in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines

Shift2Neutral responds

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUpon

Brett Goldsworthy, chairman of Shift2Neutral has responded to REDD-Monitor’s email asking some questions about his company’s REDD-type projects in Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. He states that his company “deals in facts”, but provides no new information. He states that his company manages its project “in an ethical and open way” but apparently only “to those people involved in the project”.

He adds that he is disappointed that “people wish to make commentary and assumptions before knowing the facts of our project(s).” REDD-Monitor is in turn disappointed that there is so little information publicly available about any of Shift2Neutral’s projects. If the projects are “ethical”, surely the company has nothing to lose by answering questions.

Here is REDD-Monitor’s email to Shift2Neutral and below that, Brett Goldsworthy’s response:

From: Chris Lang
To: contact@shift2neutral.com
Date: 13 August 2010 15:24
Subject: Shift2Neutral and REDD

Dear Brett Goldsworthy,

Greetings from Jakarta! My name is Chris Lang and I run a website called REDD-Monitor. I’ve just done a post that mentions Shift2Neutral’s potential REDD projects in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines:

Australian company Shift2Neutral signs REDD deals in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines | http://bit.ly/caFKak

The post consists of your company’s press release, the Reuters article from earlier this week and a press release from JOAS about the project in Malaysia.

I would be grateful if you could answer these follow-up questions:

1. Where exactly are Shift2Neutral’s projects in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and with which communities were the agreements signed? How many villages are involved in each case?

2. Please describe the process by which you reached the agreement with the communities. Did the communities employ the services of an independent lawyer to go through and explain the agreements with them before signing the agreement?

3. Was a process of Free, Prior and Informed Consent carried out before the agreements were signed? If so, please explain what form this process took?

4. Are the agreements available to the public? If so, could you please send me a copy and if not, could you please explain why not.

5. So far, there is very little information available about the proposed projects. Please describe the projects in each country.

6. Please provide a breakdown of the proposed revenue from the project. What proportion will communities receive? How much do you anticipate that communities will receive per year?

7. Has Shift2Neutral (or any of the people involved in the company) ever carried out a forest conservation project in the tropics before, or one involving indigenous peoples?

8. Your press release states that “Shift2Neutral signs agreement to certify carbon credits under the avoided deforestation program known as REDD+ with a group of tribal leaders in Sarawak Malaysia”. As you know, negotiations have been going on for several years, but as yet there is no agreement at the UN level about REDD+. I would be grateful if you could explain to me exactly how you explained what REDD+ is to the indigenous peoples with whom you signed the agreement.

9. Your company’s website that explains how Shift2Neutral carries out its “certification” provides two links. One is to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative and the other is to the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit. As neither of these organisations actually certifies forest carbon credits, could you please explain how, exactly, you intend to “certify carbon credits” in the projects in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Please consider your response to be on the record.

Regards, Chris Lang

From: Brett Goldsworthy
To: Chris Lang, contact@shift2neutral.com
Date: 20 August 2010 12:04
Subject: Re: Shift2Neutral and REDD

Dear Chris,

Thank you kindly for sending through an email on the 13th August about your interest in our project and sorry for the delay but I have been traveling, and please note I have also copied your email to our Malaysian partners.

On request, would you be so kind as to provide your professional interest in this project, your professional credentials to make commentary and I can forward these to our partners in Malaysia so they may wish to comment.

From Shift2Neutral’s perspective, may I just advise we deal in facts, we manage our projects in an ethical and open way to those people involved in the project and respect the wishes and desires of those involved.

It is disappointing that people wish to make commentary and assumptions before knowing the facts of our project(s).

Whilst I am sure it is of interest to many our role and our interest is simply to focus on our project.

Whilst not wanting to sound disrespectful to yourself and may other interested parties I am requested by those groups involved in this project to not comment any further and I will honour that request.

However here is a statement that may help you

AVOIDED DEFORESTATION by SHIFT2NEUTRAL PTY LTD

Background

Shift2Neutral believes that linking people’s economic self-interest and the health of ecosystems is one of the most promising ways to garner interest in the conservation challenges facing society today. Business has a long record of pioneering new ideas, forging new partnerships and implementing new solutions. The moment has now come for the private sector to put these strengths to work in ways that will permanently halt unsustainable deforestation and allow the global society to protect the ecosystems on which we all depend. We believe this can be achieved with real benefits to local stakeholders.

We must recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and the local communities involved, with all parties achieving Free and Prior Consent.

Why Communities?

Regardless of the international and national policies in place, deforestation cannot be combated effectively unless local landowners and residents have more reason to protect forest ecosystems than they have to destroy them.

Only by recognizing that the forest conservation efforts of the private, public and social sectors all depend on millions of land-use decisions made at the local level, can we craft an international avoided deforestation strategy capable of making the all-important transition from policy to practice.

Avoided Deforestation policy must pay particular regard to community rights, culture, social and livelihood issues.

Local communities must have significant input if policies and process are to succeed.


Here’s my answer to Goldsworthy’s question about my “professional interest” and “professional credentials to make commentary”:

I have an MSc in forestry and have worked for about 17 years with various social and environmental organisations, in particular the World Rainforest Movement and TERRA in Thailand. During that period I have seen many examples of projects in forest areas affecting (in some cases completely destroying) local people’s livelihoods – some carried out by well meaning people, others by less well meaning people. I believe it is important, as an absolute minimum, that the proponents of such projects are transparent about what they are doing, where they are working and with whom they are working.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUpon

Leave a Reply

24 Comments

  1. These are some great lines by Shift2Neutral Pty Ltd on Avoided Deforestation, but how sincere are such statements when they are just cut and pasted?

  2. Just to explain, in case it’s not clear, the statement that Brett Goldsworthy sent to me on Avoided Deforestation is cut and pasted (almost entirely) from Avoided Deforestation Partners’ website: http://bit.ly/1gKRoWy (first and final paragraphs).

  3. Brett,
    Bit of uninvited counsel/ advice for you.

    The more you or any of your people try to explain themselves, the higher the chances that those very explanations will turn out to be fodder for Lang and his fellow crusaders.

    Best to stick with what you have and to act decisively.

    Please ensure that you seek free, informed and prior consent from the landowners in a manner where it is documented and recorded, just to ensure that one or more of those land owners dont start their own campaign after they are egged on by the do-gooders.

    Please do not be intimidated by the loud minority and fringe dwellers who want to re-write the rules about carbon economy.

    You will find sufficient support for your initiatives from within and outside the industry and the more visibility your projects get , the louder the noise will become from Lord Langdon and his mates.

    You must remember this:

    Any successful milestones that you may achieve with the venture will stand to disprove the very basis on which Lord Langdon has staked his own reputation and life. His very audible and documented disapproval of carbon economy and carbon trading will ensure for all the project developers, funder, investors and buyers that he will be there to fight tooth and nail, regardless of how much benefit those projects bring for the communities, bio-diversity, carbon mitigation and for the government.

    In my opinion, you must be discredited and hounded out of the forests of Malaysia for him to prove that he has always been right.

    My opinion is that he and his mates will make suggestions and noise and propose that should you achieve XYZ, they will have no problems and will be happy to support the initiative and then those demands will change until such time that you and your business are thoroughly discredited. If you think otherwise then you must do what I did:

    Look at the REDD Monitor and the views that Lord Langdon and his mates have been expressing for years and it will dawn on you that you cannot ever REASON with this mob.

    You can get free, informed consent, get your projects up to the highest current standards of ceritification through VCS/ CCBA (and more), deploy ethical distribution mechanisms and seek consensus on the ground as much as you like, but because Lord Langdon and his mates are fundamentally against carbon economy and especially REDD, to disprove you will be the only option for them to keep their stance vindicated in my opinion.

    You must also look at the history of the REDD Monitor to understand that almost each and every thought, article and interview just goes on to discredit and disprove REDD and the carbon trading.

    You can never provide clarifications here believing that they will be scrutinised with integrity and fairness. Whichever feedback you provide, you will be crucified.

    Stay the course and totally ignore the hounding. You will find it difficult to seek project funding and buyers but if you have the ability to source the funding privately then please do so.

    Best of luck
    JM

  4. @ Brett Pritchard

    Brett, Look forward to hearing your progress on your malaysian projects since your website has no updates on the development of your projects for good 9 months.

    Before casting doubt on anyone’s sincerity, please make note that ‘whatever safeguards’ you are going to take to avoid negative media for your own REDD projects in Malaysia, you will inadvertently be in the firing line.

    How about you update REDD Monitor on which projects you have secured, where are they located, which ceritification standards you are going to employ, who are the project funders and buyers, how far has your methodology being developed, what are the parameters of ethical distribution of funds and what are your thoughts on REDD mechanism, carbon trading and carbon economy as an active player in this space.

    Regards
    JM

  5. Dear Chris or Lord Lang,

    ….as it seems I should call you as per the legions of obfuscation; you have a long
    & thankless task ahead of you in your self-appointed task. I commend & support you
    in striving to do so. The REDD initiative is never going to work unless sufficient
    numbers of people are convinced it is working in the manner intended. Proponents only achieve short term goals at best by seeking to hide what they do. If they will not
    provide reasonably full disclosure themselves, it is only reasonable that people like
    yourself prepared to take on the task try to keep them honest.

    One hopefully helpful suggestion to you though: please make it clear where you stand
    on REDD. I ask because it is not clear to me. REDD may very well protect original forests, bio-diversity & legitimate stakeholders but may yet allow certain countries & corporations to avoid their obligation to reduce GHG emissions. A point well made – but that is something for developed countries & their citizens to guard against surely? Not an argument not proceed with REDD.

    The main reason, I suggest, that opinion polls now say that the majority of people are
    not worried about climate change is that they are confused and mistrust the process of combatting it. Everything I see tells me people are indeed worried but are in effect saying “a plague on both your houses….”, that & an understandable reluctance to be foisted with the cost while potential eco-spivs amongst us profit handsomely.

    Understandable, but not helpful, since it plays into the hands of financiers & obfuscators
    out to manipulate climate change mechanisms.

  6. Dear Justin,
    Thank you for your advice, and I will try to answer your concerns. My website has been updated a number of times in the past 9 months but I must admit there have been no premature announcements as I am still going through a long and involved process. This process involves first seeking the free, informed and prior consent from the people involved, then seeking both State and Federal government approval for the project, and finally trying to broker a deal with the company that has the oil palm concession for the area. To make a premature announcement could put these negotiations at risk.I have already sent some project details to both Chris Lang of REDD-Monitor and to Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS), the Indigenous Peoples Network of Malaysia, and informed them of the process I am going through.

    As to ‘whatever safeguards’ I am going to take to avoid negative media for my own REDD projects in Malaysia, I will be seeking certification through both the Voluntary Carbon Standard and the Climate Community and Biodiversity. Not only do self-certified offsets lack transparency, market research shows they are not too popular with offset buyers.

    If I do ever sell offsets directly from my website I will provide links to all project documents, and make such information available for all rather than just ‘investors’. The climate change issue, of which REDD is a part, is an issue that affects all life on earth and any information regarding the issue should be freely available for all.

    I have a Bachelor of Natural Environments and Wilderness Studies majoring in climate change science and policy (not an accounting or business degree) and also have a Diploma of Permaculture Design in Education and Community Development and so hopefully people can see what perspective I am coming from.

    In addition, in the past lived in one of the villages involved for 2 years teaching agriculture and village development, I speak the language, and have been given a tribal name after one of their revered headmen from the past. I hope my past work and close personal links with these people that go back over two decades will defuse some of the potential criticism this type of project will inevitably attract.

    As soon as I gain full approval I will immediately update REDD Monitor on which projects I have secured, and provide maps and GPS coordinators on where they are they located. I have already mentioned the ceritification standards I am going to employ (VCS and CCB).

    I intend the project funding to be sourced from within Malaysia, and so profits from that investment will stay in Malaysia. I intend to seek buyers on the OTC voluntary carbon market, but have also discussed the possibility of sales with a couple of companies involved in offset sales. I will also be approaching selected companies directly.

    As to how far has your methodology has been developed, I am currently closely watching the verification and validation process of methodologies currently being carried out by the Voluntary Carbon Standard. When the project commences the methodology used will be based on what is acceptable for VCS certification.

    As to what are the parameters of ethical distribution of the funds, from an ethical point of view my job is to maximise the benefits of the project for the local indigenous peoples given the real life circumstances I have to work with. I have been trying to establish a distribution that will be agreeable to the people, the investors, and the oil palm company. I am trying for an agreement that will direct approximately a third of the revenue to the villages in the form of sustainable developments and monitoring payments (annual payments for 30 years), a third of the revenue to the investors, and a third to the oil palm company. Now as the revenue from carbon offsets is much smaller per hectare than the revenue from oil palm this has not been an easy negotiation.

    Now to my thoughts on REDD mechanism, carbon trading and carbon economy. I became involved in this business as I saw it a a possible way to get land for a village and a people I have a long and deep connection with. In mid-2009 I became aware that the village I had lived in was about to be swamped by palm oil plantations, and that the people would lose the last of their forests and their rice fields. Due to my educational qualifications I knew about climate change and the carbon offset market, and saw REDD as a way to combine this knowledge with my aim to help the people.

    My biggest concern about a company not following the process I am going through is that it could raise false expectations amongst the people. They are being told that if they sign they will get a 50% share of the proceeds, but without government support and/or some agreement with the company with the oil palm or logging concession for the area these projects are not going to proceed.

    Regards
    BP

  7. @ Justin Muir
    By the way Justin, where are you from? You do not leave a webpage link with your comments. I managed to track a Justin Muir who is head of Experian Catalist, a company which develops products and consultancy solutions for the oil industry. Before joining Catalist this Justin Muir spent ten
    years working for Shell, one of the companies directly involved in the major causes of anthropogenic climate change. I am not casting doubts on your sincerity, but was just wondering if you are this Justin Muir? It will help if you give a link to your web page, if you have one.

  8. @Adrian Batten – Thanks for the suggestion. I will update the “REDD: An Introduction” page.

    You acknowledge that trading forest carbon “may yet allow certain countries & corporations to avoid their obligation to reduce GHG emissions” and add that “that is something for developed countries & their citizens to guard against surely? Not an argument not proceed with REDD.”

    But it’s asking a lot of citizens in the rich countries to prevent their governments and corporations from buying REDD carbon credits. The problem with this is that as long as REDD produces carbon credits, there will be a buyer somewhere. One of the reasons that governments and corporations in the North like REDD is that they can avoid emissions cuts at home by buying cheap credits. I’d argue that it is an argument not to proceed with REDD based on carbon trading.

  9. Dear Chris,

    Thanks for clearing that up. I feel it is important you do make your stance on
    REDD in this respect very clear, since it allows us to judge to what extent I,
    and others like me, can go along with you.

    At this juncture, about 70% along the way I’d say, I must part company with you.
    In an imperfect world I still think it worth saving forest etc., even if some emitters
    get an easier ride than they would otherwise, while of course trying to get
    countries to put worthwhile caps/tax on GHG emissions.

    I don’t suggest the public try to prevent their govts & corps buying cheap credits. I do suggest they press for meaningful caps/tax. Yes, it may he hard, but if we don’t
    try, what hope is there in any direction? Let’s at least hang on to the forests, if we can.
    Exposing the opportunistic & keeping would-be cheats honest is a very good start.
    In this respect I’m 100% with you.

  10. @ Adrian Batten,
    Yes on every count.

    I am with Chris when it comes to genuinely fighting corruption and criminality for that is the biggest scourge within and outside REDD and carbon economy.

    I am with Chris when he wants to scrutinise unscrupulous characeters with the sole aim to bring transparency and integrity in the very complicated and nascent world of all things REDD and not with the aim to publicly lynch them before even finding the facts.

    I am with Chris when he wants to garner support in establishing solid platforms and framework so that vast majority of the benefit from any future REDD deals flow back to communities and people that call those forests home.

    I am not with Chris when he brings rigidity and inflexibility to the discussion on carbon economy, carbon trading and REDD.

    I am not with Chris when he questions the fundamentals of carbon trading regardless of how much benefit it will bring not only to combat global warming but to save forests from clearing, protect the unique bio-diversity of the ecosystems, enrich the lives of the indigenous communities and provide an incentive for others to follow suit.

    I am not with Chris when he berates those that try to make early inroads into the world of REDD. Those who put their own funds, efforts and commitment in at least pioneering the initial stages of project development. People like Stephen Dickey, Brett Pritchard, Brett Goldworthy and others, who might have the best intentions at heart but due to negative scaremongering of people like Lang and his mates wont openly discuss their plans, programs and intentions as any negative commentary carries with it the risk of being labelled as ‘cowboys’, ‘rip off merchants’ and soulless individuals wanting to make a buck from poor communities. All this negative commentary carries with it the risks of scaring up well intentioned investors, good supporting people, markets and share values; the very critical initial funding for those early stage companies that want to take the plunge and start exploring opportunities.

    I dont agree with Chris when he cans carbon economy in general and has nothing to propose that will gain traction and build consensus for a ‘new solution’, a nirvana that will unite the globe.

    I dont agree with Chris when he so arrogantly suggests that those that secured the consensus to fight global climate change , all those 100+ nations, all those thousands of scientists, hundreds of institutions, hundreds of politicians, industry, media, NGOs and environmental lobby groups that they are all wrong in believing that compliance mechanisms and cap and trade is just a waste of time.

    I dont agree with Chris when majority of his commentary simply is negative – If you read REDD Monitor, it has headlines dating back to 2008 about what is wrong with carbon world, the cowboys, the scams, how REDD hasnt worked and wont work, why Carbon economy doesnt do anything to mitigate climate change, what is wrong with Juma project, the Kalimantan project, why indigenous communities wont benefit, why biodiversity would not be conserved. Where is objective and honest reporting ? Where is consensus building ? Where is flexibility to adjust to ground realities ? Where is the ability to acknowledge the great role that REDD can play in conserving what is being depleted at an alarming rate ?

    If only REDD could save the ecosystems and trees and benefit the people living there , I would consider it a battle worth fighting and doing something positive about REDD. Lets take away the carbon debate out of REDD.. Lets forget that deforestation causes almost 20% of global carbon emissions – This is a fight worth fighting if it simply conserves the forests and all that lies within it.

    I find Chris oppose everything that goes against his crusade of proving that carbon economy in general and REDD in particular is nothing but a sham.

    Regards
    JM

  11. @Justin Muir and Adrian Batten – Thanks for your comments.

    Justin – This is one of those situations where I’m convinced I’m right and you’re convinced you’re right and we’re not communicating particularly well. I’d like to apologise about that and try starting again.

    I like the idea of seeing what we agree on. And I think Adrian is probably right that it’s probably somewhere around 70%.

    So, in the spirit of cooperation and consensus building, let’s see what we agree on.

    * We agree, I think, that the cap on emissions is the important thing, not the trade. Because the cap is what reduces emissions, not the trade.

    * We also agree, presumably, that the Copenhagen Accord was a giant step backwards, because instead of negotiating phase II of the Kyoto Protocol, which should have involved negotiating legally binding emissions reductions targets, COP-15 “took note” of the Accord, which includes reductions targets that are too weak and are not legally binding.

    * We agree that forests ecosystems are important – including the people living in and around the forests. We probably also agree that the history of forests involves illegal logging, corruption, clearcuts, conversion to vast monocultures (soy, fast-growing trees, oil palm, rubber and so on) or cattle ranching, huge profits and in many cases massive social and environmental destruction. Throwing money at this sort of problem is not necessarily going to work. This partly explains why the majority of my commentary on REDD is negative. There are some very serious problems to overcome and I’m not convinced that some REDD optimists are realistically facing up to these problems.

    Not all of REDD-Monitor is negative. Once a week there’s a “REDD in the news” post (for which REDD-Monitor has been criticised for promoting pro-REDD views, incidentally).

    * We would both like to “take away the carbon debate out of REDD”. My concern with this is that REDD (as it is currently being negotiated internationally – particularly through the non-transparent Interim REDD+ Partnership) is a carbon trading mechanism. So I’m not sure how we can take the carbon debate out of the REDD debate.

    * I agree with Adrian Batten that if we had meaningful emissions caps, then carbon trading would become less of a problem. The smaller the trade and the bigger the emissions cuts, the better. Currently, however, we don’t have meaningful emissions caps. (Even if we did, carbon offsets would still be a problem, because they create a loophole in the cap. Trading forest carbon is an offset mechanism.)

    * I agree with Justin that “Carbon Trading and carbon economy is the worlds response to climate change – Period !” However, where we differ is that I see this as a problem. The world’s solution as it currently stands is not to set legally binding, meaningful reductions of emissions, it is to trade those emissions from one place on the planet to another.

    So, yes, we should push for meaningful caps. I’m worried that a lot of people are deluding themselves that carbon trading is a solution to climate change. There is a serious danger that we will end up with a REDD deal coming out of Cancún, but no agreement on meaningful emissions reduction targets. In other words we would have trade without compliance mechanisms or a cap. That may protect some forest areas in the short term. But in the long term it would lock in polluting technology, just about guarantee runaway climate change and guarantee that vast areas of forests would go up in smoke. That’s why I deeply concerned about trading the carbon stored in forests.

  12. @Justin. I, for one (though I can’t speak for the others) have absolutely no issue with making public any and all aspects of the projects Redd Forests is undertaking with one exception – when we are NOT the project proponent and that entity has bound us commercial in confidence. To back up my claim, our pilot Tasmania project is already CCBA approved and on their website you can view the PDD and validator’s report as well as public comments. We did not publish the methodology itself because we hoped to recoup some of the $250k it cost us to produce it. Note that the VCS has recognised the need to recompense writer’s in their proposed compensation mechanism.

    @Chris, I agree with you that a trade without a cap will not help reduce emissions. The cap is essential. Your fear of offsets bailing out polluters I also understand though I do not agree. Offsets work when a market operates freely enabling competition where a carbon price (even if that is just the cost of the offsets) forces prices up – more for inefficient polluters and less for conscientious polluters thus applying pressure to reduce emissions across the board. The mandatory renewable energy target here in Australia is a good example of this. The brown coal burners are and will continue to suffer penalties that will lead them to be non-competitive. As a result Hazlewood itself (one of the most polluting power stations in the world) is being forced to adapt. Good! Emission reductions for real!

    Any mechanism that reduces deforestation is a good mechanism. If it places costs on polluters it is working both in protecting carbon sinks and forcing competitive edge to the less polluting members of an industry – wherever they are in the world. This drives emission reductions.

    Cap without trade leaves you with policy and regulation. There is nothing more prevalent in the world than abuse of policy and regulation (or lack thereof) as can be witnessed by the GFC.

    The plight of indigenous peoples is, again, something we know about in Australia and policy and regulation has been and remains a shockingly ineffective solution to the problems. Bringing capital, trade, secure incomes and sustainable futures will work better. There is NO GOOD REASON for REDD+ to disadvantage indigenous peoples – quite the contrary; and your role in monitoring the efficacy and ethics of projects is of paramount importance and I applaud you for that. We have been damaged by some unscrupulous opportunists but their role will be short lived as the market finds its feet and controls, checks and balances prevail.

    It is a market we need, alongside good policy, and we had all better hope it works and do our part to make sure it does.

  13. Stephen,
    Attempting to develop REDD projects in Tasmania is a whole different ball game than one in PNG or West Papua, Sarawak etc.
    Working on what might be considered a tiny project area in bigger scheme of things with well developed land titles and excellent (relatively speaking) and transparent mechanisms with largely uncorrupt government and people isnt the case in large majority of rainforest nations, so you taking a moral high ground off the back of a tiny project in Tasmania isnt relevant to this broader debate. Community consultations, ethical distribution, government support, mature institutions, overall transparency in scheme of things whilst operating in Australia is whole lot different than Brazil, Peru, Congo, PNG and Indonesia which are the main REDD players. Making the info public for your project is no-brainer really.
    Regards
    JM

    Regards
    JM

  14. @Justin Muir – you’re right, most of the countries where REDD projects are likely to be developed are nothing like Tasmania (although the destruction caused by the logging industry in Tasmania is similar to that caused in other parts of the world).

    But are you really suggesting that in countries where land titles are well developed, where “good governance” exists and where the government is largely not corrupt that projects should be transparent, whereas in countries without well developed land titles, corrupt governments and little “good governance” that REDD projects should be carried out as secretively as possible?

    Perhaps you should set up a new organisation: “Opacity International”.

  15. uWhat are you on about Lord Langton ?

    Where did I say that ? You ve me really confused now….as everyone else.

  16. @Justin Muir – You wrote, “Making the info public for your project [in Tasmania] is no-brainer really.” I assumed that you were suggesting that Stephen Dickey and others setting up REDD projects in countries with clear land titles, “good governance” and where the government is largely not corrupt should make information about their projects public.

    On the other hand, you seem to be saying in some of your other comments that Shift2Neutral and other REDD project developers in the tropics should not release any more information about their projects.

    If I’ve misunderstood, please feel free to clarify. Perhaps you could clarify the point you were trying make in your response to Stephen Dickey above (dated August 25th, 2010 at 11:06 am).

  17. Dear Chris n’ all,

    Having got what I wanted to know I’m happy to visit REDD-Monitor to see how
    REDD is being played out. It is obviously hugely complex but well worth the
    effort to develop the letter & spirit of something that works. I am greatly heartened
    by the Norwegians calling in their marker in Guyana on the Malaysians & Israelis.
    Gives me a glimmer of hope for Indonesia.

    Chris Lang well deserves his peerage for his efforts of monitorship as (when & if)
    REDD mechanisms kick in effectively.

    Best.

  18. Do you know of any REDD project in the Philippines7 if there is where in the Phippines. i am from the Island of M indanao particularly in Mararwi City, Lanao del sur.

  19. Hi Chris, please follow our link to our web site, here you will see information from the Philippines TRICOM and the Indigenous Tribe that we are in process of interviewing right now in Butuan Mindanao, we have signed documents, pictures, and later this week a world wide news conference uncovering the so called 500 million scam Brett Goldsworthy so happy to brag about….

  20. Roger Peters is false name used by Steve Rice