Indonesia:
Going for business with the CDM
The Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change may be totally useless to address climate change,
but it may prove to be good business for some parties. The assumption
is that in return for investment in a project that cuts or reduces
emissions in a southern country, companies will earn certified emission
reductions (CERs) that industrialized countries may use to meet
Kyoto Protocol commitments.
Indonesian official authorities
and even an NGO --Pelangi-- are eager to obtain money from the “sale”
of good forest management and geothermal power plants, which would
allegedly provide the country with some US$ 500 million. Under this
trade off, the buyer would be allowed to keep its level of greenhouse
gas emissions, which would be “compensated” with the
reduction undertaken by Indonesia.
It may be difficult for
sensible people to understand why a northern company would have
the right to pollute in one country by paying another country for
doing what it should be doing anyway –managing forests adequately
and using cleaner sources of energy. Furthermore, the whole issue
is misleading, because under the “good forest management”
disguise, afforestation and reforestation programs are introduced.
Afforestation is a direct activity to change non-forest areas into
tree plantations, while reforestation implies planting trees in
areas that were originally forested. In fact, this means opening
up the door to large-scale monoculture tree plantations, which --as
Indonesian local peoples already know-- are usually implemented
at the expense of forests and/or local peoples' agricultural lands.
No wonder Pelangi director
Agus P. Sari was quoted in the press recognizing that potential
conflict between local people and the local authorities would emerge
when the latter reverted the current areas into tree plantation
schemes. Local people know too well the harmful impacts of plantations
on their livelihoods.
Indonesia is a country ravaged
by socially and environmentally destructive projects like pulp and
paper mills which pollute and deforest (UPM Kymmene, APRIL, Indorayon)
monoculture plantations which replace agricultural lands and forests
(oil palm, acacia, eucalyptus) or destructive mining (PT Kem, PT
Freeport, gold mine at Irian Jaya). Before trying to sell its "emissions
reductions", the government should try to put the house in
order and listen to the demands of its own people regarding sustainable
and equitable development. This would at the same time lead to true
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
The same is applicable to
the prospective buyers of those alleged "emissions reductions."
What they should be doing is reducing emissions in the country they
operate in and thus providing people with a cleaner environment,
while at the same time addressing climate change.
However, money is money
and clearly the Clean Development Mechanism has nothing to do with
clean development and all to do with business. Neither climate,
nor the Indonesian people, nor the people from the buyers’
home country will benefit from this project, but money will certainly
disappear in the pockets of power. Has someone changed the definition
of "sustainable development"?
