Rastafaraus Dreadhead's Community

Written by Firdaus Cahyadi  - Translated by Stephanie A. Surya

The ironic is that, although actively financing forest rehabilitation project on behalf of earth’s protection from climate change disaster, this institution also actively financing fossil fuel project, the primary cause of climate change. 

An Opinion
The Climate Change issue aggressively presented by the mass media, has encouraged many parties, including the World Bank, to address their concern on the issue. One of it is the persistence of this international financial institution on  GHG emission’s reduction project by preventing deforestation and forest damage, widely known as Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), in developing country such as Indonesia.

The fundamental idea of REDD is the North (the North countries) pay the South (South countries) to reduce deforestation in their region. The compensation is by giving financial aid needed for that. Some parties have proposed that the funding for this project taken from the combination of public fund (Official Development Aid) and carbon market.

Since 2006 until early 2007, World Bank was developing a new funding scheme, a massive one, to finance forestry sector’s projects in the developing country. This financial institution planned to use that new scheme to implement forestry strategy with a strong pressure on climate change-related funding.

Even in Global Forest Alliance (GFA)’s proposal, World Bank has targeted 50 millions hectare of new protected area and the improvement of Forestry Department’s capacity on protecting and managing those areas. If it was not critically analyzed, that large amount offered in REDD project could make us and forgot the ecological sin World Bank ever made as the main proponent of this project. So, it is not wrong to take a look back to study World Bank development projects together with its social and ecological impact.

In Brazil, for instance, during 1982 – 1985 World Bank supported a massive migration on behalf of development and community’s welfare improvement, known as Polonoroeste project, which in Indonesia known as transmigration project. The financial aid on this project caused a horrifying ecological catastrophe, which also admitted by the World Bank. This project provoked a massive land conversion; forest converted into agricultural area, commercial sites, and mining (Ecology Law, Bruce Rich).

As the result, forest areas in that region suffered poor degradation. In 1982, deforestation has reached 4% and in 1985, increased to 11%. Meanwhile, in 1987, almost all forests in that region gone. Moreover, on the same year, a satellite image showed there are 6000 hot spots, caused by land-opening, from all Amazon forest’s area.

Unluckily, the same project also implemented in Indonesia by the World Bank. This institution was the first party involved in Indonesia’s massive transmigration project in 1974. Similar to Polonoroeste project, this project caused massive damages and deforestation. Sulawesi and Sumatra islands suffered the worst ecological loss caused by this project. In Sumatra, approximately 2, 3 millions hectare of rainforest turned into critical areas. In Sulawesi, 30 % of forest that affected by the transmigration project turned into critical areas.   
(Lord of Property: The Power, Prestige and Corruption of the International Aid Business, Graham Hancock, 1989)

The ironic is that, although actively financing forest rehabilitation project on behalf of earth’s protection from climate change disaster, this institution also actively financing fossil fuel project, the primary cause of climate change.

In the period of 1992 until 2004, for instance, World Bank poured $ 28 millions to finance fossil energy-related project. On the other hand, in 2005 fiscal year, the proportion of renewable energy project funding was approximately 5% of World Bank’s total funding for energy project.

Looking at those World Bank’s poor track record, there is a question whether REDD project purposely made just to clean the ecological sin (debt) made by World Bank and other rich countries in the past, which caused current ecological catastrophes? Or this project initiated so the South would not demand World Bank’s responsibility on the failure of their development pattern (pattern they have suggested all this time)? Similar with big sister giving candy to her young brother so he would stop crying after hitting his head earlier.

Indonesia, as a country who own the forests, should be critical towards REDD project. The large amount offered in it should not make us sloppy and at the end, trapped and became the political victim of rich countries and World Bank who want to clean out their ecological sins.  

Comments

Search

3.21 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."