Showing posts with label REDD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REDD. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011

Sustainability is the new buzzword

Dire forecasts about climate change and the global failure to rein in the growing carbon footprint has made it imperative for both industry and grassroots movement to not only advocate sustainability but embrace it.

"Unfortunately for many decades, we have delayed taking action to protect our environment, which is now at the edge of collapse. We have been brushing our problems aside to dream of solutions tomorrow . But now there are no easy options left," said Times Group MD Vineet Jain in a grim warning.

In an address at the Earth Care the awards ceremony on Friday evening, Jain called for striking a balance between development and environment sustainability. "There are no 'either-or ' solutions. We cannot choose one option over another. We have to find a way of accommodating both. This requires imagination, innovation and determination."

ITC Group board member Nakul Anand, in a presentation peppered with figures on the state of the environment, said India lost about 2% of its GDP to environment damage.

Speakers at the gathering of industry honchos, activists and bureaucrats, emphasized unequivocally the urgent need for reforms if the earth was to be saved for the future generation. Minister for rural development, and water & sanitation Jairam Ramesh hailed The Times of India for being the first to make environment "news" .

"The Times of India has made environment front-page news, and it was the possibly the first newspaper to have a full page every Friday dedicated to green issues," he said.

Ramesh also brought up the issue of livelihood sustenance and environment. "We need not lifestyle environmentalism but livelihood environmentalism. What you see are protest movements because land, water and employment is involved. We should be sensitive to these issues," he said.

Elaborating on an inclusive approach, Rajendra Shinde from UNEP Paris, stressed the need for more programmes like the Earth Care Awards that would serve as an encouragement for industry to adopt cleaner practices. "We need millions of these. It's not just about annual events at Cancun and Durban," he said. Talking about the awards, Shinde said it was not just about measuring the carbon footprint or emission reduction. It was also about the process which the participants had gone through to build their own concepts and put them into practical reality.

JSW group chairperson, Sangita Jindal, while lauding the efforts of industry giants, also praised grassroots environmentalists who won the award. "We salute these silent crusaders working for the environment," she said. 


Saturday, September 10, 2011

Malaysian court blocks rainforest tribes' fight against mega-dam in Borneo


Indigenous tribes in Borneo suffered a stinging defeat Thursday after Sarawak's highest court ruled against them in 12-year-long legal battle. Tribal groups had challenged the Malaysian state government for seizing indigenous lands in order to build a massive hydroelectric power plant, dubbed the Bakun dam, but the three-person top court found unanimously against the tribes.

"It is an unfair decision. I have not been fully compensated," said Ngajang Midin, 50, of the Ukit tribe, told the AFP as he cried. "My cocoa and pepper trees are underwater. My ancestors' graves are buried under the sea of water."

The $2.3 billion dollar dam has displaced over 10,000 indigenous people in its path and flooded an area of untouched rainforest the size of Singapore (around 700 square kilometers).





Bakun dam in Sarawak. For details see David Tryse's Flooding Borneo's rainforest: Sarawak's confidential dam plans 2008-2020 [Google Earth KMZ file]
While the decision by the judges was unanimous, they cited different reasons. Only one judge dismissed the appeal because they said the government had not violated the indigenous peoples' rights; the other two judges sided with the government largely due to technicalities.

The court did little to lift the confusion around indigenous land rights in Sarawak. The issue has flooded Sarawak courts with some 200 land rights cases currently making their way through the legal system.

The 2,400 megawatt Bakun dam could hardly be called a success story thus far. Its construction has been plagued with delays and cost overruns. The Sarawak government has argued the dam was needed to power the state, but the dam supplies twice the amount of power used in Sarawak. The additional power is planned to go to a aluminum smelter run by Cahaya Mata Sarawak (CMS) and Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto, currently in construction.

The Bakun dam is a part of Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE) initiative, which will turn the state's rivers into dammed reservoirs, and its forests into open pit mines, wood-pulp plantations, and oil palm estates. Under the initiative the state has plans to build 12 massive dams in total, even though Bakun dam alone provides ample energy for Sarawak. However, the government announced today that one of the dams, Baram dam, was being put on hold due to its impact on indigenous people. If built some 20,000 local people would need to be relocated.

According to critics, the SCORE initiative also provides plenty of opportunities for corruption.

Chief Minister of Sarawak, Adbul Taib Mahmud, who is currently under investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for alleged timber corruption, has been accused of hiding away hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in corrupt money during his 30 years of power. His family controls properties worth hundreds-of-millions of dollars throughout the world despite his annual salary of around $200,000.

The construction company, CMS, which will run the aluminum smelter and supplied materials to the Bakun dam, is closely linked to Adbul Taib Mahmud and his family.

The Great Rainforest Heist: Greenpeace, WWF, RAN, FSC and REDD+ Conspiracy to Log Earth’s Last Primary Forests for Their Protection

WHEN GOOD RAINFOREST GROUPS GO BAD you get monoculture and secondary forest plantations where ancient intact primary rainforests once stood, called sustainable forest management and carbon forestry, by BINGO’s (big NGOs) and United Nations greenwashers, paid for with your membership fees and taxes. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is primary forest logging greenwash by money-sucking environmental bureaucracies. Rainforests and other old forest must be protected and restored for local and global ecology and local eco-development from standing forests.

Please donate now to Ecological Internet’s “End Primary Forest Logging Campaign” at http://www.rainforestportal.org/shared/donate/end_primary_forest_logging/ in order to help turn this draft document into a polished, photogenic, researched and footnoted report on BINGO’s Increased Old Forest Greenwash. Relax, there are typos, but wanted to get this out right now in draft.

INTRODUCTION
What would you say to me if I told you the world’s pre-eminent environmental organizations, widely perceived as the leading advocates for rainforests and old growth, have for decades been actively, indeed intimately, involved in logging the world’s last old forests. Would you call me a liar? Tell me I am mentally ill? Or because of the cognitive dissonance would you simply ignore me, thinking it impossible? Well here goes nothing…

There is a global conspiracy to log the Earth’s last primary forests – destroying ancient forests for disposable consumer items – while claiming it is “sustainable forest management” and “carbon forestry”. A number of public forest advocacy groups are going so far as to actually claim that industrial first-time primary forest logging is good for climate, ecosystems and local peoples.

This essay is not the result of top secret research – it is all public record. For three years of campaigning and this essay, Ecological Internet, the organization I head, has been simply connecting pieces of public record information to see just how big NGOs (BINGOs), and the United Nations have been selling out old forests under the radar. They have been selling out primary rainforests and other old growth in broad-daylight, the perfect crime, for decades – and things are getting much, much worse as moves to allow primary rainforests to be cleared for toxic monoculture plantations gain strength.

If you are a Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), or World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund (WWF) member – you are funding the greenwash destruction of 320,000,000 acres of primary rainforest and other old forest logging. These groups co-founded and have been active members in the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for two decades, an organization that exists to build markets for primary and other old growth forest timbers. Some 70% of FSC forest products – supposedly the best of forest certification – come with primary forest timbers in them, destroying an area of primary rainforests and other old forests across an area the size of South Africa (or two times the size of Texas)!

Primary rainforests cannot be logged in an ecologically sustainable manner – or for that matter even acceptably. Primary forests logged industrially for the first time – FSC certified or otherwise – are destroyed. What remains is permanently ecologically diminished in terms of composition, structure, function, dynamics, and evolutionary potential. Logged primary forests' carbon stores, biodiversity and ecosystems will never be the same in any reasonable time-span. Selective, industrially logged primary rainforests become fragmented, burn more and are prone to outright deforestation.

FSC certified forestry destroys ancient naturally evolved ecosystems that are priceless and sacred. Old forests have a prominent role in making the Earth habitable through their cycling of energy, water, and nutrients. The Forest Stewardship Council is a non-democratic, unaccountable, unrepresentative organization that exists solely to greenwash the final first-time industrial logging and marketing of Earth's original, naturally evolved, and last primary rainforests and other old forests – in order to turn them into tree plantations.

Increasingly both FSC and REDD+ are moving towards certifying and funding the conversion of natural primary forests to be cleared and replanted as plantations. They call it carbon forestry and claim it is a climate good. We ecologists know this destroys primary forests when they become greatly ecologically reduced from first time industrial logging, and are on their way to being plantations. Toxic mono-cultures of trees are not forests, much less when planted on cleared primary rainforests. There is far more carbon stably stored in old forests than toxic monocrop tree plantations, most of whose timbers are in the landfill decomposing within months of harvest.

There is no doubt that these groups – Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace and WWF – are involved in this primary forest logging. Five minutes on Google can confirm this for anyone interested, as each of the old forest logging apologists takes credit for founding and supporting the FSC publicly on their websites. Despite claiming credit, there is little justification for doing so. The logging apologists are closed-mouth regarding their justifications for doing so – but presumably they believe that by industrially logging primary forests they are ending deforestation, and claim that their rules for doing so make it acceptable and superior to other ways of murdering primary forest ecosystems.

But being the best ecocidal rainforest destroyer is nothing of which to be proud. All such deadly old forest certification schemes must stop in order to ensure enough intact terrestrial ecosystems exist to power Earth’s biosphere. For nearly 20 years the FSC has certified as "well-managed" and “sustainable” primary old forest logging on a massive scale. Competing certifiers make similar claims, as do old school non-certified primary forest loggers. FSC legitimatizes this larger trade in old forest timber products, and a false market for green products from the destruction of ancient trees.

FSC is primary forest logging with Greenpeace, RAN and WWF greenwash, corruption, conflicts of interest, bad ecology, and ecocide. 500 year old trees in 60 million year old primary rainforests and other old forests are chopped for toilet paper, lawn furniture and other such “necessities” with these groups’ greenwash and marketing clout. The rainforest logging apologists – with little or no accountability, transparency, or openness are killing Earth’s last old forests. They – particularly WWF – boast they are creating markets for ancient trees industrially pillaged from primary forests, and such market forest logging campaigns are thus little better than illegal logging, which at least is honest that it is about the money for old forest timbers.

After 20 years of working prominently with various stakeholders in the rainforest movement, I have seen a whole generation of promising activists and groups sell out for good paying jobs, saying logging old forests protects them. None have fallen as dramatically or treacherously as Greenpeace and RAN and their staff (you sort of expect this corporate greenwash bullshit from WWF and the United Nations) who suckle on the teat of rainforest logging everyday for decades. The UN’s “Avoided Deforestation” work – which is now known as REDD+ – is to pay to marketizes rainforests claiming "sustainable forest management" of primary forests – turning them into secondary forests and always ultimately into tree plantations – is a public good and helps ecology.

Ecological Internet and others feel strongly based upon the urgency of emerging ecological science and our closeness to global ecological collapse that it is better to fight like hell in any way we can to fully protect and return to native tenure standing old forests as the most desirable forest protection outcome. The Earth is already undergoing global ecological collapse and it is deeply irresponsible for organizations committed to the environment to carelessly make false old forest logging prescriptions that worsen the problem.

The BINGO old forest greenwashers sound just like get-out-the-cut forest managers – we need these resources, better to log them legally than legally, primary forests exist to be logged. Where is their former channeling of the spirit of Edward Abbey, John Muir and the other conservation greats upon whose back they stand? Somewhere along the line these groups lost sight of ecology truth, didn’t keep up with the science, had no metrics or systems to identify, monitor and handle their failed forest policy, perhaps didn’t think it mattered because it was win-win and economical.

So the rainforest logging apologist lent their names and logos to those murdering rainforests, ecosystems, their plants and animals, to wipe our asses. They turned to the dark side, using business and PR techniques to market ill-gotten old forest timbers as sustainable. They sold their souls. They have bullied critics, censored and stonewalled their brothers’ and sisters’ forest protection. They have lost their souls and legitimacy as old rainforest protection voices. And they must be stopped from doing so any longer with public monies.

BINGO COMPLICITY IN FSC LED PRIMARY RAINFOREST ECOCIDE
FSC was created in 1993 to “promote responsible management of the world’s forests”, yet has failed miserably. FSC certifies as “sustainable” the logging of over a hundred million hectares of primary and old-growth forests – hundreds of year old trees in millions of year old naturally evolved ecosystems – for lawn furniture, toilet paper and other throw-away consumer items. Many environmentalists initially supported FSC, expecting it would reduce logging of primary and old growth forests, and result in more community based eco-forestry. Instead, FSC and members have built a massive market for continued business as usual industrial primary forest timbers – with minor, cosmetic changes – in order to certify as acceptable murdering old forests for consumption.

FSC has become a major driver of primary forest destruction and forest ecological diminishment. Despite certifying less than 10% of the world’s forest lands, their rhetoric and marketing legitimizes the host of other ghastly certifiers like PEFC, SFI and others, as well as traditional non-certified ancient forest timber. It is expecting far too much of consumers to expect them to differentiate between the variety of competing claims to being green and environmental sustainability – when in fact none are as they all include old growth forest timbers.

FSC and old forest logging apologist pals policies seeking to prevent primary forests from being deforested, by allowing them to be heavily industrially and selectively logged for the first time, becoming either secondary forest or toxic mono-crop tree plantations, is not old forest protection. Deforestation and ecosystem diminishment of forests are both of profound concern ecologically – much of great importance is lost when primary forests are logged for the first time.

Standing old forests are a requirement for global ecological sustainability and local advancement. Yet, FSC is about getting out the primary forest cut – recall best estimated as 70% FSC timber and fiber from planned and past logging of 320,000,000 acres (120,000,000 hectares) – and is particularly threatening now as FSC and old forest logging apologist friends claim carbon forestry (logging primary forests to plant new plantations) is a climate change solution.

FSC’s relatively minor improvements upon the murdering of old rainforests legitimate the entire trade, FSC certified or not. While other certification schemes may be even worse, this is not the issue, as industrial first-time primary forest logging cannot be done ecologically sustainably and should not be happening at all. FSC’s claims to being the best destroyer of primary forests is like killing someone more humanely, treating your slaves better but refusing to release them, or being half pregnant. Like past battles to end monarchy and slavery before them, and continuing efforts to resist their recent forms found in fascism and human trafficking, the task before us is to fully END the stripping of Earth of its protective covering. Not doing it marginally better.

These independent estimates of FSC’s dependence upon old forest logging, one published in German already and the other by myself in publication, were able to make reasonable estimates from FSC’s own national certification data which is collate and released, and what is known about each country’s forest types and industry. If they are wrong after three years of complaint, they would have trotted out the figures and shown us. Conveniently, none of the culprits say they collect information regarding whether any particular FSC certified forest that was logged was primary, old growth or other old forests.

After years of campaigning against Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network – two key co-founders and supporters of FSC’s primary forest logging – and FSC itself; Ecological Internet’s genuine forest ecology concerns have been met with nothing but stonewalling, censoring and vilification. No one within FSC will say how many hectares of primary forests FSC has certified for industrial logging, how much more is planned, and explained in detail how logging primary forest protects them.

Despite tens of thousands of people from around the world asking, none of the organizations who routinely campaign against other close-lipped forest destroyers, feel obligated to explain how logging primary forests protects them. Nor can they provide any other reason to justify, or to otherwise defend, the ecology, strategy and tactics of continued prominent membership in FSC primary forest logging.

WWF, Greenpeace, and RAN's forest campaigns have been perhaps mortally compromised. Their forest advocacy efforts are a corrupt shell of their former selves. The rainforest logging apologists have chosen power, prestige and money coming from sitting at the old forest logging mafia's table, rather than and over protecting rainforest and other primary forests. With rainforests threatened as never before, RAN targets Disney and the Girl Scouts, Greenpeace Barbie dolls, and WWF runs a bad-boy logger club which they call the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN). Posers like Greenpeace and RAN don't get it because by and large they are marketers and accountants, elite liberal arts grads, and not ecologists.

WWF forest campaign is composed of resource managers, not deep ecologists, and it shows. Not only is WWF perhaps the most power BINGO totally enmeshed with FSC, it also partners with the World Bank and companies that destroy rainforests, and threaten endangered species. Some 20% of the timber industry has lined up to pay WWF $50K, for which they can use the panda logo and continue to log as they were. This is unethical, corrupt and destroying global ecology and local options for advancement.

Greenpeace’s forest protection campaign is all over the place, full of contradictions, and it is nearly impossible to see the strategy of divergent and countervailing forest protection campaign tactics. Greenpeace not only co-founded the Forest Stewardship Council, until recently Greenpeace held the international chairman of the board position for FSC for six years! Greenpeace's quirky new rainforest campaign says Ken is leaving Barbie (Mattel's dolls) because of rainforest destruction, yet they leave the door open for "certified" primary rainforest paper pulp for toy packaging. Two years ago Greenpeace openly embraced Kleenex's clearcut of Canadian old growth forests for toilet paper. Now they condemn Barbie doll for tiny amounts of packaging from primary forests!

The Rainforest Action Network is the smallest of the lot, yet they are a well-known rainforest protector organization in the United States, soaking up most of the money for doing so. RAN similarly says is against primary forest logging, yet promotes FSC paper – full of old-growth – for Disney’s children books. The group is ridiculously under-qualified to be determining global rainforest policy. Their staff is mostly liberal arts grads and accountants that wouldn’t know a rainforest if it bit them in the ass. They are great at raising money, throwing lavish parties, being seen with the right celebrities, trashing opponents, and working to end coal – but their rainforest campaign is in shambles. For the first decade they worked strongly against old forest logging, but now target the Girl Scouts and Disney for relatively small amounts of rainforest destruction, as global stores of ancient rainforest temples burn and require a much larger, more urgent response.

Greenpeace, RAN and WWF must continue to be encouraged to resign from FSC greenwash; and work to end primary forest logging, protect and restore standing old forests, for local and global advancement and ecology. These groups’ vision of sustainable rainforests is logging, turning them into both secondary diminished forest (essentially plantations) and fully replanted mono-crop tree plantations, rather than working to fully protect and restore as much as possible. The rest of the grassroots global rainforest protection movement thinks we need to implement proven ways to keep old forests standing intact for local advancement and global ecology (and vice versa).

Rainforest Action Network continues to censor – and along with Greenpeace stonewall – legitimate global protest by tens of thousands of grassroots forest activists regarding their greenwash complicity in logging 320,000,000 acres of primary old forest for such necessities as toilet paper. I really don’t think young adults with liberal arts degrees should be seeking to discredit PhD professionals on the question of whether primary forests should be logged or fully protected for local community development.

At FSC recent tri-annual General Assembly in Malaysia – the "sustainable" old forest logging greenwash worsened, as FSC voted (seconded by Greenpeace) to start the process to begin certifying plantation timbers from land cleared of primary rainforests as being "sustainable". FSC Motion 18 which was approved furthers the process of industrial toxic plantations being established on rainforests cleared since 1994, to be certified as sustainable by the Forest Stewardship Council.

Just before the vote Ecological Internet’s global network’s carried out a large email protest, which led to the motion’s wording going from essentially preparing to certify plantations on cleared rainforests, to studying it, to the latest revisionary history of completing an unnamed earlier report. Despite how it is packaged, FSC decided last month to begin trying to certify monocrop plantations on land cleared of primary rainforest since 1994.

By crossing the rubric, FSC’s embrace without merit the ideas of carbon forestry – that it is better to log well stored and carbon rich old forests, in order to plant fast growing carbon removal species – they have gone from being misguided on forest policy to being downright dangerous. FSC has already lost European NGO FERN on the issue of carbon forestry – which sees the potential peril of essentially geo-engineering the world’s old forests upon community and ecology – one of the last mighty naturally evolved ecosystems.

FSC plantations on cleared primary rainforest had rightly been excluded since FSC inception in order to not promote primary rainforest being converted specifically for later planting of depauperate plantations, but now the flood gate is wide open. FSC is continually changing the wording of Motion and downplaying its importance, and as usual Greenpeace and RAN aren't talking, but I reckon they think tree plantations –are better than outright deforestation of primary and old growth forests. So they are trading away ecological jewels – primary forests – to become managed forests and plantations, thinking slowing outright deforestation justifies destroying wild forests.

REDD+, FSC and other certifiers, sustainable forest management, and carbon forestry are all myths and meaningless catchphrases to allow continued western market access to primary rainforest logs. Standing and intact primary rainforest and other old forests are a requirement for sustaining global ecology and achieving local advancement. We must end their logging for full protection and restoration. REDD+ has become all things to everybody – forest logging, protection, plantations, carbon, growth – when all we need is funding to preserve local old standing forests.

These organizations believe their own PR that they are so special – so hip and groovy – they can establish and avidly support with impunity an organization that facilitates the logging of rainforests and other old forests. They don’t have to answer questions about their role in rainforest destruction like others supporting logging do. It is really an abuse of power and trust. The old forest logging greenwashers all follow the same playbook and personally attack the messenger (me!). Shameful, as more old forests and terrestrial ecosystems have been lost than the biosphere can absorb and continue to make Earth habitable. This dispute is about ecological science and not personalities.

Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace and WWF are engaged in a con game for money and influence at the expense of old forests that must remain standing for local peoples and global ecology. Global ecosystem collapse is being abetted by these so called protectors. These organizations’ policies are a carefully calibrated effort to be seen as reasonable by the growing logging industry machine and benefit in donations for doing so. None make a decision without thinking how it affects their bottom line. The only way this old forest greenwash logging machine will be stopped is to make doing so too expensive to them in terms of lost donations, grants, and other support – whose sources are usually unaware of the great rainforest heist.

WHY FSC AND OLD FOREST LOGGING MUST END FOR A NEW FOREST PROTECTION VISION
Here is the honest to Gaia old forest ecology science narrative. The human family must protect and restore old forests – starting by ending industrial-scale primary forest logging – as one keystone response to biodiversity, ecosystem, climate, food, water, poverty and rights crises that are pounding humanity, ecosystems and plants and animals. When naturally evolved old forest ecosystems are logged in any manner other than appropriately small-scaled local community traditional uses and eco-forestry – their ecological function, structure, dynamics, and composition are destroyed forever.

Protecting and restoring old forests – which means ending their industrial harvest – are a keystone response to climate, biodiversity, food, water ecology crises. You can’t take a bulldozer for a rumble through intact natural rainforests, cutting all the big merchantable timbers, and causing huge amounts of collateral damage – and not rip the hell out of ecosystems, plant communities, wildlife populations, species biodiversity, local forest dependent communities advancement potential, and carbon holding potential.

Old forests are a vital part of the biosphere's eco-infrastructure. Along with other terrestrial, water, ocean, and atmospheric ecosystems, old forests makes Earth habitable and ensure it is fed and watered.

Old forests are perhaps the most important global ecosystem as intact primary, old growth, and regenerating old forests are at the hub of the nutrient, energy, heat, and water transfers and fluxes which power global ecosystems. It is clearly past time for an end to primary forest logging to protect these global ecological processes and local advancement potential from standing old forests.

Industrial old forest logging must end in order to protect and restore ancient forest ecosystems necessary for a habitable Earth. Primary rainforests that have been logged for the first time are on their way to being scraggly secondary forests that are in fact tree plantations, and might as well have been deforested, as their full natural ecological patterns and processes have been destroyed. When primary forests become secondary must is lost and diminished and many local and region ecological processes fail. The impacts of seeing primary forests only as resources to be whacked down has impacted a large enough area globally, with over 80% of old forests being gone or logged for the first time, that old forest logging’s impact is aggregating to diminish, damage and destroyed our one shared biosphere. Old forest logging is one of a handful of ill-advised industrial processes leading to global ecosystem collapse.

There is no such thing as well-managed, sustainable primary forest logging – first time industrial harvest always destroys natural evolution and intact ecosystems. Humanity can, must and will meet wood product demand from certified regenerating and aging secondary growth and non-toxic, native species plantations. Any lesser vision that includes "sustainable forest management" of primary forests is worthy of virulent opposition, as such greenwash destroys local livelihoods and global ecosystem services associated with standing old forests, for throw-away consumer items.

FSC should meet market demand for well-managed forest timbers by certifying only 1) small scale community eco-forestry practiced by local peoples in primary forests, 2) regenerating and aging secondary forests, and 3) non-toxic and mixed species plantations. Further, reducing demand for all timber and paper products is key to living ecologically sustainably with old forests. Only 10% of any given FSC certified product’s content need come from a certified source anyway, this is mixed with conventional fiber sources, and the 10% that is certified content is mostly murdered primary forest.

In light of current and emerging ecosystem, biodiversity and climate science; it is clear that FSC certification for industrial primary and old-growth logging is antiquated and dangerous. By logging old forests and now moving to certifying plantations established on cleared rainforests as being “sustainable”, the Forest Stewardship Council and allies are no longer a force for good, and like all primary forest logging apologists, must disband and be forcefully encouraged and assisted in doing so.

Industrial primary forest logging must end to herald in era of old forest protection and restoration based upon standing forests for local advancement and global ecological sustainability. Logging and otherwise destroying ecosystems is an 8,000 year old disease upon Gaia now perfected and terminal with RAN, Greenpeace, FSC, WWF, and REDD+ greenwash. Like slavery, industrial old forest logging for throw away consumption is a global evil that must end, not be slightly reformed. Old forest diminishment when first industrially logged is nearly as ecologically damaging as outright deforestation, as naturally evolved ecosystems that make Earth habitable are on the path to becoming tree plantations.

There is a zero chance of protecting and ending first time industrial logging of primary rainforests when RAN, Greenpeace and WWF say it is sustainable, even desirable, and continue to greenwash FSC markets for old forest timbers through their presence in the organization. Old forests must be protected and restored in order to sustain global ecology and local well-being. This NGO complicity with rainforest murder must end in order to collapse FSC and all other old forest certifiers, and move onto stopping old forest timber producers and consumers from continuing to do so using whatever means are necessary.

From the perspective of a 60 million year old primary rainforest with 500+ year old trees, it does not matter if being destroyed by illegal or legal logging, certified or not, the Asian timber mafia or WWF, Greenpeace and RAN. There is no such thing as well-managed, sustainable primary forest logging – as first time industrial harvest destroys natural evolution and intact ecosystems. Humanity can and must and will meet wood product demand from certified regenerating and aging secondary growth and non-toxic, native species plantations. If all BINGOs greenwashing FSC withdrew, old logging may well collapse as ratchet up pressure together on even lesser certifiers and old forest logging industry in general.

Together we must end primary forest logging, protecting and restoring old forests. The unholy trinity of REDD+ finance, FSC and BINGO pals for greenwash and "sustainable forest management" are clearing the biosphere's last old forests. Please Greenpeace, RAN, WWF, and REDD+ tell us how your FSC's logging of 500 year old trees in 60 million year old rainforests is sustainable and offers any real protection. You tout this as ending deforestation. Yet, are you aware of the tremendous damage and, by definition, ultimate destruction of primary forests that are heavily industrially and "selectively" logged for the first time?
There are others like EI that understand we have already lost more intact terrestrial ecosystems including old forests than the biosphere can bear. We will fight for each old forest and their peoples as resources and people allow, understanding when ecosystem collapse comes, having as many intact ecosystems for restoration as possible will be key to any sort of ecology and human recovery. We ecologists know that primary forests are destroyed when greatly ecologically reduced from first time industrial logging, and that plantations are not forests, much less when planted on cleared primary rainforests.

As Earth burns, any groups engaged in greenwashing primary forest logging and offering no defense of doing so are seriously misguided and in crisis themselves. If you are a RAN, Greenpeace or WWF member your donations support participation in logging primary forests and converting to plantations! Greenpeace, RAN and others' PR stunts and market campaigns have become old, stale, ineffective and even dangerous. They are inadequate to the ecological crises on hand, and do not use these organizations' resources and organization well.

Campaigning groups need an overall ecology vision of how to achieve global ecological sustainability, to campaign more on sufficient ecological policies (whether initially photogenic or not), and work more to mobilize people protest – and less on quirky, token stunts to raise awareness and funds for themselves.

Local community development based upon standing old forests including small scale eco-forestry is fine. Small scale community eco-forestry has a context of intact primary forests as its context for seed and animal sources, and management mimics natural disturbance and gap species establishment. It is the industrial first time logging – selective logging defined as selecting all merchantable, mature trees – turning primary forests into plantations that is problematic. Ruling elite and their bought shills will not manage, invest, certify or greenwash their way to global ecological sustainability. There is no way other to global ecological sustainability than people power ecology, protecting old forests, powering down, and returning to the land.

The human family – if need be as part of a people's power Earth revolution – must end primary forest logging, and protect and restore rainforests and all old forests, as a keystone response to biodiversity, climate, ecosystem and poverty crises. Together we will end primary forest logging, herald in an era of old forest protection and restoration, to benefit local people and sustain global ecology. We will fight for each old forest and their peoples, saving and delaying old forest industrial destruction and diminishment, and understanding when ecosystem collapse comes, having as many intact ecosystems for models and seed sources for restoration as possible will be key to any sort of ecology and human recovery. Ecological Internet puts our faith in truth and ecological science over looking good and PR greenwash.

WHAT NEXT TO SUSTAIN OLD FORESTS AND THEIR ECOLOGY
Ending primary forest logging is Ecological Internet's number one commitment to sustaining global ecology. We will not rest until dead or an end to trade in ill-gotten forest timbers by murdering natural evolved forest ecosystems for trinkets, curios, and ass wiping. Please join with Ecological Internet and others to oppose all forces working to industrially cut or otherwise develop rainforests and other old forests, laying bare the illogical, greedy and lying rhetoric for doing so. Doing so is crucial to our and many species' survival including Gaia, the Earth System.

As a movement, we must return to the goal of a ban on industrially harvested primary forest timbers. This means continuing to resist and obstruct old forest harvest, businesses involve, timber marketing, purchase, storage, milling, product construction and marketing. The entire supply chain for ecocidal primary forest timbers must be destroyed. More of us must return to the forests to work with local communities to build on-the-ground desire for ecologically inspired advancement from standing old forests, and blockading and physically obstructing the practice of old forest logging.

We must make ill-gotten old wood from life-giving ecosystems to become an unacceptable taboo, like gorilla hand ash-trays only worse. Ending primary forest logging further requires greater international affinity made possible by transnational advocacy networks on the Internet. There is a long proven track-record of using the boomerang effect – whereby local forest protection advocacy efforts that are being stonewalled are expressed simultaneously by the international community. The dual voices make the concern hard to ignore, the first step to ending old forest logging.

The rainforest movement has become split between those logging primary rainforests and others working to fully protect and restore for local and global benefit. I'm old enough to remember when the rainforest movement worked to protect ancient forests and ban their logging, not abet their 'sustainable' destruction. What these rainforest logging apologist groups are doing is every bit as alarming as loggers and governments, and they will not be given free rein to continue in their not thoughtful, self-aggrandizing manner any longer. The rainforest, forest, and ecological protection movements must unite behind effort to end primary forest logging for full protection and restoration.

And to those that say these concerns are splitting the movement, just shove it. There is no benefit to Earth from unity in support of ecocidal rainforest policy. Just as working to better the conditions of slaves is no substitute for working for total emancipation, we cannot log and have our old forests too. Even as we protest the loggers and government policies, we must continue to confront our wayward brethren that think that logging primary forests protects them – or risk becoming irrelevant as global ecosystems collapse. Rallying around a false and ecologically destructive global forest policy of logging primary forests for plantations is a must.

Rather than participating in old forest logging, it is better for the rainforest movement to fight to work to protect each old forest and their peoples, understanding that when ecosystem collapse comes, having as many intact ecosystems for restoration as possible will be key to any sort of ecology and human recovery. The grassroots global forest protection movement has to commit to fully protecting and restoring old carbon, species and ecosystem service rich forests as a keystone response to achieve global ecological sustainability.

The goal must remain to maximize the extent, size, connectivity of core terrestrial ecological areas –largely but not exclusively forested – to maximize global and local ecosystem processes, and local material and other advancement from standing old forests. By dragging out the forest protection fight on a forest by forest basis, until ecological collapse becomes publicly acknowledged, we can hold onto more ecosystems, biodiversity, and carbon than logging them now. Soon the human family will catch up with the ecological science and realize old forest destruction and diminishment must end as we ramp upreforestation and ecological restoration for large, connected natural forests adequate to power the global ecosystem.

We must continue to call upon all BINGO FSC members to reject the certification of primary forests by resigning immediately, as many others have recently done. We must continue to call upon Greenpeace, WWF, and RAN to resign from FSC, to fully account for its founding and 20 years of membership, including detailing expenditures and benefits received for greenwashing old forest logging. Further, we must demand FSC immediately stop certifying primary forest logging or disband itself.

Greenpeace, WWF and RAN have been revealed as corrupt greenwashers of the final harvest of Earth primary rainforests and other old forests, and must be stopped for global ecological sustainability and local benefits from greenwashing the destruction of standing old growth forests. This means boycotting these organizations, even their other work as what to do with old forests is such a fundamental ecological issue, until they stop greenwashing the final loss of old forests. And it is past time for the groups’ members to end their memberships as ultimately these big NGO businesses are more concerned with their image and money than having global forest policy that is ecologically valid and correct.

The worst part regarding Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace and WWF greenwash membership in Forest Stewardship Council is their secrecy, lack of transparency, censorship, stonewalling, vilifying critics. Who do they think are? What are they hiding? What benefits are they receiving from old forest logging? Their stonewalling is reprehensible and alarming. Like all public entities they have a responsibility to defend your public positions.

Despite best attempts to portray Ecological Internet campaign and ecological science concerns as being personal and political motivated, this essay and continued growing global protest demonstrates in fact efforts to resist those supporting primary forest logging is a reasonable ecology dispute that must be redressed. We have had bad experiences with the head of RAN’s forest campaign for years, before he worked for RAN and this campaign started, so this is immaterial and we deal with his debilities. There have been a series of personal attacks coming from the other side which refuses to have a specific debate, or even provide any justification, in defense of this ecological travesty known as FSC.

Given RAN and Greenpeace's irresponsible behavior when questioned on their rainforest 'protection' policy that is of global ecological importance how can they be trusted? These liberal arts under-grads and accountants think they are qualified to set policy because they have money and influential friends, but are making dreadful mistakes. Despite founding and actively supporting, they can’t say how much primary forests are being destroyed by FSC. This is ignorance, duplicity, or corruption. These groups are dangerous enemies to old forests and biosphere, profiting from their demise, while acting like and being paid well as the publicly viewed good forest protection groups.

This old forest logging corruption will not stand, it must and will be fully investigated, and end with widespread resignations. Ecological Internet calls upon Greenpeace, WWF and RAN staff to protest their organizations' greenwash of primary forest logging from within, and resign immediately if they are not heard and NGO primary rainforest ecocide continues. It is time to investigate all three organizations' involvement with FSC and other activities to support primary forest logging with the timber industry. Until then the awareness building and resistance to greenwash of BINGO old forest logging must continue, tarnishing the not good old forest protection names. EI remains willing to negotiate terms of their resignation from FSC and debate the importance of doing so in a public arena at any time.

In the meantime, Ecological Internet is writing a grant to do a report on the matter based loosely upon this essay. We have a good lead on a funder to investigate BINGO complicity in FSC old growth logging, but need a couple thousand dollars to prepare and do the initial research. We would really appreciate your help turning this document into a fully referenced report based upon FSC logging site visits and full of pictures by donating to our “Ending Primary Forest Logging” campaign at http://www.rainforestportal.org/shared/donate/end_primary_forest_logging . This is a draft document, put out hurriedly in draft form, before I go to vacation and decide upon Ecological Internet’s future.

Ecological Internet challenges Rainforest Action Network and/or Greenpeace to debate any time and any place of their choosing (which can afford to get to) regarding the efficacy and ecological sustainability of first time industrial logging of primary forests for toilet paper and other consumer items. From dialogue comes truth, reduction in conflict and hate, and right action. Their greenwash of old forest logging will not stand. The secret of their having been compromised is out and nothing can save their policy of logging old rainforests for their protection.

No excuse for Greenpeace, RAN and FSC for not having answered a three year global protest demanding details regarding how their forest campaign policies see logging primary forest as benefiting ecology.

Hundreds of thousands of protest emails and a dozen protests have been ignored simply because the guilty organization are bigger and think they can get away with ignoring us. Even as we protest and demand they resign, let's hold out our hands to help rehabilitate our fallen brethren. WE have truth, ecology, old forests, Gaia and Internet on our side. Forward!
Greenpeace International and Rainforest Action Network in particular would rightly never accept rainforest or other environmental destroyers unwilling to defend their policies, they would protest until they got answers and it ended. The same is true with the more grassroots, transparent rainforest protection movement regarding RAN and Greenpeace's failure to defend in detail their support and membership in FSC, which greenwashes the destruction of massive tracts of primary rainforests, old growth and other old forests for consumer products.

The Greenpeace and RAN Out of FSC Primary Forest Logging Now! campaign on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/oldforests/ has been going on for nearly 3 years with picketing and online protests. We will protest there and elsewhere at the time and place of our choosing – as the old forest logging apologists do against the orders of magnitude smaller rainforest destruction by Barbie, Disney and Girl Scouts – until old forest logging apologists unconditionally resign from FSC greenwash of ancient primary forest logging.

ANY continued deforestation or diminishment of old forests – legal or illegal, certified or not – are not ecologically or socially acceptable. At risk is Earth’s continued habitability if old forests continue to be lost and are not restored. Old forest logging certification schemes are ecocidal certified madness as these standing old forests are needed for global ecology and local advancement. BINGO’s will resign from FSC and forest certification of primary forest logging end or protests continue against the greenwashers and all perpetrators of these ecocidal practices. For Earth, we must end old forest logging now.

CONTACT: Dr. Glen Barry, glenbarry@ecologicalinternet.org

REDD Lights: Who Owns the Carbon in Forests and Trees?

This paper argues in favor of the ownership by indigenous peoples and local communities of carbon in forests and trees and that such ownership could be the basis of social accountability that should be mainstreamed in implementing what is popularly known as the REDD-Plus mechanism.

REDD-Plus stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and the conservation and enhancement of existing forest carbon stocks. The mechanism was formally adopted by the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) during its 16th session in Cancun, Mexico held last December, 2010 (La Vina et al 2011). In that meeting, governments agreed to the scope of the mechanism, the components of a national REDD-Plus program, and what could be the phases of such a program. They also also agreed to a set of safeguards that would accompany REDD-Plus implementation at the national level, which included assurances that the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities will be recognized and respected. Still pending and currently being negotiated in the UNFCCC is the system of information that needs to be established to ensure that the REDD-Plus safeguards are implemented and respected.

In making the case that indigenous peoples and local communities have ownership of carbon in forests and trees, the authors review the evolution of the international law on the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and use examples from all over the world and especially from the Philippines. While asserting such ownership, the authors recognize the authority of governments to co-manage and to exercise joint control over such carbon. Certainly, REDD-Plus programs are national programs and are implemented in the context of treaty and other international obligations.

The paper should be read with an accompanying monograph Implementing the REDD-Plus Safeguards and Monitoring REDD-Plus Finance: The Role of Social Accountability authored by Antonio G. M. La Viña and Lawrence G. Ang. In that paper La Viña and Ang explores and articulates the role of social accountability in implementing REDD-Plus safeguards and argue that, without mainstreaming social accountability mechanisms in such implementation, REDD-Plus programs are likely to fail in producing not only the desired climate change and environmental outcomes but also in avoiding unjust and inequitable results. Likewise, citizen monitoring of REDD-Plus finance is critical – to ensure integrity and accountability in these programs.

Photo of forest by Micky, used under a Creative Commons License.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Seeing REDD in Indonesia

Without notice or explanation my guide, Syahrul, from WAHLI, an Indonesian environmental coalition, pulled over our motorbike and dismounted. We were burning under the North Sumatran sun and he’d stopped for no apparent reason beside an open field. Looking around, I asked him why we’d stopped. He turned back and addressed me solemnly, shaking his head to express something between sadness and frustration. "This is national park," He said. I stared around in astonishment. "This is national park?" I parroted. He nodded, "this is Gunung Leuser." The field stretched before us, burnt and yellow. It gradually bled into hillsides covered with young oil palms planted in neat rows. A lone, giant blackened tree stump stood on one hill like a tombstone placed in memory of the old rainforest that used to exist there.

In a world where rainforest coverage is shrinking, 10 per cent of what remains can be found in Indonesia. Not only are these forests full of endemic and endangered species, they also store approximately 11,800 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon, both in the trees themselves and within extensive peat swamps that run up to 10 metres deep beneath many areas of forest. Deforestation now contributes to 85 per cent of Indonsia’s carbon emissions, making it the third biggest emitter after the US and China.

Despite this, logging continues in Indonesia at an approximate rate of 1,205,650 hectares per year, driven by the lucrative palm oil and pulp and paper industries, as well as pervasive illegal logging. With so much at stake, the last 10 years have seen Indonesia’s rainforests become a battleground between economic gain and environmental conservation, with local communities and indigenous groups caught somewhere in the middle.
Logged national park in Northern Sumatra

Seeking to solve this dilemma, the United Nations have spent the last several climate talks developing whatappears to be a simple and ingenious solution. It’s called the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) program, and it’s basically a framework through which developed countries can pay developing countries to preserve forest in exchange for carbon credits. The idea is to develop an ongoing alternative income for communities who would otherwise be reliant on logging and palm oil, while also funding a variety of conservation programs. To some, it represents the greatest hope for the world’s remaining forests. To others, it is an unmitigated disaster.

Since 2009, when the Indonesian Minister of Forestry signed the "Forestry Regulation P.30/2009 on Procedures for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation," the Indonesian government has invested its energy in establishing the country as a laboratory for the REDD scheme. In 2010, the government announced ambitious new targets to reduce emissions to 26 per cent below business-as-usual levels by 2020. REDD featured as a significant component of their plan to reach this target. In cooperation with the UN and bilateral "client" countries – such as Australia, New Zealand and Norway – Indonesia has already established a number of REDD pilot programs in conservation hot spots. And, perhaps most significantly, on May 20 this year, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed an unprecedented decree issuing a two-year moratorium on logging in exchange for $US1 billion from Norway under the REDD program.

But with the REDD scheme still relatively new and controversial, are the international community and the Indonesian government putting all their eggs in one uncertain basket? I met with Teguh Surya in the offices of WAHLI in Jakarta two weeks before the announcement of the moratorium. I asked him if he believed it would be possible to implement a well managed and successful REDD program. He replied, flatly, "no." According to WAHLI, existing REDD programs in Indonesia, including the Australian program in Jambi province of Sumatra, have already demonstrated the failure of REDD to prevent deforestation and reduce carbon emissions. He was adamant that the REDD scheme fails to recognise several harsh realities of politics in Indonesia and internationally. When I pressed for further explanation, he responded with the following five major criticisms.

Firstly, there is ambiguity in Indonesia over the legal definition of terms such as "forest." This ambiguity means that under REDD, a palm oil plantation could potentially be given the same value as primary forest in terms of its value as a carbon sink. Secondly, the REDD program amounts to a deal between two central governments. But the reality is that land tenure in Indonesia is often contested between local communities, indigenous groups and four different levels of government. By dealing with central government, foreign donors may inadvertently take power away from local and indigenous communities. Thirdly, there is little evidence to support carbon offsetting as a mechanism for reducing global emissions. Fourth, REDD agreements have limited time frames, while forests need permanent protection. Finally, the REDD process in Indonesia is open to corruption and manipulation as money filters down through all each level of government. Often there is little or none of the original money left by the time it reaches the communities who were intended to be delivered from poverty by the REDD mechanism.

While not as entirely dismissive of the potential of REDD, my enquiries among other local conservation groups in such as Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL) found similar critiques of the program. Debate over the value of carbon offsetting aside, the consensus seemed to be that internal politics and a legacy of corruption in the management of forests dating back to the Suharto era had been overlooked in the development of the international agreements. For example, from 1993 to 1997 the country’s reforestation fund lost $5.2 billion through mismanagement and fraud, according to an audit by Ernst and Young. Provision also needs to be made for education, enforcement, monitoring, anti-corruption measures and for the institutional restructuring that REDD requires. Without adequate resources for education and policing on the ground level, untended land and protected areas alike become a target for illegal logging and REDD conservation programs fold.

By way of illustration, I heard from one environmental worker, who declines to be named, that locals in some REDD projects in Jambi province had actually thought carbon was a resource, like coal, and by signing up for REDD they would be paid to extract it. When money was not immediately forthcoming from central government they were naturally annoyed and now want nothing to do with the scheme. The palm oil companies, meanwhile, pay up front for the delivery of oil nuts.
Palm oil trucks

Just like its jungles, the dark situation of logging in Indonesia becomes more tangled the further you go into it. Trying to follow each path of enquiry into corruption, industry, policy and poverty you can become easily lost. Lingering in the background of this confusing political maze is the palm oil industry. The reality is that this is a sector whose influence in Indonesian politics remains akin to the influence of the mining and fossil fuel industries in Australia.
The recent logging moratorium serves as an appropriate example. The decree was subject to huge amounts of lobbying in the five months that its release was delayed. A Malaysian planter with assets in Indonesia, who declined to be identified, told Reuters after the moratorium was released, "There was lots of pressure on the Indonesian government from the palm oil industry about this ban since we bring in significant investments. Today's final details show that agreeable concessions have been made." In contrast, the feedback from environmental groups on the decree was less cheerful. Paul Winn of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific told Reuters "This is a bitter disappointment… 75 per cent of the forests purportedly protected by this moratorium are already protected under existing Indonesian law, and the numerous exemptions further erode any environmental benefits."

Unsurprisingly, like many development programs, when REDD is held up to scrutiny its many flaws are made obvious. This doesn’t mean that it is incapable of helping to protect Indonesia’s forests. REDD is just a sprout in terms of international programs and it still has a chance to grow into something worth saving.

When I asked Teguh one month ago what he thought Indonesia needed to preserve it’s forests, he told me that they really need a moratorium on logging. Last Thursday, President Yudhoyono signed the decree issuing a moratorium, under the REDD program. While the decree has been critiqued as inadequate, it does also have some support. Daniel Murdiyarso, a scientist at the Indonesia-based forest research institute, CIFOR, told Mongabay last Friday, “This will see a large area of natural forest protected from being cleared and it will help preserve the country’s carbon-rich peatlands.” Similarly, Bustar Maitar from Greenpeace has conceded that the moratorium represents “an important political shift towards protecting our forests." Several years ago, however, this would have been unthinkable.

In addition to encouraging a more eco-friendly political climate, REDD supporters claim that the scheme can help to push through institutional and governance reform that is needed for conservation efforts to be successful. Part of the REDD agreement with Norway, for example, will involve the development of a "degraded lands" database. Environmental groups, such as WAHLI, advocate the use of "degraded" lands for the expansion of palm oil as a substitute for expansion into forested areas. Degraded land is land which has been deforested but which is not utilised, for various reasons.

Confusion over tenure and the rights of local communities, many of whom are actually using degraded land for smallholder farming, has made degraded land unattractive to industry, so far. Agus Purnomo, Special Staff to the President of Republic Indonesia for Climate Change stated recently that the database will “allow expansion of agriculture and timber plantations as well as provide legal certainty for the businessman in expanding their business while avoiding deforestation." Furthermore, the presidential instructions attached to the moratorium streamlines policy by delegating coordination and monitoring responsibilities to one agency, the President's REDD Plus Taskforce.

There is also hope that the moratorium will provide an opportunity for government and stakeholders to work on mechanisms for forest protection. "The two­‐year suspension gives time to improve agricultural productivity, solve land tenure issues related to overlapping concessions and the rights of local communities, strengthen enforcement of sustainable logging and mining practices, reduce illegal logging and decrease the clearing of land through fires," said Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, head of the President’s delivery unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight and Chair of the REDD+ Taskforce, in a recent statement. Companies such as SMART Palm Oil and Asian Pulp and Paper have also suggested they will use the opportunity to revise unsustainable practises.

According to the UN, the REDD program is primarily an "effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests," and it is perhaps in this capacity that it can be the most valuable in assisting conservation efforts. As Dr Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, chief of Indonesia's REDD Plus taskforce recently stated, “The shift in paradigm to underscore that forests are worth more standing, along with strong law enforcement and a high transparency process as a tool to turn the tide of the history of corruption, are clear ways to save the forests.”

Norway’s "One Billion Dollar Pledge" has set a precedent in Indonesian and global politics by contributing to that shift and proving that compensated forest protection is a reality in international politics. Critics of carbon trading argue that assigning a market value to forests merely perpetuates the problem by ignoring the intrinsic or biodiversity value of forests. But in Indonesia, the lack of a middle class means that those with political clout are usually involved in resource extraction, so trying to put a value on forests that doesn’t involve cash is pretty difficult, politically. Furthermore, they are the ones with the resources and capacity to get real results – even if it is simply by slowing down or halting their own operations. In this context, companies need to be brought on board if conservation is to succeed. Showing them the money is a sure way to get their attention.

In the same week that I’d been cruising round illegal logging sites in Gunung Leuser National Park, a meeting was being held three hours south in Medan. Kusnadi Oldani, deputy secretary of YEL, attended the meeting alongside representatives from other environmental groups, national parks staff, military, police, politicians and industry figures. Kusnadi later told me what went on.

The Guest of honor was Mr Dorori, the general director of Forestry Protection and Nature Conservation who had come from Jakarta to talk with North Sumatran chief of National Parks, Andi Basrul. The aim of the meeting was to come up with a new strategy for protecting the national park; and they did. If all goes to plan – and that is a big if – next year the military and the national parks body will start killing illegal palm oil plantations in Gunung Leuser or taking the fruit. Local government will then employ locals to plant trees as a substitute income. I asked Kusnadi why the government in Jakarta went to all the trouble of sending Mr Dorori out to Medan to develop local strategy. He laughed and said simply, "Jakarta is getting serious."

In March last year, Australia announced plants to launch a $A30 Million REDD program in Sumatra in cooperation with the UN and the Indonesian government. The agreement is scheduled to start becoming a reality this year. Whether or not that program will have positive impact will depend on how many of the issues listed above are addressed between now and then. By choosing a stringent set of conditions like the ones imposed by Norway, Australia could further contribute to the important cultural shift already occurring. Or even further, why not regulate the import of or reduce demand for unsustainable palm oil products at home, instead of focusing solely on the responsibilities of supplier countries. We’re the ones buying the stuff after all.
 
If we’re serious, then we need to ensure that our REDD program is designed around local community needs and is accompanied by adequate resourcing, monitoring, education and enforcement if we’re to avoid the mistakes made in previous REDD programs such as the so far unsuccessful one we began in Jambi Province in 2009. As Teguh reminded me when I discussed the Australian agreement with him, “It’s your money. You Australians should be asking where it’s going.”  If the Government in Jakarta is getting serious, then we need to start considering in more depth how we can encourage them in that from Canberra. REDD can potentially help us to help them, provided we get serious about it too.

Lillian Morrissey is founding director of GroundRoots – www.groundroots.org
Sunday, September 4, 2011

Volkswagen Investing One Billion Euros in Wind Energy

Wind Farm in Neuenkirchen, Germany
In an attempt to hedge against future rising energy prices, Volkswagen announced last week that it will invest up to one billion Euros (US$1.45 billion) in renewable energy. The announcement follows the company’s decisions earlier this year to invest in other clean energy projects as well as to launch new electric vehicles.

According to the German language edition of the Financial Times, Volkswagen will become a large investor in two offshore windparks in the North Sea. The investment accomplishes two objectives:  to help the car manufacturer meet its renewable energy goals for 2020 as well as give a boost to Germany’s flagging wind power sector.

Borkum, Germany, soon to be neighbor to an offshore windfarm
Borkum, Germany, soon to be neighbor to an offshore windfarm
While Germany has been a leader in solar energy the past decade, wind power has been a different story. Ambitious projects to build wind power farms in the North Sea have suffered from the lack of investors who saw the proposed projects as too risky. Volkswagen had been in talks with wind power developers for several years but had hesitated to commit to the industry. But the moves of other companies, including the American private equity firm Blackstone, helped open the door to increased investment.  Blackstone closed a deal on one wind farm last month. Now WV is set to invest in two wind power farms, including one 60 miles (95 kilometers) north of Bokum (pictured left), an island off of Germany’s northwestern coast.

For Volkswagen, the investment goes beyond scoring a few corporate social responsibility (CSR) points. True, VW has pledged to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions 40 percent by 2020. But energy security is a concern for European countries, and companies, who have been rattled by volatility in the Middle East and North Africa as well as Russia’s shutdown of its gas supplies to Europe two years ago. And with Angela Merkel’s promise to phase out nuclear energy by 2022, the time for energy intensive firms like Volkswagen to find different sources of power is now.

To that end, the two wind energy projects to which Volkswagen has committed promise to provide about 400 megawatts of electricity of full capacity, or 40 percent of the capacity of a nuclear power plant. The upshot is that the quest to find sources of energy to complement what currently fuels most companies’ operations will be a long, painful one on both sides of the pond. http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/09/volkswagen-investing-one-billion-euros-wind-energy