in Brazil, USA

New video – Exposing REDD: The False Climate Solution

New video - Exposing REDD: The False Climate SolutionLast week, The Mending News put out a video about REDD: “Exposing REDD: The False Climate Solution”. The short video includes an interview with Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network.

The video is overwhelmingly critical of REDD. When he posted the video on Climate and Capitalism, Ian Angus commented that REDD sounds like a good idea, but adds, “Sort of like ‘clean coal.’ And just as accurate.”

The video is below, followed by the transcript.

Exposing REDD: The False Climate Solution

The Mending News, 25 October 2012

Voice over: REDD. It is a perverse paradigm that is not about forest protection. It’s about forest destruction, and we know you will not be tricked.

Protestor in Cancun, 2010: We are sure that what they want with REDD is to take our forest and our water, while they do the opposite of helping. They want to convert our areas to developed areas for rich people and kick out the poor people and the farmers because they have no resources of their own.

La Via Campesina side event, Cancun, 2010: No REDD! Yes to Cochabamba!

Protest by local communities in Chiapas, October 2012: Governor, listen up! The forest is not for sale!

Tom GoldtoothTom Goldtooth: My name is Tom Goldtooth, I’m the executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, and we’re an international, indigenous-based, environmental justice and economic justice organisation, networking with Indigenous Peoples worldwide. We’re based here in the belly of the beast of the United States.

We’re dealing with an emerging issue here that’s really perverse. It involves the financial institutions of the world, the oligarchies of the world, it involves multinational corporations, it involves the northern countries, specifically industrialised countries, pushing forward to a next level economic globalisation that is nothing but privatisation of nature.

Voice over: REDD, according to the United Nations stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. But really what REDD means is Reaping profits from Evictions, land grabs Deforestation and Destruction of biodiversity.

Ninawá Huni Kui, President of the Federation of the Huni Kui people of Acre, Brazil, speaking at the David Brower Center, Berkeley, USA, 16 October 2012: So one of the impacts REDD has brought is over the last 12 years, they’ve basically paralysed the demarcation process in the state of Acre.[*]

Tom Goldtooth: We’re dealing with this issue of REDD, carbon trading, carbon offsets that leaves our companies, these companies that are operating in our backyard off the hook.

REDDVoice over: Carbon trading is a scheme to privatise the sky, and set up a trading mechanims whereby polluters can buy and sell permits to pollute even more. Specifically REDD is an offset mechanism which uses the forest in the global South as sponges for Northern industrialised countries’ pollution. So the idea is that if I grab these forests in the global South as sponges for my pollution I can keep polluting in, say, California. REDD is the pillar of what is being called the green economy, which is nothing more than capitalism of life.

Tom Goldtooth: We are reading fancy ads that these corporations are paying for that make them look green, greenwashing the pollution, around local toxic hotpots such as the tar sands in Northern Alberta, where the Cree, the Dene, and the Matsqui people are being killed. The water’s contaminated.

Tar sandsOne of the most carbon intensive developments in the world, destructive, ripping up trees, tearing into mother earth, contaminating the water. You can even see it from the satellite.

Voice over: Chevron. California’s biggest polluter is doing REDD in the Atlantic forest of Brazil, in conjunction with General Motors and The Nature Conservancy. This REDD project uses armed guards. These armed guards, called Força Verde (the Green Force), is shooting at local residents, and jailing people. Antonio Alves, a local resident, was jailed for 11 days for cutting down a tree to fix his mother in law’s leaking roof.

So this is indicative of what REDD in AB32, California’s climate law, could be, and obviously it is just scam for the biggest polluters of California to get out of reducing their emissions at source.

Tom Goldtooth: Before you can trade anything, and treat anything as a commodity, you have to determine who owns that. So who owns the carbon, the air, whether it’s in the trees, in the soil, in the plants, in the air? Who’s property right is that? As Indigenous Peoples you know we, many of us embrace the cosmo-vision, the spirituality, the sacred relationship that we hold dear to who we are, especially our relationship to the sacredness of Mother Earth.

These are values and ethics that guide us. But unfortunately, humanity doesn’t quite recognise those values, so that’s why part of our campaign is also to wake up the world about who you are and your relationship with Mother Earth.

Because what’s happening here is that the air is being traded off, it’s becoming a private property of the industry.

Voice over: REDD is a plan to steal your future. It increases climate change, it makes global warming worse, it sends us over the cliff.

CancunTom Goldtooth: In consultation with the, our medicine people there was a consistency in their response, that REDD is a manipulation of the sacred. It is evil.

Voice over: It’ll be absolutely fundamental that youth educate themselves about the REDD menace and stand up and fight back in alliance with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and Californian voters and civil societies to stop REDD and protect Mother Earth.

See comment below from Beto Borges, Director, Communities Program, Forest Trends.

Back to text ^^

Leave a Reply

  1. the fraud is well documented. lawmakers need to work on real environmental protection. redd is a crime. caron trading is a crime. landgrab is a crime. genocide is a crime. stop the crime.

  2. Greetings Chris Lang,

    I have worked with indigenous communities in the Brazilian Amazon for the past 25 years and am very involved with local community organizations in Acre and elsewhere in the Amazon. I think you guys should check your facts a bit more carefully. The demarcation of indigenous lands in Acre has not stopped because of REDD. In fact, there is no REDD in Acre as of yet. Brazilian civil society organizations are working really hard to bring socio-environmental safeguards to the National Strategy for REDD. Acre is one of the states in Brazil with more indigenous lands demarcated, covering around 14.6% of the state. There are 14 indigenous groups with 35 indigenous territories and 2.4 million acres of indigenous territories already demarcated. Combined with other conservation units, the state has 7.8 million hectares under protection, or about 47% the forests in the state. There are still more territories to be demarcated, but REDD is not affecting that all. There are much stronger and at times perverse economic and political interests at play. You guys would contribute more towards stopping deforestation in Brazil if you focused on the battle to save the Forest Code which has been lost. It would do you well to consult with organizations in Brazil, who have been working on behalf of indigenous communities for many years, such as the Instituto Socioambiental, Pro-Indian Commission of Acre, the Amazon Working Group (GTA) and the Confederation of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB) to ask about whether REDD has stopped the demarcation of indigenous lands in Brazil.
    Beto Borges
    Director, Communities Program

  3. @Beto Borges – Thanks for this comment. I was surprised that Ninawá claimed that REDD had stopped the demarcation process in Acre, “over the past 12 years”. Whether or not REDD exists today in Acre, it’s very unlikely that it existed 12 years ago.

    Just to clarify, REDD-Monitor had no part in making this video. I’ve contacted the makers of the video and look forward to their response. I’ve also put a note in the post itself referring to your comment.

  4. @Beto Borges – On 3 November 2012, REDD-Monitor received the following response to Beto Borges’ comment above, written by Elder de Paula Andrade, Lindomar Padilha, and Michael F. Schmidlehner. It is posted in full below in English and Portuguese:

    Response to Sr. Beto Borges, Forest Trends:

    1) As a stakeholder in the business involving REDD in the Brazilian Amazon, via Forest Trends, Mr. Beto Borges speaks for organizations “that have been working on behalf of indigenous communities,” as he states in his note. It is presumed that he has been authorized to do so. Nevertheless, his status as a representative of those who “speak on behalf of other intermediaries” does not grant him the right to determine the legitimacy of voices that dissent against the interests he represents. This is what he does when he “suggests” consulting with “those who speak on behalf of” and not those who speak from the communities and indigenous peoples affected by the financialization and commodification of the commons, as is the case of Ninawa.

    2) The representative of Forest Trends and those who “speak on behalf of other intermediaries” recognize that there has been deadlock in the demarcation of indigenous lands in Acre, but say that this fact has no relation with REDD, and conclude that “In fact, there is no REDD in Acre yet.” It is worth noting, first, that he does not present arguments supporting the assertion that there is no relation between the stoppage of demarcation of indigenous lands and REDD, and secondly, the questionable assertion that “there is no REDD in Acre yet.” In fact, all of the legal procedures towards the institutionalization of REDD are being taken, such as the approval of the SISA Law, the creation of the Office of Climate Change for managing REDD in Acre, and the agreement between the governments of California, Chiapas and Acre, among others.

    3) The representative of Forest Trends and those who “speak on behalf of other intermediaries”, “forgot” to mention that, in those 7.8 million hectares of “protected areas”, accelerated logging plans are in progress via “sustainable forest management plans-PMFS”. (Logging in Acre jumped from 300,000 cubic meters in 1998 to 1 million cubic meters in 2011, 90% of it extracted in areas with PMFS). Moreover, in the National Park of Serra do Divisor the process of oil exploration has already been initiated and will produce enormous destruction.

    4) The representative of Forest Trends and those who “speak on behalf of other intermediaries”, mention the existence of “other powers” interested in the stoppage of demarcation of indigenous lands, but without further explanation. We assume that it is not through ignorance, as he says he has “worked with indigenous communities in the Amazon Brazil in the last 25 years and is very involved in local community organizations in Acre and other parts of the Amazon.” If it is not through ignorance, there must be another reason. In the case of Acre, for example, among those “other interests”, we could name agribusiness of extensive cattle ranching or logging and timber exploration. As shown in the “Dossier Acre” 6.5 million hectares of land in Acre are concentrated in the hands of 580 large landowners, and a substantial part of these support and have their interests represented by the government of Acre. For this reason, Sr. Borges’ choice to omit mentioning them becomes more comprehensible. Moreover, these “landlords” in Acre also participate in initiatives aimed at the deregulation of the Forest Code in Brazil, and they incorporate “offset mechanisms” in their efforts to continue destroying the natural commons. This reveals one more contradiction that the representative of Forest Trends and those who “speak on behalf of other intermediaries,” must face: how to call up a “battle” against their own allies in Acre?

    Elder de Paula Andrade – Associate Professor at the Federal University of Acre
    Lindomar Padilha – Coordinator CIMI-Western Amazon
    Michael F. Schmidlehner – Coordinator Amazonlink
    Rio Branco, Acre November 2, 2012


    1) Como parte interessada nos negócios envolvendo REDD na Amazônia brasileira, via Forest Trends, o sr Beto Borges fala em nome das organizações “que êm trabalhando em nome das comunidades indígenas”, como afirmou em sua nota. È presumível que tenha sido autorizado para isso. Todavia sua condição de representante dos que “falam em nome de outros intermediários” não o credencia para decidir a respeito da legitimidade de vozes dissonantes dos interesses por ele representados. È isso que faz quando “sugere” a consulta aos “qu e falam em nome de” e não aos que falam desde as comunidades e povos indígenas afetadas pela mercantilização e finaanceirização dos bens comuns, como é o caso de Ninawá.

    2) O representante da Forest Trends e dos que “falam em nome de outros intermediários” reconhece que houve paralização na demarcação de terras indígenas no Acre, todavia diz que não há rela ção desse fato com REDD e conclui que “Na verdade, não há REDD no Acre ainda”. Cabe destacar, em primeiro lugar, que ele não apresenta argumentos que fundamentem que não há relação da paralisação de demarcação de terras indígenas com REDD e em segundo lugar mente ao afirmar que “não há REDD no Acre ainda”. Todos os procedimentos jurídicos legais voltados para tal institucionalização estão sendo tomados, como aprovação da Lei SISA, criação do Instituto de Mudanças Climáticas para gerenciar o REDD no Acre, acordo firmado entre governos da California, Chiapas e Acre, entre outros.

    3) O representante da Forest Trends e dos que “falam em nome de outros intermediários”, ”esqueceu” de mencionar que naqueles 7,8 milhões de hectares de “áreas protegidas” estão em andamento processo acelerado de exploração florestal madeireira via “planos de manejo florestal sustentável-PMFS” ( a extração de madeira no Acre saltou de 300mil m3 em 1998 para 1 milhão de m3 em 2011, 90% dela extraída em áreas com PMFS). Ademais, no Parque Nacional da Serra do Divisor já está sendo iniciado o processo de exploração de petróleo que produzirá enorme destruição.

    4) O representante da Forest Trends e dos que “falam em nome de outros intermediários”, mencionou a existência de “outros poderes” interessados na n ão demarcação de terras indígenas, mas não os explicitou. Supomos que não seja por desconhecimento, dado que ele afirma que tem “trabalhado com as comunidades indígenas da Amazônia brasileira nos últimos 25 anos e estou muito envolvido com organizações comunitárias locais no Acre e em outras partes da Amazônia”. Se não é por desconhecimento deve haver outra razão. No caso do Acre, por exemplo, entre esses “outros interesses” poderíamos nominar o agronegócio da pecuária extensiva de corte e exploração madeireira. Conforme mostrado no “Dossiê Acre” 6,5 milhões de hectares de terras estão concentradas nas mãos de 580 grandes proprietários rurais e parte substancial deles apóiam o governo do Acre e tem seus interesses representados nele. Por esta razão, torna-se mais compreensível a opção de Sr Beto Borges em omiti-los. Ademais, estes “senhores da terra” no Acre participam também das iniciativas voltadas para desregulamentação do código florestal no Brasil, eles incorporaram “mecanismos de compensação” para continuarem destruindo os bens naturais. Uma contradição a mais que orepresentante da Forest T rends e dos que “falam em nome de outros intermediários”, teria que enfrentar: como convocar uma “batalha” contra seus aliados no Acre?

    Elder Andrade de Paula – Professor Associado da Universidade Federal do Acre
    Lindomar Padilha – Coordenador CIMI- Amazônia Ocidental
    Michael F. Schmidlehner – Coordenador Amazonlink
    Rio Branco-Acre 2 de novembro de 2012

  5. RESPONSE to

    Elder de Paula Andrade – Associate Professor at the Federal University of Acre
    Lindomar Padilha – Coordinator CIMI-Western Amazon
    Michael F. Schmidlehner – Coordinator Amazonlink


    First of all, I am not lying and I don’t have the habit of lying. Anyone who knows me and has followed my work history knows that. Therefore, I am at peace within my conscience.

    I reaffirm that REDD is still not consolidated in Acre because the mechanism is being discussed within the framework of SISA. As far as I am informed, there are no REDD projects in indigenous territories in the state, and no indigenous communities – or, indeed, any other traditional communities – have signed 30-year REDD contracts, contrary to recent suggestions in REDD-Monitor.

    Personally I don’t see classic REDD as even being practical in indigenous territories in Acre because of some of REDD’s technicalities, as for example the question of additionality… What is possible, with the appropriate socio-environmental safeguards, is a system for compensating indigenous peoples for keeping the forests standing, including the respective environmental services, ensuring in the first place the rights of these people to their territories and traditional customs.

    I want to believe that even if our paths apparently seem different, in reality we are “fighting” for the same ideals: support to local communities, environmental justice, and conservation. Therefore, I believe that we all have the right to express our opinions in relation to the risks and opportunities associated with REDD mechanisms. In this way, voices that are dissident, neutral and favorable, merit being heard and respected, especially the voices of local indigenous peoples like Ninawá Huni Kui, Tashka Yawanawa, and other indigenous people who endorsed the Declaration of the Indigenous Movement of Acre in relation to this theme, written on February 17, 2012. Another important channel for monitoring the theme of REDD in Brazil is the REDD Observatory maintained by the Amazon Working Group, an organization that represents over 600 local community associations in the Brazilian Amazon.

    I am not disrespecting the testimony of anyone, but only disagreeing with the affirmation that “REDD paralyzed the process of indigenous lands demarcation in Acre for the past 12 years…” After all, even if SISA and REDD were one in the same (which they are not), SISA was only approved as law in October of 2010.

    Sirs Michael, Lindomar and Elder, it is unfortunate that you chose not to participate in the workshops on SISA and compensation incentives for the conservation of environmental services in indigenous territories that were organized by Forest Trends and the Pro-Indian Commission of Acre with the Institute of Climate Change. If you had joined us, you would have been able to express your concerns directly, expanding the quality of the debate and the space of reflection. These workshops had the participation of COIAB, GTA, FUNAI (both state and federal), and of various local indigenous associations from Acre, listed in the Declaration. I personally invited Michael Schmidlehner to attend the workshop after my lecture at UFAC, and that invitation remains open.

    We are, however, left with a distasteful and questionable impression, when you write a response that is extremely aggressive and disrespectful to my comment on the REDD-Monitor, where I am simply saying that REDD didn’t stop the demarcation of indigenous lands in Acre and that more voices should be heard. For you to say that I am lying I consider it a personal disrespect. Your insinuations that I and Forest Trends are connected with the agribusiness and extensive cattle ranching sectors in the State is absurd and frivolous.

    It is appalling that you express in this aggressive and disrespectful way to communicate legitimate concerns. Respect is the first step for a constructive dialogue in the way for the transformations we are seeking.


    Beto Borges
    Director, Communities Program – FOREST TRENDS

    RESPOSTA para

    Elder Andrade de Paula – Professor Associado da Universidade Federal do Acre
    Lindomar Padilha – Coordenador CIMI- Amazônia Ocidental
    Michael F. Schmidlehner – Coordenador Amazonlink


    Em primeiro lugar, não estou mentindo e não tenho o hábito de mentir. Quem me conhece e acompanha meu histórico de trabalho sabe disso. Portanto, estou em paz com minha consciência.

    Volto a afirmar que REDD ainda não esta consolidado no Acre porque o mecanismo esta sendo discutido no âmbito do SISA. Até onde estou informado, não existem projetos REDD em comunidades indígenas no estado e nenhuma comunidade indígena, ou outra comunidade tradicional, assinaram contratos REDD de 30 anos, ao contrario do que foi sugerido recentemente no REDD-Monitor.

    Pessoalmente não vejo o REDD clássico aplicável nas terras indígenas no Acre, devido à algumas tecnicalidades do REDD, como por exemplo a questão da adicionalidade… O que é possível, com as devidas salvaguardas socio-ambientais, é um sistema de compensação aos povos indígenas por manterem as florestas em pé, e seus respectivos serviços ambientais, assegurando em primeiro lugar o direito das mesmas aos seus territórios e costumes tradicionais.

    Quero crer que apesar de nossos caminhos serem aparentemente distintos, na realidade estamos “lutando” pelos mesmos ideais: apoio às comunidades locais, justiça ambiental, e conservação. Assim, creio que todos temos direito de opinar quanto aos riscos e oportunidades inerentes aos mecanismos REDD. Desta forma, tanto vozes dissonantes, neutras ou favoráveis, merecem ser ouvidas e respeitadas, principalmente as vozes de lideranças indígenas locais como Ninawá Huni Kui, Tashka Yawanawa, e outras vozes indígenas que endossaram a Declaração do Movimento Indígena do Acre a respeito do tema, escrita em 17 de fevereiro de 2012. Outro canal importante de monitoramento do tema REDD no Brasil é o Observatorio REDD mantido pelo Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico, organização que representa mais de 600 associações comunitarias locais na Amazônia Brasileira.

    Não estou desmerecendo o depoimento de ninguém, apenas discordando que o “REDD paralizou o processo de demarcação de terras indígenas no Acre ha 12 anos…” Afinal, mesmo se o SISA e o REDD fossem a mesma coisa (o que não são), o SISA só foi aprovado como lei em outubro de 2010.

    Senhores Michael, Lindomar e Elder, é uma pena que voces escolheram não participar nas oficinas sobre o SISA e incentivos de compensação para a conservação de serviços ambientais em terras indígenas que o Forest Trends e Comissão Pro-Indio do Acre organizaram juntamente com o Instituto de Mudanças Climáticas. Se vocês tivessem participado, poderiam ter expressado suas preocupações diretamente, ampliando a qualidade e espaço de reflexão. Estas oficinas contaram com a participação da COIAB, do GTA, da FUNAI (estadual e federal), e de várias associações indígenas do Acre, listadas na Declaração. Eu mesmo convidei pessoalmente o Michael Schmidlehner para participar da oficina depois de minha palestra na UFAC e o convite continua aberto.

    Ficamos, no entanto, com uma impressão desagradável e questionável, quando vocês Michael, Lindomar, e Prof. Elder, escrevem uma resposta extremamente agressiva e desrespeitosa ao meu comentário no REDD-Monitor, onde simplesmente estou dizendo que o REDD não parou a demarcação de terras indígenas no Acre e que mais vozes devem ser ouvidas. Dizer que estou mentindo considero um desrespeito pessoal. Suas insinuações que eu e Forest Trends estamos ligados aos setores do agronegócio da pecuária extensiva no estado são absurdas e levianas.

    É lamentável que vocês se expressem desta maneira agressiva e desrespeitosa para comunicar preocupações legítimas. O respeito é o primeiro passo para o diálogo construtivo no caminho das transformações que almejamos.


    Beto Borges
    Diretor, Programa Comunidades – Forest Trends

  6. Dear Beto Borges,
    Excuse me for not replying earlier but I was very busy in the past weeks. I’m sorry if you felt disrespected with our joint response of November 04.
    I know you personally and I do not think you are lying. However, I think you – even not acting in bad faith – are involved in a broad and complex process that brings about obscuration and distortion of facts in favor of certain economic and political interests.
    I want to refer to only two points in this note:
    First, the starting point of our discussion: The nexus that Ninawa established in California in his testimony between the non-demarcation of his land and REDD / PES. Indeed, twelve years ago these mechanisms had not yet been created nor any of these terms.
    However, in this time public policies had already been implemented via governmental and business
    programs in order to assign economic value to acrian forests. As Professor Elder describes in detail in his article “The two faces of tropical forest destruction in Latin America and the Caribbean: Revelations of the “green economy” in Acre, Brazil”, the legitimation of massive logging took place in this period through the ““sustainable forest management plans”
    Today, after charges of predatory and destructive practices surrounding these projects, such as the management plan of the state Forest Antimary the structural problems underlying the policy of
    sustainable development of Acre become visible. Nevertheless, the “management plans” are being extended, socially and environmentally harmful practices (oil exploration, GMOs, amongst others) are being introduced as if they were “sustainable”.
    The new Forest Code in Brazil is yet another step towards consolidation of the alliance among “landlords” and “market environmentalists” that has been taking place over the past two decades. Besides granting amnesty for deforesters and allowing greater possibilities of deforestation, this law allows these deforesters to make profits hrough compensation of forest offsets and REDD, as well as the “greening” of agribusiness.
    Today we need to rediscuss and define very clearly what we mean by “supporting local communities, environmental justice, and conservation”, especially since loggers, large landowners and agribusiness proponents have hijacked these concepts and use them extensively for their purpose.
    In fact, governmental “sustainability policies” were from the very beginning aligned with the interests of appropriation of forest lands through landowners and businesses, including those that still impede the advance of demarcation of the indigenous land Curralinho, where Ninawa’s community lives. For him, as for many other forest dwellers, it is obvious that PES and REDD do not disrupt this process. On the contrary, the same old power structures are being reproduced and
    reinforced through these mechanisms.
    As a second point, I want to clarify some facts regarding the workshop on PES and REDD at the Comissão Pro-Indio (CPI) in Rio Branco in January / February 2012 and our conversation on February 01, after your presentation at UFAC. You did not – as you write in your comment
    – invite me to the workshop. I remember your exact words. I asked you if the event is open to the public. Your response was “Eu não sei” (I do not know). (Please ask other people who were present in this moment to confirm this.)
    Regarding the workshop, neither I nor Lindomar nor Elder nor any other proponent of a more critical view of REDD/PES were invited. Even before this event there were already complaints, pointing out the exclusive character of REDD/PES-meetings promoted by the government
    and CPI (cf. Dossier Acre , p.31/32)
    But let us now look to the future. You write “The invitation remains open”. I believe that your intention is sincere and would like to accept your invitation. I suggest at the that next event REDD / PES event for indígenous people in Acre, you schedule a presentation ( by
    Ninawa, Elder, Lindomar or me.). 40 to 60 minutes would be enough for
    us to explore questionings about these mechanisms.
    This would be a step forward towards an open and transparent debate about the pros and cons of REDD/PES and towards creating a space where all of us can feel respected.
    Michael F. Schmidlehner

    Caro Beto Borges,
    Desculpa por não responder antes, mas eu estava muito ocupado nas últimas semanas. Lamento, se você se sentiu desrespeitado com nossa resposta conjunta do dia 04 de novembro.
    Conheço você pessoalmente e não acho que você está mentindo. Entretanto, acho que você – mesmo não agindo de ma fê – esta envolvido em um amplo e complexo processo que acarreta a ofuscação e distorção de fatos em função de determinados interesses econômicos e políticos.
    Quero me deter apenas em dois pontos nesta nota:
    Primeiro, o ponto de partida da nossa discussão: O nexo que Ninawa estabeleceu em seu depoimento na Califórnia entre a não demarcação da sua terra e REDD/PSA. Certamente, doze anos atras estes mecanismos ainda não haviam sido criados e ainda não se usava estes termos.
    Entretanto, nesta época politicas publicas foram implementadas no sentido de atribuir valor econômico as florestas acrianas através de programas governamentais e empresariais. Como Professor Elder descreveu detalhadamente no seu artigo “La doble cara de la destrucción de los bosques tropicales en Latinoamérica y el Caribe: las revelaciones de la “economía verde” en Acre” , a legitimação de macica exploração madeireira se deu neste período por meio dos “Planos de manejo sustentável ”
    Hoje, depois das denuncias de praticas predatórias e destrutivas que envolvem estes projetos, tal como o Plano de manejo da Floresta estadual do Antimary, enxergam-se os problemas estruturais subjacentes da politica do desenvolvimento sustentável do Acre. Mesmo assim, os planos de manejo vem sendo ampliados, práticas socioambientalmente nocivas (exploração de petróleo, OMGs entre outros)vem sendo introduzidos como se fossem “sustentáveis”.
    O novo código florestal do Brasil representa mais um passo na consolidação da aliança dos ruralistas com os ambientalistas de mercado que vem ocorrendo nas últimas duas décadas. Além de anistiar desmatadores e permitir maiores possibilidades de desmatamento, esta lei promove a recompensação dos mesmos por meio de compensações florestais e REDD, o “esverdeamento” do agronegócio. Precisamos hoje rediscutir e definir muito claramente, o que queremos dizer exatamente com “apoio às comunidades locais, justiça ambiental, e conservação”, uma vez que madeireiros, latifundiários e proponentes do agronegócio sequestraram estes conceitos e os usam amplamente para seus propositos.
    De fato, as políticas governamentais de “sustentabilidade” desde o início foram alinhadas com os interesses de apropriação das áreas florestais por parte de empresas e latifundiários, inclusive aqueles que até hoje conseguem impedir o avanço da demarcação da terra indígena Curralinho, onde vive a comunidade de Ninawá. Neste sentido, na sua colocação, Ninawá apontou- mesmo de forma abreviada – um amplo processo de exploração opressão que inibe a demarcação da sua terra desde 2002 (quando o processo de demarcação foi iniciado). Para ele, assim como para muitos outros moradores da floresta, é obvio que PSA e REDD não rompem com este processo. Ao contrário, neles as mesmas velhas estruturas de poder estão sendo reproduzidas e reforçadas,.
    Como segundo ponto, quero esclarecer alguns fatos acerca da oficina sobre PSA e REDD na Comissão Pro-Indio (CPI) em rio Branco em janeiro/fevereiro 2012 e da nossa conversa no dia 01 de fevereiro, após da sua apresentação na UFAC. Você não me convidou para participar da oficina. Eu lembro exatamente suas palavras. Eu perguntei você, se o evento está aberto para o publico. Sua resposta foi “Eu não sei”. (Por favor pergunta outras pessoas que estavam presentes neste momento, que podem confirmar isso.)
    No que se refere à oficina, nem eu, nem Lindomar, nem Elder ou algum outro critico defensor de uma visão mais critica de REDD/PSA foram convidados. Inclusive já antes deste evento houve críticas , apontando o caráter excludente dos encontros promovidos pelo governo e CPI acerca de PSA/REDD (cf. Dossiê Acre , p.31/32)
    Mas vamos agora olhar para o futuro. Você escreve “ O convite continua aberto”. Eu creio que sua intenção é sinceira e gostaria aceitar seu convite. Sugiro que na próxima oficina indígena sobre REDD/PSA no Acre, vocês abrem um espaço na programação (40 a 60 minutos seria suficiente) para uma apresentação (proferido por Ninawá, Elder, Lindomar ou eu) para que possamos expor questionamentos acerca destes mecanismos. Esta seria uma forma de avançarmos em direção de um debate aberto e transparente e criarmos um espaço onde todos possam se sentir respeitados.
    Michael F. Schmidlehner