Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 7 – uploaded by Julia Dehm

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
description of the way in which KFCP is to be implemented sets out a staged approach for incentive payments to individuals and organisations relating to the ecological services provided. The KFCP ‘Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet’ (World Bank, 2010b) available on the World Bank website states that initial payments for eco-system services related to the project will initially be “performance based”,'° and then “outcome based”, so that they are “commensurate with verified reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” This is intended to be “initially as a proxy for a future forest carbon market but possibly later based on tradable credits in a real carbon market.” (World Bank, 2010b)

Figure 7 description of the way in which KFCP is to be implemented sets out a staged approach for incentive payments to individuals and organisations relating to the ecological services provided. The KFCP ‘Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet’ (World Bank, 2010b) available on the World Bank website states that initial payments for eco-system services related to the project will initially be “performance based”,'° and then “outcome based”, so that they are “commensurate with verified reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” This is intended to be “initially as a proxy for a future forest carbon market but possibly later based on tradable credits in a real carbon market.” (World Bank, 2010b)

Related Figures (15)

This report analyses the social and environmental effectiveness of the KFCP in the light of new developments in both Kalimantan and national REDD policy in Indonesia. It finds that REDD forest carbon offsets are a false solution to climate change. Funded by the Australian government, it has been described as the ‘first large-scale pilot’ of forest offsets. It is being used to kick-start REDD' carbon markets and to push for cheap
This report analyses the social and environmental effectiveness of the KFCP in the light of new developments in both Kalimantan and national REDD policy in Indonesia. It finds that REDD forest carbon offsets are a false solution to climate change. Funded by the Australian government, it has been described as the ‘first large-scale pilot’ of forest offsets. It is being used to kick-start REDD' carbon markets and to push for cheap
The question of how REDD impacts upon communities living in and around forested areas has also been an important issue in the UNFCCC negotiations. Following demands from indigenous peoples’ organisations and social and environmental movements, COP 16 in Cancun decided on a set of safeguards that are supposed to protect community rights. However, the text on monitoring, verification and reporting (MRV) of these safeguards was significantly watered down, with text on a system for monitoring of the implementation of safeguards being replaced with text calling for countries to merely develop a “system for providing information.” (UNFCCC, 2010:A71(d)) As such, the current draft text is too weak to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities will be protected and promoted. However, despite general support for action to reduce deforestation being included in a new climate framework, here is continuing disagreement about how REDD should be financed. Australia and Indonesia have been leading countries in calling for market-based funding for REDD UNFCCC, 2009). But other nations such as Tuvalu, Bangladesh and the European Union have been much more entative about REDD as an offset that can be traded on general carbon markets. Bolivia is opposed to REDD being used as an offset mechanism. This opposition to REDD and he extension of carbon markets was one of the key reasons why Bolivia opposed the Cancun Agreements in 2010 (Solon 2010).
The question of how REDD impacts upon communities living in and around forested areas has also been an important issue in the UNFCCC negotiations. Following demands from indigenous peoples’ organisations and social and environmental movements, COP 16 in Cancun decided on a set of safeguards that are supposed to protect community rights. However, the text on monitoring, verification and reporting (MRV) of these safeguards was significantly watered down, with text on a system for monitoring of the implementation of safeguards being replaced with text calling for countries to merely develop a “system for providing information.” (UNFCCC, 2010:A71(d)) As such, the current draft text is too weak to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities will be protected and promoted. However, despite general support for action to reduce deforestation being included in a new climate framework, here is continuing disagreement about how REDD should be financed. Australia and Indonesia have been leading countries in calling for market-based funding for REDD UNFCCC, 2009). But other nations such as Tuvalu, Bangladesh and the European Union have been much more entative about REDD as an offset that can be traded on general carbon markets. Bolivia is opposed to REDD being used as an offset mechanism. This opposition to REDD and he extension of carbon markets was one of the key reasons why Bolivia opposed the Cancun Agreements in 2010 (Solon 2010).
One very specific further conflict has arisen with respect to tree planting and land tenure. In the Dayak Ngayu culture the very act of planting trees secures individual land tenure rights over that area (Australia Indonesia Partnership, 2009). KFCP tree planting activities can thus be interpreted as a Another contentious issue concerns orangutan conservation. Block E of the site contains relatively intact peat swamp orest. Borneo Orangutan Survival Mawas (BOS Mawas) has been operating a wildlife conservation project, the Mawas Peatland Conservation Area Project, since 2002. This conservation project has led to significant community ensions. Community organisations claim that initial promises made by BOS Mawas - that they would provide ivelihood supports such as fishponds to local residents in return for restricting access to the conservation area - were not adequately kept. The subsequent criminalisation of community members who entered the conservation area to collect wood for building a house or boat or to harvest rattan or other forest produce they had previously planted and tended has led to further tensions between BOS and the local communities (Muliardi & Ewaldianson, 2011). The fact that Block E was already provisionally protected as a conservation area prior to the KFCP also raises concerns about the ‘additionality’ of any offsets generated. Additional concerns have been raised that the KFCP is not listening to local knowledge and wisdom about the suitability and appropriateness of various tree species, which may mean that newly planted seedlings do not survive (YPD, 2011). Additional concerns have been raised that the KFCP is not
One very specific further conflict has arisen with respect to tree planting and land tenure. In the Dayak Ngayu culture the very act of planting trees secures individual land tenure rights over that area (Australia Indonesia Partnership, 2009). KFCP tree planting activities can thus be interpreted as a Another contentious issue concerns orangutan conservation. Block E of the site contains relatively intact peat swamp orest. Borneo Orangutan Survival Mawas (BOS Mawas) has been operating a wildlife conservation project, the Mawas Peatland Conservation Area Project, since 2002. This conservation project has led to significant community ensions. Community organisations claim that initial promises made by BOS Mawas - that they would provide ivelihood supports such as fishponds to local residents in return for restricting access to the conservation area - were not adequately kept. The subsequent criminalisation of community members who entered the conservation area to collect wood for building a house or boat or to harvest rattan or other forest produce they had previously planted and tended has led to further tensions between BOS and the local communities (Muliardi & Ewaldianson, 2011). The fact that Block E was already provisionally protected as a conservation area prior to the KFCP also raises concerns about the ‘additionality’ of any offsets generated. Additional concerns have been raised that the KFCP is not listening to local knowledge and wisdom about the suitability and appropriateness of various tree species, which may mean that newly planted seedlings do not survive (YPD, 2011). Additional concerns have been raised that the KFCP is not
“the KFCP project with a 120,000 ha (half the size of Australian Capital Territory or ACT) project area pales in comparison with the 15.1 million ha of the total area in central Kalimantan, at least 83 per cent of which will be converted or destroyed through either oil palm, monoculture pulp plantations or mining permits issued by the relevant authorities. This amounts to 12.5 million ha which is just under twice the size of Tasmania. Emissions from such a huge area will drastically overwhelm the insignificant and small reduction from the KFCP site, assuming ARPAG claims that an expansion of 360,000 ha of palm oil concession is planned within the ex-Mega Rice Project area. The KFCP project and other REDD projects fail to provide adequate structural incentives to shift away from such extensive and unsustainable land uses. As further evidence of this, in May 2011 the Environmental Investigation Agency and Telapak found that palm oil firms were illegally clearing land in Central Kalimantan, in an area which would have been part of a moratorium on new logging concessions established under the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ Partnership (EIA & Telepak, 2011). This highlights the persistence of illegal deforestation in Indonesia, and the potential for local and national ‘leakage’ under policies that rely on carbon markets rather than more fundamental policy changes.
“the KFCP project with a 120,000 ha (half the size of Australian Capital Territory or ACT) project area pales in comparison with the 15.1 million ha of the total area in central Kalimantan, at least 83 per cent of which will be converted or destroyed through either oil palm, monoculture pulp plantations or mining permits issued by the relevant authorities. This amounts to 12.5 million ha which is just under twice the size of Tasmania. Emissions from such a huge area will drastically overwhelm the insignificant and small reduction from the KFCP site, assuming ARPAG claims that an expansion of 360,000 ha of palm oil concession is planned within the ex-Mega Rice Project area. The KFCP project and other REDD projects fail to provide adequate structural incentives to shift away from such extensive and unsustainable land uses. As further evidence of this, in May 2011 the Environmental Investigation Agency and Telapak found that palm oil firms were illegally clearing land in Central Kalimantan, in an area which would have been part of a moratorium on new logging concessions established under the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ Partnership (EIA & Telepak, 2011). This highlights the persistence of illegal deforestation in Indonesia, and the potential for local and national ‘leakage’ under policies that rely on carbon markets rather than more fundamental policy changes.
However, this ‘no rights, no REDD’ position conflicts with the approach on land tenure adopted by the KFCP. The project The ‘Peatland Charter’ issued by YPD in December 2010 calls for a halt to any climate negotiations taking place within a framework that “does not recognise the rights and sovereignty of local communities in project KFCP.” (YPD, 2010) As such, YPD has adopted a firm position of “no rights, no REDD” demanding that proper recognition of local land tenure must be a precondition for discussions about REDD design and implementation.
However, this ‘no rights, no REDD’ position conflicts with the approach on land tenure adopted by the KFCP. The project The ‘Peatland Charter’ issued by YPD in December 2010 calls for a halt to any climate negotiations taking place within a framework that “does not recognise the rights and sovereignty of local communities in project KFCP.” (YPD, 2010) As such, YPD has adopted a firm position of “no rights, no REDD” demanding that proper recognition of local land tenure must be a precondition for discussions about REDD design and implementation.
Local communities have been voicing their concerns about he KFCP project for two years now. The YPD, in partnership with the national environmental organisation Friends of the Earth Indonesia / Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia WALHI) has consistently opposed the project. In 2009, ARPAG (which is a member of YPD) also sent an Open Letter to the UNFCCC meeting in Bangkok raising concerns about the livelihood threats REDD posed and calling on Parties to the UNFCCC not to support any climate mitigation projects that will “undermine the rights of local people to natural resources and our struggle to reclaim our rights in Central Kalimantan.” (ARPAG, 2009) In December 2010, during COP-16 in Cancun, YPD published the ‘Central Kalimantan Peatland Charter’ in which they reiterated that “the peat resource is our blood and breath” and demanded local rights over land and resources be respected (YPD, 2010). the design and implementation of the project (Australian Embassy Jakarata, 2011). AusAID reiterated their faith in the professionalism of the NGOs involved and the community facilitators they have employed. However, the response from AusAID arguably fails to deal with concerns raised about the lack of Free, Prior and Informed Consent and land tenure issues, focusing more narrowly on improving ‘community consultation.’
Local communities have been voicing their concerns about he KFCP project for two years now. The YPD, in partnership with the national environmental organisation Friends of the Earth Indonesia / Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia WALHI) has consistently opposed the project. In 2009, ARPAG (which is a member of YPD) also sent an Open Letter to the UNFCCC meeting in Bangkok raising concerns about the livelihood threats REDD posed and calling on Parties to the UNFCCC not to support any climate mitigation projects that will “undermine the rights of local people to natural resources and our struggle to reclaim our rights in Central Kalimantan.” (ARPAG, 2009) In December 2010, during COP-16 in Cancun, YPD published the ‘Central Kalimantan Peatland Charter’ in which they reiterated that “the peat resource is our blood and breath” and demanded local rights over land and resources be respected (YPD, 2010). the design and implementation of the project (Australian Embassy Jakarata, 2011). AusAID reiterated their faith in the professionalism of the NGOs involved and the community facilitators they have employed. However, the response from AusAID arguably fails to deal with concerns raised about the lack of Free, Prior and Informed Consent and land tenure issues, focusing more narrowly on improving ‘community consultation.’
1 The Rimba Raya project is being implemented by InfiniteEARTH and funded by Shell Canada, Gazprom Market and Trading, and the Clinton Foundation. However, this agreement appears to have been discontinued, presumably because it was dependent upon the Indonesian government designating the site a ‘protected area,’ (Verwij & Man, 2005) and this has not so far occurred. But the methodology developed for the Mawas
1 The Rimba Raya project is being implemented by InfiniteEARTH and funded by Shell Canada, Gazprom Market and Trading, and the Clinton Foundation. However, this agreement appears to have been discontinued, presumably because it was dependent upon the Indonesian government designating the site a ‘protected area,’ (Verwij & Man, 2005) and this has not so far occurred. But the methodology developed for the Mawas
national development projects (geothermal, oil and natura gas, electricity, rice and sugarcane) (Lang, 2011b). According to Save Our Borneo (Lang, 2011a), this decree will only protect some three per cent of the forest area in Indonesia, because primary forests only cover a small area of the country and the majority of Indonesia’s remaining primary forest is already protected anyway. In addition, logging on peat more than three metres deep is already illegal. In total, about 75 per cent of the forests protected under the decree are already protected under existing law (Lang, 2011b).
national development projects (geothermal, oil and natura gas, electricity, rice and sugarcane) (Lang, 2011b). According to Save Our Borneo (Lang, 2011a), this decree will only protect some three per cent of the forest area in Indonesia, because primary forests only cover a small area of the country and the majority of Indonesia’s remaining primary forest is already protected anyway. In addition, logging on peat more than three metres deep is already illegal. In total, about 75 per cent of the forests protected under the decree are already protected under existing law (Lang, 2011b).
While action to stop deforestation is urgently needed, relying on the world’s forests to serve as a carbon sink while deferring drastic cuts in fossil fuel emissions reflects the continuation of a ‘climate injustice’ approach to climate policy- making. A small number of elite nations and corporations have benefited from the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, Given the importance of deforestation and land degradation in contributing to the climate crisis, and the significance of forests to biodiversity, livelihood and indigenous sovereignty, it is vital that we consider measures to maintain and extend forests. But it is also important to bear in mind that any effective response to the climate crisis must be founded on environmental effectiveness and historical responsibility.
While action to stop deforestation is urgently needed, relying on the world’s forests to serve as a carbon sink while deferring drastic cuts in fossil fuel emissions reflects the continuation of a ‘climate injustice’ approach to climate policy- making. A small number of elite nations and corporations have benefited from the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, Given the importance of deforestation and land degradation in contributing to the climate crisis, and the significance of forests to biodiversity, livelihood and indigenous sovereignty, it is vital that we consider measures to maintain and extend forests. But it is also important to bear in mind that any effective response to the climate crisis must be founded on environmental effectiveness and historical responsibility.
Related topics:
Climate ChangeCarbon TradingClimate JusticeCommunity Forestry
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved