Comments on: Norway-Indonesia forest deal: US$1 billion dollars worth of continued deforestation?

By: Chris Lang

Chris Lang — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:47:30 +0000

@Supriadi (#8) - No, I don't think that forest destruction is the main source of climate change. I agree with you that reducing emissions from fossil fuels is crucial to addressing climate change. I think that rich countries are hoping to use REDD for two things: 1) as a green figleaf at the UN climate negotiations - to give the impression that some progress is being made (although REDD without meaningful targets for reducing emissions from fossil fuels makes little sense); and 2) to avoid making emissions cuts at home. Having said that, I think it's important to massively reduce deforestation and to massively reduce emissions from greenhouse gases.

By: Supriadi

Supriadi — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:42:15 +0000

Do we think that the forest exploitation or degradation in developing countries is blamed as the main source to climate change ? I would rader say that the use of fosil fuels is the most significant to that of climate change, in terms of carbon emission. Or perhap, climate change is beeng used as a divice for a global economy policy by super power countries to control developing countries. I belief that global climate change will not be able to be stoped by human efforts, that is the faith of nature.

By: cleibing

cleibing — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:55:56 +0000

Next to the two year suspension there are other important points agreed upon in the LoI

“ii. Establish a degraded lands database, starting in one or more appropriate provinces, to facilitate the establishment of economic activity on such lands rather than converted peatland or natural forests.

iii. Enforce existing laws against illegal logging and trade in timber and related forest crimes and set up a special unit to tackle the problem.

iv. Take appropriate measures to address land tenure conflicts and compensation claims.”

Good start I think (once again) and if successful well spend money! It’s not a good start of course If one is against any economic activity related to forestry…

By: Chris Lang

Chris Lang — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:37:55 +0000

@david - I found a source for your statement, from the Norwegian Embassy in Jakarta's frequently asked questions about the billion dollar deal:

Will Norway get carbon quotas from Indonesia? No. All efforts under the Norwegian Climate and Forest Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are additional to Norway’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and will not be counted towards Norway’s commitments under a new climate agreement.

By: Chris Lang

Chris Lang — Mon, 31 May 2010 12:19:48 +0000

@Rupert De Santos - "Norway is simultaneously ensuring that climate change gets worse, while claiming to address climate change through financing REDD." What I meant by this is that, as George Monbiot pointed out two-and-a-half years ago, no country on the planet has a supply-side policy on fossil fuels. Norway, in common with every other country, has no plans to stop exploring for oil.

"When you review the plans for fossil fuel extraction, the horrible truth dawns that every carbon-cutting programme is a con. Without supply-side policies, runaway climate change is inevitable, however hard we try to cut demand. The talks in Bali will be meaningless unless they produce a programme for leaving fossil fuels in the ground."

By: Chris Lang

Chris Lang — Mon, 31 May 2010 12:06:59 +0000

@david – Thanks. That’s fascinating, but can you say which Indonesian government official(s) said this and what the context was, please? Do you have a source for this statement? Otherwise, it just sounds like a rumour.

By: david

david — Sun, 30 May 2010 15:22:33 +0000

According to Indonesian government officials the Norwegian government specifically ruled out using any of this grant money for participation in the development of offset credits.

By: James

James — Fri, 28 May 2010 21:46:15 +0000

The amount of compensation attributable to those who have concessions to convert – or merely log – forest in Indonesia might, in some cases, be minimal (or even negative).

A number of concessions appear to have been granted to enterprises which have no experience of the timber industry, let alone sustainable management of forest. An offshoot of CCT Telecom on Papua is an example.

This is presumably not the intention of Indonesia’s forestry laws and/orpolicy, is certainly bad practice, and should not be accepted under a FLEGT VPA.

Illegality might also have been involved in the allocation of other concessions.

Such illegality would presumably make those concessions void – and this would lead to concessionaires forfeiting any deposits (performance bonds) and being subject to other penalties.

By: Rupert De Santos

Rupert De Santos — Fri, 28 May 2010 13:48:54 +0000

Chris,

your post is very interesting. Could you or any colleague -perhaps from Norway- explain further what is the oil and gas industry in Norway up to.
You made an scary statement: “Norway is simultaneously ensuring that climate change gets worse, while claiming to address climate change through financing REDD”.What do you mean by this assertion?
who controls the oil industry in Norway?
What is the big business you all think the oil industry from Norway will achieve through the implementation of this nasty LoI with Indonesia?
will this agreement implementation facilitate carbon offset for companies in Norway?
thanks so much
Rupert.