India’s national REDD+ policy: Old lies in new garb

The Government of India has recently come up with a National REDD+ policy. This short article mainly responds to that draft and the accompanying “Reference Document for REDD plus in India” (Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, August 2013, hereafter RD).

INDIA'S NATIONAL REDD-PLUS POLICY: ANYTHING NEW?

The policy contains the same old package of unfounded assumptions, pseudo-science, half-truths and lies, which forms the core of the delusion that climate change and greenhouse gas emissions can be regulated and controlled by the neo-liberal capitalist market that demands more intensive use of fossil fuels like coal and petroleum. Forests and plantations “soaking up” emissions from industries and cities is an important part of this delusion. It is dangerous on two accounts: One, it helps perpetuate the myth that capitalist production/accumulation can be continued ad infinitum in an environmentally sustainable manner. Two, it directly financializes, and hence, capitalizes nature. Nature qua nature turns into capital through schemes like REDD-plus, at great cost to communities whose food sovereignty, livelihoods and cultures are linked with natural systems like forests, and also to the general environment.

PEDDLING CLICHÉS AND LIES

Lies about forest cover

The forest cover data based on satellite imagery that government agencies offer have always been suspect.[1] The 2011 State of Forest Report published by the Forest Survey of India, shows that up to 30 percent deforestation was recorded at certain central Indian districts, even though the net cover had increased. The 2013 Forest Survey also showed a net gain in forest cover, which was immediately challenged.[2] The reference document that came with the draft REDD+ policy reveals the trick: It stipulates that any area with tree vegetation with 10 percent canopy density and above must be treated as a forest, even if it falls outside the recorded forest area, because – as the argument goes – any form of tree vegetation renders the “service” of storing/soaking up carbon. This way, the forest cover can endlessly increase, even if organized and officially permitted deforestation in the form of “forest clearances” for development projects continues and increases including those for new coal mines and thermal power plants.

Claims about carbon storage

Following a process limited to government officials and a few handpicked NGOs, the forests are measured for their so-called “carbon value”, avoiding that, even in the Indian national context, the measurement of “forest carbon” has always been a disputed issue, and there is still no universally accepted and standardized models of such a measurement.[3] The carbon sequestration figures derive from questionable forest cover data and ignores the factor of organized deforestation. One of the main reasons why the carbon sequestration estimates offered by the Government of India do not stand scrutiny is that the rate of deforestation for industrial/commercial purposes in India is rising alarmingly, and the carbon markets completely sidestep that fact. One recent estimate shows that in 30 years (1981-2011), and since the Forest Conservation Act intended to stop diversion of forests for non-forestry purposes has come into force, 1,198,676 hectares of forests have been diverted.[4] In the four years between 2007 and 2011, 204,425 hectares of forests were converted to mostly mines and various industrial projects.[5]

Claims about community involvement and benefits

If one reads the REDD+ policy in conjunction with the accompanying Reference Document, a more holistic picture emerges. Though the Reference Document presents a future scenario of so-called community REDD+ forests in detail, the policy/strategy talks about Joint Forest Management (JFM) as the main operational strategy for forest governance in the new REDD+ regime. The strategy proposes to reduce “forest dependency” of forest communities by adopting a characteristically vague bundle of typical JFM instruments, like alternative cheap cooking fuel supply, non-conventional energy sources, low cost permanent housing, improved infrastructural facilities including health, and improving agricultural and livestock productivity. It is also made clear that REDD+ incentives will flow through JFM committees like the Forest Protection Committee and Eco-Development Committees, all of which are entities spawned and controlled by the Forest Department. It is ironic that though the policy projects FRA – Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act as an instance of legislative safeguarding for community rights, unapologetic promotion of JFM actually undermines the rights enshrined in the act. More importantly, the REDD policy also prescribes a forest governance strategy where communities will have less access over forests. More money to JFM committees will also be used against institutions like the new as well as customary forest governance institutions FRA provides for and recognizes.

Forest movements and community groups in India challenge Indian government's promotion of REDD+; REDD and REDD+ have been seen as attempts to short-sell the country’s forests in the international carbon markets.[6] REDD+ will only accentuate the prevailing inequity and miscarriage of justice inherent in India’s forest policy regime, the core of which consists of coercive colonial legislation like the Indian Forest Act of 1927, and the draconian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, they say.

Given the near-feudal tyranny by the government-owned Forest Department in most of the country’s forests, and the increasing hold of corporate capital over forest areas, there is every danger that all kinds of community access in forests will be badly restricted in a functional REDD+ project. Throughout the policy and the Reference Document, the emphasis is on continuing with the “fortress conservation” model in the REDD+ regime. Communities and their use of forests are seen as the principal drivers of deforestation/degradation – it is stated time and again that community access to control has to be curtailed/regulated in order to ensure that “REDD+ performance” of the forests is not “adversely impacted”.

No Transparency

The Policy claims that REDD+ will be transparent and democratic: A National Forest Monitoring System will be established; monitoring/verification will be done in a “transparent, inclusive and effective” manner by putting in place a National REDD+ Architecture and Governance; “a Platform for Stakeholder engagement” will be created where “Forest Dependent Communities, civil society and other stakeholders” will ”effectively participate in REDD+ decision making and implementation”.[7] In the strategy section, it has been mentioned that a mechanism to channelize REDD+ incentives to communities will be developed.

But what information about REDD+ will be given to the communities? Will the forest-dependent poor – already severely affected by changing monsoon cycles and an increasingly altered vegetational fabric (which translates into change in availability for crucial non-timber forest produce including medicinal plants and various kinds of forest food), as well as other climate change impacts – know that their forests are being traded in international markets so that polluting companies in wealthy countries can continue with their business-as-usual emissions? In most parts of India, where the government has control over all forms of forests, the answer is clearly no. We should also remember that the main purpose of this entire “verification/monitoring” process is to find out about carbon storage, and not really the health of forests and people's dependence on those.

The Fraud in it: RL (Reference Level), not REL (Reference Emission Level)

The policy has no clarity regarding how the REDD+ projects will be funded. The Reference Document shows that one of the suggested financial instruments is domestic carbon trading: Corporate finance for forest conservation (financing options that leverage private sector finance) in lieu of giving the companies liberal allowance in emission, or exempting those from the present obligatory requirement of using renewable power. The Reference Document states, “To optimize the REDD+ potential, it will be prudent to invest within and outside the forest sector...directly address the drivers of deforestation to enhance the mitigation services from REDD+.”[8] One can assume that a functioning and full-blown domestic carbon trading program will also help India in future climate negotiations, as it can always press for international recognition of this as part of any obligatory emission reductions in the future.[9]

The Reference Document shows ingenuity in prescribing how the forests in India can be projected as more carbon-rich than they actually are. Focusing on the “plus-side” of the game, it prescribes that RL and not REL of Indian forests need to be determined. RL stands for a generalized reference level of carbon sequestration/storage potential of a particular patch of forest (say 1 hectare), whereas REL is Reference Emission Level, the baseline for probable emissions in a future deforestation/forest degradation scenario. Replacing EL with REL means that India can effectively bypass “additionality” questions, and therefore, all sorts of forests, including those already “conserved” and “protected” under a number of existing domestic projects, can be used for REDD+. Also, the need for “leakage” calculations (the amount of emission that can “leak” despite the REDD/REDD+ project in probable scenarios in which deforestation/degradation will continue) will disappear once the need for determining reference emission level disappears.

MONEY AND CONTROL

Instead of community-centricity and philanthropy, money – largely money from carbon forestry – is the core of REDD+. Small portions of that money can trickle down to the poor among the forest communities in some cases once REDD+ gets going, but the fund-flow will definitely not be controlled by the people. The trickling down too will happen essentially to keep the forest-dependent poor away from the forests, because the Indian Government is pushing a Joint Management model, where crucial decisions about forest usage are taken not by people but by forest officers.

* Soumitra Ghosh is a social activist and researcher working among the forest communities in Sub-Himalayan West Bengal, India. He is associated with All India Forum of Forest Movements(AIFFM), and can be contacted at [email protected]) A longer version of this article appeared in India's climate magazine Mausam, issue 3, March, 2015.

END NOTES

[1] Ghosh, S et al, Imaginary Sinks: India’s Forest Carbon Ambitions, in The Indian CDM :Subsidizing and Legitimizing Corporate Pollution, Ghosh, S and Sahu, S.K (eds), 2011, Kolkata: available at www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/indian-cdm
[2] Rajshekhar, M, India's natural forests half of what ministry claims, in Economic Times, July 17, 2014, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-07-17/news/51656860_1_forest-cover-forest-survey-forest-area
[3] Ghosh, S, et al, ibid
[4] “Since October 25, 1980, the Ministry of Environment and Forest has granted approval for diversion of 11,89,294 ha of forest land for non-forestry purpose involving 23,511 proposals received from various state/ UT governments,” Minister of Environment and Forests, Prakash Javadekar, said in a written response to the Rajya Sabha. See http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/1189294-Hectares-of-Forest-Land-Converted-Since-1980/852455, accessed on 2 August 2014
[5] See http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/environment-ministry-creates-record-forestland-diversion
[6] The RD makes light of organized deforestation, which it terms as 'planned' deforestation, and within government control. It goes on say because ‘these can always be adjusted to conform to the principle of sustainability’, ‘it may not be necessary to focus on planned drivers’ and the main challenge is ‘addressing the unplanned drivers’, which translates into keeping the people away from forests.
[7] A Formula for More Land and Resource Grabbing: Dangers of the Green India Mission, Joint Statement by Forest Movements in India, issued by National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers(NFFPFW) and Campaign for Survival and Dignity(CSD), 2010 and ON REDD CLIMATE SCHEME, Joint statement by Indian forest movements, 2009.
[8] India's National Redd+ Policy', 2014, last accessed on June 17, 2015.
[9] Reference Document for REDD+ in India', http://envfor.nic.in/content/reference-document-redd-india, last accessed on 17 June, 2015
[10] The REDD+ policy already says: ‘Forests neutralize 11% of India’s GHG Emissions. India added around 3 mha of forests in the decade of 1997-2007’.

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.