, lack of support, and active resistance to REDD will threaten its effectiveness and permanence and could ultimately cause its demise.

Overall, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation does not have to conflict with protecting indigenous peoples’ rights; indeed it can strengthen them. So the challenges are to a) make sure there is plenty of funding for REDD, and b) fight to make sure the funding mechanism and governance structures are just and effective in an international treaty. The latter fight will be done mostly through international negotiations before and at Copenhagen, but the funding battle is here, now, and critical.

and also, why did all the “strongmen” have to be men? oh wait, patriarchy. also one of the main sponsors of Climate Change.

you all have this opportunity to get up close and personal with the politicians making the decisions that are ruining the future, why don’t you do something a little more radical, in solidarity with people all around the world being totally screwed by the american government and the world bank. please stop promoting capitalism as a solution to climate change, it doesn’t represent the views of those most effected who don’t have the privilege and opportunity to make it to dc to confront senators and have their voices heard [ignored].

REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is being pushed by the World Bank as a scheme to privatize forests as carbon sinks. The US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have opposed any reference to Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The Bank has a track record of failed forest conservation projects that human rights and environmental activists have campaigned against since the 1980’s. They have left behind a trail of human rights abuses and ecological disaster.

The U.N. itself admits that REDD could violate human rights & indigenous rights, marginalize the landless, increase poverty, undermine democracy, promote monoculture tree plantations, criminalize indigenous livelihoods & blame indigenous people for climate change. All the while, it’ll be used as a cover to allow wealthy polluters in the global north to continue to pollute at an increasing rate.

At COP14 in Bali (December 2008), the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC) called for an immediate suspension of all REDD projects.

If the AVAAZ Action Factory is serious about promoting climate justice, they need to immediately retract their support for REDD and take leadership from indigenous communities who have been continually been marginalized by mainstream environmental organizations.

Special thanks to Christine Irvine for an amazing photo, as part of this guerrilla photo shoot.