For the past two-and-a-half years I’ve been running a website called Conservation-Watch. I recently did an interview with the Big Green Politics Podcast, about the impact of conservation on indigenous peoples – the podcast went live yesterday.
On 13 February 2019, the Supreme Court of India ordered the forced eviction of millions of forest-dwelling people. The court’s decision is the result of a case filed in 2008 by wildlife conservation organisations: Wildlife First, Nature Conservation Society, and Tiger Research and Conservation Trust.
In India, when an area of forest land is cleared, an equivalent area of land has to be afforested. Since 2006, the government has imposed a fee on companies that clear forests for mining, industry, or other projects. The money goes into the Compensatory Afforestation Fund. The Compensation Afforestation Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) is the organisation responsible for overseeing this afforestation. But the money collected was largely unused.
The Government of India is proposing to lease 40% of the country’s forests, classified as “degraded”, to private companies to improve and restore forest landscapes. Earlier this week, the All India Forum of Forest Movements (AIFFM) put out a statement opposing this proposed privatisation of India’s forests.
On 28 November 2009, Brazil, South Africa, India and China formed the BASIC block and agreed to act jointly at COP15, the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen. The BASIC countries threatened to walk out of COP15 if rich countries attempted to force their agenda on the Global South.
Last year, emissions of carbon dioxide increased by 3.2% to 31.6 billion tonnes, according to figures released by the International Energy Agency. Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters that, “[T]he trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (towards the end of this century), which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”
Richard Sandor has a new book out. He’ll tell you that markets are the solution before he hears the problem. Pollution? Climate change? Water shortages? Species extinction? Just create a new market and the problem will go away.
In the outcome of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action at the Durban COP17, the LCA invited “views on modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions and considering activities related to decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 68–70 and 72”.
On 29 November 2011, REDD-Monitor posted a critique of a watershed conservation project in the East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya in northeast India. The project is run by Community Forestry International in association with local communities and organisations.
A watershed conservation project in the East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya in northeast India is set to become the country’s first REDD project. The project is discussed at length in an article by Soumitra Ghosh in the most recent issue of Mausam, an Indian climate justice publication.
Last week, REDD-Monitor posted episode one of Keuringsdienst van Waarde’s investigation into carbon offsetting. In case you missed it, here it is: “One cent per square metre: Dutch TV programme finds out the cost of Brazil’s rainforest.” Last week, we saw the Dutch TV consumer programme buying a plot of rainforest in Brazil. This week, the Keuringsdienst team looks deeper into the implications of CO2 offsets.
In this short video, “Lives of the Forest,” indigenous activists from the Asia Pacific region speak out against REDD. “We find that the way [the international community] took decisions for passing through this REDD mechanism is in complete exclusion of the indigenous peoples,” says Jiten Yumnam of the Meitei people in Manipur, India.
A six-part series in the latest issue of Christian Science Monitor investigates carbon offsets. The researchers look at several offset projects and conclude that “Carbon offsets are the environmental equivalent of financial derivatives: complex, unregulated, unchecked and – in many cases – not worth their price.”