Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Oil and REDD: Norway pays Center for Global Development to promote REDD in Washington

Posted on 9 September 201425 June 2019
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

The New York Times recently ran an article about Washington-based think tanks that have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments, “while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities”.

Much of the money going to the think tanks comes from oil-producing countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway.

The article in the Times starts with the example of a US$5 million funding agreement between Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Center for Global Development in Washington DC. The money was for a project called “Creating demand for REDD+”. The project details and emails between CGD and Norad are available here in a 69 page file.

The purpose of the project, which runs for three years from 2013, is

“to reduce tropical deforestation and its impact on people and the climate by substantially increasing the incentives for tropical forest countries to conserve their forests.”

As REDD-Monitor has pointed out repeatedly, while reducing tropical deforestation is a good idea, generating forest carbon credits to allow pollution to continue elsewhere is a bad idea.

CGD supports REDD offsets

CGD is in favour of REDD offsets, as this statement on the webpage about CGD’s Tropical Forests for Climate and Development initiative reveals:

Under REDD+, finance from industrialized countries would be contingent upon recipients achieving verified results and compliance with social and environmental safeguards. Current work on the REDD+ mechanism is seen as a bridge to a future in which industrial countries make ambitious commitments to reduce their own emissions. Some portion of these commitments can be met by paying for reductions in forest countries.

The Center for Global Development paints itself as a an institution that conducts “research and analysis on a wide range of topics related to how policies and actions of the rich and powerful affect poor people in the developing world”. That doesn’t sound like a hired gun working for foreign governments. Except, perhaps, when one of the world’s top oil producers offers US$5 million to promote REDD as a carbon trading mechanism in Washington.

The Times points out that, “Slowing deforestation could buy more time for Norway’s oil companies to continue selling fossil fuels on the global market…”. Recently Norway’s Statoil partnered with Russia’s Rosneft to search for oil in the Arctic.

Foreign Agents?

One issue that The Times article raises is that of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a US federal law introduced in 1938 aiming to fight a Nazi propaganda campaign in the USA. The law requires US organisations that are paid by foreign governments to register as “foreign agents” with the Justice Department.

“Yikes,” said Todd Moss, the chief operating officer at the Center for Global Development, after being shown dozens of pages of emails between his organization and the government of Norway, which detail how his group would lobby the White House and Congress on behalf of the Norway government. “We will absolutely seek counsel on this.”

And in a statement on its website in response to The Times article, CGD states that,

CGD is of course committed to compliance with all relevant legal requirements. We are reviewing our procedures with the help of outside counsel.

A 2012 internal report commissioned by the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry states that:

“In Washington, it is difficult for a small country to gain access to powerful politicians, bureaucrats and experts. Funding powerful think tanks is one way to gain such access, and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.”

So the Center for Global Development is serving Norway. Fair enough. CGD has to get funding from somewhere. Why shouldn’t Norway fund CGD?

CGD should acknowledge Norwegian funding

But the project agreement between CGD and Norway states that,

The Grant Recipient should, if appropriate, acknowledge Norad’s support in communications and publications related to the Project.

As we might expect, given US$5 million of funding, CGD has written quite a lot about REDD since 2013. Here are just a few examples:

  • 27 August 2014: Can California’s carbon polluters save Brazil’s rainforests?
  • 7 August 2014: A Surprising Indigenous View of REDD+ – Mina Setra and Frances Seymour
  • 7 August 2014: Indigenous Peoples Rights and REDD+

  • 7 April 2014: How Well Are Performance-Based Payments Working? Lessons from Guyana
  • 18 March 2014: Do Trees Grow on Money? The Problem of Attribution

Only the last of these acknowledges Norway’s funding for CGD’s Tropical Forests for Climate and Development initiative. The web page for the initiative itself makes no mention of Norwegian funding.

In a response to the Times article, CGD states, “We are fully transparent about all of our funding sources.” CGD has a “How we are funded” webpage, which does include details about the NORAD funding:

“55% of total grant amount subcontracted to CGD partner, Climate Advisors”, CGD states. That’s where things get really interesting. But that story will have to wait for another day.
 


Full Disclosure: REDD-Monitor has received funding from Rainforest Foundation Norway, which in turn receives money from the Norwegian government. Click here for all of REDD-Monitor’s funding sources.
 

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

2 thoughts on “Oil and REDD: Norway pays Center for Global Development to promote REDD in Washington”

  1. Michelle Thomasson says:
    12 September 2014 at 8:57 am

    The Times should have pointed out that, “Carbon credits which make investors falsely believe that deforestation can be slowed could buy more time for Norway’s oil companies to continue selling fossil fuels on the global market…”.

  2. May CK says:
    23 September 2014 at 1:20 am

    It is such an irony (and tragedy) that thick haze is currently blanketing Central Kalimantan, the REDD+ Pilot Province, for days emitting large amount of carbon and particulate probably more than REDD+ program could compensate. Let alone the people there who are now choked by the haze.
    http://www.kaltengpos.web.id/berita/detail/11582/kalteng-tanggap-darurat-asap.html

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

REDDisms

“We have a resource we would like to get money for. Either you pay us for biodiversity services or we will sell the forest to Malaysian logging companies.”

— Dane Gobin, chief executive of Iwokrama, Guyana, October 2010

Recent Posts

  • Anatomy of a ‘Nature-Based Solution’: Total oil, 40,000 hectares of disappearing African savannah, Emmanuel Macron, Norwegian and French ‘aid’ to an election-rigging dictator, trees to burn, secret contacts, and dumbstruck conservationists
  • Coalition for Rainforest Nations announces sale of 6,106 REDD credits from Papua New Guinea to Blackstone Energy Services
  • Carbonballs: Nigel Farage, carbon offset lobbyist
  • Kevin Conrad signs REDD deal with Papua New Guinea
  • Court of Appeal upholds conviction of Paul Moore, Michael Moore, and Haydon Driscoll, the men behind the Burbank of London carbon credit investment scam

Recent Comments

  • Abel Ateu on The return of the carbon cowboys: How NIHT Inc failed to get free, prior and informed consent for REDD in New Ireland, Papua New Guinea
  • Sander van den Ende on Kevin Conrad signs REDD deal with Papua New Guinea
  • Eyedeal on “Returns up to 895%” and other misleading statements from Property Frontiers about investments in EcoPlanet Bamboo and Silva Tree
  • Chris Lang on Carbonballs: Nigel Farage, carbon offset lobbyist
  • Steve Zwick on Carbonballs: Nigel Farage, carbon offset lobbyist

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!