False Solutions: REDD's Impact on Indigenous Communities - ACS

Chapter 2

False Solutions: REDD’s Impact on Indigenous Communities Downloaded by COLUMBIA UNIV on October 31, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 23, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1254.ch002

Prakriti Shrestha* Grinnell College, 1115 8th Ave., Box 4631, Grinnell, Iowa 50112, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Growing up in Nepal has made me acutely aware that developing countries are especially vulnerable to climate change, despite contributing relatively little to global greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations lack financial and technological capital to deal with the detrimental effects of climate change. At COP21, I focused on the role of developed nations, that are contributing most to anthropogenic climate change, in helping developing nations mitigate and adapt to climate change. United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program has been discussed as the best solution for climate change mitigation in developing countries. While REDD+ was originally designed to involve and benefit forest communities, there have been negative consequences on local and Indigenous communities. It has been called into question who actually benefits from this program, whether it is an effective wide-scale mitigation measure, and is thus called a ‘false solution’ by many climate justice activists.

COP21 as a Pathway to Climate Justice The climate talks in Paris (COP21) brought the climate justice framework to the forefront of my mind. There are variable definitions of climate justice, but the following definition comes closest to describing climate justice the way I personally experience it:

© 2017 American Chemical Society Peterman et al.; Climate Change Literacy and Education Social Justice, Energy, Economics, and the Paris Agreement Volume ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

Downloaded by COLUMBIA UNIV on October 31, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 23, 2017 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2017-1254.ch002

“Climate justice links human rights and development to achieve a humancentered approach, safeguarding the rights of the most vulnerable people and sharing the burdens of climate change and its impacts equitably and fairly (1).” This concept seems fairly simple to grasp, but as I learned from the climate talks in Paris, it is among the hardest principles to execute. While climate change is seen as a threat to the entire world, it is important to understand that this global issue is adversely affecting some communities at an alarmingly faster rate and with more intensity than other communities. Unfortunately, the most adversely affected communities also face other challenges such as lack of representation in positions of power, as well as a lack of financial and social capital. This divide results in the creation of solutions to climate change that seem effective at the surface, but may be detrimental to certain groups of people. Through my many conversations with youth leaders, Indigenous rights groups, and peers from around the world, I realized that one thing I could do as a student observer at this historically important convention was to spread these unheard voices as far as possible. Their opinions and real life experiences are not sufficiently explained through annual UN progress reports. In this chapter, I will focus on a proposed solution to climate change, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+), that has received a large amount of funding and international support (2). REDD+ has also been deemed a “false solution” by many climate justice activists and Indigenous groups who directly face the consequences of implementing this program. Before I explain what the REDD+ program is, I want to clarify what I mean by a false solution. For me, a false solution is a solution that does not tackle the direct cause of the problem; instead, the solution acts as a temporary fix and further, adversely affects certain disadvantaged groups. In this chapter, I will discuss the straightforward problem of deforestation, its contribution to climate change, strengths and weaknesses of a deforestation prevention program like REDD+, and its impact on surrounding forest-dependent and Indigenous communities. Additionally, I will discuss REDD+ as a systemically propagated program that allows businesses to continue business-as-usual while claiming that their activities are eco-friendly. The fact that the REDD+ program was formed clearly indicates the importance of protecting forests to combat climate change. To understand exactly why deforestation is important in combatting climate change, I will now discuss the impact of deforestation on the environment.

Deforestation: How Bad Is It? According to Greenpeace, 300 billion tons of carbon, 40 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, is stored in trees (3). It should come as no surprise that tropical deforestation and forest degradation are major contributors to the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. Furthermore, unlike industrialized countries where the burning of fossil fuels makes up the largest 14 Peterman et al.; Climate Change Literacy and Education Social Justice, Energy, Economics, and the Paris Agreement Volume ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

source of emissions, the primary source of carbon emissions from developing countries is in fact deforestation (4). Unfortunately, deforestation is occurring at an alarming rate. While forests still cover about 30% of the world’s land area, about 36 football fields worth of trees are lost every minute, and an estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest are lost each year globally (3). In other words, swaths of forest the size of Panama are lost every year (5). In the last two decades, Afghanistan has lost more than 70% of its forests throughout the country (6). Since the last century, Indonesia has lost at least 15.79 million hectares of forest land (3).


What Are the Drivers of Deforestation? Given the abundance of scientific research revealing the severely negative consequences of deforestation, why does the world continue to lose more and more of its forests every day in such an aggressive manner? The leading cause of deforestation is commercial and industrial-scale agriculture (6). In South America, Africa and Southeast Asia, 13 million hectares are converted from forest to agricultural land per year (6). Farmers clear forests to provide more room for planting crops or grazing livestock. Additionally, logging operations, which provide the world’s wood and paper products, also contribute to deforestation. According to Rainforest Action Network, the United States comprises less than 5% of the world’s population, yet it consumes more than 30% of the world’s paper (6). The roads and infrastructure used by loggers only further the destruction of forests (5). Urbanization is another major cause of deforestation, as are mining and forest fires (6). Common methods of deforestation intensify the problems caused by the loss of trees and thus create a damaging cycle of deforestation and exploitation of natural forest resources. For example, burning trees and clear cutting, which refers to cutting down large swaths of land at once, leaves the land completely barren. A forestry expert quoted by the Natural Resources Defense Council describes clear cutting as “an ecological trauma that has no precedent in nature except for a major volcanic eruption (3).” Another method is slash-and-burn agriculture, which entails cutting down a patch of trees, burning the trees, and growing crops on the land. This method seems to be favored, because the ash from the burned trees provides some nourishment for the plants, and the fire renders the land weed free. However, when the soil is no longer nutrient rich, and when weeds begin to reappear after years of use, the farmers move on to a new patch of land and begin the process again (6).

Main Consequences of Deforestation Deforestation has many negative effects on the environment. The most dramatic impact is a loss of habitat for millions of species. Seventy percent of Earth’s land animals and plants live in forests, and many cannot survive the deforestation that destroys their habitats (5). Deforestation does not only increase the concentration of carbon; it also changes the concentration of water vapor in 15 Peterman et al.; Climate Change Literacy and Education Social Justice, Energy, Economics, and the Paris Agreement Volume ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


the atmosphere. For example, trees help perpetuate the water cycle by returning water vapor back into the atmosphere, and without trees, many former forest lands can quickly become barren deserts (5). According to a study published by the National Academy of Sciences, deforestation has decreased global vapor flows from land by 4% (3). Even this slight change can disrupt natural weather patterns and change current climate models (3). Additionally, greenhouse warming may lead to further deforestation by moving the optimal temperature and precipitation zones for many tree species northward, subsequently increasing the severity of windstorms and wildfires, and expanding the range of pests and diseases (5). The release of carbon from these dying forests would not only reinforce the greenhouse effect, but also damage trees and crops due to the depletion of the ozone layer and increased incidence of ultraviolet radiation (7). Fewer forests means larger amounts of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere—and increased speed and severity of global warming (3). Realizing the severity of the consequences of deforestation, and recognizing that the main source of emissions in developing countries is the loss of forests, the UNFCCC recommended the creation of the REDD+ program.

REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) has been discussed in the UNFCCC climate negotiations since 2005 as a mechanism to mitigate global climate change (8). It is a global initiative that aims to reward developing countries or private parties for conserving their forests, by providing direct funding, providing emissions credits that could be traded on a carbon market, or combining both types of payments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (9). REDD can be described as a two-tier payment system: payments are first transferred from international donors to national-level organizations, namely national governments (9). These payments are conditional on the implementation of policies that help reduce emissions. Thereafter, national-level organizations are accountable for distributing these payments to sub-national organizations such as forest communities, or local governments that helped lower emissions (9). Since its inception, REDD has evolved into REDD+ to include interventions such as conservation and the sustainable management of forests, as well as the enhancement of forest carbon stocks through tree plantations and afforestation (10). REDD+ also emphasizes that long-term estimations of emission and removals should be done on a land basis instead of an activity basis, since land-based approaches more accurately reflect the land’s true effect on the environment (11). Additionally, REDD+ aims to recognize the inclusion of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, new social and environmental safeguards, and concepts around financial mechanisms and equitable distribution of funds (9). In the context of REDD+, safeguards refer to actions that protect against potential adverse environmental and social effects of REDD+ such as loss of biodiversity, land grabbing, and loss of livelihoods (9). The initial phase of REDD+ involves preparing countries for its implementation through ‘readiness’ mechanisms. These ensure that the drivers of 16

Peterman et al.; Climate Change Literacy and Education Social Justice, Energy, Economics, and the Paris Agreement Volume ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.


deforestation are being tackled and that procedures and safeguards are in place to allow equitable distribution of benefits arising from REDD+ (11). Most countries are in this phase now, though many have pushed ahead to adopt national REDD+ strategies without carrying out rigorous assessments of deforestation drivers. In addition to the lack of proper assessments of deforestation drivers, readiness actions have also tended to focus on measuring carbon and forest cover changes, without adequate attention to governance and rights issues (11). REDD+ is less likely to be successful if the readiness mechanisms do not focus on targeting major deforestation drivers and protecting vulnerable communities. At the surface level, the concept of compensating countries, forest communities, and locals involved in limiting deforestation sounds like a fair and fool-proof solution to combat climate change. However, climate justice activists from all over the world have been pleading the international community to recognize the downfalls of the REDD+ program. Activists claim that REDD+, contrary to UN reporting, is destroying biodiversity, allowing large-scale industries to continue polluting by creating carbon markets, undermining the traditional knowledge and land rights of Indigenous peoples, and ultimately upholding the capitalist structure of profitization over the needs of forest dependent communities. Furthermore, REDD+ demands transparency from all national parties but seems to have little control over how monetary rewards and other safeguards are equitably distributed among all stakeholders. It is unclear how REDD+ expects countries to fully uphold its principles of transparency and accountability when each country deals with national and local level corruption differently or has different policies regarding Indigenous land rights. In this context, it is interesting to deconstruct why the people who are most vulnerable to climate change are vehemently opposing an internationally approved program that aims to mitigate climate change and promises to compensate them fairly when implementing this program. This discordance raises the question, why are supposed benefactors of REDD+ resistant to this program?

Voices against REDD+ at COP21 The Paris Agreement of December 2015 encourages countries “…to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments…activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” (Article 5) as a key policy instrument in climate change mitigation (12). REDD+ was a hot topic in the climate negotiations, both within the negotiations involving state delegates as well as outside the official negotiations, as numerous Indigenous climate justice activists presented their views on REDD+. It is uncertain how much of their concerns were heard at COP21, as the Indigenous Peoples’ Pavilion, where most of these presentations took place, was not located in the same section as the official negotiations. I spent a lot of my time at the Indigenous Peoples’ Pavilion and had the opportunity to learn about Indigenous views on REDD+ as a false solution. While each of the representatives presented different outlooks and stories on the impact of REDD+ on their communities, Indigenous peoples had a common message: they wanted 17



their voices to be heard and their traditional knowledge to be recognized as a viable tool in combatting climate change. Indigenous peoples recognize that until they are seen as assets in the climate change mitigation process, they can face eviction from their own homes, their livelihoods can be threatened, and they can be left with no form of support from any national or international players. You might be wondering, why are Indigenous peoples even important in the broader scale of climate change mitigation? We cannot discuss REDD+ as a viable mechanism for climate change mitigation without discussing the role of Indigenous peoples because most of the world’s forests are on Indigenous peoples’ land. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), around 1.6 billion people, including 60 million Indigenous people, are completely dependent on forests as a source of livelihoods, food, medicines and building materials (13). A study presented at COP21’s Global Landscapes Forum showed that Indigenous people oversee around a fifth of the world’s carbon stock, in the form of tropical forests (14). Altogether, 168 billion tonnes of carbon are stored on Indigenous lands, which is around three times the world’s annual emissions (14). Even though most Indigenous communities have been residing in and protecting certain forest areas for centuries, they often do not have a formal land title. As a result, many people have already been forcibly and even violently ejected from their ancestral territories (16). For example, Bassey, Alternative Nobel Prize Laureate, former Executive Director of ERA/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, observed that in Africa, REDD+ is emerging as a “new form of colonialism, economic subjugation and a driver of land grabs (15, 16).” Since 2007, the government of Kenya has been forcing 15,000 Sengwer Indigenous peoples from their ancestral homes in the Embobut forest and the Cherangany hills in preparation for REDD+ (17). The government’s justification for the eviction is that the indigenous Sengwer are responsible for the accelerating degradation of the forest (17). Similarly, official studies and analyses of deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) tend to blame forest peoples for forest loss without paying adequate attention to industrial and economic causes linked to road building, illegal logging, mining, commercial agriculture and urban expansion (18). As a result, the national REDD+ strategy is unjustly skewed towards limiting local livelihood activities, without adequate protections for sustainable traditional livelihood practices (18). There are less extreme cases of land grabbing where the government does not completely remove forest dependent communities from their homes, but does try to regain control of the forests. This generally happens through military force or by interfering with the livelihoods of Indigenous peoples and cutting them off from essential resources from the forests. Some people may argue that having centralized or state-controlled forests is beneficial in reaching the overall goal of conserving forests, but practiced forest conservation experts in my home country of Nepal will tell you otherwise. A more decentralized mode of forest governance (i.e., community forestry) has taken root since the early 1980s (19). Nepal’s community forestry program represents one of the world’s most extensive, successful, and widely studied systems of community-based forest management, involving over 16,000 forest user groups managing approximately one quarter of Nepal’s total forest area (19, 20). Due to its strong policies and institutions for community-based forest management, some consider Nepal to 18



have an institutional advantage for implementing REDD+. However, while community Forestry has successfully reforested much of Nepal, it faces a reinvigorated government challenge to land tenure under REDD+ (19). If the financial value of forests goes up, REDD+ payments may incentivize the government and private companies to take advantage of current land tenure laws and seek larger soil carbon payments. The fact that REDD+ commodifies forest carbon—and thus creates carbon markets that encourage carbon trading rather than limiting activities that increase greenhouse gas emissions—is an important factor in drawing in opposition from climate justice activists. Commodifying forest carbon is also inherently inequitable, since it discriminates against people, especially women who contribute significantly to forest management, but will no longer have free access to the forest resources they need to raise and care for their families (20). Women gather fuelwood, and non-wood forest products for food, medicine, and fodder, and often cannot afford to purchase alternative resources. By cutting off free access to forest resources, REDD+ could increase workloads for women without appropriately scaled compensation, displace them from forests, deny them a fair share of benefits, or leave them out of consultations and capacity-building activities (21). REDD+ is based on the notion that reductions in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries can be achieved at a lower cost than reductions in emissions from industrial sources in developed countries. REDD+ is supported globally because it is much easier to restrict activities of forest-dependent communities that do not engage in large scale deforestation than it is to dismantle the capitalistic structure of society. Thus, there is an economic imperative to minimize the cost of forest carbon offsets under REDD+ (20). In this way, REDD+ allows many industrialized nations and corporations to continue carrying out their harmful activities under the pretense of being environmentally friendly. This contradiction renders REDD+ an ineffective solution to climate change. For example, while Nepal is considered to be a strong site for the implementation of REDD+ due to the success of its community forestry program, Nepal has a much smaller area of forest and a much lower rate of deforestation as compared to Indonesia and Brazil which suffer high risks of deforestation from industrial timber harvesting and other large-scale commercial land uses. Any successes in small, lower-risk countries like Nepal, which contributes less than 0.1%, to global emissions are laudable, of course, but are also relatively insignificant. It is more important for larger developing countries with greater rates of deforestation, such as Brazil, or larger developed nations with greater greenhouse gas emissions due to industrial activities, to halt their activities simultaneously. Thus, REDD+ allows many industrialized nations and corporations to continue carrying out their harmful activities under the pretense of being environmentally friendly Observing and experiencing the program’s shortcomings, climate justice activists argue that REDD+ and carbon trading are mechanisms that allow high-polluting companies and governments to purchase carbon credits in order to continue business-as-usual rather than reducing their emissions at source, with the excuse that somewhere else there is a “forest” that, in theory, will “offset” their emissions (21). Furthermore, REDD+’s approach to reducing carbon emissions 19



permits the planting of mass-scale commercial forests or monocultures on the condition that the corporations involved ensure that the new forests contain equal amounts of carbon to the previous forest, thereby, balancing out their carbon emissions (22). Although planting commercial forests may balance carbon emissions, native forests are home to a variety of species, some of which are becoming endangered and cannot be restored by planting commercial forests (23). Millions of hectares of forests in the world, especially in developing countries, are being substituted by monocultures plantations under that slogan of “planted forests (23).” These industrial tree plantations have quadrupled in developing countries in the last two decades, so that today there are 60 billion hectares of monoculture plantations (22). In addition, commercial forests often displace Indigenous people from their ancestral lands. Indigenous people are displaced largely by force or coercion and are often left with no alternative sources for their daily needs for natural forest resources, including fuel and food (24). This scarcity of resources leads to competition within and between different communities and may contribute to conflicts in that region. REDD+ also allows ‘leakages,’ where deforestation activities are merely removed from their original site to an area of forest adjacent to an area sectioned off for conservation. For example, in Bolivia, when loggers were forced off one area of land sectioned for conservation, the logging companies simply bought new areas of land elsewhere (24). Thus, the program does not help in tackling the root causes of illegal logging, which include logging without a license or in conservation areas, harvesting in excess of quotas, processing logs without a license, tax avoidance, or exporting wood without paying the required duties (24). Leakages also occur at a smaller scale when, much like large corporations who simply move operations to unprotected forests, forest-dependent communities acquire resources from different, unprotected forests. The REDD+ program allows leakages by interfering with the livelihoods, as well as daily needs, of forestdependent communities and failing to provide them with an alternative source of sustenance. Therefore, in Nepal, the REDD pilot (REDDp) program is trying to prevent leakages by providing alternative resources such as cooking stoves and biogas plants to affected households (14). It is unclear how many of these alternative resources reach the people who need it the most in the case of Nepal. Research done in the eastern rainforest of Madagascar has demonstrated that a protected area and a REDD+ project are failing to even compensate forest dwellers most affected by new restrictions imposed on their traditional livelihoods (24). Ideally, compensation is supposed to reach the people most negatively impacted by conservation. However, Mahesh Poudyal and Julia Jones from Bangor University found that the compensation has disproportionately reached those more easily accessible, are more financially sound, and have positions of authority locally (25). REDD+ would potentially bring millions of dollars to Nepalese forest users, but fair compensation and equitable distribution may not be reached despite $30 billion pledged by the international community to implement REDD+ programs (11). In the REDDp pilot project, if payments were based purely on carbon increment rates at a rate of US$10/tCO2, each community forest user group (CFUG) would receive US$245 on average per year. This is not sufficient to offset the costs of implementing the REDD+ program and ensuring participation 20



of all stakeholders (22). To maximize carbon benefits, CFUGs have sacrificed the amount of resources they extract from forests and the number of animals grazing in the forest. These sacrifices lead to a loss in livelihoods and make it difficult to carry out daily activities. Thus, the cost of the reduced access to resources could be high. Therefore, in this situation, REDDp may not be the appropriate avenue for funding. This is a significant finding and leads us to one of the most important issues related to REDD+: Who has a say in the design and implementation of REDD+ programs? Stakeholder participation is one of the underlying principles of REDD+. In the case of Nepal, important stakeholders, such as community forest users and Indigenous peoples, were left out of early talks on REDD+ (14). Forest-dependent communities and marginalized groups have had few opportunities to provide their input on REDD+ policies, since meetings are often closed or held in prohibitively-distant Kathmandu (14). Only a small proportion of REDD+ workshops included groups such as Indigenous people, women, and a socially marginalized group in the Hindu Caste system, Dalits (14). In addition to the lack of participation of Indigenous and marginalized groups in REDD+ planning, the government has sometimes fabricated Indigenous viewpoints. According to one Indigenous activist in Nepal, the government “just pick[ed] up [stakeholders] from the street and then s[aid] ‘these are Indigenous people’ (14).” Without stakeholder engagement, there is likely to be inequitable distribution of financial and natural resources, and the REDD+ program is less likely to succeed in the long run. According to Soumitra Ghosh, a climate justice activist from India, REDD+ “helps perpetuate the myth that capitalist production/accumulation can be continued ad infinitum in an environmentally sustainable manner (22).” This statement reflects the core value that climate justice encompasses. Without dismantling the unsustainable consumerism and commodification of natural resources, REDD+ (or any other forestry and conservation program) is going to be unsuccessful in its efforts to prevent deforestation or even to offset emissions from other sources. It is not possible to respect the needs of Indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities while allowing large corporations to continue activities that are detrimental to the environment. REDD+ does not directly tackle the main driver of deforestation, which is mass consumerism and global focus on financial growth. REDD+ forces communities that have typically attempted to sustainably manage their forest resources to leave their homes and to leave their lifestyles behind to make room for more business as usual. It is simply unjust and ineffective to ask people who have contributed the least to climate change to make the biggest changes in their lives.

References 1. 2.

Mary Robinson Foundation. Principles of Climate Justice. http:// www.mrfcj.org/principles-of-climate-justice/ (accessed Aug. 28, 2016). UN-REDD programme. About the UN-REDD programme. http://www.unredd.org/(accessed Aug 28, 2016) 21


3.

4.

5.

6.


7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Bradford, A. Deforestation: Facts, Causes and Effects. http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html (accessed Aug. 28, 2016) Houghton, R. A. Tropical Deforestation As a Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change; Environmental Defense, 2005; Chapter 13. National Geographic. Deforestation. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ deforestation-overview/ (accessed Aug. 28, 2016). Conserve Energy Future. Deforestation Facts. http://www.conserve-energyfuture.com/various-deforestation-facts.php (accessed Aug. 28, 2016) Homer-Dixon, T. F. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence; Princeton University Press, 2010. Forest Peoples Programme. REDD+ and related initiatives.http:// www.forestpeoples.org/topics/climate-forests/redd-and-related-initiatives (accessed Sept. 9, 2016). UNFCCC. Safeguards. http://redd.unfccc.int/fact-sheets/safeguards.html (accessed Aug. 28, 2016). Rosenbach, D. W.; Whittemore, J.; DeBoer, J. Community Forestry and REDD+ in Nepal. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 2013. Forest Peoples Programme. REDD+ and related initiatives. http:// www.forestpeoples.org/topics/climate-forests/redd-and-related-initiatives (accessed Sept. 12, 2016). Forest Peoples Programme. Is Carbon Funding Hurting Forest Peoples? Evidence from Madagascar. http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/redd-andrelated-initiatives/news/2016/02/carbon-funding-hurting-forest-peoplesevidence-mada (accessed Sept. 12, 2016). Friends of the Earth. A Dangerous Gamble with the World’s Forests.https:/ /www.foe.co.uk/news/emissions_deforestation_20707 (accessed Sept. 12, 2016). SciDevNet. Indigenous People Keep Carbon Locked in Forests. http://www.scidev.net/global/indigenous/news/indigenous-people-carbonlocked-forests.html(accessed Sept. 12, 2016). Lang, C. REDD Monitor. COP2: What Happened so Far? http://www.noredd-africa.org/index.php/news/166-cop21-what-s-happened-so-far-reddmonitor (accessed Sept. 12, 2016). Indigeneous Environmental Network. Africans Unite against New Form of Colonialism. http://www.ienearth.org/africans-unite-against-new-form-ofcolonialism/(accessed Sept. 12, 2016). Ahmed, N. World Bank and UN Carbon Offset Scheme ‘Complicit’ in Genocidal Land Grabs - NGOs. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ earth-insight/2014/jul/03/world-bank-un-redd-genocide-land-carbon-grabsengwer-kenya (accessed Sept. 12, 2016). Forest Peoples Programme. Securing Forest Peoples’ Rights and Tackling Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2016/05/ fppdrcreportinternet-2.pdf (accessed Sept. 12, 2016). 22



19. Bushley, B. R.; Khatri, D. B. REDD+: Reversing, Reinforcing or Reconfiguring Decentralized Forest Governance in Nepal; Forest Action, 2011; Discussion Paper 11; p 3. 20. REDD-Monitor. REDD: An Introduction. http://www.redd-monitor.org/ redd-an-introduction/(accessed Aug. 28,2016). 21. Setyowati, A. Ensuring that women benefit from REDD+. Unasylva 2012, 63 (1), 239. 22. Carbon Trade Watch. Carbon Trading: How It Works and Why It Fails. http://www.carbontradewatch.org/publications/carbon-trading-how-itworks-and-why-it-fails.html (accessed Aug. 28,2016). 23. Carbon Trade Watch. Paths beyond Paris: Movements, Actions and Solidarity Towards Climate Justice, 2015. http://www.carbontradewatch.org/articles/paths-beyond-paris-movementsaction-and-solidarity-towards-climate-justice.html (accessed 2017). 24. Brentnall, H. U.N.-REDD Program Criticized for Negative Impact on Indigenous Communities. https://www.newsrecord.co/u-n-redd-programcriticized-for-negative-impact-on-indigenous-communities/ (accessed Sept. 12, 2016). 25. Poudyal, M.; Ramamonjisoa, B. S.; Hockley, N.; Rakotonarivo, O. S.; Gibbons, J. M.; Mandimbiniaina, R.; Rasoamanana, A.; Jones, J. P. Can REDD+ Social Safeguards Reach the ‘Right’ People? Lessons from Madagascar. Global Environmental Change 2016, 37, 31–42.

23 Peterman et al.; Climate Change Literacy and Education Social Justice, Energy, Economics, and the Paris Agreement Volume ... ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.

False Solutions: REDD's Impact on Indigenous Communities - ACS

Recommend Documents