Forest Clearance in Kalimantan, Indonesia

Although it may not have made it to the front page of our newspapers here in the US, there was big news this week for our planet and for some of the last remaining tropical rainforests. The President of Indonesia has extended the forest moratorium, protecting roughly 20 million acres of forest from the threat of deforestation. This was great news, but it does not solve the entire problem because plenty of Indonesia’s forests were left unprotected and deforestation continues to wreak havoc there. Here is Yuyun Indradi, one of my Indonesian colleagues’ account of the news.

I have been fielding calls non-stop over the last couple of days, because as you may have noticed, there has been widespread coverage lately (see here, here and here) on the Indonesian government’s extension of its forest moratorium.

It’s good news.

And it’s encouraging that the President of Indonesia, known as SBY, is renewing his commitment to protect forests – and cut my country’s massive carbon emissions. If the powerful palm oil lobby here in Indonesia had got their way for instance, the forest moratorium would have been scrapped and there would be a free for all to clear land for pulp and paper, palm oil and mining concessions.

Thankfully that did not happen.

But sadly, the moratorium still doesn’t go far enough. As I’ve been telling journalists who have asked for our view on the moratorium extension, the President did not go far enough – he did not strengthen the moratorium to cover all forests and peatland. Like the previous moratorium, the extension only covers primary forests, and rather than ALL natural forest and peatland. This is what’s really needed if we want to save Indonesia’s remaining tigers and orangutans, which are under threat from relentless palm oil, and pulp and paper expansion.

Why is there a moratorium anyway?

A shocking 85% of Indonesia’s emissions are from deforestation and peatland clearance, making Indonesia one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet, behind countries such as China and the United States. Norway is funding Indonesia’s forests and climate initiative to the tune of US$1 billion, with the aim to create an incentive to protect forests in Indonesia and cut greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a noble aim, and one we have been lobbying (both quietly and loudly) for years now.

So in May 2011, Indonesia introduced a two-year moratorium on permits for new concessions in primary forests and peatlands. While this moratorium was a welcome step in terms of the signals it sent, in practice most of the primary forests that it covers are already legally protected; the remainder are largely inaccessible and not under immediate threat of development. However, it leaves almost 50% of Indonesia’s primary forests and peatlands without any protection as they lie within already designated concessions and other significant areas of high carbon forest are not covered by the moratorium, as they are considered to be secondary forests.

The new two-year moratorium does nothing to fix that.

And furthermore, it does nothing about crucial issues of governance, which we feel goes to the heart of the matter. Without proper oversight and enforcement, the moratorium is a weak decree.

We have closely monitored the moratorium’s implementation, and for the two years during the last moratorium we still found cases of overlap with concessions and some deforestation (encroachment) in protected areas.

That’s not to mention that the Ministry of Forestry has changed forest functions (from protected forest to production forest) and forest status from forest area to non-forest area.

So what are we going to do?

A lot.

More work needs to be done to harmonize spatial planning, developing sectoral policies and maps, stronger law enforcement measures (including addressing corruption and money laundering in the forest sector) and mechanisms for social conflict resolution. We will be pushing (quietly and loudly) to get this done.

And we’ll continue investigating and publicizing cases of deforestation, the companies responsible and the laws that need strengthening.

We’ll remind the President that the path to zero deforestation means more than signing a decree.

“KWE,” I am an Anishinaabe woman who speaks the Algonquin language fluently. I live in the la Verendrye Wildlife Reserve in Quebec, which is located two and a half hours north of Ottawa. This is where my roots have been for generations. My way of life and identity depend deeply on the resourcesthat Mother Nature has provided for us here.

Our people always had an abundance of natural resources to sustain life prior to the arrival of newcomers. This was due to our traditional ways of managing these resources and the Seven Teaching of our Grandfathers. We had, and continue to have, a sacred trust with the Creator to be Stewards of the Land. It is ingrained in our Algonquin Constitution and this is why any transgressions that contradict harmony with life seem foolish to us. Do they not to you?

As Anishinaabe, we have a great understanding and connection with nature and how living things speak to us in their own way. The forest has always been a university to our people.

Our forest, like your cities, offers us bounty and the means to live. It is the place we find our pharmacy, our food, our place of healing and wellness for our children. We, like you, understand that an economy is needed for the benefit of all. I believe we all understand that our forest, which sustains all life, requires that we manage it in full accordance with its needs. A healthy natural forest, as the centre of our economic and spiritual life, provides for us. This means understanding that it is nature who decides what harmony means – not we who impose our harmony upon Her.

In our world, we want our resources, the animals, and all life to be free and to thrive with dignity. We too want to live the same way. We don’t want to just survive in our territory, we want to live!

The forest is the place that provides us the natural materials to construct our ceremonial shelters and to hold our sacred ceremonies. The spiritual connections and needs which reside in all of us are fulfilled in our sacred natural places. Much like churches are used by some for a direct connection with their creator, the destruction of this natural land is, to us, no different than the destruction of churches and other places of worship. I trust you can understand how this shakes the foundations of our spiritual life. The right to worship is a right that all humanity holds.

Alas, throughout the better part of the last century, we have lived a sad story of abuse, dispossession and neglect by the combined efforts of forestry companies and successive governments. Corporations such as Resolute Forest Products are today directly responsible for decimating the biodiversity which sustains us all. Right now, they are clear-cutting in vital remaining areas of our traditional territory. They are doing it at a frantic pace, in the name of profit, even in this so-called “wildlife reserve”.

We, the Anishinaabe Nation, have welcomed newcomers into our home and shared all that we are. We shared life. And yet, without the forest, we will become extinct as a distinct society. Is this how your Nation shows appreciation and respect? More importantly, can you allow it to continue?

I know there are many Canadians who care for our Mother Earth as we do. If we are to stand together for all humankind, we must take action now.

The number one currency we all have is time.  How will we spend our time here on earth? What will we leave for the future generations of all living things? It is not a matter of money but simply one of humanity.

Support the fight for life. Help us protect our homeland. The people make the government, it is not the government who makes the people. It is the same for our people. We are one mind, one heart, one voice. We are the People.

To learn more and help, visit www.mamwi.org

Take Action: Demand Resolute end their destructive logging.

Ho! In my relations, Tina

It was one of those days when we felt like change was in the air – even if it was a small victory it was an important one.

Yesterday, we confirmed that notorious palm oil producer and forest destroyer, Duta Palma, has (finally) been ejected from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil – an organisation with the declared aim of ensuring environmentally responsible palm oil production. 

You might remember Duta Palma: we’ve been investigating and uncovering their practices for the last few years, revealing as recently as three weeks ago the company’s rogue activities in Indonesia.

This company has a long history of deforestation, community conflict, illegality, and non-compliance with RSPO regulations. But finally – and for what it’s worth – Duta Palma no longer has a stamp of approval from the RSPO.

This is good news, even if it means the RSPO dithered over this decision for far too long.

Our forest supporters around the world can claim this as good news for the people who depend on Indonesia’s rich forests, and the many animals that are threatened by the relentless expansion of destructive companies like Duta Palma.

But sadly, the case of Duta Palma is not over. Its operations continue and its legacy of environmental and socially destruction will live on.

There is still a lot of work to be done, and this one action does not mean that being a member of the RSPO is a sign that the palm oil you buy is free from deforestation: see here for what we had to say about the RSPO’s latest raft of weak and ineffective rules.

At the end of the day, it’s up to the movers and shakers in the palm oil industry to take responsibility for their supply chains. The Duta Palma case reveals the risk faced by respected global brands that palm oil they purchase through international traders may come in part from illegal and destructive operations. Cargill, the world’s largest privately owned company, clearly stated it no longer trades with Duta Palma. But traders such as Wilmar International and Sime Darby that have been known to supply Duta Palma’s dirty palm oil to the international market need to come clean about their supply chains. They need to commit to zero deforestation practices.

And we also need political solutions.

We are urging the government to use the expected moratorium extension to review all existing concessions areas so that rogue operators don’t get away with environmental crimes again.

So the work continues. We will continue to investigate, document and expose deforestation and the devastation it causes to forest dependent communities, Indonesia’s precious population of tigers and the climate. We look forward to reporting more good news soon.

Watch this space.

Papuan traditional dancers pose infront of the Rainbow Warrior in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia,

I grew up in West Papua, which sits in the far west of the world’s biggest archipelago. I studied forestry in the province’s capital, but grew up in another city called Jayapura. If West Papua is considered frontier land, then Jayapura is certainly the wild west.
It’s an obscure and isolated part of the world. Wild, green and untamed, this part of the world is home to one of the earth’s last glaciers in the tropics and some of the richest biodiversity on this planet.
I’ve returned to my old stomping grounds for an important reason. Today, our ship, the Rainbow Warrior III, arrived in Jayapura, Indonesia to begin an ambitious and historic visit. Just three years ago in 2010, the Rainbow Warrior II was unceremoniously escorted back to international waters by the navy. But thankfully no such misunderstanding took place this time. We are here to celebrate my country’s stunning, yet fragile environment.

For too long our forests and oceans have been under siege. Fifty years ago, 82% of Indonesia was covered with forests but in the last decade, this has dropped to 48% due to rampant deforestation for paper and oil palm plantations and mining.
Indonesia’s seas are also among the most diverse coastal and marine habitats, but experts identify the country’s coral reefs as among the world’s most threatened biodiversity hotspots, at risk from overfishing, pollution and climate change.

But let me tell you why this is important to you, no matter if you’re sitting in Jakarta, London or Berlin.
The destruction of the world’s forests is one of the main causes of climate change, second only to the energy sector. Indonesia loses approximately 1.1 million ha, or 1.2% of its forest area per year.

And believe it or not, according to some estimates, Indonesia ranks as one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, behind countries like the United States and China.

But the world stands to lose a lot more. Only around 400 Sumatran tigers are still left because its habitat is disappearing. And in West Papua the bird of paradise is iconic to the region but now they are threatened as industrial plantations and logging imperil their homes.

My island nation, scattered between the Pacific and Indian oceans is teeming with life and unparalleled beauty, but so much is at threat. I hope our journey aboard the Rainbow Warrior will help support the political will needed so that initiatives like the government’s forest moratorium is strengthened and so industrial fishing doesn’t kill our oceans. I hope this journey also will bring hope to other indigenous people on this island, to show that together we can protect the future.

When I come back in ten years time, West Papua probably won’t be the frontier land it is now. But I sure hope development doesn’t mean losing everything that makes this country so beautiful.

I hope we will at least have learnt how to live in harmony with our environment.

 In January California created the world’s second largest carbon market, aiming to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In designing the market, California claims to have learned from mistakes others have made elsewhere. By enacting a carbon price floor, for example, the government has tried to ensure the market will not face the same problem as its European equivalent did when its carbon prices collapsed in April. Now, however, California is considering to open a Pandora’s Box: The state is thinking about allowing companies that otherwise would have to cut their emissions at home to forgo those requirements by using forests in Mexico or Brazil to offset their pollution. The use of those so-called REDD-credits (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) would set an international precedent. So far all major cap-and-trade schemes have explicitly ruled out the use of tropical forests as an offset option because of environmental and social concerns.

While trading subnational REDD-offsets would be a dream come true for bankers and project developers (who are already lining up to make a killing on such projects), allowing this to happen would wreak havoc on the environment. Science tells us that if we want to get serious about stopping catastrophic climate change, we need to curb emissions and bring down deforestation rates around the world. We do not have the luxury to choose between the two. We cannot simply replace one with the other. The numbers just don’t add up. They don’t add up in California and they don’t add up elsewhere. Which is why experts like Natalie Unterstell, Brazil’s chief negotiator on forests at the international United Nations climate talks said last year: “We do not want REDD to generate more emissions. We are not going to sell emissions reductions titles to someone who will increase emissions on the other side.” It might be good for California to keep this in mind as Brazil is one of the countries the state wants to source their offsets from.

Last year, Greenpeace released the report Outsourcing Hot Air explaining why using forests to offset industrial emissions will not save the climate and why California should steer clear of including this option in their carbon market.

We showed that while many problems exist with offsets in general, there are significant problems unique to tropical forests which make them broadly unfit to offset industrial emissions. There is, for example, the issue of permanence: a substantial part of end-of-pipe emissions from factories stays in the atmosphere for centuries where they contribute to climate change. Reductions in forests emissions on the other hand cannot be easily guaranteed for such a period of time given how quickly forests can be degraded by companies, pests, and even the impacts of climate change. Then there is the question of real additionality. Every offset project ultimately hinges on the assumption that without the project there would have been more emissions or in the case of forests, more deforestation. In other words: It has to be proven that the trees used to offset the emissions from Californian companies would not have remained standing if it wasn’t for the offset project. This, of course, is something we can never know for sure but independent investigations have found project after project where this was demonstrably not true. Finally there is the substantial risk of leakage. Leakage occurs when due to the protection of one area, deforestation just shifts to another area. This can largely be prevented by implementing anti-deforestation schemes such as REDD on a national level because if deforestation is tackled nationwide, timber companies or others who are cutting down trees cannot simply move their destructive operations to another part of the country. California, however, is considering a sub-national approach to REDD which would dramatically increase this risk because it wouldn’t put entire forest landscapes under protection but create a fragmented patchwork where the drivers of deforestation could just move from one place to another. For the climate it makes no difference where a tree is being cut down so California’s proposal, if implemented, would likely not curb emissions from deforestation.

Our report did not only show how forest offsets risk to make the climate crisis worse but also highlighted how they could lead to dramatic social problems and human rights violations in developing countries. Tropical forests have unique social, economic and cultural significance to those who live in and depend on them for their livelihoods. Independent investigations into the promotion of international forest offsets have raised serious concerns related to human rights violations and there is major opposition to California’s plans  from indigenous peoples and local communities around the world.

Since we released Outsourcing Hot Air academics and scientists from around the United States have weighed in to share their concerns with California’s proposal. They all point to substantial problems with international forest carbon offsets. Tracey Osborne from the University of Arizona who has been working on the issue for more than a decade points out that “[f]rom Indonesia to Mexico, members of indigenous and forest communities have marched in protest against market-based strategies for climate change mitigation in forests. In particular, they have expressed concern about how forest-based carbon offsets associated with REDD+ may affect their land rights and access to resources.” Kathleen McAfee, Associate Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University, adds that “landed elites and well-connected investors with influence in the courts, police, military, and other federal agencies, commonly defy or bypass environmental restrictions in their pursuit of profitable but environmentally destructive logging, ranching, and expanded cultivation of export crops”.

It is time for California to become a real leader on climate and public health issues rather than one seeking to provide its most polluting industries with yet another loophole that will allow them to avoid reducing their emissions at home.  California has a long track record at pioneering innovative solutions to tackle environmental challenges. To keep that legacy California needs to ban subnational offsets from tropical forests and demand real emission cuts at home that will benefit both people and the climate.