Many thanks,

Claire Harris

Returning to the topic of FPIC…

For people with experience in most (perhaps all?) developing countries , achieving FPIC in the literal sense of the term is not just a challenge. In many situations it is not feasible today or tomorrow due to: the inability of women to participate as equal partners in decision making processes due to myriad reasons; the inability of minorities to participate in an informed manner due to their own legacy of subservience; the tendency of local social structures to enable local leaders to manipulate to the disadvantage of the larger community (e.g. sub-optimal social capital).

FPIC is inevitably a very relative notion. Depending on one’s interpretation of what it means, FPIC can be easiest boiled down to a leader’s signature on paper. When either PNG clan leaders or African chiefs sign in the name of their constituents, is it fair to assume this is representative of FPIC? All certification programs that utilize FPIC as a cornerstone principle are stating a philosophical axiom that all politically correct practitioners can accept, but that has serious operational shortcomings when one attempts to apply FPIC on the ground in “certifying” that company x,y,z can demonstrate FPIC.

I believe that until communities can demonstrate that they understand the costs, benefits and risks of REDD – some minimally acceptable form of means testing, as it were – and that they opt for a particular REDD program involving certain behaviors vis a vis carbon assets, then the world (including PNG) will be stuck with an ambiguous FPIC principle that will be interpreted differently from case to case. This will not bode well for the REDD marketplace, and will of course lead to manipulation of communities by REDD marketers/intermediaries who know fully well that FPIC in the real sense has not been achieved. And all those agencies that use the standard and perpetuate reliance on FPIC to make REDD right, including donor agencies, will be winking at what is collectively known as a politically correct principle with no prayer in hell of being demonstrated in the vast majority of cases where the word “informed” is taken seriously.

There remains too little information, too little analytical and decision making experience in dealing with legal documents and business tradeoffs for most communities in developing countries, to make informed choices.

Will donor agencies promoting REDD in PNG or sub-Saharan Africa be strengthening the capacities of potential REDD stewards such that they can coherently play the game? Will market intermediaries be doing this? Unless someone does, will we ever be able to speak honestly about FPIC as it relates to REDD?

I do not believe so.

But I do believe that there are ways to responsibly do this, that are akin to any other type of corporate social responsibility investment that will pay out nicely on the bottom line in the long run.

I think this blog is the best example of the worst grammar and literary expression I have ever seen.

I can understand that, at 1.00 am, R. Wilson was losing his or her sense of proportion and coherence (did we have a glass or two of wine beforehand?) but this is bearable compared to Mr Pereira’s barrage of modern creative adjectives; sweet, cool, awesome! I imagine we can all accept ‘cocked-up’ as a colourful (or colorful if you are in the USA) alternative to the good old fashioned “erred” though I confess I prefer the latter in serious journalism.

What disturbs me more is that Mr Pereira’s argument is as incomprehensible and contradictory as his vernacular, invective as it is, and, once again, sounds like the cacophonous cackle of a carrion crow rid of his carcass.

I find that those who are most vociferously, and vehemently opposed to REDD are those that understand it the least which is not surprising among the lay but damns by definition those who claim, as Mr Pereira does, to be in the same ‘business’.

Sadly, there is no shortage of vitriol borne of envy and ire borne of ignorance in this debate and my advise to Mr. Sag is to rise above it (it is clearly time, Chris, that you and Dave had a real conversation and I would be happy to act as a cheery peacekeeper as I have both your acquaintances albeit only slightly).

I also hope, one day, to read a list of contributions that offer assistance, guidance and general support to and from those of us who are trying to fight the effects of climate change even if we seek to make a living out of it.

My own philosophy is that I hope and expect to make some money out of what I am doing; I am not doing it to make money. There is a difference and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, and accepting that we must challenge it on specific issues or judgments such as this one, it is reasonable to give Carbon Planet the benefit of the doubt.

In my opinion I think REDD Monitor has, thus far, done so.

The main reason for my blog was that I wanted to make the point that the VCS and CCBA Methodologies for REDD are rubbish because they don’t account for international leakage. By default, this makes your project rubbish to – irrespective of whether false certificates were used to trick landowners or not.

Forests are logged in the main to supply the international market for wood and wood products. Your project will starve the market of wood from PNG – fantastic – but, in the absence of international regulation, the gap will definitely be filled through deforestation somewhere else. Economics 101 I believe. The emissions you save under the project will shift out of PNG and into another country with minimal (if any)net benefit for our atmosphere. This is the net outcome of your project.

I wish the media and other commentators were knowledgeable enough to focus on this point – because it removes all integrity, ‘carbon value’ and therefore monetary value from the carbon products that the project will eventually create and try to sell.

You and I both know this to be true – the buffer calculations don’t include international leakage – so don’t label me ignorant. You’re better than that. I can present page references, attach links to the methodology documents or explain the formulae used to substantiate the above points should you need me to.

The point of blogs is so that informed people can point these sorts of things out and express their opinions within a relevant channel. You’ll notice that I put a ‘lol’ in after the company reference. That was because, whilst I knew there was no value in being identified/listed on this blog(and my partners agree lol) I didnt want to appear to be casting gutless potshots using the anonymity of the web.

The first few points in my previous entry hinged on your quote RE Nupan’s use of the false certificates. We’d heard about the certificates prior to the article and later, you were quoted as saying that the certificates were produced to be waved in front of landowners. You say you were misquoted – but many if not all informed readers would see that quote and draw the same conclusion – that if they were presented to landowners it would be in aid of trying to entice them to join their stocks to the project. I think the points I made following on the base of this conclusion were fair – you’d hate it if other carbon companies were able to claim VCUs under similar false pretense. You should have explained explicitly and immediately that you were misquoted –on twitter, your blog, your company webpage – anywhere, but you didn’t. It took days for the company to list a response that still didnt offer a rebuttal to your quote. We were looking for it, but it never came until you were pushed through blogs such as this.

Anyway – you’ve defended that quote and we’ll see in the wash (or through the project’s eventual accreditation) whether it was legit. I hope you avoid making further loose-cannon statements to the press as they only act to tarnish the good work that the rest of us are trying to get on with in this industry. Maybe you should provide written answers to journos to protect yourself from being so horrendously misquoted in future.

I hope to leave it there.

Gavin

I’m beginning to wonder whether Penny Wong really exists. Or has she perhaps gone into hiding?

“on 3 November 2008, the Office of Climate Change wrote to a company called Nupan PNG Limited (right), stating ‘As Designated National Authority (DNA), I can issue a certificate of credit should you complete the following steps for the Project Documentation to be registered under the Voluntary Carbon Standards.’ Attached to the letter is a copy of a certificate, titled ‘Series Number B1 Voluntary carbon credits issued under the UNFCC Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degredation (sic) initiative for clean development mechanisms.’ The certificate is signed by Theo Yasause and Leo Tale, Director-Carbon Trade.”

But the fifth page of the pdf file is perhaps more interesting. Here’s what I wrote about that, back in July:

“On 2 February 2009, Yasause sent a ‘Notice of Nullyfication (sic) of all corresspondences (sic) and certifications issued on Kumalo (sic) Doso Pilot Project on REDD’ to the Managing Director of Nupan PNG Limited (see page 5 of the letters about Kamula Doso). The letter states that ‘This decision has come about due to the continuous dispute between various landowner groups within the Kumula Doso project area and also with your company ownership.’”

I wonder why Kirk Roberts didn’t send you a copy of this letter?

I never told told the SMH, who could not even get my job title right in their story, that Nupan had any copies of this sample certificate. I said, in my interview, (from memory here) something along the lines of ‘IF Mr Roberts had one of those certificates it would have been used as a prop.’ Nupan has emphatically denied ever having had any ‘fake’ certificates, let alone having used them. Carbon Planet’s actual CEO (that’s not me as the SMH stated) wrote a letter to the SMH that was published a day later that made this very clear. I guess while you were researching your story you overlooked that letter, or if you did see it you simply chose to ignore it.

Chris you seem to have made up your mind that carbon trading is wrong and that those of us working in the planet saving industry are pure evil incarnate. When has REDD Monitor ever published a success story about REDD projects? Or are they all flawed?

Regarding making a complaint to the APC, it had not occurred to me but now you mention it I’ll ask someone to look into that tomorrow. Thanks for the tip.

Dave
http://www.carbonplanet.com/REDD_addressing_the_issues
see also http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/medias-carbon-confusion-is-grist-for-the-lumber-mill/

@Dave Sag – perhaps you’d like to explain exactly what the REDD “credits” were, and whether or not they were waved in front of villagers in PNG. Feel free to add in the context that the press did not give. Will you be making a complaint to the Australian Press Council about the articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and elsewhere in the Australian press?

Have a look at the below link, the persons name is Natasha Loder, London, United Kingdom. She is a journalist working at The Economist.

MORE IMPORTANTLY SHE’S GIVEN A FAIR REPORT ON WHERE NUPAN AND CARBON PLANET STAND, YOU DO REALISE THAT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES AND APART FROM HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS ARE 2 COMPLETELY SEPERATE ENTITIES. DONT LABEL BUDDY, CHALK AND CHEESE LOL! MANY MANY PEOPLE HAVE AND WILL SEEK CARBON PLANETS BUSINESS/HELP/IDEAS SOME WILL BE BAD AND SOME WILL BE GOOD. THE MOMENT 1 COMPANY (NUPAN) LOOKS (AND THE VERDICT IS STILL OUT) A LITTLE SHADY PEOPLE LIKE YOU THROW THE FIRST STONE AT CP.

http://natashaloder.blogspot.com/2009/06/kamula-duso-credit.html