We must beware of cons, protect our rainforests

REDUCING Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is a good way of paying poor countries to protect their forests because global deforestation accounts for a  fair percentage  of all CO2 emissions and all previous attempts to curb it have failed.
REDD would allow countries that can reduce emissions from deforestation to be paid for doing so.
Papua New Guinea proposed REDD in 2005 at a United Nations climate meeting. REDD is PNG’s idea and just as well because we host part of the third largest intact rainforests in the world.
REDD has gained ground and is now one of the cornerstones of existing climate change agreements, and could eventually see tens of billions of dollars a year being channelled from rich to poor countries.
Countries would have to show, from historical data, satellite imagery and through direct measurement of trees, the extent, condition and the carbon content of their forests. Verification, reporting and monitoring would be done by communities which depend on the forests or by independent organisations.
There are several proposals and countries could either be paid by “voluntary funding” rather like existing official aid given by one country to another, or cash could be linked to carbon markets. One plan is for an international auction of emissions allowances and another proposes to issue REDD credits which would be tradeable alongside existing certified emissions reductions (CERs). Companies and governments unable to meet their obligations to reduce emissions would then buy them at the international market price.
Each of these three mechanisms has its strengths and weaknesses. A growing consensus is emerging that a combination will be needed to match the different stages of development and differing needs of tropical rain forest nations like PNG.
There is agreement that only developing countries can participate in REDD and that it should be on a voluntary basis only. Countries are beginning to accept that it should eventually include “carbon enhancement” (for example tree planting, conservation) schemes. This is known as REDD plus.
In theory, the benefits are immense for everyone. Poor communities could be paid for the first time to protect the forests they depend on. Many new jobs would be created. It would stimulate community forest management, eco-tourism, and conservation.
There is no accurate data on most of the world’s forested areas and so far no one agreed way to accurately measure the carbon content of vast numbers of different species of trees in different kinds of forests. Most forested countries including PNG also do not have the money to measure and assess their forests..
Six million of our indigenous people live in and many more depend on our country’s forests for a living. Most are traditionally marginalised or ignored by our governments (LLGS, Provincial, and National). But their lifestyles could be drastically affected if government or carbon trading companies move in, valuing the forests more highly than them. There are fears of land grabs and forced evictions.
Land ownership is highly disputed in PNG, a highly forested country. Our government will have to pass new laws to refine who owns the carbon credits. Land in some countries is owned by the communities but trees may belong to the state. Does tree ownership confer carbon rights? How do we make sure that communities who protect the forests are rewarded?
It is argued that the current REDD proposals are open to abuse and corruption. Many heavily forested countries are some of the most corrupt in the world and are home to some notorious logging companies close to politicians. Policing forests is nearly impossible, and money is likely to be diverted by people in power. The likelihood of international money getting to the people who depend on the forests is remote.
In PNG, I believe there will be corruption and a lot of con artists, some of whom may already be plying their trade in lieu of this.  They will use the systems to their advantage and hide behind these systems. These people will be highly-educated and mostly likely come from areas with no forests and who will use forest data as a proxy to determine their benefits or who will pose as landowners of forested areas.
However, I want to assure these type of people that there are rights-based principles in law that will protect the forest people and whatever benefits that rightfully belong to them. These safeguards cover all aspects under operations of REDD and are enforceable internationally.
I hope such have been captured into our relevant policies and laws by our own Cepa (Conservation and Environment  Protection Authority) and the Climate Change and Development Authority (CCDA).

Alois Balar
Baining, ENB