McKinsey & Company has benefited from a series of consultancies, advising governments about REDD. But a new report from Rainforest Foundation UK uses examples from McKinsey’s REDD advice in Indonesia, Guyana and the Democratic Republic of Congo to demonstrate that the advice McKinsey gives is based on flawed analysis and misleading for decision-makers.
A recent report published by the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID) looks at REDD, “from a sustainable development standpoint”. While the report acknowledges the potential opportunities, it highlights the risks, including: “the potential exacerbation of poverty through loss of access to land, dislocation of forest communities, deprivation of property rights, and corruption.”
How big is Asia Pulp and Paper’s carbon footprint? The company is one of the biggest pulp and paper companies in the world. WWF estimates that the company has destroyed more than one million hectares of forest in Riau and Jambi provinces. Yet the company claims that its carbon footprint is “close to neutral” per ton of paper.
In August 2010, the Rimba Raya conservation project in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia hit the headlines. “Indonesia project boosts global forest CO2 market,” Reuters reported. But there’s a catch. Two companies that are responsible for vast greenhouse gas emissions are involved in the project: Shell and Gazprom.
In response to last week’s post about an Australian carbon trading company, Shift2Neutral, REDD-Monitor received a statement from CoDe REDD in the Philippines (posted below). The Climate Change Commission wrote to Shift2Neutral recommending that the company’s “carbon credit activities be held in abeyance,” until the commission has “promulgated the guidelines and the rules addressing this issue”.
The description of Australia as “the lucky country” comes from a 1964 book by Donald Horne. The final chapter starts with the words, “Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck.” It is a particularly appropriate way to describe how Australia has benefited from the international climate negotiations.
Two interviews with Jeff Horowitz, the founder of Avoided Deforestation Partners, were published earlier this month. The interviews reveal a great deal about why AD Partners is so interested in carbon trading. For example, Horowitz estimates that “protecting tropical forests will cut the cost of U.S. climate legislation almost in half – saving Americans billions.” This week, REDD-Monitor asked Horowitz some further questions.
Last month, Ecosystem Marketplace published a report on the state of the forest carbon market. The report, “State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009: Taking Root & Branching Out“, provides a fascinating glimpse into the upside-down world of carbon trading.
The Australian government is one of the most enthusiastic promoters of using market mechanisms to finance REDD. The reason? Australia wants REDD to create a loophole in any climate deal large enough to allow emissions to continue in Australia. A new report by Friends of the Earth Australia and Aid/Watch exposes the flaws in the Australian government’s REDD plans.
Greenpeace recently released a report which illustrates clearly why REDD offset projects will neither address climate change nor stop deforestation. The report, “Carbon Scam: Noel Kempff Climate Action Project and the Push for Sub-national Forest Offsets”, looks in detail at the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project in Bolivia.