2 Understanding the Basics: Climate Change and REDD+ by RFUS

3 Understanding the Basics: Climate Change and REDD+

On the front and back cover: Amerindian motif of fish by Jean La Rose.

2012 © INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Rainforest Foundation–US and Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) Organizer: Marina Campos Authors: Marina Campos and Christine Halvorson Contributors: Jean La Rose, Laura George, Carlos Calvo, and Tessa Lee Design: Scott W. Santoro / Worksight Created by: AMERINDIAN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION

Supported by:

Licensed by:

This means that the texts in this publication are under a Creative Commons license (www.creativecommons.org), which opens intellectual property rights. In practice, this license allows the texts of these booklets to be reproduced and used in derivative publications without previous authorization from the editors (Amerindian Peoples Association and Rainforest Foundation US), but with some criteria: they can only be used for non-commercial purposes; they must cite the original source; and in the case of derivative publications, they must also be licensed in the Creative Commons. You can: Share—copy, distribute and transmit the Indigenous Rights and Climate Change Booklets Remix—adapt the Indigenous Rights and Climate Change Booklets for your community’s use

Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute credit as follows: Indigenous Rights and Climate Change, Amerindian Peoples Association and Rainforest Foundation US (with link). Noncommercial—You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

I NTR O D U C TI O N Over the past few years the topic of climate change has dominated a lot of the news and national discussions in Guyana. Communities have heard a lot about REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and the LCDS (Low Carbon Development Strategy), but may not know what they mean and more importantly how they affect your life. Moreover, community leaders have told us that they need more information about REDD+ and LCDS, but fewer technical explanations. This series of booklets seeks to address these issues. As the owners of forest lands, how could REDD+ and other similar initiatives impact you? What are the risks, and the potential benefits? The Rainforest Foundation—US and the Amerindian Peoples Association believe it’s important for indigenous leaders to be informed about these issues, and more importantly, to understand how they relate to your livelihoods and your control of land and resources. These materials are arranged as a series of booklets that can be used by you, as trainers, to prepare for your community-based workshops. Each booklet will address a different topic and will contain basic information about that topic and also some ideas about questions to be addressed during your workshops. Together, the booklets will form a binder, so you can easily use them when they are most suited to your workshop. Booklet 1 provides guidance and support for trainers who will be carrying out workshops in their communities and regions. Booklets 2–6 deal specifically with climate change and forest issues. Booklet 2 lays out the general concepts behind climate change and REDD+. In the third booklet, we talk about the international negotiations on climate change that have been taking place over the past few years, and that have set the stage for what is currently taking place in Guyana and elsewhere. We talk in greater details about the REDD+ schemes in Guyana in booklet 4. It’s important for you and your communities to know your rights to your lands, and to consultation and participation. Therefore, booklet 5 discusses indigenous rights in Guyana and internationally. Social safeguards are explained in booklet 6; they are critical and will need to be upheld in order for any REDD+ or other climate change initiative to work. You, as trainers, are the people for whom these materials were designed. We plan to update these materials every year, so your opinions and suggestions are essential to making this tool more appropriate to your needs. Let’s get started!

If you do adapt the booklets, please send us a copy! We hope to make these available in different languages and adapted to the different realities of different countries.

Understanding the basics: Climate Change and REDD+

INTRODUCTION

Climate change has usually been portrayed as a highly technical and complicated issue. In this booklet, we simplify the language of the climate change debate and explain how it relates to indigenous peoples. Discussions on combating climate change increasingly acknowledge the importance of forest conservation and of halting deforestation and forest fires. This has a direct implication on the lands and resources of indigenous peoples. More than ever before, it’s crucial that you understand the basic concepts of climate change so you can actively participate in this debate. So, let’s start by gaining an understanding of the basic concepts involved in the climate change debate. From there you can discuss how the debate affects you and your communities. To understand climate change it’s important to start by learning what is meant by the term climate.

THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE Weather and climate: What is the difference? People tend to confuse these concepts a lot, so let’s see what the differences are and how they relate to each other. Weather refers to day-to-day changes in the temperature and the amount of rain or sun that occurs locally. Examples include differences in rainfall, humidity, and temperature from one day to the other or from day to night. The weather is constantly changing, for example the weather can be sunny and windy on one day and raining on the next day. On the other hand, climate is the term that is used for changes in weather patterns that happen over long periods of time. The climate of a region depends on several things such as terrain, location (along the coast or surrounded by land), altitude (in the mountains or valleys), type of vegetation, and other characteristics. It’s the how the sun, land, water and air interact with each other over time. For example, “tropical” and “temperate” are types of climates that have clear characteristics that define them. A tropical climate is defined as hot and humid with a lot of rainfall, while a temperate climate has cold winters with a lot of snow. The term climate also refers to the seasons, which change over time. For example, in Guyana, there are two main seasons: the rainy seasons that usually occur in December and January and again in May and June; and the dry seasons of July to November and February to April. Indigenous communities often rely on changes in seasons to time their collection of forest products, to grow crops, and to plan rituals and ceremonies. Changes in climate mean changes in seasons, for example with a rainy season that lasts longer than usual, making it hard to plant. These effects can be felt even in remote communities. River drought in the Brazilian Amazon, 2010, Rodrigo Baleia/Greenpeace.

Climate change Climate change, as the term clearly states, is a variation in the climate over time. This variation can be caused by natural processes or by human activities. It’s important to know that in a distant past our planet experienced dramatic but natural changes in its climate. However, the term “climate change” is currently used in political and scientific circles to refer to a change in the global climate caused by human activities. It’s often used interchangeably with global warming. Global warming Moreover, global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s air and oceans, above and beyond their natural ranges. Scientists have proven that average temperatures worldwide have risen significantly in the last 150 years—and that they are continuing to rise. So, global warming is one of the consequences of climate change. But why is that happening now? Most scientists believe that this warming isn’t a natural process, but rather the product of a rapid increase in the burning of fossil fuels (i.e. the use of natural gas, coal, and especially oil that began in the 1700s with industrialization in Europe). Global warming has been worsened by increased rates of deforestation and burning of tropical forests. The impacts of global warming/climate change The more the Earth’s temperature rises as a result of global warming, the more serious the consequences will be. It’s important to know that not only will the temperature change, but rainfall, wind patterns, and the duration of seasons will also be affected. So there will be several different consequences, and these consequences will vary across the globe: temperatures will melt glaciers and polar ice caps (huge blocks of ice situ• Higher ated on the globe’s poles), causing sea levels to rise, which will increase flooding in cities and other low-lying areas. Warming will also cause changes in the ocean currents, which will affect fishing and the types of fish available in an area. This means that millions of people who live on islands or in coastal areas will be directly affected by flooding and changes in their food supply.

• such as forests will undergo extensive changes. A hotter climate will • Ecosystems mean a world with less rainforests, as rainforests will turn into savannahs. Many Extreme events such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts will be more intense and more frequent.

species of trees and animals will go extinct. These changes in vegetation will have major implications for the people who live in these areas.

amount of land suitable for agriculture will also change, which will affect food • The production throughout the world. areas of the globe may become uninhabitable for humans. Many species of • Large animals and plants may disappear. 1 Guyana was represented at the meeting by President Jagdeo; head of the NTC Yvonne Pearson was also there.

Understanding the basics: Climate Change and REDD+

Polar bear on melting ice. Jiri Rizac/Greenpeace.

These consequences will seriously impact the way we live on our planet now and will certainly cause human suffering and massive environmental and economic losses. Indeed, some researchers use “climate crisis” or “climate turbulence” to describe the situation, instead of simply “climate change” or “global warming”. The greenhouse effect One of the main factors behind climate change and global warming is known as the greenhouse effect. Before we understand the greenhouse effect, it’s useful to know what a “greenhouse” is, and how that relates to our planet. A greenhouse is a type of house whose walls and roof are made out of glass or plastic. Because it’s clear, the light and the heat from the sun can enter the house. The heat from the sun gets trapped by the glass or plastic, making the house warm inside. This allows people to cultivate plants inside the greenhouse even when the weather is cold outside—it’s called a ‘greenhouse’ because of the green plants growing inside. Our planet is surrounded by layers of different gases—together they are known as the atmosphere. The atmosphere acts similarly to the plastic or glass of the greenhouse we just described. Thus, the atmosphere allows sunlight and the sun’s heat to pass through it but keeps the warmth of the sun close to the earth’s surface. This is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, or occurrence, that is very beneficial to us. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of our planet would be -30˚C and therefore too cold for our existence. Thus, the problem is not the greenhouse effect itself, but how rapidly it’s increasing—the atmosphere is trapping more and more of the sun’s heat. To understand this more clearly, think of what

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT Carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere trap heat, keeping the earth warm.

atm

osp

Some sunlight that hits the earth is reflected. Some becomes heat.

happens when we cover ourselves up with blankets on a cold night. If we compare our bodies to our planet Earth, the blanket around us is like the atmosphere around the Earth. The thicker the blanket, the warmer we get. This idea is also true of the Earth—the more gases that are released into the atmosphere, the thicker the layer, and the hotter the Earth gets. The blanket is the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, but with an increasing concentration of gases (a thicker blanket), the planet will become hotter, leading to global warming. Burning fossil fuels and deforestation are actions that release gases into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (more on this below), methane and nitrous oxide, among others; collectively, these are called greenhouse gases. These gases all have one characteristic in common: they have the capability to trap heat—just like a blanket. Therefore, the more greenhouse gases that are released, the more heat that gets trapped by the atmosphere and the hotter our planet becomes. What human actions are causing climate change? We use the term emissions to talk about the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Emissions of greenhouse gases have increased since the industrial revolution in the 1700s, and they have increased a whole lot over the past 60 years. The vast majority of emissions comes from industrialized countries and is a result of the burning of fossil fuels (like burning coal in a factory or burning gasoline for transportation). In developing countries, on the other hand, greenhouse gases emissions are mainly a result of the clearing and burning of tropical forests. Historically, industrialized countries have been responsible for the bulk of global greenhouse gas emissions, simply because they have been burning fossil fuels for the longest period of time. The United States was the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases for several decades. However, since 2006, China has become the leader, and other major developing countries such as India and Brazil have joined the list of major emitters. The great majority (about 80–85%) of global emissions comes from energy use and consumption. The most effective way of combating climate change would be for all countries, though especially developed ones, to significantly decrease their emissions by 50-85%. It seems simple, but in fact this is a very hard thing to do. Countries would have to transform the way they generate and use energy in order to minimize their Industrial pollution. Athit Perawongmetha/Greenpeace. use of fossil fuels, including by finding ways to use alternative energy such as solar and wind, which are renewable and do not harm the environment. Making such changes takes a long time and can cost a lot of money. But to keep our planet’s climate stable these issues must be tackled. By not dealing with the problem now we will face even greater and more negative consequences in the future—and they will affect everyone in the world.

Understanding the basics: Climate Change and REDD+

The other 15–20% of greenhouse gases emissions come from the cutting down and burning of tropical rainforests in the world. Brazil and Indonesia are the countries in the world with the highest deforestation rates. We will talk a lot about the role of rainforests in climate change later in this booklet. The global community has defined two ways to deal with climate change:

3 Mitigation: This strategy tries to prevent the problem from getting worse. This

can include any actions which would decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, such as decreasing the use of fossil fuel as a source of energy for industries and transportation or reducing the amount of tropical forests cleared and burned.

3 Adaptation: The other way to address the impacts of climate change is to be

prepared for the possible consequences that it will have on our planet. In other words, to find ways in which we can cope with possible changes such as droughts, floods, and changes in agricultural production. These actions will require that we think ahead and be prepared.

These two approaches—minimizing the impact (mitigation) and preparing for the changes (adaptation) complement each other, since mitigation deals with the causes of climate change while adaptation deals with the consequences.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND FORESTS Lately forests have become an important part of the global debate on climate change. We saw in the previous section that deforestation is one of the sources of emissions of greenhouse gases; now let’s learn more about the relationship between forests and climate change. Standing forests absorb carbon dioxide, and therefore help reduce climate change. But when they are cut down and burned or left to decay, forests release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. Carbon and its cycle The climate change debate is centered on carbon. Carbon (also referred as C) is a chemical element which is present in almost everything—plants, animals, soils, rocks, and even our bodies. In addition, carbon provides energy—fossil fuels like oil and coal have large amounts of carbon in them. When something like coal or oil, which contains a lot of carbon, is burned, that carbon is released into the atmosphere in the form of a gas called carbon dioxide (or CO2) which worsens the greenhouse effect (by increasing the thickness of the ‘atmosphere blanket’). But carbon dioxide can also be “sequestered” (absorbed) from the atmosphere and stored in plants, soils, and oceans. As we have discussed, global warming and climate change are partially the result of an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To understand these relationships better, we need to analyze and understand how carbon enters and leaves the atmosphere. This is called the carbon cycle.

The simplest way to think of the carbon cycle is: When a tree dies, the carbon inside the tree is released. Another tree then grows, and it absorbs the carbon from the atmosphere. At the global level scale, this is how things worked until the 1700s, when industrialization began. At first, the soil, plants and oceans were still able to absorb all of what was naturally emitted as well as what humans released. Today, however, that has changed. Humanity’s emissions are much higher, as so many people depend on cars, planes, and industrial products. Things are off balance. With industrialization and the increased burning of fossil fuels, , the carbon (in the form of petroleum) that was stored away in the soil and oceans over the last millennia is turned into carbon dioxide in the air. To make matters worse, large amounts of tropical forests are being burned at ever-increasing rates, especially since the 1970s—releasing even more carbon. All this means that the carbon cycle has become unbalanced; more carbon is being released into the atmosphere than can be absorbed by the plants and the oceans. Instead, the carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide gas) builds up in the atmosphere, where it contributes to the greenhouse effect (“thicker blanket, more heat”), results in global warming, and changes global climate.

3 Don’t mix-up carbon dioxide and carbon: It’s important not to confuse car-

bon dioxide (CO2) with carbon (C). Carbon dioxide is a gas. It exists naturally in our atmosphere. All living organisms (trees, animals and us) release carbon dioxide when we breathe. Plants also have the ability to absorb this gas, as we explained above. Carbon on the other hand, is NOT a gas. Carbon is present many places on earth, including in living organisms such as trees; and it’s a big part of our bodies! Trees sequester carbon dioxide gas from the air but when they accumulate the gas in their trunks and leaves, it takes the form of carbon and NOT carbon dioxide.

TH E C AR B O N C YCLE Carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is absorbed and stored.

Forest Fires

Forests and Vegetation Soil Ocean

Understanding the basics: Climate Change and REDD+

Carbon sequestration: the process by which soils, plants and different kinds of micro algae (type of plant) in oceans absorb carbon Carbon sinks: a large place, or “reservoir,” that absorbs a lot of carbon, such as large areas covered by forest or oceans/ocean plants. Carbon stocks: the amount of carbon stored in a reservoir or carbon sink. The stocks are often measured in “tons of carbon,” including when the stock in trees is measured. As we already know, forests differ greatly in their composition (the type of plants/trees found in a forest) and their structure (the thickness and height of the forest). Forests also differ greatly in the amount of carbon they can store. This is related to how tall or how thick the trees are and how hard the wood is. Carbon (C) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are measured in tons and about half of the weight of a tree is made up of carbon. Therefore a hectare of rainforest can contain 100–500 tons of carbon. To get a more precise measurement we would have to take field measurements of the height and width of all trees in a forest and then use a table that converts those measurements into tons of carbon. Forests are much more than carbon reservoirs Tropical rainforests aren’t only important because they absorb carbon. They also have an important role in conserving biodiversity, as they are home to numerous species of unique plants and animals. Tropical forests are also very important in moving nutrients from the soils to the plants, and vice versa. This process is known as nutrient cycling. Tropical forests also maintain rainfall patterns and keep clean water cycling through the earth. Trees “sweat” by releasing large amounts of water (in the form of vapor) to the atmosphere every day. That water vapor forms clouds that later produce rain. So, less forests means less rain—and this effect is worldwide. Along with absorbing carbon, the role tropical forests play in producing rain has an essential role in regulating global climate.

Cotton spinning.

Environmental services are what we call all of the benefits that standing forests provide to human beings and to the planet. Carbon sequestration, conservation of biodiversity, the cycling of nutrients, maintenance of rainfall patterns, and the regulation of the climate are all technical examples of the environmental services provided by forests.

Burning Fossil Fuels

Disturbing Soil

A few important “carbon concepts”:

For reasons beyond their role as carbon sinks or as providers of goods and services, tropical

forests are important to the communities who live in them. This is especially true for indigenous and other forest-dependent communities around the world. Forests provide these communities food, medicine, timber, and many other things. Many indigenous cultures depend almost entirely on forests for their economic, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing.

REDD and REDD +

Themes for discussion:

As we saw earlier in this booklet, the destruction of tropical forests contributes to climate change. Scientists believe that deforestation accounts for about 15–20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Many now argue that if deforestation is part of the problem, it has to be part of the solution.

• How do you and your community use the forests? • Why are forests important to you and your community? • What changes in the forests has your community seen? you had to change your planting schedule, or the times when • Hyouavecollect certain forest products, or even your ceremonies?

This rationale gave birth to a new concept called REDD: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Deforestation is when an area of forest is cut down completely for cattle ranching, mining, and logging or even for housing. However, a forest is considered degraded when it’s impoverished, for example, due to selective logging (extraction of only few species), overgrazing, or repeated forest fires. In the case of degradation, there may still be plenty of trees standing, but fewer than originally— the forest is less healthy overall and less able to absorb greenhouse gases.

DEFORESTATION AROUND THE WORLD

REDD is, therefore, one of the actions that is being considered globally to mitigate climate change.

Two countries alone are responsible for more than half of the global emissions from cutting down forests: Brazil and Indonesia. In Brazil, most forests are cut down and burned to raise cattle and cultivate soybeans, whereas in Indonesia most deforestation is a result of the expansion of oil palm plantations and illegal logging. Forest fire in the Brazilian Amazon. Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace.

There are several ways to combat deforestation. The most common approach is called ‘command and control,’ where forest areas are monitored by government officials who report on and stop illegal activities such as cutting down trees. Another method is to create and implement policies that will result in forest conservation, such as by establishing of protected areas or restricting mining and logging activities. There is also a lot of data that shows that the most effective policies for conserving forests are those that recognize and demarcate indigenous lands and territories. Another possible way to prevent deforestation is by creating incentives for keeping forests standing. Currently, a lot of the international climate change debate focuses on this idea: that people or countries should be compensated for protecting their forests. Now we’ll learn more about this idea and about its potential benefits, challenges, and risks.

Understanding the basics: Climate Change and REDD+

The additional “+” Recently, the term REDD was changed to REDD+. It’s important to understand the difference and what this “+” really means. As we said before, REDD is supposed to reduce the emissions associated with deforestation and forest degradation. But there was a big problem with this idea. Under REDD, only countries with high rates of deforestation would benefit, and not the countries that did their “homework” ahead of time and protected their forests. Basically, REDD would pay the “bad guys” to stop being so bad. To fix that problem, policy designers added the “+,” which includes three more activities that would be eligible for reward:

Conservation of existing forests: countries with good forest cover are given incen• tives to keep their trees standing and to maintain their very low rates of deforestation Sustainable forest management: this encourages ‘managed selective logging,’ • where when trees are logged, methods are used that have the least possible impact nhancement of carbon stocks: this encourages adding more trees to a forested • Elandscape.

3 When a “forest” isn’t really a forest One big problem that REDD+ still has is that the definition it currently uses of what is considered a forest could allow plantations, such as oil palm plantations, to be considered forests, making it possible for a country to get paid to cut down standing forests and plant palm trees in their place. All of the important environmental services provided by forests are lost when forests are replaced by plantations. This is unacceptable. Indigenous peoples and other civil society organizations are putting pressure on governments to change this concept of forests and guarantee the protection of natural forests.

How would REDD+ schemes work? In simple terms, REDD+ would work by decreasing the amount of forest that is being cut down and burned. This would reduce greenhouse gas emissions thereby reducing climate change. Economists have long claimed that tackling deforestation is the easiest and cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. Internationally, REDD+ means that developed countries would pay developing countries to keep their forests standing. In principle, this seems like a fair and easy task. But, in practice, the creation and implementation of REDD+ payment programs has proven to be extremely complex, and in many instances has created major tensions and conflicts in the very forests that the programs are trying to conserve. One of the major criticisms of schemes such as REDD+ is that they might be an “easy way out” for developed countries, in the sense that these countries would simply pay money to reduce emissions in tropical countries in order to avoid doing so themselves. But industrialized countries have a “historical responsibility” for the problem of climate change and without drastic emission cuts by them; there is no way to solve the problem of climate change. Reducing tropical forest loss would reduce global warming, but it MUST be accompanied by significant reductions in the developed world. REDD+ programs, in theory, could be implemented at the national, sub-national, project, or community level. The problem with implementing REDD+ at the project level as opposed to setting up national REDD+ programs is that the deforestation avoided in one project area could easily be transferred to another area (e.g., across the river or in a different region outside the project area) resulting in what is called leakage. Developing REDD+ programs at the national level may be the best way to monitor and prevent such leakage. In booklet 3, we discuss the international debate about what level REDD+ schemes should be implemented on. See booklet 6 for a discussion of safeguards, and booklet 4 for initiatives currently being discussed in Guyana. M onitoring systems: How would reductions in deforestation be evaluated? For a REDD+ scheme to operate in a transparent and efficient manner, a robust system for measuring, reporting and verification (also called MRV) must be in place. What does this mean? Institutions at the regional and national levels would be contracted to measure (check) deforestation rates, and then publicly report their findings of where, how and why deforestation has increased or decreased. If it has decreased, they also must verify to what extent it has decreased, and/or whether government claims about reductions in deforestation are true. All MRV systems should be constructed and implemented in a participatory manner with indigenous peoples and other forest communities. An interesting development has been the involvement of NGOs and forest communities in monitoring and reporting systems.

Understanding the basics: Climate Change and REDD+

Where would the money come from? This is a very important question and the answer is right now there is no international agreement as to where the funds needed to pay for REDD+ initiatives will come from. In booklet 3 we will talk more about the international negotiations surrounding funding. For now, it’s important for you to know that there are basically two possible types of funding sources: carbon markets and governmental funds. But before we examine these options it’s important to have a brief understanding of what carbon offsets are. Carbon offsetting Carbon offsetting is the term for a policy whereby rich countries or companies that need to reduce their emissions pay developing countries to reduce emissions for them, allowing the rich countries to meet their commitments. For example, carbon offsetting schemes depend on the existence of a well-regulated international carbon market. A few of these markets and trading systems already exist; the most notable is in the European Union, although it should be noted that this is only for carbon emissions from industrial activities and not from forests or land use change. A carbon trading scheme (also called emissions trading or cap and trade system) is a market-based approach. This approach is used to control pollution by providing economic incentives (payments or tax incentives) to reduce emissions. In this scheme a limit (also known as a “quota” or a “cap”) is set internationally and any developed country that reaches its own limit could trade with others. It works like a fishing quota. For example, let’s say that the government has declared that because of overfishing a fisherman can only catch 10 kg of fish a week, and anyone that catches more than 10 kg is subject to a fine or penalty. So, if a fisherman only catches 7 kg /week, he is 3 kg below his quota. So he could sell the right to catch 3 kg more fish to another fisherman, and that fisherman would be allowed to catch 13 kg of fish. Together, the two fishermen will still only be catching 20 kg/week. The same principle is behind a carbon trading scheme. Countries that reduce deforestation, and therefore emit less carbon (like catching fewer fish) could “sell’ to other countries the right to emit more carbon (like catching more fish). In theory, the total amount of carbon emissions would therefore stay within a pre-determined limit—though it would not reduce overall emissions. It’s important to note that there are some important differences between the fish example and carbon trading schemes. First, unlike the fish quota example, not everyone would have quotas—in the case of carbon and climate change, so far only developed countries have restrictions in their emissions. Another difference is that developed countries (the “buyers”) actually emit much more than developing countries (the “sellers”). How the potential “market” would work is not entirely sorted out, and is still in discussion. It’s important to mention that there is an active voluntary market (where a business might support a REDD+ project voluntarily, for example, without being “forced” to by international regulations), but it’s small in terms of carbon and dollars.

Governmental Funds The other option for funding REDD+ initiatives involves the setting up of governmental funds. In this option, developed countries and other interested actors would put money into a “Global Fund” (not necessarily just one) which could be accessed by countries in reward for lowering their deforestation rates. Unlike with a carbon market, money in the Global Fund or similar funds would not likely be used to compensate or offset any carbon emissions occurring elsewhere. The developed countries would be making what are essentially donations in the hope of reducing climate change—which is a good thing for all countries in its own right. GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS VS CARBON MARKETS PROS Governmental funds

3 Could fix carbon prices 3 Could provide payments

not just for carbon, but for social and environmental benchmarks

CONS 3 If given on a voluntary basis,

funds and donations could end at anytime

3 Potential for government

bureaucracy and corruption

3 Funding might be absorbed by

the managers of the fund (overhead costs)

Carbon markets

3 Possible more long-term

3 Prices will go up and down

3 Possibly larger amounts

3 Possible ‘carbon cowboys’ who

funding

of funding

with no control

rip off communities

3 If communities do not have

‘carbon rights’ they might not benefit

3 If allows 100% offsets no real

emission reduction would take place

Like with any commercial transition that you have engaged in, such as selling peanuts or selling “farine”, there is always something that is sold (the good or product), there is always a price at which that good is sold, and there is always at least one person who does the selling and another person to pay the price and buy the good. Let’s examine how this would work in the case of carbon.

Product: carbon stored in trees or amount of carbon emissions avoided • Price: varies a lot • • Seller: communities or governments? Buyer: person, company or industrialized country •

Understanding the basics: Climate Change and REDD+

But, exactly who can sell this carbon product? If we believe that you can only sell what you already own, then the question becomes: who owns the carbon? This is a very important point that should be clear for indigenous peoples. Since indigenous peoples have rights to their ancestral lands, they should also be entitled to rights over all the natural resources found in their lands, including carbon. However, in regions or countries where communities do not have land rights, it’s unlikely that they will be able to ‘prove’ ownership in order to benefit. Another possibility some are looking at would be for the government to be the only “buyer” or “seller.” Some countries, like those in the Congo Basin of Africa, are discussing whether in a market scenario all funding should go through the government, or whether other bodies will be able to trade freely. An important thing to remember about a REDD+ market is that the product is ‘virtual’ and not as concrete as kilos of farine or peanuts. You can only “prove” that you’re buying or selling carbon on paper, in documents that could be forged. Can REDD+ benefit indigenous peoples? As the holders of forest lands, how could REDD+ impact you? What are the risks of participating in REDD+? What are the potential benefits? Worldwide, it still remains to be seen whether REDD or REDD+ will make things better or worse for indigenous peoples, for forests, and for the global climate. A few indigenous groups have already engaged in REDD+ projects and carbon trading. Unfortunately, many of them have had very negative experiences. Other indigenous peoples believe that the trees, air and wind are sacred and spiritual for their peoples and must not be owned by anyone, nor bought or sold. So, therefore “negotiating carbon” would be against their principles. Another argument against carbon markets is that by engaging in carbon offsetting, you’re allowing polluting industries to carry on business as usual. This ‘business as usual’ might include very negative practices against other communities elsewhere, like continuing oil exploration in countries of the Amazon Basin, like Peru or Ecuador. Many groups are therefore not willing to participate in REDD+ projects, because they disagree with the idea of selling carbon. Initiatives like REDD+ could present opportunities to gain recognition for indigenous peoples as longtime stewards of the forest and to compensate them for it. However, there are several risks inherent in the establishment of REDD+ programs. REDD+ programs will establish what can and cannot be done in forests, which could restrict indigenous peoples in their traditional use of forest resources. For example, REDD+ could control whether communities can practice traditional agriculture or not. Governments might be interested in maximizing their own share of REDD+ funding and could therefore be resistant to giving indigenous peoples legal title to their lands. Weak governance in many forested countries could also lead to increased corruption, with large new sources of funding coming on board. A final problem is that there have been no guarantees on either the national or international levels that key issues such as land titling will be solved before REDD+ programs get up and running. Unfortunately, many governments and some international organizations are trying to put this on the backburner.

In theory, a REDD+ scheme could benefit indigenous peoples ONLY IF it:

Ensures the rights of indigenous and other forest communities, including owner• ship of their lands and resources and the right to free, prior, and informed consent, as recognized in the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples (more on that in booklet 5);

indigenous cultural traditions, including that of shifting agriculture, and • Recognizes other practices that use forest resources (such as cutting trees for building houses) but do not damage the forest on the scale of other activities such as commercial logging and ranching;

and compensates indigenous peoples and other forest communities for • Recognizes their contributions to conserving forests; indigenous peoples and forest communities in the creation, implementa• Involves tion and monitoring of national programs in a truly participatory and transparent

It’s also important to remember that we can only fight climate change by successfully addressing not only the approximately 15% of global emissions caused by forest destruction, but also the 85% of emissions that comes from energy use and consumption. While forests may be a critical part of the solution, let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture. Any real solution to combat climate change needs to address not just forests but also the other inter-connected issues of energy and consumption in the developed world.

Indigenous peoples preparing thatch, Guyana. APA/Archive.

manner;

• on natural forests and the recovery of degraded land, and does not allow • Isthefocused conversion of these natural ecosystems to plantations. • Recognizes forests for their biodiversity, not just for the carbon they contain. two major actions should be taken to solidify any REDD+ strategy. At • Intheaddition, national level, it’s important to keep in mind that money alone will not re Tackles the major drivers of deforestation such as industrial logging, monoculture (one crop) production, land grabbing, and mining activities;1

duce deforestation. In addition to creating REDD+ schemes, countries need to have the political will to promote other development strategies that will not result in deforestation. At the international level, REDD+ schemes could contribute to decreasing the effects of climate change, but they cannot solve the problem by themselves. As previously mentioned, it’s essential that developed countries make deep cuts in their domestic emissions and reduce their use of fossil fuels. While indigenous peoples and other forest dependent communities contribute little to climate change, they will be disproportionately affected by changes in weather patterns.

But REDD+ initiatives are already happening Although there is still a lot uncertainty in the air, several REDD+ policies and programs are already taking place. In booklet 3, we will describe some of the most important international initiatives. We will talk in greater details about the REDD+ schemes currently evolving in Guyana in booklet 4, as well as about how to avoid some of the potential risks we’ve just learned about by structuring and implementing ‘social safeguards’ in booklet 6. It’s important for indigenous peoples to understand the terms and concepts being used, and to know their rights (booklet 5 lays out indigenous rights in Guyana and internationally). 1 A real analysis of the major drivers of deforestation for several countries engaged in national REDD+ schemes is still lacking. 2 Which is less likely to happen in a market scheme.

Understanding the basics: Climate Change and REDD+

AMERINDIAN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION