Press releases by Watch Indonesia! and WALHI (Friends of the Earth
Indonesia)
Aerial bombardment of peasants in Sumatran village
Berlin, 23rd December 2008:
On Thursday, 18th December, hundreds of police and paramilitaries
attacked the Sumatran village Suluk Bongkal in Riau Province with tear
gas and guns. A helicopter dropped incendiary devices on the village,
with eye witnesses alleging that napalm was used. Hundreds of houses
immediately went up in flames. Two young children were killed and many
people were injured. Most of the villagers have fled into the forest.
Others have been arrested. Two days later, a helicopter flew at low
height over the tents of homeless villagers and bombarded them with stones.
The news sounded so unbelievable that Watch Indonesia! was initially
hesitant to disseminate them, however the information has now been
confirmed, except that the type of bombs dropped still has to be
verified. The environmental organisation WALHI (Friends of the Earth
Indonesia) has identified the attack on poor villagers as the result of
struggles over raw materials and land, which are so common in Indonesia.
In this case, the conflict was over paper and in particular a pulp and
paper plantation by PT Arara Abadi, a subsidiary of Asia Pulp and Paper
(APP) which, in turn is a subsidiary of the Indonesian company Sinar
Mas. PT Arara Abadi/APP used the police and hired paramilitaries in
order to evict villagers with pure force. The Indonesian Human Rights
Commission has now taken on the case.
Watch Indonesia! protests against the attack on Suluk Bongkal and the
extremely brutal violence against the civilian population. We demand an
immediate investigation of this new human rights abuse, compensation for
the local population and a guarantee of their safety and rights, as well
as punishment of those responsible for the violence. We demand that
European governments and companies examine their links to companies such
as Sinar Mas which are responsible for human rights abuses. Europe’s
excessive consumption bears some of the responsibility for the growing
use of violence in land conflicts over paper, palm oil, gold and other
raw materials. Sumatra is not the only place where people are being
violently evicted for mass production of paper.
Contact: Marianne Klute, watchindonesia@snafu.de, klute@snafu.de
WALHI (Friends of the Earth Indonesia): End the violence on pulp and
paper plantations.
Jakarta, 22nd December 2008
Once more, state forces have used violence against people in the
conflict over natural resources. The settlement of Suluk Bongkal,
Beringin, in the district of Bengkali, Riau Province, Sumatra has been
attacked by security forces. Two toddlers have been killed. 400
villagers have fled into the mountains and 58 people remain in the
village. They are under extreme psychological pressure. On Thursday,
18th December 2008, mobile police brigades in Riau, together with
ordinary police officers and 500 paramilitaries stormed the settlement
of Suluk Bongkal in order to evict the population. The background is
the claim which the plantation company PT Arara Abadi is making on the
land, and the company’s support by sectors of the government.
“WALHI is strongly opposed to any use of state violence against the
population for the purpose of defending industry interests” says Berry
Nahidan Forgan, director of WALHI. “This police and paramilitary action
constitutes a violation of human rights”, he states.
This is not the first incident in the conflict between PT Arara Abadi
and the population. The conflict began in 1984, when PT Arara Abadi
destroyed 200 graves of the indigenous Sakai people. Since since, 26
conflicts have been registered. The main cause is land rights
conflicts. People are losing the right to their land, without receiving
fair and timely compensation. This is escalating conflicts and violence
between PT Arara Abadi and the local population.
Arara Abadi, a subsidiary of the Sinar Mas Group, a company owned by Eka
Tjipta Wijaya, to which Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) also belongs, supply
wood to the pulp and paper factory Indah Kiat. Arara Abadi operates the
largest pulp and paper tree plantation in Indonesia. In Riau alone,
Arara Abadi has concessions over more than 350,000 hectares. Most of
those tree plantations were set up in contravention of Indonesian
legislation: Forestry legislation has been ignored, monocultures have
been established on steep slopes which are at an angle of more than 30°,
in water catchment areas, in areas with high biodiversity and on land
belonging to local communities.
State security forces, which are supposed to serve the population, have
committed a crime against human rights with their attack on the
population of Suluk Bongkal. There are strong indications that the
violence was planned: Police and paramilitaries even used a special
incendiary bomb in order to burn the village, they used fire arms and
tear gas and a helicopter which appears to belong to PT Arara Abadi.
„WALHI demands that the Indonesian government withdraws the licence
from PT Arara Abadi, ends the violence against people and all measures
to isolate the village, releases those who have been detained and
returns all property stolen from the people“ says Berry Nahdian Forquan.
“WALHI also demands strong measures against those responsible for the
violence.”
WALHI believes that the violence in Suluk Bongkal, Bengkalis-Riau
reflects the way in which natural resources are being treated in
Indonesia, in a way which creates ever more conflicts and removes
essential resources from the Indonesian population. People are becoming
ever poorer as they lose access to and control of the country’s natural
riches. The government must immediately address agrarian conflicts and
conflicts over natural resources. The people must be given back
sovereignty over the resources on which their livelihoods depend. The
government must restructure the pulp and paper industry as well as
reviewing licenses for large-scale tree monoculture.
Contact: Ade Fadli (adefadli@walhi.or.id)
--
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Carbon dealers - Papua and Aceh
Carbon dealers - Papua and Aceh
Aceh’s and Papua’s proposals for greenhouse gas emissions reductions
Marianne Klute
Aceh and Papua have taken the initiative in Indonesia against global warming: They want to limit the destruction of tropical forests and thus reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are negotiating finance mechanisms for forest protection, and Aceh has even decided to impose a logging moratorium. Nobody can predict whether those steps will lead to success. Two things are certain: They are challenging Indonesia’s climate and forestry policies, and they will cost industrialised nations a great deal of money.
Roundtable: Climate Change
Informed readers will know that Indonesia is the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide, after the United States and China. The causes are annual forest fires, emissions from peat drainage and fires, and rampant deforestation, which is happening at a faster pace than anywhere else in the world. Indonesia is therefore subject to intense criticism during climate debates. Given that the UN Climate Change Conference of Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 13) will is due to take place in Bali in December 2007, Indonesia is under acute pressure to act. In Jakarta, hardly anybody seems to be concerned with preparing for COP13, whilst Jayapura and Banda Aceh show determination to act.
As part of the preparations for the UN climate conference, a high-powered Three Governors’ Roundtable was held in the upmarket resort of Nusa Dua in Bali. It was attended by Barbabas Suebu (Governor of Papua), Irwandi Yusuf (Governor of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam) and Abraham Aturui (Governor of Papua Barat, before April called Irian Jaya Barat). The organisers and sponsors of the Roundtable included the Australian government, the World Bank and some other organisations such as Flora and Fauna International (FFI0 and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
On the agenda was nothing less than a common policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The governors decided to make economic development in their provinces more environmentally friendly and sustainable, primarily by reducing deforestation. They hope to achieve this through some remarkable measures: Aceh agreed to stop logging. The moratorium which was announced has now been enacted. Through a logging moratorium, Aceh hopes to gain time for revising its forestry policy. Papua is determined to outlaw the export of wood. Suebu and Aturi did not have the courage to follow the example of Aceh and ban logging completely. For the time being they plan to examine concessions and, if necessary, revoke them if they cannot change the local forestry industry for the better in the two Papuan provinces.
The most important result of the Roundtable is the decision, to protect part of the forest from destruction. The initial idea was to protect half of the ten million hectares of ‘conversion forest’ which Jakarta seeks to ‘convert’ to plantations and to maintain those with the help of carbon finance. The original plan, however, had to be scaled down. The decision was to protect not five but just one million hectares. Several pilot projects are planned in the provinces, covering at least 500,000 hectares of forest in Papua. If they succeed then Suebus promises to expand the area to four million hectares.
In order to realise those hopeful plans, Papua and Aceh require international support in the form of finance according to the carbon trading model, as well as technology transfer. The aim is a new model of ‘Avoided Deforestation’, in which money is paid not for afforestation and reforestation, but for protecting natural forests. The Australian government has promised $AS 200 million for avoided deforestation, afforestation and for sustainable forestry. A large proportion of the money, however, will be paid via the government in Jakarta, not directly to Aceh and Papua.
The Governors’ Roundtable sends a clear signal to the international community that Indonesians are aware of the international climate debate and their own responsibilities. Aceh and Papua demonstrate the firm will to finally put an end to deforestation. Not without good reason, since the governors confirmed in a joint declaration: “We are aware of our special role as stewards of Indonesia’s largest natural forests”.
Aceh and Papua: Conflict in the Forest
Aceh and Papua are often mentioned in the same breath when speaking about Indonesia’s conflict zones. The two regions are several thousand kilometres apart, but they have some things in commong: Rich natural resources, a geo-politically important position and a long history of wars and independence dreams. Indonesia’s westernmost province, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, and the two Papuan provinces (Papua and Papua Barat) furthest to the east also have rights under Special Autonomy laws.
Aceh and Papua have a lot more in common: They harbour the last large connected rainforests in Indonesia. Those forests, however, are no longer intact. The conflicts exacted a heavy price frm the forest. It is not at all true that the forests only exists because wars offer a certain protection, as some authors claim. Quite the opposite: In Aceh, both conflict parties financed their arms with tropical timber.
Both areas also share the fact that illegal logging has greatly increased in recent years, Since the 1990s, when Aceh was a military operations zone, forests are being mercilessly cut down. Following the tsunami, pressures on the forest have grown frighteningly. The forestry ministry has granted logging permissions to five companies “for the reconstruction of Aceh”. A large part of that money never reached the areas affected by the tsunami but founds its way, via Medan and Malaysia and Singapore onto the word market. This is why the market in illegal construction timber from the Leuser ecosystem is blooming in neighbouring regions.
Papua has been favoured by an international timber mafia. Companies from all over South-east Asia and East Asia flog off tropical timber, in particular merbau, to the 500 new timber factories in Hainan Province which in turn sell it on to most parts of the world. There is no doubt that the army in Papua cannot be overlooked amongst the players in the tropical timber business. There are multiple reasons for the abrupt start of the Run on Papua : Elsewhere in Indonesia, tropical forests have become almost a rarity. Decentralisation opened the door widely to an even more brutal destruction of forests. When China prohibited logging in its own territory, following the Yangtze flooding in 1998 (almost at the same time as Suahorto’s resignation), they had to look abroad for supplies: To Papua, Russia and many other countries.
Right now, the strong demand for palm oil for bioenergy and diesel is he driving force behind the destruction of the forests. Fire is often used to clear the land. The Indonesian government is pursuing ambitious plans to supply the international agrofuel market, and Papua is to provide a large part of the required land. This means that five million hectares of Papua are to be converted to plantations for agrofuel feedstocks.
Every initiative for the protection of forests as globally important carbon sinks must logically include Aceh and Papua. The Indonesian forest policy has missed the opportunity for change and has not dared to point the finger to exactly those hotspots. The Ministry for Forests continues to kow-tow to the powerful logging industry and generously hands out licences. At the same time, they try to keep the mafia in check through policing methods. Rambo-style actions, however, can only scratch the surface, not stop the trend. International efforts such as the European FLEGT process and different bilateral agreements remain ineffective. How then can deforestation be stopped and a contribution to reducing greemhouse gas emissions be made?
Gobal Trade: Carbon dioxide
„This is brilliant – one protects the forest and gets even paid for it“ says a jubilant Bass Suebu. He has seen how forests can be protected in Costa Rica, a country which he visited from Mexico, where he was Indonesia’s ambassador. Costa Rica has had success in curbing deforestation, and is promoting its ‘Payments for Environmental Services’ as a model for other rainforest nations. In actual fact, Costa Rica’s success is based on a logging ban, together with payments for ‘avoided deforestation’ that are financed through an energy tax and international donations. They have been trying unsuccessfully to obtain carbon funding: The price at which carbon is being traded is not nearly high enough of meet the cost of their scheme. Nonetheless, Costa Rica have convinced other governments and politicians, including the Papuan Governor Bass Suebu, that the carbon markets could, in future, help to protect the world’s rainforests. The Coalition for Rainforest Nations was formed in 2005. 33 countries with tropical forests are members, including Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. It advocates a model based not on regulation or logging bans, but on payments financed largely through the carbon trade, something which would require an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. The governors of Papua, Aceh and Papua Barat strongly support this scheme.
The Coalition for Rainforest Nations and their supporters, including many scientists, argue that the Kyoto Protocol contains a major flaw by failing to reward developing nations (non-Annex 1 countries) which protect their forests, even though deforestation is responsible for some 18% of greenhouse gas emissions and peat drainage for even more. The Kyoto Protocol allows industrialised ‘Annex 1’ nations to buy the right to emit more carbon dioxide by paying for projects in developing countries. This can include paying for monoculture timber plantations, classed as ‘afforestation’ and ‘reforestation’ projects (though so far only one such project has been approved under the Clean Development Mechanism), but it cannot involve protecting old-growth forests – even though a hectare of monoculture plantations stores at best a quarter of the carbon held in old-growth forests, and monocultures do not meet essential functions of natural forests, such as maintaining biodiversity, soils or the water cycle.
The call by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations that the protection of natural forests should be rewarded has therefore gained widespread support. During the United Nations climate conference in Bali this year, nations will debate about a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012. The proposal submitted by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations will be debated at the forthcoming UN climate conference in Bali, under the name “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries’ (REDD). The World Bank will present their planned $250 million pilot project for protecting tropical forests, which is compatible with the REDD proposals.
The three governors, Suebu, Irwandi and Aturui can thus be optimistic that the international community will approve of their strategy for ‘avoiding deforestation’. The proclamation made during their Governors’ Roundtable might set a precedent for a possible resolution at Bali in December and might lead to a binding international agreement.
Within Indonesia, the three governors have a difficult position: Right after Suebo’s election as Governor of Papua in December 2006, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) called him for a meeting. SBY supports agrofuels (‘bio-diesel’) as the engine of the economic development. He hopes that investments in the plantation sector will create 3.5 million new jobs. The President demanded that Papua should immediately promise five million hectares of forest for conversion to oil palms and other plantations. Suebo was annoyed. He has enough problems with the timber companies holding logging concessions, their illegal activities and what he regards as the ‚backwardness’ of his people. According to well-informed sources he said “not with us”. Papua should not become like Kalimantan, where the forest will soon be gone and many animal species are becoming extinct. It is not known whether SBY was also angry. However, he reacted instantly. By January, a huge five-billion dollar deal was clinched with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOP) and their Indonesian counter part, PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources (SMART). The plantations were to be established in Papua. Since then other companies have declared an interest. Some of them have already successfully acquired land with the support of Jakarta and of local district politicians.
Question: Ecology or economy?
What appears as a clear conflict between ecology and economy is far more: The governors of Papua themselves have grand plans for the development of West Papua. They also bank on economic development and compete with SBY in attracting investors. Fantastic ideas have been airs, of which even cities like Berlin or London could only dream, such as a ‘sky train’. Bupati (district heads) and other local politicians copy them. Development is to financed above all with the ‘green gold’ palm oil and for that the forest has to be cleared. At the same time, some politicians seem to have understood the arithmetic of the carbon trade in no time – not just a few bupati in Papua who suddenly sell their forests not to logging companies but to carbon dealers. The governor of Bengkulu has just returned from a rather spontaneous trip to the US where he offered his forest to people in the US for the price of $2.5 billion. It could pay off financially to demonstrate to the international community that one wants to protect the forest in order to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Torn between climate change and investment policies, attractive offers might move other Indonesian politicians to think again. In the long-term, what Nicholas Stern1 said in his report on the economics of climate change: That climate change mitigation and economic growth and development do not have to compete with each other. This would solve the conflict become economy and ecology.
Greenpeace has calculated, based on emissions from peat soils in Kalimantan, that Indonesia could earn more from carbon trading than from converting peat forests into oil palm plantations. If one also considers that plantation companies are known to the Ministry of Finance as notorious tax evaders, the state could earn more from carbon trading than from the whole of the palm oil industry. But, of course, only as long as the forest still exists.
This is what a calculation similar to Greenpeace’s might look like for Papua: Provided that one million hectares are protected under the REDD model and every year 50,000 hectares are saved from clear-cutting, Papua could earn $50 to $100 million, based on a low price of $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This is a sum which even an economist will not dismiss. If more deforestation is avoided, or if the price per tonne of carbon is set higher, then the result would be even better. The avoidance strategy could become profitable.
If the example set by the ‚special autonomous provinces’ of Aceh and Papua gain support then truly huge sums of money will be on the table. Big sums of money lure big crooks. Just a few weeks after the Roundtable in April, obscure carbon traders appeared in Indonesia. Criminal activities and corruption are an acute threat to society, and without a functioning administration and a corruption-free political environment, the nice economic success could become rather one-sided.
Other unsolved problems are how the funding should be managed, what special training of provincial civil servants may be required and who should benefit from the money. Should it be the plantation companies, which need to forgo palm oil profits? Should it be the government budget which, under Indonesian law, owns the forest? Or the special autonomous provinces? Or should the money go to the indigenous peoples so that they can continue to live in harmony with nature and, through their way of living, sustain the forest? And how will they deal with the social and psychological effects of this sudden monetary gain within their villages and families?
This could backfire fort the environment, too. Biofuelwatch see a fundamental flaw in the concept about avoided emissions. The biosphere has a deficit in carbon sinks, because humans release 50% more carbon dioxide than can be sequestered by oceans and by forests and other ecosystems. Given that some eosystems are on the verge of collapse, it is not enough to conserve percentages of the forets2.
Attractive as the avoidance strategy might sound, it will only be possible to realise it for a small fraction of the forests. If deforestation can be avoided for one million hectares of Papuan forests, that means that the other nine million hectares of ‘conversion forest’, for which no finance mechanism is being negotiated, will not be spared from destruction. According to Biofuelwatch, that scenario is not the unfortunate side effect of an otherwise beautiful concept for saving climate and forest, but an integral component of the plans for dividing our planet.
Experiment Aceh: Moratorium
Anthropogenic emissions should actually be reduced. This would logically mean conserving the forests as carbon sinks. In practice, this would mean leaving the forest as it is and banning industrial logging. A logging moratorium gives the badly treated forest a breathing space. Furthermore, as Nicholas Stern calculates in his report, the costs for administering and controlling a logging bans are of an order of magnitude smaller than those of paying for environmental services through carbon trading. This would therefore be easier to finance and to realise for the world community.
Ecosystem Earth seems to be in a fragile condition and, in view of the already destroyed carbon sinks, a systemic approach is needed. Such an approach requires that the people who live in and from the forest play a key role as environmental protectors and should be honoured as such. Basic problems need to be addressed: Land rights, the lack of recognition for the economic and social rights of indigenous peoples, corruption, and the discrepancy between the excess capacities of the wood and paper industry and the insecure supplies.
Many interests, however, compete for the forest. Not only the local people want to assert their land rights – others also want to get hold of them. Diverse industries compete for land, the cellulose industry wants to expand, politicians try to attract investment into infrastructure. The state is a no-win situation: It banks on economic growth and development but deprives future generations of the foundations for either through aggressive deforestation; it suffers enormous losses in taxes and payments, has to confront increasing land conflicts and has to manage ever more frequent catastrophes.
The and certification models do not work, because the roots of the evil, the basic unsolved problems within Indonesia, are left untouched. Neither EU funding for Leuser National Park, nor the EU-FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) process have turned out to be suitable instruments for stopping rainforest destruction. FLEGT is restricted to voluntary agreements regarding the import of tropical hardwood into the EU and does not address growing demand in the consumer countries. Voluntary certification models offer nothing but an illusion of sustainability and often result in more rigorous clear-cutting elsewhere.
Aceh is a hotspot of the above mentioned problems and conflicts. Every year, Aceh loses around 20,000 hectares of forest. The contribution of illegal logging is high. According to the environmental NGO Walhi (Friends of the Earth Indonesia), 2.79 million cubic metres of forest were cut illegally in 2006 alone. Walhi estimate a loss of 260 million Euros, not including the costs of flooding, land slides and the ecological value of the forest. Only 2% of those huge quantities were recovered through police raids. The former GAM commander Irwandi, has therefore put forest protection right at the top of his list of priorities right from his first days as Governor of Aceh. He has not shied away from personally taking part in actions against illegal loggers.
He has strong counter players. Forest Minister Kaban in Jakarta did not agree to lift the concessions for the five timber companies, quite the opposite: Jakarta exercises enormous pressure to free further forests for ‘conversion’. The government wants to increase the capacity of the cellulose industry in Sumatra and build new pulp mills in Kalimantan and Papua. Jakarta also sees potential for 120,000 hectares of oil palm plantations in the south and east of Aceh. The districts also plan the expansion of the timber industry and plantations – often one part of the state does not know what the other one is doing. The flow of information does not work and the governor is facing opponents on all sides.
“Stand up for yourself” might have been Governor Irwandi’s motto when he opted for the initiative to conserve the tropical forests in Aceh and thus for a contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. During the Governors’ Roundtable, he promised to do what he could to protect the forest. Clear decisions were made.
Irwandi doesn’t regard the moratorium as the ultimate goal of his forestry policy. It is supposed to be a 15-year process with different stages, a breathing space in order to reform the forestry sector. A 15-year long break should give the government of Aceh time and space to address the existing conflicts around forest and land. Whether Irwandi can succeed in managing the conflicts with the powerful competing economic interests is a different issue.
During the first stage, no new concessions will be granted and an inventory will be taken. The legal status and the physical conditions of the forest will be examined. An independent agency is to carry out an audit, based on which existing concessions should be withdrawn, if the companies involved have exceeded the powers they were granted. The time is to be used to pass legislation to allow the use of confiscated, already cut, timber and to allow for necessary imports. Eight months after the first phase, all logging in Aceh is to be stopped. Wood would only be allowed to come from plantations or community forests. A logging ban has to be accompanied by measures to reduce poverty and to strengthen social and economic rights. New jobs will have to be created, including for those people who currently work on timber plantations.
However the conflicts of interest will play out, Aceh and Papua are becoming actors on the international carbon market and will earn money in the process. What matters now is how Indonesia positions itself during the UN Climate Conference. This will show whether the rainforest ‘stewards’ will become real pioneers.
1. Nicholas Stern: Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change; October 2006/
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
2. 'Reduced Emissions From Deforestation': Can Carbon Trading Save Our Ecosystems? July 2007 http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/Avoided_Deforestation_Full.pdf
Aceh’s and Papua’s proposals for greenhouse gas emissions reductions
Marianne Klute
Aceh and Papua have taken the initiative in Indonesia against global warming: They want to limit the destruction of tropical forests and thus reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are negotiating finance mechanisms for forest protection, and Aceh has even decided to impose a logging moratorium. Nobody can predict whether those steps will lead to success. Two things are certain: They are challenging Indonesia’s climate and forestry policies, and they will cost industrialised nations a great deal of money.
Roundtable: Climate Change
Informed readers will know that Indonesia is the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide, after the United States and China. The causes are annual forest fires, emissions from peat drainage and fires, and rampant deforestation, which is happening at a faster pace than anywhere else in the world. Indonesia is therefore subject to intense criticism during climate debates. Given that the UN Climate Change Conference of Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 13) will is due to take place in Bali in December 2007, Indonesia is under acute pressure to act. In Jakarta, hardly anybody seems to be concerned with preparing for COP13, whilst Jayapura and Banda Aceh show determination to act.
As part of the preparations for the UN climate conference, a high-powered Three Governors’ Roundtable was held in the upmarket resort of Nusa Dua in Bali. It was attended by Barbabas Suebu (Governor of Papua), Irwandi Yusuf (Governor of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam) and Abraham Aturui (Governor of Papua Barat, before April called Irian Jaya Barat). The organisers and sponsors of the Roundtable included the Australian government, the World Bank and some other organisations such as Flora and Fauna International (FFI0 and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
On the agenda was nothing less than a common policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The governors decided to make economic development in their provinces more environmentally friendly and sustainable, primarily by reducing deforestation. They hope to achieve this through some remarkable measures: Aceh agreed to stop logging. The moratorium which was announced has now been enacted. Through a logging moratorium, Aceh hopes to gain time for revising its forestry policy. Papua is determined to outlaw the export of wood. Suebu and Aturi did not have the courage to follow the example of Aceh and ban logging completely. For the time being they plan to examine concessions and, if necessary, revoke them if they cannot change the local forestry industry for the better in the two Papuan provinces.
The most important result of the Roundtable is the decision, to protect part of the forest from destruction. The initial idea was to protect half of the ten million hectares of ‘conversion forest’ which Jakarta seeks to ‘convert’ to plantations and to maintain those with the help of carbon finance. The original plan, however, had to be scaled down. The decision was to protect not five but just one million hectares. Several pilot projects are planned in the provinces, covering at least 500,000 hectares of forest in Papua. If they succeed then Suebus promises to expand the area to four million hectares.
In order to realise those hopeful plans, Papua and Aceh require international support in the form of finance according to the carbon trading model, as well as technology transfer. The aim is a new model of ‘Avoided Deforestation’, in which money is paid not for afforestation and reforestation, but for protecting natural forests. The Australian government has promised $AS 200 million for avoided deforestation, afforestation and for sustainable forestry. A large proportion of the money, however, will be paid via the government in Jakarta, not directly to Aceh and Papua.
The Governors’ Roundtable sends a clear signal to the international community that Indonesians are aware of the international climate debate and their own responsibilities. Aceh and Papua demonstrate the firm will to finally put an end to deforestation. Not without good reason, since the governors confirmed in a joint declaration: “We are aware of our special role as stewards of Indonesia’s largest natural forests”.
Aceh and Papua: Conflict in the Forest
Aceh and Papua are often mentioned in the same breath when speaking about Indonesia’s conflict zones. The two regions are several thousand kilometres apart, but they have some things in commong: Rich natural resources, a geo-politically important position and a long history of wars and independence dreams. Indonesia’s westernmost province, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, and the two Papuan provinces (Papua and Papua Barat) furthest to the east also have rights under Special Autonomy laws.
Aceh and Papua have a lot more in common: They harbour the last large connected rainforests in Indonesia. Those forests, however, are no longer intact. The conflicts exacted a heavy price frm the forest. It is not at all true that the forests only exists because wars offer a certain protection, as some authors claim. Quite the opposite: In Aceh, both conflict parties financed their arms with tropical timber.
Both areas also share the fact that illegal logging has greatly increased in recent years, Since the 1990s, when Aceh was a military operations zone, forests are being mercilessly cut down. Following the tsunami, pressures on the forest have grown frighteningly. The forestry ministry has granted logging permissions to five companies “for the reconstruction of Aceh”. A large part of that money never reached the areas affected by the tsunami but founds its way, via Medan and Malaysia and Singapore onto the word market. This is why the market in illegal construction timber from the Leuser ecosystem is blooming in neighbouring regions.
Papua has been favoured by an international timber mafia. Companies from all over South-east Asia and East Asia flog off tropical timber, in particular merbau, to the 500 new timber factories in Hainan Province which in turn sell it on to most parts of the world. There is no doubt that the army in Papua cannot be overlooked amongst the players in the tropical timber business. There are multiple reasons for the abrupt start of the Run on Papua : Elsewhere in Indonesia, tropical forests have become almost a rarity. Decentralisation opened the door widely to an even more brutal destruction of forests. When China prohibited logging in its own territory, following the Yangtze flooding in 1998 (almost at the same time as Suahorto’s resignation), they had to look abroad for supplies: To Papua, Russia and many other countries.
Right now, the strong demand for palm oil for bioenergy and diesel is he driving force behind the destruction of the forests. Fire is often used to clear the land. The Indonesian government is pursuing ambitious plans to supply the international agrofuel market, and Papua is to provide a large part of the required land. This means that five million hectares of Papua are to be converted to plantations for agrofuel feedstocks.
Every initiative for the protection of forests as globally important carbon sinks must logically include Aceh and Papua. The Indonesian forest policy has missed the opportunity for change and has not dared to point the finger to exactly those hotspots. The Ministry for Forests continues to kow-tow to the powerful logging industry and generously hands out licences. At the same time, they try to keep the mafia in check through policing methods. Rambo-style actions, however, can only scratch the surface, not stop the trend. International efforts such as the European FLEGT process and different bilateral agreements remain ineffective. How then can deforestation be stopped and a contribution to reducing greemhouse gas emissions be made?
Gobal Trade: Carbon dioxide
„This is brilliant – one protects the forest and gets even paid for it“ says a jubilant Bass Suebu. He has seen how forests can be protected in Costa Rica, a country which he visited from Mexico, where he was Indonesia’s ambassador. Costa Rica has had success in curbing deforestation, and is promoting its ‘Payments for Environmental Services’ as a model for other rainforest nations. In actual fact, Costa Rica’s success is based on a logging ban, together with payments for ‘avoided deforestation’ that are financed through an energy tax and international donations. They have been trying unsuccessfully to obtain carbon funding: The price at which carbon is being traded is not nearly high enough of meet the cost of their scheme. Nonetheless, Costa Rica have convinced other governments and politicians, including the Papuan Governor Bass Suebu, that the carbon markets could, in future, help to protect the world’s rainforests. The Coalition for Rainforest Nations was formed in 2005. 33 countries with tropical forests are members, including Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. It advocates a model based not on regulation or logging bans, but on payments financed largely through the carbon trade, something which would require an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. The governors of Papua, Aceh and Papua Barat strongly support this scheme.
The Coalition for Rainforest Nations and their supporters, including many scientists, argue that the Kyoto Protocol contains a major flaw by failing to reward developing nations (non-Annex 1 countries) which protect their forests, even though deforestation is responsible for some 18% of greenhouse gas emissions and peat drainage for even more. The Kyoto Protocol allows industrialised ‘Annex 1’ nations to buy the right to emit more carbon dioxide by paying for projects in developing countries. This can include paying for monoculture timber plantations, classed as ‘afforestation’ and ‘reforestation’ projects (though so far only one such project has been approved under the Clean Development Mechanism), but it cannot involve protecting old-growth forests – even though a hectare of monoculture plantations stores at best a quarter of the carbon held in old-growth forests, and monocultures do not meet essential functions of natural forests, such as maintaining biodiversity, soils or the water cycle.
The call by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations that the protection of natural forests should be rewarded has therefore gained widespread support. During the United Nations climate conference in Bali this year, nations will debate about a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012. The proposal submitted by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations will be debated at the forthcoming UN climate conference in Bali, under the name “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries’ (REDD). The World Bank will present their planned $250 million pilot project for protecting tropical forests, which is compatible with the REDD proposals.
The three governors, Suebu, Irwandi and Aturui can thus be optimistic that the international community will approve of their strategy for ‘avoiding deforestation’. The proclamation made during their Governors’ Roundtable might set a precedent for a possible resolution at Bali in December and might lead to a binding international agreement.
Within Indonesia, the three governors have a difficult position: Right after Suebo’s election as Governor of Papua in December 2006, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) called him for a meeting. SBY supports agrofuels (‘bio-diesel’) as the engine of the economic development. He hopes that investments in the plantation sector will create 3.5 million new jobs. The President demanded that Papua should immediately promise five million hectares of forest for conversion to oil palms and other plantations. Suebo was annoyed. He has enough problems with the timber companies holding logging concessions, their illegal activities and what he regards as the ‚backwardness’ of his people. According to well-informed sources he said “not with us”. Papua should not become like Kalimantan, where the forest will soon be gone and many animal species are becoming extinct. It is not known whether SBY was also angry. However, he reacted instantly. By January, a huge five-billion dollar deal was clinched with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOP) and their Indonesian counter part, PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources (SMART). The plantations were to be established in Papua. Since then other companies have declared an interest. Some of them have already successfully acquired land with the support of Jakarta and of local district politicians.
Question: Ecology or economy?
What appears as a clear conflict between ecology and economy is far more: The governors of Papua themselves have grand plans for the development of West Papua. They also bank on economic development and compete with SBY in attracting investors. Fantastic ideas have been airs, of which even cities like Berlin or London could only dream, such as a ‘sky train’. Bupati (district heads) and other local politicians copy them. Development is to financed above all with the ‘green gold’ palm oil and for that the forest has to be cleared. At the same time, some politicians seem to have understood the arithmetic of the carbon trade in no time – not just a few bupati in Papua who suddenly sell their forests not to logging companies but to carbon dealers. The governor of Bengkulu has just returned from a rather spontaneous trip to the US where he offered his forest to people in the US for the price of $2.5 billion. It could pay off financially to demonstrate to the international community that one wants to protect the forest in order to contribute to the fight against climate change.
Torn between climate change and investment policies, attractive offers might move other Indonesian politicians to think again. In the long-term, what Nicholas Stern1 said in his report on the economics of climate change: That climate change mitigation and economic growth and development do not have to compete with each other. This would solve the conflict become economy and ecology.
Greenpeace has calculated, based on emissions from peat soils in Kalimantan, that Indonesia could earn more from carbon trading than from converting peat forests into oil palm plantations. If one also considers that plantation companies are known to the Ministry of Finance as notorious tax evaders, the state could earn more from carbon trading than from the whole of the palm oil industry. But, of course, only as long as the forest still exists.
This is what a calculation similar to Greenpeace’s might look like for Papua: Provided that one million hectares are protected under the REDD model and every year 50,000 hectares are saved from clear-cutting, Papua could earn $50 to $100 million, based on a low price of $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This is a sum which even an economist will not dismiss. If more deforestation is avoided, or if the price per tonne of carbon is set higher, then the result would be even better. The avoidance strategy could become profitable.
If the example set by the ‚special autonomous provinces’ of Aceh and Papua gain support then truly huge sums of money will be on the table. Big sums of money lure big crooks. Just a few weeks after the Roundtable in April, obscure carbon traders appeared in Indonesia. Criminal activities and corruption are an acute threat to society, and without a functioning administration and a corruption-free political environment, the nice economic success could become rather one-sided.
Other unsolved problems are how the funding should be managed, what special training of provincial civil servants may be required and who should benefit from the money. Should it be the plantation companies, which need to forgo palm oil profits? Should it be the government budget which, under Indonesian law, owns the forest? Or the special autonomous provinces? Or should the money go to the indigenous peoples so that they can continue to live in harmony with nature and, through their way of living, sustain the forest? And how will they deal with the social and psychological effects of this sudden monetary gain within their villages and families?
This could backfire fort the environment, too. Biofuelwatch see a fundamental flaw in the concept about avoided emissions. The biosphere has a deficit in carbon sinks, because humans release 50% more carbon dioxide than can be sequestered by oceans and by forests and other ecosystems. Given that some eosystems are on the verge of collapse, it is not enough to conserve percentages of the forets2.
Attractive as the avoidance strategy might sound, it will only be possible to realise it for a small fraction of the forests. If deforestation can be avoided for one million hectares of Papuan forests, that means that the other nine million hectares of ‘conversion forest’, for which no finance mechanism is being negotiated, will not be spared from destruction. According to Biofuelwatch, that scenario is not the unfortunate side effect of an otherwise beautiful concept for saving climate and forest, but an integral component of the plans for dividing our planet.
Experiment Aceh: Moratorium
Anthropogenic emissions should actually be reduced. This would logically mean conserving the forests as carbon sinks. In practice, this would mean leaving the forest as it is and banning industrial logging. A logging moratorium gives the badly treated forest a breathing space. Furthermore, as Nicholas Stern calculates in his report, the costs for administering and controlling a logging bans are of an order of magnitude smaller than those of paying for environmental services through carbon trading. This would therefore be easier to finance and to realise for the world community.
Ecosystem Earth seems to be in a fragile condition and, in view of the already destroyed carbon sinks, a systemic approach is needed. Such an approach requires that the people who live in and from the forest play a key role as environmental protectors and should be honoured as such. Basic problems need to be addressed: Land rights, the lack of recognition for the economic and social rights of indigenous peoples, corruption, and the discrepancy between the excess capacities of the wood and paper industry and the insecure supplies.
Many interests, however, compete for the forest. Not only the local people want to assert their land rights – others also want to get hold of them. Diverse industries compete for land, the cellulose industry wants to expand, politicians try to attract investment into infrastructure. The state is a no-win situation: It banks on economic growth and development but deprives future generations of the foundations for either through aggressive deforestation; it suffers enormous losses in taxes and payments, has to confront increasing land conflicts and has to manage ever more frequent catastrophes.
The and certification models do not work, because the roots of the evil, the basic unsolved problems within Indonesia, are left untouched. Neither EU funding for Leuser National Park, nor the EU-FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) process have turned out to be suitable instruments for stopping rainforest destruction. FLEGT is restricted to voluntary agreements regarding the import of tropical hardwood into the EU and does not address growing demand in the consumer countries. Voluntary certification models offer nothing but an illusion of sustainability and often result in more rigorous clear-cutting elsewhere.
Aceh is a hotspot of the above mentioned problems and conflicts. Every year, Aceh loses around 20,000 hectares of forest. The contribution of illegal logging is high. According to the environmental NGO Walhi (Friends of the Earth Indonesia), 2.79 million cubic metres of forest were cut illegally in 2006 alone. Walhi estimate a loss of 260 million Euros, not including the costs of flooding, land slides and the ecological value of the forest. Only 2% of those huge quantities were recovered through police raids. The former GAM commander Irwandi, has therefore put forest protection right at the top of his list of priorities right from his first days as Governor of Aceh. He has not shied away from personally taking part in actions against illegal loggers.
He has strong counter players. Forest Minister Kaban in Jakarta did not agree to lift the concessions for the five timber companies, quite the opposite: Jakarta exercises enormous pressure to free further forests for ‘conversion’. The government wants to increase the capacity of the cellulose industry in Sumatra and build new pulp mills in Kalimantan and Papua. Jakarta also sees potential for 120,000 hectares of oil palm plantations in the south and east of Aceh. The districts also plan the expansion of the timber industry and plantations – often one part of the state does not know what the other one is doing. The flow of information does not work and the governor is facing opponents on all sides.
“Stand up for yourself” might have been Governor Irwandi’s motto when he opted for the initiative to conserve the tropical forests in Aceh and thus for a contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. During the Governors’ Roundtable, he promised to do what he could to protect the forest. Clear decisions were made.
Irwandi doesn’t regard the moratorium as the ultimate goal of his forestry policy. It is supposed to be a 15-year process with different stages, a breathing space in order to reform the forestry sector. A 15-year long break should give the government of Aceh time and space to address the existing conflicts around forest and land. Whether Irwandi can succeed in managing the conflicts with the powerful competing economic interests is a different issue.
During the first stage, no new concessions will be granted and an inventory will be taken. The legal status and the physical conditions of the forest will be examined. An independent agency is to carry out an audit, based on which existing concessions should be withdrawn, if the companies involved have exceeded the powers they were granted. The time is to be used to pass legislation to allow the use of confiscated, already cut, timber and to allow for necessary imports. Eight months after the first phase, all logging in Aceh is to be stopped. Wood would only be allowed to come from plantations or community forests. A logging ban has to be accompanied by measures to reduce poverty and to strengthen social and economic rights. New jobs will have to be created, including for those people who currently work on timber plantations.
However the conflicts of interest will play out, Aceh and Papua are becoming actors on the international carbon market and will earn money in the process. What matters now is how Indonesia positions itself during the UN Climate Conference. This will show whether the rainforest ‘stewards’ will become real pioneers.
1. Nicholas Stern: Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change; October 2006/
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
2. 'Reduced Emissions From Deforestation': Can Carbon Trading Save Our Ecosystems? July 2007 http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/Avoided_Deforestation_Full.pdf
Friday, May 16, 2008
Climate and Energy Policies hurt the people of Jambi
Climate and Energy Policies hurt the people of Jambi
Recommendation from the "Climate Change Workshop" in Jambi, 24-25
November 2007
Farmers, community organizers and civil society met in Jambi,
island of Sumatra, Indonesia, to discuss the local consequences of
the global climate change. People of Jambi are already suffering
from uncertain weather conditions like droughts and heavy rains
which they believe to be the effects of climate change. They are
concerned that climate and energy policies all over the world will
put a further burden to the people of Jambi, because these policies
tend to facilitate the conversion of more forests, agricultural and
community land into large scale monoculture plantations.
The province of Jambi already is a centre of the agro-industry.
Plantations dominate nearly half of the area of Jambi, with 1.3
million hectares palm oil concessions and 267,500 hectares pulp
concessions. Palm oil plays an important role in the province's
macro-economy.
However, the negative impacts outweigh any benefits. The change in
land use in the province only victimizes nature and people of Jambi.
Forests have been and still are destroyed on a large scale to be
converted into monocultures for the production of export
commodities, destroying Jambi´s rich biodiversity. The habitat of
many endangered species like the Sumatran tiger already is gone
forever.
Community and agricultural land is rampaged by trans-national
corporations for the production of agrofuel feedstock to satisfy the
thirst for "sustainable" energy and to "mitigate" climate change.
The Indonesian government issues concessions to these trans-
nationals, without any concern to the rights of the inhabitants of
Jambi. The result is that most villagers have lost access to their
land and therefore lost the sources for a living. Consequently,
poverty is rising.
It is common practice that community land planted with rubber trees
is bulldozed by plantation companies overnight. For example, in the
year 2000, the villagers of Sarulangun found their rubber trees
destroyed and replanted with oil palms. Since seven years, the
people of Sarulangun have completely lost their livelihood. This is
only one example; more than 200 other social and land conflicts
remain unresolved.
We, the participants of the Climate Change Workshop in Jambi
identify global energy and climate policies as external driving
forces to even more poverty and ecological destruction. However,
there are internal Indonesian problems which contribute to the
suffering of the people. These root problems should be solved first
before any new investments into agro-business in Jambi.
According to Indonesian law, the state is the sovereign of land,
forest, sea and air. It is not the people who live and cultivate the
land. They can be easily evicted, without any compensation. Since
forty years, the people of Jambi, like all Indonesians, have not
enjoyed any sovereignty over their own resources. This is the root
cause of the suffering of the people.
We, the participants of the Climate Change Workshop in Jambi are
concerned that new agreements, political decisions and investments
without participation of the local people will lead to more poverty
and even to hunger.
Therefore, we recommend:
The government of Indonesia should anticipate the root causes of the
suffering of the people by
Ø respecting the human rights of its citizens;
Ø acknowledging the right to land;
Ø solving human rights violations and pending land tenure
conflicts first.
International investors should insist on agreements which guaranty
Ø people's sovereignty over land, forest, water and air;
Ø the participation of the people in decision making,
agreements and implementation of new investments into agro-business;
Ø the welfare of the people and rural communities.
The global community should respect
Ø the role and the wisdom of the people of Jambi to protect
forest and nature;
Ø the right of the people of Jambi to food and clean water;
Ø and the importance of Jambi´s biodiversity for the future of
the earth.
For farmers, communities and forest dwellers:
Dani, Bandung Jambi
Gatot, Muara Jambi
Gunawan, Sarolangun
Sabriyadi, Muara Jambi
Joni, Muara Jambi
Junaidi, Muara Jambi
Kurniawan, Tanjab Baral
M. Rusdi, Sarolangun
Pengendum (forest people)
Rahmat Santoso, Sarolangun
Tam, Tanjab Baral
We, NGO`s from Jambi, support the recommendation of the farmers and
communities from Jambi province:
Afrizal, GITASADA
Budi, NGO SERDA
Dani, ARC
Donny Pasaribu, National Park Safety Foundation
Feri Irawan, WALHI Jambi
Husni Thamrin, PINSE Jambi
Musri Nauli, Yayasan Keadilan Rakyat
Rukayah Rofiq, SETARA
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Bali and Beyond:
Links
„Schön, dass wir darüber gereddet haben“
aus Bali: Marianne Klute
Wie ein dröges Fußballspiel musste die Weltklimakonferenz in Bali verlängert werden. Erst die frühen Morgenstunden des 16. Dezember, (fast) zwei Tage nach dem geplanten Ende, brachten ein Ergebnis, die so genannte Bali Road Map. Ist die Road Map tatsächlich ein „echter Durchbruch, eine Chance für die internationale Gemeinschaft, den Klimawandel erfolgreich zu bekämpfen“, wie der indonesische Umweltminister Rachmat Witoelar meint? Oder hätten Emails gereicht, wie Angus Friday von der Allianz der kleinen Inselstaaten spottet?
Der Ort: Bali
Keine Frage, die Halbinsel Nusa Dua ist ein idealer Austragungsort. Leicht zu kontrollieren und abzuriegeln. Nur eine Straße führt auf die Halbinsel, zu beiden mit Zäunen versehen, die die Mangroven schützen sollen, die dem Touristenrefugium nicht weichen mussten. Erwartet wurden 15.000 Teilnehmer, für deren Sicherheit 5.000 Soldaten und Polizisten sorgen sollten. Im Vergleich zu der Situation in dem Dorf in Papua, das ich kürzlich besucht habe, wo jede einzelne Familie über eine eigene Sicherheitskraft verfügt, scheint mir das nun wirklich nicht übertrieben.
Das Konferenzzentrum im Westin Resort Hotel liegt in einer traumhaft schönen Anlage. Hier haben sich vor einem guten halben Jahr mit Blick auf die kommende Klimakonferenz die Gouverneure von Papua, Papua Barat und Aceh Nanggroe Darussalam getroffen und Maßnahmen zur Rettung ihres Waldes und des Weltklimas beschlossen. Zusammen mit der Weltbank setzen sie auf ein neues Modell der Bezahlung für das Nicht-Abholzen ihrer Wälder, eine Idee, die in Indonesien erst skeptisch beäugt, aber inzwischen mit Eifer verfolgt und als genuiner Beitrag in Bali vorgestellt wurde (siehe dazu auch: http://www.watchindonesia.org/CarbonDealers.htm).
In der Hotellobby, über zwei Etagen mit edlen Batiken dekoriert, reihte sich ein Marktstand an den anderen. Von UN-Institutionen über Universitäten und Nichtregierungsorganisationen bis zu Kohlenstoffhändlern war hier alles, was Rang und Namen hat (oder anstrebt), vertreten. Wie in einem Basar oder auf einem Markt, so war der erste Eindruck. Und im Verlauf der Konferenz zeigte sich, dass der erste Eindruck selten täuscht. Nur dass in Bali nicht mit Teppichen, sondern rund um Treibhausgase gehandelt wurde. Neueste Technologien, detaillierte Programme, Hard- und Software – alles war im Angebot. 
Über die ganze Halbinsel verteilt, aber auch in den Touristenorten Kuta und Sanur, fanden parallel zur eigentlichen Verhandlung eine Menge weiterer Veranstaltungen statt. Es fiel fast schwer sich zu entscheiden, was nun interessanter sein könnte: die Konferenz zu beobachten oder Projekte zur Berechnung des Karbongehaltes von Torfböden zu begreifen, die Strategie der International Energie Agency kennen zu lernen oder etwas zu neuen Finanzinstrumenten zu erfahren, im Solidaritätsdorf den Aussagen indonesischer Bauern über erlittene Ungerechtigkeit zuzuhören oder lieber ins Hotel Inna Putri Bali zu laufen und mit an Konzepten für Klimagerechtigkeit zu feilen.
Zum Hyatt-Hotel, der Lokalität für die Side Events, muss man nicht den Shuttle-Bus nehmen. Es sind ja nur zehn Minuten zu Fuß, wenn man sich zwischen den Tropengärten und Palmen nicht verläuft. Den Weg abkürzen und einfach über den gestutzten Rasen laufen, war nicht erlaubt. Auch „Blumen pflücken ist verboten!“ Klimaschonender als der Bus und luftiger als zu Fuß waren die von verschiedenen Firmen bzw. Organisationen gestifteten Fahrräder. Hhm, mit Schrecken denke ich an den Schlammvulkan in Sidoardjo – einem von Medco Energi gesponserten Rad vertraue ich besser nicht.....
Montag früh, am 3. Dezember, mussten die Teilnehmer erst mal die Hürde der Sicherheitsprozedur nehmen. Screening und Schleuse, wie auf einem internationalen Flughafen. Es nieselte nur einmal auf Bali, genau zu der Zeit, als eine lange Schlange elegant gekleideter Delegationsmitglieder aus aller Welt auf Einlass wartete. Zum Glück war Oxfam mit großen schwarzen Schirmen zur Stelle, auf dass die Garderobe keinen Schaden nehmen möge. Sonst aber war es zwei Wochen lang heiß; so heiß, dass sich sogar eine afrikanische Regierungsdelegation lautstark beschwerte. In den Hotels und Konferenzräumen liefen die Klimaanlagen auf Hochtouren – nicht gerade klimaschonend! –, und jeder balinesische Taxifahrer beteuerte: „Das ist der Klimawandel auf Bali!“
Bali war nicht nur wegen des üppigen Angebots an klimatisierten Hotelzimmern der Ort der Wahl. Es gab andere, ebenso einleuchtende Gründe: Gastgeber sollte ein Entwicklungsland sein, das in der Lage ist, die Interessen der G 77-Staaten zu repräsentieren. Indonesien bringt zusätzlich in die Waagschale, dass es als Inselstaat selbst vom Klimawandel bedroht ist, noch immer über Regenwald verfügt und außerdem als Mitglied der OPEC Erdölproduzent ist.
Beim Sicherheitscheck zählten weder Nieseln noch Klimaerwärmung, sondern nur die Vorschriften. Die UN-Sicherheitsleute achteten strengstens auf deren Einhaltung. Eingelassen wurde nur der oder diejenige, der/die sich rechtzeitig akkreditiert hatte. Pech für die Delegation aus Papua Barat! Sie musste wieder umdrehen. Die Regierung von Indonesien bzw. das indonesische Klimateam unter Leitung des ehemaligen Umweltministers und Berkeley-Absolventen Emil Salim hat die Papuas schlichtweg ignoriert. Die aber ließen sich nicht abspeisen und überwanden schließlich, getarnt als Greenpeace-Aktivisten, sämtliche Sicherheitskontrollen. 
Das Ereignis: COP 13
Die Warnungen der Experten sind beunruhigend: Wenn nicht sofort alle Hebel in Bewegung gesetzt werden, die Emissionen weltweit zu verringern, wird die globale Erwärmung noch in diesem Jahrhundert zu unvorstellbaren Katastrophen führen, besonders in tropischen Inselstaaten und damit auch in Indonesien selbst. Das Szenario ist dem Gastgeberland seit geraumer Zeit klar. Wenn der Meeresspiegel steigt, gehen die Küsten inklusive von Teilen der Hauptstadt Jakarta im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes unter. Ganz zu schweigen von vernichtenden lokalen Wetterphänomenen, deren Folgen wie Dürren und Hochwasser, ausbleibende Ernten und sinkende Fischfangquoten Indonesien vor fast unlösbare Probleme und vor hohe Kosten stellen werden.
COP 13 steht für Conference of the Parties at its thirteenth session, die 13. Konferenz der Vertragsstaaten des Kyoto-Abkommens. COP 13 war das Hauptereignis, der allgemein pauschal als „Weltklimakonferenz“ bekannten Veranstaltung (United Nations Climate Change Conference, UNFCCC; nicht zu verwechseln mit dem Ausrichter der Konferenz gleichen Kürzels: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC). Genau genommen war Bali Austragungsort von nicht weniger als fünf parallelen Veranstaltungen: Neben COP 13 waren dies CMP 13, SPSTA 27, SBI 27 und AWG 4. In einer dieser parallelen Konferenzen trafen sich die Unterzeichner des Kyoto-Protokolls ohne die den Klimawandel bis vor kurzem ignorierenden US-Amerikaner und Australier, in einer weiteren sprach man über Empfehlungen für die Implementierung der Klimakonvention, und die fünfte schließlich war eine Ad-Hoc-Arbeitsgruppe.
Eine detaillierte Erörterung der kryptischen Kürzel dieser Konferenzen und dessen, was sich dahinter verbirgt, würde hier jedoch zu weit führen. Interessierte seien auf die offiziellen Quellen im Internet verwiesen: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/agendas/items/4095.php
Auf der Ebene der internationalen Politik und Presselandschaft wurden die USA, die sich, zusammen mit Indonesiens Nachbarland Australien und einigen anderen Hardlinern bislang dem Kyoto-Protokoll verweigerten und gelegentlich sogar die Folgen des Klimawandels in Zweifel zogen, mit Argusaugen beäugt: Lassen die sich ins Boot holen oder nicht, bevor die Küsten überflutet werden, oder bleibt Kaliforniens Gouverneur Arnold Schwarzenegger der einzige überzeugte Noah-Nachfolger? „Auch egal, biarin“, hieß es in der indonesischen Delegation in den ersten Tagen der Debatten. Denn die Rolle der Amis als Kyoto-Verweigerer könnte ja bald zu Ende sein und die bevorstehenden Wahlen in den USA andere Kräfte ans Ruder bringen, so wie in Australien, das zeitgenau zum Beginn der Bali-Konferenz am 3. Dezember eine, so heißt es, „klimafreundlichere“ Regierung gewählt hat..
Ob mit oder ohne die größten Verschmutzer – es bleibt nicht viel Zeit. Falls, was nur im Gedankenspiel möglich ist, es ab sofort keinerlei menschengemachte Emissionen mehr gäbe, würde die globale Durchschnittstemperatur trotzdem weiter steigen. Es fehlen die „Kohlenstoffsenken“; laut UN können Wälder und Meere unseres Planeten heute nur die Hälfte aller Treibhausgase aufnehmen, der Rest vermehrt die atmosphärische „Treibhaus“-Schicht der Erde, unter der es immer wärmer wird. Darauf müssen sich die Erdbewohner einstellen. Wie unsere Zukunft im Detail aussehen wird und ob wir langfristig eine Zukunft haben, hängt sehr davon ab, ob die Erdtemperatur um 2 Grad, um 5 Grad oder gar um 10 Grad steigen wird.
Alles müsste gleichzeitig und sofort angepackt werden: die Emissionen reduzieren und neue Kohlenstoffsenken schaffen. Die Zeit drängt, doch Entscheidungen über verbindliche Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung der Treibhausgasemissionen wurden in Bali erst mal vertagt, auf 2009, wenn in Dänemark über das Nachfolgeabkommen für das bis 2012 gültige Kyoto-Protokoll verhandelt wird. Bis dahin soll ein Fahrplan, der als Bali Road Map bekannte Aktionsplan, den Weg vorgeben.
Die Delegierten zeigten sich in den ersten Verhandlungstagen in Bali leicht ermüdet von den langatmigen Diskussionen zu Detailfragen und dem Widerstand gewisser Delegierter, wirklich über effektiven Klimaschutz zu reden, und noch am letzten Tag sah es fast so aus, als ob das Mega-Ereignis nicht viel mehr als unnötige Emissionen durch Unmengen von auf den Zehntausenden von Flügen erzeugten Treibhausgasen produzieren würde. Jemand hat sich die Mühe gemacht zu berechnen, dass Bali innerhalb von zwei Wochen soviel Treibhausgase emittiert hat, wie die Republik Tschad in einem ganzen Jahr.
Den Ball ins Spiel brachten immer wieder Vertreter von Indien und Indonesien. In Bali ist deutlich geworden, dass die Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländer schon jetzt in der Diskussion um den Klimawandel und seine Folgen eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Sie sind es, die die Folgen des Klimawandels am heftigsten spüren und die meisten Lasten tragen müssen. Sie betonten daher wiederholt, dass in erster Linie die Industrieländer die Verschmutzung der Atmosphäre verursacht hätten und sich deshalb dafür verantwortlich zeigen müssten. Die Industriestaaten seien gefordert, klimafreundliche Technologie zur Verfügung zu stellen und bei der Umsetzung von Klimaschutzmaßnahmen (wie z.B. Deiche) und Anpassungsprojekten an den Klimawandel zu helfen, nicht zuletzt finanziell.
Den Forderungen der Entwicklungsländer nach mehr Geld und sauberer Energie beugten sich die Industrieländer zwar prinzipiell. Aber verschenken tun sie nichts. Sie machten Versprechungen, ganz im Sinne ihres eigenen konsequent verfolgten Wirtschaftwachstums, für „Programme zur Erhöhung des Investitionsniveaus für Technologien“. Deutschland versprach hierfür immerhin ein Milliarde Dollar. Das Ausmaß der Verpflichtungen der Industriestaaten bleibt jedoch insgesamt weit unter den Erwartungen Indonesiens, und die indonesische Delegation zeigte sich in ihren Hoffnungen enttäuscht, genug Geld für Klimaschutz und grüne Technologien zu bekommen.
Um aber nicht bis 2012 untätig zu bleiben, sollen Anpassungsprojekte in Entwicklungsländern durch eine schon bestehende Einrichtung, die Global Environment Facility (GEF), finanziert werden. Andererseits sind seit Bali die Entwicklungsländer erstmals verpflichtet, selbst etwas für den Klimaschutz zu tun, wenn auch ohne ausreichend gesicherte Finanzierung.
Erst in der Verlängerung der nächtlichen Mammutsitzung zum 16. Dezember einigten sich die Parteien der COP 13 auf die erwähnte Bali Road Map. Ganz unbeteiligt sind die Indonesier daran nicht, dass es überhaupt zu einem Ergebnis kam. Sie befürchteten, dass die Bali-Konferenz als Meilenstein der Bewegungslosigkeit oder im besten Falle als überflüssiger Austausch von Belanglosigkeiten in die Geschichte eingehen könnte. Präsident SBY (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) überwand seine stoische Ruhe und sprach den Delegierten mit einer flammenden Rede ins Gewissen, der derzeitige Außenminister Hassan Wirayuda und sein alter Kollege Ali Alatas legten sich ins Zeug, kaum minder wie der Leiter der indonesischen Delegation zur Weltklimakonferenz der UNFCCC, Emil Salim.
Die meisten Industriestaaten bemühten sich anfangs, definierte Zielvorgaben in die Road Map zu schreiben. Sie folgten damit der Empfehlung des Zwischenstaatlichen Ausschusses über Klimaveränderungen (IPCC), ihre Emissionen um 25-40 % gegenüber den Werten von 1990 zu senken. Bis auf die USA, Japan und auch Kanada, die sich partout nicht festlegen wollten und damit in der Endausscheidung verbindliche Zielvorgaben blockierten. Die Zahlen rutschten in der Nacht auf Druck der USA als bloße Empfehlung in eine Fußnote. Im Text selbst steht nur, dass die Emissionen stark reduziert werden müssten, aber schnelle und konkrete Aktionen sind vorerst auf, in diesem Falle hoffentlich bald schmelzendes, Eis gelegt.
Mit welchen Methoden die Treibhausgasemissionen reduziert werden könnten, kam in einer der parallelen Konferenz zur Sprache.
Das Thema: REDD
Ein Durchbruch war die Klimakonferenz freilich nicht, doch immerhin ein Ereignis besonderer Art mit neuen Aufstellungen und neuen Themen. Indonesien entpuppte sich dabei als prächtiger Gastgeber mit Heimvorteil, trotz aller Kassandrarufe im Vorfeld. Eines der neuen Themen, welches in Bali von der Koalition der Regenwaldstaaten, zu denen auch Indonesien gehört, vorgestellt wurde, heißt REDD – Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.
Immerhin machen die Emissionen aus Abholzung der tropischen Regenwälder etwa ein Fünftel der Gesamtmenge der globalen Emissionen aus. Wird außerdem berücksichtigt, dass Wälder wichtige Funktionen in Wasser- und lokalen Klimakreisläufen haben, so bleibt unverständlich, dass im gültigen Kyoto-Protokoll die Rolle der Wälder vernachlässigt und mit Hilfe von Kohlenstoffhandel (Carbon Trading) kein einziger Wald geschützt wird. Etwa die Hälfte aller Gelder aus den Industriestaaten zum Ausgleich zu hoher Emissionen fließt bisher in Projekte zum Abbau von Fluorkohlenwasserstoffen (Treibhaus? Ozonloch!) in China, und nicht in tatsächliche Reduzierung von Emissionen oder den Erhalt der Tropenwälder. Nicht überraschend also, dass der Kohlenstoffhandel mit Emissionszertifikaten sogar dazu geführt hat, dass die globalen Emissionen steigen und steigen und steigen.
Weltweit verlieren wir nach Angaben der Weltbank jährlich 13 Millionen Hektar Wald. Indonesien ist – das lässt sich nicht mehr verbergen – mit 1,8 bis 3,8 Millionen Hektar dabei Spitzenreiter. Die Angaben, wieviel Wald wirklich abgeholzt wird, variieren je nach Quelle, ebenso wie die Daten, wieviel Wald Indonesien in Wirklichkeit noch hat. Die 120 Millionen Hektar der offiziellen Statistik erfassen nicht den real existierenden Wald, sondern nur Land mit dem Status „Wald“. Das ist wie im Märchen „Des Kaisers neue Kleider“, in dem Status wichtiger ist als die nackte Wahrheit.
Es ist noch nicht lange her, dass Suhartos Cronies auf warnende Kritik am Kahlschlag konterten: „Wir Indonesier haben das Recht, unseren Wald abzuholzen!“ Dahinter steckt mehr als rein privates Interesse an persönlicher Bereicherung, nämlich die Pembangunan-Politik (Wirtschaftsentwicklung), welche man nur durch Ausbeutung der Naturressourcen überzeugt ist, erreichen zu können. Wald und seine Ressourcen waren und sind in den Augen der Regierung nichts anderes als Produktionsstandorte. „Indonesien kann sich unproduktives Land nicht leisten“, bringt Daud Dharsono, Vorsitzender der Vereinigung der Palmölunternehmer, diese Haltung auf den Punkt.
Übrig sind vielleicht noch 40 Millionen Hektar Wald, womöglich noch weniger. Die Geschwindigkeit, mit der die Regenwälder in den vergangenen zehn Jahren verschwanden, scheint allmählich auf „natürliche“ Weise etwas geringer zu werden. In Bali erzählte ein Möbelhersteller, dass sein Schiff noch vor wenigen Jahren, um 2000, pausenlos zwischen Bali und Kalimantan unterwegs war. Damals kein Problem, im Hafen von Pontianak lag die Ware schon bereit. Heute aber müsse er erst Lastwagen anheuern und 100 bis 200 km ins Landesinnere fahren.
Jetzt aber scheint REDD die Lösung für beide Mankos, Geld und Wald, zu versprechen. Schütze den Wald und verdiene dabei, so wie Papua und Aceh als erste in Indonesien begriffen haben. In Windeseile hat sich die Idee herumgesprochen, und nicht nur in Papua und Aceh hat ein Wettlauf um die potentielle Geldquelle Wald begonnen. Jetzt springen auch andere Entwicklungsländer auf den Trend. Im Prinzip geht es darum, dass Industrien, Staaten oder auch Individuen für die von ihnen ausgestoßenen Treibhausgase einen Ablass bezahlen. Eine Idee, die Sinn macht. Oder nicht?
Aus der Idee ist in Bali ein Weltbankprojekt geworden. Eine neu gegründete Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) soll darüber entscheiden, in welchen Ländern Pilotprojekte gestartet werden. Verschmutzer würden Emissionszertifikate kaufen, deren Erlös (theoretisch) dem Schutz definierter Waldflächen zugute käme. Im Unterschied zu bisherigen Clean Development Mechanismen sollen die Emissionen jedoch nicht für einzelne Projekte gegengerechnet werden, sondern pro Staat.
Es scheint, dass die Weltbank mit ihrer Forest Carbon Partnership Facility ziemlich schlecht vorbereitet angetreten ist. Abgesehen davon, sie hat nicht gerade einen guten Ruf, wenn es um den Schutz der Wälder geht. In Indonesien hat sie, wie etliche private Banken, die überdimensionierten Holz- und Zellstoff- und auch die zerstörerischen Ölpalmindustrien mitfinanziert und sich auf diese Weise, so die Kritik indonesischer Umweltorganisationen, an der Vernichtung der Wälder beteiligt.
100 Mrd. Dollar seien nötig, um die bisherige Entwaldungsrate um jährlich 5% zu bremsen, heißt es bei der Weltbank. Eine kleine Denksportaufgabe führt den geneigten Leser zu folgendem Ergebnis: Unter der Annahme, Indonesiens Entwaldungsrate betrage heute ohne REDD (optimistische) 2 Millionen Hektar pro Jahr, wären dies mit REDD im kommenden Jahr1,9 Millionen Hektar, in zwei Jahren 1,8, und erst in fünfzehn Jahren würde die Entwaldungsrate halbiert sein! Das Ende des indonesischen tropischen Regenwaldes wäre trotz aller Finanzspritzen nur um ein paar Jahre verschoben. Auch ohne alle Rechenkünste wird klar, dass die Entwaldungsrate von ganz allein auf Null sinkt, wenn der Wald weg ist.
Nicht ganz so pessimistisch sind die Befürworter. Schon eine teilweise Verringerung der Rodungen habe nach den Berechnungen des Global Carbon Project positive Auswirkungen. Dabei geht es gar nicht um die Rettung der bestehenden Wälder. Man kalkuliert, dass nur die Hälfte davon erhalten wird. Bis es so weit ist, soll nach den Vorstellungen der Propagandisten die Entwaldung bis 2050 um 50 Prozent gesenkt werden. Damit würde die Emission von 50 Milliarden Tonnen CO2 in die Atmosphäre verhindert, was einer Einsparungsmenge von sechs Jahren globaler Verbrennung fossiler Brennstoffe entspricht.
Man geht also davon aus, dass der Klimawandel nicht aufzuhalten ist, höchstens verschoben werden kann. Trotzdem war REDD in Bali der Schlager der Saison, das Goldstück der indonesischen Vorschläge. Delegierte aus vielen Staaten im Tropengürtel waren mit den schönsten Hoffnungen nach Bali gekommen, an REDD zu verdienen, und ungezählte Institutionen boten ihren Service an. Am Ende gab es Enttäuschung, doch immerhin ist in der Bali Road Map festgeschrieben, dass „Änderung der Landnutzung“, (sprich: aus Wald wird Plantage, Acker oder Wüste) in den anstehenden Diskussion zum Kyoto-Nachfolgeabkommen eingeschlossen wird.
Mit welchen Methoden der Wald aus dem legalen und illegalen Holzeinschlag rausgehalten werden soll, woher das Geld kommen und wer es bekommen soll, weiß aber niemand. Die Weltbank sagt, dass nur ein Bruchteil auf dem Markt mit Emissionszertifikaten geholt werden könne, bestenfalls 1-2%. Indonesien schlägt eine obligatorische Abgabe auf fossile Brennstoffe vor, z.B. 5 Cent auf jeden Barrel Erdöl, um die REDD-Idee doch noch zu retten.
Die Kritik: nur Geschäfte
Kleine Vorbemerkung: Fast die Hälfte aller Konferenzteilnehmer gehörte nicht einer Regierungsdelegation an, sondern einer Nicht-Regierungsorganisation. Ist dies als Zeichen zu werten, dass bei den Verhandlungen doch soziale, ökologische und zivilgesellschaftliche Aspekte Beachtung fanden? Mitnichten. Denn die aller-allermeisten Organisationen beschäftigen sich mit Carbon Trading Projekten. Vertreter von Watch Indonesia! (inklusive all unserer Mitglieder, die für andere Institutionen arbeiten und in Bali dabei waren) sollen 0,025% der Gesamtzahl der Konferenzteilnehmer ausgemacht haben. Damit gehört Watch Indonesia! bestenfalls zu den Hobbits, die große Umweltorganisation Greenpeace mit 1,6% zu den Zwergen, dagegen die IETA, International Emissions Trading Association, die als NGO mit den meisten Konferenzteilnehmern gemeldet war (7,5%), zu den Riesen.
Die Dominanz von IETA zeigt, was die künftige Realität der Bekämpfung der Klimaerwärmung ist: der Handel. „Ablasshandel,“ sagte in Bali nicht nur ein Enttäuschter. Es ist offensichtlich einfacher und billiger, für Sünden zu zahlen, als die Ursachen anzupacken.
„Schön, dass wir darüber gereddet haben!,“ könnte man nach Bali sagen. Die Aktionsplan genannte Road Map ist da, verwässert und unverbindlich, aber immerhin. Dass das Kyoto-Protokoll bisher wenig bis nichts gebracht hat (außer einem neuen Markt mit virtuellen Zahlen), wurde nicht einmal ansatzweise diskutiert. Versprochen wurde nichts, außer, dass man weiter darüber redden wird.
Nach Meinung des Institute for Policy Studies stellt der Aktionsplan nicht sicher, dass die Menschen, die am meisten unter dem Klimawandel leiden, etwas erhalten, um das kommende Klimachaos zu überleben. Bali stärke nur „the power of big business, and the global financial institutions that work on its behalf, without committing any government to tangible emissions reductions.”
Handel mit Emissionszertifikaten (Clean Development Mechanism; CDM) hat nach Auffassung der Kritiker nur dazu geführt, dass die Hauptverschmutzer nichts zur Reduzierung ihrer Emissionen tun müssen. Sie brauchen nur in „saubere“ Projekte in Entwicklungsländern zu investieren. Das ist vergleichbar dem Ablasshandel. Schlimmer noch, die CDM-Projekte tragen häufig nicht zur Reduzierung von Emissionen bei.
Mit den REDD-Projekten der Forest Carbon Partnership Facility der Weltbank wird es ähnlich laufen: Entwicklungsländer bieten schon jetzt ihre Wälder auf dem internationalen Emissionshandelsmarkt an. Und die Industrieländer greifen zu, begeistert, mit Geld etwas zum Erhalt der tropischen Wälder tun zu können. Die Tendenz zeichnet sich ab, dass immer mehr Wälder aufgekauft und privatisiert werden. Waldschutz heißt dann „Betreten verboten!“, Vertreibung und Umzäunung.
Mit Rufen wie „Weltbank! Hände weg vom Wald!“ störten deshalb etwa hundert Aktivistinnen und Aktivisten die Veranstaltung der Weltbank im Kintamani-Saal des Hyatt Hotels, wo die Forest Carbon Partnership Facility vorgestellt wurde. Sie kritisieren die Art und Weise, wie der Klima- und Naturschutz Marktmechanismen untergeordnet wird. Indigenengruppen befürchten, dass ihre Landrechte über Bord geworfen werden. Bauernbewegungen sorgen sich, dass die ersehnte Landreform verhindert wird. „Die restlichen Wälder dieses Planeten sind zu einer Handelsware verkommen, ohne dass ein Funken Hoffnung besteht, dass mehr als einzelne ausgewählte Pilotwälder gerettet werden können“, sagte ein Teilnehmer.
„Die Umwelt kann nicht allein mit Marktmechanismen gerettet werden“, kritisiert auch Henry Saragih vom Bauernverband Serikat Petani Indonesia, SPI, das REDD-Konzept. „Das wird scheitern. Wir brauchen echte Taten, damit die Emissionen reduziert werden.“ Und Walhi-Direktor Chalid Mohammad wird allmählich ungeduldig. Jetzt sollten Taten folgen, sagte Chalid Ende Januar nach sechs Wochen Warterei auf Aktionen. „Die Party ist vorbei.“
Die Forderung: Klimagerechtigkeit
Aber Bali war nicht nur Geschäft und Party. In einer Nische zwischen den Hotelanlagen hatte das indonesische Civil Society Forum (CSF) ein kleines Dorf errichtet. Offene Hallen, erbaut aus 17 lokalen Bambusarten, statt klimatisierter Glas- und Betonbauten, und eine Bühne für Musik und Tanz um einen Rasenplatz. Auf großflächigen Karikaturen steht, was das CSF von den Anstrengungen der Regierungen, etwas gegen den Klimawandel zu tun, hält: nicht viel. Das Dorf war das Zentrum für NGOs, Bauern und Indigenen aus aller Welt. Für die Klima-Verhandlungen der COP 13 hätte möglicherweise der Austausch von Emails gereicht, doch für die Bewegung, die im Solidaritätsdorf wuchs, war die Möglichkeit sich zu treffen entscheidend.
Für Bauern und Bäuerinnen aus Sumatra, Kalimantan, Java oder Sulawesi ist das Thema „Klimawandel“ kein exotisches. Für sie ist es Alltag. „Die Regen- und Trockenzeiten kommen nicht mehr geregelt. Früher wussten wir, wann wir säen und pflanzen müssen. Aber heute spielt das Wetter verrückt. Mal regnet es ununterbrochen, dann verfault die Ernte am Halm.“ Die Armen tragen heute die Hauptlast der Folgen der Erderwärmung. Maßnahmen für die Anpassung würden, so schätzt die Hilfsorganisation Oxfam, die Entwicklungsländer jedes Jahr 50 Mrd. US$ kosten. Woher soll das Geld dafür aber kommen? Der Anpassungsfonds, den die Bali Road Map vorsieht, könnte nur 1% davon abdecken.
Lösungen zur Bekämpfung der Erderwärmung sollten gleichzeitig auch sozial gerecht sein, denn es geht um mehr als das Klima, es geht um Klimagerechtigkeit – auf diese Formel einigten sich Gruppen aus aller Welt. Entwicklungsländer könnten nicht Schritt halten mit den Industriestaaten. Sie seien nur noch Lieferanten von Ressourcen. Der hohe Konsum im Norden sei die Ursache der hohen Emissionen, die Folgen des Klimawandels aber müssten hauptsächlich die Länder des Südens tragen.
„Lösungen“ für den Klimawandel wie zum Beispiel die Agrotreibstoffe schaffen neue Ungerechtigkeiten, denn „sie führen zu Preissteigerungen und Hunger, weil Land für den Anbau von Agrotreibstoff verwendet wird und nicht für Nahrungsmittel“, sagte Nordin aus Kalimantan. „Indigene und Bauern werden von ihrem Land vertrieben.“ - „Das Kyoto-Nachfolgeprogramm muss das Prinzip von Gleichheit und Klimagerechtigkeit berücksichtigen.“ Dafür setzt sich Klimaexperte Arif Wicaksono ein. „Wir lehnen auch Kohlenstoffhandel ab, weil die Indigenen ihren Wald an die Kohlenstoffhändler verlieren“, sagte Septer Manufandu vom Forum der Nichtregierungsorganisationen (Foker LSM) in Papua. <>
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC
Ziel der Konvention, die 1992 beim Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero von mehr als 150 Staaten unterzeichnet wurde, ist die Stabilisierung der Treibhausgaskonzentrationen auf ein Niveau, das gefährliche Interferenzen mit dem Klima verhindert. Parteien im Annex I verpflichteten sich, ihre Emissionen bis 2000 auf das Niveau von 1990 zurückzufahren. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) richtete auch die Bali-Konferenz aus
Kyoto-Protokoll
Bei der dritten Sitzung der Parteien des UNFCCC 1997 in Kyoto einigte man sich auf rechtlich bindende Vereinbarungen. Parteien im Annex II verpflichten sich, ihre Emissionen zu reduzieren. Das Kyoto-Protokoll trat erst 2005, nach der Unterzeichnung durch Russland, in Kraft. Vier bedeutende Industriestaaten haben das Kyoto-Protokoll nicht unterzeichnet: die USA, Neuseeland, Kanada und Australien.
Links
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
http://www.un.org/webcast/unfccc/
http://www.iisdrs.org/ First official blogger accredited as media by the UNFCCC
http://us.oneworld.net/section/us/virtualbali
http://satudunia.oneworld.net/article/archive/9217/m/2007/12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)