A UN scheme to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation is being watched closely by forest community dwellers in Thailand and Cambodia who say they have been kept in the dark so far
10 Apr, 2011Source: Bangkok Post
More than 190 parties to the UN climate change convention gathered in Bangkok last week to discuss ways to tackle climate change and its impacts after a new deal was struck in Cancun, Mexico last year.
However, one climate mitigation measure has already found its way from the negotiating table into realisation _ REDD, or reducing carbon emissions from forest deforestation and degradation. REDD pilot projects have been implemented in several countries, either funded by the UN-REDD programme or the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF).
Climate advocates hope the scheme will help curb greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation. But it's already encountering teething problems with regard to local communities' rights versus national governments' implementation of UN-backed initiatives, as well as fears that corrupt administrations will profit from it.
There is also the thorny issue of REDD programmes possibly running counter to established environmental laws and regulations in some countries.
In the Mekong region, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand have been busily preparing to explore the REDD initiative.
Scant details have been disclosed about the programme in Laos, but in Cambodia and Thailand, negative reports have prompted several forest advocates to worry that REDD, while well-intentioned, could cause more harm than good to local communities.
One Cambodian community leader recently raised his concerns about the scheme at a civil forum.
In Cambodia, REDD is being implemented at the Prey Long protected forest area on the border with Thailand where scores of communities have lived for generations. But the government has already granted concessions for mining and other commercial purposes in the same area. Nearly 300 companies are reported to have concessions in Cambodia's forests _ where over 80% of the country's population earn their livelihoods.
The community leader said this was only possible because the government had sole authority over forest protection, while the affected communities played no role, meaning there was virtually no consultation.
He said that as REDD was being implemented with the World Bank's financial assistance there were fears the communities would be kept on the margins as the Cambodian government tried to bleed the programme for monetary benefits.
This could mean more stringent regulations on local communities as the REDD scheme would be effectively imposed on them. The community leader said many villagers don't even know what REDD is. ''The right of people to participate in the scheme is very limited,'' he said.
Similar suspicions are being echoed in forests on Thailand's western border. Kriangkrai Cheechuang is a young Karen whose family has lived in the protect forest area of the Mae Nam Phachi Wildlife Sanctuary in Ratchaburi. He is anxious to hear news on Thailand's possible implementation of the REDD scheme, and is worried that his community will come under a World Bank-funded pilot programme.
Like their counterparts in Cambodia, the villagers have been kept in the dark, but are fighting back through REDDWatch, a group established to monitor the progress of the scheme.
''We have no idea how all our livelihoods will be affected, and we are quite worried about that,'' said Mr Kriangkrai.
When REDD was adopted in Cancun, developing countries were encouraged to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing deforestation and forest degradation, conserving forests and carrying out sustainable management. In return, they would receive financial support, although it has not yet been clearly established where long-term funding will come from.
The rights of forest communities and those dependent on the resource for their livelihoods were also widely debated at Cancun.
The Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme _ a coalition of forest research institutions _ called for the participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities in the scheme.
However, the coalition noted it was unclear how the measures to curtail likely impacts of the scheme (safeguards) would be put into operation.
Under the agreement, they are suggested to be only ''promoted and supported'' by the governments undertaking REDD.
With such vague beginnings, it's no wonder that many believe the original REDD agreement is written in quicksand rather than stone. When applied to different countries with different institutional frameworks and regulations it was almost inevitable it would be met with suspicion by locals.
Rawee Thaworn, a forestry expert studying the impact of the scheme in Thailand, said indigenous rights would be the most critical point to decide the scheme's fate here.
In Thailand, such rights are still vaguely defined and very often overridden by the state's interests, said Mr Rawee, who is the Country Program Officer for the Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and Pacific.
Under the current laws, about 99 million rai of forest, is government land under the supervision of at least three departments, including National Parks.
Mr Rawee said REDD would likely aggravate current conflicts that communities have with the state regarding forest use and conservation initiatives.
He said a committee should be formed to allow communities to take part in the scheme. Carbon credits derived from forest conservation should not be sold in the market as this would be too complicated for the communities to manage. Incentives could be given in the form of rights to forest utilisation, he said.
''Community rights are the entry point for REDD here,'' said Mr Rawee. ''If the problems around the scheme are cleared up, REDD should be a way to support community protection of forests rather than threaten them.''
No comments:
Post a Comment