You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Climate change’ category.

patel et al 2013
With the current complexity of issues facing forest and land management, the implementation of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative comes with significant risks, including conflict.
.
While the exact nature and shape of conflict in REDD+ implementation is difficult to pinpoint, RECOFTC-The Center for People and Forests’ recent study aims to build a preliminary predictive framework to identify possible sources of impairment that may result in conflict over management of forests and natural resources, including REDD+. The framework was developed from an extensive literature review and was tested in three REDD+ pilot project sites in Nepal.
.
The results indicate that most of the sources of impairment are present in all study sites, particularly issues relating to benefit sharing, which have been main drivers of conflict prior to REDD+. While we found that the application of the framework has been useful in the Nepalese context, there are some limitations in its scope and precision.
.
Nonetheless, this study points to important implications with regards to REDD+ implementation and conflict management that can be useful for policy makers and practitioners involved in REDD+ strategy designs, as well as other areas of forest management involving outsiders and communities.
.
Citation:
Patel, T.; Dhiaulhaq, A.; Gritten, D.; Yasmi, Y.; De Bruyn, T.; Paudel, N.S.; Luintel, H.; Khatri, D.B.; Silori, C.; Suzuki, R. Predicting Future Conflict under REDD+ Implementation. Forests 20134, 343-363.
.
Full text can be downloaded from here
.

Introduction

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their report has confidently confirmed that climate change is happening (IPCC 2007). If there is no effort to limit CO2 emissions, Melillo et al. (1990) predicts that CO2 concentration will reach 500 ppmv by the year 2040 and 800 ppmv by the year 2100. Continuous addition of the greenhouse gases such as CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere may exacerbate the climate change in the future. A simulation using General Circulation Models (GCM) for doubled levels of atmospheric CO2 predict a mean annual global temperature increase in a range of between 1.5 and 4.5oC (Mitchell et al. 1990; McGuire & Joice 2005). The increase in global temperature is predicted to influence global hydrological cycle and leads to the possibility of more intense droughts in some places and conversely more floods in other places (Kattenberg et al. 1996).

Plants have adapted to climatic conditions such as temperature, CO2 concentration and precipitation over long periods of time to become better suited to its ecosystem (Streck et al. 2008). Changes in those climatic factors therefore have the potential effect to the plant, including plants productivity (McGuire and Joice 2005; Hawkins et al. 2008). Plant productivity and the carbon cycle are likely to be altered by these climatic changes. Furthermore, although there are uncertainties, various studies on the possible effect of climate change on plant productivity reveals that too high temperature and severe drought may decrease plant productivity while elevated CO2 may increase plant productivity if there is no limiting factor.

In this paper, I attempt to explain about how climate change will influence plant productivity and the carbon cycle. The first part of this paper describes correlation between climate, plant productivity and the carbon cycle. The second part explains the effect of climate change to plant productivity which is divided into the effect of temperature changes, elevated CO2 and changes in rainfall pattern. The last part discusses uncertainties and limitations in predicting the future impact of climate change to the plant productivity.

Linkage between Climate, Plant Productivity and the Carbon Cycle

Climate is long-term weather pattern at a particular place resulted from the interaction of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the biosphere and the earth surface, which are the elements that influence the earth’s climate system dynamics (Birdsley et al. 1995; Pittock 2009; World Meteorological Organization, no date). The status of the climate system is often changes from year to year, or decade to decade. Changes in the weather pattern over long time period, such as one century to another, are usually referred to as ‘climate change’(Pittock, 2009).

Climate, plant and the carbon cycle are interrelated in a number of ways. First, plants are sensitive to climatic change. Plants have adapted to climatic, atmospheric and soil conditions such as temperature and precipitation over long periods of time as an adaptation to its ecosystem. It means that dramatic change of these variables may affect many aspects of the plants including its productivity, development, distribution and increase its vulnerability to pests and fires (Streck et al. 2008).

Second, plant productivity is interrelated with the carbon cycle. As part of the carbon cycle, plants take part in the transfer of carbon through converting carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and water (H2O) into Carbohydrate (C6H12O6) using solar energy. This is part of the process called photosynthesis. Conversely, plants release carbon to the atmosphere when they respire (Ajtay et al. 1979; Garnaut 2008). Photosynthesis by terrestrial vegetation accounts for about half of the carbon that annually cycles between Earth and the atmosphere (Hawkins et al 2008). The ability of plants to photosynthesize is one of the explanations that terrestrial plants have been influencing the carbon cycle and become increasingly greater carbon sinks over the past 50 years (Houghton 2007).

The exchange of carbon between plant and the atmosphere may be explained by four related terms, namely Gross Primary Productivity (GPP), Net Primary Productivity (NPP), Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP) and Net Biome Productivity (NBP). The definitions among those terms are sometimes different in the literatures. Grace and Zhang (2006) define GPP as the rate at which the vegetation capture and store the carbon from atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis. NPP is a result of GPP minus autotrophic respiration (Ra). NEP or sometimes called as Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE) is the the result of GPP minus autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration (Rh). NBP is the term used to measure the flux at a broader spatial and time scale (1 km2 upwards and 1 year upwards), which also take the disturbances into account.

These terms are interconnected as follows (Grace and Zhang 2006):

GPP = P

NPP = P Ra

NEP = P Ra – Rh

NBP = P Ra – Rh – D

The Effect of Climate Change on Plant Productivity and the Carbon Cycle

The main variables of climate change are elevated carbon dioxide (CO2), changes in precipitation and changes in temperature (Hawkins 2008). In this part, I will explain the effect of climate change on plant productivity which mainly focuses on these main variables and divided into three parts: the effect of the increase in temperature, elevated CO2 and changes in rainfall pattern.

 

The Effect of Increases in Temperature

The existing studies shows that direct effect of temperature changes are expected to be more significant than any other climatic variables (Kehlenbeck & Schrader 2007). The increase of temperature may affect four major aspects related to plant growth, namely photosynthesis, respiration, soil nutrients and development (Lewis 2005).

Although each plant has different characteristic response to temperature, generally, the increase of temperature will have positive impact on plant growth and development especially in low temperature regions when limitations from other factors are absent (e.g. water). Warmer temperature will help plants in very cold regions to grow because most biological activities of plants are hard to occur when temperature is below 0-5oC (Melillo 1990; Bisgrove & Hadley 2002). Furthermore, higher temperature will make growth season longer which increases plant growth in polar region (Kehlenbeck & Schrader 2007).

However, although the response of photosynthesis is initially positive, it will slow or even decline after reaching the optimum range which varies from plant to plant. This decline occurs because too high temperature may increase the rate of respiration which may exceeds the optimum level and may caused death of the plant and plants becoming a CO2 source (Mellilo 1990; Bisgrove & Hadley 2002; Hawkins et al 2008).

Furthermore, Melillo (1990) stated that the optimum temperature range for photosynthesis is between 20-35oC. Figure 1 shows that the rate of respiration may increase when temperature continuously increases. When the rate of respiration exceeds the rate of photosynthesis, it may cause net carbon assimilation become negative. These differences between photosynthesis and respiration are used as the argument that the rising temperature may caused the decrease of net carbon uptake by plants.

Figure 1: the illustration of plant responses to temperature. (a) general responses of plant growth, (b) general responses of photosynthesis and respiration (Mellilo 1990).

In addition, Grace and Zhang (2006) find that the increase of temperature has more significant impact on respiration than its impact on GPP. This is because the increase of respiration is sharper than the increases of GPP. As a result, the NEP continuously declines. Furthermore, when annual temperature reaches 10-14oC, NEP will be negative, under both normal and doubled CO2 concentration. (Figure 2). This finding is based on data from the boreal forest which is analyzed using soil–plant–atmosphere (SPA) model. Grace and Zhang also claimed that the same result will be found if this modeling is applied with other biomes, as long as there is an assumption that the temperature can increase heterotrophic respiration.

Figure 2. Prediction of the effect of temperature on plant productivity in boreal forest; (a) is under normal CO2 and (b) doubled CO2 concentration (Grace & Zhang 2006).

The Effect of Elevated CO2

Lloyd & Farquhar (1996) suggest that there are axioms in various literatures related to plant responses to elevated CO2: first, correlation between plant growth and CO2 can be explained by the concept of photosynthesis dependence to CO2. Second, plant response to CO2 is limited by the availability of nutrients. This is because photosynthesis needs nutrients besides CO2. In other words, plant will respond less to rising CO2 if it grows in poor nutrient condition.

Experiments find that elevated CO2 may increase rates of photosynthesis, increase productivity and increase biomass in most C3 Plants (Houghton 2007). One of the explanations for this increase is because elevated CO2 may increase carboxylation rates and decrease oxygenation rates of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) in C3 Plants, which leads to a higher net rate of photosynthesis and increased synthesis of carbohydrate (Stitt & Krapp 1999). Furthermore, Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM) also predicts that doubled CO2 without temperature change will increase 16.3% of global NPP (Melillo et al. 1993).

However, TEM also predicts that different vegetation types express different responses to elevated CO2. For example, it is predicted that in tropical ecosystem, the NPP will increase 22.2% of the global increase while in many northern and temperate ecosystems, elevated CO2 may not much affect plant productivity. This is because in northern and temperate ecosystem type, NPP is limited by Nitrogen availability in the soil. Under low nutrient conditions, TEM predicts that this ecosystem will have difficulties to transform elevated CO2 into production (Melillo et al. 1993). Moreover, CO2 is just one of many organic substrates that are needed by plants, so the long-term response of photosynthesis and growth to elevated CO2 will depend on the availability of mineral nutrients (Stitt & Krapp 1999).

Besides nutrient availability, there are other limitation of the impact of CO2 to plant productivity, such as plant acclimatization and stomatal response to water availability. The increase of NPP is constrained by the acclimatization of plant to elevated CO2 because after the acclimatization, the photosynthetic response is decreased. This is because in the long term, elevated CO2 condition may cause the accumulation of carbohydrates in the plant tissues which may reduce the photosynthetic rates (Bisgrove & Hadley 2002).

The increase of CO2 may influence the response of stomata which in turn may affect the plant’s NPP. The exchange of carbon from the atmosphere to the plant is through the stomata. If the soil is poor of water, the stomata will close more often to restrict water loss. On one hand, it helps plant to save the water supply but on the other hand, this may prevent the movement of carbon into the plant which may reduce the GPP and NPP. Conversely, if water is abundant, it will increase plant productivity. So, the impact of rising CO2 to plant productivity may depend on the balance of water in the soil (McGuire & Joyce 2005).

The Effect of Changes in Rainfall Pattern

Water is a crucial element needed for photosynthesis and the main chemical component of plants (Boisvenue 2006). It is predicted that future changes in precipitation may impact water availability and substantially impact plant productivity. One of the explanations for such changes is that when water availability in the soil declines, it can reduce water uptake by plants and also restrict nutrient absorption (e.g. Nitrogen) by roots and its transportation to the plant cells (Hanson 2000).

Current research analyzing satellite and global climate data in period of 2000 to 2009 shows that NPP declines of 0.55 petagram Carbon globally. This decline is attributed to widespread and intense droughts in some location in the last decade (Zhao & Running 2010). Many drought events are identified in period of 2000-2009. For example, high temperature driven drought has caused 30% reduction in GPP over Europe in 2003 (Ciais et al. 2003). Using terrestrial biosphere simulation model, Ciais et al. find a mean reduction in NPP of 16 gCm-2 month-1 in the summer of 2003 compared to 1998–2002, corresponding to a GPP reduction of 28gCm-2month-1.If the drought events continuously increase in the future, it is estimated that it will make temperate ecosystems as carbon sources and affect the pattern of the future carbon cycle (Ciais et al., 2003). In addition, the 100-milimeter increase in water decline has caused the Amazon forest lost 5.3 megagrams of carbon per hectare of aboveground biomass. This makes the Amazon more vulnerable to water stress in the future (Philips et al. 2009).

Those current data is contradictory to the previous studies by Nemani et al. (2003) who also use climatic and satellite data and suggest that global climate change increased NPP by 3.4 petagrams of carbon over 1982-1999 period (18 years). This increase is attributed to the increase of temperature and solar radiation which reduce several climatic restrictions to plant growth (Nemani et al. 2003)

Uncertainties

In the previous section, I have reviewed some predictions of the effect of climate change to plant productivity. Even though the prediction of the effect of climate change has been the subject of many literatures and researches in the last few years, however, we have not reach a 100% confidence to accurately predict what and how the future climate change effect will be. Some tools, such as modeling has been used by researchers for developing climate scenarios that can be used to predict the effects that climate change may have on ecosystems. However, there are still weaknesses and uncertainties in the prediction (Massman 1995).

The weaknesses of a model which caused uncertainties may come from the lack of understanding on the complex biological process involved which may lead to the ‘weak’ hypothesis, difficulties in mathematical formulations and our inability to cover all the components of the natural variations (Tian et al. 2009).  Cramer et al. (1999) said that much of the remaining uncertainty comes from the role of human activities to alter terrestrial vegetation, such as land use change and deforestation which may increase CO2 in the atmosphere.

The uncertainties may also come from a range of possible response from different or specific species. For example, whilst many plant species may adapt to the rising CO2 quickly, many others maybe not. Plants with certain photosynthetic pathways or growth strategies maybe able to take advantage of changing conditions in any given habitat while the other maybe not. Hence, there are many potential effects of the climate change at plant community level (Hawkins et al. 2008)

Conclusion

This paper attempts to explain about the effect of climate change to plant productivity and the carbon cycle by focusing on three climate change variables; the increase of temperature, CO2 concentration and rainfall pattern. Productivity and carbon cycle are interrelated and may influence each other. In a simple way, it can be explained by the process of photosynthesis and respiration where the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and plant occur.

The effect of temperature change is generally positive to increase the productivity by enhancing the photosynthesis as long as the temperature is in a range of optimum level. When temperature exceeds the optimum level, it will increase the rate of respiration causing the NPP continuously declined. Furthermore, Grace and Zhang (2006) find that increase of respiration is sharper than the increases of GPP. As a result, the NEP continuously declines. Furthermore, when annual temperature reaches 10-14oC, NEP will be negative under both normal and doubled CO2 concentration.

Experiments find that elevated CO2 may increase plant productivity by increase carboxylation rates of RUBISCO in C3 Plants. Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM) predicts that doubled CO2 will increase 16.3% of the global NPP (Melillo et al. 1993). However, different response is occur in many northern and temperate ecosystems where elevated CO2 may not much affect plant productivity because of lack of Nitrogen in the soil.

The effect of CO2 to plant productivity may be limited by some factors, such as Nitrogen availability, plant acclimatization and water availability. Under low Nitrogen conditions, plants will have difficulties to transform elevated CO2 into production. Moreover, in the long term, elevated CO2 condition may cause the accumulation of carbohydrates in the plant tissues which may reduce the photosynthetic rates or decrease photosynthetic response to elevated CO2.

In addition, current study on the effect of drought on productivity shows that drought in the period of 2000-2009 has reduced NPP by 0.55 petagram Carbon globally. This is contradictory to the previous studies by Nemani et al. (2003) who suggest that global climate change increased NPP by 3.4 petagrams of carbon over 1982-1999 period.

Finally, this paper also identifies some limitations in predicting the effect of climate change to plant productivity, especially in the use of simulation model in the prediction. Regardless of their advancement and sophistication, many researchers (Massman 1995; Cramer et al. 1999; Tian et al. 2009) argue that climate model, as it is only simplified version of the complex climate system, has many weaknesses due to the lack of understanding on the complex biological process and our inability to cover all the components of the natural variations. Furthermore, there are also suggestions to cover the role of human activities in altering terrestrial vegetation, such as deforestation into climate modeling, because this activity may increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems that climate modeling will continue to improve as understandings of the complexity of the earth system improve.


 

Reference:

Ajtay, GL, Ketner, P & Duvigneau, P 1979, ‘Terrestrial Primary Production and Phytomass’, in B Bolin, ET Degens, S Kempe & P Ketner (eds), The Global Carbon Cycle, Wiley, U.K.

Birdsley, RA, Joyce, LA, Haynes, RW & Heath, LA 1995, Productivity of Americas Forests and Climate Change, DIANE Publishing.

Bisgrove, R & Hadley, P 2002, Gardening in the Global Greenhouse: The Impacts of Climate Change on Gardens in the UK, UKCIP, Oxford, UK.

Boisvenue, C & Running, SW 2006, ‘Impacts of climate change on natural forest productivity – evidence since the middle of the 20th century’, Global Change Biology, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 862-82.

Ciais, P, Reichstein, M, Viovy, N, Granier, A, Oge, J, Allard, V, Aubinet, M, Buchmann, N, Bernhofer, C, Carrara, A, Chevallier, F, De Noblet, N, Friend, A, Friedlingstein, A, Grünwald, P, Heinesch, B, Keronen, P, Knohl, A, Krinner, A, Loustau, D, Manca, G, Matteucci, G, Miglietta, F, Ourcival, J, Papale, D, Pilegaard, K, Rambal, S, Seufert, G, Soussan, J, Sanz, E, Schulze, E, Vesala, T & Valentini, R 2003, ‘Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003’, Nature, vol. 437, no. 22.

Cramer, W, Kicklighter, DW, Bondeau, A, Moore, B, Churkina, G, Nemry, B, Ruimy, A & Schloss, AL 1999, ‘Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): overview and key results’, Global Change Biology, vol. 5, no. Suppl. 1, pp. 1-15.

Garnaut, R 2008, The Garnaut Climate Change Review: The Final Report, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, VIC , Australia.

Grace, J & Zhang, R 2006, ‘Predicting the effect of climate change on global plant productivity and the carbon cycle’, in JIL Morison & MD Morecroft (eds), Plant Growth and Climate Change, Blackwell, Oxford.

Hanson, PJ & Wetzin, JF 2000, ‘Drought disturbance from climate change: response of United States forests’, The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 262, pp. 205-20.

Hawkins, B, Sharrock, S & Havens, K 2008, Plants and climate change: which future?, Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK.

Houghton, JT, Jenkins, GJ & Ephraums, JJ 1990, Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment, Journal Name: American Scientist; (United States); Journal Volume: 80:6; Other Information: From review by P.J. Robinson, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in American Scientist, Vol. 80, No. 6 (Nov-Dec 1992).

IPCC 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC 2007, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kattenberg, A, Giorgi, F, Grassl, H & Meehl 1996, ‘Climate models – projections of future climate’, in JT Houghton (ed.), Climate change 1995: the science of climate change, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 283-357.

Kehlenbeck, H & Schrader, G 2007, ‘Climate Change, Happy future for plant pests?’, in Secretariat.of.the.Convention.on.Biological.Diversity (ed.), Emerging Issues for Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate, CBD, Montreal, Canada, vol. Technical Series No. 29.

Lewis, SL, Malhi, Y & Philips, OL 2005, ‘Predicting the impacts of global environmental changes on tropical forests’, in Y Malhi & OL Philips (eds), Tropical Forests & Global Atmospheric Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Lloyd, J & Farquhar, GD 1996, ‘The CO2 Dependence of Photosynthesis, Plant Growth Responses to Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations and Their Interaction with Soil Nutrient Status’, Functional Ecology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4-32.

Massman, W 1995, ‘Climate and Climate Modelling’, in LA Joyce (ed.), Productivity of America’s forest and climate change, DIANE Publishing, USA.

McGuire, AD & Joyce, LA 2005, ‘Responses of Net Primary Production to Changes in CO2 and Climate’, in LA Joyce (ed.), Productivity of America’s Forest and Climate Change, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), USA.

McGuire, AD, Joyce, LA, Kicklighter, DW, Melillo, JM, Esser, G & Vorosmarty, CJ 1993, ‘Productivity response of climax temperate forests to elevated temperature and carbon dioxide: a North American comparison between two global models’, Climate Change, vol. 24, pp. 287-310.

Melillo, JM, Callaghan, TV, Woodward, FI, Salati, E & Sinha, SKi 1990, ‘Effects on Ecosystems’, in JTea Houghton (ed.), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, p. 283−310.

Melillo, JM, McGuire, AD, Kicklighter, DW, Moore, B, Vorosmarty, CJ & Schloss, AL 1993, ‘Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production’, Nature, vol. 363, no. 6426, pp. 234-40.

Mitchell, JFB, Manabe, S, T, T & Meleshko, V 1990, ‘Equilibrium Climate Change’, in JT Houghton, GJ Jenkins & JJ Ephraums (eds), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 131-71.

Nemani, RR, Keeling, CD, Hashimoto, H, Jolly, WM, Piper, SC, Tucker, CJ, Myneni, RB & Running, SW 2003, ‘Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999’, Science, vol. 300, no. 5625, pp. 1560-3.

Philips, OL, Aragão, LEOC, Lewis, SL, Fisher, JB, Lloyd, J, Gonzales, GL, Malhi, Y, Monteagudo, A, Peacock, J, Quesada, CA & Heijden, Gvdea 2009, ‘Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest’, Science, vol. 323, no. 5919, pp. 1344-7.

Pittock, AB 2009, Climate change : the science, impacts and solutions, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood VIC Australia.

Stitt, M & Krapp, A 1999, ‘The interaction between elevated carbon dioxide and nitrogen nutrition: the physiological and molecular background’, Plant, Cell and Environment, vol. 22, pp. 583-621.

Streck, C, O’Sullivan, R, Smith, T & Tarasofsky, R 2008, ‘Climate Change and Forestry: an introduction’, in C Streck, R O’Sullivan, T Smith & R Tarasofsky (eds), Climate Change and Forest: Emerging Policy and Market Opportunities, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, UK.

Tian, H, Xu, X, Zhang, C, Ren, W, Chen, G, Liu, M, Lu, D & Pan, S 2009, ‘Forecasting and Assessing the Large Scale and Long-Term Impacts of Global Environmental Change on Terrestrial Ecosystems in the United States and China’, in S Miao, S Carstenn & M Nungesser (eds), Real World Ecology; Large-Scale and Long-Term Case Studies and Methods, Springer, LLC.

Viner, D, Morison, JIL & Wallace, C 2006, ‘Recent and future climate change and their implications for plant growth’, in JIL Morison & MD Morecroft (eds), Plant Growth and Climate Change, Blackwell, Oxford.

World Meteorological Organization no date, Understanding Climate, viewed 1 August 2010, <http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/understanding_climate.php>.

Zhao, M & Running, SW 2010, ‘Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009’, Science, vol. 329, no. 5994, pp. 940-3.

PS: this article was written as my first assignment in “Sustainability Policy & Management” subject in University. I know there are many weaknesses in this article, but you can see the process I grow.  Enjoy!

Introduction

The concept of sustainable development has substantially inspired many changes in natural conservation and development all around the world and stimulated the search for patterns of development in more environmentally friendly way (Elliott 1999). In the publication of Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development, led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, urge for world co-operation and action to create “a new era of economic growth” without disregarding the need for preserving natural resources for future generation (WCED 1987).

In The Brundtland Report, sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987). It can be articulated as improving the quality of human life while maintaining the balance of economic, social and environmental systems that will not diminish opportunity of future generations to enjoy their own quality of life. From this definition, it is clear that sustainable development posits environment, social and economy in win-win position and as interrelated aspects.

Although the concept of sustainable development is debatable and not always acceptable to all scholars, practitioners and politicians (Cohen et al. 1998), I believe that it is still feasible to overcome current environmental problems and challenge, particularly for mitigation and adaptation to the climate change.

The concept of sustainable development; strength and weaknesses

Some critics argue that The Brundtland definition of sustainable development is obviously human-centered (Sneddon, Howarth & Norgaard 2006; Lee 2000 in Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien 2005). It is appeared in the phrase “the needs of the present” and “future generations to meet their own needs” which means that the focus is somewhat in a mood for human interest rather than considering the intrinsic value of nature and moral obligation of human to preserve natural resources. Moreover, Newman (2006) stated that the definition of sustainable development is also critiqued because the definition is too broad that caused ambiguity and various interpretations. This ambiguity is obvious due to hundreds of interpretation and articulation of its definition in various articles and books.
Nevertheless, this broadness has also made sustainable development still “alive” today. Its broad definition brought flexibility to be implemented in a wide-range aspects and problems. Newman (2006) claimed that “the lasting influence of sustainable development lies in its ability to evolve as a concept”. For example, Sustainable development can be used as framework to find solution for current problem and challenge threatened human as well as other species, namely climate change (Munasinghe and Swart 2005).

Sustainable Development and Climate Change

The Fourth Assessment Report of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed that earth climate system convincingly become warmer. This statement is based on the observation of the increase of global average temperature and sea level, and melting of the ice in the pole region. Moreover, there is strong evidence that human actions are responsible for most of the increase of global temperature occurred over the last 50 years, particularly related to greenhouse gas emissions which are influenced by “socio-economic development path” (IPCC 2007). Figure 1 below can give clear picture about this cause and effect.

Figure 1. An integrated assessment framework for considering climate change solutions (IPCC 2001)

Figure 1 shows that the greenhouse gas emission is influenced by policy approach of the economy, industry and population (IPCC 2001). From This rationalization we can see the opportunity to re-orientate development strategies in searching for climate change mitigation and adaptation. To make it clear, if human can manage the development in sustainable manner, it will give positive impact to the climate change mitigation.

Sustainable development can be used as framework as well as accelerator for the attainment of adaptation and mitigation goal (Munasinghe and Swart 2005). In the Brundtland report, there are at least two strategies of sustainable development which can be used in achieving climate change goal. The First strategy is to combine environment and economics in decision making (WCED 1987 p.62). For example, when making a policy related to new investment in industrial sector, the policy makers should have prior consideration about how much greenhouse gases will be emitted from the project and take precautionary measures for possible impact to the climate system. So, there will be conformity between economy and climate change mitigation.

Furthermore, by combining environment and economics in the decision making, climate change policy will be more attractive to business, government and public interest (Robinson et al 2006). It can be argued that the businessmen will be more convenient to take part to the climate change mitigation if their interest is accommodated in the policy. The idea of “Flexicar” in Australia can be an example of business activity that is financially, socially and environmentally sustainable. Flexicar is a car sharing business that attempt to reduce the number of car ownership that will hopefully reduce carbon emission and air pollution from transportation sector (Flexicar 2006).

The second strategy offered by sustainable development is to affirm the use of alternative technology (WCED 1987 p. 60-61). This strategy is needed to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emission, especially from the industry and transportation sector to make sure that those activities will not harm the climate system. Gidden (2009) said that there are need to motivate business actors to harmonize the economic activities with innovative technology which produce lowest carbon emission in order to maintain the vulnerability of climate change. However, to bring such economic condition into reality requires the investors and policy makers to have enough knowledge and skill in planning low carbon project by using innovative technology and renewable energy.

Conclusion

Sustainable development is a flexible concept and can be described as improving the quality of human life while maintaining the balance of economic, social and environmental systems that will not diminish opportunity of future generations to gain their own quality of life. This paper has argued that although sustainable development has anthropocentric tendency and ambiguity in its definition, it is still reasonable concept to find solutions to the current environmental problem such as climate change, particularly for reducing greenhouse gas emission.

Sustainable development can be used as strategy to solve climate change problem and can make climate change policy attractive to economy and business sector. At least two strategies of sustainable development can be used for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The first is the integration of economy and environment in decision making. This strategy is needed to make sure that development policy will not obstruct climate policy.

The second strategy is technology reorientation in order to reduce greenhouse gas emission. There should be cooperation among policy makers, civil society and business actors to do innovation in technology and policy that will not make climate change worse and consequently urge them to have enough knowledge and skill about low-carbon technology and renewable energy.

References

Cohen, S, Demeritt, D, Robinson, J & Rothman, D 1998, ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Towards Dialogue’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 341-71.

Elliott, JA 1999, An Introduction to Sustainable Development, Second edition, Routledge, London and New York.

Flexicar 2006, Benefits to the Environment, viewed 20 March 2010, .

Giddens, A 2009, The Politics of Climate Change, Sustainable Cities, viewed 19 March 2010, .

Hopwood, B, Mellor, M & O’Brien, G 2005, ‘Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches’, Sustainable Development, vol. 13, pp. 38-52.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2001, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

—— 2007, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.

Munasinghe, M & Swart, R 2005, Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development; Facts, Policy Analysis and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Newman, L 2006, ‘Change, Uncertainty, and Futures of Sustainable Development’, Futures, vol. 38, pp. 633-7.

Robinson, J, Bradley, M, Busby, P, Connor, D, Murray, A, Sampson, B & Soper, W 2006, ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Realizing the Opportunity’, Ambio, vol. 35, no. 1.

Sneddon, C, Howarth, RB & Norgaard, RB 2006, ‘Sustainable Development in a post-Brundtland World’, Ecological Economics, vol. 57, pp. 253-68.

WCED (World Comission on Environment and Development) 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

1. Introduction

United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the Copenhagen Accord reasserted the importance of reducing emission from deforestation through REDD+ (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus) in developing countries and urged developed countries to provide financial support for this climate change mitigation effort. UNFCCC also decided to establish Copenhagen Green Climate Fund as an operating manager of the financial mechanism to support projects, policies and activities related to climate change mitigation in developing countries, including REDD-Plus (UNFCCC 2009).

Forest sector has been regarded as one of big contributors of greenhouse gases that caused global warming. IPCC in its synthesis report states that forestry has contributed about 17% of total anthropogenic GHGs emissions, more than emission from transportation sector which only 13.1% (IPCC 2007, p.5). Accordingly, reducing emission from deforestation becomes important component in the global mitigation effort because this measurement has the potential to reduce emission significantly, quickly and cheaply (Bond et al. 2009, p.vii). Moreover, Nicholas Stern in his review on the economics of climate change stated that preventing deforestation is a cheap measurement to cut the emission from non-energy sector, compared to other option of climate change mitigation (Stern 2006, p.13).

More than just reducing the emission from deforestation, REDD+ promises many extra benefits such as enhancing the protection of biodiversity, soil, water, poverty alleviation and improving forest management and governance (Brown 2008, p.109). However, beside its benefits, the implementation of REDD+ also poses many potential problems, particularly to the indigenous peoples and forest dependent communities whom their livelihood, tradition and culture are depend on forest resources. A range of risks related to REDD+ threaten indigenous people including land and property rights, fairness of financial distribution and possible eviction from their land.

Indigenous people ought to be considered in the REDD+ negotiation and other forestry programs because for indigenous people, forests are homes and place for them to earn a living. Based on the data, there are approximately 1.5 billion indigenous people who are directly and indirectly dependent to forest resources (World Bank 2008, p.15). Goldberg and Badua (2008, p.59) in their article titled ‘Do People Have Standing?’ depicts the dilemma faced by indigenous people whether they should support the efforts to protect the forest for reducing the emission, or strive against it. This dilemma arises because on the one hand, this effort could preserve their land and forest, but on the other hand, this effort may threaten their rights, customs and culture.

2. Forest, Indigenous People and REDD+

Indigenous Child in Brazil (Source: http://www.greenpeace.org)

The challenge in the discussion about REDD+ and indigenous people is to make clear the definition of indigenous people and to determine who are included in this group of people. There was a convention about indigenous and tribal people in 1989 conducted by International Labor Organization (ILO), but this convention did not clearly define who indigenous and tribal peoples are. However, the indigenous people can be identified by using some criteria. According to ILO (1989) and Lyons and Mayall (2003, p.72) the indigenous people are those who: first, identify their self as indigenous peoples. This self-recognition is considered as basic criteria of the indigenous peoples. Second, they hold their own culture and tradition which are different from other communities of the national population, such as language, customs and rituals.

Third, they have their own social organization and political systems in their community. And fourth, Indigenous people are who has lived in certain area for a long time with historical continuity or before new comers colonized or “invaded” their area. In this paper, the term of indigenous people is limited to the indigenous people who live in forest area and who depend on forest resources for their livelihood, tradition and culture (ILO 1989; Lyons and Mayall 2003, p.72).

Indigenous people, climate change and forest are interrelated in a number of ways. First, a great number of Indigenous people are forest dweller and dependent on forest resources. According to the World Bank, the number of indigenous people who are completely dependent on forest resources are approximately 60 million people, other 350 million people are very dependent on forest, and about 1.2 billion are dependent on agro forestry (World Bank 2008, p.15). Many forests in tropical region are dwelled by various inhabiting communities and considered as the richest diversity of inhabiting peoples. At least 1,400 different indigenous peoples are living in tropical forest area. (Commission Européenne 1994 in Macchi 2008, p.39).

Indigenous people have maintained and managed the forest for a long period of time. There are many traditional knowledge in indigenous people communities that can support the conservation and sustainable forest management which potential to support the implementation of REDD+. Their experience and traditional knowledge could play significant role to support climate change mitigation efforts (Scheliha and Christophersen 2009).

Second, forests and its inhabitants are vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Since a long time period, forest ecosystem has been adapting to its surrounding climate and temperature. If those surrounding conditions change, forest ecosystem will be dreadfully affected. Vast area of forest could be lost because of these changes, which in turn can exacerbate the climate change. Hence, there is an urgent need to take strategic action to mitigate as well as adapt to the climate change. (Streck et al. 2008, p.4)

Third, forest sector is expected to play a significant role in mitigating climate change. Forests have the potential to absorb or act as a ‘sink’ of global carbon emission and have ability to store a large amount of carbons for a long period of time (Streck 2008, p.5). These have become consideration of the governments to create a policy that include reducing emission from deforestation in the global effort to mitigate climate change in post-2012 climate regime.

RED, REDD and REDD-Plus

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) is a set of objectives and actions to reduce the emission from forest destruction and has been negotiated under the umbrella of The UNFCCC (Silvestrum 2009). The basic rationale of REDD+ is to reward through incentives to the countries, projects, or communities who can reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from deforestation (Angelsen 2008, p.viii)

REDD+ provides opportunity for developing countries to get financial incentive as a compensation for their effort to conserve their forest. This opportunity can be seen from the commitment of some developed countries which has declared at Copenhagen to provide 3.5 billion dollars to encourage the implementation of REDD+ over the next three years (Brown 2010, p.240). Furthermore, recently in The Oslo Climate and Forest Conference 27 May 2010, some developed countries has promised to provide more than 4 billion dollars to support developing countries in protecting their forests for emission reductions (MacDougall 2010).

Formal discussion about REDD+ under auspices of UNFCCC is started at the eleventh Conference of the Parties (COP 11) and since that time, the concept of REDD has been debated and experienced some changes. The first concept of Reducing Emission from Deforestation (RED) with single D was suggested through a proposal submitted by Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea which both are members of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations. In their proposal, the two nations suggested that preservation of tropical forest can be sponsored by the carbon market. Despite this, their proposal also stated that RED mechanism could support developing countries to achieve sustainable development through their effort to cut emission from forest (Wainwright 2009 cited in Evidente 2009, p.487).

Slightly different with the previous proposal, in 2006, Brazil proposed that reducing emission from deforestation should be achieved through a public fund mechanism instead of relying on carbon market. Public fund in this context means that the fund comes from donation from developed countries for developing countries. This based on the argument that RED scheme is not an effort to offset the emission from industrialized countries, but as a positive incentives for developing countries to reduce their own emission.

In the following debate, there are critiques to the proposal that only focuses on deforestation. Some countries suggest to add forest degradation in REDD scheme. Afterwards, during the climate talks in Ghana, August 2008, this discourse come to an idea to integrate the effort of reducing emission from deforestation, forest degradation, sustainable forest management and conservation in one package and then come to the term REDD-plus (Wainwright et al. 2008 cited in Evidente et al. 2009). For practical reason, in this essay, the term REDD will also include REDD-plus.

Position of Indigenous People in REDD+ Negotiation

In order to safeguard their rights, Indigenous people show a big effort in term of getting the acknowledgement and place in REDD+ negotiations. When Conference of Parties (COP) 13 held in Bali, The large number of indigenous people ask the forum to recognize and mention explicitly the indigenous people rights in the REDD decision. Their effort was not fully successful at that time but at least they succeeded to persuade the UNFCCC to put the term of indigenous people in the preamble of COP 13 decision 2/CP 13 that stated: “the needs of local and indigenous communities should be addressed when action is taken to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries” (Griffith 2009, p.7).

Although the REDD+ decision could affect them directly and indirectly, indigenous people are only observers and has only limited role in the negotiation and decision making process of UNFCCC. They advocated to improve their position to ensure that they can effectively influence the decision making process like what they had in other convention like UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and UN convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Unfortunately, the parties did not approve this demand and just give opportunity for their representatives to be observers in the UNFCCC meetings which means that they do not have voting rights in the forum (Griffith 2009, p.9). However, although their engagement is very limited, at least, the current international discussion about REDD has include a greater attention and focus to the indigenous people rights than any other policy negotiated under the UNFCCC in the past (Barnsley 2008, p.31).

3. The Implication and Possible Problem of REDD+ to the Indigenous People

Like many other options in climate change mitigation, the implementation of REDD could not free from the advantages and disadvantages or opportunities and risks, particularly to the indigenous people. Considering the differences in forest management and systems from one place to another, the negative and positive implication of REDD to the indigenous people will depend on where, who and how the particular REDD program is implemented. This section will discuss the possible risks and opportunity for indigenous people in relation with the implementation of REDD.

Possible Benefits and Opportunities for Indigenous People

The main goal of REDD+ is emission reductions to mitigate the climate change. So, if this goal is achieved, it will benefit all human beings in the world, including indigenous people who are most affected by the climate change (Barnsley 2008, p.47). More than that, REDD+ also offers various co-benefits for the indigenous people and forest dwelling communities such as providing new source of income and protecting their homes, livelihood and biodiversity.

New Source of Income

In the implementation of REDD+, indigenous communities may have the opportunity to earn money as additional source of income from direct financial incentive or from other kinds indirect revenue. This opportunity may come from the emergence of international carbon market or emission trading for financing emission reduction or offset projects. For example, if a company emits the emission more than its cap, they should buy additional carbon credits from other company that have the surplus of carbon credit. Alternatively, to offset the excess emission, the company can pay through financing the emission reduction programs conducted by the government or communities. This is where indigenous people can take the opportunity through their forestry activities and land management to provide the offsets and get payment from it (Barnsley 2008, p.25, 47).

This also shows that REDD+ bring a new hope in alleviating the poverty by providing financial incentive to rural and forest communities. The incentive is given as reward for their contribution in forest conservation. Furthermore, REDD may also enhances the equity of indigenous people and forest dependent people who are often lack of attention in most developing countries. (Brown et. al 2008, p.110)

Only limited experience exists to date regarding the implementation of REDD+. In a briefing paper of The International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), Viana (2009) gives an example of success stories of REDD pilot project namely the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve Project in Amazonas, Brazil. This project is claimed as the first REDD project that qualifies the standard of Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), and this project let the local communities and indigenous people get the entire benefits from the carbon markets through a forest conservation grant mechanism. Technically, each local community received debit card for receiving the money as a reward for conserving their forest. Moreover, the local community also gets sponsorship and donation for their organizational and social activities, such as education, health, communication and transportation.

Home, Livelihood and Biodiversity

Forests are homes as well as source of resources which directly support the livelihoods of Indigenous people. The loss of forest means they will lose their livelihood and will aggravate the poverty. Hence, any effort to protect forest such REDD+ will also support indigenous people’s livelihood (Parker 2008. P.14). Moreover, for indigenous people, forest does not only provide shelter but also provide variety of products ranging from timber to non-timber products such as fruits, nuts, coffee, rubber, and medicinal plants that can be used to meet their daily necessities or they can sell it for income generation (Scheliha and Christophersen 2009, p.19).

In addition, prevention of deforestation can also protect the biodiversity of forest. Biodiversity is important in helping indigenous people to adapt to the climate change. Scheliha and Christophersen argue that a wide-range of non-timber forest products is a key element of human adaptation to climate change, especially for indigenous people, as it reduces the risk such as hunger when some forest product or food are no longer available or become extinct because of changing climate. In addition, biodiversity also offers a wide-range of forest product for income generation for indigenous people who are usually poor and rely on forest resources for livelihood. Based on this example, it is reasonable that any effort for avoiding deforestation and forest degradation can safeguard Indigenous people’s homes and livelihood as well as alleviate their poverty. (Scheliha and Christophersen 2009, p.19).

‘Co-benefits’ debate in REDD+ negotiation

The inclusion of co-benefit to REDD+ scheme design is very debatable. For example, the opponent of this inclusion idea argue that the main focus and objective of REDD+ is to mitigate climate change, not poverty. Therefore, the step to be done is just to make sure that REDD+ would not detriment the poor people (Brown et. al 2008, p.109).

In contrast, the proponent argue that delivering co-benefits to the poor such as indigenous people is a key factor of REDD to be succeed. This argument is considering on the fact that indigenous people are the immediate forest managers, who are often poor and very dependent to forest resources. The pro-poor policy will also reduce possible risk of rejection from forest communities to REDD+ effort. Moreover, there are moral argument that REDD+ has potentiality to improve the forest people well-being, promote sustainable development in rural areas as well as to address the interest of communities that has legitimate rights to forest and who might be affected by REDD+ implementation (Brown et al. 2008, p.109).

Possible Problems and Negative Impacts to the Indigenous People

In spite of those benefits, REDD+ may poses a range of risks to the indigenous peoples, or in a worst a case scenario, may cause harm (Griffiths 2008; Bond 2009). Some potential areas of concern that the implementation of REDD+ might negatively impact indigenous people include:

Loss of Access to Forest

There are concerns among indigenous peoples that their rights on land and territory will be disturbed by the establishment of some protected areas as a response to REDD+ (Fry 2008, p.177). These concerns is reasonable because of experiences in the past that indigenous peoples often conflict with the governments and private companies for access and manage the forest. For example, when the Indonesian government establish forest concession system (HPH) which gives private companies the rights to extract timber from particular concession area, the indigenous people in some area loss their rights to access and obtain forest resources for their daily needs or to get traditional medicinal plants in the concession area where has been inhabited by indigenous people for a long time period (Siburian 2004, p.130-131). The access of indigenous people to forest should become a concern because often, indigenous people are too poor to buy alternative foods and forest products when their access to forest is prohibited (Ravels 2008 in Silvestrum 2009, p.24).

Worse than access restriction issue, REDD+ may also lead to the eviction of the indigenous people from their area. Smith (2007, p.33) in his book titled The Carbon Neutral Myth gives a example from the violent eviction of The Benet, indigenous people in Uganda, as the impact of the declaration of Mount Elgon as a national park in 1993 and FACE (Forests Absorbing Carbon-dioxide Emissions) Foundation’s tree planting project in 1994.

In cooperation with the Uganda Wildlife Authoritity (UWA), FACE decided to plant trees on 25,000 hectares in the area of Mount Elgon National Park. The projects have forced local community of Mount Elgon to leave the protected area and prohibit them to get food and traditional material from the forest. Furthermore, the park rangers have killed more than 50 people in 2004. This experience shows a clear picture that mitigation measure can grab the land and caused exclusion of the indigenous people from their territory (Smith 2007, p.33).

This is contrary to The United Nations Declaration on rights of indigenous people that has assured the right of indigenous people to their land and access to it. Article 26 of the declaration stated that “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use” (UNDRIP 2007).

Protest against proposed programs like REDD+ Source: Indymedia.org.au

Land and Carbon Rights

Another issue related to the implementation of REDD+ is that introducing carbon rights and entitlement over land will create new property and commodity associated with forest. This issue is related to the question of who should receive the incentives and who is authoritative to manage the forest. The Government of Western Australia (2005, p.1) defines the carbon right as the right to any benefit of carbon sequestration arising from a forested land that enable the holder to get money from the carbon market for greenhouse gas emission offsets.

Wollenberg and Baginski (2009, p.5) argue that market mechanism in carbon forestry tend to formalize the land rights which could disregard indigenous customary system and marginalize informal land rights holder. Ian Fry (2008, p.177) said that the problem of indigenous people is that often they do not hold formal tenure of their land and forest. Due to not having formal property rights, Indigenous people fear their rights to land will be compromised and they will get less benefit from the carbon market. Worse than that, when the carbon rights applied to the land occupied and used by indigenous people, this may enable one or a group of actor to exclude indigenous people from their land

These possible problems shows that tenure and property issue is not just a matter of relationship between person and land, but also social relation by which a person, a group of person or a company feel competent and entitled to eliminate and exclude others from opportunities to get benefit from a piece of land and the use of it (Macpherson 1983 in Saunders 2002). Inability to clarify the tenure right and allowing the market to define rights that are not acceptable to indigenous people and government may also lead to conflicts. Hence, it is necessary for policy makers and stakeholders of REDD+ to clarify these issue in the implementation of REDD+ to make it more effective, equitable as well as fulfill indigenous people rights.

Fairness in Profit Sharing

Another possible risk threatened the indigenous people is about fairness in the share of REDD+ fund. Brown (2008, p.133) said that the increase of value on forest land because of the implementation of REDD may tempt the government and commercial interest to monopolize the profit from carbon rights as well as actively or passively ignore the rights of indigenous people to get financial benefit from the protection of forest. Mrilalini Rai (2009) argue that many REDD+ projects are administered by governments, large non-government organizations and international agencies which may use top-down management approach. This mechanism can cause the risk of unfair distribution of the fund and Indigenous people would have less access to the money as the reward for their role in the protection of the forest and biodiversity.

Moreover, the risk of indigenous people to experience injustice in the financial distribution is worsened with the corruption issue. Large new financial flow seems to bring new opportunities for corruption especially for countries that has a bad record on forest fund management in the past. Lovera (2008, p.6) in his briefing note released by Global Forest Coalition also shows this apprehension. The rapid enhancement of financial support for the reducing emission from deforestation could emerge the risk of misappropriation of the fund committed by elite either in government or in community level.

This argument is reasonable because some research on past policy on forest proved that corruption on forest sector often occurs. For example, Barr et al. (2010) in his study about the implementation of a reforestation scheme in Indonesia, namely The Reforestation Fund (Dana Reboisasi) run by Ministry of Forestry to finance reforestation and forest rehabilitation program, shows that since 1989 the Restoration Fund has had receipts of US $5.8 billion from various sources. Ten years later, the external audit by Ernst & Young revealed that billions of dollars was lost. This is evidence that there has been mismanagement of the fund. The corruption can be done in many ways such as marking up the cost as well as overstated areas planted. Since reformation era in 1998, Indonesian governments have taken steps to improve the financial governance by withdrawing the reforestation fund authority from the Ministry of Forestry to the Ministry of Finance and strengthening the Supreme Audit Institution to monitor public financial assets Barr et al. (2010, p.4-15).

What can be learned from Indonesian experience is that to make sure that in the implementation of REDD+ it is urgent to ensure that the corruption will not occur and the benefit of REDD+ would reach the people entitled to receive it. REDD+ should have a certain mechanism that prevent the corruption by strengthening the monitoring of the financial transactions in REDD+.

Socio-Cultural Impact

Another thing that sometimes forgotten in the discussion of the impact of REDD+ to indigenous people is about its possible impact to the social and cultural life of indigenous people. As discussed earlier that indigenous people has their own culture, tradition, customs and rituals which they hold firmly. Corpuz et al. (2008, p.32) stated that the designation of their forest to become carbon storage and used for emission trading, not only can obstruct the indigenous people to access the forest, but also can possibly prevent them to practice their tradition and customary system in managing the forest. Moreover, it can also prevent them to use the forest for traditional ceremony and ritual purposes.

Corpuz et al. (2008) also argue that some of indigenous spiritual and religious ceremonies are not being practiced anymore because of their exclusion from their forest and land. In addition, as many indigenous communities are having a sacred sites in the forest, it is possible that many of the area of REDD+ activities will be overlap with these sacred sites.

These possible risks are become the arguments of indigenous people who are afraid about the impact of REDD+ implementation, like what is expressed in the statement of the International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change (IFIPCC) at the COP 13th of the UNFCCC in Bali. They stated:

“REDD+ will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but in fact, it will result in more violations of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. It will increase the violation of our Human Rights, our rights to our lands, territories and resources, steal our land, cause forced evictions, prevent access and threaten indigenous agriculture practices, destroy biodiversity and culture diversity and cause social conflicts. Under REDD, States and Carbon Traders will take more control over our forests.” (Forest People Program 2007)

In order to avoid these risks and pessimisms, it is necessary to find strategic steps in the planning and implementation of REDD+.

4. Approaches to Reduce Possible Risks

There are several approaches that could be used to minimize possible risks to the indigenous people and in the same time achieve the objective of REDD+ including monitoring, transparency, land and property clarification, and the increase of the engagement of indigenous people in planning and implementation.

Monitoring and Transparency

In the implementation of REDD+, monitoring system will play a crucial role to make sure that the REDD+ fund is used in proper way and target. The Eliasch Review recommends a mechanism similar to Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) to promote the transparency in the forest countries (Eliasch 2008, p.206).

The basic concept of the EITI is that companies announce how much money they give to the government, and the government also publishes how much money they received from the companies and how that money is used. After that, those two published report will be assessed by independent monitoring body or civil society for its accountability. This transparent publication and reporting system could be an alternative mechanism in carbon finance which may involve companies, governments and civil societies.

The implementation of similar mechanism like EITI in carbon finance will require the freedom and strength of civil society to ensure that the fund is managed properly and the benefit is distributed for the prosperity of all citizens. Consequently, the civil society should improve their understanding of the climate change, forestry and monitoring mechanism (Eliasch 2008, p.207).

Land Rights Clarification

Ian Fry suggests that if market mechanism is used in the implementation of REDD, it would need to clarify the land rights of indigenous people as well as ensure legal and institutional requirement to safeguard the rights of indigenous people and forest communities (fry 2008, p.178) Furthermore, Wollenberg & Baginski suggest that in spite of clarification of rights to land, it would also need to clarify the indigenous people rights to access forest resources such as timber and non-timber product and other ecosystem services provided by forest. This measure may avoid possible marginalization of indigenous people in the implementation of REDD (Wollenberg & Baginski 2009).

Involvement of indigenous peoples

Another key approach to reduce some possible risks to the indigenous people is to make sure their involvement in decision making process and in the implementation of REDD, in all level—International, national and local. This is because as a policy that related to forest, REDD can directly or indirectly affect communities who depend on forest resources. Their involvement in the decision making process is needed to give them opportunity to express their views and to make sure that any decision made will not harm them, rather than rely on state representatives in the UNFCCC to consider their fate. Their rights to involve in policy making are acknowledged by The UN Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous People (Article 18) that states: indigenous peoples have the rights to involve and delegate their representative to any policy making process that has possible impact to their life and rights (UNDRIP 2007).

Furthermore, Rai (2009) argue that any activities related to climate change adaptation and mitigation such REDD is doubtful to be successful if indigenous people and forest dependent people are not engaged and involved in the planning and implementation, or if their interest is not taken into account in the REDD program.

5. Conclusion

This paper attempt to show that mitigation effort is not only the issue of reducing the greenhouse gas emission but also an issue of social justice, fairness, equity and human rights. In addition, the discussion in this paper also implies that the idea of reducing emission from deforestation should not forget the fact that there are humans who live in forest area and depend on forest resources for their survival and livelihood. In fact, they have maintained and managed the forest for a long period of time.

The implementation of REDD+ promises much co-benefits beyond emission reduction. It opens opportunity for indigenous people to earn money from the carbon market by providing offsets of greenhouse gas emission through forest management and conservation. In addition, avoiding deforestation can also help them in protecting their land and biodiversity in the forest. However, the implementation of REDD+ has many potential problems to the indigenous people and forest dependent communities including possible eviction, loss of access to forest, injustice in profit sharing of REDD+ fund and obstruction of their spiritual and cultural activities.

Much more work needs to be done to make sure that the implementation of REDD+ will not harm the indigenous people. Monitoring and transparency of the finance can be a crucial step to avoid the misappropriation of REDD+ fund by elite and to make sure the indigenous people get what they deserve to get. The Eliasch review has recommended the use of a mechanism similar to the EITI to promote the transparency.

Despite that, there is also urgency to clarify the rights of indigenous people to their land and forest resources. Although their rights are guaranteed by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People but in fact, they still experience marginalization in the forest management. Involvement of indigenous people in the negotiation and implementation of REDD+ is also needed to make sure that their interest is not ignored and the policy produced will not bring harm for them.

References:

Angelsen, A (ed.) 2008, Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and implications, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Barnsley, I 2008, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing countries (REDD): A Guide for Indigenous Peoples, UNU-IAS, Yokohama, Japan.

Barr, C, Dermawan, A, Purnomo, H & Komarudin, H 2010, Financial governance and Indonesia’s Reforestation Fund during the Soeharto and post-Soeharto periods, 1989-2009: a political economic analysis of lessons for REDD+, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

Bond, I, Grieg-Gran, M, Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S, Hazlewood, P, Wunder, S & Angelsen, A 2009, Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: A review and lessons for REDD, Natural Resouce Issues No. 16, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK, with CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, and World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA.

Brown, D, Seymour, F & Peskett, L 2008, ‘How do we achieve REDD co-benefits and avoid doing harm?’, in A Angelsen (ed.), Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Brown, ML 2010, ‘Limiting Corrupt Incentives in a Global REDD Regime’, Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 37, pp. 237-67.

Corpuz, VT, Soriano, EB, Magata, H, Golocan, C, Bugtong, MV, Chavez, Rd, Abayao, LE & Cariño, J 2008, Guide on Climate Change & Indigenous Peoples, Tebtebba Foundation, Baguio City, Philippines.

Eliasch, J 2008, ‘Climate Change: Financing Global Forests, The Eliasch Review’, viewed 25 May 2010, <http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/eliasch.htm&gt;.

Evidente, M, Logan-Hines, E & Goers, L 2009, ‘REDD Policy Options: Including Forests in an International Climate Change Agreement’, in ML Tyrrell, MS Ashton, D Spalding & B Gentry (eds), Forests and Carbon: A Synthesis of Science, Management, and Policy for Carbon Sequestration in Forests, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale.

Forest Peoples Program 2007, ‘Statement by the International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change (IFIPCC) The 13th session of Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC SBSTA 27, agenda item 5/REDD’, viewed 30 May 2010, <http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/forest_issues/unfccc_bali_ifipcc_statement_redd_nov07_eng.shtml&gt;.

Fry, I 2008, ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Opportunities and Pitfalls in Developing a New Legal Regime’, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (RECIEL), vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 166-82.

Goldberg, DM & Badua, T 2008, ‘Do People Have Standing? Indigenous Peoples, Global Warming and Human Rights’, Barry Law Review, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 59-76.

Government of Western Australia 2005, Carbon rights in WA — a new interest in the land, Government of Western Australia, viewed 10 May 2010, <http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/sust/carbon_rights.pdf&gt;.

Griffiths, T 2009, Seeing ‘REDD’? Forests, climate change mitigation and the rights of indigenous peoples, Forest Peoples Programme, England and Wales.

ILO 1989, ‘Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169’, viewed 30 April 2010, <http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/Conventions/no169/lang–en/index.htm&gt;.

IPCC 2007, Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Lovera, S 2008, The hottest REDD issues: Rights, Equity, Development, Deforestation and Governance by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, IUCN.

Lyons, GM & Mayall, J (eds) 2003, International Human Rights in the 21st Century; Protecting the Rights of Groups, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Maryland, USA.

Macchi, M 2008, Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change, IUCN.

MacDougall, I 2010, Rich Countries Pledge $4B to Stop Deforestation in Developing World, 27 May 2010 edn, ABC News, 28 May 2010, <http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10759583&gt;.

Parker, C, Mitchell, A, Trivedi, M & Mardas, N 2008, The Little REDD Book: A guide to governmental and non-governmental proposals for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK.

Rai, M 2009, REDD and the rights of Indigenous Peoples: Ensuring equity and participation in World Bank funds, Bretton Woods Project, viewed 19 April 2010, <http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-564322&gt;.

Saunders, LS, Tenison, RH & Swingland, IR 2002, ‘Social Capital from Carbon Property: Creating Equity for Indigenous People’, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 360, no. 1797, pp. 1763-75.

Scheliha, SV, Hecht, B & Christophersen, T 2009, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: REDD Benefits, Deutsche Geselchaft Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Eschborn Germany.

Siburian, R 2004, ‘Kebijakan Kehutanan dan Akibatnya bagi Masyarakat Lokal (Forest Policy and Its Implication to Local Communities)’, Jurnal Masyarakat dan Budaya (The Journal of Society and Culture), vol. 6, no. 1.

Silvestrum 2009, Making REDD work. A practitioner’s guide for successful implementation of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). Silvestrum. , GTZ The Netherlands.

Smith, K 2007, The Carbon Neutral Myth: Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Stern, N 2006, ‘Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, Executive Summary (Full) ‘, pp. 1-27, viewed 28 May 2010, <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executive_Summary.pdf&gt;.

Streck, C, O’Sullivan, R, Smith, TJ & Tarasofsky, R 2008, ‘Climate Change and Forestry: An Introduction’, in C Streck, R O’Sullivan, TJ Smith & R Tarasofsky (eds), Climate Change and Forests: Emerging Policy and Market Opportunities, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, UK.

UNDRIP 2007, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, United Nations

UNFCCC 2009, ‘Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009-Decision -/CP.15 (Advance unedited version)’, viewed 29 April 2010, <http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf&gt;.

Viana, VM 2009, ‘Financing REDD: Meshing markets with government funds’, viewed 8 April 2010, <http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/17053IIED.pdf&gt;.

Wollenberg, E & Springate-Baginski, O 2009, ‘How can REDD Improve Well-being in Forest Communities?’, no. 21, p. 8, , viewed 1 May 2010 <http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Knowledge/Publications/Detail?pid=2868&gt;.

World Bank 2008, Forests sourcebook : practical guidance for sustaining forests in development cooperation, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington DC.

%d bloggers like this: