Ein Bericht von Rebecca Sommer
(Übersetzung von ASW)

Die Nachricht löste rund um die Welt eine Welle von Schlagzeilen aus: Angeblich hatte das im Bundesstaat Pará in Brasilien lebende indigene Volk der Munduruku einen REDD-Vertrag mit Celestial Green Ventures geschlossen. Aber es war kein gemeinschaftlicher Vertragsabschluss seitens der Munduruku, zu denen heute 13.000 Menschen zählen. Dies fand ich während meines zweieinhalb-monatigen Aufenthalts in Pará anlässlich von Nachforschungen zum Großprojekt Belo Monte heraus.

Ich sprach mit meinem Kollegen Marquinho Mota von der brasilianischen Nichtregierungsorganisation FAOR, der dort für Menschenrechte und Klimagerechtigkeit zuständig

ist. Er berichtete mir, dass die Munduruku sehr verstört seien über die Nachricht, dass ein Vertrag unterschrieben worden sei. Interessanterweise fand ich zum gleichen Zeitpunkt drei weitere von Indigenen aus der Region Altamira unterzeichnete REDD-Verträge vor, allesamt abgeschlossen mit dem Kriminellen Benedito Milenio Junior. Benedito unterschrieb nicht im Auftrag seines Unternehmens, sondern als Einzelperson ohne jegliche Berechtigung durch die Firma, die er gegenüber den indigenen Führern zu vertreten vorgab.

Mehrheit der Munduruku gegen Vertrag

Alles habe damit begonnen, so berichtet ein indigener Führer aus einem der 120 Munduruku-Dörfer, dass Vertreter der Celestial Green Ventures mit einem REDD-Projekt auf sie zukamen. Das war bei einem Treffen im Gemeindehaus von Jacareacanga im August 2011. Häuptling Osmarino Mohoari Munduruku sagt weiter, dass Gemeinderäte und Vertreter der Indigenenbehörde FUNAI anwesend waren. Die meisten Munduruku waren gegen das Konzept des Projekts, und deshalb entschieden sie, den Vertrag abzulehnen. Osmarino Mohoari Munduruku erinnert sich, dass die Munduruku-Krieger die Vertreter des Unternehmens beinahe tätlich angegriffen hätten. Celestial Green Ventures informierte alle Anwesenden, dass zwei andere Völker ähnliche Abkommen unterzeichnet hätten.

Was als nächstes passierte ist die traurige Realität so vieler REDD-Projektverträge, die von Indigenen abgeschlossen wurden, die nicht die legitimierten Vertreter des Volkes sind, das sie vorgeben zu repräsentieren. Osmarino Mohoari Munduruku berichtet, dass nach dem REDD-Treffen 12 Personen, darunter Munduruku ohne jegliche Vertretungsberechtigung, nicht-indigene Berater und Vertreter des Gemeinderats, eine geschlossene und geheime Sitzung in einem Hotel abhielten, wo der Vertrag unterschrieben wurde. „Die Häuptlinge waren gegen den von dem Unternehmen vorgeschlagenen Kohlenstoffzertifikatshandels, aber einige indigene und nicht-indigene Vertreter des Gemeinderats haben unterzeichnet“, erklärt Osmarino Mohoari. „Wir wussten nichts davon. Wir erfuhren von dem unterschriebenen Vertrag durch das Internet.“

„Der Vertrag war kompletter Wahnsinn, wir konnten es nicht glauben als wir ihn schließlich zu lesen bekamen“, sagt Marquinho Mota von FAOR. „Der Vertrag, der von ein paar Einzelpersonen und Regierungsvertretern ohne die vorherige Unterrichtung und freiwillige Zustimmung der Munduruku unterzeichnet wurde, erlaubt dem Unternehmen Celestial Green Ventures die vollkommen ungehinderte und unbegrenzte Nutzung des indigenen Landes für eine Dauer von 30 Jahren.“

In einem Interview mit dem Menschenrechtsinstitut Unisinos benennt Osmarino Mohoari Munduruku die Konsequenzen für seine Gemeinschaft: „Meiner Meinung nach ist dieses REDD-Projekt schlecht, weil es uns für die nächsten 30 Jahre verbietet zu jagen, zu sammeln, zu pflanzen oder zu fischen oder Holz zu schlagen, wenn wir es brauchen.“ Das Unternehmen Celestial Green Ventures bot den Munduruku 120 Mio. Dollar für das REDD-Projekt. Unklar ist, ob Zahlungen erfolgten und wenn ja, an wen sie gemacht wurden. Laut Osmarino wird vermutet, dass die indigene Organisation Pusuru (Associação Indígena Pusuru) die Zahlungen erhalten soll. Ob das allerdings schon geschehen ist, darüber wurden die Munduruku-Häuptlinge nicht informiert.

Geschäfte zwischen alten Freunden

Auf der Webseite von REDD-Monitor, die die Autorin dieses Artikels wärmstens empfiehlt, schreibt der Journalist Chris Lang, dass Celestial Green Ventures im Juni 2011 eine Million unzertifizierte und freiwillige CO2-Verschmutzungsrechte (Carbon credits) an die in London ansässige Firma Industry RE verkauft hat. Doch die Verbindung zwischen diesen beiden Unternehmen besteht laut Informationen der Webseite von Industry RE bereits seit 2009: „ 2009 haben sich Industry RE und Celestial Green für ihr erstes REDD-Projekt zusammengeschlossen. Dazu gehörte der Kauf von Anteilen (97%) der brasilianischen Firma Capital First Management Bank Ltda., der 10.000 Hektar tropischen Regenwalds im brasilianischen Bundesstaat Rondônia gehören. CFMB gehörte auch eine Bergbaulizenz für die Goldsuche auf 4.300 Hektar dieses Landes. Durch den Kauf dieses Waldgebiets hat Celestial Green die Goldschürflizenz verfallen lassen und wird das Gebiet durch den Verkauf von CO2-Verschmutzungsrechten im Rahmen der REDD-Bestimmungen schützen.“

Die Munduruku haben unterdessen beschlossen, den REDD-Vertrag, der auf so fragwürdige Weise zustandekam, zu annulieren. „Sollte bereits Geld geflossen sein, dann wollen wir, dass es an das Unternehmen zurückgeht“, sagte Osmarino Mohoari Munduruku. 
Angesichts der in vielen Ländern vorkommenden korrupten und illegalen Machenschaften im Zusammenhang mit Vertragsunterzeichnungen seitens Indigener haben die Munduruku sogar noch Glück. Brasiliens Behörde für die Belange Indigener Völker, FUNAI, verkündete kürzlich, dass mehr als 30 solcher zwischen Indigenen und Unternehmen geschlossenen Verträge illegal und nichtig seien.

Ein Komitee der Munduruku hat beschlossen, der brasilianischen Regierung einen Bericht zu übergeben, der die Umstände dieser jüngsten Manipulation und Ausbeutung eines indigenen Volkes erläutert.

Auszüge des REDD-Vertrages, dessen Annullierung die Munduruku anstreben, sind auf Englisch von Earth Peoples veröffentlicht worden. (Munduruku REDD Vertrag in Englisch HIER)
Sie besagen, dass das Unternehmen Celestial Green Ventures für eine Dauer von 30 Jahren zur Durchführung von Analysen und technischer Studien aller Art berechtigt ist sowie den uneingeschränkten Zugang zu dem Gebiet erhält, um CO2-Zertifikate zu ermitteln. Dem Unternehmen werden ferner sämtliche Rechte an den CO2-Zertifikaten, einschließlich der Rechte an den Gewinnen aus der vorhandenen Biodiversität des Gebiets während der Vertragslaufzeit gewährt.

Osmarino Mohoari Munduruku wies darauf hin, dass der Vertrag auch besagt, dass der Besitzer zustimmt keinerlei Aktivitäten zu unternehmen, die den Wert der CO²-Zertifikate verringern könnte. Und dass ohne die Erlaubnis des Unternehmens, beispielsweise keine Gebäude errichtet, Bäume gefällt, Acker bebaut, Dämme angelegt oder Bodenschätze gehoben werden dürfen.

*******
Was ist REDD?
Der auf der Klimakonferenz in Montreal 2006 beschlossene REDD-Mechanismus (Reduktion von Emissionen aus Entwaldung und Schädigung von Wäldern) sollte einen Weg eröffnen, die weltweite Zerstörung des Waldbestandes, insbesondere der Primärwälder, zu stoppen. Doch viele zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen stellen das neue Waldschutzinstrument in Frage. Sie befürchten erstens eine Verletzung der Menschenrechte indigener Gemeinschaften und halten eine monetäre Inwertsetzung von Natur für riskant.

Der Mechanismus weist dem im Holz gespeicherten Kohlenstoff einen ökonomischen Wert zu, wodurch ein globales Interesse am Waldschutz geschaffen werden soll. Das REDD-System fungiert als Bindeglied zwischen dem Europäischen Emissionshandel und dem Kyoto-Protokoll: Unternehmen können Reduktionszertifikate von Firmen, z.B. von Celestial Green Ventures erwerben, um ihre Auflagen im EU-Emissionssystem zu erfüllen. Firmen wie Celestial Green Ventures arbeiten als Zwischenhändler: Sie schließen einerseits Waldschutz-Verträge mit der lokalen Bevölkerung und verkaufen andererseits Reduktionszertifikate („Carbon credits“ ) an die Kohlenstoff emittierende Industrie.
**********

By Rachel Smolker

Below is an announcement from FAO re their event on forest for Rio. I believe they have it largely correct in recognizing the extent to which forests lie directly at the heart of - or in the crosshairs of - “green economy”.

Wood is the new oil - to be refined into liquid fuels for transportation, burned for electricity and heat, converted (via synthetic microbes and other) into biochemicals, bioplastics etc. The aviation industry, the US military - expect to get access to lots and lots of forests.

All of it will of course be “certified sustainable” and provide “green jobs”.

For some perspective: The UK has approved plans for burning of over 60 million tons of wood per year for electricity generation. The UK domestic wood production is only about 6 m tons per year. This does not even include some proposed conversion of coal plants to burn - partially in mix with coal, or entirely substitute for coal - massive facilities such as the DRAX facility which plans now for 20% cofire, (an additional 8 m tons per year), and two new facilities (an additional 6 m tons) and is speaking of complete substitution of wood in future for their massive, near 4000 megawatt power station.

Beyond the paltry domestic contribution of wood to supply these vast demands, most of the wood burned for electricity in UK is imported from other countries. Some companies are setting up wood pellet manufacturing facilities in other countries, to export back to UK to burn as “clean, green, certified renewable energy”, to the tune of subsidies and incentives.

The air emissions from all of this shipping and burning add to the insanity

Forests are indeed at the “heart of the green economy” - I believe we need to consider some serious heart surgery in Rio…. or say goodbye to forests.

Meanwhile, the push for a UN “Sustainable Energy For All Initiative” - (SEFA) mentioned in Zero Draft - will open the floodgates for more forests as fuel - in fact the cochair of that (hand picked) high level group, Charles Holliday announced how this will create a new “roadmap” for biofuels (including forest-fuels and well as food-fuels). Please see our briefing on SEFA available in English and Spanish
here:

Download original in portuguesehere

(Non-official translation by Earth Peoples / Povos da Terra)

The FUNAI (governmental Buerau of Indigenous Peoples Affairs, Brazil) reports that more than 30 indigenous ethnicities have been approached by companies and / or individuals to enter REDD initiatives, and to negotiate carbon credits under the voluntary market. Contracts and projects have been presented, but not all of them have been effectively closed (signed).

The indigenous Peoples Surui, of Indigenous Reservation Sete de Setembro, did not sign a contract; they have conducted their project in coordination with us (FUNAI), and accepted the various recommendations as their specific process, including the certifications VCS (Voluntary Carbon Standard) and CCBA (Climate, Community and Biodiversity), receiving Gold. They have been cautious in the process, evaluating the risks and potential of the voluntary market and the signing of contracts in this context. It is expected that the Association of the Surui people present the draft to the Amazon Fund and the FUNAI supports this initiative.

As to the sales contract of carbon credits, to which FUNAI had access to since 1 ½ years, of the indigenous territory of Cinta Larga (Roosevelt, Aripuanã, Park and Aripuanã, Sierra Morena), with 2.7 million hectares, it blocked (immobilized – “privatized”- maybe?) the whole area and was negotiated by only a few individuals of the community, without consent of all the indigenous peoples in question. Since FUNAI knew of the contract, several steps were taken, among them the notification to the responsible company, performing several briefings to the Cinta Larga indigenous peoples, informing the federal prosecutors (MPF) to follow the issue, FUNAI published guidelines on this issue and made an official statement to the Association of the Indigenous Peoples Cinta Larga to clarify the illegality of the contract.

Like the above mentioned case, most of the REDD contracts FUNAI had access to, would have prevented the Indigenous peoples to continue their traditional practices, for example, farming, or to cut trees for their livelihood, without prior permission from the company.

In addition these contracts are long term, exceeding for more than a generation and do not include clauses for the right to determine the contract in case of negative impacts to the indigenous community.

FUNAI that has as its primary mission to defend the rights of indigenous peoples is against these contracts. The FUNAI has informed the Indigenous leaders on the legal invalidity of the contracts, considering that their land belongs to the state, and legal certainty required by such contracts cannot be given by the Indigenous Peoples, but by the Government of Brazil.

In consideration of the lack of national regulation of a REDD Mechanism, there is no validity to these agreements.

The Foundation supports the rapid regulation of the National Mechanism Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), considering that the lack of clear rules is the origin of the irregularities observed in this contractual matter.

FUNAI recommends that this mechanism should provide an arrangement / methodology that addresses specifically indigenous territories - protected areas covering 23% of the Amazon.

Territorial protection:

FUNAI’s initiatives to “establish guidelines and criteria to be observed in designing and implementing actions to protect the territories and Ethno-environment on indigenous lands “(Ordinance No. 1682) has not the objective to stop or hinder REDD contracts, nor to reduce the incidence of FUNAI’s procurement initiatives and projects on REDD.

The solution to this question is the National Regulatory Mechanism.

The definition of FUNAI’s guidelines for Territorial Protection aims to regulate the participation of indigenous Peoples in their territorial and environmental surveillance actions, promoting therefore the protection of the lands they inhabit and enjoy by law, as well as the localization and monitoring of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. The surveillance project, supported by FUNAI, through the Project Territorial Protection, provides some guidelines and criteria for the participation of indigenous peoples at environmental and territorial surveillance actions.

The indication by their communities, the need to reside in indigenous territory, and not to be involved in activities, non- illicit and / or harmful to the survival or wellbeing of their community, are some examples.

FUNAI emphasizes that the knowledge of indigenous peoples about their territories is a fundamental element of surveillance, and FUNAI’s definition of guidelines recognizes the environmental services provided by indigenous lands and indigenous peoples.

The indigenous participation in actions to protect the Ethno-environment and territories on their own land is an expression of exercise of the right to self-determination and participation of the indigenous peoples, giving efficiency to these actions, as well as a stimulus to the Indigenous Peoples role in defending their territories.
********
comment from Earth Peoples: Read why REDD is a false solution to Climate Change, and bad for the people CLICK HERE
********

Fundação Nacional do Índio
Esclarecimentos da Funai sobre atuação do mercado voluntário de REDD em Terras Indígenas
A Fundação Nacional do Índio (Funai) informa que das mais de 30 etnias abordadas por empresas e/ou pessoas físicas para tratar de iniciativas de Redd e negociação de créditos de carbono no âmbito do mercado voluntário, nem todas fecharam contratos efetivamente, apesar de terem sido apresentados contratos e projetos.
O povo indígena Suruí, da Terra Indígena Sete de Setembro, não fechou nenhum contrato, eles tem conduzido o seu projeto de forma articulada com esta Fundação, e acatado as diversas recomendações da Funai quanto ao seu processo específico, inclusive com as certificações VCS (Voluntary Carbon Standard) e CCBA (Clima, Comunidade e Biodiversidade), recebendo padrão ouro. Tem havido por parte deles a devida cautela no processo, avaliando os riscos e as potencialidades do mercado voluntário e da assinatura de contratos nesse contexto. Há a expectativa de que a Associação do povo Suruí apresente o projeto ao Fundo Amazônia e a Funai apóia essa iniciativa.
Quanto ao contrato de venda de créditos de carbono do complexo de terras indígenas Cinta Larga (Roosevelt, Aripuanã, Parque do Aripuanã e Serra Morena), com 2,7 milhões de hectares, a que a Funai teve acesso há aproximadamente um ano e meio, ele imobiliza toda a área e foi negociado por apenas alguns indivíduos da comunidade, não havendo consentimento de todos os indígenas. Desde que a Funai soube do contrato, várias providências foram tomadas, dentre elas a notificação à empresa responsável, realização de diversas reuniões informativas ao povo indígena Cinta Larga, comunicação oficial ao Ministério Público Federal para que acompanhe a questão,
Fundação Nacional do Índio
publicação orientadora sobre o assunto e comunicado oficial à Associação Cinta Larga esclarecendo a ilegalidade do contrato.
Assim como o caso citado acima, a maioria dos contratos a que a Funai teve acesso impedem os índios de executarem suas práticas tradicionais, como, por exemplo, plantação de roças e corte de árvores para subsistência sem prévia autorização da empresa. Além da previsão de contratos que perpassam por mais de uma geração e não prevêem cláusulas de rescisão contratual, caso haja algum prejuízo para a comunidade indígena.
A Funai, que tem como missão precípua a defesa dos direitos dos povos indígenas, é contra esses contratos. A Fundação tem informado às lideranças indígenas sobre a nulidade jurídica deles, tendo em vista que são terras da União e que a segurança jurídica exigida por esses contratos não pode ser dada pelos indígenas e sim pelo Estado brasileiro. Considerando, ainda, a falta de regulamentação no âmbito do Mecanismo Nacional de Redd, não existe qualquer validade nesses acordos.
A Fundação defende a rápida regulamentação do Mecanismo Nacional de Redução por Desmatamento e Degradação Florestal (Redd), pois considera que a falta de regras claras é a origem das irregularidades contratuais observadas nessa questão. Considera, ainda, que esse Mecanismo deva prever um arranjo/metodologia que contemple a especificidade das terras indígenas - áreas protegidas que abrangem 23% da Amazônia Legal.
Proteção territorial
As iniciativas da Funai em “estabelecer diretrizes e critérios a serem observados na concepção e execução das ações de proteção territorial e etnoambiental em terras indígenas” (Portaria no 1.682) não tem o objetivo de frear o assédio a contratos de Redd, tampouco de reduzir a incidência de
Fundação Nacional do Índio
iniciativas de contratos e projetos de Redd. A solução para essa questão é a regulamentação do Mecanismo Nacional.
A definição de diretrizes, pela Funai, para Proteção Territorial, objetiva regulamentar a participação de indígenas nas ações de vigilância territorial e ambiental, assim como nas atividades de localização e monitoramento de referências de povos indígenas isolados promovidas para proteção das terras que habitam e usufruem por direito, bem como de povos indígenas isolados.
Os projetos de vigilância, apoiados pela Funai, por meio do projeto de Proteção Territorial, estabelece algumas diretrizes e critérios a serem seguidos para a participação dos indígenas nas ações de vigilância ambiental e territorial. A indicação pelas suas comunidades, a necessidade de residir em território indígena e o não envolvimento em atividades ilícitas e/ou prejudiciais ao convívio em sua comunidade, são alguns exemplos.
A Funai destaca que o conhecimento dos povos indígenas sobre seus territórios é elemento fundamental das ações de vigilância, e a definição de diretrizes pela Fundação reconhece os serviços ambientais prestados pelas terras e povos indígenas. A participação indígena nas ações de proteção territorial e etnoambiental em suas próprias terras é uma expressão do exercício da autodeterminação e do direito de participação dos povos indígenas, conferindo eficiência a essas ações, assim como um estímulo ao protagonismo indígena na defesa de seus territórios.

The Climate Change Conference ended two days later than expected, adopting a set of decisions that were known only a few hours before their adoption. Some decisions were even not complete at the moment of their consideration. Paragraphs were missing and some delegations didn’t even have copies of these drafts. The package of decisions was released by the South African presidency with the ultimatum of “Take it or leave it”. Only the European Union was allowed to make last minute amendments at the plenary.

Several delegations made harsh criticisms to the documents and expressed their opposition to sections of them. However, no delegation explicitly objected the subsequent adoption of these decisions. At the end, the whole package was adopted by consensus without the objection of any delegation. The core elements of the Durban Package can be summarized as follows:

1) A Zombie called Kyoto Protocol

· A soulless undead: The promises of reducing greenhouse gas emission for the second period of commitments of the Kyoto Protocol represent less than half of what is necessary to keep the temperature increase below 2°C.

· This Zombie (second period of the Kyoto Protocol) will only finally go into effect next year (COP 18).

· It is not known if the second period of the Kyoto Protocol will cover 5 or 8 years.

· United States, Canada, Japan, Russia, Australia and New Zealand will be out of this second period of the Kyoto Protocol.

· This will be known as the lost decade in the fight against climate change.

2) New regime of “Laisser Faire, Laisser Faisser”

· In 2020 a new legal instrument will come into effect that will replace the Kyoto Protocol and will seriously impact the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

· The core elements of this new legal instrument can be already seen due to the results of the negotiations: a) voluntary promises rather than binding commitments to reduce emissions, b) more flexibilities (carbon markets) for developed countries to meet their emission reduction promises, and c) an even weaker compliance mechanism than the Kyoto Protocol.

· The new legal instrument will cover all the States, effectively removing the difference between developing and developed countries. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” already established in the Climate Change Convention will disappear.

· The result will be the deepening of the “Laisser Faire, laisser passer” regime inaugurated in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban which will lead to an increase in temperature of more than 4°C.

3) A Green Fund with no funds

· The Green Fund now has an institutional structure in which the World Bank is a key player.

· The 100 billion is only a promise and will NOT be provided for by the developed countries.

· The money will come from the carbon markets (which are collapsing), from private investments, from credits (to be paid) and from the developing countries themselves.

4) A lifesaver for the Carbon Markets

· The existing carbon markets will live regardless of the fate of the Kyoto Protocol.

· Also, new carbon market mechanisms will be created to meet the emissions reduction pledges of this decade.

· It is a desperate attempt to avoid the loss of the carbon markets, which are collapsing due to the fall of the carbon credits, from 30 Euros per ton to 3 Euros per ton of CO2.

· Developed countries will reduce less than what they promise because they will buy Emission Reduction Certificates from developing countries.

5) REDD: a perverse incentive to deforest in this decade

· If you don’t cut down trees you won’t be able to issue certificates of reduction of deforestation when the REDD (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism comes into operation.

· CONSEQUENCES: deforest now if you want to be ready for REDD.

· The safeguards for indigenous peoples will be flexible and discretionary for each country.

· The offer of funding for forests is postponed until the next decade due to the fact that demand for Carbon Credits will not increase until then because of the low emission reduction promises.

¡Amandla! ¡Jallalla!

In the actions and events of the social movements in Durban, two battle cries emerged: “Amandla” and “Jallalla”. The first one is a Xhosa and Zulu word from South Africa which means “power”. The second word is an expression in aymara which means “for life”. “¡Amandla¡ °Jallalla!” means “¡Power for life!”

This is the “power for life” that we must build, that transcends borders, from our communities, neighborhoods, workplaces and place of study in order to stop this ongoing genocide and ecocide.

(*) Pablo Solón, international analyst and social activist. United Nations Ambassador and Chief Climate Change Negotiator from the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

http://www.facebook.com/solonpablo?sk=wall

http://pablosolon.wordpress.com/

TO WATCH VIDEO CLICK HERE: Hundreds of Activists Protest Inside COP17 demanding CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW!


This video filmed by Rebecca Sommer (© Sommerfilms) shows parts of the CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW! (CJN!) movement’s press conference, and our protest inside the halls at the last day of the UN Climate Change negotiations COP17. Kumi Naidoo , executive director of Greenpeace (member of CJN!) was banned from UN premises after leading this protest. Many others, such as Anne Petermann (member of CJN!) have been thrown out as well., their UN badges revoked because they participated ion the protest. Background why the people protested: A central piece of what is being negotiated here at COP17 is the Green Clmate Fund, with a goal of raising $100 billion for adaptation and mitigation projects, but most of the funding is being linked to programs like carbon markets and offsets (REDD+, CDM), which allows companies to continue polluting and ignores the need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, and not simply try to offset them with other projects.
Protesters have said they want that their voices are heard.
They are calling for the World Bank to be taken out of climate finance, a reference to the predominance of private financing and market mechanisms in all funding solutions for climate change reduction projects being discussed at the conference. A central piece of what is being negotiated is the Green Clmate Fund, with a goal of raising $100 billion for adaptation and mitigation projects, but most of the funding is being linked to programs like carbon markets and offsets, which allows companies to continue polluting and ignores the need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, and not simply try to offset them with other projects.
Protesters are also calling for a recognition of historic climate debt: that developed and Northern countries have predominantly been the cause of man-made green house gas emissions, and that they have the responsibility to take a frontline position in cleaning up the problem. This historic reality was included in Kyoto Protocol, but Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent recently called such demands “guilt money”

To watch Video: THE MONEY TREE

Greenoxx NGO is a Member of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), being able to act as Offset Aggregator. As Offset Aggregator, Greenoxx NGO is responsible for the elaboration and registration of projects eligible for the CCX, as well as of submitting them for approval before the CCX Forestry Committee. It is also responsible for the presentation of annual reports and submission of the corresponding information to CCX officially approved verifiers. As Official Trader or Offset Aggregator, Greenoxx NGO is officially authorized to execute sales on the CCX Trading Platform on behalf of project owners.
Read Article

Forest Peoples Programme Comments to the Draft REDD+ Interim Partnership Document, 12 May 2010: INTRODUCTION -  Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) has revised the draft text of the Interim REDD partnership and would like to share comments and recommendations for text change.

First and foremost we would like to stress that the 2-week deadline for comments has proven to be too short given the relevance of the issue and to enable a full and effective engagement of indigenous peoples partners, especially those living in the field.

Read Article

“We condemn the mechanisms of the neoliberal market, such as the REDD mechanism and its versions REDD+ and REDD++, which are violating the sovereignty of our Peoples and their rights to free, prior and informed consent and self determination,” the declaration states.

To read article click here