Comments on: Indonesia: Communities reject APRIL’s REDD plans on the Kampar Peninsular

By: Josh Dalver

Josh Dalver — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:27:27 +0000

Well, that was an illuminating comment. Quite nasty, actually.

Don’t think @Holly’s comment was even remotely “spit vituperative dribble”.

By: Stephen Dickey

Stephen Dickey — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:08:41 +0000

@Holly. Well Holly, you know who I am – who are you? I dislike being labeled a carbon trading profiteer – it is such an easy but cheap snarl and smells of anti-capitalism rhetoric. Please don’t spit vituperative dribble from behind a veil of anonymity.

Do you work for a living Holly? Are you not entitled to receive payment for your labour and contribution? Why should I and my staff not be so entitled?

By: Holly

Holly — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:09:52 +0000

Stephen Dickey is the Managing Director of Reddforests Pty Ltd, based in Australia.

Their website states Redd Forests Pty Ltd was incorporated in December of 2008 as a “profit for purpose” business.

REDD+ – even with the inclusion of the right to free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples – delivers big profits into the hands of carbon trading profiteers like Stephen.

The way to get REDD ‘wrong’ is to make it a carbon trading mechanism.

By: Stephen Dickey

Stephen Dickey — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:08:44 +0000

At face value, and I have no reason to believe the facts are any different from the reports as stated, this is the risk that we run if we get REDD wrong. As I understand it REDD+ (Redd plus) demands that positive outcomes for community and biodiversity must be concomitant with a climate benefit outcome. REDD+ is the path to take.

We chose, and will continue to choose, CCBS validation of any Redd Forests project for the same reason irrespective of any carbon-credit-issuing mechanism we also use.

I am disturbed at the figures “14 million tonnes… $17m.” Are we really valuing greenhouse gas emissions at $1.21 per tonne? If so we have no chance of effectively reducing emissions.

Finally, whatever half baked solution that allows plantation sequestration to be regarded as allowable will NEVER be acceptable to Redd Forests. Degraded land should only be allowed to regenerate to its natural state if carbon credits are desired to finance such a project. If plantations are not commercially viable without carbon credits we don’t bloody well need them!

By: Joe Lamb

Joe Lamb — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:03:45 +0000

Plantations are not forests. They lack the species diversity, and clearing lands for plantations will put massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. If REDD money causes expansions of plantations, then REDD should be scrapped. “Degraded lands” if allowed, will return to their wild, species rich, state. Careful plantings of keystone species could augment this natural process. It is critical that the COP15 treaty have ironclad safeguards on offset money that 1) require prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples, 2) require baseline species diversity inventories on all offset lands, 3) demand that species diversity be protected, and 4) have scientific monitoring by third parties.