On August 6th 2010, a news item titled ‘Australia firm signs forest CO2 deal with Malaysia tribes’ was released by Reuters. This was largely based on an press release two days ago from the company in question, Shift2Neutral titled: Shift2Neutral signs agreement to certify REDD+ with tribes of Sarawak Malaysia. In response, the Jaringan Orang Asal Se-Malaysia issued a statement stating that we are not involved with the project (statement can be found here).
Our concern with the project is based on the lack of transparency surrounding the project. The press release by Shift2Neutral did not state which communities were involved or where the lands were, other than a figure of over 100,000 ha. It did not release any information on the nature of the deal other than an agreement to ‘certify carbon credits’ of the forest, presumably by mapping the forest and providing biomass figures.
The Reuters article surprisingly takes the press release one step further by linking that project with the REDD+ negotiations which have yet to see any implementation framework. Sure, there are readiness programmes out there – UN-REDD, World Bank’s FCPF and other bilateral agreements and there is the fledgling REDD Initiative which is sponsored largely by Norway but Malaysia has not signed up for any of these.
So without other knowledge available, the company is promoting a private avoided deforestation scheme, a private REDD, if you will. This is supported by the fact that in the Reuters report, they call the credits VERs instead of CERs, the terminology reserved for UN certified credits, that is credits used for compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. VERs are Voluntary Emissions Reductions, sold on voluntary markets and are subject to vastly different standards.
So what standard is this company using? On its own website, it admits to not using any of the international standards that are available, instead using its own standard ‘in accordance with the International Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the World Bank’. This means that it is not obligated to take on the safeguards for social engagement and biodiversity.
Why is this worrying? After all, self determination should mean that we as fellow Indigenous Peoples should be supportive over IPs taking proactive action to protect their forests and an avoided deforestation project would be ideal for forest IPs. Certainly for me there is no question over the right of IPs on pemakai menoa, our traditional territories. There is, however a right as well to free, prior, informed consent (FPIC) which means that before we take decisions on our lands and resources, we have a right to full information, active participation in the consultation process and the right to say no. This right should be actively facilitated by parties who want to engage with IPs and make sure that the FPIC process is conducted as independently as possible. To do otherwise is tantamount to the age-old job of offering trinkets for land and territories and not a practice that anyone who is sincerely supportive of IPs would do.
The whole experience shows two points: First, buyers of voluntary carbon credits need to be wary that the projects that they are supporting are actually translating into real emissions reductions. How is the project proposing to stop illegal loggers, especially in a scenario where logging conflicts are fueled by state-issued Provisional Leases that overlap native lands? In a state where the political strategy is to not recognize the totality of native customary land rights, even against the explicit judgement of courts, what is the proposal for keeping intact communities’ carbon ownership rights? For how long will the project propose to keep the forest intact?
The second point is that for IPs, the 50-50 promise that Reuters reports needs to be examined and discussed. If the benefits come down through projects and not actual cash, how will the project benefits be distributed through the community? What are they giving up in return for these benefits? Can they still take timber for their houses?
This is why safeguards on the rights of IPs are urgent and needed, not just as international law but because without it in the framework, there is little security, not just for the IP rightsholders but for ensuring that there is actual and true emissions reductions.
I am intrigued by your comments on this matter
I have been following this group for more than 2 years now and if you have, you would know how they operate
Rather than make negative comments why not state why it upsets you so much that you are not invovled in such a worthwhile project
Why is it so important that you are to be told, maybe the most important people involved need to be rather than someone writing a blog who has no knowledge of the actual subject
By: terence on August 12, 2010
at 6:27 pm
If the group you are referring to is the Australian company then certainly we are happy to receive any information provided that you have, especially if you have been following them for two years. My work in the field in Sarawak, on indigenous peoples issues and on climate change is something I am proud of. I do invite more substantive comments otherwise unfortunately I have to assume this is a troll.
By: fwdog on August 12, 2010
at 6:42 pm
Hi fwdog. Just a few points.
1. Malaysia HAS signed international agreements to be part of REDD+. The Federal Government will probably develop nation-wide REDD programs when (if) REDD is included in the post-Kyoto agreement.
2. You can’t get REDD offsets certified under the UN Clean Development Mechanism as they were not included under the Kyoto Protocol. Reforestation and afforestation were included but not ‘reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’. Currently REDD offsets can only be sold on the voluntary market.
Other than that, I agree with your sentiments. FPIC is a necessary first step. I’m just wondering how Shift2Neutral is going to get these ‘worthwhile’ projects actually happening without also consulting with the Sarawak State Government. As someone who first worked with the Dayak people in 1990 I know the situation on the ground, and so I feel sorry for the people who have signed up as it could be raising false hopes. I also am concerned about a report that 9 people signed up for 24 villages. Why didn’t the Headmen from all 24 villages sign? Where were their FPIC? Where are these projects located? Which companies have the concession ‘rights’ to develop palm oil, logging, etc. in these areas and what is their reaction? Which Dayak groups are involved? Are there overlapping NCR (Native Customary Rights) claims in these areas? Maybe Terrence as an investor in Shift2Neutral can answer (.
By: Brett Pritchard on September 12, 2010
at 1:47 pm
Dear Brett,
Please do let me know which international agreements Malaysia has signed to be part of REDD+. As far as I know, they are not part of any of the readiness schemes, both FCPF and UNREDD. Neither are they part of the pilots in the Norwegian REDD (more formally known as the REDD initiative) although they are listed as a country within this partnership, there are no plans to actually implement projects under the REDD initiative. Because they are not currently part of the readiness schemes, I do not know how far along they will be to be able to develop a regulatory-compliant REDD programme within the UNFCCC framework, when UNFCCC does go ahead with it (recalling at this international regulatory stage there is still no agreement, even if the text is much more advanced than the other BAP components). Yes I do know that REDD offsets are sold only on the voluntary market precisely because there is no agreement on either a ‘new’ agreement or a new committment period for the Kyoto Protocol. The tricky thing in terms of the negotiations is whether in the new agreement REDD will be considered under a separate accounting or follow the accounting in the forest CDM projects. The IP caucus vastly prefers the idea of a national project grant system but it is not the favoured mechanism at the negotiations at present which looks toward a ‘phased’ idea of financing. Agreed with the rest of the sentiments.
By: fwdog on September 13, 2010
at 2:34 am